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

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

e.e. cummings

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

“I’m a slave to my hatred of boredom.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald

——————-

There is a difference between smart and smarter. That may sound obvious but I think it is important in this discussion.

In most of the world progress, or being smart, is defined by some outcome or achievement, i.e., what did you do today. In other words, output.  Smarter, on the other hand, is an input progress. What did I learn today that made me just a bit smarter? Input. Smarter often doesn’t have any immediate ‘output’ consequence just a nice intrinsic consequence, i.e., I am a bit smarter. My point is lots of smart people do smart stuff and produce a lot of smart things, but generally speaking, their output can only either (a) offer stable consistent value or (b) diminishing value. In other words, there is little lift in future value. They have specialized their craft <hence, ‘smart’>, tied it to output <execution well done> and will pound that particular smart nail into whatever wood you put in front of them. to be clear, once again, this has value.

Smarter is more focused on ‘better today than I was yesterday and better tomorrow than I am today.” It has less emphasis on doing and execution and more emphasis on learning.

That said. Smarter is actually about hard work. Smarter requires more than a surface ‘this is what I think’ tweet popular vote. If we really want to do what needs to be done to maximize meaning, we have to hunker down and work hard. Work hard in that we need to reassemble the present (knowledge) & rethink things by using all aspects including economic thought and philosophy and the past … all of which means dealing with ambiguity and contradiction.

And, yes, that is hard work. But it is the kind of work that hones the smarter insightfulness we need.

Instead of dumbing things down we need to be raising the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of a business which inevitably will lead a business to a higher level of ‘smartness’ which leads to a higher level of organizational efficacy <internally and externally>.

And while you may balk at something like ‘smarter’ as too far reaching, suffice it to say, we just need to be smarter, less ignorant, more enlightened <open to additional thoughts> and more involved in the difficult and uncertain work of demystification of business impact <and objectives> beyond profit and revenue and, well, just plain rethinking shit <and, yes, this can include doing and executional excellence>.

• Simply talking about world-changing ideas will not simply make the world change. Changing the world takes work, really really hard work.

• Simply having a positive attitude ain’t gonna work. Hard work will work. And in this case I mean hard thinking

• Simply ‘doing’ aint gonna cut it. We need to be smarter. And whether you think about thinking this way or not, it ain’t about staring off into space doing nothing, thinking is a blue collar job. It’s about work.

Circling back to one of my opening quotes, ‘smarter’ makes work less boring and more engaging which, well, is certainly the pathway to more meaningful.

Which leads me to more specificity on meaning, smart and smarter.

As I stated earlier, smart has value. What that value means is that meaning is attached more tightly to output. And while that may sound mundane or every transactional, it can also offer a lot of tangible, easy to see, meaning to an individual. Their ‘transactions’ with their productivity <what they put into their work> simply needs to be extended to an external impact to tighten it to ‘meaning.’ I guess I would call this a more linear definition of meaning and a less esoteric version. And if I am correct on that, even of its value, it also makes it more fragile – extrinsic in its ‘survivable nature.’

‘smarter’ meaning is a bit different. It has some dimensions and is less linear in its nature. It makes it a tad bit squishier and has some intrinsic aspects. I would suggest it is a more robust meaning.

All of this matters. I would note that on both smart and smarter I have referred to ‘impact.’

Research shows a 400% increase in employee productivity after meeting just one person impacted by their work.  That’s one way <and an effective way>, but the point is you are seeking to not inject confidence or belief <some gamification of motivation to ‘push’>, but rather to encourage belief to emerge naturally <i.e., ‘pull’ motivation>. This is emergent motivation or intrinsic energy. It is believing in oneself and when you align it in believing in what you are doing AND aligning that with belief in the business vision and who and what the business is achieving, well, you have maximized the believing business.

I would also note a couple other things Zach Mercurio has stated about meaning:

• 83% of people say meaning in work is a priority
• Regularly show people how their work helps others
• Connect people to the beneficiary of the work
• Show people how they matter
• Place contribution over achievement.

————

“Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

Emerson

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

Look. I have purposefully used smart & smarter today because I worry the world, and business, is getting stupider on a daily basis. Ok. Not really. I imagine we are actually getting smarter every day, yet, the overarching public narrative just seems stupider every day. It’s just that it sometimes feels like smartness is whispering and dumbness <or ‘simplification’> is shouting. All of this dumbing down seems to center around complexity and simplicity. It just feels like because we increasingly understand the world is complex, we have increasingly become convinced simplicity is the key to, well, everything. The truth is almost all hope, and possibilities, and even meaning, resides in managing complexity (if not the complicated) and fear (including lack of risk) thrives on simplicity. I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out meaning, itself, becomes quite brittle in a simplicity world.

Smart isn’t an absolute. Smart is not simple. Smart, and smarter, resides on a sliding scale of which there is no mean, medina or average. There are few 10’s and few 1’s and you can be an 8 on one topic and a 2 on another and ‘smart’ is not an average of them nor can you add or subtract them. I know I have said it before but the people who make it look easy, make it look easy because they invested a lot of hard work to make you think so. Smart, and smarter, is exactly the same.

Smartness demands you to work to gather knowledge and skills, sift thru it and understand it and apply it. but be aware. In today’s world smarter is harder than one would think. The world, in its quest to increasingly create more frictionless ways of circumventing thought and separating us from any random knowledge that could possibly prompt becoming smarter in combination with its relentless religion of ‘simplicity’ will fight ‘being smarter’ every step of the way. And maybe that is the grander point. Navigating that gauntlet enhances meaning.

In the end I believe smarter is worth the work and worth the meaning it offers. I believe we should be seeking ‘smart’ as a minimum. That is actually the solid foundation for higher value for a business and higher value meaning for an individual. But I also believe, whenever possible, we should be maximizing ‘smarter’. It more naturally ties to progress, learning organizations, continuous improvement and a more robust, less fragile, meaning. Ponder.

—–

The heights by great men reached and kept

Were not obtained by sudden flight,

But they, while their companions slept,

Were toiling upward in the night.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

—-

=========

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

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

Moby

===========

“The World is a very complex system.

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

Kenneth Boulding

==========

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

I followed my statement with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me explain each.

• The white space myth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Deals with reality and creation:

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

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

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

There is none.

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

They say it all breaks down to keeping your feet on the ground

My sole intention is keeping my head in the clouds

They say that I can’t last a day in the real world

I say you wouldn’t survive one night in mine

—

Asking Alexandria

===

I get businesses unstuck  (90% of the time that simply means helping them get out of their own way). That’s what I do. This discussion most typically revolves around Taleb’s concept of Antifragile. And while I find Nassim Taleb whipsmart trying to explain Antifragile in a pragmatic business sense, and business environment, is semi-impossible (or at least beyond my intellectual capabilities).

Suffice it to say almost every business I have ever interacted with has struggled with balancing, or applying proportionate effort, pragmatism and possibilities – standardized process and agility/vision to meet opportunities. Most businesses see them as binaries where I see them as malleable. Most businesses see them as an organism and I see them as molecular. That said. While I love conceptual discussions (and actually believe the future of business will be owned by the ones who can think conceptually) my job is to frame in the abstract and deliver in the concrete – balancing idealism and realism. I call it ‘’pragmatism and possibilities’ and suggest its all about having your feet in the clouds and head on the ground.

Suffice it to say that 99% of the best businesses have figured out how to successfully keep their feet in the clouds and their head on the ground.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know it looks like I got it twisted around, but I did not. Good businesses are always walking with the future in mind. Always traveling toward possibilities. Always seeking ‘what’s next.’

Good businesses are always closely listening to the drumbeat of the feet of what is happening around them. Ear to the ground insuring everyone in the business is keeping their head in the game today. I have called it mastering pragmatism & possibilities. But, in reality, it is the ability to have your feet in the clouds and head on the ground.

I tend to believe if more people thought about it this way businesses would actually manage their pragmatism better (i.e., maximize existing resources in an agile way), would have more hope (i.e., maximize opportunities that arise better) and achieve more possibilities than they could ever imagine.

You have to admit the current definition – feet on the ground & head in the clouds – just ain’t working that well these days. Businesses seem to be more woefully stagnant <albeit always ‘talking’ change> and have more despair and lack of hope with regard to actionable possibilities than ever.

Why? Well. I am sure I could invest dozens of pages sharing thoughts on why, but instead I will focus on what I would consider the intellectual aspects, i.e., what is going on in with our attitudes that affect our heads, how we think and how we approach these things.

** note: if one were to need a playbook on how to discuss pragmatism & possibilities with a business this is as good a place to start as any – deconstructing each issue.

• Issue one. over-simplification

Suffice it to say we have devolved into a society of sound bites. This is true in business even moreso. In business it seems to be all about simplicity. In everyday Life it is ‘summarize it for me’ or ‘oh, it’s simple <insert some explanation here>.’ In the end I can’t figure out if should be pointing the finger at us or them.

Them <management & leadership> because they think we are not capable of understanding some form of complexity and therefore they only offer up simplified versions of what needs to be communicated.

Or us <the employees> because we either:

<a> demand a sound bite under the guise of ‘we only have time for the headline’

<b> we only latch on to the fragment of the whole which we believe summarizes the whole.

Therefore I will point the finger at all of us and them. Here is a Truth.

Most things are just not that simple, in fact, they are complex. An effect can have multiple causes and a cause can have multiple effects. I say this despite the fact, naturally, we would like all the dominoes to line up one after another and when one falls the next naturally is impacted and falls. Causality is just an easier thing to grasp.

Well. Things don’t really work that way. Especially in a business environment. Maybe in a controlled test environment but, in business, events are typically bombarded from a variety of directions and while not all causes are created equal <some can impact more than others> most things are too complex to be simplified into ‘one thing.’ And, yet, we oversimplify again and again and again.

Over simplifying simply means ignoring complexities.

Over simplifying simply means being consciously ignorant.

Over simplifying … well … just doesn’t work in the long run.

It eases you through the moment only to have to doubly <or exponentially> invest energy later on. Let me put this as simply as I can: over simplification just doesn’t work.

Instead of dumbing things down to some simplistic sound bite we need to raise the level of general understanding & knowledge to the level of complexity of the ideas & systems in which a business works – in other words, unravel the complexity into understandable components. Factually, seconds of involvement <sound bites> versus minutes of involvement <deeper complex discussion> leads to degrees of real knowledge, i.e., seconds leads to shallow knowledge or let’s call it ‘less knowledgeable.’ Over simplification will not demystify uncertainty and cannot help us do what we really need to do — reconcepting & rethinking that which is (which is the portal to unlocking potential).

What I am suggesting is difficult and uncertain work. But certainly more satisfying and inspiring when we solve and recreate and it certainly is a more effective way to keep your feet in the clouds and head on the ground..

I can unequivocally state that the fate of possibilities for a business, any business, lies in balance if we don’t invest in the hard work of ‘non over simplification.’

And worse? We won’t solve any of the problems we face if we do not address this.

This leads me to …

• Issue two. being intellectually insightful is about hard work.

Let me begin by suggesting that good ideas cannot be decided by number of tweet votes in favor of. Business ideas do not compete on American Idol nor, frankly, should they compete in any larger group. We are not all judges <and probably shouldn’t be on American Idol either>.

Why? Good ideas are rarely popular; therefore, I don’t really want a business idea to win some meaningless popularity contest. If we really want to do what needs to be done to maximize both the pragmatism & the possibilities in business we have to hunker down and work hard … work hard in that we need to use what we have to rethink things … use all aspects including economic thought and philosophy and the past … all of which means dealing with ambiguity and contradiction.

And, yes, that is hard work. That is the kind of work that hones the intellectual insightfulness necessary to keep your feet in the clouds and your feet on the ground and, well, make progress. Smart progress.

Instead of dumbing things down we need to be raising the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of the systems in which we are embedded and which are embedded in us. And while you may balk at something like ‘intellectual insightfulness’ as too far reaching or ‘elitist’ … suffice it to say we just need to be smarter … less ignorant … more enlightened <open to additional thoughts> and more involved in the difficult and uncertain work of demystification and reconcepting ideas and systems in which we live in and … well … just plain rethinking shit.

Suffice it to say that there is nothing simple when talking about world-changing ideas … because talking will not simply make the world change.

I read somewhere recently that ‘if you remove this boundary … the only boundary left is our imagination.’

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Imagination is important, but even imagination is complicated and difficult and tends to not offer tidy solutions. Especially if you don’t invest in the hard work.

We need to be doing more of ‘using your imagination within the box of what exists.’ We don’t need to be wandering aimlessly ‘outside the box’ but rather using our imagination insightfully and creatively WITHIN the box and expand the boundaries.

It is all hard work, but hard work will work. And in this case I mean hard thinking work.

Simply ‘doing’ aint gonna cut it. We need to be smarter. And whether you think about thinking this way or not, it ain’t about staring off into space doing nothing <random dreaming>, thinking is a blue collar job. Thinking is all about work. Hmmmmmm … it is quite possible that what I just wrote defines “head on the ground” better than anything I have ever written before.

Anyway. As a corollary to issue number two …

• Issue three. innovation is not <just> technology.

What makes oversimplification even more challenging is that for some reason we seem to be associating innovation with technology … and just technology. We can’t … and shouldn’t.

This type of thinking leads us to possibly believe technology innovations will eventually solve all problems and maximize everyone’s Life as some point. That is a very dangerous idea.

It is dangerous because in reality if we focus just on technology as the solution we are actually preventing the real change we need. It’s a very dangerous idea because it completely removes the human aspect. I cannot tell people how often I need to remind everyone technology augments humans (if you seek potential & possibilities), not humans augmenting technology.

Regardless. Minds need to innovate too. Thinking and attitudes need to evolve and innovate. New thought systems, economic systems and systems in which people live eat and breath all need to evolve and that happens through innovation <whether technology is involved or not>. Technology is simply a path that runs parallel to culture <or society> basically amplifying everything that is happening on the parallel path <the corollary to that is … with nothing to amplify the technology remains silent>.

Technology and culture and people and business are entangled. Everything is connected with everything. Technologies may enable new ways of doing things as well as thinking. This effects culture so culturally we need to innovate to structure how those technologies will be involved in our lives <so that we can dictate a little how they are incorporated> and we need to innovate our thinking and culture so that we can actually impact how technology evolves <so that we can dictate how what technology is innovated in some form or fashion>.

At the moment it seems like we respond to technology rather than proactively drive technology. Yes. Technology has certainly dramatically improved the overall quality of business but, at some point, technology is not a reason for being, but rather simply an enabler for being. The paradox is that the system we have now may make amazing new technology possible, but at same time is creating such cultural conflict that maximizing technology ‘what could be’ seems impossible. We need to innovate the systems in which technology exists.

Economically, culturally and philosophically. All systems need to see innovation.

• Issue four. adaptability does not mean ‘no strategy’.

Businesses inherently like structure. They see structure as replicable (safe, efficient & maintaining whatever level of effectiveness they have currently attained). The problem is emphasizing structure, pragmatism, actually increases the fragility of a business (source: antifragile) and limits the scope/horizon view of pursuing possibilities. With a ‘feet on the ground’ philosophy structure & construct of resources/systems/process dictate the direction, velocity and vision of the business. In other words, pragmatism is the source of possibilities. If you flip the equation, pragmatism becomes the enabler of possibilities. This does not mean a business has no strategy, all it does is maximize flexibility & agility to pragmatically apply resources to possibilities as they arise. Taleb calls this AntiFragile, Toffler called it the polymalleable organization, HBR has called it “Agile”, I call it “feet in the clouds, head on the ground” or “managing pragmatism & possibilities.” Call it whatever you want but it is the issue a business needs to address in order to be successful in the future.

<that’s it for my issues>

Look.

Hope and possibilities grounded with enlightened pragmatism abound in today’s business world if you look hard enough <and have your feet in the clouds an head to the ground>. But none of it comes easy. These types of things are rarely just given, they need to be earned mostly thru hard work.

I don’t believe simplicity is bad.

I don’t believe being optimistic or having a positive attitude is bad.

I don’t believe technology is bad.

I don’t believe hard work, smartly done, is bad.

But we seem trapped in the old paradigm of “head in the clouds & feet on the ground.” This old paradigm kind of separates work & thinking <vision> in a non useful way. And I … well … I admit I sometimes think this paradigm encourages a slightly warped version of some lazy thinking.

And we cannot be lazy moving forward. And we certainly cannot afford to be lazy thinkers. For in this type of laziness lurks ignorance and it is ignorance we should fear. Not any ideological argument or technological innovation which inserts itself into our daily lives but ignorance.

Avoid lazy thinking. Maybe have everyone should hearken to Emerson’s words:

“Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

In the end.

Effective business has always been about applying the right resources at the right time against the right opportunity (or challenge). Period.

Efficient business has always been about applying resources in a consistent way all the time to be applied against the opportunities that exist. Period.

Agility resides in the optimization betwixt the two. Either, alone, is fragile. The fragile mixture, proportionate focus, of the two actually makes one Antifragile (stealing from Taleb). That said. A business is most likely able to find the optimal proportion by, well, keep their head to the ground and their feet in the clouds.

Consent yourself to be of your highest thought.

And how do you do that? Keep your feet in the clouds and your head on the ground. Be pragmatic and explore possibilities.

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

Originally published September 2016

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

“For good ideas and true innovation, you need human interaction, conflict, argument, debate.”

—-

Margaret Heffernan

==========

“Above all, disagreement is needed to stimulate the imagination. One may not need imagination to find the one right solution to a problem. But then this is of value only in mathematics. In all matters of true uncertainty such as the executive deals with—whether his sphere be political, economic, social, or military—one needs creative solutions which create a new situation. And this means that one needs imagination—a new and different way of perceiving and understanding.”
―

Peter F. Drucker

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

“To live is to war with trolls.”

―

Henrik Ibsen

===========

Let me get the contrarian view out of the way – I believe conflict between people in business, in general, is good. I know that it is good when conflict is done well.

Conflict captures not only attention, but also captures interest. Even lurkers, uninvolved, follow along. It is here where conflict can vector out in a variety of ways. Simplistically there is an array of good vectors and an array of bad vectors. Within those vectors there are degrees of civility & incivility, vitriol & respectful discourse.

Conflict actually amplifies, and energizes, amplification. Therefore, conflict done well is dependent upon the vectors.  Oh. And also in resolution – or lack of resolution. Without a resolution destination the combatants just face the challenge over & over & over. This is where conflict, used in misguided (or purposeful evil), can lead to the worst of the worst – conflict for conflict sake. Conflict with no interest in resolution. Open ended conflict. This is the worst type of conflict because it cocoons what already exists and doesn’t open up thinking to new things.

That said.

Let’s discuss attempting to have fruitful conflict. One that actually has a potential to enlighten.

Now.

I would note conflict has a silent combatant – Bias. Yeah. Everyone has personal bias. Let me highlight two ways of viewing bias.

There are mental closed portals.

“Constructivism” is a theory of learning, where the brain creates new mental models in order to handle new data and solve problems. In other words, learning is a creative act. So when you’re taking in new data, and your brain hasn’t created a new mental model to handle it yet, you are in a state of “disequilibrium”, a state of confusion. But the inverse is also true: When you’re in a state of disequilibrium, your brain is creating new models.”

GapingVoid

While we could discuss mental models for days let me just say Ideas are like marbles in the brain. They roll around but don’t get anywhere unless little doors open to let them funnel into a room to gather. In other words, most ideas are quite capable of exploring corners in the mind – if you let them (its up to you to open the little doors). Bias are the closed doors. I always hesitate to call the mind a maze because I actually think its more like a house with hallways, doors, rooms, closets and, yes, even bathrooms.

Recognizing the mental closed portals leads to attempts to master the art of ‘self idea management.’ In the context of conflict <wherein the ideas in your head are being discussed externally> I would suggest people will bring up 2 thoughts: psychological safety & criticism

• Psychological safety

I’m a firm believer in psychological safety (i’ve always called it ‘being dauntless in business”) but the true power in business is harnessing the potential within unique individuals toward a common vision/goal/purpose. that’s collaboration & it isn’t. its uneven managed.

i would agree that psychological safety increases the likelihood, but, would not automatically enable. it takes a confluence of factors to maximize potential of which psychological safety is a key component. it is what i would consider a structural factor.

i’m not a psychologist, just a business person. i sometimes believe we approach this from the wrong direction. we treat collaboration as some synergistic well aligned blob of progress. reality is collaboration is conflict done well. conflicting ideas sparking ideas/doing.

• Criticism

I have a love/hate relationship with the topic of criticism as associated with positive conflict. Its hard to imagine ideas being debated, the thinking & the actual doing part, without the idea sustaining soe criticism. Yet. I, personally, have never associated criticism with idea debates. To me debates are debates and criticism is criticism. Regardless. conflict, well done, will incorporate some criticism at some point and we shouldn’t associate ‘negative’ with ‘criticism.’ No criticism allows us to float on the superficial surface and ideas need to explore depths. Will criticism always be done well? No, of course not. So we should eliminate it so everyone doesn’t have to suffer through shitty criticism? No, of course not. Look. If you accept the concept of positive conflict you have to accept that criticism is a tool within the environment. Period.

And then there are societal/cultural closed portals.

What do I mean? I think I read somewhere that less than 10% of all counties in the USA are actual “battleground” counties in an election. What that means is about 90+% of counties in the USA contain a general group of likeminded people. This becomes important because one-on-one enlightened conflict is a duel of ideas & thinking. However, if one of the ones is surrounded by a tribe who is countering any new thought with existing thought/bias enlightenment faces a multidimensional maze of hallways with stubborn warped doors serving as obstacles to attain an objective of “thinking in a new way.”  Residence can define ideas & ideals. What I mean by that is the greater intangible idea, & ideal, gets defined more by a where the physically live & who surrounds them at the corner of the bar, the church, the barbeque & the school board meeting. That is a societal closed portal.

Anyway.

I will say that most people who discuss conflict done well approach it incorrectly. They have an idea, usually based or grounded in an insight, and then believe if they can articulate the insight wekll that the idea will win the day. Nope. Not gonna work. The insight might get you in the game but conflict done well needs some traction, some believability, some actionable proof.

On that last thought I saw a great article from Abby Margolis at Claro about insights .

==

Many years of innovation work have shown me that insights are not enough. In fact, they are fairly worthless on their own. Insights have little intrinsic value without being transformed into frameworks and narratives that can drive strategic action.

The best part is when you realize the value is not in the insight itself but what can be done with it. A good insight can inspire unique frameworks, narratives, and actions appropriate for very different challenges and opportunities.

==

This leads me back to conflict, if you agree ideas are the desired outcome, then, unfortunately, there is a ‘middle man’ in this transaction – the insight. The enabler of the eventual outcome is some insight and, unfortunately, insights are not all created equal and that’s why ideas need some aspect of real ‘doing’ or action for people to get onboard. In other words, ideas don’t sell themselves, only ideas-to-action sell themselves.

Regardless. I think this whole topic is important. Important because as individuals become more isolated, and business, society & politics seem intent on encouraging isolation <us versus them narratives>, we need to become more intentional with regard to admitting there is conflict AND addressing that conflict in an enlightened way.

This doesn’t mean being a jerk nor does it mean scaring the shit out of people into accepting your idea <this would be the balance between psychological safety and criticism management>. Ideas get honed thru conflict. Conversely, ideas borne of no conflict are, well, not really ideas, they are simply thoughts doomed to deflate in the reality of action. The world needs ideas and needs conflict well done.

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

“Nothing is perfect.

Life is messy.

Relationships are complex.

Outcomes are uncertain.

People are irrational.”

=

Hugh Mackay 

——————–  

“The most successful organizations in the world are the ones who work together, play together, and get messy together.” 

=

Jeanne Malnati

——————–

Well.

This may sound a little wacky but 98.2% of successful businesses are successful because, uhm, there is some conflict <note: I made up the 98.2% but you get the point>.

Suffice it to say conflict, in and of itself, doesn’t make them successful. It is that the conflict tends to create the positive friction which sparks better thinking, better ideas and a better company — in other words —  a more enlightened organization.

I often argue that conflict within an organization is natural … and healthy. Conflict is natural because while organizations try and create some ‘tidiness’ to the institution itself … the people within are messy. Inherent in this messiness is  a clashing of certainty & uncertainty, known & unknown, learning & unlearning and all the messy things thinking people do when all are aimed toward a greater vision, purpose & objective.

We often like to talk about business as ‘rational’, effective within organizational constructs and boundaries of behavior & rules, but, c’mon, Life itself is pretty messy — outcomes may be uncertain and people, particularly in business, can certainly be irrational <at times>. In addition, truth itself is messy. I mention that because if there is one thing every business seeks in their pursuit of success, it is ‘truth’ with regard to “what do we need to do.”

Regardless. It is quite possible the messiest part of any business is found in the simple objective of getting good shit done. It’s mostly messy because, once again, people are messy.

Messy in terms of how we interact.

Messy in terms of not knowing what we are good at … and sometimes not standing up for what we really are good at.

Messy in terms of inconsistent communication.

Messy in terms of selective listening.

Messy in terms of … well … our attempts to avoiding conflict <we can turn ourselves into pretzels trying to keep things as smooth as possible>.

Now. That may sound like a shitload of messiness, but it is simply a natural state of things — people, once again, naturally make business messy.

Oh. Even people with good intentions are messy.

Yes. Even good people.

Throughout my business career:

I have enjoyed a “force of nature” person who has forced enlightenment for the force of good.

I have endured a force of nature person with good intentions …with less than good behavior … who has forced us to face enlightenment.

I have encountered an essential force of good within a business … who doesn’t have the ‘nature’ part of the ‘force’ DNA … but is still an essential undercurrent force with which the business prospers by enabling enlightenment.

And the entire experience has emboldened me with a sense that even good organizations with good products and good people and a good idea can be messy AND enlightened AND be a force of good.

Yeah. Sure. I have also seen how messiness can negatively encroach into the good fiber of a business with bad conflict. But the one thing I can guarantee is messiness with good conflict will lead to enlightenment. It is just that I cannot guarantee whether it will be enlightenment used for the force of good or enlightenment used for the force of, well, something less than good.

Regardless.

All this messiness leads to Enlightened conflict. Enlightened Conflict is a term I often use <heck … it is the name of my site>. To me it has multiple dimensions of relevance to not only to what I believe & what I believe should be done, but what research shows creates a smarter thinking individual <and individuals> and, inevitably, a smarter version of collaboration <one driven to sharpen ideas rather than compromise on dull mediocrity>.

So.

A lot of people push back on the “conflict” part. Here’s the basic idea. The more someone understands <or is less ignorant>  the more respectful the “conflict” will be. Conflict can be debate, discussion or simply when two people have different points of view on things. It’s the basic thesis being challenged, navigating a crisis <the conflict>, antithesis all ultimately arriving at some synthesis. Its not a novel idea nor a contentious idea. But it IS an idea which empowers a business. Unfortunately, it is also an idea which many people suggest creates negativity.

Anyway. The positive side of enlightened conflict resides in the sharing of information so that people just know more. And I would hope <and actually believe> they use that additional “know more” <knowledge of some type> so they can make better informed choices. Conversely … I could suggest that the enemy of ignorance is enlightened conflict. I often suggest people think about that because I could argue <and I do> that one of the biggest obstacles to any progress, in business & in Life, is ignorance.

Well. The one thing I can guarantee is that Enlightened conflict aggressively attacks ignorance. Therefore, any business with an enlightened conflict  future will inevitably have smarter discussions, more respectful competition between employees <and better teamwork>, become more informed and, ultimately, create better decisions. And, maybe best of all, in their own way the business organization itself <model, organizational structure & roles/responsibilities definitions> becomes more enlightened.

Look. When I speak of enlightened conflict with businesses I am relentless with regard to my belief that little actions can make a big difference. I do that because I believe as long as you empower individuals to embrace enlightened conflict, and respectful conflict, you empower everyone to believe they are all architects of life … and fate.

All that said. I admit. I, personally, love a great debate and I typically feast on partially ignorant point of views. I am not that smart but I can spot a generalization or a sweeping judgment a mile away. I am kind of like a vulture lurking over ignorance seeking to swoop down for the debate.

It also helps that I am a curious vulture. I like to think and lurk over a variety of topics. On a separate note I am biased in that I believe businesses, and society, would be a better version of its current form if there were more curious vultures.

To conclude.

At least I have admitted being a vulture. Don’t let that stop you from loving the idea of Enlightened Conflict.

Life, and business, is messy. I would argue the only way to attempt to find a path through the messiness is to wade into the conflict, embrace your enlightenment throughout the engagement and, well, make whatever you can a little less messy.

=====

originally posted December 2009

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

All are architects of Fate,

Working in these walls of Time;

Some with massive deeds and great,

Some with ornaments of rhyme.

Nothing useless is, or low

——-

Architects of Fate

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

I don’t really believe in fate. And it appears good ole HW Longfellow didn’t believe in it either. He wrote a beautiful poem called The Builders (see below) suggesting that we, the people, are architects of fate.

In fact.

The beauty of what he writes (and this is a truly awesome thought) is that everyone does something, no matter how small or how large, that builds the structure of life. Yes. Every one of us, each and every one, plays some role in constructing the great construct of Life we all live in. That is a really nice thought. And a nice reminder that no matter how inconsequential we may feel or the things we do we play a part in the tapestry of life.

Now.

This is also true in business. I say that as a business guy with a long history in the service side of the business world.

The side of the world that you often feel helpless, often having to react, and often being forced to move about at the whim of someone else, and often feeling like you are not really doing anything important (because it is hard to see how what you are doing really matters).

Having said that and knowing that a lot of people really do feel this way I pull Architects of Fate out of my backpack.  I use this poem several times with companies to remind us, employees, that all our actions have consequences. Yes. Even the smallest actions.

Longfellow’s  words should encourage everyone to believe each action contributes to the structure of who we are as a company and what we do. Now THAT is a valuable thought in every organizational behavior or culture sense. It is an even more important valuable thought a leader should have (because if they do they will inevitably encourage all employee to feel that way).

And when everything is aligned. When everyone believes they can be an architect. It becomes a valuable thought in encouraging each employee to understand that their actions contribute to the architecture of the fate of the organization (no matter how inconsequential they may actually feel buried down in the mailroom or the bottomless pit of account receivables department or the office manager ordering heavy stock paper for the copier because someone is bitching).

I would also point out the practical side – productivity & output. It was my good friend Luke Sullivan who pointed this out in his book “hey whipple squeeze this” – thinking & creating matters but if there is no output there is no satisfaction. Real work. Actual things we do for customers or actions we take in front of customers. Each of these actions is a part of the overall tapestry of the architecture of the company. He also points out that each action often begets another action (in that once you have done something once it begins to feel more ‘okay’ to do it again … I would call that a slippery slope discussion).

Anyway.

As we hustle our way through each day trying to make sure we cross off everything on our to do lists and make our bosses happy and answer customer’s questions and requests it is good to remind ourselves we are truly architects of fate. It is good to remind people tht everything they do contributes to the grater architecture of what is and, maybe most importantly, what will be.

This pertains to your job, personal lie and the greater Life in general.

My advice? Be an architect. Go build.

The Builders

All are architects of Fate,

Working in these walls of Time;

Some with massive deeds and great,

Some with ornaments of rhyme.

Nothing useless is, or low;

Each thing in its place is best;

And what seems but idle show

Strengthens and supports the rest.

For the structure that we raise,

Time is with materials filled;

Our to-days and yesterdays

Are the blocks with which we build.

Truly shape and fashion these;

Leave no yawning gaps between;

Think not, because no man sees,

Such things will remain unseen.

In the elder days of Art,

Builders wrought with greatest care

Each minute and unseen part;

For the Gods see everywhere.

Let us do out work as well,

Both the unseen and the seen;

Make the house, where Gods may dwell,

Beautiful, entire, and clean.

Else our lives are incomplete,

Standing in these walls of Time,

Broken stairways, where the feet

Stumble as they seek to climb.

Build to-day, then, strong and sure,

With a firm and ample base;

And ascending and secure

Shall to-morrow find its place.

Thus alone can we attain

To those turrets, where the eye

Sees the world as one vast plain,

And one boundless reach of sky.

–          Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

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

Alvin Toffler wrote in 1990:

——

“Anyone who believes that we’re just going to leap into some sort of glorious new age is very unrealistic … far-reaching turmoil can be expected, as individuals and institutions either adapt to, or resist, change.”

=========

So.

Leadership is a tricky thing. It is walking a fine line of truth (grounded in what is real as well as ‘not lying’) and aspirational (giving people a glimpse of what they can be).

And, as with anything, this is about some functional practical things and emotional soul searching things.

Oh.

And connecting them.  It is the connection aspect that great leaders do well. But, ultimately, those leaders who figure it out end up leading high energy, high performance organizations. I tend to believe when you see an organization that ‘thinks small’ (or acts small) it is because their leaders do.

Regardless.

Just as I wrote recently about the fact we are in the ‘selling hope’ business I tend to believe great organizational cultures are also grounded on hope. Hope for being better.  Being a better person.  Being better at what you may do daily (even the smallest task). Being part of something that betters the world. Great organizations, at their core, feed their people’s hope. And great leaders figure out a way of showing them that hope.

In practical terms and aspirational terms.

All that said … leads to me to some words that made me think about this.

Sam Meek. Sam was the CEO of of the advertising agency J. Walter Thompson in the 50’s/60’s. And the words below were delivered in a 1965 speech. Within the following words there are little scraps of hope littered throughout for people to pick and choose from.

Scraps of the practical.

Scraps of aspirational.

Scraps of lessons that can be implemented daily in actions.

All littered on a ground of a solid attitude focused on the horizon.

These are words that make you feel good about being part of the organization and yet words to challenge every one to be better and work harder (“we are a permanently dissatisfied company”). I am not above stealing great words and reapplying them.  I use these words all the time and, frankly, I seek to work within organizations that like these words:

===

When I talk of this company, I am not thinking just of a legal or business entity. I am using the word in the older sense, as in a company of scholars, as a company of adventurers, or a company of voyagers. I think our companionship partakes of all these things.

There had to be something special about this enterprise to attract the talented and venturesome people who have come together to exercise their considerable talents and to derive from it the things that make for full and satisfying life.

Our relationships are subtle and highly sensitive relationships …. 

Our job must be to share authority without losing it …

The whole staff must have a proprietary feeling about the company’s work.

We are a permanently dissatisfied company and so far as I can see, we shall not run out of things to be dissatisfied about. I think our work, in most instances, is the best of its kind in the world – and yet not good enough. Not as good as it is going to be. There has not been and there should never be a year when it is not better than the year before.

Our audience is getting more demanding all the time – it is not a question of talking down to them. The problem, the opportunity, is to talk far enough up to them.

===

 Lastly.

I use one line from what Meeks said over and over again. I am not sure I have ever seen nor heard words from a leader that captured the essence of both functional practical and aspirational better than these:

“We must be dynamic for purposes bigger than ourselves.“

I admit. I absolutely hate when an organization “thinks small.” That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t think practical but they should think about impact.  What kind of impact, or imprint, do they truly want to make.  And I don’t necessarily mean making people’s lives better.  I mean ‘doing good or great shit.’ Making an impact through what they do and who they are as an organization.  Impacting whatever world they affect. It doesn’t have to be global (like a JWT) but it can be local or even within their own circle of friends & business relationships.

Creating a great organization, a company of adventures, needs leaders who say, who mean, who live, these types of words.

And all words that are said within a truth that it isn’t rhetoric but rather it is the soul of the organization.

Be dynamic.

Whew.

That alone is a great thought. A great thought for an individual, a leader and even an organization. I admit I often struggle with the current focus on “purpose driven” organizations but I never struggle with “dynamic.”

So … go be dynamic.

==========

“Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”

—————

Abraham Lincoln

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

“Most of us don’t mind doing what we ought to do when it doesn’t interfere with what we want to do, but it takes discipline and maturity to do what we ought to do whether we want to or not.“

———–

Joseph B. Wirthlin

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

Ok.

Just to finish off my thoughts <and frustrations > with regard to Trump’s lack of leadership and the NFL <and pettiness with Steph Curry “dis-invite” of someone who wasn’t going anyway> I wanted to point out just one more incredibly disturbing behavior he continues to exhibit – picking winners & losers with individual businesses.

It seems like he has forgotten he is no longer a faux business person, when he could tweet out absurd faux business statements about other real businesses and business people, and that he is now a faux president where he is not supposed to tell businesses how to be run, what an industry should or should not do and call out individual people like he is calling out to the guy who always finds a way to lose to him on the golf course whenever he walks through Mar a Lago’s front door.

Presidents don’t pick business winners and losers.

Presidents don’t tell people how to conduct their business.

Governments establish laws, rules & regulations within which individual businesses, industries and people work within. HOW they work within those guidelines is up to them.

In fact.

Even if a president has some business experience it doesn’t matter how they ran their business, how they believe a business should be run or how they believe specific demands upon organizational behavior should be dictated … it does not matter what he or she thinks.

Businesses are enterprises permitted to run their business independent of government ‘input.’ It is the right of any business to conduct themselves, legally, the way they choose.

I say that because lost in the racial and faux patriotism aspects of the Trump versus NFL <black athletes> mosh pit is the basic fact he interfered in the way an entire business conducts their business.

“I think NFL team owners should fire the son of a bitches.”

First.

No business owner calls the employees sonofabitches.

If they do they get fired.

Second.

I have run businesses. No one tells me who I can, or cannot, fire.

No one.

Third.

I have run businesses. No one tells me how my employees should conduct themselves and what they can, or cannot do,

No one.

Fourth.

“You should boycott the games <do not attend or watch>.”

Uhm.

So … the president suggested Americans should not support American business.

That’s the bottom line.

Gussy that up any way you would like but … that’s it.

Do not spend you money on American business.

At some point I am sure some Trump administration spokesperson can turn themselves into a pretzel telling me how wrong I am to think and say that … but … uhm … the American president told American people that because American businesses were not doing what he believes is the American way of conducting business that American people should no longer support specific American businesses.

What an asshole.

What a fucked up version of an American First business ideology.

I imagine my larger point is that since Trump was elected he has called out specific companies and industries … and even specific people … all under the guise of “here is what I believe is good or bad.”

<i imagine any Republican/conservative reading this just gagged a little>

When he has done this … believe it or not … it has made a difference.

Businesses respond, stocks respond and the specific target hears responses <from customers, acquaintances and Trump trolls>.

By the way … this forces those businesses, industries and individuals to have to spend unplanned money attempting to respond to the highest office in the country.

He is the president. Presidents don’t pick business winners and losers.

Whether you like, or dislike, what the president has said about the NFL it is coming with a cost.

Saturday morning coaches, owners and players thought the game plan was the most important thing. By late Saturday morning PR teams, business owners conference calls, team captains, and players were all geared up trying to figure out what to do and how to respond.

Business as usual was interrupted.

We may think football is game … but it is a business to these people and it is a job.

Trump interfered with people’s business, careers and livelihoods.

In business words have repercussions.

…….. Trump’s affect on business by interfering ……….

But Trump doesn’t think beyond the moment and the soundbite and the audience.

He is one of those assholes he just lets others clean up the mess he leaves behind and justifies all his shit by saying shit like “I am just saying what everyone is thinking” … not realizing that most business entities kind of build a system to accommodate ‘the shit’ so when someone comes along and topples the system … well … you have to invest energy, time and money rebuilding a new system to accommodate new shit.

There are dozens of real stupid leadership things about trump that drive me nuts. But this one is actually different. This is a lack of understanding of the roles & responsibilities of being a president.

You don’t pick winners and losers.

You don’t tell someone how to run their business.

You don’t tell someone who to fire and who to not fire.

Basically.

This weekend should remind Donald J Trump that he shouldn’t interfere with anything in the Constitution <free speech> and shouldn’t interfere in American business.

I would be furious if I were an NFL owner or head coach.

Furious.

I would be nervous if I were a business CEO or business leader.

Very nervous.

Trump has no idea how to be a president nor how to conduct himself as a president … businesses will suffer this fool week after week.

===

“It has generally been assumed that of two opposing systems of philosophy, e.g., realism and idealism, one only can be true and one must be false; and so philosophers have been hopelessly divided on the question, which is the true one.”

——–

Morris Raphael Cohen

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

“Words without actions are the assassins of idealism.”

——

Herbert Hoover

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

“Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem.”

———–

John Galsworthy

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

Ok. I am a pragmatic hope guy. I clearly love instilling hope as part of any business, or Life, vision, but don’t believe in any aspect of false hope. As I have written before while false hope is maybe slightly better than no hope at all, hope should be treated carefully.

That said. All hope to me should be grounded in some sense of pragmatic and reality.

I, frankly, don’t understand when people suggest you cannot have both.

I, frankly, don’t understand when people suggest you cannot have both idealism and realism.

I, frankly, don’t understand when people suggest you shouldn’t have aspects of both hope & pragmatism, possibilities and pragmatism and idealism & realism.

We should want both AND demand both. It is reaching for the stars and reaching realistically. It is keeping your feet in the clouds and, yet, head on the ground.

But that’s how I think.

I thought of this as I noted Hillary has an entire chapter in her new book called idealism and realism where she criticizes some aspects of Bernie Sanders. I would suggest everyone not read it as criticism of Bernie, but rather a tutorial on how you can both be idealistic and realistic.

I will not defend Mrs. Clinton. It’s not my job.

<nor will i buy the book>

But I will defend we ‘hope believers’ who also believe in pragmatism. I will defend that it is possible to offer a sense of a difficult path forward without creating a larger sense of ‘doom or Armageddon’ to create the sense of urgency which we often deem necessary in order to inspire real action.

And, inevitably, that is what this is all about.

How to inspire people not just to inspire but to take action?

How to inspire larger ideas and larger actions?

I imagine all politicians, who are a version of leaders, have to figure out how to balance this. It is a tightrope all business leader also walk.

The difficulty on this tight rope is that there will always be people debating, and criticizing, while you walk on this tight rope. They will argue we need more radical change. They will argue we need less radical change. Shit. They will argue we need no change moving forward but rather reverse some of the changes made.

And you know what?

Some of that, in all of that, is right. Some of the past is awful and some of the decisions we will make for the future, and in the future, will be awful. Conversely, some of all of that will, well, not be awful.

To suggest that there are easy answers or that the steps forward are clear and simple is stupid. Stupid & foolish.

Just to be clear (because I am speaking of idealism and pragmatism) Hillary is, and will always be, a lightning rod. We may scratch our heads with regard to some of the things she says or we may instead sit back and ponder the good debate to be found in the lightning rod discussions. For in her “Idealism and Realism” can be found the constructive decision which any leader tries to find their own course in leading.

We debate all of this shit in our own heads and then we debate it in conference rooms and boardrooms every week.

We are responsible for past decisions and, yet, try to unburden ourselves so that we can move forward.

Simplistically, just because I <maybe> made an awful decision in the past doesn’t mean I will make an awful decision in the future.

Simplistically, just because I maybe offer a hopeful idealistic decision for the future doesn’t mean it is a realistic decision for now.

Simplistically, just because I try and slow everybody down on some idealistic discussion shouldn’t suggest I am any more ‘canny or wise’ than everybody else let alone the person who offers the idealistic hope that people may gravitate toward — it just suggests that maybe I am trying to balance it all with reality <and maybe incorporate the fact that, pragmatically, I would like to incorporate some possibilities for people today & tomorrow>.

I will suggest, no, I will tell you the harsh truth … getting good shit done is hard.

Getting shit done means balancing overreach and under reach.

Balancing possibilities and pragmatism.

Balancing idealism and realism.

Balancing the practical and the hope.

Balancing what people think they want and what they need.

Balancing the majority and the minority. Balancing what is good for one and good for all.

Anything less than that is oversimplification.

Oh. Shit. And then there is context. One can never lose sight of context.

You have to balance the idea, the hopefulness of ‘what could be’, against pragmatically where you have been <what has happened if not what has just happened> as well as where you are.

It is incredibly simplistic to suggest an Obama decision when he took office should be compared to a decision a Clinton or a Trump would make when they took office. Just as it would be incredibly simplistic to judge a business leader if they were to take over a large company which was truly heading into a shithole versus a company which had some problems but was, in general, businesswise healthy.

Every transition has its own singular issues. Every situation has its own singular issues. Every business has its own singular issues. And, let’s be clear, every one of those situations has problems.

We should all recognize that in the overall life cycle of Life problems and opportunities, practical and possibilities, hope & despair, heroes & villains, will appear in different forms.

This is not cynical, this is … uhm … reality

Yeah. Whoever became the new president of the United States is going to deal with some problems Whoever becomes a business leader is going to deal with some problems.

Harping on whatever those problems doesn’t really get you anywhere.

They are what they are.

I could also argue that arguing over idealistic ideas and vision without admitting some pragmatism and practicality doesn’t really get you anywhere. It is not a binary discussion nor are pragmatism and possibilities, idealism and practical, are mutually exclusive.

Look. We all hate cynicism, but far too often we confuse it with pragmatism and practicality. I would also suggest we all get tired of pragmatism because, well, far too often it sounds small.

But I would also point out that we all not only get tired, but absolutely unequivocally hate, false hope and unrealized idealism. “Large” unrealized equals zero, nothing, nada. People don’t like a zero, nothing, nada no matter how large the zero, nothing, nada is.

Neither option, looked upon in isolation, is attractive or likeable.

And you know what? A good leader knows all of this. And they do their best to walk the tight rope. They may not always get it right and they may not always get done whatever is needed to get done to alleviate the problems, or all the problems, that exist in the here and now. But I would point out that, realistically, you can never alleviate all problems and that problems exist, contextually, no matter if an idealist or a realist, a pragmatist or a ‘possibilities driven’ leader, a hope or a practical leader steps in. The only constant that any leader faces is that problems existed to be addressed, exist to address and will exist to address all to eventually be solved ONLY if both idealism & pragmatism and possibilities & the practical are embraced.

Not accepting that as a Life truth is foolish.

I thought of this today as I envision another leader facing another day of criticism from not only all sides, but all dimensions. I am sure any leader will deserve some criticism, but the sheer amount is crazy. In fact, it is lazy.

Lazy rhetoric and lazy thinking.

Maybe, just maybe, we should be sitting back and thinking about this as a grander tutorial on how you can both be idealistic and realistic.

I tend to believe this would not only be helpful, but a necessary, discussion because we deserve both idealism & realism, possibilities & pragmatism and grander hopes & individual significance.

Once again, I am not in the business of defending Hillary Clinton <or any leader>, however, maybe, just maybe, we should stop criticizing what happened and start discussing what happens now. Maybe, just maybe, we should stop embracing just idealism or just realism and see that optimizing the combination is the path to optimizing the future. Maybe, just maybe, we should all go into the optimizing business.

===

“A diamond is a chunk of coal that did well under pressure.”

——

Henry Kissinger

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

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.”

–

God (in Futurama)

===

Well.

Think what you want and say what you want to say about Kissinger … but the opening quote is awesome <although, geologically speaking, it may not be truly accurate>.

In our quest for recognition as a leader many business people, and leaders in general, seemingly get shoved <on seemingly a daily basis> into some absurd universe where everyone judges you <mostly on some absurd views of ‘being noticed is what matters’ or ‘shine bright like a diamond‘>. I say that because this means thinking of yourself as a piece of coal seems … well … quite underwhelming and quite ‘unleaderly’ <I made that word up>.

Uhm.

But.

One of the most frustrating things you learn early on in a management career path is that you do not get credit for what you are expected to do. And maybe what makes this most frustrating is that this lesson applies to a crisis as well as the most mundane everyday grind responsibilities.

But.

The thing is as you gain more and more responsibility you learn that this is actually a good thing.

People like reliability.

People like consistency.

People like a foundation of quiet competent leadership.

People like you doing what you are supposed to do <with little fanfare>.

This is a lesson learned early on in a management career … and you can tell the leaders who <a> did not learn it or <b> saw the lesson but lack self-confidence … because they … well … ignore the lesson and exhibit ongoing aggravating self promotion <even on the things they are expected to do>.

That said.

This doesn’t mean you aren’t tempted to take a moment or two to point out, sometimes in some fairly loud messaging, that you want some credit for what you are doing.

This is the ‘dance.’

The management & leader “credit dance.’ I call it a dance because every good leader knows they have to do some self-public relations and, yet, they don’t want to be seen as doing any overt self-public relations.

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

“The price of greatness is responsibility.”

—–

Winston Churchill

=======

Being a great leader is all about doing your job and doing the right things at the right time … and <I imagine> figuring out how to actually tell people that you did the right things at the right time. This means not being seen a as blowing your own horn or being some narcissistic attention seeking, credit seeking asshat but rather one who understands it really isn’t about gaining credit or accolades but rather reassuring people that the right things, the good things, just get done under your watch.

I would note that reassurance is a powerful tool. It is powerful because doing things right isn’t about small … nor large … but if you do it right … really right … people will not really be sure that you’ve done anything at all and, yet, feel reassured that you are there.

Now.

In today’s bombastic world it can actually become a bad thing if no one notices. Why? <insert a ‘huh?!?’ here> because someone else at the exact same time is telling everyone what they did … and yes … unfortunately … often the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

Aw heck.

The truth is that the value is never in the credit. And leaders know that. And we everyday schmucks need to remind ourselves of that more often.

—-

“I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.”

————

Leaders know that the little things can matter and that just delivering upon what you are supposed to do really matters <a lot>.

A subtle touch can create the needed ripples. Doing what you are supposed to do insures the right ripples are always … well … rippling.

Good leaders know you can be the initiator, instigator or implementer … or even all of them … and it doesn’t really matter.

I would note that within the realm of doing what you are supposed to do about the only thing that can truly diminish ‘greatness of simple doing’ is not accepting responsibility – for the bad and the good and all that it takes to get to either place.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that what I just stated is ‘character’.

Leaders don’t lead by asking or telling people to follow it most often happens by doing the shit you are supposed to do really well.

I know. I know. That doesn’t sound “great” but greatness really cannot be achieved without it.

Oh.

This kind of suggests that greatness is a contradiction.

Let’s use Winston as an example.

Huge ego. MASSIVE ego. Charismatic speaker. Maybe one of the greatest orators of all time. Made some huge mistakes. HUGE mistakes. …. But humble in his responsibility. He permitted  the people to get credit for success and strength and what needed to be done … all the while doing what he as supposed to be doing.

He was vocal, and sincere, on issues and the people of Great Britain getting credit.

All despite his ego.

Great leadership reflects a unique balance of ego and humility. Ego to effectively lead and humility to be effectively followed.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere on the line between those two things.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere in between not getting credit for what they are supposed to do and actually being acknowledged for enabling greater greatness.

Well.

I know it isn’t popular to say this but most of the best things in Life, and leadership,  are found in the unspectacular:

• The best people more often than not go unseen and unnoticed by the majority.
• The best moments more often than not go unseen until looking back.

Just as perfection is most often found in the imperfections … spectacular is most often found in the unspectacular. And, yes, doing what you are supposed to do is unspectacular.

But I would argue the spectacular would never ever happen if the ‘supposed to do’ shit never happened.

In the end.

Great leaders are often judged by what you don’t see them doing. This also means great leaders are often judged by what they feel comfortable remaining silent about … by what they don’t say about what they are supposed to do and supposed to be.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is a little more difficult than it may appear.

It is a little more difficult because a great leader does have to have some ego and some higher level of confidence and, therefore, some positive affirmation kind of helps to put some well needed oxygen back into the confidence balloon.

It takes a awhile to learn you don’t have to ask for oxygen or even try and fill it yourself … well … at least good leaders learn that … the bad, insecure ones never do.