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

“No enterprise can exist for itself alone.

It ministers to some great need, it performs some great service, not for itself, but for others…or failing therein, it ceases to be profitable and ceases to exist.”

Calvin Coolidge

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

“Let’s be honest. There’s not a business anywhere that is without problems. Business is complicated and imperfect. Every business everywhere is staffed with imperfect human beings and exists by providing a product or service to other imperfect human beings.”

Bob Parsons

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

Originally posted in 2017

Let me take a minute and discuss “fraternite” in business.

Just a reminder but “fraternite” is one of the  French values of Liberté, Fraternité and Egalité (“liberty, equality, fraternity/brotherhood” the national motto of France).

Anyway. Business. Inevitably a great organization exhibits both efficient AND effective progress. What typically creates that combination is part discipline, part structure (systems), part leadership, all glued together by “fraternité”. That ‘glue’ is most often discussed in the American business world as ‘a vision’ or maybe ‘a purpose’ or even ‘culture.’ We do so because we Americans hate any kind of lack of specificity. But the truth is that the most common bond of a great organization is a more nebulous concept, i.e., one of “fraternité”.

Or.

“Any man aspires to liberty, to equality, but he cannot achieve it without the assistance of other men, without fraternity.”

Napoleon

Oddly enough, while this sounds like relatively common sense, I kind of feel like business itself needs a revolution to overturn the current thinking to accommodate what should be common sense.

What do I mean? Current business is kind of in a wacky spot. It talks a lot about vision and purpose and culture as if they are “things” — like maybe a lighthouse anyone can see as they bob around the chaotic sea of business life to find a way home. By the way, I would argue that is a very individualistic thought — “I can find my way home” type thought – and not really a team thought <but that could quite easily be debated>.

Regardless. Fraternity is more like “everyone not only knowing what they need to do to keep the ship afloat but actually pitching in whether needed or not because they love the ship itself.” That may sound like some wacky nuance, but I have to warn people that revolutions can kind of gain some momentum off of some fairly wacky things on occasion. By the way, this thought is a more nebulous “I feel this way” aspect of organizational culture and, as noted many times, if it cannot be measured or indexed or scored.

** note: most older leaders into today’s business just don’t like that kind of shit – things they cannot measure or score.

Anyway. Not to beat this metaphor to death, but I do believe we need a semi-revolution in the way business organizations are created and run and managed. I think we may need that revolution because “fraternité” as a core principle just ain’t the way business is run today. And, yes, it should be viewed as a “core” principle because … uhm … when discipline falls apart, when structure falls apart, when leadership falls apart what keeps you on the battlefield and fighting is … yeah … “fraternité.” Yeah, yeah, yeah. A lot of people talk about a “community” or “company team” or some other nice sounding platitude which sounds a lot like “fraternité”, but its mostly lip service. Its lip service because fraternité is a ‘collective’ thought and most businesses reward and incentivize individuals.

Anyway. On a bigger organizational level I worry about how an idea like this is getting suffocated by generational issues <younger people desire something and older people think they know the best> and maybe an outcome-is-the-only-thing-that-matters worldview versus a belief business should incorporate altruistic aspects. Both of those conflicts are HUGE issues. I have written about in 1200+ word thought pieces on both of these but, on the former, the best piece I can share is from Corporate Rebels “Cut The Crap: The Made-Up Nonsense About Generations At Work” which states all people want meaning at work (regardless of age or generational label).

I actually believe we need some revolutionary thinking on the latter. To me we have a bunch of people who look at business and turn away to non-profit because … well … I fear that they only believe they can change the world through more altruistic pursuits and not traditional business. And, yes, they are important and good pursuits but, from a larger perspective, business drives the world. Business makes shit that makes lives easier and healthier and impacts the home and life in ways that it is difficult to imagine let alone outline in a few words <and the business office/working groups creates behavioral cues which ripple out into culture>.

Somehow … someway … we need to insert the ‘believers of principles and principled behavior’ into the business world with all of their ambition and hope and remind them, empower them and enable them that they can change the world.

That they can make the world a better place. They can make society and people and lives better. And they can do it in and through business, not just altruistic career opportunities. If we do that, and do that well, I tend to believe we will build more organizations driven at its core by a sense of “fraternité” rather than a bunch of documents setting out some guiding or shared values, vision and purpose which everyone says “okay … let’s do that.”

What I do know is that … well … read the following quote:

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

“I have found no greater satisfaction than achieving success through honest dealing and strict adherence to the view that, for you to gain, those you deal with should gain as well.”

Alan Greenspan

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

I do believe we need to be drawing some lines in business. And I don’t mean company handbook type lines or even some well-crafted ‘lines’ in “how we conduct our business” or “who we are” but maybe they are more lines with regard to some unwritten principles.

I say that because when you can gather a group of people together who share a strong set of principles they will walk straight into a hail of bullets to not only survive, but to get good shit done.

==========

“Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.

Oscar Wilde

===========

Now. Business absolutely makes dealing with your principles a constant struggle. It can kind of suffocate your principles in between the pragmatic aspects of getting shit done <discipline & structure> and how that shit is designed to meet specific objectives/results and the faux burden of some vision or grander purpose which “you know is important to us therefore it should be important to you”, i.e., extrinsic importance not intrinsic importance. Frankly, when suffocated by these bookends you don’t have a lot of elbow room for any type of true, intangible, unsolicited camaraderie.

The fraternité is more forced than natural. Obviously, when it is not natural it is not as strong.

In the end.

Fraternité in business. I believe we have forgotten this. And while I do believe many of us have forgotten how to draw lines with regard to our principles I tend to believe business, in general, has simply decided to just draw lines <in a box in fact> and say “there you go”, i.e., there are your principles and rules for camaraderie.

That is kind of whack.

Look. I can honestly tell you that being a senior leader in a business and organization you like <you do not have to love> may be one of the greatest experiences anyone can ever have. What makes that experience truly great is when you are fortunate enough to foster something intangible, something that really cannot be measured, and something which doesn’t earn you some performance bonus at the end of the year … it is when you stumble upon the sense of fraternité.

I am sure some organizational guru will send me a link to “steps to build a fraternité organization” and … well … good for them. I tend to believe this is one of those intangible things that is created less by some “how to” guide or some formula and more by simple good intentions combined with some good discipline, construct and leadership. To steal another word from the motto, by creating a fraternité organization you inevitably create liberté for the organization to be the best version of what it can be.

This is what I thought about today and “liberty, equality, fraternity <brotherhood>”. With that I imagine I should end with where I began … no enterprise can exist for itself alone. That is the foundation for a fraternité organization. Ponder.

===========

“I see a lot of people in unstimulating relationships. If people were a little less scared of ending things they’d get more out of life.  You meet the right person at the right time and they fulfill a certain something in your life. You fulfill something in theirs.

But there’s a time limit to that. “

Laura Marling

=====

“When inspiration does not come to me, I go halfway to meet it.”

Sigmund Freud

=====

So. Unstimulating relationships. This is actually about business and about ‘time limits.’

As a business manager you end up grasping a couple of truths about your employees and their relationship with what they do, their work, their careers and the company.

The first truth is that many of the employees are just doing their job. They are in a relatively unstimulating relationship with their job & career and they are kind of okay with that.

As a manager you genuinely try and make the relationship a little more simulating for them and, if you are truly genuine, while the these employees may never get as passionate or interested as you would like they appreciate you caring enough to try and, on occasion, will try harder for you and the company. This doesn’t mean they don’t care about their work and, in fact, if you highlight the contribution and impact their efforts make, they will care, just not find work particularly stimulating. I mention this as a first truth to acknowledge, which some organizational development people do not, that to some people a job is a job – no more and no less.

The second truth is that there are some employees who are actively seeking stimulated relationship with their jobs, careers and the company. If they are in an unstimulating relationship, suffice it to say, they will make you miserable out of their own miserableness.

As a manager you genuinely try and keep these employees stimulated. If you do it well, these people kill it. They are absolute monster achieving workers/thinkers/doers in the work place. Get it wrong with these employees and … well … most leave to find some stimulating relationship.

Understanding these two truths is surprisingly like getting a pail of cold water thrown in your face.

Well. At least it was for me.

I am not sure it was the same for others, but this may have been one of the most difficult things for me to understand, and deal with, when I moved from managing a group <where you get to hire everyone and try to have them match your attitude> to managing a company, multiple groups, departments and a bunch of people you do not hire yourself.

I, personally, struggled to understand how anyone could come into work each day, be relatively unstimulated and not only do good work, but actually want to come in and do good work every day.

But a lot of people do just that.

It took me awhile.

But I got it. At the same time I also understood that you never really let the unstimulated group of employees remain completely unstimulated.

You kind of never really let them completely start doing their work by rote or like robots. Mostly you just try to give them some positive stimulation on occasion like, as I noted earlier, encourage them to see how they contribute and their impact <this is different than incentivizing or trying to ‘game’ their behavior>.

Anyway.

The reality is that being an employee is a dance. You have a dance partner and sometimes there is a song you hate and do not dance, sometimes there is a song you hate and you are asked <or told> to dance and sometimes there is a good song and you will dance no matter what.

That is a fairly metaphoric example of a stimulating workplace.

But I will point out something I purposefully did. I suggested the bad song is playing in two of the three scenarios.

Yeah.

And that is still a stimulating relationship.

Go figure.

For some reason we seem to think people need to love their jobs all the time <or the significant majority of the time> or inject passion into what we do.

That is, frankly, a little nuts.

Mostly we should be seeking to have employees be proud of what they do <even if they don’t actually love what they do> and, as a manager, be wise enough to know what to overlook.

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

“The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook.”

William James

===========

Work is called work, and not ‘play, for a reason.

It’s work.

And sometimes work takes some … well … work.

I could actually argue that the ‘working at work’ can be stimulating if you view it correctly.

But that really doesn’t sound logical enough to invest energy in.

And maybe that is the key to understanding this whole ‘unstimulating relationship” thing – logic.

I can truthfully say that behind closed doors senior managers talk far too much about “logical” ways to stimulate employees and tap into some mysterious passion muscle we absurdly believe every employee has within <to be focused on our business and their work within our business>.

Once again … that is kind of nuts.

To be clear. I do believe everyone has a passion muscle within, but to think it can randomly be directed toward ‘work’ <which, I will remind everyone, is called ‘work’ because it is work … and not play or relaxation or ‘fun’> is the nuts part.

Logically we should just accept the fact that many employees have mentally come to grips with a job in which they are not in an overly stimulated relationship with.

That doesn’t mean they don’t want to do a good job nor does it mean they will not care it just means that their job is more a paycheck and not a career.

All that said, let me close with where I started … “time limits.”

All employees have limits in an unstimulating relationship – all: the ones who live with being unstimulated and the ones who actively seek stimulation. I am fairly sure most employees don’t create tangible definable limits they more often probably fall into the “I will know when it is time.” 

All business managers should recognize that all employees have ‘time limits’ when it comes to anything unstimulating. What that means is you cannot get away with being an uninvolved, uninterested, un-energy creating manager for too long. I don’t mean to imply many managers do that, but I will note that creating stimulation and seeking to energize a stimulating relationship between your employees and your business is hard work.

It isn’t about some motto or slogan.

It isn’t about donuts in the mornings and fun team meetings on Fridays.

It is about finding ways to show employees that their work is respected, their contributions are valued and that there are opportunities to grow as a person <intellectually, skills or responsibilities>. Yeah. I just offered that up as a solution to stimulate relationships and nowhere in that was any activity or initiative. All I outlined was possible destinations – mind, body or leadership.

Nothing stimulates an employee business relationship more than being a business that suggest they will enable an individual to ‘be more than they are today’ if they have the time and interest. In my mind businesses with an unstimulated relationship with their employees may be doing ‘things’ but they are just going through the motions , maybe using too much logic, to create some false stimulation.

Here is the truth. Show people where they can go and tell them you believe in them and a shitload will be stimulated, all on their own, to engage in the relationship with their job and work. Ponder.

====

“A leader’s role is to raise people’s aspirations for what they can become and to release their energies so they will try and get there.”

David Gergen

=====

I get in lots (lots) of discussions/debates about what leadership is, and isn’t, and who are leaders, and who isn’t. Most often I find myself in some fairly simplistic discussions in that everyone is trying to distill the entire topic into some soundbite. The truth is leadership is complex and leaders are rarely, in totality, great leaders in every context.

Let me try some foundational thoughts:

• I believe anyone, and everyone, can lead
• Leadership is contextual or situational (generally speaking) in that 98.129863% of leadership is within the moment rather than on some grand level
• Common Sensemaking, the ability to have everyone in an organization to make sense of a situation with some common understanding, guarantees everyone can effectively think (and it also has some efficiency attributes)
• Common sensemaking increases the potentiality of leadership in everyone
• Common sensemaking increases the potentiality of decision-making from everyone
• Decision-making is distinctly different than thinking and sensemaking
• Not everyone is as comfortable making decisions as they are in making sense of things and thinking about things
• Decision-making is where ‘leadership’ in the most common definition occurs
• Not all decisions are created equal and not all people are comfortable making decisions inequal in impact
• Decision impact is rarely understood and always overestimated
• The best leadership properly applies sensemaking, properly is receptive to collaborative thinking, properly estimates decision impacts, properly articulates decision impacts (so organization properly applies mental and physical energy) and properly applies resources to decisions

Which leads me to structurally just making everyone a better potential leader.

Common sensemaking is the core. Some people may suggest it is the ability to frame consistently from person to person. I have had several experiences with this, but let me highlight J Walter Thompson where everyone was trained in the “Thompson Way”. It was a construct for thinking about communications and strategy and behavioral dynamics. Everyone was trained. In every department and at every level. What it meant was that anyone, at any time, could frame up a discussion and everyone would ‘make sense’ of it in a similar way. Everything was framed in a way that everyone could participate in the discussion. I imagine my point is that we should be searching for common ground from which to assess a situation, make decisions and lead. That common ground means in any given context, any given person could possibly lead from that situation towards progress. Just ponder.

Which leads me to everyone likes to think (but not necessarily make decisions).

To be clear, thinking and making a decision are distinctly different things. That said. It’s a given that people are more motivated if they are involved in the thinking about that ‘thing’. We like to do things more if we choose to do them (rather than be told or coerced). Far too often business ‘leaders’ think thinking is inefficient and most people don’t like to think. Neither are true. Thinking in terms of the situation, and possible progress paths, is like festina lente: slow down now to speed up later. I, personally, think people like to think, like to ‘feel smart’ and treating people as if their thinking isn’t valued actually diminished value creation organizationally. Just ponder.

Which leads me to the decisions and decision making.

Effective doing from decisions is dependent upon common sensemaking from which that decision is made. But while I believe everyone likes to think, I do not believe everyone likes to make decisions (the difference between ownership of the idea and ownership of the accountability). And maybe this is where a type of leadership occurs; decision-making responsibility. Someone who makes the call and accepts the accountability. It is calming to everyone else. It doesn’t mean shirking responsibility just that they feel better not assuming the responsibility. And that’s okay.

Next. Being decisive isn’t about making the perfect decision every time. That isn’t possible. Rather, it’s about being confident that the right things have been considered and the right context is assessed. This is important because many good situational decisions are disastrous somewhere in the distant future and some semi-bad situational decisions actually have happy outcomes. That last sentence summarizes the unpredictability of decision making, yet, suggests the possibilities found in outcome surprises. I could suggest this is why leaders thrown into a situation, rather than a situation thrown out to potential leaders, tend to fall into the biggest trap decision makers fall into – the overwhelming desire for a definitive answer leading to very bad decisions and outcomes. But answers need to be agreed upon and decisions need to be acted upon. Some people are better at this than others. I actually don’t know if they are leaders or just people who can own decision making and I am not sure it matters.

Just ponder.

Which leads me to declustering.

Leaders like to cluster decisions and business like to cluster things. All are typically done because everyone believes it is more efficient and, possibly, more effective. Clustering is the unspoken organizational corrosive barnacle on the progress ship. It is true business, and people, arc toward replication. If a leader spots a ‘decisionmaker’ inevitably they will guide more decisions to that person simply. Decisions then cluster thereby making the overall – most people – desire to be involved in decisions to decluster. Yeah. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. By default, you’ve once again parsed out responsibility, not collaborative sensemaking, and created a different type of hierarchy. I am not suggesting some people aren’t better at making decisions than others. What I am suggesting is leaders’ natural instinct is NOT to spread sensemaking and thinking, but isolate so when convinced to distribute and spread, no matter how effective overall it may be, inevitably they will redistribute to a few – that’s the arc. Just ponder.

In the end.

In general, I think we talk about leaders, and leadership, in some wacky ways. There are millions of articles about what ‘great leaders are’ and about ‘great leaders’ as if they are anomalies or some special breed of humans. They aren’t. I am sure there are some exceptional leaders, but I am equally sure there are even more exceptional leaders buried under the bullshit world of words & expectations if we would let them emerge. The truth is everyone can lead and some people are better at decision making which is just a version of leadership. I will not argue that some people seem to energize others around them and maybe that could be called leadership, but I would also argue simply offering that particular feature/characteristic doesn’t mean everything should cluster around that person. I tend to always go back to one thing – the law of the situation. The situation demands the leader. In fact, the situation chooses the leader, a leader cannot choose a situation. Just ponder before you invest a lot of energy deciding who is a leader and who isn’t.

====

“Only through participation by the many in the responsibilities and determinations of business can Americans secure the moral and intellectual development which is essential to the maintenance of liberty.”

Louis Brandeis

===

“It is my thesis that machines can and do transcend some of the limitations of the designs and in doing so they may be both effective and dangerous.”

Norbert Wiener, 1960

========

“As machines learn they may develop unforeseen strategies at rates that baffle their programmers.”

Norbert Wiener, 1960

===

It’s not very insightful to note that algorithms inherently increase efficiency. Similarly, it doesn’t seem that insightful to note Life, people and business, are inherently inefficient <despite all their efforts to be efficient>. I think the insight resides in the fact this creates a recipe for disaster. Disaster in that what is easy, or even useful, is not necessarily good for us.

Anyone who has even researched AI slightly would see that even if AI systems learn from accurate, representative data, there will still be issues if the data reflects underlying biases and inequalities of the system.

Oh. And it does.

Oh. And, yes, I am going to suggest efficiency is a bias and an inequality driver.

Look. We idolize efficiency and we increasingly have tools which offer some sense of efficiency, yet, the attempted ‘flattening’ of natural inefficiency, generally speaking, only creates, well, dysfunction <and, generally speaking, persona dissatisfaction>.

How the hell does that happen? Simplistically an algorithm offers a binary choice – A or B. Yeah. To do so it evaluates a variety of inputs but, inevitably, it has to choose a 0 or a 1, this or that. Not weighted, a choice. And sometimes that choice is a guess. Yeah. A guess. My favorite line in Brian Christian’s fabulous book, The Alignment Problem, is “the computer is alarmingly confident when it guesses.” When you simplify everything down to a black & white ‘this or that’ you can sometimes simply flip a coin. Now. say you are a algorithm and you not only flip a coin, but you flip a coin 6 straight times. Yeah. You can see the possible problem there. Circling back, let’s assume each of those 6 coin flips are driven by efficiency. Yeah. You can see the possible problem there. Let me stretch the efficiency issue out a bit more. Efficiency demands a division of labor, resources and energy. So, if the algorithm is driving all those things toward the ‘most efficient’, well, there are always consequences to a choice.

As a counterpoint, effectiveness, or efficacy, is found in things that are often fairly inefficient <at least in the short term or present>. Effectiveness is the natural enemy to the incrementalization of standardization.

Range:

Development is not linear, and diversions that set you back in the short term frequently become powerful tools in the long term.

More importantly, effectiveness is the natural enemy of efficiency. How? Well. Efficiency arcs toward improvement of structural character, not improvement of market dynamics. Effectiveness is grounded in the external inputs, efficiency from internal outputs. Basically, efficiency strips away systems dynamics and flattens organizational principles.

Risk is quantifiable, uncertainty is not. It’s one thing to say there is a 50-50 chance on something going wrong. It’s another to not know the chances at all.

How does it do that? Algorithms grounded in efficiency minimize the optimal organization ability to expand and contract. the tendency of everyone in business is to contract (under the guise of ‘focus’). The contracting oversimplifies, but makes it mentally manageable and certainly drives an efficiency objective. Yet. Navigating complexity <which is the standard business> demands one actually expand their situational awareness of the moment.

I imagine I am also discussing the human aspect of algorithms. What I mean by that is algorithms are meant to be a tool for people, not a means to absolve responsibility.

And what do I mean by that?

A collection of people can be stupider than an individual (often even stupider), and, an individual can be stupider than a collection of people. The trick is to always to find when one is smarter than the other.

This gets compounded by the fact technology, well crafted, actually makes people stupider. How? It actually lessens our critical thinking by offering easier solutions (knowledge gifted is not the same as knowledge earned). We need to be sure to break the stupid loop. Because the smarter technology gets (algorithms actually iterate based off of interactions), the less smart people get (we do the hard work of thinking less), so we need to actively use technology to make people smarter. We need to amalgamate company wisdom and institutional learning into critical masses it cannot be ignored and demands some interaction. It seems counterintuitive because we are activating algorithms to do the hard work of ‘thinking’ <assessing an overwhelming amount of data> and, yet, we should actually be thinking harder ourselves <people>.

Look. Algorithms can be used for the forces of human behavior team bad (default, easy answers, let tech decide) or forces of human behavior team good (curiosity, expand upon imagination, innovate).

All I know is algorithms are going to play a big role in navigating business efficacy and shaping business.

—

“The future of companies, regardless of size, will be shaped by algorithms.”

Mike Walsh

—

The key word is “shaped.” Ultimately it will be humans who use the shapes.

Anyway. Here is my wish.

I hope we will be “directed to act” by algorithms, but not managed by. The latter demands acceptance of algorithm as qualified to make us to do something behaviorally, the former demands we accept algorithms as something that ‘informs’ our doing. Somewhere in between is the decision of how much we, people, are accountable for thinking. Algorithms inherently encourage us to believe business is not best when it is random. Yet. The best businesses resist the urge to suppress randomness.

Which leads me to temporal convergence and temporal divergence.

Temporal convergence is progressive and affirming. By contrast, “temporal divergence,“ is where we cannot see a path from where we are “now” to achieve the goal-state. Temporal divergence may result from insufficient capability/ capacity to navigate with any confidence toward any goal. Also, one may not know if one is in a state of temporal divergence. The difference between these two things is the difference between survival and death in a business. I bring this up because algorithms, driven by efficiency, are temporal, but you cannot actually see whether they are converging or diverging. Well. At least until it’s too late.

All businesses will exist, in some form or fashion, grounded in algorithms. I am fairly sure that’s a given. What is not given is what role efficiency will play in the future of business. Now, I am not naive, efficiency focus will not go away overnight, but efficiency, relentlessly pursued, is simply a path to commoditization. The challenge will be to not get consumed by efficiency driven algorithms and to realize algorithms do not give answers, but outline options. To realize algorithms don’t define redundancies, but rather define the outlines of systems. And, in the end, realize efficiency is the lazy way out and understand algorithms can make us even lazier so the double hit from the dull axe of efficiency will bludgeon us, individuals and business, into a bloody pulp even as the dashboards scream success. Ponder.

===

“There is never a wrong time to do the right thing.”

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

“It is not that a person makes meaning, as much as that the activity of being a person is the activity of meaning-making … the most fundamental thing we do with what happens to us is organize it. We literally make sense.”

Developmental psychologist Robert Kegan

======

ideas that are the most difficult to validate can feel like the most important ones

=====

Complexity, in business, is in the midst of a weird time. In the attempt to translate complexity-in-theory to complexity-in-practice, a whole bunch of people are turning themselves into pretzels to simplify, uhm, complexity. The intent is to make it understandable and manageable (ability to navigate or as Donella Meadows suggests “dance with the system”), but in doing so there have been a variety of quadrants, some delightful descriptors (see: ‘wicked problems’) and, in general, a bunch of things which actually make complexity even more complex in the minds of people in business as well as in practice.

I continue to believe the rough-ish diagram Stacey placed in “Managing the Unknown” is one of the more practical views of complexity for business.

One of the things I like about it, and have liked, is that it has its own version of an OODA loop. This seems important to me because navigating complexity is less about the decision and more about observing decisions and decide what to do with the effect, or effects, which exist as a consequence of the initial stimulus <other past decisions>. In the past I have called this ‘situational awareness.’ That said. OODA loops WITHIN complex dynamics is how to iteratively navigate complexity without simply reacting. You do something and then manage against that decision because it is not a linear directional world in which a problem leads to an action that leads to a solution. Instead, we live in an infinite looped dynamic world. Each action is based on current conditions, such actions affect future conditions, and changed conditions become the basis for later action.  The system, and systems nested within, are reflections of ceaseless connections and feedback loops (even if they are nonlinear). This makes complexity tricky because you can do something with good intentions, say to resolve a problem, and actually alleviate that problem and, yet, be causing another unseen snowballing problem. By applying pressure <or a resolution> in one place tends to create some equal opposing pressure (or pressures) in another place.

Regardless. While that, generally, sounds complex – because it is – the simple truth is everything is connected and nothing is ever really stagnant. But the complexity folk just don’t seem satisfied with that. We need labels and words and definitions. To that I say we don’t need to be brilliant; we need to find ways of doing useful things.

“If you keep certain creative people in too tight a box, they blow up the box.”

Liz Phair

Anyway.

One of the most interesting books I have read about complexity was not actually about complexity. it was about people and society – The Listening Society by Hanzi Freinacht. Ok. Hanzi Freinacht is a complex guy, complex thinker, and talks about the future of society and humankind (kind of a complex topic).  The reason why I believe Listening Society is about complexity and business is because it is about people. And while we like to talk about systems, algorithms, digital infrastructure, culture, and, well, anything but people, inevitably if you want to navigate complexity you need to get people’s heads screwed on right and get everyone thinking about the right things.  I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out, pragmatically, business is a lot like living life in that for the most part you are just trying to get shit done the best you possibly can. It sounds like a grind and aspects of it really are – but can be a thinking grind. So, despite the fact we speak of the rise of the ‘knowledge worker’ the truth is if a business wants to have some agility it needs thinker/doers (or doer/thinkers) or at least have teams in which there is some equilibrium between needed thinking and needed doing and the grind it out mentality needed to navigate complexity and a complex world.

Which leads me back to Hanzi.

He suggests that each person is a cross section of the self – the depths & dimensions – and the conflict and potential inherent in the interactions with social, economic and cultural fabric – all amped up in a technological world. Freinacht calls this ‘a transpersonal perspective.’ Its not just that we are each a billiard ball that interacts with other people. We co-emerge or ‘intra-act.’  He suggests we have a lived experience as well as a creational experience. We experience and absorb from all experiences and in doing so we, systemically, change. What this means is that society is present within each individual as well as within the relationships one forges with what we call ‘self.’ Here is the uncomfortable suggestion — there is no true individual nor is there any true collective there is simply an evolving interlinked emergent set of ‘transviduals.’ This makes each of us inseparable, in a complete sense, rather than some simplistic unique separate life story. This means each person should be viewed as an open and social process, a “whirlwind of participation and cocreation of society.” Society, or social dynamics (which is relevant to the business world), as a whole is then viewed as a self organizing system which creates each of us (transviduals) who, in turn, recreate society. We are all social constructions. We are all, in fact, parts & pieces of one another and affect one another. We consist of many different influences (which makes the idea of individual a constraining idea), roles and perspectives WITHIN a multitude of contexts. In other words, we are complex.

Which leads me to what Ralph Stacy called “bounded instability.” People are inherently unstable <I call them uneven> and forcing consistency, rather than coherence, actually limits possibilities (stability comes at a cost). His thought is to relax the inhibitors and optimize (in a situational equilibrium, not balance) what he calls ‘fit & split’ and what I call coherence.

But lurking within what I just shared is that people systems inherently are driven by stable laws of behavior (boundaries) which actually CREATE specific kinds of instability, yet, this creates some aspect of patterns. It sounds crazy but stick with me here. The tighter the boundaries the broader the instability (fragility). But stable, not constrictive, boundaries create patterns.

“Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds, not believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks – those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.”

Zarathustra (Hanzi Freinacht)

Patterns? Reality is made up of inner landscapes rubbing up against each other. This means reality is emergent and we are not successful by slavishly following ‘laws of’ protocol, but rather our ability to sense make reality and navigate emergent patterns. What this means from a complexity standpoint is that Life, business, any environment, is best felt, not organized (or controlled).

That thought is kinda important because complexity, to the everyday worker, isn’t about chaos or stability or any management guru word, its about competing demands and the tension between meeting status quo demands and opportunistic demands WITHIN time demands.  Reconciling this is tough because most people make it a binary choice and the natural arc of business behavior is status quo because of a pressure to produce consistent and reliable outcomes. I believe it was Dewey who suggested people, in general, tend to formulate our beliefs in terms of “either–or”, between which alternatives we recognize no intermediate possibilities. Just like algorithms, which choose only in X or Y choicemaking, we tend to strive for clarity to such an extent we will make things simplistic, i.e., a highly probable assessment becomes a 100% choice and 100% invested <when probability and choice or not equal in truth>. Circling back to sensing or feeling patterns, this means we need to avoid either/or binary choicemaking so that we can ride patterns rather than control patterns.

 

structure influences behavior is a central principle underlying systems thinking

complex systems resist behavior change

the active energy in an organization is people

a process is only good, and efficient, as the market is built to serve. if the market changes, the process may still generate positive results, but it will no longer be efficient and will continue to decay in its effectiveness.

Anyway. I am not a big believer in social system design, more in trying to understand systems dynamics, but ignoring the fact that all systems, including social, HAVE a design and therefore can be ‘re-designed’ (in some form or fashion) would be naïve. Systems exist everywhere. Systems influence everything we do.  The idea of a social system implies that relationships between its parts strongly influence human behavior. To put the matter more bluntly, a social system implies that people act partially as cogs in a social and economic machine. In other words, people play roles demanded by pressures of the whole system. This idea is a bit uncomfortable because at its core it suggests people aren’t totally free to make their own decisions. That said. Suffice it to say all social systems have some ‘design’ features (or have actually been designed) which, tying back to Hanzi, means people, as social constructs, are designed by social systems.

Yup. The structure of the system will define behaviors. I say that because one cannot blame individuals for most failures, but rather the system itself. Yet. We tend to highlight the accountability of ‘the individual’ in some fairly unhealthy ways within business. Circling back to Freinacht, the entire idea of individual or collective is outdated in today’s world. Cluetrain Manifesto called it ‘the hyperlinked organization’ and the reality is “I am parts of you, you are parts of me, and the whole is a malleable mix of parts of all of us – even those we interact with outside the internal system within the business.” Business and our little personal circles of existence are simply a system within a system, or of the system, and people are systems in and of themselves. That’s today’s world. I imagine I make that point to suggest gamification (which I dislike anyway) of business tends to seek out ‘individual motivations’ when in reality all gamification does is create less than unifying aspects within an organization (when business, in general, while not seeking unity, should seek unifying systems). Gamification, or many of the silly leadership tactics, are attempts to untangle complexity into manageable units. That’s a less-than-useful approach. The intertwined nature of complexity means one shouldn’t be seeking untangle anything, but rather seek to get them to develop TOGETHER to create new evolutions of the system. It isn’t about shedding things, but rather creating things. My point, I imagine, is complexity does not exist to be solved, but rather developed. That thought, in particular, is counter to what society encourages us to do.

Lastly.

We need to deal with this. Remember earlier I suggested we are social constructs. If we do not deal with it, we, well, stop constructing <and that is bad>. This isn’t some theoretical mumbo jumbo issue I am sharing. We need to deal with it because people will be increasingly squeezed in a complex world. Squeezed? What I mean by that is the world is not going to become any less demanding with regard to ‘results’ or outcomes and the world is not going to become any less complex and overwhelming. In fact. They will both likely become more. Under the pressure of time and demand for ‘do something/decide something’ our behaviors will inevitably arc toward the simplistic on our bad, most overwhelmed, days (and simplicity on a good day). In our inability to navigate the multidimensional abstraction of each moment/situation/event/decision/etc., we will lean in on what we believe is our true ability – intuitive behavior. Uh oh. “Believe” as an ability is a misnomer. In a complex world 99% of us suck at intuitive behavior <heck, most of the time all of our intuition is dubious at best> and actually simply grasp the closest key we can find to unlock the door to get the hell out of the complex hallway we seem stuck in. The truth, the reality, is that even the most time-constrained decisions demand some mental grind. If we don’t, then even at our best, we will always remain a step or two behind not only the world but behind any semblance of a sane world. But here is where it gets, well, bad. As the world becomes increasingly complex and we become increasingly overwhelmed and under increasing pressure to ‘do something’, there will always be someone peddling ‘simplicity’ or some tool/tactic to ease us through that situation. Uhm. Easy does not equal what is best for us <see the endless apps claiming to streamline our interactions with the world only to divert our attention from some pretty important things>. Streamlining is more likely to strip away the important than to strip away the unimportant. We need to expand our abilities in order to expand the space we need to navigate as well as to simply expand space so we stop getting squeezed. And maybe that is the most important point. Look. Complexity has a nasty habit of making us feel like we are being squeezed – even when we are not. Gaining the ability to expand space is actually improving reality and, well, an improved reality is a reality more readily navigated. This can be done and we need to shed the defeatist attitude which arcs our mindsets into the space of being ‘overwhelmed’ versus ‘whelmed’. It is within that space in which we may not completely shed the constraints of complexity, but we can certainly push out on the boundaries to give us some space to breathe a bit. And, well, I imagine that’s the key to navigating complexity – space to breathe. No quadrant, no theory, no management guru, will give you any tool better than space to breathe. Complexity CAN be suffocating so the simple action of breathing is the path to navigation. Ponder.

—-

What a culture values is what it does and what it produces.

Culture is often simply a system of production. To the extent it exists as a healthy entity – it produces what it values.

—-

Culture people talk about culture, systems people talk about systems and humancentric people talk about humans. We need to stop this. If you seek to talk about one, talk about all. Culture is what people do, not what you tell them to do, and systems are a reflection of people’s behaviors and intents and productivity is the outcome of all working together. So, if your productivity sucks stop looking for a “thing” and recognize it is a result of ‘things.’

That said.

Systems.

Systems are persistent buggers. In fact, it is not unusual the persistence of a system is due solely to the existing mindsets, the language, the accepted ‘terms of agreement’ of how it works and should be worked, or, basically, what people consistently (almost as a default) think about it. This persists, the power/construct dynamics, as long as the terms of that agreement appear and feel favorable and the system thrives <or ‘works’>. As soon as the terms falter it begins to effect how people think about it and the system can become dysfunctional <or less functional than it was>. This persistency is also self-induced by the relationship of the system, people and productivity. Systems naturally deviate to the mean constantly dampening any deviations. In basic terms what this means is that systems naturally arc to existing productivity and discourages changes people may make to the system. Yes. Once a system is in place, and works, it is institutional gravity.

That said. It is fairly obvious that changes in terms of thinking affecting the system are rarely advanced by direct means especially if the system is working.

** note: “working”: working has a wide spectrum from ‘dysfunctional but productive’ to ‘functionally smooth’ and most business is comfortable with the range as long as KPIs and goals are met.

As with most systems, and human thinking, changes in attitudes are often inspired by unplanned events. That said.  Existing circumstances create environments/contexts which encourage, or discourage, listening/learning and sometimes, if done thoughtfully, we can bend circumstances in certain ways. But this is a tricky issue because ‘circumstances’ can be quite indirect in their influence as well as many can look unrelated to the future objective in the present.

Which leads me to the fact these vague relationships between cause and effect can often encourage people to think the system, itself, is something in and of itself. In other words, people don’t see themselves as within, and of, the system, but rather more often a victim, or beneficiary, of the system. This could be nothing further from the truth. People are the system and the only changes that can occur TO a system are created by people within, and interacting, with the system. Any one person can affect a system. Circling back to the beginning of this thought. If the persistence of the system is due to people (attitudes), it would behoove us to encourage people to think they are the system and, as David Amerland stated in Intentional, “attitudes are the lubricants which enable us to navigate complexity.”

Because once attitudinally people see themselves as systems influencers they will almost demand to have a better understanding of the systems roots, the things underpinning what makes it work, and doesn’t (it’s the way to isolate variants as well as possible leverage points). It also helps people understand the roles of people interacting with the system. The latter is important because cooperation is what optimizes systems and even speeds improvement.

Cooperation.

Cooperation absolutely needs some attitude agreements to be effective, but in the end cooperation is about effective connections and connectivity. Effective connections create mini frameworks for thinking and doing, probabilities and possibilities, risk and return. These mini frameworks (systems within a system) frame what is an exception and what is not so that there can be, or the possibility of, effective navigation of situations. To optimize the connections, they mustn’t be constrained by rules, but rather principles. Therefore, all the data and information input get assessed not just as ‘data’, but also through a principles lens. This lens constructs a criterion to be applied to what can, or cannot, be done with the data. This, in turn, standardizes responses and decisions within a framework, but not limit the responses and decisions to some “plug ‘n play” lowest common denominator. It also permits some space to accommodate some fairly high levels of uncertainty and still make progress (make decisions).

Criterion.

While principles provide some boundaries the natural temptation within any system (as noted in my first points) is to maintain the system if ‘it works’ <even if ‘works’ is suboptimal>. So, part of the criteria people need to assume is the ability to identify the parameters that matter (every business has things that make them successful) and blow the rest of the shit up. It’s an ongoing version of creative destruction in which you destruct something to create and create to grow in terms of impact. To be clear. Anyone can blow shit up, the true test of blowing shit up is destroying, or destruction, TO create. In other words. destruct paradigms, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, mindsets, even the way things have always been done, in order to effectively set yourself apart from where you were before. Criterion is based on blowing shit up with a purpose in mind.

People.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out everything I have spoken of, even the system, revolves around people. I say that because while people are the system, they can simultaneously be a victim of a system. As noted earlier, systems are gravity and, at its worst, entropy. When you go into the details of most situations you will rarely find bad, ignorant, people, but rather find systems that have failed or are just bad or have just settled into a status quo mediocrity. Its easy to claim people are lazy or complacent or ‘sheep’ <following the crowd>, but more often than not people are constantly sifting through everything they are seeing and hearing and encountering — slowly but surely building up their own self <or, in a negative sense, tearing their own self down>. From a business perspective it is a sense of productivity. i.e., attitudes and behaviors that create the productivity that contributes to the system and is of the system.

I end there because if you want to change the system, once again, you need to address people and their attitudes. Productivity, 99% of the time, is a function of how each person sees how they can contribute to that productivity and, yes, people become what they ‘see’ <envision>. This is actually part of culture and I feel a need to point out that if you don’t like your culture you should probably begin with how the people see, attitudinally, their role in the systems of productivity. Here is what I do know. Systems, people, culture and productivity are inextricably linked and speaking of one without the others is, well, counterproductive.

========

sourcing:

this draft has lurked in my ‘draft fodder’ folder for quite some time and in using what i had written there I feel like there are a couple of points in this said by someone else. I do not want to take credit for something I did not think of <or maybe would have written that way> but i do not know who to credit. that said. the whole is mine, some parts inspired by someone else.

===========

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

–

Eleanor Roosevelt

======

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

Iyanla Vanzant

=========

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

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

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

3 reasons:

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

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

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

Is it lack of trust in people?

Is it a leadership ego thing?

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

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

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

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

Veronica Roth

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

This is a valid, and important, topic.

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

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

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

Stowe Boyd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The life so short, the craft so long to learn.”

Hippocrates

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

“Ninety percent of paid work is time-wasting crap. The world gets by on the other ten.”

John Derbyshire

We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism

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

How many times have we sat back and said “I can do that job”?

Now. To be clear. I am going to talk about this from a business-to-business perspective and not the corner of the bar-to-‘some job’ perspective because from the corner of the bar, after a couple of beers, any of us can do any job better than the person who is currently doing it.

This is an “I have been in the workplace, I feel like I have had some success and … well … shit … I can do that job” perspective.

OK. I am chuckling a little, c’mon, let’s face it, I don’t care who you are and where you have worked, you have eyed what another person is doing and thought you could do it. At some point, if you have had some success, all jobs start having some commodity-like characteristics which tease you into believing shifting from one to another just isn’t that difficult.

Ok. To be fair. I have never lacked in business confidence. I do not believe there is a business problem that cannot be solved and I also believe <with some realistic pragmatic goggles on> that there is not a problem I cannot solve if I hunker down and get all the information I need. This can make me aggravating to work with on occasion because, well, I make no apologies for “how I may repair things”.

But that shouldn’t be confused with believing I can do any job.

Ok.

Yeah.

I admit.

I am certainly guilty at points in my career where I have certainly thought “I could do that job” over a wide array of responsibilities and unrelated industries.

** Note. I rarely thought I could do it better … just that I could do it.

……….. my MBA at Wake Forest experience ………..

I would say that my MBA experience, a great experience with great professors at Wake Forest, encouraged me to think this way. It was a case study program which inherently encouraged thinking skills over black & white discipline skills. I tend to believe a good MBA program insures you know enough about a specific discipline to be dangerous if you overestimate your own knowledge, but effective enough to be able to understand the discipline to apply it in a general management scope.

Now.

In general, I think this attitude, on the positive side, permits you to make the leaps you have to make to jump into new jobs, new responsibilities and new positions.

In general, I think this attitude, on the negative side, can make you overlook some skills other people have as well as … at its worst … can put you in positions in which you will fail in a spectacular fashion.

I imagine as someone gets promoted, as I did, every step up showed me that there was a shitload I didn’t know overall, as well as about the responsibilities of a specific job, but at the same time it also continuously reinforced that I could “do that job.”

Success in business is a double edged sword.

Conversely.

………. what you know versus what you do not know ………

As someone gets promoted they also can see that some people got their jobs not because they necessarily had the experience or skills for the job, but simply because they had the appearance they could do the job.

You watched as these people invested gobs of energy trying to “fake it until they actually make it” or, worse, they realized they were in over their heads and invested even more energy simply maintaining a facade of bullshit to hide their hollowness.

I would also note that given your experience on the last thing I just shared that also encourages someone to believe they could, well, “do that job.”

The higher I got and the broader my experiences, my sense of “I cannot really do that job” increased with regard toward the jobs I really shouldn’t do. It didn’t diminish my sense of ability to handle increased responsibility, it simply made me more reflective of other skill sets and the reality of certain jobs.

To be clear. There is a certain group of people who never reach this realization. They tend to be either sociopaths or oblivious narcissists, but they do exist.

Anyway. My real realization on this topic came when I reached a general management position <and did some consulting>.

It was there that I recognized jobs are like icebergs. 90% of a job you never see until you actually do the job. And to successfully do the part you don’t see needs a couple of things beyond the obvious ‘I need to be competent with regard to the specific skill itself’ aspect:

Attitude alignment

source: Tom Graves, Services and Disservices

This attitude goes way beyond the simplistic “I can do the job.” This attitude is more with regard to what you are actually good at.

As I have stated before I am more a renovator than a builder.  That is a mindset. My attitude is just put me in a room with all the puzzle pieces and I can rearrange them, maybe polish off a couple, maybe smooth out some edges that no longer fit well and put a different puzzle together that works better than the one that exists.

And then there are people who say ‘I envision a puzzle and build the pieces.”

Those are two different attitudes that, certainly, have some overlap but also, certainly, drive a different type of style and ability to succeed in one type of job versus another type of job. I believe many people are successful in their jobs, and new jobs, because they have the proper insight into themselves and position themselves well to take advantage of this insight.

I would also add that a leader who can see within a person’s ‘skill set’ to recognize this attitude will also be the type who can hire incredibly effectively. Not all leaders and hirers can. Some simply see the façade and surface abilities and believe they are easily transferable and hire them believing anyone can do the job if they have that appearance of a type of surface skill set.

The less-than-obvious skill set

… example of under the radar understanding (Juran Institute) …

Each skill, each specialty, has layers to its depth & breadth. Let’s say this is the “art” of the skill <I sometimes refer to it as “the shadow of your skill”>.

When you are a junior person you are demanded day in and day out to craft your pragmatic ‘non-artistic’ skills. You learn how to screw screws into holes efficiently and hammer nails into their proper places effectively.

As you gain seniority you are demanded to start incorporating the art aspects of your craft. I like to explain this as you have to learn to be more of an architect of your department, skill and specialty. By the way, not everyone can do his and not every department head is good at this and it tends to start filtering out those who move on to the next level … general management.

And if you move up even more into general management you are demanded to gain some skills in the “art” of combining all the skills into the overall progress of a company beyond the simplistic “are each department doing their fricking job.”

Ponder this.

In general the biggest difference between thinking you can do a job and actually being able to do the job is your less than obvious skill set. For example … I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a conference room with a CFO who has displayed a skill set that made me think “shit, this company is lucky to have them” not because they knew all the accounting mumbo jumbo, but because they knew how to wield account skills in ways that  the company benefited beyond accounting.

Pick your C-level title and I would say the same thing.

At the corner of the bar you have no clue whether you have this ‘less than obvious skill set’ and if you actually have the experience you may only have a sense of whether this skill set exists. This is an intangible, however, 90% of the time this intangible arises from some relevant experience <maybe not within that specific discipline but a discipline nonetheless> … so your experience does matter.

So.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, as a business guy I know you cannot do a job simply because you say “I can do that job” and that experience really does matter and that simply because you believe something … <sigh> … does not make it so.

I will say that I have learned this lesson the hard way and it permits me to be able to call a bullshitter a bullshitter and to be able to point out that some roles & responsibilities dictate at least some relevant experience in order to be effective & efficient. Just because you think you can “do that job” does not mean you can actually “do that job.” It takes some self-awareness to know that.

The lack of self-awareness has a ripple effect.

In a bar your lack of self-awareness can create a range of responses – some chuckles, out right laughter of disbelief and maybe even some aggravation if it inches into what some of the people actually do sitting at the table.

In a business your lack of self-awareness can create some real business repercussions. Not only may you be out of your depth, but you may actually start making some poor hires who are also out of their depth and that kind of shit gathers negative momentum <down the slippery slope of less-than-competent results>.

In business you get fired for that shit.

In business that kind of shit gets the entire business in trouble.

Anyway. Not everyone can do a job. That’s the message of the day.

====

“There’s always a strange feeling you get when you come across one particular line by chance.

It feels somehow significant.

That’s irrational of course, but humans are irrational creatures.

Even the sturdiest, most down-to-earth chap will turn pale if he opens a book at random and sees the words PREPARE TO MEET THY DEATH. “

Mark Forsyth

======

Survival is a great motivator.

Suffice it to say there is pretty much nothing like feeling like ‘prepare to meet thy death’ is imminent to create a sense of urgency in your actions. I believe this is true in your personal life as well as in your business life.

But.

Let’s be clear.

Up until that “death scenario” point most of us swing back & forth between a general sense of lack of urgency and just getting all the shit done you need to get done <no urgency nor laziness just doing and checking shit off your list>.

It is a fairly practical approach to approaching Life <and business life>.

Looking at Life objectively, Life is almost always a balance of pacing yourself so that you don’t burn out <and have the energy when you actually do need it> and a sense of urgency to ‘do’ when the situation dictates.

And, yet … we almost seem irrational when it comes to this balance. We run, and run, and run and then all of a sudden schedule some forced ‘stop’ under the guise of ‘re-energizing’ or recharging our batteries.

This is kind of nuts.

This actually implies we can control what we face and when we face it.

Let me explain what I really mean.

Well.

Even the sturdiest, most down-to-earth chap will turn pale if he opens a book at random and sees the words PREPARE TO MEET THY DEATH.

So let’s say your idea of balance is a simple “go” or “stop” — either 100% of one or 100% of the other.

So let’s say you have been running and running and running with your planned “stop” imminent.

Uh oh.

Life stands in front of you with some situation and places the words is ‘prepare to meet thy death’ squarely in front of you.

You pale.

Shit.

We all pale in  moment like that.

It is ‘survival time.’ What many crappy bosses flippantly call “an all hands on deck” moment.

Well.

You are fucked.

Just when you need the energy the most you are most likely at your most depleted.

Suffice it to say the ‘100% stop or go’ Life strategy is not the most practical or efficient living Life model. And, yet, that is exactly the model most of us use.

Our reason <excuse>?

This is what Life demands of us.

Well.

I could argue that Life may certainly pressure us to live life this way, but it certainly doesn’t demand us to live it this way.

We get lots of choices in Life and one of them is how we live it.

Even with all the “survive must do’s” we get a lot of room on how we conduct our lives.

Death or survival moments reminds us of this. It is in these moments in which our survival mode kicks in, i.e., “I am not prepared to meet my death … if at all possible”.

Most of us figure we may as well go out fighting … hence the urgency.

“Better it is to die as a soldier since die we must.

And though the man who dies hath pain – to all his house accrues praise and pride. “

Euripedes

Now.

I will admit.

I hated the false ‘prepare to meet thy death’ moments a shitload of managers create in business.

Well. I really believe most of them do not create them, but rather they simply cannot discern between a true “meet thy death” scenario versus a “a calculated action is called for here.”

In addition.

I admit.

I found it incredibly frustrating to have a “prepare to meet thy death” scenario rear its monstrous head and any and all resources became available. Not because I begrudged the resources needed to meet the situation, but because months before you had asked for the same resources <maybe even a lesser degree> and, if invested then <as asked>, this particular ‘prepare to meet thy death’ scenario most likely would have never occurred.

But that is why I said what I said upfront — most of us grind our way through life, business & personal, with a general lack of urgency. The uncomfortable truth is that creating urgency without a ‘prepare to meet thy death’ situation is difficult. And because it is difficult and because there is a mostly lack of urgency general attitude, managers almost get trained to inspire urgency with ‘death-like scenarios. This is the truly evil business version of “false sense of urgency.”

It is a mind numbingly stupid situation we have created for ourselves.

I, personally as a manager, do not know if I was particularly good at heading off ‘prepare for thy death’ situations and I don’t know if I was particularly good at recognizing real ‘prepare to meet thy death’ scenarios <because sometimes they actually can be slightly sneaky>, but I do tend to believe I erred on the side of treating almost all scenarios initially as ‘non urgent’ believing more often than not if we didn’t run around like chickens with our heads cut off and didn’t invest a shitload of extra resources we could most likely handle it fairly efficiently.

My only proof to back up what I just wrote?

I am not dead.

Regardless.

I do wish more of us, in Life and in business, could cut back on the “go 100%” and “stop 100%” interval living. I don’t think it is particularly healthy nor particularly effective in the long run.

Death comes to all of us soon enough … no reason to seek it out.

===

“You try to be greedy when others are fearful.

And you try to be fearful when others are greedy.”

Warren Buffett

===

Well. I have been involved in several “stop spending money on those things because it is a waste of money” and “stop parsing out money in nickels & dimes and spend some hundred dollar bills for gods sake” business discussions throughout my career.

Suffice it to say, one of the most challenging aspects of being in business is managing money and how & when you spend your money.

That said. This discussion rears its ugliest head when … uh oh … you can see you are running out of money.

Let me be clear. Businesses rarely actually run out of money completely. More often than not it is “I don’t have enough money to spend after “x” date.”

This is called ‘spending over time’ budgeting.

This is called ‘wrong way to budget.’

Budgeting should always be based on ‘spend money to make money’ running parallel to the unfortunate business truth  that “you actually have to spend money to make money.”

** note: when I say spend money to make money I am not just referring to direct marketing or simple ’cause & effect’ advertising, but rather even if your objective is brand awareness your ultimate objective is to sell shit, i.e., having everyone know you and not buy anything is a non-business model.

I am tempted to refer to my ‘no formula’ post here because I believe every business has an edge just as they <assuming it is actually a good idea> always have an opportunity or opportunities. Using formulas when budgeting expenditures typically does not translate to edges, maximizing the edge nor offer real solutions to drive & create business. Formulas tend to say what has worked in the past which doesn’t often offer real solutions when discussing ‘we are going to run out of money.’

Suffice it to say that when budgets get limited <or you can see a zero balance on the horizon> and when a business comes to grips with the fact it is going to run out of money there are some hard choices to make.

The easy choice? Stretch it out and hope <the business is maintained or some additional funds come your way>. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out hoping is never a good strategy.

The difficult choice? How do I spend it now <or within a specific window of time> to drive up awareness/sales/connections so that I make an impact.

While it sounds flippant to say you have to spend money to make money and it is even more difficult to explain “there is something worse than not having any more money to spend.”

Uhm. What is worse?

Spending the money you did have … poorly.

There may be nothing worse in business than wasting money. And I don’t mean on frivolous expenditures <which is wasteful & stupid> or on ‘legacy programs’ <which is usually wasteful or at minimum ‘less than efficient’>, but actual well intended planning and wasting the money in doing so.

That said. The most common poor budgeting strategy is time based.

“If I don’t budget wisely I will use up my money by <insert some date>.”

Well. That is actually “how can I spread my money out for as long as I can” budgeting. I don’t have enough time to list how many things are wrong, and will go wrong, spending your money this way.

Basically you run the risk of spreading yourself so thin you don’t make any impact which defeats the purpose of spending money.

The purpose of spending money in business? <just as a reminder>

To make money.

But, remember, you have to pull the trigger on spending – having money does you no good if you do not actually spend it. A business should demand money spent to show how it creates money <some high falutin’ marketing experts will toss around “ROI” here>.

In startups it is to receive additional funding.

In some businesses it is that your budget is based on % of sales.

In other businesses it is simply that the business has some financial objective <sales, profit, widgets, etc.> and you are spending to meet and/or exceed it.

And while everyone in business knows this, for some reason, time takes on an extraordinarily high importance in planning. It becomes “I have 12 months to use this money” rather than “how do I spend the money to make the most money.”

Yes.

Sometimes those things coincide.

But more often than not, under the scrutiny of truth, they do not.

I got very lucky early in my career in that I was mentored and worked with some excellent ‘difficult money decision’ business people.

For example. An early difficult money decision.

It was a national brand with a long purchase cycle product <think maybe once every two years for the bulk of their purchasers>and a pretty high seasonal purchase skew where a high % of sales occurred in a three month period and a budget that didn’t support an annual national effort.

The senior brand manager decided to split the country into thirds and only provide significant support to one of the thirds each year <rolling through the nation over a three year period and then starting over>.

<note: there were some promotions and store support aspects and a couple of national cable events to maintain the other regional thirds while the other third’s effort was in place>

Yes. The initial presentation to senior management and sales was harrowing & painful. But we got research onboard and we had a sales projection team and we showed everyone how this would actually increase sales on an annual basis and how much it would net out for the company at the end of the three years and how it would provide a national foundation from which the following three years should see even higher growth projections <it would actually flatten out in years 7, 8 & 9>.

Without going into details the decisions were made to sacrifice inefficient ‘throwing money away spending’ for more impactful ‘spend to make money’ strategy & tactics. It was creative spending to create sales.

Not popular. It looked risky.

And it worked – better than even planned.

From that point on in my career I continued to propose & debate some fairly unpopular expenditure strategies because I was focused on spending money to make money.

Look.

I am not suggesting this is easy. Money & budget decisions can make or break a career. Shit. They can make or break a business.

You get judged on how a budget is spent. And you should. But the judge is often harsh and the verdict can be damning. Because of that judgement, money, and the judgement that comes along with it, can make even the most even keeled business person … well … lose sight of reality and enter into some imaginative world in which dollars get spread out in a way that appears to cover time and yet, in its worst form, does nothing over time or, in its least harmful form, does less than it could over time.

To be clear. A spending over time planning process takes incredible imagination.

To be clear. A spending money to make money is all about reality <sometimes harsh>.

Again.

I am not suggesting this is easy.

It is incredibly hard to have a start up business spend all their discretionary money in a two month period <to get results to point to>.

It is incredibly hard to have a business stop doing all the small efforts for 6 months and do one bigger effort in month 7 & 8.

It is incredibly hard to have a business “go dark” for any stretch of time.

Deciding when to spend and what to spend and face the fact that your plan means you will have used up your money <so there is nothing to use in case it doesn’t work> is incredibly hard.

That said.

I am a business guy.

And I like to increase business <to maintain it>.

And I have a nasty habit of wanting to do the right thing and not the popular thing or the thing that would ‘make the sales people happy’ or ‘look good to the board.’

I like to spend money to make money.