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

“What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.”

John Green

===========

“Don’t try to make life a mathematics problem with yourself in the center and everything coming out equal.

 When you’re good, bad things can still happen.

And if you’re bad, you can still be lucky.”

Barbara Kingsolver

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

Whew.

We score everything.

People.

Games.

Performance.

Life.

We almost treat Life as a balance sheet.

Heck.

We almost treat people as a balance sheet.

We most certainly attempt to make life, a specific event or time, a mathematical problem. And we then proceed to analyze that Life or event or time with some unequivocal mathematical solution in mind with the intent to measure it.  In addition, we have a nasty habit of doing this in particular when we want to discuss “improving”, i..e, wanting a person to be more than a person <or the person gthey are today>.

That said.

Ponder this Life math conundrum.

• Balance sheets are assessed by zeroing it out. Pluses equal minuses.
• Scoring usually goes 1 to 10. 10 being the best.

Uhm.

If the best people are the ones who balance out <they would then be a zero … oops … or are they then a 10?>, then wouldn’t they, uh oh, they don’t even show up as being worthwhile on the 1 to 10 scale.

Or how about this <if you want to ignore the balance sheet idea>.

What happens if someone’s 10 version is an 8?

What a treacherous thing to demand a 10 on an 8 score when they are truly a 10 as is.

What a treacherous thing to demand that a person be more than the person they are simply because you have a formula to attach to that person.

Unfortunately, society almost seems to encourage us to not only make Life mathematical, not only to label mathematically, but also to judge mathematically.

And, to be clear, the whole positive and encouragement and “think good things” industry certainly ain’t helping us in accepting a person as a person.

Yeah.

The whole “Secret” & positive thing can far too quickly translate into some wacky life mathematical problem people can solve in making a ‘better Life.’

You can do better!

If you are at 7 you should always be striving for 8!

Personally I believe we have bastardized real encouragement in combination with ‘numberizing’ people <a bad combination>.

People are not numbers, nor should they be assessed as numbers and, surely, they cannot simplistically be represented as something as simple as a number.

And what makes this even more treacherous?

There is rarely such a thing as a good or bad person in isolation.

What I mean by that is what may be good at one moment is bad at another. And what that means is, well, a number can trap someone in the past or being measured for but a moment. Therefore, not only does it become treacherous to believe a person is more than a person, but treacherous to believe a person is less than a person.

And, yeah, I know about 360degree reviews and measuring shit by tracking over time, but inevitably the math works out one of two ways:

• • An average of highs and lows <which diminishes true learning on how high is up and how low is low>

  • A snapshot in time <in which the person gets screwed if they are having a bad time and benefit if it is their one truly good time>

When I took a moment and really thought about this, I kind of thought this was related to the whole ‘perfect person and imperfections’ thing. We have a nasty habit of looking at the people who we dislike and immediately assess, judge what could and should be improved, and think “they could be a 10 if only …”

We have an even nastier habit of looking at the people we like, yes, actually like, judge how close they are to a ‘perfect person’ and think “gosh, they would be absolutely perfect <a 10> if only …”

That’s silly.

No.

That’s unhealthy.

No.

It’s just fucking stupid.

People are people.

On their best day and at their best they are … well … their best. And judging someone as if they can be, and should be, their best – or a “10” – every day is just fucking stupid.

A person is no more than a person.

And no matter how much we want to make a person a number and make Life a mathematical formula or equation we cannot.

And because we cannot we actually should not.

Yeah.

It is a treacherous thing to believe a person is more than a person.

Just as it is treacherous thing to believe a person is less than a person.

Don’t try and make life, or a person, a mathematical equation.

People are not numbers, they are people. And the risk we run is, well, this:

“We should always bear in mind that numbers represent a simplification of reality.”

Kenneth E. Boulding

=====

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

Albert Einstein

—————

Well. Who would have thought the guy who figured out e=mcsquared would actually say something so simple even someone who doesn’t have a physics PhD can understand it.

I am gonna dumb this down even more.

People in business who manage by milestones and aren’t satisfied unless they have “milestones” to measure and  lean in on “how do we make people accountable” drive me crazy.

Why?

Because they are always seeking something to count.

And what is worse?  That is where they stop.

They stop there because if they can’t count it, it doesn’t count.

Drives.

Me.

Fucking.

Nuts.

Look. Setting clear objectives and maybe some goals is always useful. But not to inspire work. It should be done to guide workers toward something. That said. The entire thought of “because you cannot count something that it doesn’t count” is … well … absurd.

It is absurd because the best people I have ever worked with, or even just glanced off of, had an intangible that made everyone around them be better. Yeah. Often they ‘hit’ numbers but they were also the ones most likely to hit numbers you never even imagined if you didn’t give them a frickin’ number to ‘hit.’  And maybe that is my point. The space between hitting a designated number and a realized number is uncountable upfront. Yeah.  I don’t know how you count that. I can’t even count the intangibles that go into creating a predictive uncountable number.

And trying to figure out how to make an intangible tangible just so you can figure out a way to measure or count it seems to be an incredible waste of time and effort. Let me explain just so you don’t think I am being silly. In most businesses if you leave people alone and let them create business and they generate some number bigger than what was expected <or forecasted> some numbnut will come along and analyze every aspect of what happened and who did what so that they can ‘count it’ into their next forecast. Its absurd.

(but that is something you can count on)

Numbers, in and of themselves, are not accountable. They are simply a reflection of some “cause” <and ’cause’ can be accountable>. More likely numbers are a refection of that wacky thing called “people working together.”

Numbers, in and of themselves, are less facts and more reflections of a mosaic from which you need to build facts. Even more importantly numbers are more a reflection of the intangible aspect of

What you can also count on is Albert was smarter than he looked.

==========

“Of all the things created and built by humankind, nothing in my mind is better or worthier than bridges.

They belong to all and treat all alike; they are useful, always built for purpose, at a spot where most human needs entwine.”

–

Ivo Andric

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

Well. When I saw this quote I thought “wow, I have the companion piece to my Liminal space post”.

Liminal spaces tend to make people feel uncomfortable as places of transition <neither here nor there>. They are kind of the fascinating, interesting, but oft wretched, spots where you have left what was but have not entered into what will be. It is the intangible that create the niggling discomfort or unease <or anticipation>. You are kind of disconnected from any of your real comfort zones.

Bridges make people feel comfortable. They are tangible. They show the clear path from where you are to where you can go. With a bridge you know you can always be connected with a comfort zone <even if you never go back>.

Regardless.

These two things are companions in crime.

Liminal spaces, voids as it were, tend to serve to refocus and remind people of what is at stake and what is really important.

Bridges offer a place to focus. They offer us … well … some pragmatic hope that you can actually get somewhere <even if where you are is kind of unclear>.

Connecting spaces, which is really what bridges are, are invaluable to us physically and mentally.

Almost everyone’s minds excitedly explore uncertain forays into interesting things and, at exactly the same time, get lost as they get snagged on the edge of unexplored thoughts or even those mischievously evil second guesses that are inevitably associated with the uncertainty in much of our lives, thoughts and growth.

And this can make us feel uncomfortable and our mind wrestles with this discomfort as well as dealing with the uncertainty of, well, this liminal space.

Here is some truth.

Ignorance is boundless.

Knowledge is limited <only in terms of time>.

Learning, and unlearning, often contains more uncertainty than it does certainty.

This means our minds are always grappling with the hollow spaces of our lives, i.e., the empty spaces in which we know we have to cross, but just aren’t sure we can see how to cross.

That, in a nutshell, is why we love bridges.

Look. I am a strategy guy or maybe I could be called a “here to there” thinker guy. I like liminal spaces AND I like bridges. While I like navigating liminal spaces I don’t like going back again and again to the same, therefore, I also like to build a bridge in ever liminal space I visit in business.

Not all strategy type people do that.

Some like (just) the theory – the larger ‘trend.’ They are called futurists. I tend to call them relatively worthless <or maybe just misguided in their self title>.

Some like navigating the liminal space, seeing the web of the trend itself and doing the mental gymnastics to weave your way through, leaving some bread crumbs for others to follow.

Some like the practical step-by-step plan of getting from one place to another <the places are less relevant the bridge is all that matters>. I would argue they weren’t traditional strategists but rather strategy implementers, but, call them what you may they play an incredibly important role in getting people from here to there and what is to what could be.

Me? I am a pragmatic strategy person.

Identifying “what could be” is all about navigating liminal spaces and deciding which door to open and walk through … what path to choose and what rivers to cross. It gets the heart pumping, is not for the faint of heart, and is fraught with peril.

I say that because building a bridge seems to help not only tangibly show the ‘rightness’ in deciding the ‘right what could be’ but it also gives people a path. A path in which they have less uncertainty and can focus on … well … getting from here to there.

To me not building a bridge just seems like leaving something incomplete. Like maybe offering someone a map while I could have shared a map AND built a road.

Let me say I don’t think the world needs more of me <god no>, but I do believe we need to appreciate the pragmatic bridge builders in our midst.

Bridges are not typically built willy nilly in some random place. More often they are placed in useful places constructed with connection of those in one place and those in another.

What was and what will be <as it were>.

I am a business guy. But, I admit, I stop and admire well-built bridges all the time. I admire the bridges with character and wear & tear as trains rumble across them.

I do so because they remind me that a well-built bridge may be one of the worthiest things in the world.

While I wish more business thinkers, and strategy people, would think about this kind of shit more often I will lower my wishes and just say everyone should stop and admire a bridge on occasion.

They may be one of the worthiest, least appreciated, things we encounter.

Plus. In a world that seem increasingly uncertain where the intangibles & unknowns seem to outnumber the tangible & certain, well, bridges can be quite tangible, quite certain … and quite comforting. Great reminders that we humans have always been quite good at figuring out how to connect here to there.

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

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

—-

Jean-Martin Charcot

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

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

—

The Branches of Time

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

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

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

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

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

That said.

Ask any business leader and they will:

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

(b) always be seeking to make things better.

Period.

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

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

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

Ah. Engagement.

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

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

All that said.

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

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

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

Look.

Better business needs a structural change. Period.

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

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

Now.

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

—–

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

—–

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

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

source: Zach Mercurio

Or. As Zach shared with me:

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

I will say that now we fight.

In the end.

A better way of doing business for a better world.

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

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

Drucker clearly knew this.

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

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

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

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

“A boss creates fear, a leader confidence.

A boss fixes blame, a leader corrects mistakes.

 A boss knows all, a leader asks questions.

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

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

—–

Russell H. Ewing

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

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

Now. I have to tell you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<3> weak leaders, or

<4> narcissistic arrogant dickheads.

=========== 

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

Indira Gandhi

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

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

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

Here is what most of the good leaders know.

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

What does that mean?

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

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

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

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

Look.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————

“And the nights, bigger than imagining: black and gusty and enormous, disordered and wild with stars.”

—–

Donna Tartt 

=============== 

“This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

―

T.S. Eliot

==========

Well. Despite the fact most nights remain the same amount of hours, minutes and seconds day to day, a sleepless night can often look bigger than imagined. I have found that sleepless nights are less about restless minds and more about capacity in a squeezed space.

Huh?

Let me tackle squeezed first.

In general the world is a pretty vast place and our lives can seem fairly inconsequential.

The good news about this is that within all that vastness there is a lot of room to let some of the more horrible or horribly mundane crap just slip by.

The bad news occurs when all of a sudden Life, and the world, shrinks and you feel squeezed. And this can happen a lot easier than one may think.

Ponder what I am going to say as “the big squeeze.”

Everyday everyone faces some naturally occurring ‘shrinking’ aspects which in and of themselves can’t shrink your Life enough to matter. Let’s just say this is the daily grind of work, chores and family & Life commitments. Some things go well and some things don’t.

And then, of course, there will be a day or two where the things that “don’t” significantly outnumber the things that “do.” because this is day to day shit I view this as getting squeezed from the sides. They kind of suffocate you a little.

But set that aside for a moment.

And then there will be some days where you have that ad hoc shit you have to plan to get done — the faucet is dripping, the car engine light is on, someone hit the mailbox, crap like that. 95% of the time this kind of shit never goes as planned. It takes too long or it doesn’t get done right the first time or … well … suffice it to say … the easy stuff never gets done as easily as you would want.

And then, of course, there will be a day or two where the things that never get done as easily as you want actually end up just not going right. This is stupid little shit … but maybe think about it as maybe getting squeezed from underneath – an unexpected aggravating shift on the ground below you.

But set that aside for a moment.

And then there will be some days where you turn on the TV or maybe scan the internet news breaks and … well … some shit has hit the fan. Your country has made some monumental decision that seems to shift its place in the world.

Some nutjob terrorist has committed some heinous act to innocent people.

Some “thing” happens that feel like a shift in the bedrock of ‘what is.’ It may not directly affect you but you sense that it is a monumental thing which will most likely affect you <even though you aren’t sure how yet>. This is big shit … this just makes you feel a little like the weight of the world has gotten a little heavier and the world as you have known it has become a little murkier. You are getting squeezed from above.

But set that aside for a moment.

Now. I will now get to capacity.

Let’s assume on one day all there of things happen … you get squeezed all on one day. Oddly, this becomes a test of your capacity <which implies largeness>. And, yes, maybe it is about largeness. As in how large you can remain as you get squeezed.

Some nights it isn’t easy to not get suffocated.

Other nights you find your capacity and push back a little.

Most nights you find just enough largeness to not get, well, too little.

But the nights in which all three aspects I outlined squeezed you I would suggest the word ‘forlorn’ comes to mind. 

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

“Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.”

J.R.R. Tolkien

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

I use forlorn because I associate it with capacity as I am discussing it today. Forlorn has a sense of shrinking to it in that the good in Life seems to shrink and that which is bad seems to grow and you are left with that wretched forlorn feeling which dogs you throughout a sleepless night. Forlorn seems like it is more appropriate than lonely or lonesome in that it specifically embraces a senses of wretchedness and desertion or abandonment … in my mind … ‘despairing of the arrival of a friend … in this case … a friend called Hope.”

To me all of what I just shared with regard to squeezing and capacity captures the essence of the worst of the worst sleepless nights. And, if I were a betting man, I would bet we have all had a few of these.

Ok. Here is what I know.

Most of us get through these nights. Despite the vast emptiness of a night, more vast than we imagined it should be, we cast about among the chaos of the stars and find some light. I like to think of it as we clamber through the clouds and exist.

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

“I will clamber through the clouds and exist.”

John Keats

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

And the outcome of most of these nights, in addition to being tired, is out of the gauntlet of forlornness we seem to come out with a degree of hope. Hope for a better day <at minimum> and maybe Hope for something better <at maximum>.

In other words, out of the bigness which seems to squeeze us, if but for a moment, we rummage through a sleepless night … one black and gusty and enormous, disordered and wild with stars … and come out a little less black, a little more calm, a little more ordered and a little more focused on some star.

———————-

“Some infinities are bigger than other infinities.”

===

John Green

—–

False hope may be one of the worst things in the world and nowhere do we abuse hope more than with the discussion of possibility, i.e., “there are infinite possibilities.”

Wow. What bullshit.

Go online and you will see a gazillion articles, posts and general bullshit ramblings unequivocally stating:

“You are a being, full of infinite possibilities!”

“You are born with infinite possibilities.”

I will point out that by saying all this bullshit we are screwing the whole damn concept of possibilities let alone fucking up the truth of possibilities itself.

Your future is not filled by infinite possibilities.

Shit.

Your present is not filled by infinite possibilities.

Now. To be fair. We may have more possibilities than we think we do at any given point in time, but they are certainly not infinite. In fact, possibilities — your own possibilities in any given time and situation — are quite finite. And finite in a variety of ways:

Time inevitably squeezes your possibilities quite often into an almost suffocating finite space.

Ability inevitably squeezes your possibilities quite often into a fairly pragmatic sphere of finite space.

Context, or the situation itself, squeezes your possibilities quite often into a less than infinite, or maybe better said “a variety of different sized infinities,” choice space.

We do possibilities a huge disservice by suggesting ‘infinite.’

Shit.

We do ourselves a huge disservice by suggesting ‘infinite possibilities.’

Simplistically possibilities would be much better served if we suggested the depth & breadth available within the finite space available to us rather than some nebulous infinity.

Why? Because while finite may sound constricting it actually can help us keep our head in the game that is being played in the here & now. And finite actually helps maybe 80% of the people <I made that % up> in that the majority of people just do not feel comfortable answering the ‘call of the void’ <the unknown and uncertain>.

Regardless. Let me discuss possibilities for a minute in the context of multiple sized infinities.

At any given time in your Life you are absolutely surrounded by possibilities. But possibilities do not always lie directly ahead of you or in the direction you face. Possibilities swirl around you in a multi-dimensional fashion.

Therefore, possibilities can reside in any direction.

Therefore, in order to see all possibilities you may not be able to rely solely on peripheral vision but to turn around and view in a 360degree fashion <and, yes, if you turn around I would note you are then looking forward just in a different direction>.

Therefore, progress can reside in any direction.

But this is not infinite. It just may feel like it is infinite simply because of the complexity associated with context and what your mind can realistically grasp.

Our minds can only stuff so much crap and stimulus in at any given time and anything over that capacity starts to edge into “infinity” frame of mind. And it is not. It is simply the shit that is beyond our current capacity. But, suffice it to say, if you remain committed to restless movement and possibly some strategic side to side steps, and even thoughtful steps back, it is all part of progress in pursuit of what is possible.

All that said.

We would be much better served if we admitted that not all infinities are same sized. I also believe we would be much better served to admit that possibilities are finite to any given individual.

—

Side note.

To be clear.

If you progress to a new and different time & space your existing range of possibilities will change <so you can certainly change what is possible for you>, but this simply means, thru environment context chnage, you have changed the finite scope of possibilities.

—-

Anyway. Here is why I loved the quote I opened with.

I love the idea of infiniteness. I love its expansiveness and I love it embracing of ‘hope for what could be’ and I love the fact it suggests possibilities. But I have always felt like suggesting possibilities being infinite as false. It had the unintended consequence of falsely suggesting that anyone could do anything at almost any time if they elected to do so. I felt like it had the unintended consequence of almost ‘freezing’ people into indecision in its vastness. It created such a vast sense of false hope that many people squandered the true possibilities within grasp.

And the quote suggests the best of all. You do have an infinite universe of possibilities circling and swirling you at any given moment, but not all infinities are created equal <basically suggesting there is a finiteness to many infinities>.

What an awesome thought.

Owning infinity and finite at exactly the same time.

And you know what? It actually reflects a Life truth.

You do have a shitload of possibilities swirling around you in a 360degree view of things.

And it may all appear overwhelmingly infinite in its pragmatic possibility view.

But that is just because, well, within your finite world and your finite choices and your finite ability to view & assess the choices you have, you have the ability to explore the infiniteness of who and what you are and who and what you could be.

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

“We should always bear in mind that numbers represent a simplification of reality.”

—-

Kenneth E. Boulding

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

Numbers in business.

Numbers are everywhere. In every nook & cranny, in every drawer and in every meeting.

Numbers is a full time job … analyzing research, spreadsheets, hell, just thinking about all the numbers that overwhelm you in the everyday standard operating procedures in business can give you a headache.

And that headache is mostly created by counting everything … not just counting what counts.

I wrote a long time ago that counting something doesn’t mean it counts.

To be clear. What counts is what the numbers say,  as in, what do they express?

Numbers, more often than not, are simply directional signs toward truth. In other words, rarely do numbers tell the truth in their simplicity. Okay. They rarely tell the whole truth. And they are never a substitute for judgement.

But they are also the one tangible thing even a useless idiot can pull out to try and convince everyone they are smart & useful.

Now. As a corollary to numbers.

Theories in business.

Theories are everywhere. In every nook & cranny, in every drawer and in every meeting.

Theories is a full time job … nudging, blinking, decision modeling, stage gate, Gartner Hype, consumer lifecycle, hell, just the theories that are discussed in random conversations can overwhelm you in the everyday standard operating procedures in business. Theories tend to be the weapon of choice for those who are ‘number – challenged.’

Regardless.

This all means that while we often seem to give lip service to ‘business instincts’ more often than not it is someone who has figured out how to manipulate and articulate numbers who drives the ultimate decisions most businesses make.

That said. I sometimes fear, on occasion, we are crafting a generation of business people who view numbers as the answer for everything.  Yeah. I just suggested that despite the fact I have highlighted the millions of management theory business books sold on a monthly basis that people gobble up looking for the secret to success.

This is because numbers are sly. Tricky in fact. Pick up any number of the inane business books available and almost all of them will have to do with some secret thinking formula, or ingredient, for business success. All of that crap typically falls under the fantasy heading of “management theory.” And all this theory wafts thru the hallways of business management seeking to serve up the ‘theory du jour.’

Uh oh. The business truth is that theory sells, but numbers runs the reality of business. Theory discusses long term strategy and numbers tend to dictate short term decisions and actions <and we are clearly in a short term management world these days>. This means that millions of books sold, thousands of meetings discussing how to implement the theoretical ‘secret to success’ and the entire house of cards comes crashing down because some number cruncher wonk starts shouting out some ‘reality-based tactic model’ using numbers.

Look. I am certainly not defending business books & management theory.

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

“Between them, Taylor and Mayo carved up the world of management theory. According to my scientific sampling, you can save yourself from reading about 99 percent of all the management literature once you master this dialectic between rationalists and humanists.

The Taylorite rationalist says: Be efficient!

The Mayo-ist humanist replies: Hey, these are people we’re talking about!

And the debate goes on.  Ultimately, it’s just another installment in the ongoing saga of reason and passion, of the individual and the group. The tragedy, for those who value their reading time, is that Rousseau and Shakespeare said it all much, much better.”

Matthew Stewart

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

Most management theory is useless drivel.

To be sure. Accounting, statistical analysis, results monitoring and forecasting, decision modeling, and any numbers based knowledge is quite handy in building the foundation to learning how to successfully run and manage a business.

To be sure. Management theory, or the thinking that makes it up, is quite handy in building the strategic framework on how to implement a business strategy.

But most of the good business shit is learned on the job. And by ‘good business shit’ I mean both theory and numbers.

I cannot tell you how many meetings I have sat in where someone has stood up in front of the room with some modeling/management theory analysis with whizbang charts and quadrants and decision trees … only to have it all chopped down and shredded by someone in the audience who throws in a poisonous dose of reality.

I cannot tell you how many meetings I have sat in where someone has stood up in front of the room with snappy little charts with numbers highlighted <and the mind-numbing graphs to explain the wonderful painless short summary numbers pages> … only to have it all zeroed out by someone in the audience who throws in a poisonous dose of reality.

I don’t care if it is theory or numbers, more often than not they reflect some generic bland perspective on some solutions offered. But they don’t offer the thinking which can inevitably lead you away from some simplistic formula solution to a more insightful nuanced perspective on what to do next.

Thinking.

Judgement.

Experienced based instincts.

They are becoming the 3 Lost Wonders of the Business World. As Ogilvy once said theory & numbers are becoming the lamp posts the drunkards lean on for support rather than using them for illumination.

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

“I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.”

David Ogilvy

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

The business world is in a very odd place. Management theory and theoretical business crap <usually sold under the guise of some ‘important strategic tactical way of thinking about some business issue’> is pervasive throughout business. It is because everyone is seeking some ‘how to’ secret to unlock … uhm … better numbers.

This means at exactly the same time as everyone is devouring the new theory du jour they are huddled over numbers using them like a Ouija board asking them to tell them what to do next.

Management theory doesn’t work that way.

Shit. Numbers do not work that way.

Suffice it to say <this may be a Business Truth> that any management theory you are thinking of implementing as well as any numbers driven decision you are thinking of implementing, you should always bear in mind that they represent a simplification of reality.”

And business reality is never a simplification of anything.

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

“The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

–

Oscar Wilde

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

“What a simple black and white world you must live in.”

unknown

————————–

Communication.

Effective communication has been, and always will be, complex and complicated … and a good thing for society. Effective communication inevitably feeds into the minds and enlightenment of the listeners. If you dumb down communication inevitably you dumb down the listeners.

Old white men hollowed out communication. I imagine as they hollowed out everything else they found it inherently more productive to gain their objectives by hollowing out communication. Everything became soundbites, powerpoint bullet points and ‘elevator speeches.’ Effectively communicating complexity took on less importance than puncturing the mind with a quick sharp stab <and then walking away>. Old white men mastered the art of emptying communication to a point where businesses end up walking on the slippery surface of irrelevance <cloaked in a beautiful robe called “what is important for you to know.”>

Bruce McTague

————————-

Well. I may as well fulfill my contrarian obligations immediately – nothing is simple.

Nothing.

Look. I may be wrong but I think the world would be a shitload ‘righter’ if we just assumed nothing was simple and started acting that way.

The whole idea of simple and simplicity has … well … fucked us up royally. It has almost become an obsession toward which everyone is consumed by until we are either frozen into inaction <this isn’t simple enough> or we hold our “simplicity prize” up high proudly only to find in our holy quest we discarded some essential items which would have actually helped this ‘simple idea’ live.

We all want to simplify our lives <or at least we talk about it a lot>, simplicity in thinking, simplicity in ideas and simplicity in work, and yet, as a generalization, we all seem to seek every way possible to complicate our lives.

We see simplicity as a way to solve problems and, whew, we are a certainly a ‘people’ of problem solvers <but also problem creators as a corollary>. And, yet, “it seems simple …” may be the biggest problem of all and may be one of the most misused and misguided statements and thoughts in today’s world.

A good friend of mine, an experienced communications professional, always says “if you are explaining you are losing” as an argument for simplicity. The challenge is that it, uhm, isn’t an argument for simplicity. It is actually an argument for clearly articulating what you want, and need, to articulate. In fact, as I will point out later, being too simple actually creates more confusion, therefore, simplicity could actually be creating the explaining.

<oh my>

And that is where the myth of simplification dies. It dies in truth and reality.

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

Simplicity reality, more often than not, is an amalgamation of multiple fragments creating a mosaic which is pleasing to the eye <and relatively easy to grasp>.

Simplicity reality, more often than not, consists of some opposing thoughts in that, typically, if you have one… it seems you can’t have the other.

Contrary to simplicity narratives the complexity actually brings in the pragmatism of a simplistic reality <and I would argue effectiveness.>. All this means is that simplicity is rarely simple and trying to capture it in a meaningful single word or image is not only silly, but sells the depth & breadth of a decision or situation or idea or thought … or reality itself … short.

Reality is complex.

Life is complex.

Most ideas and thoughts are complex.

And there is no simple solution to complexity. Simple is hard. It is hard because sometimes, okay, most times, simplicity is arrived at by distilling complex solutions/ideas down to its most efficient form.

I would note that from my own business experience I would say that many times simplicity ideas can only be found from checking out all of the different solutions. And after sifting through everything simplicity is more often found in a “doh” moment <not an “ah ha!” moment> in that you may be surprised by the fact simplicity is just the thing that makes the most sense at the end of the day.

And why is simple THAT hard?

Well. Al Einstein said, “Make things as simple as can be—but not simpler.”

Geez.

So simple isn’t the least. It may actually be somewhere above the least and significantly below the most <complex>. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek simplicity. But what it does mean is that simple or simplicity shouldn’t be defined by rules or milestones or trite “say it in 10 seconds or less” dictates or, well, any boundaries.

Simplicity defines itself, it is not defined. Simplicity is reflective of the time, place, people, situation and solution needed.

Ponder that my friends.

What may make simplicity even more complex is, oddly enough, that part which should make it the simplest.

Simplicity, more often than not, is the nitty gritty stuff and not the more glamorous big vision or “big idea” stuff. It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement – piece by piece and part by part. To me, simple and simplicity tends to be found in shit that most people would think has nothing to do with simple:

• Coalesce fragments

“The whole is simpler than the sum of its parts.

Willard Gibbs

I think people would be much better off if they understood that while simple may be represented in ‘one thing’ it is actually representative of many things. The best of the best ‘simplicity finders’ are the ones who are the best at coalescing fragments. Gathering up disparate pieces of information and figuring out how to make them whole in a way that

• Box in complexity

Let me begin by paraphrasing a quote about how Sylvia Plath wrote…

“Whether Plath wrote about nature, or about the social restrictions on individuals, she stripped away the polite veneer. She let her writing express elemental forces and primeval fears. In doing so, she laid bare the contradictions that tore apart appearance and hinted at some of the tensions hovering just beneath the surface of the American way of life.”

Margaret Rees

I used the quote because far too many people think simplicity is about stripping away things to showcase the core instead maybe they should be thinking about stripping away the veneer so that the truth can be laid bare.

Let me explain <you will not agree with this if you do not agree that simplicity is a ‘whole made up of fragments’>.

Simplicity, to me, is about using the complex parts to box in the whole.

You either:

• Bracket what you want to offer <simplicity resides within two opposing thoughts>.
• Triangulate what you want to offer <simplicity resides in the middle>.
• Box in what you want to offer <simplicity gets squeezed into middle>.

Now. Some people may use what I just shared and say “simplicity is the distillation” and I would push back by suggesting “simplicity is reflective of all the parts as it shows the whole.”

Am I parsing words?

Maybe.

But when someone says ‘show a picture’ or ‘say it in 5 seconds or you lose them’ and be done with it = I just don’t think it is that simple. Simple stimuli are just as likely to confuse. Provide ambiguity. Generate a feeling of ‘lesser than’ <”I am missing something of value or I missed the opportunity to showcase some value”>.

— note: there is a lot of research supporting this thought —

Look. Our minds are like real estate. Space is limited and we can’t let every thought, idea, product, person or whatever have a place to stay. That means where the rubber hits the road with regard to being simple and simplicity is that it must create some connection with whomever is touching that simplicity. That connection can occur in a variety of ways <mos often thru some emotional response>.

I will end with Chopin. Chopin is one of my favorite classical composers. I seriously doubt anyone who has ever looked at any of his sheet music would suggest his music was not complex. And, yet, close your eyes and listen … it contains a simplicity that connects.

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

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

Frédéric Chopin

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

All I know is that we have totally fucked up the idea of simplicity to a point where simple, or simplicity, is more a myth than reality. This myth has hollowed us out – hollowed our thinking, our communication and our culture.

Most of the worthwhile things in Life are not hollow, they have depth & breadth, well, they are, uhm, complex.

Reality is complex.

Life is complex.

Most ideas and thoughts are complex.

There is no simple solution to complexity, but I would suggest that the beauty can be found in the breakdown of the complex to its simplest form.

=========

“Your opportunity is going to come whenever it comes.

You have to take advantage of it when it does.”

—

Mike Darnold

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

    “But, my dear, how long will you wait for something that will never come?”

—

(via saudi-barbie)

=====

So. Opportunities. ok. Opportunities and blinking.

Yeah. What happens if you blink at the wrong time in Life?

Well. Life, in general, doesn’t permit blinking. Okay. It is relentlessly unforgiving if you blink at the wrong time.

Simplistically, Life happens … even if you are not paying attention. Shit. Life happens even if you ARE paying attention and you blink.

Sigh.

Sadly … far too often we blink at just the wrong moment.

Sometimes it is because we … well … just have other shit to do.

Sometimes it is because we … well … we are just a dumbass

Sometimes it is because … well … that is just reality <sometimes>.

And, sometimes, well, it doesn’t really matter.

Doesn’t matter? Opportunities are like pebbles. If you throw a pebble into a pond, you have no way of predicting exact way the ripples will ripple <unless you are some mathematics professor at Harvard where you could probably extrapolate it … uhm … but the window of opportunity would most likely close anyway before you figured it out>. Ripples depend on how you drop, or throw, or skip the pebble. Shit. Ripples depend on if some other asshole drops a pebble, stone or clod of mud in the frickin’ pond.

=====

“How can I begin anything new with all of yesterday in me?”

Leonard Cohen

======

That said.

Not all blinks are created equal. Some blinks are … well … blinks. You just cannot keep your eyes open all the time.

And then there are hesitation blinks. The ones created by the ‘all of yesterday in me.’ Sometimes we blink because the present is a pretty cluttered moment for everyone. Maximizing your present, the “now”, is hard. Fucking hard. Anyone who suggests it is easy or ‘you should try and do it more’ is fucking crazy.

All that clutter can make us blink. And sometimes, yes, it makes us blink at exactly the wrong time.

Wrong time? Not only is ‘the present’ small, but windows of opportunity within ‘the present’ can open and close pretty fucking fast. And all of that just gets even smaller when squeezed by past and future.

Then you start trying to cram in all the tangible shit you need to do <as well as the things you don’t really need to do but have convinced yourself it is ‘need’>.

Holy shit. Then. Yeah. You blink. Shit. The ‘present’ has completely disappeared.

While it makes my head hurt just typing this there is a reason I bring it up.

While I have written ad nausea about managing time in general and how we focus on the wrong shit <spending more time making lists than actually doing shit> I would suggest that if you want to manage your time more effectively you need to get your head out of the ‘past & future’ head game the best you can.

If you do that effectively than you have effectively maximized your present time the best you can.

In blinking terms this means you have narrowed your blinks to natural blinking versus hesitation blinking. This type of decision on your part really can make a difference. Moments, ‘things’, feelings, opportunities, the possibilities die fast – like in the blink of an eye. In a blink of an eye what was possible simply disappears and is no longer possible.

===

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

Nelika McDonald

===

You blink and what was possible is no longer even in view.

You blink and all the plans you had mapped out get crumpled up.

Blinking insures you either grasp the concept of adaptability or you will inevitably grasp only disappointment an discouragement.

Yeah. It’s nice to have plans, and even recommended in most situations, but when a plan doesn’t happen, you have to be able to think on your feet, and change courses if necessary. Life doesn’t always cooperate with what you wanted to do, so you have to be prepared. We all know that if you aren’t paying attention to your own life, you are gonna miss some important things. Life does what it does whether you want it to or not.

Regardless. It can seem fairly overwhelming if you dwell on a belief that every minute that passes is a minute that you will never get back or every opportunity you miss is an opportunity you will never get back.

==========

“We don’t always get the luxury of having closure.

Sometimes things just end. There’s not always a rhyme or reason for why they do, they just do.”

Ashleigh Catibog-Abraham

==========

But that means you have to find some peace in blinking.

You need to find some peace in the fact that some opportunities are just missed.

You need to find peace in those the moments where you had got it right for yourself and not for anyone else <even if you did blink>.

Life is complex as it is.

Far too often we speak of opportunities in some simplistic fashion … and mostly from an individualistic point of view. Therein lies the foundation of opportunities & complexity.

We live in a world of collaboration and anything but individual decision making.

Simplicity is being demanded by the whole and implemented by the parts. And aligning attitudes and desires is difficult. And so is insuring aligning in strengths in today’s idealistic view of collaboration.

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

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

“Incredible change happens in your life when you decide to take control of what you do have power over instead of craving control over what you don’t.”

Steve Maraboli

=====

Huh? Well.

Simplistically <which is dangerous on this topic> opportunities truly are like windows. They open and close. When defined that simply it is nice and tight and makes something big smaller and more easily grasped. But these less-than-simple windows are actually representative of something that looks more like a bow tie or an hourglass on its side.

Lots of complex things and thoughts funneling into this nice tight little window and should you step through the window of opportunity … well … the vista of what could be, can be and will be widens to some pretty extraordinarily complex aspects.

In the end.

Maybe that is my bigger point about blinking and opportunities.

That window is always there.

That window opens and closes all the time.

That complex experience and stuff is always happening.

That complex vista beyond the window is always there and changing.

Oh.

Whether you blink or not.

Control what you can.

Accept what you cannot control.

Don’t blink because of hesitation.

And accept that, well, you have to blink sometime and you will miss something when you do.