03 Thursday Oct 2013
So we’ve all been assisting to the political circus in D.C. over the last few days. Which prompted me to write a brief piece about how I think politics works. My hope is that shedding some light on the dynamics governing the politician-electorate relationship can help raise the bar for the political construct which seems to have sunk quite low as of late.
26 Wednesday Jun 2013
Posted in future, innovation, society
Tags
economics, foundations, future, human evolution, Invention, knowledge work, labor, metaphysics, Physics, politics, predicament, Technology
I’ve often wondered whether economics can be called a fundamental “science.” Much like physics can describe the rules of the game we call “reality” without a definitive answer as to how the game was set in motion in the primordial universe, so does economics seem to me to focus primarily on transactional mechanisms for value without a profound appreciation for how value materializes out of grey matter. Money is, or should be, an accurate measure of value, but ever since we moved away from bartering we have forever decoupled our transactional mechanisms (either in time or measure) from fundamental value, allowing us additional transactional flexibility in time and space, but also resulting in economic cycles, nothing more than periodic corrections to the coupling mechanisms.
24 Sunday Mar 2013
Posted in management
Tags
authority, budget, bureaucracy, business, Innovation, noneffective, opinion, politics, public sector, solution
Let’s take the perspective of a bureaucrat. His or her authority is in large part derived from the budget he or she commands, and the number of people managed. What is therefore his or her unstated objective? To increase the budget commanded, or at least, to ensure the budget is maintained. Spend less one year but attain the job’s objectives, and superiors could reduce next year’s budget, with a corresponding reduction in authority. No good.
So to simplify, the assertion is that bureaucracy’s objective is to spend. Now the private sector also spends. A private enterprise spends on business solutions. In that environment, solutions are judged by the ability to address a problem more effectively, which usually includes a reduction in cost. And so, if a bureaucrat would spend on effective solutions, these would point out inefficiencies and the fact that the same job could be done with less. This is in direct conflict with a bureaucracy’s survival. And so, a bureaucracy not only has an interest to increase spending, but it has to make sure that whatever “solutions” it acquires never reveal its own inefficiencies.
Bureaucracies will of course advertise their appetite for solutions. But saying something and meaning it are different things. And so, there are many more than willing to sell just such “solutions” to bureaucracies: the ineffective type. These are usually the out of context type “fixes” concentrating on “blind” efficiency, measuring quantity but not quality. As an example, instituting a workflow management solution that tracks the number of meetings as proof of work being done. Never-mind whether worthwhile conclusions or good decisions are being reached.
Now let’s step back to effective solutions. The ultimate in solution effectiveness renders a job obsolete. In the private sector that works out well since innovation creates new problems to be solved and thus new jobs (Clay Christensen of course contends that even the private sector is not investing in sustainable innovation lately, but let’s leave that aside for now). So unlike the private sector, bureaucracies have to be ever vigilant they don’t work themselves out of a job. That is because they do jobs which are supposed to be around forever addressing unchanging societal needs, like social security.
But from what we know so far about the universe and the life it supports, nothing is forever. So why should bureaucracies? What if societal needs are changing and not static as bureaucracies appear to assume? Why shouldn’t bureaucracies adopt solutions that put them “out of business” and force them to innovate new jobs that address more complex problems beneficial to the improvement of society at large? What if we found a way to incentivize bureaucracies to reward innovation and risk? What if the bureaucratic concept itself is an “unnatural” invention that doesn’t reflect the true characteristics of social systems? What if bureaucrats themselves live a false sense of fulfillment that resumes to stability and job security but traps their higher human aspirations for creativity, competitiveness and continual renewal, for challence and change? What if bureaucracies are bad for everyone involved and there is a smarter way to fulfilling the purpose they presumably serve?
18 Monday Feb 2013
Posted in future, philosophy, society
Tags
Capitalism, Consumerism, creativity, democracy, Economy, future, human, Nature, philosophy, politics, Society
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world” is a well known quote of Albert Einstein. The insights one can derive from Einstein’s wisdom are powerful enough to shed light into humanity’s future.
But before jumping to the future, let’s take a step back and attempt to frame, in general terms, humanity’s current state. The multiparty democratic construct supported by a free market economy was challenged in the last hundred years by at least two competing totalitarian ideologies and thankfully, it has been reaffirmed as the best model for human organization we know. So Winston Churchill was probably right when he declared in 1947 that “democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried”. Diversity and competition, two mechanisms that served the natural world so well, appear to be the most viable means by which social systems can also evolve. But social systems are different than natural systems. Besides diversity and competition, social systems also include compassion. And so, the modern democratic construct is itself polarized around two dominant ideologies, which are more aligned with either compassion or competition. So far so good. Now let’s take a closer look at the competitive mechanism.
An opportunity usually arises when a competitive advantage is created. And a competitive advantage can itself come in two flavors. First, it can come from exploiting a physical or knowledge differential (I have access to a physical or knowledge resource that you need). But physical resources are limited, and, if we believe Einstein, so is knowledge. So, as long as it competes primarily in the physical and knowledge domains, humanity is playing a zero sum game. Enter the Internet age with all the related technologies and barriers to physical and knowledge resources are rapidly dissolving. That means that competitive advantages based on limited resources will become increasingly harder to exploit and defend. Which brings me to the second flavor of competitive advantages, those derived from an unlimited resource: creativity.
Creativity is one of the most unique, and arguably most beautiful facets of the human condition. Its sources are curiosity and passion, human characteristics which are hard to incentivize. Material compensation and reward will not necessarily increase curiosity or passion. Curiosity can be instilled and nurtured, but not bought or coerced.
And so, in my opinion, humanity’s future is predicated on a competitive construct based on an unlimited resource: creativity. This is the next step beyond the so called “knowledge economy”. This type of competitive construct is also in alignment with the best that human nature has to offer; curiosity, passion, dedication, are all positivist sentiments in alignment with compassion, trust and respect. This evolution does present significant challenges to the current bi-polar democratic construct that poises compassion against competition. Consumerism, a key component of the economic engine on which the current democratic construct’s viability depends, is primarily based on limited resources; it will also have to evolve to where humanity becomes a primary consumer of ideas, truth and beauty.
12 Wednesday Dec 2012
Posted in business, capitalism, democracy, design thinking, future, philosophy, society
Tags
compassion, competitiveness, convergence, creativity, democracy, future, futurism, ideology, philosophy, politics
Over two and a half millennia ago, the Greek philosophers gave us the “dialectical” method of constructive argument. In the 21st century democracy is faced with significant challenges, and moving forward may require searching for solutions from the wisdom of democracy’s inventors.
The dialectic method is a form of reasoning based on dialogue of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (anti-theses). The dialectical method of dialogue is unique and different from rhetoric and debate in that it aims to converge the opposite points of view and form a new and superior point of view from the synthesis of the initial arguments. This transcendence is possible by searching for commonalities between the two opposing points of view when considered in the larger context or whole of which they are both part. The transcendence of thesis and antithesis into synthesis represents a qualitative improvement of the argument, bringing both participants closer to understanding the whole of reality as an evolving process. Ancient history not applicable to the problems of today’s highly technologized and interconnected world, right? Not necessarily.
Fast forward to the 21st century: Roger Martin, #6 on the top fifty management thinkers of 2011 (http://www.thinkers50.com/biographies/95) is the creative force behind two of the most valued management models: integrative thinking and design thinking. Roger Martin defines integrative thinking as: “the ability to constructively face the tensions of opposing models, and instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generating a creative solution of the tensions in the form of a new model that contains elements of the individual models, but is superiors to each” (http://rogerlmartin.com/devotions/integrative-thinking/). Sound familiar? Roger Martin’s concept was actually developed by interviewing some of the world’s top business leaders and entrepreneurs. Apparently these “integrative thinkers” go about solving problems differently than “conditional thinkers”; and step 4 of the figure below has an uncanny resemblance to the dialectical method.
And so, without the benefit of modern technology or access to a study group, Socrates said pretty much the same thing more than 2500 years ago. And as we look to the challenges faced by democracy in the 21st century, we may have to take Socrates and his fellow Greek philosophers seriously.
But what is the main challenge of our century’s advanced democracies? A lot of the challenges can actually be related to one dominant culprit: complexity. Small start-ups are good sources for inspiration when it comes to agility, but past a critical mass agility gives way to complexity as a bureaucracy grows in size. And advanced democracies are experiencing the “complexity” by-product of progress to a growing degree (see the 2008 financial crisis and other systemic events). And so, in the current construct of democratic progress, agility and complexity seem to be mutually exclusive. So much so that the left and right political ideologies of the leading modern democracy, the USA, are aligned to the agility thesis and complexity antithesis. On one hand, the left ideology is advocating for a top-down, bureaucratic approach to tackling complexity. The right by contrast is advocating for a agile bottom-up, government free approach to tackling complexity. In true agreement with the dialectical method, the future of democracy may well need a transcendence of those two viewpoints into a synthesis that would bring together agility and bureaucracy: the innovative, agile government.
But there are more subtle ideological differences between the left and right political parties. There are so to speak, emotional and behavioral differences in how the individual is perceived. The left ideology emphasizes a compassionate view of the individual, and sharing opportunity with the less fortunate, those that are somehow left outside the system with all its benefits. At the same time, the right ideology emphasizes the competitive human side that is by definition not in alignment with compassion. Are these ideologies, apparently opposed, actually facets of the same human construct when regarded from a more holistic perspective? Are human beings both compassionate and competitive? For a successful society that both makes progress and takes care of its less fortunate, are these attributes not required simultaneously? And if so, is there a model that could reconcile these so that democracy itself has a future? Is the distant future of democracy predicated upon the disappearance of the left and right ideologies?
Roger Martin’s second area of interest, Design Thinking, may provide the solution to an ideology-free democratic construct. Design Thinking, closely related to Integrative Thinking, can be described as a style of thinking that is generally associated with the ability to combine empathy for the context of a problem, creativity in the generation of insights and solutions, and rationality to analyze and fit solutions to the context. A Design Thinking approach to political ideology could bring the two dominant ideologies closer together, by demonstrating a shared concern for the individual’s well being, both in terms of the basic need for individualism (competitiveness) and inclusiveness (compassion). Creativity, which is a key component of Design Thinking, represents that uniquely human trait that could lead the way to a future world where competitiveness and compassion are symbiotic and simultaneously harmonious: that is, there is no need to alternate between the two every four years.
The art and science of the possible 