Quickthink

Prof. John Butman offers a nice post today about persuasion. He argues that more and more people are motivated to change the world by implementing great ideas. This, in turn, creates a demand for skills to manage the task.

I think he is right about the “more people …” part. The barriers to implementing new ideas are falling as technology lowers communication costs and raises expectations.  I would go farther. I think it is a long term trend that is just getting going. The “start up” era is just starting up.

But I take issue with Mr. Butman in how this will play out. His pitch is geared to leaders or incipient leaders. The next generation of Steve Jobs types. Well, no doubt some of us will attempt this daredevil life style. But more of us will not. So are we excluded simply because we choose not to lead the charge? Nonsense.

The wider trend here is about group dynamics - not just group leadership.  That dynamic includes forming groups, energizing groups, leaving groups and working in an ecology of groups. And I would argue that the value added will be squeezed out of the conversational threads between groups over time.

So we don’t all have to run around pretending that we are like Gandhi. We do need to invest more in the groups ecology that we are a part of.

And BTW do Mr. Butman’s ideas gel with those of Dan Pink, who recently authored a competing book on persuasion (To Sell is Human)? Dan’ s book is more about person to person connection. John is floating in the clouds - talking about communication “strategy” rather than communication “skills”. In fact, both are critically important. I have not had the chance to get into John’s book yet - but I am interested to compare his strategic thinking with Lafley’s Playing to Win.

More on that later … I hope.

 The recent tragic events in Boston deserve a moment of strategic reflection. Don’t you think?

It seems as if 9/11 happened rather a long time ago. So long, in fact, that I can barely recall the time after the dreadful bombing but before the US invaded Afghanistan. But I do recall one interesting conversation that I had back then. It was about who is the enemy.

I was chatting with a rather wise German colleague who was concerned that the US would over-react to the bombing and in doing so, alienate potential allies. Well, he had a point. Back then, it was more clear than it is now that terrorists are the nut cases (extremists) not the norm. And the best strategy to defeat the nut cases is to unify the moderate world against them. Has the US done this? Let’s consider what has happened.

The US has expended considerable effort to disable extremist networks and kill of their more important leaders. Cutting off the head of the snake, so to speak. And this has been relatively successful. One might quibble about the cost, but Bin laden is dead and his networks are disrupted. And drone strikes have kept terrorist leaders off balance. So, bravo for the good guys! But the aggressiveness of the response confirms to some that terrorism is a war to be waged against the US - rather than a war against moderation. And in the war of words, the US is an easy target. Oops.

Is there a better way? I think so. First, I think it would pay to see terrorism more as a police problem rather than a military one. The police and the courts are very good at de-glamorizing crime. Whether the US should have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq or not, it is wise to draw down the level of military activity. And I think that President Obama is on the right path here. Second, I think it would pay to develop a positive counter-message to the negative terrorist message. Terrorists thrive where there is poverty. They thrive where conflict seems impossible to end. The US would be wise to address these problems at a higher level of priority. Or sadly, we are likely to see more home grown terrorism.

These are not new ideas. But given what some are saying about intervening in Syria and Iran, I think that it is important to keep in mind the larger strategic picture.

What do you think?

I listened to Dan Pink’s podcast “Office Hours” the other day where he interviewed the Heath brothers. They have written a pretty cool book on decision making called “Decisive”. I trust Dan’s judgment, and he gave it a rather effusive thumbs up.

So, do you have trouble with decision making? Most of us would say “no” and say it without thinking. In fact, research shows that we are not as good at this as we think. The Heath brothers think you can get better if you focus on the process of decision making. BTW, this is something that Peter Drucker advocated a long time ago. and they and Peter are right.

Here is a 4 step process that you might consider using (WRAP)

• Widen your options - avoid false choices
• Reality check - avoid confirmation bias by trying to disprove what you want to believe
• Attain distance - don’t let fear of something new hold you back
• Prepare to be wrong - set trip wires for post decision checks on whether your choice was appropriate

This is not the full message, just a heads up. But it is worth noting that we are not as good at decision making as we think —- and especially when we fell overwhelmed in crisis.

I really enjoyed watching Steven Fry play Jeeves. He was so damned good at the role it almost made you cry. He brought out Jeeves’s amazingly smooth self-control with such a light touch. Here he is as Jeeves

So I was surprised to find out that Steven (the real person) suffers from bipolar disorder. That disorder causes Steven to periodically lose control either in a manic frenzy or to fall into a prolonged deep depression. And of course, Steven is not alone in this. Millions have the same disorder and doctors have no idea what causes it.

This got me wondering about the way we live these days. We bow at the altar of engagement - that high energy, positive emotional state that one feels while playing a sport. We all want to be excited about one thing or another. And so we “gamify” in order to produce engagement and excitement. The thinking is that this stimulates creativity. And of course it does. As with this guy

Moreover, Csikszentmihalyi argues that it also is the path to happiness. To have “optimal experiences” and to be “in the flow”. So not only does engagement produce creativity, it makes us very happy too. And Steven makes the point that bipolarity gives great happiness in its periods of manic frenzy.

But is there a cost? For bipolar folks, yes. The deep and intensely painful depression can be so awful that people commit suicide just to escape it. Do we all risk losing our balance when we push for extremes? Well, Jim Loehr argues that if we want to be more engaged, we need to learn how to get better at resting. He has a point.

But how much do we think about resting as a skill?

Well, not all that much. Instead, we tend to value being “busy”. And we get “overloaded”. And extended periods of overload lead to burn out.

Which takes me back to Steven and bipolarity. I wonder if this is a genetic issue (at least some doctors think it is) or is it a condition that is exacerbated by the way we live these days? Perhaps some people are prone to losing their emotional balance more easily when they can’t rest.

Who knows. But the trend is worrisome. As we get more and more revved up and less and less rested up. Nicht gut!

I have learned quite a lot recently about consciousness. In other words, about myself and you too. The most interesting single thing is about how this works at all. We tend to think of consciousness as a flow or stream. That our conscious awareness is verblike.And “stream of consciousness” writing was supposed to be more honest. So argued Joyce and his students, Faulkner, et al and their students Wolfe et al.

In fact, this is not entirely true. More precisely, we experience consciousness in moments. Like snapshots. And we give those snapshots interpretative flow. In other words, much of what we think of as objective thought is subjective interpretation of perception. Points of experience in time.

This may or may not be an assault on the idea of an external “truth” that we can comprehend. But it is definitely an opportunity. For if we are aware that our minds shape our sense of reality via interpretation, we can work to shape the interpretation to suit our needs. We can stretch the flow between moments of awareness to include more and more meaningful interpretation.

In this sense, we are much more than the reality around us.

This idea is gaining serious traction - that sharing helps you get ahead. The latest is a NYT magazine lead article featuring the work of Penn psychologist Adam Grant - a guru of sharing.

This is counter-intuitive for someone like me but I like it. I grew up in the era when hippies shared because they were dropping out. This vision was brought home brilliantly in the British TV series. “The Good Life“. Dropping out to share more was tempting, but the thought of becoming an aging hippie a la Richard Brattigan sobered one up.  Then came the “greed is good” years. It was an “in your face” rejection of the sixties. The Good Life morphed into “To the Manor Born” (another very funny series). To get ahead, you were supposed to enjoy beating your competition. It was still impolite to drool in public, but gnoshing on raw meat at home was tacitly encouraged. Anyone remember American Psycho?

Now are we headed to a softer form of capitalism? I think so. This does not mean you need to stand in front of your condo and hand out flowers to people passing by in the corridor. It does mean doing better strategic thinking about value propositions and more nuanced communication to allow ideas to have sex (as Matt Ridley put it).

So no more pscyho! But do try to keep your pants on, even if you are doing your Brattigan imitation. And consider as we go forward, that sharing affects two critical aspects of innovation

1. how do we generate new and better ideas
2. how do we get people to take over and experiment with new ideas

I am a bit obsessed these days about the idea of value generation. By value, I am not talking about money (though I have nothing against that). I am talking more about meaning.

Why am I obsessed? It is mainly because I feel that we are at a crossroads.

What kind of crossroads?

One path is to continue along in the 21st century pretty much as we have done so in the 20th century. To continue extolling the virtues of the consumer society made better and better by advances in technology. Sure there may be problems (like climate change and war and such) but we can manage them. The main focus is to hold onto what we have got. BTW, this is the clarion call of a new conservative movement.

Another path is to ask the question how we could do better. Csikzentsmihalyi argues that having more stuff (consumerism) does not make us happier. It doesn’t give our lives more meaning.That means consumerism is not the ticket to nirvana.

Sir Keneth Clark argued this as well back in 1968 at the close of his Civilisation series. He took the broader view, showing how our flawed consumerist instincts evolved from an equally flawed movement called romanticism. And why do they fail? At the core of the foolishness is the urge to possess - to own -  happiness rather than to feel part of something larger than the self. To achieve a status that does not comport with reality. And this gap between what reality offers and what our fantasies demand is what Csikzentmihalyi notes drives us just a bit batty.

You might add to this idea. Recent research shows that resisting temptation (rather than enjoying rewards) is the key to being more effective in life. In other words, our cognitive skills are enhanced when we are less dominated by our urges. Well, it is an old idea that looks new again. Our instinct to get what we want when we want it may be making us stupid.

So going back to this crossroads thing, we might do well to embrace a new path beyond consumerism. Not to give it up, but to put it in its place. To move towards something more meaningful. Errr … like what?

My guess is that it will be something with a new name. Something that sounds better than consumerism. Like the “enlightenment” sounded a lot better than religious drivel. Ditto for the “industrial revolution”. So what label will pop up? No doubt that it will relate to an enhanced power of the self. Something to do with empowerment. And in the recipe we will see enhanced connectivity. But whatever does pop up, don’t be surprised if and when consumerism starts looking old hat.

I am reminded of the old story about Lord Lyndhurst who found it hard to adjust to the onset of Victorian morality.

Let’s see what names emerge.

There was something different about Peter Drucker. You saw it in his books. They were about difficult subjects, but they were very easy to read. And the ideas were about things TO DO. Not just about opinions. Peter had a great gift for taking about how to do things better and how to write about it.

One of the foundations for his writing was his belief in the value of people. Again and again, he emphasized the responsibility of management to help people become more productive — not just to organize and control them. But to stimulate and engage people. Drucker’s message about the value of people was taken up by Tom Peters, among others. And it resonates in a lot of business writing that is people oriented - like that of Dan Pink.

But Peter didn’t just say that people can be made more effective. Peter talked about how to do it. And one of his books, called “The Effective Executive” is about how this should be managed. He wrote it back in 1966 and I will be dissecting the book for a select group of colleagues.

It will be a fun adventure!

Over 100 years ago, the question “Shall we change, my dear?” might have been an invitation to dress for dinner.

Indeed, Michael Straight reported years ago a story about his father (who lived way back then) working after 5:00 at the US State Department. The Head of the Department (the Secretary of State) passed by his office and said “Straight! What are you doing? You won’t have time to dress for dinner!”

Dress for dinner? Well, these days, the idea that we must dress for dinner is quaint to say the least. Indeed, the idea of gathering for the evening meal itself is no longer the norm. At the same time, the more basic idea of the value of “changing” is very much alive and kicking. BTW, this is not a rant against change. Not at all. Bear with me for a moment.

The key question, I dare to assert, is what desired change is all about? Media these days is full of “self improvement” messages. How I should “change” in order to become more successful, happier, slimmer, sexier and so on. I got it. I have to change. And I have seen no messages exhorting me to stay the same. No messages assert that I am quite ok as I am.

Isn’t that a bit odd? After all, aren’t you and I basically ok? Shouldn’t we value who we are, rather than value that more perfect being that our fantasies might suggest we should be? Which do you love more? Which would you spend time with? Which would you defend?

So, shall we change my dear? I say we should do so with care to enhance what we have. Dress up, perhaps. But not lay waste to the good in a mad pursuit of something that we are told is better.

Well, flipping my cards here, I think we should feel more confident in what is. Put it another way, if we do not preserve these things, no one will do this for us. To the contrary, the recurrent message is that we are is shit compared to who we should be.

I see this as 20th century drivel. Don’t you?

Comrade Van (or Ieng Sary) was number 3 in the Khmer Rouge hierarchy and brother in law to Pol Pot. And he was likely complicit in the torture and murder of a hell of a lot of Cambodians during the period that the Khmer Rouge was in power.

Then Sary switched sides and helped bring down the Khmer Rouge. He got amnesty for that. But then it was taken away. He has been on trial since 2007 and just passed away.

When you look at his picture

he looks pretty average. But what he did was anything but average. How does a person go this far into “deep water”? I don’t know. But the question scares me and it should scare you too. The reason? Because with the ever accelerating rate of technological advance, it becomes easier and easier for one person or a small group of people to destroy things and kill people. Not one or two, like the old days. And not just 20 or 30. And not just a few hundred. But thousands or even millions.

Bruce Schneier (a security expert) thinks that it is 100% likely that sooner or later we will suffer this type of devastating and senseless attack. Much worse than 9/11. His question - how does civilization react to this type of threat and still call itself civilization?