growing changing learning creating

All mistakes are not the same

2009-07-16T12:48:00.000-06:00

To err is human. We all make mistakes. We cannot get it right all the time. The way we learn and innovate successfully is by making mistakes. Life would be boring if we did not make mistakes. However, all mistakes are not the same.

Final mistakes: A mistake is final in a "sudden death" playoff or elimination round of any tournament. We can make fatal mistakes once if it takes out our own life. It's a final mistake if we kill the patient, passengers or victim we murder while living to tell the tale. Final mistakes make for high stakes risk taking that rivets audiences to their TV screens and news updates of their favorite sports teams.
Costly mistakes: A mistake is costly when there's continuity with misfortune. We can keep playing, working, participating or contributing. The mistake may have provided a setback could let a rival advance in the competition. It's easy to keep score and know where things stand. Everyone hopes the mistake won't happen again. Mistakes are bad and discouraged under this pressure to perform superbly. The people who make the same mistake repeatedly are believed to be a mistake and are expected to be ashamed of themselves. Correcting mistakes takes time away from making progress, improving processes, reducing costs, or getting results. Costly mistakes call for embarrassing damage control, apologies or recompense.
Useful mistakes: A mistake is useful when it identifies a problem. It's helpful to make a mistake when debugging, refining, troubleshooting and error trapping. We don't know what's wrong, being incorrectly assumed, getting overlooked or taken for granted until a useful mistake gets made. Processes of innovation, design, experimentation and improvisation all require useful mistakes to be made routinely. It's nearly impossible to keep score or know where the project stands. The problems are ill-defined and getting revised in the process of solving them.
Perfect mistakes: A mistake is perfect when we end up in a better place. We make a wrong turn and discover something new. We add the wrong ingredient and get a better result. We forget what we we're supposed to bring and improvise a superior outcome. Something appears to suppress our conscious reasoning and guide us to an alternative we could not have planned on, done deliberately or favored when given the choice.

While these four categories appear as objective criteria, their impact is much more subjective and psychological.

When we are afraid of making a mistake, no mistake is ever considered to be useful or perfect. Performance anxiety dominates our experience. Our minds are closed and prone to fixate on past practices. We are too apprehensive to experiment, wing it or let go of the last mistake. We relate to mistakes this way when we are in positions with high visibility, lots of power, rivals poised to tarnish our reputation and enormous responsibilities for others. We also put this spin on mistakes when we're feeling victimized, powerless and haunted by bad luck.

When we value the benefits of making mistakes, we downplay the costly ones. We believe "you win some and you lose some" and it pays to chill out. Our minds are freewheeling and open to unforeseen alternatives. We don't want to rely on past practices when a better way could be discovered by messing around. We relate to mistakes this way when we are free agents, creative professionals, part-timers and inventors. We also put this spin on mistakes when we're avoiding responsibility, dismissing guilt trips and scoffing at control freaks.

Thus it's not very effective to adopt a particular approach to mistakes. Every kind of mistake is realistic and worthy of consideration. Some are to be avoided and others to be sought after. In fact it's even possible to make a mistake about making mistakes by avoiding the ones to seek out and pursuing the ones to be avoided. Then it's a question of learning from that mistake or continuing to make it.

Four questions in constant use

2009-07-15T16:08:00.002-06:00

I've begin pondering what prerequisites may need to be fulfilled for the reversals I'm anticipating will occur as part of the Tetrad of transitions I explored last week. One of the first prerequisites that occurred to me is an advance to the latter pair of these four questions we utilize constantly.

We always have a question in mind in order to evaluate what we're facing. If we had no question in mind, we could not make a choice, decision or move in any direction. The question we use influences how we filter and bias our perceptions. It gives us a slant to what it means, makes sense as and signifies to us.

Question One: Is it good? Yes or no? It cannot be both. There are no two ways about it. Either it's good or it's not.
This question works great for survival. There's no messing around with value judgments and tradeoffs in the midst of imminent danger. Every potential quandary presents a clear cut choice. Question One functions for "fight or flight" responses. It's valuable when making snap judgments, jumping to conclusions or reacting to the slightest sign of danger. It gets us out of trouble quickly. Question One keeps us alive in the absence of safety, abundance, compassion and unity.

Question Two: How good is it? Rate it on a scale that compares it to others. Score it according to standard measurements that single out the best and identify the worst.
This question works great for competition, contests and spending. It compares, sizes up and sorts out options. It shows they way to improve, do better than others and win at their expense. Every messy situation gets framed in win/lose terms with the possibility of coming out ahead or falling behind, getting upstaged or beat. Question Two functions for being a machine, performing reliably, playing by the rules and conforming to norms. It's valuable when scheming a tactical assault, opposing the opposition or struggling against toxicity. It gets us on top of the challenging situation if we apply ourselves with dedication, discipline and determination. Question Two keeps us from falling in with a bunch of losers, drifters, incompetents or slackers.

Question Three: How is it good? What's there to appreciate about it? How does function, make a difference and provide results in this context?
This question works great for relating, learning and changing our approaches. It gets past appearances to the underlying issues. It shows us ways to express gratitude, show respect and understand value being offered. Every potential quandary offers more to explore, discover and connect the dots. Question Three functions for getting creative, finding more avenues to explore and changing strategies. It's valuable when wanting others to feel understood, respected and included in teamwork. It gets us to be open minded, receptive to contradictory inputs and considerate of complex issues. Question Three keeps us from feeding conflicts, needing to be right and escalating misunderstandings.

Question Four: How is this perfect? What is better for the system that connects us all. How is this a win/win/win for everybody's diverse interests?
This question works great for getting in the flow of one good thing after another. It attracts synchronicities where requests seemed to be answered without any struggle. Every messy situation gets allowed without resistance, fear or intolerance. Question Four functions for forgiving others, letting go of the past and enjoying the present moment. It's valuable when wanting to be free of anxiety, guilt and grudges. It gets us to sense what to do next, to keep our lives in balance and back off from any extreme endeavors. Question Four keeps us feeling connected to everyone of us, eternal in a mortal body and fascinated by what happens to occur.

Obviously Question Four is my favorite, though it's the one I most often forget to ask. Yet it seems essential for the collaborations and transformations I foresee in the coming decade.

Making instruction more inclusive

2009-07-14T14:12:00.001-06:00

Neil LaChapelle recently mentioned on LinkedIn that he is "trying to design a new, more inclusive online class structure". With my recent reading of books addressing issues like employee engagement, tribal mindsets, social capital, and crowdsourced contributions, my head is full of ideas for inclusive structure.

I know from experience that an instructional design will appear exclusive and disinterested in the learners when it's "covering the material". The premise of working at content to deliver or expertise to transfer sets up a closed system. Opening it up for any kind of involvement will slow down the pace, drop out some of the material or give the wrong impression by drifting "off message". Formal content and recognized expertise are presumed to already be right, finalized and authoritative. It appears senseless to make the content wrong, incomplete or questionable when considering "how to cover the material".

Inclusion makes all the sense in the world when we start from a different premise. Here's an array of different premises and how each leads to more inclusive structures:

What if the content is a "beta release / work in progress" getting refined or finalized by incorporating varied user experiences. The design needs to be open to learners inputs that can further the progress, refine the upgrades or redirect an unresponsive approach.
What if comprehending the material cannot be done heroically, in isolation or by independent study. The design needs to allow for the comprehension to emerge from the complexity of varied voices, viewpoints and frames of reference among the social network included in the design.
What if the structure is an experiment that uses the learners subjects to study the effects of the content on their mood, motivation, initiative, creativity or other responses. The structure then needs to include the subjects as the real subject matter in order to experiment with different versions of the content to realize the best effects.
What if the tutoring of individual learners outside of the scheduled times is too time consuming to be feasible. The design needs to scale the tutoring by arranging for peers to help each other with requests for additional examples, restatements of the original idea, clarifications, feedback on trial formulations, working through sample test questions, etc.
What if the content is known to produce confusion in the minds of most learners. The design needs their input to explain their confusion, tryout alternative clarifications and get feedback on the degree of success with each attempt at alleviating the confusion.
What if the content is inherently useless until learners take the initiative to apply it in a personal context. The structure needs to be open to contexts provided by the learners where uses can be made of the content, questions about adapting the abstract principles/skills in pragmatic ways and practice thinking through the content in realistic scenarios.
What if the content is a solution to the learners' particular problem that will get perceived by them as valuable, easy to remember and worth doing well. The structure needs to include the learners as the customers who will takeaway the value, put the ideas to work and test their viability as solutions to problems they face right now.
What if the content can be learned, but it cannot be taught. The design needs to tell stories, play games and and solve mysteries to see if the learners "get it" without being told something abstract that "isn't really it".

Of course this is only a partial list in beta release that's known to generate lots of confusion when crammed with heroic efforts. :-)

Hacking a third nature

2009-07-13T15:45:00.001-06:00

Over the weekend, I've been getting my head around McKenzie Wark's A Hacker's Manifesto. Here are a few of my ruminations from passages that have resonated with me deeply.

There is a realm of pure potentiality, unfettered by limitations or necessities. In this realm, all is possible. Thus any contact with this realm is an experience of abundance and freedom from scarcity. This realm is virtual, not yet actual. It is natural, not contrived by human nature or modified into a second nature. It is living, not dead, inert or rigid.

We enter this realm by going within, by being empty of preconceptions and by waiting for inspirations to come to mind in their own good time. We may label this realm cosmic consciousness, the Universal Mind or some other representation of it's infinite potential. This is where we go when we get creative, inspired, innovative or in the flow of coincidental occurrences.

Those among us who access this realm with elegance and technical sophistication are hackers. We bring what is virtual into the actual. We disrupt the status quo with more of what's infinitely possible and abundant. It costs us nothing to take ideas, answers and solutions from this realm into our understandings, designs and expressions.

Costs, limitations and necessities only come into play when the hacks get communicated and replicated. A material component involves commercial transactions. The world of scarcity enters into the picture. The freedom from limitation and experience of abundance get lost in translation. What felt very much live when accessing it become dead communicable forms to be shared with others.

There's no going back to the original nature of the virtually infinite possibilities. The second nature of limitation, necessity and scarcity offers yet another opportunity to elegantly hack the status quo. The second nature can get abstracted by redefining the problems, reframing the evidence, re-conceptualizing the limitations and reinventing the obvious. A third nature will emerge that better reflects the unfettered and abundant source of the original inspirations.

Choose your struggle urgently

2009-07-11T09:54:00.001-06:00

Rather than turn the tables on each kind of toxicity I explored yesterday, most of us get an urge to help others struggle against it. Without knowing the minds of those we oppose, we try to fix them for good in spite of their doing no good. We think we have chosen the good fight. if we are among those who are intoxicated by the toxicity, we are almost no help to our cause. We need others assistance, advocacy and guidance. Our needs can justify the struggle they feel the urge to pursue. When we are:

excluded by toxic exclusivity, we bait others to join our struggle for legitimacy
exploited by toxic exploitation, we lure others to fight in our struggle for justice
manipulated by toxic manipulations, we provoke others to struggle for our control
deceived by toxic deceptions, we spur others to struggle for the undisclosed truth

Struggling for legitimacy - Whenever we lose our legitimacy, we feel silenced, dismissed and ignored. We struggle to express ourselves against inner critics and outer cynics. We cannot handle rejection because we've already experienced an overdose of contempt. We use artistic, athletic or ostentatious endeavors in pursuit of our elusive legitimacy. We show off and sound off to get attention, recognition and respect. We seek out stages, platforms, walls and halls where it will be difficult to ignore us. Anyone who helps us be on display and build an audience of fans has joined our struggle against toxic exclusion.

Struggling for justice - Whenever we've been exploited by injustice, we feel powerless, persecuted and anxiety ridden. We think we've been singled out, much to our embarrassment. We're convinced there's nothing we can do about it considering how intimidating, huge and overwhelming the opposition appears to us. We're paranoid about how things are going to get worse, set another trap for us or ambush us when we're least expecting another violation of our rights. We use excuses, defensive rationalizations and self pity to accept our fate and avoid a fight. Anyone who frames this challenge as a "class struggle" helps us live with chronic exploitation. We admire litigators, legislators and liberators who fight on our behalf.

Struggling for control - Whenever we've been manipulated by false promises, hype or bribes, we feel cheated, vulnerable and trapped. We think to build a large consensus and introduce contrary spin. We figure two can play this game and use the tactics of the manipulators against them. We politicize the struggle, adopt positional stances and exaggerate our selling points. We explore which arguments get traction, which stories evoke sympathy and which scenarios capture others' imaginations. Anyone who helps us manage our impressions, improve our image and position us more effectively has helped us gain control over toxic manipulators.

Struggling for undisclosed truth - Whenever we've been deceived by hypocrites, we feel alerted to watch for mixed messages, hidden meanings and revelations of hidden agendas. We no longer take people at their word or trust their intentions. We read too much into what they say as they lose credibility by saying too much. We let their actions speak louder than their words while assuming they cannot walk their talk, honor their commitments or earn anyone else's respect. We approach them with questions that reveal our suspicions, crap detectors and hostility. Anyone who helps us pry the truth out of these weasels has helped us put an end to the latest round of deceptions.

All four of these struggles fall short of transformation. They fail to cleanup the toxicity. They feed the states of mind which yield more toxic behaviors. Struggling against toxicity maintains a breeding ground for more toxicity. They merely provide all the more reason to throw the toxicity for a loop.

Turning the tables on toxicity

2009-07-10T11:02:00.000-06:00

What if this Tetrad of extending, reversing, retrieving and retiring transitions from our pervasive connectivity can put an end to toxic enterprises and governance? What if we can turn the tables on the toxicity without massive resources, well equipped armies or political power over the opponents? What if we can leverage our interdependent freedom to move the goal posts and disrupt the incumbents with new value propositions. What if we can simply:

exclude the exclusivity from our new inclusive arrangement
exploit the weaknesses of the exploitative elite with our hidden prowess
manipulate the ambitions of mercenary manipulators without ambitions of our own
deceive the predictions of deceptive hypocrites with disarming appearances

How is it possible to turn the tables on toxicity?

Exclusivity is a defense against getting rejected, abandoned or ostracized. Exclusivity puts up walls, maintains barriers and creates distance to maintain a story of superiority, advantage and privilege. Those who act exclusive have no problems with outsiders getting excluded. In their minds exclusion is inevitable, justified and merely the facts of life. Getting excluded by those who are excluded by necessity does not even put a blip on their radar screen. Those who object to getting excluded will face the facts of life sooner or later. However, being the ones to get excluded is the worst nightmare of those who practice exclusivity. It would seem their fortresses had failed and left them literally defenseless. It's inconceivable that those they exclude could give them a taste of their own medicine. Such an occurrence would change their facts of life, objective necessities and reliable forecasts for staying out of trouble.

Exploitation is a sign of hidden weakness (insecurities, vulnerabilities, inadequacies, inferiorities). Bullies can dish out abuse, but not take it from their victims, because fair fights push their hot buttons. Exploitation is designed to keep their prey on the defensive, intimidated by evidence and apprehensive about future encounters. In their minds, exploitation is justified by their victims' lack of power, control, discipline, rivalry or revenge. They depend on their prey to keep up the entanglement. Getting shown up to be their own worst enemy by those who can exploit their hidden weaknesses can only be devastating. There's no comeback possible when the rug has been pulled out from under their feet.

Manipulation reveals the designs of those overly-ambitious and under-qualified tacticians to be in control, proven right and safe from criticism. They shoot messengers who discredit their propaganda or expose their incompetence. They convince others they really are deviant, defective, or deficient so as to keep them susceptible to manipulations. In their minds, they are really relating, showing consideration, and providing value. They have no concept of being manipulative, trashing relationships, being inconsiderate or destroying value. People who see them as manipulative are clearly ungrateful, clueless or self absorbed. Getting ambushed by their own ambitions leading them astray would burst their bubble.

Deception is a necessity for two-faced hypocrites. In the midst of deceiving themselves about their dark side, they automatically dish out lies, scams and other deceptions as a coverup. They worship false idols, idealize perfection and exalt themselves for their noble aspirations. They assume humility is for those who have fallen from grace, lost their way and abandoned their aspirations. They collude with those who feed their egos and take pride in the same illusions. In their minds they are right without question, providing leadership and raising the standard for those making less of a pretense of pursuing idealism. To be exposed as a hypocrite would come as such a disgrace as to shatter their faith in their ideals and themselves.

Each of these forms of toxicity are delusional states of mind. They are self-justifying without the ability to detect their errors or to utilize discrepant feedback. They cannot stop themselves from doing more harm to others' lives or doing what they always do. They are predictable predators who are easily out-maneuvered by those not spellbound by their toxic illusions. When we can see how exclusivity, exploitation, manipulation and deception function out of necessity, we can take out the shaky ground they stand on. The potential for transformation gets realized by being more complex than these simple-minded delusions. We let this newly formed robust and resilient network to take effect on deliberate disconnects, determinations of necessity and devotions to isolation.

Retrieving that tribal feeling

2009-07-09T11:14:00.001-06:00

When we wandered around in hunter/gather mode, we had a tribal feeling. When we settled down into small villages with surrounding farms, we kept that tribal feeling. When we helped out with the mechanized production of goods and scientific methods applied to mysterious conditions, we lost that tribal feeling. We got labeled as irrational, superstitious, unrealistic, and uncivilized if we tried to hang on to that tribal feeling. We were late to work, undisciplined and impractical if we kept feeling tribal. So we got rid of that feeling and took to thinking about everything instead. We kept a lid on our feelings which maintained conditions like chronic anxiety, outbursts of misdirected hostility and lingering emotional baggage.

We're getting that feeling back thanks to the effects of pervasive connectivity. It's different this time around. This new version is compatible with our rationality, objectivity and advanced civilizations. Advances in cognitive neuroscience are showing us how to achieve the best of both: tribal feelings along with disciplined advances in governance, production, societal support systems, cultures and lifestyles. We can realize the integration of rationality and irrationality, thinking and feeling, as well as passions and higher purposes. We can achieve solidarity and cohesion when we bond through online connections. We can feel like we've joined something significant while contributing to and benefiting from the connection.

Our tribal feelings come from a place in our brains that does not keep track of time. It can hold a grudge through generations as if the dishonor happened yesterday. It can vividly recall moments of seemingly magical perfection as if no time has passed. This place also opts for participatory consciousness, losing track of oneself and becoming one with out object of fascination. This pattern makes for intense experiences of motherhood, fatherhood, or brother and sister hood. It makes it natural to stick together, protect each other and sacrifice our lives for the greater good of the tribe. This place responds emotionally to everything that happens and everything under consideration. We speak of this as "listening to our heart's desire" or "going with our gut".

Game designers, movie makers, concert producers and festival organizers already know this. If you're like me, you've had those tribal feelings in many of those experiences. It's also what comes over us when we fall in love with someone or become obsessed with some pursuit. We are "out of our mind" and into our feelings that defy our ability to justify our actions. However, our neocortex can kick in. We can get a grip, come back to our senses and restore our rationality. When we realize the integration, we can enjoy that wonderful feeling while doing something intellectual, analytical or pragmatic. Writing for this blog feels like that on most days. The pervasive connectivity is making it more likely, accessible and common for all of us to get into feeling tribal every day.

Anticipating inconceivable reversals

2009-07-08T11:44:00.001-06:00

Reversals are inconceivable when we're caught up in moving forward with conviction, determination and familiarity. Reversals come as a big surprise whether they occur at a personal level in a process of integration, or at a global scale in a process of emergent complexity. As I explored in Offline Online Inline, Marshall McLuhan was fascinated by our collective blindness to the changes coming over us. He perceived that people caught up in the mainstream paradigm could not see the signs, notice the effects or predict the transformation underway. He valued artists, prophets, the next generation for living on the edge of society and being able to foretell and forewarn the oblivious masses. When McLuhan included the pattern of reversal in his Tetrad of media effects, he had in mind reverting to a tribal village mode of interrelating and a pointless mode of perception. He expected us to lose our point of view, our individual perspective about all of us and our detachment as we became immersed in what we know call digital media and platforms. He would not be surprised by Gen Y's multitasking, messaging and playing online games all night.

One of the sets of reversals I'm anticipating relates to the post-scarcity economy that Michel Bauwens continually explores and the 21st capitalism that Umair Haque writes about often. Economic analysis can explore distinctions like value creation vs. value destruction, exchange-value vs. use-value, authentic vs. artificial scarcities and premises of abundance vs scarcity. These reversals I'm foreseeing introduce some other variables such as job design, social capital, psychic income and sufficiency.

The industrial (a.k.a. scarcity, zombie, 20th century capitalist) economy designed jobs for production results and fit people into those slots. When individuals demonstrated skill gaps, weaknesses or a lack of talent, training and accountability measures were applied to eliminate the person's problem. The premise of fitting the person into the job remained unquestioned. The typical lack of results from such "improvement efforts" merely brought on the same accountability measures applied to training departments and human resource functions. Shared expectations about fitting people to jobs validated this approach and justified it's abuses. Personnel problems (turnover, low morale, loss of motivation, burnout, lack of initiative, office politics, apathy, etc) merely proved that people had deficiencies yet to be corrected or accountabilities that needed to be tightened. There was an underlying story advising managers to automatically "turn up the heat to get results while getting those who cannot stand the heat out of the kitchen". The reversal here will turn down the heat and fit the job to the unique person in it who reliably functions as a charismatic leader with a vision, values, particular passions and a significant purpose in being there.

The industrial economy expected people to enjoy themselves away from work and then buckle down at work. Managers could practice deceit, deceptions and manipulations so long as the workforce encountered honesty, integrity and transparency off the job. Workload could be oppressive, unfair and abusive while the workforce could let off steam by taking a break, abusing their bodies or going on a yearly vacation. The products and customer service could do a disservice to buyers, require hard selling to push prospects into submission and get steadily cheapened by cost savings measures so long as the workforce could really care for others, serve their communities and feel good about their efforts away from the job. All this spurred the deep investments in social capital and child rearing in each community's after school activities, fraternal organizations, volunteer projects, religious fellowships and civic involvements. The reversal here will yield social capital from investments in contributing to and benefiting from peer production, peer property and peer governance.

The industrial economy generates a huge cognitive surplus, as Clay Shirky calls it, that has enabled the phenomenal quantity and quality of Web 2.0 contributions. Employees are not sufficiently challenged, understood, utilized or respected at work to capture that dynamo of resourcefulness on the job. Employees expect to "do time serving their sentence", be disengaged, get mismanaged and endure the hardships by becoming tough. The only options are to game the system or get gamed by the system that looks to take advantage of every sign of softness, cooperation or vulnerability. The reversal here will get work done by transforming it into non-zero-sum games worth playing around on the job, where everyone wins and looks out for each other.

The industrial economy thrived on fueling insatiable needs for mass consumption and ostentatious materialism. By keeping people feeling insufficient, inadequate and defective, they would continue to alleviate those awful feelings by compulsive shopping and showing off their acquisitions, escapades and expanding stockpile. By extending massive credit to unworthy borrowers, business operations and investors, this house of cards was taken up to new heights of human folly. This shared psychology of "never enough" inevitably yields the burst bubbles, credit shortages, loss of consumer confidence, and under employment of the current global recession. The reversal here will provide everyone with a feeling of profound sufficiency that results by earning a massive psychic income from making a difference in other's lives with one's own self expression, continual learning, personal reflections and deepening understanding of other individuals.

Internalizing entrepreneurial successes

2009-07-07T08:22:00.000-06:00

When we're acting like passive consumers, we take what we're given. We do what we're told to do in school and then at work. We buy what's on the shelf at the store. We pay the ticket price the travel agent gives us. We watch the TV show when it's broadcast. We read what appears on the printed pages of our newspaper or magazine subscriptions. We listen to all the music tracks on a vinyl record or prerecorded tape.

When we're acting like active consumers, we shop around and make up our own minds. We get the results we're told to accomplish in the ways we choose. We compare brands, specs, reviews and prices as we shop for the best choice. We time shift broadcasts to watch at our convenience with interruptions at our own discretion. We cancel subscriptions and read selectively. We listen to CD's or MP3 players where we can shuffle play the music tracks and push a "next" button.

When we're acting like prosumers, we identify with successful consumer brands. We discover our strengths and recognize our own talents. We sell ourselves as hired guns who can solve problems, put out fires and deliver results. We expect people to buy what we're selling once we establish our credibility, prove our reliability and display our popularity. We generate content, connect with colleagues, follow news from others and share our latest incidents transparently. We brand ourselves and then invest in the brand, stay true to it and protect it from damage.

When we're acting like collaborators with and contributors to productive communities, we internalize the models that make entrepreneurs successful. We question what we're bringing to the table. We realize our offer is getting compared to rivals with different mixes and specialties. We enter the world of those we expect to buy what we're selling. We see ourselves through their eyes and value our offer on their terms. We look for ways to solve their problems, ease their pain, facilitate their progress, and support their endeavors. We figure out how to be of service, make a real difference and turn our caring for them into results they appreciate. We become a business model as we monetize these impacts, outcomes and solutions. Our value proposition gets bought and buzzed by others without hype, spin or showing off from us. Our brand gets hijacked, crowdsourced and owned by the buyers.

When we realize this fourth stage of personal development, we're ready for the next economy. We're well placed to change in every which way that's getting brought on by pervasive connectivity. We're in a good place to connect at an emotional level with actively engaged tribes.

Changing every which way

2009-07-06T09:49:00.004-06:00

While I've been writing here about emergent complexity for the past month, I've had a question in the back of my mind. "How will all these transitions fit into Marshall McLuhan's Tetrad of media effects?" Back in 1988, McLuhan wrote about the patterns of effects that new media have on current and previous media. Time and again he perceived how new media provided extensions to our current capabilities, over-extended something else until is reversed, retired something that had been rendered obsolete, and revived something that had been previously retired.

When new media take effect, we lose the form and alter the function for the next round. When horseless carriages came along, we continued to benefit from what horse-pulled carriages did for us without the horses, feed, grooming, mucking stables, and blacksmiths. We'd go for rides when no horses were available. When phonographs entered our world, we continued to listen to music performed by others without getting dressed up, going into town, buying tickets, sitting in concert halls and applauding after the performance. We could listen to music on the Victrola anytime of day or night.

I've previously explored this Tetrad of media effects in 2007: Sense of timing from pervasive connectivity and in 2008: Emergent global implosion and Imploding into homeostasis. With my most recent exploration of complexity, I'm seeing a new pattern of these four effects that I will explain in detail this week:

Entrepreneurs currently talk fluently about their value propositions as solutions to customer problems and business models for fitting into market spaces or bridging intersections between paths. As our pervasive connectivity takes further effect, I foresee this entrepreneurial technology being EXTENDED to a personal level. We will be thinking "I am a business model" and "I offer a value proposition" when we contribute to online collaborations, crowdsourced projects and productive commons.
We are currently in a phase of being very generous, caring and free with our time, creativity, knowledge and talents. It's evident in the phenomenal amount of "user generated content" that gets uploaded every minute. This is a reversal from being selfish, greedy, mercenary and controlling. However, this mode of contribution is headed toward becoming over-extended and REVERSED. It's gone too far and seeks a winning combination of win/win, mutually balanced and fair deals among us.
We are seeing a resurgence of tribal activities in international conflicts, online games, urban crime and political activism. These transitional forms are hostile, adversarial and disruptive, yet they foretell a REVIVAL of tribal feelings, emotional engagement and solidarity.
As communities become more resourceful, helpful to each other and resilient, there will be less need for the old economic and governance structures. Institutions and market mechanisms designed for dependent citizenry and passive consumers are becoming obsolete. Societies will RETIRE these bulwarks of the old economy that now seem toxic, abusive, unresponsive and counter-productive.

Furthering complex evolution

2009-07-04T09:51:00.000-06:00

Living systems naturally become more complex through encounters with external complexity. The system's current inability to be receptive and/or responsive to inputs from outside triggers adaptation or assimilation processes. Feedback from the 'failed encounter" provokes added considerations, alternatives and routines. External complexity begets internal complexity.

Mechanisms cannot become more complex. Automated systems cannot change their own rules, learn from feedback or adapt to unfamiliar inputs. Mechanisms can only play by their rules and reliably do what they always do. They succeed in the ways they previously succeeded. Like the boy with a hammer in his hand, everything looks like the head of nail. Mechanisms do their thing when it's called for according to it's own rules which overrules any indicators of variety, change or added complexity.

Humans and human systems are hybrids between living systems and mechanisms. When these hybrids function like living systems, we label them open, permeable, responsive, adaptive, learning and complex systems. When they function as mechanisms, we label them as closed, defensive, unresponsive, dysfunctional, stuck and overly simplistic systems. In order to function as a living system, these hybrids need to be curious in a place where it's safe to make mistakes. This contrasts with situations where mistakes are fatal or extremely costly because survival or a zero-sum success is at stake.

We can further the evolution of the human hybrids by any of the following strategies, among others:

Giving permission to make mistakes, learn from errors without test anxiety and debug the current understanding by seeing where it messes up.
Giving protection from devastating failures through social safety nets, "retests for full credit", and "game over play again?" frames
Giving acknowledgment of current intentions, constraints, and obligations which open closed minds and lower defenses
Giving expectations to become more responsive, better adapted and more complex in response to the external complexity

When we give like this, we get back in return. We launch a cycle which nurtures further complexity. We reverse the cycle that withholds these gifts until the system performs correctly. We undo the relentless production of anxiety, defensive rationalizations and fear of making mistakes. We give the treatment we'd like to receive when aspiring to become more complex.

Reversals on the way to integration

2009-07-03T11:00:00.000-06:00

In my introduction to the process of psychological integration, I used the example of "it's all about me" becoming "it's all about you" to explain the phase called reversal. There are several other examples to be explored for this integration thing so seem widely applicable.

When we're chasing after a pet house cat with no success, we may suddenly reverse our approach and get the cat to come to us. We stop intimidating the cat with our huge size and speed by getting seated down on the floor or in a chair. Rather than trying to catch the cat, we become alluring and patient so the cat comes around to check us out. We drop out of appearing so predictable with our one goal in mind to being mysterious and hard to predict our next move.
When we are convinced we have to push to get our way, get our product sold, or get others convinced, it's quite a turnaround to switch to pulling. Rather than sell, we set up others to sell themselves. Rather than tell, we ask and listen. Rather than pitch the features and benefits, we get them thinking about potential uses in their own context. We switch from creating product to creating demand for the product.
When we're thinking as if the sun revolves around the earth, we're convinced we are center of attention, irreplaceable and the most important person in the room. When we go through a personal experience of the Copernican revolution, it's as if we are one more planet in the solar system. Now we are paying attention to all the other centers and are no more important than everyone else. It's as if we've been dancing on a tabletop looking down on others and are suddenly seated at the table among equals, looking eye to eye at each other.
When our past history is in the foreground, we're consumed with telling everyone what happened to us, how to sympathize with our plight and why we cannot change because of our damage. The background contains what is happening now that we assume is of no significance. After a figure/ground reversal, our past history is suddenly in the background. In the foreground we can smell the coffee, enjoy the day and show interest in the little things we've been ignoring.
When we're trying to make change happen, we're opposed to stability because it looks like stagnation, resistance to change and no progress at all. When we flip/flop into an effective change strategy, we deepen everyone's experience of stability by exploring what's too good to lose, what won't change amidst the transition and why there's so much worth keeping as is. This gives people solid ground to stand on, familiarity amidst the strangeness and enough safety to cope with the dangers.
When people are not learning what we're teaching, preaching or presenting, we assume they are too stupid, unmotivated or preoccupied to get the great material we're sharing. There's no way the problem could be in our "sage on stage", "big mouth" approach. When we get turned around, we become the "guide on the side" with a smaller mouth. We speak of how the message has effected other audiences, how to avoid mistaking the message for something else, or how to take the ideas and run with them to get a better result.
When we're totally opposed to something, it's clear in our minds that it is totally wrong, bad, dysfunctional, toxic, harmful or evil. No good can come of it and there's no two ways about it. If we get thrown for a loop, our comprehension gets complicated. We see the good that comes with the bad, the bigger picture that plays off our opposition and the unintended side effects of being totally opposed to something. We figure out how to allow, appreciate and respect what was previously unacceptable.

In each of these examples, the initial position is a contamination. There's no way to be any different at the start. No amount of convincing the person to change will have it's intended effect. Until a complete turnaround occurs, there's only the kind of changes that amount to no change at all.

Integration of tribes into civil society

2009-07-02T09:11:00.000-06:00

Tribes have a disintegrating effect on law and order when they are not integrated into their civil societies. This pattern is obvious at the scale of nation-states with warring tribes, military juntas, smuggling rings, urban gangs and drug cartels. Their honor code refutes the imposed legal code that frames them as "outlaws" to be hunted down and killed. The same pattern emerges less violently within stable institutions as the shared identities of political action groups, sports teams, fraternities, "the old guard", splinter groups, rival factions, and privileged elites. Tribes within institutions undermine change efforts, polarize issues in need of consensus and disrupt more inclusive communities.

When we're outsiders to a tribe, we can see them "doing the tribe thing" in an unstoppable way that does not listen to reason. It looks to our uppity outlook like they are over-identified with their shared identity, solidarity and safety in numbers. Their devotion to their own kind, while demonizing outsiders, appears dysfunctional and counter productive from our separate perspective. We can perceive how the tribes don't get how they've become contaminated, captivated and compromised by "being a tribe" This outlook falls far short of integrating tribes into our civil society. We look down on tribal behavior as if we're superior and levels above all that. Devaluing tribes merely returns the favor of being devoted to our own non-tribal kind while demonizing "those nasty tribes". Our counter dependence on tribes is getting us nowhere quickly. We are feeding the tribe problem by doing unto tribes as they do unto us.

When its no longer about us, we can respect tribes with what we now discover. We reverse our outlook so it's all about them that we now care about, respect and seek to include. We then see what results tribes are able to get successfully. We see how appealing tribes are to our human emotions, urges and instincts. We see how similar "doing the tribal thing" is to getting followers, building a fan base, generating buzz and spawning loyalty. We realize that tribes aren't all bad and don't have it all wrong. We learn a lesson as if tribes are our teachers. We get the point of tribes doing their thing to fire up emotions, engender enthusiasm and inspire dedication. We discover common ground with tribes when we outgrow using policies, "law and order" enforcement and institutional doctrines to get buy-in. Totems, tokens and rituals take on new meanings. We realize the benefits of tribal conduct in market niche creation, advertising campaigns, product launches and crowdsourced innovations.

When it's no longer about them, we can integrate tribes into civil society. It's about all of us with no one excluded. The feeling of belonging, connection and interdependency becomes palpable. We "come from a tribal place" where it makes sense we're all in the same tribe beyond the level of obvious differences. Mutual respect becomes the new norm. Stories change as members of tribes, institutions and markets get the societal transformation that's emerging. Misunderstandings get cleared up as we depend more on each other with added trust, respect, and fascination. It appears we've done the integration thing at a personal level and it has shown up on the outside as our experience of living in the world.

Personal integration - relational interdependence

2009-07-01T15:25:00.000-06:00

David Ronfeldt's latest post has given us tons of food for thought on ways to characterize the evolution of society beyond tribes, institutions and markets. Today I'll explore my uses of the concept of "integration" and tie it into the relational grammars I previously aligned with his TIMN framework. Ronfeldt wrote:

Consider how Adler and Heckscher associate hierarchies with dependence, markets with independence, and collaborative community with interdependence. Okay, I see their point. But it may also be true that hierarchies and markets are rife with their own interdependencies. Furthermore, the interdependencies may become so deep and intricate that a term (and a spectrum) with the root “depend” isn’t accurate enough anymore — terms like interconnection and internetted and integration may make more sense.

Rather than replace "interdependency" with "integration", I see the two as very complimentary. Likewise contamination and co-dependency together explain why people join tribes, why tribes endure and why tribal conflicts are so common. Separation and counter-dependence together explain why people seek employment in institutions, why institutions outlive their usefulness and why institutions are rife with political infighting, turf battles and memo wars. Reversals and independence together explain why entrepreneurs innovate, relate well to their customers and serve markets better than institutional providers. Finally integration and interdependence together explain how civil society can be transformed by unheard levels of contributions, cooperation, collaboration and communication among all of us. Here's a more detailed look at those combinations:

Contamination: When I'm thinking "I'm just being myself" there's no way I can stop that or start being someone else. My concept precludes any choices or changes. I have to be this. I expect others to accept me as I am, get off my case and get where I'm coming from. I'm unconsciously identified with being myself and preclude identification with anything else. Being myself is serious devotion not to be laughed at, satirized or criticized. Any contrary view will be taken as a insult that will inspire retaliation. Nobody can tell me an differently and expect me to understand, relate or learn from their input. This psychological condition is called a contamination because there is no separation in my psyche from my all-consuming identity. I am preoccupied by it, enchanted with it, and possessed by it -- without being able to admit that, see it or detach myself from it. If something has gotten into me, gotten ahold of me or gotten the best of me, I don't know it. There's no limit to what we can get contaminated by. For tribes it's being identified with their tribe, its history and its shared identity.
Co-dependence: When you're feeling upset, I'm feeling upset too. There's no way I can feel differently from each other. We share an identity that precludes any separate feelings. When someone insults you, I'm insulted too. We're in this together totally and nobody can pulls us apart. I cannot: handle your feelings getting hurt, help you cope with it or let the insult go myself. All I can do is cling to it like it just happened, join you in holding grudges, commiserate with you over this misfortune and remain entangled with your reactions. It's called "co-dependence" because we're both depending on each other to prop up our faltering confidence, to hide our insecurities and to shift the blame onto others besides ourselves. We're using each other as crutches so we don't have to stand on our own two feet, look ourselves in the mirror or take responsibility for our effects on others. There's no stopping a co-dependent relationship, For tribes, it's perpetuated as traditions, rituals, and resentments that keeps all the members feeling the same about themselves and outsiders.
Separation: When I'm thinking "I'm doing that thing I usually do", I'm no longer identified with it. I've separated myself from being it to doing it with detachment. Now I can stop it when I want to and do or be something else. I have choices and can change. I can leave work at work and have a life at home. I can enjoy weekends and vacations from doing that thing I do. I can get better that that thing and break with traditions too. I'm in the right frame of mind to leave a tribe and join the rank and file of an institution. I can join an army and fight for a cause. I can join a workforce and do time in a paycheck prison. I can commit crimes and do time in a guarded prison.
Counter-dependence: When you're telling me what to do, I'll find ways to give it lip service and do something else. When you're saying "from now on we're going to change", I'll be thinking "here we go again and won't these big announcements ever change". I'm having a problem with authority figures to break out of my previous mindless dependency, compliance and conformity. Being employed by an institution provides lots of authority figures, policies, directives and chains of command to take issue with. My walking the fine line between insubordination and acceptable defiance keeps life interesting for me while inducing bureaucratic stagnation in the institution.
Reversal: When I'm thinking "what can I do to better serve you?", it's no longer about me. I've reversed my outlook from winning at your expense to looking after how you can win with my help. I'm thinking about what you're trying to do, what position you're in and what's keeping you from being more successful. I'm setting myself up to be caring, understanding, responsive and innovative. I've got what it takes to become entrepreneurial, take a market by storm and better serve the customers than my rivals. If I take a hit, it's a lesson about what I've been missing, what I can change for the better and what revised strategy will better serve the market.
Independence: When you're telling me how you respect me, I can stand on my own two feet. When we're relating as equals, I can own my mistakes and take responsibility for how I come across. When you're giving me challenges in line with the ways I'm growing, I'm going to value who you are, where you're coming from and what we've got going between us. My outlook on relating comes across to customers as exceptional service, reliability and partnering that generates more value, useful purchases and loyalty to my market-driven enterprise.
Integration: When I'm thinking "it takes both your winning and my winning too", it's no longer about you, it's about us. If we don't both win, we both lose out on the combinations that generate so much synergy and beneficial spinoffs for us. The more responsive I get to you, the more receptive you get to me, and vice versa. The more we collaborate, the more we will see ways to be more efficient and effective by relying on each other. We bring out the best in each other by being there for each other. Our shared outlook sets up outcomes easily falling into place that previously involved lengthy struggles, huge investments and excessive controls.
Interdependence: When you're telling me what you're relying on me for and how I'm free to get it done as I see best, I can do the same to you in return. When you are getting me hooked up with others you depend on, they then find ways to depend on me. Before long there are so many of us depending on each other, together amazing things get accomplished. The way we work makes short work of what could not even be achieved by heroics, throwing money at problems or experts strutting their stuff.

Contamination, separation, reversal and integration captures a psychological evolution from weak ego states to full maturity. The stages define how we change with experience how we think, conceptualize, identify and comprehend our world. Co-dependence, counter-dependence, independence and interdependence are a relational grammar. They characterize how we're getting along, dealing with differences in our power and relating to each other's potentials. Together, these two frameworks say something useful about patterns of societal evolution also.

Leading as if we're great

2009-06-30T09:14:00.001-06:00

I'm in the midst of reading two books about leadership. They've already tied together in my mind with the leadership college courses I've taught and my latest exploration of our tribal mindsets. First there is a question of size. How big is the leader's constituency of followers and/or contributors? If the size is under the Dunbar number of 148, it's possible, but not inevitable, it will feel like belonging to a tribe with wonderful solidarity. It's small enough for everyone to be on a first name basis and familiar with each others uniqueness. If the following exceeds the Dunbar number, questions of authority will enter into the mix to handle the overwhelming number of people. When the gathering is smaller than 148, the leader can act as if "we're great". When it's bigger, the leader is inclined to act as if "I'm great". Any question of authority explores "how am I great?, not "what are the effects of acting as if I'm great"?

Tribal Leadership points out a telltale sign of the "we're great" approach: meeting in triads. The leader gets two others together to familiarize each other with their value. The attention is on the others, much like the practice of servant leadership. The leader already honors both with recognition of what they bring to the table. There is a metaphorical table to bring value to and meet others at. Those at the table feel honored to be recognized for their value. They get a clear concept of their personal value proposition from how they get recognized, how they compare with others and how they appreciate the value they see in others. Everyone at the table is capable of telling another how she or he is valuable. The mutual honoring of each other fires up the contributions, collaborations and cooperation among the tribal members.

When a leader is acting as if "I'm great", there is no recognition of how others bring value to the table. There is no table to be seated at, eye to eye, with the leader and tribe members. The conversations are dyadic: pulled aside, one on one. They bring authority to situations that the leader presumes is lacking in contributions, collaborations and cooperation. The leader makes no connection between what's missing and his/her "I'm great" approach.

Cyberchiefs seems to deal with situations that have gotten too big to feel like a tribe. Mathieu O"Neil uses the term "tribe" to signify the absence of an authoritarian, governing state. Questions of authority arise in this "stateless" cyberspace as the interactions take on the characteristics of legacy constrained institutions or competitively entrepreneurial markets. There are those who adopt an anti-authoritarian stance, like an actively disengaged tribe among themselves. O'Neil observes three resolutions to the authority question that leaders of online tribes fall into:

Charismatic authority from awe inspiring abilities to handle the challenges, solve the problems, and/or diagnose the malfunctions
Index authority from being the best connected, highest ranked by peers, or most trusted like Malcolm Gladwell's characterization of Paul Revere in The Tipping Point.
Sovereign authority from being in control of access, edits, filtering, or other "final say" over process and outcomes.

Each of these approaches legitimize why a leader is great and deserves to have his/her authority respected. None of these approaches engender the honoring of followers or the sense of "we're great". They seem ripe to undermine the desirable contributions, collaborations and cooperation among members. They seem like the kinds of leadership styles that would deal with followers one-on-one, rather than triads of introducing two to each other on the basis of their perceived value by the leader. I suspect at charismatic, index and sovereign authority would experience a brief honeymoon of a tribal feeling, but the thrill would be gone once the "I'm great" dynamics became apparent to everyone.

Honoring four kinds of perceived value

2009-06-29T10:51:00.000-06:00

Our tribal instincts honor the value we perceive in other people, their personal conduct and goods we exchange. We feel honored by those who provide whatever we perceive as valuable. For others to successfully provide what we perceive as valuable, they must first get a read on where we're coming from. Otherwise what they deliver will be a hit or miss affair that could even appear insulting, punitive or dishonorable. We're fully equipped with tribal instincts to handle a slap in the face as effectively as getting honored with what we perceive as valuable.

As I've mentored entrepreneurs to get on their customers' wavelengths, I developed a taxonomy of different value constructs. This amounts to a prediction language that anticipates what will sell and why customers will buy it. It helps the entrepreneurs to stay on course, to stop getting upset and to avoid setting themselves up for failure. The more successful they become at providing what others want, the more they can value themselves and honor how they perceive themselves as valuable. This in turn makes them perceived as more valuable by the sales prospects and customers.

Some customers are looking to keep their experience to a minimum. They are wary of getting ripped off. They perceive value in bargains, discounts, cost savings and freebies. They are not situated to appreciate higher quality, better services or what else they could get by paying more. They get ripped off often because they lack the sophistication to see through offers that are too good to be true. They relate to providers of goods and services as enemies to guard against. The providers who play at this level circle their wagons too. The customers appear as disheartening enemies who fail to appreciate an added touch, extra effort or better quality. Both sides perpetuate a stalemate like a long standing feud by honoring the perceived value in distance, hostilities and mutual contempt.
Some customers are looking for added value, higher quality and better services. They are wary of getting cheap replacements, shoddy workmanship or the runaround when demanding answers. They perceive value in getting the expectations met, demands satisfied and standards complied with. They get disappointed often because they come across as "customers from hell", tyrants who are impossible to please, and bullies who take pleasure in intimidating others. They relate to providers of goods and services as subservient misfits who lack the power, position and resources to get their own demands met. The providers who play at this level raise their own standards to meet the challenge of these demanding customers. The customers appear as worthy opponents in continual contests to win their respect, loyalty and trust. Both sides perpetuate a power game by honoring the perceived value in quality efforts, added services and quick responses.
Some other customers are looking for solutions to their particular problems in the context of their current situations. They are wary of getting bombarded by useless services, features and complications that do nothing for them. They perceive value in whatever makes a difference in their experience, on their own terms and according to their unique context. They get disappointed often because they need to get individual attention, really understood and engaged in authentic dialogue with customer service personnel who have gotten burned out by such attentiveness. They relate to providers of goods and services as advisers, colleagues and consultants who can bring their own understanding, perspective and experience to bear on their problem. The providers who play at this level continually discover how to be of service to each customer's set of problems, situational constraints and contextual influences. The customers appear as valuable explorers looking for solutions in ways that make others seem like valuable helpers. Both sides perpetuate a conversation by honoring the perceived value in each other's understanding, experience and perceptions.
The remaining customers are looking to collaborate and contribute to the success of their collaborators. They are wary of getting over-served where they cannot repay the kindness, keep things even and join in the producing the outcomes. They perceive value in getting valuable people knowing each other, thinking together and combining their resourcefulness into innovative outcomes. They get disappointed often because the world socializes, educates and employs people to serve those who pay for getting served by unilateral transactions. They relate to providers of goods and services as platforms for contributing and co-creating value. The providers who play at this level continually experience win/win solutions, mutually beneficial arrangements and unexpected outcomes from the complex interrelationships. The customers appear as providers of goods and services, no different from the providers in essence. Both sides perpetuate a collaboration by honoring the perceived value in each others contributions.

Perhaps obviously, this taxonomy aligns with the kinds of market providers and the kinds of tribes I've recently explored. I doubt this framework scales to the enormous scale of entire economies or phases of history. Rather, I suspect that every kind of customer and perceived value exists in every economy and phase of history. Back when wandering tribes encountered the first agriculturalists with surplus food to sell, there probably were bargain hunters and the rest. Likewise when fur trappers traded with tribes on the North American continent, it's likely that the trappers encountered every kind of customer also. As economies have become more complex, the opportunities for every kind of customer and perceived value would increase.

Amazing institutions

2009-06-26T09:12:00.000-06:00

For the past few days, I've been psyching out the underlying psychological dynamics of tribal mindsets, value positions and patterns of conduct. I first concluded: "people in these mental states would be stuck living in tribes". There first appeared to be no alternative to tribal existences that they could cope with, find attractive or settle into comfortably. Later I realized that I was wrong to jump to that conclusion. The nature of institutions, hierarchies, monarchies, empires and bureaucracies all welcome the tribal mindset as their workforce. There are remarkable synergies between the ways institutions organize people and the needs of the tribal mindset. Institutions provide an exit from tribal existences without requiring a change in the underlying psychological dynamics of the mindset. Institutions have said "come as you are" and "welcome inside" to people throughout the ages that have been living with their heads in a tribal consciousness. Here are a few of those synergies:

Tribes provide a shared identity to those with no identity as a talented, unique individual. They provide a sense of belonging and acceptance to people who feel like "nobody" when called upon to speak for themselves, disagree with authorities or take responsibility for the effects of collective actions. Institutions accommodate and reward this same mindset when they promote and pay for length of service rather than competence or value created. They also provide safe havens for "lifers", "joiners" and "functionaries" who know better than to step out of line, call attention to oneself or disrupt the cohesion of the enclave.
Tribes provide surrogate father figures for "boys with their toys" who missed out on legitimization by their own fathers. Tribes provide a cover of legitimacy for those who remain dependent on authority figures to figure out what to do, which direction to head in and when to take action. Institutions also provide authoritarian, top-down supervision to a workforce plagued by unresolved issues from childhood. They expect the rank and file to be dependent on "the big brain at the top in control of the entire pyramid scheme".
Tribes compensate for having no concept of outsiders' feelings, intentions or shared interests -- by making a big show of internal efforts. Tribes go to a lot of trouble to maintain their rituals, honor, norms and solidarity which keeps them much too busy to consider what they don't understand. Likewise institutions sponsor phenomenal amounts of busywork that preempts diplomacy or dialogue with "actual customers". Both support a condition of "arrested development", legacy practices and policy conformity.
Tribes validate acting out frustrations, making enemies and "bad boy antics" which results from emotional baggage. Tribes make it seem normal to be at war, in conflict and under siege as if they are doing nothing to provoke and perpetuate the animosities. Institutions harbor these same dynamics internally as office politics, turf battles and sabotage of change efforts. There are no expectations to acquire emotional intelligence, resolve one's own issues or outgrown patterns of hostility.
Tribes are effectively self serving and self preserving because they are incapable of serving common causes with outsiders . They look after their own kind at the expense of non-members and those they have outcast from within their ranks. Institutions provide this same opportunity to dismiss dissenters, demonize market mechanisms, and disrupt cooperative networks.

What I realized from all these synergies is how amazing institutions really are. They accommodate the tribal mindset that otherwise appears untamed, uncivilized and unmanageable. Institutions have accomplished amazing feats of societal advancement, infrastructure development and economic stabilization. All this has been done with a rank and file workforce in no better psychological condition than members of warring tribes. When we look at how problematic institutions appear to be from so many different perspectives, we're missing out on the solutions it provides and processes it effectively serves.

Are institutions really problematic?

2009-06-25T07:52:00.001-06:00

Institutions get perceived by most frames of reference as problematic. The only exceptions are those who have climbed to the top of their hierarchies, hold power over most of the underlings and benefit from the perpetuation of their positions in an institution. For the rest of us, institutions wreak havoc and do harm. Here's some of the familiar ways we denigrate institutions which inadvertently play into their persistence:

If we're concerned with personal freedoms to dissent and vote democratically, institutions appear as autocratic regimes that violate human rights without hesitation.
If we appreciate the cooperative interactions in open networks, institutions appear to be groups with toxic norms, politicized obligations and protected boundaries.
if we're passionate about life long learning and workplace literacy, institutions give off the impression of arrested development and widespread incompetence.
If we favor disruptive innovations, institutions contaminate multiple business models with inefficient cross subsidies that do a disservice to the customers
If we're promoting value creation in a 21st century economy, institutions show up on our radar as a zombie economy devoted to value destruction.
If we see the good in so called "piracy, hackers and remixes", institutions are protection rackets for legalistic property rights and the criminalization of creativity.
If we're excited about the possibilities of crowdsourcing, institutions show up as antiquated business models for the push delivery of authoritarian expertise
If we're contributing to the long tail of culture creatives, institutions dictate consumer taste by the mass production of mediocre, derivative drivel.
If we value emotional intelligence and feeling-based decision making, institutions appear hyper-rational, disorienting and oppressive.
If we care about equal rights, pay and opportunities, institutions function as "systems of domination which practice patriarchal premises to promote injustices".
If we value the advances of quantum physics, institutions embody a Newtonian rip in the living fabric of our recursive interconnectedness.
If we're fascinated by living systems, complexity and emergent outcomes, institutions appear rigid, simplistic, mechanistic and controlling.

When we see institutions any of these ways, we are making ourselves right about the wrongs we see. We're convinced the opposite perception cannot be true (where we could be wrong about how right institutions are). We've justified in our own minds how institutions are really problematic, offensive and unacceptable. There's no way we are looking at a "false positive", a misleading indicator, planted evidence or a biased diagnosis. It appears to us we are being objective about the impacts of institutions. We rely on our confidence about being factual and detached from the subject of our observations. As far as we can tell, we are not being self righteous when we're right about this. It makes no sense that we are describing ourselves through our objections, projecting our unresolved issues onto institutions or being what we're seeing in a mirror. There's no way to reference ourselves in our description of institutions that could add any significance or dimension to the description.

That last paragraph was written to feel reassuring. It invites you into a disengaged tribal feeling of collusion and commiseration. It supports your thinking in dichotomous terms (either/or) about institutions. It conveniently dismisses the alternative considerations that could result in an emergent transformation. The last paragraph keeps situations and reactions the same, just like institutions do for themselves. We also keep institutions the same by the ways we perceive, describe, evaluate and think about changing institutions. We inadvertently play into the perpetuation of "problematic institutions" by the ways we value, favor, contribute, care, get fascinated, and show concern.

to be continued in the next post: Amazing Institutions ...

The trouble with disengaged tribes

2009-06-24T07:23:00.001-06:00

The trouble with disengaged tribes is not how ineffective they are at relating to other tribes or governmental institutions in the nation-states where they reside. The trouble is not the injustices they fuel by their honor codes or self justifying stances against outsiders. The trouble is not the trouble they make for themselves by failing to communicate and make themselves understood effectively. The trouble is what's missing.

When the trouble with anything is what's missing, it goes widely unrecognized. How can "what's not showing up" appear on anyone's radar? How can the lack of evidence provide objective measurement of a condition? How can "no sign" be a sign of something? How can we already know what we don't yet comprehend?

What's missing becomes obvious when we can perceive patterns and processes in the obvious evidence. We understand more than what happens and what is connected on the surface. We get the bigger picture of how things drop out of the mix, get overlooked in a frenzy, appear inconceivable to "business as usual" or go into denial to protect addictions. We comprehend how minds go to extremes to maintain their current patterns, predictions and processes. We expect problems to result from what's missing, from errors of omission and from "too little - too late".

When a problem is created by what's missing, it changes everything to provide what's missing. The self perpetuating system cannot come up with it on its own or even recognize what's missing. Yet the slight addition of what's missing yields more than a slight change for the better. It gets off the merry-go round of chronic oscillations. It introduces a second order change. It transforms how things appear, what they mean and what now seems possible.

Here's four patterns I'm seeing that reveal what may be actually missing:

When we simply speak of tribes in general, we're missing the complications discerned by recognizing four kinds of tribes. We make tribes seem different from other forms of governance, but not differentiated among the single form they share in common.
When we form abstract opinions about tribes, we're missing how they are right in their own minds and on their own terms. We make ourselves right, but not include all four ways of being right.
When we predict the trouble that tribes will cause others, we're missing what they are predicting for themselves. We validate our own predictions without extending permission for them to persist with their own predictions for a time.
When we do battle with tribes who oppose us, we're missing out on vanish their adversity. We're reacting to their reactions to our reactions inside a vicious cycle, instead of inducing their self restraint by indulging their over-zealousness.

Of course this is an example of a larger pattern than the trouble with tribes. This is also the trouble with bureaucratic stagnation and failed initiatives to improve the service from public servants. It's the trouble with the chronic opposition to health care revisions, educational reforms and peer 2 peer governance, production and property. In every instance, what's missing is making the trouble that appears to be with whatever is obviously happening.

Predictable effects of being right

2009-06-23T08:07:00.000-06:00

Years ago I embraced the concept that "being right is not effective". At the time, I disregarded how the concept was dichotomous (either/or). I also overlooked the paradoxical (both/and) dimensions of being right and effective. The concept seemed very useful as a clear distinction to become more personally effective. The distinction suggests that when we're being ineffective at communicating with, relating to, or caring for others, we're being right instead. It frames the challenge as a departure from self justifications, defensive rationalizations, inflated idealism and intolerance of differences. It reverses the endeavor from getting understood to being understanding or from being interesting to being interested. When we're effective we can acknowledge others' outlooks, concerns, ambitions and struggles. We seem considerate and open minded. We effect others in a good way that engenders trust, mutual respect and cooperation.

Nowadays the concept of being right is more complicated for me. There are four ways to be right. When we're being interested in others and understanding where they are coming from, we discover they are being right in their own ways also. Everyone is being right in one way or another. Each way has effects on the person's state of mind, relationships and circumstances. The challenge is no longer to stop being right. Rather it's to be right about the four ways to everyone is being right and the predictable consequences of each way. When we embrace all four ways of being right, we can take responsibility for our effects on others, even when they cannot do the same in return. We can make others right in ways that transform their situations, as I proposed in the fourth kind of tribe.

We can be right about getting wronged, disgraced, shamed or dishonored. We agree with those who will commiserate with our plight. We bond with those can relate to psychological wounds, misfortunes and tales of woe. Our minds harbor grudges that justify revenge. We aim to restore our honor by committing injustices. There is no justice to be served, only perpetual injustice to mitigate.
We can be right about what worked in the past. We agree with those who act like winners, solve the obvious problems and perpetuate the success. We bond with those who can value traditions, embrace legacy practices and stay in line. Our minds harbor fixations that justify superiority, condescension and contempt toward those who fail to stay the course. We aim to set things right by ostracizing the traitors, saboteurs and misfits. There is an illusion of justice getting serviced by being right about who's wrong and by making things right according to proven successes.
We can be right about what is in the process of changing, what innovations are called for and what needs to be seen differently from before. We agree with those who utilize multiple frames of reference, redefine obvious problems and learn from their mistakes. We bond with those who can get creative, try out different interpretations and use metaphors playfully. Our minds harbor imaginative possibilities, what-if questions and different experiments to explore. We aim to change things for the better by providing the structure and space for others to find their own way when their time is right. Justice is served by serving others with compassion, consideration and understanding.
We can be right about these four ways of being right. We can agree on their terms with anyone who is being right in their own way. We can bond with those who are vastly allowing, non-judgmental and immersed in innocence. Our minds harbor gratitude for what we have, awareness of our interdependence and fascination with what is unfolding. We aim to transform situations by envisioning the emergence of "game changer" developments from the complexity of these four ways of being right. Justice is served by forgiving all that has occurred up until now and from now on.

Having said all that, what I meant to say is "you're so right" about how you read this, what it means to you and where you go with this.

Four kinds of tribes

2009-06-22T10:24:00.004-06:00

All tribes are not the same. Belonging to the best kinds of tribes feels especially right. Yet any tribe will do when we're craving that tribal feeling. I've come to the conclusion that we are hard wired for tribal experiences, just as we are for storytelling and predictions. They way we feel about belonging, solidarity, and bonding with others runs deeper than the feeling that we enjoyed some entertainment or distraction from drudgery. I suspect we will settle for the worst kinds of tribes because the feelings run so deep and so strongly. It's like an experience I had as a teen. When was staying at a farm in Kansas one summer, I discovered that well water tasted so bad it was undrinkable when I wasn't thirsty, but could be gulped down without hesitation when I was parched from hours in the hot sun. Any tribe will do when we're thirsty for tribal feelings.

I've been playing around with different ways to tell the difference between tribes after David Ronfeldt pointed me in the direction of some wonderful online resources. Steven Pressfield has created five videos in an inspiring series he's titled "It's the Tribes, Stupid". He's also launched a blog to explore the tribal mindset where he's quoted an op-ed piece Ronfeldt submitted to the LA Times "21st Century tribes" as well as linked to a paper Ronfeldt wrote: Al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

The first satisfactory split that occurred to me divided tribes by their kinds of geographies:

Some tribes have adapted to desert terrains, mountainous regions or urban decay. It goes with their territory to be patriarchal, war-mongering, doctrinaire and intolerant of weakness. The adversity in their physical environments and constant threat posed by like minded tribes would maintain a paranoid state of mind that easily justifies betrayals, beatings and beheadings. They pose threats to neighboring countries and internal governments by acting out their unmet needs, inescapable survival issues and chronic anxiety from so much desperation in their lives. They maintain order by a consensual honor code that requires insults, grudges, and retaliation for dishonor.
Other tribes that have adapted to edible landscapes: jungles, forests, and river basins. It goes with their territory to be neighborly, nature loving and creative. Their consensual frame of mind yields handicraft traditions, healing arts, and nurturing approaches to individual differences. These tribes are equally timeless, disinterested in progress and insular as warrior tribes. Yet these tribes realize solidarity, identity and other psychological benefits of membership by sharing their surplus, communal child rearing, and other cooperative endeavors. They are harmlessly acting out their satisfied needs, freedom from survival issues and continual gratitude from so much abundance in their lives. They maintain order by fearing the metaphysical consequences from ancestor, evil and nature spirits who are imagined to be omnipresent, easily offended and keenly observant.

The other parsing of differences between kinds of tribes followed research into employee engagement that the Gallup organization has done for the past decade. This longitudinal study is mentioned in a book I'm reading: Primal Management. The Gallup research studies categorize employees as either engaged, disengaged or actively disengaged. I got to thinking there must be a fourth category: actively engaged. It was omitted in their research for the same reasons we cannot taste our own tongue or raise up a step stool when we're standing on it. The fourth category is what the Gallup research, publications and consulting are doing to the levels of employee engagement it's measuring. It would require measuring their measuring to convey that impact. When I applied these differences to tribes, here's the four kinds I've defined:

Actively disengaged tribes are destroying order, stability and the lifestyles of others. They are battling against oppressors, abusers and injustice. They are devoted to seeing others as enemies, demons and inhuman who need to be stopped, destroyed and eliminated. They are right in their own minds to make non-members out to be entirely wrong to avoid taking any responsibility for their effects on others. Their imaginations as paranoid. They are expecting the worst and accumulating confirming evidence relentlessly.
Disengaged tribes are maintaining order, stability and value for themselves. They are keeping to themselves, keeping out of trouble, and keeping things from changing. They are devoted to seeing themselves as special, destined and enduring. They are right in their own minds to make non-members out to be ordinary, directionless and non-essential so as to avoid taking any responsibility for their effects on others. Their imaginations are magical. They are expecting metaphysical interventions and accumulating confirming evidence relentlessly.
Engaged tribes are innovating new working arrangements and value that benefits themselves and others. They are contributing to collaborations, stimulating each others' creativity and bringing out the best in tribal members. They realize the solidarity that is characteristic of tribes without sacrificing their intellectual prowess, technological sophistication, innovativeness or responsiveness to outsiders/customers. They are right in their own minds to make non-members out to be boring, uncreative and inflexible so as to avoid taking any responsibility for their effects on those others. Their imaginations are innovative. They are expecting inspirations or breakthrough syntheses and accumulating confirming evidence relentlessly.
Actively engaged tribes are transforming the context which has perpetuated the confirming evidence for each of the other kinds of tribes. They are making it safe for the other kinds of tribes to no longer be right in their own minds as they make non-members out to be dissimilar. They provide living examples of creating developmental experiences for others which open up new possibilities, revise the definitions of obvious problems and free people from their long history of self-confirming evidence. They are right in their own minds to make non-members right in their own minds as if there are four ways to be right. Their imaginations are visionary. They are expecting situations to be transformed by coming from a better place, seeing them differently and acting accordingly. They also accumulate confirming evidence relentlessly.

This framework for four kinds of tribes provides a map for transforming the forms that provide a tribal feeling a great cost or to the exclusion of others.

Getting off the merry-go-round

2009-06-19T07:54:00.002-06:00

There's no end in sight when we're going round and round inside a pattern. It's easy to predict what happens next because it's part of the endless cycle. We've seen it all before. It appears that things are changing but there's no difference in how they are changing or what they are changing into. This is what's called first order change. It's a pattern of oscillation that results from delayed feedback. It takes awhile to discover the problems with the latest solution. When the problems get realized, it launches a flip-flop into the opposite solution which eventually reveal the problems with it.

Here are some examples of classic merry-go-round rides:

A young artist (musician, painter, sculptor, filmmaker, choreographer, poet, playwright, etc) launches off into a new, inspired direction of self-expression which then seems too exuberant and lacking in discipline which then inspires some deliberate practice for honing techniques and acquiring more discipline which then seems depressing and unimaginative which then launches off into a new inspired direction of self-expression -- ad infinitum
A project team benefits from lots of individual talent capable of impressive initiative and solo efforts that results in a lack of coordination and inter-communication that results in team building to increase collaborative efforts and reliance on team members that results in a loss of initiative and personalized contributions that results in encouraging lots of individual talent -- ad infinitum
The new season brings a breakout hit (stage production, film, TV show, best selling book, computer game, etc.) that attracts a large audience which results in sequels, copy cat versions and derivative knock offs that kills off the large audience in constant search of fresh, new entertainment which brings along a new season with a breakout hit -- ad infinitum
The citizens in a democracy elect a new government that enhances social programs, public infrastructure and regulatory protections of consumer rights which results in massive debt, bigger taxes and governmental interference in the free market which results in the citizens electing a new government with promotes fiscal accountability, cuts back on government spending and de-regulates the market functions, which results in a diminishing middle class accompanied by soaring inflation and unemployment, which results in electing a new government that enhances social programs -- ad infinitum

Getting off any merry-go-round takes "non-dual awareness". The exit is paradoxical. It becomes apparent how to "have it both ways" without sacrificing the advantages of either. This winning combination cannot be found at the same level as the "dual awareness" of obvious dichotomies, opposite extremes and polarized alternatives.

When the two poles of the oscillation come to together, a second order change results. There's a change in how the change comes about and what happens next. It's a game changer that disrupts the incumbent pattern of endlessly going round and round. The trouble with either solution is no longer regarded as an isolated problem. The solutions look like the real problems because they disregard the systemic nature of the merry-go-round. When the two sides come together, the question of finally getting it right becomes a question of balance continually.

There's no recipe to follow to come up with a winning combination like this. The change defies predictions and leaves options open "like never before". It's anybody's guess what happens next because the dynamics are complex, self organizing and far from a state of equilibrium.

Predicting the predictable

2009-06-18T08:06:00.000-06:00

Once our minds have outgrown mechanistic functioning, we can recognize patterns of predictability in those minds that remain mechanistic. We can successfully predict how they will over-react, take things too personally, and get invaded by their negative emotions. It then follows that they will predictably over-compensate for their toxicity with sweetness. A mechanistic mind is routinely oscillating between extremes on the assumption that it's unpredictable.

When we can see how predictable someone's mind has become, we are in a position to transform their predictability. Rather than be threatened or bored by their predictability, we can prescribe their perpetual pattern. When we share our prediction of their predictability, we have introduced a game-changer in their minds. We have broken their pattern by adding the element of appearing predictable to others. We have changed how change will happen in their minds. We have called them on their false assumption of appearing unpredictable without speculating, going out on a limb or trying to control them. We simply predict what we know from experience is predictable about them and let that take effect.

We give give others permission to persist and prescriptions to do what they're doing, we need to state the pattern specifically. As we deal with the details, we're implying an organic, evolving process like one of these:

Keep it up until you get a better idea to try out on your situation
Do what you have to do until you have the urge to do something differently
Go for it until it appears you've gone too far and need a change of direction
Run with it until you run out of your conviction that you're right about this

The introduction of a "living system" into the mechanistic mind breaks up certainties, convictions and conclusive predictions. The possibility of becoming unpredictable gradually appears real. The invitation has been extended to get into exploring, experimenting, changing, learning, and growing. The obvious need to escape boredom by thrill seeking no longer seems valid. The organic ability to "predict the predictable" and explore the unpredictable appears within reach. Inconclusive predictions appear preferable, functional and congruent with these recognized patterns.

Appearing predictable to others

2009-06-17T08:11:00.000-06:00

When our minds are functioning mechanistically, we are highly predictable to others, though not to ourselves. The telltale sign of our predictability is our negative emotions that we try to keep hidden and occasionally display. We reveal to others how our own predictions work against our best interests by how dark we're feeling. We're entertaining a variety of flawed predictions about how we will succeed with other people. We predict that:

we can manipulate others' impression of a situation to turn it around in our favor
we can control other people with their own neediness and insecurities
we can dominate others who appear tentative and directionless
we can put down others in order to get them to rely on our evaluations instead of theirs
we can find fault with others to make them feel guilty, apologetic or desperate for approval
we can intimidate others who appear uppity and out of control by reminding them who's more powerful
we can correct others who appear wrong, bad, stupid or sadly mistaken

We predict we will succeed at any of this. We fantasize the outcome where we win at their expense. We compensate for how dark we're feeling with these flawed predictions. We assume the situation will play out mechanistically, like the ways our minds are functioning. We don't allow for complexity, emergent innovations, evolving understandings or growing capabilities. We assume everything is the same as it ever was because our minds are stuck in a predictable pattern. When we find out our predictions are flawed, we experience a crisis. The negative emotions we're sought to escape with our imaginary successes return with a vengeance.

When we can see how others are predictable and recognize these toxic patterns, our minds are functioning organically. Our ability to formulate accurate predictions about others in mechanistic mindsets makes us unpredictable to them and ourselves. Our minds are living systems that are continually evolving. We are always in the process of changing our own predictions of what will work for us and what will make a difference to others in our lives. It's anybody's guess what we'll be exploring or how we'll be changing next.

After the thrill is gone

2009-06-16T06:29:00.003-06:00

In our new space of social networking platforms, there are large inventories of inactive accounts. In the space of technological innovations, there's an initial hype cycle with a disproportionate amount of buzz for the small number of early adopters. In the space of new venues for socializing and entertainment,, there's the line around the block during the grand opening that fizzles out to a bunch of regulars and occasional newbies. In the space of volunteer projects and community activism, there's usually a burst of enthusiastic involvement that fades quickly and leaves a few hard core members to carry the heavy load.

This is a recognizable and predictable pattern. The form of the opportunity only functions for a short while -- for most of the people who initially found it useful, beneficial and worth their time. It quickly follows that there is a disconnect between the form and function. It no longer works for them. The process of losing interest, commitment and engagement involves the kinds of predictions in use by the people who are "losing it". These conclusive predictions yield minds that are functioning as "mental mechanisms".

This process has no beginning or end. It's cyclical and self perpetuating. A mind experiences boredom from situations that are highly predictable and routine. Familiarity with the situation breeds contempt for the contributors and self loathing for one's personal involvement. An escape is sought from this condition in a space that defies predictions, expectations and familiarity. The escape is thrilling and successful. The form of the escape is functional. However, one's ability to estimate value, assess character and make decisions is highly skewed. The desire to escalate the thrill results in over-estimating, over-spending and over-committing to the escape. Something then happens that bursts the bubble of delusional predictions:

The over-estimates get proven wrong and spawns a crisis of self confidence
The over-spending gets shown to be wasted, reckless and naive which lets loose a tide of self remorse.
The over-commitment gets repaid with over-taxing expectations and over-burdensome obligations

The thrill is gone. The honeymoon is over. The boredom returns. The escape episode appears to have been as predictable and boring as the situation that inspired the thrill seeking. The need of an escape takes shape again. The attraction of unpredictable, unexpected and unfamiliar distractions becomes more alluring. The cycle is poised to repeat once more.