Tom Graves / Tetradian

Development of new ideas, processes and practices will always be a social process, and always somewhat messy.

To enable that development to happen, we need social conditions that can support it – and screen out behaviours that prevent it.

Those social conditions can best be described in terms of policy, which from my experience I would summarise as follows:

The debate needs to be respectful of the process – the fact that, by its nature, much of the work must pass through periods of inherent uncertainty. For example, see my Sidewise post ‘On innnovation, foundations, scaffolding and Portakabins‘ for some suggestions on how to handle this.

[Update in response to comment #1 below - many thanks to Paul Jansen for the critique]
The debate needs to be respectful of emotion – the fact that, by its nature, development and debate is inherently challenging, and will hence trigger many different emotions as positions and views are put forth, defended, argued, abandoned and so on. We need to ‘play fair’, ‘be reasonable’, allow ourselves and others to make mistakes, to stumble, to get things ‘wrong’, to feel embarrassed yet still feel safe in being embarrassed, yet also to keep moving towards the desired or emergent aim.
[end of update]

The debate needs to be rational – by which I mean an ability and willingness not only to test the internal logics of the ideas in scope (which in some cases may not follow simple ‘true/false’ binary-logics, by the way), but also to move outside of one’s own assumptions, theories and beliefs.

The debate needs to be honest – by which I mean that each party will need to focus strongly on facing their own personal challenges from the requirements for respect and rationality, both of each other and of respect to the ideas themselves.

The debate needs to exclude all forms of violence and abuse – or at least, given the realities of social interactions in often-challenging circumstances, that all parties in the debate must actively address and minimise these concerns to the maximum extent possible, both within themselves and with and/or from others. (The more positive form of this point is that we should always aim maximise each person’s ‘ability to do work’ in the respective context: see my ‘Manifesto on power and response-ability in the workplace‘.) ‘Violence’ is any attempt, in any form whatsoever, to prop oneself up by putting others down (or the ‘lose-win’ variant, putting self down to prop others up); ‘abuse’ is any attempt, in any form whatsoever, to offload responsibility onto others without their engagement or consent (or the ‘lose-win’ variant, taking responsibility from others without their engagement or consent). This requirement was famously summarised by Bob Sutton in ‘The No-Asshole Rule‘:

Two tests are specified for recognition of the asshole:
1. After encountering the person, do people feel oppressed, humiliated or otherwise worse about themselves?
2. Does the person target people who are less powerful than themself?

If we wish to be engaged in meaningful debate, it is the responsibility of each of us to uphold that policy to the best of our ability.

In my own case, I challenge myself constantly on that policy. I know that, like everyone else, I will often be ‘wrong’ about some aspect of application of an idea; I know that, like everyone else, I will never have sufficient complete, accurate and final information needed to make concrete, unchallengeable decisions; and I know that none of this process is easy, for anyone.

It is clear, however, that some people, for various reasons such as excessive ego, assumed ‘authority’ or mistaken notions of ‘possession of the truth’, seem to believe themselves to be exempt from such policy, and instead believe that they have the ‘right’ to override others in any way that they wish. The result in each case is failure of the debate, and damage to or destruction of the development in scope – a circumstance from which everyone loses.

It is therefore our unfortunate but necessary responsibility to exclude such people from debate, until such time as they can demonstrate that they are able to hold to that policy.

In some cases we can do so by removing ourselves from the debate: I have had to do so quite often in discussions on LinkedIn, for instance, where there are all too many infamous examples of ‘debate-destroyers’.

Yet in other cases – and a personal weblog is one of them – there is no way to withdraw, and hence the only option is to explicitly exclude the offender.  I’m glad to say that over the past couple of years I have only been forced to do so here on two separate occasions, with two different people: yet it needs to be understood that it unfortunately is necessary in each case, for everyone’s sake. It also needs to be understood that in each case it is solely that that person’s behaviour makes it impossible for the debate to continue: it says nothing about the person as such (a crucial distinction between what they do versus who they are).

Similar policies are in place elsewhere, such as this extract from one of the LinkedIn discussion-groups on enterprise-architecture:

If you are not willing to have a civil discussion, you will not be permitted to play in this educational playground to further the cause of EA. No one that attacks will be permitted to play. This is a healthy environment to exchange ideas … not to better your cause at the expense of others.

I would urge everyone to consider and apply such policy on their own weblogs, on their Twitter-conversations, and everywhere else where difficult discussions need to take place.

Another of those first-thing-in-the-morning ideas, which arose in part from a conversation on social-architectures that I’ve been having with gift-economy maven Alpha Lo.

Our whole economy is built around the idea of possession, and exchange of possessions; yet what do we really possess?

Things? Not really – a point made all too evident by the phrase “you can’t take it with you”…

Ideas? We don’t even know where they come from, so the whole concept of ‘intellectual property’ is a bit moot anyway.

Relationships? They only exist when maintained by both parties, and they usually fail if anyone tries to possess them, so that option doesn’t work either.

Faith? Hope? Belief? A more likely kind of ‘possession’, though it tends to break down for the same reasons as for relationships.

What else?

The only themes I could find were time and responsibility.

We each have a certain amount of time. We have no idea how long that might be, or what will happen in that time, but it belongs to us alone. We can give our use of that time to someone else – hence all the mess of ‘employment’ and ‘compensation’ and ‘familial duties’ and the rest – but we can’t give the time itself to anyone else. It’s our possession alone: our responsibility as to what we do with it.

And we do each have our own responsibility, as ‘response-ability’ – our ability to choose appropriate responses within and to the context. Through responsibility, and through our responsibilities, we express who we are in what we do, how we think, how we relate, what we choose.

We possess our time, and our responsibility. They possess us. Everything else seems to be an option.

Comments/opinions, anyone?

Several people asked me to cross-post to other ‘economics’ sites the previous post on ‘Whuffie’ and currencies‘. I wasn’t comfortable doing so without editing-out the comments about the ‘Ready? Fire! Aim…’ syndrome, which were specific to the conversations to which that post referred: hence the re-work in this post here. I’ve also taken the opportunity to extend some parts, to link it more strongly to my ‘day-job’ of enterprise-architecture.

So: what can we learn if we tackle economics as enterprise-architecture? In other words, as if it was just another exercise in whole-of-enterprise architecture, the same as we would do for any large organisation (such as described in my book ‘Doing Enterprise-Architecture‘)? After all, ‘the economy’ is just another enterprise – it happens to be at a very large scale, but the exact same principles should apply.

(This’ll be another long one, hence I’ll place a ‘Read more…’ link here.)

Read more…

Apologies: this is going to be another long one, and probably more technical than most people want to see (especially at Christmas? ). But I do promise that it’ll be useful to you if you’re interested in methodology of any kind; and I also promise that despite the problems that arose from the last couple of posts here, it won’t be an angry rant.

The point I’m trying to address here is this: what methodologies do we need to use to assess the validity of methodologies? As with the previous posts, this is still very much a work-in-progress: there’ll necessarily be a certain amount of ‘feeling my way’, and almost certainly a few mis-steps along the way. So please do allow me some room and leeway as you read this; and also, to get the best out of this for yourself and your own work-context, please do expect to have to do some in-depth thinking and cross-correlation of your own.

What I’m trying to tackle here are some of the most complex and paradoxical problems in the methodology of methodology itself: none of this is ‘kiddies’-level’ stuff, and you’ll need a solid background in theory and practice of methodology before you can make much sense of it. So please don’t assume automatically that I’m ‘wrong’, or that I’m some kind of religious nut, because you’ll miss the whole point of this if you do. This does also need to be a collective development, so as before, constructive comments and criticism would be most welcome!

Read on, anyway.

Read more…

It started, as these things so often do, with a Tweet on Twitter.

(This has turned out to be an enormously long post – I’d better put a ‘Read more…’ link in here before continuing.)

Read more…

Message from the Amazon is a recent post by one of my favourite writers on corporate social responsibility, Christine Arena. It includes a summary of the ‘oil wars’ occurring at present around purported oil-reserves in the Amazon basin, the work of groups such as the Pachamama Alliance, and in particular the worldview of indigenous peoples such as the Achuar, Shuar and Kichwa:

The Achuar, Shuar, and Kichwa peoples have one thing that oil companies don’t: ancient wisdom. If effectively leveraged, it is hypothesized that such wisdom could translate to a groundswell of public support for the ‘save the rainforest’ cause. Ancient wisdom could potentially build bridges of mutual understanding between indigenous communities and mainstream Western culture. Ultimately, it could help win the ongoing “Amazon oil war” in a way that benefits all humanity.

With one key exception, I would agree entirely with the article. Its description of the Achuar worldview also aligns exactly with my own experience and understanding of the Australian aboriginal context and its concept of the Dreaming.  One of the most interesting points, for example, was about the Achuar’s view of the respective roles of men and women:

“Achuar women’s role is to say when,” says Lien. “They tell men when they’ve cut down enough trees, hunted enough animals, taken enough from the earth. And the men listen.”

To me that makes perfect sense – when it’s in balance. I’ve seen similar descriptions in other indigenous societies, such as the Plains Indians (Sioux et al, I think?) structures for dealing with major decisions: the male Elders (and only the men) discuss the issues, each from a single perspective, after which the Grandmothers (collectively, without discussion) make the decision – and their decision is final. But that’s where the exception comes, because Arena blows it completely here by adding the fatuous remark:

Imagine if Western women wielded that kind of power.

I’m sorry, but I get really annoyed at the underlying implications in that kind of comment, and the selective myopia that drives them. (Very much a ‘Green’ perspective, in Spiral Dynamics terms, rather than the ‘Yellow/Gold’ that’s actually needed here.) The point is that Western women already do wield that kind of power – and that’s exactly the problem, because at present they use that power just as irresponsibly as do Western men. If not more so…

For example, take a look at who really drives Western consumerism. Yes, no doubt at all that we could point a finger or two at ‘men and their toys’: but just note also which sex spends more of their time in the shopping-malls and flicking endlessly through the TV shopping-channels? It’s common to claim that men earn more than women (which in fact they generally don’t in Western societies, as is shown in any real like-with-like comparison), but rather more important is that fact that Western women spend far more than men – something like twice as much as men, in fact. (The huge transfer of wealth from men to women somewhere between earning and spending somehow fails to be noticed in most current feminist studies of economics… strange, that…) So who has the real purchasing power? – and the equally-real responsibilities that go with it? That’s a serious question, which needs a serious answer – which, rather noticeably, we don’t get in that quote above.

Now add into that mix the probable source of that fatuous comment, the all-too-convenient ‘essentialist’ myths that arose with the modern variants of feminism. All of these summarise to a single vain, vapid, self-serving, self-congratulatory assertion that women are somehow inherently ‘better’ and ‘wiser’ than men, that “men are the problem, women are the solution”. If we go further back, to a rather more honest and intellectually-rigorous period in feminist history, one of the main concerns of the 1848 Seneca Falls women’s convention was a demand for acknowledgement by all of each woman’s responsibility for her own life; yet present-day feminism seems far more concerned with evasion of any form of responsibility for women, instead seeking to offload all responsibility onto others via what one rather more aware feminist commentator (Naomi Wolf, I think?) described as “a religion of Other-blame”. And blame itself is a key form of social violence. If we want to resolve these serious world-level issues, we need to be a lot more honest than that.

The physics definition of ‘power’ is the ability to do work; most social definitions of ‘power’ – including those of most modern feminism – are closer to ‘the ability to avoid work’. Therein lie some huge problems for individuals, families, communities, organisations, nations and the world as a whole; it also doesn’t help that most of the so-called ‘rights’ discourse lies on the wrong side of that balance. What we need here is not convenient gender-blame or Other-blame, but some real honesty and real responsibility. That’s the real ‘message from the Amazon’ – and it’s one we all need to learn, and fast.

Been some time here since I mentioned my other more business-oriented weblog, SideWise.biz. I’ve added a fair few items over the past few months:

• The market as economy: how ‘the market’ consists of much more than just transactions, and how three distinct forms of ‘the economy’ intersect in one place
• Power, responsibility and bullying in the workplace: “When power in the workplace transmutes into bullying, we have a problem. A big problem.”
• Surviving the skills-learning labyrinth: “How do you and your staff learn new skills? And what can be done to make it quicker and easier to learn those needed skills? One answer is to explore the patterns in the skills-learning process.”
• Making continuous-improvement visible: If continuous-improvement consists of many small, almost-imperceptible changes, how do we make overall improvement visible? This article explores how.
• Money is the root of all… wasted time?: The usual claim is that ‘money makes the world go round’; but if so, why is it that the world seems to come to a halt each money has to change hands? This article explores the importance of a whole-of-system view of economics.
• The rise of the business-anarchist: To get the best from a stable system, you need business-analysts; but when the world is changing around you, you need the help of your business-anarchists! This article explains who they are, what they do, how they help to manage change, and how to find them within your own organisation.
• Ten ways to fail – and how to avoid them: “Success often arises just from avoiding failure.” This article explores ten key causes of failure, and what to do to avoid them.
• Where have all the good skills gone?: This article explore a rarely-acknowledged cause of the current ’skills-shortage’: an incomplete understanding of the limits of automation.
• The relationship is the asset: “‘Our people are our greatest asset!’ How often have you stopped to think about what that phrase means – and what it implies in real business practice?”

More to follow over the next few weeks, of course. Share and Enjoy, perhaps?

“Information overload!”, wails my colleague Anders Østergaard on Twitter, “I want vacation, now!” Well, if you need a vacation, and there’s none available, surely there’s always the option of an anti-vacation?

Let me explain – from my current first-hand experience.

At present I’m in Guatemala City, and in theory I’m on vacation. (The ‘in theory’ part is important.) I can’t go out and play tourist, because I’ve been warned that it’s almost a certainty that I would be robbed, or shot, or both. I can’t walk with my laptop to the nearest Starbucks, partly because there isn’t one, and partly because, again, I probably wouldn’t even get there in one piece and/or still with the laptop. According to a poster down the road, there were 6338 homicides here last year; I’m not surprised, because I’ve already twice seen a body-bag lying in the road after some unspecified ‘incident’. There are men with shotguns or pistols pretty much everywhere, most in some kind of uniform, but not always. There were seven or eight armed guards in the small shopping-mall I went to yesterday, and even lower-middle-class suburbs like this one have gates with 24-hour armed guard, and razor-wire on every garden wall. On one main thoroughfare I counted at least four companies who provide bullet-proof armour for ordinary cars. So ’security’ is big business here: no doubt that those who purport to provide it are very happy at the amount of money they’re raking in…

Pretty much no-one else is raking it in, though. Sure, prices are low in relative terms – a Big Mac is about half the price compared to the US, to give one crude but useful metric – and a typical middle-class rent would be the equivalent of about US$250-350 a month. But an IT-tech, for example, earns around 1000-1200 Quetzales a week, or about the same as I would expect to earn in a single morning as a tech in Australia. For the ordinary everyday folk who are the backbone of any economy, life is pretty tough at present – a fact which is all too evident all round me here.

And my ‘hotel accommodation’ ain’t exactly salubrious either. I’m working with a bunch of guys doing key development on what I would consider whole-of-enterprise architecture, with an emphasis on organisational health and whole-enterprise integration. Given the ’security situation’ and the short time I’m booked to be here, I need to be close to them, not hidden away in a hotel; so my ‘bedroom’ consists of a bed in the corner of the office, which in the daytime is shared by at least three other guys. The toilet and shower are half-concealed by a thin curtain: there is no door, and no real privacy. I have no idea of how to get around in this city, and my Spanish is barely past the level of “Buenas dias, ¿que tal?”, so in practice I can’t go out anywhere unless someone drives me there – and only one of the guys has a working car. There’s no heating, and no sound-insulation, so with the main ‘periferico’ freeway roaring away all day and night at the end of the street, and the apparent national passion for letting off firecrackers anywhere at any time, earplugs are an absolute must if I’m to get any sleep at all. To be blunt, I’m exhausted, every night, every day; and at times it can feel more like a prison-cell than anything else.

Some vacation…!

Yet in reality I probably feel more alive and engaged here than I have at any time in the past three years. After struggling so much and so long against the myopically arrogant apathy of the business scene in so much of Britain and elsewhere, being here is invigorating. In just eight days here I’ve already run or participated in three workshops for top-level bank executives – one of those workshops a marathon of more than twelve hours – and another large workshop-event for almost five hundred mid-level employees. All of it has worked well: if ever there was need for proof of the need and value of whole-of-enterprise architecture, it’s right here. At least three more such events, and probably several exec-level meetings too, before we go back to Mexico this time next week. I don’t have time to play tourist; I have so much to do right now that I barely have time even to write in this weblog.

So yeah, it’s crazy – probably unutterably crazy – but does feel good, too.

Watch this space?

Found this Volkswagen initiative via Swedish social-media expert Oscar Berg:

Notice the success-metrics: two-thirds more people used the stairs rather than the escalator.

Now: how do we apply those same principles to organisational design and enterprise-architectures?

Came across this comment whilst exploring laptop.org.au, the Australian arm of the One Laptop Per Child movement [my emphasis]:

Learning is our main goal. … Epistemologists from John Dewey to Paulo Freire to Seymour Papert agree that you learn through doing. This suggests that if you want more learning, you want more doing. Thus OLPC puts an emphasis on software tools for exploring and expressing, rather than instruction. Love is a better master than duty. Using the laptop as the agency for engaging children in constructing knowledge based upon their personal interests and providing them tools for sharing and critiquing these constructions will lead them to become learners and teachers.

So why do we think it should be any different for adults in our organisations? – that ‘duty’ will somehow necessarily be a better motivator than love of the work itself?

Then crosslink that with Daniel Pink’s summary of recent research on extrinsic versus intrinsic motivators. From that, we discover that monetary bonuses and other ‘external’ motivators not only don’t help in knowledge-work, they actually make performance worse. What does work is ‘motivation from within’ – especially a commitment to the work itself for its own sake.

Crosslink that with what we know about the skills-learning process, and especially about the need for a ‘commitment of the heart’ – a commitment to the skill itself – to enable the capability to deal with real-world complexity in the context of that skill.

Crosslink that with what we know about the role of vision as a unifying force for and within an enterprise.

Crosslink that again with one of the core themes from the current version of ITIL (IT Infrastructure Library – the key international standard on IT service-management), that people do not want products or services as such, they want “satisfaction of a perceived need”; then note that this applies to all people within the enterprise as much as to the enterprise’s clients.

Given all of that, what types of motivation are provided or applied within your own organisation? Is there much evidence of awareness that “love is a better master than duty”? And if not, what would you need to change in the business-architecture or enterprise-architecture – such as in performance-metrics, performance-appraisals and the like – to support more of ‘love’ within the work itself?