Expertise and Resilience

Confidence is attractive in a world that is complicated, uncertain and ambiguous. The idea that even though there are tough problems in the world, there are creative geniuses who can solve them creates a sense of hope. The hopeful idea that what we need is great leadership. Someone to save us. I am sceptical of expertise. Not in the support of the popular anti-intellectual wave, but sceptical that individuals, or small groups, can have a superior disinterested understanding of the public good. I am sceptical that leadership beats empowerment. That answers beat questions. My hope lies in strong connections. In understanding that our identity, and understanding, lies in the individual links rather than the individuals. The more links, the deeper and wider the expertise. Expertise defined by resilience rather than answers.

Resilience

Beyond Archy

I have always had a chip on my shoulder when it comes to people being in charge of me. I bristle when given instructions. Particularly when it feels like I am being treated as a machine. A thing that can do a thing. Go. Some of the biggest mistakes I have made in team situations have been when I have forgotten that most people feel like that too. I am not a unique snowflake. As soon as time pressure increases, there is often a thingification of people as corners create a task focus. Consensus, listening, encouragement and all the warm, fuzzy things that make us like each other get tossed aside. There is a job to be done.

Inner Darth rises when in a corner

We are not machines. As things get really busy, emotions like anger, frustration, and excitement bubble to the point of boiling over. Some people like this. They like the edge that jumping from corner to corner creates. It helps motivate them. A lack of time to breathe means you are always doing. Always being productive. The pressure outsources the need for an incentive to be motivated, because there is never a pause. 

I simply don't like myself in corners. There are few people I have met who manage the art of being in a corner while maintaining their appeal. I don't think it is worth it. I also think there is seldom a reason to rush. We can get addicted to the cocktail of emotion from pressure. It can be our fix that makes us feel we are 'doing something'. Adding space is the first thing you should do when you are really busy. The more important the stuff you are doing, the more important the breathing room.

Gandhi was once told he had so much to do in the day, could he cut out his meditation? His response was that if you are twice as busy, you should meditate twice as long. 

What this does is open the possibility of getting rid of the Archy that gets so annoying. If there is time, there is time to work together on problems. The need for Archy comes when the information is closely held. The plan is closely held. The various moving parts need central co-ordination for the grand plan to work. The addition of a little pressure helps with the cooking. Thinking gets upsourced but the person at the top is too busy too think.

I believe most of the thinking and decision making should be done on the front lines. The further from the action, the more real information gets lost in translation. Leadership should be a platform for action. It should remove obstacles. We shouldn't wait for some amazing, inspirational, insightful Philosopher Queen to arrive on her dragons and lead us from our woes.

We don't need instruction or permission, we need community. Communities need time and make more from it than busyiness. Beyond Archy is space.

Rule of Law (with Mandy)

I believe we are who we are through the connections we have, and make, with other people. If someone you know and love is not around, you can close your eyes, and go to that place in you that is them. One of my favourite people would cringe at that warm, fuzzy, idea. But he remains someone that 'reads books' with me. He remains someone that laughs at my inconsistent thoughts. Even when he is not there. His siblings are awesome, and getting to know them has only deepened our friendship. Every time you meet a family member or friend of someone you care about, you get a chance to see them in a new light. Mandy Torr is a lawyer and gives her brother as much stick as he gives me. We had a chat...

Trev:

People like the idea of being able to do what they want. But games often work much better when the rules are clear, accepted and enforced. Touch Rugby is much more fun without arguing and played 'seriously'. Poker is more fun once people all know the rules and are playing with enough that they take it 'seriously'. Accounting and Law seem to be areas which are gradually trying to Internationalise rules that make sense for everyone to get along.

More fun when the rules are clear

Mandy:

The value of the rule of law lies in the ability to enforce it. If law can't be enforced, it's just words. The law should be fair, just and capable of enforcement. Without all those elements, there will be anarchy. So the question is, who enforces the law and by what authority? The State enforces law. But we have no international State, just treaties which may or may not be binding... if and how they can be enforced depends on the facts of each case. Can there, or should there, be one international moral or legal authority to enforce laws? How could that be better...

Trev:

For most of history, law and force have been synonyms. I recently read 'The Democracy Project' by David Graeber where he pointed out that Majority Rules was just a pragmatic way of admitting that if two armies of roughly equal ability met, the one with a numerical advantage would win. Voting was a way of losing (or winning) without dying. The people who got a vote, were those who were armed and could fight. He argues that voting should only really be necessary as a last resort. He calls himself a small 'a' anarchist. The need for 'archy' comes when people don't actually agree with the rules. If they are fair and just, will they really need enforcement?

Mandy:

Isn't that like saying if people were all moral, you would not need "the rule of law". Yes, if the rules were fair and just, they will still always need enforcement as long as there are bad people that can do harm. Some Constitutions (like South Africa's) embody fair, just rules, but we have crime, and we need the rule of law badly. We need the people capable of force to be moral, good people, so they can uphold moral laws. Equality, dignity, freedom. When people are ALL good, maybe we will not need law. Is that where religion comes in? But can religion make people moral and good? As long as people are people can we do better that we are already doing? The answer must be yes if history shows that we are progressing. But why are we progressing? Maybe partly because throughout history, people have struggled to uphold the rule of good laws against bad people... which gives us the freedom to progress.

Trev:

It all depends how effective you think 'archy' has been historically. I get particularly thorny when I feel someone is telling me what to do. I am not good at telling other people what to do. Working with people on the other hand is fun. In the poker/touch analogy, it isn't fun if there is someone you keep needing to force to play by the rules. They have to want to. The incentives have to be there. I do think Rome/Genghis/Alexander and others monopolising violence was useful as an intermediary step. But there are other mechanisms. How effective is America's militarised police? The best force for law is economic empowerment. We are also getting new tools for reputation like online references, endorsements & networks. Ignoring and excluding can be effective unforceful enforcements. We are progressing because the incentives for playing by the rules are improving. 'Bad' people also behave if it is in their interest.

Mandy:

Yes, good law does not over regulate. It does not tell people what to do unless it's really, really, necessary. People are more likely to obey it if by in large, it leaves you alone, and when it does tell you something it is logical, fair, and capable of enforcement. Critical to the rule of law is when it DOES tell you something, it is obeyed. Enough people need to WANT to obey it otherwise the system will fail. I'm not sure the law is very good at providing incentives. It's role is limited. The incentives you mention are maybe just the result of people being left alone to do their own thing. I don't think we should be too worried about really bad people. We don't want to play poker with them anyway.

Trev:

Exactly. If information about whether people tend to 'play nice' is available, we will effectively self regulate. If every time a person joins the game, money 'mysteriously' goes missing, they will start being invited to less games. Good moral leaders need less 'power of force' to get people to listen to them. They needn't be religious, or of the same religion. Tutu is definitely one of my moral leaders despite the fact that there are beliefs we disagree on. I would like to do more reading on effective policing. My suspicion is that a little, friendly, older person would be more effective than Chuck Norris.

Moral Leadership doesn't require you to agree on everything

Mandy:
Interesting. But how could we ever get that information other than by reading thoughts? Exclusion is fraught with problems as it must be fair, and there needs to be a system to determine if it's fair. Did he really steal the money or was he set up? Yes, good leaders should not have to exert force. Apart from being fair, I think they should be able to demonstrate the ability to be able to produce something, or create the conditions for things to be produced. You might admire a sweet old person, but why should you listen to them? A big part of effective policing is respect for the separation of powers which involves elected leaders voluntarily choosing to respect institutions, especially the courts and not to exert force to get their way.

Trev:
I do think there is the way things are, and the way they could be. Information is flowing more freely. Networks are growing. Communication is improving. A big part of most of the institutions we haves' role has been to deal with scarcity, distrust, fear and uncertainty. Friendships are self-policing without law, but with rules. Leaders may not even be the producers, they may just be the role models. They may not even need to be elected if they don't claim to represent anyone, or have any power. The thing I think that does have tremendous value is well-communicated, accepted rules of engagement that people buy into. Creativity often happens with constraints. Freedom is not the absence of rules.

Mandy:
Yes. Law lags behind society. It's quite possible that institutions as we know them simply won't be able to keep up with the pace of change. Maybe because "rulings" will no longer be capable of enforcement and the 'rule of law' as we know it will no longer be relevant. That's a scary idea without knowing the alternative is better and guaranteed. Will we just be at the mercy of the ethics of scientists and communication experts who will now exert 'force'. If well communicated, accepted, rules of engagement that people actually do buy into (and work) is possible, the that is a good thing.

Catalyst for Wonder

The Oracle's and Gurus in old stories are seldom the ones on street corner and pedestals shouting loudly. They live simply, or hidden, and have to be sought out. When they are found, they end up doing more listening than speaking. Finally they give some sort of cryptic message that is more question than answer. The seeker leaves with their mind boggled, wondering deeply about the meaning of what has been said. I think that is the point. A catalyst for wonder.

Carl XVI Gustav is the King of Sweden. I am not a fan of the idea of hereditary monarchy, but I must admit to having softened to Queen Elizabeth as she has become more of a Granny figure. Grannies are awesome. The Swedish King has spent most of his life in study for the role as head of government.  He has spent time looking at history, sociology, political science, tax law, and economics. He followed a broad program looking at the court system, social institutions, trade unions and employer organisations. He has spent time in factories, banks and at the UN. He was born to be King. He spent his life preparing. He has no power, but a lot to offer. I haven't read a lot about him, but the little bit I have suggests this is the kind of King I could like. 

Me and my awesome Gran

We talk of the idea of Servant Leaders. People who are there to give rather than take. I don't like the idea of just flipping the hierarchy. I don't like the idea of seeing clients, or citizens or anyone as King. I prefer the idea of partnership, but partnership that changes the rules of how we engaged. 

Most times we meet with someone and give something, there is an exchange. 'Giving' builds an expectation of something in return. We want things to be fair. But there are lots of types of fair. Does everyone give an equal amount? Do we give according to our means? What if we don't want to give? Is it fair to force me to do something I don't want to do? What if someone takes more they receive, and aren't grateful? What if someone gives a lot, but then Lords around with inferred power? 

Fairness requires accounting. Accounting requires something to be reduced to a number. Reducing something to a number removes the flavour.

Independence is powerful. You can give with zero expectation of return. No expectation, no disappointment. Everything received is a gift. Initially democratic politicians used to take turns, without pay, to run things. Pay was introduced because people without money couldn't afford to not work. Professionalising politics meant that it could be democratised. It would be fantastic if one day, when we have enough, people could start taking turns.

The Independent King or Queen is the one who can gain wisdom and have no power. They can live simply and have to be sought out. They can spend a life in study, be fantastic at listening, ask the occasional beautiful question and be a catalyst for wonder. 

Agreeing to an additional Gran

Saving Starfish

There was a story I was told when I was young when people were feeling overwhelmed with all the problems in the world. An old man is walking on the beach and sees a young lady throwing starfish into the water. He asks her what she is doing and she says the sun will dry out the starfish. She needs to return them to the water. He points down the beach at the hundreds of starfish and says she can't possibly make a difference. She picks up another, and as she throws it back to its home she says, 'I made a difference to that one'.

This story was a founding parable for the Starfish Greathearts Foundation and they do great work. I love the tale and the lesson, but I have been mulling over a problem that it doesn't recognise. I am a big believer in the power of people on the front lines to know better than some grand central plan. Often we know the right thing to do without being able to communicate it. On the flip side, we struggle to increase our circle of empathy. In fact we quite often don't even know about the problems beyond those that come into our field of vision. At worst, we actively don't care.

We often think of leaders as people who will get things done. The leader has the power and represents groups of people's interests to make sure everyone is heard. That doesn't work if decision making is best left in the hands of individuals. I think a leaders role is perhaps to remove obstacles and let people get on with it, but also to ask tough questions. To point out inconsistencies.

A blaring inconsistency for me is the noise being made by 'the 99%' in America. The inconsistency lies in the fact that most of those 99% are in fact part of the 1%. You need just $34,000 annual income to be part of the global elite. The global median salary is $1,225.  I am not saying that inequality in America is not a problem. I just have two issues I need help with.

The first is wrapping my head around why people who don't think money buys happiness should be so concerned about there being people who have lots more than them. As soon as you benchmark your own happiness on someone else's level of wealth I think you can lose track of what is important to you. I am not saying that there aren't impoverished people in America. I would argue that most of them have 'enough' already. Most of them are cultural billionaires. In fact, if you are reading this blog, you are probably also a cultural billionaire. Money is a seductive measure because it is easy to quantify and compare. The good stuff can't be compared. The good stuff is priceless. We may just be scared of the good stuff and so making a noise about inequality gives us a way to kill time.

The second issue I have a problem with is getting emotional about 'high bar' problems when there are still lots of low bar problems for us to solve. There are enough people in the world that have enough to spare to deal with issues like ending absolute poverty. In America. In the World. That isn't the kind that depends on what other people are earning. That is the kind that ends lives.

I think it is good to focus. I think individuals are best placed to pick up the starfish and throw them in the water. If you live in a liberal democracy with a strong constitution, you don't need government to sort everything out. You don't even need consensus to sort some of the big problems out. You just need to care about the big problems first. The American '99%' can make a huge difference to global inequality if they want to. Perhaps that is the role of leaders, not to govern, but to tell stories. And to build a bigger tribe.

Chipping Away

The world is complex. Whatever we choose to have a crack at trying to understand really well, we are by default choosing other areas in which to be ignorant. We need to trust others to head in other directions because we know that the idea of a Philosopher King is crazy in a world that is impossible for any individual to understand. We need a system that collectively understands. Even then, the collective system will always only be chipping away at its ignorance. We need mechanisms for trial and error, and continual feedback. One of the strengths of humans we don't understand is the creative ability in our messy approach to problem solving. It is the reason that computers can't yet beat humans in Go. I thought the talk below is a great example of an attempt to chip away at ignorance. The Dalai Lama has spent a lifetime considering the emotional approach to happiness. He is a 'Moral Giant'. Others on the panel have focused on economics and moral psychology. The Dalai Lama is chipping away at his criticisms of Capitalism. The idea of secular moral discussions and bringing together leaders across fields to grapple with the way forward is very appealing. Beyond leaders, it would be great if outside our areas of specialisation where we are consciously improving, we all chipped away at our ignorance in other areas.

 

Grand Plans

I am convinced by most of what Virginia Postrel says in her book. Mostly, it is about the inability of any individual to come up with an all seeing plan that can capture the difficult to articulate knowledge of the ground level specialist. That having faith in and letting things develop can be better than trying to Orchestrate something over which you don't really have full control.

The bit I struggle I struggle with is something like the 'Three Gorges Dam'. From wikipedia:

The project management and the Chinese state regard the project as a historic engineering, social and economic success,a breakthrough in the design of large turbines,and a move toward the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.However, the dam has also flooded archaeological and cultural sites and displaced some 1.24 million people, and is causing significant ecological changes, including an increased risk of landslides.

The argument would be that no one could no the full costs and implications of such a project, and they forcibly removed more than a million people. The counter argument would be that you can't have huge, world changing projects like these with full co-operation and you need some sort of central planning.

I am starting to change my mind about how effective central planning can be, as I am not convinced that any plan can see down to the level of individuals. Similarly, I am almost convinced that the role of a leader is more effective if what they do is inspire individuals, who in fact no more than they do, to do something rather than telling them what to do.

Maybe grand plans aren't so grand?

Tribes

I realise fully that I am somewhat of a disciple of Seth Godin, so my opinion should be taken with a pinch of salt... but do yourself a favour and get a copy of Tribes.

First person to ask for my copy in the comments section of this post can have it (as long as you give it to someone else when you finish it and tell them to do the same etc.)

Here is a paragraph from the book:

If you hear my idea but don't believe it, that's not your fault; it's mine.
If you see my new product but don't buy it, that's my failure, not yours.
If you attend my presentation and you are bored, that's my fault too.

I do worry that some people will pick up his book, or read some of his posts and dismiss him as another loud American with something to sell. But the marketing of which Godin speaks is not sales. And it is not just for people in business. Whether you are a doctor, psychologist, teacher, engineer, accountant or just someone who has an interest in... well anything...

His ideas if you follow his blog daily will get you thinking. It will spur you on to action in the most genuine possible way.

He is not hot air, so put aside your (largely justified) cynicism against the idea of marketing, and give the book a go. Spend a couple of minutes every now and then reading his blog.