Clarity and the 12 Sins of Poorly Defined Outcomes

It is still not enough for language to have clarity and content... it must also have a goal and an imperative. Otherwise from language we descend to chatter, from chatter to babble and from babble to confusion. - Rene Daumal

At some point, a flash of sustained clarity reveals the difference between what someone would have you believe is true, and what you know from the depths of your own heart to the peaks of your soul to be true. What happens after that is up to you. – Aberjhani

A couple of weeks ago, in the middle of some intense frustration over some  business intentions that have refused to cross the finish line no matter how much nudging and force was applied, I stepped away from social media.

I put my 25 million connections across different platforms on hold, exchanging the useful and the useless (read: mundane or inane) chatter for quiet and replacing the incessant online chatting with people I’ve never met with more high-quality, in-person time.  An observation I made to CBC Sunday Edition regarding this was read (in part) on their show last week.  It is at 43:43 of hour 1 and was in response to this interesting piece - The anti-democratic reign of Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon.

I also went on a diet from mainstream media.  With President Trump dominating most conversation channels any, I didn’t think I would be missing much.

And in the blessed quiet that ensued, I applied a technique not often used in my industry to explore the delays plaguing my project.

As an uber-left-brained, ultra Type A personality, it is sometimes difficult for me to get the analytical side of my brain to just shut up, stop analyzing everything around it and allow the creative right side of my brain to have a go at something that intense logic alone can’t figure out.

Using a process that borrows from techniques that artists use to maximize their potential, I set about exploring the dilemma that plagued my teams.

The process goes like this, utilizing key strengths of each side of the brain in a structured, strategic way:

1. First Insight - Back away from deep analysis of the problem and explore key insights with the right side of the brain (non problem-solving mode), allowing the brain to wander “aimlessly” around the problem.
2. Saturation - Overload the left side of the brain with the background data, context, rules, constraints and other things associated with the issue but but do not try to solve the problem.
3. Incubation - Wander away from the problem and work on anything BUT the problem, allowing the right side of the brain to creatively wander through the space, unimpeded by the analytical, logical side of the brain that insists it has the solution (an assertion unproven to this point).
4. Illumination – AHA moments arrive suddenly and out of nowhere as the issue that has been bothering you suddenly has solutions presented from the creative side of the brain.
5. Verification – Bring the left side of the brain back into play and verify that the AHA solution is appropriate, relevant, viable and actionable and use the left side of the brain to create a new strategy, guided by the creativity from the right side of the brain.

For a deeper explanation of how this process works, I recommend Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain: The Definitive, 4th Edition.

In the clarity and grey-matter wandering that ensued, I came up with 12 sins regarding outcomes that were being committed by all parties involved in my current project and armed with the list, I presented them to inside and outside teams this morning.

Here are the 12 sins – how many are you or your organization(s) guilty of?

1. Unknown Outcomes – they have been defined but for a variety of reasons, are unknown to some key individuals or have been forgotten by them.
2. Hidden / Obfuscated Outcomes – an outcome important to one or more people has been intentionally hidden from some people for reasons that benefit the owners of those outcomes.
3. Poorly Defined Outcomes – almost better than having no outcomes but potentially also more dangerous than having no defined outcomes as they are missing key elements of evidenced-based assumptions, specific measurable components and date-sensitive completion targets.
4. Undefined Outcomes – some people didn’t even bother to define them for their team(s).
5. Conflicting Outcomes – outcomes from different individuals / teams are running at odds with each other because of execution or interpretation.
6. Competing Outcomes – poor prioritization or focus has allowed outcomes to compete within the brains of a single person or team.
7. Fluid Outcomes – outcomes that constantly change based on observation, perspective and the current weather forecast
8. Rigid Outcomes – outcomes that should be redefined when data, context and situation call for an intelligent adjustment but people get locked on course, even if they are heading for an open pit.
9. Immeasurable Outcomes – outcomes based on fuzzy things, emotions or feelings instead of being evidenced-based.
10. Passive Outcomes – from the “I hope this happens / works” camp even when the data screams otherwise (if there is any data at all).
11. Aggressive Outcomes – the steam roller approach, ignoring the negative impact on people, organizations and anyone / anything else touched by the results of such outcomes.
12. Timid Outcomes – leaving important things on the table, unexplored and unleveraged, because a lack of assertiveness, confidence or information.

In my early morning presentations this morning, I could have hammered and insulted everyone involved by actually pointing out who was guilty of one or more of these sins (myself included).

But great teams don’t need to be lectured – they know how to solve their own problems once they are pointed out.  The book Are Your Lights On?: How to Figure Out What the Problem Really Is, written over 20 years ago but still relevant, has some useful information on how to encourage intelligent people to solve their own problems.

Having set my team back on course towards a successful completion of the tasks at hand, I took a look at what is trending on mainstream and social media this morning based on social media’s “what’s trending” links.

Let’s see … in the midst of the Harvey Weinstein debacle, I see that Ellen DeGeneres lit up social media with this item.

@TheEllenShow: Happy birthday, @KatyPerry! It’s time to bring out the big balloons!

Sure it’s only in jest and we are hypersensitive about everything these days.  However, if a privileged Caucasian male (a certain President comes to mind) said this, Twitter would burn to the ground in indignation.

Consistency and fairness are important when we are addressing issues in our world, are they not?

Meanwhile, HBO severed ties with Mark Halperin over his own indiscretions and yet defended a comedy that they ran a few years ago that showed a child drinking from a penis-shaped water bottle. 

Apologies for the offensive picture but it is offered to make a point.

I also explored this in the post Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson and Ignorance Run Rampant.

I see also that Hillary’s “The Election Was Stolen from Me” tour continues to trend highly and is either a form of therapy for her  (Hillary Clinton’s Book Tour Is a Dose of Much-Needed Therapy for Her Fans) or a source of anger (Fear and loathing on Hillary Clinton's grievance tour).

And finally, I see that the US Intelligence community continues to control the nation as President Trump acquiesces and allows certain JFK assassination reports to remain classified.

Not to be outdone, President Trump continues to stoke fears in many that we are all about to be wiped out in a mushroom cloud.  Whether that cloud is nuclear or ego-based is still being debated.

On the social media side, I see a lot of conspiracy rants and an invitation to determine what my porn star name would be or if an algorithm can guess my age based on my song interests.

There are many useful and important conversations happening in social media but items similar to the ones shown above are the things being fed to many people who consume what is put in front of them rather than choosing to selectively digest that which improves their lives and the lives of others.

It’s too bad that irrelevant and nonsensical drivel drown important things out and that such noise prevents many people from seeing clarity in their own personal or professional situations.

It would be entertaining to reexamine measurable outcomes of society-at-large as it pertains to social and mainstream media, politicians, business and the like.

I would but I have accepted the caveat that such analysis will unlikely move the masses who prefer to deflect attention away from their own worries, laziness, ignorance, apathy or sense of inadequacy (the latter often being untrue or unwarranted) by filling their mind with such distractions.

The Bottom Line

Clarity matters and often to obtain it, we need to create a gap between ourselves and the noise that prevents us from acquiring it.  Unfortunately, too many people are afraid of quiet, solitude and the chatter within their minds.

That’s too bad, because many people have great things aching to be revealed that could make a tremendous, positive difference on this planet.

Measurable outcomes matter and those who refuse to define and communicate them appropriately often bore and irritate others who get tired of hearing them moan about results desired but not assertively, appropriately created.

Consistency in addressing our world problems matters – we can’t be offended by what people say or do if we say or do similar things, somehow holding people to a higher standard that we refuse to hold ourselves to.

And what we fill our brain with matters in regards to the results we create for ourselves and others.

What do you fill your brain with?

I wonder if your answer and your actions express the same thing.

Does it even matter?

In service and servanthood – create a great day because merely having one is too passive an experience.

Harry

The Alternate Reality of Politicians

Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the wise. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

A hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation. - Adlai E. Stevenson

I have always been fascinated by the alternate reality that politicians live in.

Take for example, The Minister of Municipal Affairs in Alberta, the Honorable Doug Griffiths.

When asked to comment on Opposition Leader Danielle Smith’s plans to hold a town hall to once again express anger over the RCMP and their seizure of weapons in flood-ravaged High River, Alberta, he made an interesting faux pas when he said:

“I am sick and tired of people like her going around trying to blame people when we’re still trying to rebuild the community. It’s fucking embarrassing.”

One of the rules of politics (and business) is that you never let your opponent see you sweat.  As the Opposition Leader, Ms. Smith is paid to represent her constituents, lead her party AND get under the skin of the government.

When a member of the government drops the f-bomb as a result of her actions, the Opposition Leader can only think “mission accomplished – what else can I do to to continue this momentum?”

In addition, in the business world, such words issued against a colleague would immediately motivate HR to investigate – requiring an apology at best or other disciplinary action, including termination.

This rarely happens in the political world.  Even when an Alberta member of government was found to be using his government influence for the benefit of his own company, he was found to be guilty of unethical behavior but not illegal.

I guess it comes down to realities and rationalization. :-(

And finally, we are always loudly trumpeting anti bullying / anti intimidation legislation, especially legislation designed to create a better world for children.

But it doesn’t matter how much legislation we pass to encourage people to treat others with respect.

People model what they see

Unfortunately, politicians can pass legislation that promotes one idea while living another and not see the difference between them.

Meanwhile in High River …..

Ms. Smith held another town hall in High River where angry residents had another opportunity to vent the anger they have vented repeatedly, the only difference being that this time, they had an opportunity to vent it towards representatives of the RCMP.

The reasons for their anger have been documented and expressed many times since June so I’m not certain that another round of yelling and screaming “moves the ball”.

In the real world, upon first capturing the essence of a problem, a problem solver says “I hear you loud and clear.  I will do what it takes to get this resolved and will report periodically on progress or ask for your opinion should we reach a point where decisions needs to be made”.

But in the political world, while Ms. Smith may have taken some actions on behalf of her constituents, she is still focused on the importance of whipping up anger.

The time for anger has passed.

What matters now is focus on execution and results that benefit the people of High River.

Continued anger and outrage in lieu of results only benefits the politician who encourages it.

In the real world, anyone who has their marching orders but continues to convene meetings to revisit their marching orders will cause people to think:

• Did this person not hear us the first time?
• Does this person not know how to solve this problem?
• We have already expressed our anger over this – why does this person want us to keep revisiting our anger instead of solving the problem?
• Why are we wasting our time rehashing everything we already know?
• If we meet enough times, maybe we need to turn our attention to the person who keeps reconvening us.

But this is not the real world.

This is politics, where anger and obfuscation are often more useful than results, as I posited here - Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.

Ms. Smith knows what the issues are, she knows the anger that is simmering amongst the citizens and she knows what is at stake.

All that is left are measurable results that benefit citizens – the bane of many politicians.

And speaking of producing measurable results that benefit citizens ….

President Obama is insisting on the need to perform a military strike against Syria when he, John Kerry and their many political and military advisors cannot publicly identify the actual threat to America, the benefit to America in carrying out the attack or the downstream ramifications of what might happen should an attack be launched.

And as I listen to them play chess with our safety and our lives yet again, I think of the 15 close friends that I lost in the World Trade Center almost 12 years ago and the thousands of loved ones who were lost on that day and in the wars that followed.

When politicians use our security, our well being and our lives in the grand scheme of the strategy game they are engaged in, they do it with lots of upside and little downside … for themselves.

My friends cared little for the political, diplomatic and military tit for tat exercises that ultimately produced their death.

Meanwhile, the people who participated in the events that led up to 9/11 have moved on to bigger and better things, safe behind the security only available to those who play God with the lives of others.

The bottom line

The greatest challenge in our world is that the definitions of reality in the real world and the political world will continue to diverge until all politicians are forced to live the realities that they create for others.

Only then will they realize what needs to be done and how quickly it needs to be done in order to create a better world for everyone.

As James Freeman Clarke once said:

A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

Minister Griffiths has apologized for his use of the f-bomb as noted earlier.

Starbucks, Mission Statements and Authenticity

I was struck today by a conversation with some Starbucks staff as they helped each other cover their tattoos in order to hide them from the prying eyes of customers.

Apparently, a tattoo on a partner (Starbucks lingo for barista) cannot be exposed to the public no matter how small or insignificant.

One of the tattoos in question today appeared to be about 1/2 an inch long and about an inch or so wide.

It was also a highly offensive image.

It was an image of the Earth.

Exactly … I almost called the thought police myself, given the highly offensive nature of the image.

But seriously …..

The conversation caused me to think about Starbucks’ lengthy Mission Statement, which includes the following lines:

Together, we embrace diversity to create a place where each of us can be ourselves.

When we are fully engaged, we connect with, laugh with, and uplift the lives of our customers – even if just for a few moments.

We can be a force for positive action – bringing together our partners, customers, and the community to contribute every day.

It’s really about human connection.

It seems that Starbucks, if I understand the printed word versus actualization of same, encourages people to be themselves unless they work for Starbucks, in which case you can only be some semblance of yourself.

Now if staff were heavily tattooed, tattooed with offensives messages or images or heavily pierced, that could provide impetus to ban some things.

But a generic, across-the-board policy barring everything doesn’t seem to create a place where the baristas can be themselves.

This caused to me think about the many mission statements I have encountered over the years or the many companies that hang Successory-like posters everywhere while executing in exactly the opposite way than espoused by the mission statements and posters.

Mission statements and other material, when applied correctly, can motivate, inspire and establish clear paths of intention and execution.

When applied incorrectly, lived hypocritically or defined with fluffy, meaningless, immeasurable “noise”, they can demotivate, create cynicism (inside and outside the organization) or just make the organization look silly.

For those of you who embrace a mission statement, on a personal or corporate level, do you live it or do you allow it to make you look foolish / hypocritical?

Does it enable you or and / or your organization or does it merely serve as a source of entertainment for others like some of these Dilbert moments?

Because if you don’t know, you might as well hang up a poster like this (courtesy of Despair.com).

Do you know?

Are you sure?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Wikipedia, Pornography and Bomb Making

As a long time opponent of most forms of censorship and a life-long student of the human experience, I am curious about something that I am hoping someone can explain to me.

Wikipedia has been embroiled in many a court action over the past few years regarding the use of explicit pornographic images.  They have also made a concerted effort to remove them where possible, especially in the area of child pornography. 

Many a website, including giants such as Megaupload who enabled the piracy of digital content, including movies and music, have been shut down because commercial entertainment entities were being denied their royalties.

Hundreds of websites selling counterfeit products have been shut down by federal agents after ripping off consumers and authentic merchandise vendors.

And yet. the Al Qaeda magazine Inspire, a hate-filled diatribe that promotes violence against Americans and allegedly provides suggestions, ideas and plans on how to carry out acts of violence is still widely available on Wikipedia.  This is the case even though in places like England, mere possession of the magazine can result in prosecution.

Apparently included in one of the issues are plans on how to use pressure cookers as a bomb component to hurt Americans.

And now we have the events of the Boston Marathon and preliminary information that such a device was used to kill and wound so many innocent people.

As a strategy guy, I understand the concepts of follow-the-money, all-things-for-a-reason and all of that.

But I can’t understand why Wikipedia is allowed to present all of this material given everything else that authorities have shut down so quickly.  I even sent an email regarding this material to various government agencies almost two years ago and never received a reply.

Personally, regardless of my beliefs about censorship and information sharing, I would NEVER allow anyone to use anything associated with me to enable people to commit atrocities or acts of violence.

And yet this American organization allows and enables such actions.

Since we are so quick to shut down websites that adversely impact other organization’s financial well-being, why can’t we shut down content that threatens someone’s personal well-being?

I think there is a consistency / priorities issue here that warrants an explanation.

I also think that when it comes to doing what it takes to minimize the level of terrorism we face, if we really cared and were sincere in our intentions, then we would remove obvious sources of information for terrorist wannabes.

I also also think that we can never be perfectly safe and that we face a difficult balancing act when it comes to security versus freedom as I noted in Boston: Freedom, Security and Difficult Choices.

And finally, I think that everything happens for a reason.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum:

In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, MHA Gerry Rogers was found in contempt of the House yesterday for being a member of a Facebook group where someone else had made threatening remarks against the Premier of the province.  According to the Speaker of the House, Ms. Rogers is considered to be automatically condoning such remarks merely because she is a member of the Facebook group and therefore she should apologize immediately (which she refused to do, as would I).

While I recognize that we are the company that we keep, if any of us are considered to be automatically condoning any social media content just because we can be loosely associated with it, then how do we explain allowing Wikipedia to continue to carry such content, given how many of us have contributed to its content somewhere along the way.

A slippery slope indeed.

Addendum 2 – April 23, 2013

Officials finally admit that the Boston bombers may have gotten their ideas and plans for the explosives from Al Qaeda’s Inspire magazine. 

Are we really doing what we can to protect ourselves?  The new CISPA bill now before the Senate will allow employers to demand social media passwords from employees / employment candidates under the guise of “security” while Al Qaeda’s bomb making plans are on Wikipedia.

Everything happens for a reason. I just wish I knew what this one is.  I have some ideas but they are best left private …. for now.

Addendum 3 – May 9, 2013

It is intriguing that shortly after viable 3D gun plans are made available on the web, they are removed at the request of the Pentagon as noted here.  Meanwhile, the bomb making plans remain available.  Curious indeed.

Tuning Your Message - Being the Change You Want to See

After an interesting interaction with a pro-nature (uber green), pro-animal (PETA supporter), pro-choice (pro-abortion) individual last week, I can’t help but muse about the inconsistency in how we live versus what we expect of others.

Consider these examples:

A client of mine last year who demanded respect in the workplace  but who also routinely tore layers off those around him.  He might have attempted to tear limbs off as well – I didn’t stick around long enough to find out.  I guess he was providing us with an example so that we could see the contrast between right and wrong.

Someone running a local charity who made about $250K per year.  She demanded that her employees and anyone contracting with her organization should work for as little as possible (free was preferred) because “it was a privilege to serve such an organization”.  When I questioned her about the contrast that her salary offered as compared to what she paid everyone else, she replied “I deserve it and you get what you pay for”.  True enough – maybe that’s why she is having a hard time attracting good talent.

And then I return to the person who sparked my musing about consistency. It all started when I happened to make an observation about the irony of humanity in that it finds the existence of bacteria on Mars as a sign of Life whereas we freely abort babies, including late-term in some countries.  We do it without thought since we apparently assume that the aborted fetus hasn’t achieved the official status of “Life” yet.

This person was uber green, promoting the importance of protecting ALL life on this planet (emphasis is hers). Pursuant to this, she was a PETA supporter and demanded that we treat all animals with the same respect as human beings. 

Fair enough – such beliefs appear to be consistent in her outlook on the sanctity of Life.

However, she pointed out the importance of supporting ANY action to protect Life on this earth, including killing people who didn’t respect Life.

Uh … say that again?

She was also a strong advocate of pro-choice, that women should have the right to abort a fetus at any point in the pregnancy.

I was intrigued by all of this and asked her if she saw any inconsistency in her belief that all Life was sacred. 

She replied that we have to do what it takes to protect Life.  As for abortion, she indicated that “everyone knew’ that Life begins at birth to which I replied that science has shown that the fetus responds to external stimuli, including the voices of “Mom” and others that it hears on a regular basis.  Doesn’t this suggest that the fetus is “alive”?

She indicated that she didn’t get my point.

To make it simple, I asked her how bacteria on Mars could be considered “more alive” than a fetus and she grew very angry with my questions and we didn’t get very far after that.

I don’t think she was angry with me specifically although her anger was directed at me.

I think her anger arose when an inconsistency in her own thought patterns was made apparent before both of us and not knowing how to deal with it, she fell back on the old standby:

“If I yell and scream and make him go away, then I don’t need to think about or resolve my own inconsistencies.”

We all know what happens when we push a problem to the side without addressing it.

It is guaranteed to come back at an inconvenient time, possibly with more ferocity.

And now a technical digression …… :-)

As a ham radio operator, I have to be aware of something called SWR or standing wave ratio.  In simple terms, it’s a ratio between how much energy I transmit to my antenna and how much of that energy is actually reflected back from antenna if my antenna is not tuned properly.  If too much energy comes back from the antenna, it can actually burn out my transmitter and for this reason, ham radio operators tune their antenna so that the energy sent to the antenna is actually transmitted to the outside world as efficiently as possible and not reflected back to the transmitter.

I look at Life in the same way.

Our ability to manifest what is important to us (intentions, beliefs, desires, etc.) is only possible when our “antenna” (represented by our messages and actions) is tuned to allow our message to be transmitted efficiently and not return to bite us in the butt.

Our “antenna” is tuned when that which we wish to promote or see manifest in the world is consistent with our actions.

When we are in fine tune, what we are capable of creating is incredible and virtually unlimited.

When we are out of tune, we will find that the energy that reflects back to us creates a lot of angst within.  And when we feel the negative energy coming back, it is a warning to tune up “our antenna” or risk burning out “the transmitter”. 

If we don’t heed the warning, our message never reaches the world and we end up becoming burnt out.

Are your intentions and desires consistent with the message you are broadcasting?

Are they reaching the world as you wish them to or are most of them merely reflecting back to you and burning you out?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

The Adventures of Mirror Man

Scientists have demonstrated for years that humans mimic other humans.  While many of us scoff at the “monkey see, money do” mentality, get angry at people who are “sucking up to us” or allow our egos to be stroked by such mimicry, it is a natural human experience that most of us should understand on a better level in order to be better people.

Being mirrored by someone who has been practicing the art for years is an interesting experience to witness and feel.

One person years ago labeled me as Mirror Man because he thought I had mastered the art.  He also noted that  the powers of Mirror Man can lift you up or tear you down …. depending on how good or evil you are. :-)

For example ….

People who don’t like to be pushed into decisions find that I am equally relaxed about not forcing them into one (as long as the time is available to think, of course) and they appreciate that I give them the space to muse about appropriate decisions.

Others who are aggressive in strategic execution find that my non-compromising passion for successful execution built upon respect, transparency, collaboration and intelligent strategy strongly resonates with their outlook to create success.

When one’s desires and actions are reflected in the desires and actions of others, we find resonance in purpose and results (not necessarily style, but a difference in style can be a necessary thing).

However, what happens when one’s stated desires are not in resonance with one’s actions and in turn, the values of Mirror Man?

Well … then it gets complicated.

When one talks about being audacious about success, implores everyone around them to be the same and then does little to lead by example, results-focused superheroes like Mirror Man can be perceived as an enemy instead of a friend.

When one talks about values like respect and collaboration while tearing the limbs off others, then Mirror Man is probably not going to be found in your corner defending your actions.

When a leader chants the mantra of transparency while living a Life of mystery, intrigue and secrets, Mirror Man’s style of authenticity will probably rub you the wrong way.

A leader who espouses the importance of strong strategy and tactics while executing with reckless abandon will probably find that Mirror Man has long left the building.

And when a leader chooses a style of bullying as his / her means of inspiring results, then they find that Mirror Man is the immovable object who doesn’t tolerate such behavior.

Authenticity is a choice … and offers an invitation

To be authentic, to be congruent in thought, word and action, attracts others to us that help move us towards mutually agreed upon results.

When relationships are in congruence, the results and the great memories that are produced last a lifetime.  Such memories bring smiles and tears of joy every time one reflects upon them.

Conversely, when one is not congruent in thought, word and action, both within ourselves and with others, we may perceive others as being obstacles to our success or impediments to manifesting our dreams when in fact such events are a call to look within instead of consistently blaming everyone else.

And when we have looked within, gotten over the anger or sadness and learned our lesson, then the calling card of the Mirror Man makes sense:

If my letter made you sad, I am not sorry I wrote it. At first I was sorry, because it made you sad, but you were sad only for a short time. Now I am happy, not because you were made sad, but because your sorrow made you change your lives. - 2 Corinthians 7:8-9a. (NCV)

The old mantra “Do as I say (or demand) … not as I do” doesn’t work in business …..

…. or in Life.

In service and servanthood,

Mirror Man (Harry)

The Consistency of Inconsistency

There is one thing that is consistent about human beings, that being:

“The more we claim to be different than others, the greater the chance that we are just like them”.

The #OWS movement (and all the Occupy movements associated with them) are protesting about a number of things, including the notion that they are tired of being oppressed or having their rights and freedoms infringed upon by others.  Many have talked about the need to stand up against the 1% who for too long have been intimidating the 99%.

To suggest these things is to imply that the protestors are different than others, that somehow they have evolved to a more mature, enlightened level than those they are protesting against.

Despite such assertions, we now have reports of sexual assaults occurring against some protesters at the hands of other protestors, the number of thefts from protestors as a result of the actions of other protestors is on the rise and in places like NYC, a sudden increase in unprotected sex (can we say Woodstock) has caused some protestors to scramble for STD testing.

So …. are the protestors really any different than those they are protesting against?

As I walked out of City Hall in Calgary, Alberta on Monday, I was unaware that inside the Council Chambers, votes were taking place on how the City should deal with the #OccupyCalgary movement.

I left the building to have coffee with a friend and was approached by someone at the entrance to City Hall offering me a leaflet.  Intent on getting to my destination in a timely fashion, I shook my head and proceeded to walk past him.

What followed was a tirade against me and my companion, calling us some unmentionable names that I won’t write here and citing how I was infringing upon his constitutional rights by not taking his brochure. 

A couple of other people entered the discussion and pretty soon, several of us were being lambasted on City Hall property by two individuals who derided and insulted us for oppressing them and denying them their right to push their information upon us.

While I’m always open to an intellectual exchange and my meeting companion also said “I’m in a rare confrontational mood today and ready for anything”, we walked away from them.

As we sat in the coffee shop a few minutes later, I happened to notice that one of them had followed us across the street and was staring at me through the window, wide-eyed and maniacal as he taunted me through the glass.  Eventually, he turned his attention to someone else and began to yell at them instead.

If children or elderly people had been present, they may have been frightened or intimidated by such behavior and I made a note to my companion that if either of them were still there when I went back to City Hall, I would notify security.  After all, don’t I also have a right to walk on a public street in a city in North America without being threatened or intimidated?

As I thought about this interaction, I thought about how consistent people are with their inconsistency.

In many instances, protestors are claiming that they are being oppressed by others, that they are meeting violence at the hands of the authorities and that their personal freedoms are being negated at the hands of others.

In my situation today, the actions of the people who were attempting to intimidate me or infringe upon my right to personal freedom spoke so loudly, that I couldn’t hear the message that they were hoping to convey.

Which brings me to this point.

Gandhi once said

“Be the change you want to see”.

In other words, don’t tell us what you want or attempt to shove it down our throats (sometimes literally).

Lead and teach us through example.  Show us that you know a better way of leading and living and encourage us to live the same way through modeling your behavior.

Until that happens, the only thing you are showing us is that the inconsistency of demanding to be treated with respect while treating others disrespectfully is sadly consistent within the human race.

And as long as that is the case, the strength of the #OWS message is diminished and diluted.

At the end of the day, are the protestors any different than the people that they are protesting against or are they merely feeling oppressed because they are not the oppressor?

The latter would be consistent as far as human thinking is concerned.

Sadly, hopes of real change aren't realistic as long as the consistency of inconsistency persists.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

My Values Are Important …. Most of the Time

 

In August of 2009, I mused in my blog “Consistent Messages – The True Source of Inconsistency” about whether or not the messages we broadcast to the world are in resonance with our values and actions.

One of the things I discussed was in regards to a national supermarket chain and their inconsistent message around plastic bags, announcing that they did not want their customers to use them.  The reason was because the environment was important to them and this was one way they were demonstrating their commitment.  To accomplish this, they would begin charging 5 cents per bag moving forward. 

The reason they selected 5 cents was that in fact they only wanted to lightly discourage people from buying them without offending anyone.  They didn’t in fact want you to stop as the signs in the supermarket suggested and I thought the inconsistency between message and intention was amusing.

I was listening to a spokesperson on the radio this morning from the same supermarket chain describing why the chain offered the bags free of charge to customers during the holiday season and had extended the free bag offer for the time being.

Here was the explanation that was provided (paraphrasing).  Tell me if you see a pattern:

1. Holiday time is a busy time and customers have enough to worry about without having to worry about bringing their reusable bags in.

2. Customers are going to the other supermarket that offers the bags free of charge all the time.

3. We are still committed to removing “x” number of bags from the environment.

4. Customers are going to the other supermarket that offers the bags free of charge all the time.

5. Some customers have complained that people using the reusable bags are causing delays at the checkouts.

6. Customers are going to the other supermarket that offers the bags free of charge all the time.

7. Customers need more time to get used to the concept of reusable bags and so we have relaxed the requirement to buy plastic bags.

8. Customers are going to the other supermarket that offers the bags free of charge all the time.

The spokesperson then summed it all up with a choice of words that I found interesting.  This is a direct quote:

“In the end, it comes down to the business.”

As a business person myself, I agree that bottom-line financials are important.

However, when one promotes through advertising, in-store signs, etc., that they are committed to the environment, perhaps they should change the message to read:

We will do our best to be committed to the environment by keeping plastic bags out of landfill but if you don’t like that, that’s ok with us also.  We don’t want to offend you and lose your business.

Or, to put it another way:

Our values are negotiable.

I’m not an uber-environmentalist by any stretch although I try to do my part.

However, this causes me to wonder:

1. Are our values something of convenience?

2. Are our values a useful promotion tool?

3. Are our values based on intentions and not actions?

4. Are our values something we aspire to have at some point?

or

5. Are our values consistent with who we are, what we do, and how we do it and are we willing to stand by them at all cost?

The answer to those questions has profound impact on our lives personally, professionally, economically, politically, ecologically and socially.

Are your values negotiable?

If you say they are not, how do you know?

In service and servanthood.

Harry

To read my Musings-in-a-Minute version of “My Values are Important …. Most of the Time”, please click here.

 

Addendum: In March of 2010, the same supermarket chain announced that they would offer customers plastic bags free of charge for the foreseeable future.  The reason given?  The competitor was doing it.   Their values are for sale.

Accountability and Authenticity

For my Musings-in-a-Minute version, please click here.

As I dressed this morning, I donned a pair of jeans and a yellow polo shirt and prepared to meet the day - nothing significant to report there.

However, to a small band of entrepreneurs in New York in the late 90’s to early 2000’s, Tuesday was Yellow Shirt Day.

I had forgotten about it until this morning.

The origins of Yellow Shirt Day were innocent enough.  One Tuesday, a member of my team, Narender and I wore a yellow shirt on the same day.  We laughed about it and said every Tuesday should be Yellow Shirt Day and dismissed the joke.

To my surprise on the next Tuesday, the entire team wore a yellow shirt.  Guys who didn’t own a yellow shirt went out and bought one just for the day.

The tradition being born, we embraced it every Tuesday.  On Tuesday, we would go for a walk during our lunch break and compliment other people who wore yellow shirts.  The reaction from strangers on the streets of New York covered a broad spectrum, ranging from humorous to angry.

The co-founder of Yellow Shirt Day, Narender Nath, was killed in the World Trade Center less than a year later during the horror of 9/11.

Narender came to mind this morning as I realized I was wearing a yellow shirt on Tuesday.

Narender was as close to a perfect human being as I have been able to find on this planet. 

He preferred humor over anger.

He chose directness instead of misdirection. 

He selected honesty over dishonesty.

He embraced transparency instead of being opaque. 

He wished people to be accountable for their actions and was quite direct about it.

He preferred to be proactive and to embrace his passion instead of being apathetic and indifferent.

He avoided being a one-man-band – he was a collaborator by nature.

He didn’t reinvent what someone else had already created.  He recognized the value of leveraging what someone else had worked hard to create.

He asked nothing of anyone.  He led by example.

As I thought about Narender this morning, I was wondering if we have learned anything as a society since he died.

Greed, apathy, indifference and corruption appear to be around us more than ever.

Deception seems to be the way the game is played in many levels of society.  The model of “say one thing and do another” seems to be commonly practiced by leaders and those who are led.

Senseless wars against “this and that” appear to be the preferred model of solving anything.  We have a war against terror, a war against global warming and a war against extinction.  We appear to always be fighting what we don’t like instead of embracing the solution we should be striving for.

Headlines of failure in the housing market, the financial market and the employment market hammer us daily.

The starving, impoverished, diseased and destitute continue to cry out for help.

The media encourages us to focus on the disaster all around us under the guise of informing us.

Many of us who are hammered by the media do the best we can, all the while struggling with our need to be more authentic to ourselves and to others.

If only we could get some breathing room, we reason, then we could be more true to ourselves.

We could then shake off the negative messaging from the media and truly discover the world for its beauty and potential.

Narender looked at this challenge differently.

He didn’t wait for the breathing space in order to create authenticity within himself.

He knew that if he waited for the opportunity to be authentic with himself and with others, he would wait forever and would be incredibly frustrated as he waited.

If you were to ask Narender what he saw in the world, you would swear he lived on a different planet.  In a world allegedly filled with collapse, Narender saw growth.

In a world of war and hate, Narender saw love and nurturing.

In a world of indifference and apathy, Narender saw the opportunities that lay before those who followed their passion to make a positive impact.

Our world is what we believe it to be.

The media wants us to believe it is all coming apart.

Narender believed it to be one of unlimited opportunity for living, loving, learning and leaving a legacy.

I know you believe this also.

However, when you find yourself in the structural tension between what you believe and what you manifest, remember this:

Each of us owns the responsibility for changing our own world and subsequently the world around us.

If we wait for the world to give us the opportunity to become self-enabled to the point where we can finally start living an impactful life we will never get there.

And that makes for a pretty depressing journey of wasted, unrealized potential

Don’t let this happen to you.

As many experts say and as Narender practiced:

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.

Yes, it is an overused statement.

But perhaps it is overused because we still haven’t learned the truth within it and so we need to keep hearing it.

How do you see the world today?  How badly would you like to see it in a different light?

Look around you – there are many people who are ready to collaborate with you to create that world.

Yours in service and servanthood.

Harry

PS – A guy by the name of Mike walked into the coffee shop as I was writing this.  He was wearing a yellow shirt also and so I couldn’t resist introducing myself and telling him the story of Narender and Yellow Shirt Day.  As he left, he laughed and said “maybe we can start Yellow Shirt Day where I work”.  That would be cool, Mike!

It sometimes doesn’t take much to influence someone else in a positive way.

Simple actions touch hearts and in turn influence minds.  Whose heart are you touching today?

For my Musings-in-a-Minute version, please click here.

Consistent Messages – The True Source of Inconsistency.

For the Musings-in-a-Minute version of this blog, please click here.

I noticed a sign on a cemetery gate as I drove by it the other day.  In large letters it read “VISITORS ONLY”.

As I read it, I thought “well, there are only two types of people of interest here”:

• The people who stop by to pay their respects are just visiting and have no intent of moving there permanently … at least for now.
• The people who are buried there have no intention of leaving.

So who does the sign apply to?

I laughed and drove on.

I was buying a package of gum yesterday when I observed two signs about cigarettes on the wall behind the clerk.

One sign said something along the lines of “We have created laws for pricing and minimum age requirements to ensure fair, healthy access to these products”.

The other sign right beside it said something along the lines of “You should not smoke because it is dangerous to your health.  For help quitting, call this number”.

Both signs were authored by the same government.

One sign promoting healthy use and access to the product – the other telling you to avoid it before it kills you.

As I was leaving a supermarket today, I noticed a sign that indicated that plastic shopping bags were 5 cents each.  The sign said “We charge 5 cents because we don’t want you to buy plastic bags - they are bad for the environment”.

The manager was there so I mused “If you don’t want people to buy the plastic bags, why not discontinue them altogether or charge $1 or more per bag?”.

The manager replied that they didn’t want to make the cost of the bag prohibitive as this would upset the customer.

I acknowledged this but pointed out the wording on the sign and said “but if you REALLY don’t want us to buy the bag, make it painful, expensive or impossible to get”.

The manager replied that this would make it difficult for customers who really want the bag to get one.

When I said that I understood this but then noted that the sign said “we don’t want you to buy plastic bags”, the manager suddenly remembered that he had a price check to do.

One sign with an interesting conflicting message:  “We don’t want you to buy plastic at all but if that makes you unhappy, we will relent and give you as many as you want”.

How about products that give us incredible amounts of “stuff” for nothing.

1. Clean anything with no effort.
2. Preserve any food with no effort.
3. Cut anything with no effort.
4. Lose weight with no effort.
5. Expand your brain with no effort.
6. Make unlimited money with no effort.

That’s right – act now – think later.

Or worse - don’t think at all – you might notice a disconnect in the message or the intelligence behind the message.

We laugh at the infomercials and think how silly people are to buy such products.

We laugh at the inconsistency or humor of signs that we read that weren’t intended to be funny.

But perhaps if we look inward, we might stop laughing.

For just as the classic infomercial offers something that is often less than authentic, can we claim to be any more authentic when presenting ourselves personally and professionally to others? 

Do the signs that we project make sense?

Do we say one thing to one group and something else to another group?

Do we say one thing to someone but inwardly say something else to ourselves?

Do we loudly trumpet for or against a cause but then secretly practice the complete opposite?

Do we portray ourselves as being in control and on top of our game when we live in fear that our weaknesses (which are in fact perfectly normal) might be discovered?

When it comes to inconsistencies, it is easy to find examples of them in others.

I wonder though if the greatest inconsistencies that we see are in fact mirrors of inconsistencies within ourselves.

Maybe when we notice someone being inauthentic about a specific message they are projecting, perhaps our observation is a reflection of our own inconsistent projection of that message or a variation of that message.

Maybe when we feel ourselves get in a knot about consistency of message, we are in fact in a knot about an internal inconsistency that needs to be corrected.

It is easy to observe, laugh and muse at the inconsistency of many things and people in this world.

But before we do this, let’s make sure we are consistent with ourselves and the message we promote to ourselves and others.

Now if you will excuse me, I have some inconsistencies to iron out.

Yours in service and servanthood.

Harry

For the Musings-in-a-Minute version of this blog, please click here.