Culture shifts. But it’s held in place by norms, and those are driven by status and affiliation.

No one actually needs a car that can accelerate one second faster than most other cars. But having one confers status in some circles. But what happens when a new generation of technology makes that previously fast car not the fastest anymore? Is it still a luxury good?

Mink coats used to confer some sort of prestige in some circles. What happens when a Patagonia jacket is warmer, more durable, cheaper, lighter, less cruel and easier to wear?

A big steak dinner was a way to express generosity and hospitality. What happens when you live in a community where steak isn’t seen as generous any longer?

Perhaps a master of the universe can point out that he can be at the meeting tomorrow simply by hopping on his private jet. Is there more status in being the one who can save time and overhead simply by dropping in via Zoom?

A big office may no longer be more prestigious than a resilient, productive workforce that works where it wants to. A loud factory crammed with workers might not be the sign of power and influence that it used to be. Smokestacks used to show that a city was on the move…

In many cases, luxury goods cease to have status when they make the owner look stupid.

Norms seem normal. Until they’re not.

Hurry, sure. We need to hurry.

Hurry puts it up on our priority list. Hurry gives us urgency and focus.

But rushing is something that leads to errors and then apologies. “I’m sorry, I rushed it,” is not something we want to hear.

But hurry.

Try to fit in every general and conceptual detail when describing a very big concept and it’s likely that we’ll be confused. When you’re intent on explaining all of it, we glaze over.

Consider switching gears and sharing the most specific possible example with impact and humanity instead.

If we’re sold on where you’re going, we’ll probably spend the time to learn how to get there.

Perhaps that super-genius is playing a very well-thought-out long game, anticipating every countermove with plenty of resources and alternatives at hand.

It might be the local business you’re competing with, the publisher you hope to work with or the general of the opposing army.

It’s easy to imagine that they have a view of the competitive landscape that escapes ordinary humans.

But it’s far more likely that they’re simply winging it.

In the early stages of a campaign, winging it is a form of poking the box. A chance to try new approaches to see how the system responds.

But if we confuse a policy of winging it with a long-term strategy of well-planned, strategic 4-D chess, it’s not going to end well. Because winging it doesn’t stay resilient at scale.

If you see a set of rules that don’t make sense, that are overly stern, that seemed designed to be offputting instead of helpful, it’s possible that the poster is leaving part of the memo unsaid:

It could be something like:

THE LAST CUSTOMER WAS UNFAIR AND UNKIND!

And so the list of rules to make sure that this never happens again, even if the next customer isn’t like that at all.

Or:

WE’RE STILL REELING FROM THE UNEXPECTED THING THAT IS PROBABLY NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN, BUT ONE WAY TO DEAL WITH THE TRAUMA IS TO ERECT SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS SO WE’RE SURE IT WON’T HAPPEN AGAIN.

Or:

WE GOT INTO THIS BUSINESS BECAUSE WE THOUGHT WE LOVED BOOKS AND THE PEOPLE WHO BUY THEM, BUT THE REAL REASON IS THAT WE MISTAKENLY THOUGHT WE COULD MAKE A GOOD LIVING WITHOUT ANNOYING PEOPLE BOTHERING US! ESPECIALLY CUSTOMERS AND PEOPLE WHO CAN BRING US CUSTOMERS.

THIS IS MUCH HARDER THAN WE THOUGHT, AND WELL, MAYBE IF WE MAKE A LOT OF RULES, PEOPLE WILL LEAVE US ALONE.

You certainly don’t have to put the all caps part in when you publish your rules, but it might be helpful to write it out to be sure it’s what you really want to be implying.

One can refuse to pay bills, bully employees, steal credit, work the refs and look for shortcuts…

or pay bills ahead of time, elevate employees, amplify the credit of others and take the long road.

While both are modern signifiers of a certain kind of success, only one is a resilient way forward.

Ancient emperors that aspired to power often had their enemies beheaded.

The ones with real power gave them clemency.

Gratitude might be the way forward.

So much of what ails us gets a bit better when we say ‘thank you.’

Even when it’s hard.

Especially then.

It changes. It changes as we age, and it changes depending on the situation.

A second-grader might think that a boring class is never going to end.

A bad cold might feel endless, unless we have the perspective of someone who has experienced a chronic problem.

Some things actually deserve “never.” But most of what we’re worried about probably would be better categorized as “eventually.”

Engineering problems are difficult, but they have a right answer.

People problems, by their nature, are on a spectrum, a distribution of possible forward paths. But they’re complicated. A situation might not fit a person, and vice versa. Add a second person and now you have two people, and two people interacting exponentially increase the number of possibilities.

Knowing this takes the pressure off. Because there isn’t a perfect solution to a people problem. Simply an available path forward that helps us get to the next step.

A written contract benefits the party with the least power.

Power might be in the form of money, access to plenty of lawyers or simply a willingness to burn it all down to the ground.

In the moment before a contract is signed, the lower-powered party momentarily has more power. That’s because the other entity wants what you have. But as soon as they have it, it’s only the contract that offers concrete protection against future events.

Handshake agreements are great when there’s an ongoing, stable interaction. As long as each side is honorable, the other party can continue to do what they said they were going to do. But when priorities or outside factors shift, an at-will arrangement can end up harming the person who can least afford it.

The two things to focus on are:

1. Is the contract specific enough so that there’s no doubt about who is supposed to do what, even when the world changes?
2. Are the remedies in the contract clear enough so that if the contract isn’t honored, the lower-power party can easily and efficiently obtain a fair result?

This is why adding a binding informal arbitration clause to a contract is a smart idea. Why it makes sense for there to be worker and other protections in the law. And why we need to reinforce and applaud judicial systems that enforce clearly defined agreements.