============ 

“…can I tell you something…? I don’t think you’re in love with the past.

 I think you’re scared of the future.”

―

Brad Meltzer

=====

Well.

Generational business visions. What I mean by that is while businesses chug along making money, or not making money, how they make their money changes by generation.

Back in august 2013 I described what I called “the evolution of business vision” suggesting that there is a generational shift occurring in how people in business are viewing business. I attached to that thought a belief that the 50somethings were an impediment to progress and, in particular, the progress that the younger business generation offers businesses.

I believe all of that even more so today.

Organizations are adapting how they attack business purpose, vision and outcomes <measurement & attitude> driven by the rising younger people who view it significantly different that the existing older management.

This is creating a natural friction with the impatience of the rising and the lack of impatience to change by those in power … in addition … there is a natural friction found in how an organization assimilates the new and the old <and the necessary experience needed to make it happen> to make the well needed changes for progress.

This is attitudinal stuff we have always dealt with in business as we churned thru generations.

What do I mean?

• All generations are shaped by the generations that came before
• All rising generations want to shape the future based on how they have been shaped <and it will not be the same as those who shaped their thinking>
• All generations currently in place will want to shape the rising generations based on past learnings <and it will most likely contain unattractive features to the rising generation>

Where I truly believe the new well-needed vision shift is running into an obstacle is with ‘respect.’

And oddly … I will suggest it isn’t that the young should respect the old … but rather the opposite. I believe the 50somethings need to get their proverbial heads out of their asses and develop some respect for the young and what they can do <that we cannot>.

Show them respect and I imagine they will show us respect <if we have the ability to actually, authentically, deliver respect with the right attitude>.

Sorry to tell the older folk but … well … if two generations are to have respect for one another … the younger generation will have to believe the older generation has some value <in what they offer> and listen to it.

Now.

I admit.

I write all of this fearing we 50somethings are losing their respect. We have always been old and less adaptable … but now we are truly becoming an impediment to progress <or getting better>.

The obstacle mentality may have something to do with attitude, and pride, but to get to the core of what this is all about you really need to discuss money … not only how we personally get paid <earnings & wealth> but also how the company gets paid <profits, ROI, revenue, growth, etc.>. And I say that wishing more business people would talk about this issue rather than “selfish, lazy, entitled’ younger people and “old, out of touch, tech amateur” older folk.

Money, and how it is viewed,  is the issue

Basically I believe that the demands of managing business has evolved generation to generation … bloated dollar management to squeezed dollar management to … well … I sense it will be something like the ‘added value’ dollar management in the near future <if the 50somethings help with some progress>.

The following chart diagrams my entire thought process:

Here is the explanation behind the diagram. The current 50something management generation is literally and figuratively the generation that got squeezed. What I mean by that is this was the generation who had to learn how to do more with less and get more with less. This was the generation who was also demanded to generate more profits and sales increases … with that same ‘less’.

To do that we … well … we maintained the same business models and the same business processes <to a large extent> and then simply squeezed dollars and organizations for everything they had. This meant, as we squeezed things into each dollar. we squeezed out EVERYTHING of intangible substance <purpose, integrity, ‘doing the right thing’, soul, etc.>.

Yup.

If there is anything this current older management generation understands better … I don’t know what it is … they understand the concept of the squeezed dollar and squeezed organizations. They had to figure it out because they had to adapt to what the economic environment demanded <or be killed if you don’t>.

That said. This means the burden, what they know and believe is the way to do things, of this business generation is the squeezed dollar. They arrived in their situation because the boomer business leader generation was more about ‘the bloated dollar.’ They overcharged and built brands & businesses based on excess <and encouraged a belief there was value in excess> and, yes, offered some good products & services along the way.

I will note everyone, in both of these generations, typically made a lot of money. Yeah. This generation of 50something business leaders has already made a lot of money. The one before, let’s call it the boomer business leader, made even more.

And each made it differently.

Boomers thrived on the bloated dollar.

The bloated dollar was when companies could charge whatever they wanted and got it. Project estimates contained ‘fat’ <or ‘fluff’ or ‘padding’> to absorb unforeseen changes or challenges and buyers assumed the price was what the price was.

The current generation of business leaders has had to thrive in a ‘squeezed dollar’ environment.

The squeezed dollar is the unfortunate byproduct from the boomer generation leaders’ wonderful success … the financial community demanded the same results … but the consumer demanded transparency.

Therefore in order to maintain continuous sales growth <which is actually a relatively ludicrous concept> and continuous profitability the current business leader had to find ways to squeeze the same profit/growth out of less dollars <cutting staff while cutting prices while cutting … and cutting … and … well … cutting>.

Ok.

I say all this to get to where we will go and why there is so much conflict in the business world.

Suffice it to say that economic pressure creates a certain type of management style in order to be successful. 50somethings learned on the job and actually were quite successful maintaining the boomer ‘earn as much as I can’ attitude <a version of extravagant desire for more> as well as working leaner <on the edge of what an organization is actually capable of>. Unfortunately for the business world … the next generation of business leaders want something different <and they should … because where do you go after a bloated dollar and then a squeezed dollar?>.

The next generation? <the current ‘youth’>

They really don’t like either the financial ‘squeezed/lean’ aspect or the organizational aspect tied to the financial earnings attitude.

Therefore, in my opinion, the young <who are obviously chafing under the existing management style> will most likely swing to what I call the ‘added value’ dollar. It suggests accommodating attitudes beyond simple profit  <and purpose driven value> as well as simple positioning companies by ‘de-commoditizing’ within industries <rebuilding value beyond lowest price>.

What I mean by this is that they want businesses to swing operationally back toward a ‘bloated dollar’ construct but stuff the ‘bloat’ not with any padded financial aspects but rather with some purposeful aspects which encourage employees to think, and know, that they are part of a ‘good capitalism’ rather than a simple ‘morally hollow’ capitalism.

Anyway.

Regardless whether my prediction is correct or not … what is correct is that the 50something business management objectives are not aligned with the younger generation objective desires. And that lack of alignment pertains to both management style as well as corporate objectives.

This is an issue.

It is an issue not just because older managers want to manage misaligned with what the people doing the shit find any passion or interest in but it is incredibly likely the older manager is speaking a different language than the younger generation.

This is NOT a generational issue, this is a business philosophy issue.

Fortunately, I do believe it is easily solvable.

Me?

Oddly <and maybe surprisingly> I would follow the money.

Stop talking about feelings and ‘features’ and flexible hours and laptop/tablets for all and free lunches and start talking about doing what a business should do well – make money and make money you are proud of.

Maybe I could call this substantive productivity or possibly substantive profit or maybe i could just call it “meaningful business” but what i would call it is a productive business strategy because it engages intrinsic motivation.

===========

In 1949, Harry F Harlow, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, outlined something called “intrinsic motivation” … or the joy of the task itself. Research reflects that for most complex tasks intrinsic motivation is a much more powerful drive than any external motivator. More than money or tangible reward.

And a key part of this intrinsic motivator is ‘purpose’.

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

“The more identities a man has, the more they express the person they conceal.”

―

John le Carré, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

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

“Dr. Watson’s summary list of Sherlock Holmes’s strengths and weaknesses:

Knowledge of Literature: Nil.

Knowledge of Philosophy: Nil.

Knowledge of Astronomy: Nil.

Knowledge of Politics: Feeble.

Knowledge of Botany: Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening.

Knowledge of Geology: Practical but limited. Tells at a glance different soils from each other. After walks has shown me splashes upon his trousers, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them.

Knowledge of Chemistry: Profound.

Knowledge of Anatomy: Accurate but unsystematic.

Knowledge of Sensational Literature: Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century.

Plays the violin well.

Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman.

Has a good practical knowledge of British law.”

―

Arthur Conan Doyle <A Study in Scarlet>

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

So.

I am not sure if it is that I am of an age where my experiences have become varied enough that I chafe on being slotted in some form of ‘what you do’ or if I am of an age where many of the people I know get frustrated that they are demanded to define themselves, careerwise, in some simplistic way.

All that said.

I found myself in an odd alternative universe writing a core “here is why I have created this site and initiative” for someone I respect … and it was written for him but easily expressed my own situation.

After I sent him what I had scribbled I went back and I replaced his field with mine and … well … I found I was writing about my frustrations were which his … as well as a number of people I know:

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

This site is borne of my frustration with explaining I am more than an advertising guy.

This site is borne of a belief that there is a community of advertising guys/gals who not only know they are more than advertising people but they also know they would like to use the skills they have in a business world which they see as needing what they have to offer.

This site is borne of what I know to be true – many of us are not simply advertising people, we are tinkers, tailors, soldiers & spies … all in one.

For some of us it gets frustrating to explain just because I have my MBA and am an experienced advertising guy that I am more than just that.

I get frustrated when my degree defines me.

I get frustrated when my industry experience label defines what my skills are.

I get frustrated that what I do, or have tangibly done, defines what I am capable of.

I get frustrated because I know how to ask the hard questions which often offer the hardest answers – the right things to do <which I believe businesses are desperate for this skill>.

I get frustrated because I know that “the truth is” is rarely the truth and I know that truths are often misty and multiple, like ghosts.

I get frustrated because I know all that I just wrote is a reflection of a thinking skill, a problem solving skill, a business skill and not just an advertising skill.

I get frustrated because I am more than an advertising guy and I know many people are frustrated by being slotted so simplistically.

To me, the world is too quick to define people and their skills in a simplistic way — simplistically by what they do <on the surface> and what specific skills they have acquired. People are often more complex than the labels they carry along with them and skills are often more translatable, with surprisingly positive outcomes, than many people are willing to think about.

It is our own fault because we have bludgeoned it into everyone’s head that everyone has to be a specialist or have some specific skill and, therefore, if you cannot simply define your specialty or skill you are … well … of less worth than someone who can.

That is, frankly, silly if not ludicrous.

Here is what I know.

I am more than an advertising guy. I am a tinker, tailor soldier and spy.

And I am building a community of likeminded people with a desire to go beyond simply being defined by the degree they earned and what labels people put on them to reach out into a business world, which may not know they need our skills at the moment, and show them there is a group of overlooked people who have skills to offer which businesses can benefit from.

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

tin·ker

ˈtiNGkər/

noun: tinker; plural noun: tinkers

    1.

    (especially in former times) a person who travels from place to place mending metal utensils as a way of making a living.

        a person who makes minor mechanical repairs, especially on a variety of appliances and apparatuses, usually for a living.

2.

    an act of attempting to repair something.

tai·lor

ˈtālər/

noun: tailor; plural noun: tailors

    1.

    a person whose occupation is making fitted clothes such as suits, pants, and jackets to fit individual customers.

Soldier

Noun

A soldier is one who fights as part of an organised, land based, sea based and air based armed force.

spy

spī/

noun: spy; plural noun: spies

    1.

    a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.

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

Sigh.

I am fairly sure I am not in the majority in that the bulk of the world tends to acquire specific skills but I do believe the majority of generalists get unfairly squeezed into some incredibly uncomfortable boxes simply because the world just doesn’t seem to believe a generalist has the same value as a specialist.

It is frustrating.

To be clear … a qualified generalist doesn’t claim to be able to do everything.

I am not qualified to be a CFO <although I understand what CFOs do and what they say>.

I am not qualified to be some social media strategist <although I understand what they do and what they say>.

I am not qualified to … well … you get the point.

But from a generalist perspective I am qualified to talk about effective marketing, advertising and communications in any industry <even if I have never worked specifically in that industry>.

But from a generalist perspective I am qualified to talk about effective company vision, objectives, strategies and how to grow sales & retention in any industry <even if I have never worked specifically in that industry>.

But from a generalist perspective I am qualified to talk about positioning products & services, behavioral economics, the emotional & functional reasons people do things as well as using those things in making the hard business decisions which guide businesses toward success in any industry <even if I have never worked specifically in that industry>.

But from a generalist perspective I am qualified to dabble in almost any topic in any industry on any issue and use that ‘dabbling’ to make some relevant points based on some seemingly disparate type knowledge.

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

“You know about fixing cars, you’re athletic, and you know when to shut up.”

“That last one isn’t a skill.”

“Honey, trust me. It’s a skill.” 

―

Simone Elkeles

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

Anyway.

Tinker tailor soldier spy.

I like that title.

A little bit of this in a lot of ‘that.’

I am tinker, tailor, soldier & spy.

<I originally posted this in April 2010>

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

“Fortune passes everywhere.”

—-

Frank Herbert

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

Ok.

This illustration on the right is from a site called secretvespers.com.  He does some seriously cool illustrations.

That said. As soon as I saw this one I started smiling.

Whenever anyone has ever asked me ‘what is the one thing you want to do if you could only do one thing?’ … I have always answered with about 6 things.

I honestly want to do and be everywhere.

And it works for me.

Yeah.

Drives some people crazy.

Life is funny this way.

Some people need to have a focal point and aim for it. They want to be on top of the world and dammit they are going straight there.

Me?

My world is round so I am happy to aim for the top because that means I can be anywhere and be happy.

Hey. Whatever works for you is what I say.

I guess my point is that I am always amazed when someone can say one thing will make them happy. My gut tells me that most of us would be happy if we had one of a dozen things. Or two of the dozen. Or any combination of things in that dozen if we are fortunate to get more than one.

To me it insures I am never a creature of the commonplace.

I know. I know.

Some people’s DNA doesn’t work that way. They have to choose a star and aim for it. And, in general, the world & society & business encourages you to focus on one star and do your damndest to get to that star.

Not me.

To me the sky is full of stars and I am happy with any of them. Actually as many as I can catch if it be true.

Anyway.

I saw the truth in “being everywhere” in myself. And I am comfortable in this skin <albeit it isn’t the best career advice to give anyone>.

On a separate note.

I believe a lot of young people would like to answer this way when some old person says to them “where do you want to be in 10 years?”

Why do I say that?

I always remember my own dad bugging me about “what is it you want to do with your life?” and me <being the ever so mature kid … then tween .. then young adult … yeah … this discussion lasted that long> and going ballistic thinking it was the stupidest question I had ever heard even then.

I wanted to do everything with my Life.

I just find everything interesting.

Anyway.

Where do I want to be 10 years from now?

Even today I will answer it the same way I did 10 years ago.

Everywhere.

All at once.

——- 

“I don’t give a shit, I don’t take any shit, I’ m not in the shit business.”

=

Tim Richmond

——-

“The most important thing a person can learn, professionally, is where to draw a big fat line that separates what you are willing to do, and what you are not.”

=

Luke Sullivan

——

So. This is a semi rant on doing shit work in business and my stance on what constitutes doing good shit versus bad shit.

Ok. They say that one of the best tests of a human being is how well or badly he or she treats others with less power. In other words … are you an asshole or aren’t you. I don’t agree. I would suggest that the biggest measure of a person is how much shit they take, how much shit they compromise on and how much shitty work they do.

<the management corollary to this is … if you do shit and shit rolls downhill your actions will affect others therefore you are managing like shit>

To be clear. I am not going to suggest anyone should actually be a shit … you should talk, listen, asked for opinions <and be open to opinions>, make people feel as comfortable as possible, and, in general, treat people with respect.

But I honestly have no desire to be known as the nice guy in business.

Why? “Nice” suggests being able to put up with shit and not making any waves. Well. Few of us leave an astounding legacy — in ways both large and small. I know I have not … yet. And I haven’t given up on an astounding legacy. In fact. I am gonna fight tooth & nail <and maybe not always be the nice guy> until my dying breath to leave some astounding legacy.

Now. I do not know what it is.

Shit. I am fairly sure most of us don’t know what legacy we will leave, but, dammit … I am surely gonna try and leave one. And I have no intention for it to be a shitty legacy. I want it to be a legacy worth a shit.

Now. I tend to believe most of us have a lot of good shit within us. And that part of our problem is simply sifting through all the piles within us trying to figure out the really good shit from the okay shit from the bad shit.

——-

“I am a pile of ideas, a pile of dreams, a pile of plans, a pile of doubts, and so many other things. 

I am a pile of piles and it is so overwhelming. 

Should I get rid of some piles?  Should I climb them?  

Or should I just give up and hide inside them? “

Bshayer F.R

——

I am a pile of piles and I want to do good shit. And I don’t want to give up and hide inside what I want to do … I want to go out and do some of the shit I want to do.

All that said.

I have no interest in being in the shit business.

I don’t want to have to bullshit to get where I want to go.

I don’t want to have to do shit work <either bad, less than what could be done or anything even remotely near simply ‘checking the box and doing what was asked’ type of shit>.

I don’t want to deal with people who only want to ‘get shit done.’

I want to work with people who want to ‘get good shit done.’

I want to work with people who are not willing to compromise <quickly> over the good shit.

Oh. Back to the ‘piles of piles’ thought– yeah, I am a lot of different shit. I am a lot of different things and am able to do a variety of good shit.

And while I have written this as a personal message — I am not alone. There are a shitload of people out there in the business world who are clearly not in the shit business. The struggle for these non-shit people is that way way too many shit people — those who are willing to do and say shit.

This large group of people who, albeit they would never ever admit they were, are in the shit business. They are there by either doing shit or simply putting up with shit. Most of them speak fluent bullshit.

Well. This means the few, the proud, the people who know they know their shit, they gotta stand up with their piles of piles and let the world feel their weight.

—

“Let people feel the weight of who you are and let them deal with it.”

John Eldridge

—–

I am not in the shit business.

I never have been and I never will be. And I will put up with whatever shit thrown my way just to continue not being in the shit business.

Luckily.

There are others who feel the same way and we have our eye on getting rid of the bad shit being done in business and replacing it with good shit <or at least replace the people doing bad shit with people who have a desire to do good shit>.

And, no shit, I believe we will win <someday>.

========== 

“Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them.”

–

Bruce Lee

======

“If you own up to your mistakes, you don’t suffer as much. But that’s a tough lesson to learn.”

–

Lee Iacocca

=====

So.

Owning up is all about the respect for the boundaries of responsibility.

Owning up to what you have done and said is possibly the truest test of character you will ever see.

When you are managing people you learn a shitload about employees by how they handle a mistake and how they ‘own up.’

Now.

As a manager you always filter the ‘owning up’ through your own management style <because you affect your employees behavior whether you admit it or not>. Any leader worth half a shit encourages the people on their team to think, go and do. In doing so they also accept the inevitable mistakes that happen with those who are often reaching beyond what they are currently capable of <that reaching is called “growth” by the way>. Leaders aside anyone, in any organization worth a shit, is going to find themselves in situations where well intended actions which have become mistakes have been made.

<note: I will ignore the crappy organizations who believe stupid ongoing mistakes are a fundamental building block to everyday business>

 This is where ‘owning up’ moves to the forefront. In general … you will find owning up falls into three basic categories:

• Cocoon the mistake.

It is mine. Examine it. Accept it. Blame yourself for it. Own it as an isolated incident.

• Leverage the mistake.

It was mine. Examine it. I learned from it. Own it. Use it moving forward as a stepping stone.

• Equivalize the mistake

<note: I made up the word “equivalize” … I could have used ‘equalize’ but it is actually more about someone searching for some equivalence that they can pony up in their defense>

It was mine … but … it was pretty similar to this other mistake … and remember when <insert name> did this? … which makes it not so bad, right?

<note: there are certainly degrees of each and every of these response categories>

Let me talk about these.

The first is a martyr. Throwing themselves at the mercy of the court.

The last is a victim. Saying … well … if you are going to convict me, be aware, you will also have to convict all these other people.

The middle one? Well. Before you convict me let me tell you how it makes me, and us, better.

Once again, any good manager worth half a shit will reflect upon their responsibility for the response before they respond. Good managers understand that they set the tone for ‘encouraging mistakes’ and managing the main filter someone flows through when assessing and articulating their own mistakes – fear of repercussions.

All that said. If you remove fear of repercussion you gain some true insight into the person. For example a senior person who feels entitled and ‘above the fray’ will have little to no fear of repercussion and you will see who they truly are in their response. And they can fall into any of the three categories I outlined. Younger employees, on the other hand, are more likely to be scared shitless and their response is like looking into a mirror of your management style.

But. Here is an interesting thought with regard to owning up.

Shit hitting the fan is like … well … a hurricane. Rarely is it simple and even more rarely does it stay a simple storm if you ignore it, it will eventually become a hurricane if you let it.

The thought? The ‘i’ in hurricane is also in its center. That is where owning up truly resides. How the “I” in the middle of the hurricane acts.

Still amidst the buffeting winds?

Scared of the mountain high waves?

Make little nuanced responses to remain in the calm of the hurricane?

=====

“The little things? The little moments? — They aren’t little. “

John Zabat-Zinn

===========

I imagine my point is that in owning up there is certainly the larger “am I willing to accept responsibility” but there are numerous little things within the acceptance which showcase character.

Being accountable, in general, demonstrates you are responsible. It certainly demonstrates you are willing to do shit, to make a mistake and are prepared to take accountability for it.

Being unaccountable creates an incredibly irritating dilemma to a manager.

“I didn’t do it” , when all the obvious evidence states you did do it, creates incredibly stilted conversations circling some alternative universes. It can become an absurd dance around reality. And, worse, not owning up to something actually creates a spark which creates a smoldering fire which needs to be constantly dealt with over and over and over again. I would note each time its little flame appears it scorches that person’s integrity just a little more.

I know.

It is incredibly easy to point fingers when things go wrong. Even easier to not even speak up and hope that no one notices. Good things, the right things, are always harder to do. Which leads me to a really neat thing I found about ‘owning up’ which I found when doing some research — an organization called ‘cultures of dignity’ that has a curriculum they offer for young people.

====

Owning Up teaches young people to understand their individual development in relation to group behavior, the influence of social media on their conflicts, and the dynamics that lead to discrimination and bigotry.

Whether you’re teaching in a school, a team, or a youth-serving organization, Owning Up is a flexible, dynamic curriculum that respects your knowledge of the young people you work with and the communities in which you serve. Owning Up is a tool to help educators work with the most interesting, funny, and challenging people in the world: tweens and teens. It’s also a tool to teach young people the capacity to understand their individual development in relation to group behavior with their peers, the social dynamics that lead to discrimination and bigotry, and the skills to be socially competent in the difficult yet common social conflicts they experience.

====

Fabulous. I love it. I love we go out of our way to show young people the power of ‘owning up.’ Uhm. Now adults have to exhibit the same behavior <or have their own class>. Which leads me to Trump who is, unfortunately, serving as a potential role model for our young people.

I imagine I thought about ‘owning up’ because of Trump. He has mastered the art of not owning up to anything. But he does it in a way that I am not sure I have ever seen before. He just ignores what he has said and done. He just keeps moving onward <not upward> and I imagine in his head he shows a disdain for ‘owning up’ because it is so far in his rear view mirror he can’t even see why others want to keep talking about it.

I am not sure if in his own alternative universe <in his head> he never did anything to own up to … or if he is so focused on where he is going next he cannot be bothered by going back to what was. Either way it teaches nothing about the value of ‘owning up’ to our young people and sends a horrible message with regard to accepting responsibility for words & actions. I would be quite pleased if Trump ‘owned up’ to that.

Regardless. All I would suggest to everyone is that there may be nothing more reflective of someone’s character than their ‘owning up’ behavior. And, I have to tell you, ‘owning up’ is possibly a key common characteristic of a good person & a good leader.

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

Alvin Toffler wrote in 1990:

——

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

=========

So.

Leadership is a tricky thing. It is walking a fine line of truth (grounded in what is real as well as ‘not lying’) and aspirational (giving people a glimpse of what they can be).

And, as with anything, this is about some functional practical things and emotional soul searching things.

Oh.

And connecting them.  It is the connection aspect that great leaders do well. But, ultimately, those leaders who figure it out end up leading high energy, high performance organizations. I tend to believe when you see an organization that ‘thinks small’ (or acts small) it is because their leaders do.

Regardless.

Just as I wrote recently about the fact we are in the ‘selling hope’ business I tend to believe great organizational cultures are also grounded on hope. Hope for being better.  Being a better person.  Being better at what you may do daily (even the smallest task). Being part of something that betters the world. Great organizations, at their core, feed their people’s hope. And great leaders figure out a way of showing them that hope.

In practical terms and aspirational terms.

All that said … leads to me to some words that made me think about this.

Sam Meek. Sam was the CEO of of the advertising agency J. Walter Thompson in the 50’s/60’s. And the words below were delivered in a 1965 speech. Within the following words there are little scraps of hope littered throughout for people to pick and choose from.

Scraps of the practical.

Scraps of aspirational.

Scraps of lessons that can be implemented daily in actions.

All littered on a ground of a solid attitude focused on the horizon.

These are words that make you feel good about being part of the organization and yet words to challenge every one to be better and work harder (“we are a permanently dissatisfied company”). I am not above stealing great words and reapplying them.  I use these words all the time and, frankly, I seek to work within organizations that like these words:

===

When I talk of this company, I am not thinking just of a legal or business entity. I am using the word in the older sense, as in a company of scholars, as a company of adventurers, or a company of voyagers. I think our companionship partakes of all these things.

There had to be something special about this enterprise to attract the talented and venturesome people who have come together to exercise their considerable talents and to derive from it the things that make for full and satisfying life.

Our relationships are subtle and highly sensitive relationships …. 

Our job must be to share authority without losing it …

The whole staff must have a proprietary feeling about the company’s work.

We are a permanently dissatisfied company and so far as I can see, we shall not run out of things to be dissatisfied about. I think our work, in most instances, is the best of its kind in the world – and yet not good enough. Not as good as it is going to be. There has not been and there should never be a year when it is not better than the year before.

Our audience is getting more demanding all the time – it is not a question of talking down to them. The problem, the opportunity, is to talk far enough up to them.

===

 Lastly.

I use one line from what Meeks said over and over again. I am not sure I have ever seen nor heard words from a leader that captured the essence of both functional practical and aspirational better than these:

“We must be dynamic for purposes bigger than ourselves.“

I admit. I absolutely hate when an organization “thinks small.” That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t think practical but they should think about impact.  What kind of impact, or imprint, do they truly want to make.  And I don’t necessarily mean making people’s lives better.  I mean ‘doing good or great shit.’ Making an impact through what they do and who they are as an organization.  Impacting whatever world they affect. It doesn’t have to be global (like a JWT) but it can be local or even within their own circle of friends & business relationships.

Creating a great organization, a company of adventures, needs leaders who say, who mean, who live, these types of words.

And all words that are said within a truth that it isn’t rhetoric but rather it is the soul of the organization.

Be dynamic.

Whew.

That alone is a great thought. A great thought for an individual, a leader and even an organization. I admit I often struggle with the current focus on “purpose driven” organizations but I never struggle with “dynamic.”

So … go be dynamic.

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

“The first draft is for the writer.

The second draft is for the editor.

The last draft is for the reader.”

——–

Unknown

<something I had scribbled down on a scrap of paper>

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

“I would go on writing even if I know I would not be published.”

—-

John Le Carre

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

Ok.

I write a lot.

Probably too much.

In my personal writing I can honestly say I have never posted something unedited.

Even the easiest things I have written get tightened up, edited and revised as I reread. Sometimes not much … but everything gets tweaked – some a little … some a lot.

Even then … typos remain.

Now.

In my professional life I use outlines, drafts and finals.

I do this because my mind is always at work.

I hear things, read things & see things and all the while my mind is juggling all of this stimulus rethinking, rewriting and recreating.

By the way … this acknowledges that I could, on occasion, run into some aspects of unintended plagiarism.

But because I am an ‘editor of things’ this means I am comfortable rearranging things. In fact … I never get tired of rearranging let alone thinking. I would do it 24/7 if I didn’t have to sleep.

However.

Doing all of this without any purpose or objective is simply mental masturbation.

That’s why the three draft rule is a good one.

The first draft is all about you, what you think and how you want to say things.

The second draft smooths out the edges and insures the personal “you” is getting in the way of clear communication and truth.

The third draft insures whatever YOU want to say connects with what THEY need to hear, want to hear and should hear.

It is a mistake to reverse this order. Reversing the order strips the presenter of any passion and creativity … it becomes more of an “order taker” type presentation or document.

Anyway.

The other thing people say about drafts is that each one eliminates so that the last one is the ‘brevity’ version.

I don’t agree <in general>.

The three draft method is actually more like an hour glass.

The first draft is almost always too long and … well … too.

The second draft tends to peel shit off of what you have.

The third draft more often puts some meat back on the bones tied to the reader/audience.

A lot of people, simplistically, balk at this. They don’t see the meat as useful and abhor adding things at this stage.

Once again, I disagree.

I disagree because I  typically think of Claude Hopkins, a man who pioneered the concept of advertising as we know it, in 1923 <“Scientific Advertising” is a worthwhile read with worthwhile advice applicable even in today’s world>.

If Hopkins was known for one thing it would be “persuasion.” Everything centered on that. Not brevity or pictures versus words or any of that bullshit we waste time pontificating over these days … just persuasion and doing whatever is necessary to persuade.

For example.

With a prospect standing before a salesperson, would you confine him to any certain number of words? That would be an unthinkable handicap.

Successful writing almost always depends on maintaining perspective – keep in mind no one really reads what you write for amusement <but that doesn’t mean you cannot amuse on occasion>.

Consider them as prospects standing before you, seeking for information.

Give them enough to get action.

Some advocate large type and big headlines. Yet no one likes salespeople who talk only in loud voices.

We should measure everything we do by salespeople standards not by amusement standards. Ads are not written to entertain. When they do, those entertainment seekers are little likely to be the people whom you want. That is one of the greatest advertising faults. Ad writers abandon their parts. You can never forget you are salespeople, not a performer.

Seek a sale, not applause.

Regardless.

All presentations really can get boiled down into 3 important aspects:

• Figure out what you want to sell <persuade people to think or do>

• Figure out what you want to say

• Figure out how you want to say it

All the other mumbo jumbo on ‘tricks to effective presenting’ is irrelevant if you don’t figure out these two things. In fact, I would argue you could throw away all the presentation books if you figure these two things out.

What you want to say sounds simple but it is not. Because inevitably you get caught up in ALL the things you want to say, prioritizing what you want to say and getting what you want to say down on paper <or whatever format you elect to organize the presentation>.

All I can say for sure is that you need to put it in a draft, a document or a script. Without it you cannot edit. And without editing <unless you are Bill Clinton> you are screwed.

Next.

Figuring out how you want to say it.

Okay. Let me tell you a truth, a fact, a ‘something no one really wants to hear.’

99% of the time what you just figured out to say will sound like crap if you just read it as a presentation.

Maybe 99.9% of the time. Writing & speaking are two different skills. They may be derivatives of each other but one typically does not translate directly to the other.

There will always be presenters who are obviously reading their presentation script off a teleprompter <which is a skill in itself by the way> and it sounds obviously stilted and in some cases like it was the first time they had heard these words out loud.

And the issue wasn’t because they were reading a script <another complaint young people throw around when arguing they want to be ‘natural’ when presenting>. It was the script they were reading. They wrote something that sounded good in their head when they read it … but sounded stupid when actually saying it. By the way … that is why rehearsing is important.

Why does this shit happen? Well. Let me give you 3 thoughts <beyond the obvious lack of rehearsing>:

–          Forced rules of behavior

All the things I am going to type drive me crazy, but maybe this one the most.

These are the ‘rules’ like … you cannot stand still, or you have to move, or you can’t have your hands in your pockets, or … well … just go ahead and pick up a ‘how to’ presentation book … they will list all the ‘don’t rules’.

Nuts.

I just say ‘nuts’ to that.

I have stood with hands in my pockets just stepping up to the microphone and delivered. No one cared I wasn’t using my hands.

Why?

Because they were listening to what I had to say. As a generalization … all the ‘how to present’ rules are stupid. If you have something good to say, and you say it in a compelling, believable, likeable way, the rest of the stuff just gets in the way. It’s all about the message. If you know, and like, your message just deliver it in as comfortable a ‘behavior’ style you want.

Nuts to all the book rules.

–          Forced passion

This one drives me nuts too. It’s kind of like speaking with exclamation points hoping the exclamation points travel through the ether between you and your audience and pricks them in the ass to make them stand up and yell “hell yeah!”

Some people shout.

Some people create sentences which they purposefully amplify the end.

Some people shake a fist, or pound a table or make some ‘exclamatory’ gesture just so everyone knows they are passionate about whatever they are talking about.

Sometimes they don’t really want to do this shit but someone suggests “show them you are passionate” and … well … the wheels start to fall of the good presentation wagon.

Why?

It’s all forced.

And it’s a shame because most presenters are actually passionate about something related to their topic <assuming you do the three draft method – me, edit, reader – in that order>. And they don’t need to be overt to communicate it. They just need to share their passion in whatever way they exude it.

I have been extremely passionate on a topic … and all I did was talk. I said how she felt and what I believed. And you know what? People believed me. they may not have been persuaded … but they believed what I had to say.

Here is the bottom line. If you care, it will show. You need not tell someone you are passionate. In fact … here you go … a rule.

Never say in a presentation, meeting or discussion … “I am passionate about ‘x’.”

Prove it without ever saying it.

–          Forced relevance <or forced theme>

I almost split this into two but they are just two sides of the same coin. In an attempt to make their topic relevant to either the audience or the environment <you can choose either> a presenter can go to some fairly absurd lengths.

They can use a joke which isn’t really relevant until you explain why.

Well, let me say this, 99% of the time if you are using a joke or come up with some forced relevance it means you are working too hard. Go back to the simple first aspect and think about what it is you want to say. If it isn’t compelling or understandable, a joke or forced metaphor or forced semi-topical linkage isn’t going to help.

In fact it can hurt.

How?

Because it is extraneous. And extraneous things and activity tugs the audience away from what you really want them to remember and say. I don’t usually get aggravated over this one instead I just get frustrated that the speaker doesn’t trust the topic is interesting enough, and it can be presented interestingly enough, to simply present it.

Lastly.

If I want to connect with the reader/listener with my last draft I have to put the screws down on the persuasion aspect.

And I would suggest you think about this slightly differently than many people talk about it – think about the fact what you are saying has to meet some price/value equation.

Simplistically … this is about alignment.

And, no, this isn’t about ‘first impressions’ because a presentation is a compilation/summary of impressions.

We all know this <but I will remind you anyway> … we are evaluating things all the time.

And even if we recognize that we are evaluating <like in viewing a presentation> we still don’t even recognize much of the evaluation that takes place because much of it is actually usually automatic, subconscious.

There has been a boatload of research done on evaluation which I will not bore you with … but will share a cliff notes summary of key points:

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

This process of evaluation can be broken down into the rising and falling of two perceptions:  Perceived Cost and Perceived Benefit.  To be clear, the cost of something is not just money.  Cost is the receipt of something negative or the release of something positive whereas Benefit is the release of something negative or the receipt of something positive.

Any time a value presentation is made, be it a candy bar in the checkout rack at a grocery store, a pair of earrings online, or a proposal to marry, there is an initial phase when you open your mind “file cabinet” and pull the “folder” associated with whatever value is being presented.  As you open this folder, certain things will jump out at you, influencing your initial perceived cost and benefit of the value presented.  What is in that folder, what items you pull first, and how much each item affects you depends on two things:

1. Your history with the value presented

2. How it is initially presented

It’s also important to note here that the point at which a visitor makes a commitment to the transaction is not the same point at which they complete the transaction.  The time between the commitment and the transaction should be as short and simple as possible.  The more complex and time-consuming it is, the more chance the frustration of the transaction process or the “cold feet” effect could keep it from happening.

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

Look.

Like it or not … even our presentations are being evaluated through this wacky thing called heuristics.

Pricing/value cues abound within presentations … believability cues abound within presentations … persuasion cues abound within a presentation … and you have to be aware that they will scream at the top of their lungs even if you aren’t looking at them.

Why do I say that?

You can even be silent and be giving a price or value cue.

For example.

Bach was a master of ‘negative space’ … building masterful musical combinations … he also used silences that are as eloquent and thought provoking as notes, tempo and syncopation.

<I used Bach because I tend to believe most of us who have built a presentation kind of feel like a composer>.

By the way.

While you may be thinking I am only discussing big important presentations which have been rehearsed and rehearsed … but this discussion actually pertains to almost any size of any draft or communications.

In the end.

Value is kind of like … well … the world and life

In fact … it reminds me of something I read:

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

“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

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

That all may be too poetic in discussing something like giving presentations, communications, creating drafts and persuasion … but simply put … “everything has to do with everything else.”

Well.

Communicating is part of everything.

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

“For each person there is a sentence — a series of words — which has the power to destroy them.”

—

Philip K. Dick

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

“I would hurl words into this darkness and wait for an echo, and if an echo sounded, no matter how faintly, I would send other words to tell, to march, to fight, to create a sense of the hunger for life that gnaws in us all, to keep alive in our hearts a sense of the inexpressibly human.”

—

Richard Wright

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

Well.

I have written about the power of words, the proper use of words and … well … the waste of good words a zillion times.

Nothing tears me out of my frame more than seeing and hearing someone abuse words.

That said.

I cannot tell everyone how often I am reminded that how you say something is possibly more important than what you say <at minimum I would suggest it is a symbiotic relationship in which the life of ‘what you say’ is in the hands of how you say it>. And ‘how you say it’ doesn’t just encompass context, tone, choice of actual words & phrasing but also internal speaker stuff – intent, purpose and, maybe the most important of all, belief in the words you are saying.

All this becomes incredibly important because when words are used well <and even poorly> in front of a receptive audience they can encourage marching, fighting and a sense of hunger for life that can gnaw at us all.

While I could write an entire book on what makes words tricky … today I will offer a couple of things:

• Words given and words used

Yes. Some words we choose on our own.

But more times than we may like to care … there are words that are given to us.

Huh?

It is easy to think about how there are speechwriters and how some people have to stand up and deliver someone else’s words … but this bleeds into everyday life. In business you can be sitting around a table and people parse out words and offer different ways of saying what you want to say. Parents suggest different words to their children and teachers do it day in and day out. Friends say “don’t say that” or “I wouldn’t say it that way” … in other words … we are given words to say all the frickin’ time.

Suffice it to say … not all words given to you are actually good words for you to use. Words have to match personal beliefs to be delivered effectively.

I was reminded of this the other day listening to Trump deliver a speech he obviously <a> had written for him and <b> didn’t agree with. Trump is incapable of keeping his thoughts to himself, or of cloaking his speech with words that could disguise his true thoughts.

Here is what I think I know from years of giving speeches and seeing people give speeches with regard to effective use of words and presenting words — intended thoughts versus underlying principles.

In general most people working together share some basic principles. These are the foundations for specific words. Therefore when given words to speak the shared principles kind of ground the tone and delivery so that they don’t sound painful or distasteful coming out of the speaker’s mouth – just maybe a little uncomfortable on occasion.

Without shared principles the words have no foundation … they are delivered hollow of anything. They are just empty words. And empty words sound … well … empty. They may be the actual right words to say but the wrong person is trying to say them – which hen strips them of any meaning.

Here is what I know about empty words — empty words are evil.

==

“And empty words are evil.”

—

Homer

<The Odyssey>

==

They have been uttered full of nothing … even though they possibly were crafted by a lot of something <passion, thought, insight, whatever>. But as they eased out from between the lips of the deliverer they were stripped of anything meaningful and simply become platitudes.

I could argue that this insures inevitable invisibility <unless some listeners/pundits attempt to parse out each word as meaningful and full of some meaning & intent – where there actually was none of that>.

These words are not harmless because in their emptiness they have become a version of evil. Evil in that they have not prompted any thought, any idea … any new passion. They are evil in that they have not inspired anything new … and everything old, or that which exists now, remains unchanged.

That’s what evil does … it fights change and thrives on inertia.

Those of us who give words should be incredibly careful, and smart, on who we give them to. Just because a word is right it may not be right for that person.

The second.

• Words can have a life of their own

Words are their own people with minds of their own. This means that they may not always remain a true reflection of the speaker’s thoughts. Once they leave the lips and they enter into the ether … well … they can be chameleons. They often take on the hues of the environment.

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

“Words are chameleons, which reflect the color of their environment.” 

——

Learned Hand

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

Whew.

This makes choosing words even more difficult. More difficult in that a word can mean several things at exactly the same time … what it means in your head, what it means as it leaves your lips, what it means as it floats thru the environment <slowly, or quickly, changing as it is bombarded with contextual environment> and what it means as it is heard.

What made me think of this was watching a Trump rally speech, a day after watching a scripted teleprompter speech, where I was reminded of the power of context. Context, and delivery, can strip a word of meaning or it can dress it in whatever clothes you would like.

For example … if I use the word ‘unity’ and, yet, it is used within an overall “us versus them” driven narrative it suggest not an overall unity but rather a unity of “us only.”

Huh.

One would think unity would be a word well used in almost any environment.

Unite. Blend. Coalesce. Combine. Fuse. Join. Merge. These words refer to the bringing or coming together of several different elements to form a whole.

Out of many one. E pluribus unim.

Unite actually comes for the Latin word ‘usus’ which means one.

Combine means to bring together in close union … more general in application than unite and does not emphasize as strongly the completeness of the process of coming together. In other words it just places things together but don’t guarantee the full integration.

Blend even more strongly than combine suggests a mingling of different elements. Unlike combine it specifically refers to the obscuring or harmonizing of various components.

Merge, like blend, suggest the loss of spate identity of ingredients, but does not imply the physical act of making or mingling together different elements.

Join is the broadest term of this group can mean to become part of to bring together or connect or to put together in close contact.

Fuse means to join by or as if by melting together – it also implies some aspect of ‘forcing or forging.’ Fuse in other contexts implies a solid lasting connection.

Coalesce suggests a gradual or natural coming together. In extended senses coalesce suggests two separate courses that gradually merge into one. .

In other words I can say unity in a number of ways or even qualify unity with another likeminded word all of which suggests this is a multi-dimensional challenge — constantly in flux. When Trump says unity it doesn’t create gold in people’s minds … it … well … creates shit.

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

“I’m fucking King Midas in reverse here. Everything I touch turns to shit.”

Tony Soprano

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

Regardless.

I imagine my real point is that words without their corners knocked off, or ground down, can be good words … and used for good.

They need to be shaped, protected and guided through the environment instead of being flippantly flung out assuming a basic stimulus – response world.

I clearly have a healthy respect for words. And I, frankly, have a healthy respect for the responsibility of words handed to someone.

Used well they can nudge the world.

Used hollowly they are evil.

Used poorly they are just wasted.

—————

“Words…  

They’re innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they’re no good any more… I don’t think writers are sacred, but words are.  

They deserve respect.  

If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little or make a poem which children will speak for you when you’re dead.”

==

Tom Stoppard

——————-

I am not a speechwriter but I have been involved in, and seen, hundreds of presentations and speeches. I can say, unequivocally, the same word can nudge the world, be hollow or just be a waste of breath depending on who utters it.

You learn in business, fairly quickly, that just because a word is universally good <like love, or unity, or hope> it can quickly lose its ‘goodness’ depending on who delivers the word and how they deliver it.

You learn in business, fairly quickly, that while the audience matters you cannot ignore the deliverer of the words.

An angry speaker struggles to speak of love authentically.

A passionate speaker struggles to speak of mistakes authentically.

A storyteller speaker struggles to speak with the intent to inspire energy authentically.

You learn in business, fairly quickly, you use words, and give words, with ‘authentic delivery’ in mind. And, yes, that means that sometime you sacrifice some words despite the fact you know your audience yearns to hear that word.

You learn this, in business or in Life, or you will waste a shitload of words.

Anyway.

I would say this about anyone … but Trump is painful for me to listen to … as he either misuses words or purposefully abuses words <or is given words that he abuses>.

But I can honestly say that I, a word guy, feel insulted when I am asked to imagine that Trump believes what he says whenever he is persuaded to sound like what he believes the president of the United States is supposed to sound like.

I have lots of gripes with President Trump but the fact he abuses words so shamelessly is a crime to me.

And that may be one of the biggest crimes he will commit because words have a power stronger than a single bullet or bomb.

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

“We miss out on the value of the message itself as a vehicle for driving virality.”

–

Jonah Berger

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

“Say something meaningful in an interesting way.”  

–

Bruce McTague

<author of “the shortest business book ever written”>

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

So.

This is about how we have a simplification crisis.

Ok.

This is actually about how we have an oversimplification crisis.

This crisis is making us … well … stupid.

Ok.

This crisis is actually making us stupider.

Look.

What I mean is that in a world in which we know that everything is complex, and more often than not, more complex than our own pea like brains can handle, we unerringly swerve toward simplistic headline conclusions and oversimplifications and absurd bullet point conclusions. We have hollowed out communication of the truly meaningful parts.

This surface skating intellectualism just makes us stupider.

Now.

We may convince ourselves we do this simply as a mental survival technique but I would argue, and I do, that it actually is the opposite of a survival technique … it is destructive behavior. It is destructive in that it destroys the overall thinking of what is actually a population quite capable of being intelligent, if not intellectual.

Yeah.

It makes us stupider.

I thought about this the other day because I have conversations with some incredibly smart and talented people who know a shitload more about more things than I could ever imagine and this topic came up. I note the smartness of these people to highlight how unusual it is that I can say something that actually can make a group of these people stop, be silent and then go “hmmmmmmmmmm.”

It is a rare thing.

And, yet, it happened the other day.

How did it happen? After some extensive conversation on North Korea, global trade challenges, Trump <of course> & foreign policy we opened the discussion to “what is the biggest challenge facing us …”

I spoke up & my thought drew some <thoughtful> silence.

I said “oversimplification.” <insert group silence afterwards>

To me … oversimplification misleads and creates bad decisions and, worse, creates bad thinking <which leads to bad opinions, attitudes and thoughts>. To me we have created this oversimplification shithole we currently reside in. And I offered a couple reasons why I believe this is happening <I did this because if you can identify the issues you can find solutions>:

We have convinced ourselves we do not have time for complex

Going back to the ‘destructive behavior’ thought I shared earlier …  oversimplification is anything but efficient. It actually demands more time in a variety of ways. The two simplest ways it does so is <1> the time we over invest attempting to isolate the simplest version of what is anything but simple and <2> the amount of time & energy we have to invest explain everything beyond the simplistic tripe initially offered, to thwart misguided behavior & reactions to the oversimplified offering & to redefine the oversimplification into bifurcated parts of the oversimplified whole.

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

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that people best retain “one thing.”

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

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that in a blizzard of nonstop things constantly vying for our attention the only way to capture someone’s attention is in some pithy soundbite.

Basically we have convinced ourselves that hollowing out an idea and a thought actually benefits not only the idea and the thought … but us! This is fucking nuts. Absolutely crazy.

Unfortunately, and truthfully, some things are just too complex to communicate in a sound bite or in 3 seconds or less. No matter how brief and simple you want to make it … well … it is neither brief nor simple. It is complex and sometimes the opposite of brief.

It isn’t just about telling a story.

Nor is it just about finding influencers to broker the story.

Nor is it just about practical value.

Nor is it just about emotion.

Unfortunately … it is a combination of those things. Yeah. Effective communication is … uhm … complex.

We have convinced ourselves that simple & simplicity is reflective of common sense.

I admit.

I have never been shy about calling bullshit on the simplistic tripe being spewed under the guise of ‘expert advice’ or ‘common sense.’

That said. I will suggest no topic has  been tortured more by common sense than simplicity.

Common sense suggests the simplest thing is the best.

Common sense suggests it is easier for a person to remember one thing and one word.

Common sense suggests in a complex world we humans crave simplicity.

Common sense suggests in a busy world we only have time for simplicity.

Common sense suggests a lot of nonsensical bullshit.

I will not argue that making something as simple as it can be is good but … well … simplistically … oversimplification is misleading and ultimately creates bad less-than-informed decision making AND thinking.

We have used this common sense simplicity bullshit for one simple reason — it serves us well in challenging the most established legitimate rule of Life & things. And that rule is “the world is complex.”

We embrace simplistic solution after simplistic solution, all labeled as ‘common sense ideas’, which are often counter to what an expert would suggest <which is often deemed “too complex”>…  only to find 90% of the time common sense was not only just simply wrong but also made us stupider.

I have written about simplicity and the complexity of finding the simplest way to communicate the complex many times and as I do so today I would remind everyone of what Jonah Berger offered us for a nifty sound bite compilation of sound bites to create a sound bite philosophy:

Here are his STEPPS for making anything go viral:

–          Social Currency: We share things that make us look good (even if that means pictures of our cat).

–          Triggers: Easily memorable information means its top of mind and tip of the tongue.

–          Emotion: When we care, we share.

–          Public: Built to show, built to grow.

–          Practical Value: News people can use.

–          Stories: People are inherent storytellers, and all great brands also learn to tell stories. Information travels under the guise of idle chatter.

And while this Berger thought is about “making things go viral” it is actually about finding the simplest way to communicate complex shit in a way that it is actually retained in a cognitive way.

I would also note that this dos not reflect “one simple thing”, it does reflect the complexity of reality and the mind and it reflects how to … well … help make us less stupider.

Ah.

Cognitive way.

As in “we actually understand what it is we heard, saw or read.” That is an important thing to ponder because over simplification cheats cognitive value as well as the value of whatever it is you have to offer people. Simplicity may be “memorable” but it doesn’t really lodge itself in anyone’s mind & memory in any meaningful way.

In fact.

The less depth you offer in your oversimplification the more you are at the mercy of the mind that decides to remember you. What I mean by that is if you don’t provide the depth the mind will create some perceptions around whatever it lodges in the pea like brain.

Uhm.

This means the pea like brain lodges only what is actually the brain’s perceptions of what to remember and not what you <a> know to be true, <b> think it may be important for that mind to know or <c> want the brain to store away in its mind.

I imagine what I am talking about is some wacky version of awareness versus engagement … but that shit is bullshit too.

It’s all bullshit because we should be turning away from simplification and engagement and connection and simply focus on “say what you need to say to persuade someone to think or do what you want them to think or do.”

All the other bullshit just confuses things.

If I tell someone that ‘being noticed ‘ is the most important thing, than some asshat is gonna come up with some zany oversimplified shit that gets noticed but doesn’t effectively communicate one thing <let alone all the things you may have deemed truly important in the beginning>.

I admit … I balk at a lot of the bullshit offered online about simplification <and the importance thereof> because … well … it is an oversimplification which diminishes the importance of ‘communicating depth’ and increases the importance of ‘being noticed.’

I do not like that equation. Effective communication is not a binary choice.

Effective communication, as with almost everything, is a complex challenge in communicating a complex thing well – because if you can communicate a couple things well it actually increases the perceived value <which then inevitably creates a stronger “memory stamp” … with value attached!>.

Which brings me back to our oversimplification crisis.

I could clearly argue that in today’s fragmented messaging world where information multiplies at light speed and a day still remains 24 hours that we humans are constantly honing our “incoming thoughts” filtering mechanisms.

I could also argue that our filtering system, as it exists today, sucks. We have dumbed down our communication and thinking behavior to such a hollowed out status the majority of time we skate along the superficial irrelevant surface of reality.

If we are lucky, the ice doesn’t crack.

But the truth is that oversimplification only offers the thinnest of ice to skate on and inevitably we fall thru the ice … over and over and over again.

Uhm.

And in the business world falling through the ice is bad. It is, metaphorically, making a bad decision based on shallow thinking and paying for it.

Yeah.

I did say the biggest issue we face is oversimplification.

I said that because if I can solve this, if I can have smarter people communicating complex things more smartly and I can have more everyday schmucks understanding that simple solutions are more often like trying to place a square peg in a round hole … well … I think it unravels a shitload of other problems we face in today’s world.

I imagine I am arguing that if more people are less stupid and more aware of the reality of things the more effective & efficient we will be in addressing the difficulties reality tends to place in front of us.

In the end.

I will go back to where I began … “say something meaningful in an interesting way.”

There are no rules nor boundaries in this statement.

You use as many words, or as few, as you need to say … to say something meaningful in an interesting way with the intent for it to be understood … and, ultimately, persuade someone to think something. I would say that the hollower the communication the less true persuasion engagement occurs and, conversely, the fuller the communication the more true persuasion engagement occurs.

Period.

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

“Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess.

An ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it.

Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform.

Man has the power to act as his own destroyer–and that is the way he has acted through most of history.”

―

Ayn Rand

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

Ok.

Discussing business leadership is … well … interesting.

Its also <slightly> interesting I used an Ayn Rand quote to open a thought on business leadership.

Why?

Almost everything Rand espoused focused on the individual and self-interest … and leadership inherently focuses on the group and ‘making the tide rise higher for all … sometimes at the expense of a higher one.”

In addition … <simplistically> the central thesis of Rand’s philosophy is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive.

I am no going invest a lot of time on Rand’s thinking <of which I have mixed feelings about> but because I speak to many business leaders the balance of ‘business democracy, organizational culture, and business autocracy, i.e., someone has to make a decision at some point and organizational consensus is most likely not the most effective way to generate good decisions, I will spend a moment on Rand.

In my eyes, far too often, Americans tie the Rand philosophy of ‘supreme self-reliance devoted to the pursuit of supreme self-interest’ to a simplistic version of core American ideals: individual freedoms & hard work. The whole premise is based on the promise a better world is available if people can simply pursue their own self-interest without regard to the impact of their actions on others. That thought is usually followed by “this works because everyone is simply pursuing their own self-interest as well.”

Unfortunately what this ignores is a successful organization’s ultimate mission: “e pluribus unim” <out of many one>.

Unfortunately what this ignores is successful cultures typically exhibit a ‘twitch muscle’ which automatically makes 95% of people to find greater satisfaction in contributing to ‘the team’ rather than solely finding individual success.

All of this matters when discussing business leadership and leading organizations.

Now.

That said.

I come back to a key line in the opening quote:  an ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct.

In a world in which we tend to want to oversimplify things far too often “business instincts” get stripped of any context or the rich & royal hues most typically associated with ‘good business instincts.’ We also strip leadership down to its barest and far too often suggest the importance of ‘’good business instincts’ as some superior skill <and instincts are not a skill but an attribute> inherent in good leadership.

I would suggest we would be much better off stripping leadership down to not one thing but rather discussing a backbone which makes leadership stand tall.

Look.

A shitload of people can lead.

An even larger shitload of people think they can lead.

And even smaller shitload of people can actually lead well.

And while there are a shitload of well written and thoughtful piece on business leadership characteristics I would suggest that all business leadership often comes down to your ‘backbone’ of actual skills with regard to three things: developing an effective vision, having a consistent business philosophy <business acumen> & instincts.

Many leaders have some skill in one of these three, some actually are good at two out of the three but the best leaders are good at all three <with some extraordinary skill at either the visionary or instincts>.

I point out the vision and instincts aspects because it is that ‘dance’ which … well … can make a business dance. Some people talk about strategy & tactics but this is a little different. This is kind of a step up from that.

This is kind of like being able to envision the 5 lane highway which leads to a destination you kind of envision and then actually have the instincts which enable you to instinctually shift lanes, shift speeds and avoid everyone else on the highway in the moments that matter.

Suffice it to say … working with someone who understands, and can manage to, vision and someone who has good instincts is fairly rare — and all three even rarer.

By the way, as I have written before … most people who vocally espouse the fact <belief> they have good instincts tend to have shitty instincts. In fact … I could generalize relatively safely by suggesting anyone who verbalizes they have good instincts … most likely, in reality, do not have good instincts <good instinctual leaders & decision makers tend to have the humility to have an innate sense to keep their mouths shut about any instinctual behavior and focus on verbalizing functional abilities to do shit in certain situations>.

Anyway.

Someone can actually be a pretty good leader and not be very good at all these things.

For example … one of my best bosses wasn’t particularly good at the vision aspect but had an incredibly strong sense of ‘right versus wrong’ with regard to business philosophy and excellent instincts which tended to permit a shitload of progress <if not particularly visionary progress>. I would note he was pretty good at hiring some people who were visionary and combined with what he was good at he had a nice ability <albeit sometimes a lite too pragmatic> to tighten some loose vision and … well … get shit done.

For example … one of my best bosses was an incredible visionary with an excellent ability to set everyone’s sights on the ‘horizon’ coupled with a strong business philosophy of “this is the kind of shit we will do and how we will conduct ourselves in doing it” he could get people focused and emotionally connected with what they had to do. However … his instincts were not so hot. I would note he had a nice ability to surround himself with people with good instincts <maybe not enough but some key people> which permitted him to pick out what to do from options resented by good instinctual managers rather than have to depend on his own instincts.

I imagine my point here is twofold <1> leaders who are good at all three of these things are not a dime a dozen and <2> the good leaders who are not good at all three of these things tend to recognize where they are a little weaker and are smart enough, and confident enough, to surround themselves with people who do have those skills.

I imagine the greater leadership philosophical point here is that good business leaders don’t really fight truth.

They see truth. Accept truth. And work within the parameters of truth.

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

 

“Stop opposing the truths.

The truth is truth no matter how you take it. It is not going to be changed for your inconvenience.”

―

Bikash Bhandari

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

I point out truth because, of all things, leadership is reliant on a leader being able to see truth … and not just what they want to see.

I point out truth because, of all things, vision and instincts are driven more by truth, knowledge and ‘learning’, than by any nebulous “I have good instincts.’

I point out truth because, of all things, people actually have a natural inclination to work for the mutual benefit of an organization … they like to cooperate and collaborate … and truth has an incredible ability to bond together the largest most disparate organization as well as offer the initial burst of energy which pushes organizations forward out of trouble and toward something better when a leader actually makes a decision.

Be wary of the verbose ‘I am good at this’ leader because … well … as with anything else in Life & business … leaders have to be ‘good’ at a number of things not just some simplistic self-interest driven accolade.