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

“People have forgotten this truth,” the fox said. “But you mustn’t forget it. You become responsible forever for what you’ve tamed.” 

—–

The Little Prince

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

“I cannot play with you,” the fox replies. “I am not tamed.”

“What does that mean – to tame?” 

“It means to establish ties. To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world…please, tame me!”

“I want to, very much,” the Little Prince replied, “but I have not much time. I have friends to discover, and a great many things to understand.” 

“One only understands the things that one tames,” the fox said.

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

Ok.

Some people aren’t going to like the way I am going to discuss Leadership. Some people will not like the implication behind the word “tame” with regard to employees. Those some people should read before they dismiss the thought. t may just offer a different way of thinking about the responsibility of leadership.

Leaders have a tough job in that you manage skills, people, personalities & overall organizational purpose.

We call it managing, but in reality it is taming. You tame the independent wildness and tame the ability & potential so you can understand it, and it can understand itself, so that eventually there is a mutual progress to play the game as well as it can be played.

Please note that nowhere in there have I suggested “blind obedience.” Taming, in this view, is reaching true understanding so that real personal growth occurs.

That said … in that metaphorical expression of leadership … you own what you tame.

I say that because far too often we leaders & managers view management as something we do for the benefit of the organization and, hopefully, the benefit of the people … but we ‘own’ no responsibility for the individual in terms of actions or who they become — and certainly not ‘forever.’

Some of us view ourselves as shapers in some form or fashion but lean back against the belief we only dent the surface of who and what the person is and will become. We view what we do as possibly taming but within the purview of just a chapter in their lives … not an entire story.

In some ways we do this simply as an act of self-survival. The truth is that investing too much personally into your business; the organization and the employees can … well … kill you.

Okay.

Maybe not literally kill you … but figuratively it can become a daily strain on your psychological health. Many of us, out of pragmatism, eye our relationship with employees as a story with a finite end – be it positive, sad, joyful, disappointing or ambiguous – but it is, in reality, just the end of a chapter.

The story keeps going. Ours and theirs.

And while we may represent only a chapter in a larger narrative … well … we own what we tame. This is an inclusive way of leading & managing. You include yourself in someone’s Life and … well … you own what part you tame.

Uhm.

Of course … this can also swing to the opposite more dangerous side – an exclusive leadership side. This is ‘ownership’, not owning, of what you tame. You don’t become part of them you simply offer a voice to them – I sometimes call this ‘pack mentality leadership’.

These are the leaders who say “on my team <or in other words “mine”> forever.” It is possessive in a non productive way.

“Leave and my wrath is upon you.”

That eader’s attitude? “Not want to be tamed by me? you are “un” whatever it is I stand for.” And this is where exclusive leadership truly rears its ugly head.

There is little vision, there is a lot of ‘features’ in the offering <more money, more jobs, more titles, more wins, more whatever> and therefore the incentives do the work and not any persuasive direction or vision. The ‘pack attitude’ is a means to an end and a vision in and of itself.

—-

“Managers tend to use compensation as a crutch.  After all, it is far easier to design an incentive system that will do management’s work than it is to articulate a direction persuasively, develop agreement about goals and problems, and confront difficulties when they arise.”

Michael Beer, Harvard professor of business administration

—–

The features, the actions & behavior of those who belong on this team, are how they speak of unity and teamwork, i.e., “everyone should act this way … but we are the ones who do.”

Or how about this?

“The only important thing is the unification of the people – because the other people don’t mean anything.” <Trump used these words once awhile back> In other words … the only people who truly count are the ones who are in this leader’s team.

Even worse? They use the ‘us versus them’ polarization as a means to suggest “team personality & character” all the while these types of leaders actually do it to create their own power structure. They don’t desire to include anyone else nor do they tend to reach out to others <albeit they make some inclusive noises on occasion> they desire to build a construct where people ask to join <because they should, of course, have to ask> and are not asked to join.

“Excluding leader types” love the ‘us versus them’ aspect. They love being derided and they love opposition. All these things do is solidify the team’s belief they are different & better & know more than the others. The team becomes what represents what is real & right and the leader controls what is real & right. The leader’s people are truly the only people that count and the leader hasn’t tamed ability but rather attitude.

And here is where the ownership of what you tamed hits a dangerous spot.

This leader has tamed an attitude but feels little ownership of the people themselves. Therefore should the leader decide to move on or get tired of whatever it is they are doing at the moment they feel no remorse in leaving people behind <who still harbor the attitude he/she tamed>.

The pack remains, the pack mentality still seethes, but the pack leader is no longer there.

Anyway.

Let me close with some thoughts.

I think it is a healthy thought for every manager & leader to ponder ‘you own what you tame.’ Leadership and leading is never easy and I have the scars to show to prove it.

I found it naturally tempting to build a quasi-pack mentality in my groups as a younger leader & manager. I was, and have always been, a more aggressive business person – I am not fond of status quo and not particularly fond of ‘the safe road.’

I can absolutely state that as a manager you can feed off of the ‘pack mentality’ attitude. It is exhilarating and almost like a drug … and maybe more dangerous … it can feed into a self-belief aspect that can edge upon arrogance and obliviousness to the greater good.

I don’t think I ever fell off the cliff on this but I certainly got a glimpse of the edge. As I gained more experience I saw the danger in doing so <to my team members, to my organization & to myself> and sought to find some balance.

Just remember.

You can tame your people’s ability & attitude in an inclusive & “unearthing skill & talent” way and they, and you, will benefit at the time and in the future <whether you are still working together or not>.

Just remember.

You own what you tame.

 ===========

“And I do not assume that my experience is universal. It is simply mine, and I offer it to you as a window, dirty though that window may be.”

–

opticalnoise (a blogger)

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

Ah.

Sometimes young people say things with the type of panache you only expect from older people. This young blogger wrote the quote and I liked it enough to use it.

The basic thought many of us ignore. Experiences are personal <unless there is enough similar critical mass to make it quasi-universal>.

And in the business world I often find myself debating with people when they offer their experience as …. well … not dirty but rather … well … universal (and that is an issue).

Two basic thoughts.

–          Research of one is not research.

–          The odds that the person relating the experience <in business management> actually reflects mainstream American <or any mainstream consumer> is so low that, well, even Las Vegas wouldn’t take them odds.

Bottom line?

Realize that your experience is most likely not universal <particularly when discussing business … but beware when offering personal advice also>. This may seem like a no brainer, but I can’t tell you how often this basic rule is ignored. WE, even the most savviest behavioral people in business, ignore it all the time <alebet in degrees not wholesale>. I think a large part of it is that is because people personalize their experience <or their wife/husband’s/group of friends> that they cannot fathom that no one else feels exactly the same way.

Anyway.

All that said I am now going to share my dirty window experience list <although I actually stole the original thought from a blogger named arina and put my own dirt on some different windows>. I created the list because I almost have it all figured out <yeah … not so much>. Thinking back from my personal experiences I believe there are a few universal experiences <let’s call them windows we all peer through on occasion just for the sake of this post)> that seemingly work without fail throughout life:

–          The Karma window

Karma is this random thing floating out there in the ether that somehow impacts cause & effect on all of us. Simplistically … for every action there is a reaction. Yeah. Every action <and thought just in case you have forgotten>. It is amazing to me how often we forget that our actions always, yes, always, have repercussions.

Whatever force we exert … things we send into the ether around us in the form of our thoughts, feelings and actions … comes back to us in kind (if not sometimes multiplied). There are no exceptions and you get no free passes. Oh. Please note I included thoughts & feelings in the “cause” column. That is truly the Karma aspect. Somehow … someway … thoughts & feelings enter into the ether as some type of tangible force (or ’cause’) that often creates a nuclear-sized effect. Never forget that.

–              The Life window

This may actually be a different pane of glass in the Karma window. We are all connected by invisible glass in one window … called the Life window. When we hurt someone or when we pass judgment on someone … we are affected as well. Sorry. Life, for some reason, just likes to keep everything balanced.

What that means is you are probably better off (or more likely to be happy) if you attach what you care about (and Life objectives) with good intentions for other people. If you look at it selfishly, when your objectives benefit other people there is less difficulty in achieving them. Oh. And others will assist you. If you don’t look at it selfishly … well … just assume more good shit will happen in your life if you do good shit (and think good shit about other people).

–          The Creation window

Everyone is creative and every one has unlimited creative potential. It is just how you define creation. Create art. Create financial success. Create the most awesome balance sheet your company has ever had. Create a kid that will be the next president. Everyone one of us has the potential to create some type of greatness. You just have to make sure the window is open and the blinds are open. Oh. And make sure you know that you actually have that window.

–          The Neutrality window

Life is neutral. It does not play favorites. This is probably a derivative of the balance thing. In the absence of good & evil Life probably wouldn’t choose sides but rather stay in bed taking a nap. Life does not decide someone is more important or less significant. Life never randomly punishes.  Life never randomly rewards. Nothing is random but pretty much (with some notable exceptions) everything is earned. Everyone is given an opportunity to learn something (which ultimately is the key opportunity for personal success). Everyone pretty much has a chance in Life (albeit it is tougher for some people than others).

–          The Action window

This is the window right next to the neutrality window. In the absence of individual action Life will do its own things in its own time. Life does not just happen to us. It requires our active participation. Remember. Life is neutral. If you are inactive … Life is inactive <with you>. It will not take interest in you until you take interest in it. It is too busy paying attention to people paying attention to it.

–          The You cannot Ignore ‘What is’ window

“What is” will evolve into “what will be” when ignored. That I guarantee. In other words … you will continue to receive what Life gives you even if you refuse to accept it. If we ignore our problems, they will only get bigger and more urgent. If we ignore opportunities, they will cease to exist. If we refuse to learn lessons from the past, larger, more serious, lessons will be given to us. If we obsessively pursue a goal or idea that is not right for us, it will elude us until we accept that we can live without it.

–          The Stagnancy window

This one is the opposite side of the Action window pane. And this one is a warning. Stagnancy is addictive. What I mean by this is, if the view from your window is awesome, you can find yourself sitting there doing nothing but enjoying it. So. This I guarantee … it may be a beautiful view today but if you don’t move … and just stay there … it will lose its appeal. Stagnancy is the death of inner growth and happiness (or seeing beauty in life). When you do not use skills you lose them. Similar, without continuing effort in personal growth, you are doomed to fall back as Life continues moving. What happens then? Obsolescence.  Life, and people, and thoughts, and whatever …. just pass you by.

–          The Impatient window

Impatience is sneaky in life. Sometimes it can disguise itself as ambition or ‘goals’ or things like that. Because the allure, and desire, of success is something we all desire. And we may like the idea of instant gratification or easy success or short cuts … but deep down all of us know that things of value have to be earned. And that is where impatience rears its ugly head. You are peddling as hard as you can toward success … but as look through this window you are impatient, and it is challenging, because you want it NOW … but this window is about patiently waiting for the reward to come in its own time. Ok. This doesn’t mean you should be scared to do things nor shouldn’t be ambitious … this is more about having some common sense. Good things typically don’t come easy. If it were all that easy anyone could do it. Maybe learn to be patiently impatient for success.

–          The Reality-based Optimism window

Here is a reality <2 of them actually>.

1. Negativity begets negativity. If you think negatively I can guarantee you will never attain happiness.
2. Uh oh. But. If you always think optimistically I can guarantee you will always be disappointed <sorry about that>.

So can you ever be happy? Yup. By being realistic, but being optimistic. A truth in this window? Good things DO happen to good people. Well.  Let me be specific … that is ‘good people who exhibit some reality-based goodness’. By the way … for anyone who wants to debate the view from this window …. research (published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)  predicted in simulated models that generosity/trust pays. Mathematically they found it pays to be trusting in the long run even though you will sometimes be cheated (so that is how Santa can figure out how to assess naughty or nice).

–          The Trade-off window

For everything you gain you have to give up something else. This is an unfortunately simple complex dirty window.

And the last.

–          The Desire window

This window sometimes has a weird filter over it that makes things not look as they really are. What I mean by that is not everything we go after is what we truly want. Sometimes we only think we know what we want … and sometimes we don’t know what we want until we get it. Maddening? You bet. But everyone has this window. Unfortunately this window is most typically found in the main room so you look through it a lot. This window is also, individually, often the dirtiest. You will be tempted to go to other people’s houses and look thru their “desire window” and hope for some guidance. Sorry. No can do. Your Desire window is your Desire window.  I kind of think they are like snowflakes … no 2 the same. You will probably not have a more aggravating window in your home. Too bad. Every home has one.

So.

There you go. I would suggest these windows are universal but will be individually dirty in different ways. At best you should try and wipe each one as clean as you can <smudgy is better than dirty>. While I made my personal experiences universal … I do look through other people’s dirty windows as often as I can.

Like the opening quote said … they offer a view … regardless of how dirty the view may be.

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

“We should place confidence in our employee.

Confidence is the foundation of friendship.

If we give it, we will receive it.

Any person in a managerial position, from supervisor to president, who feels that his employee is basically not as good as he is and who suspects his employee is always trying to put something over on him, lacks the necessary qualities for human leadership – to say nothing of human friendship.”

—–

Harry Humphreys

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

“The conventional definition of management is getting work done through people, but real management is developing people through work.”

—-

Agha Abedi

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

Well.

Leading and managing people is possibly one of the most rewarding things you can do in a business career.

Firing people is possibly one of the most unrewarding things you can do in a business career.

Unfortunately these two things are inextricably linked.

I could argue that once you assume responsibility for firing someone … you learn more about yourself, and I imagine others learn about you, than from almost any other responsibility you assume as a leader.

No one likes firing people. Well. No one who is any good at business leadership. I don’t care if you absolutely hate the person you are firing, if the person has actually committed a fireable offense and you are in the right to fire them, or even if you fire someone for good reason … suffice it to say … it never feels good to fire someone.

And because of that … a good business leader never delegates the tough termination. And they never send someone to terminate a direct report.

Generally speaking … you fire anyone who is a direct report, or you were directly responsive for hiring, face to face.

Yeah.

This may not be, logistically, the easiest thing to do but it is part of the burden of responsibility. It is the mantle you wear and it is what you are obligated to offer the person being terminated – dignity & respect.

Anything less than that and you are shirking your responsibility.  Anything less than that is … well … chicken shit. And you are a chickenshit business leader if you do not do these things.

Sure.

What I just shared is a hard lesson but one business people learn in young management.

I will never forget the first person I ever fired. Paul.

An absolute great guy in absolutely the wrong position and possibly career. But that doesn’t mean it was easy to terminate him. While I was 99% sure it was the right thing to do <and my boss and her bosses agreed> there was an extraordinarily loud 1% in my head that kept me awake that night.

Inevitably he chose a different career and went on to become an SVP of sales.

And he was kind enough to drop me a couple of notes to tell me it all worked out for the best.

But I will never forget firing him. I can honestly say I never forget anyone I have fired <and that is a semi-long list after years of management>.

However.

I would like to think my leadership career is measured more by the people I did not fire.

Not firing, in a larger organization, can be harder than you think.

I think I spent more time explaining to the most senior people why I would not fire some of the people I managed than I did ever discussing almost anything else about employees with them.

Well. That is … it felt that way.

The crap that floats upwards into senior leadership about individual employees is amazing. The littlest mistakes and quirks seem to take on exponential size when it arrives at the most senior people — and they do not hesitate to share their disproportional views.

Regardless. All of those views cut into the ‘trust belief’ … are they respected within the organization, do they have the trust of the organization and can they be trusted with their responsibility.

And that is when you earn your stripes as a manager. You do not cave in to the ‘easy thing to do’ but rather stand up for your people and let the chips fall as they may. Oh. And you learn it is totally worth it to not take the easy way out.

Let me be clear.

No one is perfect. I was not a perfect employee nor was a perfect manager. And, yet, when judging employees there sometimes is the ‘perfect measure’ of which becomes the absurd standard.

Yes.

We should judge senior people more critically but we should judge them fairly.

Anyway.

I didn’t fire a lot of people. And I can think of at least 4 who made me incredibly proud that I didn’t … despite some pressure from others to do so.

All 4 of these have sent me notes at different points, not thanking me for not firing them but rather for simply giving them a chance, believing in them and seeing something in them that they knew <because all employees know when they are under ‘the human resources microscope’>  many others didn’t.

All 4 of them have been professionally successful and, more importantly, are solid good human beings. Neither of those are because I didn’t fire them but rather vindicate the non-firing decision.

All that said.

Firing someone, despite the pain of actually doing it, is often the easy way out and is certainly a way to avoid looking at your own flaws.

Flaws? I sometimes believe one of the hardest things you can learn in your career is that your best is not particularly special.

Learning the fact that your talent, in reality, is matched by a shitload of people.

Learning that your best is relatively easily matched by a shitload of people.

It is an unfortunate truth that:

• Talent is talent.
• Smarts are smarts.
• And expertise is almost always relative.

At any given point in Life and your career you can look around you and, if you are self aware, you will note you are rarely the most talented, rarely the smartest one in the room and rarely the only expert.

Even on your best day you may not actually be the best.

I imagine that is a tough thing to get your head wrapped around.

But I also imagine if you do wrap your head around it evaluating employees and how you fire them is affected.

I always watch how someone terminates an employee.

You can learn a lot about people in that situation … and you can learn a shitload about how someone feels about dignity, respect and responsibility in how they terminate an employee.

===========

Postscript 1: under the general heading of “chickenshit” from a business perspective I will comment on a Trump firing:

There are hundreds of different viable reasons to fire someone and if you have the responsibility to hire & fire and it is ‘at will’ you can do what you want. But HOW Trump fired James Comey was chickenshit.

It wasn’t face to face with a direct report <or even face to face with anyone … just a letter delivered by a non-government employee>.

While there appeared to be no sense of urgency to terminate the action was taken with an absurd sense of senseless urgency which permitted Comey the indignity of being blindsided, in the middle of a commitment to the people who reported to him and not even in town.

This was a chicken shit way of terminating an honorable employee. It is indicative of Trump’s lack of character.

Postscript 2: Under the general heading of “this is some crazy shit” from a business perspective:

Firing someone for lack of confidence when the people who you are actually working for have a general lack of confidence in you is slightly surreal.

This may actually be the ironic point of this little postscript rant.

The stated “Donald J Trump fired his FBI Director because of ‘lack of confidence’ is … well … crazy shit.

Well. If that is a true criteria and I were to look at some national polling data I could argue Trump could be fired on the same criteria by the American people.

Most leaders do not defend their firing decision through childish name calling.

“Crying Chuck” .. “Richie” in quotes <instead of Richard>. Calling people diminishing names. Childish crap like that. I have been criticized as a leader for people I have fired, as well as people who I didn’t fire, and when appropriate I responded with some “why I did it” information but I never deflected my choice & decision onto others by suggesting they were not qualified to criticize … and I certainly always treated peers with a modicum of respect.

Tweet response rather than standing up in person

Sniping from the sidelines is not leadership.

Period.

‘nuf said.

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

“A single arrow is easily broken, but not ten in a bundle.”

—–

Japanese proverb

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

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed. It is the only thing that ever has.”

—–

Margaret Mead

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

So.

I was listening to a bunch of talking heads on tv speculating on a staff shake up in the Trump white house personnel.

One thing I heard caught my attention … “well, part of the president’s issue is that he has kind of a hodgepodge of personnel.”

And that thought is correct. And it made me think a little bit.

The truth is once you move past managing a group or running a mom & pop sized business every management team you manage will be a hodgepodge of people, skills, personalities and … well … loyalty. Not only is it impossible to hire in ‘your people’ in every slot … most good leaders do not want to do that.

All that said.

To be clear.

Trump is possibly one of the crappiest senior leaders I have ever seen and he appears to have no belief that words matter and has no understanding of the concept of ‘communication alignment’ <let alone any alignment> … however … he is what he is. And because he is what he is … inconsistencies included … the staff he surrounds himself matters a shitload with regard to overall effectiveness.

What do I mean?

Trump forces his staff to adjust in real time as he communicates, and thinks, in real time.

Trump has never worked in a large organization nor has he ever truly had to manage a larger group of people, let alone senior executives.

He has always been the spokesperson and the brand and the final word … surrounded by family who was more than happy to simply double and triple down on whatever dad said <and be loyal to even his craziest tactical maneuvering and craziest words and wordsmithing>.

Real senior executives do not work that way nor is it a particularly effective method outside of a mom & pop structure.

In a real business organization you don’t get to pick & choose everyone in your circle … most times it is a hodgepodge of skills, personalities and experience. And you know what? You learn to manage them effectively because that is what a leader does.

You adapt some of you to accommodate some of them <yeah … sure … envision Trump doing that … uhm … sure … ain’t gonna happen>.

Trump is being forced out of his mom & pop management model into a more traditional larger business management model <and he is going kicking & screaming>.

Most people learn this as soon as they move from group management to department management <you cannot fire everyone and rehire only your people> and absolutely learn this lesson as soon as you move into the C-level positions.

Another aspect is when you get a position you do not treat it as an “I won so you need to …” but rather “I now get to lead and I am going to have to …”

All that said.

You learn some management personnel tricks to help you out.

I always tried to bring one person with me wherever I went as I moved up. Depending on the structure of the organization I always wanted at least one person who could “translate” me to the hodgepodge team. This wasn’t necessarily done to dictate my desires & behaviors onto a team but rather to help them align to how I managed so they could adapt and move faster.

I manage nothing like Trump but let’s assume Trump is moving into the presidency … it almost becomes mandatory for effectiveness that he has a team aligned on “what to do when Trump does his crazy.” He need a management team that doesn’t argue about what to do he needs a management team that absorbs the blow and moves out doing what needs to be done as the true power brokers for getting shit done.

By the way … this is not about loyalty to Trump this is about loyalty to most effectively getting good shit done. I didn’t care if people bitched about me behind my back <I always assumed they did> what I cared about is that they respected the general idea and invested their energy in trying to figure out how to best effectively implement the idea rather than invest energy trying to defend anything they really would have preferred just bitching about behind my back.

I always preferred loyalty to “getting good smart shit done” and always believed I would ultimately earn some respect if I <Me> always remained loyal to the idea of “enabling good smart shit to get done.”

Before I finish this thought I will admit my preference was always to try an bring in two foundational team members in order to kind of create some pillars … but you can get away with one to align a hodgepodge of managers & executives.

Anyway.

In an organization the size of a presidency Trump needs a translator but more importantly he needs an aligned team with regard to what to do with him and his behavior <and not be arguing over it>.

……… a Trump management team ………

Trump’s inclination will be with what he feels most comfortable with — family.

His next inclination will be with what makes him feel the best — the ones who unflinchingly try and power-broke the crazy <he would call them unflinching loyalists>.

Neither of those have anything to do with effective leadership nor do they have anything to do with effective ‘management of getting shit done.’

He has never been in a large organization nor has he managed a large group of people nor has he tried to get a large group of people aligned to agree & do some shit.

He naturally gravitates toward employees who don’t deliver bad news and those who deliver flattery.

They may feel good to have around but they are the absolute worst people to have on your management team. You only build a team like that if you have no interest in improving, no interest in any intellectual conflict <which is what actually sparks better ideas> and/or you are so insecure or arrogant <yes, you can be both> you don’t want any ideas other than your own.

Most often it is the senior leadership who challenges you that prompt new insights and help propel the group to success.

 

 

“You need people who have different points of view and aren’t afraid to argue. They are the kind of people who stop the organization from doing stupid things.”

Harvard Business Review

 

Look.

All leaders assume responsibility for a hodgepodge of senior managers. That’s what we do.

And we learn to set what expectations are and align on vision and encourage some flexibility & adapting and get going.

And we learn that some of what we do and what we think works a little better in one place than anther and that some people are better than we think at first blush and some people we really liked when we met them are worse than we thought.

And we learn that you don’t demand respect but rather earn it and loyalty is gained through respect.

I would imagine that engendering loyalty to Trump is hard in that up to this point loyalty most likely centered on fame & fortune.  And most of us who have led in larger organizations understand that strong foundational loyalty is less about the tangible fame & fortune but rather respect.  He is gonna have some problems with that.

I would imagine that effectiveness to Trump is blind support for him and what he says. And most of us who have led in larger organizations understand that effectiveness is less about support for what the leader says … but rather in structured response to a leader’s guidance & thoughts. I never wanted people to do what I said … I wanted people to do what needed to be done.  He is gonna have some problems with that.

I would imagine that alignment to Trump is familial. And most of us who have led in a larger organization want the exact same thing … but we know we have a hodgepodge team who is ‘the family’ and we deal with it.

Would I shake up the Trump administration? Yeah. I surely would.

And I would do it almost exactly opposite of how I envision he is likely to do it.

He doesn’t understand there is a campaign team and now he needs an effective doing team. He bludgeoned us with his dull insights on the campaign trail and now he needs to focus more on action.

What would I do with his cadre of white men?

I, personally, would make Kushner my chief of staff. He has no fucking clue how to do the job but he knows the Trumpster better than anyone in the world.

Give him some deputies who have a shitload of government experience. Send Ivanka off to write a real book. And build a staff of Republican zealots who know how to get shit done. Trust the Kushner kid to translate what the Donald J crazy means to everyone.

Bannon can stay but he just needs to focus on feeding the Trump crazy and let Kushner kid deal with the crazy output.

Others <just off the top of my head>. I love Wilbur Ross. Mnuchin almost seems overwhelmed-giddy by being in the spotlight. I would find a sane version of Mulvaney to take his job. I would tell Tillerson to start hiring like a mad man and tell him he can fire whoever he doesn’t need once he actually has some staff to do some shit. Just get out of Mattis, McMaster and Kelly’s way. I can’t get rid of Sessions even though I think he is crazy <I think he thinks he lives in the 1950’s> but because he actually translates Trump crazy better than anyone other than maybe that little pit bull Lewandowski.  I would wake up Carson, Perry, and all the other Cabinet members we haven’t heard a peep out of and ask them if they would like to participate in this circus.

I imagine my real point is that to be an effective leader of a hodgepodge group it is more important that THEY can work together than YOU like them.

Because if they can work together well than there is a better chance that the organization will not do stupid shit even if you make a stupid decision, your crazy will come to life as not-so-crazy pragmatism and knee-jerk spontaneous crazy asshat tweets simply get absorbed into seamless actions which make the tweets look a little less spontaneous, a little less knee jerk, a little less crazy … but still asshat because that is who you are.

And that is the value of a non-arguing hodgepodge group. They tend to mute the mistakes and crazy and amplify the actual good ideas and thoughts you may actually have.

A non-aligned hodgepodge managerial team simply exacerbates the problem — your crazy looks crazier, your spontaneous looks more spontaneous <see: unhinged> and your asshatedness looks more asshatted.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would look at him as a lost cause … he is what he is. He is a flower <with thorns> and I would turn my attention to the environment the flower is growing in.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would find a team that maybe wasn’t on the “Trump train” but rather find competent people who can do shit that I want done <and let the chief of staff … who is on the Trump Train … get them doing Trump train shit>.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would turn to the Kushner kid and say “you wanted in … you are in. You are the Trump whisperer. Make shit happen.”

Let me be clear.

Trump will shake up his staff and maybe cabinet members and he will fuck it up. He has no idea how to manage a business organization other than in a mom & pop style and he has no innate leadership skills and his management instincts suck.

And he has no clue how to build an effective team <someone should tell him there is not enough room up his ass for all the people he actually needs to run a country let alone a viably larger sized organization>.

Oh. And he is a narcissistic asshat who believes no one knows better than he does.

In the end.

As I stated in my Trump 100 day piece … he did nothing in his first 100 days that would suggest the next 100 days <and foreseeable 100 day increments> would be any smoother, efficient or effective. I am 99% confident he will shake up his staff and management team and I cannot envision it proceeding smoothly, efficiently or effectively. Why? Because he has no clue what he is doing.

=======

“I’m not a marketing person. I don’t ask myself questions.

I go by instinct.”

—-

Karl Lagerfeld

==========

“Marketing and press kicks up dust. It gets in your eye, and then you’re not focusing on the product.“

—-

Jan Koum

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

So.

Within the 1^st 5 posts ever written on enlightened conflict I wrote about the absurdity of rebranding … Nigeria: The risks in branding (a lesson from Nigeria).

In that post I pointed out that simply telling someone something doesn’t mean that <a> it suddenly makes it true, <b> makes it believable to everyone, and <c> it changes everything that everyone currently believes.

Today, over 1800 posts later, I return to the absurd topic by discussing another country … Czechoslovakia … or Czech Republic … or Czechia.

Yeah.

For a reason only truly obvious to them the Czech Republic’s leaders have chosen “Czechia” as the one-word alternative name of their country to “make it easier for companies, politicians and sportsmen to use on products, name tags and sporting jerseys.”

The choice, made by the president, prime minister, heads of parliament and foreign and defense ministers, meant that they could file the “new name” with the United Nations which under the rules of this absurd branding initiative would officially change the country’s name.

This is crazy.

Fucking nuts.

Here is what I envision happened <having been in the marketing world>.

I assume the bunch of country leaders were brainstorming ideas about how to “improve the Czech Republic’s position in the world” and someone <after possibly drinking one too many of their fine beers> said “hey, our name is too long … we would double our business if we shortened it.”

<note: because “Republic” is so difficult for everyone>

What would happen if we get rid of Republic?!? … someone shouts.

<people think>

Someone says … “Well, that’s shorter … but then we are just “Czech” … that isn’t good.”

hmmmmmmmmm ………

<that is the sound of the room pondering this brilliance>

Someone says … lets add “ia” which make its sound … well … okay … it doesn’t sound anything but it is different than Czech.

Yeah, that’s it!

<consensus among drunken political hacks sitting around fine mahogany table>

— after a minute or two pondering their brilliance … —

“Okay.

But we need a marketing expert … why don’t we call Pavel?”

<one of the most popular names in the Czech Republic and good friend of Jan — who is one of the ministers jumping on this rebranding bandwagon>.

Pavel immediately runs over to the minister gathering … listens for a minute or two … pensively looks around the room … takes a deep breath <everyone leans forward …> … he jumps up  and says “brilliant !!! … this is marketing genius !!!”

Okay.

This is the stupidest fucking marketing idea.

It is not even close to being common sense.

While there has been no standardized one-word English name for the Czech Republic, unlike, say, France <the shortened version of the French Republic> since the official breakup of Czechoslovakia in the 90’s I scratch my head over why it even matters.

The Czech Republic is made up of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia.

Uhm.

Who cares? That is kind of irrelevant <but fun factoid to share>.

What matters is that I assume some marketing expert … maybe even some high falutin’ branding company was involved and they let this incredibly stupid idea happen.

It is crap like this that gives marketing a bad name.

It is crap like this that encourages me to think that “branding”, in general, is stupid <and I have been part of dozens of ‘branding’ campaigns>.

Yeah.

A name is kind of like a label for your brand … but … it is not your brand. The label represents all the stuff <think of sausage> that makes up what could be construed as a brand.

And just like sausage … it can be stuffed with crap or t can be stuffed with high quality ingredients.

While the Czech Republic could give a shit what I think I would have sat them down <demanding some of their fine beer in payment> and said …

“look, let’s figure out what we want the Czech Republic to stand for <if you are worried about business and sporting impressions>.  Because I have to be honest with you … people will wear “uehdmajndgygeemudby” on their shirt <that was just some random letters I typed on my keyboard> and buy a shitload of those shirts … and even bring their businesses closer to where that name on that shirt is … if they think it is cool, if they think it represents who they are <and how they think>, if it means they could make some money being associated with that name.

The name, in and of itself, is … well … less than relevant. Let’s focus on the sausage ingredients.”

But, hey, that’s me.

Christallmighty … how does shit like this really happen?

I buy the fact that people who have no reason making decisions like this make decisions like this. I see it all the time. there are a shitload of business people, heck, any people as a matter of fact … who believe they are smart enough to pretty much make any decisions whether they are an expert or not.

But.

Most of the time most reasonably larger business entities <countries included> will bring in someone who actually is supposed to know their shit.

And that is where shit like his is supposed to die.

Someone like me is supposed to come in and represent some sanity.

Someone like me is supposed to come in and offer some common sense.

Someone … well … someone smarter than me is supposed to come in and say this is stupid.

Someone is supposed to come in and state the obvious … people are used to the name Czech Republic by now, most people are fine with it, almost all people do not think it is a barrier to anything meaningful, pretty much all people don’t think it is ‘too complicated’ and needs to be ‘simpler’ … and I would say we should stick with it.

Arguing that the Czech Republic tag is too long to attract attention on the global stage and “woo” foreign investment and that “Czechia” would simplify things and be more recognizable is … well … just stupid.

This is the kind of shit that makes real branding efforts more difficult and this is the kind of shit that makes talking about marketing, in general, more difficult.

I am about to make a blanket statement using a percentage I have no research to prove.

90% of so called “rebranding” projects and initiatives are a waste of time. They are misguided initiatives in which nothing needs to be rebranded but rather the brand itself just needs to reassert itself.

I am 90% confident I am right on this.

As for the Czech Republic rebranding?

Just another stupid marketing example that makes everyone in marketing look stupid.

—————–

“Don’t give me sob stories,” she ordered me with sudden vehemence, striking the key words for emphasis.

“Every day people appeal to my emotions.

You can’t govern that way.

It simply isn’t fair.”

=====

Margaret Thatcher to John Le Carre

—————–

Running a country is hard. Very hard.

Running a business is hard. Very hard.

It doesn’t mean you don’t have good days and it doesn’t mean that all the ‘hard’ doesn’t reap some benefits and joy but … well … hard is hard.

And maybe, just possibly, the hardest part is managing the emotional appeals you are faced with on an almost daily basis.

And I say that while ignoring the inevitable larger events & stories which compound the emotional aspects of leader decision making.

Leading is mostly about the day in and day out responsibility to the greater good and the greater whole. This certainly doesn’t mean you don’t look at the parts and how the parts & pieces are affected but you can’t get too close to individual aspects for fear of … well … a couple of reasons:

First is the functional responsibility a leader has.

The greater responsibility is to the whole and insuring the whole is fair, respected and healthy. There is certainly a responsibility to parts, the germs & healthy cells roaming the lifeblood of the whole, but sometimes I let a germ live because it has lesser consequences to the health of the whole than if I invest in something that makes the already healthier cells even more healthy.

Second is basic perspective.

Research studies clearly show that emotional decisions are often quite irrational and often quite … well … bad <or maybe better said … less than optimal>. A leader has the difficult responsibility to maintain perspective … even in the face of a crescendo of criticisms demanding ‘this situation is unique.” The optics of a good leader often looks bad.

Aloof. Disconnected. Unempathetic.

The greater responsibility is to the whole perspective and insuring what is fair and respectful to the whole.

This is going to sound bad … really bad in fact.

<… I am taking a deep breath here>

But good leaders have a sense for “this too will pass” and simply pass on engaging with the individual engagement demand of the moment.

Yes. You acknowledge it and then ignore it.

To be clear. You don’t always make the right call and you don’t always get it right but the intent is 99% of the time purposefully not engaging to maintain perspective.

All that said.

Disconnecting from the emotional sob story, while still remaining connected to empathetic reasoning, may be one of the most difficult aspects of leading.

I don’t care if its 350 million people, 350 people or 35 people this tug of war between caring but not caring too much is constant and challenging. In addition it is a constant battle for self survival.

When thinking about this … inevitably what I believe most of us every day schmucks struggle to understand is the perspective.

Most people view things “I” up … and a leader has to look “we” down.

In other words … “I” has specific needs and I am willing to think about insuring other “I’s” have the same needs met. There is nothing wrong with this and it certainly can insure some healthy altruistic attitudes & behavior. But it does not reflect good leadership thinking.

In other words … “we” have larger needs and I am willing to sacrifice some of what some “I’s” want <and even, unfortunately, need in some cases> to insure the “we” needs are met. There is nothing wrong with this and, when done well, the greater whole prospers and is, in general, happy.

But it isn’t easy.

It is really hard.

And suffice it to say “ruling” by ignoring emotional appeals is more fair but it is still emotionally draining to a good leader.

Whether the 350 million, 350 or the 35 recognize it … there are many days when the 1, the leader, leaves the office with a heavy heart. And it is not heavy because 349,999,900 people, 341 people or 34 people went to sleep that day feeling pretty good about their day and their needs & wants & hopes … but because the few with a true sob story went to sleep that day sobbing.

You govern and lead by what is fair to the whole.

That’s just the way it is.

And just as Margaret Thatcher did … I would vehemently emphasize this business truth to anyone.

But.

That doesn’t mean I don’t think she went home some nights with the weight of someone’s emotional appeal on her mind.

That’s what I thought about today after I read this quote from Margaret Thatcher.

Oh.

And I also thought about whether I was fair and maintained the balance as a leader. I am not sure. I take some solace in the belief that almost every leader wonders the same thing.

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

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

e.e. cummings

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

“Trust yourself. Create the kind of self that you will be happy to live with all your life.

Make the most of yourself by fanning the tiny, inner sparks of possibility into flames of achievement.”

Golda Meir

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

Today I am rambling about the psychology of managing employees … specifically an aspect of managing that I would call “believe and non-believing management.”

No.

This is not about motivating employees.

This is more about unlocking employees – unlocking potential.

This is more about that seemingly nonstop discussion you have with employees where you curb the overreaching confidence in some … and instill some confidence in others. In my mind … this is the ongoing discussion you have with your employees with the intent to set the best version of themselves free.

To be sure.

If you talk with enough people who have managed groups & companies and you will notice that at some point someone will bring up “I have to be a psychologist.”

To be clear.

Do business managers have to be psychologists to be effective? No. not really.

But being a psychologist on occasion certainly doesn’t hurt.

I am fairly sure what I am discussing has some high falutin’ organizational behavior ‘management principles’ published and formal white papers with long esoteric discussions on employee personality types and some personality testing voodoo.

I am also fairly sure, okay … certain, it is possible to be a competent if not good leader without understanding all that personality crap. in fact … I could argue, and I have argued, that personality tests trap individuals into some defined box in which if any of their behaviors don’t fit that box from that point on they will be mismanaged because … well … they aren’t doing what the box said they would do.

Anyway.

Most good managers clearly understand that different people are motivated by different things and that different things can inhibit the potential of each employee.

Suffice it to say, in my mind, it really all comes down to one basic management principle: possibilities & pragmatism management. Unlocking each employee’s potential is almost always a balance of pragmatic doing and getting them to envision what they are possible of.

Simplistically your objective is always to free your employee to be their best and do their best. But in order to achieve that … well … sometimes this means stripping something away … and sometimes this means adding something.

And that is where my whole ‘believing & nonbelieving management’ comes into the discussion.

More often than not while you are teaching & coaching skills and pragmatic ‘here is what you need to do’ crap you will find yourself facing an employee who is either bursting with belief in themselves and their abilities or semi-frozen in an ‘unsure of what to do and if I can do it’ attitude.

Both need some attitudinal adjustments.

The ‘belief’ employees run the gamut from the young employee who is sure they are smarter and better than you <or others around them> to a senior sales guy who hasn’t met a sale he couldn’t make <doing it his way if only the company would get out of the way>.

The ‘nonbelievers’ also run the gamut from young & inexperienced to older doing it for the first time or even mid level employees dealing with something completely unrelated that has pricked their confidence bubble in some way.

And, no, I certainly do not consider any of this ‘cheerleader engagement.’ In fact … I would suggest that any manager who does needs to rethink their thinking.

Managing people certainly can contain some aspects of ‘enthusiasm management’ but one of the most basic manager self-survival techniques you learn <or die> is how to manage without too much investment of self. Therefore I have always viewed this aspect of employee management as simply assessing their ‘believe level’ and adjusting appropriately to enable the true potential to be there when it counts.

As a manager you always hunker down on the pragmatic aspects of what needs to be done first.

Always.

It is kind of your heuristic trick to assess any attitudinal challenges to getting the frickin’ pragmatic aspect done.

But you always keep an eye, and an ear, open during the pragmatic assessing the ‘possibilities of whether the shit will actually get done … and done as well as it can be done.’

This is the place where you look at the employee and assess the ‘belief factor.’

Some are easy to read. Some are a little more difficult. And, no, I cannot offer some trite generalism here.

Exuding belief believers can come in all shapes & sizes & behaviors.

Nonbelievers can come in all shapes & sizes & attitudes.

And it can get even trickier.

Tricky because the same employee who was bursting with blind belief one day will be the same employee sitting in front of you the next day discussing a completely different project or task … semi-frozen in non-belief.

Look.

The fundamentals of effective management are pretty much the same everywhere.

But this ‘possibilities & pragmatism management’ thing I am discussing takes some commitment. It doesn’t take being a psychologist … you just have to be committed to managing the individual ‘believe’ gauge. And this means being committed to both stripping away some unnecessary <or risky> belief and bolting on some belief where needed.

Unfortunately this can sometimes take a fine subtle touch … and most of us everyday manager schmucks aren’t always subtle. Nor are we particularly talented at balancing both possibilities & pragmatism.

I imagine I wrote this not to offer any “how to” guide to anyone. I wrote it because I just faced it and thought about it.

In one day I had to ponder the talented more senior sales person almost blinded with belief charging ahead <not particularly aligned with what the company thought was best practice> and an extremely talented younger person threaded with the burden of nonbelief.

In one day I had to ponder how to deftly encourage a little less blind belief and thrust some belief upon another.

And that is most likely a typical day for a manager.

I didn’t care about personality type.

I didn’t confer with any HR people.

I didn’t go online searching for ‘communications techniques.’

I didn’t do so not because I didn’t want to … but because managers mostly don’t have time for that shit.

You gotta deal with what is in front of you and get shit done and get the best out of your employees.

Believing and non believing management.

Possibilities and pragmatism management.

Kind of two sides of the same management coin.

Let me tell you why I believe, in the Stanford sexual assault <rape> case … the one where a young man sexually assaulted an unconscious woman, the punishment deserves to be the harshest …

“she never even had the opportunity to say no.”

I saw someone had written “but where do we draw the line and stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day and see that rape on campuses aren’t always because people are rapists.”

Oh my. What bullshit. Bullshit logic absolving someone of personal responsibility for … well … assault.

I have two words for everyone … assault & unconscious. That is the bottom line on judgement.

And while I am sure well meaning people will reflect positively on the young man’s overall character … the truth in Life is that some moments matter more than others with regard to character and morality. There are some moments in which we get judged at our worst. Is the moment truly a reflection of everything who this young man is? Of course not. And, yet, the action, the behavior, the assault, carries a responsibility for which he must carry as a burden for the rest of his life … and the punishment should reflect that responsibility burden.

I don’t speak with young men often about consensual sex but I have a pretty simple piece of advice:

• “No” means no.

• “I am not sure” means no.

• “Maybe” … means no.

• Only “Yes” means yes.

That said.

The young lady who was raped … never even had the opportunity to say no. She was so drunk, passed out, she never had the opportunity to say no.

From a guy’s perspective this action then turns out to the worst version of rape that could happen <as if there were actually degrees of worstness when it comes to rape … there is not>.

His actions are indefensible.

His punishment should be harsh.

It is quite possible I am looking at this wrong … but in my mind … while nonconsensual sex is inexcusable … I cannot even find the moral <or immoral> category you would put sex with someone who can neither consent or not consent.

This doesn’t even fall in any way into a ‘miscommunication’ or ‘misunderstanding’ zone … this is simply “I am going to take what may be one of the most valuable things you can give someone because I want it and it doesn’t matter what you may think.”

I wrote about rape maybe in 2013. I called it a life formula that didn’t add up to me.

The number of women who admit to having been raped versus the number of men who have said they have raped.

Uhm.

I tend to believe we all know of someone who has been raped.

But.

I tend to believe very few of us know someone who has admitted to rape.

This means that either a few guys have been very busy being assholes or there are a bunch of guys who are avoiding the truth <I tend to believe it is the latter>.

Rape is solveable. The punishment should be so harsh that a guy seriously considers his actions. Basically he should be wondering if his dick will fall off if he commits rape.

Look.

I am not writing this to judge anyone.

I am commenting on the Stanford rape case and suggesting that guys should judge themselves more harshly and with a higher sense of responsibility <and their parents should do so also>.

And it is quite possible I am dancing on the head of the moral equivalence pin.

I am fairly sure understanding “no means no” is a simple enough idea.

I am fairly sure understanding if someone says that do not want to have sex, they do not want to have sex.

I am fairly sure understanding if someone says they aren’t sure having sex is a good idea, they do not want to have sex.

I am fairly sure understanding if someone says … well … nothing, they are silent, they do not want to have sex.

I am fairly sure you should know that you should stop trying to have sex with a person who says they do not want to have sex.

I am absolutely positive that a young woman, who did not even have the opportunity to say ‘no’ had something taken from her that will be with her for the rest of her Life.

An irresponsible young man took it from her. He took something without asking, without ever hearing a yes or a no, with silence as his guide … something that she can ever regain.

Assessing the cost is impossible.

I do not know the punishment he deserves. Jail feels not harsh enough.  But the cost will never equal what he took. And he should feel that cost, whatever it is, for the rest of his life.

I get angry when I think about this case. Shit. I get angry when I think of rape in general. And I got even angrier when a father suggested “should my son be punished this harshly for a 20 minute mistake.”

WTF.

The concept, the fucking stupid mental gymnastics it takes, to find the equivalence of “20 minutes of stupidity” to “a lifetime of something that can never be regained” is absurd.

I am not suggesting we should make this young man an example.

I believe we should make all rapists an example. Make the punishment so harsh that sex carries the inevitable responsibility it should carry.

I tend to believe the fact we are even having the discussion about what I believe is an incredible misalignment of punishment not fitting the crime suggests we, societally & culturally, have a bigger issue we need to address.

It seems to me that we all need a strong lesson in the fact that there is little, if no, ‘moral culpability’ with regard to rape.

Sexual assault is sexual assault.

Rape is rape.