Lately, a deck of slides about culture from a company called Hubspot has been quite popular. And it reflects very well what the culture of Fourth Revolution’s organizations will be. There are 150 slides but they are quite worthwhile for you to take a few minutes to scroll through:
I am really starting to get fed up with the usage of the word ‘crisis’ to describe what is currently happening. It looks as if I had always lived in the midst of a continuous economic ‘crisis’ since the early 1990’s with a few short exceptions.
Joblessness for youth is a constant of the ‘crisis’… since 30 years. The decline of manufacturing and middle class is also a ‘crisis’… since the 1980’s
No, it’s not a ‘crisis’, it’s a transformation! It’s just the Fourth Revolution in action, changing our lives, our institutions, our economy, our world! Yes, there is a deep tsunami of changes in our environment, and our Industrial Age social and life model is now obsolete.
It’s only a crisis for those that want to remain where they were. It’s only a crisis for the settled. For many others, it is a once in a lifetime opportunity – in developing countries as well as for some in developed countries. New companies had appeared that have a presence in our daily lives which we could not even imagine ten years ago. They have been incredibly successful at the same time as the ‘crisis’.
Please, ban the word ‘crisis’ from your vocabulary. It’s a transformation, and it is time you surf on its wave.
“Shun the non-believers. First you must pick yourself, then you must pick your audience”
Connect with your tribe!
Seth goes on to explain that the key is to grow your own tribe of believers so that you expose yourself often to people who know you and believe in your ideas. That’s also an other way to deal with critics. Make their voice disappear in the background of your tribe.
The thing is, it takes time, patience and consistent production and interaction to slowly create a tribe that is well connected with you to a point of supporting your initiatives. It is something that needs to be started early. Still it can be done. It must be done if you want to benefit from a louder voice in the world and from support for your projects.
It also requires to take a stand on a number of issues that are unconventional or outright contrarian. Because growing a tribe is like marketing: you need to define a narrow niche market where people that are particulary interested will join immediately.
How can you grow your supporting tribe to deal more easily with ever more difficult projects and endeavors? How can you define better your voice niche?
“Simplicity has been difficult to implement in modern life because it is against the spirit of a certain brand of people who seek sophistication so that they can justify their profession” – Nicholas Taleb in his highly recommended new book, Antifragile.
Simplicity quote by Leonard de Vinci
During my time as a civil servant I could not stop wondering (and admiring) how bureaucrats were constantly complicating rules and processes “to better take into account individual situations and avoid threshold effects”. Bureaucrats cannot imagine anything different than complicated systems and procedures. But what they did not realize is that real life is complex. And complication is not the same as complex! Their quest to manage the complex using even more complicated rules is doomed to fail. Yet they continue. Legal systems become increasingly bloated as they try to deal with all sorts of situation. This quest will be lost – nature will always be far more imaginative than the most imaginative bureaucrat.
Let’s stop this stupid quest for complication. The solution lies in simplicity. Because complex systems – real life – will react and adapt to simple messages and solutions. Because the cost of complication is far greater than its advantage. Let’s seek simplicity in all we do – and suddenly we’ll tame complexity.
Complicated is a very different concept from Complex. Yet most of us do not distinguish them. Even more, we try to manage Complex systems with Complicated solutions. And this turns out to be a very huge problem.
A watch: a complicated system – predictable and reliable
A watch is complicated. It is composed of a large number of pieces; yet they are carefully engineered to fit and move together. The system is very reliable (it’s a watch!). Most engineered systems are complicated, yet reliable. The more the components fit seamlessly together, the better the reliability.
A complex system: a representation of the situation in Afghanistan
On the contrary, a complex system involves a lot of different components or contributors; they are all interconnected and inter-dependent; but they all follow a different interest, and they make the system unpredictable. The now classical slide describing the situation in Afghanistan to General McCrystal is a classical example of the depiction of a complex system.
Complex systems are unpredictable. They are what happens in real life outside what can be carefully engineered. They are what creates the unforeseen, the adventure.
Because we mix all the time those two concepts we misunderstand a lot of what is happening around us. The way to tackle and repair complicated systems is completely different from how we can influence complex systems. The way these systems fail belongs to different realms. And when a complicated system encounters unpredictable complexity, it is where our engineering capabilities are overwhelmed. It is where our certainties become shaky. It is when catastrophes like Fukushima happen.
Political systems (autocracy, representative democracy, etc) including the way they are implemented, have a limit: a given political system can only manage up to a certain level of complexity.
Are our current democratic institutions reaching the limits of the complexity they can manage?
When that maximum level is reached, fragility becomes a key property of the system, and the system will one day break apart. Suddenly. Completely. The Soviet political system was unable to bear the complexity driven by the Western world in the 1980’s; and to manage the inherent complexity of the modern world (as shown by the Tchernobyl accident investigation). The French political system in the 1700’s became unable to manage the increasing complexity and globalization of the world. The French Revolution and decades of instability ensued.
Sometimes (rarely), political institutions succeed in reforming themselves before reaching a critical level of fragility.
Our current representative democracies are probably the most elaborate political system, and can manage a far higher level of complexity than any of the previous political institutions. We can see everyday that autocratic regimes are overwhelmed by much lower levels of complexity. Still, the question is now, whether it can manage the level of complexity we are reaching globally?
I fear that it is not the case and that currently, we are reaching uncomfortable levels of institutional fragility. Representative democracy might need to be replaced by (or, evolve in) a new political system that will be better to deal with the current level of complexity – by choice or by default if we reach the limits before we can change. That new system needs to leverage better on networks and direct democracy. It needs to be much more global.
Let’s start now to build this new political system, before the increasing fragility of the previous one creates dramatic consequences.
The latest book of Nassim Taleb, Antifragile, is an absolute must-read. It puts a lot of common wisdom on its head and provides an interesting picture of the mistakes of the society surrounding us.
The book is thick and takes some effort to read through, but it’s worthwhile to take the time. Taleb is a very unconventional thinker; his approach to complexity and predictability is absolutely brilliant.
What is Antifragile? According to Taleb it is the property to thrive in situations that are highly uncertain and volatile.
Most of the things we produce are fragile. The Industrial Age civilization, through its manufacturing standardization and search for efficiency, tends to be fragile. And actually it would seem, according to Taleb, that modern civilization is much more fragile than before. Look at how single freak events like 9/11 or other terrorist attempts fundamentally change the life of travelers and how we are ever more deeply intolerant to unexpected events.
Fundamental mistakes of our scientific approaches are denounced in the book, in particular our custom to observe averages when volatility might be an even more influential parameter; and the limits of conventional financial statistical analysis.
In summary, take the time to read AntiFragile. It gives also an insight on how our world might become when we overcome some psychological hurdles from the Industrial Age. Several posts will be posted here that will inspire themselves from the book in the next few weeks.
There is a definite trend in the literature to link complexity with fragility. Examples of books that revolve around this issue include “Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder” the new book by Nicholas Taleb, or more technical books on risk management in complexity such as “A new Theory of Risk and Rating” by Jacek Marczyk (that one is only recommended to risk geeks).
Fragile items just break suddenly and fully
The concept is that in a complex world, in particular when systems reach very high complexity, at the limit of what is bearable by the system, things can change abruptly. Instead of being ductile, the world then shows very fragile, brittle characteristics. The previous state is suddenly broken and is replaced by a very different condition.
Fragility is thus linked with complexity.
We would prefer to live in a world where change happens progressively, which would give us some chances to intervene. This is what engineers are always seeking when they specify that engineered materials should remain as ductile as possible across a wide range of conditions – this is to avoid the sudden, unpredictable rupture without prior deformation.
As complexity increases in a given system, it becomes more and more fragile – until it breaks suddenly, unpredictably, and is replaced by a new system that is more tolerant to complexity.
This theoretical observation has wide-ranging consequences. Our world today becomes more and more complex, interconnected. Our societies need to change before they reach the limit of complexity they can bear. Or, changes will inevitably be sudden, with lots of damages. Because, if our societies and institutions don’t change, their fragility will increase. Until they reach the breaking point.
Mid-February, the web went viral with a study that showed that there were not more than 19 links between any page of the internet (examples here, here and here (in French)). This epidemics followed a paper published on 18 February 2013 by the Royal Society.
The worldwide web galaxy is smaller than you think – only 19 links to get anywhere!
The thing is, when you read the paper (link to the original paper of the Royal Society here), you realize that this discovery was made in… 1999. Is it still valid? Nobody knows, actually. It is quite possible actually that today there are even less links needed thanks to the Googles and other search engines, plus all the social tools.
Some publications did correct their initial post (like the Smithsonian here), but most did not, in particular the news outlets from where most of the public gets its information.
There are two interesting lessons to take from this event:
On the negative side, what you read on the internet, in particular what is viral, might have been severely distorted by transmittal, editing, search for sensationalism, etc
On the positive side, thanks to the internet, one can access the original source easily – I was able to find it in a very few minutes thanks to the links embedded in the published pages and Google! (and actually it took only 2 or 3 clicks, not 19) (think what would have happened if you had read such a news in a newspaper 50 years ago: would you have ever been able to go back to the original sources within less than a few weeks?).
It is easier now than ever to post and disseminate trash or inaccuracies, but it is also easier than ever to check – or at least get various opinions on a subject. Do we teach ourselves and our children enough to enhance their critical skills and how to search by themselves for diverse opinions?
Following on the Safety Net Conundrum, now at the individual level, how well are you really using the safety net you actually have? This safety net includes family and friends, social security and all other social protection institutions, your professional network, etc.
In my coaching assignments I often find that people:
underestimate the extent of their current safety nets and of the protection is gives them;
underestimate the extent of (measured) risk they could take based on this actual protection;
effectively often focus on trying to keep or increase the protection level they benefit from rather than using that protection to try new things.
Why are so few trying to fly above their safety net?
Yes, most of us could try something really outside of our comfort zone and in the worst case still land safely in our extended safety net, with little or no consequences. So why are so few trying it?
With or without safety net, jumping in the unknown triggers all sorts of fear reactions. It takes a conscious effort to use the safety net as a reason to try it. The question: “What is the worst that can happen?” is extremely powerful in that sense.
Inventory the extent of your safety net. You will be surprised by its extent. You will realize that you can try new things outside your comfort zone. At the moment where your “lizard brain” will kick-in with all sorts of excuses, ask yourself: “What is the worst that can happen?“. Then, go and do it!
In the last decades of the Industrial Age, in most developed countries, comprehensive safety nets have been implemented on top of the traditional family secure base. Social security, unemployment benefits… All sorts of safety devices against unfortunate life events.
Does a Safety Net really entice people to take more risks?
Then, something strange happened: instead of enticing people to take more risks, releasing creativity and entrepreneurship, these safety nets have entrapped them in a conservative mindset where anything that might put in question their privileges is fought back violently.
In an era where the people that will be successful through the Fourth Revolution will be agile and adaptable, able to take measured risks, this behavior increasingly looks suicidal. And most developed countries today struggle to find the energy and the will to reform their institutions and adapt them to the new global situation.
The most amazing contradiction is that a safety net should, on the contrary, increase the possibilities to take risks: it provides a secure base, hence a higher possibility to go and investigate what is happening in the world. It should provide a last resort protection if one falls during a particularly challenging balancing act, and hence enable these balancing acts to be attempted.
How can we redesign the social safety net institutions we inherited from the Industrial Age to make them a source of risk-taking and entrepreneurship? One suggestion is to make them really a last-resort safety net that intervenes only to prevent a deadly fall; but not a system on which people rely even for minor events; thus, it would avoid having too many people dependent on the protection provided at any moment.
In any case, a deep reform of this Industrial Age institution is required to make it the risk-releasing tool it should always have been.
In the Industrial Age, for the first time in our long human history, we were conditioned into believing that our life, our environment could be made certain: regular salary increment and a sure retirement; regular working times; lower and lower variance of manufactured items and processes, etc.
How enjoyable is the “normal” of the Industrial Age?
The entire system was geared to make us believe that certain was normal. We tried hard to fit every event into normality; to diminish as much as possible the impact of unavoidable variation (like weather, for instance) on our lives. Any hindrance to our existence was to be considered a problem that needed to be addressed to bring it back to normality.
We need to recognize now how much of an illusion that was. In addition, that turned out to be quite boring. Freak events will continue to happen forever. We need to live with a large amount of uncertainty in our lives to be successful and invent the world we want.
Many people still live in the dream of the Industrial Age certainty (although, luckily, much less since the 2008 economic ‘crisis’ which shook many ‘certain’ existences). This myth continues to be propagated by large sections of our current institutions like social security, public schools… It is important to recognize it is a myth, and resolutely move into the Collaborative Age mindset of thriving on uncertainty.
