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

“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.

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

“More isn’t always better. Sometimes it’s just more.”

―

Barbara Benedek

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

“Our company? 

We have a change the world attitude. We don’t mind being disruptive as long as it is with the intent to create something new and better.  Smart disruption displaces the conventional and replaces it with an unconventional way to do things that actually meets what people want, need and expect. 

We call what we are doing ‘shaking the category etch a sketch.’ 

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.” 

—–

Bruce McTague

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

Ok.

I must get trapped in dozens of discussions & debates over innovative ideas, disruptive ideas and what is “new.” And thanks to Yale and some guy named Loewy  I have a tendency to toss around two phrases a shitload in the conversations — “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” and optimal newness.

<note: <a> ‘optimal newness’ is a relatively new phrase which i have appropriated to replace some of my less eloquent phrases saying the same thought, <b> I have used ‘most advanced yet acceptable’ as a thought for years as it was offered to us by  ‘the father of industrial design’, Loewy, in the 1950’s but more recently highlighted in an Atlantic article>

I pull these phrases out of my thought bag of tricks because invariably these “let’s talk about new ideas” conversations get squeezed between two extreme bookends and the phrases help to unsqueeze the thinking.

One bookend is the highly caffeinated entrepreneurial ‘disruptors’ who are convinced they have an idea that no one has ever seen or done before and want to present it as “the coolest thing you have never seen before.”

The other bookend is the pragmatic risk averse “change agent” who proudly presents the same widget which was once painted taupe and is now painted flat black as “new, improved and contemporary.”

By the way. These bookends actually have names: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new. This conversational tug of war is a reflection of the basic human truth that we love, and actively seek, familiarity <safeness>… uhm … as well as the thrill of discovery <risk>.

We do this with … well … everything.

Therefore we are almost always torn, slightly or a lot, by these two opposing thoughts. This is the thinking that led that guy, Loewy, to articulate his industrial design attitude as “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.”

He believed to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising.

This thought is important. It is important because while an idea can, conservatively, die 101 different ways 2 of the most likely ways to die is <a> you have a surprising, possibly truly disruptive idea, and your inclination it is to make it look spectacularly surprisingly different – therefore scaring the shit out of most people and they do not attach themselves to it, and <b> you have a spectacularly unspectacular useful idea and … well … you undersell it because it is difficult to articulate beyond the familiarity – therefore boring everyone into believing it is not worthy of a ‘new’ label. And before you beat the crap out of me on all of this The Atlantic article offers a nice proof point to ponder:

In 2014, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Northeastern University wanted to know exactly what sorts of proposals were most likely to win funding from prestigious institutions such as the National Institutes of Health—safely familiar proposals, or extremely novel ones?

They prepared about 150 research proposals and gave each one a novelty score. Then they recruited 142 world-class scientists to evaluate the projects. The most-novel proposals got the worst ratings. Exceedingly familiar proposals fared a bit better, but they still received low scores. “Everyone dislikes novelty,” Karim Lakhani, a co-author, explained to me, and “experts tend to be overcritical of proposals in their own domain.” The highest evaluation scores went to submissions that were deemed slightly new.

I shared this research to show that even the dullest deserves some surprise & novelty while “new” has some limits when trying to communicate the pragmatic <both of which are important with regard to … well … almost everything>.

That said. I think the real point here is that you need to find the sweet spot … that there is an “optimal newness” for ideas or, well, how about we call it “advanced yet acceptable”.

So why do we always have this struggle? Well … in business the challenge seems to be the business world has put an incredibly high value on <perceived> innovation & disruption and a lesser, if not nonexistent, value on <real> functionality & highly pragmatic thinking & ideas. This out of whack valuation steers some business people to some extremely shallow misguided thinking and hollow ideation.

Nowhere is this found more often than when discussing “disruptive ideas” and innovation which are the two “phases that pay” when we talk about new.

We use these words to imply this idea will change the world <and more often than not it is just a nice idea which will make an impact in its own little universe … assuming it doesn’t die a quick death>, therefore, it becomes the only type of idea we should pay attention to.

In other words … if it’s not disruptive, its crap.

Well.

That’s crap (bullshit). The truth is that many, if not most, of the most foundational ‘innovative’ or new ideas the world has ever seen tend to be the most overlooked, unseen to the naked eye, unobtrusive ‘disruptors’ we have ever interacted with.

The truth is that most effective useful disruptive ideas are almost always leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior as well a ‘things’> from which your idea will end up tapping into. I say that with two thoughts in mind:

• something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … nothing.

• smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

Ponder them <not too much because it will make your head hurt> … but everyone should keep these two thoughts in mind whenever seeking optimal newness – you cannot create something from nothing.

Anyway. In today’s business world “new” and “disruptive” are inextricably linked. This is a shame.

It does not benefit either concept or idea to do this. New is … well … new. No more and no less <although there are certainly degrees of new>.

Disruption actually means ‘to challenge.’ And, despite what many want you to believe, disruption is actually about creating something … not simply to destroy something. I would actually suggest that disruption, at its core, is about changing the way you think – creating new ways to think about something.

Think about it. Conventions train us to do the conventional. I say that because accepted beliefs <conventional thinking>, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking.

Therefore, constructing new accepted beliefs may not mean destroying the old, the familiar, but rather creating a new way of thinking and creating a new familiar. All this becomes important as you consider what would be “optimal newness.” Because as we wander aimlessly between the hyperbole of disruptive and new … well … many new ideas are simply a fresh derivative of ‘familiarity.’

I say this to make a point.

Optimal newness, 95% of the time, leverages some familiarity … something existing … and it is grounded in some reality that people can grasp.

Therein lies a truth “optimal newness” never loses sight of. The biggest ideas with the biggest end impact on our lives typically have gained some momentum not because they were some huge ‘new, never seen before’ idea but rather because the innovated on some conventional thinking and shifted us into some different way of thinking about something.

Maybe we should think about it this way … if today’s innovators have been successful … have seen farther than others before … it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants … well … maybe stood on the shoulders of something that already existed.

Regardless. I read somewhere in one of those bullshit pop psychology pieces that confident people are better than most people at seeking out small victories … they don’t necessarily need “big” ideas or maniacally pursue being called a ‘disruptor’ as they pursue success. I tend to believe confidence can reside in comfort within ‘optimal newness’ and the confident business people know that newness doesn’t have to be splashy nor hyperbole driven but rather surprising functionality.

And maybe that is the larger point with regard to ‘optimal newness’ and ‘most advanced yet acceptable.’ In business these days we seem to either believe “go big or go home” and therefore either overplay our hand or completely underplay it <because it isn’t big enough>. Just think about that last thought as you ponder the last dozen good ideas you have seen die before your eyes.

I will end by stating, unequivocally, that this is easier to write about then to put into practice.

Shit.

Finding the ‘optimal’ anything in business is hard. All I know is that every time I have this discussion with a sales group talking about selling, an innovations group talking about articulating an innovation or even a CEO about ‘organizational change management’, I get a lot of cocked heads  as they think about it a little.

That’s got to count for something.

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

A lot can happen in 6 months, but I never expected this.

–

tumblr 22:51 pm

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

“A Nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.”

–

Marcus Tullius Cicero

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

Well.

I almost called this “day <fill in the blank>of the shitshow” but I didn’t.

Look.

I am no genius but at the Trump 100 day mark I suggested the second 100 days would look a lot like the first 100 days  <inconsistent, ineffective & incompetent> for several very sound, rational reasons. And as we close in on 200 days … well … I look like a genius. And … just to share my conclusion if you want to stop reading now … I envision the next 100 days just as hollow as the last 200 days for almost exactly the same reasons.

Until the main reason is solved <quality people in necessary staff positions> the lean, mean and obscenely incompetent current white house staff will remain incredibly competent at … well … doing nothing truly meaningful <but maintaining an appearance of disruptive thinkers>.

I will ignore the tweets … entertaining but absurd.

I will ignore the unnecessary hyperbole … entertaining and absurd.

I will ignore the rambling nonsensical monologues … not as entertaining and even more absurd.

I will ignore the bizarre foreign policy steps … entertaining to watch but absurdly dangerous in reality.

However … I will pay attention to leadership and results.

I have to assume despite the fact the President claims a finely tuned white house which has done more than any other resident since maybe FDR … this whole adventure has not been exactly how he planned it to go.

For someone who likes winning I am not so sure this kind of ‘winning’ is what he had in mind.

For someone who claims to be ‘the best negotiator’ <or at least better than anyone in government prior to him> I am not so sure this kind of ‘negotiating results’ or even public glimpses into his negotiating skills is what he had in mind.

For someone who claimed “I alone can fix it” I am not so sure this is the kind of ‘fixing’ he had in mind.

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

“Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully or write poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That’s how I get my kicks.”

—

Donald Trump

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

What has the administration done?

Well, yes, in the first 6 months some things truly have been done.

First, I will ignore the stock market. As every president prior to this absurd one recognized … the market has a mind of its own and, in general, ignores presidents <so attaching yourself to it and ts results is like pegging my success to some squirrel in my backyard>. But even with its general disregard for a President what the stock market has really learned is that Trump will not do as much as some had hoped for … and others feared. In the stock market’s mind this is called ‘clarity’ or certainty … and markets thrive when uncertainty diminishes <because then it is all about trends and not surprises>. Trump will not like to hear it but the central banks control the fate of stock markets more than he will ever want <so he should actually be cuddling up to central bank more>.

Second, I will ignore the Supreme Court Justice nomination because this was a “gimmee putt” for any Republican who stumbled their way into the oval office.

Just as I wouldn’t have credited Hillary this “win” was owned by whatever party won the white house not the individual in the white house.

Anyway.

The first 200 days.

Yes. Things done. I would call it “tinkering under the hood” stuff. Some executive orders, some cutting back on regulations, maybe taking some, what they would consider, unnecessary  pieces out so the engine can run a little more effectively.

Most things have been ‘destruction’ type actions and not construction type actions.

And none of them are the bigger things which make radical shifts with regard to the country’s well-being.

Here is the problem with the Trump administration just tinkering under the hood. During the campaign and continuing into the first 200 days the administration, and Trump in particular, have claimed I have a Hyundai and I deserve a Ferrari.

Therefore, to date, they are just giving me a better running Hyundai and they still haven’t shown me <a> what my Ferrari is going to look like or <b> when I may expect to see my Ferrari in my driveway or even <c> what they are going to do to actually make it possible to have a Ferrari.

That alone makes for a fairly hollow first 200 days.

But why haven’t we received even those basic, what I would call, “map of things you should expect” stuff?

To date this administration has been defined by … well … a fog of dysfunction driven by a clammy inconsistent breeze called Donald J Trump which leaves us all feeling a little uneasy that something bad awaits us in the fucking clammy fog.

Look.

While I buy he is transactional … he is an inconsistent transactional person. He shows no sign of cohesive thinking, shows poor instincts and a complete lack of impulse control <which derails any necessary momentum every sane business leader knows you need to have to sustain any larger idea> and an extraordinarily immature naïve view of how the world really works <business, government and global> all buried in a pea like brain that does not envision what the end game looks like.

I score the last 200 days as relatively hollow and, once again, I see no signs of changes needed to get us out of hollow in and into substance.

I personally do not see him changing <becoming more engaged, take on more responsibility and try and lead rather than criticize> therefore the administration will live and die by the people who will end up in the administration <assuming they ever do join up>. Trump really has no policy – which is needed to lead without actually having to hold everyone’s hand — therefore he needs to <a> hire people who understand policy and can sell policy and <b> accumulate a group of policy makers who are aligned <not by loyalty but rather by ideology> so that the end puzzle gets built so it looks like a frickin’ puzzle and not just a bunch of random policies which look good in isolation but crappy when viewed together.

There needs to be a team, not a loyal team, but a qualified team for any chance to get out of this hollow hole we seem to get deeper and deeper into.

Yeah yeah yeah. Trumpeteers will come out of the woodwork and suggest “this is not Trump’s fault.”

They would be wrong.

I have been in so many companies that have told me to hire only to have my candidates get mired in the HR administrative mud for so long you are fairly sure they were just humoring you into believing you could actually hire someone that I can certainly feel the pain of hiring and open positions.

But this is not the case.

The congress has been slower in confirming Trump candidates but it is not because of democrats or congress inefficiency it is because Trump nominees are slow to complete paperwork or have to deal with conflict issues <they are often non-traditional appointees>. In addition the president has been even slower to send nominations to Congress.

The Trump administration is not eliminating the positions, Trump is just deciding not filling them <I assume he is not convinced they would actually provide value>.

Sure … there is a legitimate truth that government should be streamlined <positions eliminated> but not nominating needed people to implement your transactional ideology simply means … well … none of your frickin’ transactions get completed <and a business person of any competence whose career has been built off of transactions, and not vision, would know this>.

Anyway.

A couple things that become concerning beyond the staffing challenge as we move on to day 201 and beyond:

• They market problems not solutions

I was foolish enough to subscribe to the White House Daily email. I will admit.

If I read it every day I would most likely slit my wrists. Every single email highlights a problem … disaster, failing, crime, horrible trade deals, being taken advantage of, the list goes on and on and on.

Shit.

In one email they actually suggested one of their own departments, The Congressional Budget Office, yeah … one of their OWN DEPARTMENTS … did not know how to do their job <… dude … they report to you …>.

They peddle problems and diminish people.

So far over 200 days they have invested 198 days <I made that number up> pounding us that we are living in a shithole created by shit-for-brains people … and, yet, they have offered us solutions worth a shit.

That’s not what leaders do … even transactional leaders. Even transactional leaders stand up and show us a list of the transactions we are aiming to get done. Some leaders <most in fact> would think of this as “how you should judge me” information.

This criticism is not about the 330 million citizens of the country <albeit we would benefit from knowing his> this is more about getting shit done in the next 100, 200 and 300 days. The people who have to do the work, do the policy, will be significantly more effective if you hand out a project list of shit I want to get done. if you have smart qualified people they will be like ants on sugar <all over it>.

I am not suggesting we need an administration that is in the “unicorns & rainbow” business but I do know the country would benefit if the administration would peddle solutions rather than problems but the administration itself would also benefit because … well … that is how good organizations actually get their employees to do good shit. It would be nice if they stopped thinking in terms of being in the destruction business and thought more about being in the construction business with regard to ideas & policies.

Without it … expect more empty ‘doom & gloom’ marketing of problems in the 100 days ahead.

Which leads me to …

• Lack of vision

I hire managers to manage tactics … I hire leaders to share a vision. A transactional leader is a tactical leader.

And you can get away with that for a while but at some point the tactics need to fill some vision bucket <or they are simply scattered drops of water destined to dry up in the heat of time>.

Look.

I imagine the number one gripe against Obama was that he was too visionary and not tactical enough <in public>. But no one ever doubted his vision for America and Americans. People may have griped about some of the tactics but we always knew the ‘why’ of the tactical and transaction decisions. We bitched about ‘bad deals’ but understood why the deal was being pursued.

Without vision clarity 300 million plus people sit in their homes and go to work absent of really knowing “why.” Uhm. In the absence of why understanding everything begins to look random and people, in general, do not embrace random as a way of Life.

They need to address those 2 thing. Fast.

Those two things are going to haunt this presidency for 100’s of days unless they are addressed.

Those two things are basic Leadership 101 things.

I say that because while I am as detailed as possible with regard to how to fix the hollow presidency’s arc of behavior I remain concerned that the president, a self proclaimed successful business person, shows little signs he understands basic leadership behavior <and attitudes>. I admit … while I sensed his early on I never expected him to be this inept at basic leadership skills.

Being the president is not the same as the hollow branding crap Trump has built his riches off of. Shit. A real business leader demands more knowledge than that. Leadership requires discipline, hard work, focus, at least a basic understanding of the details they want their organization to move forward with and, as Trump himself said, a willingness to get everybody in a room and hammer out a deal.

That’s leadership.

Through the first 200 days of Trump’s presidency … uhm … he has exhibited none.

That is all on him.

After 200 days the president has managed to showcase a stunning total lack of ability to lead. And I use ‘stunning’ because he actually has a Congress completely under Republican control.

This stunning lack of leadership actually has repercussions beyond how people like I will measure 100 days to come. While we will offer ‘what was done’ report cards ad nausea the ultimate measurement , and battle, will be over character – not tangible wins & losses..

I am fairly sure in the bible <Corinthians ?> it says something like: Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

I state that because over the first 200 days there has been a stunning lack of truth coming from this White House which appears to be a blatant attempt to corrupt the character of good men & women.

I have a thought piece coming up on how the Trump administration is building an alternative universe in a way that I am fairly sure not many of us in a free world have ever seen before <but I am familiar with it having read dozens of books on communist Soviet Union>.

They have subverted Fake News from meaning actually unsourced, completely made-up things like the Enquirer to news they simply do not like.

Transparency means sharing information only when asked and not done in a forthcoming way.

They have attempted to make honesty irrelevant by investing gobs of energy undermining anything & everything everyone else says <if no one is honest than honesty is in the eyes of the beholder>.

They have continued to construct such a stark alternative universe to what actually exists by using scraps of truth, using a language of their own making & using cult-like recruitment tactics so that normal everyday schmucks like you & I are offered such a stark contrast it becomes difficult to bridge between what they say and what we see.

In the end.

I will restate exactly what I said at the end of the 1^st 100 days … suffice it to say that I see some fairly concerning hollowness. What I mean by that is after 100 days one could highlight a variety of empty spots which … well … will dog the administration from day 101 forward.

And while I would like to point out some specifics I think we would all like to let me conclude with the “issue to be resolved in order to eliminate future hollowness.”

I am not sure at 71 if Trump can actually attain what he really needs to be successful over the ensuing 100 day increments as a president – enlightenment.

The mind once enlightened cannot again become dark.

–

Thomas Paine, A Letter Addressed to the Abbe Raynal on the Affairs of North America

 

Beyond all the bizarre tweets, inappropriate speeches and overall adolescent behavior … he is a painful amateur leader. Painful in that even I, who has led but not to this level, cringe almost every day at the amateur mistakes he makes as a leader.

This amateurishness is a disease stalking the hallways of the White House. I say that because while it is clear to everyone but trump why ‘no one listens to him or shows loyalty to him’ it is not clear why some very talented knowledgeable leaders surrounding him aren’t building at least a semblance of a construct from which leadership could grow.

Trump must be a powerful disease to have infected true talent that much.

There are a bunch of things that could turn this bizarre ship around but one, and only one, thing truly matters – will President Trump ever permit his mind to be enlightened. For that is the path out of the darkness that his administration tries to convince us we all live in as well as some of the darker more ignorant & naïve aspects of the current administration’s behavior.

Lastly.

I don’t care if you voted for Trump or not … you have to admit this whole situation is bizarre and he is a seemingly bizarre human being.

You may not agree with me that he is a fool but I cannot find one person who doesn’t think this whole presidency so far is just fucking bizarre.

——————-

“A Nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.”

——————-

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

Seth Meyers

—–

Yeah, “fair” is a word we talk about. We talk about “fair” when we talk about “even.” I feel as though “even” can sometimes lead to false equivalents, whereas “fair” is, is this how you’d like to be treated if somebody disagreed with you?

We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

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

Ok.

Today, in this world & in this environment, I could be having a discussion on some topic and make a statement and 99% of the time the other person will say <usually indignantly> “where did you hear that?” … and I could say “well, Albert Einstein said it” … and I can almost guarantee I will get the following question … “when did he say that?” … and if I said “well, he said it on <pick your poison … FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc>” … I can almost guarantee I will get a ‘lean-back-in-chair-moment combined with a sage “oh, he is biased.”

Yeah.

Albert Einstein.

Biased because he decided to say something smart but, unfortunately, on … well … some venue.

Suffice it to say that, lately, it seems like anyone you disagree with or anyone who espouses a different view than you is “biased.”

This is crazy.

And it gets crazier because the same people who are quick to brand some mainstream news venue as biased are the same ones to place blind faith on some random internet website espousing something they agree with.

Let’s be clear.

Professional journalists may slant their work toward their own views but non professionals, and opinion people, are biased.

The vast majority of websites and blogs out there are, for all intents and purposes, biased.

Placing those important nuances aside … everyone should assume a fact is a fact and a fact can be delivered in a variety of ways – slanted, biased, fair, straightforward, misused – but it still remains a fact.

Bias:

Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Most people would suggest that any site that only focuses on one side of an issue without giving the same amount of “unbiased” coverage to the other side is biased.

Fox News. Biased.

MSNBC. Biased.

The Nation. Biased.

Federalist. Biased.

Pravda. Biased.

Yep. All of them.

Biased.

I, personally, do not call them biased <at least their news programming/pieces … not their opinion programming/pieces>.

I would call them intellectually slanted toward a specific view but still factual & truthful journalism. For the most part, if it is not an opinion show, you will receive some facts to sift through.

Yeah.

Some of the stories they publish are great, helpful, and insightful.

Yeah.

Some of them are extremely one-sided.

And while this one-sidedness may be well intended all it really does is drive us into deeper separation and make the ‘bias gap’ seem deep & wide.

Here is where the real trouble begins.

If everything is biased … who offers the truth?

Who you view as biased I view as a purveyor of truth … well … where is there any place for truth between us?

We cannot afford to be in an information gathering world where we “take what resonates and leave the rest.” We cannot because what resonates isn’t always what is reality or truthful. It is actually more likely to simply fit your belief system.

Uh oh.

If it fits than what doesn’t fit is biased.

Once again.

This is crazy.

I tend to believe this is a reflection of a number of things all grounded in the inability to know who to trust <because if I accepted an expert as an expert then I would be able to accept an expert speaking truth I could believe as unbiased>. I tend to believe there is a strong strain of “anti-intellectualism” or maybe it is better called “a gut instinct opinion world” in which facts only confuse the issue <therefore shouldn’t be pursued> and rational thinking is actually ‘common sense.’

Sigh.

We live in a wacky world in which we have no experts, we trust no institutions to not have some nefarious intent and truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

We live in a wacky world in which articles by professional journalists, which are fact-based, are confused with op-eds <opinion & editorials> which is … uhm …  an opinion, a column, meaning it does not have to be unbiased, fair, or balanced.

We live in a wacky world in which the internet is like the wild west of information. There are minimal laws, minimal enforcers of laws and a shitload of people who are willing to have a dubious relationship with any law <and truth or proper use of facts>.

We live in a wacky world in which people have more access to an almost unlimited unfettered amount of information and they also have the freedom to contribute to that unfettered amount of information as they see fit.

We live in a wacky world where even the people who are allegedly so concerned with finding the truth circulate a shitload of bullshit.

Yeah.

It is a wacky world.

That being said, it is not wacky enough to simply discard good smart thoughtful factual information <some would call that “Truth”> under some wacky filter we apply to every mouthpiece which makes that mouthpiece conveniently “biased” so we have an excuse to disregard the information.

I believe we can find fair, even and biased wherever we may choose to look. I can find it on FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, BBC and almost every venue with professional journalism employees. It doesn’t mean they will not slant the information. It doesn’t mean they may conveniently leave a fact or two out.

But in this wacky world I cannot afford to discard everything and I, frankly, have no desire to just discard what doesn’t meet my current views.

I believe that each of us needs to take responsibility for detaching ourselves from what we want to be true, and get off our lazy asses to find out what actually is true … and stop using “biased” as a reason to not consider what was shared.

I will end where I began:

We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

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

“It’s more interesting to ask the question about America itself, not the America of Trump or the America of Obama, but what is today the appetite of the Americans, really, to have an active role in the world affairs?”

———–

French Ambassador Gérard Araud

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

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.”

―

Horton Hears a Who!

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

So.

I almost called this the shrinking of America.

What I mean by that is America is shrinking in the eyes of the world.

That said.

Let me begin by framing this from a business perspective.

Business leaders are responsible for the growth of their business on a number of dimensions not just $’s.

You can only hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but the company brand and image is suffering.

You can also only hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but the board views it as a poor long term strategy.

You can also hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but perceptions of your leadership are not very good.

But that’s business <and we assume anyone who rises to a business leadership position knows this … as they should>.

I say that because a business can grow in a variety of dimensions not just profit & sales … there is also strategy, positioning and leadership. And if people start to doubt your business on any of those dimensions it is kind of like a balloon … they become little pin pricks and your ‘balloon’ starts shrinking.

And that is what is happening to America from a global perspective.

Pinpricks in the American balloon.

The pinpricks are doubts … in leadership, reliability, consistency and … well … civility <note: I could have added intelligence but I will not>.

I am not making this up.

A Pew poll of 37 countries ranging from large to smaller shows attitudes toward the United States have collapsed since Trump took office. At the end of Obama’s presidency, 64% of people in these countries said they were confident in the US president. Today, that has fallen to 22%.

In addition. Opinions of America overall have fallen by 15 points.

This Pew study examined global attitudes toward America since Obama left office and Trump has assumed the leadership role. Suffice it to say … it is really tough reading for any American.

On all attitudes America is shrinking.

The only places in which Trump’s numbers rose versus Obama are … uhm … Russia <which rose a staggering 43 points, 11% to 54% confidence>and Israel.  And, I would note, that despite the common perception Obama was loathed by Israel, Obama’s confidence ratings varied from 49% to 71% during his administration as compared to Trump’s current 58%.

Just to drive a nail into this particular coffin a little deeper … if I were to pull Russia and Israel out of the study … uh oh … confidence in America would drop into the teens <gulp>.

6 months into a Trump presidency and the pace and the depth of the decline driven by Trump’s leadership, or lack thereof, is stunning. Trump’s belligerent style and immature substance is not only affecting his approval scores domestically … but also internationally. He currently wears the mantle of “shrinker in chief.”

Whether one believes in the accuracy of polling or not, and not many sane people doubt PewResearch> the consistency between domestic numbers and international numbers should make anyone and everyone take a moment and pause.

I could even argue the domestic numbers only look better than international numbers because Republicans are stubbornly hanging on to Trump despite having some serious doubts. If I were in the Trump White House I would be eyeing this Pew report and thinking “yikes, this is my floor here in the USA <22% or the teens>.”

We are shrinking.

And it is sad.

Now.

Trump supporters will flippantly suggest they don’t care about what other countries think about Trump & the USA because it just doesn’t matter.

Which leads me to my point <other than expressing some sadness> … a word to the wise <and even a word to the intellectual dwarfs>.

It does matter.

And it really matters if there is a lack of alignment between perception & reality as well as domestic attitudes & perceptions and international attitudes & perceptions.

That matters because alignment is what makes countries, and businesses, effective AND efficient. It eliminates the herky jerky of misunderstanding and the slowing inherent in having to overcome any negative aspects which could be obstacles.

Yes.

Alignment is important.

Any sane business leader knows that sustainable success is not found in some transaction or some event or even being viewed positively by some others <here & there>. They know success inevitably begins and ends in internal alignment.

Instead of promoting American leadership & unity, Trump is leaving a vacuum internally, domestically, by stubbornly gripping onto a minority view with regard to what people want and what is actually best for the country long term.

This gets exacerbated by the fact he is doing so within his own management team as well as within his ‘employees’ <the citizens … all … even the ones who did not vote for him and did not vote>.

In addition.

An “every man for himself” attitude doesn’t really encourage a positive transaction relationship but rather it encourages a sense of chaos … which leaves Trump and the US with fewer friends and less influence.

I have said it before and I will say it again … this is solvable. And it is solvable not through transactions but rather by … well … internal <domestic> alignment. Trump often argues that words don’t matter and behavior is more important.

Oftentimes this is true, however, words can often build the doorway through which skeptics & doubters can walk through to get a little closer to the alignment America needs to progress – economically and mentally.

If Trump were to triple down NOW on building unity domestically, it would go a long way to stopping the shrinking of America <note: but I seriously doubt something like this is within his DNA>.

Finally.

The deal.

Negotiating.

Or the art of the deal as a leader.

It seems his single-minded pursuit of individual challenges or countries does not translate to the complex politics of … well … the EU, China, Russia, the Arab & Muslim world, or anywhere.

As a result, the “best” dealmaker is starting to look like he cannot make a deal.

Sure.

He can complete some transactions <albeit they all seem to be about getting paid to arm the rest of the world with as many weapons as possible> but transactions are not ‘deals.’ NAFTA is a deal. The TPP was a deal. We have trade deals with people. These are not “let’s make a deal for this space” but rather a more complex web of multiple variants in which over time the variants will … well … vary and yet the ultimate outcome overall is positive.

That’s not his kind of deal.

And, frankly, that’s not the kind of ‘deal’ other countries truly desire.

But Trump’s dealing and his character are so intertwined it is almost like a Gordian knot.

That matters as we discuss shrinking.

PewResearch, who makes every attempt to be unemotional and unbiased, said this in their report:

Confidence in President Trump is influenced by reactions to both his policies and his character. With regard to the former, some of his signature policy initiatives are widely opposed around the globe.

Trump’s character is also a factor in how he is viewed abroad. In the eyes of most people surveyed around the world, the White House’s new occupant is arrogant, intolerant and even dangerous. Fewer believe he is charismatic, well-qualified or cares about ordinary people.

Look.

The truth remains that the US economy, just as it was with Obama, has remained mostly healthy and Trump has not to date significantly altered any signs of the health. The end of the Obama economic era and the start of the Trump economic era represent an ongoing good, not great, economy.

This is good.

But as I noted initially … economic success is just one dimension and while a powerful dimension you can only hold on to your position for so long if that is the only ‘positive benefit’ you are offering your organization as a leader.

Trump is a myopic bully and, just as with almost every bully, I worry America will remain large in physical stature but small in everything else.

In the end.

I brought up alignment and shrinking for a reason. Alignment is a double edged sword.

Positive alignment greases progress.

Negative alignment can suffocate and squeeze.

And that is my point on the current shrinking of America.

Poll numbers showcase directional negativity which is difficult to ignore … especially since the numbers reside in both domestic and international framing.

Call it perceptions or call it reality … I don’t care.

As long as it exists America will continue to shrink.

And ignore the most recent PewResearch at your own peril because it sure as shit looks like we are shrinking.

——————–

“I wish I had the courage not to fight and doubt everything… I wish, just once, I could say, ‘This. This is good enough. Just because I choose it.”

―

Chuck Palahniuk

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

So.

Let me very clear upfront … while this piece will be on Russian involvement in the 2016 USA presidential election I am not discussing, nor suggesting, collusion or coordination of efforts between anything I will outline and the Trump campaign. The analysis of that will be done by greater minds than mine.

This piece is about what Russia did and the effect on the 2016 election. Let’s call this an analysis of the Russian marketing campaign to support Donald J Trump.

I have the fortune to exchange ideas, on occasion, with some highly qualified experts and several foreign policy thought leaders and all of them continuously grapple not with what Russia did but more so with how to talk about it. Which leads me to the horrible position that I find myself in <and I imagine any professional communications person with any significant experience is in>.

We know that Russia most likely influenced enough voters to have elected Donald J Trump.

There. I said it. The one sentence which seems to be on the lips of almost any credible thinking individual but never seems to be spoken. This has nothing to do whether I believe he is qualified or not … this is just a conclusion that anyone who knows shit about marketing & advertising has arrived at if they look at the campaign.

<note: this is easily provable … hire MillwardBrown, pay them $100k, give them all the voting information and attitude poll information and they could do a county comparison … they do this for marketing & advertising campaigns all the time to measure effectiveness>

Anyway. It took me a while to get there because the overarching narrative ‘cover’ for the election is, and always has been, “Russia never changed a vote or made someone do anything.” While every reasonable marketing person would debate the seeming lack of understanding in the concept of ‘ability to affect behavior through marketing’, it was easier for people to generally focus on the truth Russia never got into actual voting machines and changed votes.

This means it just took me a lot longer to get to the truth that many of my peers had already arrived at.

…. I did not want to know this ………..

Whew.

The truth. Russia changed votes and voting behavior.

What knowledge to have. What a wretched position to be in … to be a professional communications person and a believer in America democracy … that is the horrible position many of us find ourselves in.

Why?

Well. The majority of us know, if we view it through a professional lens, that the Russians communications <propaganda> effort most likely put Donald J Trump into the presidency … and we don’t know what to do and say about it.

Why?

Think about the outcome of this presentation. The main one would be that many people would believe Donald J was not a legitimate president or legitimately elected. And that would be … well … horrible. Horrible for the country, horrible for democracy and … well … just horrible. I, personally, feel a little less horrible because I still believe … 100% believe … and have written extensively that if the Clinton campaign had done a couple of things and maybe thought thru a couple of things they would have won.

All that said.

I could open this presentation by suggesting the Clinton campaign ran a slightly-less-than-effective-as-it-could-have marketing campaign but I could also showcase how the Trump campaign, in and of itself, did not do enough to win.

——- Clint Watts analysis of Russia Social Media Plan ——-

I would then have to point out that an overlaid Russian marketing campaign <which diminished Clinton to suppress behavior in her favor> made the difference at the finish line. As noted earlier, someone like MillwardBrown could prove/disprove this in ‘two notes or less.’

Anyway … before anyone argues with that premise please remember that with 136 million votes cast, Trump’s victory came down to a razor-thin edge of only 77,744 votes across three states: Pennsylvania (44,292 votes), Wisconsin (22,748 votes), and Michigan (10,704 votes) – all less than .7% difference between the two candidates … a less than full Michigan stadium … and, if reversed, Clinton would be our president.

The 2016 election result is really all about the fact that there was just enough movement in just the right places, with just enough increased turnout from just the right groups, to get Trump the electoral votes he needed to win.

Regardless. While I know from career experience advertising affects attitudes & behavior the rest, block by block, of the truth fell into place. But what make this conclusion truly horrible is … well … what do you do with that knowledge? It does no good to suggest the current president is illegitimate. None. Zero.

Look.

I am not making this up.

While others look at this in some vague “what could they do to make someone vote a certain way” I look at this from a marketing perspective where I have sat in meeting after meeting analyzing marketing campaigns and tactics to watch what levers <tactics & messages>have been pulled to get someone to do something they may not have considered doing before. Given that knowledge here were the 4 blocks which gt me there:

The first ‘block’ was, of course, when the US government warned us that 17 intelligence agencies <or 4 with others tentatively agreeing, or whatever number you want depending on your cynicism but suffice it to say the US Intelligence agencies are aligned in some form or fashion> agreed Russia was fucking within our election. They didn’t go into details but rather just said “they, they are doing this” <and did some behind the scenes stuff to deflect some things they did>.

I would also note that this is where “marketing doesn’t affect my behavior’ attitudes started digging in within the general population’s mindset … “I made my own decision” is what they say <naively I may add>.

The second ‘block’ occurred on November 6^th 2016 in an article called “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy” .

——————-

… in addition to phishing and cracking attacks, these hackers are aided by honeypots, a Cold War term of art referring to an espionage operative who sexually seduced or compromised targets. Today’s honeypots may include a component of sexual appeal or attraction, but they just as often appear to be people who share a target’s political views, obscure personal hobbies, or issues related to family history. Through direct messaging or email conversations, honeypots seek to engage the target in conversations seemingly unrelated to national security or political influence.

These honeypots often appear as friends on social media sites, sending direct messages to their targets to lower their defenses through social engineering. After winning trust, honeypots have been observed taking part in a range of behaviors, including sharing content from white and gray active measures websites

Online hecklers, commonly referred to as trolls, energize Russia’s active measures. Ringleader accounts designed to look like real people push organized harassment — including threats of violence — designed to discredit or silence people who wield influence in targeted realms, such as foreign policy or the Syrian civil war. Once the organized hecklers select a target, a variety of volunteers will join in, often out of simple antisocial tendencies. Sometimes, they join in as a result of the target’s gender, religion, or ethnic background, with anti-Semitic and misogynistic trolling particularly prevalent at the moment. Our family members and colleagues have been targeted and trolled in this manner via Facebook and other social media.

Hecklers and honeypots can also overlap.

—————————–

The experts at WarontheRocks know their shit and I stored away their analysis.

The third ‘block’ occurred when a Bernie Sanders social media coordinator published a report of how he watched online trolls aggressively message against Clinton to Sanders supporters:

He <Mattes> put his expertise in unmasking fraudsters to work. At first, he suspected that the sites were created by the old Clinton haters from the ‘90s ― what Hillary Clinton had dubbed “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

 But when Mattes started tracking down the sites’ domain registrations, the trail led to Macedonia and Albania. In mid-September, he emailed a few of his private investigator friends with a list of the sites. “Very creepy and i do not think Koch brothers,” he wrote.

Mattes and his friends didn’t know what to make of his findings. He couldn’t get his mind around the possibility that trolls overseas might be trying to sway a bunch of Southern Californians who supported Sanders’ run for president. “I may be a dark cynic and I may have been an investigative reporter for a long time, but this was too dark ― and too unbelievable and most upsetting,” he said. “What was I to do with this?”

By late October, Mattes said he’d traced 40 percent of the domain registrations for the fake news sites he saw popping up on pro-Sanders pages back to Eastern Europe. Others appeared to be based in Panama and the U.S., or were untraceable. He wondered, “Am I the only person that sees all this crap floating through these Bernie pages?”

And the final ‘block’ was an 84 page white paper issued by the cyber security firm, TrendMicro, which outlined how easy it was to implement a ‘fake news’ marketing campaign with costs & efforts taken by Russia to influence people not only in America but globally.

That did it for me.

Let me call my ‘4 blocks’ as the cornerstones of the building of proof. I am a marketing guy and an amateur behavioral studier with decades of experience and I can see a marketing campaign when there is one … and I can see when a good one is being implemented in ‘below-the-line’ tactics pushing & nudging & influencing people to do & think things … and I can see one once I have been presented the cornerstones of proof.

This is that. And this is a horrible thing to recognize.

Oddly enough … our founding fathers worried about this.

In constructing the Constitution the crafters were cognizant, and worried about, how easily people could be led, and led astray. That is why they constructed a three ‘power’ system <executive, judiciary & representative> to insure a President never had access to too much power. In some ways they assumed at some point in history American citizens would not choose wisely.

As a marketing guy I can honestly tell you that I have sat in hundreds of conference rooms viewing behavioral data pondering choice after choice people made that were reflections of “not in my best interest” … information that reflected time after time … people do not choose wisely.

While that is marketing stuff we should all remember what James Madison said … “liberties are more frequently lost by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power.” That is what the worst of worst marketing is about … making some people choose less than wisely through a gradual and silent encroachment into someone’s decision making process.

To be clear.

I think Trump is inept, incompetent and unqualified but this is not about that. This is about how Russia affected enough people’s attitudes to affect their behavior … and many of us quasi-experts, and many real experts, believe Russia conducted a marketing campaign that did just enough to affect people’s voting behavior to effectively put Trump in the oval office.

To be clear.

None of us know what to do with this understanding. This is a horrible position to be in. No one wants to suggest the current president is not legitimate and, yet, the truth is that he most likely gained his position through some shady illegitimate ways.

I almost wish I didn’t know this.

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

“Being honest may not get you a lot of friends but it’ll always get you the right ones”

—

John Lennon

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

“I spoke the truth, but no one believed me, so I took to deceit.”

–

Lermontov

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

Ok.

Honesty sure seems like it would be one of the simplest things in the world to agree upon … “be honest, don’t lie.”

But, sure as shit, talk about the specifics with regard to honesty or ‘being honest’ or even ‘is a lie a lie?’ and … holy shit … bring the beer and settle in. It is gonna take some time.

Yeah.

Everyone wants to be honest … but if honest with themselves … we are far too often less than honest.

And that is why I opened with the quote I did … being relentlessly non-equivocating honest will limit your circle of friends, but the ones you do have will be good ones.

Sadly … being honest comes at a cost.

To think about that cost I had to revisit the essays of Montaigne to help me think about why. In his essay “giving the lie” he says this:

—————-

Would it not also be that this reproach seems to involve cowardice and lack of courage? is there any more obvious cowardice that to deny what we have said? nay, worse yet, to lie against a man’s own knowledge?

Lying is an ugly vice; a vice that one of the ancients portrays in the most odious colours when he says, “that it is to manifest a contempt of God, and withal a fear of men.” It is not possible more fully to represent the horror, baseness, and irregularity of it; for what can a man imagine more hateful and contemptible than to be a coward towards men, and valiant against his Maker? Since mutual understanding is brought about solely by way of words, he who falsifies that betrays human society. ’

Tis the only way by which we communicate our thoughts and wills; ’tis the interpreter of the soul, and if it deceive us, we no longer know nor have further tie upon one another; if that deceive us, it breaks all our correspondence, and dissolves all the bonds of government.

—————–

What this means is that lying dissolves the bonds of friendship therefore, in this case, it suggests if you lie your friendships will contain little dissolved fissures in the complex web of what makes friends friends <all of which subtly weaken the bonds>.

That sounds reasonable but, whew, the alternative … being honest all the time … is difficult. I will say that although honesty is not always easy easy route to take it will always lead you to the destination called ‘trust’ … which is the most solid place in every healthy relationship.

Oddly enough … honesty takes more work than lies.

Lies are a peace offering … an offering you give to avoid possible conflict.

Honesty, on the other hand, almost encourages some conflict and therefore you need to stand your ground and help others know why you are telling the truth and why you are being honest about what you really think.

Whew.

This suggests the best friendships and relationships take work and involve some conflict.

<they do>

This can get a little trickier because lies are sneaky. In fact it was the US Supreme Court who just ruled that a lie can actually … well … not be a lie.

Well.

Not really.

They assessed a value to a lie in order to judge it. While I have always felt that a lie was a lie. And I have never really cared to try and measure & assess the depth & breadth of a lie because … well … a lie was a lie to me.

The Supreme Court made us question … do different lies have a different value?

“… the court ruled unanimously that a lie told in the course of gaining citizenship can be used against the applicant only if it was relevant to the reward.”

Who would have ever thought we would judge a lie in a cause & effect manner?

<not me>

So a lie only has value if it had a consequence of some tangible reward or gain <peace or avoiding conflict is not a tangible gain>?

Well.

That creates some philosophical challenges.

They actually called these “irrelevant lies.”

And maybe this is where I circle back to friendship. In finding the strongest bonds of friendship there is no irrelevant honesty. All honesty is relevant. I say that because … well … relevance can be harshly illuminating. There are harsh words empty of relevance and then there are the harshly relevant words which strip you bare for all to see.

This will … well … certainly create some uncomfortable silence at times … and certainly cost you some friends at other times.

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

“Isn’t it because there’s more truth in it than you might wish? … I told him. This brought the conversation to an end and we walked along side by side in silence.

——

<A hero of our time: Lermontov>

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

Let me come back to what Montaigne because, once again, here’s what he believes is the ultimate harm of lying:

Our understanding is conducted solely by means of the word: anyone who falsifies it betrays public society. It is the only tool by which we communicate our wishes and our thoughts; it is our soul’s interpreter: if we lack that, we can no longer hold together; we can no longer know each other. When words deceive us, it breaks all intercourse and loosens the bonds of our polity.

He’s obviously right — lying destroys trust and destroys bonds. And they do so in sometimes little sneaky ways dissolving or loosening little threads holding us together. And, yes, sometimes they just cut all threads and you ‘lose’ whatever you had as it floats away on the restless sea of Life.

But if you turn Montaigne’s words around … being honest offers a path to what lies destroy. We know each other, our souls are interpreted to each other and we hold together because we know each other – a stark reality bared to each.

And therein lies what being honest offers — reality.

And for many people reality sucks.

===========

“In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we neither seek nor want honesty or reality.

Reality is complicated. Reality is boring. We are incapable or unwilling to handle its confusion.”

—–

Ryan Holiday

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

Suck or not … I have said again and again <and will continue saying> that reality is reality. just like facts are facts. It is what it is and you can either face it or ignore it … but it will be there regardless of whether you look or not.

And that is why honest friends are the ‘good things.’ For in their honesty they also offer a companion to face reality, look at it straight in the eye and say “I am here, I will not go away, and I will do good things.”

Well.

That sure seems worth being honest to me, doesn’t it? I mean … well … having the rights ones with you to face reality rather than try and avoid reality sure seems good. Shit. Just standing up and facing reality rather than ignore it sounds good to me.

Being honest comes with a cost … sometimes friends.

Being honest comes with a benefit … the ability to face reality

Seems like a fair value equation.

But that’s me.

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

“If each of us hires people who are smaller than we are, we shall become a company of dwarfs.

But if each of us hires people who are bigger than we are, we shall become a company of giants”.

–

 David Ogilvy

<political correctness caveat:

Mr. Ogilvy said this in the 1950’s as a vivid metaphor for the importance of hiring the best and not suggesting dwarfs are incapable of bigness, in fact, he hired a number of short people who were intellectual & creative giants>

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

“Never write and advertisement you wouldn’t want your own family to read.

You wouldn’t tell lies to your own wife.

Don’t tell them to mine.”

——

David Ogilvy

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

“It seems to me that we can observe the same set of facts yet some of us see the tragedy of the human comedy while other see the comedy of the human tragedy.”

————–

<Google couldn’t tell me who said this>

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

So.

Yesterday was the first time I worried that America is running the risk of becoming a country of dwarfs.

Forget greatness … I am thinking ‘littleness.’

Little intellectually, little integrity, little dignity, little respect and little honor.

This worry came to me yesterday as a couple of Donald J Trump’s tweets popped up on my computer and I sat back and said “WTF … what is fucking wrong with him.”

Needless to say … this was not the first time I have said that to myself <or yelled at the TV> but yesterday … one in which he not only utilized his mastery of immature grade school name calling but he also diminished a successful woman’s intelligence <low IQ>, her mental state <crazy> and appearance <blood flowing from face lift> … I found myself thinking this is truly horrible.

This is horrible in that in one tweet Donald J asshat delivered the diminishing trifecta against all women everywhere <albeit he directed it to one woman>.

And this is not just horrible from my perspective … or even from a “dignity of the Presidential position” perspective … but just horrible from anyone’s perspective <father, parent, brother, human>.
That said.

I have now reached a point where I have a method in evaluating what the President tweets and says because while I know very little he says is anything I would ever say, or believe is appropriate to say, I am willing to admit I may be biased in judging this incompetent intellectual dwarf.

Here is what I do.

First.

Jury of US President peers. How would I feel if Merkel, Macron, May, Xi or even Putin & Erdogan said this? Would I be outraged or simply nod my head sagely?

These, by the way, regardless of their physical stature are the intellectual and leadership giants of the world <some are also moral giants>.

Second.

Jury of Business peers. How would I feel if the CEO of Amazon, GE, Ford, Goldman Sachs or even the president of your local chamber of commerce, city’s largest pest control company or the head of the School Board said this? <and would they most likely get fired?>

These, by the way, regardless of their physical stature are the economic & social giants, or aspiring giants, of the world <some are also moral giants>.

Third.

Jury of parents. How likely do I think a parent would go out of their way to tell their child “see this … this is exactly the way you should handle it!” For example … how many homes do I believe a father said to his son “Donald Jr., this is exactly what I would tweet your mother if she ever said anything bad about me to the Moose Lodge!”

These, by the way, regardless of their stature are the nurturers of the future giants of the world.

Fourth.

Jury of the young. How would I feel if I saw this comment or thought said by one teen to another … or if I saw my son send this to a classmate … or if I ever saw any young person send this message out to 33 million people? Heck. How would they feel if their girlfriend, or any friend, received a message like this? <although I will note that back in March 2016 I did suggest Teens celebrated Trump as one of them — from a maturity perspective>.

These, by the way, regardless of their stature will most likely be the giants of the world <and our fates will be in their hands>.

Fifth.

Jury of the trolls. How would the statement and words look if I placed them below any viable article in any viable online publication next to the slew of online trolls spewing their hateful bile?

These, by the way, are the intellectual and moral dwarfs of the world.

All that said.

More and more often I am finding Donald J Trump dwelling in the comfortable abode of the intellectual and moral dwarfs.

Regardless.

Ogilvy was, and is, right.

Hiring people smaller than you insures your company will never be a giant … but what if the hirer himself is a dwarf?

Sigh.

I cannot fire Donald J Trump. You cannot fire Donald J Trump. He is our president <that still hurts to type> and I have to start thinking not just about what policies he may actually someday implement but also how his actions, as THE leader of the country, affect the size, economically, morally and dignity, of the country … in other words … will we be a country of giants or dwarfs with his leadership?

Well.

We actually have two paths thanks to our mental dwarf of a President.

The first is to accept his behavior as normal and permit it to become more normal outside the purview of the oval office and on our tween/teen smartphones, in the classrooms, on softball and soccer fields, in the bars and in the office.

This path has one destination … a country of dwarfs.

The second is to not accept this behavior as normal, or acceptable, or even good, and create a counter culture in which we recreate the foundation of civil discourse, respect, dignity and an increased valuation of maturity not bullying <under the guise of ‘fighter’>.

This path has several destinations but one certainly is a country of giants.

This choice may seem easy at first glance but the truth is that I do know, having run a business, maintaining an organization of giants takes leadership. And if your leader is a dwarf the path to becoming giants becomes more difficult.

Look.

I wrote recently that Donald J struggles with ‘staying above’ but I would be remiss to not point out that in the business world it takes a special manager to maximize people’s potential <even if it means outstripping your own ability & potential> AND keep your job AND keep your status as a leader.

I will admit that it takes a little bit of self-courage, a shitload of conviction and even some craftiness in your own responsibilities.

That said <now that I have given him an excuse>.

……… little Trump pouting …….

I think what will help America overcome the intellectual and moral dwarf we current have in office is that the majority of people truly want to be a country of giants and we would prefer leaders who foster the attitude.

I can honestly say that I don’t care what generation you are <millennial, boomer, Xer, etc> or what your upbringing was or even what attitudes you may have … I can guarantee one behavior … and I will guarantee it.

The guarantee? Give us a giant as a boss and we will run thru walls.

And therein lies my larger call out. In my small corner of the world I will never be a giant <although I like to think giant integrity-like thoughts> but there are those out there who can do something bigger … and they should look in the mirror and start thinking like a giant, acting like a frickin’ giant and maybe all those people casting about for some guidance will take giant steps for the giants who stand up to lead.

Wow.

That would a giant leap of faith to attempt that.

Surprisingly, great organizations take giant leaps sometimes.

That is what makes them giant.

Correspondingly, great countries take giant leaps sometimes.

That is what makes them giant.

Sigh.

I would be naïve to not understand that we can observe the same set of facts yet some of us see the tragedy of the human comedy while other see the comedy of the human tragedy.

I can only hope that as the facts accumulate more and more people will see that USA has an intellectual and moral dwarf as president and he isn’t making America greater he is making it smaller.

Personally, I want to live in a country of giants. But that’s me.

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

“Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.”

—-

J.R.R Tolkien

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

—

“And though she be but little, she is fierce.”

–

—-

William Shakespeare

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

Ok.

This is about business and business leadership.

Leading is a big job. It carries big responsibilities and big burdens. You have to be big enough in some way <skills, charisma, character, smarts, etc.> to stay above the organization and employees. And I say “above” because part of leading is being able to see above the heads of everyone so that you can lead and align and step in when & where appropriate.

Above is not dominance per se just that you maintain a dominant position from which you can most effectively & efficiently lead.

Now.

Here is what any good leader knows … you don’t have to be big to … well … be big.

Heck. You don’t even have to act ‘big.’

In addition.

A good leader can leave the comfort of the ‘throne’, i.e. the trappings of the ‘bigness’ –the natural ‘dominance’ that comes with a title — and still remain above even when stepping down from all those things.

However.

Not everyone is a good leader. And not every leader is particularly good at navigating the natural doubts <am I doing the right thing, am I doing the best thing, am I doing the thing I should be doing, etc.> that come along with being a leader. By the way … any good leader has some doubts on occasion … it keeps them grounded.

Regardless.

What that means is there will inevitably be business people who fear looking small. And they protect their illusions of ‘bigness’, or being bigly, mainly in several ways:

• They diminish everyone they can in the attempt to make others as small as they can so that they look bigger no matter the comparison

• They find a ‘safe space’ in which they place their metaphorical throne and make everyone come to them <this is kind of like the boss who purposefully has their desk built slightly higher and the chairs facing the desk slightly lower to insure they maintain a physical dominant position>

• They avoid, as much as possible, one-on-one interactions with anyone their own size <unless they can control the environment>.

• They ground themselves in platitudes under the guise of “flexibility & adaptability” so they can avoid having to defend anything specific with anyone who could diminish their bigness

Well.

Why I decided to write about this is … uhm … day in and day out Donald J Trump offers us in the business world reminders of ineffective leadership style and the characteristics of insecure leadership.

And the number one characteristic of insecure leadership is the inability to step down and still stay above.

Insecure leaders are extremely hesitant, if not completely resistant, to leaving their ‘dominant position.’

Let me explain ‘dominant position’ because it can sound bad <and it is mainly meant to express a position of authority>.

A CEO or a president is clearly in a dominant position by title and by responsibility and, in most cases, by some larger skill that got them to where they are. A true ‘dominant position’ <let’s call it “authority”> combines all aspects.

Therefore the person in the dominant position combines substance & style. And this is where insecurity steps in … because if a leader has any true doubts with regard to their ‘dominant position’ – mostly doubts on their substance — they start exhibiting some insecure characteristics.

They will dial up their style aspects to cloak any substance deficiencies and become excruciatingly careful with regard to how they interact with other people.

But the one I thought about today was “stepping down.’

Let me explain.

I heard Donald J say the other day “they should call us to participate.” In other words … they need to come to me <thereby establishing some aspect of subservience and feeds the sense of ‘dominant position.’

This was not a one-off comment.

He does this … every … frickin’ … day.

Trump never “goes to people” nor does he unite by inserting himself into any opposing groups <people who may not agree with him> opening himself up to say “let me be part of what you want.” I cannot envision him ever going to opposition and suggesting he wanted to work with them <they have to come to him>.

His whole leadership style is driven by an insecurity of ‘dominant position’ and he fears stepping down from his position because he fears it will expose the fact he isn’t really above anyone other than in title.

In other words … he fears looking small <or ‘not bigly’>.

And therein lies the larger lesson.

Good leaders don’t become smaller when they step down or go to people rather than make people go to them. They know there are no ‘little people’ but rather only big responsibilities of which everyone has.

Little people are little wherever they go … even if they just sit in the corner office.

Unfortunately for us a little leader knows this … and doesn’t know this.

What I mean by that is they can sense their littleness therefore they go out of their way to stay within whatever cocoon of ‘bigness trappings’ to encourage the belief they have that they are actually big. And, yet, they don’t know this because they tend to have an oversized view of themselves <every should come to me attitude>.

They see themselves through a fairly warped view of self-relevance … “everyone else becomes more relevant by being around me therefore they become bigger in my bigness.” And that partially outlines their main fear.

Loss of relevance.

Anyone who becomes more relevant than them is a danger. Loss of power, the illusion of or real, is the danger.

What that all means is that an insecure leader more often than not lives in a “you need to come to me, call me or ask me” mentality.

• Foreign dignitaries come to visit him <and he does not visit them>.
• Democrats should call me instead of being obstructionists.
• People need to visit him at the White House <or Mar a Lago>.
• He never works with people or offers to meet them.

He treats everyone as if they should be subservient to him and if they do not meet that desire he is dismissive or even attacks them as ‘obstructionist.’

Let me be clear.

No sane business leader <in this generation> has this attitude.

You cannot.

You cannot because you know many of the people working for you are actually smarter than you and a shitload more just may know something you do not know.

You cannot because oftentimes your peers, who actually report to you, may actually be better than you at some things.

You cannot because you know that good people never want to feel subservient but rather want to feel being a key part of overall success.

Most of those who lead have learned these things not by attempting to learn to be ‘above’ but rather by learning how to lead. And you learn that mostly by getting into ‘the game’ and realizing you can play anywhere at any time. I know that I took an advertising job as a young newly promoted VP in NYC not out of any desire to be the best but because I was curious. I was curious to see if I could “play in the NYC advertising game.” I didn’t need to be the best nor did I desire to dominate … I just wanted to see if I could play.

I can tell you that once you become comfortable with knowing you can play at the biggest level and the lowest level you have a fighting chance to become a leader.

Look.

We all have numerous character flaws and it is a sad truth the majority of us can’t see them. This is even more difficult in a leadership position because you do naturally become more self-aware of any of the things you are good at and yet also not good at … but you also lean heavily on the things you ‘perceive’ got you where you are today.

I say that because insecure leaders are relatively hollow on the self-awareness.

Looking at Trump it is easy to see that he grew up thinking he could get away with whatever he wanted. He lived in a bubble in which young, mentally lazy, rich, amoral white men routinely got away with whatever they wanted. These same characteristics are exhibited in his insecure leadership style.

Here is what I know.

Big leaders are big leaders.

And they are big because wherever they go they retain their bigness. That means they need not ‘stay above’ to be big … they can step down … sit in town halls answering questions from real people as well as sit down with people who didn’t vote for you as well as sit down with peers and discuss ideas … and walk away just as big as they entered the room.

Small leaders cannot do those things, therefore, they do not.

I have now given you a way to judge big leaders from small leaders. Judge away. Every leader should be judged … and judged harshly … because … well … they are leaders and that is their burden.

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

“Fake news fabricated as truth that panders to its audience’s ideologies and promises an illusion of the future – enough to compel people to join an imagined cause.”

—

TrendMicro

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

“Advertising is fundamentally persuasion and persuasion happens to be not a science, but an art.”

—

Bill Bernbach

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

“As an advertiser we must assume responsibility for everything we do, because everything we do has the potential to make someone think something or do something.

And that ‘something’ can be good or bad. It is up to us to steer it toward good.”

—-

Bruce McTague

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

Ok.

If I hear one more politician or troll commenter online say “not one vote was affected by Russian efforts during the Presidential campaign” I am gonna tear my hair out.

While I have talked about ‘fake news’ and the responsibility media has in reporting, I have avoided talking about how Russia influenced the Presidential campaign because it sounds political and politicians have made simplistic soundbites the discussion point by saying shit like “can anyone point to any evidence that one vote was changed”.

Well.

Today I am going to point … and I am not a politician and now I have a report to point to <which I will highlight in a couple of moments>.

Suffice it to say since the election of Donald J Trump and following the widespread debate about how fake news on social media may have contributed to his victory I have racked my brain on how to point out to people how, if done effectively, a Russian media campaign <fake news initiative> could have certainly impacted behavior at the election booth.

I wanted to do so not because I know for sure that votes were affected but rather because by not even considering, or acknowledging, that people may have been affected enough to influence their vote means we diminish the potential impact of a real propaganda campaign.

While non advertising people most often speak of “advertising creates awareness” <at best> or “I am not impacted by advertising” <at worst> … they are wrong.

The truth <inside the hallways of advertising agencies around the world> is that we speak of influencing real behavior – change brand preferences, convince someone to try, affect attitudes toward a particular brand or product <your own or a competitor>, shift preferences from one brand or product to another and even educate to create an impact in terms of behavior.

Advertising and professional communications is business … the business of persuading people to think things and do things. It may be immediate actions or it may be the process of engaging to ultimately affect actions … but I cannot think of one business spending one dollar on professional communications who does not desire to persuade people to think at least one thing with the intent to create at least one type of behavior.

I have sat through hundreds of meetings analyzing shifts in attitudes & behavior <linked to sales of my business as well as shifts in competitors business> scouring information with regard to perceptions, persuasion, purchase intent, impact of influencers, etc.

I have sat through thousands of hours of discussion on ideas, impressions and attitudes about a brand or product all with the intent to find something that will predispose someone to see it in some positive light in which it will compel someone to buy it versus something else.

I say all of this because it is absolutely nuts to suggest an effective propaganda or fake news <or let’s call it what it really was … an advertising campaign driven by social media> cannot affect people’s behaviors & attitudes.

Absolutely nuts.

Now.

I wrote today because a company called Trend Micro, a cybersecurity firm, just issued an 81 page study called Fake News and Cyber Propaganda: The Use and Abuse of Social Media.

They call it “forward thinking threat research” … I would have suggested they could have contacted any global advertising agency who could have shown them study after study with regard to how advertising can affect behavior & change attitudes.

That said.

The report does do what I have been unable to unearth in all my files of Attitude & Usage studies and communications research … they show specific tactics and plans and costs and results. They show you what a communication plan, done effectively, can do.

And, suffice it to say, it doesn’t take a shitload of money to effectively propagate lies, false narratives and fake news.

They provide an analysis focusing on fake news and alternative storylines and the use of influencers <influencers & influencer campaigns: is what every Public Relations agency in the world does for their clients every single day> as well as the overall effect in manipulating social behavior.

Their report is actually quite similar to what we in the advertising & communications business look at every week … except we do so in much more detail picking apart the minutiae in order to see what button we can push to … well … push someone a little closer to doing what we would like them to do.

With regard to the Presidential campaign, I want to be clear, what effective propaganda can do:

• It can make someone seem smarter
• It can make someone seem worse than they are

If those are two separate someones, you have created a distinction gap between the someones. I could argue that the Russians did exactly that … made an ‘incompetent someone’ edge a little closer to appearing competent and made a ‘flawed someone’ edge a little closer to being worse than flawed.

Uhm.

That can make a difference when market share equals millions of dollars or thousands of votes, not millions, equals a presidency.

Anyway.

Some people will never be convinced that a propaganda effort, or an advertising campaign, can actually affect how they think and what they do.

That is too bad.

They would be wrong … but purposefully ignorant type wrong.

But I do believe everyone would agree that discerning truth from fiction is more difficult today than it has ever been and I tend to believe everyone doesn’t like that. Which means it is increasingly important that people not only think a little more about what they are absorbing information wise but maybe we need to become better at helping people question what they see.

This is where leaders & influencers really do matter.

They need to stop undermining good sources of truth simply because that source may not support some narrative they want. Politifacts and maybe Snopes and a variety of other locations do a really nice job of sifting through fact versus fiction in a mostly unbiased way. And, yet, enough people diminish their value when it don’t match their narrative that they remain slotted as a viable source for some people and not a viable source for others. We need to find some universally accepted locations of truth.

Sure.

Some people will not be happy about what they see but the real enemy is fake news and created fictional narrative and not half-truths or misused facts.

But all people should be happy with truth … and not being fooled by fake news and cyber propaganda.

The Russians did affect the 2016 election. I cannot tell you how much or if it represented a different result than would have happened if they had not been involved <although my gut professional instincts suggest they shifted the dial enough to make a difference>. I will tell anyone reading this if you gave MillwardBrown (or any viable advertising agency which has some programmatic planning) maybe $50k and all the county data & all the media information they could clearly, and unequivocally, show vote results in counties with Russia-driven messaging versus non-Russian messaging counties. Shit. That’s what they do in any media review meeting.

But, at this point, we shouldn’t debate the result we should be discussing how efforts like this, when done effectively, can impact our view on things, ideas and people. Because if we can all admit that, well, we are halfway to getting closer toward real truth.

And, to me, that sounds good – not a fake goal.

——————

======

source:

Fake News and Cyber Propaganda: The Use and Abuse of Social Media 

The report from Trend Micro, a cybersecurity firm, is 81 pages long but if you have the time … worth every second to read.

The Fake News Machine research paper comes at a time of increasing concern across the globe about the hacking of elections and the ways that fake news on social media has manipulated voters. The report delves into the underground marketplaces that can allow campaigns, political parties, private companies and other entities to strategically create and distribute fake content to shift public perceptions.