====

cesiumadventures:

i just have this persistent feeling of “i’m not doing enough” combined with “i don’t have the energy to do anything” and it just really fucking sucks

====

“Many people are busy trying to find better ways of doing things that should not have to be done at all. There is no progress in merely finding a better way to do a useless thing.”
Source: Ford News
11/15/1922

====

Ever get the feeling you are doing a lot of ‘somethings’ and, yet, you look around and it sometimes looks like nothing? I tend to believe a lot of people feel some version of this. I have a stack of unanswered emails to people I really would like to respond to and, yet, I always have something to do. I rarely have an open minute, by my choice and I like it that way, but some of those minutes mean not doing something else. And therein lies ‘nothing.’ Nothing IS something. It resides in the choices left behind. I am doing nothing with all these emails and people who I genuinely like and conversations I genuinely would like to have and, yet, I have done nothing with them. They are something and what I have done is something and have created nothing in doing so. This may sound convoluted and slightly absurd, and it should.

It is indicative of the slightly warped pretzel logic we place to justify our productivity madness.

It is indicative of something generally happening in work.

Work never stops, we never stop, other people never stop, there are no stop signs, and yet with all this ‘not stopping’ productivity and productive performance has, well, stopped. Okay. Not stopped, but certainly hasn’t matched the amount of non-stoppedness it appears business is doing. I imagine I could say a bunch of things here but I would suggest the nonstop world costs us some creativity and absolutely costs us some critical thinking.

We are paddling so hard we can’t see where we are going or if we are even making any meaningful progress. It’s not like people aren’t trying to give is more advice on how to actually be productive because if you go to Amazon there are something like 100,000 books telling us how we can achieve more. If you don’t want to read, just pick one of the 1000’s of apps you can download onto your already nonstop 24/7 smartphone internet feed. The ‘hustle culture’ (and economy) is more a hamster wheel than hustle. While any ideal business progress trip should be one in which you reach some far-reaching destination, in today’s world it is just a circular treadmill encased in a cage.

This worship of productivity comes at the expense of everything else. It’s kind of like purposefully implementing mediocrity. Now. Within the productivity ideology they can’t see the mediocrity because their scale is biased – they don’t see the sacrifice; they see the achievements. They don’t see lost outcome possibilities; they see pragmatic outcome gains. This self-defeating behavior means a bunch of people are doing a lot of somethings all the while doing some nothings. There is no ebb and flow of imagination or creativity, it is all directed toward the God of Productivity. This God wields metrics of productivity to measure output and achievements, but also, we as human beings.

Look.

I don’t really need to share some research to be able to say, generally speaking, most workers are overworked <this can be time driven or task drive> which, generally speaking, lessens job performance, hence, productivity. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that technology adds on an additional burden to individual productivity stress – we also now compete against automation, AI and algorithms. We fight against the system and technology – in other words “the black box against us.”

Which leads me to the battle between more and zero sum.

More.

Growth, scale, expansion, higher, all are synonyms for “more.” Business is obsessed with more. If you did something yesterday, tomorrow can only be better if there is more than yesterday. It’s absurd and unhealthy. Let me use the business buzzword of the day, Transformation, to point out even that is never really about becoming better; it is always about producing “more faster” (better is a pleasant addition if it happens). ‘More’ simply begets an obsession with continuous output and THAT obsession arcs toward the worst of Taylorism in which Lillian Gilbreth-ism trumps Follett-ism.

The models of work are rewarded if they generate more regardless of whether it is true progress or not.

The models of work get rewarded if they generate more regardless of whether it is meaningful or not (because meaningful means ‘meet outcome objective.’

The models of work get rewarded if they generate more if they can simply be well oiled, or fine-tuned with more oil, thereby supporting the concept of human machinery.

But maybe even worse than treating people like machines is how business treats their work. I will talk about “achievement attitude” under zero sum, but suffice it to say that if achievements are all people truly get measured on <which feeds into what a person will identify as value and meaning> and More is always yelling in your mind, well, all you will focus on is more achievements – quantity not quality. “More” is a horrible corrosive productivity concept. “More” is actually a horrible corrosive concept for the world <invest some time reading Limits of Growth; Meadows/Meadows>.

Zero sum.

I am not sure, but it’s possible “more” could have worked okay in the models of work if we weren’t simultaneously stuck in a zero-sum mindset. In that mindset universe ‘more’ comes at the expense of someone else and, worse, if someone is getting “more” that means less for you.

It’s corrosive thinking and, paradoxically, reductive in nature. The pendulum in society has swung all the way over to achievement is all that matters. In fact, we are in a society where the Value of a person seems to be either driven solely by their outcomes/results or weighted so heavily by the outcomes/results that the ‘effort portion’ has minuscule value.

That’s … well … uhm … bad. Bad for individual meaning. Bad for society. Bad for Life lessons. Just bad.

It is bad because that means many people will ignore the price they will pay to achieve the outcome because the outcome, in and of itself, will contain all the value.

Yeah.

Think about that.

Taken to an extreme that would mean the attempt has zero value and trying and failing has zero, if not negative, value.

Ok.

That is bad.

======

“But he did not understand the price.

Mortals never do.

They only see the prize, their heart’s desire, their dream … but the price of getting what you want, is getting what you once wanted.”

Neil Gaiman

=====

Which leads me to how zero-sum plays a role. That achievement attitude becomes even worse, for society, because it also suggests “what are we willing to do to get what we want” is a zero sum game.

What do I mean?

Well.

You are willing to do anything it takes to get what you want <the achievement>.

The hell with rules … they are for people who don’t value achievement enough.

The hell with guardrails and guidelines … they are for people who are scared to do what it takes.

This attitude cleverly steals away freedom of choice in that it suggests the only choice is the one that ensures achievement.

“Measures of productivity do not lead to improvement in productivity.”

W. Edwards Deming; Out of Crisis

This attitude strips choices of anything truly worthwhile like dignity and respect and humanity because all of those things are not criteria for what is the ultimate value – the result or outcome. Productivity is inextricably tied to achievement which also suggests productivity that does not attain some objective achievement has little or no value. It’s a horrible way of thinking that actually equates productivity with gamification theory. Horrible.

I say all this because zero sum belief sucks the oxygen out of meaningful ‘doing’, or productivity, by sucking out the true freedom to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances and to choose one’s own way in doing things. There is no freedom because only one type of productivity is deemed the winner and anyone not achieving that is a loser.

In the end.

Some people suggest we need to prioritize new ideas rather than productivity. I am not so sure. I think we should be prioritizing meaningful progress – for both individual and the business. While this version of progress is not attached to any direction or quantity of things, it does accommodate productivity <which I believe if it isn’t worshiped can be a valuable aspect of value creation and meaning>. I would suggest the future is actually not about more, nor less, nor any quantity. But. I am not suggesting a business doesn’t have to sell some ‘quantity’ in order to sustain itself, it’s just that any quantity becomes a result of a focus on progress where doing something means something. This thought also suggests the future isn’t going to be solved by working smarter, but rather a smarter way of working. I would also suggest the current way of working is not a logical result of centuries of logical reasoned thinking about how work should be done, but rather a battle between ideas on a way to work. That last thought becomes a semi-important thought because it suggests we don’t need a new way of doing business, or a new way of thinking, or even some magical transformation, but instead we should be seeking out the ideas that exist and maybe lost a key battle here or there. It is not about a fundamental shift, but rather a revisit to the fundamentals. In doing so we change the concept of productivity and progress in business and that begets a shift in systems, policies and practices. Ponder.

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

“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. Now. this one is gonna be a bit tricky because I am going to use words like ‘above’ when it comes to leadership. I believe once you read all the way thru you’ll get a better sense of what I mean but let me just say that I believe at any given point, on any specific project, anyone is capable of leading. For today I am speaking more of those who typically ‘guide’ a business – those types of leaders. The ones who don’t speak of alignment <demanding people align behind them> but rather coherence <people aligned toward a vision>. Let me also add I think it is silly to not talk about leaders as being ‘different’ <leadership of groups of people is a certain type of skill> and even sillier to not talk about leadership skills <I believe it is always good to highlight some healthy principles>.

Anyway.

Leading is a big job. It carries big responsibilities and big burdens. You have to be big enough in some way <skills, 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 and where appropriate.  Above is not dominance, per se, just that you maintain a dominant-sight position from which you can most effectively and 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’ power-dynamics bullshit that comes with a title — and still remain above even when stepping down or away from all those things.

However. Not everyone is an effective 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/sane leader has some doubts on occasion. It keeps them grounded.

Regardless. As a corollary to that ‘leadership is a big job’, that 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

It is not difficult to look around and see reminders of ineffective leadership style and the characteristics of insecure leadership. Simplistically, the number one characteristic of insecure leadership is the inability to walk among 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 but for today its is to metaphorically offer a vivid demonstration>. A CEO or a president is clearly in a dominant position by title and by responsibility and, in many cases, by some larger skill that got them to where they are. A true ‘dominant position’ <let’s call it “authority” to guide> combines all aspects.  Therefore the ‘good’ person in the dominant position combines substance and style <or science and art>. And this is where insecurity steps in, because if this person has any true doubts with regard to their ‘dominant position’ – mostly doubts on their substance — they start exhibiting some insecure characteristics. Simultaneously, 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.

Let me explain.

This is where the underbelly of ‘dominance’ rears its ugly head.

“They need to come to me” <thereby establishing some aspect of subservience and feeds the sense of ‘dominant position’>. And it is not a one-off. And they do it .. every .. frickin’ … day. They never truly “go among the people” nor do they unite by inserting themselves into any opposing groups <people who may not agree> opening up to say “let me be part of what you want.”  This person’s entire leadership style is driven by an insecurity of ‘dominant position’ perceptions and they fear ‘stepping down’ from that position for fear it will expose the fact they are not really ‘above’ anyone other than in title.

In other words, they fear looking small.

And therein lies the larger lesson.

Good leaders don’t become smaller when they among people 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 but they fear smallness.

Little people are little wherever they go or even if they sit in the corner office. Unfortunately for us a little leader knows this, uhm, 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 <”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. Littleness is the danger they fear.

What that all means is that an insecure leader more often than not lives in a mentality in which everyone is treated as if they should be subservient.

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. We have a tendency to arc our behavior toward some of the wrong things. We are aware, but do some wrong things with the right intentions.

I say that because insecure leaders are relatively hollow on the self-awareness which leads to ‘wrong intention leadership.’

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 be among people, sit in town halls answering questions from real people as well as sit down with people who didn’t ask for you to become the C-whatever 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. I say judge away. Every leader should be judged, and judged harshly, because … well … they are leaders and that is their burden.

=====

Pro Humanitate

“For Humanity”

====

“Pro Humanitate calls us to consider what we are as human beings and what constitutes genuine human flourishing.”

James Powell, Wake Forest University

====

This is about the interconnectedness between intentionality and existential issues. By existential issues I mean the nuanced relationship between the individual, the community (public and in business) and society. I don’t believe it is hyperbole to suggest we, humanity, is facing an existential moment <not a crisis> on a number of issues at exactly the same time. Now, this may feel like a crisis, but I’d suggest its more that it’s a number of issues, many of which feel unsolvable or unstoppable, all occurring at once. This leads me to intentionality. In order to meet the moment, we need to shed the thinking that (a) we need to deal with one at a time, (b) they are unsolvable, (c) I can do nothing that will have any real impact, and, well, implement some intentionality at an individual level, a community (collective) level and societal level. Yeah. I’m suggesting intentionality can bend the arc of existential issues away from stagnancy (or regressive behavior) and actually toward progress.

Now. That said. Let me begin by suggesting intentions begin with perception. Neither the individual, the community (a public one or a business one) nor society can begin to shape intentions without perceiving something of interest. This interest can be shaped or it can be reactive or it can be the natural arc of events. But all demand some attentiveness to be able to not only shape intentions, but also to invest the energy to bring intentions to bear. These are the forces that affect the future of the individual, the community and the society. It is within this battle of, well, intentional wills in which the present and future is shaped and any existential issues are addressed.

Which leads me to progress and people.

Progress always occurs faster than we imagined and slower than we want. What I mean by that is progress is not one single solid mass moving in one direction. It is more a bunch of different pieces of confetti getting blown around with some falling, some rising and some seemingly lost in circular motion floating aimlessly in the air. All this movement is crafted by the clashing of intentions and intentional actions. I imagine the point I am going to try and make today is it is within that clash progress is found – within the battles of skepticism, criticism, pessimism and, yes, optimism, intentional resilience forges ahead. But maybe I should begin with people because that clash is more often people pitted against people. And while I believe that has always been so I also believe it has sharpened in recent history and the present.

The easiest place for me to begin is hypocrisy – possibly the most misused word and idea slowing down progress. A fundamental cause of any disaffection with regard to intentions is the contradictions between what one says and what one does. These confusions can be real <which reflect disingenuous intentions> or parsed reality <less than helpful criticism of real progress>. This split reality is actually real contextually. We say we believe in integrity – except in business. We preach morality – except if you have money. We encourage hard work as the path to happiness – except we see empty of meaning success and dubious economically rewards. All of these things have elevated skepticism so that even when one genuinely has good intentions there will always be another person to point out where the intentions fall short. Yeah. Person versus person. It’s as if someone is always lurking to point out isolated events as failures of intent. This is a false or certainly poor use of ‘hypocrisy.’ I can claim intent, make progress, and still never be able to meet everyone’s judgement against those intentions. This is even worse if you are in the public eye. What I would suggest is that the ones with the best of intentions, and the most resilience, ignore the false hypocrisy claims. But. The larger damage is done to societal and community progress. The constant attack on good well intended intentionality blurs not only the good versus bad, but progress in general. What I mean by that is the objective-making gets so diffused that any progress attempts seem hypocritical and progress itself becomes a joke <skepticism reigns>.

Yeah. From all sides intentionality is barraged by skepticism, desire for real progress and actual disdain for what is perceived as unhealthy/unneeded progress. There has always been a rebellion against progress, but in today’s world that rebellion is fought in an asymmetrical fashion. What this means is that mindset and attitudes can be completely unraveled by one instance of behavior amplified by one person against another.

Which leads me to the existential unraveling.

A central belief, expectation, of every middle class is that no matter where, and how, you grew up you could become president <not that it is such a desirable objective these days but you get the point>- ‘poverty to president’ is kind of the ultimate vivid metaphor. Simultaneously, there was another belief that if a wealthy family made the same mistakes that one in poverty makes they, similarly, would not not prosper. There was a belief in some equity mostly grounded in fairness, hard work and education. Even aspirations were grounded in fairness.

These beliefs are challenged not only by the realities of the existing system, but by skepticism and skeptical people. Yet. Some protect the ideas by highlighting the few who exhibit the beliefs. And then some attack the ideas by highlighting the many the system has failed. Within the wretched hollow in-between are people with good intentions and ill-guided intentions. The ill-intended are intent on protecting that ‘expectation belief mindset’ for fear that if the mindset is challenged people will inherently stop doing the things that nudge luck out of the way on occasion and actually help someone intentionally craft their own fate <this wretched hollow is embodied McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y>. The well-intended seek to fix the system or improve it. This dissonance makes society dissonant. I would argue this is an existential issue.

And within this dissonance individual intentionality crashes into community intentionalities and chafes against some societal intentions. Intentionality falls apart. Doubt seeps in and skepticism overwhelms optimism. The smelly underbelly of this is ‘lack of responsibility.’ If intentionality has no or little reward than responsibility shifts only to ‘zero-sum’ individuality, no collective greater good <or smallish head nods to collective good>. This, in turn, feeds a sense of accumulation as an objective. Let me be clear. Intentionality of accumulation as a sense of success is hollow, soulless, meaning. Anyway. The complaints against someone’s intentionality can seem endless, because they are. They are because mindsets don’t appear to have a sense of commonality which means sensemaking has no shared ground.

And while we talk about how the internet and social media creates an existential issue, let’s take a moment and reflect upon how television has affected intentional mindsets. I would argue that if television reflects our values, principled behavior and what we stand for, the whole system is rotten. And if that system is rotten, we need to think about how we are bound to a system. That is most likely the greatest existential issue, yet, we never seem to discuss it nor discuss it existential nor discuss the intentionality one must take to ‘unbound’ a system and from a system. Systems are bound by mindsets. Oh. We may talk about fairmindedness or equality (or equitable), or meritocracy or any other cage we have built that is a system within which we do and think, but existential systems are sneaky bastards. They establish a foundational mindset which colors everything else in hues that are always a derivative of that mindset. Suffice it to say, I believe we are in the midst of an existential unraveling with regard to societal expectations and aspirations.

Which makes me circle back to television.

I don’t buy into the belief we are now a ‘video/visual’ world, that said, what we see day-in and day-out is so banal, so cheap, so shallow, all it can really do is drag down perceptions. Oh. Yeah. Remember I said upfront, intentions are tied to perceptions <as well as mindsets, attitudes, expectations and aspirations>. If we seek a world of public intelligence, one of the greatest communications tools ever invented is doing nothing constructive to further intelligence. I say that because anyone with genuine good intentions has to be intentional within that context. In a world of empty platitudes real depth of intentions faces a gauntlet of emptiness. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that gauntlet has different dimensions. The television dimension is one of establishing mindsets and attitudes while the social media dimension is one of verbal harpoons and harpooning.  Intentional behavior ignores any and all at its own risk.

Anyway. One not need be a futurist to have a sense there is, and will continue to be, a continuous destabilizing grinding down of the social structure. It will demand intentionality to slow the grinding down and reverse it to building up to what we believe we could, and should, be.

Which, finally, leads me to technology.

The battle between technology, algorithms in particular, and humans is quickly becoming an existential crisis. This existential crisis will demand some intentionality – from tech people and people in general. Now. Some people will suggest this is an ‘accountability issue’ and focus solely on people. I can’t. I can’t because I think that’s wrong (but still part of the equation). A number of really smart people like Daniel Schmachtenberger, Mike Walsh and Jaron Lanier have all pointed out algorithms are smarter than us. I would add that not only are they smarter (an ability to tweak our dopamine and engagement vulnerabilities), but they are relentless.

I, personally, didn’t fully grasp the existential aspect of this until the 2016 USA presidential election. It was the first time I felt (a) the onslaught of algorithm driven messaging and (b) the dogmatic view of a large group of people that they could never have been influenced from an algorithm driven message. The combination gave me pause. I knew from my experience in the advertising world that people generally believe only other people are susceptible to advertising. But advertising is often fairly subtle in its attempt to veer you toward thinking some stupid shit to buy their stupid shit. But 2015/2016 was such an onslaught of obvious lack-of-discernable-reality I thought people would never be duped by it. They were. In fact. I knew it was existential when I actually had an advertising professional suggest there was no way people would be duped by “7000 Facebook ads.’ Someone who should know better, did not.

Anyway.

This isn’t about the 2016 election; this is about existential issues and the intentionality that is necessary to address them.

Social constructivism, the art of constructing our collective fate, demands intentionality at all levels – individual, community and society. It demands a coherence of resilient intentions because diffusion in environment – all these existential issues – quadruples the challenge for any intentionality. One must assume the mantle of responsibility and responsibility requires intentionality. Inevitably this intentionality is the weapon against disorientation. Intentionality gives is a ‘sense of agency’ in which we no longer simply get buffeted by asynchronous waves of skepticism and obstacles to progress but rather we become ships on a sea of progress. We become responsible and accountable and gain at least some semblance of control. But that is just your part. Communities must work together, the collective needs to accept both individual and society as part of the grander narrative and society needs some common sensemaking. I would argue the trick is to mix and match strategies in response to the nature of the opportunity and the behavior, actual and desired, of the population. We need to stop attacking genuine good intentions and intentionality with false cries of “Hypocrisy!!” toward all moments where someone’s intentions fall short of some dubious judgement of someone else’s behavior.

“Usually, one doesn’t not even know the dynamics of the system that one wants to control well enough to program a computer to simulate them, let alone how to control the system in the presences of perturbations.”

Seth Lloyd

The truth is that all the systemic issues I highlighted earlier are human-made and, therefore, can be unmade. But the larger trouble with parsing intentions and having people versus people with regard to existential attacks is that any semblance of control of our current systems, or even just navigation, requires insightful awareness – of self, community and society. This means the capacity to know what to pay attention to as well as what to selectively ignore becomes of significant value. And maybe that is my larger point, we should not ignore existential issues, but selectively ignore some individual asymmetrical behavior tied to symmetrical objectives – i.e., genuinely good intent toward objectives (symmetrical intent) ignoring ill-intended criticism on any asymmetricity found in effort.

In the end.

If we seek humanity to flourish, on a meta or mesa level, at some point you stop feeling sorry for being powerless among a variety of existential issues and begin to understand you are here for some purpose and that humanity needs to be actively engaged and intentional. You learn the powers/skills you have must, or should, be intentionally used to inspire and activate progress. You learn whatever your skills may be are simply keys and no matter how useless you may feel, or the world attempts to make you feel, or even other individuals in your community make you feel <the pessimistic, skeptical and critical>, sometimes the biggest difference you can make for the world is to figure out the right door to open with your key. I would argue that last line and thought can only be achieved if you are intentional.

All that said. As I began, coherence between individual, community and society is what enables progress and even if you open the right door with your intentional key, that doesn’t guarantee that another door needs to be opened. I remain optimistic with regard to people, humanity and society. I believe if we increase our competence with regard to, well, everything, the demand for competent people will always remain and will always be needed to enable progress. Now. I am not speaking of technical competence. Doctors, engineers, software designers, etc., are fairly easy to train to competent levels. I am speaking of competence in moral leadership, ethical thinking and integrity in actions which are a bit more difficult train for. And maybe that is my point. We need to intentionally train for critical thinking competence, moral competence and ethical competence if we are to ever meet the existential issues at hand.

Look.

Amidst this clash of existential issues, it becomes just as easy to tune everything out as it is to obsess over a splinter of a skeptical criticism. It is the diffusion of ‘what matters.’ What this, in turn, elicits is a general rejection of the underpinnings not just of values, but what is valued. A good education gets valued less because it seems to pragmatically mean less. Doing the right thing gets valued less because it seems to pragmatically get less. Being honest, kind and fair gets valued less because it seems to pragmatically mean little. All of this belittles the idea of happiness and assaults our sense of what true meaning is beyond, well, some simplistic pragmatic view centered on “winning” or wealth. All of this suggests societal hierarchy is not something to be climbed, but something inevitable as it currently exists. There are no common values, simply shared false values which are only selectively valued. That means the tug of war between progress and stagnancy tilts toward stagnancy, if not regression.

Ponder.

===========

Authors note:

This piece had a couple of key inspirations. The first is David Amerland and his book, Intentional, for making me think about being intentional and intentionality more than I have ever before. The second is just television itself. I don’t have a lot of free time and do not watch a lot of television. The other day I had a bit of time and scanned the programming available to me, Netflix and HBOMax included, only to find with few exceptions, the most vapid choices. It made me realize that unless you were quite intentional with your TV viewing the mindset TV portrays with regard to our system in totality suggests everything is pretty rotten.

====

“… ignorance will persist in the face of masses of information however complete and correct.

It persists even in the face of the meritorious efforts that are being made to go beyond presenting information and to teach the use of it by means of lectures, classes, discussion groups. Results are not zero. But they are small. People cannot be carried up the ladder.

Thus, the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance.”

Joseph Schumpeter on Democracy

====

I talk about emergence and agility a lot. In fact, I sometimes believe I talk about it so much people think I don’t believe in any replication and standardization. Today I’d like to resolve any misunderstandings. If we are honest, all of us, successful business is in the replicating business. Replication is the foundation upon which all profitability and execution effectiveness resides upon and it isn’t the place where the typical employee drops down to a lower level of mental performance.

That said. Let me begin with what I believe is obvious. I think we often forget to acknowledge much of what business experiences happen serendipitously <or as a consequence of some unseen action in the past> and temporarily <albeit that temporariness could span just a moment or some longer finite timeframe>.

Sometimes these timeframes don’t have clear-cut beginnings and endings.

Sometimes they run parallel.

Sometimes they overlap.

Sometimes they randomly interconnect.

Sometimes we plan for them, sometimes we develop plans to address them and sometimes they develop sight unseen by factors outside our control <and we have no plan>.

I often believe it is useful to think of a business, and its systems, as an accumulation of different timeframe events/happenings. I believe if we did so we would be a little less rigid, a little less linear in thinking <about execution and alignment>, a bit less certain of system resilience and, consequently, have a bit more agility.

That may sound like an odd way to discussing replication, but this is the context in which replication thrives.

Replication often gets spoken of as ‘standardization’ or some version of rote behavior or even best practice, solid immoveable things, instead I believe we should speak of replication as coherent activity continuously in use. Kind of the steady pulse of organizational productivity showing up not just in repeatable actions, but seen in repeatable patterns of system usage of resources <often driven by consistent execution>.

Which leads me to replication of data.

While some gurus would suggest data is the oil that makes this non-machine work, I will not. I will broaden data to information and I will also suggest replicating information is the key to not only ongoing success, productivity, improvement as well as agility.

But let me talk about data for a minute.

Big data, small data, right sized data, we have always had more information than we have known what to do with in business. That’s I find most ‘big data’ discussions annoying.

Yes. I buy the fact that with today’s technology I can get better, more granular information <and sweeping trend like information at the same time> than ever before.

No. I don’t think we are significantly better at using whatever data, and information, than we were in the past.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know there are TedTalks and presentations from very articulate dynamic speakers espousing the coming generation of ‘big data.’ I would ask everyone to note a couple of things when these people stand up and pontificate about the potential of ‘big data’ and showcase how it has actually been used:

—

Their examples are often <most often> anomalies to everyday business.

—

The information is brilliant, the usefulness is less than pragmatic

—

Don’t get me wrong, data used well is valuable. I am simply suggesting we love the concept of data so much we are bedazzled with gathering it, but more often have no clue what to do with the data <or misuse it>.

This is where replication comes in. I encourage everyone to think about data a little differently. Think of the fact that Data is actually the result of someone doing things over and over again through connections with other people. Maybe think of it as a massive research program of ‘one-on-one interviews’ <not just of people but with resources, machines, etc., i.e., the system itself can be interviewed> that provides some quantitative and qualitative pattern/coherence information to think about. And, as with any research, when you compile the interviews, you can very easily lose sight of the fact that each data point represents real people who dedicated their real attention at some particular identifiable moment. But if you look at data that way, well, you realize that opportunities can be seen as clusters of people acting in a coherent/connected fashion over a period of time. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out everything I just said is replication.

That said. Most importantly <and possibly what all those ‘big data experts’ fail to see> is that all these data points reflect WHAT SOMEONE HAS CHOSEN TO PAY ATTENTION TO.

—————–

“Attention is the most important currency that anybody can give you, it’s worth more than money, possessions or things.”

Steve Rubel

———–

Replicated information describes the ability to see what people pay attention to on an ongoing basis.

** note: this can be both good and bad, but what it does suggest is if you want to understand why something happens, you seek where people pay attention. Conversely, if you want to change behavior, or effect it, find out how to have attention <not mandated> directed toward something.

Yeah. My point is do not disregard data as a means to examine connections and what people pay attention to. I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out that the ‘data’ I just highlighted is simply one part of ‘information’ that decisions makers and business has access to.

Which leads me to information.

Information is the lifeblood of business. Possibly the most infamous legend supporting this is Rothschild and Waterloo and a carrier pigeon. Basically, Rothschild knew Wellington won at Waterloo faster than competition and took advantage in the market. The details of the legend are clearly not true, but the lesson is certainly true. Information used wisely benefits the user of that information. There is another part of this lesson – patterns. The entire Rothschild family, as they traveled, took meticulous notes with regard to what they observed and shared – persistently and consistently. I bring that latter point up to note ‘dimensionality’ <situational awareness spans entire compass> matters.

So let me talk about information, not data, and ‘replicating information.’

Let me explain. Business are persistent patterns of things – behavior, attitude and creation. all of which are undergirded by information. In order to maintain its ‘persistency’ it must maintain a steady flow of information, i.e., replicate flows of information. Now. This does not mean ‘the same information’, it simply means replicating whatever information is necessary, within the given time horizon and context, to enable the persistent pattern of things. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that this information enables people to make decisions and do things in the service, or in relationship to, other groups of people. Information elevates the value of interactions and connectivity. In a nutshell that’s the business of replicating business and that’s the value of replicating information.

Organizations will only grow, or progress, if information is constantly injected (and learned from) within employees (and, yes, machine learning is not ‘of people’ but conceptually the same idea runs true).

Which leads to what information shows – patterns.

Patterns are a reflection of process or systems or behavior. They are codes for something you need to pay attention to. They sometimes narrow our view, and attention, away from whole systems view which, pragmatically speaking, may often help in decision-making <and often it’s okay because the value of the business is embedded within patterns.

In fact, it’s quite possible a business should manage to the Patterns and not the People

Managers manage what they can see. Connection decision makers make decisions on what they can see.

Better information, and data, certainly gives a business a chance to leverage connections. However, ‘seeing’, in good decision making, needs to expand beyond the moment itself and incorporate some larger patterns and consequence recognition (not just causal).

One of the key challenges to this thought is many managers are hesitant to accept how little information/knowledge is needed before someone can actually make a useful decision in the moment.

** note: this is a reflection that early decision-making experiences errs toward seeking too much certainty but experience drives decisionmakers to lean in on probabilities rather than certainty (I call this optimal certainty).

That said. Pattern recognition offers a couple of key benefits:

• Faster Reflexes: As a more agile organization culture, the company has an ability to blend into the marketplace (versus rigid institutions unable to flex). Technology has changed the way organizations should act because it has changed how the world interacts – the way we shop and consume. It creates new opportunities and destroys businesses that are unable to adapt to a sudden discontinuity with our past.
• Decision maker confidence. Face the fact that while everyone says they want to make decisions, a decision, in & of itself, can create some anxiety to a less practiced decision maker. Patterns offer some certainty, more so than a specific data point or ‘rule’, to a connection decision maker.

————–

“The Internet aggregates the actual brand experience, it discloses and amplifies the mismatch between companies and their customers, which can be seriously disrupted.”

Susan Baker, Cranfield School of Management

———————

While everything I have noted is under the meta ‘organizational benefit of pattern recognition’ umbrella, at a mesa level the benefit resides in how quickly a business can apply the appropriate replicable skills against or toward the patterns. The point here is replication, well applied, i.e., right time/right place, increases business velocity of pattern opportunities.

Anyway. We should treat data, and patterns, like mirrors, in which a decision maker gets not just information they need when they need it, but rather the pattern in order to assign the best decision to the connection need.

What this permits is not a causal problem-solution response, but instead a grander future-fit response in which consequences, some foreseen and some unforeseen, cascade away from each decision. This is sometimes called ‘knowledge management.’ Toffler referred to “knowledge management,” as becoming clear that viewing a company’s knowledge as something separate from its employees is impossible. Our growing understanding of social networks and organization network value creation should make us think more about patterns within patterns. What I mean by that is an organization itself has patterns (pacing, teams, informal hierarchies, etc.) which an organization should seek to nest within an external pattern if it would like to sinc up and optimize the opportunities.  I would argue that establishing a pattern recognition system maximizes the information as a living breathing thing altered by its use. In addition, not only does it maximize individual opportunities, but it also helps leverage real employee/people’s interactions to spot larger trends AND also helps identify internal experts throughout an organization so that you can better merge skills/strengths against future needs. All that said, the ability to replicate information and data undergirds not only the usefulness of data/information, but makes it easier to use.

Look. Replication is actually a dance, not marching. And even then, the natural order of replicable things is that it can fit a lot <that’s what makes it useful>, but not perfectly. It’s not optimal, but can be quite useful. It’s the core of organizational efficacy.

To make my point mass production of data, any information in fact, is less than optimal let’s go to mass retail. It’s like buying clothes at a chain retail store versus a tailor. Any large clothing retail chain store will give you something that looks nice, but likely will not fit you perfectly <its crafted for the average> while the tailor will fit you perfectly.

Similarly, data efficacy gets effected by algorithms <in a sneaky way>. Data compilation algorithms are designed inside-out. What I mean by that is they are shaped to scan information, craft that information into useful data and then is told to shape it in ‘useable ways.’ That is mass production of information. It will fit okay, often look good, but its lack of preciseness to the individual ‘buying it’ gives some room for poor buying choices. And maybe that is my big ask to the technology people, the software/AI designers, to start shaping things that work best for us and do not enable the worst of us (worst can simply be ‘default to simplistic’ to make a decision).

** note: I should also point out AI, designed with efficiency as an objective, will naturally skew data shaping away from efficacy, or even effectiveness, and toward efficiency.

All of this to say that consistent, and coherent, information that can be provided in a consistent fashion is the lifeblood of useful replication. Why do I say that? Information is tools. Period. All these tools create a landscape upon which we navigate our decisions, choices, selves and business. and while its easy to say having a hammer when you need a screwdriver is the flaw of replication, I would suggest there is a reason a hammer is in every toolbox.

In the end.

While its easy to suggest innovation is the lifeblood of a business, its really not. innovation, or continuous improvement, certainly enhances the likelihood of future survival, but it is its replication strengths & abilities that makes sure a business survives and is survivable <if not thriveable> through chaotic dynamic situations, and offers the pathway to consistent profitability <which, looping back, funds innovations and people>. In other words, success is often found in the business of replicating business.

=====

“It is the predicament of mankind that man can perceive the problematique, yet, despite his considerable knowledge and skills, he does not understand the origins, significance, and interrelationships of its many components and thus is unable

to devise effective responses. This failure occurs in large part because we continue to examine single items in the problemarique without understanding that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, that change in one element means change in the others.”

Limits of Growth, Meadows

=====

euphemism treadmill

Frequently, over time, euphemisms themselves become taboo words, through the linguistic process of semantic change known as pejoration, which University of Oregon linguist Sharon Henderson Taylor dubbed the “euphemism cycle” in 1974, also frequently referred to as the “euphemism treadmill”.

——–

Linguistic renaissance

Every generation, even decade, finds their own words and definitions

<about 1,000 words get added to dictionary every year and less get deleted every year>

=====

Other then ‘cancel culture’, ‘woke’ is possibly the most annoying idea bantered about these days. And while ‘woke’ comes to life in so many ways during some incredibly vapid discussions that your head will spin, the majority of the time it revolves around words and the use of words.

Now.

Think about this: It is estimated that there are over 500,000 words in the English language, but the average person’s vocabulary is only between 2000 and 6000 words. This means we use less than 2% of our language.

And while I would guess that within that 2%, in general, we under use the really good words, do not use enough inspiring words, and hold on to the 2% we do use with ragged claws. This is where the euphemistic treadmill rears its ugly head. A word caught on the euphemistic treadmill is one that replaced an offensive or pejorative term, but has itself become unfavorable.

“The more exposure you have to the written word the more literate you become and we tend to get better at things that we do for fun.”

Dr Beverley Plester,  Coventry University on texting

‘Woke’ fucks with people’s 2% – either directly or indirectly. Let me explain. Directly is exactly what it is. You use that word, it has been deemed offensive, and you like that word, so someone is fucking with how you talk <and how you think about things I imagine>. Indirectly is grounded in fear. You don’t use that word but it creates a fear that someday someone is coming for one of your 2%. To be clear. There is an entire industry of people invested in creating fear on “where does it stop.”

** note: ‘where does it stop’ is one of the silliest, stupidest, most banal arguments in existence. It stops when and where you choose to make it stop. Doing the right thing demands both doing and stopping.

Here is where I think the 2%’ers have lost the plot.

Maybe think of ‘woke’ terminology this way.

Yes. Teens use words <sometimes lots used in a nonstop fashion>.

Yes. Sometimes we old folk don’t recognize them as words <albeit we are infamous for making up our own buzzwords>.

Yes. If you get a bunch of older people together they will agree that today’s kids do not understand English, know how to write, are poor communicators and, in general, don’t know shit about grammar.

Yes. This is a silly petty discussion <hence my point on “woke’ words>.

pettiness, which, as the Oxford English dictionary explains, is “an undue concern with trivial matters, especially of a small-minded or spiteful nature.” Psychologists say that this behaviour from people who make mountains out of molehills stems from some unrelated insecurity or unhappiness.

I purposefully use petty because that describes the general attitude over woke words. When it comes to ‘woke’ I can almost guarantee you at some time, in some place, someone is, sometimes quite convincingly <or connivingly>, attempting to show that a real mountain is simply a molehill and a real molehill is actually a mountain. It almost seems like after a good, solid 500-year run, we have evolved from a society of readers to a society of stupid. The printing press launched the first intellectual revolution; the second one was launched by YouTube, twitter and 24-hour cable TV. Given the choice, people would rather view a 1-minute video, showing something out of context, than read for 2 minutes. What this revolution will spawn is lots of bad video, lots of useless content, and much much more idiotic battles over what is simply euphemistic treadmill activity, i.e., the natural evolution of words and meanings.

Personally I can tell you the reason why I don’t participate in a lot of Ted discussions anymore is because there tend to be a bunch of older people <supposedly the sharpest knives in the drawer because they were part of TED> that constantly bitch and moan about how young people are becoming increasing illiterate, we have become ‘too sensitive’ with regard to words, and in order to solve this crisis the solution is we need to go back to the basics <that is code for “the way we learned”>.

Suffice it to say I’d like to tell everyone that the treadmill goes on, euphemistic or any treadmill, and you better get on it.

Today’s youth is not illiterate nor are they destroying the English language nor are they devolving into some nondescript group of blithering nonthinking irresponsible idiots.

So, what’s happening? Maybe the problem is with us older folk.

“Many people have this black-and-white view of language, that some things are always right and wrong, that’s not how it works.”

Katherine Barber, editor in chief Canadian Oxford Dictionary

I feel a need to point out that research says that ‘text speak’ <young people communicating in texts & shortened euphemisms>, rather than harming literacy, could have a positive effect on the way children interact with language. Researchers from Coventry University <published in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology> studied children aged between 10 and 12 to understand the impact of text messaging on their language skills. They found that the use of so-called “textisms” could be having a positive impact on reading development.

Bottom line.

The study found no evidence of a detrimental effect of text speak on conventional spelling.

“What we think of as misspellings, don’t really break the rules of language and children have a sophisticated understanding of the appropriate use of words.”

Coventry Researcher

Other reports have produced similar results. Research from the University of Toronto <researching how teenagers use instant messaging> found that instant messaging had a positive effect on their command of language. Two University of Toronto researchers who studied teen text messaging say that not only is the medium not wrecking the English language, but may actually be encouraging what some people refer to as a ‘linguistic renaissance’ as teens re-learn and reshape the meaning of words.

“They demonstrate very clearly that their grammatical skills are intact, and they very effectively mix it with other types of language.”

Regardless. Young people are not destroying the English language and ‘wokeness’ is simply destroying that which every generation destroys – words that lose meaning.

Which circles me back to that euphemism treadmill.

Each generation puts their indelible stamp on the everyday language.

If we believe for one moment that someone in Shakespearean time wouldn’t look at us today after listening to two 50somethings talk, looking at us like we were crazy <possibly unsophisticated>, maybe even from a different planet, and ‘unwoke’ to their generation, we just haven’t thought about it well enough.

I would argue words aren’t getting destroyed but rather we are simply creating a new way of talking <for the better for the most part>.

Which leads me to technology.

A major purpose of social networking sites, and you have to imagine one of the reasons why it is all so popular, is that in many ways they fill our need for external validation.

The web can even make validation grow to levels we couldn’t even imagine 15 years ago … especially in the internet generation where fame <lets maybe call it ‘become more well-known than ever before’> is more achievable than ever.

*** note: I will note that this external validation thought can be used for good … or for bad>

Regardless. Language and words are part of that external validation.

The web has opened up a world in which instead of lurking in a shell wondering if we would ever find a greater self-validation than a close circle of acquaintances, we can now seek external validation among likeminded souls. And just as close face-to- face friends have them; external likeminded people have a similar language. Sometimes it is almost a code speak for an inner circle. And here is where words get shaped, reshaped, created and destroyed; and so the euphemism treadmill churns on and on.

This is where we reshape, and find, a new vocabulary to discuss the world within which we live.

Anyway.

While this is about words, in my own head there are 3 aspects. The thought. The articulation. The proof.

I imagine several really smart insightful people in every generation of every civilization have the smarts to have the thought <that reshapes our mindsets>.

At any time in history the thought is challenged or forwarded by how it is articulated <change words to match the new mindset narrative>.

And then proof varies depends on us, people, and how different segments react.

I would be remiss if I didn’t note that time is brutal on all past articulations and words. They get destroyed or re-translated by future generations. I say all that to suggest that there is no “woke” and there really isn’t any ‘cancel culture’ when it comes to words. We are just on the ever-present euphemism treadmill and maybe, just maybe, something in your 2% will end up on the treadmill. Ponder.

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

“Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit.”

e.e. cummings

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

“I’m a slave to my hatred of boredom.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald

——————-

There is a difference between smart and smarter. That may sound obvious but I think it is important in this discussion.

In most of the world progress, or being smart, is defined by some outcome or achievement, i.e., what did you do today. In other words, output.  Smarter, on the other hand, is an input progress. What did I learn today that made me just a bit smarter? Input. Smarter often doesn’t have any immediate ‘output’ consequence just a nice intrinsic consequence, i.e., I am a bit smarter. My point is lots of smart people do smart stuff and produce a lot of smart things, but generally speaking, their output can only either (a) offer stable consistent value or (b) diminishing value. In other words, there is little lift in future value. They have specialized their craft <hence, ‘smart’>, tied it to output <execution well done> and will pound that particular smart nail into whatever wood you put in front of them. to be clear, once again, this has value.

Smarter is more focused on ‘better today than I was yesterday and better tomorrow than I am today.” It has less emphasis on doing and execution and more emphasis on learning.

That said. Smarter is actually about hard work. Smarter requires more than a surface ‘this is what I think’ tweet popular vote. If we really want to do what needs to be done to maximize meaning, we have to hunker down and work hard. Work hard in that we need to reassemble the present (knowledge) & rethink things by using all aspects including economic thought and philosophy and the past … all of which means dealing with ambiguity and contradiction.

And, yes, that is hard work. But it is the kind of work that hones the smarter insightfulness we need.

Instead of dumbing things down we need to be raising the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of a business which inevitably will lead a business to a higher level of ‘smartness’ which leads to a higher level of organizational efficacy <internally and externally>.

And while you may balk at something like ‘smarter’ as too far reaching, suffice it to say, we just need to be smarter, less ignorant, more enlightened <open to additional thoughts> and more involved in the difficult and uncertain work of demystification of business impact <and objectives> beyond profit and revenue and, well, just plain rethinking shit <and, yes, this can include doing and executional excellence>.

• Simply talking about world-changing ideas will not simply make the world change. Changing the world takes work, really really hard work.

• Simply having a positive attitude ain’t gonna work. Hard work will work. And in this case I mean hard thinking

• Simply ‘doing’ aint gonna cut it. We need to be smarter. And whether you think about thinking this way or not, it ain’t about staring off into space doing nothing, thinking is a blue collar job. It’s about work.

Circling back to one of my opening quotes, ‘smarter’ makes work less boring and more engaging which, well, is certainly the pathway to more meaningful.

Which leads me to more specificity on meaning, smart and smarter.

As I stated earlier, smart has value. What that value means is that meaning is attached more tightly to output. And while that may sound mundane or every transactional, it can also offer a lot of tangible, easy to see, meaning to an individual. Their ‘transactions’ with their productivity <what they put into their work> simply needs to be extended to an external impact to tighten it to ‘meaning.’ I guess I would call this a more linear definition of meaning and a less esoteric version. And if I am correct on that, even of its value, it also makes it more fragile – extrinsic in its ‘survivable nature.’

‘smarter’ meaning is a bit different. It has some dimensions and is less linear in its nature. It makes it a tad bit squishier and has some intrinsic aspects. I would suggest it is a more robust meaning.

All of this matters. I would note that on both smart and smarter I have referred to ‘impact.’

Research shows a 400% increase in employee productivity after meeting just one person impacted by their work.  That’s one way <and an effective way>, but the point is you are seeking to not inject confidence or belief <some gamification of motivation to ‘push’>, but rather to encourage belief to emerge naturally <i.e., ‘pull’ motivation>. This is emergent motivation or intrinsic energy. It is believing in oneself and when you align it in believing in what you are doing AND aligning that with belief in the business vision and who and what the business is achieving, well, you have maximized the believing business.

I would also note a couple other things Zach Mercurio has stated about meaning:

• 83% of people say meaning in work is a priority
• Regularly show people how their work helps others
• Connect people to the beneficiary of the work
• Show people how they matter
• Place contribution over achievement.

————

“Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

Emerson

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

Look. I have purposefully used smart & smarter today because I worry the world, and business, is getting stupider on a daily basis. Ok. Not really. I imagine we are actually getting smarter every day, yet, the overarching public narrative just seems stupider every day. It’s just that it sometimes feels like smartness is whispering and dumbness <or ‘simplification’> is shouting. All of this dumbing down seems to center around complexity and simplicity. It just feels like because we increasingly understand the world is complex, we have increasingly become convinced simplicity is the key to, well, everything. The truth is almost all hope, and possibilities, and even meaning, resides in managing complexity (if not the complicated) and fear (including lack of risk) thrives on simplicity. I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out meaning, itself, becomes quite brittle in a simplicity world.

Smart isn’t an absolute. Smart is not simple. Smart, and smarter, resides on a sliding scale of which there is no mean, medina or average. There are few 10’s and few 1’s and you can be an 8 on one topic and a 2 on another and ‘smart’ is not an average of them nor can you add or subtract them. I know I have said it before but the people who make it look easy, make it look easy because they invested a lot of hard work to make you think so. Smart, and smarter, is exactly the same.

Smartness demands you to work to gather knowledge and skills, sift thru it and understand it and apply it. but be aware. In today’s world smarter is harder than one would think. The world, in its quest to increasingly create more frictionless ways of circumventing thought and separating us from any random knowledge that could possibly prompt becoming smarter in combination with its relentless religion of ‘simplicity’ will fight ‘being smarter’ every step of the way. And maybe that is the grander point. Navigating that gauntlet enhances meaning.

In the end I believe smarter is worth the work and worth the meaning it offers. I believe we should be seeking ‘smart’ as a minimum. That is actually the solid foundation for higher value for a business and higher value meaning for an individual. But I also believe, whenever possible, we should be maximizing ‘smarter’. It more naturally ties to progress, learning organizations, continuous improvement and a more robust, less fragile, meaning. Ponder.

—–

The heights by great men reached and kept

Were not obtained by sudden flight,

But they, while their companions slept,

Were toiling upward in the night.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

—-

=====

“There is no happiness for people at the expense of other people.”

Anwar Sadat

===

We talk a lot about winning these days. The most used is that horrible mis-quoted Vince Lombardi quote “Winning isn’t everything, it is the only thing” <he actually said “the will to win is everything”>.

I would suggest all the talk is simply a bastardized version of a focus on ‘outcomes’ which is the bane of the business world today.

I would suggest happiness is being tied so tightly to ‘winning’ that its cost, the expense as it were, is suffocating the larger perspective.

This expense can come in a variety of larger perspective forms — character, self-limitation and time.

While this seems like it should be simple, it is not. In fact it is a tricky balance for anyone.

This is actually a discussion on the balance, or proportional, between me <as in the individual> and we <the business, or, how we earn our living>.

Look. I talk a lot about balance in Life and in business.

To be clear. Not “work/life” balance but balance as in good & bad or pragmatic & hopeful or pessimism & optimism. These are the quandaries that seeking success creates from a moral, organizational culture/political and even spiritual perspective. Stuff like that.

Here is a truth not maybe people discuss.

Success should demand some sacrifice.

Uh oh.

If that is true, have you noticed how rare it is that when someone is focused on winning they rarely talk about ‘at what expense’ other than effort?

The fact it is not discussed is a reflection of some decision that ‘the win’ is the only thing that matters and the expense is always worth it <to win>.

This is an incredibly easy trap to fall into.

Why?

I believe it is because most of us really have no clue what we want to do in our lives and with our lives. Yeah. We may have some ‘short horizon priorities’, but anything that resembles a ‘more than minor Life’ is more often than not simply out of our mental framing. This means that it is pretty natural that in a world where pretty much everything seems in flux that we want to have some things that are tangible to measure progress and ‘what is.

And that means ‘winning’ all of a sudden assumes a fairly high priority in one’s Life and in business.

And that means ‘at what expense’ is more often than not relegated to the trashcan because ‘the win’ is all that matters.

It is a downward spiral, or doom loop, to ‘just win.’

Let me be clear.

While I just rationalized how and why this happens … this is fucked up.

===

“People do things to survive, and then after they survive, they can’t live with what they’ve done.”

Adam Johnson

===

It is fucked up because all of a sudden this ‘winning’ thing we are focused on begins to infringe upon our Life purpose or maybe instead of saying purpose – the soul of who and what we are.

You may look at winning as a means to survive, but afterwards – maybe not immediately but at some point – you realize you have to be accountable for what you have done under the guise of ‘surviving.’

I don’t really care how you define ‘life purpose’, but, simplistically, most of us want to reflect upon our lives not only looking at some version of success, but, more importantly, at the quality of the success.

*** note: ‘success’ can be ‘doing something meaningful’ or ‘doing something that meant something to someone else (impact)’

And by ‘quality’ I mean “at what expense did I achieve that success?”

Here’s the truth.

We exist for some finite period of time.

During that time we do things. Some of these things are important. Some of them are unimportant. The important things are supposed to give our lives meaning and happiness.

Which means, well, what if you get them wrong? what if you fuck up the big important things?

Shit.

What happens if you fuck up the unimportant things?

I say that to make the point this is why moments matter. Uhm. This is why all moments matter.

I say that to make the point this is why ‘how you win’ matters.

I say that to make the point this is why ‘at what expense’ becomes maybe the most important question someone can ask when pursuing winning.

Look. Almost everyone asks “what do we need to do to win?, but ‘expense?’ … not so much.

I imagine my real point is that with such a huge emphasis on winning we need to recognize that everything involves sacrifice.

Everything includes some expense.

So despite the fact the answer in today’s world almost always seems to be “win” <at any cost>, the question everyone should actually be asking is ‘at what expense is tolerable?”

And therein lies the issue.

When someone does actually ask that question money, energy & time are the three easiest expenses. Everyone focuses on these because, frankly, to avoid the bigger potential expenses. They are real, but, a lazy expense discussion.

Self-limitation is the next expense that steps up. This one is fraught with peril. Peril in that if you admit you are not capable of doing what must be done you become a, well, loser. We have set some absurd expectations with regard to ‘the sky is the limit’ and ‘if you want to win you need to do whatever it takes.’ The latter avoids a possible truth that ‘whatever it takes’ may actually be beyond your own self limitations/abilities. But nonetheless, in today’s world, limits are for losers. That is absurd.

The last expense is character. Throw in maybe integrity, compassion and possibly dignity <yours and others>.

This is the expense that ‘winners’ tend to avoid discussing because it dangerously nears “nice guys don’t win’ territory. And as we eye this ‘nice guy’ <or ‘play by the rules’> expense we suddenly step onto the slippery slope of moral relativism. We begin justifying our behavior based on other’s behavior. If someone is cheating, or stretching the rules, or … god forbid … simply being slimy soulless cutthroat competitors … well … then we begin to morph into their behavior because they have established the rules to win.

This is just a race to the bottom.

Anyway. This is the expense that almost everyone avoids discussing because it dangerously nears ‘ethics’ or “what is right versus what is wrong’ <which, when it comes to winning, becomes an incredibly uncomfortable discussion>.

And all of this last expense circles how we, each of us, would answer ‘what does it mean to live a good life?’

This is really all about living ethically and conducting business ethically. This is about what you do and how the objectives need to align with a certain moral code <this can get even trickier because not everyone’s moral code is the same>.

It is certainly ethical to pursue money, status and ‘the win.’ But do we have a moral obligation to pursue those things not at the expense of others or by ‘doing the right thing’?

You actions matter.

How you achieve a win matters.

Winning, or achieving outcomes, is desirable, but you should always seek to identify ‘at what expense?” If you do not do this, while you may be able to count a shitload of wins, they may end up looking a little hollower in the end – the expense may be too high.

For, in the end, the expense is that of character. And that is an expense that no win, no number of wins, can ever generate enough to pay the cost. Choose wisely.

===

“If I’m sincere today, what does it matter if I regret it tomorrow?”

José Saramago

====

====

Sometimes I wish I could fly

Like a bird up in the sky

Closer to my home

 

Sometimes I feel like freedom is near

Sometimes I feel like freedom is here

Sometimes I feel like freedom is so near

But we’re so far from home

Van Morrison< Sometimes I feel like a motherless child>

====

Both home and freedom are tricky topics to discuss even though they seem like they should be relatively simple. Freedom to one person is an infringement on another’s and home is where I say it is, not what you may suggest it is. That said. Let me try this. Home is where you find true freedom. It is where you can be free to be you and do what you want. I have stated in the past (a) the world is thy ship and not thy home and (b) I am a nomad and ‘home’ to me is wherever I have my books (I did so under the guise of this is what offers me stability). But that was a bit shallow of me to suggest because the truth is home is where your genuine self resides. The ‘you’ that exists without any veneer that the external world demands. My books are, at its shallowest, escapism. It permits me to escape the external world’s demands and maybe, at its best, lets me navigate who I am and who I want to be. But this isn’t about me, this is about self, home and freedom.

In my mind, here is where home and freedom has become a trickier proposition for us – the disparity between who we really like to be and who we are in some situations has widened and increased. Here is what I mean. If we are honest, work (business) has always encouraged some specific characteristics whether they be genuine to who we are at our core or not. Tt encourages some ruthless competitiveness (on occasion at minimum) and identifiable confidence (discernable to others) and certainly a large emphasis, continuously, on results and even each business ‘culture’ demands some aspects just in how they suggest going about the business of doing business (and this varies by business). Its kind of the game, and games, one plays to fit in within a business. They are not always the things we naturally would be, or do, when we have the freedom to relax at home. But then, in addition, there is social media. Social media, for most people, is an asymmetrical ‘non relax’ game. What I mean by that is while someone certainly will have some consistency between a Facebook, Instagram, tiktok, whatever, the truth is that the ‘public game’ is played a bit differently on each platform. Each platform, and each ‘tribe’ you interact with on social media tugs at, and out, a specific part of you. It makes who you are when you are free to relax uneven. And this is where I go back to ‘trickier proposition’ thought. Who we are is being constantly pulled at by the environments within which we reside. And I mean constantly. Work is discussing bringing ‘your whole self’ (which is ludicrous), social media discusses things in a brutally one-dimensional context and even social community discusses community cohesiveness in some very ‘us versus them’ narratives. I would suggest before social media having a ‘self-narrative’ that was a bit easier to narrate was, well, a bit easier and home, as I am discussing it, was a bit easier to have.

In part I think I am discussing a bastardized psychological version of “the mirroring hypothesis.” The mirroring hypothesis is that an organization will correspond to the technical patterns of dependency in the work being performed. In other words, for today’s piece, you will begin to mirror the patterns of dependency your ‘self’ is delivering here, there and everywhere. This is also a derivative of McLuhan’s “we shape the tools and the tools shape us.” Let me be clearer. Your home becomes unrecognizable as you are being reshaped by mirroring everything you are doing everywhere.

All of this to circle back to home is where you can be free to be you and do what you want. Given everything I have just written I imagine I would have to suggest home is not a place, but a space in time. What I mean by that is there are moments (or spaces) in time – they can be shorter or longer – in which you are at home with yourself and you have the freedom to be who you are. This is kind of an important thought (I think) because home can be fleeting and in today’s world it can seem incredibly far away sometimes. The world can make our ‘home’, well, less identifiable if we are not careful. We can even kind of forget what that freedom really is and lose sight of what our home truly is. That is, if we are not careful. And I believe having a home, in some sense, is really really important.

Look. Go online and you will have access to, simultaneously, gobs of pieces on personal branding and exactly at the same time gobs of pieces on loss of sense of self (depression, esteem, purpose, etc.). It is like the former is being offered as a solution to the latter. And its not. Home is the solution. We all need a home. A home in which we know who we are, what we are, and can relax and bit all of it and, at its best, with someone who accepts it all. People will suggest authenticity of self, others will speak of being genuine, heck, Shakespeare suggests “be true to thineself”, all I suggest is home. Find your moments of home and visit home as often as you can. The world demands you leave home and even encourages you to stay away from home, I will not suggest you can never leave your home, the world doesn’t work that way, all I suggest is make sure you have a home and know it is your home. Because, in the end, that is where your truest freedom not only resides but offers your touchstone to freedom when you are away. Ponder.

=====

“Digital freedom stops where that of users begins… Nowadays, digital evolution must no longer be offered to a customer in trade-off between privacy and security. Privacy is not for sale, it’s a valuable asset to protect.”
Stephane Nappo

=====

“Ultimately, saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different from saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.”

Edward Snowden

=====

Data privacy is a hot issue for a couple of reasons both based on the foundational thought we, the people, keep getting fucked by our own data. Basically, other people make money off our data by them using our data to get us to spend money. How fucked up is that? Beyond that there are some real pragmatic issues that with all of our data floating out there beyond our control it can be used in some quite nefarious ways. All that said. Some people with integrity are attempting to change it all. The majority of this discussion is focused on regulation, i.e., regulating how companies gather and use our data.

Here is the problem. While most of us care, we don’t <and, more importantly, a bunch of the big tech boys who gather & use the data, don’t actually care>. For a variety of reasons any time people are offered opportunities to try and manage their data, they don’t (or certainly don’t to the extent that would enable some larger structural changes to how much data is accumulated and used).

I speculate this mostly happens because our personal data is one big black box of shit that most of us feel like we have zero control over, sense we may actually benefit from sharing it – on occasion gaining some convenience – and the penalties for sharing don’t seem to be so bad.

Basically, we’ve given up believing we can control, not clear on benefits of limiting, or even understand, pragmatically, what occurs when we tighten our data privacy. That trifecta encourages most of us to just do what we are doing and just sit around and bitch that evil technology companies don’t have any ethics.

To be honest. Even I, who knows enough to be dangerous about privacy and data, when I see the terms and conditions I very rarely accept because I don’t know what it will cost me. What I mean by that is by limiting something I assume it will limit something else. Its kind of like limiting cookies or certain website features, you get less popups (sometimes), but ease of website use seems to get a little wonky. Just to be clear. It is quite possible I am either conflating causation and correlation or even that because I actually took an action, my mind is creating an expected response (which isn’t really there). But. Maybe that makes my larger point. Because I don’t exactly know the consequences my mind will create them, they will most likely be negative, and that doesn’t exactly encourage me to do it more often in the future.

So.  How do we get people to care? How do we get people to think it will matter what they accept or reject will deter the powerful unseen “tech” from doing whatever they want in the blackbox?

===

“Here in your mind you have complete privacy. Here there’s no difference between what is and what could be.”
Chuck Palahniuk

===

Let’s think about an indirect approach.

People have to see the value, before caring, before doing anything. So, I have some thoughts on how to nudge the mindset.  I believe there are two indirect things that could affect people’s mindsets.

1. Origin ID.

Its not flashy nor does it appear to be directly related to communicating the importance of data privacy, but in my mind, it begins to establish some validity to one’s own data within the black box. In other words, if all of a sudden, I know for sure the data that I am receiving (information is data) is valid and not some bot, well, then all of a sudden I start thinking “hey, mine has been evaluated and is valid too.” Its an indirect way of establishing some value proposition. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that, collectively, it also begins establishing some shared sense of truth (or truthiness) and that is an excellent foundation for establishing my personal value within that shared sense of truth.

The internet world needs to clean up its validation origin act and this seems like a good place to start the data privacy ballgame.

To be clear. I am relatively sure the moment we validate origin ID (proof everyone is human and verified ID) someone with less than good intentions will subvert the system, but anything has to be better than the current anarchist system. In fact. Maybe that is my last point in this idea. Creating a system that doesn’t feel like anarchy, alone, furthers the concept of data privacy by suggesting it could possibly be controllable. I think this idea is attainable in a reasonable amount of time. The trick to this one is who is trustworthy enough to not only validate but have some records of everyone’s origin ID. My gut tells me blockchain technology offers a viable solution, but someone smarter than I would have to noodle that.

2. Business use (with employees).

This one is trickier than Origin ID but, in my mind, if businesses can show an employee that their data has actual value in their own personal progress/growth within a business it becomes a platform for understanding how their data has value in a grander narrative. Maybe think about this as ‘if I can show on a smaller more personal case study than communicating a larger case study is the logical next step.’ Personally, I think its nuts that a business does nothing with data of their employees to better understand, better develop and better assess each employee’s potential growth opportunities. I think its even nuttier that it doesn’t happen in organizations talking about “digital transformation.” I mean if you are going to create a digital infrastructure wouldn’t you want to connect it with, uhm, the digital imprints of the people/humans who will be optimizing that infrastructure? And, yet, while I think its nuts, I also think this particular idea is years away from being implemented.

** note: I actually have outlined a Knowledge Distribution business model where AI-driven information flow is customized and tied to personal data of each employee suggesting it is something like a Human Nanofactory and offered something called ‘technology-distributed information’.

In the end.

While the world desperately needs a globally coherent plan of action for data privacy, it will not happen until the people of the world actually care and want it and will actually do something when given an opportunity. Along that point, I bet if you asked 100 random people they would (a) probably think data privacy is a good thing and, simultaneously, (b) have it number 101 on their list of 100 things they need to be thinking about.

I say it that way to make the point that this is actually a good equation for the future of data privacy. The ability to make something more important to someone increases exponentially if their existing mindset is that something is most likely a good idea. All we have to do is to make them care and, in my mind, it should begin by making their own data more tangible to them. Like, origin ID and the business they work at showing how their data can be used. Look. I am sure there are hundreds of better ideas than the ones I offered but I feel relatively confident my ideas would go a long way to getting people to care. So just think about it.

================= 

“Authenticity will be the buzzword of the twenty-first century. And what is authentic? Anything that is not devised and structured to make a profit. Anything that is not controlled by corporations. Anything that exists for its own sake, that assumes its own shape. But of course nothing in the modern world is allowed to assume its own shape. The modern world is the corporate equivalent of a formal garden, where everything is planted and arranged for effect. Where nothing is untouched, where nothing is authentic. 

“Where, then, will people turn for the rare and desirable experience of authenticity? They will turn to the past.

“The past is unarguably authentic. The past is a world that already existed before all the other shapers of the present day shaped today’s world. The past was here before they were. The past rose and fell before their intrusion and molding and selling. The past is real. It’s authentic. And this will make the past unbelievably attractive.”

Michael Crichton

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

Well.

I am not a past guy and I believe “authentic” is one of those words that is currently being abused in a variety of definition-type ways, but, I would offer a reminder to everyone that if you want something authentic it is actually the past <I will expound on that in a minute>.

Let’s just say that it always surprises me a little when people start bitching about the other people who seem to be yearning for the past. While I am certainly not a past-yearner lets’ see what a past yearner sees:

Everything is uncertain in today’s world.

You have no idea who to trust.

There is a struggle to trust anything.

Facts seem to no longer be black & white

Truth now has an alternative version.

Common sense doesn’t seem common.

Opinions look much like facts & facts get confused with opinions.

Simple, or simplification, doesn’t seem that simple anymore.

Add in that all of those things are occurring in a world in which we are increasingly encouraging people to think of everything as “all or nothing” <a zero-sum world>.

This all drives a lot of people to find any fucking semi-solid lily pad to stand on that they can find. And what seems solid, seems certain, and seems authentic, well, is the past.

Ok. That said. On to my ‘expounding’ comment.

No. We may not remember the past well or correctly. In fact <research> we typically do not remember it correctly <choosing to remember the things we like & discarding the things we don’t want to remember>. Yet, in our minds, how we do remember it is as certain as anything can be in this world.

*** note: Daniel Kahneman discusses this in “the riddle of experience versus memory.”

And, yeah, aspects of this can be skewed into a generational/age thing if you wanted. In a world of increasing uncertainty the young, who have less to hold on to with ragged claws & look forward to ditching a lot of the existing shit so they can develop their own shit, leave the past behind <sometimes flippantly> .

In a world of increasing uncertainty the old, well, they hang on with ragged claws to the only thing they know to be true, certain & authentic. i.e., the past.

But, suffice it to say, how we view the past goes beyond age <although age can exacerbate the issue>.

There is seeing and … well … seeing. And there is a vast difference between the two. Frederick Franck in “Zen Seeing/Zen Drawing” argues:

“The glaring contrast between seeing and looking-at the world around us is immense; it is fateful. Everything in our society seems to conspire against our inborn human gift of seeing. We have become addicted to merely looking-at things and beings. The more we regress from seeing to looking at the world — through the ever-more-perfected machinery of viewfinders, TV tubes, VCRs, microscopes, spectroscopes — the less we see. The less we see, the more numbed we become to the joy and the pain of being alive, and the further estranged we become from ourselves and all others.”

Well.

That is a discouraging thought. He is basically suggesting that once we get on the slippery slope of ‘not seeing’ we very quickly enter, and stay, in this miserable abyss of blindness.

He may be right. But I would rather believe he is not. I would prefer to believe seeing, really seeing, is a discriminating decision made by you and not the world around you. I would like to believe if we chose we could see the past with open eyes, open mind, open heart, with open to unapologetic attention.

This is about not really looking for something in particular just being ready and receptive to whatever happens around you and in front of you. And by not seeking anything in particular <because that inhibits true seeing> you end up, as someone wrote somewhere ‘… by your own eyes you will see, and there will be a conclusion.’ What that means is you don’t see based on your own ideas <or belief system>, but rather you see based on … well … what you see.

Hey. I am not suggesting this is easy. I am simply suggesting that you can do it if you elect to. If it helps, we partially have evolution to blame on why I can say what I am saying to you:

…. evolution’s problem-solving left us modern humans with two kinds of attention: vigilance, which allows us to have a quick and life-saving fight-or-flight response to an immediate threat, be it a leaping lion or a deranged boss, and selective attention, which unconsciously curates the few stimuli to attend to amidst the flurry bombarding us, enabling us to block out everything except what we’re interested in ingesting. (Selective attention, of course, can mutate to dangerous degrees, producing such cultural atrocities as the filter bubble.)

Ah. The ‘filter bubble.’

the filter bubble — by definition, it’s populated by the things that most compel you to click. But it’s also a real problem: the set of things we’re likely to click on (sex, gossip, things that are highly personally relevant) isn’t the same as the set of things we need to know. – Eli Pariser

Evolution and Life experience has created this filter bubble for each of us. And, by the way, each of our filter bubbles are different <because our Life experiences have been different in creating it>.

This filter bubble idea also suggests that you can manage, if not actually change your filter bubble.

Yup. You can change the way you see things.

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

“To learn to see- to accustom the eye to calmness, to patience, and to allow things to come up to it; to defer judgment, and to acquire the habit of approaching and grasping an individual case from all sides. This is the first preparatory schooling of intellectuality. One must not respond immediately to a stimulus; one must acquire a command of the obstructing and isolating instincts.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

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

I love that one thought: ‘allow things to come to it.’ Allow what you see to come to your eye and ultimately your mind. In other words, seeing is in the mind; not in the eyes. Mentally we need to stop focusing on a specific destination, but rather watch during the journey.

All that said.

While the past may be authentic it may not be truthful <or a reflection of truth>. There are certainly some problems with the past ‘truth.’  We are really sure about how we remember the past “… to some extent he is saying all the correct things. But he is not correct.”

 And maybe that is the most important is lesson that lies within.

We say all the correct things … but aren’t really correct. Context and perspective is needed to share “real & absolute truth” and Truth, with regard to the past, is the sum of accurate information; not just some of the accurate information.

Now.

More research.

Just to make everyone feel better, beyond evolution, there is a real reason we do this. It is called ‘adaptive ignorance.’ This is no excuse and this ‘adaptive ignorance’ gets driven by an out of whack barometer of what is important <kind of> to us crazy people, but at least there is a psychological reason:

This adaptive ignorance is there for a reason — we celebrate it as “concentration” and welcome its way of easing our cognitive overload by allowing us to conserve our precious mental resources only for the stimuli of immediate and vital importance, and to dismiss or entirely miss all else.

Attention is an intentional, unapologetic discriminator. It asks what is relevant right now, and gears us up to notice only that. But while this might make us more efficient in our goal-oriented day-to-day, it also makes us inhabit a largely unlived — and unremembered — life, day in and day out.

Not only does Life make ‘seeing’ difficult, our minds do. Our minds adapt more and more <which ultimately constrains seeing> because of a couple of things:

• • productivity <just getting shit done or out of the way or solved>

  • the ways we learn to see the world

All this adaptation <or I imagine we can call it ‘coping’> creates something researchers call ‘search images.’ These are things all of us employ when we need to narrow our attention in a goal-oriented task. Unfortunately, this is only helpful or even possible if we know what to look for.

And that, my friends, is ultimately the point about seeing — and really seeing.

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

“… more is missed by not looking than not knowing.”

Thomas McCrae

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

We don’t see because we don’t “look.” What a shame. Because by not looking … really looking … we miss seeing some really valuable things, like, what is authentic.

We all need truth goggles. Because we all want to hear what we all want to hear & see what we want to see & remember what we want to remember.

But all truth, even “the past,” takes a discerning mind.

Because what happens when the past says all the correct things, but is not correct? <i.e., you have a misguided view of what is true>

Truth takes work.

Shit.

Seeing things as they truly are takes work.

And that which appears authentic is often not what it appears to be. Just think about this whenever someone seems to be longing for the past. They are partially correct and partially not correct. Be careful with what you believe you see.