They Can Have Deen, Snowden, And Obama. I Prefer Freedom.

Independence Day in the United States commemorates the adoption of the Declaration Of Independence on July 4, 1776, when a handful of men and women announced their sovereignty as a nation. My favorite celebration to date was 1976. It's hard to beat the United States Bicentennial.

In the city of my youth (Milwaukee), celebrations were planned at every local park. Suspenders and Dixieland hats with a red, white and blue sash were optional. Ice cream came in plastic cups to be eaten with wooden spoons, sold by men on big three-wheel bicycles. The smell of grilled sausages and bratwursts lingered in the air. And it would remain that way until nightfall, when the sky would erupt with fireworks.

But there was something more than all that, the big bands, long parades, and holding tightly to quarters emblazoned with patriots. It might have felt like more because the price of freedom was still fresh in our minds as people were fighting for peace at home or for the nation halfway around the world. It all took a toll.

The country had some challenges ahead, but also felt young and unweathered. 

Two hundred years didn't seem like such a long time. As a country, we had barely finished crawling. If you asked anyone back then whether they would fight the American Revolution all over again, no had to wonder where a majority might fall. The spirit of the Declaration Of Independence was intact.

Our country still counted freedom and liberty among our greatest virtues. We all saw it as the lifeblood of everything — the probability that with education or opportunity or persistence, we could either land a job after graduation or start a computer company out of a garage, which someone incidentally did in 1976. Sometimes it was hard work to make it happen, but mostly the only people in our way was us.

Less than four decades later, it isn't so clear cut anymore. For all the virtues of a majority rule that has encroached on our fragile representative government, we adopted a notion that freedom is as simple as a choice. But freedom isn't a choice. It's about having choices. We haven't been making great ones.

The reason some of them aren't so great is simple enough. We're continually trading away freedom for security without appreciating the economics of it. Unlike supply and demand, the scales of freedom are stacked. It's the only thing in the world that is cheap to sell and expensive to buy. We've sold away too much of it, often times for promises that will never be delivered (and sometimes for something worse).

More than that, it seems the United States has grown too accustomed to the notion that we are somehow rotten as a people. And as a result, we must somehow feel forever in debt to this national guilt. The terms of payment are clear. Every year, we're asked to give a little more of our freedom and pay a little more for the dwindling amount of freedom that remains. The irony is that government administers the demand and collection of debt, even though it and not the people are responsible.

The quality of the choices we make today will dictate the quantity of choices we make tomorrow. 

A few people who have read this space for as long as I've been writing it recently asked me why I haven't covered the usual communication suspects that have surfaced in the news. Some of them figured it was related to my recovery, but that's not it. It's about my heart.

While my head still sees communication challenges and how this or that needs to be handled, my heart isn't into taking on the ugliness that holds our country hostage to guilt. There are better topics than this:

Deen. Her ignorance is more deserving of our pity than punishment. Worse, by continually reinforcing that various segments of our country have ties to racism is counterproductive as it casts all Americans with European heritage as racists and all Americans with an African heritage as victims. While it's convenient to think so in this fog of political guilt, 5 percent of the men who gave their lives at Bunker Hill were African-Americans. They were heroes not victims.

It seems to me if there is any debt to be paid on July 4, it ought to paid by honoring the thousands of African Americans who fought not alongside patriots but as patriots during the American Revolution. We might even start with Crispus Attucks, a hero of the Boston Massacre. Americans didn't care that Attucks was African American when he was shot. They only cared he was a colonist like them.

Snowden. His celebrity is the least important part of the story. Although it amazes me to some degree that political factions on the right and left can find common ground on what is being cast as a national security issue, the real story is the extent of arbitrary searches, seizures and the collection of data by the government. Both sides whittled away at the Fourth Amendment for more than 10 years.

While some Americans feel additional security is warranted, the cost is too high in terms of freedom and fiscal expense. It might be argued that short-term measures were reasonable during a state of war, but it also seems infinitely suspicious that any regime would call for a perpetual state of war readiness to justify a permanent invasion of privacy. The greater threat to public safety is that for every dollar the federal government collects to snoop, we have one less dollar for local public safety like firefighters.

Obama. Democracy voted to sequester national health care based on a "free" soundbite. George Washington once said that if freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we would be led like sheep to the slaughter. There is a similar fate for those who vote without making comprehension compulsory. As a nation of news snackers who prefer affirmation and popularity over objectivity and complexity, we don't always understand the depth of the issues we form opinions about.

People pick their sides. So writing about Obamacare spin on both sides seems futile to me, especially when more important topics are missed: what can we do to stop killing bees, why are genetically modified foods becoming more prevalent (avoid them), and how to fix the primary care physician shortage. Right. It's much easier to discuss guilt over soda size than topics that affect us.

Have fun in the name of freedom. And please change the subject. 

In 1976, the country wasn't perfect but what we wanted seemed pretty simple. We wanted a little elbow room to enjoy our definition of happiness and one day a year to appreciate the 2.5 million people (less 10-20 percent loyalists) who put their lives on the line for freedom (and everyone else afterward).

Many of our children may want something like that someday too. With the cost of education eclipsing the cost of a starting a small business, it's anybody's guess if they will. As for me, I'd rather think about heroes and how to help them — patriots (of every race), firefighters, doctors, and honey bees — than the topics served up by social and traditional media. Maybe you would like to help me change the subject too. The press can have Deen, Snowden and Obama. Good night and good luck. Have fun and be safe.

Success Always Starts With Permission To Act On Big Dreams

Although Michael Port will be among the first to tell you that a client's urgent needs almost always overshadow long-term goals, Book Yourself Solid Illustrated is an exercise in the opposite direction. He asks people who want to succeed to put aside their immediate needs and focus in on big dreams.

He's smart to do it too. For the better part of 20 years, I've seen a relatively consistent and reoccurring life cycle among successful startups. Many take a year or two to establish themselves, make huge gains during the next few, and then slowly wind down until they eventually die.

It's painful to watch, especially because companies that can succeed during the first year or so experience something that those who don't try can only wonder about. Much like their success, their original mission and vision were tied to big dreams.

It makes sense that they would be. A startup is nothing less than someone taking a shot to shine. It doesn't even matter what kind of business it might be. Most cite big dreams as a common ground.

The bulk of them were started by people who wanted to do one of two things. Either they wanted to launch a new product, service or outlet that they are passionate about or they want to launch a business as an extension of their career by being their own boss. And contrary to popular myth, the majority of them will succeed (for a while).

The U.S. Small Business Administration estimates that seven out of ten business will succeed in the first two years before something unexpected happens. Only half them will survive a full five years.

Why do businesses that succeed in the first two years fail in the following three years? 

While there are many reasons that successful startups fail, almost all include a change in mindset. As business owners succeed, they are more likely to give up on big dreams and focus on urgent needs.

In other words, they give up on the very dreams that make them successful and start focusing on what they think they need with the operative word being "more": more revenue, more profits, more clients, more customers, more high profile accounts, more website visitors, more followers, more whatever.

As soon as "more" becomes the objective, these businesses start to shrink or sink as they take on the wrong kinds of customers or clients: those that take advantage of them (e.g., empty promises and slow payments), drain the life out of them (create frustration and negative relationships), or demand products and services that have little to do with the vision (diminish resources and reduce quality).

As the pressure mounts to maintain sales, problems materialize. Some owners might borrow to meet payroll while floating account debts. Others might waste time working for customers who will never be happy or refer any business. Some will substitute quality materials to push prices lower. Others will expand their offerings to appease an ever-increasing audience while watering down their uniqueness.

Worse, many successful startups won't see the root problem as they struggle to preserve these short-term gains. The fact is that they are much more likely to compound the problems as they trade in their permission to dream for protectionism — the fear of losing any revenue is so strong that they will defend their most detrimental clients rather then lose them.

Book Yourself Solid is a handbook for disciplined dreamers.

Although originally intended for advisers, consultants and speakers, Port's Book Yourself Solid works well enough for other kinds of startups too. And while some of the tools he and I use are different, the advice reads the same. It takes discipline to succeed. You have to commit yourself to looking for the "right" clients instead of "more," even if that means giving up some short-term gains.

He even goes one step further, starting with something many business owners will find startling. You have to dump "dud" clients, those who wear you down and take you further away from your dreams. As soon as you do, you can use the newly found time to pursue the clients you've always dreamed of working with or do more for the stars who are already part of your roster.

At the same time, Port dares business owners to stop giving others permission to punish them and start giving themselves permission to act on their dreams. Stick to the dreams that made your business work for you. Avoid the objectives that make you work for your business.

Any number of examples illustrate the point. An art gallery doesn't have to sell cheap prints just because some people complain about the price of the originals. A respected restaurateur won't serve out-of-season fish on the whim of a customer who doesn't know better. A reputable consultant won't rely on email spam or purchase back links to inflate junk traffic.

Instead, Port says it's much more important to be true to what you do than try to be true to what everybody wants you to you do. There are other people who might try to be all things to all people, but you don't have to follow their lead. If you really are a leader in the field, then not everyone is your customer. You know it. Your customers know it. And Port knows it too.

This may have even been one of the reasons that Port decided to make his system a little more manageable on his recently refreshed release. He teamed with Jocelyn Wallace to illustrate Book Yourself Solid. Although it is still hyped as the fastest, easiest and most reliable system for getting more clients than you can handle (even if you hate marketing and selling), there is something in this re-engineered book that will work for more businesses and independent consultants.

Whether you are starting a business, need to revisit and retrofit your vision or have recently noticed that you don't love your business anymore, Port provides enough tools to put you back on track. Perhaps more than anything else, he provides a series of exercises that are designed to remind business owners to stop chasing the daily chaff and start giving themselves permission to act on big dreams again.

So how do you know if you might need this kind of help? While I believe every business can benefit from an organization-defining communication plan, most people can start with two simple questions.

Has your happiness or employee morale faltered from the day you first started? And if so, are the challenges you face related to what you wanted to do, what you actually do, how you have to do it, or who you do it for? You might be surprised by the answers. And I'd love to know what you find.

Rethinking Print: And How To Leap Beyond It

Now that most people are attempting to master the digital space, it's clearly time to think beyond it. That was the primary impression left by Dale Sprague, president of Canyon Creative in Las Vegas, while speaking to my Writing For Public Relations class at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, last Thursday.

When Sprague, a designer and creative director who invested the majority of his career in print, product design, and packaging, said that print had largely become a support medium for digital marketing, the reaction was immediate and dramatic. Not only had everything advertising agencies been cautioned about for by people like me for a decade come to fruition, but it was time time to rethink what's next.

Everything you think you know about marketing is about to change. 

The changes ahead won't be confined to a medium, but message delivery in entirety. Much like Patrick Collings recently wrote, brands that fail to innovate will fill graveyards. Their names won't be remembered either. Instead, their tombstones will be decorated with the cliches that killed them.

You can see these changes taking place all around you. Signage has lost ground to environmental graphics. Branded giftware and novelty items are being supplanted with branded product innovation (actual products designed for marketing purposes, some of which are produced by 3-D printers). Glass is quietly becoming a new marketing canvas (projected holograms along with it). And print?

Print isn't as dead as people think. Much like public relations professionals always had to find new ways to reach journalists as news releases transitioned from mail to fax to email to social, marketers are best served when they start to ask themselves the right question.

Specifically, the right question isn't "where is everybody spending their marketing dollars?" The right question is "where aren't people spending their marketing dollars so my organization doesn't have to compete?" Ergo, the social-digital space has to be part of the marketing mix but it's also a very competitive, crowded, and cluttered place. It creates a market where a handwritten thank you counts.

Even online, people are finding that it's not enough to be everywhere because you put your content everywhere. Marketers need to be everywhere because they are part of what a public considers relevant. Ergo, real marketers aren't content trying to infuse their presence into a trending topic. They are the trending topics because they do things. They are top of mind because they made an impression.

Where does print stack up in a world that seems digital?

Print works were it always worked best. It is a high-touch medium that was temporarily downgraded because of the economics of junk mail with blow-in scrap paper and cluttered messages.

Before mail was loaded down with mainstream marketing, it primarily consisted of individual notes and invitations, niche newsletters that felt exclusive, and something thoughtfully sent through the mail because it might actually have value and you might keep it. It will in the future too, with specialty papers that capitalize on the one sense that consumers miss in digital — touch — and a message more memorable than a business card, even those that don't already have chips embedded in them.

Print won't be alone, of course. All of it will change and some of it for the better as marketers buy up space not because they want to fill it with 8-point bullet points and 140 characters of gratuitous interruption but clearly defined messaging with plenty of white/negative/neutral space to frame it.

What does that mean? Every year, when I teach any class, I make note of how the number of impressions has continued to increase before a message even has a chance to penetrate the consciousness of someone who is already receiving a novel-sized amount of information every day. What used to be three impressions now exceeds 300 — that means you need 300 impressions before something sticks.

But, you see, that isn't always the case. We've crossed a clutter threshold that makes some messages stick the one time, the first time. Ergo, if you show someone a Mona Lisa (the real one, not a facsimile),  they will never forget it. And maybe that is how we should see print and advertising going forward.

Print doesn't haven't to be a support piece to digital. Like any message delivery system, it only needs to break through the clutter of a message saturated world. Or, in other words, a message that feels immediate (purpose driven), individual (personal), and important (value driven) delivered by the most appropriate means given the context.

That is what print will look like. And marketing will too. You can wait for it to happen or you can leap ahead and start implementing these ideas today.

Communicating Big: The Art Of Nonverbal Power

When colleague Kelli Matthews, instructor at the University of Oregon, shared a recent talk by American social psychologist Amy Cuddy, I was immediately curious and excited to see it. Cuddy's TED talk rubs up against some of my individual work related image development, with mine approaching it from different disciplines. I had seen her study two years ago, but not the talk.

I also thought this would be useful for one of my upcoming classes. Several former students have encouraged me to include a larger spokesperson session as part of Writing For Public Relations. In this case, the topic stems from Cuddy's work in nonverbal communication with Dana Carney and Andy Yap.

The crux of the research is simple enough. They note that humans and other animals express power through open, expansive postures, and they express powerlessness through closed, contractive postures. And then the researchers ask a riveting question. Can posing in these open postures create power?

The power of nonverbal communication is remarkable, even potent. 

What was so fascinating about the study was that it confirmed that posting in high-power nonverbal displays (as opposed to low-power nonverbal displays) would cause neuroendocrine and behavioral changes for both male and female participants. Let me be clear here, because it's especially cool.

What they found was that the high-power poses could elevate testosterone and decrease cortisol, which was accompanied by increased feelings of power and tolerance for risk. Meanwhile, low-power poses exhibited the opposite. Any person, they suggest, could instantly make themselves more powerful by assuming simple one-minute poses.


While I find the subject fascinating, it is not the end of the story for me. While the research is spot on in terms of being interesting, Cuddy overreaches with her anectodal application. Specifically, like many personal branders have suggested, you can fake it until you make it.

Her own story suggests this is possible because she used to "fake it until you make it" in order to feel comfortable teaching at Princeton. In other words, if you pretend to be powerful, you will actually act more powerful (and be more powerful). There is some truth to this, but "faking it" is still flawed.

You don't have to fake it to increase your sense of power.

While the body can shape the mind, just as Cuddy suggests, it's more important to change reality rather the perception. In other words, you don't have to fake it to make it. You can simply make it by putting yourself in related experiences that will help you adopt and learn new leadership skills.

Why is that important? Because in one of the studies conducted by the researchers, they had the mock interviewers convey no emotional response. They had good reasons to do it, but what was missed was that setting might not account for real-life scenarios where one or more of the interviewers may be dominant.

In such scenarios, when people feel uncomfortable because there is no room to capture an "alpha position," they tend to respond using subconscious cues. And what happens? People who are prone to low-power postures surrender and those prone to inappropriate high-power poses can be agitated.

It is much more effective to give people empowering experiences. In fact, this is why so many motivational trainers ask students to climb poles, walk over coals, break boards, or any number of tasks that they have never done (but can do with some instruction). Doing something that one would ordinarily assume is extraordinary creates a mental impression that anything is possible while delivering the same chemical reaction that Cubby mentioned in her speech. And the more you do it, the more you believe it.

In fact, it's not all that different than what I teach interns and students. I encourage them to become involved with at least one nonprofit and one professional association because both types of organizations will open leadership opportunities for them. In addition, it will not only teach them that leadership isn't reliant on dominance like animals, but also emotional intelligence to adapt to a group.

The proverbial wise man on a mountain doesn't need a dominant posture to convey power. His perceptive size is the mountain. Or, if you prefer a different example, search for images of Mahatma Gandhi. Most of them convey low-power and even submissive postures despite his depth of power.

Failing Forward: Debbie Millman At AIGA Las Vegas

Debbie Millman knows something about failure. Most people would never guess it nowadays.

Today, she is a writer, educator, artist, brand consultant, and radio show host. Specifically, she worked in design for over 25 years and currently serves as president of the design division at Sterling Brands, a leading brand consultancy formed in 1992 with offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Cincinnati. She's held the position for 17 years. You know her work.

The consultancy’s client roster includes many international brands such as Procter & Gamble, Nestlé, Disney, Bayer, Google, and Visa. She has been personally responsible for working on the redesign of over 200 global brands.

While her position alone would be enough to scream success, she is also a contributing editor at Print Magazine, a design writer at FastCompany.com, chair of the Masters In Branding program at the School of Visual Arts in New York City, and hosts the award-winning weekly radio talk show “Design Matters With Debbie Millman.”

And yet, with all sincerity and despite the twinkle in her eye, Millman is among the first to say that her career never really took off until her 30s. Before that, she chalked up one failure after the next.

What does Millman think made all the difference? 

While Millman shared a top ten list of things she wish she knew before she started her career (a list that will be published on a transitionary AIGA Las Vegas site later this week), it took a question from the audience to pin it all down. When asked what was the catalyst for change, she settled on a single word after a long and thoughtful 30-second pause.

"Therapy."

The single word answer almost fell flat on the 200 or so attendees at the Jan. 25 event hosted by AIGA Las Vegas, Las Vegas - Clark County Library District and Library Foundation. Enough so, that as a speaker and instructor, I wanted to jump in and provide a greater context for what she meant. I got it, even if not everyone did.

Millman didn't mean that everyone needed to find a psychologist or therapist to find success. But what most people need to do, especially students on the eve of graduating who can't see a clear vision into their future, is to change their thinking. The greatest road block for success begins with giving ourselves permission to succeed, something Millman had admitted that she never really did until later.

"I started to choose a path that was failure proof," Millman said. "If there is such a thing."

Over the next half-hour of her presentation, she outlined a career path that chronicled one failure after the next. The worst of it included becoming the object of ridicule on one of the first design blogs ever created. The blog, Speak Up, attracted dozens of comments from designers she admired in the field.

Her revision of the Burger King logo was met with considerable scorn. But it was the blog's comments that drove the discussion away from a single logo design and defining Millman as a talentless hack.

Millman might have been able to weather the criticism had she not just recently been more or less shackled by the leadership of AIGA as not being progressive enough as a designer to hold a position on their board. (This was also despite finally finding her dream position at Sterling Brands.) Basically, it meant to her that neither AIGA designers nor anti-AIGA designers would accept her or her work.

But that was a long time ago. What really changed it for Millman was her ability to stop avoiding failures and start embracing them. In fact, Millman says that if you don't make mistakes, you aren't taking enough risks. And taking risks — not avoiding failure — is a critical step toward finding success.

You can't be successful by trying to avoid failure.

Many of Millman's life lessons are much like that. While some people might chalk it up to common sense, the truth of it is that most people are afraid to take risks, find excuses not to make them, tend to quit too soon in order to prove success is elusive, and never give themselves permission to live the remarkable lives that they dream of, assuming they ever open themselves up to dream them. I couldn't agree more.

Therapy is the right answer, but it doesn't necessarily mean hiring a a therapist. It means accepting who you are and changing your outlook about what's possible, especially if you have built a lifetime of resistance. Most people need help to do it. And it just doesn't matter whether that help comes from a teacher, mentor, friend, colleague, ideology, faith, or whatever because it sounds simpler than it will be.

We have to be open to the possibilities, work hard in actively pursuing them, and never give up in the face of failure. As Millman eventually learned, it was her failures that often opened doors for success and not the other way around. Or, as she so eloquently put it, she failed her way to a successful life.

Being Steve Jobs: Where The Open Forum Got It Wrong

Barry Moltz is a pretty smart guy. But he really blew it when writing up why business owners don't want to be like Steve Jobs for the Open Forum by American Express. Sure, with a broad brush stroke, we can call Moltz right — it's one thing to be influenced by someone, it's another to mimic them.

So he's right in saying that small business owners don't need to learn how to be "just like Steve Jobs," but not for any of the reasons included on his list. The real takeaway from Jobs is that you never want to compromise being yourself. And Jobs, if he was good at anything, was being himself.

Rehashing the list: Where it's on and where it's off.

Demand More From Your Employees. Moltz took exception to the fact that Jobs frequently told employees that they could never do anything right. Some of them were even afraid to take an elevator ride with him for fear of losing their job by the time they reached their floor. Moltz says it's better to be just be blunt (but not lambasting them or embarrassing them in meetings).

But there is another dynamic here that is missing. Jobs operated from an position that no matter how good something was, it could always be better. He was right. The challenge that many small business owners have is that they are always trying to reach some place of complacency where they can just go with the flow. That place doesn't exist. Maybe Jobs was too harsh for some tastes, but people knew where they stood. Those who excelled also developed a knack for fearlessness, which is critical for creativity.

Tell Customers They Are Wrong. Jobs also had a knack for telling customers that they were wrong, sometimes firing off emails in the middle of the night saying so. Moltz says the lesson is to cool off before firing away an email. The advice is mostly right. I tell people the same thing all the time, except when they are passionate. In those cases, I tell them to draft it up exactly what they are thinking as long as they don't hit the send button until they can read it fresh in the morning.

Still, I think the bigger lesson here is that sometimes you have to tell customers they are wrong. The quickest way to lose a customer is do exactly what they want when it's the wrong way and watch it fail. Communication people, in particular, do this all the time. They think they are preserving an account by doing what customers tells them to do (even if they know its wrong). Then they lose the account anyway because the customer holds them accountable to the outcomes. The grief isn't worth it.

Claim Your Employee Ideas. Moltz relates how Jobs frequently reviewed employee ideas and presented them on as his own. Moltz says it is always better to share credit when credit is due.

Jobs was hardly the only person to do it. Andy Warhol and Charles Eames most immediately come to mind, which is why I have mixed feelings about placing idea ownership in the black and white column.

While Jobs' style is not mine own, many small business owners could use a dash of it. It isn't necessarily appropriate to steal ownership, but neither is it appropriate that small business owners undervalue themselves. They create the environment, fund the work, inspire the direction, etc.

Never Settle For Less Than You Want. Moltz sets up the lesson by showing Jobs as uncompromising on two points — both in business and smallest details. He wasn't afraid to break bad contracts and cared about the inane (even if it what kind of flowers are in a hotel room). Moltz partly agrees, saying that you ought to never stick to a contract that doesn't meet your needs and ought to push people past their limits. But he wants to negotiate resolution and leans light on the details.

I've met a few self-made millionaires and billionaires. All of them sweat detail. I know one who won't eat an orange unless it measures out to perfect circumference. I often wonder if maybe they are right. Maybe those inane details matter. Or maybe you need to decide if they matter to you.

More importantly, small business owners sometimes get mixed up anytime the word "negotiation"  comes up in a conversation. It's because many small business owners have their words mixed up. "Negotiate" and "compromise" are not the same thing. You can negotiate a win-win contract. But "negotiating resolution" smacks of compromise, which is a settlement of mutual concessions.

The last point is probably the biggest takeaway of all. Compromises are often lose-lose propositions, with both parties losing, even if one party thinks they are winning. Small business owners can't afford to play that game. If you can't negotiate a win-win with someone but you can with someone else (assuming quality, price, etc. are all equal), you have to move forward. If you compromise or force someone else to compromise, then you're likely headed in the wrong direction. Never settle, but never ask someone else to settle either.

Embracing Agism: The Next Gen Journal

If the only measurement in social media is buzz, then Cathryn Sloane got it right. Her post, entitled Why Every Social Media Manager Should Be Under 25, has been shared several thousand times over. The word count across the 490 comments outweighs her 550-word opinion two hundred fold.

Unfortunately, almost all of the reaction has been negative. Enough so that The Next Gen Journal, which published it, defended her while claiming she didn't represent its views. Conner Toohill went so far as to ferret out one person who said it was starting to look like adults cyber-bullying a kid.

You can't crush other people's cookies and expect to eat yours unbroken. 

While Toohill claimed many young people share Sloane's opinion, she didn't do the people she was supposedly speaking for any favors. Her article, not her age, was demonstrative of why some young adults aren't ready to lead in thought or action. And to be fair, many of the comments left by "older people" demonstrated they aren't ready either, despite some sporting titles that suggest they do.

I'm embarrassed for some of the commenters, especially those I know. Any reactionary comments that attempted to put her in her place because "in time, she'll know better" are as ridiculous as her article.

All it did was reinforce what those who identify with her expect: People who are supposed to be mentors aren't ready to listen. Someone needs to tell Sloane that age has nothing to do with it.

Maturity isn't defined by age and age doesn't dictate performance. 

Sloane wrote an immature piece, but not because of her age. It's immature because it emboldens the discrimination that she professes to fight, just in the opposite direction. It's immature because it conveys that she has confused her identity with that of her generation, something no social media manager can afford to do. And it's immature because it exemplifies what happens when someone picks up such an argument in such a way that even those who might somewhat agree cannot possibly defend it.

Where I might have defended the concept, for example, is that ageism is one of the last antiquated and discriminatory characterizations that people are still quick to embrace without consequence. But I cannot defend her because she never conveys empathy but expects it. Ageism is wrong in both directions.

I've been fortunate both in the field and in the classroom to know better. I've been influenced and inspired by people who are both younger and older than me at work. And I have found that the most talented writers to pass through my classes are neither hindered nor elevated by age or experience. They are only hindered by themselves and the labels they choose to embrace. Sloane is so hindered here.

Me? I ignore all labels. The best performances win. It's like the Olympics. Go for gold or go home.

The real crumbling point of the Sloane argument has nothing to do with age. 

If we can get past the age thing for a moment, Sloane alluded to the idea that people who have been immersed in social media at a younger age are somehow superior to those who embraced social media at an older age, despite having relatively the same amount of time on the platforms. It's not true.

It's not true for several reasons. It's not true because participating on a social network is different than working on or managing social networks. It's not true because the qualifications have less to do with the malleable platforms and more to do with understanding the social and psychological behavior of online groups. And it's not true because, as her article demonstrates, the people who populate networks are multigenerational with a propensity to take exception to those who are exclusive instead of inclusive.

Otherwise, there is one overlooked gem of an argument tucked inside her article. She more or less says that it doesn't feel fair when employers dismiss candidates based on education and experience alone. I understand the feeling because I didn't understand it when I graduated into the 1991 recession.

The no-holds-barred truth of it? They don't owe you anything. You have to earn it. 

There are four ways to earn it. You can develop a professional network while you are still attending college, planning ahead for the day you aren't earning grades but paychecks. You can get lucky and stumble into one of the very few employers who have an affinity for students and feel compelled to give them a break without abusing them. You can buck up and accept a position that is the lower rung on the ladder, whether it's an internship or entry level position, and make yourself indispensible. Or you can put up your own money by starting a company to prove your professional prowess.

I mostly belong to the latter group, which is the smallest. I'm not too proud to say that it wasn't by choice as much as necessity. It took me two years, but I leveled the playing field, erasing the perceived advantage any "older" professionals had over me. And 20 years later? You still have to earn it.

Other reactions and rebuttals (without any implied endorsement). 

Dear NextGen: A Rebuttal From The Social Media Old Folks by Mark Story

Over 25? You're Not Qualified For Social Media by Jim Kukral

In Response: Cathryn Sloane's Social Media Article by Chris Dessel

Managing Conversation: Tips For Business Owners

“Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.” — Gen. George S. Patton (War As I Knew It, 1947)

When most business owners first encounter the quote, many assume it's about innovation. But the quote from Gen. George S. Patton is only part of his overall ideology. Much of it is about communication — when to talk, how much to talk, and what to talk about.

Patton didn't have much of a choice in this assessment. Unlike many first-time business owners, he wasn't disillusioned in the belief that his business — war — was ever going to be easy. It's exactly the opposite. It's exceptionally hard work with sacrifices and consequences that are hard to live with, weighed against the greater victories that can be achieved.

Business isn't much different, except the consequences aren't usually the loss of lives as much as livelihoods — time, money, and sense of security. Generally, those are the three things you put on the line. But this distinction aside, his ideology has always been fitting for any business.

• When To Talk. The best executives don't invest too much time talking about things. They would rather be doing because doing helps action steamroll ahead toward the objective. Ergo, for as much as some people want to figure out the return on investment of tools like social media, they ought to pause long enough to factor in the return on investment for every meeting or conference call.

No one is suggesting that meetings are worthless when they have a purpose (even if that purpose is to boost morale), but put the cost of meetings into perspective — the hourly value of everyone in the room plus lost revenue by taking those people off the line. If there isn't a purpose, no matter how successful the meeting might feel, then it carries a negative return.

Patton didn't have much patience for purposeless meetings because he understood that many of them were little more than people jockeying for position. He had a quote for that too. "We herd sheep, we drive cattle, we lead people. Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way," he said.

• How Much To Talk. The crux of the initial quote is about ingenuity, innovation, and ideas. Not always, but often, the best ideas come from some semblance of collaborative strength, maximizing the talents of many individuals with different perspectives. In other words, one person sets down the parameters and then other people get to work on it.

In the field of communication and product development for example, creative people are generally given a loose vision of what they are to create (and any mandatories). When they return with a solution, someone reconciles the vision agains their reality. Sometimes it won't reconcile. Other times, people produce something better.

For Patton, his approach was a necessity. He did not have time to map out where every individual might be at any given moment. He didn't expect perfection. "A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later," he said.

• What To Talk About. When conversations happen, make sure part of their measure of success is to make them progress driven with solutions in sight. Too many businesses invest too much effort in negative speak, focusing in on everything that might be wrong.

Sure, it's always useful to point out errors or realign expectations, but there is an old saying that I once picked up from a fellow political campaign strategist — you will never get anywhere with a negative message that ends on a negative. What the strategist meant by that is no candidate can win by talking about the bad unless they can end with a solution that gives people hope.

The same holds true inside companies. If you always tell the team that they can't do anything right, then there is a very good chance that you will always be right. You might think you win on that point, but there is nothing to gain in proving it. Consider what Patton thought about that too. “I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom,” he said.

And if they don't bounce? Let them go. 

I've never met a successful business owner who ever kept someone around just to berate them. If they do, then they aren't generally successful. They're something else. And all too often, unlike Gen. George Patton, they are the instrument of their own failures, with most of those thinking themselves victims.

Fostering Change: Social Business Research

A new research report by the MIT Sloan Management Review in collaboration with Deloitte suggests there might be more to the social business concept than most people think. In addition to a survey, the study includes supplemental case studies from companies like McDonald's, IBM, Salesforce, SAP, and Yammer that are putting the practice to work.

According to the report, 52 percent of survey respondents believe that social business is important to their business today and 86 percent of managers believe social business will be important within the next three years. The only holdback to the enthusiasm is that executives still don't feel comfortable with the metrics that might prove value.

The researchers, on the other hand, make the case that metrics might not be as important as some people believe. While metrics are important to make assessments, the outcomes transcend measurement in improving operations, innovations, and humanization.

The social business movement is being led by media and tech companies. 

Not surprisingly, the businesses that seem to be leading the way in developing a social business structure are media (entertainment, news, and publishing) and technology (IT and tech). Among the media industry, more than 74 percent of managers already rely on social software. Among the tech industries, more than 65 percent already do.

The industries less excited about the social business concept include energy and utilities, manufacturing, and financial services. However, even these industries do not dismiss the concept outright. Almost half the managers in energy and utilities (which are generally conservative and slow to change) say it will be more important in three years.

The downside for all of these businesses is clear enough. Several struggle with defining the terms they apply to their business, developing long-term vision, funding adoption, and prioritization. The overwhelming holdback is fear in various forms, including employee abuse, change, and self-preservation by means of operating in closed silos. Justification of those fears are often verbalized as risk, security, legal liabilities, regulatory concerns, lack of measurable results, and the lack of industry-wide adoption.

There also seems to be an overemphasis on growing revenue (and linking measurements to it) as opposed to pursuits that result in revenue growth, e.g., innovation, cost reduction, and better efficiency. And while social software (including social media) is generally considered the backbone of social business (whether applied internally or externally), the adoption of these tools are largely underfunded.

The study included surveying managers in 115 countries and 24 different industries. The 3,500 respondents represented a cross-section of management roles, ranging from coordinators to those on boards of directors. You can find the report on social business here. It requires the submission of a name and valid email address.

Making Decisions: Are Consumers In Control?

I was sitting in a business meeting yesterday when someone posed an interesting point. Eighty percent of startups develop products they never intended, driven by the markets they never intended to enter as dictated by the consumer. Never mind that the figure — 80 percent — was anectodal and unattributed.

This thinking is all around us. Some people say that social media sparked a consumer revolution, one where executive edicts were traded up for crowd-sourced darlings. You know the story. Companies better listen to consumers or else. They know what they need and make everything better.

How does the public know what 'should be' when it doesn't know what 'could be?'

Sometimes the public is right. During the Bronze Age in Great Britain, which spanned 2100-750 BC, consumers had it right. The early metal work started by the Beaker culture continually improved over hundreds of years until the final phases when Britain and the rest of Europe produced classic leaf-shaped swords.

For all we know, consumers would have refined bronze work for several thousand years more (like some cultures around the world did) if it hadn't been for the inconvenient introduction of another metal that would eventually sweep across Europe between 800 BC and 400 AD (or so). Iron and steel changed everything, including the entire socio-economic system that made people comfortable.

But can you imagine the change if we were experiencing it today? Some corporations would have argued evolving from bronze to iron was idiotic. Not only is iron more difficult to smelt and more costly to shape, but consumers would also be complaining about higher prices for a stronger but more brittle metal.

That's all fine and good, I suppose, until those guys with the iron cut through your defenses.

So what if this so-called 80-20 rule is right? What do you want to do? 

Sometimes I think businesses hire too many people who guess at so-called guarantees. The reality in business, much like life, is that all models only work sometimes and all guarantees are guesses at best. And that makes the riddle of bronze vs. iron nothing more than a parlor trick.

What I mean by that is: most decisions are never as clear cut as "do we fulfill the public need for better bronze or go with the gut of the guy in the back room and build out our iron division." Instead, they are littered with intangibles. You know, the guy in the back room could just as feasibly be working on a ham sandwich, in which case refining bronze might be better than hurling lunch meat.

So, it really does depend on the team and our best guess, just as history teaches us. Right. Some people backed beta and others picked up VHS. Flash forward a few dozen years only to find out that both decisions were wrong because DVDs, er, Blu-Rays and digital files win for now.

All this leads to a different approach. It seems to me that business choices have nothing to do with sizing everything up into 'either' and 'or' columns. Companies are better off innovating products and services that consumers have never seen and then refining those innovations once they are released in the marketplace based on consumer input, while keeping a watchful eye any inspirations that occur within every marketplace with every launch. That, of course, and everything needs to be weighed against what's next — information and ideas and innovations that consumers know nothing about it.

Ergo, Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion because the guy in the buyer's back room had just as much time but came up with a ham sandwich. They called it Timeline. Meanwhile, Instragram went niche.

Making Decisions: Do Anything But Wait

Despite the potential for market recovery, 48 percent of American investors believe they will run out of money in their lifetime. Ten years ago, only 30 percent believed they would run out of money.

These statistics are among the findings from a survey commissioned by BNY Mellon Wealth Management. CEO Larry Hughes went as far to say that "bleak is the new black" among investors.

He could be right. The same survey, taken in February, shows that more than six in ten investors (61 percent) say Americans are pessimistic about the markets compared to the balance who are optimistic. The outcome of the anxiety has slowed investments in the private sector, with 59 percent saying they are waiting for conditions to improve before taking any real action in their investment strategy.

How psychology and external pressures play a role in communication. 

As many as four in ten investors said they are holding off on making investment decisions until after the upcoming presidential election. Their trepidation includes the potential for tax increases and interest rates. But in general, shaky employment numbers (with many people removed from the work force), fear over the growing debt, and ultra high gas and energy prices are all baring down.

Part of the problem goes beyond hard numbers. Some of it is tied to an unwillingness to accept what's temporary and resign themselves to complacency. People are more likely to wait during good times and bad times. They are less likely to wait when they are in periods of innovation or adoption.

Unless a company is innovating new products that demand attention, it is likely deciding between identifying the shrinking pool of optimists or attempting to adopt new programs or approaches designed to change the the behavior of the pessimists. Common problem-solution communication is one strategy.

For example, a car dealership might emphasize more energy efficient vehicles as an economic alternative. They might even increase the trade-in incentive for less fuel efficient vehicles. Rental companies might offer a free tank of gas, assuming it is built into the rental price. Resorts with higher drive-in traffic might create an incentive with gas vouchers. Educational institutions might be more aggressive in providing online courses that do not require students (and instructors) to commute.

Any of these programs are short term, but represent how companies need to remain responsive to environmental conditions as much as operational improvements and/or competitive pressures. Companies have to be more responsive in eliminating the pressure or increasing the product/service value to exceed the perceived cost of acquisition.

When external pressures become too high, even communication can't help. 

In terms of gas prices, some people are now predicting that they will eclipse $5 per gallon this year. If that happens, even consumers with fuel efficient cars will be impacted. But they are not alone. Businesses will be forced either to absorb high fuel costs or increase prices to compensate, leaving consumers to face both higher fuel prices and inflation.

The prospect seems daunting given that 9 percent of Americans are unemployed, more than one in five Americans are underemployed, and several million were written off from the ranks of the work force. On a macro scale, all of it is contributing to shrinking optimism and slowing down economic recovery.

In such instances, unless it is innovation driven, companies and communicators are best served looking for smaller scale successes, perhaps in regional or even local markets that are less impacted by a continued downturn. While some people might think this goes beyond the scope of a communicator, it really doesn't. Whether marketing or public relations, well-intentioned professionals ought to be able to provide keen insight from the various publics served by the company every day.

The worst thing to do, however, is resign to a wait-and-see attitude that might permeate the rest of the market. If you are merely defending what you have, then there is a good chance you might already be losing. The same can be true for some who are unemployed; waiting for the 'right opportunity' often carries more risk than seizing temporary opportunities.

Being Wrong: Banco Popular Customers

When banks sell loans, you really never know what to expect. And with some banks, you never know what to expect from month to month. Popular Mortgage a.k.a. Banco Popular is much like that.

About a year ago, our small home improvement second was sold by Bank of America to Popular Mortgage, a subsidiary of Banco Popular, which is a subsidiary of Popular Inc. Ever since, the experience has been a comedy of errors, apparently ours.

The customer is always wrong with Banco Popular.

The first time it was our fault was because we received a statement two days before the due date. We sent the payment straight away. But their processing department is slow. So the payment didn't post until the day after their collection department called, two weeks after the due date (but still within their grace period).

Not wanting to take any chances with our credit rating, we made a payment over the phone (you can't pay via the Internet as they don't accept online payments). Meanwhile, the missing check posted the next day. They had it for more than a week, but didn't know it. No big deal. The extra payment was applied to the principal, and we offered remedies that they rebuffed.

The second time it was our fault started out as a mystery. The collection department called on Sunday but didn't leave a message. When we called to find out why they had called, we were greeted by a message that said their offices were closed. (They can call out, but you can't call in.)

In the interim, we checked with our bank. We had sent the check the same day that we received the payment (Feb. 21), they processed it on March 2 (the day after the due date), and it cleared our bank on March 5. This time, their collection department called even earlier within their grace period (March 11).

When they returned our call on the next day, "David" said he would open a ticket and research it. The practice is pretty standard in the banking business so I thanked him. What isn't standard is that he called back a few minutes later and told us to research it and send evidence of payment, with urgency.

We sent a copy of the check the same night, but found out it wasn't so urgent. After I didn't receive confirmation that the email was received, I called. He had the day off.

He never did confirm receipt of the email, but he did call the next day. He called to say we were wrong.

"The issue they had was because you didn't put your loan account number on it," said David, much less accommodating than in our previous conversation.

What happened was that they received the check (which carries the address of the home with the second) and statement coupon, but they were confused which account to apply it to (even though we only have one account with them). So, they cashed the check and set the money aside until someone claimed it.

I didn't know what to say. Apparently, I was wrong again. All I could do was chuckle and accept it.

You can learn a lot about investments by working with prospect companies. 

While we do business with several banks — various business and personal accounts — I have only ever invested in one. And I would never invest or willfully do business with Banco Popular. Why?

Three reasons. 

• Its operational structure is lopsided to account for the deficiencies it creates (e.g., its payment processing is overburdened or incompetent, which slows down their process and gives their overstaffed collection department more cause to be zealous, calling high credit score customers on days that they are closed even if the customers are well within grace periods).

• It violates its own stated values and creed (e.g., it claims to obtain customers' satisfaction and loyalty by adding value to each transaction but places the burden of research and evidence on the customer).

• It works too hard to prove itself right and the customer wrong (e.g., interactions frequently seem to bear it out, given the emphasis is always about discovering what the customer did wrong rather than addressing how they can fix their shortcomings).

I'm happy to admit I'm wrong with Banco Popular. But every now and again it pays for a company to work harder to make their customer right, at least as hard as the customer works to make them right.

The first time we experienced a problem, we had requested they send their statements out earlier (25 days out is relatively standard, but they said it wasn't their policy). We requested a payment book if they could not send them earlier (they refused because our account was an acquisition). And we asked about making payments online (they said they offer no such service).

They did suggest direct withdrawals from our bank account, but I don't believe in giving deficient companies that kind of access. Instead, we feel crummy every time they send a statement, paying it as quickly as possible and hoping for the best. It usually arrives between two and seven working days before the due date, which gives them a chance to prove us wrong every month. Go figure. It's their policy.

The policy seems to be working for them too. Here is an analysis of investor recommendations. Yikes.

Talking Complexity: So What About The One Percent?

There are dozens of economic models, formulas, and ideas that people share and cite. I tend to read many of them because I have interests outside communication. At the same time, I'm also always thinking about how these non-communication subjects intersect with communication because the ability to communicate them is equally important, if not more important, than the ideas themselves.

Yesterday, Andrew Smith reminded me about one by Dani Rodrik. The non-communication idea is sharp enough, but what's especially refreshing is the way in which two students at the Unversidade Nova de Lisboa in Portugal wrote it. They used the Simpsons to convert the idea into a fun presentation. You can find a link to the presentation in Rodrik's introduction to Disruptive Politics and Economic Growth.

What the presentation reminded me is what a terrible job Republicans do in explaining their economic position to a majority of Americans. And, until they get it together, the message will never resonate.

Communicating about complex topics can derail companies and break nations. 

There is a very good reason why the current administration's message tends to perform better than their opponent's message. Income inequality has created a lower median income, and the people who fall below that median have an increased propensity to vote for higher taxes to make up their shortfalls.

The downside, however, is that the opposition is right in actuality, if not popularity. Increasing taxes on capital endowments (which the administration wants to do) has an adverse affect on growth, which increases unemployment, which in turn moves the median income even lower. Eventually, the pattern repeats with even more people who favor higher taxes. And eventually, the economy collapses.

This economic principle is one of the primary reasons Republicans want to hold the line on all taxes. But they have trouble communicating it. They struggle with it because it is generally reframed into the sound bite that "they represent and want to protect the rich."

Of course, that isn't true either. Wealthy people call the shots in both parties, and one side is not more altruistic than the other. If they were, we wouldn't need more taxes because they would donate what's needed as opposed to raising taxes.

Sure, the current administration likes to talk about how they have extended certain "tax breaks" and nothing has happened. While this is true, they omit the psychological impact of increased regulations and the constant threat of new taxes on people with capital. In other words, it would be like your power company telling you that next month your energy bill will be ten times as much for the indefinite future. You would probably hold on to any cash you had. They are holding.

Frankly, the dynamic of all this is remarkably acidic. And I'm not sure there is a good message.

What a capitalistic model might look like if all parties rethought politics. 

A better approach might to be realign the overarching goal into objectives that are obtainable and much more easily communicated. For illustrative purposes only, consider four fundamentals as examples.

• Government. There is no question the government should never directly invest in private companies. It is especially bad at it. If it is going to invest, it ought to invest in government-owned infrastructure, with most funding in research and development (and then contracting out labor).

This is one of the reasons I am a proponent of the moon colony concept. It would be the modern equivalent of Hoover Dam. (That, and I know too much about small grant awards and waste.)

• Business. As much as many people appreciate Ayn Rand, many more misunderstand her. They must, because the takeaway that some people seem to have is that she places a high value on the individual, which is somehow selfish. When I read Rand, I take away something different.

Businesses, regardless of size, ought to invest in communities, states, and countries, not because government forces them to do it but because it is in their best interest. If businesses want an educated workforce, better infrastructure, and safeguards against taxation, then a capital investment in the communities that help them succeed is commonsense. Businesses used to do it all the time before the government took over charity. As a backgrounder, see the comment in this post, written 10 years ago.

• People. A higher standard of living might be desirable, but a society built on overconsumption is equality problematic. If the early movement toward a more meaningful economy is valid, then we might nurture it along by measuring the merit of our lives not by the cars we drive but by the values we leave behind. Legacies are not built on mountains of discarded stuff.

As long as social media remains relatively free of social scoring and continues to lift people up as opposed to protecting the higher ground, its early success can be carried forward. It has proven invaluable in finding new talent and discovering otherwise hidden thoughts from great people who make the world a better place with both inspirational and tangible results.

• Nonprofits. As long as nonprofit organizations set sustainable action in motion rather than aiming to increase their own case loads to pad budgetary need, they are vital. In many cases, they can replace the need for some government funded services, assuming they stay away from the infusion of politics that usually comes with government grants.

In fact, had someone considered it 20 years ago, a nonprofit health insurance alternative might have helped this country avoid any pressure to create an intrusive national model. And that touches on one of the key areas we need to improve because overlapping nonprofits can dilute impact while leaving other needs underserved (like health care). General guidelines might not be bad either; some nonprofits love to pad executive salaries, upgrade training packages, and receive transportation perks.

While not everyone would necessarily agree with these illustrative ideas, all four represent nonpartisan objectives that can be understood. Smart government sets the stage for success and protects it. Purpose-driven businesses make profits and then invest them. Conscientious people value education and find meaning in their lives regardless of their titles. Nonprofits help organize groups to meet unmet critical needs.

If we had all that, then most people wouldn't care about the one percent or 99 percent. I think that would be a good thing too. Because at the end of the day, we still need 100 percent to work.

Thinking Big: Why Not The Moon?

Although many people laughed when presidential candidate Newt Gingrich suggested the pursuit of a permanent moon base by 2020, and a rival candidate said he would fire an employee who came to him with such proposal, there is another question to be asked. Politics aside, why not the moon?

For many years, NASA has struggled with a public relations problem. In 2006, even NASA administrator Mike Griffin made the point that the agency's scientists and engineers are not very good at explaining to the public why what they do is important.

Interestingly enough, journalist Taylor Dinerman almost pinpointed one of several problems for the space agency. It cannot control what its employees say about the agency's programs and goals.

The reason I inserted an "almost" into the sentence is because it's not so much that it "cannot" control what its employees say. The real problem is that the employees have no centralized vision to follow. A return to the moon would give them that. A return to the moon might even enamor Americans with NASA again. And a return to the moon might give the United States a leadership position that doesn't involve globetrotting and nation building all over this world.

Thinking Big Is What Makes People Great. 

I don't mean the person who proposed it, but rather the people who will do it. And I don't just mean a revived space program, but rather any organization that dares to recast entire industries. There are dozens of examples, modern and historic, but even keeping the moon in focus can illustrate the point.

What could the benefits of going to the moon really mean? Almost anything you can dream up, and I don't just mean the idea that humans need to find a way off planet or one day face oblivion (a true argument, but one that most people cannot fathom). There are benefits to shoot for the moon.

• Economic Shift. We have reached a crossroads in that it is difficult to employ Americans in manufacturing for what people want Americans to earn, which is compounded by the fact that the public will not spend more for products to support higher salaries and better benefits. The lone exception is highly-skilled manufacturing jobs. A space program could help change the negative perception of highly-skilled manufacturing because it transforms factory workers into robotic technicians or rocket builders, people who earn the higher salaries and benefits Americans crave.

• Education Shift. We cannot go a few days without hearing how dismal the eduction system has become in America. The problem is three-fold. Students are not being taught critical thinking skills, have a difficult time connecting the dots between the subject matter and their futures, and don't always think pursuing an education will lead to anything worthwhile. A viable space program with a defined mission could renew interest in math, science, and engineering.

• Energy Shift. Most people agree that the United States needs to place an emphasis on sustainable energy. Unfortunately, most debates get mired down in polarized issues like climate change and never produce intelligent solutions. The prospect of a moon colony kills the debate. There would be no choice but to pursue technological advances such as solar energy or other energy sources we haven't dreamed up yet because people stationed on the moon would need it while people on Earth would benefit too.

• Agricultural Shift. You cannot look around the world and not notice that a majority of people on this planet do not have enough fresh water or food supplies. Whatever innovations would have to be dreamed up to build a sustainable moon colony would no doubt benefit people right here on planet Earth. At the same time, nutritionists and medical professionals would have to work even harder to understand the physiology of people and place a greater emphasis on prevention and cures as opposed to symptom-control via prescription medication.

• Attitude Shift. Many Americans have grown sensitive to risk aversion. People are increasingly voting for security over opportunity. People want high-yield retirement accounts with zero risk. They want jobs to employ them indefinitely, with the flexibility to leave companies anytime they choose. They want bulletproof medical care that extends life indefinitely, but the freedom to eat junk food in wildly impressive quantities. They want space programs to be accident free, but are willing to hold daily transportation to a much lower standard, provided they can drive 10 or 20 miles over the speed limit. A space program, particularly one as aggressive as a moon colony, might reinvigorate our spirit.

• Who Knows? There is really no way to know what the future of space might hold. But there are plenty of possibilities. Mining could produce any number of new materials that could fundamentally improve life on earth without gobbling up our resources. Space tourism could finally become a viable industry, giving people a destination that is as brilliant as visiting another part of the world used to be in the 1900s. And much like previous space programs did for five decades, all of it comes with benefits that will outlast the initial return on investment.

Right now, the United States is not the only country on the planet setting its sights on the moon and beyond. In fact, we may be the only country that has shrugged off its own program without having a viable alternative beyond hitching a ride on the technological achievements of other nations.

Such a course of retreat cannot last or else the nation will languish in its own abandoned destiny. The benefits and advancements of science, technology, engineering, and knowledge by pursing a space program that places us on the moon and then beyond the moon is by far the most important undertaking this country could revive, reinvent, and remain in the lead with peaceful intent and empowered purpose.

While I have no sense of what candidate (or incumbent) I will vote for in the coming elections, I do vote to go to the moon. I vote to go to the moon because throughout history, this world is made better by companies, organizations, and nations of people who dreamed, dared, and did as opposed to those who have rested, have retreated, and have long been forgotten.

It is the very pursuit of the improbable that makes things possible. It is a singular overarching purpose that could correct the decades-long lackluster public relations program at NASA. And it is pursuit of space exploration that could be the catalyst this country needs to push itself out its current stalemate.

Leading Without Labels: Transformative Action

At the age of 14, Manuel Scott dropped out of school and his English grammar was so poor that he was classified as an English as a Second Language student (ESL). By the age of 16, he had already lived in 26 different places. And he began using drugs and alcohol.

Looking at his biography, you would never know it today. He is a transformative speaker working on his Ph.D. He often speaks about education, encouraging people to renew their commitment despite any issues or challenges they have. He encourages them because he was once encouraged to turn his life around too.

We have something in common, he and I. Based on our labels, neither of us should have "made it."

The trouble with labels.

Since watching Scott's Martin Luther King Jr. Day keynote speech on the recommendation of a friend, I've viewed and listened to several videos by Scott. And almost all of them come back to a similar subject I've written and spoken about before. Most people are predisposed to believe in labels.

Rich and poor.  Healthy and ill. Educated and ignorant. Employed and unemployed. This party or that party. And even when any of those things are summarily equal or readily dismissed, people make up all sorts of new labels like titles or scores or ranks, usually touting the importance of one based on nothing more than their own placement, temporary conditions and meaningless anecdotes. None of it matters.

Whoever you are. Whatever your title. Whenever you graduated. However happy/unhappy your home.

It will change, for better or worse. There isn't even anything you can do about it, except to be continually doing something about it. The act of doing tends to offer up its own remedy of sorts.

Elsewhere on the net today, I reviewed the book The Fault In Our Stars by John Green. You can read the review if you like. I wanted to mention it here because the teenage protagonist shuffles along as a terminally ill cancer patient until someone enters her life and has a transformative affect on her.

How to lead without labels. 

The person who transforms her life isn't a parent. He isn't a teacher. He isn't a politician, statesman, or community activist. He isn't a businessperson, journalist, or social media superstar. He's just a boy.

Although there are a great many other things to take away from the book, the fact that this boy can have a profound and lasting affect on the protagonist, no matter how long she lives, seems to be an important one that the author never intended. Anyone can be the spark in another's life. Anyone can be a leader.

It requires two things. The leader has to believe that someone can overcome whatever temporary condition afflicts them, probably because they themselves have already learned the lesson. And then, the person being transformed has to believe they can overcome it too.

There is no other requirement, which leads me to believe that leadership doesn't come from the measure of temporary conditions, but rather the character of the person making the effort. We learned as much last year in Egypt. Nobodies become somebodies, and the rest is just scale.

In the book, Augustus Waters transforms three people. In real life, Scott transforms thousands.
If we want to transform education or even the economy, it seems to me we could start the same way.