“Fair is not a good deal”
At least it often isn’t perceived to be.
Maximizing benefits is a mindset that often perceives fair to be a threat.
This mindset always thinks short term, it is mechanical and it thinks in opposites: it operates on an either or basis. Either with me or against me. If I don’t get everything, I get nothing. I am happy or I am pissed.
The will and the ability to create fair typically comes from a mindset that thinks in analogies or unity.
Ironically the “gray area” was invented by binary minds (feeling lost), while black and white clarity is characteristic to an intelligence that’s able to differentiate: between truths and half truths, shades of gray, etc.
The unexpected
This is how we do things here.
This is how we buy things here.
This is how we think around here.
This is what we want.
Then somebody comes and questions all this. Brings an element of surprise. Knocks out the fuse. Leaves people speechless. The tension is high.
It happens that the guy who showed up is outrageously stupid, perhaps a psychopath. Stupidity may cause this reaction. The tension is toxic.
It happens that all this is in context of a higher vantage point, a higher perspective. The tension is creative.
The problem is when the two gets confused. Stupidity is accepted as a vantage point, and perspective is considered to be stupid.
The unexpected always creates a moment of truth. A beginning. A moment later it’s typically too late.
Social networks’ effect on executive search
The CEO of a top search firm commented on the potential impact of social networks on the search business. He said that search business will diminish because social networks significantly reduce the advantages offered by intermediaries.
Hearing this comment another CEO said that this guy doesn’t believe in the core business of his company. The job boards didn’t eliminate search, linkedin will not eliminate it either.
I think this is short sighted on both sides. It’s not a question of belief or doubt! If I am a leader in an industry, I must be acutely aware of all trends and tendencies, look at all risks (potential and actual) and constantly evaluate and even create options.
Discussions about social networks’ effect on search are based on flawed thinking: there is no point!
Like in any other industry the perfect concept must be (re)defined as the purpose and in the same time, potential of the business. Then current reality must be understood as a component in the various patterns of unfolding towards or away from the concept and actions must be adjusted to ensure that we get as close to the concept as possible, instead of drifting away from it.
Social networks are part of the concept behind executive search; potentially always have been, recently they are actually part of it. Awareness of the concept is key to developing appropriate strategies, to align successfully to customers and if needed to take on a leadership role to align everybody, all stakeholders to the concept, often changing radically the whole game if necessary.
The periphery – Grenzgebiet
Interesting things happen on the periphery, right at the border where things enter and where things leave. The energy level is always the highest there. Exponentially higher than in the “mainstream”. Analogies:
Physics:
- the stretched rubber exerts the highest resistance right before it breaks. The system is hostile to those who are leaving it. The pullback is always violent. The mainstream is suspicious towards those who leave it.
- physical laws seem to be changing drastically near the absolute 0 temperature (inconsistent strength in gravitation, etc.). Those who “operate” on the periphery defy mainstream laws; differently put: you must leave mainstream laws behind if you’re pushing the limits.
Wine:
- Red wine gains an extra dimension at border territories. An example is the Burgundy- Eger altitude, north of which there is already beer (and some white wine) territory. There is an interesting creative tension at the border.
The distance is big between the mainstream and the periphery. To experience this, you must go there!
The concept and the practice
I have witnessed several discussions about the question: which one is more important: theory or practice? strategy or operations? or strategy or management; all this follow a similar flawed (binary) way of thinking.
A good theory is always practical, a good practice is always based on the right context. If this is not the case, the theory is just an abstraction, and the practice is self-serving, often rather stupid.
Control or dilute
Control is a pre-requisit for integration. Conscious control. It keeps the whole thing together.
A common mistake people make is that they try to control only the undesirable; bad habits for example. But they don’t try to control good things; their talent for example.
What happens when there is no control is interesting:
When bad things are not controlled, they get intensified, when good things are not controlled, they are diluted. The key is probably in quantity. Quantity must be controlled if we want quality.
So when it comes to talent it’s a good thing to control it: to restrict the number of occasions you let it come to the surface. Truth is: they mostly come to the surface through impulses, just like bad habits.
Some examples:
If somebody is full of ideas he should exercise tremendous control over when and how to present them. Otherwise this talent gets diluted and becomes useless.
If somebody is great at socializing and making new contacts: he should restrict the occasions he exercises this talent. Each occasion will become more powerful. There is no power in 5000+ contacts.
If somebody is good at trivia, he should stop spitting out “facts” or if somebody has read a lot of books, he should stop quoting every time a conversation somehow is related to something he “knows”, if somebody is good at performing math calculations without a calculator, he should stop providing %’es at every opportunity when numbers are discussed and start thinking about context, timing, relevance.
When impulses are controlled and talent is applied objectively, as a tool that has nothing to do with the self, a distance develops between the self and talent, which is used to be perceived as part of the self. This distance, this void is “filled up” by power; this power is more important than the talent and as opposed to talent, it is actually part of the self.
If I remember well the following analogy is from Otto Weininger: he compared talent to a tumor that is first fed, then it grows larger and larger until it takes over the whole organization that at this stage exists only to feed it.
The diligent type
Lots of collectors nowadays. I think we are brought up to be collectors.
Kids are collecting good grades, in sports they are collecting scores, and people build careers by collecting titles. There are of course those who are collecting goals and they happily check them out as they achieve them. Then they are collecting rewards and trophies.
Collectors are diligent, reliable, busy and mediocre, since in the middle of the number game persistent mediocrity becomes a valued style element.
Not everybody is happy being busy collecting. Some people feel out of place in a collectors’ environment.
They are capable of perceiving value. They organize their time according to priorities of value. They find time for what’s important and they take the effort to perform their activities the way it is appropriate, with class and style.
It’s difficult for the two types to live amicably side by side.
Harmony comes only from hierarchical ordination whereby quantity is subordinated to quality….otherwise war conditions prevail and horizontally the numbers tend to win.
Buy the ticket
When I clearly state what I want in the right context it’s straight forward communication.
When I don’t say what I want and I am just selling myself AND I am out of context it’s projecting.
This happens often when people are looking for a job or when they are in a sales position.
Projecting is bad for you! It leaves a very limited impression. When you make statements about your value system, your top 3 strengths, etc. in a simple networking conversation, without being asked, it is limiting; what you are saying is that you’re good. Like everybody else.
If you bring a topic to unexpected heights you show that you’re good. If you do this neutrally, meaning that your ego is not involved, it shows that you’re great; this is your ticket for setting the context for other topics that maybe of personal interest to you.
The safe choice
Once the guy becomes aware that it’s a safe choice, it is of course no longer safe. It’s always safe relative to something and that something tends to be the right one and in comparison to the right one, the safe choice presents the wrong compromise; from a higher point of view the wrong compromise is never safe!
There is of course the question of the stupid choice; but the opposite of the stupid choice is not the safe one, but also: the right one.
The safe choice is of course always “smart”, it always makes a lot of sense, it’s easy to find support for it.
From a higher point of view the safe choice is always unintelligent.
Choosing safe, when being aware of what’s right means lack of integrity.
So if the guy becomes aware, he must choose right, not matter what.