Skip to main content


blending and blended:

You think "A."  I think "Z."  We are working on the same project.  No.  We are Not.   Extreme example, or all too common situation?  We come at things from two different perspectives all the time.

"Opposing <> Ground."

Because we are individually unique with a bent for similarity we don't necessarily see the opposite end of behavioral continuums [active<>lethargic]  from where we stand.  Ground being where we come from.  The opposite end of something typically invisible to us.  More available may be our feelings about particular events when we are interacting with people.  We might enjoy those feelings.  We might dread them.  Either way our feelings are part of electrical currents in our bodies.  At a critical level we are composed of chemical elements and a massive electrical system that runs our body.  We can sense resonance with others around specific areas of concern.  We can also sense resistance.  Friction.

The operating theory that humans are much, much better sensors of electrical conductivity in conversation than we have previously focused on.  Listening to ourselves listen.  And, that we can use these sensibilities to more effectively navigate our future.

We are all conversational energy receivers, monitors. processors and operators in the systems of life.  We compact concerns into bundles of time, and perhaps forget to listen for other concerns that will be affected by the outcomes we are producing now.  Sometimes; to blend, We lie.  Sometimes, We blame.  Sometimes, We offend in order to defend [or, pre-defend] our position.  And, sometimes We are transparent.  Simple.

I care about this.  I don't care about that.  I might care, just not now.  Stripped of our runaway psychology we can actually be quite pragmatic --- Agree | Disagree --- in very, very short bursts of energy given one important thing.  Time.  

"I don't care about that, now -- and that could change immediately."

We are in an ever changing world of situational specifics.  Two people, two cameras, one set of very specific instructions, two very different results.  Unique interpretations, factual dissimilarities.

"We blend in conversation, forth and back dialog on a scale of understanding."

Very different from giving someone a very long list and then getting back everything on that long list that is in perfect alignment with the envisioned outcomes of the list giver.  This can happen, however the true cost of repetition and background building required for seamless fulfillment is often also invisible.  Not to mention that in a dynamic world change kills the possibility of effective repetition.  Changing one player on the team for example can create big ripples.

Application > Business Role Acquisition: Acquisition because people acquire roles through their behavioral traits.  If we are stuffing people into roles that don't resonate with them it becomes pretty clear very fast.  We can feel the mood go south, we can sense it in the conversational energy surrounding the thing that needs to be produced.

"When this light goes off, do a manual unlock of the wheel(s), move the machine 14 feet, relock the wheel(s), and press start."

If the trainee's background has been properly prepared, no problem.  Though, that is rarely the case, because we don't take time to build the appropriate background [who, what, when, where, why, how] for the listener that the trainee is, nor do we spend much time working to understand the background from which the trainee comes. 

The gaps in backgrounds being what there is to look at and incorporate into business process designs for growth.  Can we build the required background in others in fast, effective and fun ways?

The Idea That Manuals Can Simply Be Created To Transfer The Correct Information Must Be Wrestled With.  First, because of the rate of change.  Change rarely makes its way backwards into today's documentation.  The interface doesn't look like that way anymore.  And, second, because it is very, very difficult to include the background information necessary to navigate change when situational specifics have radically changed.

Similarly We Must Also Wrestle With An Alternate Approach Of Building The Background And Enhancing One's Sensibilities To Navigate Change.  Here we come from the idea that perspectives both matter and can be changed.  Because perspectives are not singular.  There is no one-way to look at things.  We also come from a place of observation.  What is happening?  Why?  Listening.  Then forming some idea, a theory that can simply be tested.  But not just any theory.  Specific theories within some boundaries and oversight in terms of creating operational excellence.  And, if we are innovating boundary and oversight changes accordingly.  

EXPLORATION: How do you blend?  How do others around you blend?  What is it to share power?

Case Example ~ Situation | Solution | Result:

Situation > Successful man observes specific personality types as detrimental to large companies.  Metrics prove this.

Solution > Successful man works to exclude specific personality type from his business.  And, every solution creates new situations.

Result > Exclusion of personality type may be excluding activities essential to actually breaking new ground.

Distinctions: Blend, Blending, Blended, Unique, Similarity, Environments, Situational Specifics,

Relation To Core: Acknowledgement, Observational Frameworks, Navigational Capacity, Bridging Realities, Human Interactivity's Ones & Zeros, The Language Of Coordination, Turning Business To Enterprise, Reciprocally Transactional Loops,