===========

 “Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never has and it never will.”

—–

Frederick Douglass

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

“Next to the assumption of power is the responsibility of relinquishing it.”

—

Benjamin Disraeli

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

Well. We don’t talk about power and people often beyond the tripe about how power corrupts people <as I have written … only people can corrupt themselves>. So let me talk about the dynamics of power in business in a non-corrupting way. What I mean by that is responsibility & authority. Whether anyone really admits it or not once you attain a senior position in a business you have gained power. Now. This power is most often not embodied in any nefarious way, but rather it is simply a reflection of responsibility & authority.

You have power over decisions.

You have power over people.

You have power over funds and their allocation.

You even have power over ideas … which ones die and which ones live.

Most of us do not see this as some all empowering power or even eye it with an authoritarian belief. We do not view it as some “center of power”, but rather we see it is actually more like a linear tool <or hammer> selectively used.

Now. Wielded well … power can look like a central source of authority, but ‘wielded well’ is actually a flurry of linear tools, like playing whack-a-mole, applied to establish selective moments of desired behavior and progress <and this flurry actually creates the sense that there is a larger centralized power>. I would note that sometimes it is (centralized power) and sometimes it isn’t. Power, wielded well, ranges from nudges, encouragement, actual decisions, suggested decisions, support and intangible guard rails.

But here is the thing.

Once you have gained authority you are extremely hesitant to concede the ‘power.’ This hesitancy actually shifts into full-on “hold on with ragged claws” if you have mastered <or you feel like you have mastered it> the ‘useful flurry of power’ in appropriate ways.

Partially I think this is the allure of owning <or some sense of ownership> the initiative – or having some power over initiatives. This shouldn’t be undersold. It is exhilarating and, well, powerful. In business while we measure results and report ad nausea the most satisfaction most leaders get is not in measuring parts & pieces, but rather the totality of what they do <input & output>.  And once you taste that satisfaction you have no desire to concede anything that could keep you from possibly attaining that satisfaction again.

Is that holding onto power? Sure. I guess. But I tend to believe it is more “I know how to do my shit and I want to keep ding that shit” attitude than any real bad ‘power trip’ type attitude.

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

“Never relinquish the initiative.”

Charles de Gaulle

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

Unfortunately … people on the outside just don’t see it that way. And it is understandable they may not see it the right way because I believe it was Geoffrey O’Brien who said ‘history unfolds as always in the midst of distraction, misunderstanding, and partially obscured sight-lines.’

That is how the authority version of power works. It unfolds in the midst of distraction and partially obscured sight lines. That is how authority works. It unfolds in the midst of a flurry of choices, decisions, delegations and doing <all blurry and, yet, creating a sense of central power>. Regardless of what it is, or what it looks like, once attained we tend to not want to relinquish it – we do not want to concede it.

It must be demanded to be relinquished.

Here is where it gets tricky. Because even if there is a demand to relinquish, and you do have to relinquish <you get fired and have to take a ‘lesser authority job’ or you get demoted or you simply shift jobs with a different authority level>, we hate to concede it. I mention that because that is one reason why older senior people who decide to take a lower titled job <even with the best intentions and capability to actually ‘do the job’> can struggle or just be a pain in the ass.

It’s not that they truly are a pain in the ass it is simply they have felt the satisfaction of authority and dislike the loss of that authority.

All that said. Power concedes nothing <unless the power owner is stupid, foolish or arrogant> … but as someone smarter than I said once … it always reveals.

Authority reveals.

Maybe what I am suggesting today is that authority (power) can actually reveal character and ability. And once you have seen what you can do, what you are capable of doing and what you like to do it is not an easy thing to conceded or relinquish. And, let me be clear, you can actually be good with authority and effective with use of power and can still be demanded to relinquish it.

It is a falsity to suggest that being good at something means you will always be able to do it <or someone will always seek to have you do it>. you can be forced to relinquish authority, even if you are good at it, for a variety of reasons in business <ranging from well-intended to absurd>.

It is natural to want it again if you were demanded to relinquish it.

Anyway. I say this so that maybe you take a second before you rush to claim someone is ‘power hungry’ or ‘protective of their power’ and mean it in a bad way. Having authority and enjoying authority and wielding authority well is addictive <or maybe just like having ‘the perfect buzz’>.

Is it wrong to be hungry for that? Whew. Sure doesn’t seem wrong.

I say this so that maybe you take a second before you rush to judge a person who has had a senior role and has decided to assume a position with lesser responsibility & authority because … well … once you have had authority it is really really hard to relinquish it. While power concedes nothing I would suggest that the feeling of authority used well tends to not want to concede anything.

===========

“Life has many ways of testing a person’s will, either by having nothing happen at all or by having everything happen all at once.”

Paulo Coelho

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

====

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

—

Lord Acton in 1887 

=============== 

“Look. Here is what power does to just about every human being.  It’s going to make you not pay attention to people as well as you used to pay attention to them.

You may find yourself swearing at a colleague or telling them that their work is horseshit. You will be a little less careful in the language you use. You will be a little less thoughtful about how things look from their perspective.  So just practise a little gratitude. Listen empathetically. It shouldn’t be that difficult.”

Professor Dacher Keltner

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

Let me be clear upfront: power affects behavior.

Let me be clearer: power affects everyone’s behavior.

And by everyone I mean, well, everyone. That includes you as well as me. Doesn’t matter if you become captain of a team, manager of a department, responsible for the management of a team, company or organization, it affects you.

Yeah. That may sound like a sweeping generalization but research study after research study <after another> reflect that power & authority change how people act and think. And not just big honking power, but any position in which you have some power over some other people.

But. That is ‘affecting behavior’ .. as in  “influencing how you think you should act and how you actually act.’ As in … that doesn’t mean it corrupts. Corruption is driven by choice  as in choice with what you do with the power you have attained. This doesn’t mean that corruption of power isn’t appealing. Because it is. Power distorts our view on what we believe is ‘right versus wrong.’ Mostly it comes to life in smaller ways … menial little ‘control’ aspects.

For example … in research participants were “primed” to feel less powerful or more powerful by asking them to think about people more or less powerful than themselves, or to think about times when they felt strong or weak. The results all stacked the same way. People who felt powerful were less likely to be empathetic; wealthy subjects were more likely to cheat in games involving small cash stakes and to dip their fists into a jar of sweets marked for the use of visiting children.  When watching a video about childhood cancer they displayed fewer physiological signs of empathy. Similar results occurred even when the privilege under observation had no meaning beyond the experiment room. Rigged games of Monopoly were set up in which one player took a double salary and rolled with two dice instead of one: winners failed to acknowledge their unfair advantage and reported that they had triumphed through merit.

That said.

Power does not corrupt people. Only corrupt people abuse their power.

Power does not do things. Only people can do things.

I could then argue that the possession of power is not the key factor to corruption, it is character <or lack of character>. Power is simply a tool, power is a tool of control, and how the tool issued depends on the user. Power is an awesome force, it can be an adrenaline high and I don’t care what field you are in, politics or business, the costs of power’s abuse are high.

Uhm. But the benefits of power can also be high. This means that anyone, anyone, can use their power for good or bad. The power itself offers a person options from which your character chooses which options to exercise. We are not characters in Lord of the Rings where we put on the ‘ring of power’ with which Sauron/evil drives our action from there on out.

Power is … well … power. Nothing more and nothing less.

====

“The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.”

Frank Herbert

====

Anyway.

Having had some power let me suggest that is can be a lot like addiction and drugs. Why do I say that? Well. Because addiction in some form or fashion is an inability to control urges to do, or not do, something <that was a bastardized definition of addiction>.

If you have an addictive personality … well … power will fuck you up.

If you like the feeling but can manage the addiction temptation … you are fine.

Well. How about not always “fine” but certainly manageable and more often than not you don’t act like a little Hitler or some demon spawn manager.

It helps you as a manger if you DO look at the research and DO recognize that power will tug your character wherever it can find a loose thread.

Now. I could argue that money corrupts significantly more easily than power does, but instead I will suggest it is a different type of temptation, addiction and corruption. Wealth, or money, creates a layer of some weird guilt on top of the power grid, for example: “We know from other studies that the wealthy are more likely to lie and exaggerate about ethical matters,” researcher says. “Survey self-report data in economics and face-to-face data in psychology capture different processes. What I say I do in society versus how I behave with actual people.”

But pure power?

Pure control over people and what they do <and sometimes say>?

Yeah. It is kind of easy to jump onboard that power trip.

Here is what I know.

Your 1^st glimpse of power is different than you 51^st glimpse of power. What I mean by that is I am fairly sure I handled myself significantly better on my 51^st then I did on my 1^st. I don’t think I am unusual on that. There is a comfort thing that happens. Maybe it is a self-comfort and self confidence that you either gain or … well … never gain. I tend to believe I learned fairly quickly that the ‘power’ resided in “all for one, one for all” and not Me <as the one>. That didn’t mean I didn’t understand the responsibility of having ‘power’ because part of having power is that you are responsible for actually using it … uhm … responsibly and well.

That also doesn’t mean that on occasion I was faced with the ‘power dilemma’ which is what almost everyone who has sat in some corner office has faced, and felt, at one time … “I just want everyone to do what I tell them to do.”

Yeah.

We all feel it at some point.

Yeah.

We all <most of us> don’t really mean it in the grander scheme of things.

But that is the most recognizable corruption of power — in that little itty bitty thing I just noted. For the minute you succumb to the “just do what I tell you to do” you have permitted power to corrupt the greater good and, maybe worse, you have pushed your character off to the side under the guise of ‘expediency.’ I end with that point simply to suggest that power is a clever tool which comes in many sizes and shapes and appearances. And if you are not careful you can be corrupted in some very subconscious ways.

Which permits me to go back to the beginning as I end.

“So just practise a little gratitude. Listen empathetically. It shouldn’t be that difficult.

Just admit that power encourages us to affect our behavior because if you do that you will be more likely to remain aware of your actions and intentions. And I would suggest thinking that, that awareness alone, will make you a better user of your power.

Here is what I know about that last point.

The world likes people in power who use it responsibly and well.

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

Originally published October 2016

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

“And the ports have names for the sea.”

–

William Auden

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

Well. I could quite easily argue that the most fundamental thing necessary to be successful in Life and in business is the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. In other words, having perspective matters. If you have the ability to see what others see, think what they think and understand why they do what they do … or maybe it’s a skill … it fosters understanding, ability to compromise, enables at least the possibility to shift thinking and it actually encourages you to rethink some things and maybe unlearn some learnings.

I do sometimes look at what is happening in the world and how we seem to have stopped listening and I think of Auden’s line from a poem he wrote about Iceland. I think about it and sometimes believe we are all out at sea floating amongst tides, waves and storms <rarely calm> looking at the ports with names. And, yet, we can never envision that the ports may look out at us and not only view us differently, but also the seas upon which we float. This is dangerous professionally, personally & society wise.

By maintaining our own view of things we do not listen, therefore we do not debate <we only lecture> and we certainly never compromise or find some common ground. Instead we all bob around the vast ocean just trying to keep our own head above water and yell at each other for stupidly bobbing around in the water the wrong way <or not the way we are>. No wonder the ports have a different name for the seas then we do. We call them Black, Caspian, Mediterranean, Baltic, Caribbean , etc.. Ports most likely look out and say ”a place upon which fools who do not listen to each other float”.

I word it that way because it seems like sometimes we forget that we are all trying to figure out a way of keeping our heads above water.

Now. I imagine the reasons why we forget all the commonalities and why we ignore what each other truly has to say is not simple, nor just one thing, but rather a thousand reasons scattered around like quarters on the floor just waiting for someone to pick up. I would bet I have sloppily discussed many of these reasons on enlightened conflict. But I can truly only think of one thing that trumps all the thousand reason to not do what we should be doing – moral imperative.

That may sound high too falutin’ for somethings as simple as ‘listening to each other and discussing’ but truly it is a moral imperative that we try and solve this. Yeah. I just said moral imperative. I do so speaking of both business and society.

We are better if we listen, really listen, in business and discuss and debate realize that most often our differences reside in tactics, possibly in some strategies, but rarely in objectives.

We are better in society when common everyday schmucks, like you and I, sit down and listen and discuss and debate <kind of like Heineken suggested in a fabulous video message they produced>.

I believe this can happen if we embrace the moral imperative as people. Ah. Back to that ‘moral’ word I keep tossing into this mix. What a divisive word for a word which should be a unitor. Beyond the entire civil discourse and listening and finding common ground discussion it seems to me that a shitload of us are actually embracing what I believe is called ‘moral condescension.’ It’s not that we are just condescending with each other about views, opinions and beliefs, but all of that crap is grounded on an underlying sense of moral condescension <’not only do you have the wrong belief & attitude but you do that because you are not a morally strong as I am’>. Not only is condescension of any type irritating but moral condescension ratchets up irritating to … well … an incredibly irritating level. For the most part most people don’t really have to deal with it because most of us either keep our moral ‘high horse’ in our pocket or share it with friends and acquaintances of like mind. And most other people know our views and just avoid us if they disagree.

What that means is <a> there is a significant lack of any discourse and <b> when there is we fairly quickly move into our ‘moral condescension mode’ which irritates the other person/people.

I do ponder why we hate moral condescension so much. I mean condescension in general is irritating, but with morals and morality it just has a tendency to bring forth a little anger.

I would offer to everyone that maybe it suggests we should feel some guilt for some indulgence in the vagaries of life. It suggests that maybe we feel too much, well, about ‘muchness’ without truly examining the barebones of shit without all the muchness attached. The truth is that, for the most part, if you strip away the condescension it only suggests some examination of what we focus on and what we do not focus on. In fact. Imn moral condescension we actually possibly deprive something in that person as WE subconsciously indulge upon ourselves as something ‘we earned’  <this idea, to me, is at the nucleus of the condescension>.

Uhm. You do not earn indulgence. You earn money & respect <as well as some other nice and not so nice characteristics I imagine>.

I say that because regardless of whether you are the moral condescension giver or the moral condescension receiver you should be stepping back and stripping away the indulgence aspects <simplistically … I earned that huge SUV and deserve it … even though some people cannot even afford taking a bus> and try viewing all moral decisions and people’s views in the most stripped down version.

I say that because naked we kind of all have the same problems and issues in a harsh world — it is just a matter of degree in most cases.

I say that because we kind of have a moral obligation to the fellowship of all humankind and ‘fairness’ <whoever you would like to define that> for all.

Look. I fully understand as we bob around in the sea of survival <and self beliefs> we cannot have moral obligations to everyone around the world. It kind of seems to make more sense to understand we actually only truly have moral obligations against the people we come up against. The ones who metaphorically enter into our moral space. This suggests a concept of proximity or that proximity matter in morality. Well, yes and no.

First. The closest proximity is yourself – you can control your own actions and what you think, do and say.

Second proximity then would be the ones closest to us – physically or mentally.

Third proximity would actually be ‘the world.’ And what I mean by that is you have a choice to be vocal with regard to what you see as right or wrong. It’s kind of like the moral version of the butterfly affect. If enough voices are raised even Horton will hear the Whos in Whoville.

I say that because distance diminishes the affect your own moral obligation can have a real impact. But maybe what that proximity idea I just shared with you means is that we have some moral obligation to intersect, with ideas, and listen and discuss with those who our space interconnects with.

Here is what I know for sure.

We do not listen to each other enough these days. And we certainly do not discuss things with an eye toward commonalities anymore. Our differences seem incontrovertible and our civility has diminished to such a point we don’t even attempt to engage in discussion because of such certainty of lack of civility we do not even believe it is worth the attempt. That is a shame. And in Bruce terms … “it is bad.’ The lack of any attempt is, at its worst, ignoring a moral imperative for the greater good.

We would all do better if we recognized that ‘the ports have names for the seas’ … and they may be different names than the ones we have given the seas.

==========

Historical note about the Auden line I opened this piece up with … and a thought that sometimes mistakes can lead to a different way of looking at things and thinking about things … and … well … in the end — doing something different than you planned.

W.H. Auden describes somewhere how he had written a line, in a poem about Iceland.

and the poets have names for the sea

and the printer set it up in galley as …

and the ports have names for the sea.

Auden left it, liking the line better. A happy accident.

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

——-

“’You’re dangerous’, he says.

‘Why?’

‘Because you make me believe in the impossible.’ “

=

Simone Elkeles

——-

“Disruption is bad.

You seem to be using it to mean something good,” she said.

——

So.

This is about disruption and business. This is one of my favorite words & topics. It is one of my favorites for two reasons.

First is that it is an overlooked way to be successful in the marketplace. Far too often businesses simply seek to “compete.” They are satisfied with standing in the ring and bludgeon each other all the while suggesting that this is “smart fighting giving me an edge.” It is not. Shit. “Edges” <in this case> is simply staying in the fight and not a plan to win a fight. Disruption is all about wins and winning.

Second. It is one of the few words in business that if you actually deign to use in a meeting or business discussion will draw a visceral response from your audience. From a ‘fun’ perspective it is maybe even more fun than farting in the middle of a presentation.

Anyway.

Disruption, or disrupt, is an emotive word often creating a very unsettling image. And it is a topic which typically scares the shit out of most businesses <and business people>. The excuses to ‘not being so disruptive’ are too long to list … and some are quite creative. But suffice it to say … almost every excuse is grounded in fear.

Yeah.

All those “whoa … slow down on that whole disruption talk” people may suggest ‘it is expensive to do something like that’ but they are simply shaping excuses in their heads & mouths because the whole thought of disrupting anything … well … scares the shit out of them.

Now.

To be clear on definitions <and purpose> … the aim of disruption is to frame <or reframe> a business <or a brand> so that the market sees it differently. Well. I could suggest it is actually simply turning around and facing reality.

——-

“At some point you just have to turn around and face your life head on.”

Chris Cleave

—–

What I mean by that is disrupting is most typically simply attacking some conventional thinking and tapping into what people really think <when they actually think about it>. And many times it is really common sense stuff. It is common sense because it is many times rooted in the fact we just get stuck either in ‘that’s the way its done’ … or maybe we have become so numb to the fact we have bolted on crap to the brand <or company> in day to day attempts to keep it relevant that it is almost unfamiliar to what people originally thought of it <we just made it too complex or complicated>.

Please note … this whole disruption thing, while I love it, is not my idea.

Jean Marie Dru, the Chairman of TBWA has been talking about the power of “disruption” since the early 1990s. His book, Disruption: Overturning Conventions and Shaking Up the Marketplace, is a must read for anyone who likes this shit <and it is actually a delightful read for a business book>. Interestingly … even Tom Peters <the ‘in search of excellence’ guy> thought the concept of disruption was topical … even decades ago.

——

“Disrupt or be disrupted.  Disrupt or die.

Disruption is the most powerful idea in business today.”

Tom Peters

——

I tend to believe disruption gets a bad rap because it implies wholesale change. Like as in throw out everything and start from scratch. Au contraire. Disrupting is always about leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior> from which your idea will end up tapping into. I say that to remind everyone that something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … uhm … nothing. Smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

——

“If in a company you change nothing, you are sure to fail. If you change everything you are sure to fail as well.

So the art of winning resides in your capacity to draw the fine line between what should be changed and what should not.

Same for a brand.  All brands are in transition.  You can’t build brands by thinking only in a linear way. You have to think of larger futures for them. And to do that, you have to use your imagination. A larger share of the future very seldom comes from an extrapolation of the present.

And that is what Disruption is all about. Disruption is about discovering new futures.”

=

Jean Marie-Dru

——

Let’s be honest here. New futures sound frickin’ awesome.

Uhm. Here’s the problem. Futures are not guaranteed, are they?

Doh.

Success is getting people to think and act differently. <doh again>

That translates into … yikes … change.

Here is the good news about this whole disruptive change topic. Effective disruptive thinking is not some blind irresponsible thinking. It takes into consideration all the levels of change it effects and addresses them. 

—–

“Disruption demands that a company challenges conventional behaviors and finds a new way to act.

If you analyze the behavior of the category in question you will see conventional patterns of activity are apparent on four levels: corporate, marketing, communications and the customer’s point of view.  Some of these conventions are invariably good and necessary, while others are not.

The opportunity lies in seeing how a brand can use its strengths to do something less conventional to change its path and accelerate growth.”

=

Matt Shepherd-Smith, CEO, TBWA\London

—–

To be clear. There is truly a difference in disruption and intelligent disruption. Disruption in and of itself … without thought … is meaningless destruction creating chaos. Intelligent disruption leads change from what exists rather than reacting to what exists and … well … creates something new <not chaos>.

Anyway.

Here are few more thoughts by Jean-Marie Dru about brand building and the importance of disruption:

—

–        Disruption is creating something dynamic to replace something that has become static.

–        I have always believed that a brand has to evolve. It cannot remain motionless. The same, of course, applies to companies.

—

While all those words sound inspiring and thoughtful and … well … what business person WOULDN’T want to do that? Well. Disruption actually is linked to another word which business people tend to really really dislike … destruction. Destruction of the conventional … the comfortable. Conventions train us to do the conventional. And because it is conventional … we tend to not really think about this shit.

Uhm. Yes. Accepted beliefs, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking. This all translates into destroying some of the accepted beliefs … uhm … which means destroying … well … familiarity.

Yet … within destruction there should be a surge of energy <from people and a business perspective because disruption is actually both strategy and action>.

What do I believe <see: “know”>?

Too much business thinking today is satisfied with maintaining the status quo.

This is doomed thinking. Thinking is at its best when used as a sharp weapon and used to transform business and the way people think <and do things>. Far too much thinking <and the tactics which arise from that thinking> look the same, say the same, and … well … do the same.

All of which simply makes it easier to be ignored.

Worse?

It doesn’t respect people’s intelligence or their sense of <thinking> adventure. Therefore disruption incorporates destructing some of ‘what is.’

Not just for the sake of destruction but rather with the intent to be singular, extraordinary, and even world-changing is inspiring and interesting and adventuresome. Disrupting is done with the intent to stand out from the crowd and get noticed in a way that fundamentally changes perceptions. I imagine I could quite simplistically suggest that great disruptive thinking challenges the prevailing ideas of the present, therefore, disruption sounds difficult, unsettling, painful and fundamentally frightening.

Why would anybody disrupt, and destroy, on purpose?

Well.

Here is the contradiction … you are actually destroying to create.

=

It’s about creation – creating something dynamic to replace something that has become static. 

Disruption is about systematically breaking through the barriers that shape and limit standard business approaches. It’s about challenging conventional wisdom and imagining new possibilities. It’s about destroying the assumptions and biases that get in the way of fresh and visionary ideas.

<Jean Marie-Dru>

=

 This actually means that the other thing where disruption gets a bad rap is that it is used as a verb … when it is actually a noun when done correctly.

Yup. Because disruption is actually a destination … a vision of what could, and should, be … against which all strategic and marketing decisions are measure. This means that disruptive ideas are simply ways to get to the vision as fast as possible.

This also means that you are taking a stand. A stand for not what is … but what will be. You are changing the rules <and frankly doing so in your favor>.

To be clear.

Disruption is not anarchy <nor chaos>. It is a strategically directed shake-up. It’s a way of thinking. It means taking nothing for granted.

It means being bold and taking some risk.

It means you are actually inventing a future in which you not only want to live … but one in which you can prosper.

Anyone in business worth even half a shit knows that the path to truly winning <and winning big> in business is to create new categories or subcategories rather than engaging in brand preference competition in established categories.

The idea of creating a new category, defining its dimensions and becoming its ‘definer’ <of which everyone else has to measure against> is where true success <financially> resides.

Sure. Many businesses need to engage in brand preference competition to retain their relevance and market position. But that is a defensive strategy. And, trust me, someone is going to go on the offensive at some point.

Anyway.

Disruption simply means ‘to challenge.’ And we all need to remember that disruption creates and is not simply to destroy. That doesn’t mean everything is all rosy if you get it right.

Technological disruption re-defines industries.

Cultural disruption always seems to piss people off.

Why?

Challenging people … and the status quo … can make people angry.

What do I say? Fuck ‘em.

Disruption by challenging the status quo improves culture. Is there conflict? You bet.

Does that conflict lead to a spark of energy? You bet. And from the spark comes improvement.

Look.

We are all disruptors. Just that some of us know it and some of us don’t.

—-

“We are all manufacturers – making good, making trouble or making excuses.”

=

HV Adolt

——-

Ok. Frankly. All that really matters despite all I babbled about <typed> … is you either choose to disrupt … or be disrupted.

Well. I have said this before … it seems like today’s world is tough on dreamers.

It is hard to be a dreamer and it seems to be easier and easier to blindly move down a beaten path <because you’ve been beaten up by Life>. By the way. This is not suggesting anyone is a “sheep.” It simply means Life is often a grind and as you make choices with regard to making Lie easier in some ways you simply choose the path most taken.

Regardless. We need to remind ourselves on occasion that it is okay to dream … and dream big and that relentlessly pursuing a dream can be inspiring <not discouraging>.

Now. Being a big dreamer doesn’t mean that you walk around with your head in the clouds. It means that you have a purpose … a big purpose that makes your life bigger and fulfills some promise within you.

Of course … as usual … the key is to find a balance. Think ground and clouds. Feet in the clouds and head on the ground. Pragmatic with no limits. A contradiction? Sure. But big dreams are a contradiction. As a practical relatively pragmatic human race we would never have them … unless some of them defied the odds and actually came true. Some really do happen.

Which reminds me <to remind everyone> that big dreams are things … not intangibles. They are not ‘becoming rich’ or ‘being a star’ … they are achieving greatness with an idea or a thought. Anyway. And while there should be a balance … there should be some big dream in all of us for a lot of reasons:

–          Sense of Self.

Big dreams have a nice habit of increasing the size of your sense of self. You have to be careful it doesn’t become bigger than yourself and consume you … but big dreams remind you that you can make a big impact in some form or fashion. Maybe not today … but a hope of sometime. Big dreams can not only create some interesting self-purpose in life but it also reminds you that anyone, even you, is capable of the extraordinary. Even if it is just in thought.

————————————

“Be daring, be different, be impractical, be anything that will assert integrity of purpose & imaginative vision against the play-it-safers, the creatures of the commonplace, the slaves of the ordinary.“

Sir Cecil Beaton

————————————–

Maybe that is the biggest part of this ‘sense of self’ thought  … it is likely the biggest reason why you wouldn’t want to settle on small dreams … does anyone really want to be a slave of the ordinary?

–          Possibilities.

When you dream big things you will find new roads you may want to explore along the way. It is an adventure and sometimes extremely unpredictable and never ordinary. This is because big dreams can push limits of possibility <or what is possible> because it keeps the impossible in life in sight <if you can actually see something like impossible>. It all happens because big dreams are … well … not quantifiable. If they can be <in your head> I would suggest it is not really a dream but an objective or goal. A dream has to be so big it is just an idea … something difficult to put a number on it or a specific GPS coordinate. it is always somewhere on the horizon. And in reaching toward it the possibilities of new roads not taken <and never envisioned nor on any map as a matter of fact> increase significantly.

–          Achieving stuff.

Yeah. You may not actually get the big one <the big dream> but typically if you dream big, you increase the odds you actually achieve something. It also increases the odds you actually achieve something relatively great in the scheme of things. In fact. You may even end up achieving more than you ever thought you could <even if it isn’t the big dream you began with>.

Big dreams are the reasons why the world changes … and becomes better. And I say ‘world’ as in if you define it in business … or in life. It’s the reason why there have been so many inventions, new ‘out of the box’ ideas, creations or whatevers. As a business guy I love this following quote for the business big dreamers:

————————-

“New business concepts are always, always the product of lucky foresight. That’s right – the essential insight doesn’t come out of any dirigiste planning process; it comes form some cocktail of happenstance, desire, curiosity, ambition and need. But at the end of the day, there has to be a degree of foresight — a sense of where new riches lie. So radical innovation is always one part fortuity and one part clearheaded vision.”

Gary Hamel, Leading the Revolution

——————–

New concepts inevitably come from one part clearheaded big dreaming.

Same with new ideas. Same with anything really new … and really big. Oh. And along the way a lot of good little stuff happens too.

–          Your legacy <and big dreams>

Big dreams give you the opportunity to truly leave your mark on the world in several ways:

You achieve it.

You don’t achieve it <but achieve other shit along the way>.

You don’t achieve it <and it is left for someone else to achieve>.

The first.

The achieving one is obvious. It is satisfying and certainly something at the end of the road you will probably look back on with some satisfaction. I will mention though that most big dreamers update their dreams if they actually attain the original. You never really actually stop dreaming big <but do not tell anyone that>.

The second.

You don’t achieve it but along the road you have veered off on a variety of paths you encountered and did some good shit along the way. Your legacy is strewn with stuff you have left behind. I call this a ‘no regret’ life. You don’t really regret the missed ‘big dream’ cause you lived life doing stuff.

The third.

Oh. And not achieving the big dream … whew … what does happen to big dreams when a dreamer dies?

Here is the good news. A big dream never really dies. Only dreamers do. Someone else grabs it as their own. I think most big dreamers recognize his and are okay with it. Big dreams aren’t really meant to be owned by anyone in particular except Life. They can be achieved by someone <if they are lucky enough to figure out how to do it> but big dreams are visionary.

Some big dreams cannot be fulfilled within a single lifetime. But they are so inspiring that future generations <or someone in that generation> will strive to achieve it.

And last.

Inspiring that future?

Well. Maybe, that in itself is why people should dream big.

——–

“After nourishment, shelter and companionship, stories are the thing we need most in the world.”

=======

Philip Pullman

———

So.

Stories.

Telling them.

Making them.

Shit.

Deciding what ‘them’, your own story <maybe yet to be written?> is.

Which leads me to one of my favorite tumblr blogs < www.a-thousand-words.tumblr.com > where I saw this Pixar’s 22 rules for Storytelling:

Anyway.

If you are in the creative communications business, it is self explanatory <and provides some nice guidelines>.

If you are thinking about creating a presentation and giving a presentation … it provides some nice thought fodder.

But … more importantly … if you are thinking about what the story of your life is … and how you are writing it each and every day … this should be printed out and taped to your mirror so you can see it every morning. In fact … I would highly recommend you ditch all the personal branding bullshit advice and just go with his.

You have a story to be told.

You tell it to yourself everyday.

You rewrite it every night.

You edit it every day.

You critique it word by word and sometimes punctuation mark by punctuation mark.

——–

“It’s like everyone tells a story about themselves inside their own head. Always. All the time. That story makes you what you are. We build ourselves out of that story.”

===

Patrick Rothfuss
——–

Rothfuss is one of my favorite authors. And he is right. We build ourselves out of that story.

Which means … well … we are all storytellers.

And that is why these 22 rules for storytelling are relevant to each & every one of us.

You have a story to tell.

Tell it well.

Yeah.

Sometimes communicating, professional or personal, can be that simple & easy <you don’t really need some book to tell you this>.

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

“Even if it’s a dumb story, telling it changes other people just the slightest little bit, just as living the story changes me. An infinitesimal change. And that infinitesimal change ripples outward – ever smaller but everlasting.

I will get forgotten, but the stories will last. And so we all matter – maybe less than a lot, but always more than some.”

John Green

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

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

“Life is a test of endurance, strengths, challenges and patience.”

–

Kim Hoth

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

“We are many, many people and yet we are one. What we do today with our thinking, what we do tomorrow with our thoughts, what we do with our actions and our interactions with people determines the course of the universe itself.

You are not powerless. You are not without power.” 

 –

Little Crow

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

Well. I have written several times about how businesses fear doing what it truly takes to survive <for some good reasons & some bad reasons>. I was reminded of this because I just saw an article that said “GE is broken. Fixing it will be long & difficult.”

My 1^st thought?

They will fail to fix it just like Kodak failed to fix itself and … well … there is a long list of companies faced with ‘broken’ and failed to fix itself.

Oddly enough the reason is simple.

They weren’t willing to make the hard choices and were not willing to do what needed to be done.

== 

“Stop discussing how serious the problem is, and get serious about finding an immediate solution to it.”

Terry Mark

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

This permits me to share my favorite business lesson. One from September 14^th 1812. The beginning of the lesson? On September 14^th 1812, the Russians set fire to Moscow in the face of Napoleon Bonaparte’s troops.

Yup. The governor of Moscow herded out most of the Moscow residents and then burned almost 80% of the city.

Just as a reminder to all non-historians this began the demise of Napoleon’s reign. This action not only permitted Russia to defeat Napoleon by forcing a debilitating retreat back to France, but it also began the demise of the Grand Armee of France. The point of this is, well, how far would you go to solve your business problem?

What happened on this date should make us all think about what we in the business world would sacrifice to win.

Look.

Do you imagine there was consensus in this Moscow discussion & decision? <hell no>

In fact. Can you imagine the first person who stood up and said “hey, I have an idea, how about we purposely burn Moscow so they can’t have it?”

<of course all said in Russian, probably after several liters of vodka, to the Czar and probably a couple of Cossack bodyguards … who have some very sharp swords>

Someone had some guts – lots of guts. I hesitate to believe many people in today’s business world have that type of guts.

The tough decisions are … well … tough. Hard choices are … well … hard. And I can guarantee they seem to get even tougher & harder when your survival is at stake.

—————

So would you be willing to burn your burn your business to win in the face of overwhelming odds?

——————

Far too often we try to keep our options open. Straddle the fence as it were. Keep some of what we value in place and do “radical” shit with other parts. 90% of the time that is simply mental masturbation. 90% of the time that is simply suggesting your Frankenstein strategy will help you survive … when what you actually need is a “6 million Dollar Man” strategy.

Sometimes you have to kill the structure to rebuild something better from the ashes.

I say all this because I believe more businesses, whether they believe their survival is at stake or not, should be sitting down and having the hard discussion … what ARE you willing to do to win?

Heck. Maybe most importantly. When you look at your situation do you even recognize how desperate your situation is?

<remember … someone in Russia recognized, and had the balls to say something about, the fact they were about to get their ass kicked>

I mention that because the business landscape is strewn with the wreckage of businesses that did not envision their own demise.

Next. Think about ‘burning the city’ as a solution.

I believe we can all agree that someone “stepped out of the box” with a solution. Ok. They actually stepped ‘into the box’ and said “let’s destroy the box.’

And let’s be clear. I have to imagine neither of these points, as stated above, were popular, well-received nor accepted as a 100% agreement “so what we will do” type of moment.

Anyway. Survival or not, one of the most difficult things a company can do is address their situation in the market. It is just not a fun discussion <usually lots of fingers get pointed in a variation of a circular firing squad>.

In general I believe most companies and businesses are pretty good at assessing their situation in the marketplace. I, for one, have been in a number of those types of meetings where everyone sits down and honestly assesses the difficult position they are in. In other words, you can see the hole you are in or heading into.

I also have been through too many meetings where that same business just isn’t willing to do what it takes to resolve the situation.

Hey. I am not suggesting this is an easy discussion <but at least we don’t have Cossacks with really sharp swords standing around us while we are discussing what to do>.

So.

Are you willing to put 80% of everything you have up in flames to win? I guess it depends on whether you believe the situation merits it. And that is a toughie for sure because we are certainly a country and group of optimists and in general we always believe there is a positive horizon. All that means is we tend to lean back in our expensive chairs in some expensive board room and think, well, c’mon … if you believe there is some positive horizon then burning ‘the city’ isn’t necessary.

But. What if it is necessary? Would you recognize it? Would someone in your group recognize it?

Oh. And if someone did would you listen?

Look. I don’t have the answers. And I am clearly a “burning the city” type of person. I am quite fine with destroying to create <not just destroying for the sake of destroying>.

You may not agree with me, but I would point out burning Moscow sure as shit helped guarantee the survival of Russia.

In the end?

Keep your eyes open. And keep your mind open to solutions. Most of the time we see the danger but, in our optimism, seek creative ways to navigate the danger all the while ignoring the fact danger has no finesse and is a sledgehammer. Ponder. Sometimes the extreme solution, while scary, is the right solution.

========

“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 50something and I believe the older generation, mostly old white men, hollowed out business to the shithole point we face today.

That said.

Let me spend a minute on old white men <and I have the right to do so … because I am one> 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” and “maximize win-to-cash <making $>” ratio. These men have guided business to a level of so-called “greatness” through a variety of ‘great’ business acumen thoughts & business culture attitudes which were hollow attitudes and, ultimately, created fantastic looking hollow achievements.

In doing so they successfully hollowed out business.

Now.

The other aggravating thing I am doing today is, while I could write this without making this point, everyone should note that Trump is the poster child of this hollowness <and I will aggravatingly point it out over and over again>.

He has been the guiding light into this dark world of money grubbers with questionable moral compasses. 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 rather an opportunity to build personal wealth.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

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.

But 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. The whole concept of ‘building a brand’ is one of the most insidious concepts to infiltrate good and meaningful marketing and communications.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

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 and <b> 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 … well … 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 feed society.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

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>.

Old white men hollowed out the middle. 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.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Communication.

Effective communication has been, and always will be, complex and complicated. But 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 hollowing out communication. Everything became soundbites, powerpoint bullet points and ‘elevator speeches.’ Effectively communicating complexity took on less importance than puncturing the mind with a quick sharp stab <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.”>

That is Trump in a nutshell.

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.

But 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 numbers and began diminishing the value of humanity.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

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 & told 5 things they did & said that 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 publically espousing their enlightenment, but privately thinking it was a waste of time, energy & monies. All the while they believed 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 racists – 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.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Lastly.

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.

Behavior

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.

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.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

All that said.

These old white men, in their heart of hearts, inherently do not care about a ‘better America’ from a soul perspective nor do they care about any aspect of ‘being a better person’ but solely attach ‘better’ with wealth, importance and wins.

I get angry.

I get angry because I do not believe ‘hollowness’ is the path to greatness. 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.

And I am even angrier because we are now led by a hollow someone with a hollow platform, hollow plans, hollow skills, hollow dignity, hollow composure and no soul <that I can see>.

Look.

This can be solved. And it can be solved by … well … old guys 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 … well … 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 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 could bring some good healthy substance back into this wretched hollowness.

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.

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

“abandon all hope, ye who enter here”

–

Dante

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

‘… supplicate and implore the gods that prosperity may return to the wretched, and abandon the haughty.’

—-

Horace

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

“The unicorn is a lonely, solitary creature that symbolizes hope.”

–

Ally McBeal

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

Ok.

In today’s world we seem to get caught up in the everyday grind of the story of the day. And, yes, most stories don’t reflect the best version of people & society.

What this means is that it can get fairly easy to step on to the slippery slope leading down to a belief we are in some shithole with no leader or steps to get out of it.

And what THAT means <at least to me> is that far too many people are abandoning hope and we desperately need some people to offer us some good ole pragmatic hope.

I say this because … as a reminder … above the entrance to hell <Inferno> in Dante’s  Divine Comedy lies the words “abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”

Just to keep you updated on the story … Dante passes through the gate of Hell with this inscription which is the ninth (and final) line <“Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate”>:

————–

Before me things create were none, save things

Eternal, and eternal I endure.

All hope abandon ye who enter here.

—————-

Ah.

And as another reminder of the tale … before entering hell, Dante and his guide (Virgil) see the Uncommitted. The uncommitted represent the souls of people who did nothing in Life.

Yup.

Nothing … neither for good nor evil … just nothing.

To be clear, no, I am not going to suggest everyone read Dante’s Divine Comedy <a tough read for anyone>.

But I will talk about hope <or the lack thereof> & being uncommitted.

I imagine lack of hope is kind of like entering a personal hell. 

Which isn’t good for anyone.

So the corollary to that is that I imagine those of us with hope to give should share it whenever we can to get them out of that hell.

Which leads me to … uhm … unicorns.

And I guess about people who see unicorns.

Crazy? Sure.  Sounds it.

But hopefully it also makes you think about the people who seem to keep a vision of hope … and use it, however they elect to keep that hope at hand, to help them through the days and weeks.

So.

This thought is actually grounded in an Ally McBeal episode. It, in its oft absurd way, showed how sometimes people go to some extreme, if not bizarre, ways to hold on to some light in seemingly dark days.

And while the episode was about the holidays I thought it was pretty relevant for any day <these days>.

What do I mean?

Well.

I was going to try and right some whizbang words but instead I found something that someone wrote on their blog <sorry … forgot who> that seemed to create the perfect reason for why seeing unicorns is perfectly acceptable:

—————————

What has made it challenging for me to write this is the darkness that I experience through the world’s anguish at this time. I am not living in days of light—I am living in days in need of light. I need to remember in this time of darkness that there are many who are seeking light.

I listen to the rantings of politicians who seem far more caught up in ideology and party positioning than they do in honestly meeting the deep challenges of our economy, the needs of our people, and caring for our planet. I witness the kindest of people being too busy to adequately separate their own food waste and recycling from their trash to reduce the build-up of what is becoming our planetary garbage dump. I witness fires and weather destroying lives and property and then reflect on the consequence of our priorities when we are unable to respond adequately. In this season of cold, I see the homeless in our own community seeking shelter from the wet and the winter.

And even, perhaps, more sharply, I returned from Israel more aware than ever of the incredibly wide divide between the humanity we perceive and the inhumanity shown by the actions of the leaders in that troubled region.

Right here at home, I am troubled by the inaction of so many of us who speak words of reconciliation, words of peace, words of promise, yet continue to find enemies who need to be stopped rather than people who need to be invited into the dialogue.

Yes, all that is true, yet I need to remember in this time of darkness that there are many who are seeking light.

—————————————–

Look.

That sounds … well … dark. But I elect to focus on the ‘light’ or the refusal to give up on hope portion. We need light and, to me, that is hope.

Because of that grind of stories we seem to face every day I do believe a lot of people just seem to be more empty these days.

Well.

Certainly less full of hope if they aren’t completely empty.

And in this Ally McBeal episode someone was fired for saying he saw a unicorn.

Well.

I would imagine all of us would take this with a grain of salt <if not believe the person had completely lost their mind>.

Yet the judge in the episode suggests “there are a lot of lonely people out there, looking for hope in strange places.”

In the end the judge decides that those people can keep their unicorns.

You know?

It sounds a little crazy … and Whipper <the judge on Ally McBeal> was a quasi-nutcase on a show full of nutcases … but … you know what? I agree.

Some people need to believe that they have seen a unicorn. It doesn’t mean they are nuts … people need to find hope however they can … some people just see the unicorn as hope.

And, frankly, (and one of the characters says this also) … why should anyone have any say in where a person may look for that hope?

For god’s sake … all people want to be happy … and different people just get there in different ways.

And if someone elects to use a unicorn?

Well, geez, it could be worse, couldn’t it?

One of the characters in the episode says … “who’s to say the ones who dream of unicorns aren’t the lucky ones these days.”

I know … I know … this sounds nuts … but think about it.

Supposedly people who see them share some of the unicorn’s traits … they may be lonely but with virtuous hearts.

Mythology also suggests that only pure spirits can approach the unicorn.

In the Ally McBeal episode Ally recalls one time when she touched a unicorn and the character who saw it said he didn’t get close to the unicorn … but (here is the part that maybe makes you think a little) …  “but he won’t have another chance if he stops believing in the unicorn.”

Ok.

That is a bigger thought than just a wacky tv show.

If we ask all people to stop “believing in unicorns” do people lose any chance of reaching what they hope for?

If we ask people to stop ‘believing in unicorns’ are we asking people to abandon Hope?

Whew.

C’mon.

The unicorn is a symbol of innocence and purity.

I know all of this sounds crazy <and it even looks crazy as I type it> … but … don’t we really want more of these people in today’s world?

In fact … Chinese mythology says the fact that a unicorn has not been seen in many centuries suggests that we are living in “bad” times. It will appear once again when the time is right and when goodness reigns.

So maybe the people who see unicorns are actually the hope for the rest of us. Maybe they are the ones “where goodness reigns.”

Regardless.

Maybe someone who sees a unicorn somehow just feels safer. And I have no right to not allow someone that right in today’s world.

Also <and … boy … coming from a pragmatic realist like me … this is gonna sound really odd> … I don’t know if I can explain it, but knowing that maybe someone out there can actually see a unicorn … well … maybe in a weird way they give me hope.

Now that I have typed that … it reminds me of something else another character said:

——————-

And, I’m afraid say it out loud because maybe if life finds out it’ll try to beat it out of them and that will be a shame.

Because, we all can use a little hope sometimes, you know. That feeling that everything’s going to be okay and that there’s going to be someone there to help make sure of that.

There are people who can make you believe in things you can’t see.

And I think we miss that these days.

———————-

Look.

It’s a hard time for everyone these days but it is a particularly hard time for Hope & dreams these days.

Unfortunately far too many people re being encouraged to think of hope & dreams as some big, fluffy cloud that is surrounded by rainbows and unicorns.

Because of that we tend to dismiss the ‘unicorns & rainbows’ and tend to focus on a mission … that everything in our lives would instantly be perfect if only we could have ABC, or do XYZ.

Well.

Maybe it is that mission ‘focus’ that is really the fantasy … or, at minimum, part of the problem.

Maybe all those ‘missions’ are cramming up all our space that would have held dreams. And, really, this isn’t about going after your dreams but rather dreaming … and having hope … for something good and big and … well … maybe something that isn’t always tangible but intangible that lifts the heart and spirit.

I say all of this knowing that some readers will think this is wacky … but I also hope that people realize there is no right or wrong answer.

Being in the hope business is tricky, and tough, these days.

But.

In fact I almost wish I was in the used rainbow & hope business.

I think people would be willing to buy discount dreams and discounted rainbows. What I mean by that is people would be willing to set aside the ‘big’ dreams and maybe pick up someone else’s that have been discarded … and they still look pretty good to reality.

In the meantime … maybe I should look for some people who make wishes on rainbows and see unicorns and have not abandoned Hope <even if they have done so in some wacky way>.

I know it’s not really in my personal DNA to see unicorns.

And maybe that means I am not one of the lucky ones.

Maybe we need more people who can see unicorns.

Here is what I am absolutely sure we need.

I do know is that hope is a must.

If you don’t have it, you’ve got to find it … lapses in hope happen and are okay … but you have to find it however you must … and maybe that is why I agree with the judge in Ally McBeal … let those people have their unicorns … who am I to judge on how someone holds on to hope.

Regardless.

Ally McBeal was an odd tv show.

But several episodes are must see for everyone.

This is one.

It may just remind you that seeing unicorns isn’t as wacky as you thought it was.

It may just remind you that abandoning Hope is worse than seeing unicorns.

It may just remind you that being uncommitted to Hope, and the things associated with it, is actually worse than being in Hell.

Look.

To me … no hope = hell.

Therefore we should seek our better angels to guide people out of hell and inner angels to keep us from hell.

==========

“Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree.”

—

Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

And, maybe most importantly, by abandoning Hope we have absolved ourselves of one of our greatest responsibilities – the next generation.

If we abandon hope we then fail to provide hope to our young people … and … well … are we not simply encouraging them to enter the gate of hell?

And if we abandon hope and end up doing nothing do we not run the risk of becoming one of the Uncommitted?

Dante was a smart guy. Gave us a lot to think about. Oddly … so did Ally McBeal. We can learn a lot about Hope in a lot of different places … including unicorns.

We need Hope. For if we abandon hope it is quite possible our future is destined to walk thru the gate of hell.

——————–

“I wish I had the courage not to fight and doubt everything… I wish, just once, I could say, ‘This. This is good enough. Just because I choose it.”

―

Chuck Palahniuk

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

So.

Let me very clear upfront … while this piece will be on Russian involvement in the 2016 USA presidential election I am not discussing, nor suggesting, collusion or coordination of efforts between anything I will outline and the Trump campaign. The analysis of that will be done by greater minds than mine.

This piece is about what Russia did and the effect on the 2016 election. Let’s call this an analysis of the Russian marketing campaign to support Donald J Trump.

I have the fortune to exchange ideas, on occasion, with some highly qualified experts and several foreign policy thought leaders and all of them continuously grapple not with what Russia did but more so with how to talk about it. Which leads me to the horrible position that I find myself in <and I imagine any professional communications person with any significant experience is in>.

We know that Russia most likely influenced enough voters to have elected Donald J Trump.

There. I said it. The one sentence which seems to be on the lips of almost any credible thinking individual but never seems to be spoken. This has nothing to do whether I believe he is qualified or not … this is just a conclusion that anyone who knows shit about marketing & advertising has arrived at if they look at the campaign.

<note: this is easily provable … hire MillwardBrown, pay them $100k, give them all the voting information and attitude poll information and they could do a county comparison … they do this for marketing & advertising campaigns all the time to measure effectiveness>

Anyway. It took me a while to get there because the overarching narrative ‘cover’ for the election is, and always has been, “Russia never changed a vote or made someone do anything.” While every reasonable marketing person would debate the seeming lack of understanding in the concept of ‘ability to affect behavior through marketing’, it was easier for people to generally focus on the truth Russia never got into actual voting machines and changed votes.

This means it just took me a lot longer to get to the truth that many of my peers had already arrived at.

…. I did not want to know this ………..

Whew.

The truth. Russia changed votes and voting behavior.

What knowledge to have. What a wretched position to be in … to be a professional communications person and a believer in America democracy … that is the horrible position many of us find ourselves in.

Why?

Well. The majority of us know, if we view it through a professional lens, that the Russians communications <propaganda> effort most likely put Donald J Trump into the presidency … and we don’t know what to do and say about it.

Why?

Think about the outcome of this presentation. The main one would be that many people would believe Donald J was not a legitimate president or legitimately elected. And that would be … well … horrible. Horrible for the country, horrible for democracy and … well … just horrible. I, personally, feel a little less horrible because I still believe … 100% believe … and have written extensively that if the Clinton campaign had done a couple of things and maybe thought thru a couple of things they would have won.

All that said.

I could open this presentation by suggesting the Clinton campaign ran a slightly-less-than-effective-as-it-could-have marketing campaign but I could also showcase how the Trump campaign, in and of itself, did not do enough to win.

——- Clint Watts analysis of Russia Social Media Plan ——-

I would then have to point out that an overlaid Russian marketing campaign <which diminished Clinton to suppress behavior in her favor> made the difference at the finish line. As noted earlier, someone like MillwardBrown could prove/disprove this in ‘two notes or less.’

Anyway … before anyone argues with that premise please remember that with 136 million votes cast, Trump’s victory came down to a razor-thin edge of only 77,744 votes across three states: Pennsylvania (44,292 votes), Wisconsin (22,748 votes), and Michigan (10,704 votes) – all less than .7% difference between the two candidates … a less than full Michigan stadium … and, if reversed, Clinton would be our president.

The 2016 election result is really all about the fact that there was just enough movement in just the right places, with just enough increased turnout from just the right groups, to get Trump the electoral votes he needed to win.

Regardless. While I know from career experience advertising affects attitudes & behavior the rest, block by block, of the truth fell into place. But what make this conclusion truly horrible is … well … what do you do with that knowledge? It does no good to suggest the current president is illegitimate. None. Zero.

Look.

I am not making this up.

While others look at this in some vague “what could they do to make someone vote a certain way” I look at this from a marketing perspective where I have sat in meeting after meeting analyzing marketing campaigns and tactics to watch what levers <tactics & messages>have been pulled to get someone to do something they may not have considered doing before. Given that knowledge here were the 4 blocks which gt me there:

The first ‘block’ was, of course, when the US government warned us that 17 intelligence agencies <or 4 with others tentatively agreeing, or whatever number you want depending on your cynicism but suffice it to say the US Intelligence agencies are aligned in some form or fashion> agreed Russia was fucking within our election. They didn’t go into details but rather just said “they, they are doing this” <and did some behind the scenes stuff to deflect some things they did>.

I would also note that this is where “marketing doesn’t affect my behavior’ attitudes started digging in within the general population’s mindset … “I made my own decision” is what they say <naively I may add>.

The second ‘block’ occurred on November 6^th 2016 in an article called “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy” .

——————-

… in addition to phishing and cracking attacks, these hackers are aided by honeypots, a Cold War term of art referring to an espionage operative who sexually seduced or compromised targets. Today’s honeypots may include a component of sexual appeal or attraction, but they just as often appear to be people who share a target’s political views, obscure personal hobbies, or issues related to family history. Through direct messaging or email conversations, honeypots seek to engage the target in conversations seemingly unrelated to national security or political influence.

These honeypots often appear as friends on social media sites, sending direct messages to their targets to lower their defenses through social engineering. After winning trust, honeypots have been observed taking part in a range of behaviors, including sharing content from white and gray active measures websites

Online hecklers, commonly referred to as trolls, energize Russia’s active measures. Ringleader accounts designed to look like real people push organized harassment — including threats of violence — designed to discredit or silence people who wield influence in targeted realms, such as foreign policy or the Syrian civil war. Once the organized hecklers select a target, a variety of volunteers will join in, often out of simple antisocial tendencies. Sometimes, they join in as a result of the target’s gender, religion, or ethnic background, with anti-Semitic and misogynistic trolling particularly prevalent at the moment. Our family members and colleagues have been targeted and trolled in this manner via Facebook and other social media.

Hecklers and honeypots can also overlap.

—————————–

The experts at WarontheRocks know their shit and I stored away their analysis.

The third ‘block’ occurred when a Bernie Sanders social media coordinator published a report of how he watched online trolls aggressively message against Clinton to Sanders supporters:

He <Mattes> put his expertise in unmasking fraudsters to work. At first, he suspected that the sites were created by the old Clinton haters from the ‘90s ― what Hillary Clinton had dubbed “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

 But when Mattes started tracking down the sites’ domain registrations, the trail led to Macedonia and Albania. In mid-September, he emailed a few of his private investigator friends with a list of the sites. “Very creepy and i do not think Koch brothers,” he wrote.

Mattes and his friends didn’t know what to make of his findings. He couldn’t get his mind around the possibility that trolls overseas might be trying to sway a bunch of Southern Californians who supported Sanders’ run for president. “I may be a dark cynic and I may have been an investigative reporter for a long time, but this was too dark ― and too unbelievable and most upsetting,” he said. “What was I to do with this?”

By late October, Mattes said he’d traced 40 percent of the domain registrations for the fake news sites he saw popping up on pro-Sanders pages back to Eastern Europe. Others appeared to be based in Panama and the U.S., or were untraceable. He wondered, “Am I the only person that sees all this crap floating through these Bernie pages?”

And the final ‘block’ was an 84 page white paper issued by the cyber security firm, TrendMicro, which outlined how easy it was to implement a ‘fake news’ marketing campaign with costs & efforts taken by Russia to influence people not only in America but globally.

That did it for me.

Let me call my ‘4 blocks’ as the cornerstones of the building of proof. I am a marketing guy and an amateur behavioral studier with decades of experience and I can see a marketing campaign when there is one … and I can see when a good one is being implemented in ‘below-the-line’ tactics pushing & nudging & influencing people to do & think things … and I can see one once I have been presented the cornerstones of proof.

This is that. And this is a horrible thing to recognize.

Oddly enough … our founding fathers worried about this.

In constructing the Constitution the crafters were cognizant, and worried about, how easily people could be led, and led astray. That is why they constructed a three ‘power’ system <executive, judiciary & representative> to insure a President never had access to too much power. In some ways they assumed at some point in history American citizens would not choose wisely.

As a marketing guy I can honestly tell you that I have sat in hundreds of conference rooms viewing behavioral data pondering choice after choice people made that were reflections of “not in my best interest” … information that reflected time after time … people do not choose wisely.

While that is marketing stuff we should all remember what James Madison said … “liberties are more frequently lost by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power.” That is what the worst of worst marketing is about … making some people choose less than wisely through a gradual and silent encroachment into someone’s decision making process.

To be clear.

I think Trump is inept, incompetent and unqualified but this is not about that. This is about how Russia affected enough people’s attitudes to affect their behavior … and many of us quasi-experts, and many real experts, believe Russia conducted a marketing campaign that did just enough to affect people’s voting behavior to effectively put Trump in the oval office.

To be clear.

None of us know what to do with this understanding. This is a horrible position to be in. No one wants to suggest the current president is not legitimate and, yet, the truth is that he most likely gained his position through some shady illegitimate ways.

I almost wish I didn’t know this.