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

THE CORPORATION OF THE FUTURE

the bigger the world economy, the more powerful will be the smaller players. This is because they are more flexible, faster and more economical – not burdened by layers of bureaucracy. Computers and telecommunications, now affordable to small companies, allow them to compete globally, and deregulation and globalization of financial markets gives them access to capital. Computer-driven technology also makes it possible to produce small runs of customized “higher value-added” products aimed at niche markets. Products produced “just in time” save money on inventory, and they can be quickly improved to compete with rapidly changing technology and tastes. Big companies will break up into confederations of small, entrepreneurial units. Small interacting firms will form themselves into temporary mosaics to be more adaptive and productive.

Alvin Toffler

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

In June 2013 I wrote an incredibly long piece called “inside out leadership” which shared a number of thoughts about the Future of Work. My belief was that after a misguided unhealthy focus on “the customer is king/queen” businesses would refocus their efforts on their “inside” <values, mission, culture, beliefs> in order to not only engage with right customers but also to create their value.

This portion, reprised, focuses on autonomy, distributed leadership and what I was calling ‘agile companies’ back in 2013.

Leadership in the future will be defined by the inside aspect of their businesses not just in producing things but rather knowledge capital, the values surrounding that knowledge application which create the character/personality value, and how it is all managed. Ah. Managed. Maybe better said getting an organization to collectively think in a common direction so that the individuals can be empowered to produce, think & do effectively.

This means organizational leadership will be defined by the ability to not respond to the consumer but rather respond, and adapt, to the organizational inputs & needs <boy, there is a paradigm shift>.

Oddly, this means organizational “power”, in general, will depend on taking advantage of the inevitable cracks in the process created by speed <agility> — not seamless surges forward.

To be clear. Agility will create cracks. The cracks created by the events that were not pre-programmed or foreseen.

I imagine this means true leadership partially depends partially on chance <finding the opportunities to lead within the moment> and managing human behavior in a desired fashion. This doesn’t mean everything is accidental. Not everything is random. In fact power is found within predictability as well as randomness. Organizational Power implies combining chance, necessity, continuity, chaos and order.

To me this means the new inside out leaders will have more of an opportunity to create the necessary attitudinal shift in business world than in recent years. Smaller organizations are easier to create attitudinal and behavioral direction than larger organizations which means creating lots of smaller pieces and parts coalescing in a common direction can affect a larger cultural shift in larger organizations. Conceptually, these different smaller business “teams” will shift traditional power away from manager-bureaucrats forcing the creation of a new type of leader.

That said. I believe organizational morality <or value beyond profit> will become the leadership cornerstone within an organization. While morality and virtue are developed over time <via repeated decisions to choose what is right and to forego what is wrong> which typically means there is no quick fix to any organizational morality problems … lots of smaller pieces can be redirected in the here and now.

Today’s’ inside out leader faces a variety of challenges. I will speak to what I consider the two biggest:

–          Embracing fragmented knowledge while empowering it through  organizational ‘tribes’

–          Discerning between desire for speed and need for speed

inside out leader: Embracing fragmented knowledge while empowering it through ‘organizational tribes‘ <or teams>

There are two portions to this challenge – contradictory but compatible.

Individualism empowered by access to knowledge and organizational tribes embedded within organizations.

First.

Tribes. I didn’t coin this term and in fact Toffler may have used it in 1990 <Godin certainly has>. I have mixed feeling with the term. It exhibits a stronger cultural aspect than simply suggesting the younger generation of employees cluster into groups of likeminded people but it also doesn’t not encourage thoughts of openness/porous/shifting teams.

What I do like is it embraces the communal aspect of being comfortable in ‘tribes’ within a larger organization <organizations are made up of a number of tribes>. Not unlike the Iroquois nation there are various tribes co-existing under a common charter. Each with separate cultural nuances and rituals but clearly aligned on a bigger purpose.

I began there because today’s leader grew up under the ‘dog eat dog’, ‘big fish eat little fish’ and ‘kill or be killed’ every person for themselves organizational upward movement mentality.

Remember I shared these Toffler words earlier in the post:

“Big companies will break up into confederations of small, entrepreneurial units. Small interacting firms will form themselves into temporary mosaics to be more adaptive and productive.”

I would note Toffler didn’t recognize the cultural shift <more of a community/tribal character> but rather focused solely on the power shift <knowledge wealth>. That said. As the two connect <a cultural shift and a business power shift> the words he shared become even more powerful … and meaningful to a new inside out leader.

These smaller units are tribes within an organization <call them a ‘small team’ if you dislike tribe>.

Each with its own ‘power’ to be managed by a leader savvy enough to move pieces seamlessly and have the ability to empower disparate thoughts, and tribes, into an aligned organization. The new inside out leader will need to recognize the balance between managing individuals and managing teams <with tribal cultures>. Neither a one-size-fit –all mentality or a one-by-one management mentality will work and be successful. It will be about empowering tribe without having tribal war and permitting the natural team leaders to arise from the culture.

Second.

Fragmented knowledge <individualized empowerment through knowledge> A truth. Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. The truly revolutionary aspect of knowledge wealth, and the internet, is that it can be grasped by weak & poor as well as strong & wealthy which makes it a continuing threat to the powerful, even as they try and use it to enhance their own power.

Toffler said this:

Bureaucracy is also a ways of groupings “facts”. A firm neatly cut into department according to function, market, region, or products is after all a collection of cubbyholes in which specialized information and personal experience are stored.  The vaunted “rationality” of bureaucracy goes out the window. Power, always a factor, now replaces reason as the basis for decision. The power structure based on control of information was clear, therefore: While specialists controlled the cubbyholes, managers controlled the channels.”

Reading this also explains why every leader in a hierarchy is tempted <if not actually desirable of> to control the quantity, quality, and distribution of knowledge within his or her domain.

The internet has created a power shift by taking it from solely under those with legal or formal position and towards those with the ability to absorb & use knowledge.

It became a command/control leader’s headache that knowledge could slink into any office space and anyone smart enough to use it could become smarter than the person they reported to. It is easy to see that this organization fragmentation driven by real/actual knowledge could easily become chaos unless leaders begin showcasing a different ability than maybe we have valued up until today.

This means today’s leaders need to be assimilators of fragments.

They need to encourage empowered individuals and tribes to accumulate knowledge and then redirecting or gathering disparate pieces of knowledge into new forms in which the organizations, and ultimately, the tribes benefit from. The control of knowledge is the crux of an organization’s struggle for power, and more importantly, effectiveness. It is also then a leader’s biggest challenge in tomorrow’s businesses.

Compounding the issue is that the hyper speed in today’s world is making facts obsolete faster.

Therefore knowledge built upon certain facts becomes less durable. This has 2 key impacts:

–              truth is fleeting <and decision making has small windows of opportunity>

–              business has become more abstract <as knowledge streams non stop into and within an organization>.

Which now leads me to discuss speed.

inside out leader: Discerning between desire for speed and need for speed

Inevitably speed kills <leadership power, decision-making, quality, sense of teamwork, etc.>.

Economics is now all accelerated <even if it isn’t really … we incessantly talk about it as if it is>. And all this accelerated pressure <speed> also shifts power by putting stress, and inevitably undermining, the fixed, bureaucratic chain of command.

Now <taking a step back>.

While everyone talks about a faster world today I would like to point out business has always had a love affair with speed. I would like to remind everyone that the second phase of the industrial revolution was focused on breaking apart production processes <and behavior associated> into the smallest portions with the intent to isolate and shrinking time to the most efficient pace possible.

I point that out because we have always desired speed. But we do not necessarily NEED speed. Speed is not only an addictive objective but an elusive one … the more you get the more you want.

I believe the new inside out leader will learn how to slow organizations down. They will need to be able to discern the difference between desire and need.

I don’t mean make them slow … but rather simply slow them down.

There are a variety of ways to do so but I would suggest the best, and easiest, is to embed the core purpose or vision of the organization within each employee.

Organizations will slow to think, and assess, only to speed up even faster. Only leaders can empower organizations to do this.

In conclusion.

Therefore this will be a new kind of leader stressing the central importance of character and virtue in a culture … focusing everyone on the basics … decency, doing the right thing, cooperation and that actions always have long-term consequences and doing it all as possible.

This changes decision-making from “if it makes money it is good” to “how does this fit within our purpose/direction?” will inevitably lead to smarter decisions and sometimes even adapted decisions <on the ground> all meeting a common purpose. It slows down the organization to think slightly but less so over time as ‘right thing’ becomes more & more obvious organizationally.

Outside in kind of worked because it not only generated money/revenue but in general a happier consumer who felt important <who doesn’t like that?>. But it also worked because this knowledge power created a newer faster ‘responder’ organization which permitted leaders to be lazier. They could build careers based only on responding and not foresight & consistency and makes gobs of money.

But.

 “If its profitable do it” mentality is not an effective business management style because it doesn’t breed the organizational cohesiveness to balance against the individual freedom.

Conversely, “If it feels good do it” mentality is not an effective business management style unless grounded in some character/virtue.

Inside out leadership organizations will encourage individuality and individual freedom in the business decision making because it will also encourage individuals grounded in a vision based on character, virtue & organizational integrity.

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

Telling teens they are stupid is, well, stupid. To be clear. We may not actually verbally tell teens they are stupid but we older folk have no qualms treating them like they are stupid … which … uhm … is actually telling them we think they are stupid.

Yeah.

One of the biggest problems adults have with regard to the generation gap is … well … themselves.

Adults.

Teens are not the problem in the generation gap. Shit. Young people are not the problem with any generation gap.

I do not care if we are speaking about teens, or young people in the workplace, the problem remains the same … we older folk tend to treat young people like they are stupid <but go home each night easing our minds by saying to ourselves “but I never told them they were stupid”> .

Now.

We can be clever in how we do so and sometimes we can even be fairly good at masking it … but you know what?

Young people are pretty frickin’ smart and young people are pretty frickin’ insightful and young people are pretty frickin’ aware of what is going on around them … and they can tell we think they are stupid even if the words coming out of our mouths sound something like “good idea … something we should be thinking about” <thought bubble above older person saying it says “how naïve, that’s stupid, ok, act like you actually care so they don’t think you think they are stupid …“>.

I am a little unsure of why we older people treat teenagers like they are stupid.

Do we feel it is a rite of passage that they must go thru? <like joining a fraternity or sorority?>.

Is it for self-esteem? <the more stupid we make them feel the smarter that we feel?>.

Is it out of fear? <that we will look stupid to them … or they will be smarter than us?>

Is it simply the inability to let go of the past? <”if they could only learn how and what we learned … – insert a nostalgic ‘sigh’ here …”>

All I know is that teens are not stupid.

Far from it.

As I wrote in my Beautiful Brains article the teen brain is capable of the same smart decision making as an adult … yes, as smart, it is just that their brain lining has not completely formed and therefore there is some sensory overload they have to navigate that older brains do not.

But.

This is not stupidity.

Look.

Here is what I know.

Tearing the young down serves no real purpose. In fact … I would like to point out that building up the young can serve a real purpose.

====

In 1968, psychologist Robert Rosenthal walked in to a primary school class and told the teacher that he would be conducting a Harvard aptitude test on all of the students to find out which ones were bloomers or spurters (anticipating that these students were brighter and showed more potential than the rest). By the end of the year, sure enough these students went on to have not only higher grades but also did better on their IQ tests, so what was the catch?

Rosenthal later revealed that the ‘Harvard’ tests conducted were completely bogus and the children dubbed bloomers and spurters were in fact chosen at random! Because the teachers had been given the notion that these children were brighter than the rest, they ended up engaging and challenging them more often seeing their mistakes as a learning experience and setting higher goals.

This confirmed the teachers suspicion that they were in fact much brighter than the rest.

====

When adults expect the young to do well and show intellectual growth, inevitably young people deliver the goods. On the other hand … when adults lower expectations it inevitably provides suitable excuses for ‘less than performance and growth’ and may in fact actually discourage growth in a variety of ways. If we continue treating young people like they are stupid <which is NOT the same as telling them they are stupid> and feeding them propaganda about their stupidity and failings naturally they’re going to start believing all the crap and almost start expecting stupidity like traits.

Older people are not granted some magical power that makes them non-stupid simply because they have become older. They are not some special breed of human that has no failings and no desire to maintain some power & control.

I tell you where teens are truly not stupid.

They do not buy the whole ‘positive thinking’ being shoved down their throats. They see firsthand that positive thinking alone doesn’t get you shit and they give you shit if you try and tell them it does <and is the key to their future success>. Most teens see very quickly that positive thinking is fine in theory, but really only helpful to those with more wealth and access to a decent education. For everyone else it is empty platitudes. They don’t want platitudes they want wisdom that hlps them get where they want to go.

Teens are not stupid.

Not stupid intellectually & smarts-wise nor with regard to Life.

While we think they can only see what is in front of them in the moment they are watching the larger world swirling around them with eyes wide open. They may not be in a rush to get into this crazy looking adult world <would we adults if we looked around?> but they clearly, and smartly, are assessing the world in front of them and around them.

Let me end by saying treating teenagers like they are stupid is … well … stupid.

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

“If all you can do is crawl, start crawling.”

—–

Rumi

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

That night the wind stirred in the forsythia bushes,

but it was a wrong one, blowing in the wrong direction.

That’s silly. How can there be a wrong direction?

‘It bloweth where it listeth,’ as you know, just as we do

————

John Ashbery

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

Ok.

One would think getting started would be one of the easiest things in the world to do.

One would be wrong.

Oddly, in business, and Life I imagine, getting started is one of the more challenging things we encounter.

We hem.

We haw.

We wax poetically.

We gnash our teeth.

We plan.

We plan some more.

We play out a zillion ‘what of scenarios.’

We make assignments; discuss the assignments and who will do the assignments.

We discuss the assignments again.

We debate whether the right people are assigned to assignments.

We reassign assignments and assign milestones, checklists and a variety of “we do not have confidence in you so we will set up a labyrinth of reporting checks & balances for you so that you know we do not have confidence in you.”

We wait until the wind blows in the right direction <even though no one is sure what the wrong direction is – to blows in whatever direction it blows, doesn’t it?>.

And then maybe, just maybe, we get started. We do all of this under the guise of insuring we get right whatever we start. Uhm. And we do this knowing full well, at least in business, the odds of something going wrong is near almost 100% on any given project.

I imagine a part of our hesitation to start is our ‘self’ trying to address the feeling of not being ‘expert enough’ right out of the starting blocks gate. That certainly holds a lot of people back from even trying because while you may not care about being the absolute best, or even being perfect, you don’t want to suck or look stupid <or, at minimum, we desire to limit our suckedness>.

To be clear.

Making a mistake is one thing.

Making a stupid mistake is another.

I wish business would more often view workflow as learning to ride a bike. Chances are you weren’t an expert your first try … crashing into shit, banging the crap out of yourself … but most times you persisted and not only figured it out but got pretty good at riding the frickin’ bike. The problem is that business looks at those crashes and bumps & bruises as “mistakes” <despite the fact they happen all the time and to everyone>.

Yeah.

That is something a shitload of people don’t talk about a lot. The fact that Businesses face failures and mistakes <of the system or process or of people> all the time.

Sometimes small, sometimes large … but all the time. Most mistakes stay under the radar and are relatively harmless. They are simply the cost of doing business … as humans.

However.

Far too often these failures come to the attention of some manager within the system and then THEY bring it to everyone’s attention. And therein lies the bigger business truth … discerning the type of error – exception or systematic.

That said. With regard to mistakes … business people tend to fall into one of two categories:

—

• Those who see the exception as systemic <a reflection of an ongoing issue>

• Those who see the exception as … well … an exception

—

I could argue that the difference between a good leader and a bad leader can be found by which category they fall into.

I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a business meeting watching people wring their hands and speculate on ‘why did this happen?” <that speculation is the business version of ‘misinformation’, in other words, ‘made up’ version of why things happened the way they did>.

But.

Once the misinformation is stripped away, the remaining question is, and always will be, how big is the mistake <not whether it was stupid or not or should it have been known or not>? And therein lies the flaw in how business tends to view these exceptions <mistakes> in today’s business world.

We seek some absurd level of perfection and in doing so we shut down in dealing with an exception with the incredibly stupid intent to break <or revisit> a well-designed, well working system <or even a well-trained, highly capable employee> to eliminate a … well … a stupid mistake <although almost no one can truly discern the difference between a stupid mistake, a mistake or simply a failure of the system itself>.

How does this apply to getting started?

This translates into having our head on a swivel before we even start. We look for trouble where there truly is none.

We find issues everywhere … even when it is simply a perception … or worse … a speculative ‘what if’ issue. And, maybe the worst, in all of our speculative modeling and ‘what if scenarios’ we absurdly end up applying the wrong remedy <or sometimes an unnecessary remedy> against something that is … uhm … speculative for god’s sake.

Look.

If you do some research on what slows people from getting started you will find one word over and over again – fear. It is often used simplistically and … well … inappropriately. I imagine if I stretch my thinking I could suggest fear is at the root of hesitation but I kind of think it is just most of us just do not want to suck. We truly do want to get shit right. Therefore it would seem gale wind almost everyone faces at the starting gate is one thing – the unknown. And this unknown is multi-dimensional in that there is a forward unknown <you may not have done this exact assignment or task before>, there is the general unknown <each task lives contextually in a different environment therefore even if you have done something once before the new context will invariably mean you will face something new> and the’ unknown’ unknowns <the random shit that inevitably occurs in the business world>.

Shit.

After reading that I don’t know why anyone actually starts anything.

Shit.

After reading that I don’t know why anyone would ‘go full speed’ but rather aim for some mediocrity as it would appear to be a safer more conservative path.

Oh.

But here is where the unknown really hits you hard in business – accountability. In business, regardless of whether you encounter knowns or unknowns, you are accountable.

Shit.

Double shit.

In business most time <I think> getting started is so hard because … well … you are accountable once you start <albeit … you will also be accountable if you don’t start … it just seems a little less risky>.

Accountability is a sonuvabitch. It is a sonuvabitch because even just one bad thing seems to create a crisis scenario.

And therein lies the biggest challenge.

Inevitable criticism occurs based on some perception of perfectionism <because the world around you almost absurdly always believe you should have foreseen the knowns AND unknowns>. It is an unfortunate truth that people expect certain things … and often these ‘certain things’ are unrealistic.

Look.

I am all for striving for perfection with an eye toward the implementation of an idea. But as with so many aspects of life, the key is striking a balance between opposing forces, each with its own set of pros and cons.

Too little perfectionism leads to a rapid but undesirable endpoint.

Too much perfectionism leads to analysis paralysis and no endpoint at all.

To be clear.

I believe Perfection is shit. It is shit because things just happen in business.

How often does this ‘happen’?

All.

The.

Frickin’.

Time.

I say that because it sure would encourage more people to get started if we embraced the truth that not everything, and not every mistake, is a crisis. And you know what? Even if you do face a crisis it has a familiar pattern.

You’re knocked off balance.

You learn.

You adapt.

Anyway.

The truth is that the wind, more often than not, blows in the wrong direction … even though … well … how can a wind blow in the wrong direction? My point on that so many times we wait on getting started until the wind is blowing in the right direction and … well … it never will.

The wind just blows.

And we just need to get started.

I will admit. I have always been a “let’s just go do shit and figure shit out as we go” type business person assuming I was surrounded with enough good smart talented people that we ran little risk of not figuring shit out.

That said.

I didn’t always sprint out of the blocks … I was also willing to crawl.  All I cared about was getting started.

I wish we taught that attitude more often.

Crawling can be as good as, and even more effective, sprinting and crawling is better than not moving at all.

====

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.

Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.

Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.

Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts.

Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.”

—

Calvin Coolidge

===

“The ability to convert ideas to things is the secret of outward success.”

–

Henry Ward Beecher

===

Some people are born with a silver spoon <with money & status in Life>.

Some people are born with some extraordinary talent <albeit all of us born with some talent for something>.

Well.

Let’s be clear.

Those “some people” are certainly guaranteed some aspect of ‘easy’ or ‘easier’ in their lives.

However.

Those ‘some people’ have no Life guarantees … they are not guaranteed greatness nor are they guaranteed to slide down into derelict status.

The only real guarantees in Life are not external driven but internal driven … the engine that makes Life go is … uhm … you.

And speaking of the ‘you engine’ … while persistency is a nice thought I would suggest participation is the key.

<1>    If you participate you have a chance of elevating whatever you have to offer.

<2>     If you persistently participate I guarantee, yes, guarantee, … you will elevate above the majority.

Now.

You not only have to participate externally <involve yourself in the game of Life> but you also have to actively participate, with some persistence, within yourself.  You have to start the engine and engage the gears and keep it well oiled and … well … you get the metaphor.  Suffice it to say that the engine, whatever ability & physical/mental/intellectual resources you have available to you do not run on their own.

You have to be actively nurturing.

You have to be persistently honing your talents.

At the basis for my belief in what I say is that ‘good’ deteriorates without nurturing … and, maybe worse, never even has a chance to blossom without participation.

At the basis for my belief is that talent is not eternal. It naturally diminishes.

Actively participate with whatever you got and you can improve upon talent with determination and persistence and you can elevate it to some extraordinary place so that when at some point you want to relax it starts slipping downwards to a place where others reside. But, oh shit … let it lie dormant and it diminishes. No participation and everything, even your talent, simply atrophies.

Okay.

Babbling aside let me share the simple formulas for participation, persistence, talent and derelicts.

–       If you have no talent <or don’t identify the talent you do have>, and are not persistent … you are not a derelict … you are most likely living in your parents basement writing a blog about conspiracies and wearing a tin foil hat.

–      If you have a passion, and persistently pursue that passion, and … well … you have no particular talent for what you are doggedly pursuing … you are a frustrated unhappy person.

<note … lets say you are persistent enough to do the 10,000 hour Gladwell ‘expert’ path … despite Gladwell’s bullshit theory  – https://brucemctague.com/limitations     –  you will most likely attain at least competency status … and will still be frustrated and unhappy because with all that persistency you don’t seek being ‘competent‘>.

–      If you have talent and are not persistent … well … you are a derelict <good education or not>.

Worse. You are one of the silly people who have wasted their talent.

–      If you have talent and persistently nurture and use that talent you will be successful.

<note … not all talent is created equal … you can have ‘good’ talent and someone can have ‘great’ talent and while it sucks … all things equal … if both are persistent and determined … great will always be better than good>.

–      If you have talent and passion and are persistent … you actually have a chance of being the best of the best … laughing at the derelicts who may have had the same talent <and a shitload of education> but no passion and nor persistent determination. You also have a shot, not guaranteed but a shot, to actually be better than someone who is talented and simply is persistently dogged about being good at their art/skill … but it is not driven by a passion to be the best.

Look.

Formulas aside … we all have some capability and if we are persistent enough when focused on that capability we will most likely do relatively well in life. Society throws us a bullshit curve ball suggesting that Life is some competition in which your talent & persistency should be measured against others.

What bullshit.

The competition resides within ourselves … not to be measured against anyone else.

And, frankly, while we as individuals are unique and original … most likely most of us have some capability or talent that falls into the “a shitload of people can do something pretty similar.”

Who cares if someone else can do it? You should just care that you can do it. And go do it <rather than sitting around wondering how you can be better than someone else or have some unique skill>.

===

“And while I’d like to lay claim to some extraordinary act of originality, truth is I’m only taking advantage of capabilities inherent in everyone.”

–

Mark Z Danielewski

===

Just remember.

The first, and last, step to avoid being a derelict is to realize that we each have a role that requires us to persistently attend to Life and our talent, we have to participate internally & externally and, lastly, assume responsibility for shaping our own future. Everyone has some talent the difference usually resides in who actually uses it & who does not.

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

“We should place confidence in our employee.

Confidence is the foundation of friendship.

If we give it, we will receive it.

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

—–

Harry Humphreys

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

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

—-

Agha Abedi

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

Well.

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

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

Unfortunately these two things are inextricably linked.

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

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

However.

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

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

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

Well. That is … it felt that way.

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

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

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

Let me be clear.

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

Yes.

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

All that said.

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

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

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

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

It is an unfortunate truth that:

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

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

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

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

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

I always watch how someone terminates an employee.

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

===========

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet response rather than standing up in person

Sniping from the sidelines is not leadership.

Period.

‘nuf said.

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

“You are talking crazy-person talk. Put your words in word places please.”

―

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

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

So.

I have relentlessly outlined Trump’s shortcomings from a business leadership standpoint.

I have relentlessly outlined Trump’s dubious relationship with the truth.

But today I turn to … well … not even his words … but how he talks.

I mean … well … who the hell talks like this?

“You know, I’m, like, a smart person.”

Uh huh.

Yeah.

Right.

I can honestly say that after having sat in thousands of business meetings, hundreds of conference rooms, dozens of boardrooms and currently trade personal emails with a wide range of business executives … the only person I have ever heard talk like this in a corporate business environment was eventually fired, monitored as he packed up his office, and escorted out of the office by security people.

He was a whack job.

And he talked like this.

All of this makes me begin to think Trump may actually … sigh … not telling us the truth when he says, “you know, I’m like a smart person.”

<note: “like” falls into the same speech pattern as the valley girl “whatever”>

The evidence continues to mount just from the shit he says that he is … well … just not smart.

I know dozens of business executives.

I know some incredibly smart people … maybe even some brilliant people.

I know some Ivy League graduates. Heck. I even know a Wharton person <Stanford people tend to be smarter & I have never met a non-smart Yale grad>.

And what I know is that none of these people talk like this.

I am no psychologist but I imagine the people who talk like this, and the ones who talk in first person <Ricky Henderson most likely being the most famous first person speaker — he called San Diego GM Kevin Towers and left the following message: “This is Rickey calling on behalf of Rickey. Rickey wants to play baseball.” > are people who are actually trying to persuade themselves that they are smart, have a good brain and know good words.

I admit when I hear Trump talk, well, I teeter between repeating Rex Tillerson’s reported thought on Trump — “fucking moron” – and simply shaking my head and saying “who the hell talks like this?”

All I know is that it seems more cartoon-like than President-like:

———————-

“I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person.”

‘I’m, like, a really smart person’

“I am also honored to have the greatest temperament that anybody has.”

“I would say basically we talked condolence.”

“I have one of the great memories of all time.”

“Nobody has more respect than I do. Nobody.”

“Well, I think the press makes me more uncivil than I am. You know – people don’t understand – I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person. You know, the fact is, I think, I really believe, I think the press creates a different image of Donald Trump than the real person.”

“… my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart

“My generals and my military, they have decision-making ability,”

“The response and recovery effort probably has never been seen for something like this. This is an island, surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water.”

After arriving in Israel from Saudi Arabia, Trump told his hosts: “We just got back from the Middle East.”

And, of course,

Trump to hurricane victims in Puerto Rico: “Have a good time”

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

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but, c’mon, no reasonable business person with any reasonable experience talks like this.

And we know that.

We do.

For some we knew this is not normal behavior earlier and for others it has been a grudging realization.

That said.

While we know no one should talk like this we have two problems in finally admitting it & dealing with it:

• The Slippery slope of excuses.

I have written several times about the “slippery slope of ‘just this once’.”

Just once becomes … well … okay just one more time … and then … oops … and you are well on your way on the slippery slope.

Suffice it to say a shitload of people are on the slippery slope with regard to making excuses for Trump.

And they know it.

And while those of us not on the slope can stand there and be righteous … I think it would behoove us to recognize that any slippery slope is a sonuvabitch to get off of.

We would be foolish to utter some simplistic tripe like “just do it” … just get off it.

We would be foolish because it is difficult — for everyone <if you have ever been on a slippery slope … despair, small lies, depression, etc. … you understand>.

Give someone a hand.

Help them.

Quit moralizing. Quit being righteous. Quit being holier than thou. Just fucking help them get off the slippery slope.

• Holding him accountable and our own accountability.

Oh … shit. Accountability is a two way street. No matter how heinous Trump may be on occasion if you hold him accountable … you will also be held accountable. What that means is it inevitably becomes a comparison of ‘failings.’

Well.

That sucked to type.

This means failings of character.

This means failings in judgement.

All of your own failings enter into the accountability fray <and I can guarantee he will bring them into the fray>.

If you make him accountable for his, you need to be accountable for yours <and do not be defensive in doing so>.

And this means dealing with a ‘counterpuncher’ who cannot discern the false equivalence between character failings and judgement and simply hammers away in his simplistic grade school rhetoric in a “if this, then that” pushback.

That sounds … well … horrible. But here’s what you have on your side.

Remember … who the hell talks like that?

Yeah. That’s his weak spot. Accountability does not need intellectualism so you can leave the high falutin’ words at home. Accountability of character & judgement is easy to articulate. It is easy because people really do know right from wrong and that how you win matters more than just winning … they just need to be reminded. And when they are reminded … people will hold him accountable.

Look.

No truly experienced normal business person talks like how Trump talks. They would get kicked out of any office in any viable business in America.

Trump has had 71 years, access to some of the finest America has to offer in education and the opportunity to learn more through experiences than most of us could ever dream for.

He has squandered them all.

Other than being able to bully his way through real estate transactions and make gobs of money off of licensing deals <which is simply being a grifter> he is hollow … hollow of even the most basic information a United States high school senior possesses.

If we cannot win against someone who talks like this, who is hollow … well … WTF … we don’t deserve to win.

Me? I would take him on anywhere at any time. He is hollow, I have seen hollow in business, and I know hollow cannot win.

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

Please remember:

Amazing takes time.

And legendary

Takes patience.

—–

Robin Sharma

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

“The Road goes ever on and on

Down from the door where it began.

Now far ahead the Road has gone,

And I must follow, if I can,

Pursuing it with eager feet,

Until it joins some larger way

Where many paths and errands meet.

And whither then? I cannot say.

Still round the corner there may wait,

A new road or a secret gate.”

–

Tolkein

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

So.

I just spoke with one of my favorite people, a good friend, who as I hung up the phone I thought “he is a multiple night success.”

Oh.

We hear a lot about overnight successes … probably too much. Too much <and misguided> because it is more likely that any successful person you know is a … well … multiple night success.

Now.

I am going to talk about a different type of multiple night here. Most times we talk about people who have toiled in one industry, honing their expertise until some point where they hit a tipping point and a window of opportunity at the exact time. Let’s call this version the ‘axis mundi’ of a hard worker.

The version I am speaking of today is more of a ‘not all who wander are lost’ type exploration of some roads … following each with eager feet hoping it would at some point join a ‘larger way.’ This version is more about spending nights searching for “what is it I am meant to do.”

That was my friend.

I say it that way because I may not know a nicer, more well-grounded from a character standpoint, hard working person. But character & working hard does not guarantee that you will advance in some career. I would argue, and have, that Life for many people is more like a ragged diagonal.

You make some good choices and make some bad choices.

You attach yourself to some people who further your progress and some others who don’t end up doing shit.

You sacrifice some passion for some paying of bills.

You take advantage of some opportunities and miss out on some others <we tend to do more of the latter than the former>.

And maybe worse?

The choices are often not particularly clear.

Life choices are more likely to be like the infamous “trolley ethical problem:”

—————

Imagine you are standing beside some tram tracks. In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won’t be able to move out of the way in time.

As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realise that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers.

However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues.

So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five?

This is the crux of the classic thought experiment known as the trolley dilemma, developed by philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967 and adapted by Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1985.

—————–

“The Trolley Problem” reminds us that, in fact, in Life there rarely a single correct answer, and all choices have consequences <some good and some bad>.

We have a tendency to perceive Life as a continuous string of days in which we make choices with a clear 360degree vision.

The reality is that string of days is more likely to have long periods of dense fog in which you are attempting to make choices where you can barely see your hand in front of your face.

People who believe success happens overnight are sadly mistaken.

People who believe success is always doing one thing, choosing one path, and sticking to it are sadly mistaken.

People who believe grinding and working away will insure you will not be overlooked <at some point> or not be taken for granted are sadly mistaken.

People who believe if you work hard enough there are no limitations <to progress or your own capabilities> are sadly mistaken.

People who believe they work REALLY hard they will automatically become exceptional at their craft and ‘experts’ … are sadly mistaken.

Suffice it to say … it is slightly naïve to believe if you work hard and be patient … well … it will all work itself out.

Suffice it to say … Life is relatively indifferent to what you want, destiny does not lend you a hand and the universe, in general, is a shitty guide.

Success takes a tremendous amount of effort.

Yeah … the impatient tend to progress faster … but also crash more often.

Success is more often a delicate balance of patience & impatience.

That said.

I have always balked at the “do what you are passionate” career advice. Only because in its simplistic guidance it suggests that your passion is always tied to what you are actually good at. This kind of advice kind of sucks because if you suck at what you are passionate about you are more likely to end up a bitter, slightly angry, poor individual than a successful one.

My suggestion is to do … well … something that is going to sound crappy.

Do what you love as a side project to your day job.  Doing what you want as a side project gives you opportunities to not only do something you want to do but it kind of ‘tests the market for what you have to offer.’

Obviously this also gives you some stability in that you are still paying bills.

I would note that this is exactly what my ‘multiple night success’ friend did.

All that said. Within the multiple nights effort there is a less discussed aspect.

Multiple night success more often than not depends on emotionally intelligence or … well … a strongly grounded character.

I couldn’t figure out exactly which of those phrases I wanted here.

The high falutin’ thought is emotional intelligence or emotional IQ … but I think it may be simpler than that.

Character.

Solid moral compass.

Integrity.

A persistent belief in the fact the good within will be able to deflect the majority of the bad Life throws at you.

It may have a tinge of unrealistic expectations but I would argue that the tinge is what colors what could appear to be a bleak landscape that their Life could appear like on occasion.

It also permits you to ground yourself in “I” and not in the eyes of “them.” It permits you so that no matter what other people are thinking or saying about you … well … your self-worth comes from within and your grounding permits you to ignore the noise.

Ok.

Let me try this.

Regardless of what people think of you at any particular moment, one thing is certain — you’re never as good or bad as they say you are. Knowing that your firm grasp of who you are makes it difficult for someone to say or do something that can dent your resilience & belief in character.

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

“all that is gold does not glitter,

Not all those who wander are lost;

The old that is strong does not wither,

Deep roots are not reached by the frost.”

–

Tolkein

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

Ok.

Not all those who wander are lost.

We spend gobs of time talking about career success and planning your future and all of that bullshit when the truth is that not everyone knows their “destination” from day one.

While we use that thought most often with our youth, I could argue that a shitload of people at any age takes time to figure out not only what you are good at but what makes you happy <which may not be the same thing> as well as what feeds your life vitality <the shit that makes waking up every morning fun>.

People wander.

Ok.

Not all do … but those who do tend to be some pretty interesting people <not necessarily the most successful … but interesting>.

I often use a clip from the old tv show Felicity to make this point:

<it is called “Ben’s big mom speech … and yes … I am actually using a clip from Felicity to make a point here … but YouTube doesn’t offer the actual clip because of licensing>

————————-

Ben:

“I’d like to think that people take a good look at me before they make up their minds… He’s this guy, he doesn’t know what he wants to be yet, and he doesn’t have a major yet, he’s got his dad as this dark character … has a drinking problem.

I’m not really selling myself here, am I? … Look I understand why you guys needed to see Felicity with someone like Noel… I mean, he’s obviously gonna make it. And probably long before, I mean, I figure out what I ‘m gonna be in my life. But I always remember this one thing my teacher said, which was, all these people she knew they had no idea what they were gonna do with their lives when they were twenty. So, chances are, I’m gonna turn out to be a pretty interesting guy.

—————————

It’s a great message.

The wanderer usually feels like there is something wrong with themselves. And there is an inherent danger in defending yourself in that in doing so you stop seeking an actual destination and revel in the seeming rebellion of wandering.

Regardless.

Wandering doesn’t mean you are lost. You may simply be discovering. And the discovery is needed to make whatever gold you have in you shine.

Time just needs to buff away the dullness a little.

Next.

Part B … “deep roots are not reached by frost.”

Well.

As I have said a bunch of times … “life can be a real motherfucker.” Not only can it be relatively indifferent to what you want it can actually actively make Life a real shitshow on occasion.

That said.

A wanderer needs deep roots just to survive some of the shit Life throws at you.

Deep roots is the shit that matters within.

Your passion.

Your soul.

Your character.

Your beliefs.

The kind of stuff that no matter how much someone may challenge or try to make sound silly … well … they are your deep roots.

Here is the tricky part.

I think deep roots takes time.

And I don’t mean cultural roots or family roots … I mean personal roots.

Unfortunately many of us don’t get deep <healthy> roots until you are older. It seems like life experience creates deep roots.

But.

It’s worth the wait.

Because even in the coldest and darkest of time … deep roots can never be touched by frost <which means they will grow again>.

And that is what has happened with my good friend. His roots have found a home and his paths have joined to meet at some destination which, after many years, is his new success.

Look.

I do not believe that journey is for the faint of heart and I do believe ‘wandering’ takes deep roots, resilience and a good healthy dose that good overcomes bad if you keep believing that.

But I would argue his journey has made his Life interesting … and him more interesting.

Sigh.

What you cannot see around the corner.

That new road.

Or that secret gate.

The unknown.

To me each step in life is driven on by curiosity and the joy of discovery. And then not settling with that discovery but rather pocketing it as a new experience and immediately stepping back out on the road seeking the next gate, door or errand …. ‘pursuing it with eager feet’ as it may be.

I do think it is helpful to remind ourselves that big is more often found in small than anywhere else … that there is always another gate or door … and that even the ‘least’ among us can actually be the ‘most’ for the health of a strong society.

Some people take more time to grow more into who and what you are … and some people need more doors & gates to grow into the place their deep roots belong.

And some people made of gold do not <obviously> glitter … and, yet, they find their personal pot of gold.

<well done DMan>

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

“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.”

—

Isaac Asimov

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

“So I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush when I say that you were warned about this man—and you ignored our warnings.

We were right; you were wrong.

The masses, it turns out, sometimes are asses.

Sometimes the people who actually pay close attention to politics know more than the disgruntled populists and nationalists who are willing to gamble on the future of this great republic—and on the reputation of a conservative philosophy that goes from Aristotle to Burke to Buckley—in order to boost a reality show host.

You elected your guy, and look where it got us.”

—

Matt Lewis <Republican Conservative>

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

Ok.

I probably get in more heated debates over Trump voters than almost any other topics discussed these days – with both Trump voters and non-Trump voters.

I even know why it happens … we generalize and we label.

And in generalizing we force a Trump voter to defend other Trump voters, who most likely voted for Trump for some other reason than the one they are defending, and the non Trump voter paints all Trump voters with the worst of the worst attributes <the truly deplorable aspects>.

This is crazy.

No.

This is stupid.

The majority of Americans don’t have a label attached to them other than “get up and go to work and get shit done” people.

People rarely self-identify as a CNN watcher or Fox watcher or MSNBC watcher … or a republican or democrat … or any fringe group when you meet them.

We apply the label on them … we generalize for them.

But most people are labeled by … well … community, family and what they do to earn a living every day.

Sure … elections force most of us to take some stand but most of us embrace that stand with some unease. We would rather be defined by what happens in our day and lives than by whom we elected to vote for.

Most of us have our own imperfections and flaws without having to explain, or be defined, by some imperfections and flaws of someone who we voted for.

Most of all the label stuff is crap.

And maybe what is worst about labels are they suggest most Americans have to be “x” or they are “y.” That is complete and utter bullshit.

I can be tough on immigration and still be compassionate.

I can have government les involved in healthcare and still make sure a safety net is available for all people.

I can increase my military budget without being some “hawk” who wants to drop bombs on everyone.

I guess my real point is that most Americans want it all and chafe when it is suggested they have to choose one thing or another. While TV pundits went out of their way to suggest this last election was a ‘binary choice’ the truth of the matter was that the decision on who to vote for was more likely a complex more-than-binary choice.

Which leads me to the Trump voters.

Up until now I have leaned heavily on the fabulous CBS News Nation Tracker Poll <CFM Strategic Communications panel survey> which outlined that the nation’s view of Donald Trump as President breaks down into four categories – Believers (22%), Conditionals (22%), Curious (21%) and Resisters (35%).

The first category are true believers who think Trump is on the right track. Conditionals generally support Trump, but may not approve of everything he does or says. The Curious are opponents, but could be swayed depending on Trump actions. Resisters see no hope in Trump and oppose him across the board.

But now there is a new piece of research out which breaks Trump voters into 5 groups which I will use to make my point again.

To summarize it I offer these 5 numbers to keep in mind:

American Preservationists (20%): 12 million people

• These are the core ‘always-Trumpers’ … this is also the group who think anti-white discrimination is a much more prevalent problem than is discrimination against any minority group <which is, realistically, false>

Staunch Conservatives (31%): 19 million people

• These are the core Republicans who would most likely vote for any Republican even if it was an alien

Anti-Elites (19%): 11 million people

• These have relatively cooler feelings toward Donald Trump and nearly half had favorable opinions of Clinton in 2012. This group shifted most dramatically, however, against Clinton by November 2016.

Free Marketeers (25%): 15 million people

• Small government fiscal conservatives, free traders, with moderate to liberal positions on immigration and race.

the Disengaged (5%): 3 million people

• This group does not know much about politics, but what they do know is they feel detached from institutions and elites and are skeptical of immigration.

USA population: 326.5 million people

USA adult 18+ population: est. 250 million people

<note: I used 60 million Trump votes to simplify my math and come up with people numbers>

The other thing I always keep in mind is that nowhere along the way, primary & general elections, has Trump ever won the popular vote. In the primaries Republicans voted in significant numbers for anyone but Trump <almost 2/3^rd of primary votes did not vote for Trump>. My point in all these numbers is that Trump voters are not just an American minority/splinter of the whole but a relatively small <but loud> group.

Regardless.

Here is the topline good news … I would estimate we have less than 20 million, my guess is maybe 15 million, truly deplorable people in the USA … say maybe 6% of adults. Here is the bad news … we tend to suggest those 6% are representative of all Trump voters <as well as all that is ignorant, deplorable and bad about USA>.

Anyway.

We screw up numbers in generalizations all the time.

Not all Trump voters voted for the same reason nor do they have similar issues.

It’s just like discussing “the 99%.”

The 99% are a mix of the wretched of the earth, the everyday schmucks who want to do the right thing and a fairly large group of upper middle class <doctors, university teachers, journalists, senior management, politicians>. It is the mixed bag of people who, without them, the 1% would cease to exist.

Lumping them all together in the 99% is almost suggesting that is America’s middle class which then suggests opportunity is equal to all <and the 1% should be everyone’s objective>.

Trump’s voters were a mixed bag of people with some good reasons to pull he lever for Trump and some bad reasons for pulling the lever for Trump.

Anyway.

I purposefully called this piece today “deplorables defined” to make a point. Of course not everyone who voted for Trump is deplorable … and Hillary never suggested such a thing. But … gosh … maybe we should have listened to her a little more closely … and maybe we should have listened to the entire speech … and maybe, just maybe, it is possible she was right:

——————

“I know there are only 60 days left to make our case — and don’t get complacent, don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he’s done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

“But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

—————-

Sigh.

Of course, none of us really did pay attention to it all <even the mainstream media which was supposedly all in her camp> and paid the price of not doing so by missing her statement about empathizing and working for better lives for those Trump supporters who aren’t scum-of-the-earth deplorable dumpster fire pieces of shit.

Would I have used the word “deplorable?”

No. probably not.

She probably should have been more specific and named them out, as the Alt-right, misogynists, white supremacist, KKK, and Nazis. But you know what? We are dancing on the head of a pin. ‘Some’ deplorables voted for Trump, ‘some’ deplorables still support trump and ‘some’ deplorables are irredeemable.

Ok.

Let me spend a moment more on ‘deplorable’.

While I, personally, would have not used the term with regard to some Trump voters I believe the only true mistake Clinton made was apologizing. She should have tripled down with clarifying & defining … and suggesting <in some way> we all have a deplorable ‘voice’ inside us whispering fears and untruths and … well … the bad shit we think about people who do not look like us.  And point out that Trump whispers, in a bombastic way, to our deplorable inside … and we shouldn’t permit him that victory <because Americans are better than that>.

By the way … I do believe that. And while there certainly are some truly deplorable people in the USA I would like to think 99% are redeemable not because they need to be redeemed but rather they need to understand they can ignore that voice inside and still get ahead and ‘win.’

In the end I offer two numbers.

15 and 30.

If you scour some of the more random assessment of the population and their views with regard to Trump you will find these two numbers <or close to them> constantly bubbling up.

15%.

This would be the % of people who would follow Trump like lemmings over the cliff. He could bomb Alabama and they would find a good reason he did it <note: these are not all deplorable people but deplorable people reside within this number>.

30%.

This would be the % of people who wouldn’t follow Trump if you told them you would win the lottery. He could apologize every day until the day he died and they would still find a reason to suggest he pissed on Mother Theresa’s grave.

Anyway.

I don’t know Trump nor do I wish to ever meet the man but if I could whisper these numbers into his head … I would. They reflect the precarious nature of his presidency <or his reelection>.

I am under no illusion that Trump truly has any desire to unite the country but the numbers reflect the fact America is not deplorable by nature and the bigger message opportunity, to inspire people, is to remind them of that.

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

Seth Meyers

—–

Yeah, “fair” is a word we talk about. We talk about “fair” when we talk about “even.” I feel as though “even” can sometimes lead to false equivalents, whereas “fair” is, is this how you’d like to be treated if somebody disagreed with you?

We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

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

Ok.

Today, in this world & in this environment, I could be having a discussion on some topic and make a statement and 99% of the time the other person will say <usually indignantly> “where did you hear that?” … and I could say “well, Albert Einstein said it” … and I can almost guarantee I will get the following question … “when did he say that?” … and if I said “well, he said it on <pick your poison … FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc>” … I can almost guarantee I will get a ‘lean-back-in-chair-moment combined with a sage “oh, he is biased.”

Yeah.

Albert Einstein.

Biased because he decided to say something smart but, unfortunately, on … well … some venue.

Suffice it to say that, lately, it seems like anyone you disagree with or anyone who espouses a different view than you is “biased.”

This is crazy.

And it gets crazier because the same people who are quick to brand some mainstream news venue as biased are the same ones to place blind faith on some random internet website espousing something they agree with.

Let’s be clear.

Professional journalists may slant their work toward their own views but non professionals, and opinion people, are biased.

The vast majority of websites and blogs out there are, for all intents and purposes, biased.

Placing those important nuances aside … everyone should assume a fact is a fact and a fact can be delivered in a variety of ways – slanted, biased, fair, straightforward, misused – but it still remains a fact.

Bias:

Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Most people would suggest that any site that only focuses on one side of an issue without giving the same amount of “unbiased” coverage to the other side is biased.

Fox News. Biased.

MSNBC. Biased.

The Nation. Biased.

Federalist. Biased.

Pravda. Biased.

Yep. All of them.

Biased.

I, personally, do not call them biased <at least their news programming/pieces … not their opinion programming/pieces>.

I would call them intellectually slanted toward a specific view but still factual & truthful journalism. For the most part, if it is not an opinion show, you will receive some facts to sift through.

Yeah.

Some of the stories they publish are great, helpful, and insightful.

Yeah.

Some of them are extremely one-sided.

And while this one-sidedness may be well intended all it really does is drive us into deeper separation and make the ‘bias gap’ seem deep & wide.

Here is where the real trouble begins.

If everything is biased … who offers the truth?

Who you view as biased I view as a purveyor of truth … well … where is there any place for truth between us?

We cannot afford to be in an information gathering world where we “take what resonates and leave the rest.” We cannot because what resonates isn’t always what is reality or truthful. It is actually more likely to simply fit your belief system.

Uh oh.

If it fits than what doesn’t fit is biased.

Once again.

This is crazy.

I tend to believe this is a reflection of a number of things all grounded in the inability to know who to trust <because if I accepted an expert as an expert then I would be able to accept an expert speaking truth I could believe as unbiased>. I tend to believe there is a strong strain of “anti-intellectualism” or maybe it is better called “a gut instinct opinion world” in which facts only confuse the issue <therefore shouldn’t be pursued> and rational thinking is actually ‘common sense.’

Sigh.

We live in a wacky world in which we have no experts, we trust no institutions to not have some nefarious intent and truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

We live in a wacky world in which articles by professional journalists, which are fact-based, are confused with op-eds <opinion & editorials> which is … uhm …  an opinion, a column, meaning it does not have to be unbiased, fair, or balanced.

We live in a wacky world in which the internet is like the wild west of information. There are minimal laws, minimal enforcers of laws and a shitload of people who are willing to have a dubious relationship with any law <and truth or proper use of facts>.

We live in a wacky world in which people have more access to an almost unlimited unfettered amount of information and they also have the freedom to contribute to that unfettered amount of information as they see fit.

We live in a wacky world where even the people who are allegedly so concerned with finding the truth circulate a shitload of bullshit.

Yeah.

It is a wacky world.

That being said, it is not wacky enough to simply discard good smart thoughtful factual information <some would call that “Truth”> under some wacky filter we apply to every mouthpiece which makes that mouthpiece conveniently “biased” so we have an excuse to disregard the information.

I believe we can find fair, even and biased wherever we may choose to look. I can find it on FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, BBC and almost every venue with professional journalism employees. It doesn’t mean they will not slant the information. It doesn’t mean they may conveniently leave a fact or two out.

But in this wacky world I cannot afford to discard everything and I, frankly, have no desire to just discard what doesn’t meet my current views.

I believe that each of us needs to take responsibility for detaching ourselves from what we want to be true, and get off our lazy asses to find out what actually is true … and stop using “biased” as a reason to not consider what was shared.

I will end where I began:

We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

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

“It’s more interesting to ask the question about America itself, not the America of Trump or the America of Obama, but what is today the appetite of the Americans, really, to have an active role in the world affairs?”

———–

French Ambassador Gérard Araud

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

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.”

―

Horton Hears a Who!

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

So.

I almost called this the shrinking of America.

What I mean by that is America is shrinking in the eyes of the world.

That said.

Let me begin by framing this from a business perspective.

Business leaders are responsible for the growth of their business on a number of dimensions not just $’s.

You can only hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but the company brand and image is suffering.

You can also only hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but the board views it as a poor long term strategy.

You can also hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but perceptions of your leadership are not very good.

But that’s business <and we assume anyone who rises to a business leadership position knows this … as they should>.

I say that because a business can grow in a variety of dimensions not just profit & sales … there is also strategy, positioning and leadership. And if people start to doubt your business on any of those dimensions it is kind of like a balloon … they become little pin pricks and your ‘balloon’ starts shrinking.

And that is what is happening to America from a global perspective.

Pinpricks in the American balloon.

The pinpricks are doubts … in leadership, reliability, consistency and … well … civility <note: I could have added intelligence but I will not>.

I am not making this up.

A Pew poll of 37 countries ranging from large to smaller shows attitudes toward the United States have collapsed since Trump took office. At the end of Obama’s presidency, 64% of people in these countries said they were confident in the US president. Today, that has fallen to 22%.

In addition. Opinions of America overall have fallen by 15 points.

This Pew study examined global attitudes toward America since Obama left office and Trump has assumed the leadership role. Suffice it to say … it is really tough reading for any American.

On all attitudes America is shrinking.

The only places in which Trump’s numbers rose versus Obama are … uhm … Russia <which rose a staggering 43 points, 11% to 54% confidence>and Israel.  And, I would note, that despite the common perception Obama was loathed by Israel, Obama’s confidence ratings varied from 49% to 71% during his administration as compared to Trump’s current 58%.

Just to drive a nail into this particular coffin a little deeper … if I were to pull Russia and Israel out of the study … uh oh … confidence in America would drop into the teens <gulp>.

6 months into a Trump presidency and the pace and the depth of the decline driven by Trump’s leadership, or lack thereof, is stunning. Trump’s belligerent style and immature substance is not only affecting his approval scores domestically … but also internationally. He currently wears the mantle of “shrinker in chief.”

Whether one believes in the accuracy of polling or not, and not many sane people doubt PewResearch> the consistency between domestic numbers and international numbers should make anyone and everyone take a moment and pause.

I could even argue the domestic numbers only look better than international numbers because Republicans are stubbornly hanging on to Trump despite having some serious doubts. If I were in the Trump White House I would be eyeing this Pew report and thinking “yikes, this is my floor here in the USA <22% or the teens>.”

We are shrinking.

And it is sad.

Now.

Trump supporters will flippantly suggest they don’t care about what other countries think about Trump & the USA because it just doesn’t matter.

Which leads me to my point <other than expressing some sadness> … a word to the wise <and even a word to the intellectual dwarfs>.

It does matter.

And it really matters if there is a lack of alignment between perception & reality as well as domestic attitudes & perceptions and international attitudes & perceptions.

That matters because alignment is what makes countries, and businesses, effective AND efficient. It eliminates the herky jerky of misunderstanding and the slowing inherent in having to overcome any negative aspects which could be obstacles.

Yes.

Alignment is important.

Any sane business leader knows that sustainable success is not found in some transaction or some event or even being viewed positively by some others <here & there>. They know success inevitably begins and ends in internal alignment.

Instead of promoting American leadership & unity, Trump is leaving a vacuum internally, domestically, by stubbornly gripping onto a minority view with regard to what people want and what is actually best for the country long term.

This gets exacerbated by the fact he is doing so within his own management team as well as within his ‘employees’ <the citizens … all … even the ones who did not vote for him and did not vote>.

In addition.

An “every man for himself” attitude doesn’t really encourage a positive transaction relationship but rather it encourages a sense of chaos … which leaves Trump and the US with fewer friends and less influence.

I have said it before and I will say it again … this is solvable. And it is solvable not through transactions but rather by … well … internal <domestic> alignment. Trump often argues that words don’t matter and behavior is more important.

Oftentimes this is true, however, words can often build the doorway through which skeptics & doubters can walk through to get a little closer to the alignment America needs to progress – economically and mentally.

If Trump were to triple down NOW on building unity domestically, it would go a long way to stopping the shrinking of America <note: but I seriously doubt something like this is within his DNA>.

Finally.

The deal.

Negotiating.

Or the art of the deal as a leader.

It seems his single-minded pursuit of individual challenges or countries does not translate to the complex politics of … well … the EU, China, Russia, the Arab & Muslim world, or anywhere.

As a result, the “best” dealmaker is starting to look like he cannot make a deal.

Sure.

He can complete some transactions <albeit they all seem to be about getting paid to arm the rest of the world with as many weapons as possible> but transactions are not ‘deals.’ NAFTA is a deal. The TPP was a deal. We have trade deals with people. These are not “let’s make a deal for this space” but rather a more complex web of multiple variants in which over time the variants will … well … vary and yet the ultimate outcome overall is positive.

That’s not his kind of deal.

And, frankly, that’s not the kind of ‘deal’ other countries truly desire.

But Trump’s dealing and his character are so intertwined it is almost like a Gordian knot.

That matters as we discuss shrinking.

PewResearch, who makes every attempt to be unemotional and unbiased, said this in their report:

Confidence in President Trump is influenced by reactions to both his policies and his character. With regard to the former, some of his signature policy initiatives are widely opposed around the globe.

Trump’s character is also a factor in how he is viewed abroad. In the eyes of most people surveyed around the world, the White House’s new occupant is arrogant, intolerant and even dangerous. Fewer believe he is charismatic, well-qualified or cares about ordinary people.

Look.

The truth remains that the US economy, just as it was with Obama, has remained mostly healthy and Trump has not to date significantly altered any signs of the health. The end of the Obama economic era and the start of the Trump economic era represent an ongoing good, not great, economy.

This is good.

But as I noted initially … economic success is just one dimension and while a powerful dimension you can only hold on to your position for so long if that is the only ‘positive benefit’ you are offering your organization as a leader.

Trump is a myopic bully and, just as with almost every bully, I worry America will remain large in physical stature but small in everything else.

In the end.

I brought up alignment and shrinking for a reason. Alignment is a double edged sword.

Positive alignment greases progress.

Negative alignment can suffocate and squeeze.

And that is my point on the current shrinking of America.

Poll numbers showcase directional negativity which is difficult to ignore … especially since the numbers reside in both domestic and international framing.

Call it perceptions or call it reality … I don’t care.

As long as it exists America will continue to shrink.

And ignore the most recent PewResearch at your own peril because it sure as shit looks like we are shrinking.