Decision-Makers

Joint decision-making is complicated. We make mistakes when we make our own decisions. They are our mistakes. They reveal information about our habits, values, character, drivers, desires, fears, knowledge, ignorance, and personalities, but they are also wrapped up in noise. 

We are complex and inconsistent. If someone else is going to make decisions for us, the further they are away, the less they will see the consequences and responses to the decisions they make for us. Central Decision-Making scales both impact and mistakes. 

If you look at the typical democratic political process, the issues are incredibly complicated when it gets to elections. How many people read and engage with the manifestos of the politicians, and grapple with what they are promising? How accurately does the manifesto reflect their intentions? Their ability to deliver? 

If you wrote your own manifesto, how closely would that reveal your real behaviours... or would it (more likely) reflect a promotional version of what you (in your head) want? 

Information gets lost as you add distance between decision-makers and consequences. Ideally, in local markets, small decisions can be made that reflect the stuff we can’t even put into words. There is relationship building. There is understanding. There is the ability to adapt. 

As soon as markets scale with central decision-makers, they become abstract. People become categories. Voters become power bases. Actions have consequences. It is important that decision-makers feel those consequences.

What we do, matters

Fear of Success

Money is made by solving problems in containers for people with money. The key is being able to communicate with the decision-maker-with-money, in language they understand. Know who is paying. Know what they want. Know what success looks like to them.

Neville Scott has spent a career helping business leaders design solutions to problems that can be implemented. He starts his process by understanding “the School Playground”. Problems have deep histories with complex origins. Solutions to single problems have unintended consequences and layers. One problem we are all trying to solve is that we need to eat. We have to get paid. If we permanently solve the problem we get paid to solve, that can be a problem. Creative destruction is a powerful fear-inducing force, without sustainably looking after the problem solvers. 

Protagion - Active Career Management is holding a virtual conference where I will be part of a free panel discussion exploring how building buffers (for resilience) and engines (for endurance) of Capital can help ignite your creativity. Free from the fear of success. 

Decision Makers

Ideally, we would have a very transparent relationship with asking and offering. Money is made by solving problems for decision makers with money. The challenge is making sure everyone is a decision maker. That is a foundation stone for the idea of Universal Basic Income. Information gets lost in central decision making. The more layers there are between where the knowledge lies, and where the power lies, the poorer the decision will be. Central decision makers also rely on concealing information. The true nature of problems. The resources allocated to those problems. This makes it harder for people to develop the skills and knowledge necessary to find solutions. It is hard to ask. It is hard to offer. It is hard to know with clarity what you need to do to help, even if you want to. Part of this is due to trust and communication skills. Being prepared to clumsily iterate through the questions and answers needed to nail what needs doing. Trusting that being open will not bring down the barriers to entry that maintain the illusion of your superiority. Trusting that other people will make different decisions, while respecting yours.

Nailing the Problem

The Darkness

The challenge we face with politics is that we want it. The most political people I know use phrases like “leave your ego at the door”, and ask “how do we get rid of the politics?” without a hint of irony. The darkness from lack of transparency protects our interests and vulnerabilities. We like positioning ourselves against other people, if we come out on top. We like the sense of superiority. We like getting better. We like progress. We like being incentivised. We like action. We like feeling like we are doing something right, and moving forward.

We create these hierarchies as a way of making sense of the world. As a way of feeling like we are moving. Feeling a sense of life. It is an easy option to measure the world. Money is like salt, fat, and sugar for the taste buds. It is not subtle flavouring.

Submission Hold

I am the youngest of three brothers, by four years. My oldest brother is powerful. My middle brother is cunning and good with submission holds. I am good at not submitting. I was also good at making a lot of noise. When it came to the heart of arguments, there was a lot of pressure to just say sorry, and admit that I was wrong. I learnt that was sometimes the best course of action. Just say, “Sorry, I am wrong”. But my cunning brother knew my tricks. He did not just want a sorry. He wanted me to mean it. Perhaps that is where I got my aversion to some Corporate Politics. When someone says, “It is your decision, but this is what I would do” but means “just do what you are told”. I know I should play along with the illusion of delegated authority, when the truth is it is just delegated responsibility. People higher up the chain unwilling to fall on their swords, who want control without any blame for failure. Who become professionals at judging other people as not good enough, while never looking in the mirror. It is only meritocracy if everyone is being judged. Otherwise, it is a club.

Kneebar - Submission Hold

Biggest Slice

Once you let go of the illusion that price is value, anxiety disappears from selling the pie. If people want pie, and you can get it made at the price offered… it happens. The problem remains in slicing the money after selling the pie. We still live under the illusion that you can attribute everything. That you can say who added the value. That you can say who deserves the biggest slice. We still claim that people are paid based on their value add. They aren’t. It is a combination of politics and power that splits the pie. Containers and Capital. People with barriers. People with capacity. In the absence of markets that simply respond (without barriers) to supply and demand. You can’t count everything that counts. As soon as it isn’t a market and there are barriers… it isn’t a meritocracy. It’s a story.

Home Workshop

I stepped away from the Corporate world in August 2014. I liked the idea of living off an Engine of Capital where my decisions of how to spend my time were no longer filtered by the purpose of my full-time employers. A world free of job hunts, bosses, career progression, office politics, and performance reviews. A chance to internalise and control my own self-reflection and appetite for feedback. I particularly like being my own decision maker. Not having to make proposals for how things should be done to boards or decision makers higher up the tree. Not having to justify or get permission. Making decisions myself. My Engine isn’t big, and it wobbles. I live with a cloud of existential anxiety and my elbows covered in grease doing repairs in my home garage. I live on significantly less than I would if I just got a job. A different sort of stress to the 9-5 of accepting the way the world works. I am making it up as I go along. I think we all are. Even stepping away had its own new set of constraints and pressures. You can’t escape the madness. You can just invest in your ability to cope.

My Grandfather in his home workshop in Nov 2014

Saints and Martyrs

A family member of mine recently had an honest conversation with his boss about what, and when, his boss wanted next. Because he wanted his boss’s seat. The reality is money is made in containers, and “meritocracy” depends on ambiguous selection criteria that have a lot to do with self-preservation. Capitalism replaced Mercantilism when Nation-shaped Containers started realising that win-win trade and wealth creation beats win-lose wealth extraction and war. Within nations, there are limited Corporate-shaped Containers and Role-shaped Containers with barriers to entry and exit. The trick is figuring out a system where we can be genuinely honest about skills and knowledge, problems and solutions, and paths for development. Politics comes in when power lies with keeping information hidden, and the ability to make significant decisions that affect other people. A boss who wants to keep the job for themselves, needs a reason to want to step aside. They are neither saints nor martyrs. They need a win-win alternative. We need sufficient barriers to incentivise effort to overcome those barriers. We also need incentives to not increase the size of those barriers once they have been (personally) overcome.

Projecting Demons

Projected confidence and imposed binaries. If, like me, you feel ill-equipped to make sense of the world… where do we start? There is no shortage of (confident) people claiming to know the truth, who are really frustrated that “other people” aren’t willing to listen. There is no shortage of public and private (binary) duels, where “you are either with me, or against me”. I don’t see a lot of evidence of considered, empathetic, and skilful mediation, arbitration, reconciliation and community building. I see a lot of preaching to the choir. I don’t see a lot of mirrors. I see a lot of microphones. Many of the people with the appropriate skills are in the Mental Health Space. Unfortunately, many of them are really busy trying to create businesses out of Mental Health. In survival mode. Unfortunately, most of us are really busy. Occupied. Distracted. Full. Rushed. Before you can do anything of value, you need to still the waves. Creativity starts from a place of silence.

Giovanni Fontana (1420)
Figure with Lantern Projecting a Winged Demon

Different Questions

It is easy to paint a picture of my story that seems like it all went according to plan. I talk about Engine Building and Financial Freedom in a way that may make it seem like I knew how things would pan out. In reality, my philosophy is a work in progress that keeps requiring repair. On several significant occasions, I have had to reboot. When a door closes, my approach (once I have stopped sulking) is to try and think of something awesome I could do that I couldn't have done otherwise.

I could quite easily have still been working in a Corporate Job but for a different sliding door. I loved being an Investment Analyst. I loved studying the philosophies of the investors I worked with, developing my own, and understanding and addressing clients' concerns. I had awesome colleagues and clients, who because work dominates most of our current lives, were also my close friends. When I was at a green company, my blood bled green. When I was at blue companies, my blood bled blue. Support that verged on the fanaticism I show for the South African Rugby and Cricket teams. Although, I like to think I was able to back that (the work) up with clear-eyed due diligence and evidence.

The heart of my problem is I am not good at "playing the game". I don't detach very easily. I care a lot. I am wired with a level of "righteousness" that values transparency, honesty, and relationships more than sometimes allows me to just get the job done. And I am not always right when I a righteous. I am also installed with a switch, that allows me to get very task-focused and competitive if I put it on. A friend at university once told me I would never get married unless I chose a doormat, because she was so exasperated at my dictatorial nature. Another friend told me that I didn't care about the truth, I just cared about getting my way. I normally started incredibly inclusively and interested in feedback, but as a deadline approached I became a version of myself I didn't like at all.

I am also allergic to hierarchy. Not if I feel inspired, buy-in, and am clear on my role in something bigger. I have an inbuilt Apartheid South African disrespect for authority. Particularly the unearned kind in place because of luck, deceit, politics, or privilege. I can't stomach the ego that often gets attached to Corporate Classism where promotions come with perks and swagger, as people rise to their level of incompetence (and stop there).

Part of why I wanted to stop working for money was frustration. The more positive part was I wanted to see what life would be like if I didn't have to fight so hard against my inner demons. The things that matter to me most are learning and relationships. And yes, I don't like being told what to do or feeling like my fate is not in my own hands. Autonomy and consent are my food and water.

I hope that what I write doesn't come across as a prescribed "How to?" as if I have any idea about the problems you are facing. I write about money more than I would like, mostly because I believe that things would be very different if everybody had an Engine behind them to loosen the control money has over their decisions. I feel incredibly privileged to be in a position to choose different rather than more. Building an Engine isn't an answer. It allows people to ask different questions.

Trying a different angle

Turning on the Lights

A reasonable definition for Politics would be “the management of information asymmetries to get the desired outcome of a particular tribe”. I know more than you. I want something different to you. I am going to win. Whether in the staffroom, boardroom, or changeroom, if there is more than one pulse there is normally Politics. It is also very similar, however it is dressed up, because it is the balancing of competing desires. I am in favour of universal empowerment because it reduces the obligation to do stuff for people in the dark. An independently strong foundation to retreat to is a powerful underlying safety net. It empowers the word No, and in doing so, makes the word Yes more meaningful. Enthusiastic, informed consent. When things are swapped (or a thing and some money), value is created if both parties know all they need to know and are better off after the swap. If the story changes when you switch on the lights, it is not a story worth telling.

Edinburgh Torch Procession

Shining Light

Obstacles

A significant obstacle to us finding each other in public debates is we aren't coming from the same base. The words we use don't mean the same thing. We haven't read the same books. We haven't had the same conversations. We haven't had the same experiences. Then people come out guns blazing without the vaguest attempt at first establishing a baseline. I believe that understanding builds. You can't jump straight to the conclusion unless you just copy and paste your opinions from someone else. Unless your opinions are just blindly those of your side. There is only one side. Let's do the work. That starts with questions.

The Right Incentives

Whether you are in politics, education, academia, business or the home, most of what we do ends up being about people management. Management of ourselves, and management of the way we engage with others. Why do we do things? What drives us, and what pulls us? Incentives and processes that will bring out the best in us. What does the best mean? Do we agree? Are we working with or against each other? In "All Marketers are Liars", Seth Godin argues that we are all Marketers. If you have an idea you believe in, you need to be a Marketer. All Marketers are storytellers. We are all storytellers.

Two stories I have come across are forms of incentivization that contrast quite strongly. The "Wolves at the Door" and the "Money off the table" approach.

The first turns the heat up. It works for underconfident overachievers. The idea being that in order to get the best out of someone, you have to put them in a corner and keep them hungry. Nothing is every good enough. There is always more to do. There is always something you got wrong. There is never cause for celebration that does not come with a caveat of "must do better".

The second turns the spirit up. It works for people with deeply internalized motivation. The crude incentives (like money, promotions, prestige) are no longer important because there is something else that gets the person out of bed. Things are good enough as they are. Sometimes there is nothing to do. Mistakes are simply a positive part of the learning process in that they mean you are exploring rather than repeating. They are a sign of life. There is a pulse of celebration.

Personally, I don't work well in a corner. I recognize that some people love it. Anxiety, busyness, and a tinge of fear keep them sharp. Fight mode. When that fire goes away, the systems switch off and motivation is a challenge. A lot of people look for corners.

I have the opposite response. I believe there is seldom value in rushing. Sometimes the smartest thing to do is just keep quiet. To admit you don't know the answer, and it will take time to explore the options. To chip away slowly at the problem. Start early and breathe.

Identity Politics

Identity Politics is when we represent the specific interests of social groups to which a clump of people identifies. Identity Politics represents something people 'are', rather than something that people believe. It stops discussion by creating an us, and a them. We think in categories. Reality is a lot messier than that. The powerful use of Identity Politics is when a group has been oppressed. When that bit of the identity has been used to hold them down. Forming groups around that, allows that group to rise up. The challenge is that those people are far more complicated than that. The oversimplification that was used to oppress is not the thing that defines them. I look forward to an evolving politics of listening. A gradual dismantling of the borders between us and them. That doesn't make us all the same. It does provide choice. A politics of agreed ground rules that empower us to build complicated, interlinked, interdependent, fuzzy, dynamic, real identities. Identity is just a story. Let's make it a good one.

I See Alive People

In a two-party Us and Them political world, the incentives are there to moan. The other side is stupid or evil. With big Nation-based Welfare States, there is also a conflict between the idea of who the 'contributors' are, and who the 'recipients' are. In a global system where much of your success is determined by the lottery of the passport you win at birth - there is bound to be (at least some) selective migration. Come if you are a recipient. Leave if you are an unwilling contributor.

(Enforced) Fairness v (Voluntary) Justice 

In a world of abundance, we are in a better position to do what we believe is right voluntarily. Imagine a country that is torn between two political parties - one believing in a 10% tax rate (Tithe), and one believing in a 50% (Share) tax rate. If the Tithe Party win, there is absolutely nothing (in a Liberal Democracy) stopping the Share Party pooling the 40% extra. Nothing except the feeling that *EVERYONE* should contribute. We don't have to change anybody's mind in a world where there are enough willing people. Politics can shift to being about seeing people, rather than convincing people.

Abstract Redistribution v Community Building

Big states are abstract. Our prejudices tend to be abstract too. If you have only ever had bad experiences with a certain 'category' of person, prejudices are bound to be soaked into you. Even unconsciously. That is how people learn - through repetition. The only way we break that is with real relationships. The homophobic religious parents whose son gets married to a man. The best friend who marries someone of a different race. The new colleague or boss who is really good at their job. We need to get better at having our communities based on real relationships. Communities with names, faces, and stories. Communities that see alive people.

See

Identity v Context

There is a big difference between being something, and feeling something. The things we are, are permanent. I am angry, is different from, I am feeling angry. Similarly, I am very wary of Identity Politics. People are natural essentialists. Believing there is something at our core that makes us who we are. That makes us different. In part, that is true. The thing that makes us different from each other is our unique story. That story evolves. Our story is context dependent. Understanding someone's story helps us to see them. But we aren't our story. Our story can change. Our stories overlap. Context can change. Context learns. I can work with Context Politics. Seeing people. Identity Politics can pass on by. If we breathe.

Myanmar

The Mongol invasions that touched most of the Eurasian landmass also ended four centuries of power of the Pagan Empire in 1287. The area was later reunified by the Toungoo Dynasty in 1510, and then by the Konbaung. There were three Anglo-Burmese Wars before Burma became a British Colony. The first was fought by a company - The British East India Company (EIC). The EIC received a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I in 1600. Merchants and aristocrats owned the shares, and the government only had indirect control. Following the third war, Burma was made a province of the British Raj and rule was transferred from the EIC to Queen Victoria. Since independence in 1948, the renamed Myanmar has been involved in one of the longest-running Civil Wars between a vast number of smaller ethnic groups. Myanmar is rich in natural resources, but has one of the widest income gaps in the world with a large proportion of the wealth controlled by supporters of the former military government (which remains a powerful force in politics). 

British Occupation

Red Tory, Yellow Tory

The Royal Oak under which Charles II hid 

to avoid capture by the Roundheads 

(supporters of Parliament in the English Civil War)

One of the reasons politics is so unappealing is the amount of insults that get thrown around. In a Partisan world that divides countries pretty much down the middle, that means almost half the country disagree. 'The People' seldom speak. If people in the ingroup even hint the other side may have a point, they get torn down. In the UK, Tory is the nickname for the Conservative Party. 'Red Tory' is used as a term of abuse by Tories who think someone is proposing Labour like policies, and by Labour supporters who think they are speaking to 'Conservatives in disguise'. When the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government with Conservatives, many dubbed them 'Yellow Tories'. Compromise as a value is apparently an oxymoron. 'Shy Tories' are those who tend to keep quiet about their support of the Conservative Party because of the abuse that gets thrown at them when they speak up. Or 'the embarrassment' if you are one of those throwing abuse. They keep their opinions to the ballot box. Good people are divided by politics and religion for the reason that 'good' people think a good person would agree with them. One good to rule them all.

Compromise v Compromising

I believe in a post-partisan political world. The problem with parties is people end up having to 'fall in line'. Anything else is 'crossing the picket line'. Dissent is only allowed within the party, and behind closed doors, but then people need to draw together against 'the enemy'. I don't believe in people having to compromise their personal values. I do believe in compromise. If your values and someone else's values aren't the same, you need to learn to accommodate each other. Unless those views are extreme, and impinge on other people being able to go about building the communities they value. It is hard, messy, and you don't get your own way. If your way is making other people see your way. Otherwise, if you live in a constitutional liberal democracy, you don't need permission to do the things that matter to you. You just need to get on with it.

Politics doesn't need to be war

Local v Self

Local governance becomes more practical. There can be relationships involved. Mayors can have grown up in the area they are in charge of. They can have a sense of the community dynamics and how they are being affected by change. They can balance the pleasure of progress with a nostalgia for the what the character of the place has been. Local governance allows for tacit knowledge - the stuff we know but can't explain.

Local-Governance is not 'Self'-Governance. My issue with 'Self' is that it starts to create an exclusive community, set apart. The seeds that built Nation States, and self-determination may have had positive intent in terms of Imperial Governments forcing controls from a distance, but there have also been unintended consequences.

Self-Governance (rather than Local-Governance) without the Four Freedoms is Apartheid.

Apartheid limits freedoms