I.T. Erudio

Category: leadership

  • experience, time in service, and understanding

    Another of my quixotic projects is making a video production of reading Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essays – which I’m sure would appeal to maybe a handful of folks worldwide.

    BUT considering my track record in “estimating market potential” something that I think has zero potential would probably perform better than the ideas that I think have a HUGE potential.

    Anyway – good ol’ Mr Emerson pointed out that –

    “The man who knows how will always have a job. The man who knows why will always be his boss.”

    -Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Of course a “good boss” will make sure that the folks doing the “how” have an understanding of the “why” – but that isn’t the point.

    On my mind this morning is that the difference between knowing “how” to do something, actually doing something, AND understanding “why” something is done.

    story time

    In “modern America” my guess is that the “average American” has no idea what actually happens when they flip on a light switch.

    Of course everyone understands that you flip a switch, turn a knob, push a button – and “electricity” causes the light to come on. I’m NOT saying that the “average” American is uneducated or unintelligent – I’m just saying that the average American (probably) has no idea “why” the light comes on.

    Ok, this isn’t meant to be an insult or a negative comment about “education in America” – just pointing out that the “modern electrical grid” involves a lot of parts. Truly understanding the “why” of electricity takes some effort.

    experience vs “time in service”

    Again, in “modern America” being an “electrician” requires specific training – e.g. here in Ohio, Google tells me that schools offer “electrician training” programs ranging from 9 months to 2 years.

    After graduation our aspiring electrician probably has a good understanding of “how” to “work with the electrical grid” – and can perform work “up to code.”

    BUT why is the “code” the “standard” – i.e. the “National Electrical Code ®” wasn’t handed down from “on high” but is (as its website tell me) the “benchmark for safe electrical design, installation, and inspection to protect people and property from electrical hazards”

    While our young electrician understands the “how” of his job, they probably don’t understand the “why” of EVERYTHING in the codes.

    Again, I’m not trying to insult electricians – just pointing out that somethings won’t become “obvious” until you have some experience doing the job.

    SO what is “obvious” to that wise old electrician that has been doing the job for 20 years PROBABLY isn’t going to be (as) “obvious” to the electrician with 1 year of experience.

    Of course it is POSSIBLE (and probable) that SOME long time professionals will never progress in the understanding of their profession past the bare minimum. (A small percentage will be (probably) be incompetent but true incompetence isn’t this issue here.)

    Yes, this falls into the “insult” category – e.g. it is possible to be in a position for 5 years, and not learn anything. SO that would be “5 years “time in service” but functionally “1 year of experience 5 times” NOT “5 years of experience.”

    Just showing up for work everyday doesn’t mean you are going to automatically improve.

    teaching and understanding

    There are a couple verses in the “Old Testament” that come to mind (emphasis obviously mine):

    9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons; 10 specially the day that thou stoodest before the Lord thy God in Horeb, when the Lord said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.

    Deuteronomy 4:9-10 (AKJV)

    Notice that the command for parents to teach their children is meant to benefit BOTH the parents AND the children. The “secular” thought is that “to teach is to learn twice.”

    Of course there are always “effective teachers” and “not as effective teachers.” Albert Einstein liked to point out that:

    “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

    Albert Einstein

    SO to teach requires understanding and the act of teaching can/should increase understanding – both for the student AND the teacher.

    I’ve been “teaching” in a formal “classroom” sense for almost 10 years. Looking back at those early classes – I definitely learned more than (some) of my students.

    I had been working “in the field” for 15 years, had numerous industry certifications, and a Masters degree – so MY learning was mostly about the “why” – but there were still areas within the field that I didn’t REALLY understand.

    Ok, the students didn’t know enough to notice that I didn’t know enough – but you get the idea.

    This is the old “no one knows everything” sort of idea – at the time I simply didn’t know that I didn’t know 😉

    ANYWAY – just kinda random thoughts – one more quote that I would have attributed to Mark Twain (he said something similar – but probably not this exact quote) – Harry Truman liked the quote, so did John Wooden – and Earl Weaver used it as the title of his autobiography:

    It’s What You Learn After You Know It All That Counts

  • leadership is communication, “winning”

    I wrote a long post that either needs editing or deletion – but at least it served as “pre writing” for this post.

    status quo

    If you want to be precise the “status quo” is simply the “current situation.” Which technically means that whatever is happening at the moment is the “status quo.” Usually the term implies the “normal” and ESTABLISHED state of affairs.

    “Organizational behavior 101” is that “organizations” of any size tend to work to maintain the “status quo.” This “active desire to maintain the status quo” might be called “culture” or “tradition.”

    Whatever we call it – changing the “status quo” will take conscious effort. First it has to be recognized, and then the process of change can begin.

    In a larger organization there will be written/documented procedures that formally maintain “situation normal.” In a smaller organization there are (probably) fewer “rules” but a “status quo” has been established. Then in a “startup” organization the “status quo” has to be created.

    Of course a “startup” is rarely actually starting from scratch – the folks starting the company are bringing all of their previous experience (positive and negative). e.g. If you have heard the saying “you’ll find it the same wherever you go” – that is sorta the same idea …

    change

    Also true is that “change” happens – whether we want it or not. If an organization fails to adapt to change – then EVENTUALLY it will cease to exist.

    Which means that the “status quo” of “long term successful” organizations incorporates responding to change.

    The term “learning organization” was popular a few years back. The phrase might be a meaningless management buzzword in 2021. Back in the early 1990’s the “learning organization” was probably focused on implementing relatively new technology (i.e. that “interweb” thing the kids are using). In 2021 the “learning organization” should be focused on being an “effective communication” organization …

    communication

    If you are in a “leadership” position then you are always “communicating.” The only question is “how” and “what” you are communicating.

    Communication styles can differ greatly based on individual leader preferences. HOWEVER – one of the biggest mistakes a leader can make is to “assume” that “employees” understand “leadership’s” reasoning/expectations.

    This is particularly important when a leader is trying to change company culture. In a “change” situation it is probably impossible for a leader to overcommunicate – i.e. “change” will still happen if leaders “under communicate” BUT the change will almost certainly NOT be the desired change.

    The concept of “leader intent” comes to mind – i.e. leaders should communicate the “why” as well as the “what” behind their directives. If the desire if to cut waste and be cost effective – then expressing the desire to find ways to cut waste and encourage cost effectiveness will (probably) more accurately meet “leadership’s intent” than ordering people to count sheets of paper and track paper clip usage …

    Sports ball

    The same rules apply to sports teams. Of course it is much more common for “sports philosophy” to be used in the “business” world than the other way around.

    Teams/leagues are simply organizations that have agreed to compete based on a specific set of rules/standards. The big difference being that telling “who won” and “who lost” is much easier with a scoreboard.

    Obviously with “professional sports” the only metric that matters is “winning contests.” Professional coaches and athletes are paid to win. There are no “moral victories” in pro sports.

    Of course that doesn’t mean that “losing professional sports franchise” is actually “losing money”/unprofitable OR that “championship sports franchise” is actually “making money”/profitable. But that is a much different subject.

    Winning

    “Winning” always implies a competition of some kind. In “sports ball” the rules of competition are clearly defined. e.g. You can take a look at the NFL rulebook or download the MLB rules

    But is “winning the only thing?” Or is “just win baby” a functioning philosophy? How about “if you ain’t first, you’re last?”

    If you ain’t first, you’re last

    Reese Bobby

    Well, with all due respect to Vince Lombardi and Al Davis – both of their quotes have been taken a little out of context – as is true for a lot of “motivational quotes.”

    The quote from Talladega Nights humorously illustrates the “out of context” nature of most “win at all costs” quotes.

    Vince Lombardi was also quoted as saying that he wanted his players to place “professional football” third on their “life priority” lists – with God and family being in the first two spots.

    I never heard Al Davis try to explain his “just win baby” quote – beyond being a condemnation of other teams “player conduct” policies. In context he was asking for the same sort of commitment as Mr Lombardi. Mr Davis described that commitment as a “commitment to excellence” – which has also become a management buzzword in its own right (feel free to google the term).

    Meanwhile a lot of well-meaning coaches/managers have misinterpreted the “search for high performance” as a requirement for monastic dedication.

    As always the unexamined life is not worth living – but my point today is that in “non professional sports”/the real world there is ample room for “moral victories.”

    From a practical standpoint – being focused on the end product at the expense of the process that generates that product is counterproductive.

    Yeah, that is not very quotable – the idea is simply that if you take care of the small things along the way, the end result will take care of itself.

    From a sports ball perspective – that is why Vince Lombardi started each season showing the team a football and saying “Gentlemen, this is a football.” Mr Lombardi also pointed out that “Football is a game of blocking and tackling, block and tackle better than the other team and you will win.” First master the fundamentals, and then winning will follow.

    There is a famous story of John Wooden (UCLA’s 10x NCAA basketball championship coach) starting each season by teaching players how to put on their socks. Mr Wooden would explain that if a player put their socks on wrong, then the sock would “bunch-up” and the player would get a blister. If the player got a blister they couldn’t practice/play. So spending time at the beginning of each season to teach new players (and remind returning players) how to put on their socks was worthwhile.

    A stitch in time — something, something …

    Continuous improvement

    Saying that the focus should be on “continuous improvement” implies that the “learning organization” infrastructure is in place.

    If you are coaching “non professional sports” then the primary focus should be on “learning to prepare” much more than “winning.” The entire point of “non professional sports” should be as part of the “educational” process NOT as a developmental program for the next higher level of competition.

    I’m not saying that a “pro coach” can’t have a positive impact on player’s lives/character – I’m just pointing out that the primary focus of “pro sports” is NOT “character development.”

    “Big time” college football and basketball are both money making machines – but obviously tend to be “coach centered.” The most successful coaches tend to be very good at recruiting talented players to come to their school.

    Which means that there also tends to be a huge difference in “player talent level” between the “Big time” college athletic programs and everyone else.

    Meanwhile in “professional sports” ALL of the players are “professionals” – as obvious as that sounds, the difference in “physical ability” between the “elite” players and the “average” players is minimal.

    SO what distinguishes the “elite” pro players from the “average” players? Preparation.

    Of course “avoiding injuries” becomes a part of the story for any longtime successful player – and “offseason preparation” becomes part of the “avoiding injuries” story.

    But time and fate will always play their part 😉

    oh yeah, one more thing

    All of which means a high school wrestler could go winless and have a “successful” season – assuming that they improved over the course of the season.

    A high school football team could be “successful” but lose more games than they win – that 4 win 6 loss team might be setting the stage for future success.

    Successful companies and “sports ball programs” will pass along a culture of continuous improvement and positive change management – the profits in stakeholder pockets or wins on the field of competition will follow a focus on fundamentals and individual development.

    thank you very much and I hope we passed to audition

  • “great resignation”, part-time employees, engagement

    I think I have commented on my love of “buzzwords” enough – that we can just jump into the “great resignation”/reshuffle/reprioritization/recognition/whatever …

    SO a significant number of people are choosing NOT to go back to jobs they obviously found “unsatisfying.” Trying to come up with a single reason “why” is pointless – because there (probably) is no SINGLE reason.

    Sure, if you sell management seminars to “upper management” then packaging some buzzword tripe that reinforces what upper management has already been doing will get you some paychecks. Then the reality is that it is buzzword trip seminars targeted at “upper management” that created the environment for the “great whatever” to transpire.

    To be honest the “gig economy” has been coming for awhile. If you look at the history of humanity the aberration is the “hourly wage”/weekly schedule NOT the “gig economy.”

    For MOST of human existence the major form of “employment” was subsistence farming. The industrial revolution moved folks off of farms into factories – and also created “management” as a job category.

    Henry Ford and the assembly line is always a great example of how UNPOPULAR “factory work” tends to be with “sentient beings.”

    Higher wages cut down on turnover and the “$5 day” may have kickstarted the “middle class” – at the cost of “job satisfaction” and “purpose.”

    part-time good/part-time bad

    Of course if you are trying to build a company on “gig workers” or think that it is possible to grow/build a culture with only “part-time” employees – you are chasing an illusion.

    There was a study done way back when – it was probably the 1980’s – I remember reading the book in the 1990’s that summarized the “secret management miracle technique” that they “discovered.”

    I’m sure some actual research would find the study – but since I ain’t doin’ any real research today – the short form: “major university” did a study of “global companies” and “discovered” that the employees that were emotionally involved in their work were MUCH more productive than the employees that were NOT emotionally involved in their work.

    yup, hopefully that is blindingly obvious. The (wrong) takeaway is that “pay” isn’t a major motivation to increase performance. Salary/pay/total compensation is like oxygen – if you have plenty then getting “more” is not a high priority, but if you don’t have enough, it is EXTREMELY important.

    The same with “job security” – you either have it or you don’t – but threatening employees job security will just motivate employees to find a better company to work with.

    The beatings will continue until moral improves

    Remember the key to “employee productivity” is “emotional engagement.” SO you could have highly engaged part-time employees just like you can have “disengaged” full-time employees.

    Communication

    How do you build “engagement?” Well, you gotta communicate in some form.

    The WORST thing “management” can do is “no communication” – this is the old “mushroom treatment”, “keep ’em in the dark and feed them excrement.” Of course if YOU hate your job and want to make sure that everyone reporting to you hates THEIR job – then the “mushroom treatment” is the tool for the job.

    If you fancy yourself a “leader” and are focused on things like “growth” and “long term success” – then regular communication is required.

    20/70/10

    One of Jack Welch’s tactics when he was running G.E. meshes neatly with the “employee engagement” theory.

    No, I don’t think Mr Welch was heavily influenced by the study in question. Mr Welch was influenced by years of ACTUAL employee performance data.

    The percentages the “engagement theory” folks came up with don’t really matter – maybe it was the top 10% of employees were much more engaged than the other 90% AND that top 10% was also more productive than the entire other 90%.

    If memory serves the bottom 90% are also two distinct groups – maybe it was 70% “not emotionally engaged” (i.e. “emotionally neutral” – but still of some value to the organization) and the bottom 20% were “actively disengaged” (i.e. “hostile” – these folks were actively working against the organization)

    SO Mr Welch recognized that the top 20% of G.E. employees were the “high performers” – i.e. these are the folks getting big raises and promotions. The 70% were still good workers and had the potential to become top 20%-ers – so they received smaller raises and training, then the bottom 10% were “eased out” of the organization.

    Hidden in plain site with the 20/70/10 concept is that the organization is tracking employee performance and giving regular feedback. Most companies seem to find ways to avoid giving regular “employee feedback” – for any number of convenient reasons.

    Obviously when Jack Welch was running G.E. they didn’t have a labor shortage or any issues with hiring new employees. If you are a smaller company then “easing out” the bottom 10% probably isn’t practical – but keeping someone around that is actively hostile to “company goals” is always a bad idea. How you deal with that problem employee as a small company will obviously be different than how a “large multinational conglomerate” deals with the problem (and if that “problem employee” is also a family member – well, that is another issue).

    ownership/recognition

    “Emotional engagement” is just another way of saying “ownership” – i.e. do employees feel a sense of responsibility/obligation for the performance of the company? are employees “invested” in the goals/purpose of the organization? if they are “obligated” and “invested” then they are “engaged.”

    Of course that sense of engagement can be destroyed by mistreating employees – sentient beings are NOT going to willfully work for an organization that treats them like disposable cogs in a machine for a sustained period of time.

    No, that doesn’t mean you coddle employees – it means you communicate honestly with them. No, you are not fooling anyone with the “mushroom treatment” – if you aren’t communicating people will still talk, and most likely that “internal gossip” will be negative.

    How you choose to reward employees is part of company culture – some folks are motivated by “employee of the X” type awards, some aren’t (my opinion: unless they come with a cash bonus – keep your useless award).

    IF you want employees to act like owners – you might want to consider actually making them owners. btw: The reason “CEO” compensation has outstripped “regular employee” compensation is simply because CEO’s tend to get stock options.

    Personally the CEO making a LOT more than “generic employee” doesn’t bother me in the least.

    IF the CEO is acting in the best interest of the organization, providing real leadership, and a positive company culture – then it (probably) isn’t possible to pay them “too much.”

    HOWEVER – if the CEO is using the organization as their personal piggybank, and creating a negative company culture – then it (probably) isn’t possible to dismiss them “too soon.”

    Company culture

    Dan Ariely has written some books on “behavioral economics” (“Predictably Irrational” is the one I read a few years ago).

    Mr Ariely comes to mind because the conclusion of one of his experiments was that “social obligations” tended to produce higher returns than “financial compensation” – I think he had people do a monotonous task and the ones that felt a “social obligation” did the task longer than the ones that were compensated/paid.

    Connecting the dots = employees that are “engaged” have a sense of “ownership” that includes a “social obligation” beyond monetary compensation. (but remember “total compensation” is like oxygen …)

    I’m sure we could easily find (a large number of) people that “work” harder as “volunteers” for non-profit organizations than they do for their “paycheck job” – e.g. in the former they are “engaged” in the latter they aren’t.

    Of course “creation” is always harder than “destruction” – i.e. “creating a positive company culture” requires concerted effort – if it was easy then you wouldn’t see (functionally) the same management books written/released every year …

  • leadership, generals, and politicians

    I developed an interest in “leadership” from an early age. The mundane reasons for this interest aren’t important. It is even possible that “leaders” are/were a pre-requirement for the whole “human civilization” thing – i.e. we are all “leaders” in one form or another if we are “involved with other people.” SO an interest in “leadership” is also natural.

    There are certainly a lot of books written every year that claim to teach the “secrets” of leadership. There is (probably) something useful in all of these “leadership” books BUT there is no “secret leadership formula” that works all of the time for every situation. However, there are “principles of leadership.”

    As a “first concept” I’ll point out Amos 3:3 – “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” The point being that if “two people” becomes our smallest unit of “civilization” then “leadership” is happening in some form.

    This micro-civilization “leadership” probably consists of discussions between the two people on what to do, where to go, when to do whatever. It is unlikely that they will naturally agree on everything, if they can’t resolve those disagreements (one way or another) then they won’t be “together” anymore and they will go separate ways.

    leadership

    Of course we run into the problem that there are different flavors of “leadership” because there are different types of “power.”

    Another “first concept” is that “yelling” is not leadership. Yelling is just yelling – and while it might be a tool occasionally used by a leader – “constant yelling” is an obvious sign of BAD leadership to the point that it might just be “bullying behavior”/coercion and NOT “leadership” at all

    i.e. “coercive” leadership ends up being self-destructive to the organization because it drives good people away and you end up with a group of “followers” waiting to be told what to do whatever.

    e.g. when a two year old throws a temper tantrum – no one mistakes it for “leadership.” Same concept applies if someone in a position of power throws a temper tantrum 😉

    (but there is a difference between “getting angry” and “temper tantrum” – if the situation arises then “anger” might be appropriate but never to the point where self-control is lost)

    Generals

    In English the word “general” refers to a common characteristic of a group. It doesn’t appear as a noun until the middle of the 16th century – so eventually we get the idea of the “person at the top of the chain of command” being a “General officer”

    Whatever you want to call it – in “old days long ago” – the General was on the field fighting/leading the troops.

    Alexander

    If we give “Alexander the Great” the title of “general” – then he is the classic example of “leading by personal charisma/bravery/ability.” He was the “first over the wall” type of general – that led by inspiring his armies with a “vision of conquest.”

    The problem becomes that ultimately Alexander the Great was a failure. Oh, he conquered a lot of land and left his name on cities, but again, in the long run he failed at leading his troops. After fighting for 10+ years Alexander wanted to keep going, while his tired troops wanted to go home. Alexander would die on the trip home, and his empire would be spit between his generals.

    SO why did Alexander the Great (eventually) fail as a leader? Well, he was leading for HIS glory. Sure the fact that he – and his generals – were able to keep his army together for 10 years and conquer most of the “known world” rightfully earns him a place in history, BUT at an “organizational leadership” level he was a failure.

    Cincinnatus

    Arguably the best type of leader is in the position because they are the “right person” at the “right time” NOT because they have spent their lifetime pursuing personal advancement/glory.

    The concept becomes “servant leadership” – which became a “management buzzword” in the 20th century, but is found throughout history.

    Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus comes to mind – you know, the (implied) down on his luck “citizen farmer” of Ancient Rome when it was still a “new republic” (500ish BC) – twice given supreme power (and the offer of being made “dictator for life”) he also gave up that power as soon as possible.

    Also illustrated by the story of Cincinnatus is the “burden or command” IF a leader is truly trying to “do what is right for the people.”

    Of course Cincinnatus’ example was much more often ignored that honored by later Roman leaders – which eventually led to the end of the “republic” and the birth of “empire” – but that sounds like the plot for a series of movies 😉

    HOWEVER – Cincinnatus still serves as an example of great leadership. Yes, he had problems with his sons, but that is another story …

    Moses

    According to “tradition” Moses was a general in the Egyptian army. The first 40 years of Moses’ life are not described (except that he was raised as the son of the Daughter of Pharaoh) – then he kills a man in Exodus 2:12 and goes on the run to the land of Midian.

    There is a lot of potential “reading into the story” here. I suppose Cecil B DeMille’s 1956 version is plausible – the love story between Moses and Nefretiri feels like the “Hollywood movie” addition, and of course Charlton Heston as Moses is a simplification (Aaron probably did most of the “talking”).

    ANYWAY – the point is that (after 40 years of tending sheep in Midian) Moses didn’t WANT the job of leading the tribes of Israel out of Egypt – which is what made him perfect for the job.

    Feel free to do your own study of Exodus – for my point today, Moses became a “servant leader” after 40 years of tending sheep. The mission wasn’t about him, it was about, well, “the mission.”

    Just for fun – I’ll point at Numbers 12:3 and also mention that the first five books of the “Old Testament” are often referred to as the “Books of Moses” but that doesn’t mean Moses “wrote” them – i.e. it isn’t Moses calling himself “humble” but probably Joshua …

    Politicians

    From a practical standpoint – both Cincinnatus and Moses were facing “leadership situations” that involved a lot of responsibility but NOT a lot of “real privilege.” As they approached the job it was as a responsibility/burden not as a “privilege.”

    Old Cincinnatus simply resigned rather than try to rule. Moses didn’t have that option 😉 – so we get the story of the “people” blaming him for everything wrong and rebelling against his leadership multiple times (and as the leader Moses was also held to a higher standard – but that is another story).

    In the last 25 years of the 20th century the “management buzzwords” tried to differentiate between “managers” and “leaders.” Which is always a little unfair – but the idea is that “managers” are somehow not “leaders” if all they do is pass along information/follow orders.

    In practice “good management” is “leadership.” However, if an individual is blindly following orders (with no concept of “intent of the command”) then that probably isn’t “leadership.”

    Sure, saying “corporate says to do it this way” is probably the actual answer for a lot of “brand management” type of issues – which is also probably why being “middle management” can be frustrating.

    I’m fond of saying that a major function of “senior leaders” is developing “junior leaders” – so the “leadership malfunction” might be further up the chain of command if “front line managers” are floundering.

    With that said – “politicians” tend to be despised because they are in positions of power and routinely take credit for anything good that happens and then try to blame someone else for anything bad that happens.

    If an individual rises above the ranks of “smarmy politicians” and actually displays “leadership” then history might consider them a “statesmen” – but the wanna be “Alexanders” always outnumber the “Cincinnati” (btw: the plural of “Cincinnatus” is “Cincinnati” which is how that nice little city in southwestern Ohio got its name) and of course a “Moses” requires divine intervention 😉

    Management Books

    “Books on leadership/management” tend to fall into two categories: the better ones are “memoirs/biography” while the “not so good” are self-congratulatory/”aren’t I wonderful” books published for a quick buck.

    I’ve read a lot of these books over the years – and the “actionable advice” usually boils down to some form of the “golden rule” (“do unto others as you would have them do to you”) or the categorical imperative.

    Personally I like this quote from a Hopalong Cassidy movie:

    You can’t go to far wrong looking out for the other guy.

    Hopalong Cassidy

    George Washington summed up “good manners” as (something like) “always keep the comfort of other people in mind.” SO “good leadership” equals “good manners” equals “lead the way you would like to be led”

    Of course the problem becomes that you can never make EVERYONE happy – e.g. displaying “good manners” is obviously going to be easier than “leadership” of a large group of individuals. BUT trying to “lead” from a position of bitterness/spite/coercion will never work in the “long term.”

    If you are trying to provoke a revolt – then “ignoring the concerns of the masses” and trying to coerce compliance to unpopular policies will probably work …

    e.g. “most adults” can understand not getting everything they want immediately – but they want to feel “heard” and “valued.” …

  • Capitalism, unions, THINK

    Capitalism
    “Capital” is simply “money and goods” used to produce more “money and goods.” Merriam-Webster tells me the first known use of the term “capitalism” goes back to 1833.

    It is slightly interesting that “Banking” goes back to 1660. Then the parable of the “minas” also comes to mind (where earning “interest” is mentioned in passing – not as the central message).

    If you want to be slightly cynical you might argue that humans are “economic animals” (the first occurrence of “economic” popping up in 1599 with an archaic meaning of “of or relating to a household or its management” – thank you Merriam-Webster).

    If I have a point – it is simply that human beings are capable of creating goods and services and then exchanging those goods and services for “something else” (“money” is a convenient concept – the word first appeared in English in the 14th Century).

    Behaviorism
    If you are a student of human development – you might recognize the “behaviorist” theory of human motivation that tries to boil down all human actions to “reactions to stimuli” of some form – e.g. incentives, rewards, punishments of various forms.

    This always sounds plausible – i.e. why does anyone do anything? they want “something” in exchange?

    It isn’t as bad as it may sound – the “something” doesn’t have to be “money.” Someone donating their time to help those in need might be receiving a non-tangible benefit – something like “sense of purpose”, “self-worth”, or the REALLY hard to nail down “happiness.”

    Human beings are also complex emotional beings – so saying that someone did something for a SINGLE purpose is always hard. We can get an understanding of someone by observing what they “do” AND how they “do it.” The amount of “character information” in a single action is limited – the more “behavior data” available, the more accurate the “character profile.”

    Fictional Characters
    When you are reading a novel or watching a movie – one of two lines of dialogue or a few actions may be there to “say something important” about the character.

    e.g. In a “cute” movie from 1993 “Amos & Andrew” Nicolas Cage plays a petty thief with a terrible “sense of direction” – which becomes “character information” as well as “running joke” (warning: this movie makes fun of a LOT of “self righteous” authority stereotypes – so it isn’t exactly “politically correct” in 2021 – but it is “fun”)

    I also have a terrible “sense of direction” – which if I was a fictional character might be important – but in the real world doesn’t mean anything in particular except that I shouldn’t be the first choice to drive if “navigation without Google” is required.

    Wait, where are we going?
    Most “-isms” aren’t inherently good or bad. It is always the implementation of the “system” that becomes problematic.

    So pick you favorite “-ism” – on paper it probably looks perfect/pure/”good.” Implement it with human beings, and things get messy.

    Consider “capitalism” – how can anyone object to the idea of people using “money and goods” to make MORE “money and goods.” In an efficient “market economy” we would see natural division of labor – e.g. not everyone needs to make their own bread every day, the baker can specialize in “baking bread” – the butcher can specialize in “meat production” – and the candlestick maker can specialize in whatever candlestick makers did 😉

    The baker/butcher/candlestick maker will probably produce better quality products at a lower price – so even when they add a small amount to the price of their product to make a “profit”, the consumer is better off than if they had to do it all themselves.

    Then the wise craftsman would set aside part of their profits and invest it in expanding/improving their craft, or hiring/training workers to produce more quality goods and services.

    Assuming everything goes well, eventually the craftsman has “money and goods” to invest in other enterprises – so our baker/butcher/candlestick maker has suddenly become a “capitalist.”

    Historically I can say that “community ovens” where common 1500 years ago, then folks would bring there bread to the baker and pay to have it baked, eventually got to the point where (in the U.S. at least) we have “walls of bread” at the supermarket – all due to individuals acting in their own best interest and providing a needed service.

    A modern version of that story is told in “The Donut King” – and also the negative side of human nature. i.e. Ted Ngoy built a “donut empire” by helping others and then greed and lust destroyed that empire.

    Banking
    Explaining the modern “banking system” probably requires its own class – but at a basic level it is still just a “business” that holds peoples money and lends out that money to other people in exchange for “interest.”

    That “money” stuff also has a “time-value” – which is really not important at the moment.

    ANYWAY – when our wise baker wants to “invest” his profits he would start by putting some of his money in a bank/financial institution of some kind.

    If the bank pays our baker “2% interest” on deposits and then is able to lend that money at 4% to the butcher (who wants to expand his business) – then once again, everyone wins.

    Once again, “banking” isn’t good or bad – just a business. Once again the real problem becomes “greed” not financial institutions/capitalism.

    Our imaginary banker might be making a living off of that 2% difference between loans and deposits. Even if our banker is completely honest – there is always the risk of “moral hazard” – e.g. what happens if the Donut King takes out a big loan to “expand the business” and then runs off to Las Vegas and loses it all on blackjack?

    Well, in the real world financial institutions are heavily regulated and have to keep a certain amount of “reserve capital” for “bad loans.”

    Again, once normal people get involved and not “theoretical models on paper” – things get messy.

    Frank Capra
    Frank Capra was one of the great movie makers of early Hollywood. Many of his movies get interpreted as “communist sympathizing” by biased modern audiences.

    Since it tends to get shown every Christmas season “It’s a Wonderful Life” is probably Mr Capra’s most familiar movie to “modern audiences.”

    If you watch the movie – it is a small – and easy to miss – plot point that Mr Potter (the movie’s villain) buys the local bank during an economic downturn. Mr Potter is guilty of both bitterness and greed – and uses the bank for those purposes.

    The “true capitalist” in the movie is George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart). Mr Bailey runs the “Building and Loan” – which in 2021 terms would probably be considered a “credit union.”

    I suppose there is someone that hasn’t seen the movie – so I won’t give away the ending. I’ll just point out that “people working together for common benefit” is not unique to ANY “-ism” –

    George Bailey is (probably) exceptionally generous, while Mr Potter is exceptionally greedy – so if anything the movie is a morality tale about the superiority of generosity over greed – BUT certainly not an endorsement of communism.

    Looking at Frank Capra’s movies as a whole – you see a common thread of “individual liberty over authoritarianism.” Of course he was making movies in and around the Great Depression – but if his movies are concerned with a particular “-ism” then it is “individualism.”

    Remember the command is to “love your neighbor as yourself” – so individuals within a society have obligations to other members of that society as well as privileges within that society. BUT society does not “own” the individual and society does not “owe” the individual anything – we are all free moral and economic agents with responsibilities

    Have I mentioned these things get “real world” messy very fast …

    Who makes the decisions
    Look at all of the “-isms” from 10,000 feet and they kind of look the same. The key differentiator in “real world economic systems” usually centers around who makes the decisions.

    SO should you bake bread or make candlesticks? Maybe one, maybe the other, probably you want to do something completely different – should you make that decision or should someone else tell you what you are going to do?

    Well, almost everyone is going opt for “let me make my own decision.” Which is the fantasy that “true communism” tries to sell – maybe in an truly efficient optimal society where “everyone VOLUNTARILY contributes as required” AND “everything required for living is freely available” that might be possible.

    Meanwhile in the real world – “real work” tends to get neglected simply because, well, it is “work.”

    The oversimplified history lesson
    HISTORICALLY – most folks have been subsistence farmers. i.e. “choosing a career” (for the average person) was never really an option for MOST of human history.

    Then, well, “capitalism” happened – ok, from a “western civilization” point of few the “Black Death” wiped out enough people in Europe that “economic mobility” increased. Labor became scarce – and therefore more valuable.

    The old “middle school world history textbook” explanation of the divisions of Medieval Europe was that there were three groups – 1. those that “fought” (the upper class/nobility), 2. those that “prayed” (the Church), and 3. those that “worked” (everyone else – again, a lot of subsistence farmers).

    The rise of a skilled middle class/merchants kind of disrupted the status quo. Then the wealth accumulated by that skilled middle class/merchants combined with the “body count” from the Black Death allowed for “social mobility.”

    SO as a rule of thumb – we see “economic liberty” always precedes “civil liberty.”

    Unions
    Squeezed into that mess somewhere are “trade unions.” Once upon a time these were formal agreements between a “master” and an “apprentice” intended to provide labor for the “master” and training for the “apprentice.”

    In a world without “accreditations”/”licenses”/”certifications” the apprenticeship was a way to pass on skills and give some guarantee of “quality” to the consumer. e.g. paying for the “trade union approved” work might cost a little more – but you could expect quality work.

    The “modern labor union” probably dates back to the industrial revolution and the creation of “factories” and then the “assembly line.” The “union job” might still be skilled labor, but the trend was towards “unskilled commodity labor.”

    The “assembly line” broke the creation/assembly process into smaller processes – i.e. a single worker was easily replaced because the skills to perform the task could be easily taught/learned (no long drawn out master/apprentice process required).

    Unions Good
    There were a LOT of “abuses of labor” early in the industrial revolution. Child labor, long work days, no “job security” or “workman’s compensation” – early “labor unions” helped bring about needed reform.

    The real motivation for “management” to change how they treated “labor” probably revolved around productivity and worker efficiency.

    Henry Ford famously offered a $5 a day wage in 1914 (when the average daily wage was around $2). The improved wages cut down on employee turnover and improved Ford’s profitability – i.e. paying workers more made them stick around longer and the company actually made more money.

    In “modern times” organized labor is on the decline for any number of reasons – part of the problem is that “the Unions” got big and corrupt at worst/inefficient at best.

    Unions not so good
    Yes, the modern workplace owes “unions” a great deal – but the old “Animal Farm” story applies – i.e. if/when the “new masters” start acting like the “old masters” the ordinary worker pays the price.

    The decline of the American auto-industry serves as a good example – with the Unions illustrating that “greed” is a problem for “labor” as well as “management.”

    Yes, it is a complicated issue – but ideally the “union” should be a partner with “management.” If the relationship is adversarial then no one “wins.”

    e.g. For years “Southwest Airlines” treated their labor union as a partner – and had a long run of profitability (and appear to be coming out of the pandemic fueled downturn).

    ANYWAY – unions aren’t “good” or “bad.” If they serve their members by providing a common communication platform, then they are doing a great job. If all the “union” does is collect dues, make political contributions, and bitch about how management doesn’t want to pay more, then they are probably NOT doing a great job.

    Unions and Communism
    Another pet peeve is the idea that somehow “unions” and “communism” are dependent on each other when they are completely unrelated.

    Unions are not “communism”, communism is not “unions” – unions are about organization, “communism” (as it exists in the real world and not some academic fantasy) is about gov’ment control of the economy.

    I suppose a communist regime might require all workers join a union – but again, that is “management” (i.e. the gov’ment) communicating with “labor” (i.e. individual workers) en masse.

    Meanwhile in a “free market capitalist” system the decision to form a union or not would be left up to the workers – not coerced from above.

  • situational leadership, reciprocity, football?, Hamlet?, random thoughts …

    Random thoughts …
    I find myself wondering this morning if saying “I’m a proud Gen Xer” is an oxymoron. Kind of like saying someone is enthusiastic about apathy. hmmm – I’m usually TRYING to be funny when I say “proud Gen Xer” – a line from “Chinatown” comes to mind

    “’Course I’m respectable. I’m old. Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.” 

    Noah Cross – Chinatown”

    Maybe add – “generations” to that list as well – umm, if you haven’t seen “Chinatown” it isn’t one for the little ones to watch, great example of the “noir” genre though.

    ANYWAY
    I have been find of collecting “quotes” as long as I can remember. I recently stumbled across a “pre 1920’s joke” that went:

    “I just read Hamlet. I don’t know what all the fuss is about – it is just a collection of famous quotes”

    (pre 1920’s joke)

    Which I thought was funny because it reminded me of how I first ended up reading Hamlet – i.e. I had a “famous quotation” book that had numerous quotes from Shakespeare’s play – so in the “pre web” days I actually went to the bookstore and paid $2 for a copy of the play.

    (really random thought: if you watch “old” tv shows occasionally someone will hold up a skull and say “Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well” – when they want to appear to be ‘acting’ or show a knowledge of Shakespeare.

    I won’t bother explaining the quote – but it shows the “intended funny” in the “Hamlet” joke – i.e. the subtext to Hamlet can be “complicated” (extreme understatement), but there aren’t many sections of the play that don’t have a famous quote –

    since I’ve wandered into the subject – the BBC did a very good “traditional” version of Hamlet back in 1980 with Derek Jacobi as Hamlet. Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 version is a beautiful movie – but 4 hours long. Mr Branagh received an Oscar nomination for “adapted screenplay” – he kept all of Mr Shakespeare’s words, but updated the location to the 19th century, and there is a nude scene as I recall (which obviously wasn’t in the “text” as it were).

    Oh, and if you don’t mind black and white movies – Hamlet (1948) with Laurence Olivier is a decent version that covers the story very well (in 2 hours 30 minutes) and showcases Mr Olivier’s acting prowess (he won an Oscar in 1948 for his performance)

    The Team …
    Legendary football coach Bo Schembechler gave a famous speech about The Team

    (*cough*) great speech, of course Illinois won the Big 10 that year, Michigan’s only conference loss was to Illinois (16-6) – I’m sure they were both very good teams – which is why they play the games (and why “sports” is the original “reality tv”).

    The point I’ve been building up to is that “teams” will always consist of individuals with different abilities, motivations, and/or desires. To a certain degree the individual agrees to sacrifice some of that “individual desire” in service to “the team.”

    The beauty of “team sports” is that the ‘scrappy team of less talented individuals’ can beat the ‘big team of skilled competitors’ IF that ‘big team’ doesn’t play as a “team.” (but of course the “smart money” will be on the team with the talent – cliche: “hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard”

    Reciprocity
    Sports at all levels illustrate how “team building” tends to be self- fulfilling to a certain degree. We see this when we talk about a school/team as having a “good program” – e.g. “such and such school always has a good X team.”A very important part of that “program” is coaches and administrators. But you also obviously need athletes. SO which is more important “coaches” or “athletes” – well, you need both.

    “Teams” don’t instantly form – I know there are the inspirational stories of “teams coming out of nowhere” and winning a championship going from “worst to first.” BUT those are extremely rare (which is probably why they are “inspirational stories” – i.e. they had most of the coaches and players equation and find the “missing part” needed to succeed).

    Much more common is the story of building a program bit by bit – continual slow improvements, and then suddenly (after 10 years of work) they become an “overnight” success.

    SO where does reciprocity come into play? well, the team members have to all believe that the team IS a team – and not just a collection of cliques.

    e.g. the person with the whip, might think he and the galley slaves are a “team” – but the galley slaves probably don’t (“motivational speech” from ‘guy with whip’: “We keep you alive to serve this vessel, row well and live!”)

    Back to Bo Schembechler – he was well known for his integrity. e.g. “You may not have liked him, but you knew where you stood with him” is a famous quote from a former Michigan player.

    I always like the idea that “you don’t have to like the coach/leader, but you should RESPECT the coach/leader” – and if the coach/leader is routinely lying and/or forming groups of ‘preferred’ players that get “special treatment” (e.g. “the rule is X for everyone except that small group over there that has done nothing special except ingratiate themselves to the coach by kissing his posterior”) then that becomes a recipe for “team destruction.”

    Once again …
    So once more time – all human relationships are based on ‘trust.’ All of the above about ‘sport ball teams’ applies to interpersonal relationships in general. Marriage, ‘work groups’, ‘project teams’ – whatever … all founded on “trust” that the individual is going to be valued for their contributions and not treated like a disposable “cog” in the machine …

    Arguably, in a “healthy society” the first team someone belongs to is the family unit – with “marriage” being the formative act in starting a “family” — but that gets complex fast – so another “football coach” story …

    Good ol’ Woody Hayes (he coached at one of those schools in Columbus, Ohio) wrote a book titled “You Win With People.” (used copies available on Amazon).

    While all the general public saw was Mr Hayes tearing up his hat and acting wild on the sidelines – by (most accounts) Woody Hayes was respected by his players – i.e. they trusted that he was “fighting for them”, and they had the same mission.

    Fwiw: Bo Schembechler retired from coaching when he got tired of begging 19 year olds to come play at Michigan (my words, but he said as much in his 1989 autobiography – still in print). He stayed at Michigan as the Athletic Director for a number of years.

    Saying that Woody Hayes had a “colorful” career is an understatement – but both men are worth a little bit of study from a “leadership” point of view. The end of Mr Hayes career almost falls into the “urban legend” sort of thing. He was fired for APPARENTLY punching an opposing team player on the sideline – the video is out there on the interweb. There are still plenty of “Woody Hayes defenders” but maybe the “big picture” lesson is that nobody is perfect.

    For the most part Mr Hayes is remembered for the 28 years BEFORE the incident – which is probably as much as you can ask/expect …

    Situational Leadership
    Pop quiz: What is the most effective way to lead a group? Answer: it depends on the group.

    This is one of those “incredibly obvious after it is pointed out” concepts – i.e. you can’t lead every group the same, because not every group is the same.

    Just like you can’t treat everyone in the group exactly the same, simply because they aren’t all the same.

    Individual members of the group should expect to be treated with respect, as well as held accountable for their duties within the group. Beyond that nothing is carved in stone.

    To continue my football theme – you can’t “coach” a group of 3rd graders that have never played organized football the same as you might coach a group of high school athletes that have been playing football since the 3rd grade.

    Not only should the high school athletes know more “football” than the 3rd graders, they (should) also be more mature. If you treat those 3rd graders like high school athletes you probably end up with chaos and a lot of unhappy athletes/parents – OR if you treat those high school athletes like they are supposed to be “professional athletes” you aren’t likely to have sustained success …

    If you happen to have the luxury of picking all the members of your team – then you should pick folks that mesh with your preferred leadership style. (which is why successful NFL coaches sometimes end up as both “coach” and “general manager”).

    But if you have to ‘work with the athletes that show up’ – then you need to adjust to the athletes. That doesn’t mean the coach “coddles” the athletes – but trust has to be established AND THEN MAINTAINED.

    Both Bo Schembechler and Woody Hayes were good at “yelling at players” when they needed to be yelled at and “patting them on the back” when they needed encouragement.

    (… and that is “situational leadership” based on the individual athlete – btw I don’t think insults and/or profanity are ever productive leadership tools, what the athlete will remember is that the coach insulted them or cussed and not much else …)

    Mr Hayes was also famous for being a great recruiter – his tactic was to “recruit the family.” Stories were told of Mr Hayes on recruiting trips essentially “recruiting the mother.” The story usually goes that before the visit the mother would say “MY son isn’t going to play for that mad man” – then Woody would come in and charm the mother and afterwards the athlete was committed to Ohio State.

    (I also love the story that Woody Hayes said that the difference between him and the faculty at Ohio State was that HE could THEIR job, but THEY couldn’t do HIS job. The legend is that Woody was “well read” and also a “full professor of physical education” or something – )

    ANYWAY – It can take years to build up a program, but then that program can appear to disintegrate almost overnight. Though (most of the time) the decline from “top program” to “used to be a good program” is a gradual process …

    Did I have a point?
    No, not really – football season is starting, random thoughts 😉

    I will point out that an “average coach” can have “above average success” if they master the “integrity” and “motivation” parts of coaching. i.e. it is easier for a coach to improve their “football knowledge’ than it is for them to change their character.

    Maybe the “least effective coach” is the one that coaches exactly the way they were coached (if/when they played) – without understanding “why” they were coached that way.

    e.g. if the ONLY reason a team does “whatever” is because “that is what my coach used to have us do.” Maybe this explains the scenario where the “star athlete”/high performer isn’t a very good “coach” when they get the opportunity.

    More effective is the coach that consciously chooses a style based on their preferences/coaching strengths. Then the challenge might be finding a “place to coach” that “fits” the coach.

    Then the “superior coach” would be the one that “can beat you with his athletes, or take your athletes and beat his with yours.” Sun Tzu comes to mind – “Know your opponent and know yourself and you need not fear the results of 100 battles”

    (… of course if faced with a “superior force” Sun Tzu would advise “not engaging that force” – so the coaching applications become a little limited – i.e. you gotta beat the “best teams” to win a championship at any level …)

  • What makes a “team” a “team?”

    … Meanwhile back at the ranch …
    SO I wrote 1600 words or so in a rambling post that started out with the intent of answering the “what make a team” question. THAT post desperately needs an edit, and maybe I’ll post it later this week …

    Shorter version
    “Team” is another of those “interesting” words. Merriam-Webster tells me the word has ‘agricultural roots’ – tracing back to an “Old English” word for a “group of draft animals” as well as “offspring, lineage.”

    SO the original meaning of “team” implied a group that was united by a common goal/task.

    Obviously go back 1,000 years and most folks lived/worked on farms. So the family unit was a “team” engaged in running the farm just to survive – this is commonly called “subsistence farming.”

    Even more obvious – a group of draft animals would be able to perform better if they were “equally yoked” – which I assume referred to using the same general size/strength animals as well as how they were connected together for the task at hand.

    “Together”
    Anyway – the team concept is about “working together.” So it is that unity of purpose that makes a “team” – NOT just being in the same place at the same time, NOT just wearing the same uniform, NOT working for the same company.

    If you just have a bunch of people gathered together in the same place at the same time – that is much more likely a “crowd” not a “team.”

    Go to a football game and two “teams” might play each other while a “crowd” watches. I suppose a ‘team’ with an enthusiastic fan base might end up with a particularly passionate group of “fans” that form a de facto “team.”

    That level of fan engagement is (probably) what EVERY sports team (college, pro, whatever) would like to have – you know, those are the people that buy every piece of merchandise that the team releases, and if they can’t get tickets are watching the game at the local “establishment” with a group.

    … but I digress …
    The problem becomes that you can have “strong” and “weak” teams.

    Completely off the top of my head/made up:
    Strong team: common purpose, everyone respects each other, all team members know how their purpose fits into the overall mission as well as appreciate the contributions of other team members, THE MISSION is well defined. “insert motivational slogan here” 🙂 (pick your favorite cliche: “together each achieves more” or how about

    “Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success.”

    Henry Ford

    Weak teams:
    not sure there is a “mission”, other team members are “tolerated” because they have no choice, minimal effort given – everyone’s goal appears to be to do as little work as possible, if they have a “mission statement” it is something like this

    Sport ball
    The “organizational behavior” point of view is that all of the above becomes part of “team culture.”

    The problem with “culture” is that it kind of has to grow on its own or it isn’t REALLY “team” culture.

    If you imagine a houseplant – the owner of the plant can put the soil in the pot, put the plant in the soil, and water the plant, provide sunshine – but the “growing” part is out of the owner’s hands.

    Same idea with “team culture” – a coach/manager provides the “environment” in which the culture will grow. Then the players/employees will grow/not grow the culture.

    How do you “provide the environment” to ensure a strong-positive culture – well, that is called “leadership” and is beyond the scope of this post 😉

    Interpersonal relationships
    All of the above applies to “two person teams” as well.

    “Strong relationships” are also “strong teams.” Sure there can be “friendly competition” – but each person understands their contribution, it is “cooperative” (as in “make each other better”) not “competitive” (as in “must win all the time at any cost”)

    I’m fond of saying “If EVERYTHING is a contest of wills” then you are (probably) in a “toxic relationship” – which I wouldn’t describe as ANY type of “team” (this song comes to mind – notice they had ONE thing in common)

  • “new freedoms”

    new and improved!
    A random headline that caught my attention (I think it was an online post from a Scottish media outlet/newspaper) mentioned the “new freedoms” being permitted due to COVID restrictions being eased.

    That obviously set off my internal geek semantics alarms. “Free” is one of those “understood but hard to define” words. MAYBE “free” is best understood by comparing it to something else – e.g. a “free human being” is not a “slave.”

    Short form: “free” (in English) dates back to the 12th Century with Germanic roots implying “personal ownership” or maybe “self determination” and “lack of external coercion.”

    Then (maybe) “freedom” is the “quality of being free” and (maybe) it started as a shortened form of “free from domination” (it sounds plausible)

    Anarchy
    Arguably if humanity has a “natural state” – then it is without defined law and therefore without a functioning government. Starting with a theoretical individual – if they are living by themselves, then they are completely free to do whatever they want, whenever they want BY THEMSELVES.

    So it would be accurate to say that anarchy is complete “freedom” for the individual. Meaning that right and wrong are decided by the individual as they please.

    Which isn’t inherently bad – until individuals start living together (i.e. “families”). Then those family groups grow into “tribes” and then tribes living close to each other have to deal with interactions between tribes, etc

    First cities/”Primitive war”/Protect us from each other
    Obviously back in “primitive times” the first walled cities were (most likely) created to protect the “extended tribe” from animal attacks.

    (random thought/tangent: Off the top of my head – for the majority of human existence, the major occupation was “subsistence farming” and a cities “walls” served as borders and as protection.

    Then gunpowder happened, and the industrial revolution, and the “modern world” – as experienced in 2021 – really only dates back 100 years of so … but anyway …)

    There is an old line that “God made man free, humanity invented slavery” – which illustrates what happens when those theoretical “tribes” start interacting without some agreed upon form of law – i.e. if there are scarce resources, most likely the stronger will dominate/enslave the weaker – i.e. the “natural order” is that “might makes right.”

    Meanwhile…
    So the earliest forms of conflict between groups (probably) involved stealing women (for obvious reasons), and then capturing slaves either as forced labor or as “sacrifices”/offerings to pagan deities.

    The point is that there are no “new” freedoms – i.e. the history of humanity involves the “restricting of freedom” by various groups for one reason or another.

    It might be accurate to say “restrictions are being removed” but not that “new freedom are being granted.“

    Human gov’ment can’t “grant new freedom” anymore than they can grant more gravity, or make the earth go around the sun faster, or give me the ability to sing in pleasing tones 😉 (umm, if you have heard me sing, then one of us was drinking – and it was probably “The Minstrel Boy” – traditional version – or if I was slightly tipsy something random)

    Freedom within the law …
    Of course what is desired is then “freedom” WITHIN the law.

    Again, if we go back to our theoretical tribe – the “first laws” would be about protecting individuals from each other. Then if folks aren’t killing each other (e.g. murder is bad) and society starts to form/grow – maybe “the tribe” starts worrying about “property laws” (e.g. stealing is bad), then passing on property/inheritance becomes an issue and “marriage” laws both strengthen the family unit and provide a way to legitimize “heirs” – but that is just me guessing.

    If you want to sound pretentious you might say that humans formed the earliest governments to “legitimize the use of force.”

    If you want to argue that “more laws” don’t make folks righteous – well, I’ll agree with that – and then quickly point out that the “truth” is somewhere in the middle. i.e. “no law” is just as bad as “slavery by regulation” – both extremes put the individual at the mercy of potentially malicious external forces: e.g. either “other folks” or a tyrannical indifferent bureaucracy …

  • fidelity, wisdom, and virtue

    First principles:
    As a first principle we can say that “conscious thought” always precedes “intentional action.”

    Volumes have been written on that concept – and it makes for an interesting “two drink discussion” – i.e. what exactly is “consciousness?” is a “reflex” action “thought?”

    We then wander into the concept of “mind vs body” – i.e. if a small child puts their hand on a hot stove, they will automatically pull their hand back illustrating a “reflex” action (the autonomic nervous system). BUT “reflexes” can be controlled by “higher brain” functions in humans (completely irrelevant tangent from Ancient Rome here).

    Sure in “animals” it is possible to condition/desensitize individuals to certain stimuli – but that is “learned helplessness” not “conscious thought.”

    The fidelity thing …
    Fidelity comes into the English language via the Latin fidere (“to trust”). What is slightly interesting is that “fidelity” always seems to have been in short supply, and therefore is always highly valued as a concept if not in practice.

    Working from the idea that “conscious thought proceeds intentional action” – then I will point out another truism: the “unexamined life” is not worth living.

    I usually trot that one out when people are asking for “career advice” (e.g. Q. “What should I do for a career?” A. “I have no idea what you should do – what do you enjoy doing? can you make a living doing that?” etc).

    As a clarifier for “the unexamined life isn’t worth living” I’ll point out that we will “react” to situations how we have been “trained” to react.

    Which is the whole idea of “military training exercises” – i.e. the extreme example: “How will soldiers react in combat?” well, no one really knows for sure how individuals will act – but we do know with 100% certainty that “untrained troops” tend to panic and run – i.e. the “natural response” is some form of “run away.” So “you will react as you have been trained” becomes truism 2a.

    Meanwhile back at the ranch …
    Now we run into the idea that “infidelity” might be the “natural response.”

    Ok, calling someone an “old dog” might be a complement – of course context matters. The “old dog” might not easily learn “new tricks” but has been tested and remained faithful.

    However, saying that someone has the “morals of a dog” is most certainly NOT a complement – it implies that someone acts on impulse for pleasure.

    The (hopefully) obvious example is that “thou shalt not commit adultery” is one of the 10 commandments because infidelity has always been a problem AND we react the way we have been trained.

    SO (in general) if you have been trained that “infidelity is wrong” then you are much less likely to engage in “faithless behavior” of any kind.

    But (just as obvious) if you have been trained that “if it feels good do it” then “cheating” is going to appear natural/ok/acceptable.

    Final thoughts/Wisdom/Virtue/I’m rambling again …
    Umm, all of which means that “infidelity” might be “natural” but has never been “acceptable.” Obviously “great societies” tend to suffer from an internal moral decay before they “fall” – but that is probably like saying that if you pile rocks on top of each (without any mortar to keep them together) they will eventually topple.

    Remove the “moral mortar” from any society and it is in danger of collapse. Just for fun – I’ll point out the Augustus Caesar was worried about the state of the “Roman family” way back when – so this is a “human nature” type of thing …

    ANYWAY – the issue becomes that “societal norms” will be “taught” from one generation to the next MOST EFFECTIVELY by what the “little ones” see at home – which is another post some other time …

    There is a difference between “knowing things” (maybe call that “knowledge”), “knowing what is ‘right/good/correct/moral’” (maybe call that “wisdom”), and “the practice of doing what is ‘right’” (maybe that is “virtue”).

    SO “virtue” must be taught/learned – which brings a quote to mind

    Experience is the hardest kind of teacher. It gives you the test first and the lesson afterward.

    Oscar Wilde.

  • Visibility, connections, purpose, “happiness”

    Quick shout-out to the Merriam-Webster word of the day for August 1, 2021 – pulchritude.

    English has a large number of words – for any number of reasons that I won’t go on about here. “Pulchritude” comes into the language via the Latin adjective “pulcher” which means “beautiful.”

    The “ch” is pronounced as a “k”/”hard c” – so it was both a new word for me, and kind of a “harsh” sounding word for “beautiful”/comeliness

    Visibility … and beauty
    If we want to pick some nits – then “beauty” and/or “comeliness” don’t always equal “attraction” (especially “sexual attraction” in human beings)

    e.g. imagine a set of portraits/pictures of people of varying “beauty.” Then imagine that the pictures fall into three general categories – at one end are “extremely physically beautiful” people at the other end the “extremely physically ugly” – and in the middle something “in between” (whatever you want to call that group – “average”/”normal”/whatever).

    Then imagine we ask a sufficiently large group of people to arrange the pictures from one extreme to the other. There would be some variance within the categories, but IN GENERAL people would arrange the pictures into the same three general categories.

    Everyone (well, a theoretical “statistical everybody” – but not 100%) would agree that one group is “extremely good looking” that another group was “extremely bad looking” and then there is a group in between.

    SO there can be said to be an societally accepted objective perception of beauty (there is a classic Twilight Zone episode that illustrates what I’m on about).

    Obviously those standards tend to change over time – but it has tended to be mostly in the “body” that the perception of beauty has changed. e.g. a “pretty face” back in 1800 would still be considered a “pretty face” today, but the “beautiful body” in 1800 would probably be considered “plump” today.

    Same idea with modern cultural differences – with the “western world” having a different (thinner, more athletic) perception of “female body beauty” than the “eastern world” – but that isn’t the point I’m going for today.

    Visibility … and Attractiveness
    Ok, so we have our sorted group of pictures. Now we might ask participants which group they would place themselves. Which would (probably) give us a clue as to what that person finds “physically attractive.”

    BUT human beings are complex emotional beings – so asking our imaginary participants to arrange the groups according to “dating/relationship” potential becomes interesting.

    That is “interesting” as in “not predictable” – this is where individual life experience becomes a factor. To cut to the chase – “fidelity” becomes a lurking variable.

    Make eye contact, smile …
    I could comment further on the “fidelity” thing – but it is probably a “two drink” discussion 😉 – so we are moving on

    Imagine you walk into a “social gathering of people” and don’t recognize anyone. If you want to meet new people and/or “network” then try to make eye contact with folks, and then smile. If they smile back – then head in their direction.

    Of course if you don’t want to be there in the first place, and want to avoid meeting anyone, then avoid eye contact at all cost, and if you accidently make eye contact – frown and look away quickly.

    Oh, and if you make eye contact and smile – and the other person runs away screaming (and then they gather the townsfolk with pitchforks and torches and start yelling “kill the monster!”) – you might be at the wrong “social gathering” — c’est la vie

    Connections …
    The underlying “non verbal communication” with the “eye contact THEN smile” is simply that “eye contact” means they “see” you and the “smile” means they “accept you” in some form.

    Obviously the “smile” needs to be interpreted as well – i.e. a short smile, and quick head turn is also a “leave me alone” gesture (but not an outright “go away”).

    A larger smile and holding eye contact for a short time might be the equivalent of “Hi, we don’t know each other but come on ever and join the conversation.”

    A big smile, laugh, and a head-nod might equal “the party is over here – everyone is welcome.”

    Then you have that rom com/musical/mythical “Some Enchanted Evening” moment – where two people “find each other” – umm, which works best if the two happen to share the same value system, but moving on …

    All of these are examples of the basic human need/desire to be “truly visible” to some extent. i.e. the idea that “we ‘see’ each other and ‘approve’/’enjoy’/’appreciate’/value what we ‘see’”

    Note that this doesn’t have to be a “sexual”/romantic concept – imagine the feeling of relief when you are at that gathering (where you don’t recognize anyone) and you see an “old friend” who is happy to see you and eagerly greets you …

    Purpose …
    I am a long time “amateur photographer” – I get the urge to “go take pictures” every once in a while. I have noticed that as I’ve become “more experienced” that urge to “go take pics” comes less and less often. Which is probably normal with any “hobby”

    ANYWAY, in an online forum the question came up about the “need” to publicly post photographs. For me the answer is “it depends” on “why” you took the pics.

    Did you take the pics to share an experience? then posting them online is an easy way to accomplish that purpose.

    Maybe it is like asking a “chef” if they NEED someone to eat the meal they just prepared. At one level, it doesn’t matter to the “chef” one way or the other, but still there is a need to be “appreciated” (“visible”) and have a “productive purpose.”

    I imagine there is someone out there that might spend all day preparing a meal – and then throw the meal away, untasted, untouched, unappreciated – but I also imagine that person as being profoundly unhappy

    Back to the online photos – IF the photographer is proud of the work they have done, then publicly posting thee pics shouldn’t negatively impact the photographer.

    Maybe the concept I’m going for is in Kipling’s “If”

    If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;   
        If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;   
    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
        And treat those two impostors just the same;   
    If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
        Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
    Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
        And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if—

    i.e. “external approval” is always nice but never “necessary” to your “happiness”

    Those wacky Greeks
    To the “ancient Greeks” the ultimate “ironic punishment” probably included a sense of “pointlessness” – Sisyphus comes to mind, and I tend to agree – e.g. the Japanese proverb:


    “Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare”

    … but I could always be wrong

    I really need a signature block. Also need to take a “self portrait” this week —

    — Les Cameron
    contact me: les@clancameron.us