Month: February 2023

Candid admission about our world right now:  We’re floundering in problems that won’t be solved with only more intelligence or technology.  All the great steps forward in human existence can be traced back to deep people.  We need a critical number of deep people – just one or two won’t suffice.

Being shallow is the default state and what we tend towards without training and sustained effort. Shallow people have these characteristics:

• Immaturity
• Arrogance
• Narcissism
• Close-minded ideology
• Easily bored, easily distracted
• Despise everything in the past
• Think dreams come true without work
• Fearful of others, always go with the crowd
• Cynicism, pessimism
• Advance themselves by putting others down
• Celebrity-seeking
• Babblers who like to hear themselves talk

You don’t need a Ph.D. in history or sociology to appreciate that shallow people have done enormous damage to others.

In contrast, the characteristics of a deep person include:

• Extensive knowledge on particular subjects
• Broad knowledge about many disciplines
• Sense of history and perspective that can be applied to current situations
• Patient listeners
• Go out and make things happen; not passive
• Mature, self-disciplined
• Pursue excellence in their craft
• “Basically wise”; others consistently seek out their wisdom
• Realists with optimism, not pessimist fueling cynicism
• Enjoyable to be around. They have an ability to mentor and coach others well.
• Good humored
• Profoundly love others
• Ability to express complex ideas and ask very good questions
• Not drawn into pettiness and squabbles
• Trustworthy to lead or advise in complex situations
• Gracious in serving others and generous in sharing
• Love learning and the process of inquiry
• Express gratitude
• Unafraid to be alone and stand alone
• Humble about themselves
• Unhurried with people
• Seem to be directed by higher consciousness and calling
• Courageous, especially when their opinion/perspective is not popular
• Shaped by life experiences without being a victim
• Embrace mystery and ambiguity as part of life’s experience
• Respect the transcendent
• Not always the “smartest” from academic view, but recognized for intelligence and wisdom
• Willing to ask and explore uncomfortable questions
• Have something worthwhile to say.  This applies even to those who need to think aloud with others.
• Use gifts and experiences as investment material to produce even higher value
• Not sleepwalking when the world is in turmoil and needs help
• Think long-term and really long-term; not hobbled by “Now” mentality
• Detached from ’empty’ rewards

(Anything you would add to this list?)

We like to be around these people, right?  We can wish for more of them in our lives.  Most important: You and I can become a deep person. I believe that anyone can become a deep person, or at least a deeper person, because it is a journey. We make significant progress without ever “arriving.” Deep people aren’t manufactured, they’re formed.  (More on this in the future.)

We live in an age of exponential technology advancements — exciting and a bit scary, too. We cannot assume everything new is good and helpful.

Neil Postman’s questions for a new technology (from his lecture On Culture’s Surrender to Technology) are a useful framework:

1. What is the problem to which technology claims to be a solution?

2. Whose problem is it?

3. What new problems will be created because of solving an old one?

4. Which people and institutions will be most harmed?

5. What changes in language are being promoted?

6. What shifts in economic and political power are likely to result?

7. What alternative media might be made from a technology?

Leaders and managers use all kinds of indicators to assess a situation and trends.  Probably a hundred decent books have been written about management by KPIs.  

The deepest thing to understand about indicators is that they’re a signal from systems and systems of systems — so pay attention to whether an indicator is a leading or a lagging indicator relative to the outcome you’re focused upon.  Rain is a lagging indicator of atmospheric moisture and temperature, but a leading indicator for plant growth. 

You can be badly fooled by confusing leading and lagging.  

Highly recommended books I’ve read in recent months:

Failure of Nerve (Edwin Friedman)

The Psychology of Totalitarianism (Mattias Desmet)

How to Grow Old (Cicero)

The Great Divorce (C.S. Lewis)

Beowulf (Tolkien translation)

Managing Oneself (Peter Drucker)

Trust is a precious component of good relationships.  It’s easy to recognize, more difficult to precisely define, and takes diligence to foster.  

I suggest that trust is a complex function of competence and character, intersecting with the people’s prior experiences.  Math form:   

Trust = f(competence, character) | (prior experiences)

Here are some facts about trust, true at interpersonal levels, organization levels, and more:

1. Relationship trust accelerates working effectiveness by reducing friction and doubts.  Trust is valuable in ways that can’t be fully captured in a spreadsheet. 

2. You can only operate on trust indirectly; it’s an emergent property in relationships.  You can’t command someone to trust you or trust you more. 

3. A person’s self-narratives are not easily shifted or changed. 

4. Trust is much more complex than a display of sincerity or authenticity.  Sincerity is not a measure of truth.  Authenticity is not a measurement of competence (e.g., people can be authentic jerks and nincompoops).  People are not easy to fool, and those who do get fooled will never trust again. 

5. Withdrawals from the “trust account” require many deposits to come back to even.

 
6. When trust is low, people rightly expect compensation.  They could want more money, more favors, a higher interest rate, perks, a future promise, etc., but something must be provided to compensate for low trust. 

Given these facts, looking at the landscape of collapsing trust in public institutions larger and smaller, what can we do?  So much depends on specifics, so I can only speak generally.

First, avoid an impulsive response. The simplistic answer is to point fingers, retreat away from engagement at all as if avoiding a moral contaminant, and demand every institution be broken down. Institutions, like biological systems, have a way of slowly declining until there is a rapid final collapse.  They can linger at some level for a long time, gasping for breath and relevance. Tearing them down before the final collapse requires violence or at least the threat of violence. As Shakespeare had King Lear say, “That way lies madness.” Believing “It will be different this time” is ignoring the weight of historical examples.

There can be institutions which simply need to be ended and discarded.  Slavery. Human trafficking. Maybe drug cartels?  This requires collective will and significant sustained power (with at least the threat of violence) because many people benefit from the existing institution.

Changing an institution that has lost trust occurs stepwise. Forgiveness is necessary when people have been wronged, and then there must be justice.  (Deep sidebar topic: Without forgiveness, you’re seeking vengeance rather than justice.) Justice often requires removing people from positions of authority in an institution.  We must examine people, processes and practices, and how the institution fits into the larger world. You nearly always need people from ‘outside’ the institution to accomplish this.

Replacing corrupt institution leadership and practices that destroyed trust requires deep people who can do the hard and heroic work of re-establishing trust.  This is a long, difficult journey.  Success demands someone called to this challenge, because the obstacles and slog will chew up anyone else.

We can also build new institutions that serve a similar purpose alongside the old institution.  Fresh starts don’t have the same trust problems even though they have fresh problems.  We can deconstruct why the old institutions failed and put in guardrails against those specific points of failure.  A somewhat parallel institution can carry forward when the old institution finally unravels.

In all cases, we’re going to need sustained wisdom.

A few things learned the hard way from managing through crises bigger and smaller:

• Blame isn’t helpful and steals energy from finding solutions.  Focus on fixing the problem.
• Swiftly gather advice from others about possible solutions.  You must choose in the end, but do what you can to quickly collect options and ideas.
• Be direct, tell people what to do. Step down into the weeds.  “Micro-management” is not a bad thing here.  You can delegate work but don’t abdicate the power of specific direction.
• Overcommunicate.  Minimize the opportunity for people to fill out information gaps with their (usually incorrect) speculation.  And listen.
• Thank everyone who helped navigate the crisis. 
• Accept responsibility for how these events affected people, even if it was never “your fault.” Do what you can to go above and beyond to repair relationships and rebuild trust.
• Debrief and objectively review after an appropriate time for people to rest. Get multiple perspectives, however uncomfortable. Capture lessons learned.  Identify ways to prevent this specific problem from occurring again.  

Trust is a precious component of good relationships.  It’s easy to recognize, more difficult to precisely define, and takes diligence to foster.  

I suggest that trust is a complex function of competence and character, intersecting with the people’s prior experiences.  Math form:   

Trust = f(competence, character) | (prior experiences)

Here are some facts about trust, true at interpersonal levels, organization levels, and more:

1. Relationship trust accelerates working effectiveness by reducing friction and doubts.  Trust is valuable in ways that can’t be fully captured in a spreadsheet. 

2. You can only operate on trust indirectly; it’s an emergent property in relationships.  You can’t command someone to trust you or trust you more. 

3. A person’s self-narratives are not easily shifted or changed. 

4. Trust is much more complex than a display of sincerity or authenticity.  Sincerity is not a measure of truth.  Authenticity is not a measurement of competence (e.g., people can be authentic jerks and nincompoops).  People are not easy to fool, and those who do get fooled will never trust again. 

5. Withdrawals from the “trust account” require many deposits to come back to even.

 
6. When trust is low, people rightly expect compensation.  They could want more money, more favors, a higher interest rate, perks, a future promise, etc., but something must be provided to compensate for low trust. 

Given these facts, looking at the landscape of collapsing trust in public institutions larger and smaller, what can we do?  So much depends on specifics, so I can only speak generally.

First, avoid an impulsive response. The simplistic answer is to point fingers, retreat away from engagement at all as if avoiding a moral contaminant, and demand every institution be broken down. Institutions, like biological systems, have a way of slowly declining until there is a rapid final collapse.  They can linger at some level for a long time, gasping for breath and relevance. Tearing them down before the final collapse requires violence or at least the threat of violence. As Shakespeare had King Lear say, “That way lies madness.” Believing “It will be different this time” is ignoring the weight of historical examples.

There can be institutions which simply need to be ended and discarded.  Slavery. Human trafficking. Maybe drug cartels?  This requires collective will and significant sustained power (with at least the threat of violence) because many people benefit from the existing institution.

Changing an institution that has lost trust occurs stepwise. Forgiveness is necessary when people have been wronged, and then there must be justice.  (Deep sidebar topic: Without forgiveness, you’re seeking vengeance rather than justice.) Justice often requires removing people from positions of authority in an institution.  We must examine people, processes and practices, and how the institution fits into the larger world. You nearly always need people from ‘outside’ the institution to accomplish this.

Replacing corrupt institution leadership and practices that destroyed trust requires deep people who can do the hard and heroic work of re-establishing trust.  This is a long, difficult journey.  Success demands someone called to this challenge, because the obstacles and slog will chew up anyone else.

We can also build new institutions that serve a similar purpose alongside the old institution.  Fresh starts don’t have the same trust problems even though they have fresh problems.  We can deconstruct why the old institutions failed and put in guardrails against those specific points of failure.  A somewhat parallel institution can carry forward when the old institution finally unravels.

In all cases, we’re going to need sustained wisdom.

14,752,811 people have extolled you as a leader to create a massively compelling vision that will draw people into a much better future. 

I made that number up; I don’t know how many people have said this, but it’s a big number.

It can be difficult to create and sustain a compelling vision.  There is positive energy associated with it, but I observe that it’s rarely enough to keep everyone on track for long.  How are those New Year’s resolutions?

A useful alternative is to spend 30 minutes with a notebook and write out all the things you don’t want.  What you fear.  What you hate.  That’s an anti-vision – and the negative energy associated with it can help you move in the opposite direction. 

This strategy is fractal.  It works at personal, family, community, organization, and national levels.