Breaking the rules

Many years ago a colleague told me “Rules are made to be broken”.    I am pretty sure the rule makers don’t view it that way.   This is an interesting philosophy and worth exploring a little.

Consequences

Rules are mostly enforced through consequences.  If you break the traffic law and go through a red light without stopping you could receive a monetary penalty as a consequence.  Worse, if you caused an accident your insurance costs could rise and if injury or death was caused there could be criminal charges and even jail time.

Alternately you might not be caught running the light and as a result suffer no consequences.   In this case the potential for consequences and the impact of the consequences is high enough most do not break this rule.

Consequences do not always prevent rule breaking, even if quite severe.  Drunk driving is a good example of this even though the consequences are very severe, people still do it.

Why break the rule?  What about consequences?

My colleague’s comment about rules was very contextual to the work place.  He viewed rule breaking as positive provided doing so let you achieve your business goal.   This view could be stated as, the risk of consequence related to ignoring a road block to success was worth taking – provided the risk of consequence was low (he was probably carefully about stretching rules that could lead to dismissal).

In general the philosophy was meant to target stupid bureaucratic rules and could be interpreted as a  way of thumbing your noise at the business establishment (this is the way my colleague viewed it).

Personally the direct approach of breaking the rules does not resonate, but succeeding by getting around them in clever and subtle ways really works for me.  In a sense this is more overcoming the rules than breaking them.

Lip Service

One of my most successful techniques is to agree to stupid rules, make it appear like I am following them while mostly I am focusing on my goal as directly as possible while keeping the rule guardians happy with irrelevant actions meant mainly to keep them satisfied.  It never amazes me how surprised they are when I succeed.  I can hear them thinking, how did you achieve that with all the roadblocks we put in place?

Thoughts on the Holiday Season

Each year, in many North American and European countries the  month of December is called the holiday season.  The christian holiday of Christmas occurs at this time and the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah is usually in December too.  And it is all topped off by the end of the roman calendar and start of the new year on January first.

During this holiday season most people get December 25th and 26th and Jan 1st off work and there is a rage of retail spending as people rush out to buy gifts for others.

Everyone is holly jolly around this time of year (or supposed to be) celebrating life, partying getting along with others and generally being in a giving and sharing mood.

Charitable donations rise significantly at this time of year as do donations to food banks, and other acts of kindness.

Since I was a young adult I have always wondered why there is a holiday season.  I ask myself do we need a “season” for this kind of behavior.  Why would we not feel holly jolly and be kind toward and thoughtful of others year round.

Cyclical Behavior

Why do good, happy and joyful actions and thoughts come around only once a year.  Are these really things that need to be scheduled?  Would it not make sense to celebrate the holiday season year round?

I guess the answer lies in the fact our holidays are limited to three to four weeks a years and specific statutory holidays.  So the holiday season can only come once every twelve months.  This is a bit strange to me though, in that I take holidays in the summer, spring and fall on occasion even though these are not officially designated times for the holiday season.

I guess ultimately it is about the effort required to be happy and nice to others, enjoy yourself and share our material goods (gifts).  It is just too much to do more than once a year.

Pity.

Give me some Power

Your personal power is earned or granted.  There is no other kind.

Granted Power

Based on your position in an organization (e.g., manager, director) or role in society (e.g., politician, police person) you are granted a level of authority within which it is expected your directions will be followed.  This positional or role based power is granted under certain conditions and the level of enforcement varies.

Granted power is largely exercised through recognition of the authority and associated respect for it.  The expectation is that the rules of governing body, that is a government, political, business or social organization will be respected.

In some cases penalties exist if the rules are not respected (resisting a police officer can lead to arrest) and tools can be authorized to be used assist in the enforcement of the rules (e.g., guns).

In other cases there can be consequences like being dismissed from your job or given a stern talking to but these are softer and sometime the negative results of disrespecting authority are ignored and sometimes not even fully enforceable.

In general though, granted power is easier for those who have it to exercise as there is some level of consequence associated with ignoring instructions from those who have granted power over you.

Earned Power

If are able to get others to act or take direction without the benefit of granted power you are exercising your earned power.  Those taking the directions are following you because you earned their respect.

Which is more powerful

Many studies have show a balanced combination of earned and granted power is most efficient in both achieving long term results as well as the immediate.

On it’s own granted power is the least effective and always has the downside that if the circumstances resulting in your granted power are removed you could be in trouble  (the dictator is overthrown).

How can this knowledge help?

Whether collaborating or leading others, consider the best way to achieve the desired results.  The directions you give must be clear enough and carry the ring of authority to be respected (granted) but also must include elements of empathy, ownership and respect of others to get their buy in.

 

Making Decisions

Over the years working with and reporting to a wide variety of leaders and managers, as you would expected, I have observed many different leadership behaviors around decision making.

Over time I have come to view this as a spectrum of decision making behaviors with an extreme practice at each end of the spectrum, let’s call those the “far right” and “far left” decision makers.

For this post I am discussing leaders or managers that are in a position of power and have an accountability for directing and influencing the decisions of those on their teams or teams that are aligned with them (depending on the overall size of their span of control).

Ultimately, based on their place in the organizations structure, they are accountable, whether directly or through influencing others, to ensure decisions related to their functional and strategic areas are made.

Far Left Decision Makers

For me this group of decision makers are the most difficult to work for or work with.  Issues, problems and decision recommendations are always greeted with questions, demands for more research or at a minimum directions which postpone the making of the decision.  It takes a lot of effort to get leaders or managers on the far left of the spectrum to commit and constant nagging and probing is needed.  Even that does not always elicit a decision.   This is very common in large bureaucracies.

Far Right Decision Makers

Much easier to work with this group tends to lean toward snap judgements.  Unlike their counterparts on the far left they make the decision quickly and forcefully.  It is clear how to proceed, however on occasion confusion arises from conflicts with other decisions and/or direction that does not always make sense and is hard to execute, albeit clear.

And the balance?

Like any spectrum a balance of far left, far right and down the middle behaviors, each used when most applicable, is the best approach.  Of course easier said than done, consider the following:

Under the concept that followers are also leaders, when seeking a decision think about which behavior best fits the needs.  Is it urgent, strategic, dependent on other factors, etc.   Based on this analysis conduct your decision request to the boss as a campaign and construct the way you approach your leadership/manager in a way that will help them see the best approach (that is do we need more information?; Should we be acting quickly?; and so on).   This is to say draw out your leader within to help gain a better resolution rather than just relying on others.

Leaving Coal Behind

With the Paris 2015 United Nations Conference on Climate Change,  just wrapping up there has been a lot of reporting from various media sources over the last few weeks about the climate change proposals and associated announcement of various government initiatives.

Alberta Coal

Although not totally new, one of the discussions highlighted is about the increased efforts by Canada (particularly the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta) to eliminate coal based power generation.

It is hard to argue this is not a really noble cause, coal is dirty and proven to cause respiratory related diseases.  Well documented are among them Coal Miners pneumoconiosis (CWP) and Silicosis.  Also the burning of coal produces a whole list of harmful air pollutants (much worse than say oil/natural gas production).

Economy versus Environment

For me, the big issue in this discussion is the economic effects.  While  harmful, both to mine and also when burned; Remember, coal is plentiful, relatively easy to extract (when measured against it’s competitor fuels).

Given coal supply is pretty steady and generally exceeds demand, it is a cost effective solution to power creation  (more so than other alternatives like hydro, nuclear, wind, etc).   Although, the economic benefit does depend on a number of factors, key to this is the geographic ready availability of alternate fuels or power sources like rivers, wind, etc,. relative to population and demand for power.

Current State

The real conundrum though is about the current economic activities relative to extraction and utilization of coal.  Using coal has a huge historical base with a well built up infrastructure (albeit continuing to shrink over time).  The speed at which the contraction of coal based economies occurs can have a very significant impact.  That is, whole small towns in the Canadian Provinces of BC and Alberta depend on this to survive and would basically become decimated.

Plan, be respectful, do it right

Unlike other areas of Canada, like Cape Breton, where shrinking demand and availability of coal supplies has resulted in huge unemployment and poverty; The governments of Alberta and British Columbia must create plans that mitigate this impact on their citizens and replacement economic activities need to be in place before the hammer drops.

Do we need to send this message to social government like the current one in Alberta?   Rhetorical question on my part, we should not need to.

Semantic – Let the head spinning begin

Today’s post is a bit of fun.  As you read on, if it gets too frustrating feel free to drop- off.

If you have any thoughts about today’s musings let me know as usual.  Be nice.

Semantics

Derived from the Greek language the English use of the word is to describe the study of meaning.  I find semantics fun to play with and many a colleague, acquaintance or yes even a family member has been thoroughly antagonized by me in this space.

Today’s phrase – “Do nothing”

“Do” is a present tense verb that can be conjugated in a number of different tenses – doing, did, will do.   The short definition is “to perform an action”.

Nothing is a pro-noun which simple refers to “not a single thing”

I really enjoy the phrase “do nothing” because it does have meaning but on deeper analysis the meaning is not based on the literal definition of the words involved.   That is if “do” means taking an action and “nothing” refers to not a single thing then there is no action to take.  The phrase however has meaning, if you do nothing you are in fact doing something.  Albeit nothing  (Feeling crazy yet?)

How about some business examples?

Let’s say you have received a customer complaint and you are reviewing with your boss the various ways you can respond – in essence you are walking through the various actions you can take, ultimately to decide what to do.  In this fictional example let’s assume the options are:

  • apologize and refund the purchase price
  • apologize and replace the merchandize
  • deny responsibility, suggest the customer find someone who cares
  • do nothing

In this case one option is to “do nothing”.  The action taken in response is nothing, which since it involves no specific activity is not really an action OR wait, not taking action is an action in itself so in fact “do nothing” is an action.  The thing is do is perform an action and “do nothing” is really the action of not taking action.  (Head hurt yet?)

“Did nothing” is even better.  Did is the past tense of “do”, meaning something was done; However, nothing means the not a single thing was done, so no action.

And the point?

The phrase “do nothing” has great meaning and in context of the situation can be used effectively to lead to a postive result, although that result is not derived from the actual doing of something but rather the opposite.  Use this phrase carefully but realize, particularly in discussions around various options that it is a real option and a viable (dare I say it) action.

 

Nature versus Nurture

Each of us has some traits genetically programmed.   These influence our behavior.

Additionally, from the day we are borne our behaviors are influenced by the things that happen around us, our environment.

Nature vs. Nurture ?

It is clear our genes define our basic being from physical body structure to the workings of our internal organs – nervous system, brain, heart liver, blood, etc.   The resulting behavior  is said to be derived from nature.

Our speech patterns, values, morals  and the associated behaviors become formed over time by the external influences around us.  Things like economic circumstances, climate, friends, family and so on.  The resulting behavior is said to be derived from nurture.

A key question for human behaviorists is how do nature and nurture factors influence each other.  Do these two main drivers work in conjunction, does one supplement the other or are they independent?

Are certain behaviors more impacted by one or the other of these factors.  For example are  values more derived from environmental circumstances or are you borne with them?

Twins

To help answer these questions a large number of studies have been conducted using identical twins separated at birth.  These subjects are great examples of identical genetic templates subjected to different environmental influences.

The most definitive conclusion from numerous studies to date is that a combination of nature and nurture drive the end state and neither nature nor nurture can be held up as the unique and only reason for a specific behavior.  That is to say, you could be borne with the potential for great intelligence but not exercise it fully due to your environmental situation or just the opposite, regardless of environment the intelligence potential could be realized and practiced.  It has not been possible to identify a single definitive cause (nature or nurture) that consistently associates with a particular result.

Free Will!

The good news from these studies so far is that the concept of free will is supported.  If you are a regular reader of these posts you would know I am a big believer in free will and constantly encouraging all to exercise theirs.

If nature or nurture cannot be consistently associated with a resulting behavior than it is intuitive that some level of free will must exist allowing, us to make our own choices dependent neither on nature nor nurture but just us.   This is what is means to be human.

Programming Non Violence

In yesterday’s post I postulated that an evolutionary change was needed if humankind was to achieve a simple state where we could all be friends.

I received feedback that was neither feasible nor, even if achievable, practical.

Consider Artificial Intelligence

Sci-fi author Issac Asimov proposed the three laws of robotics:

 

  • A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  • A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  • A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws

What if we were able to manipulate the human genome such that these principles could be genetically coded (similar to the way we would program them in a robot) and thus they would become universally adopted by all humans.  In essence, the basic genetic coding of the human race would eliminate man’s violence against man.

Being programmed into our genetic make-up would mean managing your violent behavior would not need to be learned.   Rather than training everyone in one of the key tenants of civilization, it would be built in.  And we all live happily ever after – focus on the ALL.

What about…….?

Does this make the controller/programmer of the human genome a God.  That is the all powerful power that guides human behavior.  By engineering our own genetic make-up are we treading where only God is supposed to play.

To quote the News of World newspaper headline of a couple of weeks ago, following the latest mass killing in the U.S.,  “God won’t fix this”

Arguably engineering the human genome is not godlike but rather an exercise of intelligence and common sense.  I recognize this is a very controversial position though and I am not promoting it but rather exposing the thought here for dialogue purposes.

And if we control free will, that is to say by removing the ability to decide to be violent against your fellow man, are we not in some way limiting human capability by restricting the freedom to act in any way.

Philosophically speaking….

This is an interesting topic, personally I am not sure there is a right answer; however, I am pretty convinced man’s violence against man is wrong.

 

Why can’t we be friends

In the early 1970’s a pop/rock band called War released a song called “Why can’t we be friends” .  The song reached number eight on the billboard top 100.

I was reminded of the song during a discussion today about traveling around the world.  A colleague had recently returned from a vacation to Israel and of course this led to questions about personal safety and discussion of the dangers in that part of the world ensued.

It was commented how ideal it would be if we could move from country to country/ region to region without fear.   A noble ideal to be sure.  War’s song title came to my mind and I lamented “Why can’t we be friends”

Why can’t we be friends?

This is a legitimate question.  Personally I fear the answer lives within the very nature of being human.  If you believe the studies of Darwin, we are after all descendants of animals.  Basic survival instincts and  emotions  (admittedly honed through generations of evolution) remain no matter how civilized we become.  These feelings and emotions allow us to overlook the sanctity of life, to become enraged at others and to even harm them.

Our intellects allow us to twist political and religious concepts to justify unfriendly actions and feel good and righteous in doing so.

Civilization is just a man made artifact and there is a strong argument that since man made it, man can break it.   And does.

Is there hope for the human race?

Can we evolve to become peaceful entities that are able to universally and unilaterally answer the simple question about universal friendship in the affirmative, “Yes we can be friends without pause or exception”.  Can we then practice this concept totally and without fail?

All of this is feasible; However, I would postulate a major  change in the underlying nature of humans is needed to bring it about.

We can always dream.

Scotty I need more power ……

As I sat down to write today’s blog the power went off in the neighborhood.   The traffic lights, street lights both in my immediate neighborhood and the one directly to the east (which I can see out my bedroom window were all out).

My blogging was put off for the 30 minutes or so while the power was out.  Desktop computers don’t work when the power is out.  The pads were working but there was no LAN connection.

In Edmonton Alberta, Canada’s most northerly city with a population of over a million, in the middle of winter a power outage can be a scary thing.  The central heating needs electric power to run and if it’s not available for a while it get’s cold.

Makes you think

Sitting reading my book waiting for the power to come back,  with a few candles spread around,  which my wife had found and lit, I realized how critical our dependency on electric power has become.  That is, for most large city dwellers.   Rural dwellers are probably a bit more independent.

We are lucky it was so short and I realize there are lot of bad weather related power outages in other parts of North America, during the bad weather seasons, that last a lot longer than the 30 minutes we waited.

Still it is pretty sobering to contemplate how dependent we have become on electricity.   I guess it was a bit of a wake up call for me.  I wonder how many people are running out to Canadian Tire and picking up a gas power generator as we speak.

And the good news

On the positive side, this short outage was something to blog about.  On the really negative side, it will take me hours to reboot, check and recover all my hardware and software infrastructure.  Ah well.