===

“From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remember’d;

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother …”

Shakespeare’s Henry V

===

In about 1801 aboard some ship it seems Admiral Horatio Nelson, quoting his favorite Shakespeare play, toasted a small group of his best friends and the leading captains/admirals in the Royal Navy as “we happy few.” Oh. Let us remember that this small group helped a small island’s navy kick the crap out of every nation in the world.

That said.

When I began thinking about this and decided to write it was focused solely on business. And it will remain so, however, as always, I seem to find that personal Life mirrors business life in many ways. Particularly if you define your Life <or let’s say that your Life is often defined by> in some significant way by what you do professionally.

Regardless.

I think we are all seeking our own “happy few.” People we can surround ourselves with that don’t comfort us; they just make us better.

I think of this on occasion because I still see or talk with people who i have worked with from decades ago with which I had worked well with. And no matter the years apart, when we work together, we still work well together. Ok. Not just well, but really well.

My point is that we are still part of ‘we happy few.’

Now. About this ‘happy few.’

The group in which we can not only be ourselves, but actually prosper. These can be friends, coworkers or whomever. Some symbiotic relationship seems to exist, even within some hierarchical relationship, that makes things better. And, maybe more importantly, make you better.

This ‘happy few’.

The people you go to battle with in life or in business.

The people who know what you are thinking before you even think it and even when they don’t, when you surprise them they don’t reject, but rather … well … think. Not out of respect, but rather because they assume there has to be some thread of usefulness pragmatism or hope that can be used.

I have written several times about how great businesses are often somewhat based in some fashion of serendipity … having the right people at the right place at exactly the right time. < https://brucemctague.com/right-people-right-place-right-time >

I still am a firm believer in that.

Maybe even more so now.

Because after all these years, time after time, I have been reminded that in the seamless inner workings of a great business relationship of ‘we happy few’, I know in my heart of hearts, if I could gather ‘we happy few’ in one place, at the right time, we would kick ass. And, in my case, having worked in a number of places I believe I could gather the happy few from all places, put them together, and while they would all laugh at the common ‘me things’ which make me, well, me … in the end the ‘we happy few’ would work well together as a ‘we.’

This happy few.

The few are defined by time as well as a natural connection.

Time teaches the nuances. The timing of actions tied to intent. The ability to ‘see’ inside what is being thought in all dimensions without all the explanation. And the comfort to stop and ask and explore and debate the unsaid before it is even said.

And then the natural connection.

In ‘we happy few’ the leaps of logic are no longer leaps, but simply common sense. In this collective mindset there is a tendency to not waste time imagining what is possible because the happy few just see through some personal filter of what is possible.

There is no gap between thinking and feeling. It’s all connected among the happy few.  Discovery is messy but within a small interconnected group there always appears some form of tidiness.

What I just described is a natural thing, maybe honed by time, but the metal upon which is placed on the whetstone of time is already there.

Now <part 1>.

I am not suggesting the sea is always smooth. Nor am I suggesting the sailing is always seamless. In fact I tend to believe what makes a true ‘happy few’ is the conflict as well as the resolution. The ability to fight and make up, without thinking it was a fight, nor that you are actually ‘making up.’

It just is.

The conflict is natural and positive; the resolution is natural and positive. For some intangible reason the ‘what’s next’ portion of we happy few is attainable and possible and happens without any barnacles on the side of the ships to slow you down.

Now <part 2>.

This is all frustrating to those outside this small band of brothers.

Frustrating in that they need and want the words & explanations.

Frustrating because they want to separate <and often debate> the thinking and the feeling.

Frustrating because they can only imagine the finite and need comforting to step into the infinite.

Frustrating in that they only see the impossible and begin demanding the possible.

Frustrating because all they see is the mess in discovery and not the tidiness in the what is discovered.

Well. This is ultimately all frustrating to the happy few because they are already thinking of ‘what’s next.’

This happy few.

It’s different than  family. It is certainly a professional thing. Family can make you blind because its, well, blood. With family you can go through walls for someone, often for all the wrong reasons, because of the one right reason; its family.

In the professional world?

This small band goes through walls for only one reason — the right reason. It is never <if but rarely> blind, but based on respect & trust & a sense of completion of something good based on something more than feeling <which family sometimes leans on>.

I feel sorry for those who professionally have not had the ‘we happy few.’ I would guess if you haven’t experienced it … you have been a little less successful. And I will not have to guess by saying you just haven’t received the full benefit of professional life.

You may attain a different success level, but you haven’t attained the success of the camaraderie and trust and the real opportunity to be open and be yourself in the professional world.

And maybe it’s that last thought that is the most important.

Because having been a leader <even in a smaller sense of the word and world> one of the most difficult things is to be yourself. Open yourself up to exposing the flaws and mistakes and the sometimes stupidity that comes as the façade to what comes before something not stupid. And with ‘we happy few’ you have that small window of opportunity to open up. You don’t forfeit all the things that come with being a leader or having to lead, you just gain because you actually get to grow as a person.

And that is what we happy few is all about.

We got better.

They made me better.

And in doing so I got to lead and be a leader <through some luck of the draw>. We happy few means being one of the luckiest people in the professional world.

And I believe Admiral Nelson knew that.

He was good at what he did. He was smart and intuitive and courageous. But I think in his heart of hearts he knew he was lucky in that he was part of ‘we happy few’ which enabled him to be the best he could be.

His “we happy few” permitted him the luxury to rely on simple strategies rather than complicated complex plans. The interconnectedness of the small band made not only him, but all of them, certain in the knowledge everyone would support one another in striving toward the bigger objective and yet be confident enough to use their own initiative when required. While the thinking was complex and sometimes leaned on a good dose of imagination, in the end the thoughts were easily communicated in simple written instructions reinforced verbally when possible or necessary.

His captains were intelligent, experienced officers; they needed no more. And that is what we happy few is in the professional world. They need no more than each other to be happy.

Ponder.

———: historical note.

About Nelson’s “we happy few.”

Nelson’s happy few were the Royal Navy captains who served under the command of Rear-Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson.  Several of which infamously served as his flag captain at different times. He originally used the term only for his captains at the Battle of the Nile but in correspondence it was deemed a broader perspective in Nelson’s eyes.

The ‘band of brothers’ comprised, in order of seniority, James de Saumarez, Thomas Troubridge, Henry d’Esterre Darby (1764?–1823), Thomas Louis, John Peyton (1760?–1809), Alexander Ball, Samuel Hood, Davidge Gould (1758–1847), Thomas Foley, George Westcott (who died of a wound sustained during the battle), Benjamin Hallowell, Ralph Miller, Thomas Thompson, Edward Berry, and Thomas Hardy. Those whom the naval historian Sir John Laughton considered worthy of an entry in the original Dictionary of National Biography were, with one exception, outstanding officers. Saumarez, Troubridge, Louis, Foley, Hood, Hallowell, and Hardy would hold important commands as admirals. Ball was the first governor of Malta, although he died before reaching flag rank. Thompson ran the Navy Board for a decade. Hardy topped them all: he became first sea lord in 1830 and helped erect Nelson’s Column. By contrast to the others, Edward Berry was prone to serious errors of judgement at sea and in combat.

<source Andrew Lambert – Oxford University Press>

The one left off the list was most likely Nelson’s best friend and most respected companion … his second-in-command at the Battle of Trafalgar Cuthbert Collingwood. I have used Cuthbert in a post before: https://brucemctague.com/moment-to-do-the-extraordinary

==========

“I’ve been injected with false hope so many fucking times I’ve lost count”

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

Bernard Cornwell

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

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

I believe hope is stronger than … well … pretty much anything.

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

I believe everyone deserves someone to give them hope when hopelessness seems the only thing available.

That said.

While, technically, false hope is a simple definition, realistically, there are a couple kinds of false hope.

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version of ‘offering a fantasy unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.”

And then everything in between.

Hope, in even a false way, has many dimensions. And within any and all dimensions I would suggest even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where false hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size.

Even with a glimmer, hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities. The truths which are more likely to showcase the horizon you are not only gonna be stuck looking at, but visiting at some point <which is not the horizon you had actually hoped for>. But false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous than that <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality>.

It actually is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit. False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective.

How does that most often happen?

You are more likely to make some smaller, more impactful, poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there.

By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects.

Real hope. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. The real truth is that real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes. That said. Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

Yeah. False hope is not always something with “no knowable chance of coming to fruition.”

Yeah. As I stated in the beginning someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something so unrealistic, well, that really isn’t false hope that is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

So, to be clear, false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie, but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested … but has some tested competency. They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed.

Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise.

That is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

Well. They have delivered on hopes therefore, in some weird equation of Life, a false hope has becomes a real hope delivered.

Look. My point is hope is hope.

And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up, any hope is better than no hope. You can either not have hope, or have false hope, or real hope <albeit ‘real’ and ‘hope’ is a tenuous relationship>.

To be clear … all actions should be determined by reason, logic and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.

But hope is, well, hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at exactly the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hoe is fraught with some potential falseness an some potential truth.

Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept.

Fortune, luck, hard work & preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope.  Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore to accept any hope, false of true, you have to accept the existence of possibilities – good and bad.

To me, in my pea like brain, all false hope implies is that the odds are against you and success is slim, yet, people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles. And, in that point, is where I could argue that false hope is as good as any hope out there.

For in that statement if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s not false that is real.

Having led people I do not use hope flippantly even though I believe in hope as a leadership responsibility.

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

I do believe people want someone to accept some of the burden of the bigger more visionary aspects of Life.

I do believe people want to contribute, personally, within progress toward a specific hope for something better.

I do believe Hope, false or true, is hope.

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

They’re interested in being looked after. They’re interested in a tale being spun… Mighty men have moments of great despair that common people do not want to know about.”

Melina Marchetta

=====

originally published December 2016

======

“The combination of technology and capitalism has given us a world that really feels out of control.”

Jonathon Franzen

=====

 “Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the Kingdom of Brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis.”

Martin Luther King 1967

====

Why am I writing my umpteenth article on capitalism?

I keep seeing research in the United States that says something like 50% of people under the age of 30 do not believe in capitalism.

Ok. Let’s get this out of the way:

Capitalism is good.

Capitalism is not bad.

But that does not mean there isn’t always a tension between good and bad in the soul and system of capitalism. It is an incredible wealth-creating & life bettering mechanism and, yet, left to its own devices can run off the tracks <morally and financially>. Capitalism needs guard rails or, as some smart guy called it,“embedded countervailing power.” It needs guard rails because humans will be humans.

When business is good, human beings become greedy.

When business is bad, human beings become fearful.

And I would like to remind everyone that culture is created by, uhm, human beings. I say that not to be a smart ass but to suggest there is a real culture war in America, maybe the world, and it is occurring in the business world. I purposefully use ‘culture’ because it has to do with some ethics or moral fortitude, some personal responsibility and some pragmatic hope for the future. In fact, if we fix how capitalism works <systemic & infrastructure aspects>, the net result is addressing income inequality, wage stagnation and overall economic prosperity as well as some individual “self-stuff” like meaning and mattering <kind of all the big societal issues we tend to discuss>.

Anyway.

A moment on the role of government.

It is both a fallacy to believe Government is not the problem nor believe they are the solution. We have a mixed economy < I stole that term from Foreign Policy magazine>.

Capitalism is not supposed to be a system which is about maximizing corporate profit at the expense of the citizenry. Therefore, effective governance curbs greed objectives & regulates capitalism so that it bends the arc of the system to encourage the good things it is supposed to do <innovate & bring prosperity to many> and doesn’t do the bad things <be driven solely by greed & self interest>.

Let’s be clear.

America is not based on an unfettered capitalism nor has it ever been <nor was it ever meant to be by the founding fathers>. It is a managed capitalism system <always has been — I say that to head off any of the ‘government is too involved’ today talking heads>.

Government attempts, sometimes better than other times, to put reins on humans within a capitalistic society.  Let’s say it’s something like giving enough range for wild horses to run free, but not to trample the gardens and lawns of the surrounding areas. This ‘fettered’ managed capitalism idea is not perfect. It ebbs and flows and morphs into different shapes as time passes, but it IS an effective economic and political system.

I would suggest that, while polarizing, capitalism is balanced – when balanced.

That said. A better version of capitalism really is not dependent upon governance and laws <and putting banks out of business>, but rather personal decisions, choices & responsibility.  Yes. I just suggested <again> that people, not the system, will define the better version of capitalism. Adam Smith suggested the three pillars of a society are: prudence, looking after oneself as best as one is able; justice, keeping the law of the land; and beneficence, caring for others and society where there is need. Yeah. Adam Smith deceived in the collective interest beyond self interest.

Clearly our main issue is not how to survive on true scarcity <that is not a perceived scarcity or a “less than” scarcity> but rather how to live well with plenty.

To date we have chased double digit growth and higher GDP all the while seeking higher material happiness <sometimes confused with higher standard of living>.

We have become societally insatiable. In other words, we cannot have enough and are reaching what Hirsch called “the social limits of growth“.

This funny Maslow chart reflects that as additional personal needs are fulfilled it induces new needs <which we, as humans, constantly improve ourselves in order to further attain these ‘self actualization’ activities>.  Think about this from a non-funny sustenance perspective in growing from poverty to non poverty <but the dimension perspective will always reside in the human mind>. This is also called ‘hedonic adaptation.’

Yes. Capitalism has certainly vastly improved our lives and our means to live. But it has also fed this insatiability.

Some guy named Sandel wrote in “what money can’t buy … the moral limits of markets:”

• the more things money can buy the more the lack of it hurts.
• buying and selling can change the way a good is perceived (he used “giving children money as incentive to read a book may make reading a chore rather than a simple pleasure”).

This all leads to an overall attitude that endless <and double digit> growth is essential to maintain and improve our quality of life. While I will not go into the detailed debate … that is simply not true <this is the typical efficiency versus effectiveness argument>.

Now. All that said. The issue is really about the attitudes & attributes we are attaching to capitalism.

As I share some thoughts to try and address the young’s lack of belief in capitalism I will lead with two things:

• Communism promises to make everyone equally rich and instead makes everyone equally poor.
  

• Youth thinks it invents the world. Maturity respects the world it finds.

Suffice it to say that Capitalism is becoming some evil entity in the minds of many young people. In addition, aspects of other ideologies <communism being one> are being used relatively flippantly as ‘better than’ what is occurring within capitalism. I actually believe it is a lack of understanding, but it is also quite possible there is a deeper lack of faith with capitalism.

If you step back you can see why the young <and the shallow thinkers> feel this way:

• Real unemployment is nearly in double digits and young people are struggling to gain a positive financial foothold.
• On average, according to Gallup, Americans believe that 50 cents of every dollar the federal government spends is wasted. Democrats, who are supposed to believe in big government, guess that 41 cents of every federal dollar is wasted. Republicans think it is 54 cents, and independents put the number at 55 cents in the dollar.
• A poll found that most Americans would rather their government did less. Some 57% said it was doing too many things that were better left to individuals and businesses. Only 38% thought it should do more.

And many people have genuine complaints. Many working-class men have lost their jobs. Those who are still employed have seen their wages stagnate/decrease. And overall they don’t trust government not to make it worse.

This is a sad state of affairs <for government who CAN make shit happen> because regulations can positively address stagnation & inequality without intervening in entrepreneurial decisions or in the price/profit mechanism. The harsh black & white truth no one wants to say is that regulation is what makes free markets, well, free <free markets cannot sustain themselves and constraints actually benefit fresh ideas>.

Anyway.

I have been thinking about capitalism for a while nudging my mind toward discussing morals and character <society & culture>. In doing so I found it interesting to think about Schumpeter when addressing the youth capitalism challenge.

• what Joseph Schumpeter called ‘the cultural contradictions’ of Capitalism

One of the cultural contradictions <I believe he outlined 5> was Rationality. In that Capitalism encourages rationality in behavior and that culture creates, and demands, a natural conflict by insisting on some ‘irrational’ behavior. Rationality comes to life as the “maximization” of particular interests of individuals and groups. This same rationalization concept then bleeds into both personal lives <family & home> and ultimately becomes embodied in some form or fashion into cultural forms. Children become quasi economic assets <or their rearing incorporates rational ‘maximization’ theory embedded in capitalism>. At its extreme, maximization bleeds into soulless wealth and extreme consumption thereby substituting saving and societal salvation. Oddly, but fairly, Schumpeter suggests consumption wins against accumulation. This leads to a certain diminishing of the desirability of incomes above a certain level. At the same time, however, when the breaks of certain values associated with ethical or religious tradition fail <called the sophrosyne: Greek philosophical term meaning healthy-mindedness and from there self-control or moderation guided by knowledge and balance. Roman poet Juvenal later interpreted sophrosyne as “mens sana in corpore sano” – “a healthy mind in a healthy body”> individuals and groups come into natural conflict with capitalism. The basic human instinct is one of core values <in some degree within everyone> and therefore the natural contradiction forces some balance within capitalism.

This means that the irrational components of behavior are critical for capitalism to emerge and withstand rational arguments especially when based on long term considerations.

But. That said.

===

“This is the genius and the Achilles’ heel of American culture. We … have a strong belief in self-determination and agency, even when our expectations fly in the face of reality,”

Katherine Newman, who studies social mobility

====

Capitalism in America is not functioning efficiently for a variety of reasons, but that doesn’t make it bad.

Which leads me to the issue of Confused capitalism … or being confused by capitalism.

No matter how altruistic and non-materialistic you may be the psychological issue is simple — as we sit perched on a stool at the bar of society where we can scan the room and see the danger of those who have nothing or little … as well as those who have the most <and lots of most>.

If the majority of us begin to look like we are either nearing the dangerously ‘nothing people’ or, contrarily, appear to be too distant from those who ‘have the most’ <no matter what your exact status is> we get nervous if not angry. Materialism, culturally, is therefore naturally cyclical in that it will always seek to balance itself or find some equilibrium. For we always ‘want’, but most of us want it to be within the realm of ‘hopeful that we can get more’ … without appearing too greedy. Hence that is fairness <in an irrational sense>.

In other words.

Give me a chance for something more than I have and give me more and I won’t be too greedy.

While everyone can debate the role of money with regard to people’s happiness it is true that economic health does make people happier <more secure, more comfortable, more sustenance>.

This actually means that free-market capitalism is not devoted to integrity and a reliance on trust but rather economic growth. And this suggests the people need to be regulated.

Why do we balk at regulation?

The US has always been a wide-open, free-wheeling country, with a high tolerance for big winners and big losers as the price of equal opportunity in a dynamic society. Even though the US brand of capitalism has rougher edges than other democracies, most citizens inherently believe it is worth the trade-off for growth and mobility. Yet, at the same time, while we like the free wheeling we also recognize that we are going through some type of crisis, therefore, it just becomes a discussion on what type of crisis.

Some think it is a crisis of capitalism. <I don’t>

Others think the crisis is moral. <I do>

====

“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.”

Bertrand Russell

====

First there is attitude. What is maybe a disregard for societal fairness versus what could be construed as individual ‘winning’ or ‘what I deserve.’ A lot has been written about the effects of globalization during the past generation. Much less has been said about the change in social norms that globalization enabled. Many people, particularly people in power positions, took the vast transformation of the economy as an excuse to rewrite the rules that used to govern their behavior. I say that because while there will always be isolated small groups of lawbreakers in high places what truly destroys morale is a systemic corner-cutting, rule-bending, self interest behavior type of construct.

I have thought about how and why this happens.

It starts early.

As young children we start off with a healthy core of greatness, but before long it gets covered in layers of doubt, fear and guilt. Often this is caused by people we trust most like parents, teachers and managers who put us down in subtle and less subtle ways. It’s as though people were flicking bits of mud at us until our core of greatness is totally covered. Even worse, we flick mud at ourselves by accepting smaller versions of ourselves through negative self-talk and poor thinking; and we become a tiny fraction of the potential that once existed.

Once potential is curbed we seek to find success in other ways sometimes circumventing “what is right” to make small excusable steps in our behavior to attain ‘small personal successes.”

Second is our propensity to consume <and its self perpetuation>.

Our propensity to consume without thought for the planet, the poor or even the person next door is a sign that greed and fear are the motives of the moment <or self interest trump collective interest in a zero sum world>. Freedom certainly creates problems (inequalities most notably), but it also solves them.

But the central aspect of freedom advanced by these thinkers was the market, or what Adam Smith had described as the propensity to truck, barter and exchange. In this area, freedom allowed dispersed individuals—disposing of their own resources and choosing for themselves what they want to buy—to generate a level of prosperity that has had no precedent in human history. And the pricing system that emerges from the market—that is, from the push and pull of supply and demand—provides the indispensable knowledge needed to guide the economy.

So. All that said.

I would tell young people that Capitalism is not the issue.

It is the people within the system <and young people can fix that by entering the system>. The system can work just fine it is simply being abused at the moment. Capitalism needs to be managed to be more oriented to the long term and socially more responsible.

Interestingly, Richard Branson has formed an initiative to do just this. I found it amusing that initially he sought to have a board of Business Elders — but there were too few candidates from the business world of sufficiently unimpeachable character to staff it <insert ‘oh my’ here>.

Anyway <to conclude part 1>.

Since World War II in particular, America has been on a consumption surge/binge. While wages have certainly stagnated, family disposable income has grown, life standards have improved, health has improved and overall quality of life has improved <and showed a continuous growth>. Unfortunately, at the same time, while families busily lived their lives they also had access to the finest inventory of toys capitalism could provide. Each generation was doing better than the one before, life was good and standard of living acquired a layer of ‘non essentials’ as part of how the people lived a successful & happy life.

At the same time. Televisions starting bringing news, influential people talking and capitalism toys into the family living room. Television allowed busy families the opportunity to be exposed to complex issues through professionally crafted sound bites and talking points. People were now becoming more informed from a larger perspective, not just local perspective, and we ushered in the inevitable “keeping up with the Joneses” aspect.

What we face is the natural rising tide of ‘better than before’ facing the ebb and flow of time. The ebbing waters are not appreciated by those who drink from the current place. Is it greed for most people? No. It is simply a desire for the status quo – “better is a right not a privilege.” Therein lies the social & cultural task at hand. Ponder.

Anyway <to conclude part 2>.

Doing something.

Me? I write and post on my blog. And speak about it wherever and whenever I can <especially to young people>.

It is easy to talk about it because it seems like if we take a moment and reflect on the problems in the world today we might easily come to the conclusion that it is mainly due to deterioration of our morality compass.

It seems like everywhere we see people filled with greed and intent on self-gratification. It seems like people are always willing to compromise on values/morality to make personal gains. That means we need to start talking about values and create some sort of awakening in the minds of people.

Will everyone do it? Of course not. But someone has to go first. Someone has to become the catalyst for change.

Why not the youth? We should encourage them to enter the system and build what they desire from the inside out rather than simply breaking the system as unfixable. Ponder.

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

“What I fear I avoid.

What I fear I pretend does not exist.

What I fear is quietly killing me.

Would there were a festival for my fears, a ritual burning of what is coward in me, what is lost in me.

Let the light in before it is too late. “

 Jeanette Winterson from “The Green Man”

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

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

Unknown

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

Well <part 1>.

I just read a an article in one of those local papers you can pick up at Healthy Grocery stores which attempted to discuss how this time of the year <October/November/December> is the season of ‘decay and death’ … and how it was a potent time to connect with the dead <and highlighted several celebrations around the world which do just that>.

This thought was combined with the thought we human folk balk at connecting with death because it … well … seems morbid to do so.

and summer regrets

               getting rid

       of winter wishes

summer and i

=======

Well <part 2>.

I balk at the whole concept of ‘decay & death’ as well as the ‘morbid‘ thought.

Simplistically, seasons remind of us the cycle of Life <not death> and that death, in and of itself a sad event, contains at its very core the very simple concept that without Death, there is no Life. This was immortalized in pop culture by Blood Sweat & Tears in their absolutely fabulous song “and when I die”:

====

And when I die and when I’m dead, dead and gone,
there’ll be one child born and a world to carry on, to carry on.

I’m not scared of dying and I don’t really care.
If it’s peace you find in dying, well, then let the time be near.
If it’s peace you find in dying, when dying time is here,
just bundle up my coffin cause it’s cold way down there,
I hear that’s it’s cold way down there, yeah, crazy cold way down there.
And when I die and when I’m gone,
there’ll be one child born and a world to carry on, to carry on.

====

While each Life is a stepping stone for every future generation each death represents a stepping stone for … well … the future.

I don’t need any Eastern religion wisdom to remind me of this, I think we all know this.

Now, I will admit that connecting with this thought is much much easier for us when we remove any personalized death and accept it as simply a turning of generations. Therefore, one of the reasons we do not celebrate death is because it can get too personal. And if that is a reason it sure as hell is a good one.

But death itself?

While death is something we dislike, facing seasons remain something we must face year in and year out. It is a constant affirmation of the turning of time and that some things we may have gained will most likely be inevitably lost in the natural turn of time.

And, yes, as we near January 1st, I am reminded that Winter is the time of Life’s strategic retreat and conservation of what gives it all life.

It is not death. And it is not decay.

It is Life’s thoughtful way to insure its existence and survival.

It is the time of incubation and rest and restoration for all things to come in the following year.

I could also suggest that winter is a time of reflection and, well, comfort. In winter’s dark nights the stars are at their clearest and we have the opportunity to see them as the sparks of potential and wishes and dreams and Life. Uhm. And dreaming is never a bad thing particularly during the ‘ebb tide of seasonal Life.’

I will not argue that as Life recedes in autumn and rests in winter we do, at least emotionally, get closer to connecting with death, but I do balk at thinking of autumn & winter as ‘things associated with death.’

I would argue it actually does a nice job of reminding us we need to let go of things. and, sure, maybe we connect with ‘the dead’ better at this time because it reminds us to celebrate what we had and embrace letting go.

And that is the thing about winter, it demands to not only be felt but also that you meet it on its terms. Even better Winter demands us to let go of things we most typically hold onto with ragged claws.

You cannot refuse its existence and you cannot ignore what was because what is … is … well … is starkly different. Where Life was once obvious it is now starkly absent.

I would note that all Eastern mysticism and ‘being in touch with the universe’ and the ‘natural ebb of the earth’ and all that stuff, at its core, just suggests that we pay attention. In other words, pay attention to whatever energy seasons give us and more often than not that energy it gives us is … uhm … just good ole fashioned thinking. It gives us the energy to think about our lives, lives lost and lives yet to be lived.

Acknowledgement of all of that increases your overall connection not just with ‘the universe’, but rather to the eternal pattern of life and invests a sense of energy into pretty much everything <yourself and Life>.

And just as Death breaks things down to the bare essence, winter does the same.

And maybe that is the connection.

When things are at their barest, when we are drawn closer to endings rather than beginnings, we inevitably ponder the ‘great perhaps.’

Back in September I wrote this on the first day of Fall:

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 we begin to better grasp that failed plans and failed dreams can beget new plans and new dreams. And maybe it is within Winter where , in ts barest of bare essences, we are forced to begin envisioning what could be in plans and dreams because it is left to us standing in the bare environment around us.

What I do know about all seasons is that they are markers of Time and, poetically speaking, Time is always hungry for many of the things we dearly want to endure and do.

This makes Time both beautiful and doomed. Yeah. Time is beautiful and doomed. And that is where I really believe the whole ‘morbid time of the year’ goes astray.

for it seems all of Fall’s stars

                       have fallen

and often summer and i

run through the last warm days

through the cool grass

       gathering stars caught in people’s dreams

with the intent

           to toss them to Winter

through windows of dawn.

Summer & i

======

We, especially in the West, hunger for time.

Conversely, time itself <to us Western folk> has a hunger and its hunger is for ‘things.’

It is a nasty emptiness waiting to be filled.

Well.

If there is one thing humans are fucking great at, it is filling time and stuffing whatever we can into any emptiness we can find.

Death and dying makes us reflect. It forces us to do so. Just as the bare often starkness of Winter does.

And it makes us reflect on what ‘stuff’ we have crammed into whatever Time we have had.

Oh. Maybe what it really forces us to do is reflect upon time. and that is where death truly makes us feel uncomfortable, not any morbid feeling, but rather it’s just that we have been indoctrinated to focus on living, living life to its fullest, not wasting any time, to do lists that never get completed and just doing shit <just do it!>.

Nowhere in that list of shit I just shared does death have a place. In fact. Death represents the exact opposite of everything society & our culture almost demands we think about 24/7.

And when forced to face death, or feel a need to connect, we are much less likely to celebrate but rather assess … assess our ‘doing mantra’ versus ‘stop.’

Look.

Most of us don’t purposefully ignore connecting with death and those who have passed away because of sadness <because if it were we would be more likely to actually do it because the opposite of sadness is reflecting upon the inevitable happiness>, but rather because death and past lives force us to reflect upon our ‘doing accomplishment’ <as well as it forces us to stop … which compounds the feeling of ‘shit, I haven’t done enough and I am not doing anything now’>.

Yeah.

If you can get beyond the ‘doing’ aspect, inherently death is more about sadness <loss of something or someone or time> more so than morbidity. Conquer the sadness and you have conquered death.

And all of this is just not that difficult <if you are willing to actually think about it>.

Several cultures do celebrate the autumnal solstice as the time life & death is closest. I would argue it is less a celebration but rather recognition of that which came before, and that which is dying, so that what will be will come forth.

Generations beget generations just as falls beget springs.

Death begets life.

This doesn’t mean we should celebrate impending death but rather recognize, even in sadness, life & beauty resides in the future.

Fall is of beautiful dying.

Winter is of starkness of death.

Spring is of rebirth from death.

This doesn’t mean you can find beautiful things to enjoy throughout any season.  Seasons simply remind us of the fact time does not stand still and no matter how hard we try and fill up the emptiness time offers us day in and day out … leaves fall, winter comes and spring arises.

I believe it is the Celtic wheel of the year describes this time of the year as Samhain — “the veil between the worlds is thin.” Just as several other cultures, they use his time to reflect upon “that which was.” In my pea like brain it is a celebration of navel gazing. It is an intentional event to purposefully explore the valuable relationship not only between Life and Death but the past and the future.

Listen to the cry of falling leaves,

            but winter breaks the silence

and warms us with words

of how to change it all

      before the Fall completely ends.

So, So

Look.

I don’t believe we do not celebrate death and dying because we think it is morbid. I tend to believe we do not traditionally do so because we, as in Western civilization versus Eastern, don’t celebrate reflection.

We treat reflection more as  a personal thing and not a larger more public event and celebration.

Should we celebrate reflection? Shit. I don’t know. But understanding that seasons can offer us enlightening thoughts about how we actually think about death & Life & holding on & letting go is surely not a bad thing.

As for Fall and Winter? I do not think of death and decay. I actually think of flowers.

Huh?

I credit Mark Strand for making me think Winter is the time to bring flowers into your Life as he describes Winter in his poem called Blizzard of One:

“A time between times, a flowerless funeral. No more than that …”

Mark Strand <Blizzard of One>

Every funeral deserves flowers. Every Winter deserves thoughts of Life. Ponder.

========

“The most successful businessman is the man who holds onto the old just as long as it is good, and grabs the new just as soon as it is better.”

Lee Iacocca

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

“I have found that hollow, which even I had relied on for solid.”

Henry David Thoreau

==========

Ok. Let’s get the harsh truth out upfront. I am a 60something and I believe the older generation, mostly old white men, hollowed out business to the shithole soul-less point we face today. I also believe we are facing the dying rattle of these old white men’s grasp on how business is conducted.

That said. Let me spend a minute on old white men <my generation> to explain why I believe this.

While a generalization, because there are exceptions, old white men have hollowed out the business world in their quest for “winning at any cost”, “efficiency”, and maximize “converting that win-to-cash <making $>” ratio. These men hollowed out business primarily thru extraction and exploitation <of value, values, and resources>. These men have guided business to a level of so-called, self proclaimed, “greatness” through a variety of ‘great’ business acumen thoughts & business culture attitudes which, in reality, were non-great hollow attitudes, were wins which in reality a reflection of hollow behaviors & techniques, and, ultimately, created fantastic looking hollow outcomes and achievements.

In doing so they successfully hollowed out business. I could argue, and will, “hollowing” has been the guiding light into this dark world of money grubbers with questionable moral compasses who deemed resources as infinite and people as finite machines they could plug ‘n play into their money creating machines. You want some specifics? Here you go. This is how they have hollowed out business:

Capitalism

Capitalism is not inherently bad. In fact it is an incredible engine for growth, innovation and increased wealth & standard of living for any and all.

But old white men hollowed capitalism. They took out all the good and added all the greed. I could partially defend old white men and suggest that they were simply participants in the arc of business history, but I will not. Peter Drucker pointed out the beginning of the arc in 1989, as I noted in Salvation by Society, and we old white men could have eyed the arc and, well, stopped it. Instead old white men viewed the arc as an opportunity to not be burdened by morality & soul, but rather an opportunity to build personal wealth.

     Humans

Humans are amazing things. Irrational, unexpected, inconsistent, bundles of untapped potential. Old white men hollowed humans as well as humanity in their total embrace of people as machines of productivity – scientific management was their religion. We cannot blame Frederick Taylor for this because it was these men who made Taylorism into a cult of business. they were creative in their scientific management slotting their little people productivity machines into thinkers and doers, stars and worker bees, right brain versus left brainers. They first wielded carrots & sticks to manipulate desired results and then fully embraced gamification. The intent was always to squeeze out productivity rather than let people potential emerge. It is within that last point in which old white men propagated their most insidious myth – humans are lazy and left to their own devices will do nothing. This became the underpinning to everything with regard to their treatment of humans as machines. Needless to say, business without humans and humanity is simply a machine. Old white men got exactly what they wanted to the detriment of business and humans, hollow widgets producing exactly what they are told to produce.

Branding

Brands are fabulous creatures and not inherently bad. They offer us every day schmucks a nice heuristic way to make decisions and isolate differentiation in which we can make true choices.

Old white men hollowed brands. The easiest way to point this out is that we stopped talking about brands and started talking about branding. Old white men started looking at brands as vehicles of wealth and not vehicles of differentiation. Brands should evolve and not be constructed or built like some building of cold steel and cheap Styrofoam ceiling tiles. Focusing on brands permitted old white men to hollow out the substantive work of creating products & services of substance. The whole concept of ‘building a brand’ is one of the most insidious concepts to infiltrate good and meaningful marketing and communications.

Profit

Profit is not inherently bad. Used wisely it contributes not only to personal, or individual wealth, but spurs on business growth in terms of innovation and employee development AND social involvement. But old white men hollowed the soul out of each dollar as they squeezed every cent of profit it of it. Profit is good only if it is not tainted by <a> greed or  <b> created at the expense of giving back <in terms of true societal salvation type things>. Businesses represent an important weave in the fabric of society and the moment a business ignores that weave and focuses solely on the profits of the entity itself the opportunity arises to let the soul of each dollar made bleed out into the ether. And, yes, dollars can have a soul. Making money shouldn’t feed stock holders, it should a business that feeds society.

Wealth dispersion

Making money and creating wealth is inherently a double positive: proof of the value for your efforts and increased standard of living <not just in materialistic comforts but in real living>. This is a good thing for individuals, society and the world.

Old white men hollowed out the middle and carved out the good aspects.. This is more a byproduct of their business acumen more than anything else because I cannot really point out any specific behavior they consciously took to do this, but, suffice it to say that more went to the old white men and less to the ones who actually made the money for them. Possibly worse is that crafty old white men crafted a tier of wealth creation in which they had to do nothing, but use other people’s wealth to, exponentially, create their own wealth. Basically, they hollowed out the value in wealth.

Communication

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

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

ROI

ROI <return on investment> is a fabulous tool. It offers us every day unimaginative pragmatic schmucks an almost heuristic way to judge some fairly complex and complicated things in business.

Old white men hollowed ROI of anything intangible and along the way scraped away some of the most meaningful things associated with investment in their desire for simplistic “this led to that.” Certainly some investments have linear outcomes and results. But not all. And these hollow men in their black & white pursuit of profit, efficiency and outcomes became color blind.  Old white men started looking at people as equal to numbers & dollars and not organic organisms of less than linear productivity <in terms of Life actualization as well as business actualization>. These hollow men fell in love with cause & effect, numbers and began diminishing the value of humanity and complexity <dynamics of business & Life>. They saw people as investments, like manufacturing robots, rather than, well, people.

Racism

Racism in the workplace is a stealthy virus invading the organism in ways that can create an unhealthy organism which sometimes seems to never attain its full potential despite producing results.

Old white men enable this virus to exist by hollowing out the meaning in any racism discussion, and real substantive actions, in business.

These old white men rose through the ranks of business surrounded by other white people, & few minorities, simply believing it was so because it was a reflection of those “who deserved to be here” (assuming everyone COULD be here if they worked hard enough). When in leadership positions & told about racism issues they didn’t really believe it, reluctantly doing things they were told they should do all the while thinking “it’s just political correctness”. The times old white men got trapped in diversity meetings & shared 5 things they did & were told were racist, in their heads they said “they can’t handle truth, they are too sensitive.” What this all led to was hollow efforts at addressing racism. They grudgingly implemented some initiatives, while publicly espousing their enlightenment, but privately thinking it was a waste of time, energy & monies. Underlying this purposeful ignorance was an ongoing belief white people never got any more breaks than anyone else or that there was never any inherent ‘privileges’ bestowed upon white skinned people.

What the business world ended up with was a generation of old white men who are the worst of racism ,and some real racists> – racism convinced it isn’t racism and racists convinced they are not racist. Ultimately, any substantive efforts to address racism in business were hollowed out by old white men who didn’t really believe in them.

Behavior

I hesitated to call this “the hollowing out of morality” mostly because that sounded a little harsh and I tend to believe the reality within this particular hollowness is more pragmatic. That said … it doesn’t make it any better just that I didn’t really want to get into a morality & ethical finger pointing game.

Leadership is a complex mix of personal, professional and pragmatic. When wielded well it is a beautiful tapestry of effectiveness, however, beauty is often in the eyes of the beholder when actual effectiveness becomes the measuring stick. As a reminder, old white men leadership grew up in a business of dictatorship leadership behavior or, at its best, benevolent dictatorship.

Old white men grew up in the hallowed halls of hollowed leadership management. This means that their ‘management twitch muscles’ inevitably provide reflexive business decision making based on this.

The easiest way to point this out is that businesses have developed a myriad of cultural initiatives and, yet, old white men leadership tends to simply treat them as “feel good politically correct” initiatives. They view them as “society dictated” thinking and not “business dictated” thinking. Therefore, a hollowness was inherent in the organization between how the old white men leaders attitudinally approached the business, how they viewed behavior and how the organization actually behaved. In other words, a hollow mindset affected expectations of attitudes and behaviors.

Old white men began talking longingly of straight talk, when people knew their place in business and ‘carrot & sticks.’  Old white men started looking at businesses in disdain as vehicles of political correctness and not stark effectiveness. The truth is that many of the old white men simply didn’t buy in to a better way of doing business and, therefore, when put in a corner & challenged revert back to the hollow management style of “do what I tell you to do and shut up.”

To be fair, old white men did not create this hollowness, they simply propagated it.

Pretty damning evidence of their hollowing, no?

All that said. These old white men, in their heart of hearts, inherently do not care about a ‘better world’ or even “a better way of conducting business” from a soul perspective nor do they care about any aspect of ‘being a better person’. Despite the fact we read headlines about business people embracing “Purpose” or creating panels to create a better business, it’s all words, no actions. Or maybe better said, there are actions but they are hollow actions. The truth is that for the most part they are indifferent to the bigger, more important, issues and solely attach ‘better’ with wealth, importance and wins and their own interests.

I get angry. I get angry because I do not believe ‘hollowness’ is the path to a better business world and society <let alone the world>. It certainly has not helped us reach greatness up to this point. And I am angry because I have believed this, and known this, for decades.

Look. This can be solved. And it can be solved by, well, old guys/people like me.

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

“At any other time it’s better. You can do the things you feel you should; you’re an expert at going through the motions. Your handshakes with strangers are firm and your gaze never wavers; you think of steel and diamonds when you stare. In monotone you repeat the legendary words of long-dead lovers to those you claim to love; you take them into bed with you, and you mimic the rhythmic motions you’ve read of in manuals. When protocol demands it you dutifully drop to your knees and pray to a god who no longer exists. But in this hour you must admit to yourself that this is not enough, that you are not good enough. And when you knock your fist against your chest you hear a hollow ringing echo, and all your thoughts are accompanied by the ticks of clockwork spinning behind your eyes, and everything you eat and drink has the aftertaste of rust.”

Dexter Palmer

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

Old white men created the problems and as so well said in the movie The Return of the Pink Panther: “you set a thief to catch a thief.”

Older people can reverse the hollowness problem in one fell swoop. I could do it with a small merry band of contrarian older people (women & men), who have chafed in this hollow existence, and could bring some good healthy substance back into this wretched hollowness. To be clear, to fix this it isn’t about attacking one of these issues and working on it, it is coming up with a business model, and a way of doing business, that resolves all these issues. In systems thinking vernacular, the system in its entirety needs to regain robustness and substance because a substantive non-hollow part, alone, will not improve the system.

This is a unique time in history in which business, country and politics have intersected. This is a unique time for older business people to right the wrongs of all they have wrought up to this point. I certainly hope this happens, as an old white man myself, simply for the sake of redemption for all of us old white men. Ponder.

=========

“The world is too big and too intricate to conform to our ideas of what it should be like.

Just because we invent myths and theories to explain away the chaos we’re still going to live in a world that’s older and more complicated than we’ll ever understand.”

Moby

===========

“The World is a very complex system.

It is easy to have too simple a view of it, and it is easy to do harm and to make things worse under the impulse to do good and make things better.”

Kenneth Boulding

==========

Well. Today, while reading some trite business fortune cookie wisdom pulled from some gazzillion selling business book, I thought of the day I said “I worry we are killing the next generation of business thinkers with simplistic tripe” to a famous internationally renowned business book author. I did it at while on a panel at some convention in the early 2000’s. I said it <after holding my thoughts for too long> as I listened to simplistic soundbite advice being shared under the guise of “sage wisdom to enhance everyone’s success.”

I followed my statement with:

“Business is messy. Business is complex. It seems to me that those of us who have navigated the messiness have a responsibility to not undersell the messiness & complexity nor oversell simplicity.”

Needless to say it wasn’t one of my more popular moments.

Needless to say it was one of my better professional moments.

Ok. Business is made up of a mixture of skills, personalities and attitudes. Success is most often dictated by alignment of skills, personalities and attitudes, or, some special mix of all. It is that mix, or blend, of all those things which is well, frankly, an absolute bitch to make happen. That said. Let me point out three reasons why business is such a difficult complex unwieldy thing and trite soundbite wisdom rarely helps:

• Building a successful business is rarely about some wide open “white space” awaiting your arrival.

• People. You need people. You almost always have to incorporate people into your evil plan for success <and those who most desperately desire to help most often have their own evil plans for success>

• Dealing with what you have is significantly different than creating what you want <and how the initial recipe is different than the ongoing recipe>

Let me explain each.

• The white space myth:

Business success, generally speaking, comes down to one of two things (a) am I going to build a market for my idea, or (b) am I going to steal some of the existing market for my idea. Needless to say neither of those sits in some dormant white space awaiting your presence.

You either create white space by elbowing some asshats out of your way or simply walk through the front door of the homes of others and steal all their shit <that was a metaphor … you do not really do that>. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try and be different or offer some unique aspects <if you can> but more often than not it is all about being sure you are distinct, be relentlessly persistent in communicating your distinctness and offer something that delivers value after it is purchased.

Uhm. No trite soundbites there and I have pretty much told you everything you need to know. Ponder.

• People who want to help <but you shouldn’t let them>:

Help is always available. And self proclaimed ‘disruptive/innovative’ help almost even more so. Pick a topic and go online. I can almost guarantee you will get over a million results <you actually get 31.8 million in .59 seconds> of people discussing “disruptive” ideas to facilitate progress. Many of those people are for hire. The majority are smart, articulate and have boundless energy, uhm, for their version of progress.

Finding people who assist in forwarding the progress of your idea is, frankly, not easy <although it seems like it should be>. Even more difficult is incorporating change agents or what we far too often call disrupters. It is challenging … tempting for sure … but challenging.

Soundbite experts will throw out a gazillion people management thoughts on ‘center everyone on the purpose’ and a shitload of ‘horizon direction focus’ thinking, but I gotta tell ya, I can put the biggest fucking beautiful target up on the wall to aim for but if the people I got cannot, and will not, shoot arrows at it — the target is a beautiful piece of art on the wall and nothin’ else. Ponder.

• Deals with reality and creation:

Soundbite advisors spend a shitload of their energy on ‘bringing your idea to life.’ Not a whole shitload of them invest a lot of energy discussing “what do I do once it is actually breathing.” In other words: what the hell do I do with this Frankenstein?

Huh? What experts neglect to tell you is that all that fine planning and smart implementation rarely ends up creating exactly what you intended creating in the beginning. You will naturally adapt to some things and course correct the best you can as you navigate survival <and that dynamic marketplace which doesn’t have any static white space – see my 1st point>.

At its most basic creating is about making some deals, and dealing with, reality as it gets thrown in your face and at your feet <this means you can trip over a shitload of things>. Some people call this “adapting”, I do not, I call it deal making with the world. Maybe think of creating business like striking a nuclear arms-control agreement. Simplistically the deal is the means, not the end itself, and success simply means everyone keeps their nukes they just don’t use them. But the real point is that business is rarely developed with “dealing” central to success. It is more often the idea <which motivates the energy and company/business>. Deals are simply the way you protect the business idea. What soundbite is there for how to navigate the typical business idea of “mutually beneficial transactions?”

There is none.

You deal with dealing one by one the best you can all the while trying to not lose sight of the desired objective <which can be covered in a deep fog on occasion>. Ponder that one a bit longer than the first 2.

Anyway.

The next generation of business leaders deserve experienced people who attempt to explain complexity rather than serve up trite simplistic soundbites which over time simply amount to a steaming pile of bullshit. While I have a bunch of concerns with regard to what we are, and are not, teaching the next generation of business thinkers the one I am mostly concerned with resides in the simplistic shit shared by multimillion dollar business authors and the hundreds of books you can buy which all offer “simplistic advice for business success.”

There is absolutely nothing simple about business. Misrepresenting reality, the business truth, should be called out and chastised even if it is some high falutin’ author of famous business books. We owe it to the next generation of thinkers to teach the complex and not some trite soundbites. That is, as I mentioned earlier, the deal we need to make with the reality of the business future. All that said. I worry we are killing the next generation of business thinkers.

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

obfuscate

This is the word to use when evasion is achieved by clouding the issue.

Creating a smoke-screen.

prevaricate, evade, dodge

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

“When shrouded meanings and grim intentions are nicely polished up and pokerfaced personae are generously palming off their fantasy constructs, caution is the watchword, since rimpling water on the well of truth swiftly obscures our vision and perception.

(“Trompe le pied/wrong foot.”)”

Erik Pevernagie

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

So. There is possibly nothing more aggravating in business than someone not answering “the” question. To be clear on what I am speaking about. The person answers a question just not the one you asked.

I am not going to argue that some questions are not easy to answer. I won’t even argue that we get asked questions we don’t know the answers to, but the situation dictates we make something up <yes … that happens in business>. But abandoning the question completely is complete bullshit.

But you know what?

I think the main reason it is so aggravating is because it is truly a reflection of intentions. There is even a book called The Anthropology of Intentions by a professor, Alessandro Duranti, who kind of tackles this whole discussion of intentions and words. He offers us the thought of ‘intentional discourse’ wherein an individual filters words through their beliefs & desires and their plans & goals to guide the discourse <regardless of whether the rest of the people want it guided that way>. In other words, using another phrase he offers us, by engaging in an intentional continuum people ponder their use of words through self-interest motivations <some good & some bad>.

By the way I am fairly sure I mangled his academic masterpiece, but you get the point.

Ah. “You get the point.” I share that again because while we sit there aggravated at someone who completely avoided answering the question asked we almost always also sit there wanting to invest a little of our own energy trying to assess why they did it. Because, in our aggravated minds, in its most simplistic viewing, avoiding the question is solely about shifting attention – away from something and toward something else.

…………… question deflection …………

Sure. It could be something as simple as steering you away from their lack of knowledge and steering you toward something they may actually know. But, in most cases, a full abandonment of a specific question is complete & utter deflection.

In the intelligence community they call this effort to shift attention as deflection or misdirection. Magicians do something similar getting people to focus on one thing and away from the trick itself. Completely avoiding the question is the business version of a distract-the-audience approach. It is this weird moment in which someone pretends to answer the question by actually answering some other question that magically appeared to replace the question really asked. It’s almost like entering an alternative universe for a while.

Sadly, aggravated or not, the more practiced the deception <the more practiced the business magician is> the more likely you hesitate to step in <and the more you get aggravated as you hesitate> and correspondingly … the more many of these people actually believe deception works.

It is maddening.

Worse? If they are good at it, when someone responds to a question by not addressing the points of the question, thereby avoiding the issue itself, it doesn’t create unrelated discussion to the issue … it simply avoids the issue in totality.

Well. I am fairly sure we have all sat there in a meeting and watched something like this unfolding right before our eyes. The visceral response, the aggravation, we have to this ‘answer evasion’ situation is most likely found in the revelation it is occurring (watching it unfold before our eyes). Philosophically, we can see that through some internal conviction to retain something they feel like they should own <their reputation, their title, their perceived intelligence, their whatever> they justify evading the question.

Conviction. Yeah. I just used ‘internal conviction.’ This means their intentions reflect they are more important than not only the question itself … but you. You are not even dignified with an answer.

It is irksome <at its least worst>.

It is loathsome <at its most worst>.

Look. I give a partial pass to the asshats you can see who have some answer they want to give everyone, regardless of what question is asked, and blurt it out when given the opportunity. They haven’t deflected the question they just ignored it as unimportant to what they want to say and have been planning to say no matter what has been said up to that point. It’s the ones you know heard the question and just ignored it. Or avoided it. Or just didn’t answer it despite the fact they heard every word, every syllable and every intention from the question giver. In other words, they intentionally do not answer the question.

<envision a deep sigh here>

I want people to face questions head on. And what makes this even more aggravating is that you know these people are quite capable of taking things head on.

How do I know that? These are the same people who will attack, or ‘aggressively question’, the intentions of the question giver themselves. It is a common tactic for the answer avoiders. The natural instinct is to ‘defend’; to answer the attack. Fuck that. I want to say “just answer the fucking question asked.”

How else do I know these people are quite capable of taking questions head on? These are the same people who will attack, or ‘aggressively question’, the question itself. This is not a deflection tactic. This is a ‘turn the question back on itself’ tactic. And, once again, your natural instinct is to defend or, well, answer the question you are asked.  Aggravating. I want to say “just answer the fucking question asked, you shithead.”

And maybe what makes this ‘not answering the question asked’ so maddening is that we, most sane pragmatic business people, tend to sit back <after saying “WTF”> and try and unravel why it happened and what the hell just happened. Unless you are in an interview scenario <in which you always have an opportunity, one-to-one, to hunker down and hammer out a clear answer> you are most likely in a room with other people and the non-answer has sent at least some of the people careening down a completely different road.

That makes it even MORE aggravating.

One intentional non answer to a question can completely derail a meeting or a discussion. That is intentional discourse. Or how about the other phrase from that academic’s book: engaging in an intentional continuum.

Oh. One last way you know these asshats are intentionally not answering the question is when they cleverly decline to answer the question with the infamous head fake answer: “I don’t know the answer to that question. I’ll work on finding the information for you and then get back to you with an answer” <and they have no intention of ever getting back to you>.

Yeah. You know … sure as shit … they have no plans to work on it and will never ‘get back to you’ unless you call them on it. They are intentionally refusing to answer the question assuming the conversation will move on and, in a laundry list of other shit to do, that this one will either never make the list or be so low on the list they can stiff arm you on answering based on “working on things more important.”

Its bullshit. You know its bullshit. They know its bullshit.

Well.

Fuck you.

Fuck you and the non-answering horse you rode in on.

In my mind a good well-articulated question demands some accountability. The one given the question is now accountable for the answer. They may try and deflect and they may just answer a completely different question, but a question asked exists, it does not disappear. You cannot get away from it.

Let me share a graphic example of why accountability remains whether the question dodger likes it or not.

You open your front door in the morning and there is a nice pile of dog shit squarely in the middle of your front door opening. You either clean it up or you avoid it. The question dodger never acknowledges the pile and steps over it moving on to something else. The shit stays at the front door and over time the smell increases and the flies crowd around. A good question unanswered is just like that. And a question dodger cannot avoid the smell in the end.

All that said. My message to the asshats who completely do not answer the question asked:  You will be accountable to the question and to cleaning up the mess … now … or later <and quit aggravating me by not answering the question, you shithead>.

====

Author note:

When I reread this, which took me less than a ½ hour to write, I was a little surprised by how … well … aggravated the tone was.

Some ‘fucks’ and ‘asshats’.

I left it as is because as a 50something business guy who has always attempted to take on what needs to be taken on regardless of how painful it may have been <and career wise possibly less than prudent> I get a little angry about how the business world has become incredibly unkind to the risk takers & truth tellers and seems to reward the less-than-competent and ‘political maneuverers’ more often than it should. That’s my excuse for why I let this one stand as it does.

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

———————

Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship.

James Russell Lowell

———————-

“I would rather die right then live wrong.”

———————–

“Winners win.” This is a popular theme across LinkedIn, twitter and, well, social media in general. Every time it pops up at the end of some thought I cringe. Not all of those who win are created equal. Shitbags win, too. Which leads me to say not all who win really ‘winners.’

In fact. It is a self-evident phrase, a backwards looking results phrase, which emits a slightly odious taint:

• • A caste system: where winners rule over losers

  • A system of winning: an emphasis on being a winner tends to beget a ‘win at all cost’ mentality

  • An implied system: anything other than winning is of less value (it could have some value but never as much as a win) and anyone who wins has something that a loser does not have (it doesn’t have to be good, just something)

Let me begin with winning is a finite game pursuit – someone wins, someone loses. Bluntly, the only way to win is to end something and in that end, one arises as alive and another, or others, lie dead in the winner’s wake.  This has a number of problems but from a people perspective, with business outcome perspective, the visionaries, long term strategists or ‘future proof’ performers tend to be Infinite players. Infinite players do not seek wins, they seek progress, new beginnings and new iterations. In fact. They create games for winners to win. I begin with that thought with an understanding that most of the world, and business, operates in a zero-sum game universe where we compete for wins, victories and what would be taken away from us if we didn’t approach it this way.

Regardless.

Let’s talk about winning.

Let me begin with Roberto Duran – “a loser.”

 

“No mas, no mas,” Roberto told the referee.

“No more box.”

And he walked to his corner.

 

Now. As a boxer Roberto Duran was known as an intense warrior in the ring. His nickname was Hands of Stone <Manos de Piedra>. He was the lightweight champ and had lost only one decision in 72 bouts <or something close to that>. It was said that he never thought he could ever lose. And, yet, in possibly the biggest fight in his career, he walked away, he ‘quit’. A big check in the win/loss column <on a number of levels>.

But.

Here’s the deal.

“No mas” didn’t mean ‘I quit.’ It just meant ‘fuck this.’ It was purely a comment made in disgust.

Yup.

Duran wasn’t hurt. He was disgusted.

Once Duran realized Leonard wouldn’t play ‘quien es mas macho’ he just walked away. Winning, if he couldn’t fight the way he thought a fight should be fought … well … it just wasn’t a fight to him.

Was he right or wrong?

Shit. I do not know.

In his head he was right.

In many other people’s heads? He was wrong – it made him a quitter in their eyes, you know, “winners win” no matter what.

But maybe it’s not as simple as that. Maybe this is all about winning the way you want to win. Remember his words: “Getting hit motivates me. It makes me punish the guy more. A fighter takes a punch, hits back with three punches.” Look. Duran was the champ. He probably was smart enough to figure out a way to win the way Sugar Ray was fighting the fight <which wasn’t fighting that evening, it was avoiding>, but that wasn’t the win he wanted.

He wanted to know who the best fighter was.

He wanted to be hit and see if he could take it.

He wanted to see if Sugar Ray could take his best hits.

When Sugar Ray decided he wasn’t going to allow that to happen Duran just said ‘not only do I not want to play this game but I don’t want to win this way.’ In other words: “no mas.”

To be clear. Other people who think winning is all that matters will think he was full of shit and I am full of shit. It doesn’t really matter because, well, that’s my point.

My point is we will all, at some point, have to make this same type of decision – in sports, in Life, in relationships, in business. We all have to decide how important how we win is to us.

How you win, or play the game, is a very personal decision. It really ends up being your choice with regard to your attitude <which ultimately influences your own behavior … even when that behavior is within a group or business organization>.

Conversely, when it isn’t your choice how to play <i.e., someone else is dictating how you play> and you really do not want to play that way, well, there is trouble <in River City my friends>.

Ok. Please note I am going to make some generalizations soon to make some points and I fully understand there are degrees within each generalization.

Regardless. Let’s say there are three types of wins and winners:

–          A ‘whatever it takes to win’ win

–          An intellectual win

–          An ability win

And while this is probably relevant to Life, in general, as well as sports <obviously> and personal, I am going to discuss this idea in a business environment. 

Why? Because I tend to believe this is one of the most difficult attitude & behavior decisions someone has to make in business. Organizations ask, and demand, many things of you and you have to reconcile all of it with your own attitude and inevitably your actions <behavior>.

As a junior person this is very difficult to manage, but my suggestion is that you get things set <with the best knowledge you have> in your own head and then look to the leaders behavior. Watch the senior people and how they treat going after a win, the process in win decision making and then how they define & evaluate the win.

Make sure it matches up with what you have decided attitudinally.

If you do not, you run the risk of being constantly put in positions where you do not like what you are not only being asked to do, but what you are doing.

Senior business people have no excuses.

No if, ands or buts. How they win defines them as a business person.

All I can say to them is accept it <whichever type you are> and know that others may view ‘winning’ in a different way.

The only point I have to really make to leaders is that once you accept how you go after a win then begin recruiting people who think as you do. If you do not, then you will be forcing your attitudes & behavior upon others who probably do not want to, let alone like to, do it that way. And I can also promise you when it comes to evaluation time, as a leader, you will be continuously disappointed in their performance.

** note: I am aware that this advice, on occasion, breeds some fairly toxic business cultures but I would suggest that this keeps the ‘win at all cost people’ in their own pasture so that the other types of winners can foster their own business cultures. In addition, it is my personal belief that, in the end, the ‘win at all cost people’ will lose to the others.

Anyway.

The three wins <my perspective> and how they are different aspects of ‘adept, adapt & adopt.”

A whatever it takes to win.

I actually refer to this as an empty win. This is typically the type of win done by someone who says afterwards “all that matters is the result” or “it’s not the journey it is the destination” or “winning is everything.” It is empty because the person runs a very large risk that how you actually got to the win is ignored and everything gets measured <in their personal character measurement> on a scorecard.

I admit. I don’t like these types of wins.

But there is a personality type out there, and some very successful people, who take pride in how many checks are in the win column and could care less how they got to them.

To these people all wins are quality wins because, well, it is a win.

Typically, really competitive people fall into this group.

I call this “adept” winning. You compete because you are adept at reading what it takes to win and doing it.

“Competition brings out the best in products and the worst in people.”

This person isn’t adapting because they understand winning is about lining up the necessary variables each time. So, they aren’t adapting, but rather simply building each time to win. And they aren’t adopting anything because while some things can be reused it is mostly one time usage, transactional, winning. These types of winners are very difficult to replicate through training. And these types of winners have to be very careful in how far they will go to win.

They have bigger boundaries of accepted behavior because of the adept attitude and because of that they can stray to the boundary margins of character, laws, principles and dignity. 

But it is the win numbers in this group that is most satisfying.

Just to put things into perspective. Out of all three groups I have listed this one probably will chalk up the most quantity of wins in the end.

The intellectual win.

You truly outsmart someone <or outsmart the problem or situation>. You out think or tear apart the challenge in such an innovative way that your competition can just look afterwards and say … “wow … that was smart.” Heck. It doesn’t even have to be innovative. It could simply be effective navigation of a complex system and dynamic situation. This is as good as a physical <ability> win, but unfortunately many people do not evaluate it that way.

In fact many of the intellectual winners kind of wish they had some other tangible contribution because thinking is intangible.

This type of winning is ‘adapt & adopt” winning. You compete by adapting your thinking to the situation and adopting new ideas/thinking <it’s a contextual win>.

These types of winners I tend to believe are just born this way. Yes. Some aspects can be trained, but these types of winners just seem to have an innate ability to see things, have excellent situational awareness skills, assess what matters versus what doesn’t matter and assimilate the “what matters” information into either unique, or refreshingly different, useful ideas and thoughts. 

This is a very satisfying win because you out thought someone AND the situation.

An ability win.

This is ‘mano y mano.’ You bring your best and I will bring my best and let the best win.

Here is the deal. Sometimes your best isn’t the better. And you lose. Oh. But what a loss. 

This one is near & dear to my heart.

I admit that I got really really lucky early in my career in that I was encouraged to go for this kind of ‘no frills’ winning and use losses to make my best better so that each consecutive ‘game’ I was able to stay true to what I was good at and it got better and better. Maybe it was partially I was stubborn on my definition of best or maybe I figured out what I was good at <even if it wasn’t the best of the best … just good while still being my personal best> early on and figured that if this was what I was good at, well, then I would only rise as high as my ‘best’ would take me. To be clear. As I pointed out in the ‘whatever it takes’ win, I imagine my win scorecard would be less full than theirs. They, I imagine, have a higher quantity of wins.

Anyway. This type of continuous winning is “adopt & adapt” winning. You compete … learn … adopt some new skills <skill level or new skill> and then adapt within your existing skill set to the next challenge. This means your muscle group gets stronger and stronger. This type of win is extremely satisfying. I also envision this group has the lowest actual total wins. They are the highest quality wins just not a shitload of them.

Well. 

I would argue that is the real differentiator in quality wins, how good you really are. And I guess that is going to be my point having used one of the best boxers of all time. He was one of the best.

“Manos de Piedra”, is true, Hands of Stone. Every punch, and I’m not exaggerating, every punch that he hit me with, from the body to the head, felt like bricks, stone, rocks”.

Sugar Ray Leonard

And not all of us are of that level of ‘best.’ In fact, not many people are. So, you have to figure what is most important to you in the win.

The numbers?

The intellectual win?

The ability win?

Choose and embrace that is what makes you … well … you … in the business world.

Know when to say “no mas.”

Know when to say ‘fuck this.’

Know that ‘winners win’ is bullshit.

Look.

Do I give Sugar Ray credit for figuring out how to win by avoiding the Hands of Stone? Sure.

Would I have done it that way? Nope <and I probably would have lost>.

Do I give Duran credit for just saying ‘no mas’ after 8 frustrating rounds? Yup.

He was the champ. He cared more about how he won the championship than the championship itself.

Now that, my friends, is a lesson that many of us should take to heart in business.

Figure out what you want, and how you want to do it, and find your place in the business world doing it because, in the end, your wins will define what type of winner you are.

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

“Our souls, which are only now beginning to awaken after the long reign of materialism, harbor seeds of desperation, unbelief, lack of purpose. The whole nightmare of the materialistic attitude, which has turned the life of the universe into a purposeless game, is not yet over. And yet, a weak light glimmers, like a tiny point in an enormous circle of blackness ….”

Vassily Kandinsky in 1912

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

Today I speak of soul, purpose, life and business and in doing so I am totally going to misuse this quote which was written about art. This quote spoke to me in a way that explained the sense of desperation I sometimes hear people speak of when speaking of today’s world. And how they speak about their belief that too many in society think that being materialistic and greed is the prevalent sense of ‘being’ throughout society, business and the world.

I don’t really believe people think that way. Or, maybe better said, is I do not believe people want to think that way. I believe the majority of people simply act in a materialistic mode because they sense there is there no other path available, i.e., if they don’t the other guy will and they will get left behind and not get their ‘fair share’ of whatever the prize appears to be.

Let’s call it materialism survival mode in a zero sum game world.

Therefore, the desperation I am talking about is truly a derivative of knowing that there is actually something is better. An understanding that materialism is a path with no real destination, in other words, as soon as you have what you have you want more <sociology calls this “hedonistic adaptation“>.

We want better <most of us> than this. Better just doesn’t seem so attainable these days.

In addition. In this sense of desperation <I wrote “who will stop the madness?”> I admit that I don’t hear people using words like ‘weak light glimmering.’ They just see darkness and madness in the world,

Me?

I see it. I see the weak light glimmering.

I see it in people themselves <in how I described where I believe the desperation evolves from>.

I see it as a generational “thing” <as in ‘turnings’ described by Strauss & Howe and cyclical attitudes and behaviors over generations, i.e., we have been here before attitudinally>.

I see it, most importantly, as the evolution of capitalism <which is the basic economic model for materialism — although we should all note that ‘materialism ‘ is a human attitude & behavior wrought from within and not from without>.

Anyway. The capitalism evolution is neither good nor bad  simply an evolution and what is occurring is the natural friction that occurs during evolution <please note: I do not see this as ‘revolution’>. I could also note that there is natural friction that occurs in any change just that when an entire economic model creates friction it has some larger repercussions.

My belief in this arc of Captalism evolution to grounded in Schumpeter thoughts. If you read Schumpeter it can possibly explain why there is a sense of desperation or maybe a sense of uneasiness and why it is natural to feel this way.

According to Schumpeter there is a natural process of creative destruction  within capitalism based on the affect the “cultural contradictions of capitalism” have:

–          The Process of Creative Destruction.

I)  Capitalism cannot be stationary. It revolutionizes the economic structure “from within”, destroying what went before through a process of competition that affects costs as much as quality. Creativity in consumer goods, methods of transport, of production, systems of organization, search for markets and technology. It is a process that undermines traditional supports existing at a given moment, weakening its own system. Moreover, capitalism devitalizes the idea of “property” <the existence of great and small shareholders>.

*** note: He is simply saying that capitalism inevitably empowers anyone anywhere to build something … and as that is built something has to be destroyed <or replaced> to accommodate it. Capitalism encourages individual thinking and ideation and business building. Interestingly … it is actually anti-establishment and anti-‘maintaining the norm.’ There is no normal in capitalism beyond its ongoing self destruction and reincarnation.

–          II)  Rationality. Capitalism encourages rationality in behaviour. Rationality involves, on the one hand, the “maximization” of particular interests of individuals and groups, the use of the instrumental means in a coherent form, and in the same way a series of readaptations empirically controlled by a procedure of flawed -testing. On the other hand, rationalization rushes into both private life and cultural forms. Consumption wins against accumulation, diminishing the desirability of incomes above a certain level. At the same time, however, when the breaks of certain values associated with ethical or religious tradition fail (the sophrosyne), irrational components of behavior that are critical for capitalism emerge and cannot be refuted with rational arguments, especially when based on long term considerations.

*** Note: Capitalism is a constant struggle between the rational <let’s say ‘profit & dollars & cents’ in this case> and the irrational <let’s call this the human Maslow ‘feel good’ intangible in this case> within people. It is interesting to note he suggests that money is a means to an end. In other words … you could earn a dollar a year and save only a dollar a year and be okay with that if you could consume <buy, eat, live to what you desire> whatever you wanted and needed. Regardless.  This constant struggle occurs and when it is perceived to be out of balance there will be friction as compromise is debated <and neither side wants to let go of what they have or what they think – which are often inevitably linked>.

III)   The Obsolescence of the Entrepreneurial Function. Increasing difficulties for the classical function of management. Increasing importance of specialized groups. The context, moreover, has been accustomed to change and each time a greater number of factors are calculable. The success of business ends up in removing the owners.

*** Note: He is not suggesting that entrepreneurship or small business becomes obsolete in capitalism. What he is saying is that capitalism inherently makes good small businesses into big businesses and as that happens they lose the ‘entrepreneurial function.’ In other words …. Capitalism encourages small to become big and in doing so they destroy what made them successful in the first place <and inevitably they are ‘destructed’ either from within or from without – by small business that destroys them>.

–          IV) Protecting Strata. In the modern era there was a symbiosis between the nobility and the productive sectors. The former occupied the State organization, guided political decisions and supplied officials for the army (the bourgeoisie was only sometimes in charge of local administration). It was a sector that survived the social and technical conditions that produced it. In conclusion: the bourgeoisie is politically defenseless without the protection of non-bourgeoisie sectors, but capitalism, however, encourages the breaking up of the precapitalist framework of society.

*** Note: Capitalism is most effective with a strong middle class and not a massive gap between the haves and have nots. Effective capitalistic societies will strive to reset when the gap is to large and there will be inevitable conflict/friction when this occurs.

–          V)   Intellectuals. Characterized as those who exercise the power of the spoken and written word, they are used to not having any direct responsibility in practical matters and thus, they lack a direct knowledge of experience. They encourage self-conceived attitudes as “critical”, more from a logic of opposition, we could say, than from a logic of government. There exists a parallel between education and the scale of moral values in the intellectual sectors and the administrative or bureaucratic sectors against the values and technical criteria of the economic system as it operates.

*** Note: I find it interesting that while Schumpeter is NOT discussing governmental structures <democracy, republic, socialism, communism> he gets right to the core of the issue in that inevitably officials who make decisions for the everyday person are most often not the everyday person nor do they think like the everyday person. Therefore the economic system may be operating at odds to what they believe is the right thing to do.

There you go. Schumpeter uses these five arguments to discuss the process of what he calls ‘the self-destruction of capitalism.’ Now. Self-destruction is not suggesting capitalism destructs as in ‘ends’ … but rather  that in its ongoing self destruction <or crisis in Hegelian terms> it recreates itself <synthesis> into something new.

Heck. Now that I have written all this I can see why there is so much angst in the world today. I can even see why the business world is talking about “intrapreneurship” <having large companies seek small company attitudes & innovations>, distributed leadership models and, most importantly, Purpose & meaning into work.

Regardless of whether this is evolution or it is a ‘natural conflict’ or not. Conflict is conflict. It is friction. And in this time and place it is friction upon friction.

Not only is the entire system being reshaped <as it is cracked and put back together again>, but the generational attitude infrastructure is also in conflict <of which Capitalism has been a catalyst for attitudes & beliefs>.

In the end.

Why are so many of us feeling uneasy, maybe even harboring some thread of desperation in what we see in the world today?

‘Our souls, which are only now beginning to awaken after the long reign of materialism, harbor seeds of desperation, unbelief, lack of purpose …’

Maybe our souls are simply awakening. Gee. That may feel like desperation but, well, who wouldn’t see a glimmer of light in that thinking?

===

“Let your hopes, not your hurts, shape your future.”

Robert H. Schuller

===

Well. Happy Easter <if you celebrate it> tomorrow.

By no stretch of the imagination am I religious, however, I think it is silly to simply regard religion & religious believers as ‘followers of fantasy. Faith, in and of itself, is a strong complex concept. Inevitably a strong faith is grounded in two things – faith in oneself and faith in some external beliefs <be they something specific , like God or Allah, or something less tangible, like morals & an ethical compass – all of which can also be intertwined>. I say the two things because just faith in oneself is … well … narcissistic, and, just faith in something external … well … most likely absolves you of any self will or individual thought.

Anyway.

My apologies to my religious friends because I tend to believe I am going to bastardize the true concept of Easter to make a couple of points.

If you want to be successful in business, you learn very quickly the balance between confidence & humility as well as understand its affect on uniting & dividing.

All you need to do is to change jobs once in your career and face a new organization and new community of employees as a stranger that you need to earn trust & confidence & respect  & ‘likeability’ <assuming that last one is important to you>.

You need to prove your competence and trustworthiness and ability to work within a team <or manage a team>, therefore, you must demonstrate dedication and commitment to hard work and some empathy toward the existing community of workers & working and the way things are done.

Trust precedes any change. And that includes progress & outcomes. Trust is typically slow to build and it seems like a ceaseless struggle especially if you truly are trustworthy and have the best intentions.

Now.

Humility can be a tricky word.

Tricky in that in some case it can connote some meekness or ‘lack of leadership skills.’ But it can also refer to a willingness to self assess, recognize self limitations, recognize gaps in knowledge, recognize that ideas can come from anywhere and anyone and an ability to recognize good advice.

Humility, when genuine and when tied to a good self esteem & confidence in one’s beliefs & skills, unites. It unites people to a way of doing things and a way of thinking about things. Most importantly, it doesn’t dictate specifics but rather establishes a framework for accepted protocol. If you are in a leader position assuming a new position in a new organization this is the true way to impact existing behavior & attitudes.

And you know what?

That is what Easter reminds me of.

We are all shaped by the cultures in which we were raised. And change is difficult. And, yet, change is our constant companion. The other constant companion we have is unrest somewhere in the world at any time. The world, heck, the universe, is never totally calm.

Far too often we bluster our way thru change and transition & unrest trying to convince everyone we not only know what the hell we are doing, but also we know where the hell we are going and that we know where the hell a ‘calm place’ resides.

** note: we don’t.

The fact we really don’t know what the hell we are doing or even where the hell a calm place is creates a general fear of failing or not being good enough <in the moment or in totality> which makes us say and do things we may not really want to say or do in our heart of hearts.

It is only being centered on humility which permits us to forge thru the change & transition ceaselessly and arrive out the other side not only better, but having made those around us better — and while there is no guarantee of ‘no unrest or turmoil’ we all end up a little better able to face it.

Humility permitted Jesus Christ to unite people behind an idea and a way of doing things and saying things.

And he did so by never standing at a podium and boasting about his beliefs, he didn’t do this by making non-believers the enemy or suggesting anyone should be shut out <in fact he welcomed non-believers to hear his message in the hope they would … well … believe>, he never sought endorsements, he never built an election headquarters, he never solicited an endorsement, he spent more time among the working people than anyone else and he explained ideas that were complex and simple at exactly the same time.

This Easter?

Almost 1/3^rd of the world’s population will gather somewhere to remember not only the person called Jesus, but ponder the words & thoughts.

Portions of the other 2/3^rd will look on and think “I don’t believe in this resurrection thing … but … I do wish I had some sense of what those people have and I like the hope aspect.”

That is the power of humility.

That is the power of building change not thru violence or bombastic rhetoric or even false promises, but rather thru words & thoughts of love, caring and hope.

Look. I get grumpy with the people who say that “today’s world demands you to shout to be heard & noticed.”

That’s bullshit.

A voice that has something meaningful to say will be heard whether it is whispered, written or done in sign language.

I would also suggest that “hope” need not be shouted for, even when whispered, it echoes throughout every corner of the world.

Hope unites any and all.

And I know I learned that from changing jobs.

People do not want for kings or people to simply tell them what to do or who to hate or even where to hide <or how to shut out ‘those driven to destroy us’>.

People want one who believes ‘people don’t want to destroy us … they just do not understand our way, our words and our beliefs’ all the while protecting us, all people, along the way.

People want one who protects my freedom and my rights.

People want one who doesn’t sacrifice morals under the guise of ‘it is good for us to do so’ or ‘we have to in order to be successful.’

People want one who believes in my dreams, defends my dreams and doesn’t permit my dreams to slip down the slope of mediocrity.

People want one who creates an environment for me to rise, stand or fall on my own merit all the while not blaming anyone, and not permitting me to blame anyone, should I fall and equally insure I have a fair chance to receive what is due me for my successes.

People want one who is inclusive not exclusive and one who unites and not divides.

I know I learned all that by assuming a leadership title in a new organization <and having to earn the leadership mantle to match the title>.

Maybe if I were more religious I wouldn’t have had to learn it that way.

Maybe that is part of what Easter does for me. It reminds me of great lessons and lessons learned in a variety of ways.

And maybe Easter also reminds me that Hope & Faith never truly dies.

Change, and big transitions, can often look like the death of something … and, yet, in the end … something new is never really born … something, more often than not, is simply reborn.

And maybe, just maybe, that is why we should let our Hopes and not our hurts define our future.

Ok.

Once again.

I apologize to my religious friends because I would be willing to bet I got a shitload wrong from a religion standpoint. But, in my defense, I think Easter made me think about some important things and share some thoughtful thoughts and I hope that is part of what God would hope for everyone.

This Easter just take a moment and think a bit. Even if you don’t believe in Christianity, just think.