==========

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

—————

Abraham Lincoln

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

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

———–

Joseph B. Wirthlin

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

Ok.

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

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

Presidents don’t pick business winners and losers.

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

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

In fact.

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

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

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

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

First.

No business owner calls the employees sonofabitches.

If they do they get fired.

Second.

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

No one.

Third.

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

No one.

Fourth.

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

Uhm.

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

That’s the bottom line.

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

Do not spend you money on American business.

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

What an asshole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business as usual was interrupted.

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

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

In business words have repercussions.

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

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

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

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

You don’t pick winners and losers.

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

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

Basically.

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

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

Furious.

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

Very nervous.

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

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

“As a therapist, let me just say: almost every trauma survivor I’ve ever had has at some point said, ‘But I didn’t have it as bad as some people,’ and then talked about how other types of trauma are worse. Even my most-traumatized, most-abused, most psychologically-injured clients say this.

The ones who were cheated on, abandoned, and neglected say this.

The ones who were in dangerous accidents/disasters say this.

 The ones who were horrifyingly sexually abused say this.

The ones who were brutally beaten say this.

The ones who were psychologically tortured for decades say this.

What does that tell you?

That one of the typical side-effects of trauma is to make you believe that you are unworthy of care. Don’t buy into it, because it’s nonsense. It doesn’t matter if someone else had it ‘worse.’

Every person who experiences a trauma deserves to get the attention and care they need to heal from it.”

—

hobbitsaarebas

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

“It’s true, I suffer a great deal–but do I suffer well? That is the question.”

―

Thérèse de Lisieux

===

“… victimization is a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization.”

—-

sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning

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

Whew.

Believing you are unworthy of care.

I call this “victimhood backlash.”

Now.

This is different than feeling unworthy of love, respect or … well … unworthy of something or any of that type of thing.

In fact.

This is actually the exact opposite of a victim mentality.

This is when something truly bad has happened to you <you are a real victim of something> and you look around and say “whew, they are the real victims.” In a real sense this person then constructs an extremely viable narrative to suggest that while they are in a shithole … their shithole is nothing compared to some other people’s shithole.

This is not self deprecation … it is a sincere feeling that what you did or experienced was closer to ordinary rather than extraordinary.

But.

I say this unequivocally  … even if someone is shrugging off help or maybe even adamantly opposing the help … a hole is a hole and you need help getting out of holes.

Someone may not think they are worthy of care, or asking for help … but they need it.

Anyway.

I have two thoughts on this ‘believing unworthy of care’.

First.

A hole is a hole.

If you are in a hole, it is a hole.

I have written this before … a shithole is a shithole. We are not in the shithole comparison business. All shitholes are dark, deep and often don’t have a visible ladder to get out of the shithole.

To me?

Horrible is horrible.

A black hole is a black hole.

And while maybe not all holes and abysses are created equal … all seem equally deep, dark & shitty when in one.

This may not be literally true … but figuratively I tend to believe that is how we view it when encountering some shit Life gives us which places us into some dark hole.

Second.

I do not believe that victimhood is some cultural crisis <the sociologists I highlight upfront do suggest that>.

Yeah.

The things for which we can publicly accept the fact we were a victim of has certainly increased. This doesn’t mean more shit, and shitholes, have occurred … it is just that it is now more acceptable to admit them and address them.

Can this get out of whack? Sure.

But a long as someone isn’t creating a shithole and claiming being a victim then .. well … a shithoe is a shithole.

I would suggest that we want people who feel like they are n some shithole because they were a victim of something to speak out regardless of whether an everyday schmuck like me may look at them and say “c’mon, be real, that’s Life” and maybe we should be focusing on how to better address them when they speak out.

We need less pandering and more reality management.  We need less judgement and more dialogue.

We need to grow a dialogue culture. Rather than responding to comments or behaviors with less condemnation or judgement and more engagement to engage rather than repel <without increasing victim mentality but rather managing it>.

But we do not want anyone at anytime to believe that they are unworthy of care.

Anyway.

I can almost guarantee almost everyone will either slip into a hole or go crashing into a hole at some point in their Life.

And that person <which means, uhm, everyone> will need help getting out of it.

For if you permit someone to linger too long in the hole … well … the abyss will gaze into them. And inevitably find some dark corner in the mind that they will find a place to live, eat and breathe for years and years to come.

Just accept what I just said without shrugging or thinking “that’s some bad shit.”

<Most> Holes are fine in Life.

They are part of Life.

Regardless of whether the shithole is incredibly shitty or just basic shit they have the same intended conclusion — you just have to make sure you know how to get out of them.

Ah.

Which leads me back to the opening quote.

Someone who believes that they are unworthy of care.

I say that because you can spend a lot of time looking around at other shitholes thinking about how to get other people out of their shitholes … all the while ignoring your own shithole, avoiding finding a way out of our own shithole and, maybe the worst, if you gaze long enough into an abyss … anyone’s abyss … it will gaze into you.

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

“And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.”

 

–

<Beyond Good and Evil> Friedrich Nietzsche

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

Look.

I have had this debate a zillion times … the one where you discuss who has it worse.

Who is going through tougher times.

Who has actually gone through a tougher time.

Maybe even discussing a bad moment in life as horrible, but always discussing ‘horrible’ relative to other horribleness.

And while it is most likely true that, regardless of your situation, someone somewhere has it worse than you do … that thought only seems to offer some false comfort nor does it really offer any solutions.

To me … comparing bad situations is not only not very helpful but it also tends to suggest the wrong thing to me – “my suffering isn’t equal to your suffering.” Which tends to lead to “I don’t believe I am worthy of care.”

Bad. Wrong.

I do not believe we should be in the shithole comparison business.

A shit hole is a shithole and anyone in a shithole is just as worth of care as anyone else in a shithole.

===

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

——–

Morris Raphael Cohen

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

“Words without actions are the assassins of idealism.”

——

Herbert Hoover

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

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

———–

John Galsworthy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that’s how I think.

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

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

<nor will i buy the book>

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

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

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

How to inspire larger ideas and larger actions?

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

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

And you know what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting shit done means balancing overreach and under reach.

Balancing possibilities and pragmatism.

Balancing idealism and realism.

Balancing the practical and the hope.

Balancing what people think they want and what they need.

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

Anything less than that is oversimplification.

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

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

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

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

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

This is not cynical, this is … uhm … reality

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

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

They are what they are.

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

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

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

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

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

Not accepting that as a Life truth is foolish.

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

Lazy rhetoric and lazy thinking.

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

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

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

Well.

Be prepared. I almost always open with a quote but today I open with a sentence … a 198 word sentence written by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr <father of US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.>:

—————————

Many times, when I have got upon the cars, expecting to be magnetized into an hour or two of blissful reverie, my thoughts shaken up by the vibrations into all sorts of new and pleasing patterns, arranging themselves in curves and nodal points, like the grains of sand in Chladni’s famous experiment,—fresh ideas coming up to the surface, as the kernels do when a measure of corn is jolted in a farmer’s wagon,—all this without volition, the mechanical impulse alone keeping the thoughts in motion, as the mere act of carrying certain watches in the pocket keeps them wound up,—many times, I say, just as my brain was beginning to creep and hum with this delicious locomotive intoxication, some dear detestable friend, cordial, intelligent, social, radiant, has come up and sat down by me and opened a conversation which has broken my day-dream, unharnessed the flying horses that were whirling along my fancies and hitched on the old weary omnibus-team of every-day associations, fatigued my hearing and attention, exhausted my voice, and milked the breasts of my thought dry during the hour when they should have been filling themselves full of fresh juices.

——————————–

So.

When I read this sentence <read it several times in fact> I thought of “filling up” and “emptying out.”

Huh?

Oliver Sr. was no dumb shit. His brain was filled with more “kernels of knowledge sand” than most of us will ever be filled with. And, yet, he outlines how the knowledge works best when emptied of structured thinking and any specific destination but rather when “without volition” new thoughts are unharnessed by old learning rearranged.

Couple lessons in that:

• New thinking is almost always simply a new way of looking at something everybody already knows.

• In an age of instant gratification, smartphone access to any answer you would ever want and a belief that the fastest answer is the best answer it is good to remember that thinking is like baking. You have ingredients and you need to properly bake them to arrive at something special.

This isn’t to suggest that there is no hurry but rather you use the allotted time in the best possible way.

I worry more about the latter than I do the former in today’s world.

I worry about it because thinking is more often like what someone referred to Emerson’s writing as “a chaos full of shooting-stars, a jumble of creative forces.”

That is thinking.

Thinking doesn’t pretend to follow rules, enact some methodology or even use the words it is ‘supposed to use.’

—–

unharnessed the flying horses that were whirling along

my thoughts shaken up by the vibrations into all sorts of new and pleasing patterns, arranging themselves in curves and nodal points, like the grains of sand

fresh ideas coming up to the surface, as the kernels do when a measure of corn is jolted in a farmer’s wagon

—-

And more often than not, in an attempt to be more efficient in a time constrained world, we try and micro-structure our thinking.

It seems like as the world became more enlightened by mass media, structured education systems and “college for all” we have become … well … more sensible in our thinking.

Which brings me back to my opening sentence.

It breaks all the rules of not only how to write but how to think.

And, yet, it captures the essence of thinking … it certainly captures the magic of thinking … and, unfortunately to the thinking methodology Nazis, it certainly captures the practicality of freedom in thinking.

Our world today is strewn with catchy incorrect memes, rewritten history, faulty logic and misleading statistics all offered to us out of context.

The internet, while offering us a boundless offering of truth & facts, has only encouraged sloppy, lazy thinking.

It should be enlightening us but, far too often; it actually encourages some fairly absurd unenlightened thinking.

Thinking, and I mean real thinking, can cure this unenlightened cancer. The cancer is not social media or this absurd love of brevity … it is us and our thinking.

In thoughtful moments I tend to believe people know this. They know social media and smartphones and the internet is not the problem … it is us. Yeah. All those things make us susceptible to these wacky conspiracy theories, false statistics and alternative facts but they do not live unless we breathe life into them.

Look.

I do worry about thinking on occasion. Shit. I have even written about how I cried about thinking in today’s world.

I have a number of friends who send me memes and out of context quotes to make a point and ask me my view.

I probably send more time fact correct and making people aware of truth than I do sharing my own opinion. That worries me. in fact this is a direct quote from me:

======

But here is what really worries me.

If you, not a dumb guy by any stretch of the imagination, can truly believe even 75% of what you shared with me then what does the everyday schmuck believe?

That is what worries me.

=========

Thinking does take time and some space and … well … even some work <even if that work is to find empty space and not working>.

And, even then, the problem is that you can search the internet far and wide without finding a clear repudiation of some falsely stated, good sounding piece of untrue crap.

In fact.

If you do spend some time researching something you will more likely find a massive gap between public belief and expert knowledge.

There is often such a delusional gap between reality and “belief” it often seems absurd … and absurdly difficult to bridge the gap.

We need more thinking today than ever before. And, sadly, we need more thinking on simpler things than ever before.

Oliver Sr. was thinking on big things and big thoughts. And we need people like that.

What worries me is that in today’s world we need more people doing more thinking on the kernels of corn, the grains of sand and the horses themselves.

I worry about that because if we don’t have more people doing that kind of thinking all we will end up doing is rearranging unfortunately misguided untrue kernels of corn, fake grains of sand and unicorns not horses.

I imagine my real point today is that effective thinking is dependent upon tow things:

• insuring we have lots of “true grains” of sand in our heads <not alternative facts or falsehoods>

• insuring we have some time to properly jostle the kernels of corn <or grains of sand if you don’t want me to mix my metaphors> to rearrange them in new configurations

I don’t believe the world, society or any business wants us rearranging lies, fake and unicorns in order to form a better union.

===

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

——

Henry Kissinger

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

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

–

God (in Futurama)

===

Well.

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

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

Uhm.

But.

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

But.

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

People like reliability.

People like consistency.

People like a foundation of quiet competent leadership.

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

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

That said.

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

This is the ‘dance.’

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

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

“The price of greatness is responsibility.”

—–

Winston Churchill

=======

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

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

Now.

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

Aw heck.

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

—-

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

————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh.

This kind of suggests that greatness is a contradiction.

Let’s use Winston as an example.

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

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

All despite his ego.

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

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

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

Well.

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

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

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

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

In the end.

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

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

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

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

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

“More isn’t always better. Sometimes it’s just more.”

―

Barbara Benedek

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

“Our company? 

We have a change the world attitude. We don’t mind being disruptive as long as it is with the intent to create something new and better.  Smart disruption displaces the conventional and replaces it with an unconventional way to do things that actually meets what people want, need and expect. 

We call what we are doing ‘shaking the category etch a sketch.’ 

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.” 

—–

Bruce McTague

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

Ok.

I must get trapped in dozens of discussions & debates over innovative ideas, disruptive ideas and what is “new.” And thanks to Yale and some guy named Loewy  I have a tendency to toss around two phrases a shitload in the conversations — “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” and optimal newness.

<note: <a> ‘optimal newness’ is a relatively new phrase which i have appropriated to replace some of my less eloquent phrases saying the same thought, <b> I have used ‘most advanced yet acceptable’ as a thought for years as it was offered to us by  ‘the father of industrial design’, Loewy, in the 1950’s but more recently highlighted in an Atlantic article>

I pull these phrases out of my thought bag of tricks because invariably these “let’s talk about new ideas” conversations get squeezed between two extreme bookends and the phrases help to unsqueeze the thinking.

One bookend is the highly caffeinated entrepreneurial ‘disruptors’ who are convinced they have an idea that no one has ever seen or done before and want to present it as “the coolest thing you have never seen before.”

The other bookend is the pragmatic risk averse “change agent” who proudly presents the same widget which was once painted taupe and is now painted flat black as “new, improved and contemporary.”

By the way. These bookends actually have names: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new. This conversational tug of war is a reflection of the basic human truth that we love, and actively seek, familiarity <safeness>… uhm … as well as the thrill of discovery <risk>.

We do this with … well … everything.

Therefore we are almost always torn, slightly or a lot, by these two opposing thoughts. This is the thinking that led that guy, Loewy, to articulate his industrial design attitude as “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.”

He believed to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising.

This thought is important. It is important because while an idea can, conservatively, die 101 different ways 2 of the most likely ways to die is <a> you have a surprising, possibly truly disruptive idea, and your inclination it is to make it look spectacularly surprisingly different – therefore scaring the shit out of most people and they do not attach themselves to it, and <b> you have a spectacularly unspectacular useful idea and … well … you undersell it because it is difficult to articulate beyond the familiarity – therefore boring everyone into believing it is not worthy of a ‘new’ label. And before you beat the crap out of me on all of this The Atlantic article offers a nice proof point to ponder:

In 2014, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Northeastern University wanted to know exactly what sorts of proposals were most likely to win funding from prestigious institutions such as the National Institutes of Health—safely familiar proposals, or extremely novel ones?

They prepared about 150 research proposals and gave each one a novelty score. Then they recruited 142 world-class scientists to evaluate the projects. The most-novel proposals got the worst ratings. Exceedingly familiar proposals fared a bit better, but they still received low scores. “Everyone dislikes novelty,” Karim Lakhani, a co-author, explained to me, and “experts tend to be overcritical of proposals in their own domain.” The highest evaluation scores went to submissions that were deemed slightly new.

I shared this research to show that even the dullest deserves some surprise & novelty while “new” has some limits when trying to communicate the pragmatic <both of which are important with regard to … well … almost everything>.

That said. I think the real point here is that you need to find the sweet spot … that there is an “optimal newness” for ideas or, well, how about we call it “advanced yet acceptable”.

So why do we always have this struggle? Well … in business the challenge seems to be the business world has put an incredibly high value on <perceived> innovation & disruption and a lesser, if not nonexistent, value on <real> functionality & highly pragmatic thinking & ideas. This out of whack valuation steers some business people to some extremely shallow misguided thinking and hollow ideation.

Nowhere is this found more often than when discussing “disruptive ideas” and innovation which are the two “phases that pay” when we talk about new.

We use these words to imply this idea will change the world <and more often than not it is just a nice idea which will make an impact in its own little universe … assuming it doesn’t die a quick death>, therefore, it becomes the only type of idea we should pay attention to.

In other words … if it’s not disruptive, its crap.

Well.

That’s crap (bullshit). The truth is that many, if not most, of the most foundational ‘innovative’ or new ideas the world has ever seen tend to be the most overlooked, unseen to the naked eye, unobtrusive ‘disruptors’ we have ever interacted with.

The truth is that most effective useful disruptive ideas are almost always leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior as well a ‘things’> from which your idea will end up tapping into. I say that with two thoughts in mind:

• something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … nothing.

• smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

Ponder them <not too much because it will make your head hurt> … but everyone should keep these two thoughts in mind whenever seeking optimal newness – you cannot create something from nothing.

Anyway. In today’s business world “new” and “disruptive” are inextricably linked. This is a shame.

It does not benefit either concept or idea to do this. New is … well … new. No more and no less <although there are certainly degrees of new>.

Disruption actually means ‘to challenge.’ And, despite what many want you to believe, disruption is actually about creating something … not simply to destroy something. I would actually suggest that disruption, at its core, is about changing the way you think – creating new ways to think about something.

Think about it. Conventions train us to do the conventional. I say that because accepted beliefs <conventional thinking>, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking.

Therefore, constructing new accepted beliefs may not mean destroying the old, the familiar, but rather creating a new way of thinking and creating a new familiar. All this becomes important as you consider what would be “optimal newness.” Because as we wander aimlessly between the hyperbole of disruptive and new … well … many new ideas are simply a fresh derivative of ‘familiarity.’

I say this to make a point.

Optimal newness, 95% of the time, leverages some familiarity … something existing … and it is grounded in some reality that people can grasp.

Therein lies a truth “optimal newness” never loses sight of. The biggest ideas with the biggest end impact on our lives typically have gained some momentum not because they were some huge ‘new, never seen before’ idea but rather because the innovated on some conventional thinking and shifted us into some different way of thinking about something.

Maybe we should think about it this way … if today’s innovators have been successful … have seen farther than others before … it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants … well … maybe stood on the shoulders of something that already existed.

Regardless. I read somewhere in one of those bullshit pop psychology pieces that confident people are better than most people at seeking out small victories … they don’t necessarily need “big” ideas or maniacally pursue being called a ‘disruptor’ as they pursue success. I tend to believe confidence can reside in comfort within ‘optimal newness’ and the confident business people know that newness doesn’t have to be splashy nor hyperbole driven but rather surprising functionality.

And maybe that is the larger point with regard to ‘optimal newness’ and ‘most advanced yet acceptable.’ In business these days we seem to either believe “go big or go home” and therefore either overplay our hand or completely underplay it <because it isn’t big enough>. Just think about that last thought as you ponder the last dozen good ideas you have seen die before your eyes.

I will end by stating, unequivocally, that this is easier to write about then to put into practice.

Shit.

Finding the ‘optimal’ anything in business is hard. All I know is that every time I have this discussion with a sales group talking about selling, an innovations group talking about articulating an innovation or even a CEO about ‘organizational change management’, I get a lot of cocked heads  as they think about it a little.

That’s got to count for something.

  ==============

“Maybe growing up was really nothing more than growing away: from your old life, from your old self, from all those things that kept you tethered to your past.”

—-

Jennifer E. Smith

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

Forever is a long, long time.

And has a way of changing things.

—-

The Fox and the Hound

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

Ok.

Forever.

Forever is about time and it isn’t. What I mean is we associate forever with time and, yet, it is timeless so time … in a slightly absurd twist of truth … is almost irrelevant to ‘forever.’

But.

We always associate Forever with a long, long time.

And time is a funny thing.

It can ebb and flow all within a finite amount of time.

It can increase speed and decrease speed and yet remain an extremely identifiable finite amount of time.

It can take years of asking and creating questions … and a second to answer everything.

Forever is all of that and more.

That said.

While I think we get better with the concept of forever as we get older I am fairly sure we don’t really realize how vast forever is.

And what I mean by that is it seemingly contains everything and, yet, all of a sudden … we realize that we will not last forever and it runs the risk of containing … uh oh … nothing.

Yeah.

Basically, being the type of outcome oriented people we are; we actually try and apply some measurement to forever.

Yeah.

But think about it.

Forever is everything until it is nothing.

Forever is hope until it is emptied of everything … and hope no longer exists.

All that said.

I, personally, wish the word didn’t exist. To me it captures everything bad about false hope and, therefore, provides a nice well wrapped excuse for us to not face what Emerson suggests “God offers to every mind its choice between truth & repose. Take which you please – you can never have both.”

The whole idea of forever far too often tethers us to our past or inertia. Neither of which is very productive.

While I do believe growing up, for those who do actually grow up, is more like growing away … or unlearning shit … I also believe growing up, more often than not, is growing away from the belief in forever.

In other words … we grow away from infiniteness and grow closer to an understanding of finiteness.

I actually don’t think that is a bad thing. It most likely actually helps us live Life a little better and maybe even manage Life choices and behavior a little better.

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

“Let me tell you a truth … no matter what choice you make, it doesn’t define you.

Not forever.

People can make bad choices and change their minds and hearts and do good things later; just as people can make good choices and then turn around and walk a bad path. No choice we make lasts our whole life. If there’s ever a choice you’ve made that you no longer agree with, you can make another choice.”

–

Jonathan Maberry

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

Look.

Life is a mixed bag of contradictory events, outcomes and feelings all of which can careen through your Life with wild abandon like a bunch of bulls in your china shop.

This means in assessing forever it really isn’t like assessing a balance sheet but more like trying to judge a handful of marbles rolling around a tilting table.

The good news on that is, more often than not, bad shit is not indicative of Life Armageddon and good shit is not indicative of future ongoing bliss.

Forever is simply an endless array of moments crashing into each other and away from each other in which present moments look bigger than they truly are and then … well …than we have another moment.

And another.

And, well, another.

Until we don’t have any moments left.

And in the end we most likely look back at all the moments in what we deemed our forever and if we are lucky, and did things the best we could whenever we could, we most likely see that our forever is filled with somethings that don’t look too bad.

I sometimes believe this is a lesson learned of experience.

That said.

Forever is an empty concept.

It can only be filled if you actively fill it with something. you have to choose between truth or repose … you cannot have both.

Anyway.

Here is what I do know about forever.

It doesn’t really exist to an everyday schmuck like me and my Life. It only exists in the minds of astrophysicist and … well … smart intellectual types in some theoretical way.

Time is finite in everyday Life and that reality smacks us in the face each and every day. It is a reality in which we tend to define forever in terms of minutes not eons.

Sure.

Everyday schmucks like me love the idea of forever <on some things>… and hate the idea of forever <on some things> … and constantly misapply the idea of forever to our time and, yet, all the while do our best to fucking kill the concept of forever in tiny scraps of time … choice by choice.

But I would argue until … well … my forever is done … that thinking about anything in terms of forever is a fool’s errand. It is foolish because if you think you have forever you will most likely remain tethered to the past and, well, forever is most likely best explored by growing up by growing away.

But … that’s me.

——————–

“I wish I had the courage not to fight and doubt everything… I wish, just once, I could say, ‘This. This is good enough. Just because I choose it.”

―

Chuck Palahniuk

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

So.

Let me very clear upfront … while this piece will be on Russian involvement in the 2016 USA presidential election I am not discussing, nor suggesting, collusion or coordination of efforts between anything I will outline and the Trump campaign. The analysis of that will be done by greater minds than mine.

This piece is about what Russia did and the effect on the 2016 election. Let’s call this an analysis of the Russian marketing campaign to support Donald J Trump.

I have the fortune to exchange ideas, on occasion, with some highly qualified experts and several foreign policy thought leaders and all of them continuously grapple not with what Russia did but more so with how to talk about it. Which leads me to the horrible position that I find myself in <and I imagine any professional communications person with any significant experience is in>.

We know that Russia most likely influenced enough voters to have elected Donald J Trump.

There. I said it. The one sentence which seems to be on the lips of almost any credible thinking individual but never seems to be spoken. This has nothing to do whether I believe he is qualified or not … this is just a conclusion that anyone who knows shit about marketing & advertising has arrived at if they look at the campaign.

<note: this is easily provable … hire MillwardBrown, pay them $100k, give them all the voting information and attitude poll information and they could do a county comparison … they do this for marketing & advertising campaigns all the time to measure effectiveness>

Anyway. It took me a while to get there because the overarching narrative ‘cover’ for the election is, and always has been, “Russia never changed a vote or made someone do anything.” While every reasonable marketing person would debate the seeming lack of understanding in the concept of ‘ability to affect behavior through marketing’, it was easier for people to generally focus on the truth Russia never got into actual voting machines and changed votes.

This means it just took me a lot longer to get to the truth that many of my peers had already arrived at.

…. I did not want to know this ………..

Whew.

The truth. Russia changed votes and voting behavior.

What knowledge to have. What a wretched position to be in … to be a professional communications person and a believer in America democracy … that is the horrible position many of us find ourselves in.

Why?

Well. The majority of us know, if we view it through a professional lens, that the Russians communications <propaganda> effort most likely put Donald J Trump into the presidency … and we don’t know what to do and say about it.

Why?

Think about the outcome of this presentation. The main one would be that many people would believe Donald J was not a legitimate president or legitimately elected. And that would be … well … horrible. Horrible for the country, horrible for democracy and … well … just horrible. I, personally, feel a little less horrible because I still believe … 100% believe … and have written extensively that if the Clinton campaign had done a couple of things and maybe thought thru a couple of things they would have won.

All that said.

I could open this presentation by suggesting the Clinton campaign ran a slightly-less-than-effective-as-it-could-have marketing campaign but I could also showcase how the Trump campaign, in and of itself, did not do enough to win.

——- Clint Watts analysis of Russia Social Media Plan ——-

I would then have to point out that an overlaid Russian marketing campaign <which diminished Clinton to suppress behavior in her favor> made the difference at the finish line. As noted earlier, someone like MillwardBrown could prove/disprove this in ‘two notes or less.’

Anyway … before anyone argues with that premise please remember that with 136 million votes cast, Trump’s victory came down to a razor-thin edge of only 77,744 votes across three states: Pennsylvania (44,292 votes), Wisconsin (22,748 votes), and Michigan (10,704 votes) – all less than .7% difference between the two candidates … a less than full Michigan stadium … and, if reversed, Clinton would be our president.

The 2016 election result is really all about the fact that there was just enough movement in just the right places, with just enough increased turnout from just the right groups, to get Trump the electoral votes he needed to win.

Regardless. While I know from career experience advertising affects attitudes & behavior the rest, block by block, of the truth fell into place. But what make this conclusion truly horrible is … well … what do you do with that knowledge? It does no good to suggest the current president is illegitimate. None. Zero.

Look.

I am not making this up.

While others look at this in some vague “what could they do to make someone vote a certain way” I look at this from a marketing perspective where I have sat in meeting after meeting analyzing marketing campaigns and tactics to watch what levers <tactics & messages>have been pulled to get someone to do something they may not have considered doing before. Given that knowledge here were the 4 blocks which gt me there:

The first ‘block’ was, of course, when the US government warned us that 17 intelligence agencies <or 4 with others tentatively agreeing, or whatever number you want depending on your cynicism but suffice it to say the US Intelligence agencies are aligned in some form or fashion> agreed Russia was fucking within our election. They didn’t go into details but rather just said “they, they are doing this” <and did some behind the scenes stuff to deflect some things they did>.

I would also note that this is where “marketing doesn’t affect my behavior’ attitudes started digging in within the general population’s mindset … “I made my own decision” is what they say <naively I may add>.

The second ‘block’ occurred on November 6^th 2016 in an article called “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy” .

——————-

… in addition to phishing and cracking attacks, these hackers are aided by honeypots, a Cold War term of art referring to an espionage operative who sexually seduced or compromised targets. Today’s honeypots may include a component of sexual appeal or attraction, but they just as often appear to be people who share a target’s political views, obscure personal hobbies, or issues related to family history. Through direct messaging or email conversations, honeypots seek to engage the target in conversations seemingly unrelated to national security or political influence.

These honeypots often appear as friends on social media sites, sending direct messages to their targets to lower their defenses through social engineering. After winning trust, honeypots have been observed taking part in a range of behaviors, including sharing content from white and gray active measures websites

Online hecklers, commonly referred to as trolls, energize Russia’s active measures. Ringleader accounts designed to look like real people push organized harassment — including threats of violence — designed to discredit or silence people who wield influence in targeted realms, such as foreign policy or the Syrian civil war. Once the organized hecklers select a target, a variety of volunteers will join in, often out of simple antisocial tendencies. Sometimes, they join in as a result of the target’s gender, religion, or ethnic background, with anti-Semitic and misogynistic trolling particularly prevalent at the moment. Our family members and colleagues have been targeted and trolled in this manner via Facebook and other social media.

Hecklers and honeypots can also overlap.

—————————–

The experts at WarontheRocks know their shit and I stored away their analysis.

The third ‘block’ occurred when a Bernie Sanders social media coordinator published a report of how he watched online trolls aggressively message against Clinton to Sanders supporters:

He <Mattes> put his expertise in unmasking fraudsters to work. At first, he suspected that the sites were created by the old Clinton haters from the ‘90s ― what Hillary Clinton had dubbed “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

 But when Mattes started tracking down the sites’ domain registrations, the trail led to Macedonia and Albania. In mid-September, he emailed a few of his private investigator friends with a list of the sites. “Very creepy and i do not think Koch brothers,” he wrote.

Mattes and his friends didn’t know what to make of his findings. He couldn’t get his mind around the possibility that trolls overseas might be trying to sway a bunch of Southern Californians who supported Sanders’ run for president. “I may be a dark cynic and I may have been an investigative reporter for a long time, but this was too dark ― and too unbelievable and most upsetting,” he said. “What was I to do with this?”

By late October, Mattes said he’d traced 40 percent of the domain registrations for the fake news sites he saw popping up on pro-Sanders pages back to Eastern Europe. Others appeared to be based in Panama and the U.S., or were untraceable. He wondered, “Am I the only person that sees all this crap floating through these Bernie pages?”

And the final ‘block’ was an 84 page white paper issued by the cyber security firm, TrendMicro, which outlined how easy it was to implement a ‘fake news’ marketing campaign with costs & efforts taken by Russia to influence people not only in America but globally.

That did it for me.

Let me call my ‘4 blocks’ as the cornerstones of the building of proof. I am a marketing guy and an amateur behavioral studier with decades of experience and I can see a marketing campaign when there is one … and I can see when a good one is being implemented in ‘below-the-line’ tactics pushing & nudging & influencing people to do & think things … and I can see one once I have been presented the cornerstones of proof.

This is that. And this is a horrible thing to recognize.

Oddly enough … our founding fathers worried about this.

In constructing the Constitution the crafters were cognizant, and worried about, how easily people could be led, and led astray. That is why they constructed a three ‘power’ system <executive, judiciary & representative> to insure a President never had access to too much power. In some ways they assumed at some point in history American citizens would not choose wisely.

As a marketing guy I can honestly tell you that I have sat in hundreds of conference rooms viewing behavioral data pondering choice after choice people made that were reflections of “not in my best interest” … information that reflected time after time … people do not choose wisely.

While that is marketing stuff we should all remember what James Madison said … “liberties are more frequently lost by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power.” That is what the worst of worst marketing is about … making some people choose less than wisely through a gradual and silent encroachment into someone’s decision making process.

To be clear.

I think Trump is inept, incompetent and unqualified but this is not about that. This is about how Russia affected enough people’s attitudes to affect their behavior … and many of us quasi-experts, and many real experts, believe Russia conducted a marketing campaign that did just enough to affect people’s voting behavior to effectively put Trump in the oval office.

To be clear.

None of us know what to do with this understanding. This is a horrible position to be in. No one wants to suggest the current president is not legitimate and, yet, the truth is that he most likely gained his position through some shady illegitimate ways.

I almost wish I didn’t know this.

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

“Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.”

—-

J.R.R Tolkien

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

—

“And though she be but little, she is fierce.”

–

—-

William Shakespeare

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

Ok.

This is about business and business leadership.

Leading is a big job. It carries big responsibilities and big burdens. You have to be big enough in some way <skills, charisma, character, smarts, etc.> to stay above the organization and employees. And I say “above” because part of leading is being able to see above the heads of everyone so that you can lead and align and step in when & where appropriate.

Above is not dominance per se just that you maintain a dominant position from which you can most effectively & efficiently lead.

Now.

Here is what any good leader knows … you don’t have to be big to … well … be big.

Heck. You don’t even have to act ‘big.’

In addition.

A good leader can leave the comfort of the ‘throne’, i.e. the trappings of the ‘bigness’ –the natural ‘dominance’ that comes with a title — and still remain above even when stepping down from all those things.

However.

Not everyone is a good leader. And not every leader is particularly good at navigating the natural doubts <am I doing the right thing, am I doing the best thing, am I doing the thing I should be doing, etc.> that come along with being a leader. By the way … any good leader has some doubts on occasion … it keeps them grounded.

Regardless.

What that means is there will inevitably be business people who fear looking small. And they protect their illusions of ‘bigness’, or being bigly, mainly in several ways:

• They diminish everyone they can in the attempt to make others as small as they can so that they look bigger no matter the comparison

• They find a ‘safe space’ in which they place their metaphorical throne and make everyone come to them <this is kind of like the boss who purposefully has their desk built slightly higher and the chairs facing the desk slightly lower to insure they maintain a physical dominant position>

• They avoid, as much as possible, one-on-one interactions with anyone their own size <unless they can control the environment>.

• They ground themselves in platitudes under the guise of “flexibility & adaptability” so they can avoid having to defend anything specific with anyone who could diminish their bigness

Well.

Why I decided to write about this is … uhm … day in and day out Donald J Trump offers us in the business world reminders of ineffective leadership style and the characteristics of insecure leadership.

And the number one characteristic of insecure leadership is the inability to step down and still stay above.

Insecure leaders are extremely hesitant, if not completely resistant, to leaving their ‘dominant position.’

Let me explain ‘dominant position’ because it can sound bad <and it is mainly meant to express a position of authority>.

A CEO or a president is clearly in a dominant position by title and by responsibility and, in most cases, by some larger skill that got them to where they are. A true ‘dominant position’ <let’s call it “authority”> combines all aspects.

Therefore the person in the dominant position combines substance & style. And this is where insecurity steps in … because if a leader has any true doubts with regard to their ‘dominant position’ – mostly doubts on their substance — they start exhibiting some insecure characteristics.

They will dial up their style aspects to cloak any substance deficiencies and become excruciatingly careful with regard to how they interact with other people.

But the one I thought about today was “stepping down.’

Let me explain.

I heard Donald J say the other day “they should call us to participate.” In other words … they need to come to me <thereby establishing some aspect of subservience and feeds the sense of ‘dominant position.’

This was not a one-off comment.

He does this … every … frickin’ … day.

Trump never “goes to people” nor does he unite by inserting himself into any opposing groups <people who may not agree with him> opening himself up to say “let me be part of what you want.” I cannot envision him ever going to opposition and suggesting he wanted to work with them <they have to come to him>.

His whole leadership style is driven by an insecurity of ‘dominant position’ and he fears stepping down from his position because he fears it will expose the fact he isn’t really above anyone other than in title.

In other words … he fears looking small <or ‘not bigly’>.

And therein lies the larger lesson.

Good leaders don’t become smaller when they step down or go to people rather than make people go to them. They know there are no ‘little people’ but rather only big responsibilities of which everyone has.

Little people are little wherever they go … even if they just sit in the corner office.

Unfortunately for us a little leader knows this … and doesn’t know this.

What I mean by that is they can sense their littleness therefore they go out of their way to stay within whatever cocoon of ‘bigness trappings’ to encourage the belief they have that they are actually big. And, yet, they don’t know this because they tend to have an oversized view of themselves <every should come to me attitude>.

They see themselves through a fairly warped view of self-relevance … “everyone else becomes more relevant by being around me therefore they become bigger in my bigness.” And that partially outlines their main fear.

Loss of relevance.

Anyone who becomes more relevant than them is a danger. Loss of power, the illusion of or real, is the danger.

What that all means is that an insecure leader more often than not lives in a “you need to come to me, call me or ask me” mentality.

• Foreign dignitaries come to visit him <and he does not visit them>.
• Democrats should call me instead of being obstructionists.
• People need to visit him at the White House <or Mar a Lago>.
• He never works with people or offers to meet them.

He treats everyone as if they should be subservient to him and if they do not meet that desire he is dismissive or even attacks them as ‘obstructionist.’

Let me be clear.

No sane business leader <in this generation> has this attitude.

You cannot.

You cannot because you know many of the people working for you are actually smarter than you and a shitload more just may know something you do not know.

You cannot because oftentimes your peers, who actually report to you, may actually be better than you at some things.

You cannot because you know that good people never want to feel subservient but rather want to feel being a key part of overall success.

Most of those who lead have learned these things not by attempting to learn to be ‘above’ but rather by learning how to lead. And you learn that mostly by getting into ‘the game’ and realizing you can play anywhere at any time. I know that I took an advertising job as a young newly promoted VP in NYC not out of any desire to be the best but because I was curious. I was curious to see if I could “play in the NYC advertising game.” I didn’t need to be the best nor did I desire to dominate … I just wanted to see if I could play.

I can tell you that once you become comfortable with knowing you can play at the biggest level and the lowest level you have a fighting chance to become a leader.

Look.

We all have numerous character flaws and it is a sad truth the majority of us can’t see them. This is even more difficult in a leadership position because you do naturally become more self-aware of any of the things you are good at and yet also not good at … but you also lean heavily on the things you ‘perceive’ got you where you are today.

I say that because insecure leaders are relatively hollow on the self-awareness.

Looking at Trump it is easy to see that he grew up thinking he could get away with whatever he wanted. He lived in a bubble in which young, mentally lazy, rich, amoral white men routinely got away with whatever they wanted. These same characteristics are exhibited in his insecure leadership style.

Here is what I know.

Big leaders are big leaders.

And they are big because wherever they go they retain their bigness. That means they need not ‘stay above’ to be big … they can step down … sit in town halls answering questions from real people as well as sit down with people who didn’t vote for you as well as sit down with peers and discuss ideas … and walk away just as big as they entered the room.

Small leaders cannot do those things, therefore, they do not.

I have now given you a way to judge big leaders from small leaders. Judge away. Every leader should be judged … and judged harshly … because … well … they are leaders and that is their burden.

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

“Dads, on this Father’s Day, if you think you’ve just had the best year in the history of fatherhood, that’s awesome, count your blessings.

But if you’re like most of us, if you’ve screwed up a lot this year, your kids still need you. They need to know that you love them and you need to show up again.”

Ben Sasse

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

Senator Ben Sasse

✔ @SenSasse

Real fatherhood isn’t anything like a greeting card. We all screw up. Here’s to all the dads out there who show up & try again. #FathersDay

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

“I suppose in the end it’s almost too easy to look back and say what you should have done, how you might have changed things. What’s harder – what’s much, much harder – is to accept what you actually did do.”

–

Peter Hook <Joy Division>

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

So.

…. Father’s Day “the force” be with you …….

I had no plans on posting anything relevant to father’s day this year until I saw this father’s day tweet from a senator in Nebraska: Ben Sasse: Happy Father’s Day to the Flawed Fathers (Like Me)

His words? “All the dads out there who show up & try again.”

My words? Victory in the attempt.

In a world where we seem to be more and more focused on winning it is nice to step back and maybe realize that many things can be considered a victory other than some simplified “win” … especially for fathers.

How does this sound for what could be considered a ‘win’? Showing up … and showing up again … and then showing up again.

I am not a father but as I have applauded fathers year after year <because most of my father friends are great fathers> I am not sure I have applauded the most simplistic aspect of being a parent – the persistent attempt.

I think this topic matters.

It matters because when asked … I imagine almost every parent can fondly remember “the wins”, even if they are few and far between, with regard to their children. But maybe we should be pointing out the attempts, the persistency of their parenting attempts, rather than just the wins … the victories. And while the victories must be an incredible source of pride <that their attempts in parenting actually paid off in some way> their real pride source of being a parent, a father, is more likely to be found in the persistent attempts.

The persistent attempts? The times you fell short in some way in not only your child’s eyes but also how you may have fallen short in what you believe is the responsibility of parenting, and, yet, you attempt to do what is right the next day or the next time or the next opportunity.

There should be victory found in getting up and trying to do a little better the next time – victory in the attempt.

Look.

All fathers will be a jerk on occasion and, I imagine, some are simply jerks. But all fathers are imperfect. As I noted in a non fathers day post back in 2013 <No Perfect Fathers >. Shit. We all are. And, yet, imperfect or not … 99% of us persist and attempt again.

I will say this.

In our ‘positive reinforcement world’ in which ‘everyone contributes and should be included’ we tend to give out more gold stars than a second grade class.

I sometimes think we give out so many rewards that no one can truly tell who the ‘best of the best’ really are.

Oh.

I will say this except in parenting.

In parenting we have more of a tendency in never giving out a gold star for the attempt but rather solely for some achievement attained.

Therefore there is less positive reinforcement for the attempts and more for the achievements.

Well.

That seems fucked up to me.

====

“Not in the clamor of the crowded street, not in the shouts and applause of the many, but in ourselves, are triumph and defeat.”

 –

Longfellow

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

I am not suggesting fathers need more gold stars or that achievements don’t matter but it seems kind of fucked up to me that being a ‘perfect father’ is somehow always supposed to be attached to some achievements attained by the child.

Similar to my view on many things in life I believe more often than not success should be measured in progress not achievement.

Fathering is the same to me.

And that is why victory in the attempt matters so much. Persistent attempts are metaphorically like being a border collie to your child’s life … herding them attempt by attempt toward some progress path. If you view it that way you will most likely look back at dozens of “wins” in the herding and not just whatever destination you may attain in achievement.

Anyway.

I thought Ben Sasse’s father’s day tweet was awesome.

Back in 2014 on father’s day I wrote about  imperfectly perfect fathers.

That is most likely the closest I have ever come on fathers day of saying something similar to what the senator said.

And I would suggest ‘victory in the attempt ‘is a derivative of the thought I shared that day.

Fathers have a natural tendency look back at missed opportunities and moments where they failed … and maybe even when they were a jerk.

Maybe they should look back upon all the attempts and … well … think about the fact they showed up. And maybe that is a “win” in and of itself. And they certainly should be viewing attempts within a “37 seconds, used well, is a lifetime.”

It is quite possible this is a Life lesson for all of us, but for today, it is a Father’s Day thought.

Happy Father’s Day <and thank you Ben Sasse for making me sit down and wrote today>.

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

“America’s about new beginnings, and the end of your story has not been written.

Happy Father’s Day to all the fathers out there who want to show up and try again.”

Ben Sasse

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