My friend of over 25 years is starting hospice care. She's been dealing with cancer for the past couple of years, and it's metastasized. I was able to visit her at the beginning of November, and we watched Anna and the Apocalypse (in addition to a whole bunch of other movies). And this song...
She told me the filmmaker behind it was battling cancer too, and basically had no fucks left to give. This song is a mood.
And a rather fitting one, I think. Not just because of my friend's situation. I think back to where we were a year ago, and I do think things are better now. Trump lost the election, he's no longer president, and we're not dealing with his madness on top of everything else.
And yet...
And yet, just as many people said, Trump was more a symptom of the problem than the problem itself. We're still struggling, far more than I had hoped or wanted, to make the changes we need.
I find myself thinking about various projects I've worked on. Like the one in Iraq, where we were trying to improve our biometric collection processes. When a later class discussed change management (and how you needed support from people at the top) it resonated... because I have seen how hard it is to do anything when you don't have the support you need.
I've seen the reverse as well. At my current company there seems a decent amount of upper level support for change, but the people themselves seem to be resisting it. You can see it in how people just sort of stop joining meetings, or get busy with other things and say they can't participate any more.
Some days I wonder what it would be like, to be part of a success story. Changes with the support they need, both at the top and bottom. You'll never have everyone on board, of course. Change management is probably one of the hardest things any organization can do, and any change will benefit some and harm others. But... having wise leadership pushing the right changes, doing so in a way that persuades people to get on board with it, leading to an organization that's doing things right.
It sounds almost magical, actually.
I try not to be too cynical and negative, but I think a certain amount of skepticism is realistic. Because far too often the changes are only cosmetic. (Like all the jokes in the military about how someone renamed a project or organization, just to get a bullet point for their evaluation report. Or the way the receiving department changed the layout on their floor, twice at least, both times supposedly part of process improvement. Lean six sigma stuff. Except if it was so efficient the first time, why did it need changed a second time?)
Not that those things are wrong, or bad. I've read about them, and other industry buzz words (like SRE for tech now). But implementing them effectively often requires a deeper level of change that I just don't think most organizations are truly willing to do. Which means people do something cosmetic that they can put on an evaluation, without actually changing much of anything. (Again, change management is hard, so that's not meant as an insult.)
I suppose that's part of why I'm so interested in systems, and organizational structures. Most people are average. It's kind of the definition of 'average' actually, and a good system will ensure that the important things get done. Any officer or soldier in their proper position can do the paperwork needed to make sure we have the supplies and equipment we need. Battalions have staffs that ensure proper training is done. And most of it doesn't require true excellence (though of course everyone wants it, and tries to develop it).
Nations are also organizations, and the rise and fall of nations is an ongoing fascination of mine. Why do some start to stagnate and fall? Why do some blossom and grow? Is the cycle truly inevitable? How do you stop or change it?
I read a fascinating history on the Mongols, I can't remember which book... but one of their subsequent empires seemed to be declining, until a really impressive leader took charge and helped restore it for another hundred years or so.
I like to think I have a good sense of what's needed, but... well.
Doesn't everybody? Isn't that part of the problem? All the companies Jim Collins wrote about in How the Mighty Fall wanted to succeed after all. And the ones who made the decisions leading to decline didn't think that was what they were doing.
The only real way to know is to see what happens afterwards, at which point it's generally too late to change anything.
The point of that is that regardless of whether I know what I'm talking about or not, it doesn't really matter if the people who have the ability to change things disagree.
And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? I think we're headed in a rather terrible direction, but the forces pushing us that way seem far too powerful. I'll still do what I can, most especially by voting, but sometimes I get the sinking feeling that it just isn't going to be enough.
Climate change is one example of the problem. It's December already, and although I appreciate not being cold... this weather is ridiculous for this time of year. But good luck doing anything about it.
Just like there is apparently nothing we can do about school shootings.
Or growing wealth inequality.
Or the way most Americans support decriminalization, if not outright legalization, of marijuana.
Or the disastrous coronavirus response.
The forces resisting change seem far too powerful, and the end result is utterly crappy. For everyone.
I'm not saying it's hopeless, necessarily. It's just that the consequences of failing seem worse than ever. There's a very narrow path to a happy ending. (I thought about going into more detail about why these things are so terrible, or what a 'happy ending' entails... but honestly if you don't already understand why these things are a problem it would take a LOT of typing to lay out the arguments. I think I'll keep this post short and sweet instead.)
We've got a lot of work to do.
I have often pondered the contradiction between valuing democracy (and the social contract) and the abundance of evidence that the general public can be... foolish.
I generally don't write about it because it's practically impossible to do so. When you decide that the general public shouldn't be trusted then who do you trust instead? History has shown that 'experts' often cause just as much trouble, if not more. (i.e. they're so certain they know what's best that they can make disastrous mistakes and refuse to admit or learn from them. Or are unwilling to listen to anyone who contradicts their notions. If anyone wants some reading recommendations I can pull them out.)
The pandemic has made me think about this a bit more often than normal, for obvious reasons.
And I found myself thinking that rather than calling it 'foolishness', the better description is 'stiff-necked'.
There's all sorts of biblical examples where Israelites were described that way, and I like it because it seems less judgmental. Almost admiring. Like, of course it's annoying and frustrating and it hurts to see people make hurtful choices... but you also kind of have to admire the sheer cussedness. That determination to do your thing, right or wrong. Stubborn, argumentative, unwilling to change what you think just because someone else is telling you you're wrong...
I actually rather like that in people, especially subordinates. Even if it makes you feel like tearing out your hair, and causes all sorts of frustration when it comes to leading them.
(if they bend too easily, it's a bad sign. Like they're too afraid to speak their own truths, or are giving in just because you came on too strong and not because they actually agree. Or can be. I would hope that they're willing to change their minds when presented with good evidence or a good argument, but I'd rather work with someone who forces me to make those arguments and try to persuade them over someone who isn't confident enough to argue back.)
So anyways, I normally don't bother blogging about that... but I wanted to discuss our stiff-neckedness (a term that applies to a lot more than ancient biblical Israelites) and ramble a bit about some odd connections I've made.
The first of which comes from Islam.
The very word is supposed to mean 'submission to the will of God', and the early history shows (yet again) the struggle to get a very proud and stiff necked people to submit to the will of God.
I feel as though there's something important about this... I'm not sure what word to use. Concept? Interaction? Relationship?
Like, if I'm trying to develop a subordinate (or raise a child), I would want them to be confident and capable of standing up for what they believe, while being able to think critically and change their opinions if there's good reason to do so.
And so brute force is bad, because you haven't actually changed anyone's mind. You have persuaded anyone. You haven't convinced them of the rightness of your action, or made them internalize it and work to support your goals whole-heartedly.
You've just made them believe that they have no other choice, and have to do what you want.
But deciding to ignore it and leave people to their foolishness isn't exactly an option either. At least, not when we're talking about social dilemmas and public health.
I don't just mean the pandemic here, or the absolutely unnecessary death and suffering that's come about from all this anti-vaccine nonsense.
Nor is it just climate change, and the stranglehold nefarious actors have on any sort of effective response.
It's just that some things really do require mutual cooperation, and avoiding bad outcomes is not a given.
I say that, because well over a decade ago I'd had a discussion with one of my more conservative relatives about climate change, and they basically seemed to think that God wouldn't allow it.
(This was a very long time ago and I forget the specific argument, but I've heard some similar arguments over the years and practically every one of them is wrong. There's the 'we're not so powerful we could actually affect the climate of the entire world' and the 'somebody will think of a solution, it won't be so bad' and the like.)
And the thing is, while on the one hand I do think there's a way out of almost every situation... I don't think it happens by magic.
For example, when the Crusaders were attacking Salah Al-din at the Battle of Hattin, God didn't miraculously make a spring appear to give their forces water. Assuming God would have wanted them to succeed in the first place (which is definitely an assumption, I'm not saying He did) He would probably have made it happen by convincing someone to actually... you know. Plan properly? And secure some logistics? He gave us brains so we could do that sort of thing. Not so we can refuse to do any sort of planning at all, and then sit around waiting for a miracle to save us.
Salah Al-din was better prepared, planned better, and won. As they say, "God favors the prepared".
This is part of why I'm so interesting in decision making and organizational behavior. Good decisions may occur by accident once or twice, but no organization or nation can consistently choose wisely without a good method for ensuring the right people have the right information, have the wisdom to weigh and evaluate said information and use it to come up with good policies, and the power to put said policies into practice.
This is my main concern right now, actually.
It's not just that more and more people are struggling. That rent is often more expensive than a mortgage, which people can't get because of various other systemic issues, that inflation is eating up more and more of the average person's income even as wages still don't rise enough to make a difference, even as people are unable to afford basic healthcare needs, even as the poor decisions made over decades have made things harder and more uncertain for anyone other than a very small percentage of the population. It's not just about climate change, or the pandemic, or any of the other disasters just waiting to hit.It's that we don't have our collective shit together. That we either don't have the right information, or the right people getting that information, or the wisdom to actually evaluate that information and create sound policy, or the power to actually put said policies in place.
And the thing of it is, even though I can see the likely consequences of that... I still don't think it's inevitable.
But only if we're capable of changing whatever it is that's blocking us. Whether it's removing the obstacles to putting good policy in place, or getting wiser people in the right positions, or making sure those people get the right information...
And to tie this back to where I started... I do think a lot about Jim Collins works, and especially the type of leadership he described in How the Mighty Fall. We don't need egotistical know-it-alls who think they're our saviors.
We need people with the humility and level five leadership, ones who are able to ask the right questions and build a high performing quality team that can tackle these issues, and have the power to do so.
Ones who know how to listen and learn, monitor and evaluate and adjust their plans as needed.
Perhaps, if we didn't have quite so many stiff-necked people, we'll be able to deal with the challenges of our time.
