Skip to main content

Perspectives

We blog about Human Behaviour | Business Process Design | Strategy | Branding | Creative


some say is hard:

I don't think so.  I think what is hard is letting go. Telling our psychology to take a hike.  The human body is an amazing electro-chemical system that in some ways we are only beginning to more fully understand.

"If we say 'life is hard' - Life Will Be Hard." - Flores

My first recollection of the ability to change was at about five years of age.  Breathing issues diagnosed as asthma.  This was cool because my older brother had asthma, my mother, too.  But I wanted to play ball in the street with my friends.  Reluctantly, probably my mother let me go.  I gagged horribly when I first started running around.  My body reflexes shifted to expelling foreign matter mode and for a moment it wasn't clear that any more air was coming.  Pushing through that changed my mind.  The fresh air on the other side of potentially blacking out was sweet.  More sweet than the medication they were giving me for asthma.  I chose not to accept the universe's offer that I adopt the asthma story.  Thanks, no.

The operating theory that humans can indeed change their minds, and from there change the course of life.  We see it over and over again.  In positive frames we call this invention, initiative, flexibility.  In negative frames the opposite; a vacuum of ideas, lethargy and rigidity.  These are all, to some degree, choices.  Physical limitation accepted.  If you are 5'4" you are 5'4."  The choice is in label.

"So, how do we change our mind?  And, make the change stick."

We manage our psychology.  And, this is not simple in our - [do whatever we want, justify it to no end, win at all cost] - societies.

"Toronto, right now may just be waking up to such reality."

The Canadian city in the throws of a massive digital rights play that pits the city's own interests against itself.  Why?  Because it is easy to profit from the sale of things that are not yours.  At a base level this is being a thief.  At other levels simply doing business.


Application > Self: Changing our minds a very powerful concept to take on.  What does it mean to change our mind, really, to set change into action?  What does it feel like?

"Skateboarding between ultimate bliss, and absolute hell."

Fear of the unknown is changes worst enemy.  Change loves the unknown, because it holds more change.  Fear loves the unknown, because it generates more fear.  What's the difference?  Both choices of position along a line between the two.  A continuum of possibility.

Think for a minute about something you were once afraid of, but no longer are.  The simplest thing, perhaps dipping a toe into a pool of water.  Some choose to jump in, some choose to sit on the edge.  Some choose to sit on the edge, then jump in.

Changing state.  We actually do this quite automatically all the time.  Our bodies moving from one location to another a series of animated steps in sequence. 

At closer look WE are really changing all the time.  And, sometimes critical change is available from a perspective right around the corner, we just need to go look.


EXPLORATION: Where should YOU change?  How do we prove change?  How will we know when we have changed?  Where can we see examples of effective change?  Is changing back change? 


Case Example ~ Situation | Solution | Result:

Situation > Working to produce change at the top.

Solution > Listen to where the top thinks he, or she is.

Result > Refinement of positions from the perspective of understanding are more probable.  Fluid.  Less friction.


Distinctions: Change, 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, 






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, 






gravity and fact:

What goes up, must come down.  Typically at different rates of speed.  This is a conditional fact.  We can change the facts by manipulating the environment.  This is happening all around us.  In this case by retesting an event within a vacuum chamber.  An experiment with a bowling ball and some feathers, for example.  Dropped from a lift at both atmospheric pressure and while under vacuum. <video> As Brian Cox points out at the end though "without the background... they weren't actually... falling at all."  The video neatly illustrating the vast difference between two ideas along the same line of inquiry.  Gravity, a [force] according to Newton, and part of a theory of [relativity] for Einstein, two very different perspectives, indeed.  Both conditionally true.

"Opposing <> Ground."

When two or more people come at things from different angles it can either be wonderful or a complete disaster.  Where is the difference?

Humans have a ground.  A somatic ground.  A place where we traditionally come from in our nature and approach to others.  Moods that we bring to conversations as we navigate, as well as the reactions and feelings we produce in others.  The somatic nervous system controls the voluntary movement of muscles in connection with our skeletal structure.  This is what gives our body mobility.  We can then extend this concept of mobility and tune it to behavior, how we move with others critically connected to the outcomes we produce.

Electricity and friction common elements within the mechanical world.  These same elements exist in human to human interaction when we begin to coordinate together around some purpose and set of events.

"We find criteria and standards, and our background of obviousness different."

Two people can not hold completely opposing views on critical topics for long without doing damage to their own relationship at a minimum.  This repairable, though not without energy, significant work.  Competing ideas or behavioral traits creating polarization, even the desire to isolate.  Removing the possibility of unwanted friction.  Temporarily.

"opposing views \ people \ common cause or shared purpose \ coordination."

Essentially all human activity boils down to taking care of some concern.  Shared.  Unshared.  And, often not without conflict at some level in our existences.  How we design to take care the real key.  Because if we are not taking care of shared concern at some level, then what are we doing?

"Idling, resting, reflecting, observing, preparing, relaxing, reenergizing..."

Bridging perspectives.  Not negotiating to get what you want.  Actually inventing solutions that work for both parties.

Brevity and Clarity produce Velocity... 


Application > Business Listening: Reflection on another's cares and concerns.  What am I out to produce?  For the sake of what do I do what I do?  How can I be as clear, concise and compelling as possible?  What ground am I connecting with?  Am I offering something, or am I requesting something?  Is there resonance, mutual understanding?

Where am I in my thinking, my actions?... Where are others in their thinking, their actions?...

Where and how to make valuable offers?...

Continuous Exploration Looking Listening...


EXPLORATION: What is your ground?  Other's ground around you?  Flow, or friction?  What does it look like to effectively blend?

What it is to be a cost, what it is to generate costs.  How costs are associated with being valued and the opposite condition, costs associated with not being valued still apply.


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: Ground, Gravity, Fact, Environments, Manipulation, Vacuum, Navigation, Certainty, Entitlement, 

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,