The Brink of Chaos

The world is more complex than any of us can fully understand, so we simplify. Often times, our simplifications lead us toward dogmatic solutions; plans that will allow us to solve the worlds problems if only the world would dramatically change by adopting them.  It becomes easier to advocate full government payment for health care, or abolishing the welfare state, or moving back to a gold standard, or believing we need more stimulus to get the economy started than it does to recognize the insurmountable challenges between here and there.

Because of the complexity, many groups advocate a solution as dogma for how to solve the ills we are facing — an indisputable, clear, simple solution that should solve our problems. These simple solutions provide a basis for determining the direction we should move. But too often  the gap between the solution and the current state is so large that it turns otherwise productive conversations into whining and complaining. When we start thinking, “The world would be so much better if only …”, we must take care not to become unproductive cynics.

This comic summarized this problem perfectly:

Ideal solutions are not enough; a path that allows for implementation toward the ideal is what we need to find. We should improve the status quo, not just whine about it.  It means though that we need to think harder than simply grabbing onto a single dogma and whining that no one will listen to us.

Sometime ago when the startup I was working for went through a tough time, our VC gave me some sage advice: Stay focused on staying in the air and not on avoiding the trees. If a pilot is in distress and starts focusing on not crashing into the trees, the trees become the target. Our startup pulled out of  our circumstance, but this advice stuck with me.  But it doesn’t just apply to times of distress, it applies to all of our goals, particularly when we want to help one another.

In legal systems, there are two types of laws: positive laws which are prescriptive, requiring a specific action, and negative laws which prohibit a particular action. Goals can be categorized in the same way. A positive goal strives toward some better state. A negative goal strives to avoid falling into a worse one.

Negative law maximizes freedom because we can do everything except the prohibited action. To the contrary, negative goals by themselves lead us to only focus on what we are trying to avoid often leading to failure. We have a hard time not thinking about something  (e.g. st try not to think about a blue monkey). Fortunately, we can convert most negative goals into positive ones. Don’t eat dessert might instead become workout 30 minutes extra before eating dessert. A positive goal lets us focus on a critical behavior we need to carry out a longer term aspiration. This is true not only for our personal goals, but also for our work goals too. Moreover, it provides a much better platform for getting help from others.

This past week a good friend of mine and I wanted to do a better job managing our attention so we could get the right things done. Both of us generally get a lot done, but not always the most important thing. As a result we decided that we would work on trying two things:

1. Planning out our day everyday
2. Working on the #1 biggest priority as early in the day as we could.

Both of us had days where we got distracted and failed, but when we succeeded we both had great productive days.  Moreover,  it was encouraging and energizing to keep updated throughout the week with each others’ status.  Success bred success.

When we want others to keep us accountable, the nature of the goal makes a big difference. Accountability groups focused around negative goals often degrade into pity parties. Groups which instead focus on positive goals continue to encourage everyone on. Failure to reach perfection in a positive goal is simply a sign that we are still on the path.  Failing our negative goal, falling into that which we want to avoid, often causes us to simply feel like a failure.

How we shape our goals makes a big difference in our ability to accomplish them. How can you take some of your goals and make them positive and involve others to help you accomplish them?

Remember “The Blob“? The alien creature that consumed everything it touched; it grew with each object consumed, thereby consuming even more. This beast exists in the middle of many organizations. Not as a physical creature, but as the blob of ambiguity.

Using meetings and politics, it slowly covers even the most decisive of employees with a goo of uncertainty. It lands in organizations when leaders are unwilling to make clear their expectations or where people feel they must bring everything to the top for clarification. We all know that putting off a decision feels like not making one which is what makes this blob of ambiguity so sticky. Inaction doesn’t feel like neglect.

An example: Bob and Cliff had a great meeting and Cliff wanted to move forward with evaluating Bob’s product. Cliff decides to check with his staff so he can get back to Bob later that week. At the staff meeting, it was discussed but they ran out of time to make a decision so it didn’t happen that week. Bob hears nothing and sends Cliff an email asking about the status. Cliff reads the email and thinks, “We’ll talk about it at this weeks staff meeting, then I’ll get back to him. ” An emergency subverted that weeks staff meeting, so another week passes. Again, Bob hears nothing. Frustrated, Bob calls Cliff on the phone but can’t reach him because he is in meetings; Bob leaves a voicemail. Cliff wants to get back to Bob but he is right in the middle of fighting this storm and he still isn’t sure what the others, especially his boss, think. Cliff waits for input from the staff and pretty soon Cliff doesn’t want to face that he hasn’t responded to Bob at all so he avoids the problem by not talking to Bob anymore. Perpetual indecision.

How many meetings do we attend without decisions being made? Ambiguity, like the blob, spreads. It starts as a small amount of uncertainty but as individuals build chains — waiting on others — the ambiguity builds. Moreover, people position themselves to win politically, so they don’t make clear-cut decisions thereby spreading the blob. More meetings, more indecision, more ambiguity.

How do we fight the blob of ambiguity? By making decisions. Why are we meeting? To make decisions. As leaders, we have to figure out how to structure the organization to make clear decisions quickly without relying on us to make the call for them.

My friend’s strategy is simple: If an employee asks him a question that they should have been able to resolve without him, he asks what was unclear that caused them not to make the decision without him? He clarifies his thinking process with them, so that next time they can make the choice without him.

Clear decisive action is what we need. This is the motive power of business. Ambiguity is like adding sugar to the gas.