Archive for the ‘accountability’ Category
That’s Life…
– managing the consequences of our latest decision. And, that’s it – simple… right?
Could be. That would be what we would all like to happen each time we made a decision. It would be nice to be done with it – that little extra weight gain, that little financial loss, that persistent patch of weeds in our lawn, or that inconsistent politician that claimed to be a statesman. If only that was the last time we had to deal with them we could get on with business and then hurry off on our vacation….. STOP !!
You overlooked something and there is an emergency meeting that your boss (or wife or Congress) just called to sort out why it didn’t work as you intended. That is not just the problem – it is also the solution. But in our stressed minds and fault-finding attitudes we often overlook that the “media is the message”. If you get it, stop. If not I’ll explain.
“You overlooked something and there is an emergency meeting and you now need to sort it out to see why it didn’t work as you intended”. That’s all. And that is the message and the process and the answer. All you need are the right questions – to get to that answer. With the right questions you can get past the blame-game and win the real prize. You can get past the guesswork and get to the real work. You can get off your “But” of reluctance and past the restraints of “Because” and onto the critical path that is hidden just behind the “overgrowth” of root cause (like those weeds that keep showing up in our lawn).
So what’s the best question? (that one of course). “Because” until we ask the right questions the real issue will remain just out of sight – hidden in the details – that are only known by someone that we overlooked because they aren’t in charge, they are just impacted (again).
“But” we had such good intentions(?). Good. “But” that is not good enough – for you or for me or for us – and somehow (“Because” of you) we are now all in this together..
and that’s life.
The challenge (and opportunity), which is ongoing, is to manage the results of our latest decision. So the only way we can do that is to use an approach that takes what we know (or should have learned), compares that to where we want(ed) to go instead, determines why we are where we are instead of where we want(ed) to be, and how we can get there (instead). That process now becomes our “life” and makes our life better – and better -and better.
I don’t have to convince you to do that. You and I (and everyone else) want something better. Unless we are completely selfish we also want that for others so long as our portion is still equitable. We want to be equitably rewarded according to our effort (not according to the entitlement schedule imposed by some imposing authority that re-distributes what we should have received). Absent that equitable system we resort to getting ours first – making the result of our last decision worse and worse and worse – for everyone.
The result of that (selfish) approach starts to look a lot like the outcomes of the United Nations – well intentioned and overgrown with inequality. It starts to look like the failed corporations whose leaders took a disproportionate share of our efforts. It starts to look like politics, overgrown with special favors – taken from our taxes and then redistributed (under the guise of “equal” rights) to others who voted to support that “selfish” system. It starts to look like the broken families where love was not understood, or shared, or received. It starts to look a lot like our job, our government, our world. It all starts to look too familiar.
And that’s LIFE… unless we change something…
We (each) must change the way we continuously change our minds – about the results of our latest decision. We (all) must change the way we continuously manage the ongoing change that can make our lives better and better – by cooperatively managing the results of OUR latest decisions.
How can we do that ? – I thought you’d never ASK…
“You overlooked something and now you need to step back ONLY one decision
and sort it out to see why it didn’t work as you intended”.
That’s all you and I and we have to do, globally!
Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your life –
unless you want to get started early – today.
—————–
Let us know what part you want to enjoy – with us!!
NOTE: While this website is my personal initiative, the ASK4™ approach is aparticipant-managed collaboration platform and the U-Netted Nations™ is the result of our ‘Collaboration On Purpose’. My voice becomes one in a million – immediately.
Reframing Our Insights – Transforming Our Efforts
There are acronyms to describe the tools and systems that are used to survive in the world of business – including:
- BI – collecting business needs
- ERP – providing business solutions
- CRM – managing customers/feedback
Every new parent knows what every business owner (and everyone else) should learn – that knowledge comes from the sudden awakening that the baby needs something – and right now.
The next question is WHAT. The baby is not able to communicate so the parent has to investigate the situation and determine the options that could bring relief – or satisfaction. The next question is HOW. The parent has to decide how to address the situation and provide the solution. With any luck (and just-in-time delivery) – the needs will be met and the parent can return to business-as-usual, LISTENING And READY for the next active call of duty.
Babies don’t even have to ‘know’ what they need to create the change in the system that can force parents to listen, respond, learn (repeatedly). Somewhere along that critical path toward mutual success they come to a sustainable approach – the viable convergence of needs, and solutions, and feedback. Parents know that the baby must be fed – and then we also must eventually “burp ’em” . That final result serves as a feedback loop – assuring that the formulation was well placed – and well received (borrowing/combining “BIRPM” from those three business acronyms above suggests the same closure).
Unfortunately, that early lesson is often lost later in life. Those same babies may have all but given up yearning to get what they want – let alone what they need – by the time they mature, enter the workplace, interact in society, and share common space on this small blue planet. Their frame of reference ‘lens’ somehow seems to get broken.
a shattered view of life
So would it help to replace that ‘lens’
– to improve our own insight – to expand our shared vision ?
“Reframers” is only the latest term used to describe those who are willing to take a new look at what is – and consider what might be better – and how. That focused choice is not new and countless others have made it – on the way to a mindless job – in the throes of a hopeless marriage – on the last day of meeting payroll – on the way to an enemy prison.
Somehow at the ‘last moment’ they decide.
That decision is their first step in a better direction.
“Reframers” decide to “question prior answers”. Repeating what has always been done is only randomly effective, even given the same challenge. Only those with “status” stand to gain from protecting the “status quo”. Everyone else stands to gain from liberating everyone else.
They use the new insight to “answer current questions”. That is always the first step toward a better result. Getting current information about the real need can empower us to avoid a another failed approach – to create rather than focusing blame on ‘yesterday’.
They create “future solutions”. The symptoms of yesterday’s decisions will face us today. But our decisions today will also face us tomorrow with more unwanted symptoms – if we don’t enact meaningful change. Today we must converge insight into the initiatives that can fulfill our desired results, tomorrow.
They share the “benefits”. Some will be the customers – some will be the providers – some will be brokers of information or products – some will defend the rights of all of them to exchange and enjoy all these benefits. They all share a relatively small space on a small planet that is hurtling through space – one that ‘they’ must all sustain if WE are to all survive.
Where does your frame of reference …fit within this frame of relevance?
Are you ready to be cloud-based and crowd-sourced..?
Can we apply a little process improvement
– and even some parental skill?
S.T.O.P. (see the obvious problem?)
Innovation is driven by a pressing need or a problem or an opportunity – and someone else may offer an insight or an answer. The obvious problem is “What’s the Question”.
If that statement sounds a little unclear, consider this video about “STOP” signage:
WHAT’s The POINT? {{–video
Like so many misplaced initiatives, this obvious example hallmarks the way our good intentions can create unintended consequences. Whatever our goal. it is usually our desire to somehow stop the nonsense – and replace it with common sense.
Too often we find ourselves engaged in mere “change” that only results in even more non-sense.
Much of what we “hope” for in process improvement and innovation results in another problem – in terms of the process by which the original issue is first analyzed and then addressed.
In our haste to find a solution we are often beguiled to just take action, any action, on any one of many symptoms – only to create even more symptoms, non-sense. The urge to accommodate those coming from other countries can obliterate the unique identity of the country that benevolently intends to assimilate them, non-sense. The urgency to save the shoreline may encourage us to move our activities off-shore – to drill for oil at depths and distances that prevent us from safely managing the process that then fails – and then threaten the very shoreline from which we retreated earlier, non-sense.
The list goes on and on and you have your own opinions about local examples of failing to act within a more expansive (or even global) context. Actions taken within any isolated viewpoint will predictably impact those outside of that limited field of view. Again, it is obvious that our viewpoint must acknowledge the perspective of everyone else that has a viewpoint – all stakeholders – and even those that may only be surprised by the results…. of our implementing some totally unexpected non-sense.
Transparency requires equitable representation
– and accountability requires equitable benefits.
Obviously, we need a methodical approach and a consistent way to find answers. We need a process from which those consistent answers can be equitably (re-)produced.
Obviously we may not have FOUND the right questions…
– or perhaps we just have not USED them…(?)
The challenge is to S.T.O.P. (see through others’ problems) before suggesting alternatives. Obviously there is a key question – or more likely a series of questions – to help us ALL get to the root cause of the real issues – that we ALL desire to solve.
Once we find the “best questions” – we can realistically expect the best answers.
Until then or even when we do – the next question may be:
“Will we agree to use them..?”
The answer to that question will be obvious!
—————–
Let us know what part you want to enjoy – with us!!
Knows, Says, Does
Everybody knows – that something COULD be done
Everybody says – that something SHOULD be done
Everybody does – SOMETHING, especially at the start
– and what finally gets done is often less than what is needed.
WHY
We could predictably digress to a discussion about so-called reform and how politics can divert to the vested interest of those in the ‘pork’ business. But there are more pressing needs in our immediate neighborhood and that of our neighbors (like Haiti of note). What we are addressing touches on both. Neither will be resolved until SOMETHING affords the real CHANGE that we can ALL believe in – not just the few that might be self-served otherwise. And even in the midst of our good intentions and humanitarian efforts, the frailty of our human nature is often showcased as well.
“Everybody knows…SOMETHING” – is more than true, everywhere. While management may desire to know what to change to make things better, line workers are challenged with making things work, anyway. They know the problem intimately and live with it daily. The problem in many cases is also that those who should be listening often turn a deaf ear to that insight. So our first challenge is to open the dialogue and afford everyone equitable representation in that continuous feedback mechanism. Few systems are designed for unfiltered feedback from all those who are impacted and transparent accountability back to all its stakeholders.
“Everybody says… ” – that SOMETHING should be done. There are a growing number of portals and websites and blogs that broadcast our opinions on everything, and to anybody that will listen or watch. The problem is that what we say in one place is not ‘visible’ to what has already been said or what will likely be repeated by someone else, somewhere else, again and again. Not only is the information often repeated, but so is the problem.
Everybody does – SOMETHING, especially at the start. It is easier to rally the troops when self-preservation is at stake. It is easier to ride the emotion of a recent catastrophe than rekindle momentum based on its fading memory. The problem is that our attention is often drawn to a new problem, that too often is just a repeat of an old issue, long since forgotten or buried in the wealth of information that is too often overlooked, or perhaps incomplete or even useless.
So what finally gets done is often less than what is needed. Anyone with a grasp for the obvious is probably aware of this set of issues – and is probably presently involved in some misplaced effort that echoes these problems. And the good news is that the solution to these problems has just been defined within the problem statement itself.
The problem is one of divergence
– that can be resolved by convergence.
We can start by learning SOMETHING from our past. A quick review of the issues described above offers us more than enough insight. The challenge and opportunity is then to collect that knowledge and make it useful, simply and effectively. So how can we all LEARN something, from everybody, everywhere, and every time?
Got a “checklist”…?
Dr. Atul Gawande has recently posed that approach as a means to refocus all the energy that is too often wasted instead. To help with putting that approach to work for us he has even offered a checklist for making a checklist. At its basic concept the checklist serves us in several key ways.
The checklist starts with the affirmation that finding out what ‘someone’ knows is important and will be collected from anyone that cares enough to participate. It continues with a structured process in which it will be collected so that everyone knows which facets of their viewpoints will be evaluated. It culminates in a formalized framework in which their diverse insight can be implemented. What is… broken, what will…be considered, what can…be done?
It offers consistent input to anticipate consistent throughput for useful output.
It holds out real hope for real change for real benefits – for everyone.
Perhaps the internet has finally afforded us the technology to join our collective voices – for good. The challenge is to create a checklist that applies to everyone, everywhere, every time.
I would suggest that all we need to do is ASK4 it…
Let us know what part you want to enjoy – with us!!
An ear to the ground… (or ground up?)
How does your business improvement process “stack up” against your competition…?
– is it starting to teeter, tilt, and topple..?
In technology, the “stack” refers to the operating components that ride on top of and then depend on the lower layer for their own functionality. In business that “stack” may be the hierarchical model often depicted in org charts (as if that inversely-stacked allegiance is really honored in actual business relationships). But that said, there is certainly an interdependence and certain components do support and empower the successive ones – as stated here:
Having the right framework, foundation, and functionality can make all the difference. That is what has been studied and proven over the years, regardless of whatever name is given to the current business theology. Designing for change is one of those concepts offered by Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management. Each theory echoes some similar constructs and suggests at least the following practical considerations.
FRAMEWORK
The overall environment in which a company operates can define it – and enhance or limit its ultimate impact. It turns out that it is not just the course of action that is planned and executed but also the ability to change course in route to the intended destination, dynamically. All the work put into a business plan to sail toward success will only be as effective as the response of those who make dynamic adjustments as circumstances demand. That is why published plans are more likely to fail than online tools that provide a ‘live-in’ framework in which to “adjust the sails as the wind changes, and reach the shore, safely”.
FOUNDATION
There are only two things that stop a company in its tracks on the path toward success: People and People. The people that want (pull) whatever it is that you intend to provide are the primary foundation of your business. Until one person wants and buys your offering, there is no business, only a theory about the demand. The people that provide what you offer (push) are the other half of the foundation to your enterprise. That supply chain must be integrated to respond appropriately in terms of timing, quantity, and quality. If there are any broken links, those other people (customers) can and will go elsewhere to meet their needs, needs that change daily!
FUNCTIONALITY
Defining a value proposition that meets the need of THOSE people (customers) and implementing the processes undertaken by YOUR people (suppliers) to meet those needs is done within the framework of your operations. Putting the entire chain together and making sure it doesn’t break is accomplished within the framework of the whole market dynamic. But that is often not what is carried out – or done well – and that integrated ‘dynamic’ (pull-push) often results in broken ‘links’.
The only things that can interfere with successfully creating that value chain are two things: people and people. If THOSE people who want something decide that they want something else (that you don’t or won’t offer) then your offer is immediately unacceptable. The only thing you need to know is what they want – today and tomorrow (not yesterday).
The only thing that keeps YOUR people from providing what is requested is the process by which your people respond to that request – along that supply chain (process), immediately!
So, the most important question about your approach comes down to this –
“Is it immediate?”
Imagine filling your gas tank as you take a cross-county trip by only using the miles-per gallon report from an earlier trip. You would likely find yourself out of gas somewhere along the interstate. Yet that is similar to how we use actuarial evidence of past performance, even if it is done within what-if analysis or other business ‘projections’. Imagine driving in a manner or at a rate of speed based on the average air pressure in your tires last year. A small nail in the road can alter your course or bring you to a complete stop, immediately.
Neither of these analogies is likely true in your business, right? That being said, what are you doing that is NOT based on feedback from the entire chain – IMMEDIATELY?
How long is the delay before you hear from THOSE people – or YOUR people?
Perhaps more importantly, what do you hear from them and how much ‘filtering’ occurs before you hear it? Is whatever you hear filtered by:
- timing (out of date or after the impact)
- relevance (lacking in broader or related details)
- politics (flavored by vested interest or self-preservation)
You can forget what the competition is planning – if you don’t find out what your customers want. You can forget what mid-managers report after ‘sanitizing’ it if you don’t get in direct touch with everyone that touches your supply process. Your success depends on the unbroken and effective linkage of these PEOPLE, and knowing what they know about you and your business.
Very likely you are not immediately aware of what is REALLY happening
with THOSE people – or with YOUR people.
The only way a business can respond and improve and survive is by using a real-time ‘dashboard‘. You need to know how all components are re-ACTING. You need
- an integrated view of the entire framework of your market environment
- as heard from the voices of Those people and Your people who are the foundation
- for adjusting the current functionality that you use to keep the entire chain intact
and you need it dynamically – immediately and continuously.
If your business plan is published, it is also out of date, immediately. If you aren’t hearing from everyone in YOUR organization, be assured that some recruiter or placement firm is. If you aren’t hearing from THOSE people, be assured that your competition already has.
And don’t overlook what has become ‘the last mile’ in that chain. THEY are also already connected and discussing you and your business information around the globe/24/7/365. Even if you choose not to actively participate in ‘social networking’, you are already being (mis?)represented there. Your challenge is to keep an ear to the ground and gain equitable representation and equitable remuneration within this new relationship economy.
If your business results aren’t stacking up to suit you (or to suit your customers), that ‘information’ is already putting you and your company at risk of being “ground up” in the continuous process of competition, improvement, and survival – and immediately.
Let us know what part you want to enjoy – with us!!
A Pair-of-Docs
Here’s a paradox for you:
One reason a business fails – it doesn’t act like a social network!
One reason a social network fails – it doesn’t act like a business!
Somewhere along the path to good business relationships something is often overlooked. Customers like to go where someone “knows their name” (like “Cheers!”). Employees like to work where someone “knows their name” (like “Thanks!”).
Somewhere along the path to creating social networks, something is often overlooked. Participants only show up to get their needs satisfied (like “Cheer$!”) Those who invest time and money to provide these platforms for that audience also show up for their own satisfaction (like “Thank$).
Turns out it’s the same process from either perspective – and it’s all about serving the common needs of people.
It’s a pretty safe bet that most people are seeking
equitable representation and equitable remuneration
within whatever system they participate – and that
smart investors will want a ‘share’ in that ..
Persons, professions, and communities have familiar characteristics. Studies in psychology have cataloged humanity into basic personality types that respond in somewhat predictable patterns. Those patterns may predict the purpose for which they join together in interest groups and undertake common initiatives (religious, social, professional, political). That also translates into the way their relationships are formed, especially where commerce is conducted and money is exchanged.
The purpose for which a social network or business exists may vary from purely philanthropical to purely profitable. The distribution of any proceeds created by those efforts then gets apportioned within that purpose. Given that framework (stated intention/reward), individuals can choose an endeavor and will participate so long as their expectations are proportionately met. Unexpected changes in the purpose or the proportionate benefit can cause upsets – and an exodus may soon follow.
Yet, if you look at the organization chart of a given business you will likely overlook how things actually work, ‘socially’. If you look at the process of a given social network you will likely just become ‘lost in the conversation’. If you look at the purpose of a for-profit business it may overlook the social values of its customers. If you look at the operating process of a not-for-profit entity you may see that it fails to ever accomplish its intended social purpose. It appears that we may need to change the process, on purpose!
A pair of documents come to mind – each perhaps missing from the ‘other’ arena:
Where are the ‘business plans’
for social networks?
– the critical path?
for business development?
– the stake-holders?
Both arenas appear to suffer the same lack of results and perhaps for similar reasons. Perhaps its time to merge the documents – and dissolve the paradox – maybe it’s time to CONVERGE.
WHAT IF…
SOCIAL NETWORK CONVERSATIONS…
were mapped to support BUSINESS PROCESS?
and
BUSINESS PROCESS…
was the framework of SOCIAL NETWORK CONVERSATIONS?
——
and if we want real change…
What if each person, seeking equitable representation and equitable remuneration, could ALSO find that in their system of government?
Let us know what part you want to enjoy – with us!!
Have – Want – Need
Just when the cold war finally ended and we felt somewhat secure, things started to heat up again. The internet now echoes or amplifies our insecurity around the world in a matter of seconds, affecting everyone within global earshot.
The mechanics of that web are also changing from 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0 and beyond. “We’re moving from documents to data, from pages to triples, from HTML to RDF, from keyword to context.”
Our new means of communication has now made everything more relevant to everyone else – everywhere – and instantly.
For us to be able to turn all that relevance into something other than chaos, a consistent frame of reference must be established through which any issue can be viewed and analyzed by anyone, anywhere. Within that frame of reference, the constructs of the data that is being processed must also be normalized to its lowest structural elements so that it can be aggregated, filtered, and then disbursed to any interested participant or impacted party, across a global scale.
Simplification must come first in order to enable a subsequent expansion of scale. A primary example of that basic data structure is RDF – at the core of all things web:
RDF is a W3C standard for modeling and sharing distributed knowledge based on a decentralized open-world assumption. Any knowledge about anything can be decomposed into triples (3-tuples) consisting of subject, predicate, and object; essentially, RDF is the lowest common denominator for exchanging data between systems.
Beyond each basic web principle are the more complex technical functions that are being added daily to increase the benefits of improved information and to expand the community of knowledge users. I certainly am unqualified to build in or on that current technology. My limited coding ability now qualifies for the museum of almost forgotten computer languages.
But I would offer a reflection from past data management principles, and a minimalist structure for this new “frame of relevance“. It is also a simple ‘triple ‘, and while perhaps not worthy of a patent, it is patently obvious and will be useful to frame our ongoing discussions within the capacity afforded by the layer upon layer of new technology. Perhaps such a concept can be thought of as:
“Semantics 001” – for modeling and sharing distributed RELEVANCE based on a decentralized open-world viewpoint, wherein any SITUATION can be decomposed into triples, essentially the lowest common denominator for exchanging IDEAS between HUMANS so they discover the mutual benefits of sustainable solutions.
What if any situation we face could be considered through this logical lens and then processed through its objective framework (aka “ASK4”)?. What if we could each have equitable representation in its discourse and equitable remuneration from its results? Who would not want to be a part of that “syndication” of knowledge? Who would not want to enjoy the “interoperability” of true cooperation ?
One simple way to frame our issues and create new shared opportunity is that we must:
- first examine what we HAVE (documents/information)
- then compare that against what we WANT (meaning/insight)
- and discover what we all truly NEED (relevance/sustainability)
As we move from the web of words (documents) to the web of meaning (relevance), the structure of information has also evolved to first become normalized toward each new structure and then become consistently conformed to that new structure. That evolution is expected and necessary for us to benefit from what each revision of technology has to offer and what we all desire as the eventual outcome. Unless we also amend to each new version, we would have no added capacity to move toward interpolation (between diverse languages and contexts) and toward needed interoperability (the cooperative results of our convergent collaboration).
The mechanics of our evolution toward this desired technical interoperability may offer a parallel insight into the human interaction layer that gets represented across this expanded neural network. We may have finally arrived at the threshold to a quantum leap in our ability to make sense of so much nonsense. Perhaps we can finally gain the mutual benefits so long desired by all humanity, but scarcely realized – until now.
If and when and however we get the technology to work for us, we must also all find a way to work in it, to our mutual benefit. That will only occur if we are able to:
- honestly complain about what we individually don’t want (or already have)
- have the equitable representation of our individual desires (what we really want)
- objectively and cooperatively discover sustainable solutions (what we truly need)
so that we can consistently enjoy a win-win result.
Unless this new technology gives us the democratic access to expression and equitable access to benefits, it will have done us all a great dis-service. Unless we can use it to converge toward consensus, we will certainly digress toward insecurity, separatism, and even more conflict.
So as we layer in the operating elements of this new technology stack, perhaps our first layer of context will reflect that socially-important “triple” (have-want-need) so that our search for solutions is always relevant personally and equally relevant to other seekers (globally).
Not only is the democratization of information important,
but so is the information of democracy.
The right of free speech, our representative shared governance,
and a sustainable peace are also at stake.
Perhaps the technology has finally evolved to the point that we can co-manage our path forward toward mutual success instead of abandoning the weakest of our human efforts as if our own accidental survival were a reason for independent celebration.
Perhaps our ability to reason has enabled us to create a reasoning technology by which we all can finally interact reasonably – cooperatively – and globally.
What’s NEXT – with YOU? – care to comment?
– dare to COOPERATE?
Let us know what part you want …to enjoy – with us!!
I’ve entered this article in Blogging Innovation’s October Innovation Contest – To show your support for this article, please follow the link and add a comment.
NOTE: While this website is my personal initiative, the ASK4™ approach is a participant-managed collaboration platform and the U-Netted Nations™ is the result of our ‘Collaboration On Purpose’. My voice becomes one in a million – immediately.
Embedded Innovation
Once upon a time, a long time ago, some forward-thinking person suggested the ‘suggestion box’.
Equitable Representation?
It was adopted in some situations, affording numerous participants an equitable representation in the shared experience, the open collaboration process, and the mutual success of their renewed efforts.
Too often, when it uncovered evidence of any malfeasance, the submitted info was misused to identify those who disagreed with upper level leaders (who then sometimes chose to suppress those voices, or render sanctions, or enact other ‘ruler-ship’ injustice against them).
We’ve come a long way since then, or have we..?
How is the suggestion box working in your company?
How is it working with your ‘congress’, or country?
Is your leadership the core team for helping to uncover issues and then roll out continuous improvements? Are they encouraging embedded innovation or encouraging you to just ‘get in bed’ with their own views, and quietly go along for the ride?
Sadly, leaders can forget the lessons and the benefits of shared responsibility. And in some companies (even countries), some watch hopelessly as leaders forget that the suggestion box (or ballot box) is meant to provide equitable representation and define equitable remuneration for everyone.
If I work for a company that doesn’t have a suggestion box, I may also have no voice. If the suggestion box is monitored for ‘malcontents’, I may not have equitable representation. If I join a group, the beliefs/politics of that group may not represent my opinions or interests. If I want to express my opinion in that circumstance, some steward or ‘boss’ might influence some of my future personal benefits, or even current success. If I accept any group benefits (or ‘bailout’ money), I may find that my rights to express divergent opinions are ‘discouraged’, just like they are for those whose suffer lack of freedom under a dictator in some foreign country.
In governance circles the concept is referred to as freedom of speech, uncommon in many countries and paid for by the sacrifice of patriot lives if it is to prevail. Where other citizens desire that same freedom, some patriots have been willing to risk their lives on those foreign shores to confront those tyrants who usurp or even deny those God-given freedoms to others.
Is Your C-Level In the Bed Race?
In companies, what we are now calling “embedded innovation” is the way we try to make life better BY everyone – FOR everyone. “Win-Win” is not a new or novel concept. It IS however now empowered by a transparency and accountability ‘engine’ that can be engaged to transmit power to and from all stakeholders.
Perhaps it is long past time to re-invent the suggestion box, again. Perhaps it should never have been taken out of gear, or abandoned. Perhaps it will be hard to re-engage the ‘right’ to contribute, collaborate, converge consensus, and launch mutually-beneficial initiatives. Perhaps those who influenced the universities, that created the graduates, that now run the companies, that answer to the groups and vested interest parties are already exerting more than an equitable share of control. Perhaps it is already too late…
Perhaps that would be true if it weren’t for one thing – our global suggestion box (the web).
Now at the speed of sound, if someone violates the rights of others it is noted and posted and re-tweeted around the globe, instantly. Even those bystanders that aren’t directly impacted can recognize and respond and even contribute to events that occur outside of their own normal circles of influence. There is a certain poetic justice to that – and that justice is swift and sure.
Company stocks can fall instantly based on the real-time perception of the watching world. Bridges to no-where and airports for the privileged few become beacons of hypocrisy. The inequitable ’empowerment’ of some nutty group to organize and assist other citizens in law breaking becomes the reason they can just as quickly be disconnected from prior rank and privilege, even when they were formerly approved by connections to the ‘big man himself”.
So, the question is NOT:
whether (or not) to have a suggestion box or some form of participation
– or similar form of shared governance (and political process)
Rather, the question IS:
how to implement an embedded innovation process
– as soon and as effectively as possible.
- What are the RISKS: egos and tyranny
- What are the REWARDS: success and freedom
- Who CARES: We’ll See..! (and they’ll all see too)
What’s about YOU?
– care to comment?
– dare to COOPERATE?
Past – Present – Future – – –
Learn from the PAST – Adapt to the PRESENT – Envision the FUTURE
That is what happens in every generation – with or without any real progress – until the “next” generation posts its manifesto of wanted change on the wall of history. The real change that has occurred is that pundits are posting those ‘mandates’ in real time, 24,7.
You can now search the web and find an unlimited supply of “now-new” ideas and good intentions and upstart initiatives that want to create that change. They all want to enroll us in their vision of the future, cleaning up from the past, and stepping into their global change effort. Many even have a plan and a time-line. They are empowered to publish, connected to converse, and positioned to compete. “But” what they don’t have is a ‘clearinghouse’ or coordination, “because” they are not yet interoperable or cooperative.
- How have we so ‘successfully’ re-created digital stove-pipes, globally?
- What is the carbon footprint of all that duplication of those environmental and ‘reductionists’ efforts – why are there so many efficiency initiatives ?
- Why is our process still broken – and why do our results mirror only repeated frustration?
learn from past?
“Because” we have not entirely learned from the past or adapted the tools of the present, we may NOT be creating the future we envision or desire – or so critically need to even survive.
Worse yet, we may be rushing to re-create the very same things that we want to escape from our past, just like countless generations before us. Our abhorrence of the past entices us to create the possibility of the future without regard for the limits of the present circumstance that we may then inadvertently re-create. The agreed urgency to change from the past can ensnare those who react to the emotion of the present to avoid the prediction of pending doom in the near future. We are willing to give (present) credit to those who hope to reduce the footprint of our errors, even if what they do may be found to actually be worse in total impact (future). Nobel prizes may await those pundits who can manifest the best version of this questionable call-to-action formula, literally!
But when is all is said and done, there is just a lot more said… and little if any done that creates sustainable change. Worse yet it can trumpet those bad ideas from one-to-one-millions to speed their acceptance and then aggregate those errors for deployment across the communities represented in all those threaded discussions. Our hope in a new promise enrolls us in a well-intentioned vote. B_u_t “politics as usual” soon surfaces b_e_c_a_u_s_e our ‘new’ process does not transparently identify and then accountability exclude our past mistakes. So many good intentions, so little to show for it, so sad.
If we want change so badly:
- why do we make wrong choices
- why do we passively accept status quo
- why don’t we define meaningful improvements
- why don’t we implement truly sustainable solutions
Here is a basic truth – we individually and collectively do it “because”. We hang on to some element of erroneous belief that passes for an excuse (our individual and group-think rationale for irrational behavior). The emperor’s new clothes are always a poor fashion statement – the audacity of transparent hypocrisy is always unbecoming, just “‘because”…
So if we are to escape the bounds of our self-imposed gravity, the first step for man – on behalf of all mankind, is to get off our “BUTS” (those bastions of defensive opinions) and trade in our effort-guzzling clunker-thinking rationale (“because”) for the logical and objective results of root cause analysis.
We must first integrate and then cooperate in
- finding collective insight (from PAST lessons)
- coming to collective consensus (about the PRESENT)
- coordinating collective actions so we can minimize the effort in
- creating sustainable outcomes (for our mutually-beneficial FUTURE).
And one more thing, we will all have to be actively engaged in the equitable representation of that self-governed process in order to enjoy an equitable remuneration share of its co-operative innovation economy. “WE the PEOPLE” is about “OUR government” –
“BUT”, until “we” get to the root cause,
“we” may just suffer more of the same old stuff,
generations to come – “Because”…
Let us know what part you want to enjoy – with us!!
NOTE: While this website is my personal initiative, the ASK4™ approach is a participant-managed collaboration platform and the U-Netted Nations™ is the result of our ‘Collaboration On Purpose’. My voice becomes one in a million – immediately.
Blueprint – Roadmap – GPS
Where are we now – where are we going – how can we get there?
Few would argue that this equation defines our circumstance, echoes our desires, and determines our destination (and results). We are reminded by the wise that: “If we don’t know where we are going – we could end up somewhere else” – “If we can’t say what we want – don’t be surprised by what we get” – and numerous other truisms.
Now imagine that these concepts were not ‘true’, or known, or were not heeded. We would have folks taking off in the wrong directions, making the wrong turns along the way, and ending up facing the wrong way on one-way streets by repeating the errors of prior travelers.
We would probably be seeing
exactly what we ARE seeing, everywhere, everyday.
Are we there yet? – YES! Is that where we thought we were headed? – NO!
How can we get back to where we started – before we got so tired, so lost, so hopeless? How did we end up here when we had such good intentions?
Why can’t our relationships work,
our citizens and communities thrive,
our nations live in peace, our planet survive?
You probably have an answer. And you probably have an answer. And you probably have an answer too (get it?). That’s the problem – and the answer – to how we all got somewhere “else”.
We ALL got here “because” (of someone’s brilliant suggestions) …and now we need to get back home to ‘reality’ by everyone’s quiet “introspection” – and a cooperative search for new directions and solutions.
Why can’t individuals agree? – “because”! Why don’t relationships work? – “because”! Why can’t communities thrive? – “because”! Why can’t nations agree? – “because”! – simply ‘because’.
What’s the problem with ALL of these issues – “root cause”. What did I ask to be able to know that? – exactly! (I asked “what”, and then why and how and who,,). The answer is in the question – and using the right question guarantees the right solution. Asking will not only lead us to an answer, it will uncover other hidden problems in route. We aren’t looking for the roadside parks of paralysis analysis. Rather, we seek the Visitor Centers of information that direct us away from tourist traps and toward worthy landmarks and economic services.
And there’s one more thing, we aren’t looking for the blueprint of how the road WAS built. We are at least looking for a recent roadmap – better yet, a real-time GPS. If a recent flood just washed out the bridge to our future – we need to go another route. If the survey party is now planning the new tollway to go completely out of the way in order for us to stop at all their gas stations, then we may not want to pay that toll in our future travels.
I want to know from each recent traveler how the weather and road conditions are right now. I also want to know not to turn left according to some information that has already caused other travelers to end up off the road and in the ditch.
I don’t know about you, but I think it might help – before we go any further, if:
- I heard back about your trip and what I face ahead
- we all knew about where we are now, and trying to go next
- we knew about those directing us, or whether they have a ‘safe’ record
- we considered our alternate routes, and where else we might end up
- we avoid buying another old map – that is now out-of-date – “because”.
So next time you “set out” to plan a get together, start or run a business, lead a community event, charter a national initiative, solve a regional ‘crisis’, or champion a well-intentioned cause that “hopes” to create ‘world peace’, perhaps you will want to take a moment to ask a few questions, map a viable path, listen to the feedback from others, and avoid the dead ends and tourist traps. And maybe you will be more wary of anyone telling you that:
you can only buy that kind of gas HERE, and
– We ALL Have to get going… NOW
Want real cooperation, progress, CHANGE ? – Dare to ASK4™ it…?
U-Netted Nations™ 