Hitler would be at home in today’s politics

I am reading a book about Adolf Hitler, researching Germany’s political upheavals between the world wars. 1

I read the following extract from his magnum opus Mein Kampf with disbelief:

“When you lie, tell big lies…’in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters, but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously…The grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down.’

Sound familiar? Have we advanced since Hitler wrote this in mid-1920s?

1 Hitler: A Study in Tyranny by Alan Bullock, p.70. Published by Penguin Books

Do You Know Your Shadow Side?

Here’s an interesting blog on Jung and his theory of the shadow – that primitive part of ourselves that pops out of our civil selves from time to time and occasionally overwhelms us. I sometimes think that Positive Psychology ignores our darker side. Do you have a view?

Bringing forth the world

I recently responded to a blog whose premise was that if you couldn’t be ‘The Best’ at whatever you were doing, then you had to ‘switch channels’ to something at which you could be the best.

There was also the explicit and devastating downside of not being ‘The Best’ and that was you would become irrelevant.

Needless to say, my hackles were well and truly up and prickling.

I responded, hopefully in a constructive and polite manner, to say that I disagreed. It is not our purpose in life to be ‘The Best’ at anything. Such striving is, I believe, at the root of our mental illness epidemic and our competitive, dog-eat-dog culture. To judge ourselves always against ‘The Best’ is to see ourselves always as somehow inferior, dissatisfied, and down on ourselves.

Imagine a world full of Steve Jobses. Bastards with personality disorders trampling lesser mortals to dust. And he’s one of our cultural paragons!

One of the presuppositions of ‘The Best’ school of self-development is ‘The Goal.’ I won’t replay the flaws in the underpinning assumptions of ‘The Best’ school, but I will offer an alternative possibility based on life sciences.

The Santiago theory suggests that we continually ‘bring forth the world’ through our interaction with it. The world is not a separate reality from us. We create it as we interact with it. And we are not this stable actor, solid and autonomous in total control of ourselves, let alone our destiny. We too are changed by the world as we interact with it.

Now, to accept ourselves and the world thus might give those who subscribe to ‘The Best’ school of living the existential heebeejeebies. There’s too much outside of our control. To be ‘The Best’ is to be in control.

I happen to think the idea of the world being continually created and myself changing and adapting in the dance is incredibly exciting. It means I pay attention to many things and am moved by wonder and curiosity. Those in ‘The Best’ school may focus down on themselves to the exclusion of all else and ignore the role of others in their achievements, or the coincidences and circumstances that supported them along the way.

Usually, if we achieve our goals, we put it down to our own efforts. If we don’t, we blame others or circumstances. That is the delusion at the heart of ‘The Best’ school. And the sad thing is, those who achieve and believe their achievement to be mainly a product of their own efforts, become pretty insufferable to the rest of us. Then they wonder why their achievements are disparaged.


Working in groups – an overview of themes from the 2017 Complexity and Management conference.

Are we finding it harder to work in groups? And is the atomisation of society responsible for increases in mental illness? And are individuals being increasingly held responsible for the situation they find themselves in? There is something spookily Orwellian and dystopian in the examples cited from this summary of the Management and Complexity Conference.

Complexity & Management Centre

This year’s Complexity and Management conference invited delegates to think about groups. In my response to the three previous speakers, Martin Weegmann, Nick Sarra and Karina Solsø Iversen I asked delegates to consider the importance of groups against a backdrop of an increasingly individualised age, where identification with groups, whether they be communities, trades unions, social movements or other vehicles of collective identification seem increasingly difficult to maintain. This is a phenomenon remarked upon by a wide variety of sociologists in different countries, for example by Robert Putnam in the United States in his book Bowling Alone[1], and to which I drew attention in last year’s conference summing up here. Last year I talked about the way in which we are invited to become ‘entrepreneurial selves’, a trend which Foucault was one of the first to identify as an inevitable consequence of the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism

View original post 3,977 more words

Not everything works all the time

When I worked in mainstream Public Relations, I was often struck, when writing a pitch, by my desire to cover all the standard PR bases for the client.

Mass media? Of course. Your customers and prospects need to see you.

Newsletter? Of course. You need to control your messages.

Events? Of course. You need to get in front of your customers and prospects.

And so on. Switch on all the channels and have them on all the time. It was a percentage game. Something was bound to work, wasn’t it?

But I began to have doubts.

These surfaced particularly when I spoke to small or micro businesses who just didn’t have the resources or the energy to play all the slots. Sounding like a marketing or PR textbook didn’t work with these guys.

So I figured, well what one, two or three things brings you most business? Usually, for small businesses, it was word of mouth. Well, I’d say, can’t you do more of that? No, they’d say. I want to grow the business so I need to be in X, Y, or Z newspaper/trade journal/magazine/on TV.

We would both get a little exasperated and eventually part company.

Bestselling author Jeff Goins (The Art of Work) discovered the secret after becoming a bestselling author and it made my heart leap for joy when I read about it. He admitted to wasting days trying to cover all the marketing bases and discovered that most of his sales came from only two sources.

He discovered the 80/20 principle the hard way.

Of course, run of the mill professionals (and I include my former self in this) will sell you all kinds of things you don’t need instead of working out how you can spend least for optimum results. Things might have changed a bit in our era of austerity, but I doubt it. I suspect it’s made things worse.

Read Jeff’s experience here: https://medium.com/the-mission/dont-do-what-experts-tell-you-do-this-instead-631d7adc990

And think about your own 80/20.

So what shall we do?

Complexity & Management Centre

After a series of workshops in Australia a colleague observed to me that the perspective of complex responsive processes is very good at taking apart the dominant discourse on management. It does so systematically and methodically, and although making no claims to be the only school of thought which takes a critical stance towards instrumental management theory, it appears to offer nothing in its place. As my Australian colleague observed, ‘so what do you leave people with. What should they do?’

View original post 824 more words