The Mystery of Life

Does human life have a deeper meaning beyond what we know?  That is something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain.  It is a mystery.

This is not to say we cannot define our own purpose and from that create individual and even group meaning.  Following a path, we define for ourselves at an earlier age can become our answer to the question, why am I here?

Living is the Answer

Of course, the mystery begins with the background.  Did the universe come into being by an accident?  Is that even possible?  Can something occur without purpose or motivation?

Perhaps it just is.  The human race evolved over many years and continues to do so.  The outcomes created by humans taken as a whole are both numerous and impactful.  Even astounding at times.

Human creations span a wide multitude of achievements, some could be considered good, while others bad and some just mediocre.  the hallmark of all these things is they are derived through the act of living.

Life is meaning in and of itself

Everything we do, from birth, encapsulates our lives.  Without a specific measure governing whether your life has achieved the purpose for which it was intended, that being a mystery, the answer lies within your own definition.

Each of us must define our own journey and self determine the value of that trip.  Do the opinions of others matter?  Only to the extent they influence your own assessment of success.  The meaning of your life is yours to determine, execute, and assess.

What by When?

Clarity of purpose, understood by everyone involved or impacted by your plans and objectives, is core to their achievement.  It has been asked many times but if you don’t know where you are going do you ever arrive?

Leadership first and foremost is about ensuring that clarity exists – universally.  The clearly and broader the message is spread the greater the likelihood of arriving at the destination but at least you will know if you are not there yet.

What by When

For everything we set out to do there is always the question “What are we doing?” and co-existing with the objective is timing “When will we finish?”  These two simple pieces of information completely define any and all tasks we undertake.

This is not to say plans are absolute and inflexible.  Both the what and when parameters can change as you meander along your journey.   Starting without knowing what you are attempting to achieve leads to chaos, changing it as you learn more does not.

Motivation

Everything we do , how we behave, our desires, all have some underlying motivation.  Nothing happens without motivation.  Both what you are seeking to achieve and the time frame underpin motivation and drive urgency.

Having a solid understanding of the strategy and direction can be very high level or intricately detailed but without some definition of purpose  why would we do anything.

Of course even doing nothing requires motivation.  That is to say nothing can be defined and so is something.  The level of motivation to do nothing (possibly the default activity) does not need to be strong but still must be present.

 

 

Compromise

One method of getting everyone involved to arrive at problem resolution is for the stakeholders to reach a settlement of the disputed items by each side making concessions.

This approach varies from consensus agreement, which is not about anyone giving anything up but rather finding a solution that satisfies everyone, albeit to different extents.

Passive Aggressive

Compromise  is often a hallmark of situations where although resolution appears to have been achieved in reality discontent lurksclose to the surface.

Giving up or giving in can be motivated by a number of things like frustration ,disenchantment, boredom, etc.  None of these are really positive nor leave the giver in a positive mood.

Often the giving in (passive behaviour) leads to a hidden agressive response.  We haven’t actually given up, we just make it seem so to give us time to prepare our resources for attack.

Consensus

Although not true in every case consensus agreement  provides an opportunity for all parties to buy-in to the solution.  That is, there can be real satisfaction to participating in the outcomes if you were involved in their creation (not so much when you feel pushed).

Strangely, although a much more effective approach with outcomes proven to be more sustainable I often see agreements forged through compromise.

I believe this is largely because achieving consensus is much harder than either through compromise or of course the easiest method, pure force (also the least sustainable).

When working with groups to arrive at common goals and strategies,  facilitatIng  consensus over compromise Is always best.

 

 

Group Think

Working with a group of others to produce or create something as part of a common goal can be a very powerful way to achieve high-quality results efficiently.

There is a danger this cooperation might result in individuals setting aside their own personal beliefs or adopt the opinion of the rest of the group (i.e., groupthink).

Individual and Group

Collaboration is most effective when the participants do not lose their own identities within that of the group.  Being able to carefully balance the power of the whole with the diversity of the many is a key feature of high performing groups.

This task, incorporating the skills and abilities of individuals into a cohesive whole without loosing what everyone brings to the table but adhering to the needs of the group, is extremely difficult but also rewarding.

Dysfunctional

The practice of Independent thinking within a team or similar organizational construct without becoming advisarial requires all stakeholders to seek value from each other.

This does not mean to forgoe your independence to avoid conflict, which can lead to dysfunctional behavior and irrational compromises.

We are many but we are also One

Combining the best ideas or morphing disparate ideas to something greater and more effective requires only a strong believe that everyone is important and adds value.

If all members of the group practice this value. without deciet or prejudice everyone benefits and no one needs to sacrifice thier core beliefs to do it.

Avoiding group think starts with individuals seeking  the best solution without compromising their own identity.

 

Divide and Conquer

Bureaucratic organizations are typically complex structures with many departments and divisions that are administered by lots of people.

These kinds of organizations are a product of decentralization.   Focus areas or silo’s of expertise are created.  This results in multiple groups each with a very narrow focus, which can be easier to oversee but suffers from lack of integration.

Division of Labor

A side effect of creating specializations and divisions of labor is turf wars and acting in self-interest.   The central areas which govern the whole often end up participating in political skirmishes both between silos and with themselves directly.

Centralization can result in a diminishing focus, which can affect the overall quality, but will almost also increase efficiency resulting in quicker turnaround with fewer hoops to jump through.

Centralization

Centralizing functions within large complex organizations is often a change strongly resisted by the organization’s stakeholders.    This change can dramatically affect the accountability and control of de-centralized areas.

Moving to a more centralized structure does need to be done with caution.  The potential for passive-aggressive resistance must be both recognized and planned for.

Solidly entrenched positions can be torn asunder and the incumbents are likely to become roadblocks without working collaboratively to overcome this.

Motivation

From the start of any centralization exercise, it is critical to highlight the value of reducing the bureaucracy together with associated personal benefits (i.e., what does it mean to me).

Working carefully consulting throughout with all impacted stakeholders restructuring and organization can improve it’s ability to accomplish its goal.  If the change is simply rammed through though the results can be catatrosophic.

 

 

 

 

 

Matrix or Heirarchy

Groups we are part of, from family thru work to public and government, operate on a either a matrix or hierarchical structure or a mix of all points in-between.

While hierarchies have clear levels of authority and strong well-defined relationships between them a matrix structure will have multiple interactions and reporting relationships and is not rigidly organized around power and accountability.

For Example

The traditional family structure is very hierarchical.   It begins with  the male designated as the the head of household (top of the hierarchy), his wife second in command, and the children underlings.  The authority of the father was tantamount.

In most recent times this structure has multiple variations with the partners sharing authority and in some cases the progeny are even so independent as to live within their own silos organizationally speaking.

The traditional structure of layered well defined authority, where respect is more granted by dint of position versus being earned, has morphed overtime to a more flexible organization based on need.

Distinguishing Factors

Matrix structures tend to produce more creative and higher quality results.  The practices and outcomes defined by this type of structure demonstrate a greater degree of sustainability.

The downside of matrix organizations are a reflection of  the key benefit of the main plus of hierarchies, that is the ability to be nimble, make and enforce quick decisions.

Operating within a matrix structure can be harder to do and require greater individual effort from everyone within the organization but the results can be much more gratifying.