Dave Meslin’s talk reminds me somewhat of the sentiment of Edwards Deming’s proclamation that 96% of of all business problems are created by the system. Individuals want to do a good job, the system provides barriers to stop them.

#4 Heros I relate to my blog entry “As if you needed a Reason to Save the World”

I believe what Dave says in his talk is even more applicable to the business community than the greater civic community he speaks of.

If you are intent on Saving the World do you take a Top Down or Bottom Up approach?

Bottom up, as in, rally people to a cause.  Get at least some enthused enough to take some action. i.e. Change to buying energy efficient light bulbs. Excellent work but when you do the numbers pretty ineffectual in your effort to save the world.

Top down, as in, I am global supreme leader, you will only use energy efficient light bulbs or I will ensure you are punished for not doing so.  We have the United Nations and the Security Council to dictate and enforce but that too seems pretty impotent with respect to saving the world.

This is the stage where many give up, the realisation that no matter what we do, the world is running head long towards a cliff and there is no stopping it.  The rationale is “I don’t think it will happen in my natural lifetime – what happens after that is of little consequence to me”.  Our thoughts are probably true, we don’t reflect on them too much because they make us think of ourselves as selfish bad people,  we use it just enough to be able to live with the enormity of the problem.  Some get to old age, thinking we are that much closer to the cliff than when they were born, feeling sorry for the generations to come, but happy that they won’t be around to experience it.  Many believe the top down approach is working with things going perfectly to plan.  God (The Global Supreme Leader) has it all in hand. Revelations is literal and we should all rejoice as we approach the edge of Armageddon.

The jeux de position Top down versus Bottom up presents in a quest to save the world would indicate the quest is pointless.

If we look at risk versus reward. It it is personally less risky to believe in God.  (A supreme Global Leader whoes existance can’t be proven and must be taken on faith) If God doesn’t exist you personally no worse off than those who didn’t believe in God. However if God does exist, and paradise is something you aspire to, the the reward is high for no risk. 

Unfortunately as a group the same analysis doesn’t hold.  If motivation to take action of individuals believing that the future is under control and it isn’t, then Armageddon is a self-fulfilling prophesy regardless of your beliefs. Personal saviour, group demise.

Our motivation for personal survival, here on earth, and in the afterlife for those who believe in it, could be used to veer us away from the cliff. No Armageddon. We would all survive. Including future generations.

A mechanism which hooks into our primordial survival instinct to accentuate activities that promote group survival is required.

That primordial Survival Instinct is often interpreted as Greed. Was Gordon Gekko right? Can Greed be good?

I’ve not posted a new Blog for a while because I’ve been playing an online game called UrgentEvoke. I came across it through following a Linkedin group called Social Impact Games. The objective of the Game was to “Save the World” although I note from their latest Home page they are now purporting to only “Change the World”. Never-the-less the essence of the game is to make positive change by crowd-sourcing support for ideas that impact on issues identified through crowd-sourcing. Ultimately the game wants to inspire its participants to act in the real world by taking action based on ideas. It is run by the World Bank and directed by Jane McGonigal who designed the game.

Given that their were prizes of mentorships and seed capital I thought I would give it a go. Another opportunity to further consolidate and document my thoughts about Kahatika.

I have long since realised that the design of Kahatika could be interpreted as a never-ending slow moving game.  In today’s real time communication environment you may observe that the attraction of something that moved slowly might have limited appeal. Like only appeal to those that engage in postal chess.  Kahatika has elements in it’s design to ensure engagement and to retain interest between rounds of participation.

I have contributed multiple items related and unrelated to Kahatika over the last Month or so to UrgentEvoke, some of which contain circular references back to this blog.  My Profile on UrgentEvoke is the access point for all of this content and can be found here.

As I finale of the game and a mechanism to make yourself eligible for prizes there is a process of submitting a final blog to say what you would do if you were successful in attracting seed capital from the World Bank. Combined with a private email to the game administrators my final submission can be found here.

The content I submitted which relates to Kahatika is as follows:-

http://www.urgentevoke.com/forum/topics/challenge-the-network?comme…

http://www.urgentevoke.com/video/learning-compassion

http://www.urgentevoke.com/video/the-dangers-of-designing-a

http://www.urgentevoke.com/video/more-realistic-look-at-money

http://www.urgentevoke.com/video/we-need-to-make-practical-use

http://www.urgentevoke.com/video/others-also-see-the-need

http://www.urgentevoke.com/video/barry-schwartz-on-the-loss-of

http://www.urgentevoke.com/video/learn5supply-of-money

http://www.urgentevoke.com/video/need-to-open-the-debate-to

http://www.urgentevoke.com/video/act1-shadowing-richard-branson

http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/act6-donation-lifespring

http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/imagine5-a-new-direction-in

http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/act4-philanthropists-need…

http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/commitment-four-the-long-…

http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/distilling-the-evidence

http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/this-social-innovation-game

http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/the-little-red-hen-revised

http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/the-journey

http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/kahatika-1

http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/what-motivates-you

http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/act1-shadowing-richard-br…

http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/learn1-innovate-on-existing

The following is a TED talk by Dan Pink.  Sixty years ago Edward Deming understood the strange counter-intuitive results of experiment Dan explains and railed against the motivational techniques being used in business. Are we finally coming of Age?

Twelve and a half minutes minutes in he speaks of Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose.

The business tools to to help proceed down this new path are being invented now.

Kahatika is that tool.

Thought I’d take a few minutes to answer Seth Godin’s survey to see if I could get more clarity on what I’m doing with Kahatika.

From his latest blog 8 questions and why we get

• Who are you trying to please?

  • Myself
    Why? – Highest in the hierarchy of needs, Self-actualisation
    

• What are you promising?

  • To “Save the World”
    Why? – Seemed like a fun problem to sink my teeth into. Better question; Why not?
    

• How much money are you trying to make?

  • Trillions
    Why? – Because money engages peoples interest. Vast amounts of money will have them asking why?
    

• How much freedom are you willing to trade for opportunity?

  • Not much now, as I get older more and more
    Why? – Life is a journey not a result and I have a plan that makes a large loss of freedom unnecessary
    

• What are you trying to change?

  • Business
    Why? – Because it’s the most powerful card in the deck
    

• What do you want people to say about you?

  • He gave it a go
    Why? – Hope that they may emulate
    

• Which people?

  • All people
    Why? – Everyone has something to contribute
    

• Do we care about you?

  • Probably not yet
    Why? – You, as of yet, don’t have an acceptable, safe way to practice compassion
    

I seem to concerned about Love but what is my concern for Money?

Ahh! I see, you’re a conspiracy theory nut blaming the banking industry  and big business for the woes of the world!

Not at all, just trying to reveal just how controlling the money system is, and how that impacts on our ability to exhibit Love and Compassion.

If after pondering the Money as Debt concept for a while, it may seem hopeless.

Then again a tiny tweak to the system may just reverse that hopelessness……who knows?

Here are a few clever people who appear to be wondering about the solution.

Lionel Barber, Alain de Botton ,Simon Schama, Charlie Mayfield, Stefan Stern, and Noreena Hertz have their say

Seems like something needs to be done, exactly what still eludes them.

Take from the Rich to give to the Poor

If the role of business is to identify an others pain and offer a cost effective solutions to that pain, one would suspect compassion would have a major role in business.

Should more businesses be embedding, or at least deriving inspiration from a Charter for Compassion when formulating the company mission and standard operating procedures?

Does the profit motive of business explicitly rule business out as vehicles of true love and compassion?

Despite all the complicated Systems and Mechanisms our society institutes to reduce the need for trust, our day to day lives are manageable only because we do trust.

We trust that the oncoming traffic will stay on their side of the road, we trust that the money we give to the banks will be available to us when ask for it. We trust that we will be paid, things will arrive on time, that basically agreements written and implied will be kept. It’s not because of our laws and systems that enable us to do this. Most of us couldn’t afford the time nor expense of seeking formal justice in every instance where trust is involved.

If we didn’t trust, we would be in a paralyzing state of indecision, leaving our lives impotent. Inaction would be the norm. Societal evolution of humans is fundamentally down to trust.

In what environment do we feel most comfortable with trust? The answer to that is, when we feel the most loved.

In what environment do we feel most uncomfortable with trust? The answer to that is, when we are afraid; in a state of fear.

This link gives rise to the definition I heard at a course I went on called Money and You  “The opposite of Love is Fear”

Having also learned Deming’s 8th point of his 14 point philosophy; “Drive out fear where ever it exists in your organisation” was perhaps couched that way because he simply didn’t believe he could sell the idea “Exhibit Love everywhere within your organisation”

Economists the world over would agree that the Global Financial Crisis is essentially a crisis of trust. The collapse of Lehman Brothers, an organisation the global financial institutions trusted, was found to be not trustworthy. If Lehman Brothers could collapse, who else could go the same way.  The flow of money, which was primarily based on trust, between these powerful organisations stopped. This had a knock on effect, falling business confidence, foreclosures, unemployment, bankruptcy. Recession.

In summary the world has just had a whole hunk of love ripped out of it and had it replaced with fear.

The solution; put back the Love.

You can imagine with a goal or mission to “Save the World”, especially when you are not certain that it even needs saving, that the journey along the way becomes pretty important.

You’ve got to like the process. You have to enjoy pondering things. You have to find it interesting connecting disparate things together and deriving solutions from first principles.

Finding elements that are very likely to be  close to the truth and working forward from there.

Ultimately you have to find it fun to be so deluded that you think it is possible that you may have the/an answer. After-all this delusion is your reality.

I often wonder how many people out there have the solution but like me have been too fearful of ridicule to share it.

I did a personal/business development course once called Money and You. The course put you through a survival game to teach the value of synergy. As a team and as an individual you had to plan your survival and the results compared. It exposed that there was a greater probability of success as a team than as an individual. The bigger thing I got out of it however was in the debrief afterward. There are always one or two individuals that would have survived by themselves but as a team met their demise. The learning point was that their inability to get their message across to their team literally killed their team members and themselves.

So where does this put me with my plan to “Save the World”?
Leave it to others who are more certain that their solution will achieve it? The problem is that they may be wrong, or worse still, their solution may accelerate the world’s demise.

The same course offered this definition of Courage. “Doubt + Action = Courage”

Not noted for my extraordinary levels of courage and my agnostic view of the world providing me enormous amounts of doubt;  Simple algebraic arithmetic “Action = Courage – Doubt” which in my case is of course negative.

Does this realisation stop me from pursuing my mission to save the world or does it just mean my action is always backwards?

I have had a consistent course of action for the past twenty six years, producing parts of the plan and slowly fitting them together. The short answer is “I guess not”.

Rest assured I am enjoying the journey.

In the early 1980′s I climbed out of my teens, I entered the workforce and started to learn how business worked. As part of a company following the flavour of the month management philosophy I was put through W. Edwards Deming Institute’s training program. Being young and impressionable I thought the philosophy was excellent. I still do. I was tasked as a lower middle management employee to champion the new philosophy through the company.

I knew these sorts of things needed to be championed from the top. I thought that upper management were all committed. I found to the subsequent demise of my employment how wrong I was. A lesson learned. Don’t challenge the boss by pointing out where they aren’t following the philosophy they are committed to following.

There were two things that particularly stuck in my mind from my Deming Training.

• Firstly, that “Fear” was an impediment to good business.
• Secondly, that random remuneration was infinitely more motivating than the current systems of remuneration.

Like all good business management philosophies the relevance of their wisdom extends beyond the business context.

Many systems have stemmed from Deming’s teaching; Kaizen (Tony Robbins calls it Cani), Just in time, Six Sigma and many more have tweaked and branded their way to successful consultancy service models. Almost without exception they all tended to avoid what Deming had to say about remuneration.

It wasn’t that they avoided the question of Money and how to dish it out. It’s just that of all Deming’s wisdom, this was the piece that was most consistently ignored.

I came to realise over the years that the reason for that was probably “Fear”.

The following video is old but still true. It is worth watching in it’s entirety but if you don’t have time skip through to the 3 and a half minutes starting at 5 minutes in.

This part is what Deming regards at his third Deadly Sin and what I remember most vividly from my training.  As with many people who have been trained along these lines I have come to realise, it applies not only in business but in every day life. Life just isn’t fair