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

“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.

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

“Fake news fabricated as truth that panders to its audience’s ideologies and promises an illusion of the future – enough to compel people to join an imagined cause.”

—

TrendMicro

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

“Advertising is fundamentally persuasion and persuasion happens to be not a science, but an art.”

—

Bill Bernbach

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

“As an advertiser we must assume responsibility for everything we do, because everything we do has the potential to make someone think something or do something.

And that ‘something’ can be good or bad. It is up to us to steer it toward good.”

—-

Bruce McTague

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

Ok.

If I hear one more politician or troll commenter online say “not one vote was affected by Russian efforts during the Presidential campaign” I am gonna tear my hair out.

While I have talked about ‘fake news’ and the responsibility media has in reporting, I have avoided talking about how Russia influenced the Presidential campaign because it sounds political and politicians have made simplistic soundbites the discussion point by saying shit like “can anyone point to any evidence that one vote was changed”.

Well.

Today I am going to point … and I am not a politician and now I have a report to point to <which I will highlight in a couple of moments>.

Suffice it to say since the election of Donald J Trump and following the widespread debate about how fake news on social media may have contributed to his victory I have racked my brain on how to point out to people how, if done effectively, a Russian media campaign <fake news initiative> could have certainly impacted behavior at the election booth.

I wanted to do so not because I know for sure that votes were affected but rather because by not even considering, or acknowledging, that people may have been affected enough to influence their vote means we diminish the potential impact of a real propaganda campaign.

While non advertising people most often speak of “advertising creates awareness” <at best> or “I am not impacted by advertising” <at worst> … they are wrong.

The truth <inside the hallways of advertising agencies around the world> is that we speak of influencing real behavior – change brand preferences, convince someone to try, affect attitudes toward a particular brand or product <your own or a competitor>, shift preferences from one brand or product to another and even educate to create an impact in terms of behavior.

Advertising and professional communications is business … the business of persuading people to think things and do things. It may be immediate actions or it may be the process of engaging to ultimately affect actions … but I cannot think of one business spending one dollar on professional communications who does not desire to persuade people to think at least one thing with the intent to create at least one type of behavior.

I have sat through hundreds of meetings analyzing shifts in attitudes & behavior <linked to sales of my business as well as shifts in competitors business> scouring information with regard to perceptions, persuasion, purchase intent, impact of influencers, etc.

I have sat through thousands of hours of discussion on ideas, impressions and attitudes about a brand or product all with the intent to find something that will predispose someone to see it in some positive light in which it will compel someone to buy it versus something else.

I say all of this because it is absolutely nuts to suggest an effective propaganda or fake news <or let’s call it what it really was … an advertising campaign driven by social media> cannot affect people’s behaviors & attitudes.

Absolutely nuts.

Now.

I wrote today because a company called Trend Micro, a cybersecurity firm, just issued an 81 page study called Fake News and Cyber Propaganda: The Use and Abuse of Social Media.

They call it “forward thinking threat research” … I would have suggested they could have contacted any global advertising agency who could have shown them study after study with regard to how advertising can affect behavior & change attitudes.

That said.

The report does do what I have been unable to unearth in all my files of Attitude & Usage studies and communications research … they show specific tactics and plans and costs and results. They show you what a communication plan, done effectively, can do.

And, suffice it to say, it doesn’t take a shitload of money to effectively propagate lies, false narratives and fake news.

They provide an analysis focusing on fake news and alternative storylines and the use of influencers <influencers & influencer campaigns: is what every Public Relations agency in the world does for their clients every single day> as well as the overall effect in manipulating social behavior.

Their report is actually quite similar to what we in the advertising & communications business look at every week … except we do so in much more detail picking apart the minutiae in order to see what button we can push to … well … push someone a little closer to doing what we would like them to do.

With regard to the Presidential campaign, I want to be clear, what effective propaganda can do:

• It can make someone seem smarter
• It can make someone seem worse than they are

If those are two separate someones, you have created a distinction gap between the someones. I could argue that the Russians did exactly that … made an ‘incompetent someone’ edge a little closer to appearing competent and made a ‘flawed someone’ edge a little closer to being worse than flawed.

Uhm.

That can make a difference when market share equals millions of dollars or thousands of votes, not millions, equals a presidency.

Anyway.

Some people will never be convinced that a propaganda effort, or an advertising campaign, can actually affect how they think and what they do.

That is too bad.

They would be wrong … but purposefully ignorant type wrong.

But I do believe everyone would agree that discerning truth from fiction is more difficult today than it has ever been and I tend to believe everyone doesn’t like that. Which means it is increasingly important that people not only think a little more about what they are absorbing information wise but maybe we need to become better at helping people question what they see.

This is where leaders & influencers really do matter.

They need to stop undermining good sources of truth simply because that source may not support some narrative they want. Politifacts and maybe Snopes and a variety of other locations do a really nice job of sifting through fact versus fiction in a mostly unbiased way. And, yet, enough people diminish their value when it don’t match their narrative that they remain slotted as a viable source for some people and not a viable source for others. We need to find some universally accepted locations of truth.

Sure.

Some people will not be happy about what they see but the real enemy is fake news and created fictional narrative and not half-truths or misused facts.

But all people should be happy with truth … and not being fooled by fake news and cyber propaganda.

The Russians did affect the 2016 election. I cannot tell you how much or if it represented a different result than would have happened if they had not been involved <although my gut professional instincts suggest they shifted the dial enough to make a difference>. I will tell anyone reading this if you gave MillwardBrown (or any viable advertising agency which has some programmatic planning) maybe $50k and all the county data & all the media information they could clearly, and unequivocally, show vote results in counties with Russia-driven messaging versus non-Russian messaging counties. Shit. That’s what they do in any media review meeting.

But, at this point, we shouldn’t debate the result we should be discussing how efforts like this, when done effectively, can impact our view on things, ideas and people. Because if we can all admit that, well, we are halfway to getting closer toward real truth.

And, to me, that sounds good – not a fake goal.

——————

======

source:

Fake News and Cyber Propaganda: The Use and Abuse of Social Media 

The report from Trend Micro, a cybersecurity firm, is 81 pages long but if you have the time … worth every second to read.

The Fake News Machine research paper comes at a time of increasing concern across the globe about the hacking of elections and the ways that fake news on social media has manipulated voters. The report delves into the underground marketplaces that can allow campaigns, political parties, private companies and other entities to strategically create and distribute fake content to shift public perceptions.

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

“One is often unconsciously surrounded by one’s own personal reality.”

―

Pawan Mishra

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

“To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.”

—–

Amos Bronson Alcott

===========

“People who have had little self-reflection live life in a huge reality blind-spot.”

―

Bryant McGill

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

Ok.

We all have blind spots about our self.

And I mean “we” as in everyone — 100% of us.

And they are almost painful to watch occurring in anyone – particularly in someone you like. With someone you don’t like? It still makes you sit back and think “what are my blind spots?”

Oh.

That sitting back thing.

Judging the events of the past we have a tendency to fall victim to what behavioral economists call “the hindsight bias.”

It is unhelpful because it implies that if we were just smarter in the present, we could see clearly enough into the future to avoid stupid mistakes. But that is rarely the case. The data available in the present are wildly contradictory, and many outcomes seem plausible.

Regardless.

We also have psychological blind spots – aspects of our personalities that are hidden from our view. These might be annoying habits like interrupting or bragging, or they might be deeper fears or desires that are too threatening to acknowledge. Although it’s generally not pleasant to confront these aspects of ourselves, doing so can be very useful when it comes to personal growth, and when it comes to improving our relationships with others – there is undoubtedly something we do that, unbeknownst to us, drives our significant others, roommates, friends, or coworkers a little crazy.

I thought about this mostly because of Donald J Trump. while I have never met the man he seems oblivious to reality – the world and himself.

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

President Trump in a new AP interview boasted that he has delivered CBS its best ratings “since the World Trade Center came down.”

After being asked about his relationship with voters and lawmakers across the aisle, Trump pivoted to the high viewership numbers his national TV appearances bring in: “It’s interesting, I have, seem to get very high ratings… You know [Fox News Sunday host] Chris Wallace had 9.2 million people, it’s the highest in the history of the show. I have all the ratings for all those morning shows. When I go, they go double, triple. Chris Wallace, look back during the Army-Navy football game, I did his show that morning. It had 9.2 million people. It’s the highest they’ve ever had.”

He then bragged about his ratings on CBS’s Sunday show Face the Nation:

“[Host John] Dickerson had 5.2 million people. It’s the highest for Face the Nation or, as I call it, ‘Deface the Nation.’ It’s the highest for ‘Deface the Nation’ since the World Trade Center.

Since the World Trade Center came down. It’s a tremendous advantage.”

He then immediately transitioned to railing against “fake media”—save for Fox News—treating him “unfairly.”

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

Whew.

Trump doesn’t seem to realize that his ratings get a big boost because people don’t want to miss it if he says something asinine or just plain stupid. He is oblivious to the fact that ratings are not an objective indicator of quality but rather indicative of interest <or entertainment>. And, as 99% of us know … interest does not necessarily equal “quality, trust or likeability.”

NASCAR wrecks drive ratings but they don’t convey a positive attribute.

Everyone in marketing, those who do it professionally, know the difference between attention & interest as well as why it is important to look at the relationship between positive approval, an negative approval, and the interest scores <and you are a fool if you do not look at those scores>.

Anyway.

I feel sorry for people who are oblivious to their blind spots.

And, yes, oblivious is different than ‘do not see.”

The difference between the two are in fact the ability to be aware, i.e., totally oblivious is to be not capable of awareness.

‘Do not see’ means you could be aware but you choose to not be aware <what you elect to focus or not focus on>.

==========

“The worst bullies you will ever encounter in your life are your own thoughts.”

—-

Bryant H. McGill

===========

I imagine this raises the painful reflective question “are we even capable of seeing ourselves as who we really are”?

Yikes.

That’s a painful question.
Psychology has thought about this question a shitload and they use words like discrepancy between self-awareness <representing how we see and describe ourselves> and external perception <representing how others see and would describe us>.

This comes to Life in a way I believe 99% of us can relate to … times where someone perceived you totally differently than you perceived yourself “oh, I am not that way at all”>.

Or maybe think about it this way.

You meet someone and assess and create a perception and … well … it is totally different than the self-awareness of that person.

We all do this crap.
Psychologists have even designed a “window into your soul” called the Johari-Window. It is one way to illustrate the difference between self-awareness and external perception. It represents a graphic model illustrating conscious and unwitting personality– and behavioral characteristics developed by the U.S. social psychologists Joseph (Jo) and Harry (hari) Ingham. The Johari window looks like this:

——

—–

The “Arena“ represents that part of our personality and our behavior which we are fully aware of. The part of ourselves we display openly and without hesitation when in the company of others or how we would describe ourselves if asked.

The section “Façade” covers everything we hide from others because we believe that it should remain private. It includes secret wishes, for instance or thoughts we don’t feel like sharing. Understandably the extent of this area varies and depends on the company we happen to be keeping at the time. When we are with our partner or possibly our best friends it may be very small because we share more of ourselves with people we trust than with those with whom we may not be all that close. Regardless, with every person there is always something left over that is private and he/she alone knows about him/herself (and that is just fine!).

The area “Unknown” covers everything in our subconscious and therefore is not immediately accessible but still has a considerable impact on our thoughts and behavior: unconscious fears, repressed conflicts, traumata, urges, instincts and much more. According to Sigmund Freud this part covers 80 – 90% of everything determining our everyday behavior.

Even if we don’t want to go all that far, everyone knows that there are many situations when rational and conscious thinking and behavior play a very secondary role and that another part of us somehow takes over. The process of falling in love is an excellent example – or have you ever totally rationally and judiciously chosen your partner? We are unaware of our subconscious just as it is not obvious to others (well, the consequences sometimes are). We will never be able to get to the bottom of it ourselves, it would take considerable therapeutic reflections to come even close.

The last Quadrant, the “Blind Spot” is different. Although we can’t spot it on our own (just as we can’t see our face without a mirror), others can see it quite well and are able to tell us (acting as our mirror, so to speak). Even though we are not aware of it, the “Blind Spot” harbors habits, preferences, dislikes, prejudices and the like, all things that are clearly apparent to those with whom we deal. At best their reports will provide us with information about ourselves, in that way reducing our “Blind Spot” and therefore helping us to work on ourselves. If there is something in my “Blind Spot” I would like to change, others have to make me aware of it first. Alternatively others may discover competencies and skills in it of which I did not think to be capable.

In addition to this window if you google “oblivious” you will see there are gobs of psychological writings and ‘awareness offerings’ available if you ever want to professionally explore you blind spots.

Here is what I know.

We are all oblivious to some extent — some more than others.

Being oblivious to some extent can be dangerous.

Lack of self-awareness is never good.

I think 99% of us know we have some aggravating flaws & personal quirks … we are not oblivious to them instead we simply decide to overlook them as the ‘imperfections that make us who we are.’ At the same time … those same 99% of people do have blind spots — the shit they cannot see that others see.  That takes a little self work to get a grip on if we choose to accept this.

Oh.

And then there are the 1% …those who are completely oblivious to what they do and how people see them.

Let’s call them the ones inflicted with is the malady of the ignorant <to be ignorant of one’s ignorance>. I am not sure they are redeemable.

I say that because to be completely oblivious either takes a shitload of work or you are just an arrogant egotist or you have some mental disorder that permits you to constantly live in some alternative universe in which you are the God.

I do my best to avoid the 1% and realize, as part of the 99%, I should do my best to improve my own sight of myself.

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

“Life … is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.”

―

William Shakespeare, Macbeth

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

Dear Mr. President,

I just wanted to write you a letter to bring it to your attention, in case you have not noticed; you really are the president … now.

Yes. You did get elected.

Yes. That new office you get your diet coke in is oval because all US Presidents have sat in that oval office.

Yes. That big eagle on your floor rug is not really your style <albeit I believe it does have gold in it> but it is a sign that, yes, you got elected and that emblem is part of the seal of the United State of America.

I have been meaning to write this to you for quite some time, but I felt compelled to write this letter to you today because yesterday, in the wake of the London terrorist attacks, you seemed to forget you were president for a while.

And that seems indicative of, well, all your behavior since last November <with some small moments in which we got tantalizing glimpses you actually recognized that you were now responsible for 330 million people>.

Last night you took the opportunity while watching the attacks unfold to retweet a Drudge article and a personal tweet about your own travel ban. I am tempted to suggest they were simply tweets of an ignorant idiot, full of sound and fury, simplifying nothing … but I will not. I will use the tweets to remind you that you really are now a president and the president of a certain country called “The United State of America.”

A while back I told you how to do your job because you seemed to be struggling and I thought there were some simple things you could do to rectify your current situation.  Today I will simply remind you of some things you may not know about your new job:

Tweets

I really wouldn’t mind you tweeting if you didn’t tweet like a bitter husband drunk late at night just after his wife had left him. The problem is that you do … and you are not drunk and for some reason your wife has not left you. I have given up trying to convince you that words matter <even the ones you make up> so maybe we could have you work on thinking a little less like an idiotic bitter drunk husband and maybe have you think about the fact you really are a President who shouldn’t be bitter about anything and whose wife has not left him <yet>.

I do take some solace in the fact that, for the most part, your drunken bitter idiot-in-chief tweets are becoming irrelevant to the outside world. Beyond media … most simply ignore you the best they can. My main proof? You offer some word salad twisted thought and Wall Street barely responds these days.

On that note. I would suggest that being President and being ignored kind of suggests you are becoming irrelevant. That seems bad <sad>.

I would never suggest you stop tweeting. Hell. It is the best entertainment we have had in years. Maybe you could just consider in the future to just be a little less bitter, maybe sound a little less drunk, and maybe a little less “I am unwanted and unworthy of the love that has left me” and more … well … “holy shit, I am the President.”

That’s all I ask. But I am just an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

Infinite resources

I am dependent upon ‘fair & balanced’ FoxNews, NBC, fake news CNN, Drudge, National Review, Reuters, Guardian and even the failing NY Times for my information.

You are not.

………… Trump picking up phone …….

Mr. President you can actually push a little button right there on the phone next to your canopied bed with throw pillows that have those ruffles you like and maroon sateen sheets and you can most likely have the worlds best intelligence community brief you on what may be happening. You even have a Homeland Security department who could most likely tell you if there are any existing threats which you could tweet America about to calm nerves <and I bet they have a button too>.

In addition you have an Environmental Agency who has a multitude of well researched analysis to offer numbers and results from. You have a Labor Department who has an incredible history of measuring the workplace environment which you have access to for numbers and information <those last two are probably not worthy of buttons on your phone … sorry>.

You may not know it but you also have a State Department with real people in real buildings <some people call them embassies> who have real on-the-ground knowledge of where they are that are most likely to be delighted to speak with you 24/7.

I imagine my real point, Mr. President, is … well … you are no longer an everyday schmuck dependent upon whatever information you can scrounge up on your own surfing the world wide web <yes, it is now worldwide> or scanning FoxNews in the morning. You are the President and you have dozens of departments with thousands of extremely qualified people who have reams of knowledge and data and information at their fingertips at the simple push of a button <and they even know more shit before the people on TV do>.

But what do I know … I am an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

One dollar bill suggestion

Mr. President, just a suggestion. Tape a dollar bill to your desk <and, under my breath, ‘read it you asshat’>:

E Pluribus Unum.

Out of many, one.

I make this suggestion because I know you love money above everything else and maybe the one dollar bill can help, well, center you a little.

It is a fabulous little document in and of itself … think of it as a PowerPoint slide with few words and a killer image.

I would also note the second Latin motto on that same image … novus ordo seclorum <a new order of the ages> which signifies “the beginning of the new American Era.”

Both of those thoughts may remind you that you represent 330 million or so and, well , a country. It may also help to keep this humble little one dollar nearby as a symbol of small certainty as you, I would imagine, are a little uncertain as you try and make the giant leap from everyday schmuck to President.

Now.

I will admit, Mr. President, while I am sympathetic to your uncertainty I wish you would get a grip on it because it, well, creates a sense of uncertainty in the country.

I would ask you to remember, in general, uncertainty is certainly a bitch to a general population. The larger issue is that uncertainty makes people feel poorer <even when they are not>, more divided <even when they are not>, less safe <even though they are not> and less hopeful with regard to the future <even when they should see signs of hope>.

I would also suggest that, in this time & place, this uncertainty has been compounded by the fact we don’t trust anyone on anything <media included> … don’t trust anyone to do what they are supposed to do <government included> … and don’t even trust what was done when they actually do what they were supposed to do <anyone associated with any institution>. Uhm. I hesitate to tell you this but, whew, a shitload of people don’t really trust you either.

All that said. You know what everyone trusts in this wretched place where no one does anything right and is stupid or dishonest or corrupt? The one dollar bill. It is a simplistic symbol of certainty and trust. It may be that you could use his taped one dollar bill to focus you a little.

Now. You may not know it but there was a guy named Booker Washington who said … ““… be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress” <just a note: this guys is dead>. I know that may be a big thought for you so maybe I can dumb it down for you … think of it as if you have 5 one dollar bills, you can also then have a $5 dollar bill. Separate as ones but one as a $5. You see what I mean? Maybe if you look at that one dollar bill every day maybe you can start thinking ‘out of many one’ and be a President for all the $5’s, $20’s & $50’s rather than just a couple of ones.

But what do I know … I am an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

Thank you for your time today.

I am sorry I didn’t include bullet points and killer images & graphs <which I hear you like> but maybe Melania can read this to you.

Dear Mr. President, I cannot promise I will leave you alone after this letter. You seem to not only not know how to do your fucking job but you also seem to forget you are not an everyday schmuck <no matter how many of us wished you were>. I promise I will leave you alone when you fully recognize that you are now a big bad powerful man. You now not only lead America but, if you would elect to do so, you could actually lead in the world.

I do worry, on occasion, that your view of leadership and mine do not really coincide. You seem to feel that creating a transactional relationship is the same thing as creating a “leadership” relationship. That kind of feels like the same logic some misguide businesses use to recruit talented young people with cool laptops, flex time, free lunches … and not vision. Frankly, that doesn’t really foster any type of loyalty, it doesn’t really drive any company value and … well … it is killing the idea of leadership by a thousand cuts.

But what do I know … I am an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

I also worry that by choosing to remain an everyday schmuck you are finding whatever scraps in what you have done to make yourself believe you are doing good things … and you are holding on to them tightly like your teddy bear at night for comfort <in your canopied bed with sateen sheets>. I can assure you that you will need those scraps for comfort at some point if you don’t realize that is what we everyday schmucks do to comfort ourselves … but presidents kind of need to find more than scraps to hold onto.

But what do I know … I am an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

And, lastly, dear Mr. President, I worry that many of the world’s leaders are realizing you are just bluster and bullshit. I am fairly sure they weren’t sure in the beginning but now they know. But, Mr. President, I know you are better than that <I say with fingers crossed> and all of a sudden you will realize you are not an everyday schmuck but rather the President.

But what do I know … I am everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

I am sending you my letter today hoping that my sincere thoughts help you realize this.

Mr. President, you have probably done over 100 things, okay, thousands of things over the past year or so which make me sure you are unqualified to be the country leader <and make me doubt you could lead a turd out of a flushed toilet>, makes me sure I dislike your business acumen and makes me sure your moral compass <assuming you even have one> is not working.

I would imagine if you remain an everyday schmuck, in your own mind you will, well, feel exactly the same way.

But … you really are the President. You really did get elected. You can start acting like a President any time you want and most of us every day schmucks will line up behind you when you do because, well, you really are the President of the United States.

All the best.

Bruce.

P.S. – Mr. President, as I read some of your tweets this morning, the morning after the London terror attacks, I have to ask you … what is wrong with you?

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

“Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.“

—-

Aristotle

 

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

=======

“Everyone, at some point in their lives, wakes up in the middle of the night with the feeling that they are all alone in the world, and that nobody loves them now and that nobody will ever love them, and that they will never have a decent night’s sleep again and will spend their lives wandering blearily around a loveless landscape, hoping desperately that their circumstances will improve, but suspecting, in their heart of hearts, that they will remain unloved forever.

The best thing to do in these circumstances is to wake somebody else up, so that they can feel this way, too.”

–

some tumblr blogger

=====

Well.

This isn’t about living an unloved Life but it is about waking up in the middle of the night <and hopefully having someone to wake up>.

I could argue that if you believe some value in Life is found in exploring … than at some point you will be lost. In other words discovery will always encounter moments of “where the hell am I, how the hell did I get here and what the hell was I thinking?”

Unfortunately., most times you wake up with those questions ringing in your head mentally you are standing alone in a field. You just aren’t sure you can see anyone else in the field with you or maybe you feel like you have gotten too far out ahead or maybe you even feel like you made a wrong turn and that’s why there is no one else in that field.

Regardless.

It’s just you. You and your thoughts <which, in the middle of a night, tend to shape themselves into the shapes of monsters>.

And that is when you want to wake someone up. Not really to wake them up for the sake of comfort but just to see if maybe the field you are standing in is not some big mistake.

Now.

Who you wake up is tricky.

When you are young if you find the wrong person that person can encourage the wrong things even if they mean well.

When you are older, assuming you have woken the right people up when young, you have a better chance of waking the person up who has a better sense of when to say “shut the fuck up and go back to bed” or listen and say “well, how about thnk about this” or listen and say “don’t worry … other people will show up at the same field you are standing in.”

I would point out that this all revolves around discovery & exploration <and how well the person you wake up sees discovery & exploration versus how you see it>.

What I mean by that is to be successful, exploration of Life needs some reasons beyond “feels right” to not only convince the people around you but, I imagine, yourself when you wake up in the middle of the night.

As for other people?

People are far more interested in the short-term outcome of exploration than any nebulous long-term benefits and, therefore, they tend to judge your middle of the night dilemma that way.

This means for you <the wakerupper> finding the right balance of rational & emotional and short term & long term ‘who you wake up thoughtfulness’  is kind of critical to convince yourself to carve out the time in the middle of the night to explore whatever it is you want to explore … and discover what may.

Well <part 1>.

There is a shitload of vagueness in what I just wrote.

Well <part 2>.

Exploration and discovery is a vague thing.

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

“As you get older there comes a time when you’re not scared of the dark or of monsters anymore.

You realize the dark is just the dark and monsters don’t exist.

But it’s also when you become scared of other things, people themselves. You learn that not everyone wants to see you succeed. You become aware of people’s underlying intentions and selfish actions. & the monsters you used to check for under your bed at night don’t even compare to some of the things people do.”

—-

A teen

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

And maybe that is my point today.

Vagueness is a real bastard/bitch. It is for everyone. It is because vagueness’s best friend is “uncertainty.”

That said.

The prize in semi-mastering this vagueness is that it not only ends with some semi-clarity <some semi-certainty> in your exploration and discovery but it also stimulates the machine that is you and the mind to think about how to continue down the path of possibilities and discovery.

All of this is tricky because … well … the benefits, by nature, are unknown in the moment, but evidence of the benefits point to improvements and potential benefit.

Ok.

This whole thought centers around thinking and the art of thinking <in the middle of the night … which is different than thinking in the day>.

I know I have read how people can train themselves to think because while some people are natural thinkers by day, the ones who have the innate ability at birth who treat pieces of information as jigsaw puzzle pieces waiting to be put together and create something, night thinking demands a different type of thinking.

At night, typically, one piece of the puzzle demands your attention and all the other pieces seem to either not be present or are only blurs or pieces of the pieces.

So while the natural thinker, during the day, has the ability to sift through the jumbled pot of ingredients and like a Williams Sonoma colander trap the essentials and quickly let the inessential run off in the middle of the night there is typically one monster piece which is sitting there right beside you saying “let’s talk.”

Now.

Thinking has always been about bringing stuff in and letting stuff out.

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

we are cups, constantly and quietly
being filled. the trick is knowing how
to tip ourselves over and let the
beautiful stuff out.”

–

Ray Bradbury-

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

In this case I would imagine I am suggesting the monster let himself in and now you gotta figure out a way of saying … well … are you truly a monster and maybe you should stay of you are not and if you really are … how do I get you out?

And you wake someone up.

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

The Thinker – Historically we contemplated in retreat, silence, solitude, and within our own mind. We solved problems in isolation, deep thought, and through introverted reflection.

—

The contemporary Thinker – In an age of twittering, blogging, social networking, and sophisticated work-place networks, global science networks, and mass-participation and collaboration, (and TED talks ) information is exchanged via a networked world.

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

Thinking and problem solving, in the middle of the night, demands some inter-connected exchange of information that is fluid and, yet, systematic. It is kind of like you don’t really want to be stuck with this frickin’ monster staring at you in the middle of the night so you call someone up, wake them, and talk about the visitor. Its kind of like you need someone to look at your visitor thru different eyes.

Anyway.

All I really know is that part of exploration is uncertainty. And uncertainty will certainly beget waking up in the middle of the night wondering if they will spend their lives wandering blearily around a landscape, hoping desperately that their circumstances will improve, but suspecting, in their heart of hearts, that they will remain lost forever.

I am not suggesting you are actually lost … but you will feel lost.

And that is when you need someone, the right someone, to wake up.

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

“You spend your whole life stuck in the labyrinth, thinking about how you’ll escape it one day, and how awesome it will be, and imagining that future keeps you going, but you never do it.

You just use the future to escape the present.”

—

Looking for alaska; John Green

===========

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

“Most of us, shrinking from the difficulties and dangers which beset the seeker after original answers to these riddles, are contented to ignore them altogether, or to smother the investigating spirit under the featherbed of respected and respectable tradition.”

—-

Thomas Henry Huxley

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

“Not fearing death, nor shrinking for distress, But always resolute in most extremes”

.

William Shakespeare

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

Well.

Spend enough time in a corporate career and move up in a corporation and pretty much everyone gets some sort of media training <how to communicate with media and effectively communicating your message>.

And before you think this is just about senior management folk let me tell you that all you have to do is work with any significant franchise organization and you will invest more energy and time doing media training at all levels than you really would like to do.

Why?

All you have to do is get burned once by some local TV station trying to find some ‘you would be shocked’ story and you will learn the value of media training outside the corporate headquarters and on-the-ground at the service & franchise level.

I have received some fabulous media training throughout my career and most likely have a couple of media training manuals and presentations on some thumb drive somewhere. Training can span from a simple one-sheet ‘do this and don’t do this’ to sitting down in front of a camera being taped and grilled by some inquisition-type corporate communications expert <who you will hate for weeks after>.

For most of us … all training is excruciatingly painful.

For most of us … all we seek is “an opportunity to keep our mouth shut.”

But, alas, corporations and senior management demand face time publicly and it is better to arm yourself than to go into the fight “winging it.”

Now.

Most relevant to my thought today is that this training pays off in spades when you are forced into a comparison situation. Think being on a panel or standing at side by side podiums. I wrote not long ago about the window of ‘stark contrast opportunities’ in which I discussed the upside in terms of building value thru contrast.

Well.

As with anything good there is also a potential downside.

In a contrast situation there is a winner and a loser. And I don’t care how good a thinker you are, how good an instinctual communicator you are or how good an ‘explainer in chief’ you are … you cannot go into any comparison & contrast situation assuming you will  be the better one, the winner by default, in a contrast situation.

Contrast situations are fraught with peril.

I won’t go into all the training crap but I will point out two core aspects which are relevant to being in a public contrast situation:

• The hard one: simplify without oversimplifying

This is hard. Really hard.

And usually takes a shitload of practice & experience … and even then you will not always get it right <except for those truly gifted communicators who make all the rest of us miserable in that because they can do it everyone believes they can also do it>. My belief is always to say just enough so people understand and assume someone will ask a question if they need more information. If you do that, your experience with questions, what questions you get, kind of hone your ‘what is too much and what is too little’.

But you need enough experience and questions in order to be able to bracket what is most efficient & effective.

That said.

Oversimplifying concludes in one of two places <1> you have no idea what you are talking about or <2> you are out of touch with details and depth of truth

You have to figure out a way to showcase you understand the complexity without boring the shit out of people and, ultimately, convincing them you really do know your shit. In addition … you want to give just enough nuance and depth to suggest an ‘attack’, or clarification <which is just another kiss of the comparison death> would be a waste of time.

I will not go into all the gory details of how to efficiently communicate complexity <which is actually the advice we should be giving everyone rather than “keep it simple”>.

Suffice it to say there are three effective ways to simplify without oversimplifying.

Bracket your thought with two support points.

Triangulate your thought by offering three reasons to believe.

Box your thought in with 4 simple reasons why your thought makes sense.

A lot of people suggest always providing your thought and one reason to believe support <simple linear support> but the best training I received made the point that this makes your thought more vulnerable to questioning and, if possible <unless you have one undeniable blockbuster reason to believe> you should figure out a simple way to show simple complexity demands nuances smartness.

I imagine what I am saying in this aspect is you want to protect your words, thoughts and ideas from shrinking. And the way to do so is to effectively build a wall around them. Without the wall, the protection, the thought can get squeezed until it no longer exists … and you shrink a little every time that happens.

• The easy one: avoid hyperbole like it is the plague

Hyperbole creates a gap, an empty space, in between reality and some quasi-imagined reality.

Uhm.

Empty space to a listener/questioner/debater is like sugar for ants. Our tendency is almost always to make problems look bigger and successes more successful … it makes us look more heroic. But in our tendency to do so it actually … well … shrinks us. The truth is many of us think our jobs are fairly mundane and when discussing what we do, and have done, publicly we think “who the hell wants to hear this?” and then head down the path to make what we do, or did, look less mundane and more challenging or exciting.

Media training helps you see this.

And what you do is not worry about what you do but rather show how much you love what you do, or did, which breathes some helium into it and makes it look bigger. Suffice it to say it is incredibly difficult for someone to shrink what you like and what you are passionate about than it is to poke a hole in the empty space created by hyperbole and shrink the entire thought to a shriveled balloon status.

Ok.

Why did I bring this up today?

Well.

Sigh.

It becomes more obvious everyday … the shrinking of America right before our eyes.

Yesterday I watched President Donald J Trump stand at one podium and the president of Columbia, Juan Manuel Santos, at another podium. As they each spoke I watched Trump shrink before our eyes and America along with him.

The adult at the front of the room was a president … just of Columbia.

No offense to Columbia or the Columbian president but I don’t expect a country whose economy is 42 times smaller than the US Economy to have a president who sounds smarter, speaks smarter, shares smarter information and handles himself more smartly than the president of the USA. Let alone watching the poor Columbian President trying to be diplomatic when he clearly wanted to look at Trump and say “are you a complete fucking idiot?”

It bothered me a little less as we watched Angela Merkel of Germany a month ago stand side by side with Donald J Trump and his words and speech made him shrink before our eyes <and earned Merkel the title of ‘leader of the free world’>.

Yeah.

That’s tough competition for any president so while I cringed at the shrinkage I figured it may be one of Donald J’s most difficult contrast & comparison situations.

But in between yesterday’s unfortunate public display and Merkel’s hint of what was to come we see time and time again he is placed side by side with the leader of another country and he shrinks in comparison as soon as they both start talking.

By the way … this is a problem.

Not just for Donald J Trump but also for America.

When he shrinks in comparison America shrinks globally. This doesn’t mean we will not retain the world’s largest economy which demands that people have to deal with America regardless … but … it effectively shrinks our leadership role globally.

Sigh.

I honestly don’t know what I would do with Donald J Trump if I was his communications director. I know I would be honest with the Trumpster and say “stop giving interviews because you don’t know when to stop talking” … “don’t answer in paragraphs but rather in sentences because you cannot assemble a coherent paragraph thought” … “never talk about yourself when standing side by side with a peer” … “lets schedule some more of those fake campaign speeches  in front of your few rabid followers so you can feel free and complain about everyone & everything and explain how great you are because they will love it.”

I also know my honesty would get my ass fired so quickly don’t blink because you would miss my time in the White House.

Media training is a pain in the ass but in its pain it grinds you down to reality about yourself. You learn to duck the bad comparisons a little better and seek the opportunities to contrast positively a little better.

I don’t believe we need a member of the Mensa society to be the president or even to be effective in positively contrasting themselves in a tough situation in which the other is smart, thoughtful & articulate. But you do need someone who is self-aware in the moment & environment. Media training almost above any other training you may receive in business harshly introduces you to self-awareness.

What I do know is that without some very harsh media and communications training President Trump will continue to shrink in comparison time and time again.

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

“A single arrow is easily broken, but not ten in a bundle.”

—–

Japanese proverb

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

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed. It is the only thing that ever has.”

—–

Margaret Mead

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

So.

I was listening to a bunch of talking heads on tv speculating on a staff shake up in the Trump white house personnel.

One thing I heard caught my attention … “well, part of the president’s issue is that he has kind of a hodgepodge of personnel.”

And that thought is correct. And it made me think a little bit.

The truth is once you move past managing a group or running a mom & pop sized business every management team you manage will be a hodgepodge of people, skills, personalities and … well … loyalty. Not only is it impossible to hire in ‘your people’ in every slot … most good leaders do not want to do that.

All that said.

To be clear.

Trump is possibly one of the crappiest senior leaders I have ever seen and he appears to have no belief that words matter and has no understanding of the concept of ‘communication alignment’ <let alone any alignment> … however … he is what he is. And because he is what he is … inconsistencies included … the staff he surrounds himself matters a shitload with regard to overall effectiveness.

What do I mean?

Trump forces his staff to adjust in real time as he communicates, and thinks, in real time.

Trump has never worked in a large organization nor has he ever truly had to manage a larger group of people, let alone senior executives.

He has always been the spokesperson and the brand and the final word … surrounded by family who was more than happy to simply double and triple down on whatever dad said <and be loyal to even his craziest tactical maneuvering and craziest words and wordsmithing>.

Real senior executives do not work that way nor is it a particularly effective method outside of a mom & pop structure.

In a real business organization you don’t get to pick & choose everyone in your circle … most times it is a hodgepodge of skills, personalities and experience. And you know what? You learn to manage them effectively because that is what a leader does.

You adapt some of you to accommodate some of them <yeah … sure … envision Trump doing that … uhm … sure … ain’t gonna happen>.

Trump is being forced out of his mom & pop management model into a more traditional larger business management model <and he is going kicking & screaming>.

Most people learn this as soon as they move from group management to department management <you cannot fire everyone and rehire only your people> and absolutely learn this lesson as soon as you move into the C-level positions.

Another aspect is when you get a position you do not treat it as an “I won so you need to …” but rather “I now get to lead and I am going to have to …”

All that said.

You learn some management personnel tricks to help you out.

I always tried to bring one person with me wherever I went as I moved up. Depending on the structure of the organization I always wanted at least one person who could “translate” me to the hodgepodge team. This wasn’t necessarily done to dictate my desires & behaviors onto a team but rather to help them align to how I managed so they could adapt and move faster.

I manage nothing like Trump but let’s assume Trump is moving into the presidency … it almost becomes mandatory for effectiveness that he has a team aligned on “what to do when Trump does his crazy.” He need a management team that doesn’t argue about what to do he needs a management team that absorbs the blow and moves out doing what needs to be done as the true power brokers for getting shit done.

By the way … this is not about loyalty to Trump this is about loyalty to most effectively getting good shit done. I didn’t care if people bitched about me behind my back <I always assumed they did> what I cared about is that they respected the general idea and invested their energy in trying to figure out how to best effectively implement the idea rather than invest energy trying to defend anything they really would have preferred just bitching about behind my back.

I always preferred loyalty to “getting good smart shit done” and always believed I would ultimately earn some respect if I <Me> always remained loyal to the idea of “enabling good smart shit to get done.”

Before I finish this thought I will admit my preference was always to try an bring in two foundational team members in order to kind of create some pillars … but you can get away with one to align a hodgepodge of managers & executives.

Anyway.

In an organization the size of a presidency Trump needs a translator but more importantly he needs an aligned team with regard to what to do with him and his behavior <and not be arguing over it>.

……… a Trump management team ………

Trump’s inclination will be with what he feels most comfortable with — family.

His next inclination will be with what makes him feel the best — the ones who unflinchingly try and power-broke the crazy <he would call them unflinching loyalists>.

Neither of those have anything to do with effective leadership nor do they have anything to do with effective ‘management of getting shit done.’

He has never been in a large organization nor has he managed a large group of people nor has he tried to get a large group of people aligned to agree & do some shit.

He naturally gravitates toward employees who don’t deliver bad news and those who deliver flattery.

They may feel good to have around but they are the absolute worst people to have on your management team. You only build a team like that if you have no interest in improving, no interest in any intellectual conflict <which is what actually sparks better ideas> and/or you are so insecure or arrogant <yes, you can be both> you don’t want any ideas other than your own.

Most often it is the senior leadership who challenges you that prompt new insights and help propel the group to success.

 

 

“You need people who have different points of view and aren’t afraid to argue. They are the kind of people who stop the organization from doing stupid things.”

Harvard Business Review

 

Look.

All leaders assume responsibility for a hodgepodge of senior managers. That’s what we do.

And we learn to set what expectations are and align on vision and encourage some flexibility & adapting and get going.

And we learn that some of what we do and what we think works a little better in one place than anther and that some people are better than we think at first blush and some people we really liked when we met them are worse than we thought.

And we learn that you don’t demand respect but rather earn it and loyalty is gained through respect.

I would imagine that engendering loyalty to Trump is hard in that up to this point loyalty most likely centered on fame & fortune.  And most of us who have led in larger organizations understand that strong foundational loyalty is less about the tangible fame & fortune but rather respect.  He is gonna have some problems with that.

I would imagine that effectiveness to Trump is blind support for him and what he says. And most of us who have led in larger organizations understand that effectiveness is less about support for what the leader says … but rather in structured response to a leader’s guidance & thoughts. I never wanted people to do what I said … I wanted people to do what needed to be done.  He is gonna have some problems with that.

I would imagine that alignment to Trump is familial. And most of us who have led in a larger organization want the exact same thing … but we know we have a hodgepodge team who is ‘the family’ and we deal with it.

Would I shake up the Trump administration? Yeah. I surely would.

And I would do it almost exactly opposite of how I envision he is likely to do it.

He doesn’t understand there is a campaign team and now he needs an effective doing team. He bludgeoned us with his dull insights on the campaign trail and now he needs to focus more on action.

What would I do with his cadre of white men?

I, personally, would make Kushner my chief of staff. He has no fucking clue how to do the job but he knows the Trumpster better than anyone in the world.

Give him some deputies who have a shitload of government experience. Send Ivanka off to write a real book. And build a staff of Republican zealots who know how to get shit done. Trust the Kushner kid to translate what the Donald J crazy means to everyone.

Bannon can stay but he just needs to focus on feeding the Trump crazy and let Kushner kid deal with the crazy output.

Others <just off the top of my head>. I love Wilbur Ross. Mnuchin almost seems overwhelmed-giddy by being in the spotlight. I would find a sane version of Mulvaney to take his job. I would tell Tillerson to start hiring like a mad man and tell him he can fire whoever he doesn’t need once he actually has some staff to do some shit. Just get out of Mattis, McMaster and Kelly’s way. I can’t get rid of Sessions even though I think he is crazy <I think he thinks he lives in the 1950’s> but because he actually translates Trump crazy better than anyone other than maybe that little pit bull Lewandowski.  I would wake up Carson, Perry, and all the other Cabinet members we haven’t heard a peep out of and ask them if they would like to participate in this circus.

I imagine my real point is that to be an effective leader of a hodgepodge group it is more important that THEY can work together than YOU like them.

Because if they can work together well than there is a better chance that the organization will not do stupid shit even if you make a stupid decision, your crazy will come to life as not-so-crazy pragmatism and knee-jerk spontaneous crazy asshat tweets simply get absorbed into seamless actions which make the tweets look a little less spontaneous, a little less knee jerk, a little less crazy … but still asshat because that is who you are.

And that is the value of a non-arguing hodgepodge group. They tend to mute the mistakes and crazy and amplify the actual good ideas and thoughts you may actually have.

A non-aligned hodgepodge managerial team simply exacerbates the problem — your crazy looks crazier, your spontaneous looks more spontaneous <see: unhinged> and your asshatedness looks more asshatted.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would look at him as a lost cause … he is what he is. He is a flower <with thorns> and I would turn my attention to the environment the flower is growing in.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would find a team that maybe wasn’t on the “Trump train” but rather find competent people who can do shit that I want done <and let the chief of staff … who is on the Trump Train … get them doing Trump train shit>.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would turn to the Kushner kid and say “you wanted in … you are in. You are the Trump whisperer. Make shit happen.”

Let me be clear.

Trump will shake up his staff and maybe cabinet members and he will fuck it up. He has no idea how to manage a business organization other than in a mom & pop style and he has no innate leadership skills and his management instincts suck.

And he has no clue how to build an effective team <someone should tell him there is not enough room up his ass for all the people he actually needs to run a country let alone a viably larger sized organization>.

Oh. And he is a narcissistic asshat who believes no one knows better than he does.

In the end.

As I stated in my Trump 100 day piece … he did nothing in his first 100 days that would suggest the next 100 days <and foreseeable 100 day increments> would be any smoother, efficient or effective. I am 99% confident he will shake up his staff and management team and I cannot envision it proceeding smoothly, efficiently or effectively. Why? Because he has no clue what he is doing.

==========

“Oh, How insanely outside the window

О,   как   безумно   за       окном

Howls and rages the evil storm,

Ревёт, бушует  буря злая”

–

Alexander Blok

===========

“Every advantage is temporary.”

―

Katerina Stoykova Klemer

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

“The weather-cock on the church spire, though made of iron, would soon be broken by the storm-wind if it did not understand the noble art of turning to every wind.”

–

Heinrich Heine

=========

In business we talk incessantly about visions and missions and purpose and strategic objectives and important long term type thinking to insure everyone knows where they are going and how they will go about doing it.

We worry about how to smartly effectively compete.

We worry through some fairly random details, talk about being the best and then … uhm … proceed to be anything but the best.

So … you know what?

If you are better and have a better offering and are truly worth a shit and want people to know you are worth a shit … well then … there is no real intellectual challenge.

You get on with getting on.

I am not suggesting being stupid about competing.

Nor am I suggesting bludgeoning the industry and competitors with some dull edged hammer.

I mean … for god’s sake we can talk forever on all the topics I just listed and stew over all the long term type shit … but … we all know the holy grail of business success actually resides in ‘windows of opportunity.’

Now.

Windows of opportunity arise all the time if you are paying attention.

As I have noted before ‘white space’ analysis in positioning is archaic thinking mostly because it explores a stagnant 2 dimensional industry when in reality any business in today’s world is 4 dimensional, at its most simplistic, and constantly moving & a swirl of constant activity in which no one competitor is ever truly standing still.

What that means is, basically, in today’s business world you set out down a road you want to go down and seek small windows in the chaos of normal business activity to “hit the hole.” Just like as a running back there is a huge mass of men & pads in front of you and you ‘just get going’ assuming a hole will open and you get through it.

Ah.

And then … of course … there are the windows that get placed in front of you. you don’t need to go looking for them … they are just there.

Windows of opportunities come in all shapes and sizes but the one you kill for is the opportunity for a stark contrast.

Stark contrast is the holy trinity of windows because it is the opportunity to create distinction, separation and build value. Uhm. That is if you actually use this window of opportunity correctly.

We assess this type of window two ways <because stark contrast also represents potential issues>.

• A stark contrast shouldn’t really come at the obvious detriment of a competitor. While a stark contrast certainly represents an opportunity to laugh at a competitor or possibly make them look foolish to do so is to miss the larger opportunity. The larger opportunity isn’t to diminish their value to make yours look bigger but rather use a stark contrast to leverage more value for you.

• A stark contrast really shouldn’t come at the obvious detriment of the category/industry. This one is a little tricky but is a corollary to my first point. You don’t want to make the category look stupid or ‘less than.’ A part of how you conduct your business is protecting the larger institution. In other words … you never sacrifice the greater institution simply to try and gain a temporary advantage for yourself. .

<note: both of these are incredibly hard lessons to maintain in a highly competitive, selfish thinking, short term view business world>

And then, of course, even if we do think those two things through well and then take that temporary advantage offered us I will note that we, in business, are incredibly poor at knowing when to quit the contrast so we keep pounding the nail into the board even though it is already all the way in.

That said.

The true value of this stark contrast opportunity is distinction. Why do I put such a high value n distinction?

Distinction is one of those fabulous things that the more you try to be distinct the less likely you will actually be so <at least in a meaningful way>.

And if I could convince more companies to think about this with clear heads I am not sure I would make any more money but I am sure they would.

i know, I know … easy for me to say.

But the pursuit of the elusive distinction can sometimes drive businesses to some fairly irrelevant, if not absurd, and absolutely meaningless places. I know it sounds crazy but, if they ignored it, I bet it would happen. Well. It would happen if they were smart about focusing on themselves … who they were and who they wanted to be … uhm … and took the temporary advantage offered them in stark contrast windows of opportunity.

So let’s call it a crazy smart idea.

But tough to do <as most crazy smart ideas are>. Tough because it doesn’t exactly match up with the standard “this is how you are supposed to do it” management guides. Waiting for opportunities isn’t something that they teach you in ‘how to aggressively beat the crap out of your competition in the industry” school.

Anyway.

Maybe that is the most important point.

There are a lot, a shitload, of crazy smart business people out there.

But there are not a lot of crazy smart business people who seem to be willing to do something crazy like ignore the business books “plan to success” blueprints.

Here is where I put my money.

The few. Those crazy enough to not plan for distinction but rather let distinction and originality simply evolve from who they are, what they think and their vision of what they think they should be and the ones who ‘get going’ smartly to starkly contrast themselves when a window opens.

Crazy?

Probably.

But in a world where the majority of businesses, and new ideas, fail … maybe this isn’t a crazy a thought as it sounds.

And, at its core, the concept of what I just outlined isn’t that crazy because businesses are always seeking an advantage.

And they should.

I imagine the point I am going to make is that most businesses don’t consider ‘advantage’ as temporary. When it actually happens … they treat it as sustainable.

And ultimately that becomes their downfall.

Windows of opportunity close. And 90% of the time they close quickly. And maybe that is where the ‘sustainable ‘ belief really screws most businesses. They jump through the window of opportunity, and let’s say they even treat the stark contrast opportunity correctly and do all the right things, they then act like they are going to stay on that side of the window <acting as if the advantage and opportunity is sustainable>.

Wrong.

Bad decision.

Windows of opportunity are meant to be jumped through … opportunity maximized … and then you jump back before it closes again.

Why?

Stark contrasts are most typically contextual to a certain situation. Most businesses are smart enough if they give you a stark contrast opportunity to actually change the context to insure the contrast opportunity ceases.

In addition … knowledge never stops. Knowledge, in and of itself, changes environment … it is never stagnant.

Sustainable advantage is really rare.

Extremely rare.

And, frankly, many businesses are actually too slow to take advantage of their … well … advantage. The window of advantage does not stay open long.

Businesses work to gain it. They get it. They build plans to take advantage of the advantage. They go and do … and … well … their advantage is not only as advantageous as it used to look but in many cases it is no longer even the advantage that you thought it was. The window is closed. Oh. Maybe worse? To your dismay you look around the room and another frickin’ window is open.

Damn.

Wrong window at the wrong time.

Ok.

My last point on a stark contrast window of opportunity.

While everything I just discussed is about opportunity to build value and distinction a stark contrast opportunity offers you the one thing which is the one thing you dream about as a business – an interested person.

In general, in a sea of business sameness and a cluttered world of meaningless communication, whether you are trying to sell something or showcase value you will be faced with a great barrier of lack of interest.

People, in general, don’t care until they have to care.

I would like to point out that while we all say “the greatest thing since sliced bread” that sliced bread was not that great to people in the beginning … people just didn’t care about sliced bread … they liked what they had <unsliced>.

Anyway.

The corollary to that thought?

Everything is interesting at some point.

Yup.

Everything.

It’s all about uncovering the most relevant time to be relevant <and interesting>. Pick the wrong time and you waste $’s because the consumer just doesn’t care. Be interesting at the right time and the brand becomes relevant <and sales increase>.

Whenever I bring this topic up oddly <in general> I find everyone gravitating to the ends of the spectrum … half believe whatever their widget is that everyone is interested in it … and the other half suggest the world has gone to hell in a hand basket and people don’t care about anything.

Regardless.

Assume people don’t care about what it is you want to tell them. And assume they don’t care about your product <until you do something wrong>.

But the one time you may actually have a chance to generate some interest in a stark contrast. Most times your advantage or difference or distinctness is almost indiscernible to the human eye <despite how proud you may be of it>. and that is where a stark contrast offers you the greatest part of the opportunity – it is discernible.

All businesses need to remember that people just don’t care until they have to care … but people always care about vivid comparisons and take note of hem in a grayish world — that is why you take advantage of stark contrasts windows of opportunity.

That’s it for businesses and stark contrast windows of opportunity.

In general … stark contrast opportunity or not, personally, I believe many businesses mismanage any ‘advantage’ opportunities.

In attitude and in behavior.

They think incorrectly, or have a flawed view when they think, and implement too slowly. They overthink the wrong things and under think the right things.  They think long term sustainable within what are really short term opportunities. They think of ROI in terms of “time I have maintained active or the advantage” rather than viewing time in a “37 seconds used wisely is a lifetime.”

I tend to believe it is because businesses try to simplify as much a possible with the intent to replicate as much as possible. Neither of those thoughts in that last sentence are particularly effective with regard to a stark contrast window of opportunity. Oddly, the pursuit of simplicity increases cumbersome less-than-effective responses.

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

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value.

Life and business <whether we like to admit it or not> is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial <therefore unique is basically artificial in its inevitable obseletion> where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.

Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

–

Arturo Perez Revarte

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

Whether you want to simplify or not … one of the wisest things you can always keep in mind is … Everything has to do with everything else. Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.

Another wise thing to keep in mind is windows of opportunity always arise but the ones that offer stark contrast may be one of the most valuable opportunities you can ever encounter in business.

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

“When a flower doesn’t bloom you fix the environment in which it grows, not the flower.”

—

(via ociz)

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

Whew.

“If I have told you once i have told you a thousand times … “ … what kid hasn’t heard this from an adult.

And what do the kids hear?

If I’ve told you once, I <might as well> have told you a thousand times <for all the good it did>.

Oh.

Shit.

How many times have adults heard a different version of this from a boss in the workplace?

This is almost a perfect symbol of the failure of our culture.  Huh? I am not sure but it seems culturally we have completely forgotten that a lack of desired response is more often a derivative of the stimulus provided rather than some ineptitude on the part of the responder/listener.

In other words … it is more likely you said or did the wrong thing to get the response you actually desired.

In today’s world we seem to immediately default to “oh, they just don’t get it.”

Well … let me tell ya … most of us can ‘get it’ if we would just get a fucking semi-articulate stimulus.

I got this whole stimulus/response pounded into my head working at one of the world’s largest advertising agencies which most likely knew more about effective communications, and how to smartly teach how to effectively communicate, in the world <J. Walter Thompson>.

From day one you got stimulus response pounded into your head.

Develop a stimulus with a specific response in mind.

Measure responses.

If you don’t see the desired response, review your stimulus to see how you could have better, more effectively, communicated it.

I had this pounded into my head so much I now have a mildly aggravating habit <not aggravating to me … mostly aggravating to others … therefore mild> of constantly stepping back in after I say something and listening closely to a response and saying something like … “my fault, I don’t think I articulated what I meant to say well … what I should have said is …”

When I do that, no. I am not calling the other person an idiot – that is not my intent. The foundation of all my communicating is always stimulus response.

My response is also a reflection of a fact that most times I say something, and I hear myself say it, and I listen to how it is received … I honestly think I could have said it better <offered a better stimulus> and then seek a path to communicating it better.

In my mind it is more about fixing the environment of the flower does not grow.

In my mind it is if I feel like saying “if I have told you once I have told you a thousandth  time” I have a problem … not the person I am speaking with.

In my mind if someone doesn’t try articulating a new stimulus if they don’t get the desired response <or a meaningful response> what they can only expect is … well … evils <something bad>. Because bad has a nasty habit of filling unused space.

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

“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.”

 

–

Francis Bacon

 

=======

Now.

Yeah.

Sure.

Repeated mistakes are a pain in the ass.

But it seems like far too often everyday people, in today’s world, suggest a Reptilian response <instinctual> is the ‘common sense’ response to everything. And, as so often true, there is a big grain of truth within that thought. The trouble is that while stimulus response is a linear truth <in a brain way> … in the real world cause and effect is not always linear … and, yet, is still true.

To be clear.

There is a time & a place for reflexive Reptilian behavior … but you cannot, and should not, live your Life that way 100% and should certainly not live your life that way when dealing in communications. Effective communications is rarely checkers but closer to a non-expert version of chess.

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

“Simplicity is the final achievement.

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

—

Frédéric Chopin

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

Yeah.

That sounds complicated … too complicated. Especially when everyone around you is whispering “simplicity, simplicity, simplicity … things are simpler than we make it out to be” in your ear.

Yeah.

I sometimes think we get confused when we discuss simplicity. For simplicity is not actually in the stimulus … in the delivery … but rather in the response.

Now.

That doesn’t mean a ‘simple’ stimulus is unable to generate a simple response.

In fact … it may more often than not.

However.

Simple stimuli are just as likely to confuse. Provide ambiguity. Generate a feeling of ‘less than’ in terms of what I may need to know to understand and make a choice/decision.

So when someone says ‘show a picture’ or ‘say it in 5 seconds or you lose them’ and be done with it … I just don’t think it is that simple.

That is simply looking at it from a stimulus point of view. Now. That’s not a bad place to start … but it is a means to an end. Far too often we look at that as the answer when the reality is simplicity can be delivered in so many ways your head will spin.

Why does all this shit I am saying matter?

Because saying “if I have told you once if I haven’t told you a thousand times” <or even think it> will not change thinking, attitudes or behavior one eentsy teensy bit. You will fail to gain even close to the response you want … now, tomorrow and the day after.

What I am talking about, in my mind, matters.

I am not suggesting everyone become masters of communication but I do believe we need to pay attention to the aspects of what makes for effective communication.

Why? Think about the prize.

Potential prize.

• decrease ignorance.

Or maybe I should suggest calling the thought an anti-ignorance initiative because this affects both the speaker and the responder. At its most basic level it is fighting intolerance, to ideas, through communication. In my infamous “stimulus – response” thinking I would imagine a response from thinking this way would be enhanced understanding.

The intent of this idea I have is we all benefit to understand the belief system choice and decision making process of anyone and through an enlightened stimulus/response communications model it inevitably  empowers people by creating <improving>  enough basic knowledge and critical thinking knowledge that people can better move forward in life and ‘make choices.’

My thought always seems to center on cultivating thinking attitudes leading to actual behavior and belief systems as an outcome.

Look.

The prize is appealing, for society an culture, but in many ways it goes against what we’re trained to do and runs slightly counter to what we think of with regard to communication.

Most of us think we are clear and articulate with our thoughts and that the receiver, assuming we don’t get the response we desire, is at fault.

Anyway.

“If I have told you once i have told you a thousand times … “

One would point out to the speaker of, what I would call, this symbol of failed direction that if you have had to say it 1000 times and are saying it one more time <1> are you not tired of saying it and <2> have you thought that maybe it will not work the 1001th time … just like it didn’t seem to have an impact the 100 times before?

Just think about I. Think about stimulus response.  And please do so because I don’t want to tell you a thousand times.

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

“Where there is little risk, there is little reward.”

―

Evel Knievel

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

So.

I don’t read Advertising Age often. I never really enjoyed reading ‘insider industry’ magazines and now that I am not involved with agencies that much it doesn’t mean much to me except an opportunity to catchup on the news of some people and places I know.

But today a link popped up in my email:

What’s the Most Risky Thing You’ve Done in Your Career?

Ad Age Asks Participants at Detroit Brand Summit

—-

I clicked on it.

I figured the advertising business, while often ground down to a nub by brand managers and clients who have an allergic reaction to risk, would offer some good ‘most risky actions I have taken‘ stories.

Here is a sampling:

biggest risk was undertaking Pepsi “refresh project,” a 2010 initiative by PepsiCo to award $20 million in grants to individuals, businesses and nonprofits that promote a new idea that has a positive impact on their community. “We took money off the Super Bowl, a property Pepsi had been on for almost a quarter century, and we put it into a different idea,”

Tylenol talking about product benefits and pain relief. His team, however, advocated toward making the message about feeling better with a nontraditional campaign including events.

single biggest gamble: “Leaving BBDO to go to The Abundancy, which was a little startup incubator that was trying to do things differently and reinvent how advertising worked,”

“It was a first-ever auto reveal with Snapchat,” Lenard said. “Together we answered a lot of questions internally about who is the audience of Snapchat: Aren’t they 12-year-olds who are never buying vehicles?”

——————–

Ok.

I worked in the advertising agency business for a long time … that is embarrassing.

If that is risk, let alone ‘biggest risk’, in today’s advertising world as outlined by some people who I assume are leaders in the industry … the industry is in a world of hurt.

As a business person I have always embraced the concept of risk … okay … calculated risk. No sane business person is flippant with risk.

All risk is assessed and calculated for ROR <return on risk> … as well as RODN <return on doing nothing>.

I could argue that between ROR and RODN you aren’t really taking any risks … you are simply doing what needs to be done to be successful.

That said.

I was sorely disappointed by how these people assess ‘biggest risk.’

Look.

Everyone takes personal risks in business.

Not everyone takes business risks. And business risk is very different than personal risk … confusing the two, or even conflating the two, in a business environment is fraught with peril.

Yes.

Business risks inherently include personal risk … but personal risks don’t have particular consequences to a larger business risk – they are more your risks than anyone else’s.

I say that as a professional calculated business risk taker. I can honestly say that any time I ever assessed a business decision or what could be construed as a business risk I never took into consideration any persona risk I may be assuming. To me it would simply clutter what I would assume is a decision cluttered already with ‘what ifs’, ‘maybes’ and ‘uh ohs.’

I always believe business risks revolved around what is best for the business … and you let the chips fall as they may with regard to you personally.

Now.

Getting back to that sad list of ‘biggest risks.’

People can confuse risk with change. Change is change. Any change includes some risk because … well … it is change.

But change, in and of itself, is not necessarily originality. And that is where risk truly resides … in something original.

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

“Safe marketing is the riskiest marketing you can do.”

—-

Bill Bernbach

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

Anything original is never safe simply because it has no real record of behavior & consequences. That means you are modeling and researching and doing a whole bunch of good smart shit to insure it isn’t just a guess … but … sigh … it is just a guess.

That is risk. Risk is a … well … thing.

Originality is a real thing … a challenging thing … and a risky thing.

And to be truly original … in some ways … you must ignore what exists and what has been done before.

You must abandon the safe and secure.

Just think about this little factoid about pretty much any great original idea that has ever happened:

• It’s effective

• It’s always preceded by a meeting in which you will hear ‘are you nuts?’

Well.

Maybe we all need to be a little more nuts.

Maybe we all need to be a little less afraid of the different.

Maybe instead we should focus on what I believe almost all business people really do know … the new and untried can generate the bigger gains then simply changing the status quo or ‘what is’.

I would note that originality has a close relationship to exceptional.

Ah.

The root of that word exceptional?

Exception <please note … that is a significantly different word than acceptable … or safe …>.

We are comfortable in our cocoon of what is acceptable and sameness but it is making ‘an exception’ … taking that slightly risky step … that truly pays off.

In business … if you have nothing to offer but used ideas, you are just a used car salesman.

And does anyone in business really want to be that?

<unless they are in the used car sales business of course>

And maybe that is why the article I read was one of the saddest business articles I have read in a very long time – there really wasn’t anything original or any monumental change. Some were personal risks and the business risks were more tweaks on existing machinery to fine tune the operation.

And maybe that is what the business world has come to <sadly> … a world in which tweaks constitute risks.

Sad. Very sad.

I know risk is difficult. But I also know it is much better than always doing the sure thing – always making the safe decision.

The problem is if you really want any progress or growth … meaningful progress and growth … risk cannot be avoided. You must seek ‘the exception.’

In the end.

I do think business needs to embrace a little more risk.

But to avoid being sad about what we do, maybe most importantly, I think business should stop calling tweaks risky. They are tweaks. They are attempts to make small big and the truly big too small.

And, lastly, maybe we need to start thinking more often “but it might just work.” I wrote about that phrase to make a point about how we, in business, are becoming far too hesitant to make changes.  There was nothing in the ‘biggest risk taken’ article that convinced me my point isn’t still valid. We embrace tweaks to avoid “but it might just work” actions.

“Biggest risk ever taken.”

Shit.

These should be monumental type questions with monumental type responses.

And if you don’t have a monumental response maybe, just maybe, you need to look around what what you are doing and seeing of maybe you aren’t playing it too safe.

And, most of all, if you don’t have a monumental response, you should not try and make something small monumental.

Bigger risk deserves better than that.