=======

“Everyone, at some point in their lives, wakes up in the middle of the night with the feeling that they are all alone in the world, and that nobody loves them now and that nobody will ever love them, and that they will never have a decent night’s sleep again and will spend their lives wandering blearily around a loveless landscape, hoping desperately that their circumstances will improve, but suspecting, in their heart of hearts, that they will remain unloved forever.

The best thing to do in these circumstances is to wake somebody else up, so that they can feel this way, too.”

–

some tumblr blogger

=====

Well.

This isn’t about living an unloved Life but it is about waking up in the middle of the night <and hopefully having someone to wake up>.

I could argue that if you believe some value in Life is found in exploring … than at some point you will be lost. In other words discovery will always encounter moments of “where the hell am I, how the hell did I get here and what the hell was I thinking?”

Unfortunately., most times you wake up with those questions ringing in your head mentally you are standing alone in a field. You just aren’t sure you can see anyone else in the field with you or maybe you feel like you have gotten too far out ahead or maybe you even feel like you made a wrong turn and that’s why there is no one else in that field.

Regardless.

It’s just you. You and your thoughts <which, in the middle of a night, tend to shape themselves into the shapes of monsters>.

And that is when you want to wake someone up. Not really to wake them up for the sake of comfort but just to see if maybe the field you are standing in is not some big mistake.

Now.

Who you wake up is tricky.

When you are young if you find the wrong person that person can encourage the wrong things even if they mean well.

When you are older, assuming you have woken the right people up when young, you have a better chance of waking the person up who has a better sense of when to say “shut the fuck up and go back to bed” or listen and say “well, how about thnk about this” or listen and say “don’t worry … other people will show up at the same field you are standing in.”

I would point out that this all revolves around discovery & exploration <and how well the person you wake up sees discovery & exploration versus how you see it>.

What I mean by that is to be successful, exploration of Life needs some reasons beyond “feels right” to not only convince the people around you but, I imagine, yourself when you wake up in the middle of the night.

As for other people?

People are far more interested in the short-term outcome of exploration than any nebulous long-term benefits and, therefore, they tend to judge your middle of the night dilemma that way.

This means for you <the wakerupper> finding the right balance of rational & emotional and short term & long term ‘who you wake up thoughtfulness’  is kind of critical to convince yourself to carve out the time in the middle of the night to explore whatever it is you want to explore … and discover what may.

Well <part 1>.

There is a shitload of vagueness in what I just wrote.

Well <part 2>.

Exploration and discovery is a vague thing.

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

“As you get older there comes a time when you’re not scared of the dark or of monsters anymore.

You realize the dark is just the dark and monsters don’t exist.

But it’s also when you become scared of other things, people themselves. You learn that not everyone wants to see you succeed. You become aware of people’s underlying intentions and selfish actions. & the monsters you used to check for under your bed at night don’t even compare to some of the things people do.”

—-

A teen

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

And maybe that is my point today.

Vagueness is a real bastard/bitch. It is for everyone. It is because vagueness’s best friend is “uncertainty.”

That said.

The prize in semi-mastering this vagueness is that it not only ends with some semi-clarity <some semi-certainty> in your exploration and discovery but it also stimulates the machine that is you and the mind to think about how to continue down the path of possibilities and discovery.

All of this is tricky because … well … the benefits, by nature, are unknown in the moment, but evidence of the benefits point to improvements and potential benefit.

Ok.

This whole thought centers around thinking and the art of thinking <in the middle of the night … which is different than thinking in the day>.

I know I have read how people can train themselves to think because while some people are natural thinkers by day, the ones who have the innate ability at birth who treat pieces of information as jigsaw puzzle pieces waiting to be put together and create something, night thinking demands a different type of thinking.

At night, typically, one piece of the puzzle demands your attention and all the other pieces seem to either not be present or are only blurs or pieces of the pieces.

So while the natural thinker, during the day, has the ability to sift through the jumbled pot of ingredients and like a Williams Sonoma colander trap the essentials and quickly let the inessential run off in the middle of the night there is typically one monster piece which is sitting there right beside you saying “let’s talk.”

Now.

Thinking has always been about bringing stuff in and letting stuff out.

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

we are cups, constantly and quietly
being filled. the trick is knowing how
to tip ourselves over and let the
beautiful stuff out.”

–

Ray Bradbury-

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

In this case I would imagine I am suggesting the monster let himself in and now you gotta figure out a way of saying … well … are you truly a monster and maybe you should stay of you are not and if you really are … how do I get you out?

And you wake someone up.

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

The Thinker – Historically we contemplated in retreat, silence, solitude, and within our own mind. We solved problems in isolation, deep thought, and through introverted reflection.

—

The contemporary Thinker – In an age of twittering, blogging, social networking, and sophisticated work-place networks, global science networks, and mass-participation and collaboration, (and TED talks ) information is exchanged via a networked world.

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

Thinking and problem solving, in the middle of the night, demands some inter-connected exchange of information that is fluid and, yet, systematic. It is kind of like you don’t really want to be stuck with this frickin’ monster staring at you in the middle of the night so you call someone up, wake them, and talk about the visitor. Its kind of like you need someone to look at your visitor thru different eyes.

Anyway.

All I really know is that part of exploration is uncertainty. And uncertainty will certainly beget waking up in the middle of the night wondering if they will spend their lives wandering blearily around a landscape, hoping desperately that their circumstances will improve, but suspecting, in their heart of hearts, that they will remain lost forever.

I am not suggesting you are actually lost … but you will feel lost.

And that is when you need someone, the right someone, to wake up.

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

“You spend your whole life stuck in the labyrinth, thinking about how you’ll escape it one day, and how awesome it will be, and imagining that future keeps you going, but you never do it.

You just use the future to escape the present.”

—

Looking for alaska; John Green

===========

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

“Most of us, shrinking from the difficulties and dangers which beset the seeker after original answers to these riddles, are contented to ignore them altogether, or to smother the investigating spirit under the featherbed of respected and respectable tradition.”

—-

Thomas Henry Huxley

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

“Not fearing death, nor shrinking for distress, But always resolute in most extremes”

.

William Shakespeare

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

Well.

Spend enough time in a corporate career and move up in a corporation and pretty much everyone gets some sort of media training <how to communicate with media and effectively communicating your message>.

And before you think this is just about senior management folk let me tell you that all you have to do is work with any significant franchise organization and you will invest more energy and time doing media training at all levels than you really would like to do.

Why?

All you have to do is get burned once by some local TV station trying to find some ‘you would be shocked’ story and you will learn the value of media training outside the corporate headquarters and on-the-ground at the service & franchise level.

I have received some fabulous media training throughout my career and most likely have a couple of media training manuals and presentations on some thumb drive somewhere. Training can span from a simple one-sheet ‘do this and don’t do this’ to sitting down in front of a camera being taped and grilled by some inquisition-type corporate communications expert <who you will hate for weeks after>.

For most of us … all training is excruciatingly painful.

For most of us … all we seek is “an opportunity to keep our mouth shut.”

But, alas, corporations and senior management demand face time publicly and it is better to arm yourself than to go into the fight “winging it.”

Now.

Most relevant to my thought today is that this training pays off in spades when you are forced into a comparison situation. Think being on a panel or standing at side by side podiums. I wrote not long ago about the window of ‘stark contrast opportunities’ in which I discussed the upside in terms of building value thru contrast.

Well.

As with anything good there is also a potential downside.

In a contrast situation there is a winner and a loser. And I don’t care how good a thinker you are, how good an instinctual communicator you are or how good an ‘explainer in chief’ you are … you cannot go into any comparison & contrast situation assuming you will  be the better one, the winner by default, in a contrast situation.

Contrast situations are fraught with peril.

I won’t go into all the training crap but I will point out two core aspects which are relevant to being in a public contrast situation:

• The hard one: simplify without oversimplifying

This is hard. Really hard.

And usually takes a shitload of practice & experience … and even then you will not always get it right <except for those truly gifted communicators who make all the rest of us miserable in that because they can do it everyone believes they can also do it>. My belief is always to say just enough so people understand and assume someone will ask a question if they need more information. If you do that, your experience with questions, what questions you get, kind of hone your ‘what is too much and what is too little’.

But you need enough experience and questions in order to be able to bracket what is most efficient & effective.

That said.

Oversimplifying concludes in one of two places <1> you have no idea what you are talking about or <2> you are out of touch with details and depth of truth

You have to figure out a way to showcase you understand the complexity without boring the shit out of people and, ultimately, convincing them you really do know your shit. In addition … you want to give just enough nuance and depth to suggest an ‘attack’, or clarification <which is just another kiss of the comparison death> would be a waste of time.

I will not go into all the gory details of how to efficiently communicate complexity <which is actually the advice we should be giving everyone rather than “keep it simple”>.

Suffice it to say there are three effective ways to simplify without oversimplifying.

Bracket your thought with two support points.

Triangulate your thought by offering three reasons to believe.

Box your thought in with 4 simple reasons why your thought makes sense.

A lot of people suggest always providing your thought and one reason to believe support <simple linear support> but the best training I received made the point that this makes your thought more vulnerable to questioning and, if possible <unless you have one undeniable blockbuster reason to believe> you should figure out a simple way to show simple complexity demands nuances smartness.

I imagine what I am saying in this aspect is you want to protect your words, thoughts and ideas from shrinking. And the way to do so is to effectively build a wall around them. Without the wall, the protection, the thought can get squeezed until it no longer exists … and you shrink a little every time that happens.

• The easy one: avoid hyperbole like it is the plague

Hyperbole creates a gap, an empty space, in between reality and some quasi-imagined reality.

Uhm.

Empty space to a listener/questioner/debater is like sugar for ants. Our tendency is almost always to make problems look bigger and successes more successful … it makes us look more heroic. But in our tendency to do so it actually … well … shrinks us. The truth is many of us think our jobs are fairly mundane and when discussing what we do, and have done, publicly we think “who the hell wants to hear this?” and then head down the path to make what we do, or did, look less mundane and more challenging or exciting.

Media training helps you see this.

And what you do is not worry about what you do but rather show how much you love what you do, or did, which breathes some helium into it and makes it look bigger. Suffice it to say it is incredibly difficult for someone to shrink what you like and what you are passionate about than it is to poke a hole in the empty space created by hyperbole and shrink the entire thought to a shriveled balloon status.

Ok.

Why did I bring this up today?

Well.

Sigh.

It becomes more obvious everyday … the shrinking of America right before our eyes.

Yesterday I watched President Donald J Trump stand at one podium and the president of Columbia, Juan Manuel Santos, at another podium. As they each spoke I watched Trump shrink before our eyes and America along with him.

The adult at the front of the room was a president … just of Columbia.

No offense to Columbia or the Columbian president but I don’t expect a country whose economy is 42 times smaller than the US Economy to have a president who sounds smarter, speaks smarter, shares smarter information and handles himself more smartly than the president of the USA. Let alone watching the poor Columbian President trying to be diplomatic when he clearly wanted to look at Trump and say “are you a complete fucking idiot?”

It bothered me a little less as we watched Angela Merkel of Germany a month ago stand side by side with Donald J Trump and his words and speech made him shrink before our eyes <and earned Merkel the title of ‘leader of the free world’>.

Yeah.

That’s tough competition for any president so while I cringed at the shrinkage I figured it may be one of Donald J’s most difficult contrast & comparison situations.

But in between yesterday’s unfortunate public display and Merkel’s hint of what was to come we see time and time again he is placed side by side with the leader of another country and he shrinks in comparison as soon as they both start talking.

By the way … this is a problem.

Not just for Donald J Trump but also for America.

When he shrinks in comparison America shrinks globally. This doesn’t mean we will not retain the world’s largest economy which demands that people have to deal with America regardless … but … it effectively shrinks our leadership role globally.

Sigh.

I honestly don’t know what I would do with Donald J Trump if I was his communications director. I know I would be honest with the Trumpster and say “stop giving interviews because you don’t know when to stop talking” … “don’t answer in paragraphs but rather in sentences because you cannot assemble a coherent paragraph thought” … “never talk about yourself when standing side by side with a peer” … “lets schedule some more of those fake campaign speeches  in front of your few rabid followers so you can feel free and complain about everyone & everything and explain how great you are because they will love it.”

I also know my honesty would get my ass fired so quickly don’t blink because you would miss my time in the White House.

Media training is a pain in the ass but in its pain it grinds you down to reality about yourself. You learn to duck the bad comparisons a little better and seek the opportunities to contrast positively a little better.

I don’t believe we need a member of the Mensa society to be the president or even to be effective in positively contrasting themselves in a tough situation in which the other is smart, thoughtful & articulate. But you do need someone who is self-aware in the moment & environment. Media training almost above any other training you may receive in business harshly introduces you to self-awareness.

What I do know is that without some very harsh media and communications training President Trump will continue to shrink in comparison time and time again.

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

“A single arrow is easily broken, but not ten in a bundle.”

—–

Japanese proverb

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

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed. It is the only thing that ever has.”

—–

Margaret Mead

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

So.

I was listening to a bunch of talking heads on tv speculating on a staff shake up in the Trump white house personnel.

One thing I heard caught my attention … “well, part of the president’s issue is that he has kind of a hodgepodge of personnel.”

And that thought is correct. And it made me think a little bit.

The truth is once you move past managing a group or running a mom & pop sized business every management team you manage will be a hodgepodge of people, skills, personalities and … well … loyalty. Not only is it impossible to hire in ‘your people’ in every slot … most good leaders do not want to do that.

All that said.

To be clear.

Trump is possibly one of the crappiest senior leaders I have ever seen and he appears to have no belief that words matter and has no understanding of the concept of ‘communication alignment’ <let alone any alignment> … however … he is what he is. And because he is what he is … inconsistencies included … the staff he surrounds himself matters a shitload with regard to overall effectiveness.

What do I mean?

Trump forces his staff to adjust in real time as he communicates, and thinks, in real time.

Trump has never worked in a large organization nor has he ever truly had to manage a larger group of people, let alone senior executives.

He has always been the spokesperson and the brand and the final word … surrounded by family who was more than happy to simply double and triple down on whatever dad said <and be loyal to even his craziest tactical maneuvering and craziest words and wordsmithing>.

Real senior executives do not work that way nor is it a particularly effective method outside of a mom & pop structure.

In a real business organization you don’t get to pick & choose everyone in your circle … most times it is a hodgepodge of skills, personalities and experience. And you know what? You learn to manage them effectively because that is what a leader does.

You adapt some of you to accommodate some of them <yeah … sure … envision Trump doing that … uhm … sure … ain’t gonna happen>.

Trump is being forced out of his mom & pop management model into a more traditional larger business management model <and he is going kicking & screaming>.

Most people learn this as soon as they move from group management to department management <you cannot fire everyone and rehire only your people> and absolutely learn this lesson as soon as you move into the C-level positions.

Another aspect is when you get a position you do not treat it as an “I won so you need to …” but rather “I now get to lead and I am going to have to …”

All that said.

You learn some management personnel tricks to help you out.

I always tried to bring one person with me wherever I went as I moved up. Depending on the structure of the organization I always wanted at least one person who could “translate” me to the hodgepodge team. This wasn’t necessarily done to dictate my desires & behaviors onto a team but rather to help them align to how I managed so they could adapt and move faster.

I manage nothing like Trump but let’s assume Trump is moving into the presidency … it almost becomes mandatory for effectiveness that he has a team aligned on “what to do when Trump does his crazy.” He need a management team that doesn’t argue about what to do he needs a management team that absorbs the blow and moves out doing what needs to be done as the true power brokers for getting shit done.

By the way … this is not about loyalty to Trump this is about loyalty to most effectively getting good shit done. I didn’t care if people bitched about me behind my back <I always assumed they did> what I cared about is that they respected the general idea and invested their energy in trying to figure out how to best effectively implement the idea rather than invest energy trying to defend anything they really would have preferred just bitching about behind my back.

I always preferred loyalty to “getting good smart shit done” and always believed I would ultimately earn some respect if I <Me> always remained loyal to the idea of “enabling good smart shit to get done.”

Before I finish this thought I will admit my preference was always to try an bring in two foundational team members in order to kind of create some pillars … but you can get away with one to align a hodgepodge of managers & executives.

Anyway.

In an organization the size of a presidency Trump needs a translator but more importantly he needs an aligned team with regard to what to do with him and his behavior <and not be arguing over it>.

……… a Trump management team ………

Trump’s inclination will be with what he feels most comfortable with — family.

His next inclination will be with what makes him feel the best — the ones who unflinchingly try and power-broke the crazy <he would call them unflinching loyalists>.

Neither of those have anything to do with effective leadership nor do they have anything to do with effective ‘management of getting shit done.’

He has never been in a large organization nor has he managed a large group of people nor has he tried to get a large group of people aligned to agree & do some shit.

He naturally gravitates toward employees who don’t deliver bad news and those who deliver flattery.

They may feel good to have around but they are the absolute worst people to have on your management team. You only build a team like that if you have no interest in improving, no interest in any intellectual conflict <which is what actually sparks better ideas> and/or you are so insecure or arrogant <yes, you can be both> you don’t want any ideas other than your own.

Most often it is the senior leadership who challenges you that prompt new insights and help propel the group to success.

 

 

“You need people who have different points of view and aren’t afraid to argue. They are the kind of people who stop the organization from doing stupid things.”

Harvard Business Review

 

Look.

All leaders assume responsibility for a hodgepodge of senior managers. That’s what we do.

And we learn to set what expectations are and align on vision and encourage some flexibility & adapting and get going.

And we learn that some of what we do and what we think works a little better in one place than anther and that some people are better than we think at first blush and some people we really liked when we met them are worse than we thought.

And we learn that you don’t demand respect but rather earn it and loyalty is gained through respect.

I would imagine that engendering loyalty to Trump is hard in that up to this point loyalty most likely centered on fame & fortune.  And most of us who have led in larger organizations understand that strong foundational loyalty is less about the tangible fame & fortune but rather respect.  He is gonna have some problems with that.

I would imagine that effectiveness to Trump is blind support for him and what he says. And most of us who have led in larger organizations understand that effectiveness is less about support for what the leader says … but rather in structured response to a leader’s guidance & thoughts. I never wanted people to do what I said … I wanted people to do what needed to be done.  He is gonna have some problems with that.

I would imagine that alignment to Trump is familial. And most of us who have led in a larger organization want the exact same thing … but we know we have a hodgepodge team who is ‘the family’ and we deal with it.

Would I shake up the Trump administration? Yeah. I surely would.

And I would do it almost exactly opposite of how I envision he is likely to do it.

He doesn’t understand there is a campaign team and now he needs an effective doing team. He bludgeoned us with his dull insights on the campaign trail and now he needs to focus more on action.

What would I do with his cadre of white men?

I, personally, would make Kushner my chief of staff. He has no fucking clue how to do the job but he knows the Trumpster better than anyone in the world.

Give him some deputies who have a shitload of government experience. Send Ivanka off to write a real book. And build a staff of Republican zealots who know how to get shit done. Trust the Kushner kid to translate what the Donald J crazy means to everyone.

Bannon can stay but he just needs to focus on feeding the Trump crazy and let Kushner kid deal with the crazy output.

Others <just off the top of my head>. I love Wilbur Ross. Mnuchin almost seems overwhelmed-giddy by being in the spotlight. I would find a sane version of Mulvaney to take his job. I would tell Tillerson to start hiring like a mad man and tell him he can fire whoever he doesn’t need once he actually has some staff to do some shit. Just get out of Mattis, McMaster and Kelly’s way. I can’t get rid of Sessions even though I think he is crazy <I think he thinks he lives in the 1950’s> but because he actually translates Trump crazy better than anyone other than maybe that little pit bull Lewandowski.  I would wake up Carson, Perry, and all the other Cabinet members we haven’t heard a peep out of and ask them if they would like to participate in this circus.

I imagine my real point is that to be an effective leader of a hodgepodge group it is more important that THEY can work together than YOU like them.

Because if they can work together well than there is a better chance that the organization will not do stupid shit even if you make a stupid decision, your crazy will come to life as not-so-crazy pragmatism and knee-jerk spontaneous crazy asshat tweets simply get absorbed into seamless actions which make the tweets look a little less spontaneous, a little less knee jerk, a little less crazy … but still asshat because that is who you are.

And that is the value of a non-arguing hodgepodge group. They tend to mute the mistakes and crazy and amplify the actual good ideas and thoughts you may actually have.

A non-aligned hodgepodge managerial team simply exacerbates the problem — your crazy looks crazier, your spontaneous looks more spontaneous <see: unhinged> and your asshatedness looks more asshatted.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would look at him as a lost cause … he is what he is. He is a flower <with thorns> and I would turn my attention to the environment the flower is growing in.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would find a team that maybe wasn’t on the “Trump train” but rather find competent people who can do shit that I want done <and let the chief of staff … who is on the Trump Train … get them doing Trump train shit>.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would turn to the Kushner kid and say “you wanted in … you are in. You are the Trump whisperer. Make shit happen.”

Let me be clear.

Trump will shake up his staff and maybe cabinet members and he will fuck it up. He has no idea how to manage a business organization other than in a mom & pop style and he has no innate leadership skills and his management instincts suck.

And he has no clue how to build an effective team <someone should tell him there is not enough room up his ass for all the people he actually needs to run a country let alone a viably larger sized organization>.

Oh. And he is a narcissistic asshat who believes no one knows better than he does.

In the end.

As I stated in my Trump 100 day piece … he did nothing in his first 100 days that would suggest the next 100 days <and foreseeable 100 day increments> would be any smoother, efficient or effective. I am 99% confident he will shake up his staff and management team and I cannot envision it proceeding smoothly, efficiently or effectively. Why? Because he has no clue what he is doing.

 

Putin willing to give Congress records of Trump’s meeting with Lavrov

Ok.

In the category of “sometimes you just cannot make this shit up” … today the Russian president, who has ‘surprisingly’ <not so surprisingly> dismissed the claim that Trump disclosed classified information in a recent meeting with Russian diplomats/espionage agent, has offered to hand over records of an Oval Office meeting to Congress.

This is rich.

This would be comedy gold <assuming this wasn’t our presidency and our country>.

The idea that America would be able to gain transcripts of a meeting held in the White House oval office to clear up what actually happened from Russia is … well … absurd.

Not to mention the fact they could possibly even have transcripts <which assumes, I imagine, they would have taped the entire conversation> is … well … terrifying.

Personally, I think Putin is having fun at America’s expense <i.e., he is trolling us>.

Personally, I think why the hell would anyone in the US congress go to Russia to get a transcript and find out what ‘theoretically’ happened.

Personally, I think we would have officially entered into some alternative universe if a Russian transcript was necessary to “100% confirm” a Trump story.

Personally, I think the Russians haven’t stopped laughing since Trump won the election.

Personally, I think this entire situation is a tragic comedy.

Personally, sometimes you just cannot make this kind of shit up.

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

“I never knew it was possible to be so miserable in so many ways.”

―

Amie Kaufman

===========

Well.

Trump shares classified information in a moment of braggadocio <does anyone really believe he would do so ‘strategically’? — no>.

That is the thought … and the moment … which we are all faced with today <again it seems>.

……… young Trump ………..

We are faced with a headline which, anonymous sources or not, on the face of it is believable.

No one … not even the ones with their heads so far up Trump’s ass they can only see darkness … can say it doesn’t have a hint of believability given everything we know about the man.

He said something while boasting. He was just being the non-thinking loudmouth we have watched for decades.

Well.

This is when the birds come home to roost for all the despicable ‘fake news’ and ‘alterative facts’ and all the other lying bullshit.

This is the moment we wanted to have someone from the White House step up to the plate and say, unequivocally with no word parsing, “not true” and we would all breathe a sigh of relief and say “whew, okay.”

But we are past that point.

We are now at the miserable moment when you do not know who to trust.

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

 

“He doesn’t really know any boundaries. He doesn’t think in those terms.

He doesn’t sometimes realize the implications of what he’s saying. I don’t think it was his intention in any way to share any classified information. He wouldn’t want to do that.”

 

Anonymous White House Advisor

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

You want to trust the journalists … and, yet, you don’t really want to <because if they are we have more proof our President is an incompetent asshat>.

You want to trust the only people left in the administration who actually seem trustable <Tillerson, McMaster> … and, yet, their words ring a little hollow.

You want to trust the president because … well … he is the president … and, yet, that train has already left the station.

To be clear … what Tillerson and McMaster said in defense of Donald J Trump are not quite lies. They are just incredibly well parsed words expressing either truths which are not really the issue at hand or half truths about what the real issue is <but it does not really matter because within 12 hours Donald J Trump just partially undermined what they said anyway>.

To be clear … what the Washington Post wrote is most likely quite truthful. They offer incredibly parsed words expressing thoughts run through a paranoid filter that “we better not be wrong.”

<note: Does that mean Washington Post never gets things wrong? No. But a story this big this means an editor is going to be extremely careful before running it. I would suggest the reason to trust the Washington Post, and other major journalists at other papers, here is twofold <1> they have high journalistic standards that lead them to being accurate much more so than other media options and <2> they know if there is something wrong in their reporting, other reputable news sources will be all over their shit in a second>

But, to be clear … what I may think doesn’t really matter … because echoing across America today is a basic feeling of “yikes, this sounds bad, but I do not know who to trust.”

That is what Trump hath wrought.

Some very good people <Tillerson, McMaster, maybe even Spicer, some prominent politicians, etc.> have had their reputations tainted by the Trump slime – enough that people of seemingly good character are being doubted.

We have reached a point, a point which the current Presidency is desperate to offer some honesty & truth to slow down the downward spiral … a downward spiral in which we realize that not one of us can assume that any one of them is going to say some simple truth.

The only truth we know is that once having manipulated the truth, once having misrepresented the truth, once misdirecting us from the truth … that person is most likely to do it again.

You need not lie as colorfully and openly as the President to be seen as someone not to be trusted. His depth & breadth of lying offers little room for his associates to do the typical word parsing they may be accustomed to.

Journalists have realized this dilemma and the real journalists are rising to the occasion seeking to limit parsing and innuendo and offering as much starkness as possible <that is a path to success>.

I could argue that we are having a crisis of character but at the moment I woke up today realizing we are in the miserable moment when you do not know who to trust.

I have spent months telling everyone Trump is not competent to be president, I question his competence as a business leader in general … and that good CEO’s do not act this way.

But today? Today I can only sigh … and think about what a sad world to live in where when you trust no one you end up believing everything & nothing at exactly the same time.

This is a sad time for the United States of America.

Bad.

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

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me.

If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

―

Robert A. Heinlein

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

“Rules are for children.

This is war, and in war the only crime is to lose.”

―

Joe Abercrombie, Last Argument of Kings

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

Ok.

We have a shitload of regulations, laws and rules to abide by every day.

We set out explicit rules and guidelines and sometimes these appear as laws. They are meant to showcase a red line for behavior.

That said, boy oh boy … we sure do bitch about how many laws we have and how many regulations are in place and how many rules we face that curb our success. The government is most likely the main villain in this story.

Most of us act like government sits around coming up with rules and laws and regulations simply to stifle freedom in our lives – personal and business.

It may behoove us to think a little more about why those rules, regulations and laws came about and how we still have some room to navigate which is a playing field called “norms.”

It may behoove us to think a little more about the fact we suck at self-regulation. In fact, when left to regulate ourselves, within a capitalist environment, the arc of behavior bends toward some fairly heinous behavior.

What happens is that some start pushing out beyond what most people would tend to believe is ‘integrity driven behavior’ and with each push what is acceptable becomes broader and broader.

So what we have done in the past is to step in, slap the wrist of those who have bent the arc toward what is not really the best for all and then set up some regulations to insure our self-regulation has some fences to corral us.

That said.

We do have some norms.

Some ‘accepted beliefs’ for some specific roles and responsibilities.

It’s like we assume if you become a CEO of a business that you will not instigate any illegal behavior and you will tell the truth with regard to what you are selling & offering.

Yes there are laws and regulations but, in general, a business sets its own behavioral compass – within which there will be things unwritten but accepted.

It’s like we assume if you decided to accept the responsibility of a public servant you will share your tax returns to show how you have earned your money in the past, you assume that you will cut ties with your business to insure no conflicts of interest and you assume you don’t fire people because you don’t like them.

All of those things may be legal to actually do but norms suggest they are not the right things to do.

Norms, in my pea like brain, reside outside a buffer zone just prior to reaching one of these red lines. They are usually unstated and they are usually simply expected for those who uphold some integrity and they are usually just done by the people who truly matter.

Ah.

But let’s remember … most times norms reside within what is a larger legally acceptable behavior.

Why does that happen?

Because most people who set up rules and regulations and laws desire to give people some freedom to act and make their own decisions.

That said … to be clear … you can do a shitload of legal things in life, business & government which when viewed honestly can look and smell really bad.

I have worked several times with people who have constantly suggested “but it is legal.” And 90% of the time I have felt uneasy about what we were about to do. Not that it was illegal but rather it <a> tested what I would consider a norm and <b> it was clearly in that buffer zone that got too close to the red line.

There will always be people who will dance on the icy brink of the red line and these same people will dance while singing “it is legal.”

It is a hollow song to sing and it always sounds slightly out of tune.

Anyway.

Let’s just say there are two basic types of people:

• Those who see norms, and normative behavior, and see it as guidelines for right or wrong <an subsequently check laws, rules and regulations to be sure all is good & legal>. In other words behavior doesn’t have to be dictated by some rule or law but more often than not “what seem like the right thig to do.”

• Those who see “anything that could be deemed legal”, or, conversely, “if it is not expressly forbidden than it is permissible. These people don’t ever ponder “what seems like the right thing to do” because, to them, if it is legal it is right.

People have a lot of leeway to do non-criminal bad actions.

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

“Look, that’s why there’s rules, understand? So that you think before you break ’em.”

―

Terry Pratchett

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

And I tend to believe most times rules & laws are not rewritten is because people break them <because they have done their job>, It is when people start ignoring norms where rules & laws get rewritten.

As soon as enough people, or prominent people, start doing things that the norm had suggested up to that point was ‘not the right thing to do’ people sit back, shake their heads a little sadly … and say “well, I guess we need to set up some rules.”

I admit.

I am both a norms guy and a law/rules guy.

If you give me the rules & the laws I believe I can win within them. And win even without bending their interpretation.

If norms are established and the norms reflect ‘good’ and not ‘bad behavior’ I tend to place them right beside all the rules/laws you gave me and say exactly the same thing … I believe I can win within them.

But not everyone thinks that way.

Some people don’t care about ‘good behavior’ all they care about is ‘legal behavior’ <what is technically legal>. It is these people who actually create the need for rules, regulations and laws.

So maybe when we start bitching about all the rules, regulations and laws we have that seem to restrict some things we tend think are kind of okay to do … we shouldn’t blame the institutions which created them … we should be blaming the people who forced their creation.

They are the ones who absolutely suck at self-regulation … actually worse than most of the rest of us … and we pay the price for their behavior.

==========

“Oh, How insanely outside the window

О,   как   безумно   за       окном

Howls and rages the evil storm,

Ревёт, бушует  буря злая”

–

Alexander Blok

===========

“Every advantage is temporary.”

―

Katerina Stoykova Klemer

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

“The weather-cock on the church spire, though made of iron, would soon be broken by the storm-wind if it did not understand the noble art of turning to every wind.”

–

Heinrich Heine

=========

In business we talk incessantly about visions and missions and purpose and strategic objectives and important long term type thinking to insure everyone knows where they are going and how they will go about doing it.

We worry about how to smartly effectively compete.

We worry through some fairly random details, talk about being the best and then … uhm … proceed to be anything but the best.

So … you know what?

If you are better and have a better offering and are truly worth a shit and want people to know you are worth a shit … well then … there is no real intellectual challenge.

You get on with getting on.

I am not suggesting being stupid about competing.

Nor am I suggesting bludgeoning the industry and competitors with some dull edged hammer.

I mean … for god’s sake we can talk forever on all the topics I just listed and stew over all the long term type shit … but … we all know the holy grail of business success actually resides in ‘windows of opportunity.’

Now.

Windows of opportunity arise all the time if you are paying attention.

As I have noted before ‘white space’ analysis in positioning is archaic thinking mostly because it explores a stagnant 2 dimensional industry when in reality any business in today’s world is 4 dimensional, at its most simplistic, and constantly moving & a swirl of constant activity in which no one competitor is ever truly standing still.

What that means is, basically, in today’s business world you set out down a road you want to go down and seek small windows in the chaos of normal business activity to “hit the hole.” Just like as a running back there is a huge mass of men & pads in front of you and you ‘just get going’ assuming a hole will open and you get through it.

Ah.

And then … of course … there are the windows that get placed in front of you. you don’t need to go looking for them … they are just there.

Windows of opportunities come in all shapes and sizes but the one you kill for is the opportunity for a stark contrast.

Stark contrast is the holy trinity of windows because it is the opportunity to create distinction, separation and build value. Uhm. That is if you actually use this window of opportunity correctly.

We assess this type of window two ways <because stark contrast also represents potential issues>.

• A stark contrast shouldn’t really come at the obvious detriment of a competitor. While a stark contrast certainly represents an opportunity to laugh at a competitor or possibly make them look foolish to do so is to miss the larger opportunity. The larger opportunity isn’t to diminish their value to make yours look bigger but rather use a stark contrast to leverage more value for you.

• A stark contrast really shouldn’t come at the obvious detriment of the category/industry. This one is a little tricky but is a corollary to my first point. You don’t want to make the category look stupid or ‘less than.’ A part of how you conduct your business is protecting the larger institution. In other words … you never sacrifice the greater institution simply to try and gain a temporary advantage for yourself. .

<note: both of these are incredibly hard lessons to maintain in a highly competitive, selfish thinking, short term view business world>

And then, of course, even if we do think those two things through well and then take that temporary advantage offered us I will note that we, in business, are incredibly poor at knowing when to quit the contrast so we keep pounding the nail into the board even though it is already all the way in.

That said.

The true value of this stark contrast opportunity is distinction. Why do I put such a high value n distinction?

Distinction is one of those fabulous things that the more you try to be distinct the less likely you will actually be so <at least in a meaningful way>.

And if I could convince more companies to think about this with clear heads I am not sure I would make any more money but I am sure they would.

i know, I know … easy for me to say.

But the pursuit of the elusive distinction can sometimes drive businesses to some fairly irrelevant, if not absurd, and absolutely meaningless places. I know it sounds crazy but, if they ignored it, I bet it would happen. Well. It would happen if they were smart about focusing on themselves … who they were and who they wanted to be … uhm … and took the temporary advantage offered them in stark contrast windows of opportunity.

So let’s call it a crazy smart idea.

But tough to do <as most crazy smart ideas are>. Tough because it doesn’t exactly match up with the standard “this is how you are supposed to do it” management guides. Waiting for opportunities isn’t something that they teach you in ‘how to aggressively beat the crap out of your competition in the industry” school.

Anyway.

Maybe that is the most important point.

There are a lot, a shitload, of crazy smart business people out there.

But there are not a lot of crazy smart business people who seem to be willing to do something crazy like ignore the business books “plan to success” blueprints.

Here is where I put my money.

The few. Those crazy enough to not plan for distinction but rather let distinction and originality simply evolve from who they are, what they think and their vision of what they think they should be and the ones who ‘get going’ smartly to starkly contrast themselves when a window opens.

Crazy?

Probably.

But in a world where the majority of businesses, and new ideas, fail … maybe this isn’t a crazy a thought as it sounds.

And, at its core, the concept of what I just outlined isn’t that crazy because businesses are always seeking an advantage.

And they should.

I imagine the point I am going to make is that most businesses don’t consider ‘advantage’ as temporary. When it actually happens … they treat it as sustainable.

And ultimately that becomes their downfall.

Windows of opportunity close. And 90% of the time they close quickly. And maybe that is where the ‘sustainable ‘ belief really screws most businesses. They jump through the window of opportunity, and let’s say they even treat the stark contrast opportunity correctly and do all the right things, they then act like they are going to stay on that side of the window <acting as if the advantage and opportunity is sustainable>.

Wrong.

Bad decision.

Windows of opportunity are meant to be jumped through … opportunity maximized … and then you jump back before it closes again.

Why?

Stark contrasts are most typically contextual to a certain situation. Most businesses are smart enough if they give you a stark contrast opportunity to actually change the context to insure the contrast opportunity ceases.

In addition … knowledge never stops. Knowledge, in and of itself, changes environment … it is never stagnant.

Sustainable advantage is really rare.

Extremely rare.

And, frankly, many businesses are actually too slow to take advantage of their … well … advantage. The window of advantage does not stay open long.

Businesses work to gain it. They get it. They build plans to take advantage of the advantage. They go and do … and … well … their advantage is not only as advantageous as it used to look but in many cases it is no longer even the advantage that you thought it was. The window is closed. Oh. Maybe worse? To your dismay you look around the room and another frickin’ window is open.

Damn.

Wrong window at the wrong time.

Ok.

My last point on a stark contrast window of opportunity.

While everything I just discussed is about opportunity to build value and distinction a stark contrast opportunity offers you the one thing which is the one thing you dream about as a business – an interested person.

In general, in a sea of business sameness and a cluttered world of meaningless communication, whether you are trying to sell something or showcase value you will be faced with a great barrier of lack of interest.

People, in general, don’t care until they have to care.

I would like to point out that while we all say “the greatest thing since sliced bread” that sliced bread was not that great to people in the beginning … people just didn’t care about sliced bread … they liked what they had <unsliced>.

Anyway.

The corollary to that thought?

Everything is interesting at some point.

Yup.

Everything.

It’s all about uncovering the most relevant time to be relevant <and interesting>. Pick the wrong time and you waste $’s because the consumer just doesn’t care. Be interesting at the right time and the brand becomes relevant <and sales increase>.

Whenever I bring this topic up oddly <in general> I find everyone gravitating to the ends of the spectrum … half believe whatever their widget is that everyone is interested in it … and the other half suggest the world has gone to hell in a hand basket and people don’t care about anything.

Regardless.

Assume people don’t care about what it is you want to tell them. And assume they don’t care about your product <until you do something wrong>.

But the one time you may actually have a chance to generate some interest in a stark contrast. Most times your advantage or difference or distinctness is almost indiscernible to the human eye <despite how proud you may be of it>. and that is where a stark contrast offers you the greatest part of the opportunity – it is discernible.

All businesses need to remember that people just don’t care until they have to care … but people always care about vivid comparisons and take note of hem in a grayish world — that is why you take advantage of stark contrasts windows of opportunity.

That’s it for businesses and stark contrast windows of opportunity.

In general … stark contrast opportunity or not, personally, I believe many businesses mismanage any ‘advantage’ opportunities.

In attitude and in behavior.

They think incorrectly, or have a flawed view when they think, and implement too slowly. They overthink the wrong things and under think the right things.  They think long term sustainable within what are really short term opportunities. They think of ROI in terms of “time I have maintained active or the advantage” rather than viewing time in a “37 seconds used wisely is a lifetime.”

I tend to believe it is because businesses try to simplify as much a possible with the intent to replicate as much as possible. Neither of those thoughts in that last sentence are particularly effective with regard to a stark contrast window of opportunity. Oddly, the pursuit of simplicity increases cumbersome less-than-effective responses.

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

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value.

Life and business <whether we like to admit it or not> is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial <therefore unique is basically artificial in its inevitable obseletion> where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.

Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

–

Arturo Perez Revarte

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

Whether you want to simplify or not … one of the wisest things you can always keep in mind is … Everything has to do with everything else. Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.

Another wise thing to keep in mind is windows of opportunity always arise but the ones that offer stark contrast may be one of the most valuable opportunities you can ever encounter in business.

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

“When a flower doesn’t bloom you fix the environment in which it grows, not the flower.”

—

(via ociz)

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

Whew.

“If I have told you once i have told you a thousand times … “ … what kid hasn’t heard this from an adult.

And what do the kids hear?

If I’ve told you once, I <might as well> have told you a thousand times <for all the good it did>.

Oh.

Shit.

How many times have adults heard a different version of this from a boss in the workplace?

This is almost a perfect symbol of the failure of our culture.  Huh? I am not sure but it seems culturally we have completely forgotten that a lack of desired response is more often a derivative of the stimulus provided rather than some ineptitude on the part of the responder/listener.

In other words … it is more likely you said or did the wrong thing to get the response you actually desired.

In today’s world we seem to immediately default to “oh, they just don’t get it.”

Well … let me tell ya … most of us can ‘get it’ if we would just get a fucking semi-articulate stimulus.

I got this whole stimulus/response pounded into my head working at one of the world’s largest advertising agencies which most likely knew more about effective communications, and how to smartly teach how to effectively communicate, in the world <J. Walter Thompson>.

From day one you got stimulus response pounded into your head.

Develop a stimulus with a specific response in mind.

Measure responses.

If you don’t see the desired response, review your stimulus to see how you could have better, more effectively, communicated it.

I had this pounded into my head so much I now have a mildly aggravating habit <not aggravating to me … mostly aggravating to others … therefore mild> of constantly stepping back in after I say something and listening closely to a response and saying something like … “my fault, I don’t think I articulated what I meant to say well … what I should have said is …”

When I do that, no. I am not calling the other person an idiot – that is not my intent. The foundation of all my communicating is always stimulus response.

My response is also a reflection of a fact that most times I say something, and I hear myself say it, and I listen to how it is received … I honestly think I could have said it better <offered a better stimulus> and then seek a path to communicating it better.

In my mind it is more about fixing the environment of the flower does not grow.

In my mind it is if I feel like saying “if I have told you once I have told you a thousandth  time” I have a problem … not the person I am speaking with.

In my mind if someone doesn’t try articulating a new stimulus if they don’t get the desired response <or a meaningful response> what they can only expect is … well … evils <something bad>. Because bad has a nasty habit of filling unused space.

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

“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.”

 

–

Francis Bacon

 

=======

Now.

Yeah.

Sure.

Repeated mistakes are a pain in the ass.

But it seems like far too often everyday people, in today’s world, suggest a Reptilian response <instinctual> is the ‘common sense’ response to everything. And, as so often true, there is a big grain of truth within that thought. The trouble is that while stimulus response is a linear truth <in a brain way> … in the real world cause and effect is not always linear … and, yet, is still true.

To be clear.

There is a time & a place for reflexive Reptilian behavior … but you cannot, and should not, live your Life that way 100% and should certainly not live your life that way when dealing in communications. Effective communications is rarely checkers but closer to a non-expert version of chess.

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

“Simplicity is the final achievement.

After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art.”

—

Frédéric Chopin

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

Yeah.

That sounds complicated … too complicated. Especially when everyone around you is whispering “simplicity, simplicity, simplicity … things are simpler than we make it out to be” in your ear.

Yeah.

I sometimes think we get confused when we discuss simplicity. For simplicity is not actually in the stimulus … in the delivery … but rather in the response.

Now.

That doesn’t mean a ‘simple’ stimulus is unable to generate a simple response.

In fact … it may more often than not.

However.

Simple stimuli are just as likely to confuse. Provide ambiguity. Generate a feeling of ‘less than’ in terms of what I may need to know to understand and make a choice/decision.

So when someone says ‘show a picture’ or ‘say it in 5 seconds or you lose them’ and be done with it … I just don’t think it is that simple.

That is simply looking at it from a stimulus point of view. Now. That’s not a bad place to start … but it is a means to an end. Far too often we look at that as the answer when the reality is simplicity can be delivered in so many ways your head will spin.

Why does all this shit I am saying matter?

Because saying “if I have told you once if I haven’t told you a thousand times” <or even think it> will not change thinking, attitudes or behavior one eentsy teensy bit. You will fail to gain even close to the response you want … now, tomorrow and the day after.

What I am talking about, in my mind, matters.

I am not suggesting everyone become masters of communication but I do believe we need to pay attention to the aspects of what makes for effective communication.

Why? Think about the prize.

Potential prize.

• decrease ignorance.

Or maybe I should suggest calling the thought an anti-ignorance initiative because this affects both the speaker and the responder. At its most basic level it is fighting intolerance, to ideas, through communication. In my infamous “stimulus – response” thinking I would imagine a response from thinking this way would be enhanced understanding.

The intent of this idea I have is we all benefit to understand the belief system choice and decision making process of anyone and through an enlightened stimulus/response communications model it inevitably  empowers people by creating <improving>  enough basic knowledge and critical thinking knowledge that people can better move forward in life and ‘make choices.’

My thought always seems to center on cultivating thinking attitudes leading to actual behavior and belief systems as an outcome.

Look.

The prize is appealing, for society an culture, but in many ways it goes against what we’re trained to do and runs slightly counter to what we think of with regard to communication.

Most of us think we are clear and articulate with our thoughts and that the receiver, assuming we don’t get the response we desire, is at fault.

Anyway.

“If I have told you once i have told you a thousand times … “

One would point out to the speaker of, what I would call, this symbol of failed direction that if you have had to say it 1000 times and are saying it one more time <1> are you not tired of saying it and <2> have you thought that maybe it will not work the 1001th time … just like it didn’t seem to have an impact the 100 times before?

Just think about I. Think about stimulus response.  And please do so because I don’t want to tell you a thousand times.

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

“Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.”

—–

Benjamin Franklin

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

Ok.

It seems like in today’s world leaders are getting the shit kicked out of them if they communicate in a precise fashion, in a measured way and in what appears to be calculated communicating.

They are called unauthentic, bland and blamed for being ‘less than truthful.’

This is creating a sense that semi-impetuous blurbs of ‘here is what I think’ communication is deemed of higher value from our leaders.

Well.

It is a sad state of affairs if we value the latter in a leader more than the former.

But let me point out the flaws in the impetuous less-than-thought-out thought communicating.

I call it the fraying of organizational communication.

You learn fairly quickly once you begin leading a larger group of people, and desire them to grow beyond simply being order takers, that precise communications matters.

You learn you cannot be everywhere at once, you cannot be in every meeting and you cannot have people simply parrot your own words because … well … they are your words and not theirs <and for them to grow they need to figure out how to articulate things on their own>. Therefore, you learn that you need to precisely communicate an idea so that they can offer up their own words to share that idea.

You learn this because impreciseness means people start having to answer not only unnecessary questions … but are also being demanded to explain ‘what you meant.’

This is a dangerous slippery slope.

People work for you for a reason <you most likely have more experience and have some skills they do not have>.

People have different titles for a reason <they most likely have different or less experience and have yet to learn some skills they do not have>.

This means that farther out your words & thoughts have to be explained the more likely the explanation is not going to be exactly right.

Oh.

And let’s ad in ‘the stress factor.’

This is where ‘fraying’ becomes obvious.

The less precise a leader is the more likely the communication fabric is going to be tugged at the edges. The edges being where many of your least experienced people reside. The less precise a leader is the more the pressure at the farthest point of communication.

This is where the ‘fraying’ becomes most obvious. As more and more questions are piled upon the person on the edge with regard to the “whys” and “whats” the communication becomes more and more stressed … and mistakes are made.

Things are said that just may not be exactly right.

Something is said in exasperation.

Something is communicated as a ‘well, could be’ scenario to offer some space.

This is not the fault of the person on the edge … the responsibility lies with the person at the center.

Anyway.

As a leader, the people closest to you most likely don’t need the precision, calculation and measured words … but you give it to them anyway. You do so because those closest to you will find their own words to say what you said … without losing its meaning.

A flawed message at the top doesn’t lose its flaws as it expands … its flaws become increased.

Some people call it ‘getting your talking points in line’ … I do not. I simply call it “clarity & precision from the top.” I do that because while it may seem bland and it may seem calculated … it avoids the more difficult problems and criticisms.

A leader must hold the center verbally. It can sometimes be held with vision and soaring rhetoric but more often it is captures in the calculated pragmatic words which are easily carried by those on the edges out beyond the organization.

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

‘Things fall apart, the center cannot hold….

The best lack all conviction,

While the worst are full of passionate intensity

—–

William Butler Yeats < The Second Coming>

==========

As a leader there may be nothing worse than confidently saying the wrong thing. For when you do the rest of your organization feels compelled to support your confidence … uhm … and the wrong thing.

And if the ‘wrongness’ is compounded with any sense of vagueness in meaning ‘wrong’ becomes his multidimensional blob of slime which mucks up the entire organizational engine.

I am fairly sure mom & pop businesses don’t learn this lesson <or maybe not as well>. They have no real need to do so. Most words are in the domain of the ‘mom & pop’ and any family members or close knit employees will most likely simply regurgitate whatever the mom & pop say with earnestness … but no real understanding. There is no need to understand … it just is.

And maybe that is where leaders, who are precise and calculated in wording, understand what truth about success within an organization is — that understanding matters.

People cannot defend what they do not completely understand and, well, you know as a leader you cannot always be there to defend and you need to depend on others to do so … not by interpreting what you said but through understanding what you said.

In the end.

We may beat the crap out of ‘bland colorless calculated’ communication from leaders but we should all recognize that it isn’t necessarily done out of fear of saying the wrong thing or political correctness but rather done because … well … good leaders know they hold the center. They know that understanding limits fraying at the edges of the organization.

They know they have a responsibility, boring as it may be on occasion, to pragmatically say what needs to be said in a way that doesn’t encourage guessing or questioning.

Clarity really does matter.

And ‘bland’ can be underrated.

But fraying communications farther from the center is a reflection of a leader not assuming responsibility for holding a strong center.  A good leader knows that while they may have a dozen things they really want to say 11 of those things will most likely make the people on the edges edgy and miserable.

A good leader knows that an organization is not just about what the one wants to say <the leader themselves> but rather organizational effectiveness resides in ‘out of many, one.’

I imagine what I am saying is that if you see some people on-the-ground who are part of an organization and you start hearing verbal mistakes … 99% of the time it is a reflection of the fact the leader was vague, imprecise and didn’t hold the communication center <that would make them a bad leader>.

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

“Where there is little risk, there is little reward.”

―

Evel Knievel

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

So.

I don’t read Advertising Age often. I never really enjoyed reading ‘insider industry’ magazines and now that I am not involved with agencies that much it doesn’t mean much to me except an opportunity to catchup on the news of some people and places I know.

But today a link popped up in my email:

What’s the Most Risky Thing You’ve Done in Your Career?

Ad Age Asks Participants at Detroit Brand Summit

—-

I clicked on it.

I figured the advertising business, while often ground down to a nub by brand managers and clients who have an allergic reaction to risk, would offer some good ‘most risky actions I have taken‘ stories.

Here is a sampling:

biggest risk was undertaking Pepsi “refresh project,” a 2010 initiative by PepsiCo to award $20 million in grants to individuals, businesses and nonprofits that promote a new idea that has a positive impact on their community. “We took money off the Super Bowl, a property Pepsi had been on for almost a quarter century, and we put it into a different idea,”

Tylenol talking about product benefits and pain relief. His team, however, advocated toward making the message about feeling better with a nontraditional campaign including events.

single biggest gamble: “Leaving BBDO to go to The Abundancy, which was a little startup incubator that was trying to do things differently and reinvent how advertising worked,”

“It was a first-ever auto reveal with Snapchat,” Lenard said. “Together we answered a lot of questions internally about who is the audience of Snapchat: Aren’t they 12-year-olds who are never buying vehicles?”

——————–

Ok.

I worked in the advertising agency business for a long time … that is embarrassing.

If that is risk, let alone ‘biggest risk’, in today’s advertising world as outlined by some people who I assume are leaders in the industry … the industry is in a world of hurt.

As a business person I have always embraced the concept of risk … okay … calculated risk. No sane business person is flippant with risk.

All risk is assessed and calculated for ROR <return on risk> … as well as RODN <return on doing nothing>.

I could argue that between ROR and RODN you aren’t really taking any risks … you are simply doing what needs to be done to be successful.

That said.

I was sorely disappointed by how these people assess ‘biggest risk.’

Look.

Everyone takes personal risks in business.

Not everyone takes business risks. And business risk is very different than personal risk … confusing the two, or even conflating the two, in a business environment is fraught with peril.

Yes.

Business risks inherently include personal risk … but personal risks don’t have particular consequences to a larger business risk – they are more your risks than anyone else’s.

I say that as a professional calculated business risk taker. I can honestly say that any time I ever assessed a business decision or what could be construed as a business risk I never took into consideration any persona risk I may be assuming. To me it would simply clutter what I would assume is a decision cluttered already with ‘what ifs’, ‘maybes’ and ‘uh ohs.’

I always believe business risks revolved around what is best for the business … and you let the chips fall as they may with regard to you personally.

Now.

Getting back to that sad list of ‘biggest risks.’

People can confuse risk with change. Change is change. Any change includes some risk because … well … it is change.

But change, in and of itself, is not necessarily originality. And that is where risk truly resides … in something original.

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

“Safe marketing is the riskiest marketing you can do.”

—-

Bill Bernbach

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

Anything original is never safe simply because it has no real record of behavior & consequences. That means you are modeling and researching and doing a whole bunch of good smart shit to insure it isn’t just a guess … but … sigh … it is just a guess.

That is risk. Risk is a … well … thing.

Originality is a real thing … a challenging thing … and a risky thing.

And to be truly original … in some ways … you must ignore what exists and what has been done before.

You must abandon the safe and secure.

Just think about this little factoid about pretty much any great original idea that has ever happened:

• It’s effective

• It’s always preceded by a meeting in which you will hear ‘are you nuts?’

Well.

Maybe we all need to be a little more nuts.

Maybe we all need to be a little less afraid of the different.

Maybe instead we should focus on what I believe almost all business people really do know … the new and untried can generate the bigger gains then simply changing the status quo or ‘what is’.

I would note that originality has a close relationship to exceptional.

Ah.

The root of that word exceptional?

Exception <please note … that is a significantly different word than acceptable … or safe …>.

We are comfortable in our cocoon of what is acceptable and sameness but it is making ‘an exception’ … taking that slightly risky step … that truly pays off.

In business … if you have nothing to offer but used ideas, you are just a used car salesman.

And does anyone in business really want to be that?

<unless they are in the used car sales business of course>

And maybe that is why the article I read was one of the saddest business articles I have read in a very long time – there really wasn’t anything original or any monumental change. Some were personal risks and the business risks were more tweaks on existing machinery to fine tune the operation.

And maybe that is what the business world has come to <sadly> … a world in which tweaks constitute risks.

Sad. Very sad.

I know risk is difficult. But I also know it is much better than always doing the sure thing – always making the safe decision.

The problem is if you really want any progress or growth … meaningful progress and growth … risk cannot be avoided. You must seek ‘the exception.’

In the end.

I do think business needs to embrace a little more risk.

But to avoid being sad about what we do, maybe most importantly, I think business should stop calling tweaks risky. They are tweaks. They are attempts to make small big and the truly big too small.

And, lastly, maybe we need to start thinking more often “but it might just work.” I wrote about that phrase to make a point about how we, in business, are becoming far too hesitant to make changes.  There was nothing in the ‘biggest risk taken’ article that convinced me my point isn’t still valid. We embrace tweaks to avoid “but it might just work” actions.

“Biggest risk ever taken.”

Shit.

These should be monumental type questions with monumental type responses.

And if you don’t have a monumental response maybe, just maybe, you need to look around what what you are doing and seeing of maybe you aren’t playing it too safe.

And, most of all, if you don’t have a monumental response, you should not try and make something small monumental.

Bigger risk deserves better than that.