+++++++++++++++++

“the die is cast”

(iacta alea est)

Julius Caesar

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

So. I was tempted to call this ‘now or never part 2.” I say that because after a “now or never moment“ there is a, well, a post choice/decision.

That decision is the fact there is no turning back.

Well. Let’s just say the moment represents  that “we have made our choice and the die is cast.” <‘die’ as in dice>

Julius Caesar said this today, January 10th, some 50ish years before Jesus as he crossed the Rubicon, defying the Roman Senate, and starting civil war. Caesar was stating that he was making an irrevocable decision. And, as dice is a game of chance, he will have to play them as they are cast.

I imagine none of us are Caesar and the majority of us will never have to make such a huge choice as Caesar, but I do think more people should think this way with regard to choices.

Too often I feel people think a choice is simply … well … but of ‘the moment.’

Too often I feel businesses think a choice is simply … well … but of ‘the moment.’

Too often I feel like far too many people think in the next moment we can toss away the last choice and just make another choice.

Sure. That may be the case sometimes, but, as noted in ‘now or never’, not all the time.

Not all moments are created equal.

Not all choices can be changed, tossed aside or “un-choiced.”

Some choices are truly forks in the road where you cannot go back and start over. Some choices, well, ‘cast the die.’

I do believe most of us would be better off if we believed more of our choices should be thought of this way- as ‘the die have been cast’ choices. Why? I believe in our current “people need to adapt & be agile” to be successful attitude, we far too often think a new choice is a reflection of agility & “smart adaptation.” In doing so we run the risk that the initial choice cannot be tossed aside because it truly was a ‘fork in the road’ choice and, whether we want it or not, or like it or not, the die had been cast.

But, hey, that’s me.

Ok. One more thing. Let me take a minute to discuss an “irrevocable decision.”

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

“It is always thus, impelled by a state of mind which is destined not to last, that we make our irrevocable decisions.”

In Search of Lost Time, Volume II: Within a Budding Grove

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

‘Now or never’ is a state of mind which is but a window in time. In other words, it is there and gone. And it is within those windows in which irrevocable decisions are made.

To use the quote, it is within this window you throw the dice. Yeah. You actually throw your dice into what I will call “unknown-ville.”

Yikes. No wonder we hesitate to decide a choice is of the ‘die is cast’ mode. I say that because “irrevocable” is a lot like “forever” or maybe “never.” I mean that big, all encompassing, fraught with peril, audacious-type thoughts are captured in those little words.

And that is why many people do nothing in now or never moments.

Far too many just hold the dice. Why? Because it is scary to make an irrevocable decision.

It is kind of scary to know you will have thrown the dice and will never get to throw them again. And have to play them as they lay. Regardless how they lay.

Yup. That the die have been cast.

But know this.

If you do nothing when it is now or never, Life will cast the die. And Life will make the irrevocable decision.

Personally? I would rather cast my own dice.

Nothing against Life but while I imagine it would be a fun pal, I do not know it well enough to trust it with my fate.

When I make a choice I think, and accept, “the die are cast” and deal with what is before me. Ponder.

==

“In life, unlike chess, the game continues after checkmate.”
Isaac Asimov

==

“A golden ray of sun. Rebellious, it seeks out a storm / As if in storms it could find peace.”

Mikhail Lermontov

==

Most things in life are much more like chess than we like to admit. Things rarely happen in straight lines, moves are not always straightforward, there are multiple players on the board with a variety of skills, and there is almost always something playing against you (seen and unseen). What we possibly understate, however, is that life is more like multiple chess matches happening at the same time. Its kind of a different way of suggesting the world is complex, dynamic, and more like a system than a machine. What it also means is 99% of the time life continues even after checkmate because that is one game and there are numbers of other games still doing on.

Which leads me to doing the right thing.

We tend to view ‘doing the right thing’ as the path to growth at scale. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that doing ‘the thing’ is less often a ‘thing’ but things strung together, i.e., a pattern. And patterns are tricky bastards. What I mean by that is groups are notorious for identifying patterns thru consensus and build up general concepts from experiences (agreed shared experiences in this case) creating less-than-optimal growth – its just mediocre if not dangerous as it is oblivious to future contexts and/or consequences. We all have this ability to identify patterns, make associations and use the knowledge to navigate life. The tricky part is this ability is dependent upon patterned experiences as well as the environments in which those patterns were identified and that, often, stratifies some bias. What I mean by that is it creates an implicit assumption that whatever is will continue to be. As a corollary, this creates an implicit assumption that one game is just like another game and avoiding checkmate in one game is similar to another game. That is a dangerous assumption.

I will say that business’s (and, increasingly, individual’s) unhealthy marriage to data analytics tends to reward this type of dangerous thinking. It is dangerous because it fundamentally extrapolates the ‘patterns of what is known’ and offers what is commonly seen as a sensible set of assumptions. Well, that is, they are sensible until they run into unforeseen or ‘what was unknown at the time of the analysis’ and they either just don’t work or work less effectively than what was planned. Suffice it to say that once we have learned a pattern for something and have experiences, the usefulness of the identified patterns (regardless of the environment/context and regardless of whether it was optimal usefulness or simple usefulness) makes us stop learning. We do not seek to ‘re-learn’ anything, but rather actually seek out that pattern (or what could be construed as something close to that pattern) as a default bias to thinking as well as behaviors/solutions. This is pattern recognition and just as with almost anything good, it can also be bad. Bad because, well, if life is a series of chess matches played at the same time, not all games will follow a pattern you may know; let alone like.

Which leads me to Follett’s theory of integration.

Mary Parker Follett’s theory of integration suggests the person as continuous with community and that things are in constant relation to each other – acting on and being acted on at the same time. This is a pragmatic and possibilities view of Life. Pragmatically you are part of a system, a community of people and matches, wherein “the group and the individual come into existence simultaneously” offering possibilities that as an individual one would struggle to reach without the community of matches. Follett suggested our being in the world as a process of “progressive integrations” with others and with the world around us – a process of “ceaseless interweaving of new specific responding”. This means life is an ongoing process of moves and countermoves each integrating experience, knowledge and attitudes into decisions and behaviors. Well. That sounds like chess, no? Anyway. She understood that whenever one engages with others, the person as well as the other have been mutually influenced. She also stated: “our happiness, our sense of living at all is directly dependent on our joining with others. We are lost, exiled, imprisoned until we feel the joy of union.”

And maybe therein lies my point for today. While we may seek patterns to lean on and data to offer us easier answers than Life typically demands, maybe we should feel the joy of the chess match, the matches, the checkmates, and seek out the storm for maybe, just maybe, true peace comes from within the storm or, well, the chess match. Ponder.

====

“Aim above morality.

Be not simply good, be good for something. “

Henry David Thoreau

====

Well. Its New Year’s Eve and I thought I would take a minute and discuss happiness. Generally speaking, I am an optimist (maybe really a skeptical optimist), believe we should do more utopian thinking and believe, for the most part, humans are kind and like to coexist in a healthy collaborative way.

Which leads me to say If I read one more “how to be happy” article to guide someone into the New Year I am gonna not only be unhappy, but pretty grumpy.

First. I have a feeling that anyone who has to be told how to be happy is unlikely ever to actually be happy.

Second. I am fairly sure happiness is not a task; it is an outcome of actions not an action in and of itself.

Anyway. I would suggest the perfect formula for just about anything good in life, and business, is when you can inextricably tie strategy to tactics and tactics to strategy within a healthy mindset. Basically, if you can embed your strategy into each and every task or action that means everything you do is contributing to the objective you aspire to and provide some tangible substance to your mindset.

The problem with most new year resolutions or ‘things to do’ lists are (a) the objective is so frickin’ big that it makes the success probability % so low it’s depressing to even think about <after the initial elation of ‘thinking big’> (b) the tactics are so pedantic and uninspiring <declutter your Life, call a friend, make time for yourself, etc.> it diminishes the bigness goals, dreams & objectives could, and should, be.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that if you go into all of this with a positive, hopeful, mindset both A & B deflate optimism and inflate pessimism bit by bit.

Which leads me to where Thoreau offers us the perfect New Year’s resolution.

• The objective is to aim above morality.
• The strategy is to be the best you can be <all the time>.
• The tactic, the task, is doing the right thing <all the time>.

These are real actions someone can take. No ‘steps to success’, but rather simply steps which embrace and embody your objective AND mindset.

Look.

If you are aspiring to be happy or happier then you surely should, maybe even need, to ask yourself some very serious questions about your Life and what steps you are taking each and every day.

Once again, not milestones, but actual behavioral type steps.

But maybe even more importantly is to better understand WHY we are taking the steps. In other words, reflect upon your mindset and how it fits into not just a ‘better you’, but a ‘better us world.’ I imagine I suggest this because it is the mindset that will keep you going on those days that things aren’t going so well. And, I promise you, not all days will go well.

Oddly, I think of something Nixon said in one of his speeches in 1970 as I think about HOW we should meet the challenges of a new year.

He said that the United States could no longer “conceive all the plans, design all the programs, execute all the decisions, and undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world”.

He noted that other nations had to do more too.

He also noted that we needed to “discipline our occasional impetuosity.”

You just cannot conceive all plans, design all the programs and undertake all the actions and be successful. Unfortunately, its not that simple. Not only is it not possible for the ‘self’ in that many things are dependent upon context and environment and others, but it certainly isn’t possible as a ‘grand strategy’, i.e., the world in totality.

That said. Life offers us a very difficult assignment, but rarely a unique one. In carrying out our assignments we will do some things well, others not so well, and, well, others just badly. In addition, we sometimes encounter some occasional impetuosity <which requires discipline>.

And even if you do get some things right, later on in Life, years after this year passes, with the perspective that time affords, both the calamity of the bad and the praise we drown ourselves in for the things done well will inevitably seem obviously excessive and extreme.

I can guarantee in the next year we will all sometimes be brilliant, sometimes be foolish, sometimes be lucky and sometimes be terribly unlucky.

But all of the things I just typed are things. Tactics implemented in everyday Life which will be successful & unsuccessful in and of itself.

Which brings me back to suggest if we were to aim above morality within each tactic we will be successful.

SONY DSC

I would also suggest to aim above morality means you set aside the societal norms of measurement of success & failure. Maybe even set aside measurement at all. This means you no longer hesitate with prejudice, ignorance, selfishness or any societal pressure placed upon you. You, all alone, take actions with the objective to aim above morality. And in taking actions with this objective in mind we are capable of our best each & every moment. We become a powerful force for what is good & right.

And I also imagine you become a powerful force with regard to your own health & wellbeing.

All I know is that once I saw Thoreau’s quote I knew what I would be doing in 2023 – aiming above morality in all that I do. Generally speaking, this seems like a good objective. And, to end where I began, I imagine happiness can be found within this particular objective and more likely to be found if you, well, pursue happiness as an objective. Ponder.

=====

“In spite of the prejudice, ignorance, selfishness and all the other impediments that drag us downwards, there are billions of people who want a better, brighter life for themselves and their descendants – who want to be free from fear and want.

When combined with the foresight and ingenuity we’re capable of in our best moments, this is a powerful force for good that congenital pessimists are far too hasty to dismiss.”

Adam Lee

======

=====

“Pooh looked at his two paws.

He knew that one of them was right, and he knew that when you had decided which one of them was right, then the other one was the left, but he never could remember how to begin.”

House at Pooh Corner

==========

So. I opened with this Pooh quote to talk about first words.

Not first impressions, but first words.

Sure. They can be directly related, but I firmly believe first impressions are significantly less important than last impressions. What I mean is that 99% of the time I can redirect a first impression more toward the desired last impression.

First words are trickier. And, as with most things in Life, not all first words are created equal.

There are first words which are just not articulated well. These you can recover from. These are the ones that we all think about afterwards and say “shit, I wish I had said ‘this’ rather than what I said.” And you know what? You can.

But then there are the first words which everyone knows are your true feelings. The ones which put an indelible stamp upon your character. These are, well, almost impossible to recover from. And, truthfully, you cannot recover from something which is a true reflection of who and what you are. You can stumble, mumble or offer a variety of jumbled words, but you is what you is and your first words reflect who you is.

And that is why I thought of Pooh on this topic.

You receive a question.

You think.

And the other person, or people, can actually see you think.

 You know that there is a right answer and a … well … left answer. You look at both paws and just aren’t sure which is which.

Therefore, you answer from your truest self.

It is a character answer.  

Simplistically , when I view another person’s first words when trapped in a “which paw is which” situation I attempt to bucket it into one of two buckets. Are the words a reflection from an “I” perspective <which tend to defend the “I”> or are the words a reflection from a more global view <which tend to defend what other’s may think>?

Why?

Because, to me, great character is most often driven by an ability, or desire, to view the world in someone else’s shoes. This doesn’t mean character shouldn’t be a reflection of self and what is important from your own ethical & moral compass, but rather it means you are always challenging your sense of self against what matters, or has meaning, to other people.

I will admit.

I am sure a part of me wrote about this today because of Trump. He made me, and still makes me, think about how words are used. Time after time Trump ‘first words’ response make me not only think he is hollow empathetically, but also incredibly incapable of viewing the world through anyone’s eyes, and Life criteria filter, other than his own. I often reflect back on his response to Mr. Khan’s emotional, but articulate stance on the patriotism of Muslim Americans. Trump’s response, his words, were so unenlightened, portrayed an absurd lack of empathy let alone showing a depth of obliviousness to the real issue at hand and so defensive, well, suffice it to say that first words matter and often create an indelible imprint as an impression of who and what you are. Where Trump truly is a master is in the follow up to his first words, his attempts at either managing the words or actually arguing you didn’t hear what he actually said.

That said.

I imagine he will send out a variety of tweets trying to explain how his first words were misconstrued.

That said. First words are first words. And first words matter. First words are a true reflection of character maybe 99% of the time.

Look. We have all been asked a question and sat there looking at each paw wondering where to begin. Just listen to me on any podcast and you will envision me looking at paws – a lot. But.

99% of the time, even if we do not get the words exactly right, the words will be in some form or fashion a reflection of how we truly feel.

99% of the time, even if we do not get the words exactly right, the words will be in some form or fashion a reflection of our character.

I do not sit here today writing to suggest anyone should be more careful with regard to what they say first. I do not because I believe most of us are pretty careful with our first words.

I will, however, suggest that everyone should pay attention and think about the first words that they hear. Not to say that someone cannot revise something said at first but rather because not all first words are created equal.

And the first words said by someone who cannot remember which paw is right and which is left and isn’t sure where to begin?

Well. Most likely those first words will be a reflection of who and what they truly are. Ponder.

====

“… if you look beyond the tumult of sensational headlines and well-publicized atrocities, there’s a quiet trend of improvement throughout the world.

But although it’s sometimes drowned out by the drumbeat of fear-mongering, the progress that gives rise to hope is real and ongoing.

Adam Lee

====

As we near another Christmas I don’t know if it is because I associate hope and hopefulness with Christmas or that I tend to pay attention more to the good things happening in the world (the sometimes unnoticed small steps of progress) than I do the bombastic voices of ‘everything is bad’, but despite all the noisy shitshow stuff happening, I do believe there is a quiet trend of improvement happening before our eyes.

I say that recognizing it is tough to be optimistic these days. And I don’t mean because of what is actually happening in today’s world, but rather because if you are optimistic you run the significant risk of being trampled by a herd of cynicism, pessimism and those unwilling to believe the future can be better than the past. That said. I believe the bigger challenge we face is a general reluctance to believe people can change or should be forgiven.

There is a quiet voice of positive being overwhelmed by a loud voice of ‘nothing can be good’

I mention this because I just reread an old Pope Francis Christmas homily. It was positive, hopeful, instructive and a request that we look beyond decadence and selfishness in order to raise all of human kind to a better place.

It is the kind of message you would hope a religious leader would give.

And then I made the naïve mistake of scanning the comments underneath the article <in several papers>. An overwhelming amount of comments were negative.

Either they:

<a> suggested the message was misguided <somehow some people saw it as anti-capitalism>,

<b> suggested the Pope was a hypocrite <because he represents a church with millions in assets>,

<c> the church had no basis to offer hope because of past transgressions or

<d> religion is bad and therefore what religious people say is simply fantasy <even if it is a good message>.

It is like people were seeking reason to not accept the positive message.

Let’s be clear. The Catholic Church and its history is strewn with moments of sin. And, yet, the Church has a Pope who not only accepts it, but is trying own its history. Should we judge an organization by the moments of transgression & sin <albeit they can be heinous transgressions on occasion> or by the true intent & soul of the organization and its voice for the future? That is a big question with an answer bigger than I can offer.

That said.

I find it disheartening that we cannot accept positiveness and hope without trying to burden it with cynicism or pessimism.

I find it disheartening we can’t accept heroic acts from non heroic people – when we view them in totality.

Good is good.

Hope is hope.

Heroic acts can be done by flawed people.

We shouldn’t discredit the words or the thoughts as we seek to diminish the bearers of the words & thoughts. Maybe we should seek to find the good in what someone says rather than find reasons to point out why the words are flawed or the deliverer is some insincere fraud.

This leads me to the bearers of the words & thoughts.

– Changing to do something good is being slowed by people who suggest someone cannot change.

====

“People tell you who they are, but we ignore it because we want them to be who we want them to be.”

Mad Men

====

Well. Surely doing good today doesn’t absolve you from something you did bad yesterday. And, yet, I could argue those who have made bad mistakes in the past, and recognize them as bad, are most likely the most qualified to lead today.

I scan the headlines of the papers and there are a shitload of flawed people saying a bunch of smart, positive, hopeful things.

I scan the headlines of the papers and I see article after article diminishing the people who are saying these things by pointing out past transgressions or their ‘lack of consistency’ with regard to their beliefs <so why should we believe their positive thoughts>.

Smart flawed people, who maybe had flawed ideas in the past, are often smart enough to realize they need to change or make changes.

I would like to point out that the difficulty seems to arise not in the person who has changed, but in those around the changer/doer. While the best of the best changers seek to build the new, ignoring the old, we the people, continuously fight back with the old.

Can someone actually leave the old baggage behind and move on to do better things? <a question we should all be asking ourselves in today’s world>

We seem hell bent on not letting people even try to change.

I would like to remind people of several things:

Andrew Carnegie, whose Pinkerton men shot down workers at the Homestead strike in Pittsburgh, also left the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an international network of public libraries.

John D Rockefeller, whose use of troops against Colorado mineworkers led to scores of deaths, including of women and children, created his foundation, so creative for young people worldwide.

Alfred Nobel, arms manufacturer and “marchand de mort extraordinaire”, set up the peace prize.

Regardless. I fully understand why some people want to hold on to the ‘better days of the past’ and nostalgically wish we could go back to many of what are perceived as ‘better ways of doing things.’

It is natural and, honestly, comforting. But I don’t understand why we far too often hold on to the ‘bad things from the past’ and pessimism/cynicism and constantly burden people who, sincerely, want to do good things, show change, and offer a better version of themselves with the intent to create a better version of the world.

Far too many people today do not see much to be upbeat about. They simply see a lot of existing problems getting worse. And because of that they are tending to gather around anyone promising a return to an imaginary past era of greatness.

Some of the best leaders today are those who were in the past, and in the past flawed, and now are new versions of themselves and do not want to return t some past but try and create a new future.

People change.

We should allow them to change.

Especially if they are one of the valuable few who see the good and hopeful and optimistic in the world. For they are the ones capable of showing us light when dark can appear to be winning. In fact, many of these people accept the quite improvements, enable the quiet improvements, and facilitate the progress that humankind deserves. Maybe we just need to stop the noise and start quietly embracing good improvement. Ponder.

===

“What happens when you let an unsatisfactory present go on long enough?  It becomes your entire history. “

Louise Erdrich

===

There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”

H. L. Mencken

===

Is the nature of civilization speed or is it consideration? Is it efficiency or effectiveness? With a societal mindset that believes speed is essential for survival, if not thriving, in today’s world, what is the role of slow, observation, and consideration?

The reality is a conscious decision to move slowly, or move slower, or even stop on occasion, is not in contradiction to speed. Think festina lente.

The reality is speed and efficiency are not, themselves, signs of intelligence or capability. They do not carry with them any moral value and they don’t necessarily make any social contribution to civilization. Efficiency and speed are certainly useful, but they are not in themselves manifestations of civilization. In fact one could argue the main effect of our efficiency idolatry has been to discourage consideration, if not to make it actually impossible. And while there certainly can be arguments for speed (we need to grow fast enough to meet the needs of a growing population AND grow alternative ways to fulfill those needs rather than extracting & exploiting the world the population is dependent upon for Life), speed also runs the risk of sacrificing some important reflection and consideration aspects.

Why is this important?

Well. In an interconnected world where dependencies are often 6 degrees of separation away, the concept of a united civilization, or at least one in which we recognize the interdependence, is not that farfetched so maybe, just maybe, if we begin thinking about this as ‘global civilization’ maybe it gains some additional importance. Look. I am not suggesting a “global government”, just a recognition that civilization is not bounded by some specific culture or border, but rather a collective effort of 8 billionish people.

Before you reject this idea, whether we like it or not on an individual level, we have reached a point where local connections between separate societies, nations and cultures have become embedded in a global interconnection world. Events that happen in any part of the globe have its direct or indirect influence on people’s actions everywhere.

Some people suggest this the emergence of new world civilization. I believe that is aspirational thinking and a concept of some distant future, but this is when speed and consideration step back into the discussion. I certainly can’t project the future but I can certainly see without consideration, and only speed, our existing social process and social configuration will only continue to fragment and increase conflict as disparate objectives collide at faster, less considered, speeds. The probability of multiple socio-communities living and ‘thriving’ by themselves and being incorporated into a cohesive, let alone united, world system grows less and less. It demands consideration to enhance the probabilities of incorporating social bodies into a useful social configuration.

Which leads me to the concept of time and space.

At the core of this is measured time versus experienced time. Measured time gives a false sense of order to a more frenzied speed driven civilization, in other words, it allows giving order to complicated picture of changing world. this is important because it offers attributive features on a social level to civilization thereby giving an appearance of consideration – done at speed. The issue with this is that social time and space are connected with human activity, social relations and, ultimately, social configuration. The constant speed, without any true consideration, drives how human lives should be lived and, consequently, reflect into people’s consciousness. My point is that speed becomes the conscious default and consideration is an afterthought (or put in the ‘reflective’ bin) and civilization does not benefit.

Society really needs to get a grip on social relations and its relations with time and space because all of it is related to work, communities and technology.  Technology determinism is a very dangerous path to travel in that it emphasizes speed and deemphasizes consideration, hence squeezing both time and space. Reckless application of technology to people’s lives, social relations, and what society values, or not values, transfers much of civilization’s values to something that actually has no values and, well, I seriously doubt good results.

Which brings me back to the opening: is the future of civilization speed or consideration? while much of what happens in today’s technological world occurs independent of human awareness, humans are still accountable for much of the system itself – you have a responsibility to reflect upon your actions/thoughts even if technology may have encouraged the action/thought.  This responsibility is important because the reality is people in today’s complex society have little choice, but to be more knowledgeable than in the past – who had fewer occasions for facing new problems or adapting to radically unfamiliar circumstances. We simply face more things that demand more consideration than we tend to give them. We need to, well, consider more and more often. I am not suggesting speed is not important to the nature of civilization, in fact, I think it is an important feature. I am just suggesting that consideration is possibly more important to civilization because it impacts trajectories, of not velocity, of the speed which inevitably not only effects the impact but where the hell we end up. Ponder.

• –         * note: I am not smart enough to have come up with this thought and question. I had written it down from somewhere but I cannot locate the source. So, thanks to whoever wrote this, said this and thought this. It is an important question.

“That’s one of the great things about music. You can sing a song to 85,000 people and they’ll sing it back for 85,000 different reasons.

Dave Grohl

========

As with every podcast I have ever done, after finishing my discussion with Dave Wakeman on his podcast The Business of Fun I wish I had said something and wish I had said something better. In this case it was about Ticketmaster and how they screw artists (even while making them money). This could be several discussions:

• How transactional relationships have indirect value consequences
• First impressions versus last impressions
• How first impressions frame (value) expectations and last impressions are the value received

I have no doubt Ticketmaster makes artists a lot of money. Its their slightly ruthless “ticket price optimization” strategy that I believe tends to make the value exchange a tricky concept. They treat it all as a transactional relationship (how much money can I squeeze out of this opportunity) and they ignore the value exchange relationship (value offered/value received). In their little (big) world they see the value they offer is the extraction of money from people. They exploit their position as a monopoly to do so, but that is a different discussion for a different day.

So, let’s shift to the artist perspective. Ticketmaster owns the first impression and the artist owns the last impression. Ponder that a bit. Research has shown that first impressions establish the value exchange expectations – what I expect and what I think type impressions. A great first impression often sets the bar from which the last impression typically just has to land somewhere within an acceptable range and an acceptable value exchange has occurred. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that human bias steps into this equation. People, once having established a positive first impression imprint in their heads, almost immediately begin purposefully seeking out proof points to affirm their first impressions. That is why crappy business candidates get hired. They made a good first impression and then people went out of their way to confirm the impression rather than truly listening and assessing the candidate. Anyway. A crappy first impression can be overcome. There are first impressions, middle impressions and last impressions, all of which create the ultimate “value received” imprint and all of which are opportunities to shape value perceptions. There is even some guy who argues that when creating a message, in totality, you can leave the best impression, of highest value, if you have a slow start and conclude great <he calls it his ‘sailboat chart’>.

While I agree conceptually with him, I would argue this is not a particularly healthy strategy especially in the music industry.

• *** note: music performers clearly understand this concept. All you have to do is watch how they plan out the last song played, encores, and how they like to leave the audience every evening.

Anyway. Here’s the deal. The crappier the first impression the higher the over delivery in the last impression has to be to establish a fair value exchange. Now. To be clear. If you highly overdeliver versus crappy first impressions, you really (really) win. Over delivery, while often a bit subjective, creates incredibly high value. But think about this from the artist’s perspective. Ticketmaster creates scenarios in which they have to overdeliver EVERY NIGHT. I don’t know about you, but while I tend to believe I am fairly good at what I do, I am not sure I would be mentally in a good state if I knew I had to overdeliver every single day I went into the office. Shit. I am not sure I could. Off days? Tired days? Something happened outside of my career days? This scenario gets a bit worse if those days are actually out of my control. Which makes me circle back to Ticketmaster. I am an artist. Every day I wake up to perform and do my job (even if it is something I love doing) and someone is establishing expectations OF me before I have even stepped into my job. To be fair. An artist can see first impressions if they care to. Pick up a paper, open up a local music blog, and I would bet they will gain a fairly clear picture of how a % of the thousands who will be attending are feeling about the ticket buying process as they walk into the venue. But even while music is a business and I imagine every artist understands someone has paid money to see them and they desire to “put on a good show,” in their heads they aren’t equating ‘good show’ as a transaction, they view it as an experience. And therein lies the largest rub between Ticketmaster and musicians – transaction versus experiences. Ticketmaster in in the transaction business and musicians are in the experience business. Yet. Musicians are dependent upon someone, who has a completely different business model than they do, to enable them to do their business. And maybe somewhere in the in-between is where I dislike Ticketmaster the most. Music is clearly a business, but Ticketmaster has no interest in creating the highest value of the music business itself. That, my friends, is a parasite. A parasite that seeks to extract nutrition and exploit the context within which it exists. Ponder that.

==========

“Life, too, is like that. You live it forward, but understand it backward.”

Abraham Verghese

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

“It’s the one thing we never quite get over: that we contain our own future.”

Barbara Kingsolver

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

Thinking about what legacy you want to leave behind can make you start thinking a little bit about what you may want to stubbornly stand for and demand of Life and what you may decide to compromise with Life to insure you have something, i.e., some progress to show at the end. A significant part of this grand bargain we negotiate with Life is how we decide to compromise with those around us and those who affect the arc of our lives.

Ah.

That word “compromise.”

Therein lies maybe one of the most difficult topics of the current generation.

The topic is that the concept of compromise, meeting someone half way, giving something up and getting something back, is now a nebulous concept.

Why? Because I am not sure I know where the hell half way is.

And I tend to believe a shitload of people are standing with me, on one side or the other, not really sure where the hell half way is.

And if you cannot even see the middle ground how the hell can you figure out how to make a stand on it?

This gets compounded by a massive online communal world in which we all live side by side where even the marginalized people <real or perceived>, nutjobs & experts, now have a place to gather into likeminded groups and share as much a space as mainstream views. For good, or for bad, online any group of people can organize & mobilize & challenge the status quo … or pick & choose which status quo fits their view. The internet amplifies discourses critical of, well, any status quo you can think of.  And, as anyone could expect, all the critical discourse triggers a corresponding equal backlash from those who fear an uprooting of their beliefs <and the self identities that are inevitably attached to these beliefs>. Needless to say much of that backlash is a bit unhealthy and a lot unmoored to accepted reality.

It just becomes one huge mosh pit of criticism and cocooning of likeminded people.

Likeminded people – all who are angry.

Within all of this situation & anger civil discourse tends to be tossed in the trashheap. And maybe worse is the fact there is this ‘digging in’ aspect where we refuse to see any merit in other people’s opinions. Sadly, I can only conclude that we have lost the ability to converse, discuss, debate and have a dialogue with one another.

It seems obvious <at least to me>, but if we could figure out how to come together and compromise, that we could go a long way toward not only creating a better version of society in general, but it may give me, and all of us, at least a fighting chance with regard to where we make our own personal stand and where we compromise and how we attain the future that we contain.

As long as people cling to unbending attitudes & beliefs, the divides between us will not deepen, but will remain an unbridgeable divide.

I tend to believe most of us want better that that.

I tend to believe most of us would be willing to work to make this a better and more civil world to live in.

And if you do not embrace this thinking?

I would remind everyone that America is representative of a great compromise. The U.S. Constitution is possibly the greatest Compromise ever negotiated <it created a nation>.

But as a first step to bettering this entire situation we need to figure out how to better define Compromise.

Far too many loudmouthed people have ripped the meaning out of the word, twisted the value of the word making it seem valueless, and ultimately created an environment in which  we demonize the entire process of trying to reach compromise.

Compromise no longer means understanding your differences and working together toward a common goal, but now it seems to represent weakness, losing and not being strong enough to get what you want. This attitude and unwillingness to work together creates a dysfinctional society where the unwavering stance seems to be “don’t compromise, stick to your guns, don’t give in to the other side”.

Sigh.

Look.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of America is really that selfish and that stubborn. Sure. I know the people most passionate about any issue tend to be the ones less willing to compromise on them. And, yeah, I would guess most of us are fairly passionate about ourselves – what we decide to stand for … as well as what we will decide to sacrifice within compromise to attain some progress. But within this wacky world where no one seems to want to compromise anything on anything … well … shit … some of us are trying to think a little bit about what you may want to stubbornly stand for and demand of Life, and what you may decide to compromise with Life, to insure you have something – some progress to show at the end.

It seems like the situation we are in has arisen because we have permitted the stubborn voices of the radical marginalized <real and perceived> to drown out the pragmatic voices, the majority, of realistic positive compromise. If we want society to start working again we need to embrace compromise — and let it retain the positive definition which has served it well through time.

To end this I will go back to the beginning.

The “I” aspect.

I tend to believe all of us, with the intent of finding the best version of ourselves from which our ultimate legacy will be defined, will seek to find the balance of being stubborn and demand that Life bend to us and our principles and compromise where we make a grand bargain with Life in order to continue progressing.

Uhm.

If we believe this, then why wouldn’t we want this in Life and in business and in politics and in … well … everything.

There was a book that discussed this. In The Spirit of Compromise <Amy Gutsman and Dennis Thomson> they note that Americans support general compromise as an idea and like the idea of ‘other people’ working together to get stuff done <statistics support this in a variety of studies & polls>.

However. The authors then note that support for compromise breaks down when it addresses specific issues <Americans are much less likely to support a compromise on a specific issue>. What this means is that, as with most things in Life, we enthusiastically embrace the conceptual behavior and balk at the actual behavior.

I shared that to say compromise is complex and simple.

What I do know is that we contain our own future and building that future demands that we will have to make some compromises.  That is simple.

Making the specific choices is complex.

And while I am mostly interested in my own future and making my own compromise choices, I tend to believe we would all find the better version of ourself contained within if the society as a whole were more willing to refind the value in compromise. Yeah. I just suggested our best version is not an “I” thing but rather when we are part of the weave of societal fabric, i.e., “We” thing. Ponder.

===

“No matter how careful you are, there’s going to be the sense you missed something, the collapsed feeling under your skin that you didn’t experience it all. There’s that fallen heart feeling that you rushed right through the moments where you should’ve been paying attention.

Well, get used to that feeling. That’s how your whole life will feel some day.

This is all practice. “

—

Chuck Palahniuk

====

“It’s never as good as you want it to be; It’s never as bad as it seems.”

—

William Chapman

====

Well. Chuck Palahniuk writes some really deep shit. Stuff that really makes you think. That said, I have to admit, when I read the opening quote a lot of things about living Life, in business and personal, made a helluva lot more sense to me.

Maybe it’s just me, but, it seems like most of Life is tainted by sense of constantly missing ‘something’ … as in something maybe better than where we are and what we are doing and feeling or in what we have done. It isn’t always this huge disappointment. It’s just like a little nagging sliver in the palm of your hand.

All the while this sense is interposed with glimpses of … well … what is actually better. We, being we humans, naturally don’t accept the sense we missed something. Therefore we begin becoming more & more careful with how we invest our time and more careful about what we do <or don’t do>. Basically, we start treating our lives carefully assuming that if we do so, we will have less sense of something missing and more glimpses of ‘the better we feel like we are missing sometimes.’

Boy.

Are we wrong.

Boy.

We sure are investing a shitload of energy chasing something I believe Life simply dangles in front of us to tease us with thoughts of ‘what could be.’

It is quite possible we should learn to accept the nagging sense of missing something as … well … good. Good as in it makes us a little more alert for ‘things.’ Maybe it just makes us pay attention a little more.

Maybe we should accept the feeling isn’t lostness nor the thought that maybe we were not on the right path in Life.

Maybe we should just accept it as a characteristic of a good life.

Anyway. All of this leads me to a quote, and a thought, I vehemently disagree with:

======

……. me reading this quote ……

“People who succeed tend to find one goal in the distant future and then chase it through thick and thin.  People who flit from one interest to another are much, much less likely to excel at any of them.  School asks students to be good at a range of subjects, but life asks people to find one passion that they will follow forever. “

David Brooks

<The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources Of Love, Character, And Achievement>

=======

That is just bullshit.

Life does not ask people to find one passion that they will follow forever. That’s like saying that I love ice cream, but I am only going to eat chocolate ice cream for the rest of my life because it is my favorite flavor.

What a potentially boring life.

What a potentially ‘missed opportunity’ life.

The whole ‘passion’ discussion makes my head hurt so badly I start rubbing my temples so hard that then the sides of my head hurt too.

Let’s be clear. It is not passion <although glimpses of passion is always fun>. Life asks you to do the best, be the best and pursue what you believes makes you the best of what you could be … that’s it.

That’s what you follow forever.

Is success achieving that ‘one goal in the distant future?’ Maybe for some. But ‘people who succeed tend to find one goal and chase it’ is bullshit. What happens if I suck at picking that one goal or maybe my sense of direction sucks as I ‘go thru think & thin’ getting to the horizon <only to find I am standing in nowhere land>?

Look.

I am all for people pursuing goals.

I am all for people being passionate.

I am all for pursuing thru thick & thin <assuming what you are pursuing is ‘real’ and not some fantasyland>.

But I am not all for putting the blinders on, the bit between the teeth and then run like hell toward some goal on the horizon. I do believe you should be inspired in your actions … but inspired is very different than passion.

Passion.   I have a passion … it is for something.

Inspired.    I can be inspired by many somethings and moments and experiences and … well … you get it.

Here is a Life truth. The people who tend to succeed are inspired … by one thing or by many things … doesn’t matter. They are just inspired people. 

===

“All the effort in the world won’t matter if you’re not inspired.”

Chuck Palahniuk  

===

All that said. Let me circle back to the beginning. No matter how careful you are, no matter how much and how hard you pursue something … you will still have a sense of having missed something. Everyone has an undercurrent sense, a feeling, of missing something.

Look. We all pursue one thing — happiness. We may couch it in some ‘idea I have’ or ‘money’ or “purpose” or, well, anything else life has to offer, but we all want, and therefore seek, happiness. I would suggest what Chuck suggested we think about is not really acceptance of ‘lesser than what we want’ but rather accept the balance Life offers us.

The balance in that we will almost naturally have some sense of ‘something better’ no matter how careful we are in managing our lives or the pursuit of some goal.

The balance of actually getting a glimpse of that ‘something’ and not having rushed thru some important moment versus the missing feeling.

Well. Having said all that.

When I read the opening quote I had a better understanding of why so many people are unhappy far too often.

Because if we DON’T accept the sense of missing something as part of living a full Life … well … that means you will spend your entire life chasing that sense <to suffocate it in some way>. If you do that, well,  that pursuit will inevitably suffocate your Life <and that is an unhappy Life>. Ponder. Maybe I am missing something. And maybe I am not.

==========

Originally posted October 2015

===

“We find the true person only through group organization. The potentialities of the individual remain potentialities until they are released by group life. Thus, the essence of democracy is creating. The technique of democracy is group organization.”

Mary Parker Follett, The New State

===

I just had a conversation about employees with a good friend of mine who runs a business where “A clients need A players” came up. To be fair, he quickly said “I know you believe all employees have at least some A-level qualities/skills.” I do. Generally speaking, I believe most businesses squash the A-level ability in most people and the waste of human potential is immense. Certainly, some people have specific skills better than other people and ambition fluctuates person-to-person (ambition should never be conflated with skills), but, there is such a waste of human potential particularly in what many call ‘the workers’ or the blue-collar jobs or what leadership typically deems “the doers.” The bottom line in the discussion I was having was “I can’t tell you if you should be hiring anyone, or even who, if I don’t know if you are maximizing the people you have.”

But let’s get to potential.

In the 1980s Professors Edward Deci and Richard Ryan from the University of Rochester defined the six main reasons people work: play, purpose, potential, emotional pressure, economic pressure, and inertia. Since then, most research has suggested the first three motives tend to increase performance, while the latter three hurt it.

• Play is when you are motivated by the work itself. You work because you enjoy it, e.g., creating learning programs or problem solving how to break through to each person. Play is our learning instinct, tied to curiosity, experimentation, and exploring challenging problems.

• Purpose is when the direct outcome of the work fits your identity. You work because you value the work’s positive impact on, or for, other human beings.
• Potential is when the outcome of the work benefits your identity. In other words, the work enhances your potential.

Since these three motives are directly connected to the work itself in some way, they will improve performance to different degrees. If we want employees to have the cognitive ability, flexibility and agility needed to solve complex problems and collaborate effectively (whether face-to-face or remotely) as well as being able to develop and apply qualities such as critical thinking and creativity, we need to consider what we can do to enable those abilities to flourish and thrive and potential seems to be a rich mine for personal progress.

Which leads me to leadership (or nudging).

The conscientious nudger seeks to design systems and processes to help people make better choices for themselves. That said. Any choice architecture begins with sensemaking. For example, losses loom larger than gains in our minds and this steers motivation within sensemaking and choicemaking. Potential is found not only in curiosity & learning but in accepted risk and acceptable losses. All of this can be crafted in effective sensemaking. What I mean by that is if everyone makes sense of situations in the same way, or with similar characteristics, the choice architecture (and its boundaries) is crafted by the sensemaking and not through any leader (this is called The Law of the Situation). Therefore, the leader simply nudges people with a common sensemaking framework toward potential solutions, nudges curiosity and nudges probabilistic thinking so that people can explore – which is where potential is always found.

 

“Having a better theory of emergent organization would have a lot of practical benefits, allowing us to generate or simplify sets of rules that will result in productive ends.”

John Miller, Science of Complex Systems

==

Unfortunately, too many leaders inhibit people from asking questions that once seemed too absurd to consider and thus they prevent people from probing for patterns and insights that once resided in the realm of the unknowable. Potential explores limits and imitations. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge limits but in doing so it should not amount to a dismissal of potentials.

Which leads me to principles.

Any time we seem to discuss A players, B players or any types of players we inherently create a warped competitive environment. I am not suggesting a business shouldn’t encourage some competition but it should be competing without feeling like it is competition or you are being competitive – you compete with stagnancy & entropy. This is when you are simply attempting to maximize your own potential and skills assuming your best will be, well, your best – win, lose or draw. This also assumes you believe your best will demand everyone else to bring their best so that even in a competitive environment if you ‘lose’ it Is simply because everyone played it the best they could.

So let me offer some principles:

• Human potential represents an organization’s main source of productivity

• Technology augments people, people don’t complement technology, potential emerges from augmentation

• An individual’s potential is not defined by one skill, but rather all skills/abilities (of all depths/dimensions) an individual has

• The highest organizational productivity, progress, profitability is found through maximizing opportunities efficiently and, simultaneously, effectively maintain productivity, progress & profitability

I tend to believe if you follow these principles you will just have team players, no A, B, C or whatever, and you will increase the probability these players will maximize their potential and, as a consequence, the business successes will increase. Ponder.