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

“Hey, I’m using Guam as a token in a game of chicken with North Korea and as a result putting thousands of your constituents at risk but, hey, at least you’re famous!”

Donnie Two Scoops

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

Ok.

This whole North Korea and United States thing is dangerously bizarre. The most bizarre thing is the consistency with which Donald J Trump has offered us … from the time he became a candidate until today. He has consistently cared about one thing – how he looks, how he is perceived and how his ‘brand’ is viewed.

He is a self stylized ‘big brained, strong, best whatever’ brand <with, as we would say in the marketing business, dubious functional capabilities, i.e., not really sure it does what it is supposed to do when you buy it>.

Everything he does and says is meant to meet one objective – his brand.

Bizarrely, and justifiably, everyone takes all of his word salad and what we perceive as his thinking and parse it all out with regard to “what does this mean for America and how is this in America’s best interest.”

This is misguided and, worse, it normalizes his behavior & words by suggesting there is something there other than his own brand  building.

Everyone should never forget … and “best.”

Period.

Full stop.

Think about it for one second within this whole bizarre situation.

Guam is a potential target <only because North Korea couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn if asked to> … but the Guam governor will be famous! … and rich! … and applauded for that huuuuuuuge boost in tourism <without having to spend any money>!

That represents the thought process of the United States president – he sees only trees <things that are representative of what he believes make up his brand forest>.

 

“Don’t worry about a thing. They should have had me eight years ago…I have to say, Eddie, you’re going to become extremely famous. All over the world they’re talking about Guam and they’re talking about you.

And your tourism, I can say this, your tourism is going to go up like tenfold with the expenditure of no money, so I congratulate you.

It looks beautiful, you know I’m watching … it’s such a big story in the news.”

————-

call transcript of <President> Donald J Trump to Governor of Guam

 

Well.

I am sometimes stunned by how much we are willing to turn ourselves into pretzels normalizing some incredibly bizarre behavior and words.

It is like we spend hours sifting through the verbal garbage for the one or two items which we can wash off and show that it wasn’t all garbage. And all the while we do that we seem to overlook the person who threw out the garbage … who is most likely standing in the window of their house chuckling “look at all those people paying attention to my garbage.”

Pick your Trump interview, press conference or tweet. He is consistent with creating a brand image using an inconsistent message <garbage>.

This is not only nuts but bizarre.

Yes.

North Korea is a threat … but think of them as a threat like … well … maybe Trump would have been had he gone to a public school and had no money. A little bully wishing to be with the big kids and big money. The only thing this little bully sincerely believes in is himself … not real solutions nor doing the right thing.

The only right thing to do is to build his brand.

And while everyone casts about for ways to explain his ‘unpredictability’ I would argue he has always been predictably consistent in that he will do and say anything that he believes builds his brand.

And, no, no one should confuse this consistency with consistency in policy … because he has no policy nor ideology beyond ‘ideology of self.”

Just think about what I just said as you ponder “I want to ‘de-nuke’ the world <yet I want the largest nuclear capabilities in the world, expanding them, and willing to let Russia upgrade its nuclear power and, of course, Israel can keep its ‘nukes’>.  Or how about … well … repeal Healthcare … oh … no … repeal & replace … oh … no … ‘may be un-Republican to say but we need to take care of everyone’ … oh … no … ‘let Obamacare just die.’

Pick your policy issue. He is consistent with his brand and inconsistent with anything else.

I am not diminishing the North Korea issue but I am suggesting, in this case, the only thing that matters to Trump is that he gets to brandish “my generals” and toy soldiers and ‘nukes’ because he likes to associate his brand with them.

And, all the while real global challenges are being discussed, Donald J. spews a verbal smorgasbord of incoherent vaguery which even the everyday schmuck like me  views as “sounds strong … but what exactly does he mean?”

It sounds an awful lot like grade school playground strutting & bluster.

That said.

I cannot remember a time when China suggested our president was a victim of “emotional venting” but I also cannot remember a time when we had a president who put his brand above … well … reality.

<sigh>

I imagine the difficult in all of his is that Donnie Two Scoops has his own alternative reality in which he has attached his brand to America itself in his own head and, therefore, justifies all of his brand behavior as “representative of the America brand.”

I stated this during the primary phase of his whole sad Trump election story that someone needed to separate Trump from “America” … and no one did.

This is nuts.

Nuts with a dangerous edge.

This all feels like it is one big reality show. I am not suggesting North Korea doesn’t represent a real potential threat <although you don’t see South Korea, China, Japan, etc gearing up for any foreseeable threat beyond their normal status> but this all feels like Donnie is treating this like a great big TV show where he gets great ratings and everyone tunes in every night just to see him.

The problem is that unlike a TV show which has an executive producer who is crafting the entire scenario and scripting it out … the other main person on this show doesn’t have the TV script. Therefore within the reality TV show Trump is producing there is an unknown. Within that unknown resides the unforeseen, the human error in judgement and the misunderstanding.

On a TV show that can create ratings and little downside … and certainly no downside where people can actually physically get hurt.

In the real world this can create ratings but offers a potential huge downside where a lot of people can actually physically get hurt.

Look.

I do not really think nuclear war is likely. The big boy at the table <or ‘the principal at the grade school playground’>, China, has basically taken that off the table by a simple stance … “North Korea, if you attack you are on your own, and USA, if you act preemptively, we will consider that an attack on us.”

That said.

Can anyone really say it’s not a possibility at all?

Nope.

And that is nuts.

And it is on the edge of insanity because it well … walks like a reality TV duck, sounds like a reality TV duck which makes me think this whole Trump TV bluster and posturing is … well … a reality TV duck.

And while Trump supporters will come out of the woodwork crafting semi-logical scenarios in which Donnie Two Scoops words are strategic and smart and necessary is there anybody who really doesn’t believe the rest of the world is looking at America going “WTF.”

Or, as one of the more conservative websites stated this morning:

 Sanity.

Is there anybody who doesn’t believe that world leaders are whispering behind our backs now, discussing “the United States problem,” and wondering if this great experiment of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has gone off the rails?

This North Korea problem is complex and while we can blame past presidents if we want <which is wasted energy> or want to wave our hands in the air moaning “why do I have to deal with his mess made by someone else” I want a president who doesn’t really care how we got here and why we are in the situation we are in … I want a president to … well … be sane. Be mature. And be better than the everyday schmuck like me.

I want a president less concerned with trees and more concerned with the forest … specifically the USA and global forest and not his own trees.

I have made the case a number of times why healthcare for everyone benefits America from a productivity standpoint. Today I will try to make a case for healthcare for all by pointing out an underlying real issue which creates some disillusionment <which obviously drove some of the Trump support during the election> in middle America.

We often discuss inequality in terms of economics & opportunity … but how about something which cuts to the core being of everyone – life expectancy inequality.

I came across a map created in May of this year showing life expectancy by county.

Well.

Yikes.

Okay.

Double yikes.

The average life expectancy … yes … average … in individual counties can vary by up to 20 … yes … 20 … years.

Yes.

If you live in certain counties the average life expectancy is around 87 years <remember … this is average for an entire county> and in other counties the average life expectancy is around 67 years.

Holy shit.

Average.

20 years difference.

And I am not smart enough to do the cross tab <or invest the energy> but if you look at the life expectancy map and you were to overlay the Trump voter support I would bet <and I am not a betting man> that the counties which have the 20 years less life expectancy … shit … the counties with lower standard deviation life expectancies in general … went overwhelmingly for the Trumpster.

So for all the intellectuals, faux & real, who suggest many of the Trump voters are ignorant, misguided and stupid … you may want to shut up and think about this for a second.

These people have a legitimate gripe.

Yeah.

Life expectancy is pretty legitimate.

I mean if my local community is dying off around me and I look around at other communities who seem not only getting better breaks but are actually living longer … well … I am gonna start thinking I am being overlooked and underappreciated.

………… Life expectancy standard deviation …………….

Combine that with the fact the gap between longer life expectancy counties and lower life expectancy counties is actually growing and, well, I am gonna start truly believing that the elites & establishment do not really care.

“There’s no sign of the gap closing. In fact, it appears to be widening. Between 1980 and 2014, the gap between the highest and lowest life spans increased by about two years.

 

“With every passing year, inequality — however you measure it — has been widening over the last 34 years. And so next year, we can reliably expect it’ll be even more than 20.”

 

“That is probably the most alarming part of the analysis.”

 

———–

Christopher Murray:  Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

So.

Having attended this rodeo before, I know I can count on getting a number of intellectual sounding emails pointing out the inevitable flaws in my thinking and conclusions. My suggestion to those people is please hit ‘unsend’ and get off your intellectual high horse and think about this.

Flawed logic or not … if I am in a county dying off at early ages I am more likely to be thinking I live in India and not in America. And if I even perceive that, if I even have a sense of that, I am gonna start wishing for what I thought America was again.

Parse out the flawed aspects behind my ‘America was again’ thought if you want but on the surface this is a no brainer thought. Dying can make you wish for a shitload of things that intellectually can seem less than logical but are actually well intended thoughts – because, uhm, this pertains to life & death.

All of this permits me to circle back to healthcare.

Maybe print out the map of life expectancy and put it beside your computer while you read this part.

We talk about putting healthcare in the hands of people.

We talk about subsidies for health insurance companies.

We talk about inordinate bureaucracy for … well … physicians, hospitals and patients.

We talk about high premiums, high deductibles and high falutin’ reasons why healthcare works and doesn’t work.

It’s all talk.

And it’s all bullshit.

Important bullshit in terms of actually getting something done but unimportant bullshit in terms of we are not getting something done.

Just because someone lives somewhere doesn’t mean they should have a lower life expectancy than someone who lives somewhere else … at least if they live in America <other countries deal with their own problems>.

Is health insurance the only reason for this?

Of course not <so keep your snarky emails to yourself>.

But health is certainly a reason for this.

At the core of life expectancy is … well … health. And I don’t really care how much you earn, what kind of education you have had, what kind of job you have, or do not have, but it seems like if you live in county X you should be offered equal health opportunities to those received in county Y.

There is more than enough inequality haunting the United States these days without having health services & insurance inequality.

There is more than enough inequality haunting the United State these days without having life expectancy inequality.

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

“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.

——————–

“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.

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

“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.

=======

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

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

–

some tumblr blogger

=====

Well.

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

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

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

Regardless.

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

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

Now.

Who you wake up is tricky.

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

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

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

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

As for other people?

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

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

Well <part 1>.

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

Well <part 2>.

Exploration and discovery is a vague thing.

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

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

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

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

—-

A teen

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

And maybe that is my point today.

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

That said.

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

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

Ok.

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

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

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

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

Now.

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

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

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

–

Ray Bradbury-

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

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

And you wake someone up.

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

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

—

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

You just use the future to escape the present.”

—

Looking for alaska; John Green

===========

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

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

—–

Japanese proverb

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

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

—–

Margaret Mead

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

So.

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

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

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

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

All that said.

To be clear.

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

What do I mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All that said.

You learn some management personnel tricks to help you out.

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

……… a Trump management team ………

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

Harvard Business Review

 

Look.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would I do with his cadre of white men?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me be clear.

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

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

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

In the end.

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