===

“Change does not take place by trying coercion, or persuasion, or by insight, interpretation, or any other such means. Rather, change can occur when the patient [or client] abandons, at least for the moment, what he [or she] would like to become and attempts to be what he [or she] is.”

Arnold Bessier

===

This is a companion piece to my thinking on “we are all a bit purposefully ignorant.” That said. Let’s be clear. For the majority of things, no person ever gets to know the whole of a truth. If you don’t believe me, just think about how time has effected many of the ‘truths’ you have held throughout your lifetime. Shit. Even experiences you had, things you knew to be ‘true’, can often take on a different narrative once you know everything that occurred before, who was involved, what was involved, and the consequences that followed. Things that seemed self-evident take a back seat to things you thought were trivial at that time. Shit. This is even true about honesty (and lying). You may discover you have become a liar not because of you intentionally lied, but rather because of things you did not know that become known.  I say all of this to suggest history, and beliefs, are not truly fixed but defined, and redefined, as time breaks down their construct. Well. That is true if you let it be true.

Which leads me to beliefs, and history, can be pretty resilient.

We have a tendency to have a self-sealing logic <Chris Argyris> with regard to our beliefs. Self sealing is when we find information that confirms our beliefs and ignore some ‘truths’ which could challenge our beliefs. In other words, once we settle in on a belief, especially if we view it as a ‘governing belief’, we seal it off from additional information.

To be fair. Most people like stability with regard to their beliefs. And this means beliefs kind of seem to gain some strength the longer they are perceived to have lasted. In addition. The more uncertain the world becomes, or we believe it becomes, the more likely we will latch onto even some conspiracy theories (or dubiously grounded theories) to moor our belief world. These ‘governing beliefs’ become kind of like the color filter which hues everything you see from that point on. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out superficial beliefs are relatively easy to change, but governing beliefs can be stubborn motherfuckers. They gain some emotional “I care about this belief” aspects and caring is not only the engine to do something, but also the glue to hold on to something.

Obviously, the problem with self-sealing beliefs is new information should shed some of the boundaries around existing beliefs.

“Once you see the boundaries of your environment, they are no longer the boundaries of your environment.”

Marshall McLuhan

Now. We have access to new information all the time, but the truth is that the brain is an inherently limited storage unit <and computer>. We rarely know as much about a given topic as everyone else in a room put together, and even if we do, our perspective is partial and biased in a variety of ways. That ‘room together’ thought is important because research has shown that human connectivity <dialogue and interaction> is the most powerful tool in shaping, and reshaping, our beliefs. It is within interaction, exposure to new ideas and thinking as well as the discussion of new ideas and thinking, which can reshape what we have in our brain. Alternatively, as Jaron Lanier has pointed out, more people can make us more stupid. Depending on who your ‘connectivity’ is with, you can easily fall into pack behavior, identity signaling and a variety of ‘I have found my tribe’ characteristics. It is a version of “group sealing beliefs” which only feed into conformation bias for ‘self sealing logic’ and ‘self-sealing beliefs’. It’s a vicious loop to get trapped in if you are not careful. Oh. And most people are not careful. Why? Well. Its easier to wander around the world with self-sealing beliefs, find other with similar beliefs, and scratch your head <or get irritated> when someone doesn’t see what is obvious to you.

All that said. I imagine my point is almost everyone’s belief systems do some shapeshifting within a contextual environment wherein we get influenced by other mindsets, i.e., beliefs, attitudes which effect ours at times in our Life.

“Defensive routines are thoughts and actions used to protect individuals’, groups’, and organizations’ usual way of dealing with reality.”

Chris Argyris

Look. We all need beliefs. They shape who we are, how we think and even what we do. We couldn’t really survive without any beliefs. At the same time, beliefs are constraints <constraints can be good and bad>. Those constraints can make us both more efficient and effective while, at exactly the same time, make us less efficient and less effective. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that beliefs wielded like a dull axe guarantees a dull person. That said. The interesting thing I don’t believe people think about enough is that governing beliefs are typically grounded in some ‘needs.’ What I mean by that is as we need things, not just want, we craft a belief system around how to get them and filter ‘stories’ as we get them. Our beliefs assess reality in terms of filing away reality and assessing the ‘non-knowable’ stuff as it moves into reality. This is partially why governing beliefs can be so damn stubborn – they shape the reality we ‘see’.

Which leads me back to ‘obvious.’

Earlier I mentioned something about ‘obvious to you, but they don’t see it.’ I cannot remember where I read this, but, “the obvious is not obvious.” What I believe they meant by that is your belief system crafts your ‘obvious’. That means someone else is using their own belief system to craft their own ‘obvious.’ Uhm. The probability that your obvious perfectly matches someone else’s is fairly low. Obvious has shiftable dimensions and yet we tend to think of it as a whole concrete thing.

Shit. We think of stories as concrete things and the truth is most stories we accept as simply constructs of things we believe. Our belief structure is, well, constructed. It’s a narrative constructed of a tapestry of stories. I mention stories because that means self-sealing beliefs are constructed by stories we tell ourselves. Now. We may claim these stories are real and these stories are truth, but, well, for the most part they are stories OF stories which we like to tell ourselves so we can justify our ‘self-sealing beliefs.’ Ponder that for a moment or two.

I think I’ll end there to state – “you set a thief to catch a thief.” You tell a story to kill a story. In today’s world far too many of the self-sealing beliefs are unhealthy and I think we need to become better ‘healthy storytellers’ to help reshape some of the more unhealthy ‘self-sealed belief stories’ in existence. To be honest, I am not sure self sealed logic or beliefs is a good thing. I know why we do it, I am not sure we should do it. My sense is self-sealing beliefs can quickly become dogmatic thinking and in a dynamic world in which the world itself reshapes almost on a minute-by-minute basis, it would seem like our belief systems should be a bit more malleable. But, hey, that’s me.

Ok. So what the hell is investing energy in life?

Let’s call it being able to discern between ‘resting’ versus ‘being stagnant.’ And, possibly, add in being able to discern when to use energy and when to not use it. By the way.  All of that translates into making choices.

Anyway. Let me use a quote to begin the discussion.

“As a rule, I am very careful to be shallow and conventional where depth and originality are wasted.”

Lucy Maud Montgomery

Ah. Now. Be careful when reading this. Lucy isn’t suggesting people not be original or seek to have some ‘depth.’ Nope. She is suggesting investing energy at the appropriate times is a choice. A choice for when energy invested won’t be wasted.

Look. Haven’t we seen those people who go 110% all the time on everything? And they get tired. And often frustrated. And they often don’t seem to get as far in life as you would expect for all the energy they have invested. While they may debate with me (because they feel like they are making the choice that has to be made, i.e., I am ‘working at being successful in life’), the reality is they aren’t making any real choice.  Anytime you do something 100% of the time you haven’t made the tough choice. Shit. You actually haven’t made any choice at all. The switch is simply flipped into a default mode.

The choice truth? There is a time to rest. And. There is a time for energy.

Oh, and yes, you do have to invest energy in life to get something out of it.

Because being lazy doesn’t get you shit.

In fact.

Being apathetic doesn’t get you shit.

Once again. That doesn’t mean 24/7 energy and pushing and shoving and being passionate and trying to kick ass 172,800 seconds (if I did my math correctly that is the amount of seconds in a day).  It’s about making choices. When and where type choices.

So.

What I am saying is you cannot have enough energy to kick ass every second of every day.

(and if you have someone suggesting you should? … ignore them)

But.

You also cannot be passive every second either.

There is resting (before investing energy).

There is stagnant (before never investing energy).

(former good; latter bad)

And they are significantly different because living a successful (happy) life takes energy. And life is a struggle that takes energy to manage and deal with. And frankly happiness doesn’t always come easily.

By the way. This ‘struggle’ isn’t a day-to-day get-things-done struggle.  I mean it is a mental and physical struggle.

Describing this struggle is interesting. Good ole Winston C. suggested Life is the struggle between energy and indolence:

“Life is a struggle between vitality and decay, energy and indolence”

Winston Churchill

Whew.  Good stuff.

Life is all about either growing or diminishing. You are either active or passive. And life is the struggle within the two. At all times.

Some people would simply suggest that an active life is better than a passive one. Oh. If only the solution were that simple (because it isn’t that one sided).  Sure. Embracing adventure or some activity you are passionate about (or believe will make you better) is important to what makes many of us happy and feel like we are being productive within our life. But it isn’t just about going out and doing a bunch of stuff.  It’s about going out and doing the right stuff. And, to be happiest, the right stuff at the right time.

So be careful.

You may elect to ignore people who tell you to “slow down and take it easy” because you feel like you are being productive and ‘doing.’ But be sure you are aware of what you are doing and how you are investing your energy. Because energy is not limitless.

Life is about balance. Balancing rest and energy. But this is where stagnancy or indolence issue steps up to the plate. Because happiness can be such a struggle and ‘doing nothing’ sometimes seems the easiest thing to do. It isn’t (no matter how it may look or feel at the time).  You HAVE to invest some energy at some point. If not for you then you have to for those around you. Because in the end we see that the energetic displaces the passive. Even if the passive is “good” (intentions or in heart). Because evil is restless.  And energetic.

“In this very real world, good doesn’t drive out evil. Evil doesn’t drive out good. But the energetic displaces the passive.”

Bill Bernbach

Ok. My fear is when people read this last quote they begin to dedicate all their energies to … well … doing.  With good intentions, but not seeing the forest because of the trees.

Remember. We are not Ever-Ready bunnies who can go and go and go.  Because all that “going” means investing energy.

And the people who you see going 110% all the time? Well.  The reason they do is because they haven’t figured it out.  They haven’t figured out when to rest and when to invest energy. And having already decided mentally that they need to invest energy to win the struggle they just invest.

And invest.  And invest (I would like to point out … with diminishing returns).

Please.  Everyone.  This isn’t about time management.

If you read my “time according to Lucy” post you know I am skeptical of the whole managing time concept. The closest suggestion I can make to clarify what I am trying to say in this post can maybe be found in the book Power of Full Engagement. The book suggests that instead of trying to manage time we should be conscious of managing our energy.

I am not talking as literally as the book author suggests (they suggest at different points in the day we have more energy than others as well as more motivated to do certain things at certain moments). I don’t think this is about planning your work times around when you expect to have creative energy (like the book suggests).

This is just about investing energy at the right times.

Yes.

Investing energy at the right time in the right place.

This is not about motivation or creative energy or any of that.  This is simply about recognizing ‘influential moments’ (moments that can swing your day or life) and acting upon them by investing energy.

And that, my friends, is a choice.

A choice to invest what energy you have available, no holding back, when the opportunity arises.

Yes. That is a choice.

And not investing energy at some times (when people look at you and worry if you are lazy).

And, yes, that is a choice.

Choices based on understanding the difference between rest and stagnancy.

Maybe that is “the” choice.

Yeah.  Life is a struggle. And a struggle of choices. But mostly it is a struggle of energy. When to invest and when to not invest.

Ponder. Ponder because it matters.

—–

“Once the inner connection is grasped, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions collapses before their collapse in practice”

Karl Marx

——

“It’s never the changes we want that change everything.”

Junot Díaz

—–

How often have we identified a strategy and then went about identifying the obstacles within the system to effectively bring it to life? I would suggest more often than not this is exactly what we do. So, then we go about fixing the system, or fine tuning it to match the strategy, only to find the obstacles we foresaw were not really the inhibitors we thought (or by fixing them we created some unintended consequence instead).

The alternative, I imagine, is maybe we design a strategy to most effectively match the system we have only to watch the system change as it implements the strategy.

Both are flawed albeit the latter less so than the former.

The only thing a dynamic system guarantees is the future you foresee, or envision, will not happen.

My point here is you do need some plans, but plans, in a dynamic market, shouldn’t be followed to the detriment of the objective.

My point here is you need some strategies, but strategies, in a dynamic market, should sometimes be pursued to the detriment of a planned objective.

My point here is you need to recognize that your system is in some cases is not worth the energy to change (use as it exists) and in others tweak to enable plans and strategies, i.e., your system is both an enabling and a restricting constraint.

My point here is that strategies should nest within a system, or system dynamics, rather than have systems support a strategy <note: this is a general rule which under circumstances can be broken>.

Ok. That nested thought.

Nested dynamic processes ARE the system process. Anyone who suggests “this is our process” and describes it as some discrete, mutually exclusive thing, is on drugs. Any one process is simply something you have chosen to put boundaries around just to analyze and describe <that is a bastardization of a Donella Meadows thought>. Processes are layered, distinctly paced and intersectional. There are slow variables to fast variables all of which create patterns with slow to faster moving parts. This means, not only those things happen in combinations of speeds, but that also change occurs, and is encouraged, to happen at different speeds. The only way to manage this is to reduce environment variables to attempt to manipulate the context to create positive dynamics for process/system to thrive. I’d be remiss if I didn’t state these are ‘limited time contexts’ and more often than not dissolve faster than any business person would like. I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out this also demands:

• Different configurations of strategy

• Emergent strategy implementation

• Predictive strategies only used for framing not execution

All these layers and connections can create what appear to seem like fluid patterns and interactions, but are actually a makeup of somewhat unexpected patterns (within the transactions, community and world) but typically within a range of anticipated behavior. This also means that while a pattern is occurring, simultaneously, new patterns are being created (new patterns also create new possibilities). This may seem simultaneously exciting and frightening (organizations like tidiness and predictability & replication), but what I can say it should be simultaneously opportunistic and dynamic.

It is key to remember that systems, left to their own devices <maybe with some constraints>, have the ability to expand the proper strategy beyond the imagination of any objective one can place on it.

That said. More strategies die within systems than they do in the marketplace. Think about that. Think about that for a long time because if you don’t recognize the doom loop between strategies and systems you are, well, doomed.

====

“We are all joined in a circle of stories.”
Linda Joy Myers

====

“Stories are like spiders, with all their long legs, and stories are like spiderwebs, which man gets himself all tangled up in but which look pretty when you see them under a leaf in the morning dew, and in the elegant way that they connect to one another, each to each.”
Neil Gaiman

====

In ‘the experience economy’ or ‘experience as value’ world far too many people are simply laying out ‘experience’ as some amorphous wonderful blob of ‘do it well’. Sure. Sometimes it is “customer experience”, sometimes user experience, but more often than not someone stands up in front of a big screen and suggest “experience is the new value.”

*** note: experience is an extension of product value, not value in and of itself. It is an expansion of proof. If the experience doesn’t add value to the product itself, i.e., just be entertainment, it creates unmatched anticipation-to-expectation reality in usage.

The truth is that not all experiences are created equal, competing on experiences is a race to the bottom (or a commodity in which you can charge less and less for) and any experience value truly resides on the experience within the experience.

Let me explain. If you want to find real value, the stuff that drives up experience value, begin identifying the experiences within the experience. A simple trip to the coffee shop becomes an order, an eavesdropped conversation, a thought on how that related to something you may have heard the night before, what your roommate would think of it, the conversation you are having in your head if you talked with them, how that makes you feel, and then your amazement that all that happened to you in an unexpected moment on a bland expected transactional experience you were doing.

The value is found within the threads in individual experiences.

While we like to think not everyone “sees the things no one else does” the truth is everyone sees the experiences within the experience.

In different terms it is actually an ability to take advantage of the ‘now’. An ability to expand experienced time – in a good way. Conceptually this is adding dimension to a linear, or horizontal, time continuum. I bring that up because many businesses map out ‘customer journeys’ <which can be a helpful tool> and, yet, that linearity can make you miss the experience within, which is expandable, and reflects essential parts to value. The best example I have of this is when I speak with UI/UX people and suggest ‘frictionless’ can actually diminish value and that purposeful friction moments can actually expand value.

But. To be clear, many of these experiences are unplanned. They simply intersect with a standard continuum of experiences representing added value. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that many experiences within the experience is a reflection of the fact one person’s experience is intersecting with another’s experience <or a number of them> creating an expandable moment as it shoves multiple experiences into a time space planned for one essential experience.

Yeah. In those moments, at its simplest, experience goes vertical and, at its most complex, it becomes a spinning helix of multiple experiences. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out this is also where ‘stories’ occur, not in the grand experience but rather in the experience within the experience – the moments that become stories to the one who experienced it.

Anyway. All of that can seem overwhelming and create some uncertainty on how to optimize this whole “experience economy” thing being thrown around. All you really have to do is craft an experience that has experience opportunities nested within and then make sure you get credit when someone triggers a nested experience. You will not always get it right, but I can guarantee you will get it righter than someone who simply says “its all about the experience.”

 ============

“Autumn shows us how beautiful it is to let things go.”

Unknown

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

“You can’t be who you’re going to be and who you used to be at the same time …”

TD Jakes

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

Today is the first day of Fall.

……………………………. first day of fall 2016 google ……………….

It is kind of a reminder to everyone that everything is temporary. On another note. I do also sometimes find it slightly strange that death and dying can contain so much beauty.

Anyway.

I kind of find it nice that Life, in the form of seasons, forces us to let go of things. And while we even go kicking and screaming with regard to seasons, Life ignores us … moves on … lets go of the last season … offers us a new season, and once we get over it we are once again shown how beautiful it can be to let shit go.

I kind of find it nice that Life, in the form of seasons, forces us to distinguish what often looks the same from one day to the next. as we keep our heads down to the Life grindstone and each day dawns without any major incident, other than  the same aggravating everyday incidents which inevitably occur, Life ignores our obliviousness … moves on … let’s go of another season … offers a new season … and we get over the fact we actually have to lift our heads up and pay attention for a little, but, we are once again shown how beautiful it is to let some shit go.

“Between the end of that strange summer and the approach of winter, my life went on without change. Each day would dawn without incident and end as it had begun. It rained a lot in September. October had several warm, sweaty days. Aside from the weather, there was hardly anything to distinguish one day from the next.”

The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle

I kind of find it nice that Life, in the form of seasons, forces us to think a little bit about who we want to be … who we are … and provides some real life aspects to show us how difficult it is to be who you used to be and who you are going to be at the exact same time.

Look. I am not a huge Fall person. I am more of a spring person. Heck. I have even suggested we move New Year’s Day to the 1^st day of spring  because I think it would make new year’s less depressing and more hopeful.

But I admit that Fall, even more so than Spring, forces us to face our feelings, thoughts, doubts, dreams and fears with a fairly discerning eye. An eye that views ‘what could be’ with a little more sense of urgency.

Sigh.

Falling leaves can do that to you.

Better seems a little bit harder.

Better seems to have more of a deadline.

I think we all seek a great perhaps of “what I know can be”.

I think we all know what a better world really looks like.

I think we all want to see the beauty that can be found in what is better in everyone.

And maybe it is within Fall and the falling leaves I think we all better grasp that failed plans and failed dreams can beget new plans and new dreams.

Maybe it is within Fall that we are able to see that new realities can lead to needed life changes.

Maybe it is Fall that reminds us even in times of ‘things slipping away’ you can still find abundance.

Maybe it is Fall that reminds us that Life is a healthy mix of duality — life & death and the ebb & flow of growth and regress.

Maybe Fall reminds those who have a view that a happy and fulfilling life should consist only of highs <or, maybe better said, a significantly higher % of highs than lows> and that a positive life should consist only of certainty <shelving fear and doubt to be successful> that happiness & fulfillment also embraces the ebbs in seasons as well as the flows of seasons.

Maybe Fall reminds us that no matter how you plan your day, year, or life, it will have times of … the best, the worst, wisdom, foolishness, belief, incredulity, light, darkness, hope, despair, everything and nothing.

Maybe Fall simply reminds us that time goes on, things come & go and we always have an opportunity to begin again … arise anew after the Fall as it were.

In the end.

Maybe Fall exists just to remind us to think a little.

===

“NFT stands for non-fungible token.  Physical money and cryptocurrencies are “fungible,” meaning they can be traded or exchanged for one another. They’re also equal in value — one dollar is always worth another dollar; one Bitcoin is always equal to another Bitcoin.  NFTs are different. Each has a digital signature that makes it impossible for NFTs to be exchanged for or equal to one another (hence, non-fungible).”

(Forbes)

===

I am not here today to argue whether NFTs are a thing or a non-thing, I am here today to discuss why they are being discussed as a thing or non-thing. Let me begin by suggesting the NFT is an imaginative transformation of existing art.

I say that because imaginative transformations do not take place in a vacuum. In my mind, NFTs are an unintended consequence of the decay of tangible value in people’s minds and the increase in intangible value. This decay has flattened value to a point where people question everything. I say that to point out things like NFTs are nonlinear outcomes of a variety of things and shouldn’t be judged solely on, well, they just shouldn’t be judged solely. They are a thing of things and to explain, or assess, an NFT one has to dive into the sometimes-difficult unseen stimulus which created the unforeseen elevation of NFTs to some status as a possible vehicle of real value <however you would like to define value>.

In addition. Things like NFTs are simply a new version of a “memory palace” <information spaces: stories turned into architecture or abstract concepts transformed into imaginary houses/palaces: Jonathon Spence: The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci>. Information spaces are vehicles in which we communicate narratives and stories. To be clear. These narratives are communicated with an intent in mind – create a mindset or create a value. In this case the stories <the NFTs> outpaced the existing media therefore created one of its own. This story should remind us all that an NFT is simply the interface between the medium and the message.

Anyway. It is quite possible that in the flattening out of society, and thinking, in society (generally speaking) that value and art have also flattened. A classic piece of literature or a Van Gogh has been bludgeoned by anti-intellectualism, or simplistic discussions of capitalism, to a place where the common person has flattened its narratives, stories and inevitably its value. And then along comes NFTs, and even the ‘metaverse’, in which there is a new dimensionality being offered which ‘unflattens’ value, art and thinking to a new generation. They are both “information spaces” in which to create stories. Aw heck. I don’t know. I am speaking in possibilities and the truth is NFTs may simply be the Netscape of our time. But the bottom line is we, society and people, get the narratives we deserve. Empty (or intangible) value just may be the narrative of the day. What I do know is that the exploratory spatial dimensionality of technology has always been of incredible importance in terms of value offered/value received. I also know that art, architecture, anything creative, has always been dominated by a sub culture which inspires a new innovation and mainstream plucks out the things it believes it can market and profit from to a larger audience. This has certainly changed from the past in its scope but, generally speaking, the Long Tail concept is still the Long Tail concept and a subculture which can identify a market has the potential to stay in existence for a healthy lifetime.

In the end.

You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs. The rise of NFTs isn’t interesting in and of itself, it’s interesting in unintended consequences. What value eggs will it break along the way?

Within its ‘digital scarcity value’ looms a larger issue with consequences way beyond the NFT itself. Its not its ‘intangibility’ per se, its just that in the past anything intangible which has gained value has typically been an extension of historical tangible value. For example, a dollar, or fiat currency, has centuries of established exchange value as well as centuries before of value grounded in tangible ‘gold’ as a standard. In other words, the foundation of value, if you scan far enough back, has its roots in something tangible. But in a world where we have convinced a generation that ‘experience’, in and of itself, is value or ‘perception has value’, it is easy to see how a ‘non-fungible asset’ could simply be seen as ‘having value.’ We have flattened the dimensionality of real value to a point where value simply becomes ‘in the eye of the beholder’ untethered from anything tangible. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the similarities to ‘truth is in the eye of the beholder’ attitudes sweeping across the world. It reminds me of the thought “if no one is an expert, why can’t I be one.”

Look. I have no idea whether NFTs will become a real ‘thing’, but what I do know is a real thing is our understanding of what value is. To be clear, I say the same thing about Bitcoin. But. If I were a ‘fungible’ product, I would be eyeing ‘non-fungible’ value with some fear – not skepticism. If ‘non-fungible’ convinces people it represents real value, we have stepped onto the slippery slope of untethered value. Someone smarter than I will have to tell you whether this is good or bad, but it certainly feels like it has some basic bad consequences to a goods & service exchange economic world and certainly to capitalism economies. But that’s me.

“Emotive laziness; repugnances of memory: such things—such revealing imbecilities—exist. I can feel that some worry of long ago, a forgotten indignity, a thorn still rankling in the flesh might well recover its activity. But what, after all, is “the past”? On the other hand, I can foresee and outwit this obsession. Foresee it and avert it. Daytime lights up my ideas and my ideas light up my night-time. The shadow of the idea scares the idea away.”

Paul Valéry

=====

The organization with agility will be the one who optimizes the free exchange of ideas and thinking. This concept almost always brings up ‘thinkers versus doers’ and focus of roles within an organization. Let me be clear. Optimizing each person’s role, and skill, certainly ensures a level of efficiency and the essential replication which underpins consistency. But in order to continuously improve, or even more importantly, exploit opportunities, those people who have been optimized as a “part” need to have a free exchange of ideas with the “whole” if you desire to optimize the system itself. And should a business desire to attain the next level of its potential simply using the employees it has, this free exchange includes a free exchange of mistakes and unrealistic imagination. The latter is important because what may appear to be unrealistic in one individual’s imagination maybe be attainable and realistic when the ‘inspired idea’ is confronted by the whole. This means even the most ‘doer’ organization, one focused on execution, can become a collection of ideas which does incorporate the innovation necessary for continuous improvement but also has the ability to incorporate non-innovation ideas, a different configuration of existing resources and abilities, which is equally effective in terms of profitability and usefulness (using what exists is always more applicable than something new because no one has to learn something new).

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out this is also the pathway to maintaining a hierarchy AND increasing organizational effectiveness. Instead of people keeping their potential to themselves, their potential (the unforeseen, by management, contributions any employee can offer when free exchange is encouraged).

Which leads me to links.

In the internet world the link is possibly the greatest invention of all time. With one click someone can zoom across the universe (meta or mesa) and reach some destination. What once could only be traveled on foot (trudge down to the library) was now Star Trek ‘transporter’ capabilities. I bring up links to make a point on exchange of ideas and connectivity even within a traditional hierarchy. Linking people, and their ideas, skills and potential, within an organization permits the organization itself to transport itself to destinations yet unseen. And just like a link on your computer, you don’t have to know how it works, you need not even design the link, just click on it and you zoom away. This is the positive aspect of what The Cluetrain Manifesto called “the hyperlinked organization.” In Cluetrain they pointed out everything was transparent with the advent of the internet. While many business leaders shivered, and still do, over that loss of control it actually also offers an opportunity to control, or corral, the potential within your organization – foster it to the benefit of the business.

Which leads me to evolution.

Evolution is always in search of a weakness and systems are always evolving. This means they are dynamic in and of themselves with components working, and failing, and being replaced, and improved, continuously. The constraints are typically the infrastructure (capital expenditures the institution seeks to optimize its investments) and leadership mindset. So, while people, humans, may manage to probabilities the reality is constricted, or constrained, by the institution itself (which actually increases the likelihood of missed opportunity and/or catastrophes). Evolution, left to its own devices, tends to enhance an organization – efficiently and effectively. Should a business solely focus on execution, evolution is stifled and growth and progress has a ‘cap’.

To be fair (part 1), an execution-focused mindset can grind out an excellent profit day to day <and customer satisfaction> and if they compensate the grinders well that machine can go on successfully for quite some time.

To be fair (part 2), in a rapidly expanding organization, either through continuous acquisitions or significant mergers or even velocity driven organic business growth, an execution-focused mindset may be mandatory simply to insure executional coherence (with an outcome of cultural coherence).

To be clear, both of those ‘to be fair’ comments are linked to some specific environment contextual aspects therefore have limited life within different contexts.

Lastly.

Constraints on free exchange of ideas. One could conclude when they hear ‘free exchange of ideas’ an organization in which roles are blurred, departments thinking about other department’s responsibilities and a bunch of people being asked to take their eye off the executional ball. Its not that way. While an organization should always encourage a free exchange of overall ideas and some transparency to how thinking can enhance doing, the reality is the most effective exchange of ideas are transactional in nature.

What I mean by that is someone, somewhere, within the business has an inspiration. That ‘inspiration’ isn’t really an idea yet but the seed of something. It gets shared <free exchange of an idea>, with collaboration <either organic or curated> that inspiration becomes a concept. From there, especially within an execution-focused business, the inspired concept needs to become an implementable concept <inexecutable concepts are wasted use of resources>. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this type of exchange is not simply in the purview of some select, few but rather open to any and all within an organization.

I maintain agility is how any organization, execution and/or creative driven, will ‘future-fit’ for the future and a free exchange of ideas is most likely the foundation for that agility. “The shadow of the idea scares the idea away.”  Ponder.

====

“It is pretty to be in love. It’s magical, I’m sure. But it’s also wonderful to stop for ice cream in your prom dress with six other girls. It’s also wonderful to go visit the world with nothing but a bunch of buddies who are really excited about learning. The problem is: we’ve made everything about “the one”.

But maybe “the one” is just you, loving yourself, having fun, and being happy. Maybe instead of looking for our other halves, we should be piecing ourselves together.

Maybe I wasn’t born unfinished. Maybe I am the one who makes myself better.”

===

This piece today isn’t about love, it about:

“maybe I wasn’t born unfinished”

When I read that line I stopped. Reread it. And challenged almost everything I have ever written and said about self and sense of self.

I love the thought.

I do think far far too often we find ourselves through others. It is kind of natural because comparisons tend to offer some outlines. It’s not that we shouldn’t look around us and find things we like, and dislike, and assess, but emulate? Yikes. I hesitate. At least a little.

I would much rather we see, think and assess and rather than simply emulate we evaluate who and what we are already. Maybe use the external to invigorate and energize the internal.

And maybe I suggest this because far far too often we think we are a reflection of our experiences rather than a reflection of who we are simply coming to life.

Is this a chicken or egg discussion? Maybe. But in one aspect you can suggest you are built by the external and in another aspect you can be suggesting you are simply blooming as you weather life.

Semantics? Sure. But an important one in my eyes.

Look.

I don’t want this to sound like it is an either or discussion. But I do love the thought of believing you are not born unfinished. I love the thought that everything you need resides within and all you need to do is figure out how to let it out, and shine, and grow.   It is kind of like the latin thought of “luctor et emergo” <I struggle and emerge>.

I do love the thought that maybe it is not who you are that could hold you back from what you could be ,but more often than not the challenge is who you think you are not. Ponder that for a second or two.

I say that because if you focus on the ‘think’ aspect you end up seeking external to validate, or as a corollary the external invalidates <voids, annuls>, that which resides within you and who you are.

That is a very very dangerous Life game.

It is dangerous because instead of piecing yourself together you steal or borrow pieces from others to shape yourself and you become, well, a Frankenstein <maybe not that bad but you get the point>. Or maybe you end up sacrificing parts of yourself to please the external.

All that said. I am sure the reality of a healthy self is somewhere in between. Sometimes uncovering that which exists within and sometimes finding a piece you see and borrowing it as you piece yourself together <although I could argue that any piece you see, and borrow, more often than not is something you already have within and that external piece simply brought your own finished, but unseen, piece to the forefront>.

Anyway.

I am a huge hope guy. I believe the biggest hope of all is the one we all carry within us, a hope we are born with, the one which is a hope to be the best person we can be.

====

“I hoped for nothing. And yet I lived in expectation.”

Stanislaw Lem

====

It is a hope of all that can be and, yet, ‘nothing’ in that it has yet to be.

It is a hopeful contradiction — to live in expectation of something and yet tempered with aspects of nothing. I love the hope found in the thought of being born finished and we don’t need others to piece us together and that each of us is strong enough, and born good enough. The thought that all we have is within us.

I certainly believe, and know, Life is significantly better not lived alone. But what an incredibly empowering thought … “maybe I wasn’t born unfinished and I am the one who makes me better.”

But maybe “the one” is just you.

What a fucking beautiful thought.

I wish I had written it.

—-

What a culture values is what it does and what it produces.

Culture is often simply a system of production. To the extent it exists as a healthy entity – it produces what it values.

—-

Culture people talk about culture, systems people talk about systems and humancentric people talk about humans. We need to stop this. If you seek to talk about one, talk about all. Culture is what people do, not what you tell them to do, and systems are a reflection of people’s behaviors and intents and productivity is the outcome of all working together. So, if your productivity sucks stop looking for a “thing” and recognize it is a result of ‘things.’

That said.

Systems.

Systems are persistent buggers. In fact, it is not unusual the persistence of a system is due solely to the existing mindsets, the language, the accepted ‘terms of agreement’ of how it works and should be worked, or, basically, what people consistently (almost as a default) think about it. This persists, the power/construct dynamics, as long as the terms of that agreement appear and feel favorable and the system thrives <or ‘works’>. As soon as the terms falter it begins to effect how people think about it and the system can become dysfunctional <or less functional than it was>. This persistency is also self-induced by the relationship of the system, people and productivity. Systems naturally deviate to the mean constantly dampening any deviations. In basic terms what this means is that systems naturally arc to existing productivity and discourages changes people may make to the system. Yes. Once a system is in place, and works, it is institutional gravity.

That said. It is fairly obvious that changes in terms of thinking affecting the system are rarely advanced by direct means especially if the system is working.

** note: “working”: working has a wide spectrum from ‘dysfunctional but productive’ to ‘functionally smooth’ and most business is comfortable with the range as long as KPIs and goals are met.

As with most systems, and human thinking, changes in attitudes are often inspired by unplanned events. That said.  Existing circumstances create environments/contexts which encourage, or discourage, listening/learning and sometimes, if done thoughtfully, we can bend circumstances in certain ways. But this is a tricky issue because ‘circumstances’ can be quite indirect in their influence as well as many can look unrelated to the future objective in the present.

Which leads me to the fact these vague relationships between cause and effect can often encourage people to think the system, itself, is something in and of itself. In other words, people don’t see themselves as within, and of, the system, but rather more often a victim, or beneficiary, of the system. This could be nothing further from the truth. People are the system and the only changes that can occur TO a system are created by people within, and interacting, with the system. Any one person can affect a system. Circling back to the beginning of this thought. If the persistence of the system is due to people (attitudes), it would behoove us to encourage people to think they are the system and, as David Amerland stated in Intentional, “attitudes are the lubricants which enable us to navigate complexity.”

Because once attitudinally people see themselves as systems influencers they will almost demand to have a better understanding of the systems roots, the things underpinning what makes it work, and doesn’t (it’s the way to isolate variants as well as possible leverage points). It also helps people understand the roles of people interacting with the system. The latter is important because cooperation is what optimizes systems and even speeds improvement.

Cooperation.

Cooperation absolutely needs some attitude agreements to be effective, but in the end cooperation is about effective connections and connectivity. Effective connections create mini frameworks for thinking and doing, probabilities and possibilities, risk and return. These mini frameworks (systems within a system) frame what is an exception and what is not so that there can be, or the possibility of, effective navigation of situations. To optimize the connections, they mustn’t be constrained by rules, but rather principles. Therefore, all the data and information input get assessed not just as ‘data’, but also through a principles lens. This lens constructs a criterion to be applied to what can, or cannot, be done with the data. This, in turn, standardizes responses and decisions within a framework, but not limit the responses and decisions to some “plug ‘n play” lowest common denominator. It also permits some space to accommodate some fairly high levels of uncertainty and still make progress (make decisions).

Criterion.

While principles provide some boundaries the natural temptation within any system (as noted in my first points) is to maintain the system if ‘it works’ <even if ‘works’ is suboptimal>. So, part of the criteria people need to assume is the ability to identify the parameters that matter (every business has things that make them successful) and blow the rest of the shit up. It’s an ongoing version of creative destruction in which you destruct something to create and create to grow in terms of impact. To be clear. Anyone can blow shit up, the true test of blowing shit up is destroying, or destruction, TO create. In other words. destruct paradigms, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, mindsets, even the way things have always been done, in order to effectively set yourself apart from where you were before. Criterion is based on blowing shit up with a purpose in mind.

People.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out everything I have spoken of, even the system, revolves around people. I say that because while people are the system, they can simultaneously be a victim of a system. As noted earlier, systems are gravity and, at its worst, entropy. When you go into the details of most situations you will rarely find bad, ignorant, people, but rather find systems that have failed or are just bad or have just settled into a status quo mediocrity. Its easy to claim people are lazy or complacent or ‘sheep’ <following the crowd>, but more often than not people are constantly sifting through everything they are seeing and hearing and encountering — slowly but surely building up their own self <or, in a negative sense, tearing their own self down>. From a business perspective it is a sense of productivity. i.e., attitudes and behaviors that create the productivity that contributes to the system and is of the system.

I end there because if you want to change the system, once again, you need to address people and their attitudes. Productivity, 99% of the time, is a function of how each person sees how they can contribute to that productivity and, yes, people become what they ‘see’ <envision>. This is actually part of culture and I feel a need to point out that if you don’t like your culture you should probably begin with how the people see, attitudinally, their role in the systems of productivity. Here is what I do know. Systems, people, culture and productivity are inextricably linked and speaking of one without the others is, well, counterproductive.

========

sourcing:

this draft has lurked in my ‘draft fodder’ folder for quite some time and in using what i had written there I feel like there are a couple of points in this said by someone else. I do not want to take credit for something I did not think of <or maybe would have written that way> but i do not know who to credit. that said. the whole is mine, some parts inspired by someone else.

Just this week I received a horrible text from an acquaintance suggesting an American congresswoman, who is Muslim, should be more outraged about what is happening in her country <not America>, than what is happening here. The text was absurd, loathsome, and not particularly surprising in today’s world. It reminded me of a piece I wrote in 2010 when America was all wrapped up in an argument over whether a mosque should be built near 9/11’s Ground Zero. Here is what I wrote:

======

9/11 bucks the trend of the sometimes American trait of historical amnesia.

In general, we are a forward-looking people who don’t dwell on the past. But 9/11 remains an emotional moment of our generation (probably because it happened right here in front of us).

Anyway.

This mosque and ground zero thing is getting little nuts.

First. The main question is should the mosque be permitted to be built where requested.

Yes. Of course it should.

That would be a freedom of religion constitutional thing. Heck. It’s an American thing. Back off that one and, well, the dam bursts on the whole democracy concept.

Second. The next question is should it be built at ground zero.

Well, no, it probably shouldn’t.

For all the reasons you may be able to come up with about solidarity and Muslims role in the fabric of America I can come up with a longer list of “why does it have to be there of all places” reasons.

Yes. You can.

No. You shouldn’t.

But.

This is where we get to see politicians at their worst. Their absolutely frickin’ worst.

Politicians are baiting our short term memory by making the building of the Islamic center near ground zero an issue.

It is a sorry exercise in political exploitation.

The fact is the Constitution will not permit the government treat one religion differently from another.

But. That aside.

More importantly is politicians are trying to confuse us by confusing terrorism with the entire Muslim religion.

USA TODAY:

the Islamic center, described by proponents, including its imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, as a rebuke to radical Islam. Opponents — including prominent Republicans such as Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, and many 9/11 victims’ family members — call the planned mosque an insensitive intrusion on sacred ground.

President Obama last week said Muslims have a right to build a mosque near the site because of the nation’s freedom of religion but said he wouldn’t comment on the wisdom of doing so.

Gingrich accused Obama of “pandering to radical Islam. … Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”

Obama? Right on all aspects.

Gingrich? His ignorance or lack of ability to use meaningful and appropriate analogies is astoundingly and stunningly shallow. Especially for one with enough power to dig deep into the American psyche.

If he wanted to compare radical fundamentalist Islam to the KKK? Sure. Go right frickin’ ahead.

But.

He is stirring up Americanism in the worst possible way.

** note: shame on his parents for naming him after a newt and shame on Gnewt for not understanding his responsibility to truth

Ok. Here are some facts.

Over the past decade, dozens of mosques have been built without nasty battles. There are at least 1,500 in America now as compared with about 1,200 in 2000.

Even in the few communities where protesters have targeted Islam specifically, they’ve often been outnumbered by interfaith groups and individuals defending mosques and freedom of religion.

Much of this whole brouhaha is rooted in ignorance and fear.

If politicians (who are supposed to fairly represent the population and attempt to tell us the truth to guide us) would clearly separate al-Qaeda and radical Islamists from the peaceful millions who follow the Muslim faith, we would not be guided by ignorance (or the seemingly ignorant).

Instead the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero has created a convenient rallying point for those who instead want to preach Islamic hatred. Small groups using whatever means possible (and the internet empowers and amplifies splinter divisive groups in unimaginable ways) have leapt at the chance to exploit the opposition to the discussed NYC ground zero mosque.

“Ordinary Americans who don’t have a lot of information (about Islam) are bombarded with this,” says Ingrid Mattson president of the Islamic Society of North America. “It makes them anxious and uncertain.” Responsible people “need to provide information and outreach.”

I bolded that last sentence and say “right on sister.”

Because it is reprehensible for people claiming national leadership to stir the pot with stunning ignorance.

Now.

Here is the tricky part.

The Mayor of New York City reminds us to remember that Muslims were among those murdered, and “that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values … if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else.”

He is correct.

And what he states is exactly what makes America so unique in its Constitution and makeup.

But.

I truly believe in my heart of hearts that if the Muslim people who are building the ground zero mosque cared about improving Islam’s image, they would have taken their mosque elsewhere.

If they cared about cultural sensitivities, reciprocity or freedom of religion, then they wouldn’t be trying to build a mosque at Ground Zero.

I do feel (not strongly but there is certainly a twinge) that the idea to build this mosque at this location borders on being stupid and offensive.

Okay.

Maybe better said it is needlessly provocative or, at the very best, entirely needlessly thoughtless.

So.

All that said.

Shame on our politicians for not taking the high road. We elect them to be better than this.

Shame on Americans for not understanding freedom of religion (regardless of how they may actually feel about the decision).

Shame on Islam leaders for putting everyone in this position with what I would consider either a very naïve point of view or an altogether thoughtless decision.

I will end this almost exactly with what I said about freedom of speech.

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Freedom is a privilege.

Freedom carries with it responsibility.

I would step up and say “yes, you have the right to build the mosque.”

And then I would hope an American Muslim would step up right behind me and say “the responsible thing would be to build it elsewhere.”

THAT is America.

Ponder that this 9/11.