Thought Leadership – what does it mean?

On 11.15.09, In Know-What/Why, Me, by Barry Mapp

For me the term ‘Thought Leader’ has been hijacked from its intuitive meaning (someone who leads on thought and thinking) to become used as a surrogate for “Trusted Advisor” and also someone who effectively manages their reputation.
For me the important part of the term in “Thought Leader” is “Leader”. If you are trusted and well known [...]

For me the important part of the term in “Thought Leader” is “Leader”. If you are trusted and well known and respected are you a Leader? Maybe these are necessary characteristics but surely not sufficient.

A Thought leader in my book will be someone well differentiated from a trusted “Thought Follower”.

This means that every true “Thought Leader” must also be an iconoclast in their field. Most Blogs for example are full of interesting content but nearly all reflecting the thoughts of others or opinions about thoughts of others. The Thought Leaders will be the one’s who are challenging much of the current thought, not simply regurgitating it.

When Einstein said that we won’t solve the problems of today by the same thinking that created the problems, he was obviously suggesting that in order to solve the chronic problems of the day we need to think differently and from a higher, wider or different perspective. Not “more of the same” thinking or “this worked for me thinking” or the “solution is obvious thinking”.

It’s interesting how many of my “Thought Leaders” are, or were, Physicists. It was Bohm for example who devised a way (Bohm’s Dialogue) of allowing new thoughts and new solutions to emerge from a group. It was Deming who identified that Western Management not worker malaise was the biggest threat to continual improvement in Business. It was Eli Goldratt and his Theory of Constraints that helped manufacturers remove broken links from their value chains and improve performance and profits. Each of these Physicists were looking at issues from outside of the current paradigm. And of course Einstein was a Physicist as well.

So how many people calling themselves “Thought Leader” could also be described as “Iconoclast” coming up with thinking that challenges the grey cells? For me a Thought Leader will be someone – if they do nothing else- makes you stop and think! Also a Iconoclast Thought Leader unlikely to be “thinking with the majority” and therefore will not always be popular.

Oh and someone has just asked me “Are you a Thought Leader”? Well I’ll let you decide. Here are some of my recent ramblings intended to make you think about your thinking and to signpost possible different directions that your thinking could take in order to find new solutions

http://barrymapp.com/?s=thought+leader

http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/it-strikes-me-that-a-lot-of-wh/

http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/iconoclasts-stand-a-very-good/

http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/thinking-in-different-ways-2/

http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/what-makes-a-“creation-company”/

http://barrymapp.com/2009/08/how-rewards-sabotage-creativity/

http://barrymapp.com/2009/10/unintended-consequences-what-do-very-large-bonuses-attract/

http://barrymapp.com/2009/11/bonus-culture-proud-to-win-a-cabbage-not-the-cash/

http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/235/

http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/three-new-words-for-the-21st-century/

http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/lessons-for-science-from-the-mesmer-experience/

Tweet This Post

Bonus Culture? Proud to Win a Cabbage not the Cash?

On 11.09.09, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, Uncategorised, by Barry Mapp

Apparently on Radio 4 this week, Shane O’Riordain (Group Communications Director of the Lloyds banking group) said “It’s entirely right for companies both our company and others, to pay bonuses when performance targets have been met – its an appropriate part of compensation”
One wonders, knowing the sort of unethical things that were being done in [...]

One wonders, knowing the sort of unethical things that were being done in the name of ‘performance’ and bonus attainment, that the phrase “entirely right” shows that these top bankers still just don’t get it. After all it does appear that a lot of the time their ‘performance’ could be equated with highly driven ‘unethical behaviours’ (see Unintended Consequences – what do very large bonuses attract?)

Later the same morning Radio 4 had Paul Moore, the HBOS “Whistle-Blower”, being interviewed by Michael Buerk in the programme “The Choice”. This contained extraordinary material on the targets culture. It included the “Cash or Cabbages Day” when, in full public gaze, those who had made their targets received some cash, while those who hadn’t were awarded a cabbage. Mr Moore spoke graphically about the culture of fear and much more, which will be familiar to many who found themselves caught up in such a ‘macho’ culture. The Programme can be viewed again on BBC iplayer here

So I would just like to praise those at HBOS who won the cabbage. Be Proud. Because most likely the reason you did not earn the ‘performance’ cash was that you were behaving and selling ethically!

Thanks to Brian Leeming and Henry Neave for bringing the Radio 4 interviews to my attention.

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Attainment • Banking • Banking Group • Bonus • Bonus Culture • Cabbage • Cabbages or Cash • Communications Director • Culture Of Fear • Financial Services • Group Communications • Hbos • Henry Neave • Iplayer • Leeming • Lloyds • Macho Culture • Michael Buerk • Morning Radio • Paul Moore • Performance Cash • Performance Targets • Public Gaze • Radio 4 • Unintended Consequences • Whistle Blower

Maths and Science leading us up the (wrong) garden path

On 10.28.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Non Political Party, Uncategorised, numeracy, by Barry Mapp

In this piece I introduce some more differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0, and in the next piece (now that I have finally found how to put tables into wordpress) I will be drawing up a table that summarises examples of the differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0
Math 1.0 can be considered to [...]

Math 1.0 can be considered to be a special case of Math 2.0, where certain aspects of reality are ignored for the purpose of making things black and white and therefore easier to manipulate and compute.

Math 1.0 is helpful in specific circumstances like simple counting and manipulation of number, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing of pure number, and for making approximations, and is also useful in statistical manipulations where it is valid to manipulate data away from its context. Math 1.0 thinking successfully delivered a rocket to the moon but has failed to deliver insight into most chronic problems affecting humanity today. Math 1.0 thinking is part of the problem!

Math 1.0 is not valid in the domain of measurement nor when ‘counting’ is actually for the purpose of measuring ‘things’. And yet we use Math 1.0 with measurement all the time!

Using Math 1.0 as the ‘logic vehicle’ for interpreting changes in measurement data is a major reason why we have witnessed so many decisions by leaders and politicians in the last few decades that have turned out to be wasteful and that have exacerbated rather than solved ‘problems’. This happens when the Math we learn at school (Math 1.0) is applied into the world of measurements. And a science based around this maths re-inforces it as a science of reduction and ‘ism’ (“ism” happens when a discipline comes to believe its working model of the ‘world’ as true rather than ‘useful in defined situations’). So the belief (as true) in the mechanistic universe and the use of Math 1.0 as a sturdy, reliable and incontrovertible companion has led the traditional Newtonian scientist up the proverbial garden path and is still being led there daily. Multi-billion pound projects based on the assumptions of a reductionist science leading absolutely nowhere, whereas situations that could be drastically improved based on a science thinking in terms of systems and Math 2.0 are not being allocated the same research money.

To fully appreciate the meaning and consequences of data measurements, a good understanding of Math 2.0 and its application is required. If we care to look, we will find that the scientific, political and business literature is littered with examples where statisticians (who we would think would know better) have fallen into the trap of applying the thinking of Math 1.0 to the situations described best by Math 2.0, thereby giving us misleading ‘expert’ information and advice

This venn diagram shows the relationship between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0:

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Abstraction • Approximations • Assumptions • Case Scenario • Chronic Problems • Companion • Consequences • Decades • Discipline • Garden Path • Genome Project • Ism Ism • Manipulation • Math 1 • Math 2 • Math Logic • Maths • Measurement • Measurement Data • Measurements • Mechanistic Universe • Model Of The World • Natural Variation • Politicians • Poor Decisions • Real World Math • Reductionist Science • Research Money • Rocket To The Moon • School Math • Scientist • Statistical Manipulations • Statisticians • Uncertainty • Venn Diagram • Wordpress • Working Model

Are we really Numerate? How numbers lead us up the garden path!

On 10.06.09, In Non Political Party, numeracy, by Barry Mapp

Are we really Numerate? How numbers lead us up the garden path!
Our Politicians and Business Leaders talk about the need for us all to be both literate and numerate when we leave school and as such literacy and numeracy are key subject components of the National Curriculum and beyond.
But are we infact teaching the literacy [...]

Are we really Numerate? How numbers lead us up the garden path!

Our Politicians and Business Leaders talk about the need for us all to be both literate and numerate when we leave school and as such literacy and numeracy are key subject components of the National Curriculum and beyond.

But are we infact teaching the literacy and numeracy required for success in the real world?

I think not and I will be posting my thoughts on this over the next few weeks on this blog

Here I make a start, looking at Numeracy.

I call the numeracy that we learn at school and in our universities “Math 1.0″ (And in general this is the only form of numeracy we are taught, so most if not all of our leaders are only numerate to the level of Math 1.0)

This is a Math that is useful, but only in the very simple domain of counting and manipulating pure numbers. This domain is what Donald Wheeler (one of the few statisticians in the world who seems to understand this stuff) calls “Math World” a strange world that has very little bearing on everyday reality. It is very misleading in fact when, in the Real World, we use Math 1.0 to manipulate, interpret and compare measurements

It was Walter Shewhart (the man who has been called the father of quality) who said “Data is meaningless outside of its context”. Using my language here, he could have rephrased this as “Data is meaningless unless processed using Math 2.0″ (Math 2.0 is a way of working with numbers that keeps the important context ‘in view’)

Math 1.0 is the Math of the Counters. Math 1.0 works for the abstract Math-World. Math 2.0 however is needed for Real-World Problems.

Many of our “number experts” (mathematicians and statisticians for example) base their life-long working knowledge on this Math 1.0, so they are then part of the problem. Math 1.0 is entrenched in academia and science.

It is now one of those implicit unquestioned assumptions (like water is to fish and air to birds) that Math 1.0 is numeracy and that Math 1.0 describes the sole reality of numbers. There will certainly be a few people in very high powerful places who know about Math 2.0 but are happy for the rest of us to just learn Math 1.0. When it comes to comparing things, Math 1.0 does not clarify issues, instead it clouds them.

All this means so few people know or understand the limitations of numbers, and therefore that numbers can be used to keep us all in the dark (ages?) about most things. We will never really know whether our Health Service or Schools are getting better or worse using Math 1.0. What is certain is that using Math 1.0 we get into endless debate about the trivia from the data (we can call this “noise”) and we will nearly always be missing the important understandings (we can call this the “signal”). Without Math 2.0 the useless information (noise) is drowning out the important information (signal).

So although it seems ludicrous that some, if not most, of our main ‘experts’ in Maths and Statistics use a Math that was devised for the special case of pure numbers and counting and that is strictly NOT applicable to numbers as MEASUREMENT.

But it is such experts that write a numeracy curriculum for our schools, universities and accountants that is based on a special case with numbers (the Math of simple counting – Math 1.0).

In the real world most of the important numbers we deal with on a day to day basis are to do with measurement, or involve counts that are being used as measures, and so we need to apply “Math 2.0″ in order to interpret these situations.

When we use simple Math 1.0 for interpreting data measurements we create problems and misunderstanding. Because we have come to rely on numbers in every facet of life and business (we found we could no longer trust the word of leaders, doctors, scientists etc so we needed their numbers) numbers now heavily impinge on our emotions.

We can get very angry when we see numbers we don’t like. The problem is often there is no valid reason to get angry with the numbers, it is Math 1.0 we should be getting angry with. We should be getting angry that we are not taught the ‘numeracy of measures’ at all.

Everyday we are all making decisions with sometimes life-threatening or very severe unintended consequences because of a lack of real-world numeracy because we don’t have the skills of Math 2.0

No-one is excluded. Politicians, scientists and business leaders all continually make poor decisions when they apply Math 1.0 thinking to real-world Math 2.0 situations, making us depend on numbers in a way that is totally irrelevant, abstract, misleading, artificial, and distorting.

Our lack of real-world numeracy Math 2.0 skills is I believe a big part of the problem why so much today seems to be going wrong. We follow the numbers but we don’t understand the numbers and as a consequence we jump to the wrong conclusions and we take actions misguidedly on the numbers and actually then make matters worse rather than better. (Deming called action based on misguided interpretation of data – tampering and he devised the funnel experiment to help us understand how tampering makes matters worse)

So at this point you may be asking what is this Math 2.0, why isn’t it taught in school and what difference would it make? I will some outline the key differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0 next time but here is a taster.

Math 1.0 is an artificial world where lines have no thickness, parallel lines can’t meet and numbers are absolute. When we use Math 1.0 there is only one correct answer and it is not possible to have variation in the answer. (in the real world however variation is always present)

Math 2.0 on the other hand is a real-world Math where lines have thickness, parallel lines can meet and most importantly measured numbers are never absolute. As variation exists in all things Math 2.0 does not ignore its effects (whereas Math 1.0 assumes random variation does not exist)

So here is a little teaser to see if you are working from Math 1.0 or Math 2.0

MATH 1.0

Math 1.0 2 + 2 = 4 YES this is absolute, there is only one answer and that is 4

Math 1.0 implies that this answer is the same whether we are using simple counts or measures.

So 2 inches plus 2 inches will always equal 4 inches

MATH 2.0

Math 2.0 – when simply counting, the results are the same as for Math 1.0

So 2 + 2 = 4 this is absolute, there is only one answer and that is 4

However when adding together measures or comparing measures:

2 + 2 = 4 but only on the average (so each time we take measurements and add them together the answer can vary either side of the number 4 by an amount which Math 2.0 can reliably approximate )

this scenario would be more precisely written as:

2 (v1) + 2 (v2) = 4 (v3)

where v1,v2,v3 is the variation (plus minus 3-standard deviations) that is inherent in each measurement

This brings me on to a further significant difference between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0.

In Math 1.0 there is ALWAYS significance in any change of number and therefore there is value in comparing just two data points. So if something measured 20 last month and 23 this month Math 1.0 says there is a change (an improvement if good stuff, a worsening if the measure is bad stuff. So as Math 1.0 is the math of pure counting if we have 20 apples in one basket and 23 apples in another it is clear that the second basket has (three) more apples in it. Math 2.0 would come to the same conclusion. However if the tree in your garden produced 23 apples this year and 20 last year we actually need Math 2.0 when seeking to make a decision about whether this difference means the tree yield is improving? For we are now not looking at the pure count of the apples we are seeking to use the numbers to give us knowledge about the tree. Now instead of apples and tree performance think of pupil exam success and school performance. And then by way of extrapolation think school success and league tables.

In Math 2.0 we CANNOT KNOW IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between 20 and 23 unless we have more data (and then a lot of the time Math 2.0 will show there will be no likely significant change). Math 2.0 tells us that comparing just two data points is ALWAYS meaningless (and of course it can provide the evidence for this). Each time we just compare two data points we are viewing the data outside of its context.

If only journalists were schooled in Math 2.0 we would not have so many meaningless, stupid headlines in our papers. But there again, they probably wouldn’t sell so many newspapers, so you could see that their bosses would be quite happy that their journalists are only numerate to Math 1.0 level.

Using Math 2.0 many headlines in the newspapers would read “Probably no change in the trade figures this month” rather than something that appears very dramatic like “4% fall in trade figures throws UK back into recession”.

Which of these two headlines would make you buy the newspaper – the first one (‘probably no change” so nothing much is happening - a quite likely scenario using Math 2.0) or the second headline derived using the inappropriate use of Math 1.0 ?

Have I grabbed your attention?

If you already know what I mean by Math 2.0 great, please post your own examples here about how Math 1.0 misleads, If you think I am a raving lunatic and it simply can’t be possible that we are being taught the wrong numeracy at school for making sense of the real-world, then please follow, watch and learn. And if you still think I’m being stupid tell me so.

In the next two articles in this series I will be comparing in much more detail some of the differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0 and seeking to impress upon the sceptics out there that this is really important stuff.

Next Time: Maths and Science leading us up the (wrong) garden path

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Abstract Math • Academia • Assumptions • Bearing • Blogs • Business Leaders • Deming • Doctors • Emotions • Everyday Reality • Garden Path • Important Numbers • Literacy And Numeracy • Math 1 • Math 1.0 • Math 2 • Math 2.0 • Math World • Mathematicians • Measurement Data • Measurements • Measures • Misunderstanding • National Curriculum • Politicians • Real World • School Math • Scientists • Statisticians • Strange World • Teaching Literacy • Walter Shewhart • Working Knowledge • World Math

Unintended Consequences? What do Very Large Bonuses Attract?

On 10.04.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp

It would appear that Very Large Bonuses Attract – Very Greedy People.
Now if experience tells us this is so (and certainly Alfie Kohn’s research showed that one thing that bonuses and other rewards don’t do is to lead to long-term improvement) how should we read the statements that have been made by the top [...]

It would appear that Very Large Bonuses Attract – Very Greedy People.

Now if experience tells us this is so (and certainly Alfie Kohn’s research showed that one thing that bonuses and other rewards don’t do is to lead to long-term improvement) how should we read the statements that have been made by the top British Institutions that if they don’t pay large bonuses their top earners will go and work for European or American Companies.

Put these two ideas together (Greedy People and Go Elsewhere) and a super strategy for British Companies would be to – wait for it – stop paying bonuses.

Bonuses might attract top earners but experience (with the credit crunch etc) is telling us that these top earners do not benefit their organisations IN THE LONG TERM (and therefore do not benefit any of their stakeholders in the long term either).

So are there some British Companies out there brave enough to stop paying ‘performance related’ bonuses and to see what happens? The consequences could be very good! Not a loss at all but a gain.

All the greedy earners who don’t care a stuff about the customers, will go to the competitors (hooray I hear from all those people who have suffered from all this miss-selling), leaving space for a new type of entrepreneur to take up these jobs within companies – (those with an innerpreneur mindset). Would not it be good for the long-term success of financial institutions for example if all the work was done by employees wanting to do the very best they can to give good service for past, current and future customers. Unfortunately as Kohn showed many years ago, big ‘carrots’ move the focus away from the service. The focus in the bonus culture is “what do I need to do today to make my carrot bigger (and also give me bragging rights to the biggest carrot)”. The focus should be of course be “what do I need to do today to really help my customer?”

So should not our politicians be suggesting that bonuses simply STOP in order to make our Institutions better? This then leaves one question. If such an organisation goes on to make increased profit in a ‘no bonus for performance’ model, how do all the employees get to share in this success as an intended consequence? (Answers not on a postcard, but please post your suggestions here)

What is a fair way to keep the focus on customer service, and to share in the benefits that accrue from being a truly long-term customer-focussed (as opposed to a bonus-focussed) company?

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Alfie Kohn • Bonus • Bonus Culture • Bragging Rights • British Institutions • Carrot • Carrots • Corporate Mindset • Credit Crunch • Culture • Deming • Entrepreneur • Financial Institutions • Innerpreneur • Lead • Leadership • Leaving Space • Mindset • Organisations • Politicians • Punishment by Bonuses • Punishment by Rewards • Rewards • Stakeholders • Systems Thinking • Term Improvement • Term Success • Thought Leader • Top Earners • Unintended Consequences

The Circumstances for Creativity

On 09.04.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Creativity, by Barry Mapp

Under what circumstances do creative ideas happen?

Here I will touch upon Herbert Benson’ work on the relaxation response and some more research from Csikszentmihalyi.
Csikszentmihalyi’s earlier work on the psychology of happiness had coined the word “flow” (others refer to this as “being in the zone”) a state of relaxed focus attention when humans can [...]

Under what circumstances do creative ideas happen?

Here I will touch upon Herbert Benson’ work on the relaxation response and some more research from Csikszentmihalyi.

Csikszentmihalyi’s earlier work on the psychology of happiness had coined the word “flow” (others refer to this as “being in the zone”) a state of relaxed focus attention when humans can achieve extraordinary results with minimal effort.

In his recent research on creativity Csikszentmihalyi links the conditions for flow to the conditions for creativity.

Some of the conditions for “flow” to occur are in the table below:

CONDITIONS for FLOW

(1) Clarity of Purpose

(2) Rapid Feedback

(3) Balance between Challenge and Skill

(4) Distractions are excluded

(5) No worry of failure

(6) Ego is not present

(7) Autotelic (the task is an end in itself)

Some features of the flow state::

Action and Awareness merge into one
Time is distorted

Let’s look at these features from the traditional management/business perspective

In the Compliant Company many things are happening to prevent this human condition of “flow”.

Arbitrary targets destroy (1).
Annual appraisal is the antithesis of (2).
Setting challenges to achieve targets without a method for achievement upsets (3).
Supervision, having your “activity” measured + arbitrary targets are major distractions for (4).
A Blame culture sabotages (5)
A reward culture sabotages (6)
Extrinsic rewards sabotage (7)

The key requirement for attaining a creative or ‘peak’ experience

Herbert Benson has given some great insight here.

Hiss early research was on the “relaxation response” and he was the first western doctor/scientist to study the abilities of eastern yogis.

His recent work has been on what he calls the “breakout principle” – what happens when people get their “ah-ha” moments and make a breakthrough in their thinking.

What he has shown is that in most cases of creative solutions to complex problems there is first a period of intense mental struggle with a task. (Activity and task merge, much like Csikszentmihalyi’s “flow”). Then there is a period of “release”, of deep relaxation, and this release leads to the breakout point or the “peak experience”. (Benson has demonstrated that under these conditions the brain produces “puffs” of nitric oxide. Zohar has shown this is associated with the production of “coherent” brainwaves which correlate with these breakthrough moments)

So this helps to explain why we get our most creative moments when walking, or in the shower, or having a massage etc. Intense activity followed by deep relaxation is a necessary requirement for ‘breakthrough’ moments.

How does your company operate to ensure there are opportunities for lots of creative moments in the workplace?

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Business Perspective • Compliant Company • Creative Ideas • Csikszentmihalyi • Distractions • Extrinsic Rewards • Flow 1 • Flow State • Focus Attention • Herbert Benson • Management Business • Minimal Effort • Peak Experience • Psychology Of Happiness • Rapid Feedback • Relaxation Response • Solut • Traditional Management • Western Doctor • Word Flow

How Rewards Sabotage Creativity

On 08.29.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Creativity, Uncategorised, by Barry Mapp

The best creativity arises from intrinsically motivated individuals – those who are doing something for the satisfaction within the task itself or for the satisfaction from the completion of a task. Intrinsic motivation is driven by curiosity and the desire to make a difference. Extrinsic motivation is driven by the temptation of a carrot or [...]

Intrinsic motivation is sabotaged by rewards. It’s almost that simple.

With rewards, the focus is on the reward not on the desire to complete a task or to make a difference. People start to do the tasks for the reward rather than the satisfaction of doing something of value.

Old Psychology demonstrated that animals do things for reward or to get away from pain (the carrot or stick approach). Old Psychology holds when the animal has survival needs unsatisfied (the hungry cat can be tempted but the satisfied cat can’t) and the theory of manipulation by carrot or stick holds true (Skinner’s original work with animals actually only worked when they were frightened and half-starved).

New Psychology is different. Creation Companies are those that are becoming more and more tuned in to New Psychology and New Thinking Principles. A Creation Company will recognise that when a human being has most of their basic needs met, carrot and stick is not as effective as Old Psychology predicts (thought those that would say they are ‘hungry’ for success can be tempted by the really big rewards).

But as Alfie Kohn and now Daniel Pink have affirmed there is very little evidence that rewards improve human performance in the long-term. And the main reason is that extrinsic motivators sabotage intrinsic motivation. Linking pay to performance therefore sabotages long-term performance. The Banking Crisis is an example that partially arose when companies, and individuals, focussed on the carrots and not on the service. Lose sight of the task and you lose sight of the potential disastrous consequences of doing things for the wrong reasons. Thus it is not therefore a question of moderating the bonus culture, with legislation if necessary, (as Politicians and Business Leaders would suggest) rather the question is how can we abolish the bonus culture.

We need to find mechanisms whereby people benefit from the long-term success of an organisation rather than rewarded for the profit they make on behalf of the company as individuals. We need this for companies to become Creation Companies that produce goods and services for the general good and well-being of people, life and the planet. That do things for the seventh-generation long term and not next year’s wage packet.

If you are a leader and you are not convinced by the idea that rewards sabotage intrinsic motivation (and thus also sabotage creativity and creative thought) then read Alfie Kohn’s “Punishment by Reward” or view Dan Pink’s video on the surprising science of motivation here

Now is the time for leaders to wake up to the fact that much of what we do in the guise of ‘management’ is detrimental to improvement (see here the Seven Deadly Diseases of Management)

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Alfie Kohn • Banking Crisis • Carrot • Carrots • Creating Creation COmpanies • Creation Company • Creativity • Curiosity • Dan Pink • Desire • Disastrous Consequences • Evidence based • Extrinsic Motivation • Human Performance • Hungry Cat • Intrinsic Motivation • Kohn • Linking Pay To Performance • Manipulation • Psychology • Rewards • Satisfaction • Science of Motivation • Skinner • Temptation • Term Performance

Identifying and Nurturing Personal Creativity

On 08.17.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Creativity, Uncategorised, by Barry Mapp

Personal Creativity: what type of person produces creative ideas?
We need to understand that we can all be creative and we can all learn to become more creative.
So what can we learn by looking at the background/opportunities of people who have produced some really big creative ideas? What can companies learn in order to ensure that [...]

Personal Creativity: what type of person produces creative ideas?

We need to understand that we can all be creative and we can all learn to become more creative.

So what can we learn by looking at the background/opportunities of people who have produced some really big creative ideas? What can companies learn in order to ensure that creativity happens in the workplace? I have already discussed some of the factors in a company that allow creativity to happen here.

However are there any personal characteristics that a Creation Company should look for when they employ new personnel? Well it’s not necessarily what we have been led to believe. And this also means that personality type profiles with an ‘either-or’ questioning approach can mislead.

In a landmark study on this subject, Csikszentmihalyi looked at the personality characteristics of ninety-one exceptional people (each of whom had made a difference to a major domain of culture). What he found (here) was that the creative people in his study had complex personalities. ((4) (Csikszentmihalyi Creativity. Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention ISBN 0-06-092820-4)

So if the question was “are they introvert or extravert” the answer was both (so this has implications for “old science” personality questionnaires that assumes an either/or approach to personality). What he found was that creative people could be both energetic and restful; smart and naïve; playful and disciplined; fantasy oriented and reality grounded; extrovert and introvert; humble and proud; masculine side and feminine side; conservative and rebellious; passionate and objective and could “suffer” yet enjoy what they did.

Thus for creativity to blossom in the workplace, we need to value complex personality, not expect people to fit into neat boxes. Indeed we need to allow people to “be themselves” and to honour the uniqueness in everyone.

So maybe, upon reflection you have a complex personality. Your ‘personality’ is not the box that some survey or ‘expert’ put you in. Maybe also you are fortunate to work in a ‘creation company’ (ie one that is or is becoming). Then what other factors appear to be important for each individuals creativity to emerge?

Coming Next: The Circumstances for Creativity

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Creation Company • Creative Ideas • Creativity Flow • Csikszentmihalyi • Extrovert • Feminine Side • Honour • Invention • Landmark Study • Masculine Side • Neat Boxes • Old Science • Personal Characteristics • Personal Creativity • Personalities • Personality Characteristics • Personality Questionnaires • Personality Type • Reflection • Type Profiles • Uniqueness

How Creation Companies differ (New Science, New Thinking)

On 08.10.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Know-How, by Barry Mapp

How Creation Companies differ from Compliant Companies (New Science, New Thinking and Creation Companies)
The concepts and research from the “new sciences” challenge our current thinking (theories-in-use) and challenge some sacred beliefs and ethos about how best to do good business. Creation companies (whether they realise it or not) embrace new psychology and new science ideas. [...]

How Creation Companies differ from Compliant Companies (New Science, New Thinking and Creation Companies)

The concepts and research from the “new sciences” challenge our current thinking (theories-in-use) and challenge some sacred beliefs and ethos about how best to do good business. Creation companies (whether they realise it or not) embrace new psychology and new science ideas. This thinking is in line with other iconoclast thinkers of our time such as, Russell Ackoff (Systems Thinking), Edward de Bono (Design Thinking), Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi Flow Thinking), and Eric Jensen (Brain-Based Thinking)

Let’s look at some of the major differences between Compliant and Creation Companies:

COMPLIANT Companies tend to have the following characteristics:

Leadership Style that is Command and Control
Order maintained by Policies and Rules
Competitive Internal Departments leading to sub-optimisation
Focus on Activity and the need to work faster, and measuring the things that can be easily measured but may not be that important
Asking people to improve but not giving them the method or means by which to do so (carrots and sticks offered rather than a method for improvement)
Lack of Trust (Old Psychology suggests that people cannot be trusted -extrapolated from the 1% or less who can never be trusted)
A Blame (and Fear) Culture. Asking, “who went wrong” (If things are not working, look for what the people are doing wrong and then give them a rollicking). Little opportunity to learn in a Blame Culture
People (particularly the leaders) confuse models with reality
The valued thinking is “Expert Mind”
Risk Avoidance
Black and White Thinking (shades of grey are discouraged)

Creation Companies tend to have the following charateristics:

Leadership Style - Freedom from Command and Control
Order maintained through Principles and Relationship
Co-operative, Whole System approach (optimising the whole)
Focus on outcomes and improving outcomes. Aware that most of the important things can’t actually be measured through “activity”.
Allowing people to improve the systems and processes by giving them the methods and resources by which to achieve the improvement
Built on Trust (New Psychology suggests that people can be trusted – extrapolated from the 99% who given the right conditions can always be trusted)
A No-Blame Culture. Asking “what went wrong”(If things are not working, find out which processes need to be changed. In a no-blame culture the business can learn from mistakes
People understand modelling and use many models
The valued thinking is “Beginner’s Mind”
Opportunity seeking
Multiple Possibility Thinking

Summary

The focus of Compliant Companies is on “conformance”. Compliance is maintained through the rules and structures, the management mechanism is mainly command and control, there is a blame culture for mistakes. Conformance (to standards and best practice) is a cultural principle.

The focus of Creation Companies differs, in that the people have guiding principles rather than rules, there is a noticeable freedom from command-and-control mechanisms, there is a no-blame culture, and there is continuing positive change and joy in the work.

End Piece: And of course Creation Companies will know about and understand the factors that encourage humans to be creative. The next posts in this series look at some additional to creativity ‘Identifying and Nurturing Personal Creativity’ and ‘The Circumstances for Creativity’. The real Creation Companies are also likely to be very aware that the reward culture sabotages creativity and also the consequences of paying large bonuses to make things happen (unfortunately they make the wrong things happen and select the wrong people to best do the intended work)

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Business Creation • Carrots • Chaordic • Compliant Companies • Edward De Bono • Eric Jensen • Good Business • Internal Departments • Lack Of Trust • Leadership Style • Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi • New Science • New Thinking • Psychology • Risk Avoidance • Russell Ackoff • Sacred Beliefs • Science Ideas • Shades Of Grey • System Approach • Systems Thinking • Thinkers

Creation Companies: Apply the principles of New Psychology to Business

On 07.30.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp

Applying the principles of “New Psychology” to Business
Both New Psychology and New Science are underlying themes in this Superblog. Let’s just take a first brief look at what we mean by the terms New Psychology and Old Psychology and next time we’ll look at “New Science”.
The following is adapted from a Paper presented by Barry [...]

Applying the principles of “New Psychology” to Business

Both New Psychology and New Science are underlying themes in this Superblog. Let’s just take a first brief look at what we mean by the terms New Psychology and Old Psychology and next time we’ll look at “New Science”.

The following is adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”

Psychology has always been important in Business

In Business, psychology (i.e. our understanding of, or beliefs about, human behaviour) has always been an important factor in “how we do things around here”. Psychology thus underpins the workings of both the old and new style company paradigms.

The Psychology of Compliant Companies is “Old Psychology” (behaviour that is predicted primarily from studies on starving animals or unhappy or sick human beings).

The Psychology that underpins successful Creation Companies is “New Psychology” where people behaviour is predicted from the studies of animals that were happy and cared for, or from research on human beings that are living happy and fulfilled lives.

Note that nearly all textbook psychology is “Old Psychology” – so you won’t find much about new psychology from standard psychology books.

It is interesting to note that most of our business advisory groups (like Business Link in the UK) still promote business systems based on old psychology and indeed their own organisational structures and processes are rooted in old psychology.

Most Government strategy around influencing business and services is based on old psychology and even most business consultants (including those who profess to be thinking outside the box) are often using “old psychology” techniques and theories.

The following table shows some of the fundamental differences between Old Psychology and New Psychology approaches.

Old Psychology Principles (this includes):

(extensive use of) Extrinsic Motivators (Carrot and Stick)
People Treated like children (heavy on rules and regulations)
External Targets set from above (nearly all are arbitrary!)
Blame culture. Whose fault? Whose head must roll?
Visible are many of the Seven Deadly Diseases of Management

New Psychology Principles (this includes):

(Mostly) Intrinsic Motivation (very reduced use of punishment or rewards, work not bonus driven)
People Treated like adults (owning the work principles)
Goal setting by the people (seeking alignment with the leaders goals)
A ‘No Blame’ culture. What happened? What can we learn?
Cured, or nearly cured, of the Seven Deadly Diseases of Management

In many ways the Old Psychology is the Psychology of the exceptions – the study of the minority studied under unusual or poor conditions.

New Psychology is based upon understanding how the majority will behave under good conditions. So Old Psychology does hold true under stressful or fear conditions, and likewise New Psychology holds true under joyful and happy conditions.

The New Psychologies embrace ideas like those of Glasser (Choice Theory), Kelly (Constructive Alternativism) and Griffin and Tyrell (Human Givens approach). New Psychology is congruent with Kohn’s research on Co-operation and Motivation, with Dweck’s research on “Self-Theories” and with Deming’s ideas on the transformation of management. (More about each of these Psychologies in later blogs)

Coming Next: New Science, New Thinking and Creation Companies

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Advisory Groups • Alfie Kohn • Blame Culture • Business Consultants • Business Link • Business Psychology • Business Systems • Choice Theory • Compliant Companies • Connecting Companies • Constructive Alternativism • Creation Company • Deming • external targets • Extrinsic motivators • Fundamental Differences • Government Strategy • Human Behaviour • Human Beings • Human Givens • Joy at Work • Mapp • New Science • New Style Company • Organisational Structures • Paradigms • Psychology Books • Psychology of the exceptions • Psychology Techniques • Seven Deadly Diseases of Management • Textbook Psychology • Thinking Outside The Box • William Glasser

Five Working Principles of Creation Companies

On 07.29.09, In Creating Creation Companies, by Barry Mapp

Five Working Principles of the Creation Company
The first three principles mentioned in Tom McGehee’s book Whoosh are:
1) a leadership style free from command-and-control principles
2) a corporate culture that values individual expression and collaborative work
3) An understanding that success means creating the new not replicating the old
The two additional principles of those Creation Companies that will [...]

Five Working Principles of the Creation Company

The first three principles mentioned in Tom McGehee’s book Whoosh are:

1) a leadership style free from command-and-control principles

2) a corporate culture that values individual expression and collaborative work

3) An understanding that success means creating the new not replicating the old

The two additional principles of those Creation Companies that will survive for the Long-term is that they learn to:

4) Inoculate themselves from the seven deadly diseases of management which are endemic “diseases” in ‘Compliance Companies’.

5) Apply the principles of “New Psychology” and “New Science” to “how we do things around here”. This includes continually applying new knowledge (as it is acquired) about the brain, the human spirit, learning, and human potential etc

Let’s look at these last two principles in more detail

First, the seven deadly diseases of management? (as outlined by W Edwards Deming)

There is a Lack of constancy of purpose.
There is an Emphasis on short-term profits.
There is Evaluation by performance, merit rating, or annual review of performance.
There is Mobility of management (resulting in high staff turnover)
There is Running a company on visible figures alone.
There is Excessive medical costs (this point is related more to the American Market, but we could reframe this as the cost high costs that companies bare of early retirements and redunduncies)
There are Excessive costs of warranty and Litigation, fuelled by lawyers who work for contingency fees.

There are these Lesser Category of Obstacles also mentioned by Deming:

Neglect of long-range planning.
Relying on technology to solve problems.
Seeking examples to follow rather than developing solutions.
Excuses such as “Our problems are different”.

Here are three different perspectives on these seven deadly diseases:

Coming next: The final principle of Creation Companies: Applying “New Psychology” and “New Science” to the Business

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Constancy • Contingency Fees • Control Principles • Creation Company • Deadly Diseases • Different Perspectives • Endemic Diseases • Excessive Costs • Human Spirit • Individual Expression • Leadership Style • Long Range Planning • Medical Costs • New Science • Staff Turnover • Term Profits • Tom Mcgehee • Visible Figures • W Edwards • Whoosh

What makes a “Creation Company”?

On 07.28.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Know-How, by Barry Mapp

Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”
A Creation Company can be thought of as a place (business) where the work systems, work processes, work culture, work management and work leadership are aligned with people and [...]

Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”

A Creation Company can be thought of as a place (business) where the work systems, work processes, work culture, work management and work leadership are aligned with people and how people work best.

Where such alignment occurs this can lead to extraordinary results.

When the systems do not get in the way of the work, human spirit and human joy and passion unfold.

When alignment happens between people and systems, the work can “flow”, unimpeded by artificial constraints, boundaries, controls or hierarchy.

When the work is aligned with how people like to work, then every person in the business is able to perform at their very best, such that everyone has the opportunity to produce extraordinary results.

When there is such alignment, individuals have a sense of control or influence over the work and a sense of responsible for their own work

The Fundamental Principles for creating a Creation Company

Tom McGehee says there are three fundamental principles for a Creation Company (and ANY company can generate the excitement, energy, confidence, and audacity of the “whoosh” of a Creation Company by subscribing to these fundamental principles):

1) A leadership style free from command-and-control principles

2) A corporate culture that values individual expression and collaborative work

3) An understanding that success means creating the new not replicating the old

From my personal experience, I would also add two additional principles required for (long-term) Creation Company performance (this makes it five principles in all) and these will be discussed in the next blog

Coming next: Five Working Principles of Creation Companies

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Audacity • Collaborative Work • Company Performance • Connecting Companies • Control Principles • Corporate Culture • Creation Company • Culture Work • Human Joy • Human Spirit • Individual Expression • Leadership Style • Mapp • Place Business • Tom Mcgehee • Whoosh • Work Culture • Work Leadership • Work Management • Work Processes

On Creating Creation Companies -an overview

On 07.27.09, In Creating Creation Companies, by Barry Mapp

Creating Creation Companies
(Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”)
Let’s take a preliminary look at the differences between a “Compliance Company” and a “Creation Company”. These are terms that I like, that were first penned by [...]

Creating Creation Companies

(Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”)

Let’s take a preliminary look at the differences between a “Compliance Company” and a “Creation Company”. These are terms that I like, that were first penned by Tom McGehee in his book Whoosh.

Today a key business challenge is to recognise and realise the full potential of each organisation. However when we continue to lead and manage our organisations in the same way as we have always done, we are going to get what we have always got. The call to lead and manage in a totally different way – to transform “western management”- was first issued by W.Edwards Deming. Many have cherry-picked from Deming’s ideas but few have attempted to transform management along the lines that he proposed.

Most organisations continue to be run in “the old ways” based on “old psychology”,“old science” and “old management” principles (each of these terms will be explored more fully in later blogs). As Russell Ackoff pointed out a few years ago, most business schools are part of the problem because they still teach “old way” approaches. However more and more iconoclasts of our era, from different fields and domains, are backing the need to transform management thinking. Tom McGehee is one of many calling for a change in our thinking. He calls the transformed organisation a “Creation Company” and the old-style organisation a “Compliance Company” – terms that I will use also.

Compliance Companies, whether they realise this or not, erect barriers to change and innovation by insisting on control of (1)information, (2)resources and (3)decision making, in order to preserve the status quo. In such companies (which remain the vast majority) people have never been trusted to supervise themselves and inspect their own work. People are never able to do their best efforts because the management systems get in the way.

Coming Next: So what makes a “Creation Company”?

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Business Challenge • Business Schools • Compliance Company • Connecting Companies • Creation Company • European Union • Innovation • Key Business • Management Principles • Mapp • Old Science • Old Style • Organisations • Perspectives • Psychology • Russell Ackoff • Successes • Tom Mcgehee • W Edwards • Western Management

Thinking the human brain was designed to do

On 07.16.09, In Know-What/Why, by Barry Mapp

Thinking the human brain was designed to do
Do you ever stop to think about your thinking? It seems to me that there are at least three levels of thinking that the human brain can do that enhances our capacity to design ‘newness’. To actually solve issues where the current level of thinking fails to find [...]

Thinking the human brain was designed to do

Do you ever stop to think about your thinking? It seems to me that there are at least three levels of thinking that the human brain can do that enhances our capacity to design ‘newness’. To actually solve issues where the current level of thinking fails to find long-term effective solutions.

“We cannot solve the problems of today with the same level of thinking that created the problems in the first place”

Albert Einstein (He said words to this effect many times over his lifetime)

What did Einstein mean by this? Well I guess using my terminology from the previous few blogs on this topic he did not mean crowing cockerel thinking, nor flat world thinking, not even earth around the sun thinking. Neither of these three ways of thinking would cut the mustard for Einstein.

So lets look at three further levels of thinking that would ‘cut the mustard’

Here are the three levels of thinking that our human brain was wired to do, ways of thinking that clearly differentiate us from the abilities of reptiles and other mammals.

(1) “Out from my Existing World” Thinking

This is thinking where the thinker takes a (one dimensional) step out from their current set of beliefs (or paradigm) about how the world (and everything in it) works. So rather than staying ‘imprisoned’ within the assumptions, beliefs, and theories of the existing system (my current world) to take a step outside/above and look from a different viewpoint or perspective. This level of thinking is sometimes described as ‘out of the box’ or ‘lateral’ thinking

(2) Multiple Perspectives Thinking (MPT)

MPT occurs when you can suspend you existing assumptions and start to scan ‘reality’ from multiple perspectives or ‘viewing points’. For example when you are in dispute with someone you can look to hold three different perspectives in your head and view the situation from each. What is your thinking on this issue, what are the likely thoughts the other person has, and what would a third person who no axe to grind think about this situation. By viewing this issue from three perspectives gives insights not possible from just one. Anyone acquainted with W. Edward Deming’s ‘System of Profound Knowledge’ will appreciate that Deming created a tool that let’s us view any issue through the lens of four different perspectives. When we do this we get a good sense of the unintended consequences that we might ‘cause’ by simply taking a ‘one perspective’ viewpoint.

This type of thinking is greatly enhanced when we are in multilogue. Here we listen and share information in a particular way and sitting with people who hold widely differing perspectives. Everyone in the room suspends their existing assumptions and then as the multilogue progresses they seek to hold the totality of thoughts and ideas in their heads. And then (and only then) from a state of nothingness (shown by absolute silence) there begins to emerge through the vehicle of the group, new thoughts and ideas. In a society that is not used to sitting in the silence, multilogue is tricky to achieve (Many of us seem to be threatened by it)

However there are however tools and techniques that will allow us to achieve this type of thinking whilst working on our own and Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge is one such tool.

(3) Meta-Thinking

This is our ability to think about thinking. To be able to think and to challenge our own thinking and the thinking of others. It appears that we are the only life-form on this planet to be able to ‘meta-think’ and it is this one ability that has made us so successful. All the great major breakthroughs in human advancement have come about through this ability. We cannot achieve any of the other five levels of thinking without having this ability. Yet what are we most likely to do when we have a problem? Think-about-our-thinking or sit and watch a reality TV programme?

It is sad to know that the three levels of thinking described here (each of which lift our abilities above that of reptiles and mammals) are so rarely used to focus and seek solutions to the challenges we have today. Einstein would not be happy. If you live in the midlands and you want to jump-start your thinking and creative ability I have some upcoming workshops on these topics in Birmingham and Worcestershire

Coming Next: Black and White thinking – the curse of our society

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Albert Einstein • Assumptions • Blogs • Current • Cut The Mustard • Different Perspectives • Earth Around The Sun • Earth Sun • Effective Solutions • Existing System • Flat Earth • Human Brain • Lifetime • Mammals • Paradigm • Perspective • Reptiles • System of Profound Knowledge • Thinker • Three Ways • Viewpoint • W.E.Deming

Three New Words for the 21st Century

On 07.10.09, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp

Taking Politics out of the Political – Three New Words for the 21st Century
If we are ever to take succeed in taking the Politics out of the Political (Party) System need to ‘invent’ some new words.
Two exisiting words that do not help us to move away from the present system are Government and Political
Government – [...]

Taking Politics out of the Political – Three New Words for the 21st Century

If we are ever to take succeed in taking the Politics out of the Political (Party) System need to ‘invent’ some new words.

Two exisiting words that do not help us to move away from the present system are Government and Political

Government – has within it the term ‘govern’ which contains elements of to rule, to control, to determine etc (eg to exercise continuous sovereign authority over ; especially to control and direct). Government was something that replaced the single ‘ruler’ (person who rules over). There is very little difference though in the meaning of “to rule” and to “govern” ( both have a sense of control, dominion, or direction over; to dominate by powerful influence; to decide or declare authoritatively or judicially; to decree)

If we wanted to apply a different set of conditions by which we run a Country, where the emphasis is not on controlling people but something more enabling we need a new word. So I am going to use the word Enablement as an alternative (model) to Government. An Enablement would have the brief of doing everything possible to allow people and communities to become the best that they can be.

The role of any Enablement would be to help remove the things that disable the people from being the best they can be and to become a facilitator for improvement by advocating useful models and discarding the useless models (Political Parties can become so attached to their useless models that this becomes a big part of the problem – I have already mentioned elsewhere that “Target Setting” is a useless model for facilitating real long-term improvement here).

An Enablement moves away from the emphasis of the ‘rule of law’ (you should feel bad about yourself if you break the rules) to the ‘rule of helpful behaviours’ (you should feel good about yourself when you behave in ways that are helpful to others). The idea of Goverment is based on “Old Psychology”; Enablement is based on the principles espoused in all the New Psychologies”.

The second unhelpful word is ‘political‘.

There is no academic agreed meaning of this term but most definitions contain the words ‘power’ and it does seem that it is the lure of power in one form or another that motivates people to use ‘political means’ to achieve things. It is often assumed in the literature that whenever groups interact ‘politics’ is a natural consequence.

However I have participated in group interactions similar to what the Physicist Bohm described as ‘dialogue’ and when engaged in such Bohmian Dialogue ‘politics’ is not a natural consequence (and as there is some confusion about the meaning of ‘dialogue’ I am going to introduce what will be a third new word and rename Bohmian dialogue as “multilogue”).

So if it is possible to do things (non-politically) in groups that lead to more effective (indeed better) decisions, then we need a new word and I am going to use “Qualitics”.

In a future blog I will attempt to define Qualitics in detail but for now let’s just see it as a way groups can work together co-operatively to allow new ideas to emerge that can lead to mutual quality outcomes.

So here are three new words for the 21st Century. Enablements as an alternative to Goverments, Qualitics as an alternative to Politics with , and multilogue (a la Bohm) as an alternative to debate.

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: 21st Century • Behaviours • Bohm • Controlling People • Dialogue • Dominion • Elements • Enablement • Facilitator • Goverment • Invent • Models • Multilogue • Non Political • Political Government • Political Parties • Politics • Present System • Psyc • Qualitical • Qualitics • Rule Of Law • Ruler • Sovereign Authority • Target Setting • Term Improvement

Americans value science, but not all of it

On 07.10.09, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp

On Science and Scientists, Climate change and the Public – who is thinking clearly?
Just seen the results of this survey from Reuters. Of course we always need to take surveys with a pinch of salt, but I find the results of this particular survey (http://unhub.com/9Vmx) very interesting, particular about current opinions on Climate Change. The [...]

On Science and Scientists, Climate change and the Public – who is thinking clearly?

Just seen the results of this survey from Reuters. Of course we always need to take surveys with a pinch of salt, but I find the results of this particular survey (http://unhub.com/9Vmx) very interesting, particular about current opinions on Climate Change. The problems with surveys is they only leave us with more questions than provide any answers because they never seem to follow up and ask the really interesting things.

First a summary of the survey results with respect to the ’science’ of climate change:

The survey says that “while 84 percent of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that”.

There are two things of interest to tease out from this. Firstly the ‘public’ view.

Is it that the ‘public’ are in denial of the ’science’ or is it that actually they don’t believe in the models that the scientists are using? Now it would be good to survey that. My money is on the fact that most of the public simply don’t believe the models. If so that would be very interesting as well to know why.

The second thing of interest is the viewpoint of the scientists. This survey showed that 16% of the scientists surveyed did not believe the ’science’. From what you read in the media I would have thought that it was fewer than 5% of scientists who did not agree with the interpretation of the ’science’. Again it would be most interesting to know more about the scientists who are the ‘non-believers’

So this survey would have been far more useful if we could have found out something about those ‘public’ that don’t believe the ’science’ of climate change (or rather the way most scientists are interpreting the data). Are they all people who just want to go on decimating rain forests etc? Are they actually people (like myself) who want to stop burning fossil fuels and decimating the planet, but have no confidence in the models that scientists are using to predict the global effects?

And the 16% of scientists that don’t believe the (interpretation of the) ’science’? Are they all in the pocket of the energy companies? Or are they merely scientists who are concerned that the data is contradictory or selectively taken and the models are inadequate to make predictions?

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Burning Fossil Fuels • Climate Change • Denial • Earth • Firstly • Interesting Things • Models • Money • People • Pinch Of Salt • Rain Forests • Respect • Reuters • Scientists • Survey Results • Survey Showed That • Surveys • Tease • Value Science • Viewpoint

Thinking in Different Ways (2)

On 07.08.09, In Know-What/Why, by Barry Mapp

Thinking in Different Ways (2)
Another way of thinking that may not be very helpful in a world full of ‘problems’ to solve is “Earth-around-the-Sun” thinking
Earth around the Sun Thinking
This type of thinking is more ‘logical’ and has wider applicability than ‘Crowing Cockerel Thinking’ or ‘Flat world Thinking’ mentioned in the last blog but can be [...]

Thinking in Different Ways (2)

Another way of thinking that may not be very helpful in a world full of ‘problems’ to solve is “Earth-around-the-Sun” thinking

Earth around the Sun Thinking
This type of thinking is more ‘logical’ and has wider applicability than ‘Crowing Cockerel Thinking’ or ‘Flat world Thinking’ mentioned in the last blog but can be as dangerous and misleading as these first two ways of thinking. This way of thinking transfixes our assumptions about reality and about how ‘the world works‘ (so an alternative name might be ‘transfixed thinking’). This is also a thinking level that is ‘in the box’.

So if you believe that the Earth orbits around the sun (as a complete and perfect manifestation of reality) then there is a danger that you see the sun as the centre of the universe (so you have simply moved from the theory of the earth as the centre, to the sun as the centre). With this way of thinking you may never get to consider how the sun (together with the earth) moves in relation to other systems and how those other systems may affect you.

Seeing your model as ‘true’ may mean you ignore subtle effects that come from things outside of your model – like in the solar system analogy – the movement of other solar systems (larger elements but further away) or other elements (smaller but nearer) like our moon. And we know from chaos theory that a collection of subtle effects (a butterfly flapping its wings in Australia) can interact to give big effects.

Side-tracking to Global Warming for a moment

The mention of ‘butterflies’ and chaos theory side-tracks me for a moment to Global Warming as an example where scientists are seen to be applying “Earth around the Sun Thinking”.

Despite the fact that both the moon (orbit changes in relationship to Earth) and the Sun (sunspot activity variation) are known to influence weather on planet Earth, I have yet to see a single computer projection that includes all such known relevant data in the calculations. This means that I personally can’t be led to believe any of the data projections on Global Warming. If you are thinking outside of existing accepted models of current reality, then it is logical to make absolutely sure that important weather factors like lunar orbit shifts and sunspot activity have been included in the computer modeling for these are (known) major contributors of both historical and current world temperature changes. Why should we believe any statistics or data that is so reductionist in its approach? (Incidentally I believe we should save our oil, gas and coal reserves for future needs and therefore we must seek alternative sources of energy – this is just plain sensible – and we should have been thinking about this a hundred years ago before Global Warming was a figment of anybody’s imagination.)

It is possible to identify a lot of bad decisions being made by Governments, Business, Economists, Financiers etc. around the world because they believe either in useless models or a flawed understanding of the limitations of the data

Back to the Thinking about Thinking

Earth-around-the-Sun Thinking is the ultimate ‘we know the truth’ thinking.It is the thinking that says ‘we have the complete picture’, ‘we are the experts’ and ‘we don’t need to listen to any new or alternative perspectives’. This stance becomes ‘my theory is true’ and then no counter-evidence can possibly be allowed to invalidate it.

The attitude that emanates from this way of thinking is the “If you try to convince me that there is something incomplete or wrong here, I will ignore all your evidence, and I will strongly defend my current belief”. We all defend our beliefs this is natural. The dangers arise when the beliefs we defend are very limited and very closed and we are simply not open to other possibilites.

Earth-around-the-Sun Thinking is accepted and very prevalent in society today. This logical thinking level is a limited thinking level however, for whilst it is useful in the context of a single and important relationship (note: a reductionist relationship), it can be misleading in relation to the whole picture and may be missing many key influencing factors when it comes to applying the thinking for accurate predictions.

In an era where our political leaders in particular seek and worship the results of expert assessments or computer predictions, we need to stay alert when the thinking that the ‘experts’ used to construct the formulas has failed to include important potential factors – making each and every prediction seriously flawed (Swine flu comes to mind here, I wonder why?).

We have all heard about rubbish-in, rubbish-out, but how often are our most eminent leaders making predictions that will influence our well-being or waste our money from models that are flawed, or data that is of poor quality.

Science and maths, and history – the list goes on, these are all littered with examples where important data (evidence) was left out when it did not fit the thinking (model). The reason ‘chaos theory’ was a late development in maths (so I have heard) was that for a long time it was known that certain mathematical data did not fit the existing theories, but this data was continually and deliberately overlooked. You see when people (the explorers) on the flat-plain of current thinking, travel out to its far reaches and say “I have seen beyond and this world isn’t flat”, all the Flat-World Thinkers gang up, or ‘group-think’, together and find arguments to ignore the data as an aberration. In fact they see the explorer as the aberration not the data.

So Earth-around-the-Sun Thinking is only a slightly more sophisticated form of Flat World Thinking. For most, the former is the true way to think and the latter way is a false way. It may appear therefore that Earth-around-the-Sun Thinking is far superior to Flat World Thinking. However the Gods looking down on us from on high, see both levels of thinking as identical and flawed, as both models (can) obscure reality and both ways of thinking place restriction on the future potential of human beings and limit the possibility for creative thought and for new solutions.

“All models are wrong, some models are useful” George Box

To be creative is to be able to hold different possible models of reality at any one time and see the usefulness of them all.

‘Creatives’ observe and play with their models, they don’t live in their models nor believe them to be ‘true’.

We are all born creative beings. One of the things that sabotages this birthright is an education system where the focus is on right answers rather than useful answers. The way we currently do education therefore is to condition-out our ability to hold multiple ‘truths’ in our head at any one time. This is something to discuss elsewhere, however our education system is another example of the outcome from Earth-around-the-Sun Thinking applied thoughtlessly transfixing us to believe that education is about ‘dumping information in’ to heads and believing that we measure cleverness by how well students can get that dumped information back out again. (this is recall not learning). If this is cleverness we would never have seen the Fosbury Flop, the Photocopier, Michael Jackson’s Moon Walk, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or indeed this blog.

Learning Point: Very few things are absolute or true, most things are actually only ‘true’ relative to other things. Two plus two does not always equal exactly four, parallel lines can meet, carbon dioxide is not the only thing to influence our weather!

Summary
From a Creativity perspective, the three levels of thinking outlined so far are illogical and unhelpful (and yet they arguably represent the way that most of us think). Next we’ll look at three levels of thinking that are absolutely required if we are to create new solutions to existing problems.

Coming Next:
Ways of thinking that our human brain was actually wired to do?

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Analogy • Applicability • Butterflies • Centre Of The Universe • Chaos Theory • Computer Projection • Earth around the sun thinking • Earth Orbits • George Box • Global Warming • Manifestation • Moon Orbit • Planet Earth • Rele • Single Computer • Solar System • Solar Systems • Subtle Effects • Sunspot Activity • Theory Of The Earth • Theory Side • thinking about thinking • Way Of Thinking

Thinking in Different Ways

On 07.04.09, In Know-What/Why, by Barry Mapp

Thinking in Different Ways
In the last Blog I looked at how our models, theories, beliefs and assumptions can be either helpful or harmful. Also I looked at how our assumptions influence our thinking and vice-versa.

In this blog, I am going to focus on thinking.

There are many different ways to look at thinking (because [...]

Thinking in Different Ways

In the last Blog I looked at how our models, theories, beliefs and assumptions can be either helpful or harmful. Also I looked at how our assumptions influence our thinking and vice-versa.

In this blog, I am going to focus on thinking.

There are many different ways to look at thinking (because there are many different ways we can model thinking). The first model I am going to share in the next three blogs is one I put together just a few days ago (so one of my own creations – thought I accept there is little new under the sun). I am going to call this model the “Logical Levels” of thinking (not to be confused with NLP Logical Levels) and I use this term because I see the ways of thinking I am about to describe as being on a continuum from quite illogical (though sometimes understandable) through to very sensible, and very logical.

I have given these logical levels of thinking my own names but if anyone can come up with any ones please let me know. My logical levels of thinking are: (1) Crowing Cockerel (2) Flat World (3) Earth around the Sun (4) Out from my Existing World (5) Multiple Perspectives and (6) Meta-Thinking and I will briefly describe the first two here.

Crowing Cockerel Thinking

This is the level of thinking that is followed when people believe that the sun rises every morning because the cock crows. The proponents of this way of thinking will defend it as absolutely correct. There can be no argument with this way of thinking because the sun rises after the cock crows. In the 21^st Century, you would think that we are far too clever to believe or to use this way of thinking, but you will regularly discover in this column (and the sister column – the Non-Political Party) that “Crowing Cockerel Theories” are all around us and they have the effect of protecting the status quo. This thinking stops us from looking at things in new ways, is superstitious, and it stops us from improving. Even intellectuals and academics are not immune from this type of thinking. Scientists also have their fair share of this thinking.

Why does such an illogical form of thinking persist?

One reason may be that we rarely give time to think about our thinking. So we do Crowing Cockerel Thinking thoughtlessly and without any constructive engagement with it. Another reason is that we believe for every effect we see there is a cause. So we seek causes but often have no way of knowing (insufficient data?) what is a cause and what is a co-incident. Indeed in this specific example it is the sun that ’causes’ the cockerel to crow not the other way around (even this of course is far too simplistic).

And before you say that you never think in this way, I intends to have great fun showing otherwise. Maybe you do think-about-your-thinking and so you are partially immunised from this false idol. But I will bet that you probably (without realising it) take advice occasionally from an expert who (unknowingly) practises this form of thinking.

So let’s try to identify this perverse thinking mode whenever and wherever it appears in the media. And do please send me any examples you find.

Flat World Thinking

This form of thinking has some definite logic to it. It is represented by a theory that is true (useful) but only under very limited conditions. Imagine living thousands of years ago in the middle of a vast plain. This thinking was adequate. The theory says “my world is a flat place”. The model will always be true (useful) within certain confined limits. However to extrapolate from this (specific place) model into a general model of thinking would be dangerous (particularly if you were gambling with your life or your worldly possessions, or gambling with the lives of future generations on the assumption that the model was true). As I intend to show time and time again, Flat-World thinking is (unfortunately) alive and well. If you have your personal examples of this Flat-World Thinking please send them to me so I can add them to my collection.

Coming Next:

Earth around the Sun Thinking

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Academics • Assumptions • Blogs • Cock • Continuum • Earth Around The Sun • Few Days • First Model • Intellectuals • Logical Levels • Many Different Ways • Meta • Models • New Ways • Own Creations • Perspectives • Proponents • St Century • Way Of Thinking • World 3

Beliefs and Thinking

On 07.01.09, In Know-What/Why, Me, by Barry Mapp

Knowing the What and Knowing the Why
To know the ‘what’ or ‘why’ about anything, we have to understand something about our current beliefs and how beliefs interact with how we think and what we think about. If you see yourself as a ‘Thought Leader” this is definitely the blog to be.
This first post takes an [...]

Knowing the What and Knowing the Why

To know the ‘what’ or ‘why’ about anything, we have to understand something about our current beliefs and how beliefs interact with how we think and what we think about. If you see yourself as a ‘Thought Leader” this is definitely the blog to be.

This first post takes an initial look therefore at beliefs and thinking.

Virtuous or Vicious Cycle in your Thinking?

What we believe (our models, theories, assumptions) influences how we think and what we think about. Equally how we think and what we think about influences our beliefs. This process can either represent a virtuous cycle or a vicious cycle depending on whether the process is opening up or closing down the limits of our thinking (And believe it or not this interaction between thoughts and beliefs is so powerful it influences ‘how we see things’ so that what we actually see through our own eyes has less direct and immediate impact on our beliefs than we think – the idea that ‘seeing is believing’ is in fact rarely true for us)

It is our models, beliefs, theories that we ‘hold’ in our head that help to make sense of the world around us. However we often fail to recognise that ‘that sense’ is not representative of a true reality but is a ‘best fit’ of reality as it has appeared to us so far in personal everyday experience.

Every model can be true (useful) at some level (within its own often limited context).

Harmful Models - Some models prove (demonstrate) to be harmful in that they generate actions, behaviours, systems, viewpoints that in the long term make matters worse rather than better. Theories about what is right or wrong, good or evil have led to destructive wars against people who are little different from ourselves except for the beliefs they hold.

Helpful Models – Other models prove to be useful in the long term in that when the principles of the model are followed things consistently improve. In this blog we will be particularly interested in models and beliefs that have led to sustained improvement rather than holding a status quo or making matters worse. And of course we will need to keep an eye on what we mean (operational definition) by improvement as this is not always clear and can therefore can muddy our thinking.

Models that broaden our reality - We should be aware that some models and beliefs will broaden our view of reality (like a wide-angle lens for photography). Such models will be particularly useful when we need to see the bigger picture or to see how things interact and connect together. Such models are also likely to be useful in times of rapid change when a broader model has more inherent flexibility in the thoughts that it allows

Models that constrict our reality – Other models may narrow or constrict our view of reality. These models may be useful when we need to be focused on the “where-we-are” and the “here-and-now”. However the danger with these models is that we can’t see further than the end of our nose, we can’t see the forest from the trees and we can’t see why and how mankind in general is making things on planet Earth worse not better. Also such models are likely to be a liability in times of rapid change where the here-and-now almost instantly becomes part of the back ‘there-and-then’.

Next: Different ways of thinking.

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Assumptions • Best Fit • Blog • Current • Destructive Wars • Everyday Experience • Interact • Interaction • Models • Own Eyes • reality • Sense Of The World • Thought Leader • True Reality • Vicious Cycle • Viewpoints • Virtuous Cycle

On the Need for Something Different in Politics

On 07.01.09, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by admin

A view on politicians - ”A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” ~ James Freeman Clarke.
A view on Politics- ”Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.” ~ Oscar Ameringer
This Blog: On the need [...]

A view on politicians - ”A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” ~ James Freeman Clarke.

A view on Politics- ”Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.” ~ Oscar Ameringer

This Blog: On the need for something different in Politics

We need something new and something completely different in Politics. Believing that tinkering with what we have will lead to something much better is madness. The current political system regardless of the ‘Party’ elected to power has consistently failed to do the job for which it was elected.

Why is Government Failing?

This could be due to several things. Firstly that ‘Government’ thinks it can control things that it cannot (and therefore will always under-deliver); (2) the thinking and assumptions about the ‘problems’ are wrong or the methods by which Government seek to implement their policies simply don’t work; or (3) that the system itself is the problem (the system is the one that embraces what we currently accept – Political Parties in charge (rather than independent thinkers), whips to maintain Party discipline and ideology regardless of consequences; ideological thinking tempered often only by charged polarised debate (or in the UK- the slanging match) as the best vehicle to find the new solutions to existing problems or (4) the system fails because we the voters either lack the knowledge or the wherewithal to canvas effectively for something better. This latter viewpoint incidently espoused by James Garfield “Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Parliament. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.” So perhaps rather than the politicians canvassing for our vote we need to canvas them about what we expect from them (and it certainly isn’t all those things we seem to have been getting and seeing recently)

Could we dispense with Political Parties and still elect a Government?

This blog will look at all the possible aspects of why the current system is failing us. The blog will look at some of the things we could do differently. Indeed we will explore whether we can dispense with political “Parties” all together. Would it be possible to elect, manage and orchestrate a Parliament filled with independent members? What knowledge, mechanisms, processes would need to be in place to allow this scenario to not only happen but succeed in doing better than what we currently have? If we actually need Parties, can we construct a Non-Political Party to promote different ways of doing things? Is the idea of a Non-Politcal Party an Oxymoron? What’s an Oxymoron?

Can a Political Party Think the Unthinkable? Of course not! (not if it is truly ‘political’)

One thing seems clear. Our existing Political Parties will not be able to make the drastic changes in thinking that are required to take society into a 21st Century where things actually improve rather than keep getting worse. Therefore there is a strong need for some new energy and ideas to come into Politics and ultimately there must be a real choice at the Ballot Box where individuals can place their vote with that person or Party that is singing from a different song-sheet. Most political parties would do most things the same in office; the differences are merely in the detail or in the method.

Coming Next: How all the current main political Parties are actually 95% all the same and What is Politics anyway?

Tweet This Post

Tagged with: Assumptions • Campaign Funds • Canvas • Corruption • Current Political System • Garfield • Gentle Art • Independent Thinkers • James Freeman Clarke • James Garfield • Madness • New Solutions • Oscar Ameringer • Party Discipline • Political Parties • Politician • Politicians • Recklessness • Statesman • Viewpoint

Barry's SuperBlog

Thought Leadership – what does it mean?

Maths and Science leading us up the (wrong) garden path

Are we really Numerate? How numbers lead us up the garden path!

Unintended Consequences? What do Very Large Bonuses Attract?

The Circumstances for Creativity

Under what circumstances do creative ideas happen?

CONDITIONS for FLOW

How Rewards Sabotage Creativity

Identifying and Nurturing Personal Creativity

How Creation Companies differ (New Science, New Thinking)

Creation Companies: Apply the principles of New Psychology to Business

Five Working Principles of Creation Companies

What makes a “Creation Company”?

Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”

The Fundamental Principles for creating a Creation Company

On Creating Creation Companies -an overview

Thinking the human brain was designed to do

Three New Words for the 21st Century

Americans value science, but not all of it

Thinking in Different Ways (2)

Thinking in Different Ways

Beliefs and Thinking

On the Need for Something Different in Politics

Categories

Tags

Looking for something?

Visit our friends!

Archives