Dysfunctional Management at the Bar

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Karl Marx

===

So. This is actually about business organizations and how the sometimes “less competent” <sometimes dysfunctional> people get promoted into leadership roles and how a group of well educated people, a large group by the way, maintained  in an unequivocal stance that there were a bunch of psychopaths rising to leadership positions <and are ‘the dysfunctional>.

Sadly that relatively large group of people are TED members.

On a side note … I recognize that you always have to be careful when discussing “how do such idiots <incompetents> get promoted?” to weed out the envious, the blind and the ignorant. But in the end … it is true there are a shitload of “less competent” people, and certainly some quite dysfunctional people, who get promoted into some very important roles in business organizations.

Uhm. Notice I didn’t say ‘incompetent’, but rather ‘less competent.’ I did so because when really putting organizations under a microscope the real issue is not the surprisingly less than competent people who get promoted, but rather the truly competent who are dwelling somewhere in the depths of the organization who have NOT been promoted.

This all began for me within a very disturbing discussion among some TED members. I was being faced with an overriding belief that “psychopaths” <or sometimes called ‘predators’> were increasingly becoming this generation’s business leaders. Leaders driven by greed, lack of values and ego doing whatever it takes to maneuver their way to leadership.

Well. I didn’t agree, but I was in a minority.  To be clear. I think these are real issues (all you have to do is read things I have written to know that), I just do not believe they represent the majority of leadership assuming they could do what they knew to be right.

Anyway. Until I read a post/discussion comment <from a Dr. Gupta> I had begun thinking I was either naïve, working on a different planet, oblivious to the greed and lack of values surrounding me … or actually one of the psychopaths and was so good at hiding it from others I was hiding it from myself.

Let me posit two things to outline my disagreement:

–          It is most often not any predator trait, but rather an ability, and desire, to manipulate, or manage, the system that gets a ‘less competent’ person into a leadership role.

–          Organizations play a significant role in how their employees decide how to behave to attain ambition/self-objectives even if it means a ‘bending’ of traditional ‘what is right’ conscience.

Anyway.

–          Why I believe it is not a predator/psychopathic trait:

I have met and worked with dozens of leaders and I can maybe think of one as having such a poor moral compass that I would place them in the true predator/psychopathic category. Yes. One.

Afterwards I knew that one situation couldn’t be solved, but I did know one thing — that company would ultimately fail. Not that day but that type of personality inevitably creates a larger dysfunctional company that just cannot compete (in the end). The organism dies because it has a bacterium that can’t be cured. I imagine my real point here is that there is a natural evolution of companies, i.e., the truly sick die all on their own. Maybe not as fast as we would like, but they die.

Regardless.

A quick thought about dysfunctional/less competent people in leadership roles. Let’s be honest. The true psychopaths are few.

Maybe I just have been lucky in the organizations and leaders I have met, but while all leaders want to make a profit I haven’t seen boundless moral-less/amoral greed. In fact, when interviewed, most leaders have a huge desire to increase the wealth of the “head, heart and wallet” of their employees.

All aspects of employee benefit.

But practically speaking most leaders would admit “managing the balance sheet is much easier than the people management.” The typical quote you hear:

“I am more rewarded by the people but I don’t believe I am as good at it (or it is just too difficult).”

So, what happens?

As good managers do: they delegate.

They delegate to someone (or someones) who they perceive, or believe, is better at maximizing the heads and hearts portion.

<by the way … if you want to work on corporate dynamics for this aspect that is the gatekeeper to find … the one delegated to not the delegator>

Is there a way to weed out the dysfunctional? Or, at minimum, identify the harmful incompetent?

Sure.

I know I have suggested to HR departments, or the keepers of the culture and staff, that no organism/organization is flawless (unless it is made up of robots, maybe has less than 5 employees or is somewhere in corporate utopia, i.e., a different planet). Therefore their job isn’t to eliminate all the bacteria just be sure you have systems set up to identify the bacteria that could kill the organism.

There are varieties of methods.

I would suggest pattern tracking over time (because even good employees are infamous for doing something bad, or questionable, to get to where they want to go and exhibiting different /better/behavior once there). In other words, one time behavior is completely different than ongoing patterned behavior.

Pattern tracking actually is effective because no matter how sneaky or talented at hiding predator/psychopathic-like behavior that employee does give clues which when tracked uncover the underlying flaw.

Obviously this falls apart once someone shifts companies, but you gotta start somewhere.

But.

The truth is that most less competent leaders didn’t elevate because of any ‘lack of conscience/predator’ trait, but more likely because they knew how to manipulate, or manage, the system. Sure. There can be some less-than-desirable characteristics exhibited when managing the system, but the majority of the time it is all about taking advantage of others mistakes and taking advantage of the opportunities. I mention that to say if people are doing things you don’t like, than change the system, not the people.

–          Why I believe it can be driven by an organization:

Ok. How can an organization contribute to encouraging a thread of predator behavior?

Before I get specifically to that point let me share the premise behind the thought. Research has shown us several things.

–          All people are born with a conscience <or a sense of right or wrong>

–          And even true psychopaths have a conscience <they just do not act upon it>

“In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual. This wasn’t a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy.”

Professor Bloom

—

So.

In my mind the research and information is clear. Children are born knowing inherently what is moral and ethical and that over time as they experience the real world their natural born tendencies are shifted into whatever spot their experiences put them in.

I purposefully wrote it that way.

This isn’t “children are born good and the world is evil.” And. This isn’t “leaders are born psychopaths and the world is good.” Like it or not, behavior can be shaped by systems and contexts.

We now have intriguing scientific evidence pointing to that inherent human faculty.

—-

At the age of six months babies can barely sit up – let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk. But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code – and can tell the difference between good and evil.

An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as ‘blank slates’ – and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences.

Instead, they suggest that the difference between good and bad may be hardwired into the brain at birth.

In one experiment involving puppets, babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to ‘good’ helpful characters – and rejected unhelpful, ‘naughty’ ones. In another, they even acted as judge and jury. When asked to take away treats from a ‘naughty’ puppet, some babies went further – and dished out their own punishment with a smack on its head.

Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: ‘A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. “With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.”

—-

This is simply the fact children have a relatively blank experience slate on which the first words are not necessarily ‘self interest’ but rather ‘interest in feeling good’ … which can be a social or individual thing.

Now.

I know that is all about children but let me use it moving into the discussion on ‘psychopaths in the workplace’ (surrounding the discussion on why so many crappy people end up in management positions) and adults entering into the workplace.

So. Most people understand social contracts intuitively. They don’t have to reason them out. Ordinary people are also similarly attuned to questions of risk. Interestingly psychopaths typically exhibit similar levels of intelligence to the norm. Nor does their lack of guilt and shame seem to spring from a deficient grasp of right or wrong. Ask a psychopath what he is supposed to do in a particular situation and he/she can usually give you what non-psychopaths would regard as the correct answer.

<by the way … this is all pulled from research>

So what goes wrong? It is just that he/she does not seem bound to act upon that knowledge. They understand the rules of social contracts, they just do not believe they are defined by the rules.

<please remember that last thought because I will use it again … but this time within a business organization framework>

This is the life of a true psychopath:

“Imagine – if you can – not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern of the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. 

Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.  And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. 

Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs.  Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.  You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. 

The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience that they seldom even guess at your condition.”

Martha Stout Ph.D.

—

In other words, a psychopath is completely free of internal restraints with an unhampered liberty to do just as you please with no pangs of conscience.  You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences, will most likely remain undiscovered.

Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscience as “anti-social personality disorder,” a non-correctable disfigurement of character that is now thought to be present in about 4 percent of the population – that is to say, one in twenty-five people.  This condition of missing conscience is called by other names, too, most often “sociopathy,” or the somewhat more familiar term psychopathy.  Guiltlessness was in fact the first personality disorder to be recognized by psychiatry, and terms that have been used at times over the past century include manie sans délire, psychopathic inferiority, moral insanity, and moral imbecility.

All that said, do I personally believe a true psychopath can rise to any significant leadership role in any viable company?

Nope.

Do I believe an organization can unburden some of the typical ‘conscience’ restraints a normal person has?

Yes.

You bet.

Absolutely.

Remember what I said before about psychopaths: ‘They understand the rules of social contracts … just do not believe they are defined by the rules.’

Similar to a child, an employee entering an organization has the ability to discern right from wrong which tells me that we not only believe there is a difference but that our natural inclination would be to do right <versus wrong>.

Are there people born who do not have consciences? Whew. I doubt it. Or they are few and far between.

As a corollary … do I believe there are people who enter a business organization who do no have a conscience? Once again … I doubt it.

So what happens?

Most likely the organization, through its rewards & promoting behavior, create a new conscience framework in which it so dulls their conscience senses that they no longer believe in the traditional ‘right versus wrong’ behavior <or guides their senses in a different direction> and thus, those who elect to follow the new framework, appear to have no consciences <or have a more expanded view of what is conscientiously acceptable>. By the way, this is my main argument for why I believe “company values” is bullshit. The system frames the conscience framework, not some words.

Let me be clear.

The employee understands the traditional rules of social contracts but the organization has defined a different set of rules they believe they can play by.

So. If you believe that then, in general, the really competent people who don’t get promoted have decided, in some form or fashion, to maintain their sense of ‘right versus wrong’ framework. They just decide to not play by the different set of rules.

And, let’s be clear, I am not suggesting they are better people because of this decision, but rather each person makes their own decision. And each should feel comfortable with their decision because both are playing by the rules.

I have never begrudged the ‘less competent’ rising to a leadership role as long as they didn’t exhibit the nasty predator-like characteristics. Because if they didn’t, than they just managed the system better than others did.

Last thought.

Maybe we should think of businesses as microcosms of Life itself.

There is something called the concept of Natural Law <I did not make this up>.

The concept of Natural Law implies that human beings inherently know what is ‘good from evil’ and what is ‘right from wrong’ <our conscience compass>. It refers to our belief that inherent in nature itself is a moral law that has validity everywhere for everybody, regardless of race and culture. Human beings can use our reason to discern that natural moral law so as to derive binding rules of moral behavior which we make into our everyday positive law.

I believe that when a new employee enters an organization they begin with Natural Law embedded, therefore, any changes to the natural law are created by experience within the organization itself.

Ponder that.

Because you almost have to believe that or you have to believe that a disproportionate percentage of the true psychopath population <like all of the 4% they represent> end up in business instead of hanging out in strip clubs & low income housing.

Ponder.

Maybe I am naive.

But I think I would rather believe even the ‘less competent’ leaders have a conscience and a sense of ‘right versus wrong’ than believe a bunch of psychopaths have run amok in leadership within organizations.

This is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy:

In a new study, Brynjolfsson, and Raymond and Li show that generative AI significantly impacts labour productivity in certain jobs. The research reveals that generative AI can boost productivity by 14% and enhance lower-performing employees’ performance.

The technology accelerates the learning curve, enabling workers to gain six months of experience within just two months.¹ Putting the machine in reverse. The mess we create we made the mess worse and then have not taken steps to make the mess less of a mess. I spoke with authors Erik Brynjolfsson (Director of Stanford Digital Economy Lab) and Lindsey Raymond (MIT).

Notes:

• Generative AI systems can improve productivity by 14% in certain office roles and raise the performance of lower-performing employees.
• AI accelerates the learning curve, allowing workers to gain six months of experience in just two months.

A Goldman Sachs paper suggested that generative AI could improve productivity in the US by 1.5 to 2.9% over a 10-year period. Globally, this could translate to a 7% growth in GDP. In the context of the UK and US economies, this means an additional $210 billion and $1.6 trillion, respectively.

Source: public and newsletters

Why does this drive me crazy?

First. This is indicative of people crafting a silver lining in the midst of a torrential downpour. Everyone knows automation is going to cost people jobs and they also know that the existing business world is fairly unhealthy in terms of productivity, meaning and worker engagement, but, lets ignore all of that and bolt on some widgets and ask workers to produce more. Business will ignore structural flaws because now they have a short term success story to point to. Its nuts.

Second. This is the type of short term thinking shit that has driven business down a fairly nonproductive path for quite some time. Once again business will take advantage of some short term productivity widget and then, well, it plateaus and they either grab onto the next short term whizbang thing or they just say the heck with it and automate (note: they will). Yeah. Ignore the short term stuff, I just told you the long term future of work. That is not a prediction. It just is.

I am not suggesting all this new technology doesn’t have some good attributes and benefits, just that focusing on productivity is not what we should be focused on at the moment.

==============

I used to tell people we use research to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use numbers to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use data to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Now.

I tell people we use algorithms to INFORM decisions and not MAKE decisions.

Me

===============

“An idea of working based on three pillars: science, insight and faith. Science because I’m a social scientist by training. I believe in data, robustness of information, making sure you’re on the right track. Insight because if you’re not able to draw insights from research, you’re not a strategist, just someone observing the data. And faith because you never know what’s going to work, so you always need a bit of faith to get everyone started.”

Laura Chiavone

================

I believe great companies have one common infrastructure characteristic: culture. Good companies can be grounded in systems, processes, operations, etc, however, the step up to ‘great’ demands a culture (which is always implemented by people) to elevate the ‘infrastructure aspects. To be clear. “Culture” is not some ‘thing’, or values, or some nebulous feeling, it is an emergent consequence of how people interact with each other within a business. It is not what someone does or doesn’t do, it is what happens when people do things with each other. I thought of this because Mike Walsh has a new book, The Algorithm Leader, which suggests that the most successful companies of the future will support/augment/enhance that culture infrastructure – with algorithms. Now. Before anyone defaults into thinking this translates into “empty soul, technology order taker” company, or even holocracy (ponder how polar opposites could be relevant to the algorithm topic), let me share some thoughts on how I believe the thinking suggests structural value creation lift: for business & humans. To me this will occur through a balance of stability (knowledge infrastructure), uncertainty (quests versus missions) & understanding of Antifragility (selective redundancy maximizing untidy opportunities).

Let me pose some thoughts on the relationship between algorithms and antifragility upfront.

====================

“It is optionality that makes things work & grow.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms shouldn’t provide answers, but options. Maybe, more importantly, we become a little less comfortable with the need for construct and more comfortable with using algorithms as dynamic application of ‘movable construct’ at the right time & place.

“The antifragility of some comes necessarily at the fragility of others. In a system the sacrifice of some units – fragile units or people – are often necessary for the well-being of other units or the whole.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms should evaluate tradeoffs, fragility versus antifragility & well-being factors (of units & whole).

“The crux of complex systems , those with interacting parts, is that they convey information to these component parts through stressors.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms should not highlight solutions, but rather stressors or what Donella Meadows called ‘leverage points.’.

“There is a category of things that we can call half invented, and taking the half invented into the invented is often the real breakthrough.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms shouldn’t seek new innovations but rather ‘half invented’ ideas ripe for innovation maturity.

“Meaningful progress is non-linear.” How To Lead a Quest

Algorithms should enable an organization to identify progress paths to explore and discover rather than simply meet the needs of present identified ‘paths’ of progress or solve present identified issues & vulnerabilities.

=================

Full disclosure on my business beliefs. Throughout my career I have always felt comfortable by making the less certain decisions just certain enough that someone would go “well, it seems riskier, but, if you own it, go do it.” I say all that because I believe all Future of Work discussion should be grounded on the relationship between certainty & uncertainty – for the business, the people within the business organization and people’s minds/attitudes.

Algorithm leadership.

Most people want certainty therefore they let research make decisions, use numbers to make decisions, show data to make decisions and, increasingly, will suggest algorithms make decisions.

This is just a different type of efficiency couched in efficient operations. It will be called “efficient decision making.” The problem is this efficiency is just an attempt to strip a decision of uncertainty and, well, the best, most effective; decisions always carry along some burden of uncertainty.

What made me think about this? I just finished rereading AntiFragile (Nassim Taleb) and reread Mike Walsh’s first chapter of his new book The Algorithm Leader.

The former is about figuring out how to maximize from disorder or uncertainty while the latter is not becoming too dependent upon seemingly ‘certainty.’

—

“The future of companies, regardless of size, will be shaped by algorithms.”

Mike Walsh

—

Ultimately, it will be humans who use the shapes created by algorithms to assess options, evaluate antifragile components and navigate asymmetrical uncertainty.

It within this dynamic environment in which we should note business is inherently fragile. HBR once said “business is a quivering mass of vulnerabilities.” I say that because as a pendulum swings one way it will inevitably want to swing the other way. We inherently feel the fragile pendulum swing and start seeking to build ‘un-natural’ antifragile aspects to create a sense of antifragility. Aspects like systems, process, rules, KPIs, data/dashboards and, yes, algorithms. Depending on how fragile we see, or feel, the business to be the more likely we use the created mechanisms to ‘tell us what to do.’ We must fight against those instincts.

Frankly, this is where generations DO become relevant in discussing business. Older workers, 50somethings, can be an impediment by seeing past experience as ‘certainty’ . On the other hand, some 50somethings can actually be a bridge between some certainty-type learnings and younger people who are more comfortable with disorder (but they don’t necessarily have the expertise do discern the best bridges between certainty & uncertainty).

Here is what I do know. Business people inherently abhor risk, business organizations inherently gravitate toward the ‘safest’ and numbers, research, data & algorithms look like life rafts in a risky, safe seeking business world. That said. I also know progress is rarely found without some risk and is often found on ‘not-the-safest’ path. Algorithms create a false sense of ‘right thing to do.’ any leader who leans on algorithms too much isn’t leading. Period.

Uncertainty leadership.

For this I lean in on How to Lead a Quest by Dr. Jason Fox. In times of uncertainty a business does not need business ‘heroes’ but rather people aligned on a quest and leaders who embrace the uncertainty of a complex interconnected multi-dimensional business world.

—-

“You must learn to be still in the midst of activity and to be vibrantly alive in repose.”

Indira Ghandi

—-

Contrary to popular belief I would suggest a highly successful algorithmic leader is likely a 50something who has navigated research, then data, the ‘dictating’ decisions challenge gauntlet, & who were more likely to see how seemingly unrelated disparate fragments could be coalesced into decisions and futures that the numbers/data didn’t completely support, but also did not completely discount. That was a long winded way to introduce the idea of “data decipherers”. This type of leadership invaluable to an organization more & more steeped in numbers, dashboards, data & algorithms.

Jason Fox calls this “shining a light on the path before us.” Leadership will not use algorithms for ‘squinting into the future but rather to identify the stepping stones in a sea of uncertainty. They will offer people moments of some certainty without promising a certain future nor even promising steady progress organizationally. It will be more about uncovering options, making choices to alleviate stressors, so that teams can breakthrough while others provide the organization with the redundancies to protect an organization from uncertainty vulnerabilities.

Here is what I do know. Psychologically businesses will arc toward a belief algorithms will provide an increased tidiness and symmetry to business. that is a false sense of tidiness. Business will become increasingly untidy, the paths will become increasingly complex, therefore business will become increasingly uncertain with regard to the best, and proper steps, necessary for progress. Pragmatically business will need more, and better, leadership comfortable with uncertainty despite more numbers, data and algorithms.

Antifragile leadership.

Crisis, disaster resolution is rarely about resources available, but rather people* availability.

• * ‘people availability’: this is all of physical energy, skills and mental energy combined.

Here I lean in Taleb’s AntiFragile. We tend to build redundancies incorrectly, don’t assume for disorder well & only enhance fragility in plans. We too often see AntiFragile as a “leadership concept” when in reality it is best absorbed by agile/adaptable teams.

Risk management almost always solely focuses on resources necessary to sustain, and manage, foreseen crisis. As Taleb points out the largest flaw in that is most crisis do not look similar to ones on the past (they will have similarities but still be unique). In addition. Most organizations build in redundancy safety nets as, well, a net.  Because we dislike fragility so much we start building in antifragile everywhere. We tend to think of leadership as “what if” redundancy design. Antifragile leadership should be more ‘aligning resources to meet different scenarios.” Some people would call this ‘agile.’ I would not. I would simply call this pivoting (I am old school) based on the Law of the Situation. Great businesses have always been able to pivot to meet market challenges and opportunities. This is pivoting – no more, no less.

This is where I would view using algorithms a little differently than other people. Algorithms tend to look at opportunities when I believe they could be better used to identify stress points and stressors. Most good leaders are best as problems solvers or maybe better said “removers of obstacles to opportunistic behavior.’ (that doesn’t mean they don’t optimize existing operations/situations just that where good leaders get paid the big bucks is getting moments/situations unstuck). I would also argue identifying stressors permits smarter experimenting and tinkering.

Here is what I do know. Algorithms, used properly, permit people to stop just optimizing for the present and start attempting to optimizing the future. Yes. It may mean being less efficient in the short term (sometimes), but, done well, will create a more effective long term construct.

Conclusion:

I think the smart businesses of the future will be “directed to act” by algorithms, but not managed by. The latter demands acceptance of algorithm as qualified to make us to do something behaviorally, the former demands we accept algorithms as something that ‘informs’ our doing. Somewhere in between is the decision of how much we, people, are accountable for thinking. Algorithms inherently encourage us to believe business is not best when it is random. Yet. The best businesses resist the urge to suppress randomness and permit people to be more accountable for some untidy decisions with some untidy outcomes.

All businesses will exist, in some form or fashion, grounded in algorithms. I am fairly sure that’s a given. The challenge will be to not get consumed by algorithms.

To realize algorithms do not give answers, but outline options.

To realize algorithms don’t define redundancies, but rather where and when to apply redundancy resources (therefore help to define how to create proper redundancies).

To realize algorithms don’t necessarily create innovation opportunities but rather find opportunities to ‘reinvent’ ideas.

And.

To realize algorithms will not replace people, but rather augment minds and skills OF people. Ponder.

===

“There are countless ways of achieving greatness, but any road to achieving one’s maximum potential must be built on a bedrock of respect for the individual, a commitment to excellence, and a rejection of mediocrity.”

Buck Rodgers

====

While I have always been a Tom Peters fan, especially his book Thriving on Chaos, I have always chafed at The Search for Excellence. Ok. Let me be more specific.

First.

In Search of Excellence was the first book I faced in my career that became a ‘formula’ for business people I worked with. Normally sane thoughtful independent thinking business people (mostly men) would pull out the book or point to it on some shelf and would say “we need to do this.” Without question it became the first business bible, of many business bibles to come, of what everyone needs to do to be excellent. And while I could debate some aspects of the book itself suffice it to say, its good, has some great ideas, but is not a bible.

Second.

Excellence. While excellence seems like an innocuous helpful objective, when placed into a typical maniacal business environment (business pursuit of profits) excellence as an objective can become quite unhealthy. Its almost like perfection. Seeking excellence, and even perfection, can often make things better, but when they become objectives everyone gets measured in an “absence of” way <both are actually unattainable so when measured everyone will appear lacking>. When I was younger it was impossible trying to convince people excellence was a dubious objective at best. Later in my career as I got better at pointing out how good ideas can be misinterpreted and misused and become misguided objectives, I took this battle on more often (more on that later).

Then I found this snippet from a research paper (source lost):

In the eighties and nineties, N. Aubert and V. de Gaulejac (2007) argued, that the “ethics of excellence” in people management created the moral foundation of a system striving to control the totality of a person. In convincing employees that, by working for the firm, they were working for themselves, a complete blurring was made of professional and personal ambitions, and companies emerged as institutions capable of mediating individual destinies, supporting self-development, objects of true love, and in the end the only instrument able to fulfill the need for immortality of the self.

This work ethic creates particular interactions between people, interactions marked by the constant necessity to become visible. This quest for visibility takes the form of a new social game in which everyone is striving to capture the attention of others. In a sort of Goffmanian ‘parade’, self-branding and “newsing” oneself are ways to occupy the mental space of others and to stay on top of the competition. For businesses, being always present on personal communication channels, on webplatforms, etc., is a way to colonize the minds of their managers and to reduce their capacity to imagine another world.

The point here is that searching for excellence, when wielded as a management tool, became not only a power play, but as it became a standardized tool it became an imagination/innovation diminisher. As with most things business does, they decided to make the search for excellence more a ‘paint by numbers’ concept rather than a malleable concept to be applied differently in different contexts. What the idea lost was what Mary Parker Follett called “the law of the situation.” In other words, the situation, the context, dictates the application of an idea or concept – even excellence.

Third.

Excellence aside, there are a number of good well intended ideas that have driven many a good business person off the beaten path to success. Copying and standardization are the worst things that can ever be done to a good concept. I have known that for many many years and have therefore been a pain in the ass for many many years.

I have been a pain in the ass for years.

In mid 90’s I published the highly unpopular “customer is not king/queen” arguing that all it would do is create an entire industry of businesses chasing customer’s whims & wants consistently undermining expectations. My agency was not delighted. But it did.

In 2005 I published the ‘inside/out manifesto’ arguing to achieve highest order of value is thru organization knowing who it is, unequivocally accepting that, with a product as an extension of who they are (successfully addressing a need) matched with customers who want that combo. Branding people were grumpy.

In 2000’s when my agency introduced The Big Idea brief I skewered it as encouraging people to believe the only ideas of value were Big and encouraging clients to only be happy with so-called Big ideas & it would create a false culture in which we made ‘small’ shit, even small shitty ideas, look Big. Agency not happy. But it did.

In 2008 I skewered The Experience Economy (although I think it is one of most important business books/ideas of this generation) arguing it would spawn an industry of vapid ideas & meaningless products wrapped in experiences all the while espousing premium value. It has.

In 2010 I began harpooning customer centric arguing it only leads to unmet promises, false expectations & hollow value (internally & externally) within hierarchies. It demands distributed organizational autonomy or it creates no value. It has & it still does.

In Search of Excellence, Good to Great, Tipping Point … pick a book with a viable idea and it has been abused. The biggest abuse resides in taking one’s eye off the single most important thing – successfully implementing any of these good ideas to the highest order of value are contingent upon a consistently good product consistently delivered. My biggest issue is how all this stuff diverts people from the hard work of developing a meaningful product & creating value in it.

Let me end by circling back to a thought that may have not been highlighted enough. The Law of the Situation (Mary Parker Follett). I love ideas from smart people, I love books and I love learning new things. But. Everything is contextual. Everything. The law of every idea is overruled by the law of the situation. No idea’s maximum value can survive the context without some adaptation. In other words. Each situation has its own order and own concept. I imagine my point is that you can study excellence,  accountability methods, leadership principles, but, inevitably, all that matters is the Law of the Situation. Ponder.

======

Gathering:

 accumulate, amass, assemble, bulk (up), collect, concentrate, congregate, constellate, corral, garner, group, lump, pick up, round up, ball, batch, bunch, cluster, huddle, heap, pile, stack, flock, herd, hive, pack, press, swarm, throng, combine, connect, join, link, merge, pool, unite

=====

Several years ago, in a piece called “thinking, decision making and leadership” I wrote this:

• Which leads me to declustering. Leaders like to cluster decisions and business like to cluster things. All are typically done because everyone believes it is more efficient and, possibly, more effective. Clustering is the unspoken organizational corrosive barnacle on the progress ship. It is true business, and clusters, arc toward replication. If a leader spots a ‘decisionmaker’ inevitably they will guide more decisions to that person simply. Decisions then cluster thereby making the overall – most clusters – desire to be involved in decisions to decluster. Yeah. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. By default, you’ve once again parsed out responsibility, not collaborative sensemaking, and created a different type of hierarchy. I am not suggesting some clusters aren’t better at making decisions than others. What I am suggesting is leaders’ natural instinct is NOT to spread sensemaking and thinking, but isolate so when convinced to distribute and spread, no matter how effective overall it may be, inevitably they will redistribute to a few – that’s the arc. Just ponder.

Several years ago I also wrote: “the natural arc of every business is to mediocrity.”

The two are related.

Yeah. I am saying clustering leads to mediocrity. That said, oddly, business tends to like clustering, or, they do not discourage clustering. Let me be clear. Given an opportunity to be excellent, a business will always choose the path to mediocrity. Yes. Always. What I mean by that is in every situation – customer service, capital investment, ideation, innovation, creativity, planning, strategy, implementation – given an opportunity to choose a Spinal Tap 11 choice, a business will always choose a 9 or below choice. And from there on out that ‘plus number’ begins diminishing bit by bit. And while I imagine I could point to a variety of reasons, let me focus on clustering as the culprit.

As soon as an “11” opportunity is identified, business will circle the wagons around some consensus data, group view, collective wisdom, whatever, which never raises the 11 to a 12, it only brings it down (usually significantly).

That’s clustering.

To be clear. Mediocrity is fairly equal opportunity employer. Data pools, cliques, opinions, specialists, likeminded clusters, all circle the wagons and transactional thinking actually (a) makes teams exclusive and (b) makes value finite and, yet, encourages a belief in exceptionalism (but a reality of mediocrity). From the ‘rational business’ perspective businesses like ‘clusters’ because they appear to be patterns (or some version of mass coherency) which they immediately associate efficiency and scale to. They don’t really care if the cluster benefits lose degrees of efficiency from that point on – they’ll flog the cluster until it is dead of anything good (or true value creating). Maybe worse is that over time clusters become ‘self-sealing belief’ parts within an entire system basically creating limits to tapping into the larger potential of the entire organization. That doesn’t mean they don’t offer value, its just that the value has limits and tends to stratify which makes them a bit more difficult to mesh with other components of the system. Clusters DO produce good things, but while those things seem good at scaling, it is not clear that they are necessarily good at innovation or anything ‘new’. Or another way to put it: clusters may might be good at exploiting (that is repeating a known winning pattern), but are less good at exploring (that is figuring out what needs to be done).

The corollary to that last sentence is clustering limits potential.

Business loves to cluster skills, but clusters tend to be herded into small clusters of micro skills in their macro skill puzzle. In this excellent video with Alain de Botton he points out that clusters are fragmentary in skills and interests and, yet, we are told what we are not good at, what we should focus on and then wealth is rewarded to that focus. In other words, we are told to cluster around a specific thing we may like or be good at and ignore (or relegate as a ‘hobby’) other skills and interests.

This has consequences beyond skills. The ways clusters interpret things do not translate neatly into larger decision trees. In addition. Decisions are not discrete, they are connected. A cluster may get parts of ‘now’ right, but the other parts may gather momentum or strength in the fact they were chosen as inconsequential in that ‘now’. In a cluster’s confidence lies its biggest risk. The truth is that, particularly in business, human expertise is usually tied to knowing what to look for – the nuances within hard data/information. Clusters become increasingly certain and blind to ‘new nuance.’ The repercussions to this is then a cluster is more likely elect to choose solutions or actions inconsistent with the problem/situation at hand but consistent with their view. That inconsistency can be in nuance or it can avoid some significant aspects, regardless, the consequences are often the same as the future unfolds from what was perceived as effective framing, but less-than-effective choice making. You have to decluster things. consciously. consistently, to optimize decisionmaking.

Which leads me to point out growth tends to polarize itself.

Cluster-driven growth is often spectacularly unprofitable. Business chases success/growth. Its inherent reaction to success is to milk that success until it is dry (albeit many businesses refuse to let go of even dry growth paths). Business uses math, numbers, relentlessly to pursue this objective. Reminder. It was Bernoulli who stated “mathematics alone does not capture a situation.” This is also true of a graph/dashboard. They simply inform or become a guide to a grander discussion of what exists and how to make sense of something, yet, business people cluster around dashboards and cluster energy/focus based on them.

“In a world glutted with information, the capacity to ignore selectively becomes ever more valuable … a system that is to control its environment successfully must adapt by constructing models that allow it to decide what information to get and how to act on it.”

Seth Lloyd, MIT

Business loves numbers. Which leads me to remind everyone one of businesses/s biggest lies is “the numbers never lie.” Numbers lie all the time. Even beyond how people torture numbers until they say what is wanted, numbers create clusters. Yeah. As soon as you find a number you like it becomes a magnet for other numbers, resources, energy, focus, etc. What this means is business relentlessly clusters resources against a diminishing growth opportunity. Invariably ROI can never really improve, in a meaningful way, but intrepid business people will always find ways to suggest things are good and getting better. Once again, it never hits 11 and is only getting closer and closer to 1. The only way to get off that slippery slope of lessening growth is, well, declustering.

Which leads me to power.

The issue occurs with, well, power. Those in power like evenness and replication and they view the only way to keep balance is to enforce it. They believe that no one else understands how to balance or maybe can even see the value of balance. They see themselves as being in the middle doing what’s best – for their sake – and they use ‘clusters’ as hammers. They cloak their hammers in ‘safety’, i.e., we keep clusters safe and the business safe. This gets tricky because most people clusters have an unhealthy trust in in larger systems with regard to what is beneficial TO the cluster which makes them less likely to realize when they (the cluster) has made a mistake AND less likely to realize when the larger system truly has something to offer that is beneficial to the progress/development of the cluster. All that said. Power clusters. Even though an individual in power is either (a) obliviously overconfident or (2) constantly paranoid, most individuals in power recognize they need other power players to dominate others. So whether it be by salary/$, titles, perceived meritocracy, education, or even psychotic authoritarianism, people will cluster for power – in implementing as well as in holding onto. Obviously, businesses should actively decluster power as much as possible to attain full potential.

“It’s a game of nanoseconds. Judgement calls have to slide through impossibly narrow doorways.”

Carolyn Barclay

Which leads me to data, technology and humans.

I have written a number of times about how technology can be used to decluster. In my unpublished book I even dedicate a chapter to how algorithms and technology can be used in a business infrastructure to nudge declustering to the benefit of sensemaking and gaining knowledge. That said. Technology amplifies everything – strengths & vulnerabilities – all of which stress the boundaries of any system. The corollary to this is the more you depend on technology the more likely a catastrophic even will occur (resolves little problems hiding the lurking catastrophe inside) because technology attacks/addresses things systematically while systems shape themselves organically (creating dissonance at some point). What that last mumbo jumbo sentence really means is that technology clusters shit by amplifying what people like and or are interested in. Sure. Machines and technology will often suggest potential actions and we may calibrate different paths with probabilities of success. The problem is that everyone will have the same input and if everyone does exactly what the input suggests everyone will, well, cluster.

Data and technology are inputs, but it is experience, wisdom, patience, and emotional fortitude that are the key ingredients when added to the inputs that result in differing results. And this is where clustering gets, well, fucked. Yeah. I just said clusterfuck. If people are clustered, they apply the same experience, wisdom, emotion against the same clustered data and technology, hence, the clusterfuck.

Experts always suggest the key to an algorithmic future is to be sure you understand what an algorithm is optimized for. I believe this is too simplistic.

“We know from biology that relentlessly preventing small problems can increase the risk of future big problems.”

Seth Blumsack

 

Not only are algorithms typically built to head off problems immediately (eliminate small problems), but how they get advice, information, determines how they behave. This has some very practical consequences in that, generally speaking, is more likely to present only catastrophic complex problems to the attention of clusters. Basically it ignores small problems/issues. Well. Anyone remember: “its never the elephants that kill you, it’s always the ants”? We design our systems, process and even encourage clusters, to focus on building elephants. We even build algorithms with that in mind. Clusters are elephants.

Which leads me to end with cluster narratives.

I don’t really know if clusters of people, or data, create narratives or if narratives encourage clusters. What I do know is a good story told well gets repeated over and over again creating a myth – and people cluster around myths. Generally speaking, myths aren’t very good for business. Myths get in the way of reality and are stubbornly resilient against alternative narratives (learning). So, yeah, I am suggesting declustering narratives (which is actually deconstructing narratives). This is a semi-important point as I circle back to an opening point: the arc of business is toward mediocrity. I cannot remember one business narrative myth that extols mediocrity, yet, by following most business narratives you are simply following the lure of mediocrity. Quite the paradox. It kind of feels like the only way out of that paradox is, well, declustering. Ponder.

===

“Who belonged to no one, who belonged to everyone.
Who had nothing, who wanted everything.”
Lana Del Rey

===

Business has always struggled to navigate self-interest versus collective interest. They create these sweeping uplifting visions and now even discuss a grander purpose with the intent to create collective interest in a common objective. Yet at the same time they design a long menu of incentives, bonuses, pay raises and in general every tool available to encourage every individual, every self, to do what is right for themselves. This conflict is a tug of war between self and the collective ultimately makes an organization less productive. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this conflict, which is incredibly important to every individual because this is how they earn their living, bleeds into society kitchen table by kitchen table.

But then there is this an added feature. And that would be group level selfishness. Humans aren’t stupid. Employees clearly understand what it takes to get ahead and to get more money and they understand they more than likely need other people to get what they individually want. Therefore, small groups form to not only fight within the system, but often to fend off the other groups from getting what they believe is a zero-sum pot of gold. It’s obvious this group level selfishness makes it hard for groups to get along. Like minded groups tend to amplify one key self-interest feature and that would be the different ideas of the appropriate terms of cooperation about what people should and should not expect from one another. Every individual has a point of view on this. Within a business, groups tend to coalesce around the common belief of their view on this. Obviously, what this means is that business has several different groups with number of different definitions of what they expect when they are asked to collaborate and cooperate with each other often of which are not in alignment.

Which leads me to shared ambition.

Look. I am all for communities, informal networks, distributed decision making and a variety of other ideas with regard to alternative thinking to command-and-control, but I think a business is a microcosm of society – a social construct grounded in some social contracts. Social constructs are inherently, and naturally, territorial therefore it would seem like the only way to share in a desired outcome is to tap into ambitions (which is inevitably a type of social contract). Based on that I think we need to spend more time on the social contracts aspect, as in “shared ambitions.”

Shared is important. Shared is not about efficiency, it is actually a “benefit multiplier.” An individual is additive and collective effort is a multiplier. I don’t need a case study to prove that, its common sense logic. Think about it in these terms: “if you say ‘I know I can generate these results, but I cannot generate these (something else) withouthout them.” that is tapping into potential through collective effort and collective interests. It is a combination of ‘me to you’ (what you get from me) and ‘we to you’ (how others expand individual effort). But this sharing demands a bit of a mindset agreement (not just in ambitions but in coexisting). What I mean by that is part of the uneasy social contract society has is its dealings with ‘helping others.’ Most people are perfectly happy to give money to their churches and other local institutions that serve other people. but when the government uses ‘their money’ (taxes) they think it goes not to hardworking people who just need a helping hand, but to welfare queens. Within this uneasy social contract, it means help goes to ‘them,’ not ‘us.’ This is group level selfishness and is fairly common – consciously or subconsciously. The tragedy of commons is a tragedy of selfishness, a failure of individuals to put us ahead of me which actually inhibits shared anything let alone ambitions. It gets a little trickier. The weird thing is that while moral thinking enables cooperation within groups it can simultaneously undermine cooperation between groups. This happens because each group has their own ‘codes’ and ‘moral ideas’ which remain slightly misaligned from either the collective interests or other groups. The outcome is the same however you view it – inefficiency and less-than-optimal effectiveness. In business terms, not maximized productivity. We need something that enables groups with conflicting moralities/codes to work together and thrive and a mindset that can resolve disagreements that create obstacles to progress. This is where shared ambition steps in. Complex social structures are about ‘us versus them,’ our interest versus theirs, our values versus theirs, disparate feelings and beliefs that make it difficult to cooperate and coordinate. I am not going to suggest every group thinks the same way, some will be more collective interest driven and some will be more individualistic driven, but if there are shared ambitions it creates a social contract which shifts the social construct. The automatic construct settings of each group, and individual, gets shifted just a bit to accommodate the shared ambitions. To be clear. What I am suggesting is that even group level self-interest has some vague outlines, rather than hard and fast boundaries, within which cooperation and effective collaboration can occur.

Which leads me back to self interest.

De Tocqueville said in 1845: “Desires still remain extremely enlarged while the means of satisfying them are diminished day by day. On every side we trace the ravages of an inordinate and unsuccessful ambition kindled in hearts which is which it consumes in secret and in vain.” He also said after taking a long hard look at America: “among democratic nations ambition is ardent and continual, but it’s aim is not habitually lofty and life is generally spent in eagerly coveting small objects that are within reach.” He was speaking of goals, but you can see the underlying seeds of self-interest and consumption within the thought. And then we should remember Faustus and his demon, Mephistopheles, wherein the insatiable thirst for individual knowledge leads him to make a pact with the devil –  a message about human ambition and stretching the limits. Everyone, every individual, has ambition in some shape and size. But the reality is any one ambition has limits and constraints which can only be expanded upon by interacting with others. Yeah. When we share ambitions, the tide does lift everyone; maybe not always equally, but all get lifted. It is a little dangerous even if you balance it all fairly well.  Clearly this is a tricky idea because to be as good as you can be you gotta give a little of yourself up to feed your talent and ambition to grow it beyond the normal levels. Someone is going to want to throw ‘trust’ into the ring here, but I will not. I tend to believe conflicting self interested groups will never really trust other groups, but they may trust in a more intangible, non human, thing like a shared ambition. In other words, we have the same ambition so despite their means, despite the fact they are ‘them’ and not us, they aren’t go to screw me/’us’. The good news with share ambition is that success at each level can be so addictive or pleasurable you have a tendency to want to feed it a little more. And maybe that’s the real prize with shared ambitions. Ponder.

===

“The human condition can almost be summed up in the observation that, whereas all experiences are of the past, all decisions are about the future. It is the great task of human knowledge to bridge this gap and to find those patterns in the past which can be projected into the future as realistic images.”

Kenneth E. Boulding

===

This is about measurement in business, specifically, about learning and developing a learning organization.

First. Let me say I am dubious of almost all measurement. Why? Because in today’s world everyone is (a) incentive to make a specific measurement usually at the expense, with no cost, of other things that could be measured, and (b) measurement creates objective blindness.

Suffice it to say, if something is going to be measured people will figure out a way of gaming the system to attain whatever is to be measured. Sound cynical? Not really. Its just reality. If you have a system that rewards attainment of things measured you create a culture, society and civilization believing only what is measured is important.

Second. I believe most of the truly important things in business and in life don’t need to be measured because if they are truly important, they will trigger the intrinsic energy with everyone to go out and make those important things happen. As a follow-up to that, yes, there are unimportant things that need to be done. And, no, they don’t need to be measured to make sure they are done (and done well). if you have a system in which intrinsically people attack important things, they will do the unimportant things simply because they know they need to be done.

Third. As Arie de Gues said: “Institutional learning is much more difficult than individual learning.” The individuals know there must be a better way to do the business of doing business and what ‘growth’ should be and, yet, the institution, collecting all that may be important, i.e., what is foremost to the institution itself, warps its ‘directed learning’ toward its wants, not the individuals, and seeks to shape the individual TO what it wants.

Which leads me to learning cannot be measured.

Judged perhaps, but not measured. But that has never stopped us from measuring learning. We try and try and try and then claim it has been measured. I would suggest we do this as part of some devious command and control ideology. What I mean by that is we use those measurements to dominate others and control their actions and behaviors under the guise of “intelligent leading” when it really is in the pursuit of institutional objectives. Regardless. Measurement, or let’s call it ‘performance management’, cause some real issues:

1. Gaming 81% of the time
2. Information manipulation 74% of the time
3. Selective short-termism 55% of the time
4. Give an illusion of control
5. Negatively affect social relationships 81% of the time

While measuring learning has all the appearances of being critical to the learning processes it more often creates results counter to the objectives of the business, i.e., agility to meet emergent opportunities and adaptability to optimize situational needs. In other words, measurement tends to stratify, not make the business more elastic. That said. I would argue you can only ‘measure’ through direct observation of performance or by examination of a ‘conclusion of activity’ that required use of acquired learning (that’s more individual-activated self-learning rather than some L&D initiative).

To make a distinction. While I tend to believe how we measure learning in schools (mostly below college level) is fucked up, I do believe measuring young people’s learning progress, retaining of knowledge and usefulness, is good.

• Source: Measuring Student learning, Cornell Center for Teaching innovation

Anyway. The truth is business learning and rational thinking demands a bit a setting aside the ego; and measurement almost always triggers ego. Learners be open to include a changing, overlapping knowledge of minds/thinking which can come from anywhere at any time. Since a person cannot collect all relevant information if they are to be competent at identifying relevant actions/possibilities, they must to some extent know where to look for the apparently most useful information as well as be open to connectivity within a community of people who knows things they do not.

Which brings me back to business.

Most businesses fear unmeasured learning not because of wasted time, but more so wasted efficiency. What I mean by that is business fears anything that could create a complicated and time-consuming process that less-than-efficiently stitches together all the necessary knowledge/data to decide or do something. The fear is that reality is vague if there are no numbers to create an outline to see (and business fears vagueness). The fear is that any actionable learning is too late to make the optimal impact on financial performance. Look. Learning shouldn’t be judged on efficiency only effectiveness. Learning has no need for logic other than learning is good and therefore learning has no need for measurements other than “am I consistently providing an environment which encourages people to pursue learning.”  I know that sounds like heresy in a business world religiously attached to measurement.  I think of “intelligence” as less to do with “knowing a bunch of stuff” and more to do with figuring stuff out in new and uncertain situations, but that skill is only developed by actually being in uncertain situations full of unknowns. So maybe measurement should be reflective of ‘effective navigation’ (financial performance is an outcome of this done well consistently).

Which leads me to end with Mary Parker Follett.

Follett offered 3 core concepts and five principles to support what she called the “circular reflective learning arc.”

Concepts:

1. thinking in terms of wholes
2. harnessing the creative power of self-organized integrative thinking
3. enhancing our ability to respond to what she called “the law of the situation”

Principles:

1. engaging our internal sense of intention and purpose
2. engaging and learning from the intentions, values, and purposes of others who are different or who think differently
3. designing change through a process of co-creation informed by those differences
4. enacting and acting on those designs where experiences meets experiences
5. adapting and learning from those experiences, the doing, learning about, and living of life itself.

Basically, at the core everything Follett suggests is connective and as part of a community – I AND We. None of it is solely individualistic except possibly self-awareness. I imagine I end here to point out that learning, driven in direction and interest of the individual, combined with that learning forged against other’s learning, is about the only thing truly measurable – outcomes of various situations navigated. But. You don’t measure learning because, well, who knows what learning will be most important in future situations? You don’t. Ponder.

• postcript: there are a number of highly qualified people in my network of friends and acquaintances who absolutely are wrapping their heads around this measuring issue. in particular, Rachel Happe and community measurement, Hilton Barbour on culture, and Jeppe Haansberg on internal networks. I imagine most of them, if not all, would debate me on this issue. And that’s a good thing.

===

“Aren’t you violating the building codes? Or the laws of physics?”

Scott Hawkins

===

“Free will is the sensation of making a choice. The sensation is real, but the choice seems illusory. Laws of physics determine the future.”

Brian Greene

===

There is a direct relationship between the laws of physics and optimizing profits. I am not going to give a physics lesson today, watch Michio Kaku if you want an easy to understand one, but I am going to talk about how physics drives profiteering decision making (and some of the consequences of doing so).

Scientific management, labor studies, is grounded in physics, i.e., what is physically possible.

The distribution of goods, shipping, railroads, air, etc., is grounded in physics, i.e., what is physically possible.

The allocation of common infrastructure, water, electricity, gas, etc., is grounded in physics, i.e., what is physically possible to generate, store and distribute.

Basically, everything that can be profited from demands some exploration of physics, i.e., what is physically possible to do. Why? Well. Profits are grounded in efficacy – what is optimal effectiveness attached to efficiency. In other words, I’d like to maximize my load delivery in the most efficient way possible. Simplistically this means I’d like to build the largest oil tanker that physics suggests is possible, have the longest train physics says is possible, create the largest plane physics says is possible and, well, you get it. Physics tells me what is possible and business optimizes possibilities. This is where limits, or constraints, come into play. This is like Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints on steroids with a twist. Goldratt discussed lean as taking out the slack in the productivity and supply chain. In today’s discussion it is taking out the slack of the unknown or let’s say the possible variables that could nudge the laws of physics. Business inherently pushes the laws of physics every day. That’s almost a law of business. Because if I change the physics, I change the possibilities and, therefore, change profitability. But until I can actually change the machine itself, I become dependent upon the humans involved with any of these machines as, well, machines if I seek to optimize my profits.

Which leads me to humans and laws of physics.

Humans do not follow laws of physics perfectly. Train tracks may not be maintained 100%. Engineers may not do exactly what they are supposed to do when they need to do something. A railroad car, or several in different places, may be slightly packed unevenly. And, maybe most importantly, a human cannot see everything all at once or even all the time in order to assess what is happening with regard to the laws of physics. Optimizing by the laws of physics only tell you what is possible. And let’s be honest. If a business sees the possible profit they will inevitably, the majority of the time, simply implement to the optimal profit – within the laws of physics; not within the laws of humans.

This reminds me of something Mike Walsh said: “Your legal team will never get you to the best ethical decision.” The laws of physics will never get you to the best decision.

Yeah. I am discussing the East Palestine train wreck. But I am also talking about the business of doing business. Most media stories will focus on train brakes, hazardous material designations and general safety guidelines. And none of them are wrong, but they are also not right. All of those things are mitigations to the business management of physics. Business inherently seeks to optimize what is possible and when they get it wrong it is usually when they manage to the margin – the boundaries of what is ‘physics-possible.’ There is no margin of error, but profits get maximized when there is no margin of error. Of course, there is another department in almost all these businesses that are masters at ‘risk assessment.’ They sit side-by-side with the laws of physics people saying things like “oh, there is a 1 in 150 chance of something going wrong, and 1 in 3,000 chance of something catastrophic happens.” From which the business, seeking profits as they should, mitigates the risk with a slush fund to have on hand if something happens. It seems a fair trade, to the business, financially. Once again, the laws of physics, this time combined with the laws of risk, take precedent over the laws of humans.

I don’t have answers today. I am simply pointing out the laws of physics and profiteering. I, personally, wish – and believe – businesses should avoid “wandering the lines of constraints decision making,” but that is tough to do for any individual business in any industry in which any given competitor, seeking an advantage, is willing to skate on the thin ice. And maybe that is my point today. Business is trapped in the tragedy of commons and East Palestine is simply a tragic consequence of a failure of business in totality – not Norfolk Southern. That seems like an important distinction. Ponder.

———-

“The only certain thing about the future is that it will surprise even those who have seen furthest into it.”

Eric Hobsbawm

———

“Too many people spend too much time trying to perfect something before they actually do it. Instead of waiting for perfection, run with what you’ve got, and fix it along the way. “

Paul Arden

———

“Chance favors the connected mind.”

Steven Johnson

====

• Preface:

This piece, first published a dozen years ago, was when I put a stake in the ground that (a) the old way of doing business was no longer the most useful – to business as well as to the way younger generations would be most effective, and (b) younger people had different, some better, skills than the existing business generation. In many ways I became an advocate for young business people, and young people in general in education, use of technology & purposeful work, but maybe more importantly this established my stance on what needed to be changed systematically. I do not believe we have resolved this issue and the conflict remains in almost every discussion in how we evaluate how ‘young people’ are not like “what worked for us.”

Please note that in some places I have inserted links to things I have written building on this thinking.

========

Let me state the obvious. The business world is changing. How we think, what we think, the business models to implement the new thinking.  This has created an arduous back and forth conflict between the way it was done versus the way it will be.

Overall, one of the biggest challenges the business world is facing is that the entire approach to thinking about how to conduct business is changing which ultimately means the biggest challenge is not the new model itself, it is the fact that the current leadership management thinks one way and emerging management generation of thinkers thinks another. This creates issues not only in how the generations interact in the workplace, but also impacts the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, in training the emerging management employees to be successful.

Regardless. I call the change: ‘construction thinking’ to ‘deconstruction thinking’ <or “reconstruction thinking”>.

Here is where we are today.

• The existing business world view

The traditional business world <and existing management way of thinking> is based on a construction thinking model. Think of this as Lego blocks.

You were given <taught> all the Lego building blocks one by one and taught <trained> the different ways to use them and build something solid from the ground up. Doesn’t really take into consideration what TopModels suggest are the black boxes of thinking <see later in ‘Deconstruction Thinking’>, the Lego blocks you need to insert based on faith <or intuition>, which invariably we always use <but don’t – can’t – train for>. This was a “build and implement” philosophy.

To be clear. Business thinking is always about balancing real knowledge, faith knowledge and intuition. But in traditional thinking we tend to make the formula weighted toward real knowledge and construct solutions aiming toward a cause and effect <stimulus response> relationship. Business training still seems to continue to serve up this linear cause-and-effect thinking as if, by doing so, we’ll understand the person, predict behavior and results and be able to make sense of everything we do if not ‘control’ the outcomes we desire.

An unfortunate truth? Causing effect is not linear. Never was. Never will be. And this is true even more so in today’s more fragmented stimulus dynamic marketplace.

What you share as an initial stimulus is so often repurposed in ways you cannot even envision and it inevitably creates multiple effects – sometimes derivatives of the desired effect and more often an un-envisioned effect. The reality of business is that it is constantly working toward coherence and breakdown – simultaneously. It is the continuing conflict of micro-actions (what a business does) in conflict with the macro-dynamics of the marketplace (and people) itself.

The reality is that the future success of a strategy is almost impossible to predict and we then have to lean in on ‘probabilistic thinking.’ In addition. This also means that Big Ideas <in general> are useless <and not worth the effort to try and construct>.  In today’s consumer business marketplace, it simply pays to do more things, try more things and simply give yourself more chances that at least one idea takes off now and you have other ideas which could take off ‘then.’

Note: I’ve been saying for a long time the big idea is crap (2010)

Suffice it to say big ideas will largely be replaced by ideas many of which will take on a life of their own.  Or maybe the business seeks an initial idea that sparks interaction and thought and action/behavior and a business adapts to the resulting behavior. The business, and the idea, is ultimately defined by what happens next. To reiterate an earlier thought, a business is defined by coherence and breakdown. All of these ideas I am suggesting remain coherent to the business objectives and business vision, but ‘coherence’ permits some space for some of the ideas to ‘breakdown.’

That said. It isn’t just ideas, while the world isn’t stagnant or linear, thinking is exactly the same.

It’s constantly evolving and alive and fragmented into beautifully imperfect shapes and sizes.

The problem with a static brand proposition and a static strategy – or anything static other than a vision or character statement – is that the business landscape, brands and their competition, are anything but static. Business, like people, are evolving entities that live and die by the success of their actions.

Basically, construction is based on predicting behavior before implementation.

• The new business landscape

Simplistically the old way is to methodically construct solutions and ideas and then commit.

The new way is more about committing <smartly> and then deconstructing as information is received and adapting (reconstructing) until it reaches a shape that could be sustainable.

Interestingly, it is actually an older leader who embraced the new way:

<Napoleon>: “On s’engage, et puis – on voit.” <you commit yourself, and then – you see.>

The traditional business cycle has always been one of “study, act, study.” Information precedes decisions then the impact of decisions is assessed before the next decisions are made. Each step of the way information, or learning, is the gate through which decisions must pass.

That much has not changed.

Well. Maybe with the rise of digital technologies & the internet the cycle times between the ‘act’ and the ‘study’ has been compressed. The old starting point of “study” has become a luxury few marketers can indulge. The new technology cycle is one of “act and react.” “Act” not “study” is now the point on which everything else pivots. It becomes ‘actively learning on the go.’ The new ‘bargain’ a business makes is found in interaction and connectivity which is inherently an intellectual process with the objective of productivity. The reality is calculating a utility effect is almost impossible therefore utility must constantly be assessed. This means the new landscape is based on answers/input needed in real time. It also means getting into the market is not based on ‘perfecting before going,’ but rather “good enough” is, well, good enough. Businesses learn on the go, testing alternatives by doing not by asking, in the marketplace. The core of how a business operates is now more on how consumers behave than on what they think.

To be clear. This new landscape is only empowered by technology; it is the people, the emerging management generation, who are really driving the new business thinking model.  This new generation of management has some specific features which benefit the new business landscape:

• Knowledge <or information> is available to anyone with access to a computer
• There are an increasing amount of things which are ‘black boxes’ of inner workings <they work but the majority of us have no clue how they work> which compress thinking & doing time
• Great decision making in today’s business world is more often defined by on how good you are at assessing what aspects should be accepted on habitual/replicable working knowledge and what aspects need new knowledge & understanding
• It has never been possible to know everything, but in today’s world it is mind numbingly <and humbling so> obvious and it has become more accepted to learn on the go
• Curiosity is not just a business characteristic but also a management tool <an openly curious leader embraces team dialogue & discussion – without relinquishing decision responsibilities>.

All these things tend to make me believe we are within a great transformation in business thinking.

Unfortunately, to the existing business world & existing senior management, this transformation is being led by the next generation. A generation also characterized by:

• One more comfortable utilizing what is called ‘black box knowledge’ and driven by instinct <but willing to adapt from learnings if instinct proven wrong>.
• One where no part of a business, or department, is out of bounds.
• One where creativity in thinking and intuition are used to imagine the future.
• One where value is in information and not things.
• One where value is found in experiences/doing <real knowledge not speculated knowledge>.
• One where value is found more in unfolding discovery and new opportunities rather than researched discovery.
• One where expectations are in the back seat and possibilities are in the front seat.
• One where every company is in the information business first and foremost.
• One where value has migrated from tangible to intangibles.

The clashing of generational business thinking can almost be summed up by Douglas Adams:

And while I believe this is the new business thinking world model,  the ‘deconstruction business world,’ it inherently contains an aspect which makes the younger generation thinking engine go.

Which leads me deconstruction <or black box> thinking theory.

This is how I believe the next generation of business leaders, those who grew up in a more technology-driven age will think and manage and make decisions.

We are increasingly surrounded by ‘black boxes.’ These are complex constructs that we do not understand even if they are explained to us. We cannot comprehend the inner processes of a ‘black box,’ but nonetheless we integrate their inputs and outputs into our decision-making <just think of your computer as the everyday black box we trust>. In a weird way, this is the younger generation’s version of ‘rational and habitual’ decision-making. Older generations have tucked away things they don’t think about – maybe call it heuristic thinking. Younger generations tuck some of these black boxes into their thinking. The largest difference here is that older generations rarely second guess their habitual thoughts while younger generations constantly revisit the ‘black boxes’, which iteratively update themselves, to check in on assumptive thinking.

Anyway. A quick note on black box thinking or “why faith is replacing knowledge”:

“… our world is getting more complicated all the time. Black and white, good and bad, right and wrong have been replaced with complicated constructs that leave most people in the dark.

As the world around us becomes increasingly fast paced and complex, the amount we REALLY know – what we can really grasp and understands – decreases all the time. Today it is more or less taken for granted that we do not understand many of the things that surround us, such as mobile phones and ipads. And even if somebody tried to explain the DNA code to us, we would probably be out of our depth. We are increasingly surrounded by ‘black boxes’ … complex constructs that we do not understand even if they are explained to us. We cannot comprehend the inner processes of a black box but nonetheless we integrate their inputs and outputs into our decision making. The amount that we simply HAVE to believe, without understanding it, is increasing all the time. As a result we are tending to assign more importance to those who can explain something than to their actual explanation.”

The Decision book: 50 models for strategic thinking – Krogerus & Tschappeler

=======

The new decision making world, one driven by technology and that ‘black box’ of knowledge computers offer in terms of knowledge, is ultimately a deconstructive thinking world. A world in which it is understood that a stimulus can create desired, and sometimes undesired, responses and success is often more based on reacting & adapting to an initial stimulus than perfecting the initial stimulus.

Going back to the Legos analogy, deconstruction/reconstruction identifies the tangible Legos as well as the intangible ‘black box’ Legos.

• Were they used appropriately?
• The appropriate mix?
• The appropriate place?
• Could a real Lego have been put in place of a black box Lego and I would have been better?

And over time some of the black box thinking (the intangible and vague ‘knowing’) becomes more tangible as well as we gain more faith in certain black box thinking application (habitual replicable thinking) while other aspects remain in question (and ongoing evaluation).

Now.

Some people may call deconstruction thinking/solutioning <because they say the deconstruction term is too negative> is simply a more contextual approach to thinking <and learning>. At its core they would be correct – a contextual approach recognizes that learning is a complex and multifaceted process that goes far beyond drill-oriented, stimulus and response methodologies.

According to contextual learning theory learning occurs best when people process new information or knowledge in such a way that it makes sense to them in their own frames of reference <their own inner worlds of memory, experience, and response>. This theory assumes that the mind naturally seeks meaning in context that is in relation to the person’s current environment and that it does so by searching for relationships that make sense and appear useful.

I may suggest this is adaptive thinking <a term I made up>. Stanford calls it “adaptive strategy”:

Adaptive strategy. We create a roadmap of the terrain that lies before an organization and develop a set of navigational tools, realizing that there will be many different options for reaching the destination. If necessary, the destination itself may shift based on what we learn along the way.

Creating strategies that are truly adaptive requires that we give up on many long-held assumptions. As the complexity of our physical and social systems make the world more unpredictable, we have to abandon our focus on predictions and shift into rapid prototyping and experimentation so that we learn quickly about what actually works. With data now ubiquitous, we have to give up our claim to expertise in data collection and move into pattern recognition so that we know what data is worth our attention. We also know that simple directives from the top are frequently neither necessary nor helpful. We instead find ways to delegate authority, get information directly from the front lines, and make decisions based on a real-time understanding of what’s happening on the ground. Instead of the old approach of “making a plan and sticking to it,” which led to centralized strategic planning around fixed time horizons, we believe in “setting a direction and testing to it,” treating the whole organization as a team that is experimenting its way to success.

And that is what the new technology driven generation of business people will inevitably do.

They will confidently use black boxes more faithfully as well as seek relationships that make sense and appear useful – and adapt.

They will be driven more by looking at solutions and not saying ‘why does this make sense?” logic understanding, but rather ‘this doesn’t look right <or it looks right>’ logic understanding.

This will translate into an adapting mentality on everything. And, yes, I mean everything. Not just tactics and execution, but strategy and sometimes some things which in the past have been considered inviolate with regard to change <like the archaic 5-year plan>. Inevitably this increases business agility or what Alvin Toffler suggested in The Adaptive Corporation.

I’d like to just add that black box thinking is not a new thing <but has ALWAYS made us feel uncomfortable>. Albert Einstein received a Nobel Prize for recognizing that models and ‘logical’ systems are ultimately a matter of faith. And, yet, it is often difficult to let go of the tangible or ‘proof prior to acting’ model. It is basic human nature to often believe so strongly in models that they take on the status of reality. But reality, in terms of business thinking and models, is often not reality – and unimaginable can become reality.

Unimaginable is difficult in today’s business world because nowadays almost everything we do leaves behind some trace therefore companies can monitor how their business is running, where customers are, what they are doing and how they are doing it. And in knowing these things they know the nuances of what makes, or breaks down, a business as well as what makes, or breaks, coherence. Well. That theory works, until it doesn’t.

Practically speaking future decision makers will tend to work with probabilistic tools rather than with predictive models. That doesn’t mean the formulas & models will all be thrown away instead the formulas and models that try and predictively define iterative behavior are in ‘black boxes’ which should be viewed with some skeptical ‘faith’ and an understanding reality occurs in test and measure and watched behavior and attitudes all refined with real data <reactive actions>.

That, my friends, is black box thinking in a nutshell.

To be clear. Models will not be discarded.

In an increasingly confusing and chaotic and black box world the models provide some order and assist in providing focus on what is important and to believe in what we see.  Models will be used to ‘frame’ situations and choicemaking. That said, I believe the ‘building models’ will be relegated to a lower priority <therefore we can invest less time and rigor> and instead we will more often assess by understanding what doesn’t look right rather than developing something with the intent of building it to look right.

I believe this is the new operating business thinking model.

I also believe, as stated initially, this will be a painful arduous transition

Companies with managers who manage and think like this <mostly the younger emerging managers> will look like frickin’ aliens to many of the existing companies with older ‘model first thinkers.’

I imagine my real point here is that there are companies with young employees who embrace black box thinking who can help those companies be better and do better, but those companies are still solidly stuck in old school logical ‘rationalize before its done’ attitude.

• The future

Here’s the good news for black box companies: the business world is coming to them. Not today, but certainly tomorrow. And while we may try and make the transition move faster – we cannot.  Most good companies will knock themselves out trying to deconstruct a black box into some logical explained system or thing. But a black box is, well, a black box. It isn’t meant, and it really cannot, be explained in any way that an older manager who doesn’t trust or like black boxes can ever be explained.

Trying to do so defeats the real value of the black box.

This is like discussing business apples and oranges.

There is an entire tier of existing business leaders and managers that are baffled by black boxes.

Maybe worse? They don’t trust black boxes?

Maybe even worse? They don’t embrace deconstruction business thinking. Every bone in their body is driven toward constructing optimal solutions from day one.

Once again, to be clear, younger people don’t ‘trust’ black boxes, they simply use them as lily pads for progress and revisit the boxes all the time to assess where the next lily pad may reside.

Here is the interesting dilemma.

Older existing management would actually be quite capable, and most likely, quite good at deconstruction thinking. Most good experienced business people instinctually ‘see’ lily pads as they arise.

The problem is ‘lily pad hunting’ makes them uncomfortable. Uncomfortable in that it wasn’t the way they were taught & trained – they were trained to build bridges – and believe a younger generation shouldn’t make the ‘leap’ to deconstructive thinking without having learned the constructive principles.

What a bunch of bullhockey.

Training needs to adapt to the thinking and thinking capabilities <some would call that technology> rather than adapt the new business thinking models to archaic training/thinking models. We need to be actively teaching principles reflectively which means incorporating a strong teaching principle of embedding knowledge within context.

The gap between construction and deconstruction is so far apart philosophically it is crazy to try and bridge it. Of course business thinking is always about balancing real knowledge, black box knowledge and intuition. It has always. The ‘formula’ is simply different now. We need to adapt training to accommodate the new formula.

Which leads me to people specifically the emerging managers <next generation of managers>.

Emerging managers in a company will go nuts <for a while>. Emerging managers instinctually think about deconstruction thinking methodology and get excited and think “let’s go … let’s do it” only to have their more methodical front loading leaders say “whoa … slow down … lets be sure we get it right from the beginning.”

Look. I’m <and I imagine any good deconstruction thinking type company> not opposed to getting it right straight out of the box, i.e., having things as perfect and researched and nuanced as possible when you introduce it. But if you invest too much time trying to get it right the market has passed you by.

I’d rather be ‘close to being right’ in the beginning and adapt quickly as it enters the market.

Well. That last sentence will send older leaders into convulsions.

Which leads me to meeting the construction versus deconstruction gap.

Let me be clear about ‘black boxes.’ We still need people. For all the black boxes, the stealing of sound, sight, smell through data, and all the satellites and technological widgets of intelligence gathering, it still boils down to humans in the end. No matter how advanced the technology it is people who have to make the final assessments. People who can give access to the minds and ‘future thinking’ of those who we are trying to gain insight into.

Black box intelligence still needs people.

Past experience, benchmarking, good to great skill management and construction thinking isn’t enough to be successful in the new business landscape, but it is still incredibly useful. Deconstruction thinking is a complex combination of effectively using quickly assembled solid building blocks and implementing only to deconstruct <and reassemble> on the move. The military would suggest it is adapting the battle as you engage.

I suggest that in order to weave your way through business issues, organizational issues, people issues and real knowledge issues takes a daunting combination of strength of character, curiosity, strength of self and real leadership <of which confidence … not arrogance is embraced>. Deconstruction is not for the faint of heart. Nor is this type of thinking conducive, nor easily compatible, to the existing style of traditional management thinking.

But.

I believe it is the future model of business thinking and operating.

====

“… find ways to delegate authority, get information directly from the front lines, and make decisions based on a real-time understanding of what’s happening on the ground. Instead of the old approach of “making a plan and sticking to it,” which led to centralized strategic planning around fixed time horizons, we believe in “setting a direction and testing to it,” treating the whole organization as a team that is experimenting its way to success.”

Stanford

====

Which leads me to the actual structure & operations of businesses.

First. I tend to believe everyone in business understands that the traditional structural organization is changing. And it is doing so painfully and expensively <at a cost>.

The change is most typically associated with the transformation associated with infrastructure and technology, but I would argue it is more about people than ‘things’ (technology).

Second. This organizational structural change is tied to the wrong thing. Currently it is being tied to changes as dictated by technology and it SHOULD be tied to thinking construct (or what I have called “the conceptual age”).

The good news is that regardless of the reason the change will be a long arduous shift in the business world as part of a long transition in how business thinks about itself and the best model for conducting a successful business. The bad news is that the businesses that do not adapt are unlikely to survive in the longer term. This comes down to one basic thought as I discuss the new business model for businesses – however great the costs of this construct change the costs of not changing is much higher.

Anyway. I described this new business model and thinking back in august 2010 as a more agile organization culture, controlled autonomy, the company has an ability to blend into the marketplace <versus rigid institutions unable to flex>. Today’s more rigid ‘construction model’ is already outdated. And even by ‘updating’ thru accommodating technology what is being built is more a Frankenstein <let’s insert new thinking & new technology within existing company model> rather than a concept built from scratch <and having a plan of how we ‘get from here to there’>.

The future deconstruction model, let’s say it’s a hybrid of a ‘controlled autonomy’ model, is being built in ‘fits & starts’ in today’s business world.

To be clear. In my eyes the new model incorporates both autonomy & control, therefore, is not a flat organization nor is it purely ‘instinctually based’. Autonomy in any organization is a combination of control <as in guidelines, principles and behaviors> and trust <in that people are intrinsically interested in making a contribution and learning>. This more agile organization essentially believes, and trusts, employees want to do well and to do good things therefore incorporating a strong value/integrity base into the everyday behavioral attitude. By the way, this freaks out an older management generation <who tend to believe everyone is out for themselves and throughout their business lives have fostered a ‘kill or be killed’ mentality>.

But the smarter more adaptable management have used this ‘ethical core’ philosophy as a way to move from input-driven work models to structures which focus more on evaluating outcomes and acting upon outcomes.

This shift in reflects an organization culture driven by rules to being driven by guiding principles.

Inevitably this permits more autonomy, better strategic tactics and more fluid responses to customer input without compromising the culture of the business or the vision. This Deconstruction Business Model is more of a porous business model. It is free thinking, adaptable <constantly shifting resources toward opportunities and away from non-opportunities>, emergent, diverse & interpretive based where the organizational actions rhythm is created by external stimuli … not internally.

Conversely a Construction Business Model is all about the system.

All about rigid systems with space built within for ‘innovation and flexibility.’ In actuality in today’s world the systems cramp and are confined <or confining>. The construction model dictates the organizational rhythm and hopes it can match the behavior patterns of the outside world. In effect a Construction Model was developed with the intent for ‘predictability’ with the overall approach intended to stabilize demand and make it more predictable. Internally it focused on ensuring managers at all levels had enough information to manage their part of the business. It is basically a centralized administration/management and decentralized operations where the ‘center’ measures, monitors and directs. Most companies still do this <albeit they argue they have ‘empowered the customer face units’>.

What makes the Construction Model even worse for agility & adaptability is that the Center maintains the setting and control of budgets and ultimately measures performance against this. If the market, and the world, were stable and reasonably predictable this could <notice I say ‘could’ > work but with unstable and often shifting markets <increasing & decreasing quickly> this model is not only inefficient, it is ineffective.

On the other hand.

The Deconstruction Model is all about the people and utilizing their minds and reactive attitude <regardless of their particular skills>. This means the Deconstruction Model is naturally adaptive as it is more built upon ‘see & do’ <I see information and respond this way>.

The conflict between these two extremely disparate models is in process.

Pretty much all existing successful businesses with any heritage <company Life> face deep challenges because of this conflict. And most businesses are not handling the conflict well. They are being reconstructed with technology, and technology attributes, driving the reconstruction. In other words the ‘system’ hasn’t changed, but the tools within are being updated.

This is ass backwards.

The model should be constructed with the people and necessary thinking in mind and THEN offer the tools necessary to make that organization successful.

The Deconstruction business Model is driven by its people where the employees guide the strategic choices or the tactical strategy rather than strategic tactics that need to be made in real time.

This premise also drives older management crazy.

How can something be effective without strategy first and foremost?

Well. Research certainly suggests if you were to choose between organizational culture and ‘strategy’ with ‘creating a productive and profitable organization,’, organizational culture is significantly more effective than any strategy. This does not mean strategy is not important just that a learning organization is more effective than a simple execution organization.

This bears out even more so in turbulent business environments.

=

Businesses with engaged workforces outperform those without by a significant margin. And when employees are enabled and energized, as well as engaged, profit margins are three times as high as those of companies with low levels of engagement.

=

To conclude.

My thinking on new business models thinking represents a fairly significant disruption to the way most businesses operate, and think about thinking, today.

I imagine it feels even more disruptive because so many older business people are hoping business goes ‘back to the way it was’ <or some version of it> in terms of economic conditions <believing once economic conditions improve habits will return to old ways of doing & buying things>.

This misses the real issue in that the base business model is changing – changing to meet the strengths and ways of conducting business & Life of a new young generation as well as an increasingly dynamic marketplace.

====

“You don’t lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case.”

Ken Kesey

====

“Position doesn’t make anybody a leader. Being in charge doesn’t make the wrong person right.”

Tim Berry

====

One of the most quoted phrases with regard to leadership and business is “it starts at the top.” Well. No. 99% of the time it doesn’t. The truth is, the majority of the time, all good stuff starts at the ‘bottom’ (or edges) and it ‘stops at the top.’ Ok. Even that is slightly off base. Things don’t even happen bottom up (that simplistically), they actually happen in a more molecular way in which some mindsets, attitudes and behaviors coalesce into a cohesive energy that can shift a company (shift can be good or bad).

• The truth is leadership kills more shit than it creates and stops traffic flow more than it generates a smoother, faster, flow of traffic <metaphor for ideas, business, work, etc.>.
• The truth is nothing starts in a business until the “bottom” decides it does.

Look. “The top” can do a lot of things and generally speaking one would hope they exhibit the behavior and attitudes and even the mindset you would hope the larger organization does, but (a) there is often a natural disconnect between top and bottom which is kind of difficult to make a seamless connection and (b) “the bottom” – or ‘those who do the work’ often establish their own rules of behavior.

Which leads me to “the top” tends to think those in the “down” are morons or stupid.

This whole ‘starts from the top’ implies something almost as simplistically wrong as “trickle down economics.” There is almost a naïve belief in linear-like cascading duplication. And because of that the ‘top’ views the solution for any lack of progress as, well, more duplication, consistency and frequency. The thought is “if we repeat it three times, they will remember it (and like it)” rather than sitting back and going “well, we were pretty clear, they are pretty smart, they aren’t lazy, so rather than repeat – what is wrong with the ask?”

In addition (tied to morons and stupid) those on the top look down and see lots of ants. What I mean by that is they see individual workers with individual minds doing individually misguided things. That means they view how they should communicate, or dictate, is in a one-to-one fashion. What this ignores is, well, how a culture is constructed, how organizations really work and the overall characteristic of effective productivity – connectivity, communication between and collective coherence. Individuals cluster. So, if you want anything to start company-wide you have to make shit happen between clusters (microcommunities/networks). Oh. And clusters have clustered for a reason and one of the reasons is a lack of desire to emulate another cluster. Oh. But if you want something done company-wide each of the clusters must copy each other, or emulate each other, in some form or fashion. Okay. They have to work in a coherence fashion which inevitably means some lack of consistent behavior with a coherent desire and objective vision.

Which leads me to integrative thinking and Mary Parker Follett.

Let’s just accept that there will always be at least a bit of conflict between top and down. Even with radical transparency there will simply be some things the top sees that the down don’t; and vice versa. What that means is the top will inevitably have some ideas different than the down; and vice versa. So instead of ‘top down’ maybe leadership should embrace integration. Let me explain via Mary Parker Follett:

According to Follet, there are three ways to respond to conflict: Dominance, Compromise and Integration. Dominance means victory of one side over the other. This works in the short term, but is unproductive in the long run (to make her point Follet presciently alludes to the results of “The War” – WWI). Compromise means each party having to give up something for the sake of a meaningful reduction of friction. Far from ideal, compromise often leaves parties unsatisfied – having given up something of value. Finally, integration, the option championed by Follet, means creatively incorporating the parties fundamental desires/interests into the solution.

Let’s set compromise off to the side for today’s topic because when discussing ‘the top’ it comes down to either dominance or integration. Suffice it to say, 99.9% of us know dominance doesn’t work – it doesn’t instill intrinsic desire for ongoing behavior. Yet, dominance is dogged as a style of management. Which leaves us with integration – incorporating ideas into a solution.

Here is where I offer up “integration with a twist.”

Most ‘top’ leadership sees integration as integrating employee thinking, doing, tactics, into the larger vision/objectives. In other words, show you care by embedding their ideas within the larger vision/company objective. I suggest the most effective path is in the inverse, i.e., integrate the vision within the “down” thinking, ideas, desires. In this case it increases value in the ‘down’ ideas by embedding the larger vision. In comparison, the alternative increases value of the vision at the expense of the ‘down’ ideas. I know I articulated this fairly harshly, but you get the point. Embedding the ‘top’ into the ‘down’ inevitably increases productivity, caring (craftmanship), ownership and agility (ability to adapt to different situations and contexts). Integration in this manner frees up the ability to think and move while stabilizing the coherency. Integration encourages autonomy, involvement, and coherence between clusters as well as with “the top.”

All of this to suggest that “it starts at the top” is a fallacy. Ponder.