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

fearlessly-fiona:

“I’m an adult” I whisper as I try not to panic while I’m filling in all those forms that I don’t understand.

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

“Liminal” means “relating to a transitional stage” or “occupying a position at both sides of a boundary.”

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

Ok.

First. Liminal spaces are real spaces.

Liminal spaces are throughways from one space to the next. Places like rest stops, stairwells, trains, parking lots, waiting rooms, airports feel weird when you’re in them because their existence is not about themselves, but the things before and after them. They have no definitive place outside of their relationship to the spaces you are coming from and going to. Reality feels altered here because we’re not really supposed to be in them for a long time for think about them as their own entities, and when we do they seem odd and out of place.

Second. I plan on discussing liminal spaces as intangible mental spaces.

If you feel that you are anxiously floating in the inbetween perhaps you are in The Liminal Space. The word “liminal” comes from the Latin word limens, which means, “threshold.”

“… it is when you have left the tried and true, but have not yet been able to replace it with anything else.

Okay.

Mentally this in-between is a space in which we have lost context and, uhm, uh oh, our brains love context <and hate lack of context>. This ‘hate’ translates into discomfort, maybe some anxiety and absolutely an innate mental desire to get the hell out of that space and into some space where we can reengage some context.

Rationally we know these spaces are irrational and we can mentally stifle the anxiety … for a while. Because no matter how good we are at stifling it there will always be an underlying sense of uneasiness. In business you either figure out how to manage the anxiety or you are never gonna make it in the business world.

Why? Because a career is riddled with these moments and spaces.

All that said.

I think we, as people, enter liminal spaces in our heads all the time. I don’t mean every minute I just mean on a fairly consistent basis we lose some context and enter into some wretched mental in-between space where, well, we feel uncomfortable. We feel uncomfortable because we are mentally in some transition space from which we cannot envision what will be there <outside this wretched space> when we actually find the exit we can leave the space by.

Yeah.

Unfortunately, while we seek an exit to get out of the liminal space we also feel uncomfortable because <insert a ‘shit’ here mentally> the next step may actually place us into a tangible “unknown” place.

Not only does that suck, but we do not like that it sucks. It is a weird combination of tangible and intangible and  shitload of unknown.

It feels tangible as in you walk in some blank-ish vanilla type room and actually exit by some door which appear at some point. That part we may not like but we can semi-understand.

And, yet, at the same time this space is truly 100% intangible <lacking context> which creates a sense of instability and warped perception space. I imagine a lot of people flail about a bit in this space trying to not only find context or something tangible to hold onto, but also a frickin’ door to get out of this wretched liminal space. All the while we flail about in a space which naturally encourages some confusion and a lot of “things seem off” feelings. I would argue part of our angst is we seek some one-dimensionality in this space. What i mean by that is our natural inclination is to seek some linear path <this & that> to get us from what feels like it should be “here to there.” But the truth is liminal spaces, in their vastness, are multidimensional spaces in which the really important doors open up not on some simplistic one-dimensional pathway but rather as a combination of dimensional fragments put together in some way that unlocks an unseen door.

Which leads me to ‘Worse’. It not only feels wrong, but feels like something is going to go wrong. You cannot really put your finger on it <although most of us try desperately to try to put a finger on something> and it increases anxiety.

Sometimes that anxiety is high and sometimes it is just a bothersome niggling in the head, but it is anxiety nonetheless <and it is uncomfortable>. The anxiety occurs because reality is not really being altered, but it appears slightly warped. It is kind of like looking through an imperfect piece of glass – where things can look a little fuzzy or odd. Its kind of like time has warped a little and you are coming and going at the exact same time where in the blur of the transition your brain is suggesting “this is not good … this is not normal” and you desperately want to move on, but cannot find that frickin’ exit.

All that sounds horrible.

Oh. And it sounds particularly horrible if we are talking about the business world. The fact is that business people are more often than not judged on how well, and how quickly, they can navigate the mental liminal space.  We, in business, don’t really talk about it much but a lot of the shit we do is transitioning from the known to some version of known/unknown. That’s kind of what managers and leaders do. And it is certainly a main component of shifting from a young less-responsible employee to an older more experienced responsible employee/manager. Heck. Its change management 101.

Along the way the stepping stones are actually lily pads with differing expanses, dimensions & depths of water in between. You either navigate the transitions or drown in the liminal space.

Oh. And, yet, liminal spaces are also throughways to places of the imagination – kind of the construction sites of “what will be.”

We like that kind of shit. That’s ‘future’ and ‘hope of something better’ type stuff.

That thought helps us out a little. It helps because this isn’t the kind of stuff that gives any tangible context, but it does give us some fortitude to get through this space.

Anyway.

I admit. I love the whole concept of a liminal space and I do believe if more people not only learned to manage the anxiety & angst of a liminal space AND embraced the fact it was a valuable transitional space … well … we would be much more efficient & effective in business and in Life in gaining the more valuable “what could be’s” — which are what we all live for anyway.

Ponder.

===========

“For our own success to be real, it must contribute to the success of others.”

–

Eleanor Roosevelt

======

“The way to achieve your own success is to be willing to help somebody else get it first.”

Iyanla Vanzant

=========

Business, as businesses should, think about how to improve their business. The good ones balance effectiveness and efficiency, the poor ones triple down on efficiency. But. 95% (I made that # up) of businesses focus on customers, service, process, systems and “best practices” — in their pursuit of efficiency (with head nods to effectiveness). This means 95% typically think of people as interchangeable pieces who can deliver all the service, process and outputs. All the systems are designed to ‘output’ and people simply make the systems ‘go.’

I would argue this is at the root of why organizations begrudgingly train employees. I would argue this is not only a bad ‘grudge’ if you really want to improve your business, but it is also stupid.

I always made a promise to anyone who ever worked for me – “if you ever leave this job I promise you will be well prepared to do well at your next job.” I’m not sure I was particularly good at preparing people for life, but I always said if you had a title/job responsibility with me you would be able to do that title/job responsibility wherever you went.

3 reasons:

• I knew people outgrew jobs & organizations and often organizations sucked at meeting peoples ‘grow’ needs. In other words, there is an incredibly high likelihood a current employee would become an ex-employee. I felt a responsibility to prepare them for their next job believing I/we would benefit for as long as they stayed where they were.
• Word of mouth is the most powerful recruiter. If you give, you get. The more people I sent out to build successful careers of their own, the more people recommended new employees to me or past co-workers sent people to me.
• I didn’t care about training per se, I cared about preparation to do jobs well. That may sound like semantics, but I think its important semantics. I believe businesses get hung up on “training people and receiving benefit.” And they may be right because, if you view training as simply training, you will most likely will not reap any meaningful benefits. On the other hand. If you look at maximizing an individual and enabling someone to do their job well, you will not only build individual strengths & potential, but also receive the direct benefit of them doing the job well. Choose wisely.

Regardless of your own view on this topic, the bottom line is a decision to invest in a person. Not some nebulous, often vapid, “invest in your people”, but rather ‘a person.’

I, honestly, can’t figure out why this is so difficult for businesses to grasp.

Is it lack of trust in people?

Is it a leadership ego thing?

Is it simply a misunderstanding of culture as a ‘we’ thing .. that you can enable & empower individuals and still be a ‘we’ culture?

I don’t know, but I do know any lasting change or effect in a business is not organizational or on systems or even on some broader cultural narrative. People leave, therefore, if your modus operandi is to enforce or impose (this includes ‘best practices’) systems, I can guarantee you that enforcing or imposing is not motivating nor long term effective (nor even optimizing short term effectiveness).

Truly lasting change & organization effect is within people themselves. Effectiveness is emergent. And because it is emergent it is something they not only embody when within the business, but also take with them outside the business (in life, family, community and other jobs). Therefore. To effectively lead people you actually need to view people beyond the limits of the organizational boundaries. This may sound odd, even inefficient. Its not. It doesn’t ignore the job that existing responsibilities demand, but it also enables individual potential to cross and bridge normal divides & barriers. Or, as Peter Drucker said, ‘business is of the community and the community is of the business.” And that is where true benefits reside. We far too often discuss ‘getting out of your comfort zone’ when instead we should suggest there is no zone or even if there is you should just push out on the limits and boundaries and give people the freedom to grow (and the business will grow). When a person is engaged as part of who & what they are they have the ability to engage to their fullest potential.

“Why do you, or they, or anyone get to determine my limits?”

Veronica Roth

Simplistically this is investing in people, not an organization. This leads me to the eternal question in business: “why train employees (people) if all they are going to do is leave? (and someone else will benefit by my investment).”

This is a valid, and important, topic.

At its core is, well, business’s decision to make business better. It’s like believing if you plant healthy seeds they will bloom here, there and everywhere and the entire forest grows.

Believing this demands we view a business in a non traditional way – you don’t ‘push down’ beliefs, behavior, responsibilities, etc. because, honestly, any time anything is ‘pushed down’ the world shudders to a halt as the people who are actually doing the work take the round peg senior leadership has created and try to figure out how to put it in the square hole of reality. In order to do so, most times, instead of convincing leadership they actually need a square peg, the teams design a mish mash version of a round peg that will fit into the square hole.

“In our consumer culture, we are encouraged to assume roles that aren’t truly authentic to who we are. In a way, this culture is its own kind of simulation, one that requires us to make more and more purchases to maintain the integrity of the illusion.”

Stowe Boyd

To be clear. I am not suggesting a ‘bossless’ organization. And while I do believe business has become more complex than in the past, I have always believed maximizing an individual maximizes the business. What was true then is exponentially true as business becomes more complex.

Stowe Boyd said “We’re in a time of rapidly expanding insights about human motivation and connection, but meanwhile our companies continue to be run with a perspective on human psychology and sociology circa 1970.” I slightly disagree. While, as a generalization, it may be true, I would suggest some people have always known this is the best way to maximize an organization — its just that leadership doesn’t trust it to be done that way.

Of course I believe discussing new organizational models is important and, in some cases, a business should have a new business model. But at the core of any organizational discussion it really isn’t about models but rather “how do you think about individuals?”

Because until you answer that question autonomy, empowerment, self management, is all irrelevant. If you do not believe in people, than you do believe in control. Period. Full stop.

If you do believe in people, than you will stop talking about leaders, and what makes great leaders, but instead talk about resource management – how can we get the proper resources into the proper hands at the proper times to maximize each individual and group of individuals.

This expands the business by expanding the individual. Therefore leadership isn’t about direction or control, but rather managing/optimizing expansion. Ponder.

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

“liberty, equality, fraternity.“

——-

 “liberty and justice for all.”

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

So. I just spoke with a good friend in France and we ended up discussing politics. Ok. Not politics, per se, but rather how politics is conducted and how the ones trying to get elected tell everyone not to be confused on the issues … then proceed to tell everyone shit that confuses the real issues <and us> … and then people who are, in general, confused about what the people they are voting for really stand on some issues as they duel each other with tactics <but smear each other with overarching lies>. 

That is par for the course in every election these days.

Someone can be called racist … and they are not.

Someone can be claimed to “let anyone across the border” and they have no plans to do that.

Someone can be called a liar … and they actually stretch the truth less than the one making the claim.

Someone can … well … let’s just say … excepting an ardent, focused, few … for the everyday schmuck it can be really quite confusing.

Unfortunately, all the confusion does is mask the truly important decision.

For France it is the doctrine of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity.’

For USA … despite Thomas Jefferson and other’s temptation to head down the same path … we settled on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all.

Yet. It never seems like we talk about this enough.

Politics seem to revolve around what I, as a business person, would call tactics. Immigration, health, jobs, security, etc. Yeah. Important shit, but tactics to meet the objective. And all this talk about the tactics truly seems to confuse us, the voters & citizens, about the overarching objective.

And politicians shamelessly use and stretch the meaning of tactics to morph them into something that the objective demands when, in reality, it does no such thing.

That may be the most heinous thing a politician does these days.

We should almost demand each of them to put up the objective — what the country, the ‘one nation’ <not “under God” … just ‘one nation’> stands for and demand that every time they make some ludicrous claim or offer some distorted thought about past country behavior that they explain to us how it meets the objective. In other words. Tie all the tactics to the grander idea that all the people really believe in.

Uhm. Oh yeah. Just a quick reminder to my American readers on the whole “under God” aside I just offered.

The US founding fathers centered everything, Constitution and Bill of Rights, on one core idea — liberty and justice for all. While some important stuff surrounds that core, they are the trappings of what makes up the core.

I say that because our founding fathers did not write the pledge of allegiance. Nor did the pledge we all stood up and speak in our childhood schoolrooms originally include “under God” <even though the original was created by an ordained minister in 1892>. It was only in the spring of 1954, after US Congress had voted with some controversy, to insert the phrase into the Pledge of Allegiance — partly as a cold war tactic against “godless” communism.

——————–

The original Pledge read as follows:

‘I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ He considered placing the word, ‘equality,’ in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

[ * ‘to’ added in October, 1892 ]

—————–

All Americans should remember that core of the pledge of allegiance is the ‘republic for which it stands,’ which, I could argue, is the concise phrase for One Nation – an ‘’executive summary’ if you will of the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. The pledge unequivocally states that to make that One Nation idea viable we must specify that it is indivisible. This is a word, and a thought, used by Jefferson, other founding fathers, Daniel Webster, Lincoln and almost every visionary leader the country has ever had throughout speeches & writing.

No one should be confused by what the core of the country doctrine is … nor what the Founding Fathers desired … liberty & justice for all … one nation … indivisible.

<and shame on any politician who suggests otherwise>

Anyway. About the only thing I am sure of during an election is that there will be rampant confusion among those who are actually voting and unrelenting adamant fervor of what everyone should not be confused about <tactics>.

As a nation France stands square on the doctrine of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity.’ Until someone comes along and says “no, that’s not right, lets change it to bla bla bla …” that is what makes France ‘One Nation’.

Not baguettes.

Not great coffee.

Not mastering the art of wearing a scarf.

Not even a semi-haughty attitude on occasion.

One nation.

The moment a country ignores that which makes it one and gets confused by what some politician suggests is an important tactic that doesn’t really match up with ‘oneness’ it no longer is a country with a doctrine or a soul. It remains divided by tactics and empty of an objective.

As a business guy. As I read that last sentence, for a business, I hear the tolling of the death knell.

Without oneness a nation is no longer a nation. And a tactic, NO tactic, will never insure oneness … only an idea can.

Outside of America, France is my favorite country in the world. I always think, and wish for them, liberty, honor and lack of confusion … because clarity is the path to oneness.

And be clear … the idea which makes France one is ‘liberty, equality, fraternity.’

And be clear … the idea which makes USA one is liberty and justice for all or, if you would prefer, e pluribus unim (out of many one). Don’t let any tactic or any blowhard promise take your focus off of that. In the end the one thing we should demand of any politician, any leader, is to attain the objective of oneness, of unity, of liberty for all. Absent that we are just talking tactics. And, in business, that’s a fool’s errand and we are not a nation of fools.

=====

“The fate of this man or that man was less than a drop, although it was a sparkling one, in the great blue motion of the sunlit sea.”

—

T. H. White

<The Once and Future King>

====

“The death of one man is a tragedy.

The death of millions is a statistic.”

—

Joseph Stalin

==

Ok. I imagine we have all discussed at one time or another the question:“is what I do going to really matter?”

In a world of billions and countries of hundreds of millions it is fairly easy to fall back to ‘do nothing’ because ‘doing something’ doesn’t matter.

We look around and see all the statistics & research and see … well … an overwhelming ‘nothing.’

Sure.

Sometimes we feel despair and sometimes we wonder why it happens or why someone didn’t do something or, well, why, why, why.

Sometimes we see statistics and say ‘why should I do something?’ because it all feels this is “bigger than I.”

It is hard to see that all of us matter and that everything we do matters and doing something that matters, well, matters.

But it does.

One person can be a tragedy … or a victory.

One persons’ fate … even in an ocean of people … is a drop with ripples.

The fate of One can impact the ultimate fate of many.

I can give you a gazillion examples of how & when this has happened, but I would imagine you have been bludgeoned with those examples so many times your only response is:

–  Not me, not my life

or

–  Someone else will be that one

I have no real words of wisdom to convince you that your fate, the fate of one, not only matters but could actually be the one that matters.

The only words I have are to say ‘it is so.’

While each of us singly seems so small, just a pebble, we are pebbles dropped into the sea of Life from which ripples reach far & wide in places we have yet to see and may never even see.

In addition, as a pebble we are constantly dropping into this metaphorical sea of Life again and again and again.

Moment after moment after moment.

And maybe that is why we so often feel so insignificant. This multi dimensional interconnected somewhat random  interaction with Life in which some ripple effects somewhere & someone we may never even meet can be an overwhelmingly small but big thing to warp our heads around.

Suffice it to say: not all moments matter and yet all moments matter.  That is the maddening thing about Life.

You cannot know if yesterday’s moment mattered <and fate has been impacted> or if this moment matters <and fate has been impacted> or if a moment yet to occur will be the one that matters <and fate has been impacted>.

You cannot know if your fate will matter or if it will matter a lot <tone one person or to many>. All you can do is assume it does and act accordingly. Assume each day stands still in a long moving Life.

——————-

“Here among the thirty thousand days of a long life, a single day stands still.”

Donald Hall

———

The fate of one can be a tragedy or a victory but I imagine I should suggest that if you accept your fate by acting and doing what you believe is right as often as you can the ripples of your fate will impact someone somewhere positively.

I also imagine that is the largest argument for significance of one person and one act.

I also imagine that is the best argument for the fate of One.

—-

“It is an ancient political vehicle, held together by soft soap and hunger and with front-seat drivers and back-seat drivers contradicting each other in a bedlam of voices, shouting “go right” and “go left” at the same time.”

==

Adlai E. Stevenson

———————

Ok. I never knew the origin of the word ‘bedlam’ which is The Hospital of St. Mary of Bethlehem <”bedlam”> in London in the mid late 1800’s. It was an asylum for the insane whose name shrunk in local dialect to Bedlam and eventually entered everyday language to describe chaos and confusion.

Now. I have never been in an asylum, but I sometimes believe a business can be like being in one.

To be clear. Most businesses are not in bedlam. There may be moments of chaos or feeling of bedlam, but they are usually capsules in time within an overall structured environment. The only exceptions may be start ups or young companies which can feel a little like barely corralled bedlam.

But individuals in business? Yes. There are certainly some who carry bedlam with them.

These are the people who hop into the vehicle as a front seat driver and, in a worst case business scenario, find similar back seat drivers and everyone starts espousing business bullshit in a bedlam of voices.

These are the people who actually lead us to actual bedlam.

To be sure, far too often business bedlam is created only because there is one or two people, in positions that matter, that always seem to have a blob of chaos that follows wherever they go.

Interestingly, they very often do so under the guise of simplicity.

Yup. Simplicity creating bedlam <did anyone ever imagine anyone ever writing that?>.

Business Truth 1.

Simple solutions do not, or rarely, exist in business organizations <which tend to be complex>.

Business Truth 2.

Doing one thing, usually stated under the guise of simplicity, does not, or rarely, create the necessary outcome within a complex system.

This simplicity style of management is maddening because successful complex systems tend to locate themselves at the edge of chaos, not in chaos, but on the edge. Therefore this bedlam manager steps in … stands close to the edge … “brings about simplicity” <which they state is needed to resolve whatever it is that is happening> and under the guise of simplicity, well, chaos & bedlam actually occurs. The successful complex organizational system has moved from the edge ultimately shifting directly within chaos. All because of some unrealistic direction of “lets break it down and make it simple for everyone.”

Everything then comes to a crashing grinding halt <albeit it looks like everything is still in movement>. It is just a stagnant blob of unproductive chaotic energy.

Which is too bad because successful systems are NOT simple, they are a complex combination of the semi-chaos, which generates innovation & fresh thinking to keep the system vibrant, dynamic and core structural stability that prevents dropping the organization into pure chaos & anarchy.

I say ‘beware.’

Beware the bastards who create business bedlam. These bastards can often be recognized because they are the ones who seem to state “this is simple” or worse “let’s simplify this to the most important thing to do” when stepping in to an organization’s natural healthy bedlam feel. They wield ‘simple’ or simplicity as an appealing looking ‘fix it tool.’ And because simple, when on the edge of bedlam, looks so frickin’ appealing people start lining up and grabbing it by the handful as if it will salve all pains.

Great businesses are rarely simple, great business systems are rarely simple … and doing ‘one important thing’ is rarely enough.

I know I read somewhere that within complex systems theory, turbulence is caused by the spontaneous interactions between parts of the system and the changing environment.

Turbulence is not chaos, but it still can create the random interruptions that businesses struggle with almost every day. And within that turbulence, if a business is not careful, it can begin to look an awful like chaos <although it is definitely not>. But I guarantee some snake oil salesman asshole in the organization will label it ‘sheer bedlam!’… ‘chaos!’ and say “bedlam is bad” … we need to fix it <and bring out all the ‘simplicity tools’>.

Regardless.

The snake oil simplicity salesman will fail.

The organization will suffer.

True bedlam will rear its ugly head.

Here is another business truth. Harmony in a great business organization almost always has hues of conflict and an uneasy ‘edge-of-chaos’ bedlam feel. Kind of like a strong energy that makes you feel like if you don’t hold on a little tighter you may go flying off into the distance, but at the same time it is productive and adaptive and energetic.

Complex systems theory suggests three aspects to a dynamic organization:

• Control – the ability to have some structure to the extent that the systems can efficiently maintain status quo success and yet respond to new circumstances

• Flexibility – the ability to respond to new circumstances

• Change – the ability to exploit successful patterns

Well. That seems to summarize a shitload of response & change. Uhm. That implies a relatively consistent flow of ‘transitional organization moments.’

Realistically <or maybe hypothetically?> bedlam should only occur in transition moments. And even then it may only have the appearance of bedlam because in reality it is simple functional organizational adaptation in real time speed to accommodate change <note: I have argued in the past successful business leadership & thinking is about successfully navigating liminal moments>.

Now. That doesn’t mean it looks pretty nor does it feel ‘efficient’ or even feel comfortable.

In fact, it can look an awful like organizational chaos. But you have to look very very closely at your business to be really sure if it is true bedlam or not — true bedlam occurs within true chaos versus bedlam feeling occurs in an organized chaos.

True bedlam is shifting priorities, unclear direction, inconsistent processes, unhappy or disengaged employees and an out-of-whack energy invested to outcome proposition. Once again, to be clear, most businesses have their shit together and don’t experience this.

Despite saying that — bedlam people are strewn within organizations. They see themselves as problem solvers and their role as ‘business as usual necessities.’ If an organization is not careful they begin, sadly, to see bedlam simply as a way of life and bedlam managers as necessary herders.

Anyway.

Actual bedlam is never a good thing for an organization. While there needs to be adaptability & flexibility it is no excuse for ambiguity and bedlam inside organizations. Solid construct is essential for a healthy energetic business which taps into that ‘bedlam feel’ but needs managers who don’t create the bedlam … they simply funnel the bedlam feel into a positive working environment.

Aspects of a bedlam feeling IS a good thing for an organization.

What do I mean?

I am not a huge proponent of ‘planned innovation’ or ‘collaborative ideation for the future.’ I tend to believe they create muted mediocre thinking & ideas. Creative innovation tends to be externally driven and therefore creates this bedlam like feeling <because it is not planned but has a sense of reactiveness to it>. This bedlam feel stimulates innovation, reduces employee complacency, and elevates attitudes & thinking & people to achieve new heights.

This type of bedlam is unavoidable within a dynamic organization and in swallowable doses is desirable <it creates a sense of effective ‘doing’>.

Lastly. Where bedlam people truly thrive <and create the most damage>.

All transformational moments <including when organization is adapting> but most especially within complex, large-scale transformational change. This is where the stakes are the highest, the bedlam the mostest <I made that word up> and with tremendous potential for ROI and cost failure.

Research consistently shows that most business transformations fail to return their desired ROI. The ones, the few that actually do succeed, inevitably have excellent change leadership skills at a variety of management levels <not just at the top>.

And this is where bedlam people thrive — in times of transformation. Any transformation is messy, often chaotic, and has serious impact on employees’ mental state <not just tasks>. In transformation, what you are attempting to create is typically very different than your current state of operation and often outcomes are unclear when you begin. This all means that numerous course corrections are required as you discover where you need to go and how to get there.

This process is nonlinear and full of surprises and requires a lot of flexibility and adaptability. It requires a shift of mindset, behavior, and culture to implement the new direction.

Uh oh.

Bedlam people, tapping into the angst of employees and people, seek to offer simplicity platitudes to ‘cross the transformational chasm.’ And instead, because transformations are complex and naturally chaotic, it simply increases the bedlam and inefficiency and while short term there appears some ease in overall organization angst <because people grasp the simplicity platitudes as ‘doable’ , sigh, and relax> long term it fails the complexity of the system and transformation itself.

Bedlam increases.

But even then bedlam managers succeed.

Bedlam people point to the point in time <in the past> that everyone relaxed and did stuff as ‘I know my shit.’

The net result? Bedlam people become more empowered <while actually having increased overall bedlam>.

Now. To be clear. There is a huge difference between taking a complex situation and in a simple way articulate what needs to be done and looking at a complex situation and articulating what needs to be done is simple.

The first is a skill.

The second is a lie.

Ok. I am done ranting. And all of this because I found the source of the word ‘bedlam.’

I honestly do not believe an organization is like a mental asylum. Most organizations are well thought out with well-intended managers or leaders. And most people in organizations do the best they can with best intentions.

My point is that most dynamic organizations, the really good ones, do have an underlying ‘bedlam feel’ that they can tap into. It verges on bedlam but very very rarely slips into actual bedlam.

And therein lies the danger from people who walk around with gobs of chaos. They have the ability to inadvertently guide an organization, or even a department or group, into real bedlam.

They are the ones who shout go ‘right, go right’ <or ’left, go left’ if they said right the last time>from the back seat while the leader in the front seat is mapping out a multiple path plan of progress <at different speeds for different departments>.

Not all decisions are simple.

In fact … most good decisions are defined by visionary complexity — the ability to envision paths yet to be taken or even sometimes yet to be built.

In fact … most decisions are defined by a complex intertwining of simultaneous tasks.

Bedlam managers suck at those type of decisions and therefore create more bedlam under the guise of simplicity. And while my rant may seem, well, simplistic … it is an important discussion to be had.

Recently some guy at the Yale School of Management found that the average lifespan of an S&P company dropped from 67 years in the 1920s to 15 years today. He also found that on average an S&P company is now being replaced every two weeks as well estimates that 75% of the S&P 500 firms will be replaced by new firms by 2027.

FYI. Santa Fe Institute researchers note that these findings are different from what you would see in Europe and Japan <their business lifespan is much longer>. And while many of these ‘deaths’ are because of mergers or acquisitions the majority represent real death.

Businesses fail or implode.

This suggests someone, a person, is at fault.

This also suggests in a business world where adjustment and transformation, in some degree, is almost essential to be successful & maintain a lifespan … bedlam managers can have dire consequences.

All I ask is that maybe you just think about this topic.

And store away this bedlam thought:

Simplicity creates bedlam in business organizations.

That thought alone will create bedlam.

==========

Originally published April 2015

====

=====

“I’m addicted to the world’s whisper.”

———-

Patrick Madden

====

Well. Every once in a while you find some words, a quote in this case, which makes you stop and think and it reaches into your business mind and personal mind. This was one of those quotes for me.

I am an introvert at my core. I think that makes the thought of a “world’s whisper” resonate with me because, well, this may sound obvious, but the world, the people in it and the thoughts that pervade the ether of each day are fascinating.

Fascinating to me and I actually believe fascinating to a lot of people. I think we all feel that way <albeit we get scared of the exact same things on occasion> but I think introverts just listen a little more closely to the whispers..

Regardless. While it may seem everything in the world is shouting at the top of their lungs, the good stuff whispers.

I know I am addicted to the whispers.

I know I am addicted to listening for them.

And I don’t understand why more people don’t have this addiction.

And I really don’t understand it now that we have the internet.

What do I mean? In the good old days, to hear the whispers, you needed to be physically engaged. You had to travel, sit & watch, immerse yourself in what is happening. If you were even slightly introverted, it could kind of suck. At minimum, a little uncomfortable.

In the good ole ‘new’ days you can lurk <if you are introverted> and be actively involved <if you are not>. Yeah. Lurking online sounds creepy, but if it is done with the intent to listen to the whispers of the world I find it difficult to find fault in the behavior.

While people will argue with me, I would suggest that it is just as difficult to hear the whispers online as it is to hear them in the physical world. I say that because regardless of the environment you are sifting through the noise and untangling that which is unimportant and tugging at the threads of what is important.

Personally I don’t really give a shit on the environment, online/offline/noisy/silent, all I care about is leaning in closely to hear the good stuff — the whispers.

All that said. Some of you may have no clue what the fuck I am taking about.

That’s okay.

You just haven’t heard the whispers yet. If you had, you would never stop listening for them.

It s the good stuff. Its the kind of stuff worth listening to (and listening for>. I could suggest it is within the whispers that you will find what truly matters, but I am not sure I can <I don’t have empirical support/research> so all I can say is that it is the good stuff.

It is the extraordinary thread woven amongst the beautiful blanket of the everyday ordinary.

====

“The idea of the extraordinary happening in the context of the ordinary is what’s fascinating to me.“

Chris Van Allsburg
=====

And for those who haven’t heard the whispers?

It is worth trying.

You just have to listen closely. Sometimes you just have to lean into Life a little and listen just a little closer. The whispers are there and I can promise you, they are worth hearing.

==

“Out of clutter, find simplicity, from discard, find harmony, in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.”

——————

Albert Einstein

==

Let’s talk Chaos.

Controlled chaos.

Disciplined Chaos.

I love them all. Go ahead. Pick one. It will not matter. I can guarantee any one of them will make people nervous. Why? Because chaos equals difficulty <as Albert suggests>.

So, chaos (or what may look like chaos but it’s not).

Ah. Where to start.

Me? I begin with why I am comfortable with the concept of some chaos in business. I figure, the bigger the possible mistake looks, the better chance I’ll have to do something really meaningful and, well, live. ‘Live’ meaning … getting the heart pumping type stuff. And chaos provides massive opportunities for mistakes … because … well … it is difficult … and, well, <as a corollary> also provides opportunities for some really neat successes.

The biggest success opportunities?

(a)    Organizing the chaos

(b)   Getting through the chaos unscathed

Ok. Here is a great visual metaphor example. Days of Thunder.  The movie <gosh … I have just been frickin’ waiting to use that movie as an example for something …>. There is a scene where the Robert Duvall character suggests that the way to get through the on-track wreck as a driver is to aim right for the middle of it … aim for the middle of all the chaos and movement and unplanned activity.  Sheer chaos.  And aim for the smack dab middle. And if you do so you get through the chaos unscathed … and ahead. How awesome is that? And how counter intuitive is that for most of us?

<Days of Thunder scene>

Anyway. Great advice. Ok. Excellent advice.

The thought that while everything is evolving and falling apart you can take advantage of the chaos by aiming right at it. Go into it with a vision in mind.

Anyway. Here is a truth to chew on. Almost all our real opportunities and discoveries, personal or professional, come from chaos. Opportunities arise by going to a place that looks chaotically wrong, stupid or foolish <or all of the above>.

And while I love the concept of chaos ultimately creating order I tend to believe in less random things than chaos … and, just to be clear, believe history is cyclical and stimulus-response (or cause & effect) and all these non-chaos logical semi-linear type thought process type things which seem counter to me liking chaos.

But while I don’t like chaos for its ‘un-orderliness’, I admit, I love the opportunities chaos creates.

So knowing what I know what I think about chaos I looked up some definitions or descriptions before I wrote <what I already knew in my pea like brain>:

There are two fundamental interdependent characterizations of chaos:

1. exponential sensitivity to small perturbations (also known as the Butterfly Effect), and
2. complex orbit structure (I think this is called Symbolic Dynamics).

And then there is this whole discussion/description of things they call “chaos control methods.”

Well. Yikes. Ok. Double yikes. Butterfly and symbolic and complex orbits and well … whatever. In general I don’t believe in this type of chaos in business.

(but I do love the fact someone came up with all these theory names)

I guess I think about the business concept of chaos as actually a big <or small> tangled ball of string.

In general I think things just get all tangled up <and people call it chaos>. So its not really chaos … it is just something non-chaotic tangled up for some reason <maybe that will make it more palatable to people?>. And it isn’t really chaos because to get tangled up people tend to have some objective in mind even just to get started.

It may not be well thought out.

It may actually even be impulsive behavior type actions <kind of like a series of knee jerk reactions and actions>.

It may even be misguided or ignorant action.

But. Somewhere in that tangle is a common thread. And therein lies the opportunities.

The opportunities are found in the trick of being patient and locating that piece of string to tug out of the mess and tease it out and then the whole mess unravels and becomes untangled and chaos is averted. That metaphor relates to organizational, ideation and creativity. Just think about it before you reject it.

Now. This is going to sound like a contradiction.

Averting chaos is in my nature. Yeah. This means I thrive in inserting myself in a chaotic <tangled> moment.

Translation?

Unraveling the tangled <chaos> is what floats my boat <which in some weird way almost suggests I thrive on chaos>. I really do not believe I am that different from people in the creative business or even some business “solvers of problems.’

Maybe it would help if I suggested some people simply thrive on chaos for bad reasons <because the lack of structure permits them to avoid making decisions or being responsible for things> and people like me thrive on chaos for good reasons <I see opportunities within as well as the satisfaction in solving or averting total chaos>.

Doesn’t mean I like thinking about it this way but I imagine <looking in the mirror> I do have a larger sense of self worth because chaos exists.  Maybe even self esteem <and certainly self actualization … just to close out all the Maslow stuff>. And I admit it does sound exciting to me to throw caution to the wind and dive right into the middle of a chaos situation.

Ironically, I believe I have some ability at spotting the order in what seems chaos to others <something sometimes referred to as pattern recognition>. And because I seem to put myself in these types of situations here are some things about enjoying ‘chaos solutions’ that I have seen:

seeing the whole more than the parts.

Pieces are pieces and parts are parts.

This is the “Days of Thunder” example. Gotta look at the horizon and focus because if you don’t … well … you can get smashed by the parts. In business this translates into seeing how the whole is different than the sum of its parts. Huh? Well. The truth is that parts can be put together in multiple ways to create an effective ‘whole.’ Once you recognize that you can keep fairly sane in some relatively insane chaotic moments.

a detachment from things.

Things are a part of the details, and therefore not something to which you can afford to become attached. Nuf said.

a frustration when details keep from advancing the big picture.

This one can really bite me in the ass every once in awhile. This is probably a corollary to the first thing I said. If you get stuck on what seems like a minor (but necessary) detail <lets call it parts> it can not only keep you from making any major advances on the big picture but you also increase the risk of getting smacked around by parts like in Days of Thunder. Mobility is key to success in a chaotic environment. Static means you get blindsided by something. Frankly, I don’t like getting smacked by some parts I know I could have avoided if I had been moving. So I like to keep moving. Regardless. Its gets frustrating when you get bogged down in details.

step by step plans can be frustrating.

Chaos is called chaos for a reason. Shit is swirling around everywhere. A step by step plan doesn’t always get you where you want … and often not quick enough to avert disaster <getting smacked by those damn moving parts> within chaos. Some people can’t function that way. They need step by step plans for everything. Me? I don’t get it. A famous general <Moltke> said “No plan of battle ever survives contact with the enemy.” Yeah. Well. People who need step by step plans? They don’t work well in chaos. I guess the corollary to that is I don’t work well with them in chaos.

Oh. And, from a personal perspective, chaos management is ALL about energy management. If you must create long-term goals you have to break them down as soon as you can and assign tasks. If you don’t … you expend wasted energy trying to envision a long term goal that, frankly, is difficult to envision through the massive swirling chaos in front of you.

You know you need to get somewhere.

You know you should get there as quickly as possible.

Some people don’t like to call it ‘gut’ <combined with some good experience> but there you go. The best at averting chaos just seem to know where to go.

And when you get there? Sure. Tell everyone that was the goal.  Who cares. You got there.

Next (and last).

You against the world … is … well … not possible <in general and with chaos>. Success in a chaotic world <or environment> is often defined by who your companions <partners in crime> are.

You need to have partners (in business or personal) who are more orderly than you and, maybe more importantly, are comfortable in your comfort in chaos.

That’s it. Chaos can be good.

All the time? Nope. Because, well, that is chaos. And chaos doesn’t move forward, it just swirls. But sometimes chaos can swirl around parts and they can be put back together again in a different way and that is good. Oh. And don’t forget … chaos well managed creates opportunities & generates energy.

Originally posted March 2012

————–

“You cannot use someone else’s fire; you can only use your own.

And in order to do that, you must first be willing to believe you have it.”

==

Audre Lorde

————

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

==

H. L. Mencken

———–

Well. This could be about either business or Life … but let me stick with business for today.

I have worked within so many industries and seen so many different businesses I can’t really keep them all straight. And maybe because of that breadth of experience I have realized that there is no formula for success that is easily transferable.

What this means in a practical sense is that I don’t have a formula to offer when I walk into a new business <because I would have to have dozens and my brain doesn’t work that way>. Yet, everyone, every business, seeks a formula for success. This can be frustrating <for the business and for me>. They do this despite the fact they know in their heart of hearts that most business situations are contextual and dipping into some past developed formula more likely than not is simply not going to replicate whatever had happened in the past that made the formula look so appealing.

And, yet, again and again … businesses seek some elusive formula to apply to their business – to start it, to make it more efficient or even on how to plan tactics.

Here is what I know from having walked through hundreds of business front doors. Business seems to demand order from its thinkers, doers and leaders.

Think about it. Inevitably no matter what conversation you are having … innovation, ideation, process, production or even organizational culture you will find yourself mired in some aspect of ‘order.’ And we wonder why there is so much angst and conflict in business? That is your explanation. The world is not a naturally orderly place and yet we constantly seek to put it in order.

Day in and day out almost everything a business does is about finding some order in a world that demands non order, non tidy, non linear, like thinking.

This is a crazy, sometimes stupefying, discussion of a desire for a winning formula … and a refusal to follow a formula at exactly the same time.

I cannot tell you how many times I have been pressed by a business to show proof that an idea, or something, has worked in the past … only to have another past ‘formula’ be rejected as ‘not relevant for us.’ Frankly, the inconsistency with regard to using something in the past is maybe the most consistent discussion I have in business.

Look. There are certainly some guiding principles that can help insure, or limit, your stupidity moving forward … but formulas don’t exist. What constantly still catches me a little off guard when formulas are being requested <or some derivative of a formula> is that we all know each business, each business situation and each organization is at minimum slightly unique.

Every relatively smart & experienced business person knows this. Therefore a past formula runs the risk of trying to put a square peg into a round hole.

Oh. But then we inevitably slide into the infamous discussion of “let’s just use the parts that apply to us & our situation.” This is another ‘formula but not-formula’ head scratcher.

Most past successes are a confluence of factors intertwined into some uniquely messy tangled ball of string. It looks messy <albeit far too many business consultants portray it as simple, or linear, or anything but tangled as they

straighten the string out to show a flawed construct> and it is … well … messy.

Therefore trying to pull it apart and using one aspect as a “successful foundation for our future success” <see: “formula”> is flawed logic. There are rarely, very rarely, neat & plausible solutions to what a business faces in the here & now. If you are shown a ‘formula for success’ and it looks neat and it seem plausible … it is most likely wrong.

Ok. What I am now going to say is going to sound painfully inefficient.

A business has to create its own way of doing things. It has to create its own formula. It can certainly contain some aspects of things that have been done in the past but those are simply ingredients from which you will build your own formula. And, to be clear, if you start bolting together different formulas to create a successful business … you are simply creating a Frankenstein which the village people are going to end up killing with simple pitchforks & torches.

Your business formula for success will have to be yours. And, yes, you do need some type of formula. Business does demand some order. Without it there is only chaos.

Now. ‘Borrowing’ order <see: “formulas”> seems like a nifty short cut to minimizing risk as well as creating a foundation on which to build upon. Unfortunately, it is often not that simple for a couple of reasons.

<1> Rigidity. Using someone else’s formula is like inserting an immovable part. It is a rigid component inflexible to any organizational adaptations … or external adaptations. Customize the formula and you run the likely risk that it fails <because a successful formula is a formula for a specific need>. Leave the formula rigid and you run the likely risk the organization loses some flexibility to respond to external circumstances.

<2> External adaptations. Because the business environment in which a business competes in is a fairly unorderly world and order constantly chafes with disorder. Formulas in today’s business world look significantly different than formulas of the past in that the past had more rigid aspects and the present has more fluidity.

Anyway. I would like to note that last point as possibly the biggest struggle a business leader has in managing a business – getting comfortable with the constant chafing and recognizing when it is no longer simple chafing and instead a real open wound.

In the end. Let me end where I began … you cannot use someone else’s fire; you can only use your own. And in order to do that, you must first be willing to believe you have it.

Most businesses have their successful formula already in hand. More often than not they don’t need to look elsewhere for a formula. They just cannot see it yet … they cannot see they have their own fire.

That’s what I do.

Painfully, but what I do. Make them see their fire and believe in it. It comes down to assessing the ingredients that reside in the business owner’s mind, in the business culture and what the organization itself is capable of … and building that fire.

And, even then, rarely is there some simple formula which becomes their elixir for success. It becomes almost like the core molecule on which additional molecules can be attached or removed as the business organism interacts with that wacky disorderly business environment.

Success in business is never easy. It only looks easy when looking at someone else from afar or looking to the past. While businesses demand order the business environment conducts itself in a less than orderly fashion. That sentence right there explains why there is no formula for success and that we have a non-formula world.

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

“Those who tied the knots are responsible for untying [them].”

—–

Chinese Foreign Ministry

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

So. We talk a lot about “business problem solvers” or “disruptors” or any number of ‘problem/solution’ type things in the business world.

Well. Maybe we should talk more about the knots.

Knots?

I have eased my way into a number of new responsibility positions throughout my career and one of the first things you start doing when you settle in is scan for the knots that are inherently strewn throughout the business.

Sometimes these are nicely tied knots someone has developed and set in place to hold together a process or system or principle to insure it holds something important together.

Sometimes these are nasty tangled threads created by someone who didn’t know their ass from their toes, or by the system itself <think of a lawn hose by the end of the summer> or sometimes they are representative of well-intended actions by a variety of people over time <trying to improve or fix something>.

And, while those are all “sometimes”, all times, all businesses, have knots.

That said. I can also say that untying knots is not for the faint of heart. To do so well is to be part safe cracker, part surgeon and part Navy Seal.

Ah. But not everyone views knots the same – in how they occurred and what needs to be done to untie. I would suggest how you view a knot depends on whether you believe in cause & effect <a linear action model> or in a more ambiguous “a cause can create multiple effects’ model.

Let me explain a little.

When I started in the business world we spent a shitload of time discussing cause & effect, stimulus & response and … well … a lot of behavior based on a linear ‘if this, then that’ type model.

Not so much today.

In today’s world almost all situations <internal process as well as consumer/buyer behavior> are ‘knotty.’

I often show a picture of an atom in attitudes & behavior discussion but I like the knot metaphor also.

Uhm. Yes. This type of thinking, unfortunately, increases the likelihood of ambiguity. Ambiguity is not one of those things the business world tends to happily embrace.

To be clear. There is a lot to be said for teaching young business people cause & effect basics. I liked growing up & learning the business world encased in a cocoon of certainty type thinking. Linear type thinking gave me some clarity and it certainly permitted some fairly easy conclusions and recommendations. Unfortunately I also found, over time with experience, this increases the likelihood of … well … a shitload of bad things – wasted energy, misguided efforts and monies being funneled into activity generating less-than-desired outcomes.

But. It had been linear logic and, therefore, provided some certainty to base the recommended recommendations on.

Certainty. Certainty is something we all crave in business. But we may crave it for a slightly less obvious reason then you may think. Linear permits us to more easily get the one thing almost everyone wants – a way to get out.

Yeah. It’s not really about solutions or answers, simplistically, it is awareness that there could be a way out.

Just think about it a little.

Most of us when faced with some situation, issue or problem just want a way out of that situation, issue or problem.

And, yet, we spend gobs of time talking solutions and most likely invest far too much time & energy extrapolating out “what if scenarios” in seeking what happens when we untie the knot and move forward. It’s quite possible we should be investing more energy, instead, on looking at a knot and simply seeking the best way out of the knot. And that is where linear thinking kicks nonlinear thinking’s ass.

With ambiguity, the way out is not only less clear but, at times, it can seem like a crapshoot –what is behind door #1, versus door #2 … as well as door #3?

And who the hell wants that in any business decision making situation?

Which leads me back to knots. As you move up in management, and Life I imagine, you either get better at seeing the knot and seeing how to untie a knot — or you remain a linear cause & effect decision maker.

I would suggest the world can use both; however, the world <business or otherwise> cannot exist solely with cause & effect decision makers. In addition .. each group and drive the other one frickin’ crazy. But, suffice it to say, we need knot un-tiers.

Being an “un-tier” actually consists of two aspects — one attitude and one expertise.

Attitude: personal responsibility.

You own the knot. This is a metaphor … a metaphor for a problem and owning the problem.

We all inherit problems. And the most successful of us look at them as knots, not ‘some simple fix <do this/get that>. The most successful of us don’t sit around bitching about the knots, whether they were there already or created by someone else, but go about assuming responsibility for any and all knots and go about untying as many of them as we can. But here is the thing about this responsibility. We own the knot. We do so because we know that once we are in a position to get shit done … all that matters is getting shit done. And you know you have the responsibility to do what needs to be done to get shit done. It does no good to say “not my knot.” You have a job … they are all now your knots.

I would note that untying knots is kind of a “go big or go home” type venture. I say that because in business once you begin untying … well … you have to keep going. Knots, good and bad, exist for a reason … so eliminating, or rearranging, a knot will have consequences — stopping is not an option.

Expertise: ability to navigate the interweaving that binds a knot.

Untangling is part vision and part deft touch. Anyone who has ever untied an ‘impossible knot’ knows that you cannot simply tug & pull … you have to ease one aspect and pull another and maybe even push in other place. Deft. And as you do so you have the vision ability to see the unseen parts and get a sense of where one ‘weave’ has appeared and where it has come from, what it crosses and if it is actually entangled with another weave.

———

—–

I would suggest that this is partially an ability to navigate some ambiguity.

Ah. That phrase ‘navigate ambiguity’ leads me to one last thing. Cause & effect thinkers can be a cleverly dangerous group of business thinkers to work with. Using the business knot as the example … the most dangerous thing a linear thinker can do is offer everyone the false linear cause & effect conclusion.

Huh? Think of this knot as like shoelaces. The knot is there with the aglets <the small sheath, often made of plastic or metal, used on each end of a shoelace>. The linear thinker, incapable of untying the knot suggests the knots doesn’t matter because if I have the left aglet, and the right aglet, they suggest “I can clearly see the ultimate cause & effect” <see image to right as example>.

That is wrong. And dangerous for making a business decision.

Not to put this too harshly but that logic is like saying “I love all jelly filled donuts” not knowing some are filled with shit.

All that said. I will say that once you have tied a knot you do assume some responsibility for it – keeping it, explain it or even untying it. I mention this because a lot of us leave positions, jobs & companies and far too often leave a knot behind with no explanation. Maybe we are embarrassed to highlight a knot or maybe we just start thinking “not my worry anymore.”

Well. It doesn’t really matter what you think … you own the knot and you have a responsibility to talk about any and all knots with anyone who may someday want to untie it. Regardless. I would also remind everyone — knots are created to be untied.

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

Originally published September 2017

==

“When written in Chinese, the word crisis is composed of two characters. One represents danger, and the other represents opportunity.”

–

John F. Kennedy

==

Ok.

I love this quote.  And a boatload of business management people do <dozens of books written using it>.

Uh oh. But it isn’t true.

Good ole JFK got it wrong <but he is in good company>.

The usual explanation is that the Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is made up of two characters signifying “opportunity” and “danger.” To us folk on this side of the planet this is a great example of the ancient East wisdom. And teachers, pontificators, self help specialists, motivational speakers and anyone who likes to tell people to find lemonade when given a basket of lemons have used this explanation.

The key lesson shared?

“A crisis provides an opportunity for change and growth as well as a danger of regression or stagnation.”

<but that is too long and complete to be a soundbite>

Yup. This is pretty frickin’ deep.

The truth?

1. In Chinese, the term for crisis is wei ji.

2. Native Chinese speakers tend to think the crisis = danger/opportunity connection is complete bullshit.

The Chinese word <not really an ideogram by the way> for crisis, when translated, literally means “dangerous, or precarious, moment.” That’s it.  No ‘opportunity.’  No benefiting.  Just danger. Or … maybe I should focus on the part I like … “a precarious moment.”

Not a bad lesson in itself. Crisis CAN be bad … but in reality is just all about having a precarious moment … that needs to be managed.

Just to be sure I cover all my bases as I tear down all that self-help mumbo jumbo people have absorbed and are putting in use day-to-day.

(through some research)

A mandarin expert breaks down the word and definition and wisdom mumbo-jumbo:

A whole industry of pundits and therapists has grown up around this one grossly inaccurate statement. A casual search of the Web turns up more than a million references to this spurious proverb. It appears, often complete with Chinese characters, on the covers of books, on advertisements for seminars, on expensive courses for “thinking outside of the box,” and practically everywhere one turns in the world of quick-buck business, pop psychology, and orientalist hocus-pocus. This catchy expression (Crisis = Danger + Opportunity) has rapidly become nearly as ubiquitous as The Tao of Pooh and Sun Zi’s Art of War for the Board / Bed / Bath / Whichever Room.

The explication of the Chinese word for crisis as made up of two components signifying danger and opportunity is due partly to wishful thinking, but mainly to a fundamental misunderstanding about how terms are formed in Mandarin and other Sinitic languages.

<that was awesome …>

Next.

While it is true that wēijī does indeed mean “crisis” and that the wēi syllable of wēijī does convey the notion of “danger,” the jī syllable of wēijī most definitely does not signify “opportunity.”

The jī of wēijī, in fact, means something like “incipient moment; crucial point (when something begins or changes).” Thus, a wēijī is indeed a genuine crisis, a dangerous moment, a time when things start to go awry. A wēijī indicates a perilous situation when one should be especially wary. It is not a juncture when one goes looking for advantages and benefits.

As the Mandarin language expert says quite succinctly … “In a crisis, one wants above all to save one’s skin and neck!”

As well as …

“Any would-be guru who advocates opportunism in the face of crisis should be run out of town on a rail, for his / her advice will only compound the danger of the crisis.”

I loved this guy.

A little wordy in his explanation but he was passionate about telling everyone how far off base they were on the whole crisis/opportunity thing. Sorry.  No Eastern wisdom here. In this case the east and the west agreed that a crisis is bad, dangerous and to be wary of and that’s it.

Ok.

All that said <mostly said to enlighten everyone and piss off a boatload of publishers and book writers> let’s talk about crisis and the opportunities a crisis does actually create. Most of us quickly see the danger in a crisis… and we should … because it is exactly as translated … a precarious moment.  Like its true Chinese definition a crisis is a crucial moment where things begin to go awry.

It is easy to overlook any opportunity within the crisis because, frankly, we are often just trying to survive <in other words … save our skin, neck & ass>.

And what makes this even more difficult is that the opportunity may be well hidden. The danger is always obvious and the most critical in our eye because the crisis creates potential personal harm. So what makes a crisis truly a “precarious moment” is that assuming you are seeking to find that elusive opportunity within the crisis … well … that with danger lurking its not that we forget to look for the opportunity but rather we seek to avoid the danger and the personal harm.

Lets call this for what it is … self preservation.

And that isn’t bad by the way.  Because if you don’t survive the “opportunity” becomes irrelevant. It is natural to avoid danger during a crisis and make that THE priority.  So, no, I am not going to suggest someone become an “opportunity person” when dealing with a crisis.

I believe people who can discover opportunities in a crisis are people who have already successfully managed the ‘precarious moment’ several times in the past. Maybe call it trial by fire.  Maybe call it trial & error.  But suffice it to say you ain’t gonna be seeking opportunities when dealing with your first true crisis.

Yes. Many people say that it was actually a crisis that caused them to make a much-needed change.

Yes. Living through a hard time challenges people to grow in ways that makes them more mature and opens them to new possibilities.

Where I would argue with people on this is that through surviving the crisis they … well … just found a better way to survive. And that’s not being opportunistic.  That is simply survival instinct <compounded by understanding of what makes oneself happiest>.

Look.

Life constantly gives you opportunities … and gives you crisis also <unfortunately> … regardless … you get opportunities not just to take a chance but also just to improve your current state.

Here is the formula (although in this case I am not sure A + B = C).

(A) A crisis is a forced decision making moment (typically survival based).

(B) Decision making moments represent opportunities.

(C) Opportunities typically translate into some type of change.

And everyone, obviously, wants to capitalize on any change (who would choose to have a negative result from a decision?). If someone wants to claim a crisis represents an opportunity go ahead and do so … but please recognize that it is an indirect extended relationship.  And in doing so you could be doing a disservice to people because it ignores what a crisis is truly about – survival.

Ok.

I do believe dealing with a crisis has a lot to do with attitude <which is possibly where many people get confused with this whole opportunity thing>.

A Pollyanna attitude? Nope.

Someone wrote: “Welcoming personal setbacks as rich opportunities for growth can help you survive them. Does that seem like a twisted point of view? After all, problems make us miserable, right? Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled (Touchstone, 2003), considers them a gift — if you look at them in a deeper, less reactive manner. Indeed, they can give us clear perspective.”

Wow.

That is a bunch of bullhockey <bullshit>.

A crisis is just that.  A crisis.  A dangerous moment. A precarious moment.

Should we be seeking opportunities in the middle of a frickin’ crisis? Nope.

We should be seeking survival.

And that is where attitude comes in. Not “lets find the opportunity” or some baloney like that <or find the lemonade out of the lemons> but an attitude capturing a strength of character <I will be strong and overcome> and resiliency <survive>. Afterwards maybe you can look back and discover the opportunities that were an outcome from the crisis (although this has a slightly masochistic point of view in that from pain comes pleasure that kind of creeps me out) but when in a crisis … just deal with it.

Have a good attitude and explore all the possibilities/opportunities … once you have managed the experience itself.

Dealing with a true crisis takes character.  HOW you deal with a crisis says almost as much as what you do to deal with a crisis.  A crisis is a gauntlet. You have to have strength of character.  And strength in resiliency.  Please don’t measure yourself when dealing with a crisis by what opportunity you discovered from the crisis … measure yourself by how you survived.

A crisis.

It is a ‘precarious moment’ … a ‘crucial moment’ … a ‘dangerous moment.’

<East & West agree on this>

Seek to survive the moment. Don’t seek the opportunity for god’s sake. Just try and be aware should an opportunity arise <as you survive>. Leave the ‘opportunistic crisis management approach’ to people who write books and pontificate<but, please do not buy the books and live your life by all their bullshit>.

Oh.

And don’t misuse the Chinese definition of crisis. Because that is where this whole rant started. I am all for seeking opportunities and I have a shitload, too much, experience dealing with crises. But I will be honest … my first response in any crisis is “survival”. Once I can see, or sense, we will survive hen, yeah, I will most likely scan the horizon for some opportunities. But survival first.