40 years.

That was what impressed me.

After 40 years of marriage people separate.  Wow.  That is a long time to be together only to ‘grow apart’.

I’m not judging.  I’m just observing.

Time can heal.  But clearly time can also divide.  Time can make things better and draw people closer.  And time can erode, dull, and deaden your senses and your passion.

I think about the people I know and the clients that I work with.  I think about what time is doing to them.

For some, it is building them up, making them stronger.  It is a fuel that revs their engines so every new day they stand taller, get bigger, grow wiser.

For others, time is a millstone around the neck.  It is a grinding clock and snapping whip that turns what was or could have been extraordinary into a sedentary, mechanical, and passionless existence.

Those, of course, are the extremes.  Most – whether it is people, or companies, or organizations, or brands – fall somewhere in the middle.

Time is like a lot of things.  I figure it falls into one of those “great slaves” and “terrible masters” categories.

We should all take some time to think about what time is doing to us.

I was talking to my brother the other day.  He had been talking my other brother.  Both great guys.  Brothers that people would die for.  Kind, smart, funny, good husbands, wonderful sons.  The whole package.

One of them — I won’t say who — had a great personal observation.

In a discussion about life and this tricky thing called ambition he jokingly said, “You know … my greed is only exceeded by my laziness.”

This is one of the great insights into the human condition.  He could have been talking about me.  He could have been talking about you.  He could have been talking about ninety percent of humanity.  We all want stuff.  We all want nice things.  We want good relationships.  We want.  We want.  We want.

But most of us are willing to work for what we want.  We just want.

This greed vs. laziness paradigm could just as easily be framed as a”[insert anything] vs. laziness” paradigm.

Why do I think so?

Because I read David Shenk’s book “The Genius in All of Us.”  (Actually, I’ve not read it … I just read the reviews)  According to the book EVERYONE can be a genius.  That’s right.  You, my friend, could be the next Einstein.  It is not genetic or nature.  What prevents us from being a genius is … you guessed it … laziness!  Here’s an excerpt of the review on Amazon.com

Shenk argues that the idea we are either born with genius or talent, or we aren’t, is simply untrue. The notion that relentless, deliberate practice changes the brain and thus our abilities has been undervalued over the past 30 years in favor of the concept of “innate giftedness.” Practice, practice, practice (some say 10,000 hours or more) is what it takes.

I am both excited and depressed.

I can be a genius.  Only one thing.  I’ve got to work for it.  10,000 hours of work.  That is 250 weeks of a 40 hour work week.  Five years of a full time job.

That is our problem folks.  Not much is outside of our grasp — not money nor knowledge.

It is just that we have to work for it.

Think I’ll take a nap.

I’ve been spending a lot of time recently thinking about family, work, career, accomplishments, goals … heady stuff like that.  It has translated into several drives into the office in silence … no music, no radio … and many evenings on the back porch staring out over the greenway that separates our small cluster from the houses on the next block over.

Most of this reflection has, I think, been productive.  But some has bordered on the thumb-sucking, navel gazing and Hamletesque type angst that most humans are prone to.

I got some unexpected help and insight from a very dear friend who now is a big muckety-muck at one of the nation’s leading career services firm.  She mentioned a conversation with another important muckety-muck … a person from Harvard … who said that most people get it all wrong.  They frame the entire career thing the wrong way.  What she said I’ll remember for a long, long time.

“The critical question is not ‘what‘ you want to be … it is ‘who‘ you want to be.”

That says so much in just fifteen words.  It is more the motivation than the act.  It is more the idea than the product.  It is more the character than the career.  It is more the identity than the label.

I thought about my clients.  And I realized that their challenge was eerily the same.  Many were all bollixed up trying to figure out the “what” … when their real problem was the “who.”  It wasn’t the product set, the service package, the channel strategy that was their real problem.  Their real problem was that they didn’t have a clear sense of who they were and what they stood for.

These fifteen words haven’t solved my personal life’s riddle.  But they’ve allowed me to see things much more clearly.

So I ask you …

Not what do you do … but …

Who are you?

People are pissed.

At government, that is.

A bit crudely put, but that’s the latest from Andy Kohut and the folks at Pew Research.  According to the USAToday story, some 56% of us are frustrated.  About one in five were just plain mad.

Pew called it the highest anger-and-disgust level in a half-century of polling. It is due at least partially to the cumulative effect of political and institutional failure writ large.

Think of a whole nation of Howard Beale.

I’ve got a theory on why.  No, it is not the economy.  Stock market is up.  Unemployment is high but below double digits.  Hey, I’m not saying it is great out there but we seem to be muddling through.  Don’t think it is societal.  Lots of electronic toys, lattes, and other ‘necessities’ out there that people seem to be still enjoying.

I think the reason is a plethora of gobbledygook and a dearth of coherence.

We’ve always had gobbledygook.  It flourishes in both the private and public sectors.

But we’re aflood with it today.  It is everywhere.  And with all the blogging, tweeting, Facebooking, and God knows what social media activity going on … it is a virtual tsunami of gobbledygook.

With that has come a loss of coherence.  Coherence is as rare as liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.  People say and do things that simple don’t correspond to any framework of real world experience.

Case in point – Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell’s recent prescription for the Democrats on how to avoid defeat at the polls in November 2010.  The article, “How the Democrats can avoid a November bloodbath,” is the latest in their attack on the Obama administration’s strategy on health care reform.  Being pollsters, they rest much of their case on surveys.  It’s ok.  Not terribly compelling or deep.  But ok.  But when they get to the punchline, the whole thing begins to get whacky.  Their prescription for winning in November?  Here ya go …

Winning over swing voters will require a bold, new focus from the president and his party. They must adopt an agenda aimed at reducing the debt, with an emphasis on tax cuts, while implementing carefully crafted initiatives to stimulate and encourage job creation.

Yes that is right.  To win in November we need to (a) reduce the deficit; AND (b) reduce taxes; AND (c) have a jobs program.

Sorta like telling someone deep in debt that they need to pay off their loans while taking a pay cut and buying (on credit) a shiny new hybrid.

Or telling a drunk that the way to sober up is to reduce your beer intake, increase your wine consumption, and buy a liquor store.

This, of course, is our problem in a nutshell — the idea that we can do three things that are IMPOSSIBLE to do simultaneously.   Then when we actually follow the gobbledygook we find that it doesn’t work.  So we gravitate to more … gobbledygook.

Blessed are the humble.

Really?  You’ve got to be kidding.  Humility?  Look around.  Any humble brands out there?  Any humble organizations?  Politicians?  Humility has gotten short shrift in popular culture.  And looking around you’d think it in short supply.

You’d be right.

But it is a value that I’d argue is at the heart of friendship and brand relationship.  It is the connective tissue that allows a brand or an individual to bond with an individual or idea.

Nearly eighteen months ago a good friend and expert in crisis communications, Fred Garcia, wrote this back in September 2008:

… a dollop of humility tempers other attributes, and makes a leader even stronger. Humility helps a leader to recognize that maybe – just maybe – he or she might be wrong; that there may be other valid perspectives; that he or she doesn’t have to be the smartest person in every room, at every meeting.  Humility also helps leaders to connect with others up, down, and across the chain of command; to build organizations and cultures that more likely thrive; to understand the perspectives of other stakeholders.

I thought about Fred’s post when listening to a recent podcast on the same subject.  The title of the podcast was “Winsome Humility.”  A warning to those who may want to listen.  It has a religious bent.  But that bent shouldn’t distract from the wisdom that Dr. John Dixson gives about this simple concept that is at the heart of every strong character.

Dixson’s definition of humility is simple: Humility is the noble ability to hold your power for the good of others.

He goes on to argue that humility makes very a lot of sense.  It is practical.  One person can’t know everything.  It is attractive.  It is part of being kind.  It is effective.  It allows you — as Fred pointed out — to develop strong relationships.

I find it ironic that in the new media world we see so many people (and brands) succumb to baser instincts and use the new media channels to bark, preen, preach, and lecture.

When the real opportunity is in using these new channels to do something much more attractive.

Be humble.