Engaging John and Jane Doe - applying strategic change to citizen engagement
Engaging citizens in government seems like it'd be a funny venture because it's unlike engagement anywhere in the private sector (on the face, at least). You have to connect with people who are outside the walls of your organizations because citizens don't work for the government...making them sort of like customers. At the same time, citizens elect many leaders (or elect people who are appointed / confirmed by elected leaders) which kind of makes them like shareholders. Beyond that, when examining the values of our constitutional, democratic, republic, we are a country "by the people and for the people" implying that we are indeed a part of government to some degree, akin to employees.
Which makes engagement interesting: how do you (you meaning any type of political actor, which is confusing in itself) engage a constituent, who is a quasi-customer|employee|shareholder?
Well, let's apply some tricks from the strategic change playbook: let's understand the audiences, the message and topics to engage people in, and engagement vehicles. For now, let's assume government is one entity and simply look at this situation as a one to many relationship, instead of a many to many relationship (i.e., there's one "government actor" and many different flavors of constituents).
As we go, I'll call out the action steps that would be required in truly developing a well thought out constituent engagement strategy.
The Audiences
Basically, this part is simple but really difficult to do. Understand who needs to be communicated with and what influences each of these groups. The short answer is that everybody needs to be communicated with about everything. That's obviously not good enough because there's not enough time or money in the history of the world to do that, so let's break it down.
So, who needs to be communicated with? Well, pretty much everybody needs to be to some degree, but to get started how to make meaningful distinctions between constituent groups. In companies this is easy, one usually breaks down an employee populace into a few categories: role/function, location, and level. When speaking about constituents though, it's not so easy.
Action Item #1 - first, figure out how to make meaningful distinctions between constituents
I'm not some sort of political operative, but it's pretty plain to see how constituent groups are broken down today: race, geography, income-level, gender, and maybe some interest groups (conservationists, evangelicals, trial lawyers, etc.).
The trouble with this is there are a lot of different hats people wear and it's not always easy to see how folks' different identities intersect. This is absolutely important to do, however, because it's really important to target messages based on who you're talking to.
Something that may be interesting to do is to create "personality profiles" which combine some of these identities / affinities into some clusters. I'm guessing there's probably data to do this, or ways to have people choose which of their identities mean more to them than others (in fact, I know there are, for reasons I can't discuss on this blog).
Maybe there's a "soccer mom" profile, or a "suburban small business owner" profile that can be clustered. Maybe there are about 50 other clusters that could be made. Obviously, there would be a lot of clusters but that's okay...we're talking about segmenting a nation of 330 million people. And, having fifty clusters is much simpler than having combinations of characteristics across several different dimensions.
There are probably lots of ways to group constituents, I won't really get into the best ways to do that.
Action Item #2 - next, determine what makes each group tick
This is one of the easy ones, really listen to and learn about each constituent group. What makes them tick? What influences them? How does their day run? What do they like and dislike? What's their culture. Once the audiences are identified you really have to understand them. This takes research and interaction.
The Message
Another important consideration to think about is what constituents need to be engaged in...meaning what do you have to communicate with them? This consideration slices two ways. First, what is the message/topic that constituents need to be engaged in. Second, how engaged does each group have to be at the end of it?
Action Item #3 - Determine what each constituent needs to know about | be engaged in.
This is a really important step, because it's never the case (I've never seen this circumstance, at least) that everyone needs to know a lot about everything. Providing information that's not relevant fatigues audiences and also causes confusion. Moreover, once you determine what each constituent group needs to know it's a lot easier to craft a clear message because you're suddenly aware of who your audience is and how they might conceptualize things in their mind*.
Now, in public affairs, this is very complicated because there are many different different topics and actions required of constituents. Moreover, to even index constituents with particular messages, you need to determine all the messages that are out there and which ones are really important to communicate. In other words, one has to figure out the entirety of what they want to say and what's really important and what isn't.
Action Item #4 - next, determine to what degree each constituent needs to be engaged
Constituents are not all created equally when it comes to communication. Obviously all constituents are important, but they all have different abilities to influence the outcome of a specific policy or program. And quite frankly, each constituent probably doesn't want to be completely engaged in everything. So, another step to take is determine the degree to which each constituent group needs to be communicated with.
Some constituents may need to be really engaged and supportive of something, whereas others may just need to be aware. Some may need to have operational knowledge of something where as some need to be so well versed that they becomes spokespeople about the issue. Maps this out.
The vehicles
The last step (yes this really is and should be the last step) is to determine the vehicles with which you can communicate with constituents. Once you've done that, use all your knowledge to determine which vehicles should be used to communicate certain messages to which constituent group.
This is really important to be the last step, because without good data and thought behind it it's probably going to be very difficult to prioritize and sequence communications vehicles effectively. Doing all this analysis on the front-end makes it a lot easier to target messages.
Action Item #5 - List out all the vehicles you could possible use to communicate with people
Here, start with existing vehicles. There are probably lots of them: emails, mail, advertisements, twitter, facebook, townhalls, door knocking campaigns, church events, phone calls, text messages, a street team, etc. There are lots. Then, imagine new vehicles - maybe it's a bake sale, maybe it's a talent show...who knows. Your imagination is the limit to this.
One thing to note about communications vehicles is that it's super important to have vehicles which work in two directions - speaking and listening.
Action Item #6 - Match vehicles to each constituent groups and messages
Laying out your plan is the last step before execution. Match up each constituent and message to the best communication vehicle to communicate that message. When possible bundle messages and groups together (when they need the same message from the same vehicle). That will minimize work for the communicator and the constituent.
Conclusion
When I started writing this post, I thought that it would be wildly different to think about communicating with constituents than it is with employees. It's not. The same planning and execution process exists. But it is different in that it's much, much more complicated. Which makes it all the more important to think through an engagement strategy for your constituency.
---
*- Also, this sort of goes without saying (and is the post for another message), but it's really important to craft a clear message.
Which makes engagement interesting: how do you (you meaning any type of political actor, which is confusing in itself) engage a constituent, who is a quasi-customer|employee|shareholder?
Well, let's apply some tricks from the strategic change playbook: let's understand the audiences, the message and topics to engage people in, and engagement vehicles. For now, let's assume government is one entity and simply look at this situation as a one to many relationship, instead of a many to many relationship (i.e., there's one "government actor" and many different flavors of constituents).
As we go, I'll call out the action steps that would be required in truly developing a well thought out constituent engagement strategy.
The Audiences
Basically, this part is simple but really difficult to do. Understand who needs to be communicated with and what influences each of these groups. The short answer is that everybody needs to be communicated with about everything. That's obviously not good enough because there's not enough time or money in the history of the world to do that, so let's break it down.
So, who needs to be communicated with? Well, pretty much everybody needs to be to some degree, but to get started how to make meaningful distinctions between constituent groups. In companies this is easy, one usually breaks down an employee populace into a few categories: role/function, location, and level. When speaking about constituents though, it's not so easy.
Action Item #1 - first, figure out how to make meaningful distinctions between constituents
I'm not some sort of political operative, but it's pretty plain to see how constituent groups are broken down today: race, geography, income-level, gender, and maybe some interest groups (conservationists, evangelicals, trial lawyers, etc.).
The trouble with this is there are a lot of different hats people wear and it's not always easy to see how folks' different identities intersect. This is absolutely important to do, however, because it's really important to target messages based on who you're talking to.
Something that may be interesting to do is to create "personality profiles" which combine some of these identities / affinities into some clusters. I'm guessing there's probably data to do this, or ways to have people choose which of their identities mean more to them than others (in fact, I know there are, for reasons I can't discuss on this blog).
Maybe there's a "soccer mom" profile, or a "suburban small business owner" profile that can be clustered. Maybe there are about 50 other clusters that could be made. Obviously, there would be a lot of clusters but that's okay...we're talking about segmenting a nation of 330 million people. And, having fifty clusters is much simpler than having combinations of characteristics across several different dimensions.
There are probably lots of ways to group constituents, I won't really get into the best ways to do that.
Action Item #2 - next, determine what makes each group tick
This is one of the easy ones, really listen to and learn about each constituent group. What makes them tick? What influences them? How does their day run? What do they like and dislike? What's their culture. Once the audiences are identified you really have to understand them. This takes research and interaction.
The Message
Another important consideration to think about is what constituents need to be engaged in...meaning what do you have to communicate with them? This consideration slices two ways. First, what is the message/topic that constituents need to be engaged in. Second, how engaged does each group have to be at the end of it?
Action Item #3 - Determine what each constituent needs to know about | be engaged in.
This is a really important step, because it's never the case (I've never seen this circumstance, at least) that everyone needs to know a lot about everything. Providing information that's not relevant fatigues audiences and also causes confusion. Moreover, once you determine what each constituent group needs to know it's a lot easier to craft a clear message because you're suddenly aware of who your audience is and how they might conceptualize things in their mind*.
Now, in public affairs, this is very complicated because there are many different different topics and actions required of constituents. Moreover, to even index constituents with particular messages, you need to determine all the messages that are out there and which ones are really important to communicate. In other words, one has to figure out the entirety of what they want to say and what's really important and what isn't.
Action Item #4 - next, determine to what degree each constituent needs to be engaged
Constituents are not all created equally when it comes to communication. Obviously all constituents are important, but they all have different abilities to influence the outcome of a specific policy or program. And quite frankly, each constituent probably doesn't want to be completely engaged in everything. So, another step to take is determine the degree to which each constituent group needs to be communicated with.
Some constituents may need to be really engaged and supportive of something, whereas others may just need to be aware. Some may need to have operational knowledge of something where as some need to be so well versed that they becomes spokespeople about the issue. Maps this out.
The vehicles
The last step (yes this really is and should be the last step) is to determine the vehicles with which you can communicate with constituents. Once you've done that, use all your knowledge to determine which vehicles should be used to communicate certain messages to which constituent group.
This is really important to be the last step, because without good data and thought behind it it's probably going to be very difficult to prioritize and sequence communications vehicles effectively. Doing all this analysis on the front-end makes it a lot easier to target messages.
Action Item #5 - List out all the vehicles you could possible use to communicate with people
Here, start with existing vehicles. There are probably lots of them: emails, mail, advertisements, twitter, facebook, townhalls, door knocking campaigns, church events, phone calls, text messages, a street team, etc. There are lots. Then, imagine new vehicles - maybe it's a bake sale, maybe it's a talent show...who knows. Your imagination is the limit to this.
One thing to note about communications vehicles is that it's super important to have vehicles which work in two directions - speaking and listening.
Action Item #6 - Match vehicles to each constituent groups and messages
Laying out your plan is the last step before execution. Match up each constituent and message to the best communication vehicle to communicate that message. When possible bundle messages and groups together (when they need the same message from the same vehicle). That will minimize work for the communicator and the constituent.
Conclusion
When I started writing this post, I thought that it would be wildly different to think about communicating with constituents than it is with employees. It's not. The same planning and execution process exists. But it is different in that it's much, much more complicated. Which makes it all the more important to think through an engagement strategy for your constituency.
---
*- Also, this sort of goes without saying (and is the post for another message), but it's really important to craft a clear message.
Rules for Politicians to follow
I originally posted this on Big Think, but realized that I never posted it into this blog. It's an idea circa May 2009. Here's the link and text.
Link: http://bigthink.com/ideas/rules-for-politicians-to-follow
Text:
I had an interesting conversation, as I often do with the friends I was with, about politics. The question was prompted by discussion about student-group politics at the University of Michigan. The opinion of my other two conversation partners was that politics is a not so great thing (their opinions were stronger, but I'll just leave it at that).
I disagree, I think politics can be done well and I would embrace politics, if a political actor adhered to the following three rules. Politics should be considered an honorable profession, instead of a opportunitic one.
The three rules that political actors should follow. If they did, maybe "politician" wouldn't be as dirty a word:
1) The ethics rule
Figure out what is right and what is wrong. Spend most of your time doing this, not campaigning. Obviously, on some issues it's really hard to figure out what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately for politicians, they cannot hide behind this because they have to vote on whether they agree or disagree. Use the people around you: constituents, staff members, the party, whatever...and use your own values. Do the best you can, don't fake it. We'll know. Then proceed to rule number 2.
2) The no-bullshit rule
Articulate your viewpoint to your constituents, honestly. You must do this, and not just give a "bullshit reason" about actions or a vote. It is your responsibility to communicate and if you make an action then you must be honest about it. There is NO way around this rule. People need this information to evaluate you as a representative. If you don't do this, you are cheating your constituients.
3)The vulnerability rule
You must be willing to lose--elections, support, etc. This, I think is the most fundamental of the three rules, if a politician is not willing to lose, they will be incapable of implementing rules number 1 and 2. This is because they will be too focused on figuring out the difference between a winning move and a losing move rather than right and wrong just as they will focus on telling people what they want to hear instead of telling the truth.
If all politicians followed these rules, I think people would be a lot less skeptical of them.
Some say that the whole point is winning the game, because things don't get done without playing the game. I disagree, people want honest leaders who do what is right. If you follow these rules, you will be elected time and time again...truth wins over falsity. At the very least, your honor will be presevered in the long term. If you follow these rules and you do lose, it just means you're not the right person for the job at that place and time.
Link: http://bigthink.com/ideas/rules-for-politicians-to-follow
Text:
I had an interesting conversation, as I often do with the friends I was with, about politics. The question was prompted by discussion about student-group politics at the University of Michigan. The opinion of my other two conversation partners was that politics is a not so great thing (their opinions were stronger, but I'll just leave it at that).
I disagree, I think politics can be done well and I would embrace politics, if a political actor adhered to the following three rules. Politics should be considered an honorable profession, instead of a opportunitic one.
The three rules that political actors should follow. If they did, maybe "politician" wouldn't be as dirty a word:
1) The ethics rule
Figure out what is right and what is wrong. Spend most of your time doing this, not campaigning. Obviously, on some issues it's really hard to figure out what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately for politicians, they cannot hide behind this because they have to vote on whether they agree or disagree. Use the people around you: constituents, staff members, the party, whatever...and use your own values. Do the best you can, don't fake it. We'll know. Then proceed to rule number 2.
2) The no-bullshit rule
Articulate your viewpoint to your constituents, honestly. You must do this, and not just give a "bullshit reason" about actions or a vote. It is your responsibility to communicate and if you make an action then you must be honest about it. There is NO way around this rule. People need this information to evaluate you as a representative. If you don't do this, you are cheating your constituients.
3)The vulnerability rule
You must be willing to lose--elections, support, etc. This, I think is the most fundamental of the three rules, if a politician is not willing to lose, they will be incapable of implementing rules number 1 and 2. This is because they will be too focused on figuring out the difference between a winning move and a losing move rather than right and wrong just as they will focus on telling people what they want to hear instead of telling the truth.
If all politicians followed these rules, I think people would be a lot less skeptical of them.
Some say that the whole point is winning the game, because things don't get done without playing the game. I disagree, people want honest leaders who do what is right. If you follow these rules, you will be elected time and time again...truth wins over falsity. At the very least, your honor will be presevered in the long term. If you follow these rules and you do lose, it just means you're not the right person for the job at that place and time.
Relaunch
I've decided to separate my blogs into something more personal: Scraps - http://ntambe.blogspot.com, and this blog, Civic Yuppie. In Civic Yuppie I'll try to cover the more nerdy, intellectual topics. Generally speaking, I write and play around with ideas on some of the following topics:
Public Service, Civil Society, Institutions, Innovation, Talent, Detroit, Organizations, the Liberal Arts...to name a few. I've copied over some of the relevant posts from the Scraps blog.
-Neil
Public Service, Civil Society, Institutions, Innovation, Talent, Detroit, Organizations, the Liberal Arts...to name a few. I've copied over some of the relevant posts from the Scraps blog.
-Neil
The Avengers: A fun case study of high-performing teams
The Avengers, sure to be one of the biggest blockbuster films this summer, was a move with a lot to like. It was exciting, funny, stunning, and inspiring. The basic plot is this: faced with the potential subjugation of earth by powerful galactic gods, Nick Fury – director of S.H.I.E.L.D…basically an agency 10x more awesome than the CIA – brings together 6 of history’s most remarkable heroes to save the planet. The implementation of “The Avengers Initiative”, once abandoned by S.H.I.E.L.D. because it would’ve brought together “forces which cannot be controlled”, is the focal point of this super sweet movie. It’s also a surprisingly good case study about high-performing teams.
These heroes – Captain American (Cap), Iron Man, The Hulk, Black Widow, Thor and Hawkeye – must put aside their differences to literally save the world. Here are some examples of why The Avengers are a high performing team and some observations about their fellowship. Do you have any more to add, or criticisms of their teaming?:
(Spoiler Alert - If you haven’t seen the movie, stop reading now!)
They had a crystal clear purpose
The Avengers come together to save the world by preventing the tesseract (a source of limitless energy) from being used to open a portal to another galaxy. Very little is clearer than that (saving the world is a pretty clear and simple purpose), I think.
They had diverse strengths
The team has very different strengths, capabilities and styles. Iron Man is a brilliant inventor and The Hulk is very good at smashing things. Cap is a super human with deep convictions. Black Widow and Hawkeye are elite S.H.I.E.L.D. spies. Thor is a demi-god who controls thunder. I’d say this is a very well rounded crew.
They articulated their roles clearly, together
The Avengers all knew what their role in the plan was, even if it took them a bit of time to get there. Bruce Banner (Hulk’s human form) had to find the tesseract. Thor had to control Loki. Cap was playing the role of military field general (he is a Captain, after all). Also, all these players adapted their roles, together, on the fly, to deal with whatever situation emerged.
They were onboarded well
Each Avenger was onboarded well. By the time they arrived they were well versed in the mission and ready to rock. This helped them start working together very quickly.
They had the freedom to operate outside the bounds of a chain of command
To do something nobody has ever attempted seems difficult to do within existing organizational boundaries. Nick Fury seemed to recognize this. He resisted the S.H.I.E.L.D. Council’s requests to abort the Avenger Initiative and behave as they directed. He knew this was bound to fail so he provided political cover to the Avengers to operate outside of protocol and a chain of command. This allowed them to move fast and fiercely, as the situation required.
I think this is pretty applicable to organizations, generally. Most organizations that I am a part of succumb to this as well. Nothing that pushes edges gets done within traditional organizational hierarchy. Maybe our organizations should allow for some Avengers every once in awhile!
Trust was hard to come by
Trust was hard earned in this team. It basically took the murder of S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Phil Coulson to bring the team together to put aside their differences. It also took honesty on the part of Nick Fury to reveal S.H.I.E.L.D.’s true intentions for the tesseract. This goes to show that even remarkable people need time to develop trust and that trust is really important for teams to be effective.
Individual collective agendas were aligned / incentives
The Avengers each had a personal agenda as well a collective one...and all of these agendas were (luckily) aligned. For example, Black Widow wanted to settle a debt with Hawkeye and Hawkeye wanted to get even with Loki for controlling him. Cap was searching for meaning after being frozen for several decades. The Hulk wanted freedom (I think) and Iron Man probably wanted some ego-boost. All of their individual desires, in any case, were aligned with the rewards of collective success(the reward of collective success was saving the world).
This alignment of agendas (and in turn rewards and incentives) obviously helped the Avengers prevent their individual differences from being an obstacle to collective success. Having aligned agendas probably wasn’t a deliberate observation by Nick Fury when putting the Avengers together, but it was convenient.
They had the tools / equipment / resources they needed
The Avengers couldn’t battle without weapons and armor. Same with teams – they need the right equipment and resources to succeed. The Avengers had all this.
A formal leader is noticeably absent
Something interesting, I thought, was that there wasn’t really a designated “leader” among the Avengers. It’s like they led themselves without a coordinating authority. They all had the right roles and they executed effectively because they were committed to the mission. That’s pretty cool.
---
Right as the action started to intensify in the film, Nick Fury said something about why the Avengers were brought together: “There was an idea to bring together a group of remarkable people, so when we needed them, they could fight the battles that we never could…”
This quote is the one element of the movie that I vehemently disagree with. We don’t need remarkable people in teams. In fact, I don’t think we can rely on remarkable people to make up high performing teams. Rather, we should create organizations that take ordinary people and make them into remarkable teams. I have faith that we can make this sort of institutional transformation happen, and we must.
Much of the time, I don't understand why people let themselves be caged. Confined to thinking and waiting for the next sunrise...one day at a time. Disincented, to put it nicely, from challenging the truth and pushing "the cage" forward.lll
Public and Private Voices
One of the first lessons I learned as an Organizational Studies student, in fact not one of the first...THE first, was that the influence of organizations are all around us. Our teacher, Jason Owen-Smith, put us into small groups and asked us to brainstorm all the organizations we interact with on a day to day basis. After listing the basics - the University, the Government, our student-group affiliations, etc. the list became much longer - the FDA (did you take Tylenol this morning?), British Petroleum (oh yea, I guess I had to put gas in my car today), your house (I guess my roommates and I all function as an organization)...and so on.
The list of organizations that we are an active player and representative of is much smaller. There are maybe a handful of these but we are swimming in them. We are totally immersed in them, which makes it hard to separate the organization from our identity.
We also have voices for our identities. We have our private voice - the voice we use that's in our day-to-day when we feel like we aren't being watched or monitored. We also have our public voice - the voice we use when we feel like we're addressing people publicly or perceive ourselves to be monitored.
These "voices" also roll-up into the organizational world. In some organizations (say our crew of best friends and family) we feel private - we aren't scrutinized for our words or actions because they're, well, private. In some organiztions we feel public (say the company we work for) - an as a result we project an image ourselves that we want people to see. There are also variations of these - e.g., in a social organization which is private but we feel like we have a public reputation to project within the confines of that organization or in a community forum where all actors are in a public sphere but form sub-committees where they have private voice.
What I think is interesting is that the organizations themselves dictate a lot - in addition to the people contained - of the norms of using public and private voices. After all, organizations with similar types of people or objectives produce very different cultures. And organization types produce very different cultures and behaviors even though people may be the same too.
In addition to this, many things have suddenly become interesting hybrids of hyper-public and hyper-private, because of telecommunications technology. There's a lot of ambiguity in how one projects themselves publicly or privately and when has to do one or the other.
Managing these public and private voices, I think, is very stressful. We manage our identities more than we tell the truth. I would argue that this causes our organizations to do funny things and have lackluster outcomes. We spend tons of time managing our voices rather than focusing on our work, purpose and intended outcomes.
I think the ideal is to be able to have one voice - an "authentic voice", if you will - instead of a public and private one.
I don't have time to elaborate on this now (I'm about to land) but I think a nice goal for groups of people and the organizations they make up is to produce an environment where people can speak in an "authentic voice". I think the same goes for individuals, we should try to merge our public and private voices into one. It'll yield more trust and probably much more happiness and much less internal conflict for ourselves.
Everyone is suffering enough, we should rid ourselves of suffering that is self-imposed.
What makes a good team member?
As many readers (not to imply that I have a readership, but please roll with me) probably know or could guess - I have a fairly romantic but peculiar obsession with the idea of teams. In my experience, as is with most things, some people buy into teams and others don't really see them as teams but rather as a sum of individuals. Some see the synergy and some see the parts which may create synergy. Some see the forest and some see the trees.
I'm interested in what makes people see the forest - what makes people buy into the concept of teams and be successful in them. Here's a frame: what makes some people trust things (and in some cases put almost blind faith) into things that are "larger than themselves"? Here are some thoughts, not necessarily woven together:
Practice / Commitment
If you're around teams long enough, you see the magic that they create and it's inspiring...especially if you're on a good team. Moreover, if you're on a team that sticks together for awhile you start to flow really well together, which is good because you get past the growing pains of being on a team and you get to the good stuff.
Confidence / Comfort
I feel like it would be very easy to be alienated in a team if you're constantly fearful of your own standing or of your material well-being. So, it's probably important to be confident and feel affirmed. Without being affirmed, you'd probably be too worried about self-preservation to care about the team.
Purpose
It's a big turn-off, at least for me, to be on a team which doesn't align with one's own purpose. It's really taxing on your personal energy. Adding to that, if it's not a noble purpose (of the person or the team) one of the two - the team or the person - will fall to selfish aims, and in turn destroy the team. To have purpose you have to find something that matters gravely to you - so I suppose discovering your passion is an utterly necessary component of being a good team member.
Humility
To submit yourself to something larger than yourself, you have to acknowledge that something other than you can be greater than yourself. That's jumbled, I know, but the point still stands - you can think anything is greater than you if you think nothing is greater than you.
Selflessness / Listening
Teams don't function when any one members' needs are consistently higher than others'. So, once has to have some level of selflessness (so they don't monopolize mindshare) and ability to listen. Without these, there's not a team because someone has elevated themselves above others.
Authenticity
People in teams have to be real with eachother, or, nobody trusts them. No trust = no team. 'Nuff said.
All of these, though, raise a larger question of - Neil, you've listed all these virtuous qualities...how do you cultivate those? Ya know, I'll have to think about that - my ideas aren't quite there yet.
-nt
I'm interested in what makes people see the forest - what makes people buy into the concept of teams and be successful in them. Here's a frame: what makes some people trust things (and in some cases put almost blind faith) into things that are "larger than themselves"? Here are some thoughts, not necessarily woven together:
Practice / Commitment
If you're around teams long enough, you see the magic that they create and it's inspiring...especially if you're on a good team. Moreover, if you're on a team that sticks together for awhile you start to flow really well together, which is good because you get past the growing pains of being on a team and you get to the good stuff.
Confidence / Comfort
I feel like it would be very easy to be alienated in a team if you're constantly fearful of your own standing or of your material well-being. So, it's probably important to be confident and feel affirmed. Without being affirmed, you'd probably be too worried about self-preservation to care about the team.
Purpose
It's a big turn-off, at least for me, to be on a team which doesn't align with one's own purpose. It's really taxing on your personal energy. Adding to that, if it's not a noble purpose (of the person or the team) one of the two - the team or the person - will fall to selfish aims, and in turn destroy the team. To have purpose you have to find something that matters gravely to you - so I suppose discovering your passion is an utterly necessary component of being a good team member.
Humility
To submit yourself to something larger than yourself, you have to acknowledge that something other than you can be greater than yourself. That's jumbled, I know, but the point still stands - you can think anything is greater than you if you think nothing is greater than you.
Selflessness / Listening
Teams don't function when any one members' needs are consistently higher than others'. So, once has to have some level of selflessness (so they don't monopolize mindshare) and ability to listen. Without these, there's not a team because someone has elevated themselves above others.
Authenticity
People in teams have to be real with eachother, or, nobody trusts them. No trust = no team. 'Nuff said.
All of these, though, raise a larger question of - Neil, you've listed all these virtuous qualities...how do you cultivate those? Ya know, I'll have to think about that - my ideas aren't quite there yet.
-nt
What we deserve
In the past few months, I've been thinking about the impact of choices and the meaning of them.
This goes back to the concept of "timshel" from East of Eden...that we have the choice to conquer sin.
I've also been really struggling with understanding and thinking and feeling through the idea of entitlement - what we as humans deserve. For a long time, I didn't think that there was anything that we were entitled to, that we deserved nothing. Afterall, we have been blessed to wake up in the morning...what's more important than that? Do we really need to ask God for anything other than the gift of life?
Anyway, I've been trying to push myself on that though. And thank to Jeff and Laura and Jenny and others. I'm starting to think that there is indeed one thing that we all deserve.
To be loved.
(Why we deserve to be loved is the topic of another post.)
But, getting back to choices by combining these two ideas.
One of the most important choices we have, in conquering sin especially, I think, is the choice we make to love others. To love animals, to love the earth, to love God, to love beauty...all of these things. But the choice we make to love others is especially hard, I think.
We have so many reasons not to love others - whether it's a colleague, a family member, a stranger...even a girl that has rejected or wronged you. It's so easy to think that we don't have love to give to people who do not love us. To people who can't, even.
But, I think we must. Loving others, despite their flaws or wrongdoings (to us or others) is conquering sin. It's something filled with grace. It's beautiful. It's impossibly hard.
And, it's painful sometimes. But how and who we love and the love we show to other people is soemthing we shouldn't discriminate - it must be permamment. It must be full and genuine.
I'm having a hard time writing about this - partly because of fatigue and partly because it's hard. But I guess I can put it this way.
I know in my heart of hearts that what's right is to love others, no matter what. Because, it's the one that everyone deserves. Not being loved is a terrible way to suffer and I can't participate in that. We should try to be loving. Everyone deserves to be loved. Nobody deserves to suffer.
-nt
The Leadership Quandry - initial thoughts for a future talk
The more and more I think about it, the more skeptical I get of leadership as a construct. I think as a civilization we're missing something, really really big. I know, audacious for relative nobody on the matter to say. But, I'll probably convince anyone who is reading this blog (if not totally, at least an uncomfortably large amount) over the course of time - that we should stop focusing on leadership as a core emphasis of organization or at least radically rethink what leadership is and what its value is. (Teaser: leadership is not nearly as interesting or useful as we thought it was - rather, it's a distraction).
I'm due to write about this on yammer for some colleagues, but I also want to play around with the idea here. I imagine I'll pitch this to TEDxDetroit in the next year or some other venue, just to see if I'm not crazy. And, to see what some actual smart people think about this.
Anyway, here's some messing around on what the structure of those remarks might look like:
We need a lot from organizations, that different than what exists today - [describe some fundamental assumptions about what organizations need to be and compare them with how they actually operate].
So, why does this happen? I'd argue that making Leadership the holy grail has a lot to do with it. - [explain the leadership quandry]. [Also, concede that there could be other reasons, but give reason as to why to focus on this one].
So, you've outlined a big problem, but how do you suggest we run organization if not for leadership structures? -[ Ask the audience, to suspend reality for just a second. Then, explain the paradim shift to "gardening teams"].
Why not just improve the craft of leadership? - [Explain why that's silly and why a paradigm shift is necessary]
[Then, revisit the fundamental needs of organization and show the path that leadership goes down - it's a bad one].
[Admit you don't know have the technology of teaming at your disposal, but give the "all we need to do is scale it, and why can't we?" bit to the audience to give them hope that they won't have to fully suspend disbelief forever].
[explain the difference in the place for leadership and the place for gardening teams in the future - it's probably a shared world].
---
Shoot, a lot of gaps here. It'll be fun to fill in. I've gotta make time for this, maybe this summer, after the GMAT.
PS - Unedited, it's late.
I'm due to write about this on yammer for some colleagues, but I also want to play around with the idea here. I imagine I'll pitch this to TEDxDetroit in the next year or some other venue, just to see if I'm not crazy. And, to see what some actual smart people think about this.
Anyway, here's some messing around on what the structure of those remarks might look like:
We need a lot from organizations, that different than what exists today - [describe some fundamental assumptions about what organizations need to be and compare them with how they actually operate].
So, why does this happen? I'd argue that making Leadership the holy grail has a lot to do with it. - [explain the leadership quandry]. [Also, concede that there could be other reasons, but give reason as to why to focus on this one].
So, you've outlined a big problem, but how do you suggest we run organization if not for leadership structures? -[ Ask the audience, to suspend reality for just a second. Then, explain the paradim shift to "gardening teams"].
Why not just improve the craft of leadership? - [Explain why that's silly and why a paradigm shift is necessary]
[Then, revisit the fundamental needs of organization and show the path that leadership goes down - it's a bad one].
[Admit you don't know have the technology of teaming at your disposal, but give the "all we need to do is scale it, and why can't we?" bit to the audience to give them hope that they won't have to fully suspend disbelief forever].
[explain the difference in the place for leadership and the place for gardening teams in the future - it's probably a shared world].
---
Shoot, a lot of gaps here. It'll be fun to fill in. I've gotta make time for this, maybe this summer, after the GMAT.
PS - Unedited, it's late.
Ideas about how ideas get big
I'm starting to have insomnia from time to time, which is probably a bad thing. Fortunately though, some of my better thinking comes at the edge of sleeping and awake life (if I can remember it the next day).
Yesterday, I was also lucky to have been inspired by Josh Linker (read more about him here) as he was speaking at our office's quarterly all-hands meeting. Sadly, I had to miss the first 60 minutes of his remarks due to a client call. He spoke about creativity. I can't really go into more detail because I really only caught the tail end of his talk (which I'm super bummed about).
Earlier in the day we also had a "Detroit Community Involvement" Panel Discussion. One of the themes of the discussion was that community involvements begin with just a small moment or conversation that blossoms into something larger (and usually really awesome).
Thinking about ideas and how they get big
Both of these combined got me to thinking about ideas and how they go from "start to awesome"...let's break this down into a process map of sorts:
Pre-idea observations, listening and reflecting -> Idea forms -> Idea has increasing returns and blows up
- Pre-idea observations - this is the step where something brews in your mind, it's a product of what you see, know, hear, do and feel
- Idea forms - this is the really hard step where all those stewing things form into an articulated thought that can be expressed to other people
- Idea blows up - this is the fun part when people build upon your idea and it gets momentum - it "catches legs", if you will
Josh, from what I could gather, was really going deep on the "Idea forms" step - which is really, really important. It's so hard to get some stuff in your head out onto paper or into a group of people. He had some awesome tips and stories about it. Again, he may have discussed other things while I wasn't there, but this is the essence of what I heard while I was.
In our Detroit Community Involvement Panel we kind of had the perspective of "ideas blowing up". We got a flavor for the awesome things which can happen when people come together around a common cause.
Now, let me get back to the big picture for a second. It seems to me like there's a BIG jump from an idea forming to it blowing up. It's almost as if there's a step in the process flow we've forgotten:
Pre-idea observations, listening and reflecting -> Idea forms -> ? -> Idea has increasing returns and blows up
I think there's this often unnoticed step that is really, really crucial in the creative process - I'll call it "launch". And by this I mean, someone has to get the idea off the ground before it fades away.
The way I figure it, after a great idea or brainstorm there are probably lots of ideas. And, there are probably many millions of great ideas floating around people's heads across the world. A non-trivial percentage of those ideas are probably already expressed out loud or even in some document, somewhere - whether it's on a napkin, a whiteboard, or a PowerPoint presentation.
Those ideas never "get legs", I think, because someone has to follow through on them. Someone has to document them and share them after they are concieved. Someone has to marshal people, expertise and legitimacy to the idea to get it off the ground.
I liken it to a NASA analogy. When launching a spacecraft there are two mission controls - one in Florida and one in Houston. The one in Florida has control of the mission for about 7 seconds and Houston gets it for the rest of the time. Why? Because the first 7 seconds (the launch) of a flight are so different and incredibly difficult. So, so many crazy things can happen. So, NASA splits the mission into two components (let's set aside all the time and energy required to even put a spacecraft on the launchpad for this discussion) the launch and the flight.
I think the same is true for ideas. Some ideas (which may be great or not so great) seem to launch themselves without much intervention. But many ideas seem like they're left on the launch pad - even though they are great, great ideas.
So my learning here is, don't forget about the very deliberate step of "launching" ideas after they are conceived and even loosely articulated. The only way to send an idea to the moon is to get it off the ground first. Sometimes that's easy and sometimes that's hard, I think. Either way, it has to be done. Sometimes it has to be a very deliberate step in the process.
How to launch an idea
This raises an obvious question - what falls into the discipline of "launching" an idea...how do you do it? Well, I think there are a couple things to think about:
- Prototype it, fast - I think getting the idea into a share-able format is really important. More importantly, though, get it share-able as fast as you possibly can. Don't invest 100 hours, invest 2. Then share it as fast as you can and improve it as you go. It's hard to stick to something for 100 hours when you have no momentum to begin with. Stop at two hours and get some fresh insight, people to help you and some excitement. Also, once you start sharing it you may realize that you don't really like the idea or could use your time better on something else. So sharing it quickly can save you 98 hours worth of work on something that you don't even want to pursue.
- Share, but listen more than you speak - So, share the idea. Obviously. But, don't forget to listen either. If you could launch the idea yourself, then why are you talking to other people? Don't only share or only listen - do both simultaneously.
- Focus - big ideas can get wayyy too big really quickly. Don't let them buckle under their own weight. This isn't to say narrow ideas into small boxes which suddenly become irrelevant. Rather, I mean set boundaries so you can focus your time and resources going deep in a new and interesting way. Don't irreverently add scope. Add the right scope and cut the things that don't matter. Then, grow the idea into something bigger. Go big, but not foolishly. Be disciplined.
Anyway, these are just some random thoughts on a Saturday morning. Thanks for entertaining some of my insomniac musings. Now it's time for some Raisin Bran and some GMAT-ing.
Also - I can't wait to talk about progress to our skills-based volunteerism pilot program (which we're starting to call Grassroots Pro-bono, actually) this idea is starting to catch legs as we speak. Phase II is going to be legit (thankfully, I think we're clever enough to make it work).
For the city,
Neil
Neil
B Series - Conflicting Identities
- Beware, this isn't proofread -
I suspect that this topic will bubble up on many occasions while trying to do this deep introspection. Again, it's pretty important context setting.
For whatever reason, my identities - physical, emotional, spiritual, social, moral, intellectual, experiences etc. - conflict with each other. Or, at least they do on the surface. One of the more difficult things I feel like I do on a daily basis is finding some calm between those warring identities and weaving together a cohesive internal narrative. Let me try listing some examples:
I suspect that this topic will bubble up on many occasions while trying to do this deep introspection. Again, it's pretty important context setting.
For whatever reason, my identities - physical, emotional, spiritual, social, moral, intellectual, experiences etc. - conflict with each other. Or, at least they do on the surface. One of the more difficult things I feel like I do on a daily basis is finding some calm between those warring identities and weaving together a cohesive internal narrative. Let me try listing some examples:
- Indian and brought up in America, and "white" by upbringing to an extend - but still rooted with relatively traditional values.
- Theistic, but not subscribing to the framework of an organized religion
- I've been bullied and have been in positions where I could bully other if I wanted to.
- Dance, Football, Backcountry Camping, Tennis, Soccer, Weightlifting - all these are favorite athletic pass times
- Fraternity Man (with associated antics) and subscriber to Aristotelian virtue ethics
- Deeply ponderous and reflective but intensely extroverted but also active listener
- Arrogant, but feel uncomfortable taking praise
And many others. These are pretty surface level, I'd say, but the hint at things which are more deeply rooted, I think.
But, what's the implication of having conflicting identities?
Well, there are real, front-line costs. It's hard for others to figure you out, and therefore have trust in you. If you're not predictable, then, how does one have intimate relationships? It's not impossible just more fleeting. The other side of this is that it's harder to feel a sense of belonging anywhere. Everything is shaky, because you never feel comfortable exactly where you are. You feel like an outsider and an insider at the same time. "Home" is difficult to discern.
Well, there are real, front-line costs. It's hard for others to figure you out, and therefore have trust in you. If you're not predictable, then, how does one have intimate relationships? It's not impossible just more fleeting. The other side of this is that it's harder to feel a sense of belonging anywhere. Everything is shaky, because you never feel comfortable exactly where you are. You feel like an outsider and an insider at the same time. "Home" is difficult to discern.
More tactically, if one is all over the map with identities (and identities are heuristics for day-to-day decision making) how does one make decisions with conflicting identities? First, you do make decisions. It's just really taxing, it becomes extremely deliberative in one's own head. There are no shortcuts to making decisions. There's nothing that feels quite right. But I suppose that's the case for everyone.
I suppose there are upsides, though. It becomes easier to move between communities of different people when identities don't lock you into a single paradigm. It also leaves lots of life as your oyster to be opened. Among other things.
But, what's the big takeaway here? I have many conflicting identities (maybe more, or maybe less than I think they are), but so does everyone, probably. Takeaway number one is that it's okay. (Wow, I've never said that or thought that - it's okay to be you, snap. That's probably the first of many realizations over the course of the next year).
Takeaway number two is that you must be you. With conflicting identities, its possible to try to copy the way others are or do what other people think you should be doing. That's maybe the worst thing you can do. That errs you even farther than your true self. And if you do that, you no longer have any trust in who you are and what you think because you've introduce foreign identities into an already weird mix of thoughts and feelings. The identities of others is something that you can never measure up to.
This is the third and probably most difficult conclusion - all your identities have to be woven together some way, or some how. May that's what integrity is - all of you woven into one story that you can explore, deepen and stick to. That's like, inner peace, if I've ever heard it.
So then the question becomes, how does one find inner peace with his or her identities? I obviously don't know the answer to that question. But, that's a good goal. That's kind of what my equilibrium project is all about - making my conflicting identities, thoughts and feelings play nice together in my brain.
Even though I don't know the answer to the question, I think it's a start to figure out who you are by learning about where you came from - i.e. unpacking your baggage. And, the long road ahead begins.
B Series - Context
Before I start this "B Series" (B for baggage, naturally) of posts - the aim being deep introspection to understand the emotional and spiritual barriers that exist in my life and expressing it - I feel like I have to do a bit of context setting.
I'm really lucky. I have parents who love me deeply and family which does the same. I'm lucky enough to have many friends who aren't like family, they are family. I have been blessed in many ways by God. I've been lucky enough to be educated. I have good health and am fully abled.
Of course, I've had my fair share of difficult and most of my character has been forged from intense pain, sorrow, empathy and struggle. There are "wounds" that still haven't "healed". I sometimes don't feel deserving or needing the love and care of others, or whatever. I'm not entitled to anything - breathing is an enthralling gift and that's enough.
But, I'm lucky. And with great luck comes ability. Response-ability, if you will. And that's where the story begins.
But the fact is, I must always remember that I'm not ever truly alone. Or that I have everything I need to be happy. Someday, I'll come to feel that I'm more than just "good enough" - in whatever context that is. I
I'm really lucky. I have parents who love me deeply and family which does the same. I'm lucky enough to have many friends who aren't like family, they are family. I have been blessed in many ways by God. I've been lucky enough to be educated. I have good health and am fully abled.
Of course, I've had my fair share of difficult and most of my character has been forged from intense pain, sorrow, empathy and struggle. There are "wounds" that still haven't "healed". I sometimes don't feel deserving or needing the love and care of others, or whatever. I'm not entitled to anything - breathing is an enthralling gift and that's enough.
But, I'm lucky. And with great luck comes ability. Response-ability, if you will. And that's where the story begins.
But the fact is, I must always remember that I'm not ever truly alone. Or that I have everything I need to be happy. Someday, I'll come to feel that I'm more than just "good enough" - in whatever context that is. I
B Series - Intro
Jeff recently purchased me a book from Amazon - which was written by their Pastor in New York. It's called Emotionally Healthy Spiritually. I've only begun to read it, but something is very clear (Jeff and Laura also mention this a lot) - that folks have to unpack their baggage to be emotionally healthy.
And, on this quest to find equilibrium I have to do the same. And, I suppose this is where the blog comes in. Unpacking all these things in my own head isn't the hard part (even though, it is hard to be real with oneself about stuff like this). The hard part is sharing it with other people. I can't do it. Or, not yet.
So, here goes the B Series of posts.
And, on this quest to find equilibrium I have to do the same. And, I suppose this is where the blog comes in. Unpacking all these things in my own head isn't the hard part (even though, it is hard to be real with oneself about stuff like this). The hard part is sharing it with other people. I can't do it. Or, not yet.
So, here goes the B Series of posts.
Revisiting Timshel
Revisiting Timshel -
The echoes of Dr. MLK are reverberating in my head like crazy, right now. There were speeches on NPR, quotes abound and a mess-load of tweets to that effect (myself included). There's all the stuff about "dreams" and "injustice", but let me pass at those and defer to wiser men, but instead elaborate on a line of thinking more accessible to those in our generation.
There are many quotes, from many people in fact, that equate to this basic idea: there are two kinds of malfeasance in human affairs (and I mean malfeasance in the strongest sense) - 1) when bad men do great evil, and, 2) when good men see evil and are silent or do nothing. Both are offensive, immoral and in some cases criminal. The latter is also an embarassing travesty.
We know that when bad men do evil it's an atrocity. There are many men who do this, but I think it only the sort of affairs for impotent men who must consciously be wicked to make any gains or profits. Let's set this aside, we all know that it's wrong.
Now, there are two options for good men - do something or not do something to conquer evin. Similar to the aforementioned scenario, let's set aside the decision for good men to do nothing. It's just as immoral as doing evil, except more regrettable for the agent.
But, take the more textured case of good men doing SOMETHING. There are at least two manners in which good men can do something, depending on whether they are opportunist or if they are sincere.
The opportunist seizes power to act, and probably accomplishes some good. In fact, they may accomplish the most good as far as outcomes go. The way they accomplish those ends, however may not justify the means. They may exploit some to benefit others. They may be arrogant or greedy. They may seize power because they can, not because they have earned it or have pure intentions. Good men often have power, but still abuse it.
The other route is that of humility and sincerity, which is ultimately the route that few men (seem to) choose. It is a hard one. Nice guys, after all, finish last. But, this route is ultimately the route we must take or at least try to take - for the sake of our friends, families, country men and fellow world citizens. To truly serve humanity, one must not pursue power, the world's recognition nor the applause of men. One must instead put the cause and others ahead of themselves - they must strive to have their conscience untroubled by remorse for past action or regret for missing opportunity to help others. They must be pure of heart. If they do not, the data and logic suggest that they will become wicked.
For those that we trust with our lives, with our families and the ability influence us, I pray that they have taken the noble path, even though they are powerful enough to amass fortunes and power for themselves, their families and their entourages. Because if they have not, we are surely endowed with a future of imperfection - and to lift an idea from the story of Adam and Eve - a future of original sin.
On this topic, I have been reflecting much on a concept from one of my all-time favorite books - East of Eden. There is a concept that is at the crux of the narrative - timshel. It's the idea that we're not compelled nor guaranteed to conquer sin - we "MAYest" conquer sin. We have the ability to, it's our choice.
We have to, if we do not, I do not see any other outcome but the perpetuation of suffering and triumphing over good. That's not something my mind, body and soul will tolerate.
I try to take the "virtuous path" so to speak, but it's incredibly difficult. There are weak minded people that you can either dupe, mystify or coerce into doing what you want...really easily. This goes for everything from phishing them out of $5000 or taking advantage of them at a bar and bedding them. The moral choices we make on a daily basis could fill an infinite scroll every day. We have many opportunities to practice timshel.
There are days when I want to throw this virtuous path to the birds. But I cannot, and if you are considering it, you cannot either. I (and I'm sure you have as well) have made a commitment, promise or oath to uphold what's right and reject what is not - no matter how tempting. I need your help to succeed and I will also provide it, we must all be eachother's keepers in this effort.
Many great men have failed in this effort, but we must not. If one of us collapses others also will. And, if we get to a certain threshold or collapsing principle, I really believe that humanity will be doomed.
So to summarize MLKs echoes from the day - it's not good enough to just do "something" or "speak", one must also do what's right.
This is all really preachy and somewhat narcissistic, I know. I really feel strongly about this though. I think the world really does hang in the balance when it comes to good people choosing to do what's right or not do what's right.
Alas, I am hopeful. Because there are many good men in the world. It is our choice whether we will try to be pure of heart, mind and soul and choose that path.
Peace.
-Tambe
Remembering Nakul
On days like these I think about Nakul. Although I suppose that's every day. I still don't understand the gravity of his death nor feel absolved of it. It still hurts, though I suppose we all have found some peace with it. At the same time, I'm proud because his life saved many more.
And I suppose I'm lucky, even though it's perhaps the most guilt one could feel, that his death has taught me what life is all about - family, community, service, integrity, grace/faith*. All of the things that are bigger than us, individually.
I miss you, brother.
---
* - Added at 5:09pm EST. Duh. Still learning to think about and express spirituality and what it means to me.
And I suppose I'm lucky, even though it's perhaps the most guilt one could feel, that his death has taught me what life is all about - family, community, service, integrity, grace/faith*. All of the things that are bigger than us, individually.
I miss you, brother.
---
* - Added at 5:09pm EST. Duh. Still learning to think about and express spirituality and what it means to me.
Cross Post - Have you read too many books to believe what you're told?
Argue with me about the liberal arts on the Umich Dean's Alumni Council Blog: http://lsarecentgrad.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/ive-read-too-many-books-to-believe-what-im-told/
-Neil
Beast mode
People say you have to compromise who you are to get what you want. I refuse to believe that.
I think you can do the right thing AND get what you want AND be happy AND have deep, deep relationships AND make a difference in the world AND have fun along the way.
I'm back on the warpath to prove it.
Peace.
How could you falter when you're the rock of Gibraltar
I had to get of the boat so I could walk on water
This ain't no tall order, this is nothin to me
Difficult takes a day, impossible takes a week
I do this in my sleep,
I sold Kilos of coke, (so?) I'm guessin' I can sell CD's
I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man
Let me handle my buisness, damn! - Jay Z in Diamonds of Sierra Leone
I had to get of the boat so I could walk on water
This ain't no tall order, this is nothin to me
Difficult takes a day, impossible takes a week
I do this in my sleep,
I sold Kilos of coke, (so?) I'm guessin' I can sell CD's
I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man
Let me handle my buisness, damn! - Jay Z in Diamonds of Sierra Leone
Truth and Honesty
I'm constantly reminded by how important honesty is - and as my neighbor Megan reminded over dinner on Sunday evening - full, complete honesty. It's the bedrock of any relationship because it's a necessary (and first condition) of truth. The truth is worth fighting for. So are relationships that are based on honesty, because they're honestly so rare. SO rare.
And, it's a precious love when each person in the pair has the ability, desire and intimacy to reveal the truth in all it's beauty and ugly. It's the stuff that dreams are made of.
Some would say that it, the truth that is, is the only thing in the world that never dies. If that's the case, God is in the truth. And that's a big deal.
Jay-Z is also correct, in his own way, which is pretty eloquently summarized: "real recognize real, rahh".
On faith, quickly.
I haven't been thinking about faith, and the mysteries of the universe for very long. At least in a way that's deliberate. But, there's been one thing that I've been thinking about, with regard to faith that I've learned.
That it's tested. And that it's hard and painful to believe in what's true sometimes.
Make that two things.
Looking to 2012
As is usually the case over the winter holiday, I've spent quite a bit of time reflecting on 2011. It's going to be a really, really hard year in 2012. My habit change is simple - eliminate unnecessary cursing and the use of corporate jargon.
My real resolution will be a lot more difficult, though, learning to understand and express feelings. I spend lots of time thinking, but as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator would suggest, thinking is much different than feeling. I'm luckily that thinking comes easily to me - in fact, I'd say I spend about 90-92% of my waking hours thinking.
Feeling - though I dislike the connotation of the word, "feeling" because when men use the word, it's affiliated with weakness - is a much different venture and requires a different sort of muscle, so to speak. It's a muscle I've never really developed and have avoided developing (I've instead opted to think through such things...not really "feel" them).
Let's non-sequiter to an analysis this year (the thinking part):
Professional / Community Life - Good. Beast mode. But, less than perfect work-life balance.
Social Life - Great. Hard transition moving but meaningful relationships with friends old and new.
Family Life - Great. Two weddings. Rebirth of family relationships. My dad is no longer distraught over employment.
Physical Health - Okay, but on an upswing. Houston project was making me unhealthy, but no more of that malarki.
Intellectual Health - I always aspire for more maturity here, but, great gains.
Happiness level - fairly happy, aside from aforementioned work-life balance and some other job stuff.
Now, that leaves a few other areas:
Emotional Health - N/A. I don't really know, I kind of "just keep swimming" most of the time, so this doesn't apply.
Spiritual Health - N/A. This one isn't exactly my fault (I'm a spiritual orphan because of my oft conflicting identities).
Romantic Relationships - For the most part, N/A. Also, not really important to discuss here.
Those are, like, three really big areas to have N/As, no?
I've spent a lot of time focusing on the top categories and not very much time focusing on the bottom three. It's not even a question of "focusing" on them, either. I've kind of boxed those things out.
And, it's kind of scary because I have no idea how this will go. I don't know if I'll be a wreck, at times. I don't know if I'll be the same as I always am, expect a little less serious and a little more at peace. I don't know if I'll get really angry or become a wuss. And, as someone who always likes to be in control of mind and body, this is nearly terrifying.
And, it's kind of scary because I have no idea how this will go. I don't know if I'll be a wreck, at times. I don't know if I'll be the same as I always am, expect a little less serious and a little more at peace. I don't know if I'll get really angry or become a wuss. And, as someone who always likes to be in control of mind and body, this is nearly terrifying.
And, as someone who can usually only express "feelings" by blogging, slam poetry, dance or singing in the shower - not expressing them to others or publicly - I'm worried that I'm getting in over my head.
Overall, I don't plan on becoming this broken-record-blubbering-fool, either. I think I'll keep with the intensity for the most part (my two speeds are "go" and "overdrive", I've discovered), but no longer recklessly.
I hope by the end of this I'll be a healthier person who can be a better friend, son, brother and colleague, and, eventually a better husband, father and citizen. This may be a really, really difficult experiment of a year, but it has to be done. I'm finally really for this challenge, and, I can't continue as-is any longer. Well, I can, but it's extremely taxing and to be honest, I don't want to.
Thank G-d that I don't have to do this alone.