Perhaps a simple example will help explain.  Consider that the computer screen remains black when you press the on-button.  What do you do?  Do you initiate an investigation of the internal switching mechanisms?  No, of course not!  Instead of examining the switching assembly and all other internal connections you should first look at the basic source that provides the energy for it to run; you look to see if it is plugged in and also whether the outlet to which it is plugged is ‘hot’.  The most basic, and often the simplest approach, usually offers the best solution, so begin by asking the basic questions.  Don’t get caught up in the all the branches and leaves, until it is necessary.

Simply seek first to understand the root dynamic of the system before placing both attention and effort on what are most likely problematic symptoms.  Attending to the leaves—and they are numerous—before gaining understanding whether the root dynamic is operating as intended will have you twisting and turning in all sorts of ways.  You will waste a lot of time and energy trying to solve a problem you have never taken the time to identify.  The symptom will subside but the problem will remain alive and kicking only to bring forth another symptom in the near future.

Unfortunately many are blocked from following this principle simply because they allow themselves to be deceived by their very own thoughts (which are usually strongly held beliefs).  They tend to be good symptom reducers but not so good problem resolvers.  Believe it or not there are people who actually trust all the thoughts their thinking has produced—as if their way of thinking presents what is true, absent of error and bias.  And how do they know that what they believe is right?  Silly, their thoughts tell them so!

Back To Basics

Let’s return to the issue of Krugman’s article, the seemingly persistent high unemployment rate that is symptomatic of a depressed economy.  So the basic question is, is the root reinforcing cycle of the economy functioning as intended?  That is, is it plugged in to an active energy source and is there a sufficient flow of energy to turn the cycle?

The basic dynamic is the consumption-production cycle.  That is, consumption leads to the need for production, which in turn provides income for people to act on the demand (i.e. unmet or unsatisfied needs and wants) and consume.  As demand increases—which arises from unmet or unsatisfied needs and wants along with the marketing, advertising and sales efforts of business—then the need for more production emerges providing more jobs thus increasing the ability for more people with sufficient disposable income to consume. As money flows the cycle continues.

The question then becomes is consumption sufficient enough to cause adequate production affording enough people disposable income enabling them to meet their needs?  That is to say, is the cycle a positive reinforcing cycle or is extraction happening causing a decrease in money circulating throughout the system?

Causing an Uncertain Future

When the number of people employed is minimized the resultant level of consumption will also move toward a minimum, which will likely not be sufficient to support increased production and additional jobs.  So when business management strives to maximize its short-run gain by minimizing the employee’s gain, they are in effect diminishing the flow of money through the system, a system upon which they depend and thus have a need for it to be strong.  A strong economy means less uncertainty.

However, as more businesses follow suit in squeezing what they can out of people, that in time, the diminished flow of money through the economy will cause a weak and even possibly a depressed economy.  Not understanding having a laser-like focus on short-term self-serving gain often is the cause of future pain, business leaders might wonder why future prospects are not as favorable for them—and any everyone else for that matter—and perhaps place blame on outside factors for this uncertain future.

Currently although productivity has increased—more specifically efficiency, doing more with less—the squeeze on jobs has diminished consumption (demand).  Even though the need to consume is there, the means (income) to fulfill the demand is not.  Money is not circulating.  As metaphor consider the economy as a water balloon where at one end is the owner/capitalist and at the opposite end is labor/general public.  Squeezing the water balloon at the opposite end will cause the owner/capitalist end to expand, leaving no more water to flow from the labor/general public end.

Today we have a squeezed balloon: businesses have laid-off millions of people and have since re-hired very few.  The effect is that money isn’t flowing throughout the system. Corporate profits are up and so too is executive compensation.  Money is accumulating and expanding the upper end of the balloon. Accordingly the flow of money at the opposite end amounts to a few drops and a trickle and a trickle can’t possibly keep things going. Once you drain the well, water can’t flow.

The inequality in realized gains, especially since the 2008 financial crisis, has left a select few with hoards of money and the masses in debt with very little income for consumption.  Corporations have been sitting on a tremendous amount of cash that diminishes the amount of money circulating through the system.  Accumulating and hoarding money—keeping it all for one’s self—is counterproductive to maintaining a growing economy. Essentially the cycle is unplugged; trickle economics is a myth.

Role of Money

A critical role of money is for circulation through the economy, not merely profit accumulation, since it is through the exchange of money that the economy is sustained and accordingly the supply of money increases which is a requirement for economic growth.  Let us not forget that commercial banks add to the supply of money, not by holding and hoarding it as deposits, but by leveraging deposits in lending money to people and businesses for investment—it is this investment that circulates money and strengthens the economy.  The point being that the circulation of money is instrumental to the health of the economy.  If circulation is cut off to a segment of the economy then that segment will die leaving the economy less capable of survival—all segments are needed.

Until people are provided the means for which to fulfill their needs and wants, demand can’t be fulfilled.  The consuming public hasn’t the money to exchange for goods and services, to keep money circulating.  Since the public hasn’t the means, then someone else—that’s either government or corporations or both—must step up and invest to increase the flow of money in and through the economy.

Clearly things are not functioning right!  According to Krugman there are many economist advancing the thought that the problem with the economy is structural, not functional.  That there are plenty of jobs but there is a mis-match between the knowledge and skills workers offer and the knowledge and skills jobs require.  Really!

Shifting the Burden

When either experienced skilled people or recently graduated college educated people can’t get a job then we have to begin wondering exactly what kind of work corporations are now performing that they weren’t prior to 2008!  Just what are they doing that work/business-experienced and educated people can’t learn if provided the opportunity?

If the answer is that business now requires different knowledge and skills than it did prior to 2008, then what exactly has fundamentally changed in the work of the business? If the work has fundamentally changed since 2008, how can those who are leading it do so without themselves needing to learn the new business?  If the work of the business has changed so fundamentally why then aren’t the leaders providing the necessary training so that those with education and work experience can learn how to do what is now needed? Why don’t leaders want to invest in the future of their business?

If this is not possible, if the educated and experienced people available can’t learn what is required, then how is it possible that those who led these organizations prior to 2008 today have the knowledge and skill to do so in light such a fundamental change in the work of the business?  When and how did their metamorphosis occur?

Could it be that hiring people will increase costs and moreover hiring and training people will add even more costs?  Could it be that business leaders are simply viewing all costs as an impediment to securing maximum short-term profit for themselves and major shareholders?  Could short sightedness be the cause of the difficulty?  Could it be that the sole intent of the business minded is to make profit, not products and services, and so (to them) profit is profit no matter the means?  Could it be that business leaders seek only to feed off the economy?

Costs as Cause

If the business is incurring costs, if it is spending more than it is taking in, then clearly tightening the belt is the obvious solution. Dire circumstances call for dire action! Guided by either/or thinking, the situation obviously calls forth a cut versus spend decision.  In a world where profit is paramount, everything is reduced to the choice between profit and loss—it is the way many business minded people role.

All costs are to be avoided, at all costs! This cost-cutting policy means no further spending on labor, advertising, marketing, sales, travel, except perhaps a little on electricity just to keep the lights on.

And what about the work of the business that requires incurring costs for transportation, labor, raw materials, and other such resources? We manage by the numbers and the numbers say it is time to circle the wagons. Relating to cost as a 4-letter word, one basically cuts costs to the bone, or at least to a level that is commensurate with current revenue toward returning the business to profitability.

There is nothing in this approach that allows you to do anything that would incur more costs that could potentially make for a better future.  It is a waiting game, waiting until profitability returns.  Because cost is the cause for less profit, costs must be significantly reduced (or eliminated) before the business is seen as again profitable.

Just how long will one have to wait?  Likely, until either there is a change in profitability or until the viability of the business is diminished.  That is to say until management does irreparable damage to the system, until there is no longer a (viable) business to manage. Eliminating the business of cost is just like bloodletting.  However, done to the extreme it can literally suck the life out of the system.

This view is all about eliminating costs, as if costs are causes. How or why is such a belief so prevalent?  It is a combination of having a short-term mindset and having the ability to do simple arithmetic.

In regard to the first point, essentially all costs equate to spending since the benefit of investment is most often realized beyond the (short-term) horizon and thus imperceptible.  To the second point, since profit is what’s left after costs are subtracted from revenue reducing costs to a minimum means more is left over.  Costs are cause for not enough profit—any fool can see that!  Therefore the single-minded focus on costs as a cause of not enough profit.

Accordingly cutting costs to the bare bones, particularly labor costs, is a popular action.  If one views people as labor, as merely something that diminishes profit—yes as a cost—then of course one will seek to minimize labor costs.  From this perspective, not doing so would be foolish.

Also it is equally foolish to put more into something that is subtracting from the profit that is so desired.  After all the business of business is not to provide goods and services, these are merely means to realizing profit.  Profit by any means is still profit! Moreover, often this strong desire (at times an addiction) for maximizing profit compels business leaders to seek the cheapest labor wherever it may be irrespective of the effects on the system, no matter the impact on quality and society—both issues unrelated to what’s in it for ‘me’ in the short-term.

Yes this scenario does seem a bit ridiculous.  Effective leaders don’t respond this way, particularly the entrepreneurially minded business leaders.

Cost as Necessary Outcome

To the entrepreneur costs (in the form of investment) is the means toward building a viable business.  And for the more mature business investing and not divesting in the business is the way to sustain the system’s viability.  Therefore in a well-managed business there is an understanding of the difference between spending and investment—not all costs are the same.  Therefore decisions around costs are not merely either/or decisions of cut versus spend.

Those in touch with their entrepreneurial spirit and who don’t suffer from short sightedness understand: a) that doing any activity requires expending energy which creates costs—costs are not causes but are unavoidable outcomes unless you do nothing; b) that not all costs are wasteful and unproductive and it is important to differentiate between spending and investment; and c) treating cost as a 4-letter word is reactionary and reflects a short-term focus which doesn’t allow for proactive development initiatives that would likely improve the revenue stream making costs productive.

Progress (with its requirement of investment and viability) is more important than growth in profit.  Subverting progress and viewing cost as cause of diminished profit is not the way of the wise.

Effectiveness in leading is about ensuring the system is managed to last and not simply to make the next quarter’s profit number or even next year’s.  The business of business cannot be profit and the future is not a series of short-terms.  Being of a different mind and leading with an understanding of (a), (b) and (c) above will most likely allow one to create a more favorable future for the business, and everyone touched by the business.

Accordingly, to the effective leader cost is not a 4-letter word to recoil against.  Incurring costs through investment initiatives is a way to ensure the viability of the system.  It is critical therefore to differentiate between spending and investment, between value-added and non-value-added costs.

Not doing so lumps all costs as spending, inevitably causing the system great harm and a short life.  Treating all costs as spending results in a lack of investment in support of the system’s viability.  If one hasn’t the ability to continue to exist in the future—if you aren’t viable—no amount of profit will help.

A Final Word (For All Who Aspire to Lead)

Cost is an outcome and not a cause.  Managing as if it is a cause with a focus on results along with the belief that the future is just a series of short-terms is a fool’s game. No amount of hope will help.

We create tomorrow’s reality by the decisions we make today.  If those decisions are ones that reflect a recoiling against all costs—reducing our choice to cut versus spend—then we are being reactionary and short sighted.  If, however, we believe having a future is a worthwhile expectation and want it to be better, then we must have the courage to enact it, to invest in it.

Accordingly, with the use of data—often referred to as analytics when mediated by computer technology—evidence-based approach to management seems to be the latest wave (or perhaps fade) in management practice.  Metrics are the sought after critical kernel to effective management decision-making.  This belief is often expressed as: We need to collect data because we need the numbers to tell us what action to take!

Deming was adamant in warning us of the cost from believing in the falsehood that if you can’t measure it then you can’t manage it, asserting “the most important figures that one needs for management are unknown or unknowable!” In spite of this warning, a less than critical use of data persists.  It is not that using data is wrong it is using data uncritically that is wrong.

Thought Can Deceive

The blind and uncritical embrace of data can mislead us into thinking that the numbers are ‘the thing’.  Just as we know that the map is not the territory, we must also be mindful of the fact that the numbers are not ‘the thing’ but rather they are abstractions of the constructs of concrete experience we are seeking to understand.  If we manage solely by the numbers then we will blind our self to the very essence of what we are seeking to manage, deceiving our self by thinking that the numbers are ‘the thing’. Again Deming offers us warning, “he that would run his company on visible figures alone will in time have neither company nor figures.”

Moreover, as Alfred Korzybski noted “a map is not the territory it represent, but if correct, it has similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness”, the same holds true for data and the associated constructs they (are intended to) represent.  So the fact that we measure and collect data—that we have numbers—doesn’t mean that the numbers we have are relevant or that they adequately represent the construct in which we are interested in understanding, that the data are valid.

That is, valid data is data that actually are representative or reflective of the intended construct we seek to make inferences/decisions about as well as the context within which it is being applied.  The data must actually be collected using an operationally defined and meaningful characteristic of the construct to which we are speaking.  Moreover, the data one collects must be applicable in the context in which it is being applied.  The issue is not whether data although not perfect are good enough, but whether the data are valid: If data are not valid then the data are not relevant!

A Construct Is Not A Variable

Many make the mistake of trying to directly measure or quantify constructs or concepts.  A common example of this mistake is when people (as customers or recipients of products/services) are asked to rate on a scale of say 1 to 5 the quality of __________ (e.g. instruction, service, product etc.).  Quality is a construct and as such it cannot be directly known through measurement.  Thus trying to measure quality in this way is an exercise in self-deception.  All that can be gathered are opinions. And there is a difference between measuring something and soliciting peoples’ opinions about that something; these are not the same and to treat them as the same is to commit a grave error!

So the fact that one can collect data—asking people to complete a survey—doesn’t mean that what is collected has any relevance, meaning or usefulness. The notion of the quality of something has many characteristics, and it is these characteristics when operationally defined as variables that lend themselves to quantification.  The variables are the map of the conceptual territory and thus to the extent that the variables are valid representations they can be useful. Hence if we are interested in measuring qualities of something then we must operationally define variables that re-present the characteristics of the construct of which we are interested.

It is About Relevance

So not all data are relevant and moreover that which is relevant is context limited.  Often people are asked to evaluate or assess whether this or that met their expectation or goals.  On an individual basis this type of question makes sense, as long as one knows what the person’s reference point or anchor is, after all this is the context of the response.  Each individual has his/her own anchor, his/her own context.

So to ignore the individual contexts and aggregate the responses from among many individuals across varying these contexts is tantamount to aggregating all types of apples, pears, plums and oranges.  Mixing context makes no sense and renders the data both meaningless and thus useless. Even data relevant in their own context when placed in different contexts can be rendered irrelevant.  Just because we can add numbers doesn’t mean their sum or average has meaning.  Data are not everywhere applicable and appropriate.

Again Lord Kelvin offers us thoughtful advice, “the more you understand what is wrong with a figure, the more valuable that figure becomes.”  This doesn’t mean that we can justify using whatever data we have in whatever way we wish by simply stating, it isn’t perfect but nothing is perfect so we can use what we have. Such justifications can’t make what is invalid valid!

When we apply data beyond its appropriate and useful limits then we are in effect misusing data; we are doing something that is a very harmful and destructive.   So it is imperative that we understand (and stay within) the limitations of the data we collect.

Apart from the above factors affecting the validity of the data one collects, there is also the fact that quantitatively derived knowledge is not the only way of gaining knowledge about things, particularly those things that involve human experience. That is to say, we must temper this enthusiasm for metric-based management with the wisdom inherent in the following (attributed to sociologist William Bruce Cameron), “not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.”

More to the point, the most important aspects of what we are managing are not always knowable by measurement. To avoid being deceived by your thinking, think critically about what you are setting out to do.

The answers one gets is significantly influenced by the questions one asks.  Knowing the questions to ask is thus critical to having valid data.

According to Milton Friedman societal concerns are government’s responsibility.  As Friedman stated “there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” This line of thinking, in light of the influence that corporate self-interest has on formulating law—the very rules of the game they are to stay within—has tragic consequences for everyone.

The focus of concern is so limited that it’s as if business operates only in markets and not in society—society is merely on the side.  I suppose in this sense it is market failure because the market does not reflect the societal cost of business decisions, and accordingly the business enterprise does not incur these costs.

Business Operates In Society Not On Society

Kochan asserts “what’s good for individual U.S. companies is no longer automatically good for business nationwide, for U.S. workers, or for the economy.”  As if it ever truly was!  When was this ever really the case? This growing disconnect is not so much about a failing market as it is about a system of orientation, a mindset destined to fail.  That is, what we believe about ourselves and the purpose of business are at the root of what we are now experiencing.

Kochan does acknowledge the alignment of needs between the U.S. business community and the U.S. economy, seemingly suggesting that these institutions have things in common.  He identifies a few characteristics of our current situation that collectively amount to (as he stated) a “perfect recipe for decline and a terrible legacy to leave to our children and grandchildren”:

• K-12 student performance that’s failing fast relative to that of comparable countries
• Companies invest far less than they used to in worker training
• Many jobs go unfilled because companies say they can’t find workers with the skills they need
• A large and growing population of people who have been unemployed for so long that they no longer look for work
• Wages have been stagnant for three decades, except in the case of the top 1%
• The gap between top earners and all others is greater than at any time since the 1920’s
• Unions are attacked as part of the problem, not (as they could be) part of the solution to these challenges.

These are not because of market failure but rather because the system of orientation (the mindset) of leaders in business and government—their beliefs and the way they think—doesn’t reflect an understanding of systems.  Seemingly those in authority are oblivious to the fact that everything is connected to everything else and so they decide and act as if things are independent.  Thus the unit of survival to them is them and their corporation.  However this does not negate the fact that nothing is just individually separate and independent, even though we structure life in society as if things were—this is the root of many of our socio-economic crises.

So what we have are decision-makers whose decisions have influence on life in society yet they have: limited scope of concern; a view of the future as a linear sum of short-terms; and a relationship to people as objects having only instrumental value in service to their self-interest.  We have business management with a myopic focus on results, especially those in the short-term, and correspondingly a preference for divesting not investing, coupled with decisions by elected government officials guided (if not directed) by their pursuit of their material self-interest.  Thus there is collusion between moneyed interests of private business and political parties—it is a fixed system—that in effect diminishes if not disregards concern for the collective ‘we’ of society (except of course in election years).  So what does this get us?  Kochan’s list (above) is a short list but an important list of observations emerging from the system we’ve created.

It’s a Tragedy

A few points on the list, when looked at together, suggests a deeper underlying dynamic.  For example, companies investing far less than they used to in worker training, many jobs going unfilled because companies say they can’t find workers with the skills they need and unions are attacked as part of the problem together indicate a shifting the burden dynamic is likely operative.  In a Huffington Post article on skills mismatch Andrew Sum (Northeastern University Economics professor), concluded from his analysis of data from The Bureau of Labor Statistics there is no “credible evidence of anything approaching a shortage in manufacturing workers anywhere in the country.”  In the same article Paul Osterman, professor of management at MIT stated “firms are always interested in shifting the costs of training to the public sector.”  So what we have is moneyed self-interest trumping collective interest in the interest of maximizing self-interest—a real tragedy of commons.

A tragedy of commons is not merely the fact that we share a common tragedy.  If the current situation was in deed just a common tragedy, then the institutions simply getting together—as Kochan suggests—to alleviate the common problem might be all that is needed.  Unfortunately given the root cause of the situation, what getting together absent of proper guidance would do is provide opportunity for more collusion.  This would lead to short-term symptomatic relief to appease the collective ‘we’ of society while (hidden from view) the select group of individuals (persons and corporations) would continue advancing their self-interests ensuring the underlying dynamic remains operative.

But we aren’t suffering from a common tragedy, what we have is a tragedy of commons where decision-makers see themselves as individual actors and fail to understand how deeply interrelated we are—concern is self concern not universal concern.  What is not included in the decision-making is what we have in common: our humanity, our environment, and life itself.

Seeing Wholes Is Critical

We are deeply and inextricably holarchically related, which means we shouldn’t act as if we are independent entities each seeking to maximize (our) self-interests.  We can’t proceed as if we aren’t highly interdependent and still maintain our viability.  For example if we are team of people then the team is comprised of a network of helping relationships and if we do things that destroy these relationships then we in effect will destroy the team.  In other words, we can’t forsake our constituent parts—which are systems as well—and expect to continue to exist.  We exist as living systems within living systems—wholes within greater wholes—and therefore we must think and act with this in mind.

An industry or a corporation that defiles or debases its environments as it pursues maximum monetary return cannot survive over the long term. So when we think about the unit of survival, we discover that it is not our little corner of the world, it is not our corporation or our industry, but rather the system and its relationship with other interdependent systems.  Holding this perspective, those in authority of an industry or a corporation would not consider itself the unit of survival but rather it is the industry or corporation plus its energy providing environments (which includes not only the natural environment but also society and the system of humankind). Polluting one’s source of life’s energy is not the way to sustainability and viability.

Until we change our system of orientation—the assumptions and beliefs we hold in mind that direct our decisions and behavior—we will not extricate ourselves from the situation we have created.  Like a boomerang the problems will keep coming back.  Paraphrasing Einstein, we can’t solve problems with the same level of thinking that created them.

What we are experiencing is the effect of the confluence of egoism, materialism and reductionism circumscribed in a mechanistic world-view—systems thinking is nowhere to be found in either development programs or education.

Therefore, what we (first) have is a meta-problem; an inability to correctly understand the problem because our system of orientation renders the underlying issue imperceptible. So we end up offering a solution to a symptom—treating symptoms—not the problem.  No wonder our problems recur, although with possibly different players but it’s the same problem nonetheless!   Ours is a problem of mindset not markets.

For more than 30 years there has been a downward trend in the household income of the vast majority of people (yes the 99%) while the income of the remaining 1% trended upward.  Fortunately for the remaining 1% benefiting from this widening income gap, the gradual decline (i.e. year-to-year incremental change) in real income among the majority of citizens went largely undetected—people didn’t realize how hot the water is getting.

Gradualism Abruptly Ended

However the greed among the 1% who created the mortgage-based casino game to feed their addiction to ever increasing monetary gain led to the disastrous 2008 financial collapse.  It punctuated what had been an insidious trend.  Accordingly what had been previously tolerated and/or unnoticed was now brought to the conscious awareness of a sizable portion of the 99%–all of a sudden it got a lot hotter.

Because of capitalism’s grounding in material self-interest maximization, this situation and situations like this are inevitable.  The insatiability of material gain—one can never have enough—and the auto-correlative nature of competition—winners are most likely to win next time—make for the perfect storm.  This is especially the case in a society wherein the wealthy has the greater voice.

Since the 1% really needs the cooperation of the 99% for their game playing to continue, it is now up to the frog.  Does the frog continue in the same body of water—continue cooperating in the same system—with only the promise from those—the 1% winners—in control of the temperature that they won’t do it again? Does the frog demand that those in control of the temperature be constrained in the changes that can be made to the temperature?  Does the frog demand that the control of the temperature be taken out of the hands of the 1%?  Does the frog demand that a different body of water—a different system—be provided that would ensure a livable environment for all to enjoy?

It seems that this debate is akin arguing whether the change in the measured distance between the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks is an effective approach for assessing the crew’s performance relative to keeping the ship afloat.  While this keeps people’s efforts on things we can readily measure—it surely keeps them busy for a while—it unfortunately turns the focus of attention away from understanding the underlying causes of the difficulty and toward the effects (things that have already happened).  Because we wish to have better results doesn’t mean we should focus on results.  For better results then the focus must be on the system of causes, the system itself!

Business Is Not the Model

Many working in business organizations, where incentives and accountability for results are normal practice argue they are measured by and accountable for results all the time.  If they don’t meet their numerical goal they are penalized or fired.  Since this is their reality the construction of the logical fallacy proceeds in concluding it then must become the teacher’s reality—if I (have to) live it so too should they.

Why is it that most people don’t like their jobs and/or really don’t like working for their boss?  Could it be that the practice of management is actually an obstacle to them actually enjoying their work?  Many business management practices are flat out wrong—they are detrimental to the human spirit.  Yet people continue to employ them widely, when it is the expression of the human spirit that is at the root of quality.

Because something is popular doesn’t necessarily mean it is the proper or correct thing to do.  It is misguided to assume popular business practices are best practices and that they are everywhere applicable.  The fact that business organizations rely on the carrot-and-stick approach to managing doesn’t make it the correct or best way to manage for a quality of the work environment and to facilitate the engagement of employees.  The reformative questions should be seeking answers to how to engage others not control others!

Ask A Different Question

Because we rely on learning more than any other animal, our need to learn is as natural to the human condition as is breathing. Taking in air to breathe and taking in knowledge for understanding are equally important to the development of a human being.   Why then are we asking questions of how best to incentivized learning?  Shouldn’t the question be what are we doing that quells the natural desire and need to learn?

In our universe what keeps things together? In a general sense what brings chaos to order?  Gravity. For without it every person and thing would be cast into space, floating aimlessly, making for quite a chaotic existence. If not for gravity then nothing would be at rest on earth.  Moreover this invisible force of attraction provides a general order to the movement of planets in our universe—making it one (whole) system.

The Gravity of Unity

In like fashion organizations need to canalize and unify people’s energy enabling it to function as one system.  Accordingly, the canalizing of human energy requires a cohesive system of beliefs and values that deeply connect people to each other and the organization. This can be accomplished with the guidance of a vision that accesses that part of us that is the same thus enabling us to relate core-to-core irrespective of our external differences.

An organization that is not functioning as one—not a unified whole—is an organization whose energy is thinly scattered and whose demise is imminent.  In short, it is a visionless organization.  That is, vision can act as an attractor facilitating and guiding people toward developing helpful relationships with others and meaningful relationships with their work.  Since an organization is a system of relationships, vision then can be the signpost to wholeness.

Tunnel Vision

It is unfortunate that many believe that it is not what the vision is, but what the vision does that makes it so important. For many having a goal is all that matters.  Accordingly most visions are in effect mission statements—what some might call BHAG (big hairy audacious goal).

As illustration consider GM’s vision, “Design, Build and Sell the World’s Best Vehicles.”  This speaks not of people but of things—yes the objects—the organization makes.  While GM’s statement offers a far-reaching noble goal it does not offer guidance to people toward developing and maintaining meaningful relationships with each other and the work.

When results-only becomes the thing then meaning is lost as everything becomes objectified.  Moreover as concern for results dominate relationships all interaction among people become mere transactions. Unavoidably, motivation turns to movement caused external authority and people become disconnected from the work.  Because engagement in the work turns superficial keeping people on task toward results guides the approach of management.

Let’s quickly revisit the effect of gravity in our world. If the gravitational force were greater, then movement would correspondingly become increasingly more difficult.  In other words, an order providing force taken to the extreme would be all consuming and confining, as what would be found in a black hole.  Black hole like conditions can manifest in organizations when ends supplant meaning and/or when order becomes control. When this happens the light of creativity is inhibited from emerging.

Therefore, because of the power that vision has, what vision is is extremely important.  Consequently, for the organization to sustain viability—which requires creative emergence—those in authority must act from, and be informed by, their humanness in order to lead with vision.

The Gravity of Insight

Vision runs far deeper than the words used to communicate it. Composing a nice sounding statement only requires skillful writing, but discovering meaning through vision requires insight.

Since it emerges from within, it requires listening to and being in touch with the unchanging aspect of our very being, looking deeply inward. Thus, having vision is more than having nice words fit together in a statement for public display; it is having the inner knowledge that there is more to us than our functional fit or the material outcomes that our activities might provide.

Clearly, seen in this light, vision does not require foresight since it is not a future end or goal. It is a beacon that points the way to a mode of being-in-the-world that brings meaning and joy, not at some future time but in the eternal present moment. Put simply, vision is as a description of the way life should now be experienced; a deeply thoughtful—almost philosophic—characterization of the ideals, values and nature of human experiences that resonate within the depths of people. As such it is a heartfelt description of a reality—which manifests as culture—people deeply care about being a part of and collaboratively contribute to realizing.

For example, Jim Goodnight, CEO of SAS Institute Inc (the leader in business analytics software and services) states, “we’ve worked hard to create a corporate culture that is based on trust between our employees and the company…a culture that rewards innovation, encourages employees to try new things and yet doesn’t penalize them for taking chances, and a culture that cares about employees’ personal and professional growth.”  At SAS the belief is “if you treat employees as if they make a difference, they will make a difference.”  Accordingly its people-centered vision reads “SAS transforms the way the world works, giving people THE POWER TO KNOW^Ò”.  Since SAS “integrates the company’s business objectives with employees’ personal needs, the first people they give the power to know are employees.

Thus, with vision as the guide, people are afforded the opportunity to experience an inner sense of significance and meaning in the organization’s work (i.e. their activities), and through these experiences, they are provided the chance to develop and express their unique potential. When people become engaged in their work then work becomes more than a series or collection of abstract or superficial activities they are carrying out for a paycheck: It becomes meaningful to life itself.  Work then is not just a job, it is a joy and the relationship one has with his/her work is not as an object acting on objects, but instead, it becomes a means for connecting us to ourselves and each other.

An organization absent of an enlivening vision—one where functional and inter-functional fit is the sole concern—expunges meaning from life in the organization.  And as meaning fades so too does intrinsic motivation—yes motivation is about meaningfulness!  Thus it is no surprise that most with management positions frequently ask how do I motivate others?  As Herzberg succinctly responded in his now classic 1968 Harvard Business Review article, give them motivating work to do!

It follows, for the organization to remain viable management in authority must contextualize people’s involvement in the functional and inter-functional aspects of the organization’s work by aligning management practice and the work within an enlivening vision.  In other words, vision provides completeness to the organizing structure by bringing an inner sense of order (and thus meaning) to the very human aspects of an organization.  In this way, an enabling or enlivening vision affords the flow of meaning throughout the system and serves as the basis for the self-reinforcing interplay of forces that provides joy in work and value to those it touches—canalizing human energy in a way that contributes positively to human progress, emergence of creativity and organizational viability.

The gravity of vision can’t be overstated, so take extra care when it comes to discovering a shared vision.

Not only is it telling of where we are as a society that there is immunity for those who perpetrated this situation—injustice persists—it is even more telling that there is immunity to change among our elected officials.  Yes the very same people who were elected to serve the collective ‘we’ of society.  Moreover, with those actively participating in Occupy Wall Street being characterized as a bunch (or is it a mob) of miscreants and malcontents deserving of disparaging remarks, by even the news journalists, is telling of a sad state of affairs.

Those protesting are asking such questions as ‘why haven’t we bailed out homeowners’ or ‘why must students be saddled with enormous debt and little to no job prospects’? It is not that Occupy Wall Street protest is diffuse and lacks a defining focus—the one thing reductionist can put their finger on—it is that its focus is the system itself.  Its focus is all encompassing of life in a society that is supposed to be of, for and by the people.

Our government officials were complicit in the crime perpetrated against the 99% by making it possible for the finance industry to act as they did—they provided the means for material self-interest (i.e. greed) to run amuck.  The signal was evident for at least 30 years with an inequality gap growing larger and larger.

Accordingly those participating in Occupy Wall Street are calling for new thinking that will lead to a better future for all, and not just a select few. So this is not about what’s in it for the (private) ‘me’ rather it is a wake-up call for our elected officials to start thinking about and working for (the public) we! They are no longer exempt from the obligation they assumed upon taking public office.

In a society that has become so consumed by ‘what’s in it for me’ this challenge to immunity can be quite disorienting to the overlords, which can be a very good thing for all.

The process of learning, particularly in primary and secondary education, is a collaborative process involving student and teacher. Teachers facilitate learning more than they produce learning.  The paraphrased Buddhist proverb when the student is ready the teacher will appear succinctly expresses this fact.  Hence placing all responsibility (and blame) on the teacher for what is learned reflects a grave lack of understanding.  Such misunderstanding places supreme importance on teacher accountability for results—exactly what we are getting from Arne Duncan and other similar thinking reformers.

Of course improving the education and preparation of teachers is an important component, but so too is the preparation of students.  Although human beings are born with a curious and inquiring mind—a need to learn—this latter issue lies squarely in the lap of students, parents and community—it is an individual/cultural/societal issue.   What can we do to feed and develop the inherent need to learn? A focus on teacher accountability for results will do little.

To get education right requires that we cease using the same level of thinking that created the problem we now face and begin to think anew.  A place to begin is to critically think about and explore the question, why educate?

The very things that would help—systems thinking, statistical thinking, theory of human development and learning theory—apparently are not part of the knowledge base of the reformers. Instead, reformers continue to apply the same level of thinking–reductionism and competitive context setting—that supports poor quality. A focus on parts will unlikely result in an improved whole (system), since performance of the system emerges from the system as a whole, from the parts in relationship.

In short those in authority must re-think and thus re-design the system, and not merely manipulate the parts in pursuit of better results. Throwing money at a problem, absent of understanding, no matter the amount is never a sound approach.

Perhaps someone should teach Arne about the process of learning, though it is not clear that he is ready.

The Hype

Statements in a recent New York Times article on job growth misrepresent the pattern in the unemployment rate, which has actually shown an overall decreasing pattern since October 2009. The statement, “August brought no increase in the number of jobs in the United States, a signal that the economy has stalled and that inaction by policy makers carries substantial risk” is using July results (9.1) as the anchor for judgment as to what happens in August as a signal of the state of the economy as represented by the unemployment rate. Looking out to August, from July, there is about a 1 in 3 chance that the August number will be lower, a 1 in 3 chance it will be higher and a 1 in 3 chance it will be unchanged. Looking at month-to-month movement is not the way to developing understanding.  Two points do not constitute a trend; all the data are relevant toward understanding the state of the system.

The Story

The story is not that August is the same as July, that there was no movement in the unemployment rate between two points.  The story here is that business has laid-off thousands of people, are squeezing huge profits from those who are employed and yet business is not willing to hire.

The story is that those in authority don’t seem to understand that consumption-production cycle rests largely on a population of consumers having an income that enables them to consume what is produced.  The author of the article astutely noted, “The problem is less that companies are laying people off than that they are not hiring.”  Being able to produce at a high profit will not keep the consumption-production cycle turning if there is no one to consume what is produced—business produces in response to demand.  In fact astute business people realize that they don’t just create and produce products/services they also create and produce demand—why else would anyone invest in advertising!  Henry Ford grew his car-making business by hiring and paying people so that they could consume what his business produced.  It is about the basics of business and not about high finance and econometric modeling.

Statistically speaking patterns of variation are revealed over time and not from one point in time to the next. When we focus our concern on month-to-month differences—or the highest or lowest month—then the pattern in the data become unimportant and imperceptible. The one point attracting our focus gets all the attention and the important (more) long-term developing patterns are believed inconsequential and thus we put them off.  Inevitably the effect of this misplaced attention is the source of a future crisis.

The Reaction

So doing what Mr. Obama has done—acting on a misunderstanding—by instructing the Environmental Protection Agency to pull back on more stringent standards on ozone emissions will do little for the consumption-production cycle.  So our air quality has a slightly better chance of getting worse, right along with the unemployment rate.  It is mere superficial action to give the appearance that something is being done in response to the unfavorable unemployment rate—the concern is for something else, not on those unemployed.  Recall it was the absence of regulation in support of unfettered profiteering that caused the recession, not the creation and enforcement of regulation.  Perhaps profiteering is keeping the situation from getting better.

It is like saying the brakes failed to stop me before hitting a tree, so I am going to put a bigger gas tank in the car.  A focus on the outcome and not the cause turns attention to the fact that the car is stopped, not why it stopped.  With this perspective of course a larger gas tank will enable the car to go—that is if the brakes don’t fail again.