“If you’re nervous, it means you give a damn.”

=

thatkindofwoman tumblr

—

Ok. I almost called this ‘giving a damn’ , but, this is about the relationship between nervousness and giving a shit about something. Here is the basic equation <logic flow>:

==

–      Giving a damn means you are thinking about something <because you can’t give a damn about something you aren’t thinking about>.

—

–      Thinking is good <especially if it is on something you give a damn about>.

–

–      Being nervous CAN be good <but pretty much all of us get nervous when we give a damn about something>.

==

Bottom line on being nervous and nervousness.

All are aspects of giving a shit.

All of which are also aspects of worrying.

Yup. Worrying.

Worrying about being good enough or ‘having enough’ or just ‘doing as well as I can.’

Ok. Here is a Life truth <beyond the fact everyone gets nervous>. Despite what you may think about yourself … and despite the fact you worry, the truth is, more often than not, you do a lot of ‘right’ <right things, right decisions and right thoughts>.

Despite that Life truth we do a lot of navel-gazing <and worrying> when it comes to thinking and ‘having enough’ when it matters.

Oh. About that ‘what matters’ and when we get nervous about having enough thought.

To me it often feels like we’re having too many conversations about things that don’t matter and not enough about things that do. This translates into getting nervous, if not even investing energy, towards a lot of things that just do not matter.

We have gobs of incredibly smart, resourceful, creative thinking people in today’s world and, frankly, I wish we would spend more of our precious attention, energy, and ideation skills solving meaningful things that mattered.

In addition. I also wish more people accepted they had ‘enough’ to deal with all the shit that matters. This also means we just need to accept that being nervous is just part of the gig.

Anyway. Let me share two aspects of nervous and giving a shit.

First.

Nervousness is just a reflection of the fact you recognize that there is something to lose when you care.

Now. This isn’t ‘caring about losing’, but more about ‘losing if I care.’ Some people have this equation out of whack in that they simply believe losing any time is bad. It is out of whack because, simplistically, we care about some things more than others. The winning or losing isn’t, and shouldn’t be, tied to the outcome but rather the ‘level of caring.’

==

“The more you care, the more you have to lose.”

Harry Potter

==

In my mind your nervousness should be used more often as a platform for discussion or thinking or even level of caring. But, please, … please … don’t make nervousness based on some fear of doing the ‘wrong things.’

Just figure out what you care about, and, accept the fact that if you care that the outcome matters more, and, accept that if it matters more you will be nervous.

<this equation is quite effective in deductive thinking about yourself and things about yourself>

Second.

Nervousness and anger. Beyond being tied to caring or level of caring … nervousness is absolutely tied to anger.

===

“My anger at the world coils inside of me. It’s a directionless seething, there’s no name or face to aim at.”

The Sky So Heavy by Claire Zorn

==

Nervousness always has a direction.

That is why I get aggravated when someone says ‘I just don’t know why I’m nervous.’

Well. Being nervous always contains an aspect of some … well … anger. You get angry that a world demands so much of you and you get nervous that you cannot <or may not> meet what the world demands.

This doesn’t mean that you are not capable nor does it mean that in some form or fashion you do not enjoy rising to the occasion. What it means is that you get a little angry just being put in the position <that makes you nervous>. Just think of it this way … your anger coils inside you and comes out externally as nervousness.

But … you know what? Some anger is quite productive.

Some anger motivates you to action and stepping up rather than stepping back <or not stepping at all>. But this also means that some anger translates into being nervous.

Anyway.

I am fairly sure everyone gets nervous about things <in general>. But I am absolutely positive everyone gets nervous about the things that matter to them.

I imagine I wrote this because people just don’t like being nervous.

They don’t like the feeling.

And my fear is that maybe in avoiding being nervous … maybe they avoid things that matter.

Look.

Accept the burden of nervousness.

You have to.

If you don’t, then most of the things you do will … well … not matter. Suffice it to say that Life is too short to not do things that matter so, go ahead, be nervous.

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

“It is perhaps the misfortune of my life that I am interested in far too much but not decisively in any one thing; all my interests are not subordinated in one but stand on an equal footing.”

–

Søren Kierkegaard

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

“I wasn’t much of a petty thief. I wanted the whole world or nothing.”

–

Charles Bukowski

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

So. Last night I had a little time before I shut down my computer to scrounge around some of my favorite websites for some thoughts, quotes and images. I don’t really believe in serendipity but within 15 minutes on three different sites I gathered the three quotes that anchor this piece.

………… restless thinking one big adventure ……..

I sat back after copying them and I realized, well, it is perhaps the misfortune of my Life that I am interested in far too much.

My misfortune is that I am incessantly curious, a relentless contrarian to existing thought & thinking and a restless thinker in general. My misfortune is that I see restless thinking as one big adventure.

I sat back after copying them and I realized I am not satisfied being a petty thief … I want the whole world.

And as I sat back I also thought a little about how I got to this place.

Growing up I remember hearing a lot of “maybe you should be more realistic” type advice. I remember it chafing.

It made me think … well … I should think smaller.

That chafed.

I am sure the ‘safer’ aspect … aiming toward more achievable things and not stretching too far possibly felt okay … but I chafed on the whole thought of not getting what I thought could be achieved or what could be done.

Shit.

I still do.

Going small just seems … well … small to me.

And, yes, there is a price to pay for thinking this way.

Ok. I will point out two prices you pay.

The first price is restlessness.

Oh. And restlessness can make people feel uneasy. It makes them uneasy because you are not easily slotted. People want you to present them with a peg and they can put it in some hole and thinking about it and look at it.

People, like me, who have the misfortune of being interested in anything and everything and not satisfied with one thing are more of a box. And while boxes represent some symmetry and some tangible aspect for people to grasp, at the same time, … sigh … it is not a peg

The second price is wins … as in quantity of wins.

Even I, probably a more pragmatic aspirationalist, don’t aim toward some truly realistic things on occasion. That means not getting done what you want to get done, not getting where you want to get to and not getting, in general, the largeness you desired. In other words you didn’t get a win while someone who aimed lower or accepted something smaller did get a win.

Does that matter? I mean life doesn’t really give out trophies, people do.

Yeah. It does matter. Watching others win when you don’t does matter to some extent. And you would be lying if you didn’t admit that.

Aiming for it all, or something bigger <more broad> than something smaller <more focused>, and not getting it can make you start thinking smaller. And why do you do that? You want a frickin’ win.

And that, well, that can affect how you think and what you do.

It does so because many of us are willing to compromise some fairly important things to win on occasion.

Shit. Even more of us are willing to compromise a lot of fairly important things <which they hadn’t even tangibly decided were important to them> in order to win on occasion.

Oh. I bring up the second group because they are the ones who don’t get the ones who have the misfortune of wanting bigger things. It’s like a petty thief most likely scoffs at the master thief.

Uhm.

But those people may just call this reality <and, therefore, kind of suggesting those who have the misfortune of wanting to know everything about everything are not realistic>.

Whew. Yeah.

It is quite likely that my reality, and those whose reality is similar, fights reality itself – I mean society & culture creates lines of reality of which we get boxed in by with regard to expectations.

Umberto Eco is the one who suggested life has “lines of resistance.” This was his version of reality.

These ‘lines of resistance’ are established mostly so that we cannot say or do whatever we like with impunity. The problem with that is they also bring along some baggage … baggage like … uhm … what is viewed as pragmatic & realistic <smaller versions of shit that are achievable by many rather than few>.

Oh.

Yeah.

But, thankfully, the lines of resistance can shift.

But, thankfully, some can reach across the lines of resistance and gain access to some bigger shit which lies outside the lines of resistance.

All that said. Life, and these lines of resistance, encourage some people … mostly those who have the misfortune to be interested in far too much but not decisively in any one thing to shrink them … encourage them to think smaller and, inevitably, maybe be smaller than what they should be.

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

“Most of my life has been spent trying to shrink myself.

Trying to become smaller. Quieter. Less sensitive. Less opinionated. Less needy. Less me.  

Because I didn’t want to be a burden.

I didn’t want to be too much or push people away. I wanted people to like me. I wanted to be cared for and valued. I wanted to be wanted. So for years, I sacrificed myself for the sake of making other people happy. And for years, I suffered.

But I’m tired of suffering, and I’m done shrinking. It’s not my job to change who I am in order to become someone else’s idea of a worthwhile human being.  

I am worthwhile. Not because other people think I am, but because I exist, and therefore I matter. My thoughts matter. My feelings matter. My voice matters. And with or without anyone’s permission or approval, I will continue to be who I am and speak my truth.

Even if it makes people angry. Even if it makes them uncomfortable. Even if they choose to leave. I refuse to shrink. I choose to take up space. I choose to honour my feelings. I choose to give myself permission to get my needs met. I choose to make self-care a priority.

I choose me.”

Daniell Koepke

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

Let me be clear.

Smaller is safer. Smaller can actually be very satisfying. Smaller, in some ways, can actually permit you to live a fuller Life <although I would argue it’s not really a bigger Life>. And while small, in this case, could be construed as bad or lesser than … it is not. It is simply a viable choice for people with regard t their Life and how they want to live it.

Just as those who have the misfortune to want the whole world, well, that is their choice.

And I would argue that whatever your choice we are all aiming toward the same place … lets call it our “home.” That home within. The place within you that either sits on the favorite Barcalounger safe & sound in a Life lived well in smaller aspects or the one who wanders forever restlessly over hill & thru the dale seeking the next interest or learning or new thing.

Personally, I am the latter. I am a nomad thinker.  I want to know it all. And when I know something I want to know more. But that topic is for another day.

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

“All of life is a coming home.

Salesmen, secretaries, coal miners, beekeepers, sword swallowers, all of us.  All the restless hearts of the world, all trying to find a way home.” 

Patch Adams 

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

Today I would suggest whether you have the misfortune of wanting to know it all or whether you believe in something bigger than you or simply believe there is something bigger within you to be found by not wanting it all … your compass & your map resides within … not some external place or location which may appear to fulfill some aspect of ‘home.’

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

so far out to sea <‘restless’>

so far out to sea

     standing on impassive intensity

                     of restless possibilities

oh,

     push back the curtain

of slumbering elements

      of disordered solitude.

stir up a peace of

       desolate despair

                       drowning out a cacophony

       of restless disinterested

                           distant thoughts.

restless sun

               reflects upon the path chosen,

                      stand frozen,

      restless mind

                    wander the waves roaming

so far out to sea

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

====

“Perhaps we should love ourselves so fiercely that, when others see us, they know exactly how it should be done.”

—

Rudy Francisco

=====

Ok.

Society norms.

Group norms.

Individual norms.

They are (kind of) the three behavioral levels of why we do the shit that we do.

Each is powerful in its own right. And while creating alignment within all three can sometimes be a real bitch of a challenge, I would actually suggest we should view individual behavior the following way:

Society norms.

Individual norms.

Group norms.

I suggest this because I believe individual norms, our personal behavior, is constantly being squeezed by society overall as well as the groups in our circle of influence.

I note this because, if you are not careful, you get squeezed into, well, maybe not nothingness, but certainly “lessness.”

I note this to suggest you almost always have to fight back.

Okay. How about this instead?

Let’s say you gotta sharpen your elbows and create some space for you  in between what society is suggesting <which often feels a lot like it is actually demanding> and what your current circle is outlining as the right way to think and behave.

I once called this ‘pushing back … not stepping up.’

But here is the hard part. And it is kind of surprisingly hard.

It is fairly easy to sharpen your elbows and fight back, but without some thought you are simply fighting. You end up fighting with no purpose other than it feels good to fight back in some way. And while fighting back in and of itself is somewhat satisfying because you feel like you should it is less than satisfying because it has no real focus or purpose. I will not suggest it is completely ‘wasted energy’ but it is certainly less than efficient use of your energy.

So what about the ‘thought’ part then? This is where ‘knowing what you want and knowing who you are’ rears its ugly head.

Being “anti” something is pretty easy. I could actually suggest in some ways it is lazy. But what I do know for sure is that being “for something” is hard. Like … well … really hard. You not only have to convince yourself that what you are standing for is something … but also mentally accept it is not going to perfectly align with your group norms as well as the societal norms. Yeah. That means on occasion, maybe even often, you may not be in alignment with all the shit going on around you.

I would argue the former, convincing yourself, is the most difficult part.

Why?

Who I am today is not who I will be tomorrow … combined with … you cannot really hide from what will be … which makes fighting back partially a constant battle of movement and adaptation.

Here is what I know.

Society is not always right.

Your group is not always right.

So why should you always have to be right?

Fighting back isn’t about being “right.” It is simply about fighting for what is right … you. I will not call it individual rights but rather the right to be an individual. Maybe it is also partially a fight for the part of you that you love. I imagine this suggests you gotta find a part of yourself to love … but that I most likely a different post and thought for a different time.

But I love the quote I opened with. It is different than the typical “you have to love yourself before you can …” idea.

It is more about the benefit to you.

It is living Life by example. And maybe that is the bigger thought.

Fighting back against society … against some of your circle of acquaintances norms … is not about simply fighting for fighting sake but rather fighting to show that you, who you are and what you do, shines a fierce light on something you love <who you are and the things you do>.

Yikes. That’s kind of a scary thought. Maybe it is a “hope to attain one day“ type thought.

And you know what? That’s okay.

Hard.

But okay.

Hard because society & group norms suggest the only way you can fight back is to “know now” and not “hope to be.”

Fuck ‘em.

We are a work in progress. All of us and all ‘norms.’

No matter what society says and your group norms state <sometimes unequivocally> we are a constant work in progress. The fight is never a battle for ‘lessness’ … no one can even kiddingly suggest that … all norms at all levels desire ‘moreness.’

They may just not know how to do it or what it looks like.

If you love your ‘work in progress self’ fiercely maybe, just maybe, you will show how it’s done.

Now.

There is a thought for the day.

 (originally published January 21, 2017 after Trump inauguration & updated given consistent Trump ‘join or else’ messaging)

———————

“Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish.”

―

Anne Bradstreet

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

……… tweet from Republican National Party on June 14, 2018 ………….

Join or Else. If there is one common theme Trump and his merry band of corrupt amoral yahoos have espoused, this is it. Yeah. They may cloak it in some vapid superficial niceties, but, in the end,  it “Join or Else.

That said. (stepping back to my words of January 2017)

———————————-

Well.

Yesterday was an interestingly disturbing day to begin “the new era of The United States of America.”

I listened to the Trump inauguration speech with growing horror. It had all the trappings of authoritarianism wrapped snugly in a blanket of patriotism & promises of wealth, security, strength and ‘greatness.’

I listened to it not just as a citizen but as a business guy.

Yeah. Populism can be seen in business just as it can be seen in politics. In business it can be called ‘the cult mentality’ and more often than not its leader is a ‘less-than-benevolent’ dictator. Let’s call it a ‘join, or else’ culture. You can drive membership in this culture a couple of ways … both grounded in fear.

Fear of losing <part 1>. Outsiders are trying to steal what is ours … people who don’t believe in what we believe in are trying to steal what is ours … join us because we are the people who count and matter.

I do not want to lose what is rightfully mine.

Fear of losing <part 2>. I am on the outside looking in and … well … holy shit … if I don’t join I am gonna lose everything <or be branded as a non joiner>.

I will join because if I don’t I am up shit creek without a paddle and lose what I have.

Businesses try this shit all the time. It is their way of building a strong culture, claiming it is inclusive, albeit inclusive is grounded by ‘a tight set of club rules.’ They will argue it is not a tight set but rather a basic construct which binds people in a good way … you call it tomato and I call it rotten. This Trump version of populism is, well, it goes beyond corporate cult culture. This version is close to being batshit crazy dangerous thought leadership.

Let’s look at the brochure and talk a minute with the Trump Club recruiter.

The cover of the brochure suggests an unstoppable America, driven solely by self-interest, in other words, our Club wins at all costs at the expense of anyone who stands in our way! <“if you want to win, join us” it says …>.

It further reads with threatening all those who might stand in the way of this Club and it’s winning/great objective. It contains an adamant stance of ‘no real choice’, i.e., a demanded unity not an asked for unity.

Yeah.

Some of the club benefits look awful good in the brochure … more & better jobs, stronger economy, stronger security, less business regulations and country pride. And then I turn over the brochure just to check out the legalese, the cost of the benefits as it were, to explore how the promises of the Club will be delivered.

The headline on the back of the brochure really wanted me to join this club … the message of “join today because today is the day the people become the rulers of this country.” I vaguely remember that being the call of the French Revolution but it sounds cool <although I could swear we, the people, have been voting in people as representatives for awhile>.

But. Whew. It sounds good. I like it.

It feels empowering and inspirational with the added comfort that I will no longer be one of “the forgotten people which will be forgotten no longer.” I know for sure that would like to not be forgotten and being part of a club would be nice and … well … gosh … uhm … now that I think about it … I didn’t know I had been forgotten.

• The recruiter leans forward and says “of course you were, the intellectual globalist elite in Washington and around the world have been keeping you down … they don’t care about you … they have forgotten that it was you that made them part of the wealthy elite.”

Ok. But didn’t your Club President build his wealth off the backs of ‘forgotten people’ and … well … it seems like they aren’t any better off but he is a shitload better off, doesn’t it?

• Oh … no, no, no … he appreciates everything they have done for him. Hey. And don’t you want to be wealthy too?

I look down at the brochure and I see the bolded ‘make wealthy’ words and have to ask the club recruiter, decked out in an ‘America first’ hat and neatly pressed ‘make America great’ uniform like shirt, I ask the recruiter … “this becoming wealthy thing … its sounds an awful lot like Amway.”

• Oh, no, it is nothing like that at all. Our Club will make everything great for everyone and you will have great opportunities to get the wealth you have always deserved, but haven’t got, because the lazy, less than hard working elite will not get it anymore … we will make sure you get your fair share. Hey. Look at this picture of the Club President in his office … check out the gold curtains … the gold rug and the gold fixtures … that is wealth. That is what you can be part of!

Oh.

• And, look, if you join today you get a hat <which you should wear as often as possible so that we can tell who is in the club and who isn’t>.

And, even better, we should have some additional pieces of apparel you can wear soon. In fact … we will have special uniforms & badges for the original club members to showcase their elite status in the club … everyone will want to wear them.

Ok. One last question … your club is “God’s chosen.” I didn’t know God chose … I thought he was all about equal among all men. Does this mean that other clubs don’t believe in God or does God just favor us? And does this mean I have to believe in your version of God and … well … what exactly is your version of God?

• “Oh.

Well.

We are a Christian based club … but of course we accept anyone. But don’t forget … Christianity, above all, outlines all the values which lead to a better version of yourself … and, well, that is what we want all Club members to be able to achieve. Everyone should have values, don’t you think?”

Whew. This is fucking crazy shit going on

To be clear. A shitload of the club leaders and followers are going to try and draw some false comparisons and equivalents to past American heroes.

To be clear. This is significantly different than Thomas Jefferson’s plea for unity in his inaugural address in 1800 — “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

The Trump club has one principle and one opinion.

There is no room for anything else. More important than color of skin, religion, gender … this may actually be my root concern with ‘the club’.

The main principle?

Believe what I believe … or you are not a true believer.

That kind of seems to be the club. Kind of an “us versus them” attitude … uhm … although us <being a US citizen> is actually also them <being US citizens>.

• “Oh no … no … why wouldn’t you believe in the United States of America if you lived in there? … everyone believes that. And if they don’t? … well … they should.”

Anyway. Oh. One last question. I didn’t hear it anywhere from the Club President or see it in the brochure … do you guys have a constitution?

• Oh, we don’t need one. We just demand a ‘total allegiance to the Club’ … oh … which believes the same things as the country wants … so you should be all for it.”

(ME) Gosh. I am not sure I can join this club … I already have a constitution I live by … and my allegiance is, first & foremost, to that and not some Club and how they think. <period … end of statement>

Look. The one thing Trump was 100% right on is that January 20, 2017 was the dawn of a new era.

“Now comes the hour of action.”

That was the call for the Trump Club. “Join or else” is what should be heard.

Just to be clear.

I am a believer in God <however you want to define it>.

I am a patriot <however you want to define it>.

I am a proud American <however you want to define it>.

But I am not joining the club called “Trump America.”

In fact … I say ‘fuck you and your fucking club.’

As for what I will do? …………….

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

“I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion.  Let us see who is the strongest.”

Henry David Thoreau

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

There was a fascinating article in a late 2009 Science Magazine (“innovation is more critical than ever”). To be clear. I don’t make it a habit to read Science magazine so don’t worry I have completely lost it.

But. I came across this article about maintaining innovations through collaboration and partnerships in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries (and having seen the P&G Innovations group in action I am always interested in innovations process and thinking). I thought it was a nice article talking about collaboration in a highly intelligent employee based organization (I will get back to that).

Next.

There was a small article in the Economist 8/7 issue on innovation prizes.

Now. I am not a cash reward believer (tends to not create ongoing ideation as well as discourages emotional based behavior patterns), but in this case the Economist showcased a couple of thoughts that I believe are perfect with regard to the proper use of collaboration (and dollar reward mechanism): the concept is outsourcing collaborative ideation opening up competition to non-industry knowledgeable individuals (I will get back to that).

Next (and lastly so I can get to the point of this post).

A book called “The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.”

Now. I am not recommending this book. It is not for the faint of heart and it makes a Michener book read like People magazine. But. It does a nice job of addressing how innovations (lets call them biological, cultural & economic forces) can be aligned to enhance overall human progress.

Ok. The bottom line is that innovations are the lifeblood of not only corporate success (or let’s say business/industry success), but also human success, e.g., not ‘comfort’ innovations, but dwarf grain, penicillin, combustible engine type innovations. Stuff that enhances true progress.

That is what innovation is all about.

Okay. Let’s talk about innovation and collaboration (with the intent of discovery). Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … why did I add that last part?

Well. Collaboration when used improperly impedes discovery, it doesn’t enable discovery. I have already written about this but I would suggest most companies today misuse collaboration to the extent that it wastes employee energy and resources and actually negatively affects morale (basically they are killing their organizations thru an idea with the best intentions).

Anyway. Genentech. Suffice it to say smart (if not frickin’ brilliant) employee base almost top to bottom. And their top to bottom is pretty shallow in that they have a flat organization (makes sense … why do you need a huge hierarchy with brilliant people running around?).

Ok. And before any businesses owner starts looking at this and thinks “that’s it. Flatten the organization!” they need to understand Genentech is not, say, a Cisco or even a P&G. Those organizations thrive on a quasi dysfunctional functional multi levels (multiple levels of expertise and brain power working together). Genentech does not and would not thrive in a hierarchical structure (they are basically a knowledge worker organization). Plus. The majority are entrepreneurial ideators themselves as thinkers.

So. What does a brilliant employee base organization do to collaborate and come up with innovations? Well. They don’t put a group of these Einstein like people in a small padded brain storming room and have them play ideation games. They go outside the organization and collaborate with partners or maybe even access collaboration opportunities through mergers or acquisitions. In my words, they seek to not put two magnets side by side. but rather take a magnet and start throwing some different outside objects at it to see what sticks.

To make another point.

While the word “collaboration” is being used, at its core, ideas is an “individual” thing (meaning individuals tend to come up with innovative ideas all by their lonesome) and biotech companies empower individuals to ideate (simply create as much stimulus as possible through collaborative efforts so that the individual can ideate).

Oh. And while I am not describing a creative (or advertising agency) the realities in these environments is exactly the same. Empower individuals to ideate. In my experience multiple minds soften the sharp edges of an innovation.

Okay. Moving on.

The innovation “prize” idea.

Let me start with the end on this idea as described by The Economist. The 7 winners of this $1mlllion prize (to be awarded to someone who designed an algorithm system to enhance online recommendations based on prior purchases) never met physically until they picked up the prize. They had collaborated online.

Let me repeat. They never met until they showed up to receive the prize.

So. Once again the collaboration was outside the “using” (or manufacturing/implementing) organization as well as it was a specific “here is the challenge” situation. A one-off if I may use that term.

Now. I want to be careful here (as the Economist also cautioned). Innovations scenarios to me that work here are specific product enhancement innovations. Policy or “soft” innovations (if I may use that term) would seem to be a less attractive intent for this prize/reward system. This collaboration/prize concept is perfect for “solving oil spills” or “a car that gets 100mpg” or a “reusable space ship” or things that may seem slightly impossible and attract innovative thinkers outside the industry “box” who may approach the widget issue from a completely different point of view.

Lastly. I threw in the book because it makes the point that innovations propel progress.

Without innovations we (the people) kind of just chug along. Progressing but ambling down the progress road. Innovations (like some I have mentioned above) propel us forward. Think leaps instead of steps. It would behoove us to have someone smarter than I and someone in a power position to be thinking about solving some of our progress issues (stumbling blocks) in this way.

Okay. I know ongoing innovation is difficult. Mainly because great organizations exist on two levels. Continuity and discontinuity (and I believe people do also). But only one is constant. Continuity. You need ongoing efficient coordinated alignment to bring all resources to bear in competitive environments and, yet, you need steady (but interspersed) infusion of innovation (or discontinuity) to be successful.

One keeps you on the road. One keeps you from being stagnant.

Simply think OFF = ON. What do I mean?

When something previously deemed ‘emerging’ starts to invade the mainstream, or even better, is actually mimicked by it, new innovation opportunities abound. My prime current example? How the online revolution has the offline world more often than not chasing or trying to adapt in everything from commerce to entertainment to politics.

So. The idea of outsourcing collaboration is brilliant. Especially for one off specific challenges. And prizes insure innovative thinking toward solutions. And forward thinking innovative solutions propel progress.

One last point on innovations and collaboration (and why this outsourcing idea is a big idea).

Typically the most effective ideation focuses on the needs of “Lead End User” to drive the innovation system at all phases of ideation. This principle is based on more than just the tired “the consumer is king” mantra.  It is a ruthless pursuit of Lead End Users, the consumers or customers who have legitimate change-agent DNA working in every aspect of their lives (this group reflects those with a natural product/market fit so seamless they become the foundation of possible scale/growth). These people can truly help you morph and accelerate new ideas by maximizing lead end user input through early exposure to end benefit (or prototype) visual stimulus.

The problem? (two of them)

1. internal organization collaboration will kill Lead End User ideas. Kill them so dead they will never come back.The ideas seem so impossible that within a group of collaborators there will be enough “unimaginative” people to clearly define it as a waste of time (as impossible). Collaboration kills here.

2. The process discussed above is often challenging and even scary to a company, because lead end users rarely reflect the current masses’ desires.

After all, lead end users are early adopters and reflect trendspotter characteristics. And, as with any trendspotter, the ideas uncovered can be unattractive at first glance because the market doesn’t yet exist (yet represents the first step towards uncovering the big win innovation).

So. In the end real progress is maintained by innovative innovations (not all innovations are truly “spur on progress” innovative ideas.).

I do like the privatization of ideation (on some things). I caveat because (and it may sound like I am backpedaling) because I believe companies should be thoughtful and selective on any collaboration efforts. And then even more selective of what is solved in house versus the outhouse (ok, externally). If managed correctly there are many ideas that can be generated internally within an organization. (Although not with a prize reward mechanism).

But. Everyone should remember that great innovation progress is driven by (1) individuals with ideas and (2) reliance of outside resources to envision the impossible as possible.

Look. Companies are not built for anything I have described in the immediate above as well as the process I described (or at least if they are they are the exception to the rule).

Why? Not only is it scary but the approach to capital budgeting and resource allocation at traditional companies is completely counter to nurturing and facilitating new ideas.  Multiple levels of in-grown management seek to protect the existing business model and ‘stay the course.’ In addition, new ideas are often forced to be synergistic to the current business. Radical new ideas face a bureaucratic march of death up multiple organizational levels where a “no” at any point can kill the idea.  The key financial goal of this death march is to minimize the number of projects falling below a minimally acceptable rate of return. In contrast, a typical VC incubator system is focused on insuring the big winner. Resources are attracted to (not allocated against) the best ideas without any regard to protecting the status quo or forcing synergy.

Now that sounds a lot like what I have been writing about.

Outside collaboration.

Rewards to winning best ideas.

Set the specific challenges to have the “collaborative contests” over.

Start thinking this way and, by golly by gee, we are gonna have some progress my friends.

——

“We almost always forgive those we understand.” 

=

Mikhail Lermontov, A Hero of Our Time

——-

This is about a very specific type of business partnership – the partnership between two companies embodied most typically where one provides a service to another company. Let me get my unpopular view out of the way: I believe the concept of partnership between a service provider and a service buyer is a fallacy. In other words, its a bullshit fantasy belief.

That said. While this is about the fallacy of partnership in this type of business scenario I was tempted to call this ‘one good moment.’

What do I mean? I will share a West Wing moment:

<Sam>:

I had one good moment talking about the global ripple effect of budget deficit, but that was it. The rest of the day was just keeping up. And this was a pretty light day.

<Mallory>

One good moment is good.

<Sam>

Oh, I’m not complaining. I’m saying one good moment is great. It’s a golf shot. I’ve got to get back in there. That’s where it’s happening.

<pause>

You came by just to tell me you liked the speech?

 <Mallory>

“This is a time for American heroes and we reach for the stars.”

Ok. The reason I began with that is, whether we like it or not, our business lives and business partnerships are most typically defined by moments. And accepting it is about moments. And an “I’ve got to get back in there because that is where it is happening” attitude.

In addition, it is the acceptance that one good moment is … well … good. And I mean really good.

The rest are, well, moments.

And that is where I begin with discussing partnership in business.

While partnership is truly a multifaceted concept it is mostly about managing moments. Typically lots and lots of moments.

I say this because partnership in business is also multidimensional.

Why? Because its business and not just personal. That means while there is certainly an emotional “I like you” aspect there is also a strong undercurrent of a functionality ‘getting good shit done’ aspect.

In fact. This whole partnership concept is actually centered on a paradox. Maintaining individuality and yet woven into the fabric of the host company <in the partnership>.

You are always seeking to maintain individuality and provide true unbiased perspective yet desire to feel the pulse of their business in a way that your hearts race when their hearts race.

I almost always suggest you seek what Booker Washington said “… can be as separate as the fingers yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.”

But, to be frank, even that is not really partnership; it is simply being in sync. Aligned on goals and maybe aligned on culture and values and such.

I imagine anyone in business has a stated desire in finding partnerships where all parties seek progress – improving results, progress, maybe simply continuous improvement in general.

Why? Because we are always seeking to improve ourselves. Therefore it is nice to find partners seeking the same of themselves. But here is the uncomfortable business truth. It ain’t ever really a partnership. It can contain some degrees of partnership and sometimes it may appear very close to partnership, but if one company is providing a service to another company, well, it ain’t a partnership. Fooling yourself into actually believing it is … is … well … foolish.

The intent is honorable and useful, but, practically speaking, it is never completely a partnership.

Now. There are a shitload of things a service provider can do from their side to make it appear as close to a partnership a possible.

Subtle leading is probably the main tactic.

—-

“Your job is to anticipate … to give them what they want and/or what they need just before they have to “ask” for it – to be surprising yet self-evident at the same time.

If you are too far behind, or too far ahead of them, you create problems, but if you are right with them, leading them ever so slightly, the flow of events feels natural and exciting at the same time.” 

Walter Murch

—

What Walter describes is so subtle in terms of leadership it often lives under the guise of “in sinc.” I say this so people take a moment and think about it. Why? Because people most often associate partnership with side-by-side in sync … and it is not. Great ‘in sync’ business partnerships are actually defined by the service provider subtly being slightly ahead of the host company.

What I just shared is a big deal.

And if you do not recognize it you will have a miserable ongoing record with regard to successful positive business partnership type relationships.

Ok. Next. The other is subtle proactivity.

—

“We must learn to be still in the midst of activity and to be vibrantly alive in repose.”

Indira Gandhi

—

In this situation the service provider is the catalyst for progress … or activity. the subtlety resides in the fact that shit is happening but it is not always obvious you are the instigator of the activity. Uhm. But everything I am suggesting simply comes down to subtly managing moments.

And subtlety is always at the core of every partnership.

For if you are always bombastically pointing out the fruits of your ‘partnership’ all you are really doing is enthusiastically pointing out you are not in a partnership just trying to make it look like one.

The best things bubble up on their own.

Ah. But the ‘one good moment.’

Sometimes partnership is defined by ‘a good moment.’ Those magical moments where everything is truly aligned and, if but for a moment, it is as close to truly being a partnership as it could ever be. All the rest of the time you are actually keeping your head in the game and just ‘keeping up’ as the opening West Wing scenario suggested.

Basically keeping your head above water.

By the way, that s where being ‘likeable’ or respected is helpful. You get forgiven more often if it is understood you are keeping your head above water just like they are most likely doing.

But. A good moment. They are special moments. You love them. You want more of them.

They motivate and inspire and get the juices flowing.

These moments become the defining moments. They are memorable and are often recounted with relish.

But. They are not reflective of the entire day to day relationship … they show glimpses of what could be … but not of what actually is. And that is where so many of those seeking ‘partnership status’ go awry. They take the good moment and hold it up and say “hey … we have a partnership.”

Silly. And wrong.

It simply shows a good moment.

Albeit … a really good moment.

You should embrace the good moment but don’t fool yourself into believing it is a reflection of the whole relationship.

Regardless. I wrote this because I think we flippantly suggest ‘partnership’ in business as a key objective and it’s unattainable in many cases.

Look. Accept the fact that sometimes you are aligned, in sinc, and doing good shit together <and maybe having some fun>. But. I think we would better off focusing on mutual respect because we are more likely to forgive those we respect.

And based on the fact most business relationships are not ‘good moments’, but rather a shitload of mostly unforgettable <but important> moments, you will need to be forgiven for something.

That I can guarantee.

Respectful relationships seem to me to be much more valuable than ‘partnerships’ as an objective simply because it suggests the right type of attitudes & behaviors to aim for when working together. Maybe I believe that because I believe partnership in business is a fallacy.

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

“The world is full of magic things, patiently waiting for our senses to grow sharper.”

—-

W.B. Yeats

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

This is about business, milestones and magic (which could be ‘company/brand value’.

Day in and day out we get shit done and are told to do more shit. That would imply that many days are just full of shit. While that sounds harsh I imagine many people think only a slightly less harsh version of this about day to day life. But, even slightly less harsh, it has a tendency to dull our senses and miss out on the magic. Business, in particular, has an odd way of addressing this lack of magic.

What do they do? They create lines in the sand.

Uhm. They may be arbitrary lines in the sand but they are lines nonetheless.

In the business world they are milestones and, oddly enough, calendar and fiscal years. Milestones are easy enough to explain, but the yearly line in the sand stuff is slightly harder to explain.

Why? 99.9% of your employees know that business doesn’t stop at the end of a fiscal year. In fact. We spend gobs of energy talking about ‘setting the stage for the following year’ before we ever reach our arbitrary line in the sand <end of the year>.

While I fully understand that some construct and some order is useful it seems like we would be better served to encourage everyone to think of a business more like a long Life and not by birthdays.

Yeah. This creates some management challenges and some organizational challenges and it certainly doesn’t mesh very well with the artificial measurements demanded by the financial world <quarterly and annual reports>, but if you could figure it out it would permit the business to match the natural ebb & flow of a category, industry and challenges & opportunities – regardless of when they came and went.

But even more importantly if you could figure it out I tend to believe it would make day to day a little less like ‘days of ongoing shit to do’ and more about energy invested, or energy conserved, to meet the needs and challenges of the business.

I tend to believe there would be less artificial and arbitrary shit and more ‘meet the needs of what is going on.’ I say that because, while not all lines are really lines, most employees start thinking if they can just hold on and survive whatever line they are being asked to cross that lines in the sand eventually disappear <and someone else will most likely draw another stupid fucking line in the sand>.

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

It’s just a simple line

I can still hear it all of the time

If I can just hold on tonight

I’ll know that nothing

Nothing survives

Azure Ray <Displaced>

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

I say all of that because I could, and would, argue that creating arbitrary lines in the sand does not make our senses grow sharper in the way that needs to happen to see the world’s magical things.

Yeah. Lines in the sand certainly tend to sharpen focus.  No argument here. But that same focus prohibits … well … magic. By that I mean is that your senses have to naturally sharpen in order to access the world of magic. You cannot force the sense with some arbitrary lines in the sand but rather it takes patience.

Now.

The pragmatic & practical ones out there, particularly the business ones, are gonna say “who gives a fuck about the magic things in the world … I have a business to run.”

Fair enough.

But I would say to them that successful businesses more often than not are <a> more than just process, doing & treating people like gears in a machine and <b> of some value derived beyond simply ‘getting shit done well.’

Let me try it this way. Wall Street assesses value on companies all the time. and while there is certainly tangible value most of the time we sit back and scan some intangible value they have bolted on to some company and, well, we assume it is real in some way because, WTF, Wall Street has put some value on it.

That’s the magic part.

Yeah. Some pseudo intellectual will puff out their chest and say “that is the brand value” … yeah … well … just stuff it, you asshat. It’s the magic the company has figured out how to bring out in the company idea and employees. It is the intangible, the greater good created as senses sharpened, which great organizations seem to figure out how to bring out. There is no book to tell you how to do it and there is no management guru who can come in and give you the ‘how to guide’ which can teach you the patience wherein the senses grow sharper to access the magic in the world.

Sorry to tell you that.

This isn’t like boiling an egg or even cracking an egg for that part this is the intangible part of business where some get it and some doing, but you cannot teach it.

That said. This may be one of the few times in business where the attempt matters. Some of the things I offered today are out of the comfort zone for a shitload of business people <the whole focusing on long Life rather than arbitrary milestones management>.  But. I would argue whether you ‘get’ being patient & encouraging the senses to grow sharper to access the world’s magic, or not, if you even attempt to encourage some intangible aspects in your business you are better off than not even trying.

Sincere attempts are appreciated and there is value in that alone. And if you are actually good at it and you just haven’t had the opportunity to do it <because the general business world is not really conducive to this type of thinking> … well … magic is magical.

I can honestly say that once you have overcome your natural tendencies to not be patient and once you have actually encountered the world’s magic released in your business you will never go back.

Shit.

You can’t.

Why not?

Once senses are sharpened they cannot be dulled and, in a world which has a nasty tendency to dull our senses, that may be the best argument for embracing the idea that magic does exist in the world and that is is worth the effort to try and find it.

In the end. Maybe we need less lines in the sand and more magic.

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

“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

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

Whew.

Simplicity.

Discussing what is simple, and what is simplicity, maybe one of the most complex and complicated topics you will ever discuss.

It is, well, never simple.

I sometimes think we get confused when we discuss simplicity. For simplicity is not actually achieved in the stimulus … or 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. Uhm. “May”. Simple stimuli are just as likely to confuse. Provide ambiguity. Generate a feeling of ‘less than.’ In other words, they simply communicate nothing. 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.

Chopin got it right. He wrote music which could often be complex and intertwined with nuance … but simplicity was achieved in the final achievement. And that is about writing, or creating, from the edge.

Let me explain.

Writing things from the edges has nothing to do with danger or risk taking or even ‘living on the edge’ type perceptions everyone seems to have. The edge is simply less cluttered. It is what simplicity is about.

People seem to get very very confused when they talk about simplicity and complexity, but if you want to make sense of a lot of shit — just move your ass closer to an edge.

It is not scary.

It is simply clearer there.

Well. I guess clarity can be scary … but you get my point.

All I know is that when I write … or think … I do my best when I place my chair and laptop on the edge and think.

Ok. Let me talk some business.

Simplicity as edging closer to the edges.

In business … no matter how we choose to communicate a brand <public relations, broadcast, print, web, whatever> the only place where the brand truly exists is in the heads of people.

Products & services are real. Brands are simply figments of our imagination.

I say that because when you start discussing this whole wacky branding thing ‘edge’ rarely enters the conversation. Sure. Simplicity does, but not edge. This means a boatload of companies <and a shitload of start-up businesses> think they can just use a visually driven smart ass attention-grabbing approach to their advertising and they will conquer the world. They think this kind of simplicity will grab some prime real estate in our already overcrowded brains.

To be clear. This is a crappy idea, but one that even traditional companies find tempting. Smart-ass ads often get talked about and noticed, but, just as often, they fail to make a brain connection. In other words … they get attention but they don’t get results.

Look. Our minds are like real estate. Space is limited and we can’t let every brand have a place to stay.

However, you can improve your chances of gaining brain space and making a connection—a brain and brand connection that will truly inspire recall and the desired outcomes.

How? Well.

Someone had an idea called ‘brand humanity.’

Brand humanity, in its simplest terms, is a brand’s emotional essence. It must be inherent in the product or service offered. It must be relevant to people’s dreams, hopes, desires, aspirations. It must relate in human terms to human beings. Advertising must capture and communicate this emotional essence. If it doesn’t, somebody must go back to the drawing board. Because a brand that doesn’t appeal on basic human levels really has no hope of success in today’s marketplace.

Whether you like the ‘brand humanity’ nomenclature or not it is a good thought but not a simple thing to do.

And, no, I am not suggesting creating a complex complicated stimulus is needed to achieve this objective, but I am simply suggesting that a soundbite or one visual may not achieve what you want. Want?:

What makes this brand important to someone?

What need does it meet <or problem it solves>?

What desire <Maslow stuff> does it fulfill?

Answer the questions, and you’ll find the connection points of the brand. But don’t expect the journey to be easy. Finding the points takes a disciplined, strategic development process that moves from the complex to the simple, from the rational to the emotional. It is finding out what is important to a person and  creating that connection. I imagine it is as simple as finding what truth will make it matter to a person. But in writing that … we all know that truth is never really simple nor easy.

What I do ask people to think about when discussing simplicity is to remember that everyone loves a good story. And the best business <brand> stories are all about reaching inside people at a deeper and more enduring emotional level to link to the functional offering you provide. Some people call his ‘personalization’ but it is really just attaching the functional problem being solved with personal  ‘issues’ … Maslow stuff …  self esteem <conformity versus individuality>, self doubt and economic well being. I would also note the best stories are simple incorporating elements of hero, conflict, and goal <note: whatever you say has to be simple enough that it can be told by any consumer or front line sales people>.

This means the company & brand is no longer just about differentiated services, consistent delivery, optimized touch-points, and re engineered activities. Brands now need this ‘humanity’ <not to be confused with social responsibility> based in experiences, distinct identifiable moments and character.

I think we could take some lessons from technology.

Technology has ALWAYS <not just in today’s world> been an interesting thought leader with regard to simplicity. Their core expertise has always been in the business of masking the complex with simplicity.

Things like flipping a switch to turn on a light bulb, picking up the phone and hearing a dial tone, or pressing a button and turning on a television set are only easy on the surface.

Someone had to spend years developing the underlying technologies that enable much of our modern lives, and then they had to make sure that the tools were accessible to people and that while we didn’t understand why it worked as it did, we trusted it to work.

This principle carries to the mobile age with enabling touch-screens where sliding a finger to unlock a phone is simple … the technology that makes it possible is not.

All that said.

Simplicity and stories: hero, conflict, goal.

– Pick the conflict that matters

– Differentiate resolution of conflict meaningfully

– Imbue the character of the hero in every action taken to resolve the conflict

Good stories are fairly simple. The story needs to remain simple in its focus, i.e., the simpler it is the better. The simplicity has to be relevant … in being desirable to consumers, distinctive <not necessarily unique> from competition, deliverable by the organization and durable over time.

If you stay true to simplicity <not simple>, you make it simpler for people to connect with it. And if you make it easy, they’ll gladly give you some prime brain real estate which every marketer is so desperate to get hold of.

Therein lies the issue.

Easy and simple is in the eyes of the beholder.

In the end.

Despite the fact you can have experts lining up to tell you all about what simplicity is … and how to use simplicity to create a brand and make an impression … we’re not sure exactly how or where the human brain makes the connections that make a brand possible.

All I know for sure is that there is no formula for simplicity.

Chopin nailed the issue.

His music was complex and sometimes complicated.

And, yet, people sit and listen for minutes on end … and say afterwards:  “that was simply beautiful.”

I imagine I am simply saying simplicity is not defined in how you say or communicate something, but rather how it is accepted.

 ====

“This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper. “

—

T.S Eliot

====

“This is the way simplicity ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

—

Bruce McTague

===

Simplicity may be one of the most complex concepts in the world and, yet. we relentlessly discuss it in simplistic ways. “It seems simple …” may be one of the most misused and misguided statements and thoughts in today’s world.

Simplicity is anything but simple.

I tend to believe we make simplicity, well, simple because when viewed in hindsight we pick & choose what seemed like something that changed in a blink of an eye because of some simplicity.

We look backwards and point at what appears to be simplicity and say “yes, that’s it.”

But.

Simplicity, more often than not, consists of two opposing things – 1st, security/reliability, which anchors the sense of safety thereby justifying the 2nd common sense aspect of simplicity, & passion/risk/newness, which anchors the sense of movement thereby justifying the smartness aspect of simplicity — sense of stability AND movement.

The two are opposed. Yet, in a “simple world”, if you have one, you can’t have the other.

In addition. Simplicity is at its best when the decision, or act, is a reflection of staying true to oneself <or the organization/business> and when the decision makers are in their element <not being asked to collaborate or be involved if & when it is not their strength>.

Uh oh. This means simplicity, which should be reflective of the situation at hand, is rather a reflection of two very personal things:

• Attitude: safe and risk
• Self compass: true to oneself <strengths>

And therein lies the foundation of complexity. We live in a world of collaboration and anything but individuals and individuality in business ideation & implementation . Basically, simplicity is being demanded by the whole and implemented by the parts. Aligning attitudes and desires is difficult. And so is insuring aligning in strengths in today’s idealistic view of collaboration.

And maybe that is where simplicity faces its most difficult contradiction – facing the conflict in aligning making bigness small <in vision for the whole> and capturing the importance, and bigness, of the small.

Here is what I mean.

The whole thrives on overarching simplicity while the parts thrive on the underlying simplicity of details <which are inherently simple individually but complex as a collective whole>.

Even suggesting that there are two levels of simplicity implies complexity.

But most importantly we, in business, take ideas, big & small, and try and forge them into their most simplest strongest honed forms  all the while seemingly forgetting that … well … it is not just an idea, but the people involved that matter. Inevitably the idea needs to impact people’s attitudes & behaviors. And we would be silly to think that even the idea itself, as it is forged by each individual blacksmith, isn’t being crafted with some individualistic attitudes & behaviors.

In addition even if whatever you are trying to simplify sounds simple in your own mind <as an idea simplifier> the idea is more likely to be impacted by other people and other constituents. Many “simplicity arguers’ would argue that involving so many constituents makes simplicity needlessly complex … and they would be right … and wrong.

Yes. It makes it more complex.

No. They are wrong in that it is not needless. The complexity actually brings in the pragmatism of reality <and I would argue effectiveness.>.

All this means is that simplicity is rarely simple and trying to capture them in a meaningful single word is not only silly but sells the depth & breadth of a decision or situation short. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek simplicity. But what it does mean is that simple or simplicity shouldn’t be defined by rules or milestones or trite “say it in 10 seconds or less” dictates or, well, any boundaries. Simplicity is reflective of the time, place, people, situation and solution needed.

What may make simplicity even more complex is, oddly enough, that part which should make it the simplest. Simplicity, more often than not, is the nitty gritty stuff and not the more glamorous big vision or “big idea” stuff. It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement – piece by piece and part by part.

In other words … simplicity IS the complexity.

Simplicity is the watchword of the day. But we don’t want to give up our freedom to choose — we want options, we want products and services that fit our individual circumstances.   All those choices give us the antithesis of simplicity: they give us complexity. So how do we get simplicity without giving up choice?  We need simplicity and complexity together, we need simple complexity.  What we want is SIMPLEXITY.

Source 

Simplexity is actually a term used in the mathematics of complexity theory. A woman named Susan Abbott hijacked it for the Marketing and Customer Experience world. Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, authors of The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World, came up with the term in this context.

Maybe it is because of his ‘simplexity’ in everything we do and own <which we love> hate at exactly the same time> we tend to want to attach ‘more’ to simplicity. I wrote once before that great simplicity seems too bare and that simplicity is not defined in how you say or communicate something, but rather how it is accepted.

Suffice it to say, great simplicity seems to beg to remain less <which too us hasty perfection-oriented people seems not enough>.

Simplicity tends to not end with a bang but rather a whimper.

Ok. I am going to end with a business point here.

What I just shared is also what I believe is the reason why businesses comfortable in a project based relationship, rather than an annual contract based relationship, are doing well.

Huh? Go back to the desires of the whole versus the desires of the parts point I made earlier. There are certainly business opportunities for the whole & the parts. Some call this a belief that simplicity sells, but you need complexity to scale. However, philosophically, what links any business success discussion to a whole OR parts discussion is the success of components rather than simplistic vision. Not to degrade the value of vision, but success inevitably is grounded in the grind, the confident steps taken in the interest of progress and actual “doing-type stuff.” And that is where “visionary consultants”, sometimes called “smart tree planters”, get it wrong. They envision a rich green plush forest and all the while inadvertently complicate the actual planting of the frickin’ trees.

In the absence of anything else, shit still needs to be done. And each part needs to be done well without sacrificing the wellness of the whole. The business world, and businesses in general, is ever increasingly interconnected <internally & externally> and ignoring that, simply thinking that if my part does my part well that the whole will succeed is … absolutely and completely flawed thinking.

The parts are always, always, connected in some way with the greater whole.

So therefore a project always needs to be done well and done correctly, the true winner in the project world is the one who recognizes the greater whole and can seamlessly slide its successful part into the greater whole. For a project based company the value rises up … successful project management, successful project integration into the rest of the puzzle and ultimately, even in some small way, successful involvement of the furthering of the greater vision of the whole. It is ground up value building with, I imagine, the ultimate intent to gain additional business relationship assignments up the value chain.

All that said. I believe I am simply suggesting that businesses in the project business not only build value with business partners the easiest way <pragmatically> but also build business relationships in the simplest way <through parts rather than whole>.

I also believe in today’s business world that despite some mental angst a hirer of a supplier/partner has when viewing project relationships versus long engagement relationship a hirer business actually prefers the concept of initially hiring on a project basis <seems like a trial period> and maintaining on a project basis <seems like an ability to eliminate at any point type flexibility> and extending on a project by project basis <seems like less risk because they have proven before and more value because project implies “not taking the work for granted”>.

Oh.

And a project sounds so much simpler than a long term relationship. Uhm. But if I have been working with you on a project basis for over 5 years isn’t that a long term relationship?

Geez.

Just one more example of how simplicity is complex.

Business and Life tends to rush toward the complex simply because it most likely offers us the perception of ‘more value’ and additional control and ‘something better’ and, yet, we yearn for this faux Utopia found in a place called ‘simplicity’.

But. Simplicity, in its heart and soul, is made up of two opposing attractive qualities: safety & consistency + risk & new.

In the end. I imagine we all simply seek simplexity.

===

“Men rush towards complexity, but they yearn towards simplicity.

They try to be kings; but they dream of being shepherds.”

Gilbert K. Chesterton

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

======

“We have always held to the hope, the belief, the conviction that there is a better life, a better world, beyond the horizon. “

Franklin D. Roosevelt

======

Life barrages us with fairly relentless consistency. Usually that consistency is made up of a random combination of all the things we have planned <our “let’s control our destiny” stuff>  with the unexpected and the unforeseen which inevitably makes us feel like we are out of control.

This can be personal.

This can be work organizational.

Heck.

This can even be on a country level.

Regardless of the grander perspective, on any given day you look around at the relative carnage of the day seeing your plans in disarray and hopes & dreams nowhere in close proximity to your current reality and you think to yourself “how the hell did we get into this shithole.”

That is where conviction comes into play.

You, or we, are not really in a shithole.  You just have had what you thought would happen or should be happening, well, not happen. And, because Life has consistently made you run this random gauntlet before, you have some threads of belief that exactly the same thing will happen again tomorrow.

In other words. Your conviction of ‘something better beyond the horizon’ is a little blurrier than it was the day before.

Look.

This is not about Hope, this is about belief or conviction. I say that because each of us has conviction within us. It is the most basic conviction that no matter how bad it is it will get better and there truly is something better somewhere beyond the horizon. That’s not hope, that’s belief. That’s not optimism, that’s simply proof of survival <I survived yesterday so its fairly likely i will survive tomorrow>.

Yet, while I am 99.9% sure that this conviction resides within each and every one of us I am also 99.9% sure that all of us encounter something at some point which makes us question or doubt that conviction.

I call this ‘the bridge of conviction.’

Think of it this way.

Life is a long winding path. And, on occasion you come to a bridge. You hate heights and the bridge can maybe look a little shaky on occasion.

You stand at the end of it and … well … pause.

You maybe even question the conviction & wisdom of the path you are on.

What makes you finally take that first step … and the next … and the next … and cross that bridge is the conviction that on the other side is something better.

I would also like to point out that it is this conviction which makes you look forward and not backwards.

“Better” inherently cannot reside in the past. It cannot be found somewhere in retracing your steps on the path you have taken. Nor is it really a comparison thing. It’s simply a version of change <I have changed in some way from yesterday &, in general, change is good — (whisper: even though I cannot quite put my finger on what exactly changed)  ..>.

What was will be as it was and no longer exists as what you once knew. Conviction inherently knows this <although all of us fight conviction on this on occasion>.

I say all this just to point out that no matter how bad the current time or situation may look, more likely than not, it is actually not that bad.

In other words.

No matter how bad one person may appear to affect your view on what is … what will be will most likely be affected much less by that one person, or one event, than you think now.

No matter how bad YOU view what is … what will be will most likely be affected much less by Life, or even the current situation, than you think now and more by what you end up doing and choices you make tomorrow <and the days afterwards>.

No matter how bad the horizon may be blurred in your view, something better really does reside beyond the horizon.

Why do I feel so confident in saying so?

“We have always held to the hope, the belief, the conviction that there is a better life, a better world, beyond the horizon. “

Conviction is a powerful, resilient, source of energy which, 99% of the time, is what gets you to the horizon.