“A health body involves a ongoing commitment to healthy habits and despite these efforts disease can occur when we least expect it.” – J. Durant

Over the last four decades we have been involved with numerous examinations and initiatives that centered on building business.  Some occurred as a result of issues that arose and others occurred in response to potential opportunities.  Each and every effort had one common element, the lack of an objective assessment.  Now one might wonder why is this at all important?  Flanked by skilled professionals that are intimately familiar with the business why would an outsider provide value?

In this world of opportunists these are very valid questions and often the conclusions reached are abetted by prescriptive solutions of the assessing organization.  We have not seen any marked difference between the big and the small, or the local vs. international organizations performing these so called assessments.   It all comes down to ceasing opportunity when it presents itself and optimizing on existing presence within the company.

I Know My Business

This is a true statement and one that a small fraction of companies cannot attest to.  However, what you know is about what is and not what could be.  Like a person who lives with perpetual pain, they grow accustom to it and will find ways to compensate for it.  Companies will do the same whether its a matter dealing with specific human elements, market issues, product status or even leadership.  Pain becomes a condition and diverted attention is given to other options with the hope that they will replace the discomfort.

Knowing your business is a valuable element in the independent and objective evaluation process.  It solidifies consistency, understanding and harmony of operation but it can also reveal discord.  I’m sure you have heard of difference of opinion that exist between people and even documented processes.  How does this happen?  It is possible that this occurs simply as the result of maintenance attention, but it can also be the result of misinterpretation or disruptive events.  Left unattended the flexibility of adaption creates inconsistencies.  While we would hope that these would have little effect they can turn into full fledged customer servicing nightmares.

Companies that are reticent on the need for some form of independent and unbiased examination are bordering on a state of denial.  Possibly out of fear of the unknown or that they don’t wish to introduce more disruption to the existing chaos.  However in this latter case the chaos is often the result of the health conditions of the organization.


An urgent outreach is symptomatic of issues.  It may simply be the lost of insight or it can be the result of a barrage of internal and external challenges.  Think for a moment about the journey of Research In Motion (RIM aka Blackberry) and their boom to bust to recovery scenario.  Here was a company that flourished with a dominating 37% of US market and a commanding presence in almost every business technological arsenal.  It had presence and it had endorsement.  Slowed growth fueled by operational mishaps drove them to the brink of closure.  The recovery was slow, painful and littered with senior corporate replacements upon replacements.  It wasn’t until 2015 that earning returned to a level on par with 2010.   Some would argue that it was a great learning experience, but is it a ‘great’ experience to endure this level of pain and newly created uncertainty?  The future remains still in question for RIM and to a similar extent to what was experienced by Nokia during the almost identical time period.  So what went wrong?

  1. Failure to be objective and consider the ever existing presence of failure.
  2. Measuring and evaluating conditions on a routine basis but denying the reality of threats and obstacles.  You may have a better mouse trap but if you can’t maintain or convert markets it is irrelevant.
  3. Celebrating loyalty and customer support but overlooking sustaining relations.  Many still appreciate the Nokia 3310 and was recently reintroduced in early 2017.  The same holds true with the Blackberry 9800 and has features reflected in some of the new models being introduced.
  4. Narrow examination perspective concentrated heavily on back end sales and promotion and failing to look at operational/research advancements.  Let me state that this isn’t completely and 100% a complete failure.  Rather it was not given the attention that it should have been to measure holistically the health of the business.
  5. Emergence of fire fighting over attention.  As the business started its rapid downward descent more meetings, reporting and analysis took place.  Decisions were made to bring the business back on course.  In direct response to markets and investors drastic steps were taken to replace known resources with unknown resources.  Again unknown as to the context and the abilities as it pertained to each organization (and known to the extent of what they had to offer from another business enterprise).
  6. Total and complete abandonment of existing strategies.  We would call this ground up or zero based approaches.  My concern, and this isn’t a matter of personal style, is that if a total replacement is needed it makes the assumption that there was no redeeming value to what existed.  If this is the case then why did it take so long for the business to raise the flag and embark on a replacement (pride, effort, disbelief, confusion, helplessness, inabilities???)?   Therefore if there was value then why was it subjected to a more pragmatic recasting?
  7. Market conditions were totally overlooked with the belief that market presence and prominence would in fact allow for leadership to exist.   Looking back on the rise and fall of businesses, technology based or others, it all comes down to misguided arrogance and a lack of humility.

Assessment Flaws

Objectivity is an important part of assessments.  A flaw however is to what extent is objectivity is maintained.  For example, assessment organizations often have biases and build their evaluations around those biases.  Maybe its a process or a technique or even what the assessment will concentrate on.  Often is the case that its these very biases that the credibility of the assessor is based upon.  Without prejudice or opinion an example is Gartner’s Magic Quadrant Research Methodology that outlines the way they depict a company’s industry positioning.  Rest assured that all organizations has some linchpin tool.  After all most would not consider any assessor or simply stated that they come in, look about and ask a few question in order to reach as assessment opinion.  So how do you address this prescriptive bias?   One must look deep and hard into what the tool/approach will address and how (aka scope).   Is this really what you are expecting, is it looking at elements that haven’t been considered, and will it provide unbiased insight?

Another flaw in the assessment process is bench marking.  Will the assessment measure your organization on fair terms or on an overly simplistic basis?  If you are a health care clinic are you being measured against research hospitals?  While the information may be insightful it may be a bit out of character to treat all health institutions on the same basis.  It should also be noted however that there may be some elements of similarity that will exist and need to be shown.  This is where our understanding and approval of the approach will come into play as it relates to the assessment model.

Credibility can be a problem.  New entries into the assessment arena suffer from the lack of credible endorsement.  The same can also be true when credible assessment organizations give way to the field personnel that are used on the engagement.  Both require handling with care.  It has been our observation that there have been good and bad situations overall.  The deciding factors involve;

  • Model used,
  • Level of transparency,
  • Degree of involvement,
  • Independent unbiased and adaptable data sources,
  • Field of vision beyond the present, and
  • Interpretation with action plan (which considered right options vs. ‘my’ options).


Humans look for approval, they look for endorsement and we strive for success.  So do companies but unfortunately daily demands get in the way of objective and ongoing self-examination.  The advent of more progressive analytics have made significant strides forward.  Despite data shortcomings many are getting authenticity back on track purely based on contributory value.  An essential part of transitioning on a routine basis and dealing with disruptions is a healthy assessment mechanism.  It cannot be effectively used on a piecemeal basis and needs to be done in a comprehensive fashion.  This is not entirely a matter of performing periodically but can also be embraced with a comprehensive framework of unbiased analytics but further supported by unbiased evaluation.

Know who you are, know where you want to go, be aware of your surroundings (internally and externally) and rapid readiness to transition remains a key component over a plan that needs constant care and attention.


“Our depth of adaptability is a condition of time and not one borne from education or sensitivity.” – J. Durant

I recently watching a TV program about a transgender married couple (The Kings) who had formed a lasting relationship from tradition to non-tradition.  What made it work and how did appear to have flourished?   Was it simply a matter of willingness or was there something more hidden?   As I carefully listened to the testimonies from family and friends, watched the seamless change in the relationship it started to become apparent that there were things about the maturity developed through a common bond that emerged.

First of all in this simple yet complex example there was an element of common purpose.  In life we repeatedly become distracted thinking that the ’cause’ is the purpose when it fact it’s simply an element of a common purpose.  We fight wars, loose friendships and fail as teams (and as members of those teams) based on the ’cause’ and failing to objectively understand and commit to a common purpose.

Secondly disruption can occur in a variety of ways.  If it was our desire everything would be known, anticipated and even given some advanced level of notification.  Yet there are those things that come out of ‘nearly’ the clear blue.  I stress ‘nearly’ because there are always telltale hints of what possible may come.  Denial and obstance contribute to realities, and these can also lead to subsequent blind resistance.

For these two reasons that disruption the factor of age can contribute positively but it can also be hindered.

Age as a Factor in Disruption

What is age?  In the simplistic of ways it’s our time clock of physical existence.  It starts as an empty cup and over the course of time it is filled with various exposures.  Education, experiences and environmentally driven opinions.  For the more mature audiences the cup is full enough to drive our abilities to accept disruptive change.  It doesn’t necessarily mean that we accept or even embrace the change, but it can be tolerated and even adapted to when we remained focused on common purpose.  Now there are some who can’t accept or even tolerate and this is the result of suppression of free will.  Many times this is the result of cultural and environmental stigmas that have been cast solid over time.  A lack of diversity exposure creates these factors but also the factor of age.  Unlike mature individuals who have a full cup, emerging youth has only a small amount of content and this lends itself to acceptance based on a smaller content model.  The matter of rightness is therefore inhibited by scope of criteria.

Some would argue that age brings inflexibility and this is partially true.  But it’s not as matter of resistance change as it is about a broader set of conditions under which change is measured.  By way of example let’s take the matter of smart phones vs. a simplistic cell phone.  While younger members look for functional versatility for such things as videos, photography, music and internet access the elder members are more comfortable with the basic foundations of need… calling and possibly email.  It’s not resistant to change, its more about practicality of use for each audience’s specific needs.

One last element that is age/maturity specific is the influence of disruption.  While some would deduce that elders would be more reluctant to change it is a matter of note that they are more apt to embrace change.  Why?  The first reason is that while one might enjoy consistency, it also brings with it a certain amount of acceptance (good AND bad).  Secondly, the test of time has forced by way of survival the ability to adapt to change that can be both unexpected as well as expected.  Therefore the model is much more durable than for those without the benefit of time.  This is not to say that youth is inept, on the contrary, it’s more a matter of not having sufficient exposure to change that may run counter to their ideologies of life and technologies.  You see this in software sectors that face rapid evolving disruption in processes and emerging solution options.  It is severely disruptive on implementors that complain about decisions being made by senior members.

The Mix

I once shared with a group that it would be my hope that we would all exist without personas.  In other words no titles, seniority or even roles.  I pronounce this position because there was far too much contention being generated that served noting but to disrupt success.  This same disruption occurs in change and we know that change is an inevitable reality of existence.   It isn’t about the occurrence of change but its about the disruption caused by the lack of a process to address change itself.  Even planned change meets resistance and most often less than complete adoption.  This relates to a reliance on transitioning to occur as a result of free will and without resistance.  Enablers such as training or details task base plans seem to further alienate staff and not facilitate achievement because they become laws and not guides.

A sound mix in the management of disruption is to;

  1. Have an intake process that guides evaluation and disposition rather than becoming a reactionary exercise,
  2. Operate with a fluid approach to change that permits synchronization that embraces exploration and moderation in deployment,
  3. Commitment to exit points without reprisal,
  4. Staff dynamics that permit committed involvement, not treatment as an extra-credit exercise, and
  5. Keep a watchful eye for impending trends (not necessarily as an action item but as elements for considering their impact).

In the mix should also be the dynamics of young and old, without prejudice to age but with prejudice to contribution.  A contribution that is keenly and intently focused on a common purpose.  Far to much attention is given to the what and how, and not enough is given to credible valued investing.  The disruption is simply the situation and not the means to an end.  There are much more important reasons why and even more significant reasons to do great things despite the flows and counter-flows that may exist.

“A mind is a terrible thing to waste and I dread to think that it will become more so with the assistance of a collective of machines.” – J. Durant

No, my age has absolutely nothing to do with my concerns and apprehensions.  If anything its the result of applied human intelligence and the creative processes that spin off from it.   It is fair to say that today we are into an experimentation cycle and are using research as a means to see just how far we can take the science of artificial intelligence.  There will be some, like Alphabet, who are ahead of many.  Let be perfectly clear that this is a normal learning curve, not just for the innovators but will prove beneficial to later adopters as well.

I do have concern about the notion of intellectual implosion.  Intellectual implosion is where the deployment of AI becomes centered on a closed and narrow application universe.  A simple example would be the use of an AI framework that provides ‘what if guidance’ for business decisions.  It sources of input become limited to a single domain, the company.   Now you might respond to this by saying that we then need to entertain other external sources in order to further elaborate the possibilities both arithmetically as operationally.   But here is where we introduce several factors of concern involving these external sources.  Some of the concerns include;

  • Accessibility and negotiated access
  • Timely (at least as expedient as internal sources) Availability
  • Reliability
  • Balance of understanding (simple definitions)
  • Units of Measure
  • Raw and Deductive Elements

It then becomes a question of need and viewing the concerns with open eyes.  While traditional systems can contain damage, an AI system can propagate even the slightest condition extensively.   It’s not a ‘do not go there’ condition, it means that more regiment must be deployed to check, authenticate, isolate, repair, respond, or release in the course of use.

Beyond Implosion

Let me reiterate that my concerns are not my hesitation to progress.  In fact I am a strong proponent to most things that can make our lives more enriched and productive.  But with that said it places an immense burden on the shoulders of engineers, architects, administrators and management to see to it that we act responsibly.  Our concerns are not just something that is downstream but starts with our present conditions.  Nearly a day goes by when we don’t hear of some technological mishap.

  • Compromises
  • Attacks
  • Failures
  • Denial of Service
  • Efficiency Losses
  • Unreliability
  • Usability Challenges
  • Technological Excesses

are but a few of the things we face today.  How will these challenge what we do tomorrow if we are to advance in the direction of AI?  Overlooking these will be solved by AI, they will be magnified and even acted upon.  The old mnemonics GIGO (Garbage In-Garbage Out) takes on a whole new depth of meaning.  Where humans would act now a rule based action would occur in mostly a non-visible fashion.  To emphasize this point I recently read about experimentation being done at Alphabet where the AI platform had adapted itself to conditions that weren’t set in the rules (came up with its own auto response/reaction).  This for some might be a bit discerning but it shows not only the depth of capability but also the need for the extensive level of human consideration that must be exercised with each an every element.  Catch state, rule limitations, plausible creations elements and redo back checking are but a few of the safety nets that can be considered.

Human Intellectual Depth

As suggested in the previous section there is an elevated level of human thinking that is necessary in AI.  It’s not simply a language form, some rules, data inflow/outflow and a permissive deductive element… it requires real thought, collaboration, postulation, experimentation and a mindset of value generation maintenance.  Present experimentation aside we need to think abnormally.  I think of this is the sense that mere replication of present habits, conditions and outcomes may or may not be the way we need to go.  Why create a robotic arm that emulates the limitations of a human arm or for that matter why create an arm when it is possible that some other form of fetch-release-retain-manipulate mechanism might be better engineered?  In the same context, why think of need or solutions utilizing AI in the same way as we would today?  While it may be comforting that we ‘can do it’, the focus is upon outcomes and growing possibilities.   Even these have a strong potential for change.  The fluidity of AI will change us from thinking in a steady state sort of way to one in which we are driven by rapid adaptation.  The bigger limitation for mankind is the ability of adoption and possibly whether some of the adoption will have to remain vested with the technology.  It remains quite possible that some adoption will remain out of human hands because of the frequency and extent to which it is taking place.

Big Questions

Thinking about the topic should excite us but is also apt to raise up a multitude of questions, concerns and elements for investigation.  Listed below are few of the ones that I have been pondering and I hope that it can be used as a basis for your further inquisitiveness.

  1. How will AI-AI or even Global AI be negotiated?
  2. Will AI-AI/Global AI represent a definable limited and restricted access point(s)?
  3. How does Smart Cities play into AI applications?
  4. To what extent will not AI institutions hinder?  Who will be hindered, AI or the non-AI player or both?
  5. What happens when AI acts cross over that are either wrong or out of control?
  6. Will risk become normality and normality become risk (in the present context)?
  7. Rogue AI threats and issues?
  8. What other present day technologies and practices will put under strain?
  9. How much computing power will be required and the importance levied for comprehensive network connectivity?
  10. How does it affect society and human collateral?
  11. Will the divergence from task to intellectual focus enable or disable societies and companies?
  12. Pervasive and responsible constraint becomes a matter of philosophy.  Should it be regulated, mandated and reshaped?
  13. Convergent roles require collaborative AI interaction (eg. elements of software engineering such as dev-ops, verification & validation (V&V), analysis).  Considered or overlooked or simply ignored?
  14. Extent of human intrusion and at what level of intrusion?
  15. Is there a safe state for change or is it invoked real-time (and should it)?
  16. What paradigms will change, become obsolete or need to be totally created that involve not just AI but also it’s close partnership with Robotic Process Automation (RPA) and advanced analytics?
  17. Speed and quality have plagued businesses, will diametrically different levels of speed give way to quality issues (resolve, mask or create)?
  18. …. Others…. over time there are I’m sure more.  What will your additions be?

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” – H. L. Mencken and as I have often said “A complex problem doesn’t necessarily require a complex solution.” (J. Durant)

Do we move forward with AI…. YES.  Moving forward is not with reckless abandon but still following sound business and engineering tenants.




“We live in a time where reality and fantasy exist with blurred lines.” – J. Durant

In context of transitional sciences we consider and debate the question as to the adaptability of people to morph from the present state to some aspired to condition.  The journey is often rough as the result of many condition.  Theriantrhropy is the mythological ability of human beings to metamorphose into other animals by means of shapeshifting.  The present day the concept of theriantrhropy can be considered as our ability to change ourselves into different forms, not necessarily in the physical sense but in behavioral/intellectual ways.   Some of this will occur as a bi-product of experience, exposure and learning.  Other changes result from external influences.   During the last decade our ability to transform has been challenged with the rapid changes in our world be it occurring in society, technology, business or the tightened connections within the global community.   We simply cannot curl up into a ball, in the corner of a room and expect to be safe.

First State Condition (Now/Present)

Before we even get started one must give consideration to what state the person(s) are in.  Are they struggling, unmotivated, overachieving, opinionated, persuasive, empowered, bewildered, etc.?   We must never overlook where we are, what is causing these conditions to exists (both good and bad), and what corrections might need to be employed before embarking on a state of transition.  I refrain from relating this to specific genders, age groups or cultures to avoid generalization, but these two can play a hidden but decisive contribution as to what occurs and how these matters must be attended two.

Second State Condition (Compelling Drive)

We must assume that we have taken steps to acknowledge, re-mediate and to address the know conditions that exist in the first state.  It doesn’t necessarily mean that it has been resolved, but it is expected that it becomes an element of attention during the course of transitioning in order to facilitate expedient achievement of planned objectives.  In the second state is when we look to elements to facilitate transitioning.  The most common tactic is to engage ownership.  In today’s business climate it less about assignment and more about taking voluntary ownership.   Some companies have created this climatic condition that can be viewed as customary.  However for others, especially in industries and cultures that are have a strong ‘command and control’ mentality, this will be something very new.  In order to achieve this we must,

  • introduce the concept and all of the beneficial reasons for this change in approach,
  • put forth the elements needing ownership and permitting guided signup for each. Note: it is critical that we guide this in order to avoid over-subscription or taking on roles that  are a mismatch, and
  • go forth, monitor, coach/counsel, reassign if necessary (but with dignity) and update as appropriate.

Third State Condition (Steady State)

Our conditioned ability to reach a steady state in transitioning is not for a single occurrence but one that will survive the potential every changing events that are apt to occur.  It was difficult to suggest that that a steady state would ever be achieve and would most likely be assaulted with new transitional challenges.  Whether these occur as a result of new principals and constraints or whether embodied inside of an element of disruptive change is unknown.  Experience has shown that changes occur, that some of these are apt to fail and then repair sometime later, and others will take the world by storm (duration to be either sustained or momentary).  It’s for these reasons that transitional aptitude and mindset must be keen and responsive.  Reliance on resilience based on the person or intuition are simply added benefits, not a reliable means to achieve positive and lasting flexibility.

The third state has one element that is key, toning.  Like a body builder who achieve a desired stature in order to maintain that they need regular toning physically, mentally and nutritionally.  Toning to achieve a steady state in transitioning (addressing the regular assaults of solicited and unsolicited change) involves toning.

  • Physical transitional toning – Regular involvement, refinement and development of transitional aptitude.
  • Mental transitional toning – Intense topical immersion through educational means.  It is important to utilize a geographically diverse variety that  (formal, informal, reading, classes, mentoring discussions, observation…) fits your learning style.
  • Nutritional transitional toning – Understanding you physiology…. what your application index is, the type of person you are (Myers-Briggs, Colored Brain…) and how to provide a suitable intellectual nutritional balance to maintain proficiency.

As management we are always worried about time and cost.  How much time will need to be dedicated to or how much cost will be involved.  This is not only a very legitimate question but also one that must drive much of what we do.  Instinct is not a sound means to achieve real and last results.

In terms of time, this relates to the three states as previously described.   Lots of issues will require attention even though these are matters that should have been corrected earlier.   Slow progress caused by environment and events will extend time.  However, the payback is found downstream as we start to pace the organization with present day state of changes.  No drag race goes from a standing stop to full speed immediately, and neither should we expect organizations to transition that way.

The cost relate mostly to the cost of time but the offset to the time is a higher degree of control and responsiveness to change.  We can easily dispatch an event to an appropriate level of attention, with a proper support collective in an expedient fashion and do so without be reacting but orderly responsiveness.

In conclusion, what we see happening and what some of you may envision is a lasting change in behavior.  A change that brings pragmatic protocol to embrace habit conditioned to the realities of transitioning, change and expediency.



“Life is not a cookbook where you find a recipe and suddenly your are a chef.  Mastering balance, flavor and presentations are key to award winning results.” – J. Durant

We are on an eternal quest for answers.  Seeking out the story of people who have experience success often relates to what we perceive is wisdom.   We seek with intent to replicate and overlook the importance of mastery.

If you look back over articles and books on such topics as start-ups, innovation, disruptive technologies and the many things that whirl about us there is a natural abundance of ‘how to’ or ‘guidance’ sources.  Why?   Simply put these things sell, people want quick and decisive real life examples.  But in opting for speed and outcomes there is also a natural tendency to acquire intellectual command of the topics, and the pursuit of further immersion.

I recently read an article that described the pursuit of venture capital and the frustrations experience with not only the process but the deployment of resources once financing was acquired.  The real crux of the matter was an over attention on need and less of an attention to having formed a financial and operational structure to accept revenue inflows (regardless of source).  Why is it important?  From personal experience the importance lies in the value produced from having routine operational elements, including finance, to be carried out in an almost automatic fashion.  This permits us to be attentive to pressing and often disruptive events without having to be immersed in routine care and maintenance of critical business elements.   In the case of startups the failures are routinely caused by an over attention to critical elements that have not achieved steady state reliability, caused in large part to care as  you go.  As the title suggests we think too much, and we own too little in terms of intellectual ownership.  In the context of start-up organizations there is an abundance of attention given to product/service promotion but all in the wrong way.  We really don’t need to know what a car is made of or what the material specifications are, we do however need to understand the market and how it can be convinced to make a commitment (aka market conversion).

Leap of Faith

Life is not easy and while our vision is to win, our most daunting challenge is to survive.  Survival of the fitness epitomizes the struggles and the acclaims achieved during the course of life’s ventures.  Maybe this is reflected in marriages that last, our is lifetime commitment but the struggle is everyday life with another person.  In the case of business its surviving the daily on-slot not just from market or competition but societies as a whole.  Rigidity has its place but in terms of staying the course of survival we must be prepared and capable to transition at a moments notice.  Talk is cheap when trying to characterize ourselves as flexible or are we?  Are we simply saying we are because our world of flexibility is dependent upon a rigid framework for addressing change?

To leap forward means that we need to change our behavior (aka transition).  We need to view knowledge as the fuel for adopting personal knowledge, not as an instruction to follow.  Think beyond the norm, looking for big questions that possibly don’t have answers (because they haven’t been asked before or thought about in a particular way), and a search of wisdom from places that are on your hostile radar will open your mind in ways that you might not expect.  At the same time we must be resistant to pessimism, refrain from dooming anything to unacceptable before you have taken it in, pondered, prodded, experimented and adapted to characteristics (personal and professional).

I’m not a name you would see on a billboard list of successful entrepreneurs because I haven’t achieved multi-billion dollar levels.  But is the achievement of a level a sign of commanding understanding and abilities?  Maybe so, by your scorecard, and thus the reason why the words of wisdom reach a level of respectable acceptance.  But you also may remember cases in which the wisdom was inappropriate for your needs.  Why is that given that it resulted in success?  Was it that we didn’t dig deep enough to understand the conditions by which success was achieved, or was it a matter of conditions taking place at the time of the success story?  Maybe it was first to market, or maybe it was simply something as simple as selling an interest that was in fact the source of the success.   This is somewhat like a book on Success that creates a revenue stream of success or a methodology that sells you on discovering who you are (when we would hope that you already some idea of that already).

Recently I experienced an opportunity to question a person who contrived a model.  The model was interesting, although more confirming than discovery.  What was more concerning from my perspective was the lack of credentials (thus personal opinion and packaging) and the forward thinking as to where to go beyond the model to affect organizations.  In retrospect, and without malice, it was an example of marketing creativity over material substance.  Many of you have heard the term, “we can sell ice cream to Eskimos”, but is this a condition we are apt to subject our livelihood to or for that matter wish to be associated with?

Honor and integrity in business have been cheapened by clever wordsmithing to legitimize our mission to produce growth and revenue.  I think of this a bit like a petty thief who steals to feed his family and uses this to justify the illegal behavior.  The decision rests in your hands whether need over rides principals.  What hinders us, once again, is fear.   Whether it be the fear of failure or the fear of the unknown we shackle ourselves to opportunities in which we marginalize ourselves.

As stated earlier I’m not a named commodity except to a few long time followers who have come to realize the virtues that I possess at a personal and professional level.  These has resulted in loyalty but also a life journey stewardship.  I am also a strong believer in survival and as a result believe that aside from traits we must be capable to exist in disruption.  Disruption that has valued purpose and not leaning towards it being a ‘Distraction’.   The separation in meaning is quite clear to me, it’s the difference between a plausible occurrence and one that is of little to no value.  But be careful because what may be of little to no value today, may be essential tomorrow.  Sometimes we need to give a bit of pondering thought and other cases we simply need to file it away for periodic examination.  Often what may fade has the probability of re-occurrence later on, almost like the idea that is ahead of its time.  This is an example how failures can and often are more valuable than the sagas of acclaimed success.

In Conclusion

There is no conclusion, only a continuum.   The river doesn’t dry up because we can’t make it upstream, it expects us to understand the ebb and flow, the rapids and the flat waters of our journey.  We command the river when we understand our role and the conditions by which we chart a path to the headwaters.  The same holds true in our journey in life and in business.  We are driven not by answers but by wisdom, and that is further embellished with our rendition uniquely crafted to fit our needs to produce a valued outcome.  Mastery however involves an intuitive reflect in the application of knowledge.  Not a quick reference or a set of notes but a humble and childlike inquisitiveness that is never satisfied.  As parents we know the stage of ‘Why?’ that occurs.  Unfortunately it gives way to answers and principals that stems the question of ‘Why’.  This creates a sad state, but it is not without redemption.  While we can postulate on what causes this, it’s really not important because the cause isn’t what needs correction.  What needs correct is us, today, at this very moment, to act upon a need to redeem our desires to own the ‘Why?’.