=========

A man said to the universe:

“Sir, I exist!”

“However,” replied the universe,

“The fact has not created in me

A sense of obligation.”

Stephen Crane

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

“Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

Johannes Kepler

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

The universe has no real obligation to us. Period.

Yup. That actually means we are on our own. We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

That said.

Let me make sure we are all on the same page with regard to ”rights” which means you need to ponder rights, freedom, liberty, prerogative and privilege. All of these are words which refer to the fundamental claims a person can properly make or his unfettered ability to choose <Use The Right Word: S.I. Hayakawa>.

• Right suggests a concrete claim established by legal, ethical or religious sanctions <e.g., right to equality before the law>. Although … someone claiming a right tends to argue it is inherent, a person’s rights are differently spelled out in different cultures & countries.
• Liberty is a more abstract and general notion suggesting the opportunity to choose among alternatives. A document such as the Bill of Rights spells out these conditions a citizen may construe as his rights. However … these liberties may sometimes in fact refer to an unwarranted breach of someone else’s right to consideration <we do not enjoy unbridled liberty without regard for the rights of others>.
• Civil liberty is understood to refer to all the rights enumerated in the US Constitution and its amendments.
• Freedom is close to liberty in its abstract generality but stresses a total lack of constraint more than the opportunity for choice.
• Prerogative and privilege are much more specific in their meanings than the other words here. Prerogative refers to a right that one has by virtue of age, sex or position. Privilege suggests advantages given as favors or added luxuries rather than necessary rights.

I share all that to point out that while we may complicate our lives by confusing all these dynamics we also complicate our lives unnecessarily.

Anyway. We tend to complicate our lives in a number of ways.

Sometimes it is we feel like Life, or the universe, should be a little more helpful.

Sometimes we confuse privileges and rights.

Sometimes we seek an easier path because the way we are going seems a little too hard.

Sometimes we abuse rights in the pursuit of bad things.

Sometimes we assume privileges with regard to desire of good things.

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

“People tend to complicate their lives, as if living weren’t already complicated enough.”

Carlos Ruiz Zafon

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

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”

Søren Kierkegaard

===========

Far too often we view freedoms as freedom to be stupid, idiotic or thoughtless.

Specifically, far too often we view freedom of speech as a way to shared well-articulated insightful thoughts to better the world around them simply because, well, we were fortunate enough to be nearby when speech, freely given, was shared.

Well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to say only smart things. It also means freedom to be stupid, idiotic and thoughtless.

Yeah.

Freedom is a sticky wicket. It permits freedom to say stupid things, factual things and nonfactual things.

And, yet, as John Stuart Mill argued in “On Liberty,” freedom of expression is the freedom on which all other civic rights are based.

Now. Two things.

First. I do believe those who speak have a responsibility to be responsible. Freedom of speech, and expression, is a privilege not to be abused. But that is my opinion.

Just mine.

However, stupidity aside, I would rather someone speak, regardless of what is said opinion wise, than for there to be silence. In a world in which we complicate our lives and confuse liberties and freedoms and privileges … we shouldn’t shut up. And we shouldn’t simply shut off someone because they confuse all these things. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shut down lies <because we should> but, generally speaking, if someone wants to say something stupid, we should let them because of this universal truth:

“Idiocy thrives in the dark, not in dialogue.”

Jen Floyd Engel columnist

I have had this debate, sometimes argument, with several people.

I want neo-Nazis speaking on campuses.

I want feminists raging through megaphones on stand at street corners.

I want pro Life & pro Choice advocates debating on stages throughout America.

I want the most extreme of all sides and dimensions and directions to publicly have the opportunity to speak out.

First of all.

We should all want that.

We, here in the USA, actually live in a country where unless you shout “fire” in some movie theater or seriously offer harmful threats you actually have the privilege & right to speak your mind. This is a gift that USA gives its citizens — a gift many of the 192 countries around the world are not so quick to give their citizens.

Second.

We should abhor silence.

It seems to me that we are quickly  heading down a path where the only opinions safe to say out loud  are the benign most milquetoast ‘safe havens’ of speech — Hitler was bad,  genocide is bad, beets are bad <oops, that last one was just a personal benign opinion>.

We say we want honesty.

We say we want to hear the truth.

We say we want free speech.

And yet we are relentless in chastising those who choose to speak and the words they choose to speak are wrong, maybe even stupid and possibly ignorant.

Uhm. This makes me say …

“I have met the enemy and the enemy is us.”

I do believe we are in the midst of a crisis of truth, ignorance and enlightenment … and freedoms, rights & privileges.

And it is an odd crisis in that we may actually speak up and out, but constantly get trapped in some simplistic dualisms/binaries — liberalism versus authoritarianism, Islam versus … well … Christianity/America/constitution/etc., white versus non white,  intellectual versus nonintellectual, urban versus rural and any other dualism thing you want to add.

But our issues seem to be more complex than ‘if this or maybe that.’

Our issues get compounded by the natural ebb & flow of “rights” <speech, religion, press, etc.> and what we believe is ‘right’ all combined with the unfortunate situation that the everyday person struggles to discerns fact from fiction <I would be remiss if i didn’t point out that 5+ years of Trump where he created his own fictional alternative universe in which his ‘facts’ exist and he wanted to manage the narrative as ‘his universe depicting reality’ didn’t help any of this>.

We complicate our lives needlessly.

And while Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in the 1830s that the American promise of meritocracy, its uniformity of culture and manners, and “equality of conditions” would make for immoderate ambition, corrosive envy and chronic dissatisfaction and could swell “to the height of fury” and lead many to acquiesce in a curtailment of their liberties all leading to a longing for the rule of a strongman … I do not agree.

No matter how divisive we may get and no matter how much we complicate our own lives and how much we may confuse what we deserve and what we earn, what is a privilege and what is a right, all of our freedoms & rights are grounded in the one unchangeable thing we have … the constitution.

That said. I am reminded of some words written by William Martin in his fabulous book “The Lost Constitution”:

=======

“A real American will tell you that our Constitution is not a tool for politicians hoping to make points, whether it is a cynical Republican pushing flag burning amendments because their poll numbers are down or a do-gooding Democrat who decides to protect ourselves by banning guns. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they made the Constitution difficult to amend, so let’s think hard before we mess with it. 

What it says is what t said two hundred years ago. I think the men who set their thoughts down here were men who cared about America. Some of them believed in a strong central government, some believed that government governs best which governs least, but all of them believed in the ability of thinking Americans to get up in the morning and resolve their differences and solve their problems. And we have lost that in this country.

The framers created a means of changing this document because they understood that the world would change. But they didn’t want to make it easy. So it up to you, the people, pick up your newspaper and read them, and think about what you read, and don’t always believe what you hear just because it is what you want to hear,. And don’t listen to what you want to hear because you hear it from somebody who shouts it loud or makes you laugh. The constitution demands more. Don’t believe the people who vote straight democrat any more than you believe the people who befoul the airwaves with rightist rhetoric every day. The theme, on every night, is that we are all American. “

==========

All that said, I circle back to where i began by saying I wanted to say two things. The first had to do with individual rights and choices, the second has to do with amplification <the megaphones of the world – tv networks, podcasts, social media>.

While I believe any individual has the right to be an idiot I think we would all be idiots if we didn’t acknowledge we are in a universe in which the amplification universe is not indifferent. In addition the amplification universe has the ability to exponentially share idiocy – not additively or even multiplicatively. Therein lies the accountability and responsivbility issue. While it sounds nice to say every platform can say whatever it wants to say <kind of a misplaced freedom of speech play> the reality is it isn’t about saying iodiotic things or lies or disinformation, its about teh amplification. So without any rules on how things get amplified <usually this comes down to algorithms> we inevitably have to talk about the source of the things that are getting shared. I, personally, think twitter, Facebook, instragram, whoever, should clamp down on disinformation and lies. Will they always get it right? Nope. Will in most cases , even in their errors, benefit society? Yup. Anything at this point which slows down amplification, or mutes what may take some time to be proven, is good. we do not need to “know everything” immediately. Give some time to vet everything. Let idiots speak but maybe limit how far and wide their idiocy spreads <at least initially>. That actually seems to protect the privileges and freedoms of citizenry more than it limits it.

Which leads me to end with the thought that it is an odd place we are in today.

It seems like never have so many free individuals felt so helpless and in their helpless feeling many people seem almost desperate to wrest control from anyone, and institutions in particular, they can blame for their feeling ‘lostness’ <however you would like to define lost>.

As I finish up this piece today it seems important to remind everyone that freedom of speech is just that … freedom of speech – and that freedom of speech is the foundation upon which all civil liberties reside.

I would rather idiocy, our confusion about what we deserve and do not deserve, be discussed rather than have to thrive in the darkness of silent strength.

Because all speech does is to start a dialogue.

It forces people to talk.

Personally, I don’t want to read, or watch, only whatever validates my beliefs.

I want to challenge my assumptions.

Personally, I know I get confused about what is a right, what is a freedom and, sometimes, what is a privilege.

The only thing I am 100% clear on is that I am privileged to exist in a country in which I can be confused on all those things and still be able to speak out.

And, lastly, I am absolutely clear that the universe has no real obligation to me … or us.

We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

What this means is that only we can complicate our lives and/or uncomplicate it.

Let’s be a little bit easier on each other.

Let’s listen a little bit better with each other.

Let’s become the universe in which we become obligated to each other rather than worrying about where my freedom begins and yours ends. Ponder.

===

“People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid.”

Søren Kierkegaard

===

Now that it appears the psycho-pathological liar, narcissistically crooked Trump will soon return to twitter to reintroduce his unique level of toxicity to the world I decided it was time to thank him.

Yeah. In his general absence from public rhetoric Trump has made me grateful for a variety of things.

I am reminded of the importance of competency.

I am reminded of the importance of dignity.

I am reminded of the value of integrity.

I am reminded of the importance of preparation.

I am reminded of the fact democracy is fragile.

I am reminded of the understanding that the freedom we enjoy in America is unique … and always embattled.

I am reminded of the importance of listening without judgement and judgement based on facts.

I am reminded of the fact that conspiracies have no factual basis and, yet, can be confused as such in a mainstream way.

I am reminded of the unfortunate truth that truth itself can be suffocated if:

1. a lie is big enough, or
2. the lies are relentless.

I am reminded of the ultimate truth: one person can make a difference … for good or for bad.

I am reminded of the importance of decency.

I am reminded of how strong a country is and how much bigger it is than one incredibly flawed & misguided individual.

I am grateful that Mr. Trump has reminded me of so many things I believe we had taken for granted.

And while I am grateful for so many things I found an awesome letter, written during his scorched earth morally vapid 2016 campaign, from someone online who is also grateful for a variety of things:

=====

Dear Mr Trump,

It’s taken me a while to realize this and to admit it, but I’m grateful to you.

For the past few months I’ve spent a good deal of time lamenting your campaign and the poison it has so effortlessly generated. I’ve watched our country imploding, our public discourse become polluted, our political climate grow ever more corrosive, and wrongly assumed you were to blame.

It’s only lately I’ve come to understand that you haven’t manufactured our current national ugliness—you’ve simply revealed it.

By saying the irresponsible, mean-spirited, ignorant things you say so freely and so frequently, you’ve given other like-minded people license to do the same.

You’ve opened up the floodgates for our corporate sewage to flow fully. People no longer conceal their vile mess, they now revel in it, they broadcast it and retweet it.

You’ve made bigotry and racism socially acceptable again and that has been a kind of twisted gift because it’s allowed me to really see people; not as they pretend to be on the surface—but in the very depths of their wounded, weaponized hearts.

Over and over as your campaign has persisted, your supporters would tell me that they like you because you “speak your mind”. It wasn’t until recently that I’ve realized that you speak their minds. You’ve given credence to their prejudices and made those prejudices go mainstream.

Thanks to the terrible ground you’ve broken, politicians, pastors, friends, and strangers, both in person and on social media now regularly out themselves as hateful, intolerant, and malicious—and they remind me just how close they are to me, just how deep the sickness in us runs, and just how far we have to go together.

You’ve emboldened people to be open about things they used to conceal for the sake of decorum, and though it turns my stomach, I know that this is the only way we can move forward; to have that cancerous stuff exposed fully so that it can be dealt with. Our progress as a nation is predicated on authentic dialogue, no matter how brutal and disheartening that dialogue is.

In other words, you’ve let us know what we’re really dealing with here and while it’s been rightly disturbing, it’s also been revelatory. That’s the thing about that kind of harsh light: you’re forced to see everything. Beauty and monstrosity equally illuminated.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think you’re the least qualified, least knowledgeable Presidential candidate we may ever have had participate this far into the process, and if you somehow were elected I’d fear gravely for the world my children would inherit—should it survive your Presidency at all. I believe you’re reckless, bitter, and completely reprehensible; the very worst kind of bully.

But whether you win or lose, you’ve already allowed me the blessing of Truth; about me, about you, about other candidates, about our nation.

And in the process you’ve also shown me that I am not alone in resisting you and this ugly thing you’ve revealed about us.

You’ve generated an equally loud, equally passionate response to it and this is where I find my hope these days.

I find it in those for whom equality isn’t just a cheap buzzword, it’s the most precious of hills to die on.

I find it in those people who refuse to be silent in the face of our impending shared regression.

I find it in those willing to be more bold in defending the inherent value of all people.

I find it in the growing army of those who will not tolerate hatred as a core American value.

I find it in those who reject violence as our default response to dissension.

I find it in the ever rising voice of people who will not let malice and bitterness represent them in the world.

Today I find my hope in those who, like me, will not be complicit in allowing bigotry and intolerance to become a source of national pride, because we’ve seen where that leads.

Yes, Mr Trump, you’ve unearthed our hidden sickness and you’ve allowed it to go viral.

You brought every awful thing about us out into the open.

And for this—I thank you.

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

While I am constantly mortified by what Trump did to the presidential process, the presidency itself, democracy, America’s position in the world, and our constitutional rights & freedoms, I tend to believe one of the most egregious actions he did was by doing all of that lying  and destroying any semblance of the overall standard of respectful discourse a civilized society typically has.

But.

I am grateful he has come along and reminded us of  all these things by showing us what the bottom of the barrel looks like.

I am grateful for his avalanche of lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear because it reminds us all that truth and hope is actually a brighter vision.

I am grateful because his promise to recover the past in simplistic tripe it is ultimately shown as the fiction offered by ‘merchants of clever cheats.’

I am grateful he offers a simple formula “to make your target audience feel good by offering up what is a fantasy to them, but a horrendous injustice to others” because it permits those who know how to articulate the true complexity of reality to speak up.

And, mostly, I am grateful because you cannot solve a problem until you actually recognize a problem. And while he himself is a problem to be solved <which I assume Time itself will deal with> he has uncovered all the problems I have listed above which we should now put our big boy & girl pants on .. and solve.

I have said for years now with regard to Trump that there is really only one word to describe him and whatever he does – carnage. His only plan is to destroy everything in his way. and in his wake, as he sits in his lonely penthouse, i.e., carnage.

I even warned people that when he was finally gone from public office that the next president will be faced with dealing with that carnage.

And I actually thank him for this too.

Yeah. I do.

This will force a new generation of leaders to stand up, speak out and rebuild from the carnage.

This will force a new generation of leaders to, well, lead.

This will force a new generation of leaders to take what was broken and build anew.

This will force a new generation of leaders to embrace a belief that we are actually stronger together rather than apart, a group of people aligned is stronger than an individual focused on self interest and working together is essential to progress.

The strength of a country is defined in how it deals with its worst moments. Trump represents the worst, represented the worst and in his wake he left us with the worst. I say that because, well, he is coming back. Twitter is a megaphone for all his shit.

In closing.

Just a reminder of some Trump trash.

30,573 lies over his 4 year presidency. I begin there to head off any false equivalence, “all politicians lie”, because Trump was in a liar zone of his own.

Also.

-Trump university a sham and a scam and stole money from people

-regularly performed verbal fellatio on Putin

-Russia/ Putin considered him an Useful Idiot

-filed bankruptcy 6 times; sucks at running businesses

-indebted to Russian/ Chinese banks since US banks ceased lending to him

-couldn’t even turn profit running a casino; run out of town in Atlantic City

-claimed tax returns can’t be released due to IRS audit

-lied; IRS claims no rules against releasing tax returns

-lied about being a billionaire, value of his properties and wealth

-sued thousands of times for stiffing small businesses/ contractors/ workers

-said his own sacrifice on par with those of Gold Star families

-dodged draft by claiming bone spurs

-cannot remember which foot afflicted with bone spurs

-McCain was only a war hero because he was captured

-mocks NY Times reporter who has epilepsy

-gonna build a wall and Mexico will pay

-chummy with racists, White nationalists, KKK

-raised dumb sons who are chummy with White nationalists

-refused to repudiate David Duke/ KKK contingent of supporters

-surrounds himself with unhinged far-right advisors

-birther-in-chief

-directed campaign funds to his own businesses

-uses campaign media coverage as free infomercial for his new hotel/properties

-tells blatant lies and denies lies even with video evidence

-often flip-flops within hours or on same day

-needs handlers to keep him from saying crazy things

-has thin skin, keeps Nixon-like tabs on perceived enemies

-said maybe US shouldn’t honor NATO treaties

-said we should have stolen Iraq/ ME oil after Iraq War

-sued for housing discrimination against Blacks, lost but denies guilt

-lied about weight and height so as not be tagged as obese

-used charity money as slush fund to settle lawsuit judgements

-used charity money to buy tacky painting of himself

-said his ’80s man-whoring was his personal Vietnam

-cray cray right-wing Supreme Court appointees affect policy for next 30 years

-disparaged top Generals as dumb and embarrassing

-knows more about ISIS than the Generals

-possible sociopathic/ psychopathic/ narcissistic personality disorder

-posed as own publicist; bragged about imaginary sex life with celebrities

-borderline anti-vaxxer: lied about a child getting autism 1 week after being vaccinated

-constantly says global warming a hoax; denied it in debate

In the end.

Giving Trump a megaphone when he is a con man, fake, pathological liar, amoral bully, incoherent word salad deliverer, seems like it is not a good idea for society in general. But. Thank you Mr. Trump for reminding me to get my head back in the game.

===========

“The advantage of the incomprehensible is that it never loses its freshness.”

Paul Valéry

==========

“The moment you decide an event is impossible and therefore stop directing your attention to it is the moment when it will take place.”

General Petro Grigorenko

========

“This may be the most important proposition revealed by history: ‘At the time, no one knew what was coming.”

Haruki Murakami

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

Well. I have lots of discussions about the future with people and it continuously surprises me on how confident people are with regard to what will, or will not, happen. In fact, I find it slightly incomprehensible until I remember that the incomprehensible, in all its forms, has a certain allure.

The incomprehensible has a certain freshness of inevitable believability that some people are addicted to <and blind to the possibility it will never happen>.

Uh oh.

The incomprehensible has a certain inevitable un-believability that some people are married to (and blind to the possibility it could actually occur>. The incomprehensible appeals to both those convinced it will never happen and to those who are convince it will happen.

Now. That said. We attack the incomprehensible in a variety of ways trying to comprehend it.

Research/experimenting

Innovation methodology: stage gating as an example

Pick your “assessing likelihood of incomprehensible” methodology but, well, 90% of new businesses fail, over 60% of new products fail and The Law of Unintended Consequences guarantees the unforeseen is almost more likely to happen than the foreseen. Yet. Even all that knowledge doesn’t slow us down one bit with our love/hate relationship with the unknown, i.e., the incomprehensible. We love the thought of finding something that seemed incomprehensible. We love that ‘holy shit’ feeling.

Here is the weird thing. Despite our love of the incomprehensible we plan our days to the minute, plan projects and tasks in excruciating detail and ‘plan out’ to eliminate any risk and uncertainty and, well, incomprehensible we can feasibly plan out. I would point out that all this really does is foster the timeless tradition of second guessing and seeking blame as soon as the incomprehensible occurs.

Regardless.

The incomprehensible always remains fresh because, as a Life truth, it consistently confirms to us that at no time no one knew what was coming.

Yup.

You can be pessimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can be optimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

But, in general, before being proven anything, you are guessing. Sure. You can make an educated guess, and the odds may be higher or lower based on what you decide to do, but someone is lying if they say “I knew it was going to end up that way” or “we should have seen that coming.”

That’s bullshit. We do not know. We often guess <sometimes well, sometimes not so well> under the guise of planning. Maybe worse is we often guess under the guise of ‘scrutinizing history.’

Uh oh. A fact.

‘History teaches by analogy, not identity.’

Henry Kissinger

People tend to mistake a study of history, or a historical moment, for proof of what is to come and, in fact, it sure does look like a frickin’ smart thing to do when going backwards in time and connecting dots <even when the connection is tenuous at best>. But, just a reminder about what Hank said: History teaches by analogy, not identity. This means that the lessons of history are never automatic or formulas for the future. The truth is that they can be apprehended only by admitting a range of multidimensional factors <unique context matters>, assessing the significance of each factor <individually and in combinations – I believe that is called “complimentarity”> and that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

————————–

“From this, one can make a deduction which is quite certainly the ultimate truth of jigsaw puzzles: despite appearances, puzzling is not a solitary game: every move the puzzler makes, the puzzlemaker has made before; every piece the puzzler picks up, and picks up again, and studies and strokes, every combination he tries, and tries a second time, every blunder and every insight, each hope and each discouragement have all been designed, calculated, and decided by the other.”

Georges Perec, Life A User’s Manual

=======

Like it or not situations exist in time more than in space. At any given moment a moment is but a collection of individuals and things bringing to bear all their collective experiences and things. Reassembling that multi-dimension of ‘collective’ is next to impossible. What this means is that when viewing the past incomprehensible, trying to make it comprehensible, you will find it is contingent to a unique set of factors.

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

“For the lessons of historical experience, as of personal experience, are contingent.

They teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

Henry Kissinger

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

Uhm. Cannot force recognition of comparable situations.  This is why I scratch my head when some people are so sure on the future. If the incomprehensible is contingent upon a unique set of factors than you would have to be able to look into some crystal ball which unravels what will BE unique (that is impossible isn’t it?) to see what the future configuration of contingent factors is.

Well. That’s nuts. No one can do that.

In the end.

I believe all of us would probably like to have a better sense of how to plan for the future and to better understand the best and proper actions to take to maximize the future in some form or fashion.

Therefore we do the best we can, most often that means examining the past to assess actions affecting the future, trying to understand consequences for our decisions yet to be made. The intent is good and true.

However. We should never confuse honest intent with ‘what is right.’

We simply hear the echoes of footsteps but never meet their owners until they actually enter our lives. And, frankly, you cannot control all that ‘are coming by and by into our lives.’ At each point in time no one knew what was coming, therefore, no one can truly know what is coming. I imagine it is helpful for us to remind ourselves on occasion that just when we are absolutely positively 100% sure that something is impossible or incomprehensible — it occurs.

Just remember this about the incomprehensible. We don’t know what we don’t know AND we don’t know half of what we really do know. It is difficult to accept the fact that today, in the moment, in the middle of change, no one … let me repeat … NO ONE has the right answer. We are simply asking the right questions at the moment and doing our best to adapt as we learn.

And therein maybe lies the greatest lesson about the incomprehensible – change is about adapting.

Sure. Having a vision is good and there are multiple ways to reach the ‘end game. But, in the end, change is change and the incomprehensible is the incomprehensible. Plus. If we knew exactly what the change was and what was needed and what was truly incomprehensible and what wasn’t, well, we would be really smart sonuvabitches, wouldn’t we ? Almost incomprehensible to think that though. Ponder.

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

Prouver que j’ai raison serait accorder que je puis avoir tort. -Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais

“Proving that I am right would be admitting that I could be wrong.”

====

“Embrace the present and invent the future,”

Karl Lagerfeld Chanel

=====

“Questions are what matters. Questions, and discovering the right ones, are the key to staying on course. The wave of information threatens to obscure strategy, to drown out details and numbers, calculation and analysis, reaction and tactics. To have strong tactics we must have strong strategy on one side and accurate calculation on the other. Both require seeing onto the future.”

Gary Kasparov

=====

This is about technology and intentionally shaping the future we desire and, peripherally, about business.

Where we are.

Human-ness: what it meant to be human and how to intentionally be human. It didn’t start with technology, but then again it did. Technology has introduced all the distractions necessary to forget we are human. To be clear. This is different than a ‘different than when I was growing up’ discussion (past), this is a discussion about our future and our intentions with regard to being human – individually, societally and in business. The debate, the discussion, should ignore the definitions of technology and focus on the definitions of humans – not generational mumbo jumbo – because there is no contrast between generations (in any meaningful way), the contrast resides in the liminal space we currently stand in – standing between the definition of who and what we want our future to be and a future, as yet, to be defined. Clearly there is room for improvement in how we engage with technology and even in the technology itself, but the expectations of the future should not reside in some fantastical technology, but instead the fantastic visions for people and what they will be defined by. Think about that because although we have a nasty tendency to view society and institutions as an array of products and services to ensure people succeed, the truth is that people will succeed with, or without, technology. That means to view technology as having an important role it should be viewed as integrating into the human experience for who and what they want to be – not manipulated by some technology trying to convince them what to think and who to be. This also means just as our notion of technology needs to be expanded, our notion of people needs to be re-explored, re-instated and reimagined. I imagine I am suggesting some version of a future in which it is a Learning Future where technology is simply learning systems undergirding learning people. Regardless. Intentions. Intentions matter if we desire an intentional future, rather than some future we adapt to, we need a vision for humanness.

Again. This discussion didn’t start with technology and, yet, it did. Technology has forced us, and is forcing us, to think more about being human than ever before. That, I imagine, means technology has forced us to state our intentions for the future.

Technology as an enabler for humans.

The reality is very few of us care about technology itself, we care about what it enables. Technology, wherever it resides (in hand, on desk, in lap, in car) are just tools to get things done (and ‘done’ can be answering questions and learning). Technology represents the means, not the desired outcomes. Technology is just a tool like all tools, if used properly it is effective, if it used improperly, it simply becomes an obstacle to attain some objective. What that really means is before we develop any technology, or technology plans, it would behoove us to articulate some unambiguous vision of what we desire in order to create the framework within which that technology can effectively enable. Let me be clear. This means technology does not lead, it follows and supports. This also means neither the availability nor the adoption of technology, its applications or construct, does not change the responsibility nor the overall focus of the business – we should be attempting to attain the same vision whether the technology is adopted or not. yes. What I mean is that technology adoption should not decrease the likelihood of attaining a vision. This also means technology must be relevant and connected to the vision, the strategy, the objective and the humans (and humanity). Ponder that thought.

Human-centric technology world.

Which leads me to the idea of human-centric and a human-centric Future. In November 2018, prior to the pandemic, I approached the Georgia Tech School of Human Design with a conference idea – The Humancentric Organization – in which speakers** would talk about technology through the eyes of creating learning organizations. In other words, human centric organizations enabled by technology:

It’s an exciting time to be a person in a technology world because it is all about Humans.

I’m convinced that ordinary people have more power in their hands to shape the world, including the future, than ever before. They just don’t know it because they keep getting told it will be a robot, automation, AI/Machine Learning world. The truth is technological progress is dependent upon people, conversations and thinking (morally & behaviorally). It’s clear that Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Biotech and any number of other technology-based innovations are set to impact society with consequences we can only imagine. This represents significant opportunities for people who recognize it will be a Human-centric future.

** note: the speakers who I had asked and expressed interest in being involved included Grady Booch, Mike Walsh, Dr. Jason Fox, Dr. Leda Glyptis, Teodora Petkova, Faris Yakob, Lisa Gill, Zach Mercurio and several others. All portray the goodness of human beings when given the opportunity to do good. I thought it would be interesting to have Mike Walsh, an unabashed futurist, and Grady Booch, one of the forefathers of software, together. Grady, in particular, portrays the goodness of technology when given the opportunity. He is the conscious of technology. He, above all, see humans create. He, above all, sees the integrity within the invisible, the black box of technology, which 90% of people will never understand and therefore are dependent upon the 10% accepting the burden of responsibility.

The human centric future, to me, will see a world in which:

• • Technology will thrive or die depending on humans, not the opposite.

  • The world, business & society, will thrive or die depending on humans, not technology.

We must keep an unwavering focus on humanness because as technology improves (as it will do) there will be a tendency to turn our focus more sharply toward seeing technology as the solution to, well, everything in the future. But this belief should give us some pause. If we focus too much on technology, we lose sight of the true purpose of technology which is to facilitate learning and improve the situation for humans.  I know I could argue whatever example someone comes up with that the future solutions should be created with same care and expectations as traditional effective solutions. Why? Because everything will still revolve around humans – an individual doing and thinking things interacting with other humans who are doing and thinking things. This is where complexity does come into play. We often, even with technology, think of our solutions in a one-dimensional way. The solutions, particularly if interested in creating a learning revolution, shouldn’t simply be based on convenience and simplicity but rather challenged and challenging. There will have to be a multi-dimensionality to the future – a complex one. I guess what I am suggesting is the we should not diminish the need for traditional principles like engagement, interaction and critical thinking but rather the strategic objective should have the intention to create some additional depth and dimensions to these principles.

A learning revolution.

Technology is first and foremost used for educational purposes. Now. We can debate the definition of education (beyond the institutional aspects), but for the most part people interact with technology to learn and do. [ponder.  This makes technology a transformation tool, but to what? There is certainly a role for undirected education/learning but inevitably if we seek to have a better system, the system should have an identified strategic objective. Far too often we make technology benefit into some simplistic ‘convenience’ tool. Why shouldn’t we expect technology to enable a learning revolution? This will demand a different type of leadership – one that is not passive but rather one that leads a revolution into the future. Since the preservation of the status quo tends to be equated with either protecting traditional values or principles, most leaders have learned (from experience) that ensuring a transformation unfolds slowly permits them the luxury of maintaining positions of power longer. A learning revolution demands a new type of leadership one that is active, enlightened and engaged. Any revolution is part push and part pull but technology offers a new dynamic environment in which opportunities can be exploited, in pursuit of a grander vision or strategic objective, if one is willing to actively engage with them. I have said this before but this new type of leadership is not about charisma, but rather about framing and thinking conceptually. The revolution only occurs if someone can frame the issues in terms that are directly relevant to the communities. The concepts are framed in a way that are easily articulated, understood and assimilated into individual (and collective) objectives. This is a bit grander than alignment (although alignment is certainly a key aspects) but rather it is about finding the coherence necessary for energy gravity grabs hold to increase progress.

Part of this progress, within a learning revolution mindset, is an understanding one cannot study something to death. Emergence demands some resolve to understand and take advantage of trends, opportunities and learning I general. Evidence gathering needs to be effective AND efficient wherein the mechanism neither slows nor delays yet offers up enough guidance to insure movement toward the vision and objective rather than away. This gets tricky with technology for 3 reasons:

• • Technology software is designed and consequences can run away faster than humans can actually assimilate. This is a Norbert Wiener concept.

Design carefully.

• • Technology is often the biggest contributor to ‘over-evidence-seeking’, big data and overwhelming amounts of information, and it must instead become a balancer to a culture of proper situational evidence – seeking not certainty, but rather probabilities.

  • Technology embeds some human bias/beliefs/convictions. What I mean by that is institutions, believing they are uniquely unique, put an overemphasis on what they perceive to be their uniqueness blinding decisionmakers, and learners, to realities which could actually improve their situation if not their learning (which is the first step to improving their future situation).

“The empires of the future are the empires of the mind.”

Sir Winston Churchill

Uneven progress.

Now. Understanding that technology in and of itself is significantly different than effective use of technology is the first step to achieving the future system we desire.  Technology, when implemented, will have an impact and an uneven one. As a result of these impacts a new set of rules, roles, relationships and behaviors will emerge. This emergence will recast any business, as an institution, in a new shape – one of which was not designed by someone upfront. The business model, as an unchanging institutional environment, no longer exists. In fact, the new business enterprise has little in terms of boundary constraints (even in expectations), but rather will reshape itself relying on dynamic, interrelated networks to enable the examination of arising issues within timeframes, some compressed some elongated, under which the system itself operates. In other words, people will change without any ‘transformational plan of action’ or ‘change management’, but rather through simple continuous iteration through interaction with each other and the marketplace/society/community.

And maybe this is where I touch on Purpose a bit because I envision someone saying to themselves “well, if the organization/person has a Purpose, that would probably resolve all future concerns of too much unevenness.” 

I believe individuals can have a Purpose and, in fact, if tap into Purpose are happier, healthier and more productive. I do not believe Business has a Purpose in the sense purpose is typically discussed.  I don’t believe ‘shareholder value’ is a Purpose, it is simply an objective (which creates systems in the business to achieve). I believe business has intentions. These intentions can get masked by visions or missions, both of the which can play valuable roles, but I believe a business should lay out its intentions – all of them.

An intent to contribute to the environment.

An intent to act with integrity every day.

An intent to engage with community.

Things like that (and there should be no limits to # of intentions).

Within these intentions the people IN the organization have a variety of paths they can choose to walk on – and clearly see where paths do not lie. I hesitate to call these principles because, well, they seem simply like intentions. With intentions understood a business can have a community of people interested in working coherently (some people may call this culture) and pursue quests to fulfill those intentions. Intentions put some boundaries on the unevenness while actually encouraging unevenness which increases velocity toward some vision. Intentions put some boundaries on technology.

—

“Community is the fact that we work toward the same goal, that we accept our respective roles in order to reach it.  Values is the fact we trust each other. And, culture?   Culture is as much about what we encourage as what we actually permit. That matters because most people don’t do what we tell them to. They do what we let them get away with.”

Fredrick Backman

—

Intrinsic energy.

In having intentions and pursuing quests the business rely less on not having to tell people what they cannot get away with and encourage them more to go do what they can do. People gain knowledge, get better at whatever they do (and how they think), there is continuous improvement, progress is achieved (for the individual and the business), quests are pursued and everyone feels a sense of meaning in having contributed. Technology is simply a means to help achieve these outcomes.

Positive progress.

I have always believed we do a disservice to 90% of people by scaring them with disruption, revolutions and robots/automation stealing their jobs. I gravitate to people who make the pragmatic exciting. I gravitate to people who articulate change in ways people don’t distrust it, but instead are open-minded. I gravitate to people who don’t spew bullshit to sound intellectual, but rather see smartness in communicating in ways people can understand. The world, to me, is careening between technology-based fantastical hollow promises and dystopian technology hyperbole. I think we do a disservice to people by suggesting some piece of technology is more meaningful than a human being. I think we do a disservice to any person doing any job that they cannot find meaning in what they currently do therefore they should be happy some algorithm or robot can do it for them.  I believe we should put a stake in the ground for understandable positive human progress in an increasingly technological world. Progress, with or without technology, should be positive for humans and humanity.

Integrated.

I have always believed most futuristic discussions have done disservice to people in its “one-offness” or one-dimensional discussions. I believe we would benefit in presenting the future in an intentional integrated way – a system in totality. Software engineering, how people think, organizational structure, media & culture, power of individual purpose, how we speak thru technology. I believe if showcase humans at the center of the future in an integrated way we can show people that people are the thread to the future, not technology. Show people that if we are empowered to think and do, we will think and do. Show people the system is them and they are the system.

Human Future view.

I am tired of digital transformation, artificial intelligence and even customer-centric. The future is about human transformation, human intelligence and being human-centric. This can be practical business principles or larger societal issues, but at the center of all that will be done, what will be created, will occur thru humans talking with humans and humans creating things. That should be our strategic imperative for future intentions. Period.

Humans should tinker with the future, not technology, and they should do so intentionally.

In the end.

Intentions matter. What I mean by that is if we do not embrace a human centric world, intentionally, technology will be increasingly less likely to (a) be optimally effective and (b) optimally useful to the betterment of humans. Establishing the future is not about technology. It is about humans, society, culture and institutional tradition. The decisions for our future are both top down and bottom up, simultaneously, in which vision and pragmatism are aligned (and resources are equitably dispersed).

I would note that when goals and objectives are not reached, it has little to do with technology, but has a lot to do with people. This future system will not be the result of incremental change but rather of a strategic decision and structural mental models. The strategic decision, stating the intentions, permits the system to emerge rather than be driven by external forces and we inevitably find ourselves in a system in which human-ness thrives.

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

“Good ideas come with a heavy burden; which is why so few people execute them. Few people can handle it.“

=

Hugh MacLeod

—

There are more good ideas than we know about. Good ideas, or the nugget of a good idea or a derivative <that could become a good idea> are scattered everywhere. You just need to listen closely and you will find a good idea every day <assuming you listen to enough people>.

But.

Hugh is absolutely correct in that few people accept the burden that comes with a good idea.

Good ideas are tough in two ways <okay, more but I will focus on two>.

First may seem contradictory to what I wrote at the beginning, but I am really qualifying what I stated.

There are a lot of good ideas, but the really good ideas are rare.

To clarify, by rare good ideas I mean the really meaningful ones. The ones that make an impact. The ones that make a difference. The ones that make people sit up and pay attention. Ideas are a dime a dozen and listening to them is like mental masturbation. But meaningful ideas make you sit up and think “well, this is the real thing.”

Which leads me to the second thought.

Getting people to sit up and pay attention (or listen).

Well. When people pay attention, and listen attentively, to a good idea they will challenge and debate and skewer <even if it doesn’t deserve skewering>. They do this because “meaningful” means, well, it means something to people – enough that they care about how it may impact them as an individual. 

Look.

The burden of a good idea is never (really) in coming up with it.

This is just a guess, but I bet there are more good ideas sitting in someone’s drawer <or a bunch of people’s drawers> then have ever been done let alone made public. There are more good ideas than we have time to actually do.

The real burden is in vocalizing, defending and figuring out how to implement. And not many people can handle that burden. They don’t, or can’t, because meaningful ideas are not flippant, they take work. They have depth and dimensions and to defend them you need to be able to not only articulate the depths and dimensions, but even defend the some vague outlines of parts (vagueness always exists with meaningful ideas because they tend to be ‘future value’ type ideas and, well, the future is not predictable).

And Hugh suggests few people can handle it.

I tell kids all the time that they are our future, well, only if they actually accept the burden of our future. So often those who are being asked to accept the responsibility of the future complain about those in the past <or they even resent those in the past> with regard to them shirking responsibility. Yeah. There is a lot of finger pointing that goes on with regard to ideas and the future.

Well. I have a bunch of things to say to that, but suffice it to say I will simply say “nuts.”

Nuts to all that crap.

Ideas are of the present and the future. Lingering in the past is simply a way to avoid the burden that comes along with an idea.

If you have an idea … good … share it.

If you have an idea and you want it to actually happen … good … do it.

Good ideas are a burden.

And it is the people who do not recognize that which will consistently fall into the ‘dreamer’ category. Meandering through life coming up with ideas and wondering <and sometimes bitching> about why no one does these ideas they are thinking about and talking about. These are the people who give dreaming a bad name.

And then there are the people who take on the burden. The ones who have ideas and actually scratch and claw and fight through all the negativity and doubters to make it happen. They wrangle not only with people but with words. They are the ones who embrace storytelling as a tool to create  a narrative around their idea (Carse), or embrace metaphors (Lackoff), or simply become lovers of words themselves as symbolic tools (Symbolic Species).

Oh.

Here is where the deal gets tricky.

Not everyone who has an idea and fights for it has a good idea. I will not call them snake oil salesmen, but they certainly do have some of the same characteristics. Some truly have good intent, but even with good intentions they are out trying to sell you a bunch of “Why” and not “What” and a why without a great what is a bunch of nothing.

If you can ever convince that person that their idea sucks <or is just not that good>, but then you steer them towards a good idea … well … you are in the gold.

Because the people who accept the burden are valuable commodities. It takes a special person. And it is foolish of us to simply disregard those who accept the burden and yet have a bad idea as fools or dreamers or, well, not worth paying attention to.

Because they have a skill.

They are strong enough for the burden. And let me tell ya folks … not everyone has the strength to do that. So when we chastise or joke about those people <simply because the idea maybe even be a little nutty rather than ‘not so good’> we shouldn’t. We should be seeking opportunities to utilize those people’s strengths. In other words, transition them from snake oil salesmen to idea narrators.

Regardless. I am 100% confident that there are a gazillion good ideas sitting out there in the homes of people who just do not want the burden of a good idea.

Hugh is correct.

It is a separate post, but a HUGE issue is the fact most people cannot tell the difference between a good idea and shitty idea or even a mediocre <already done> idea.

But. In the end?

Hugh is correct.

Most people cannot handle the burden of a good idea.

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

“The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.”

——-

Michelangelo

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

“Go higher and higher, until it becomes impossible to bring you down, I wanna use a microscope to locate you, don’t even dream of coming down.”

―

Michael Bassey Johnson

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

……….. Pierre Pauselli …………..

Business, in general, has a wacky way of talking about bad news & ‘less-than-positive’ business information. In business, and Life I imagine on occasion, we look at down in some fairly absurd ways using voodoo math, clever graphs and … well … some dubious comparisons all to prove that down is actually up.

Yeah.

It has to be voodoo – math or graphics —  to show both down AND up.

No shit. Really.

To them … well … Down isn’t down, it is really up <if only my bank balance could implement that math>.

Examples.

Unemployment is down this month <but its still up versus a year ago>.

Sales are down <but it’s up versus the rest of the category>.

Our new product is losing money <but we are getting new customers>.

And maybe the most famous ‘up is down’ scenario … “we have cut our spending but get more with what we have!” <always be very very leery of this one>.

WTF.

Let’s be clear.

In business when is down, well, up?

(Answer to that question) ………. NEVER.

Down is down.

Down is bad.

Down is never the objective.

Sigh.

If I hear this one more time in one more conference room my head will explode:

————–

 “… well Mr. Giraffenee, it’s a tough economy right now. The category is trending downward at 11%, but we are only down 5%. So we are doing well in a tough category. In fact … <insert pregnant pause here> … we are actually up when you look  it that way.”

— people staring at powerpoint looking serious … “hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …” —

(Mr. Giraffeney after a minute or so)

“So our sales are down … but not really down? I love it!”

————-

What a load of bullshit.

To me negative is down. And bad <because it isn’t up>.

To be fair it is easy to talk your way into the down but not really down rabbit hole of economic unreality <in fact … I say hanging my head sheepishly … I have done it myself years ago>. It is often a self-preservation, program preservation, technique <albeit a slightly dubious one>. Today’s management seems intent on finding something wrong to fix, someone to blame and some reason they will not look good. making down look up can be an effective way to protect a good long term idea in the short term <sad but true>.

To be fair It is extremely easy to justify ‘down but not down’ by saying if people aren’t spending, it must be ok that they are not spending with us. It is extremely easy to say if times are tight than that must be the reason they don’t value our brand as much <or any brand>. It’s a tough competitive world out there and it never hurts to remind everyone it is a tough competitive world.

Lastly.

To be fair … It is important to note that a person might not know he/she is doing something he/she shouldn’t do. Training in today’s business world is pitiful. Teaching people how to tell the tough truths, the harsh truths, is almost nonexistent.

Anyway.

It may be easy to fall into this ‘down is up’ double speak, but it is bullshit.

Up is up.

Growth is always the goal. And if you are not growing you are dying.

Here is something to chew on <a business truth as it were>.

A truth with no caveats on market status, economic challenges or budget constraints.

Business is out there.

People are buying stuff.

And there are plenty of people buying stuff.

Yeah.

Even today.

Even yesterday.

Even tomorrow.

Plenty of businesses are gaining market share and there are a boatload of profitable companies <flush with cash by the way>. And there are a lot of companies with increased sales. And there are a lot of growing companies.

The truth is that we have an extremely robustly sized economy out there my friends. When people talk about ‘shrinking economy’ or ‘shrinking industry’ … don’t laugh too hard in their faces … size is relative. No reasonable business is in an industry with only $100 dollar available and it is shrinking by $5.

Sales and growth are out there for the taking.

Note: while I originally wrote this during the ‘great depression’, fundamentally, this is true during the pandemic. while economies have clearly shrunk, people are still spending money. Every business should have the objective of ‘they should be spending it on me.”

I say all this because it can be easy to justify doing what you are doing a variety of ways and saying down isn’t really down is a way a lot of people do so.

Stop.

Just stop.

Up is attainable.

Growth opportunities are always there.

You may just have to be a little smarter to get it. “Smarter” almost always resides in appealing to consumer needs without losing sight of the fact you have to make money … profit. You cannot <and should not> discount your way to success. That path is a very slippery slope not only from consumer attitudes perspective <defining how they value you>, but it is also puts a massive strain on profitability <which impacts the organization like a bad ripple effect>.

You have to be smart and insightful with how you talk with people you want to buy your stuff.  Maybe you need to seek a new role, or a differently defined role, that is more vital and easier for consumers to rationalize. And, god forbid, tell the truth & have something worth paying for.

Here is a fact.

People will spend against need – real or perceived. They also search for value, but that doesn’t mean people will not spend premiums for quality. Or spend more money for a heightened sense of perceived need <which is actually a “want” if I was going to be technical with myself>.

Look at SUVs, Starbucks <where they are open drive thru lines are nonstop>, Apple and Whole Foods markets <I could point out a shitload of under-the-radar businesses but you wouldn’t know who the are>.

All doing quite well thank you very much.

All ain’t the cheapest shit out there.

This is simply finding growth under pressure … and under existing market conditions.

Harsh truth for everyone? Persistent sales stagnation is most likely a reflection of how people perceive needing what you have to offer more so than it is “the economy.”

(sorry to burst anyone’s excuse bubble with that)

If you want to look at the larger economic situation go ahead, but do so by just accepting an attitude that the economy’s growth is going to be minimal at best, with the risk of another sharp downturn very real, and quit whining and go out and find a way to grow. Businesses must not stop their quest for growth even in ‘bad times’ nor should they stop their quest under the guise that ‘well we were down … but not really.’

Here is one thing I can promise you about growth companies.

In every case, there are a group of people in that company that see things not just as they are, but as they could be.

And then they go out and get it.

No excuses.

So.

I guess I wrote this to warn people about people who stand up and say “we had a good year … we are not down as much as everyone else or the category.”

Down is never up.

And, by the way, up is attainable. Today. Yesterday. Tomorrow. No excuses.

I guess I wrote this to suggest to businesses that the greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark. Go get some market share.

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

“All cruelty springs from weakness.”

―

Seneca

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

“All the animals, the plants, the minerals, even other kinds of men, are being broken and reassembled every day, to preserve an elite few, who are the loudest to theorize on freedom, but the least free of all.”

Thomas Pynchon

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

“Normalizing your boss.”

I would say 95% of us who have had the opportunity to weave our way through corporate America to reach a senior level position have been forced to normalize the behavior of at least one of our bosses.

Some more than others, but in some ways you become a normalizer, or a translator or maybe sometimes you simply sweep up the mess they left behind. That’s just what you do … uhm … assuming that boss actually has some redeeming value. As you get closer and closer to the most senior positions it becomes more and more obvious that gaining responsibility doesn’t always smooth out the edges of someone, but rather more often makes that person lean harder on/into the specific aspects of themselves which they can use to meet the growing responsibilities. Yeah. Many leaders don’t “round out their skills & character” <and become a well-rounded leader>, but rather hone the pointed skills that provide value or increase their power <sacrificing some other skills & attributes along the way>.

Ah. But then you run up against the ‘bull shitter in chief.’

Maybe they got their position through some family contact. Maybe they were a psychopathic ‘kill or be killed’ employee who successfully killed off any competent competitors for the position. Maybe out of sheer organizational incompetence they rose to a position in which they are completely unqualified for.

All they have in their hip pocket is bullshit.

But they are your boss.

Whew. Defending selectively incompetent behavior is one thing. Defending ongoing bull shit is another. Why? The former can actually enhance your reputation <and improve your own skills as you provide solutions in real time> while the latter only diminishes your reputation.

Yeah. I am sure some people will debate what I just wrote, but I would suggest they will only end up quibbling over my phrasing and not the truth behind the thought.

Reputation is not a simple concept. Your reputation is made up of a variety of things which means you can fuck up in one place, but offering a strength in another situation simply builds your reputation unevenly <which can be managed if you are self-aware>. The problem with normalizing a bull shitter’s incompetent behavior is that you aren’t shoring up selective incompetence/deficiencies you are actually forced to normalize their behavior by offering an alternative truth to whatever bullshit truth they advocated on all fronts – not selective.

I imagine the majority of us have never really faced this either <a> as a full onslaught from an incompetent boss — because most organizations weed out this problem fairly efficiently or <b> for long <most bull shitters get exposed by ambitious less senior competent no-nonsense fairly quickly>.

But, yet, I tend to believe in our nightmare scenarios in our minds we worry about what we would do if faced with an ongoing incompetent bull shitter boss scenario.

Personally <and anyone who knows me will probably nod their head and go ‘yeah’> I wouldn’t be able to do it. I would actually call bullshit <and get fired or ‘eased into a different responsibility’>. But, even that said, having been in a quasi-position like this you have a tendency to take on each bullshit situation as discrete from another and avoid any real pattern of behavior until forced to actually face a pattern of behavior. That is how we deal with it … and that is also the personal risk we run as we ignore the larger situation rationalizing it in our own minds as ‘discrete scraps of irresponsible incompetent boss behavior.’

All this come to mind as I think about Donald J Trump.

Let me use his first self-proclaimed “big foreign trip” <which fostered the image of Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure … or Pee Wee’s Big adventure  or even Pooh’s Grand Adventure – pick your poison> back several years ago <simply because there are so many to choose from but this was possibly the first which encapsulated the challenges people around him would face> .

Beyond the fact the trip was bookended with a self-proclaimed “big foreign trip” and a self-proclaimed self-reported “home run”, in between there were a number of cringe-able moments in which people were demanded to stand up and become responsible for defending or explaining some tone-deaf remark, some historically ignorant comment or some insensitive gaffe that the president did over the entire big adventure.

Was it the bullying body language he demonstrated at the NATO summit, shoving aside the Prime Minister of Montenegro? <a small country that I am fairly sure the president has no clue where it is>

Was it his apparent unawareness of where Israel is located, an ignorance displayed when he informed an audience of Israelis that he’d “just got back from the Middle East”?

Was it his seeming indifference to the difference between “Islamist” and “Islamic” in front of an Islam audience <a mistake he blamed on exhaustion on the 2^nd day of a trip … “does he have the stamina?”>

Was it his belief that after stating for months that NATO was obsolete that it was unnecessary to verbally state USA unequivocally stood with its NATO partners?

Was it his constant misstatements with regard to how NATO actually works?

Was it after a less than 30 minute visit to Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial, which <or any Holocaust museum> has a nasty habit of bringing people to tears or, at minimum, some deep reflection with regard to humanity and the sometimes startling cruelty humans can inflict upon one another … he left an absurdly out of touch positive note in the memorial’s Book of Remembrance – “It is a great honor to be here with all my friends – so amazing and will never forget!”

Was it his odd alternative universe in which he suggests he has “righted people’s views of where America stands with friends & enemies after a misguided 8 Obama years” where Saudi Arabia is a good friend <let’s avoid they have none of the freedoms America typically support> and where Germany is described as “bad” <albeit only their trade deals … uhm … and their views on immigration … uhm … and their views on globalism>.

Was it his unflinching ability to lie to the face of the world’s newest democratic leader Macron by unequivocally falsely, in a sincere voice, stating “I was for you.”

Or, finally, was it the overarching sadness <to most Americans> in watching the seeming shift to ‘pragmatic relationships policy” <ones in which money exchange defines who we like and who we do not like> in which we find ourselves watching our leaders partying with disciplined non democratic autocrats and constantly showing uneasiness and sincere lack of warmth in interactions with the world’s finest democratic leaders.

Sigh.

Here is what I know <about not only Trump, but normalizing a boss’s behavior>.

If I were working for Trump I would find it hard to read any news, but, particularly European newspapers, without cringing and certainly being embarrassed. But if Trump were my boss where I would be most concerned is that he would be using me to lend some legitimacy as he behaved in some less-than-legitimate behavior.

And that is where one needs to step back and worry about their reputation.

Because lending credibility for a boss who has selective competency is different than lending credibility for a … well … “bull shitter in chief” boss.

As one article put it well … “seasoned people simply lend an air of occasional competence to an otherwise shambolic White House. By appearing before the cameras, looking serious and speaking rationally, they add a veneer of normality to this administration.”

And maybe that is where this whole thing ends up.

It is not about us, the people and media, accepting Donald J Trump’s behavior or getting numbed into believing it is normal … it will be about experienced competent people deciding how much they want to normalize his behavior. This whole situation is not really about a decision on what is best for America <although they will certainly be forced into thinking about that>, but rather their own reputation.

Good competent people will be standing there knowing they can contribute to <a> doing what is right and <b> herding an incompetent boss … both of which America in a larger context benefits … and, yet, they stand there watching their own reputations slowly slip away … drip by drip … word by word.

Good competent people can normalize selective incompetence, but they will struggle to normalize a ‘bull shitter’ whose only competence is ongoing ignorance. At some point people will begin questioning your own competence as you continuously articulate some semblance of nonsensical normalcy and they will definitely start questioning … well … your integrity or character.

And then what do you do? Because, in the end, that is what you are left with – just you & your character.

Why?

Because, frankly, no matter how skilled you are a shitload of people in this world are just as experienced as you are and a lot of people are skilled and competent just like you therefore you get judged, ultimately, on what you did when faced with a situation — did you speak up?

Did you defend the wrong and indefensible? Did you do what was right?

I am not suggesting this is easy.

In fact a good bull shitter can offer such an elegant smoke screen it can offer the competent some cover so they can offer up some truth and competence in a way that … well … is true & competent.

However, in the end, the difficulty resides in the smoke itself.

Because at some point every competent person associated with a bull shitter is asked to explain the smoke … and … well … how do I explain the smoke?

You can’t. And, worse? You cannot put out the fire.

Good people, no matter how good, will choke on the smoke eventually.

….. choice when working for a bullshitter in chief ……

And, let’s be clear, no one wants to see good people die.

It is painful to watch.

It is painful to watch good competent people being broken and reassembled every day, to preserve someone, who are the loudest to theorize on freedom, but the least free of all.”

That is the personal choice one makes when normalizing a boss … how much smoke is there and will I choke from the smoke they make?

I cannot offer a well-defined “here is how you know and what you should do” today because this is a personal choice. But, no matter who you are and where you are, watching good competent people standing in the smoke being demanded to define a smoke, not of their own making, is painful. And sad.

==========

“Of all the things created and built by humankind, nothing in my mind is better or worthier than bridges.

They belong to all and treat all alike; they are useful, always built for purpose, at a spot where most human needs entwine.”

–

Ivo Andric

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

Well. When I saw this quote I thought “wow, I have the companion piece to my Liminal space post”.

Liminal spaces tend to make people feel uncomfortable as places of transition <neither here nor there>. They are kind of the fascinating, interesting, but oft wretched, spots where you have left what was but have not entered into what will be. It is the intangible that create the niggling discomfort or unease <or anticipation>. You are kind of disconnected from any of your real comfort zones.

Bridges make people feel comfortable. They are tangible. They show the clear path from where you are to where you can go. With a bridge you know you can always be connected with a comfort zone <even if you never go back>.

Regardless.

These two things are companions in crime.

Liminal spaces, voids as it were, tend to serve to refocus and remind people of what is at stake and what is really important.

Bridges offer a place to focus. They offer us … well … some pragmatic hope that you can actually get somewhere <even if where you are is kind of unclear>.

Connecting spaces, which is really what bridges are, are invaluable to us physically and mentally.

Almost everyone’s minds excitedly explore uncertain forays into interesting things and, at exactly the same time, get lost as they get snagged on the edge of unexplored thoughts or even those mischievously evil second guesses that are inevitably associated with the uncertainty in much of our lives, thoughts and growth.

And this can make us feel uncomfortable and our mind wrestles with this discomfort as well as dealing with the uncertainty of, well, this liminal space.

Here is some truth.

Ignorance is boundless.

Knowledge is limited <only in terms of time>.

Learning, and unlearning, often contains more uncertainty than it does certainty.

This means our minds are always grappling with the hollow spaces of our lives, i.e., the empty spaces in which we know we have to cross, but just aren’t sure we can see how to cross.

That, in a nutshell, is why we love bridges.

Look. I am a strategy guy or maybe I could be called a “here to there” thinker guy. I like liminal spaces AND I like bridges. While I like navigating liminal spaces I don’t like going back again and again to the same, therefore, I also like to build a bridge in ever liminal space I visit in business.

Not all strategy type people do that.

Some like (just) the theory – the larger ‘trend.’ They are called futurists. I tend to call them relatively worthless <or maybe just misguided in their self title>.

Some like navigating the liminal space, seeing the web of the trend itself and doing the mental gymnastics to weave your way through, leaving some bread crumbs for others to follow.

Some like the practical step-by-step plan of getting from one place to another <the places are less relevant the bridge is all that matters>. I would argue they weren’t traditional strategists but rather strategy implementers, but, call them what you may they play an incredibly important role in getting people from here to there and what is to what could be.

Me? I am a pragmatic strategy person.

Identifying “what could be” is all about navigating liminal spaces and deciding which door to open and walk through … what path to choose and what rivers to cross. It gets the heart pumping, is not for the faint of heart, and is fraught with peril.

I say that because building a bridge seems to help not only tangibly show the ‘rightness’ in deciding the ‘right what could be’ but it also gives people a path. A path in which they have less uncertainty and can focus on … well … getting from here to there.

To me not building a bridge just seems like leaving something incomplete. Like maybe offering someone a map while I could have shared a map AND built a road.

Let me say I don’t think the world needs more of me <god no>, but I do believe we need to appreciate the pragmatic bridge builders in our midst.

Bridges are not typically built willy nilly in some random place. More often they are placed in useful places constructed with connection of those in one place and those in another.

What was and what will be <as it were>.

I am a business guy. But, I admit, I stop and admire well-built bridges all the time. I admire the bridges with character and wear & tear as trains rumble across them.

I do so because they remind me that a well-built bridge may be one of the worthiest things in the world.

While I wish more business thinkers, and strategy people, would think about this kind of shit more often I will lower my wishes and just say everyone should stop and admire a bridge on occasion.

They may be one of the worthiest, least appreciated, things we encounter.

Plus. In a world that seem increasingly uncertain where the intangibles & unknowns seem to outnumber the tangible & certain, well, bridges can be quite tangible, quite certain … and quite comforting. Great reminders that we humans have always been quite good at figuring out how to connect here to there.

==========

“The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves to be told …”

—–

An aboriginal saying

============= 

I believe that the magic and power of a story can encourage and fascinate you.

In prehistory, outside the cave it was dark, but inside they had a fire and somebody was good at telling stories. Every time I write, I think of the cave.

We are one group, outside it’s dark and wolves are howling, but I have a story to tell.

—–

Haruki Murakami

===========

Ok. While I sometimes believe the whole ‘storytelling’ topic has take on some fairly absurd dimensions in business (and fortune cookie wisdom advice), I will admit it’s difficult to discuss stories too often.

The fact is that being able to tell a story, okay, tell the story you want is possibly one of the most important skills anyone can have – in life or in business.

Let me stay on the business side of stories.

Throughout my career I have had the fortune to work with the most unglamorous consumer and B2B products & companies you could ever think of <industrial products, commodity like machinery, etc.> and some fairly glamourous products & companies. What they all have in common is that they have a story to tell and when told well it makes them successful — in sales, in market place positioning, in competitive scenarios, in public discussions, etc.

I used to think storytelling was so natural to everyone I assumed everyone would want to tell their story, or maybe better said, talk about their business, their company, their product, as a story.

I no longer think that.

I haven’t figured out if it is that not everyone can actually tell a good story, or, that business has beaten the shit out of people so badly that the default articulation is a list of functional features and pragmatic benefits. What I do know is that business storytelling, in general, sucks. It is absolutely horrible.

Meaningless metaphors and less-than-relevant analogies and misused quotes are scattered among the useful functional and pragmatic in the attempt to elevate that which is usefully boring to interestingly useful. And because that is the case most people either think storytelling is really really hard or that storytelling really has no place in what they are doing.

That is nuts.

The truth is you can take the most boring of boring, the most functional of functional & most ‘seemingly same of seemingly same’ and wrap it within a story and it … well … becomes compelling, interesting and distinct.

The truth is any business contains the essential parts to create a story … heroes, villains, vivid demonstrations or metaphors, life & death and even mysteries and solutions.

The truth is anyone can tell a story <it is possible that not everyone can write a story though>.

In fact I feel relatively confident is stating that a good story to tell makes everyone better & more interesting.

I do not care what industry you work within or what type of product or service you sell or represent your word is full of stories and, most likely, a fabulous story just asking for permission to be told.

All that said. Someone is most likely sitting somewhere scratching their head thinking … “WTF, that sounds good but I have no clue what to do.”

Aw.

You do.

You do know what to do.

Stop thinking about selling your idea or selling your product/service or even selling your company, think about telling a story.

Shit.

I could work for a nuts & bolts manufacturer and be able to put a picture of two nuts & bolts side by side <one mine and one someone else’s>  which look 99.9% exactly the same … and be able to say … “Let me tell you a story about this nut & bolt … because its story is different than this nut & bolt. They look the same but their story is different.”

Oh.

And my story wouldn’t be solely some manufacturing mumbo jumbo, but rather a story about who counted on it and how my nut & bolt was the best friend to someone and … well … you get the point.

Unfortunately we don’t seem to be in the storytelling business in business these days <although we sure do talk about it a shitload>. Instead we bore down on manufacturing specifications, stress quotients, side by side rankings and a whole bunch of technically important functional aspects.

And you know what?

That shit is important.

Really important.

To be sure … if it is my nut & bolt holding a wing on some plane carrying 300 passengers you can bet your last dollar the technical aspects of my nuts & bolts matter. I don’t argue that.

What I argue is HOW the technical aspects are articulated and delivered. What I argue is that if I can make my nuts & bolts look like a city of ideas through some story … I win.

Stories make presentations more interesting.

Stories make bland functional aspects take on some color <which equals value>.

Stories persuade people think <and thinking equals engagement>.

Stories to motivate us to see beyond the simple nut & bolt.

On a parallel path, suffice it to say, what you say is lost, if you do not master how you say the story. Yeah. It just becomes a bland list of words cobbled together.

Storytelling has been a mainstay of the marketing world since forever. And while it tries to sneak into the non-marketing aspects of the business world it often gets stiff armed by functional communicators – “get to the point” people.

This ‘get to the point’ point is nonsense.

Storytelling doesn’t sacrifice the functional and pragmatic and practical … it actually elevates it to ts highest value. I could argue that stories are the essential driver of value, change & persuasion … throughout the history of business.

Look. I would never tell a business to not show the numbers, graphs and facts. It is important.

But strategic use of a good story can make those same bland things surprise people, make them become compelling characters in a story and instead of being cold hard facts laying on a page they can become things that make us think & feel.

Story telling is important in that it engages people, communicates relevant meaningful information, builds value on some things that can often be difficult to build value on and, ultimately, it makes you, your product or service & your company distinct.

Why? Because it has a story to tell.

The business world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves to be told …

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

“The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

–

Oscar Wilde

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

“What a simple black and white world you must live in.”

unknown

————————–

Communication.

Effective communication has been, and always will be, complex and complicated … and a good thing for society. 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.”>

Bruce McTague

————————-

Well. I may as well fulfill my contrarian obligations immediately – nothing is simple.

Nothing.

Look. I may be wrong but I think the world would be a shitload ‘righter’ if we just assumed nothing was simple and started acting that way.

The whole idea of simple and simplicity has … well … fucked us up royally. It has almost become an obsession toward which everyone is consumed by until we are either frozen into inaction <this isn’t simple enough> or we hold our “simplicity prize” up high proudly only to find in our holy quest we discarded some essential items which would have actually helped this ‘simple idea’ live.

We all want to simplify our lives <or at least we talk about it a lot>, simplicity in thinking, simplicity in ideas and simplicity in work, and yet, as a generalization, we all seem to seek every way possible to complicate our lives.

We see simplicity as a way to solve problems and, whew, we are a certainly a ‘people’ of problem solvers <but also problem creators as a corollary>. And, yet, “it seems simple …” may be the biggest problem of all and may be one of the most misused and misguided statements and thoughts in today’s world.

A good friend of mine, an experienced communications professional, always says “if you are explaining you are losing” as an argument for simplicity. The challenge is that it, uhm, isn’t an argument for simplicity. It is actually an argument for clearly articulating what you want, and need, to articulate. In fact, as I will point out later, being too simple actually creates more confusion, therefore, simplicity could actually be creating the explaining.

<oh my>

And that is where the myth of simplification dies. It dies in truth and reality.

Simplicity reality, more often than not, consists of two opposing things – security/reliability, which anchors the sense of safety thereby justifying the common sense aspect of simplicity, & passion/risk/newness, which anchors the sense of movement thereby justifying the smartness aspect of simplicity.

Simplicity reality, more often than not, is an amalgamation of multiple fragments creating a mosaic which is pleasing to the eye <and relatively easy to grasp>.

Simplicity reality, more often than not, consists of some opposing thoughts in that, typically, if you have one… it seems you can’t have the other.

Contrary to simplicity narratives the complexity actually brings in the pragmatism of a simplistic reality <and I would argue effectiveness.>. All this means is that simplicity is rarely simple and trying to capture it in a meaningful single word or image is not only silly, but sells the depth & breadth of a decision or situation or idea or thought … or reality itself … short.

Reality is complex.

Life is complex.

Most ideas and thoughts are complex.

And there is no simple solution to complexity. Simple is hard. It is hard because sometimes, okay, most times, simplicity is arrived at by distilling complex solutions/ideas down to its most efficient form.

I would note that from my own business experience I would say that many times simplicity ideas can only be found from checking out all of the different solutions. And after sifting through everything simplicity is more often found in a “doh” moment <not an “ah ha!” moment> in that you may be surprised by the fact simplicity is just the thing that makes the most sense at the end of the day.

And why is simple THAT hard?

Well. Al Einstein said, “Make things as simple as can be—but not simpler.”

Geez.

So simple isn’t the least. It may actually be somewhere above the least and significantly below the most <complex>. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek simplicity. But what it does mean is that simple or simplicity shouldn’t be defined by rules or milestones or trite “say it in 10 seconds or less” dictates or, well, any boundaries.

Simplicity defines itself, it is not defined. Simplicity is reflective of the time, place, people, situation and solution needed.

Ponder that my friends.

What may make simplicity even more complex is, oddly enough, that part which should make it the simplest.

Simplicity, more often than not, is the nitty gritty stuff and not the more glamorous big vision or “big idea” stuff. It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement – piece by piece and part by part. To me, simple and simplicity tends to be found in shit that most people would think has nothing to do with simple:

• Coalesce fragments

“The whole is simpler than the sum of its parts.

Willard Gibbs

I think people would be much better off if they understood that while simple may be represented in ‘one thing’ it is actually representative of many things. The best of the best ‘simplicity finders’ are the ones who are the best at coalescing fragments. Gathering up disparate pieces of information and figuring out how to make them whole in a way that

• Box in complexity

Let me begin by paraphrasing a quote about how Sylvia Plath wrote…

“Whether Plath wrote about nature, or about the social restrictions on individuals, she stripped away the polite veneer. She let her writing express elemental forces and primeval fears. In doing so, she laid bare the contradictions that tore apart appearance and hinted at some of the tensions hovering just beneath the surface of the American way of life.”

Margaret Rees

I used the quote because far too many people think simplicity is about stripping away things to showcase the core instead maybe they should be thinking about stripping away the veneer so that the truth can be laid bare.

Let me explain <you will not agree with this if you do not agree that simplicity is a ‘whole made up of fragments’>.

Simplicity, to me, is about using the complex parts to box in the whole.

You either:

• Bracket what you want to offer <simplicity resides within two opposing thoughts>.
• Triangulate what you want to offer <simplicity resides in the middle>.
• Box in what you want to offer <simplicity gets squeezed into middle>.

Now. Some people may use what I just shared and say “simplicity is the distillation” and I would push back by suggesting “simplicity is reflective of all the parts as it shows the whole.”

Am I parsing words?

Maybe.

But when someone says ‘show a picture’ or ‘say it in 5 seconds or you lose them’ and be done with it = I just don’t think it is that simple. Simple stimuli are just as likely to confuse. Provide ambiguity. Generate a feeling of ‘lesser than’ <”I am missing something of value or I missed the opportunity to showcase some value”>.

— note: there is a lot of research supporting this thought —

Look. Our minds are like real estate. Space is limited and we can’t let every thought, idea, product, person or whatever have a place to stay. That means where the rubber hits the road with regard to being simple and simplicity is that it must create some connection with whomever is touching that simplicity. That connection can occur in a variety of ways <mos often thru some emotional response>.

I will end with Chopin. Chopin is one of my favorite classical composers. I seriously doubt anyone who has ever looked at any of his sheet music would suggest his music was not complex. And, yet, close your eyes and listen … it contains a simplicity that connects.

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

“Simplicity is the final achievement.  After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art.”

Frédéric Chopin

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

All I know is that we have totally fucked up the idea of simplicity to a point where simple, or simplicity, is more a myth than reality. This myth has hollowed us out – hollowed our thinking, our communication and our culture.

Most of the worthwhile things in Life are not hollow, they have depth & breadth, well, they are, uhm, complex.

Reality is complex.

Life is complex.

Most ideas and thoughts are complex.

There is no simple solution to complexity, but I would suggest that the beauty can be found in the breakdown of the complex to its simplest form.