3 factors creating an existential crisis.

 

I recently found myself in the position of refereeing a ‘debate’ over lunch on climate change between 2 zealots, one from either side.

One who was a passionate advocate of the argument that it was real, and would kill us unless we did some challenging things, the science was in 30 years ago, and we have barely moved. Our public institutions have displayed, and continue to display, criminal negligence in that inaction.

The other, was a passionate advocate of the ‘why bother’ story. As Australia is a tiny contributor to global warming, unless the rest of the world did something, destroying our way of life was an irrelevant act of self -immolation. 

Thinking about it later, three things came to mind, that reflect the barriers to any major change in the way we work and live.

Denial. It is not happening, we cross our fingers and hope it goes away. Through history this has never worked, it is the ‘peace in our time’ solution.

Money.  Making the change will  not make any money, just impose unnecessary and unrecoverable costs. This assumes that tomorrow looks just the same as today, which is always wrong, we just cannot see the potential. Steve Ballmer dismissed the first iPhone as an expensive toy that would  never work,  Blockbuster did not see the potential in Netfliks, and Kodak, who invented digital photography, failed to commercialise it. With the short term  dominant in our institutional and public governance, the immediacy of money being generated  is a powerful argument for inaction, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Optimisation. We have optimised our current organisations, they are good at running exactly what it is now, and change is messy, expensive, risky, and dangerous to the personal advancement of those who advocate for it. In addition, the short term prospect of generating a return on investment is low, so our institutional risk aversion kicks in, often on steroids. Both time frames have their costs and benefits, quantifiable with significantly variable degrees of certainty. On balance, my money is on the ‘do something’ button, as history suggests those who do not change in the face of undeniable  change around them,  get run over by those who take the prizes. IBM and Olivetti used to own the typewriter business, Kodak owned photography, Hoover owned vacuum cleaners, all optimised businesses for the maintenance of the status quo, and none survived.

As I write this, the east coast of Australia, gripped by drought, has been on fire. We are only in the early part of what is usually called the  ‘fire season’, so things could easily get worse, although there may not be much left to burn. I suspect the views of both sides of the debate my lunch colleagues had will not have changed much as a result, a microcosm of the policy problem facing us.

However, every problem is accompanied by opportunity.

Climate change is a problem for everyone, a challenge for policy makers faced with the reality of short term populism to keep their jobs, and an opportunity for the few who see the problems as challenges to be solved.

 

 

 

Very rarely am I embarrassed to be Australian

 

Craig Kelly created such a moment this week, spouting idiotic nonsense on British morning TV.

Kelly is the MP for Hughes, at the southern end of Sydney’s metropolitan area, which he won in 2010, succeeding well respected liberal  Dana Vale when she retired.  The electorate includes a lot of bushland, some of it national park. As such, it is bushfire country.

 Kelly has been a continuing goose, making statements that range from dumb and ill informed, to just plain stupid for the whole time he has been an MP.   Despite this, Scomo intervened to save his pre selection prior to the last election when he was almost certain to lose it to a more moderate candidate who seems to accept that facts do have a place in public debate.  

I am no scientist, but after Kelly’s interview, thought I would relate a few facts about climate change undisputed by the vast majority of scientists around the world. The exceptions being only those who know the holocaust is a figment of Zionist propaganda.   It is however realistic to acknowledge the contradictions and paradoxes littering the climate change landscape (pardon the poor pun) that can be grabbed selectively to make a contrary case, should you be so stupid as to do so.

Hello Craig!

  • The human impact on the environment is increasing: there are simply more of us, consuming increasing amounts of finite resources every day, and producing accelerating amounts of waste.
  • A key waste is CO2, which has the effect  of warming the earths atmosphere. Scientists used  basic physics to work that out in the mid 1800’s, it is not new information. CO2 in the atmosphere is transparent to the radiation from the sun, so it lets it through, warming the earths surface, but unfortunately, when the warming earth radiates the energy back, the wavelength is different, and the atmospheric CO2 does not allow it to pass through. Therefore, it bounces back, further warming the earth. Anyone who has stood in a glasshouse understands the impact, it is exactly the same, hence the term, ‘greenhouse gas’
  • While every one of that increasing population exhales CO2, as do the animals we grow to feed us, the effect we have had is dwarfed by the impact of the burning of fossil fuels. Starting with the coal that powered the industrial revolution, and progressing to oil, and gas, we are now pumping billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. 
  • Some of the CO2 produced gets captured by the earths oceans, stored as carbonic acid. This increasing acidity of the seas has the impact of dissolving coral, which acts as the nursery for sea life, the main source of protein for much of the worlds population, as well as protecting low lying tropical and sub tropical areas from the impact of cyclones.
  • The warming of the atmosphere tends to suggest, even should I say, to Craig, that this leads to an increased ‘dryness’ of the earth, sometimes called drought. Could this increased dryness  lead to fires? Perhaps even Craig can catch the logic of that one. It also, logically, leads to ice melting. take some cubes out of the freezer Craig, and see what happens. It is unarguable that the ice at both poles, and on mountain ranges is melting. Given the amount of fresh water tied up in ice across the planet, the progressive melting  has a range of nasty consequences. For example, there will be new locations for seaside resorts created, although the price will be paid by some places from small islands around the world, to mainland locations from the Bay of Bengal to Florida, for which snorkels and fins will be required to get to the front fence. This should cause a few very emotional arguments in parts of the world not renowned as friendly, accommodating negotiators.
  • While the average temperature of the planet is unarguably warming, averages do tend to be misleading. The incidence of extreme weather is increasing, at both ends. Extreme heat, and extreme cold, and the time between these extremes is decreasing. The locations of these extremes are also scattered, impacted by the melting ice affecting the weather patterns so dependent on sea temperatures, and more specifically, the temperature of the major currents that flow around the world. 
  • The sad fact is that the lag between cause and effect is long. Were we to totally stop emitting CO2 today, it would be years before there was any measurable impact on the climate. This is like the dilemma faced by obese people. It is really easy to keep doing what you are doing, and getting fatter, very hard to change habits sufficiently to stop the increasing weight, and even harder again to reverse the trend, and it takes time for the impact to be seen. However, the longer you leave it, the harder it gets.

Enough of this, point made.

However, it is also a good place to point out, if you have read this far, that politicians whine that we, the great unwashed who vote, do  not trust them any more. Even ambulance chasing lawyers rate higher on the popularity scale, as Scomo found out trying to find a hand to shake amongst the ruins of Cobargo last week.

Climate change is not Scomo’s fault. However, his failure, and that of his predecessors to reconstruct the broken processes that catapult an idiot like Kelly into a position to make me feel embarrassed to be an Aussie, is his fault.

 

My thanks to David Rowe for the header, who as usual, manages to draw the most disturbing cartoons that make a statement.

Oh come all ye turkeys

 

As we hurtle towards another Christmas, the turkeys are out, clamouring to be at the front of the line.

Australia’s latest quarterly GDP figures were released  on December 4, generating a flurry of commentary from all sides of the political and economic tables.

What are we mere every day Australians to make of this welter of ‘informed’ commentary, that takes the same set of figures and comes up with entirely different analysis, delivered as fact.

We have the treasurer spewing patronisingly about how well it is all going, the plan is working, as the number is 0.4% growth, an annualised 1.6%. This is down from forecasts, way down from the post GFC average growth of 2.6%, and a long term average of around 3.4%.

Not so sure I like the plan, particularly as all the anecdotal stuff I see indicates we are much deeper in the doo doo than those figures would indicate.

For example, household spending is steady at best by the numbers, awaiting the yet to happen Christmas shopping binge, which seems  unlikely to emerge. Household spending is a key component in the GDP figures, when it sags, the economy is heading for trouble. I expect a very poor outcome when the next quarters figures are released in March.

Unemployment was 5.3% in the latest numbers, and when you look at the graph, it is on a rising trend.  Perhaps it is time for a revision of the manner in which that number is calculated, in order to offer a more realistic picture than the one delivered by the current sanitised nonsense? Unemployment is the number of people looking for work in the period. It excludes those who could work, but are not actively looking. However, the catch is that ’employed’ is defined as anyone who is paid for more than 1 hour a week. By that measure, our unemployment rate may be 5.3%, but the real rate, the point at which the so called ’employed’ are able to live, pay the bills, and not look for more paid time, is way, way, way higher, and the rate amongst significant slices of the population, such as those under 20, is devastating.  Then you have the problem  my client base of SME manufacturing has, of actually finding tradesmen who are capable and willing,  to do the jobs necessary to keep our SME manufacturers competitive, thriving , and employing people.  Those trades do  not exist because we stopped training them and offering the dignity of work.

The unemployment number is an absolute nonsense, we all know it, yet it is a highlight of the political discourse.

The tax system is stuffed, as stuffed as that turkey that will be crammed into the oven as the kids rip the paper off the latest imported offering from K-mart. It is beyond the comprehension of the average person, all we see is the balance swinging against those who are in the PAYE system. Companies, particularly  multinationals, have the resources to manage down their taxes at a time when the governments are spending more, which needs to continue as our infrastructure ages, schools and trades education are in trouble, health costs are rising at a rate significantly greater than the anaemic inflation, and there are added costs like the NDIS.  There has to be a tipping point somewhere, and about now seems to me to be a fair bet. The Henry tax report is now a decade old, and none of the recommendations have been implemented. None. Ken Henry may have blotted his copybook at NAB, but that does not take away from the value of his contribution to public life generally, and specifically as the boss of Treasury, on whose advice Australia dodged the GFC bullet in 2008.

Trust in public institutions has never been lower. It is hard to pick the catalyst for this reality. Is it the realisation that institutions of all types, but  particularly those operating on a platform of faith, have been abusing our kids, that financial institutions have been stealing, politicians have a truly flexible relationship with the truth, or that social media has made us informed, lied to, mesmerised by trivia, and deeply cynical, all at the same time?

Enough, I am depressing myself, just as I have to think about going to the shops and spending on stuff I am not sure people want, for reasons I do not really understand, as should we not be generous with things way more important than money, with those we love and value all the time, not just around the summer solstice?   

The turkeys are all coming home to roost. 

How do you predict the unpredictable?

 

Telling the future is a practise best left to  the circus tent, but as strategists we are doing it all  the time.

The question is not how to avoid being wrong, which means you do exactly nothing, but how do you both increase your odds of being right, and be able to pick very early when you are going to be wrong.

The leadership task to be able to play in the future is to decrease the natural discomfort people have with change, to seek ways to  reduce the power of the status quo, look for opposing views that deviate from those that currently drive decision making, and ensure there is diversity of ideas and types in the environment.

Building a resilient marketing and innovation culture is at the core of this challenge. This recent Gartner report covers the challenges well, observing:

Innovation is well funded and maturing as a marketing discipline. CMO’s are dedicating head count to innovation and leaning on ecosystems to help accelerate initiatives. despite the progress, obstacles remain, most notably risk-averse corporate cultures’.

None of this is easy. It requires active engagement with the threats you see on the horizon, not just from your immediate environment,  but from the wider field that may influence your enterprise in the future. It is being able to see threats as the opportunities they can be.

As a leader in this sort of change environment you have to be able to make it safe to be wrong, to encourage the pursuit of rabbits down burrows, to learn quickly, and adjust on the run, unlearn the ways that have been successful in the past, and replace them with less proven ideas and processes.

To my mind, curiosity, the absence of fear, and the leveraging of data, are the key ingredients in all  this.

Curiosity is a word that encompasses all sorts of things, from critical thinking to creativity and discovery skills, and so called ‘design thinking’ which is just a fancy term for starting with a clean sheet of paper to design something new from scratch, completely from the end users perspective, while leveraging the best parts of what currently exists. To make  all this happen in an organisation also requires that there is a collegial culture, as nobody can do it on their own, you need teams and networks of collaborators to succeed in todays world.

The second component of predicting the unpredictable is data. Data can reveal patterns, correlations, cause an effect relationships that when seen through a new lens can deliver imaginative insights. It is also true that we have no chance of predicting what an individual might do tomorrow, but assemble a number of similar people together, and we can have a very clear picture of what the majority of them might do tomorrow, and a calculation of the odds of outliers.

The third, which Hugh McLeod nails, again, in the www.gapingvoid.com header cartoon. Innovation is the absence of fear, and only in the absence of fear can we be sufficiently curious and empowered to predict the unpredictable, and bet on it.

 

 

Discover ‘flow’ to build scale 

The notion of ‘flow,’ or as we call it, ‘In the zone,’ is a psychological state first articulated by psychologist Mihaly Csikenmihali, published outside academic circles in his 1990 book ‘Flow: the psychology of optimal experience’.

From time to time, most of us experience ‘flow’ in our lives.

Those rare times when deeply immersed in a task, when energy and concentration are together forming a focus and delivering a rolling output, that makes the time seem to compress and fly. The level and quality of output when in such a state is surprising to us, even  astonishing. 

I wonder if there is a collective noun that describes such a state to a group?. It would apply when a group of individuals are so closely working as one, but using their individual skills simultaneously, and cumulatively, such that the collective output is greater than the sum of its parts.

How does a group go about achieving this state of flow?

It takes engagement, focus, alignment around a common purpose, and preparation. The output when it happens, is amazing.

Einstein must have been in an extended state of flow during his 1905 ‘miracle year,’ when he wrote four papers that together formed much of the foundation of modern physics.

He did  not achieve this by himself, although he was not known outside a small group of friends. He was working full time in the Swiss  patents office in Bern, these seminal papers were his ‘side-gig.’ He was not able to access the supposedly best minds in the fields he was thinking about, as he could not get a job in a university, so he walked and discussed with his few close friends and colleagues, and significantly his first wife, herself a substantial mathematician.

There must have been some degree of collective ‘intellectual flow’ present in that time, the state where collective and collaborative activity delivers compounding outcomes, leading to those seminal papers.  

Every enterprise should strive for ‘Flow’ in their activities. The flow of processes, such that everything happens predictably, smoothly, to a predetermined cadence, building on itself, delivering a compounding outcome.

This applies as much to innovation activity, and strategy development and implementation,  as it does to the mundane processes that we need to have happen every day to keep the doors open.

Can you see any sign of ‘flow’ in your enterprise?

 

Header credit: Lucidpanther via Flikr

The curse of insider knowledge

When we know something, the automatic expectation is that those with whom we are communicating understand it equally well.

This automatic, unrecognised assumption can be a barrier, and at its worst, a curse.

Participating in a conversation a while ago where I was the outsider amongst a group of Canberra bureaucrats, their verbal shorthand, particularly around the departmental names and programs was incomprehensible to me. The terminology  was perfectly well understood by all of them, and they were surprised at my ignorance, when I pulled them up and pointed it out.

Try a little experiment.

Tap out a song, like happy birthday, with a pencil on a desk, and have people tell you what it is. We expect most to be able to pick it, the tune is obvious to us, singing it in our minds as we do it, but only a few actually pick it.

Of course, this closed communication loop is used all the time as a badge of membership, and a means of exclusion.

It may be that the group I was talking to were expressing their status as insiders by excluding me, but assuming this is not the intent, it was nevertheless the effect.

Every group has its own set of verbal and behavioral tools. These can be used as an offensive weapon, a means of exclusion, or they can be a tool of inclusion, it just depends on how you use it.

 

Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams and his mate Dilbert.