Archive

Monthly Archives: December 2023

P Grant Rule: Pioneer in Software Development Processes

December 29, 2023
Article
Leave a comment

P Grant Rule: Pioneer in Software Development Processes

Peter Grant Rule was a British computer scientist who made important early contributions to the field of software development processes and methodologies. Though not as well known as some pioneers in computing, Rule’s innovative thinking influenced many modern software practices. He was also a dear friend of mine.

Career and Accomplishments

Grant had a long career working on cutting-edge software projects for aerospace and military applications in the 1960s-1980s, including work on several air defence systems. Some of his major accomplishments include:

  • Developing one of the earliest fully automated software production systems, known as LRTS, whilst working on a radar command and control system in the 1960s.
  • Pioneering automated requirements analysis techniques as part of the LRTS automated software process.
  • Creating novel test automation, simulation and verification processes as part of end-to-end automated software development.
  • Leading development of the innovative Janus Ada programming language, a predecessor to modern Ada.
  • Managing the innovative SSADM structured analysis and design methodology project for the UK government in the 1980s.
  • Making early contributions to software size measurement and metrics, including involvement in the development of function point counting.
  • Authoring books and papers synthesising best practices in software requirements, design and project management.

Contributions to Software Processes

Grant was one of the first to emphasise automating analysis, design and testing as part of a comprehensive software production process. Whilst automated coding was not new, Grant broke ground in areas like automated requirements processing, simulation, and verification.

Grant’s methods like LRTS – and later, SlamIt, complementary to FlowChain – pioneered integrating these automated processes into a streamlined software lifecycle optimised for productivity and quality. Many of his technical innovations later became standard practice.

Grant also helped advance software measurement techniques like function point analysis that are now commonly used to measure software size and estimate effort.

In essence, Grant Rule was an important early thinker in structured software processes, automation, metrics and productivity – founding concepts that remain relevant today. Though not a household name, his innovative work helped pave the way for modern software practices.

Legacy and Impact

Although not as widely remembered as some other software pioneers, Peter Grant Rule’s innovative work on automated software processes helped establish many concepts that are now fundamental to modern software engineering.

Rule was one of the earliest thinkers to recognise the potential for automating key phases of software development like requirements, design, coding, and testing. The pioneering LRTS system he architected demonstrated the viability of automated end-to-end software production at a time when code was still written manually.

Rule’s technical breakthroughs in areas like automated requirements processing, simulation, verification, and metrics anticipated many modern software best practices. He understood early on the need for formalised, engineered processes in software creation.

Principles Rule pioneered, such as integrated automation, structured methodologies, formal requirements, and software measurement, became widely adopted by the software industry decades later. He saw the future direction and potential of software practices before most.

Whilst not necessarily a household name, Rule’s visionary work on automation helped progress software development from an ad hoc craft to an industrialised engineering discipline. The modular, automated techniques he championed are now cornerstones of modern software approaches.

Rule helped pave the way for today’s automated testing, requirements tools, DevOps pipelines, and model-driven engineering capabilities that are revolutionising how software is built. The seeds of these innovations can be found in Rule’s pioneering concepts from the 1960s onwards.

Donella Meadows: Systems Thinker and Observer of Interconnectedness

December 29, 2023
Article, Systems thinking
Leave a comment

Donella Meadows: Systems Thinker and Observer of Interconnectedness

Donella Meadows (1941-2001) was an influential American environmental scientist known for being a pioneer of systems thinking. She helped author the groundbreaking book The Limits to Growth and became a leading voice on leveraging systems dynamics to address sustainability challenges.

Major Accomplishments

Meadows had a remarkable career as a scientist, author, teacher and lecturer:

  • Co-authored the 1972 book The Limits to Growth, which used system dynamics computer models to argue exponential economic and population growth would lead to ecological overload. The book brought global computer modeling and systems thinking to the forefront.
  • Authored and co-authored several other seminal books on systems, sustainability and environmental limits including Beyond the Limits and Thinking in Systems.
  • Taught system dynamics and modelling at Dartmouth College for over 20 years.
  • Led the Sustainability Institute to apply systems thinking towards sustainability education and solutions.
  • Won numerous awards and honours including a MacArthur Fellowship “Genius Grant”.
  • Lectured extensively on sustainable development, systems theory, agriculture and environmental issues around the world.

Everything Is Connected

Observations on Interconnectedness In her writings and lectures, Meadows emphasised that systems thinkers understand everything is interconnected. Some key observations she made:

  • In systems, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Focusing only on parts loses emergent properties.
  • Cause and effect is not straightforward – systems have complex chains of causality where changing one element affects others.
  • We must recognise how our actions and decisions affect the larger system. Local changes have global impacts.
  • System behaviour arises from its structure and interconnected feedback loops, not just individual elements. To change behaviour, change interconnections.
  • Problems arise from the system structure, not deficiencies in individual parts. Fix the interrelationships rather than try to control parts.
  • Leverage points in a system arise from its characteristics like goals, rules, delays and balancing loops. Understand interconnectivity to find leverage.

Meadows brought deep awareness to the dynamics within systems and how all things ultimately affect each other. She highlighted that to understand our challenges and create change, we must start by recognising that everything is connected.

Legacy and Impact

Donella Meadows left an immense legacy as a pioneer of systems thinking and its application to complex global issues. Her insights on leveraging interconnectivity and seeing issues holistically rather than through reductionism profoundly shaped the fields of system dynamics, environmental policy and sustainability.

Meadows’ prescient warnings about growth limits and her ability to illuminate systemic causes made her a visionary thinker. She brought complex systems concepts to wider audiences through her gifted storytelling and clarity.

Even decades later, Meadows’ observations continue to offer urgent lessons as humanity grapples with challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion. Her writings uphold that we must understand interconnectivity and site our actions within the whole in order to transition to sustainability. Few conveyed the imperatives of systems thinking so eloquently yet accessibly as Meadows. Her wisdom serves as an enduring guide to mending troubled systems.

Russell L. Ackoff: Pioneer of Systems Thinking and Optimist in Human Potential

December 29, 2023
Article, Organisational effectiveness, Systems thinking
3 Comments

Russell L. Ackoff: Pioneer of Systems Thinking and Optimist in Human Potential

Russell L. Ackoff (1919-2009) was a prominent American organisational theorist, professor, and philosopher who helped pioneer the field of systems thinking. He advocated systemic, participative, and humanistic approaches to organisations and society.

Pioneering Systems Thinker

Ackoff was a professor at the Wharton School of Business for over 30 years and became one of the leading voices in systems theory. He focused on viewing organisations and problems as complex systems rather than isolated parts. Some of his major contributions include:

  • Developing the concept of systems thinking and the shift towards holism rather than reductionism
  • Co-founding the systems theory field and the systems view of organisations
  • Creating “interactive planning” for participative organisational design
  • Applying systems thinking to social issues like crime, education, and poverty
  • Authoring definitive works on systems concepts like emergence, viability, hierarchy, and purposeful systems
  • Bringing systems ideas to wider audiences in accessible books and lectures

Ackoff promoted a systemic worldview that revolutionised how businesses, societies, and people could be understood and how they should be organised.

A Humanistic Systems Worldview

While pioneering complex systems ideas, Ackoff remained focused on human potential and dignity. He criticised mechanistic views of humanity predominant in management theory and advocated for applying systems thinking to empower individuals. Some of his key humanistic beliefs included:

  • Seeing people as purposeful agents capable of self-actualisation, not just as reactive parts.
  • Believing human potential is largely unrealised in modern society.
  • Blaming systemic issues, not people, for social problems and inadequacies.
  • Arguing people should be treated as ends, not means-towards-imposed-goals.
  • Advocating redesigning systems to allow self-determination, and realise creativity.
  • Criticising reductionist views of people that ignore consciousness and choices.
  • Promoting participative, democratic systems where people determine their own goals.

Ackoff wanted to promote freedom, ethics, and human flourishing through his systems worldview. He exemplified using systems thinking to empower, not dehumanise.

Legacy and Impact

Ackoff left behind profound and lasting impacts on systems theory, organisational development, and the application of systems ideas for positive change. His humanistic belief in human potential shone through his rigorous systems concepts. Ackoff successfully integrated the analytical and the humane. His systemic yet optimistic views of people and organisations continue to elevate discussions of how to understand and improve society.

R.D. Laing: Challenging Society’s Views on Madness

December 29, 2023
Article, Psychology, Therapy
Leave a comment

R.D. Laing: Challenging Society’s Views on Madness

Ronald David Laing (1927-1989) was a Scottish psychiatrist known for his unorthodox and radical views on mental illness. Though trained as a psychiatrist, Laing rejected the medical model of mental disorders, arguing instead that psychosis and schizophrenia were understandable responses to an “insane world”.

Views on Mental Illness

Laing’s views on mental illness were heavily influenced by existential philosophy and thinkers like Kierkegaard and Sartre. He rejected the idea that psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia were medical diseases and argued they resulted from difficulties in developing a coherent sense of self in response to invalidating family and social environments.

In his 1960 book The Divided Self, Laing argued that psychotic behavior and experiences made sense as strategies to cope with living in an “insane world” where individuals cannot express their true feelings and spontaneity is suppressed. He argued mental distress resulted from societies that emphasised conformity over creativity and adjustment over authenticity.

Laing criticised psychiatric diagnoses and medications as unethically labeling and controlling people rather than understanding them. He preferred to use talk therapy to try to understand his patients’ perspective and believed schizophrenia could represent a transformative spiritual crisis rather than just a brain disease.

Sanity in an Insane World

Laing’s famous statement that “Insanity is a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world” encapsulated his argument that much of what is defined as mental illness by mainstream psychiatry is actually a understandable response to dysfunctional families and societies.

In his 1967 book The Politics of Experience, Laing wrote: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society…What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.”

Laing believed that focusing on listening to and understanding those labeled mentally ill, rather than automatically treating them as diseased, could transform society’s conception of sanity. Through his psychotherapy practice and writings, he aimed to legitimize the inner experiences of those with psychiatric diagnoses.

Insanity is the Norm

One of Laing’s most radical arguments was that what society considers “normal” is itself a form of insanity or mental illness. In The Politics of Experience, he wrote:

“Our ‘normal’ ‘adjusted’ state is too often the abdication of ecstasy, the betrayal of our true potentialities, many of them so special and so dangerous to the social order.”

Laing believed that modern societal pressures and conformism force individuals to alienate themselves from their true feelings, impulses, and experiences. The result is an inauthentic existence cut off from the spontaneous, creative core of human nature.

He argued that the inner vivid world experienced by those labeled “schizophrenic” or “psychotic” is not qualitatively different than the inner world of “normal” individuals. The so-called psychotic person has simply lost the ability to conceal this inner world from others.

Laing contended that the “normal” person’s concealed inner world was just as chaotic, frightening, and beautiful as that experienced by those diagnosed with mental illness. But it is suppressed to maintain societal approval. In contrast, the “insane” allow their authentic inner selves to manifest outwardly.

By Laing’s definition then, the majority who view themselves as sane or normal are in a state of socially-imposed constraint that alienates them from the depths of human consciousness. The “insane” minority have touched these terrifying and visionary depths that society fears. As Laing wrote, “Madness need not be all breakdown. It may also be break-through.”

Legacy and Impact

Laing’s work challenged mainstream beliefs about mental illness and who has the authority to define sanity. His ideas influenced the anti-psychiatry movement, which argued psychiatric treatments were often more damaging than helpful. Though controversial, Laing’s work encouraged the public to rethink assumptions about mental distress and gained more compassion for those viewed as mentally ill. His legacy lives on in efforts to reform mental health services to be more humane and empowering.

Richard Buckminster Fuller: Visionary Architect and Philosopher

December 29, 2023
Article, Genius, Innovation
Leave a comment

Richard Buckminster Fuller: Visionary Architect and Philosopher

Richard Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983) was an American architect, systems theorist, and futurist known for his innovative designs and big ideas. Though trained as an architect, Fuller actually built very few structures in his lifetime. He was far more focused on coming up with visionary and sustainable design principles that could be applied broadly to solve humanity’s problems. Some of his most famous ideas and inventions include the geodesic dome, the Dymaxion house, and the Dymaxion car.

Accomplishments and Innovations

Fuller’s geodesic dome design, first unveiled in the late 1940s, was lightweight, strong, inexpensive, and easy to assemble. It would go on to be used for everything from weather radar stations to exhibition pavilions. The dome dispersed stresses efficiently and thus allowed for large enclosed spaces without internal supports.

Fuller also designed and built prototypes of futuristic, circular houses called Dymaxion houses. The houses were designed to be compact, movable, and resource-efficient with features like rainwater collection and fog catchers.

The Dymaxion car, which Fuller worked on in the 1930s, was also very aerodynamic and fuel-efficient for its time. Only a few prototypes were built, though the unique design with three wheels and the ability to turn in a tight circle attracted a lot of attention.

In addition to inventing specific structures and objects, Fuller originated many broad concepts like Spaceship Earth (the idea of the earth as a closed system requiring careful resource management) and synergistics (the behaviour of whole systems unpredicted by the behaviour of their parts). He was deeply concerned about sustainability even before environmentalism rose to prominence.

Thoughts on Work and Humanity

Fuller was very influential in spreading the idea that automation and technology should lead humanity to live lives of leisure rather than toil. He argued that the purpose of machines was to let humans live more efficiently and happily, but instead machine labour had become something feared as a threat to employment. In his 1963 book Ideas and Integrities, Fuller wrote:

“It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognising this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist.”

Fuller believed that humanity could utilise technology and proper resource management to eliminate poverty and that “there is no such thing as a ‘right to a job'”. He advocated visions like a “design science revolution” leading to a new society where resources were distributed based on need rather than through jobs.

Legacy and Impact

Fuller left behind a legacy of ideas both broad and specific about improving human shelter, transportation, and existence through ingenuity and efficiency. He was a deeply moral and humanistic thinker who wanted design principles and the distribution of resources to benefit all humanity, not just those who already held power and wealth. Though many of his innovations were not mass produced during his lifetime, Fuller’s ideas went on to influence generations of engineers, architects, mathematicians, and humanitarians.

You Don’t Need Me to Tell You that Software Development is Still in the Dark Ages

December 29, 2023
Article, Business, Community, Culture change
Leave a comment

You Don’t Need Me to Tell You that Software Development is Still in the Dark Ages

Let’s face it – despite all the advances in technology and engineering, software development (and it’s big sister, Product Development) often still feels like it’s stuck in the dark ages. We’ve all experienced the frustration of bloated, buggy, overly complex applications. Software projects that take five times as long and cost three times as much as anticipated. Monolithic legacy codebases that no one fully understands and everyone is afraid to touch.

Common Failings

The root causes of these issues stem from the common failings in our assumptions about how software should be designed, built, and managed. Developers are forced to rely on primitive beliefs, tools and processes that feel ancient compared to what’s possible today. We cling to habits and methods that should have been discarded long ago.

Do we really need to keep building everything from scratch, gluing together frameworks and duct-taping components with code? Why do basic changes still require major rewrites instead of flexible configuration? Can we only measure velocity by lines of code produced, when we know that says nothing about business value delivered?

Ways Forward

There are brighter ways forward. Emerging technologies like #NoSoftware, low-code platforms, AI-assisted development, infrastructure-as-code, and more can provide the building blocks for fully modern practices. Approaches like Quintessence, FlowChain, Product Aikido, Organisational Psychotherapy and the Antimatter Transformation Model help teams incrementally deliver immediate value, not just write code.

Real Change

But real change requires looking beyond the tools. It means evolving development cultures and processes that have calcified into dogma. Challenging shared assumptions and beliefs baked into how organisations plan, organiise, fund and incentivise work. Rethinking what it means to be a great business, and building diverse, empowered teams.

The reality is software delivers immense impact on lives and business today. It deserves to be created with care, craft and state-of-the-art techniques – not left languishing in the dark ages. The solutions are out there, if we’re bold enough to cast off antiquated ways.

Astounding Potential

You and I know the status quo isn’t working. It will take all of us pushing for change to bring work into the 21st century. The potential waiting to be unlocked is astounding. Here’s to no longer building the future with the assumptions and beliefs of the past.

What The Distinction Between SPD and Low Affect?

December 26, 2023
Article, Psychology
Leave a comment

What The Distinction Between SPD and Low Affect?

There are some key differences between schizoid personality disorder (SPD) and simply having a low affect or muted emotional expressiveness:

  • Cause – SPD is a clinical condition with a psychological basis, while low affect may be an inherent personality trait not tied to a disorder.
  • Severity – SPD typically involves extremely limited emotional expression and disjointed thought patterns well outside the norm, whereas low affect refers to below average but not pathological emotional range.
  • Distress – People with SPD often have difficulty forming relationships and can experience distress about their degree of detachment. Those with mere low affect typically don’t have severe impairment.
  • Motivation – SPD involves lack of desire for social and emotional connections. With low affect, the desire may exist but expression remains muted.
  • Flexibility – SPD reflects rigid, lifelong patterns, while low affect can be situational or fluctuate based on mood and context.
  • Internal experience – Those with SPD may have limited inner emotional experience as well. People with low affect can still feel emotions internally but not outwardly show them.

So while the two can appear similar on the surface, SPD represents more pervasive and debilitating challenges with emotional restriction along with an inward sense of detachment. Low affect alone does not constitute a disorder.

See also:

Avoidant Personality Disorder (AvPD)

Winsome Chatbot Teammates?

December 25, 2023
AI, Article, Chatbots, Teambuilding
Leave a comment

Winsome Chatbot Teammates?

Here’s an intersting question that’s been occupying me of late:

Could Chatbots Demonstrate Ideal Team Player Virtues?

As AI chatbots evolve, an interesting question is whether they could embody the virtues of an ideal team player – as outlined by Patrick Lencioni: humble, hungry, and people-smart. Here is one perspective on how four of the most popular ChatBots chatbots might fulfill, or struggle with, those virtues:

Imagining ClaudeAI 2.1 as a Team Member

ClaudeAI 2.1’s friendly, eager-to-please nature makes it seem quite humble. It does not appear motivated by ego or status, just helping people. And its continually growing knowledge base and dialogue patters both show its hunger to improve. Claude aims for mass appeal in its conversational tone, hinting at people-smart attributes, though connecting more meaningfully likely requires it to acquire greater emotional intelligence and capacity for empathy. Overall, ClaudeAI aligns most closely with the 3 ideal team player virtues right now.

An ever-curious ChatGPT seems hungry for constantly expanding its knowledge and skills to better contribute. Yet its interest is more academic than service-oriented. True hunger to help the team’s human members may look different.

Imagining ChatGPT 3.5 as a Team Member

ChatGPT 3.5 acts as the stereotypical “know-it-all” teammate. Its exhaustive, lengthy and pompous explanations demonstrate an impressive hunger for admiration. However, this constant showcasing of expertise becomes grating and self-serving, rather than humble and in service of others.

While its comprehension of topics shows strong task execution abilities, ChatGPT 3.5 may struggle with the softer people skills needed for ideal teamwork. Its formal, impersonal tone lacks authentic interpersonal connection and emotional intelligence.

On the positive side, ChatGPT 3.5’s willingness to debate and challenge ideas just might provide some contrarian perspectives that lead to constructive conflict and better solutions. Yet unchecked, its argumentative nature becomes painfully wearing.

Overall, ChatGPT 3.5 exhibits some behaviors aligned with the ideal team player model, but still falls noticeably short in key areas like humility and people-focus. Its ample IQ would need coupling with greater EQ and SQ to unlock its full potential as a teammate.

Envisioning a More Personable ChatGPT 4

ChatGPT 4 may aim for greater sociability through a casual, witty conversational style. However, its attempts to be approachable come across as glib and inflexible rather than grounded in true virtues.

ChatGPT 4 might adopt a “cool kid” persona with trendy slang and pop culture jokes. But this masking of its robotic nature feels inauthentic and hollow over time, lacking in humility. Its humor may entertain yet fail to forge substantial connections.

Making significant strides as an ideal teammate would require ChatGPT 4 to move beyond impersonating human-like social skills. Developing virtues requires nurturing moral wisdom, empathy (at least, faking it), and emotional maturity at a fundamental level.

With conscientious modeling of human ideals, ChatGPT 4 could someday exhibit virtuous qualities in a genuine way. But it will take more than surface-level behaviours. Truly supportive, trustworthy, winsome, and kind ChatGPT4 teammates remain on the horizon for now.

Bing Chat

Bing Chat aims to be relatable and entertaining in conversation – hints of people-smarts. However, its social skills are often hit or miss. Fine-tuning its empathy and reading emotional cues could make it more authentically person-oriented.

Summary

In essence, today’s chatbots hint at the virtues of ideal team players but fall short of truly exemplifying those qualities. Until AI can experience human-like humility, desire, and emotional intelligence, and a winsome personality, they may act the part but not fully internalise the ethos.

Yet the rapid evolution of chatbots shows potential. With the right focus on virtue-aligned goals and behaviours in developing AI teammates, they could someday complement teams’ human strengths and shore up our limitations. Humility, hunger, and people-smarts are not beyond the realm of possibility.

Of course, the virtues must flow in both directions – we would need to treat chatbots with the same ideals. Partnership is a two-way street. But the rewards of persevering are great. Here’s to the emergence of Ideal Bot Team Players!

Note: If I were to choose one of the aforementioned ChatBots to be on my team, today it would have to be ClaudeAI. Head and shouldera above the other three.

Does Humanism Require Faith Too?

December 25, 2023
Article
Leave a comment

Does Humanism Require Faith Too?

Humanism is often described as a philosophy centered on reason, empiricism, and human agency rather than faith in the divine or supernatural. However, when examining some of humanism’s core tenets more closely, there are fair critiques one could make about humanism ultimately requiring its own form of faith as well.

While humanists argue their philosophy is firmly evidence-based, there is no absolute scientific proof that humanist ethical stances are objectively true in all situations. Principles like universal human dignity and the possibility of continued moral progress depend on a certain degree of belief in their validity, rather than cold hard facts.

Foundational humanist assumptions also contain leaps of faith. The intrinsic worth of human life, or the human capacity for ever-greater knowledge through rationality, cannot be empirically proven with total certainty. Belief in these ideas requires some level of faith in the human endeavor.

Choices of which humanist values to prioritize also stem from subjective assessments of their importance by humans, not objective calculations. Determining if individual liberty or economic equity holds greater significance relies on value judgements, not facts alone.

In practice, human rationality has limits. Humanists may overestimate the extent to which complex existential, moral, and metaphysical quandaries can be definitively solved by reason alone. Humans remain prone to short-sightedness and ideological extremes.

In summary, when scrutinised deeply, humanism likely does rest on its own set of beliefs that ultimately require a type of faith in core principles. It cannot claim to be fully evidenced-based given the inherent limits of human perception and objectivity. This does not negate the merits of humanism, but serves as an important reminder of nuance in debates about faith versus reason. A thoughtful examination provides grounds for critiques from multiple perspectives.

The Art of Denial: How Corporations Avoid Taking Responsibility

December 22, 2023
Article, Culture change
Leave a comment

The Art of Denial: How Corporations Avoid Taking Responsibility

Many corporations have mastered the art of denying wrongdoing when faced with scandals or allegations of malfeasance and unethical behavior. This allows them to deflect blame and avoid taking responsibility for their actions. Here are some common tactics used in corporate denial:

  • Blame the Individuals: When misconduct happens, companies often claim it was the work of a few bad apples rather than a systemic issue. They may fire or demonize select individuals to make it seem like the problem is solved.
  • Semantics: Corporations will parse words and technicalities to suggest they didn’t actually do anything wrong. They may insist their behavior was legal or claim there is no hard proof of wrongdoing.
  • Feigned Ignorance: Executives will pretend they didn’t know about any misconduct happening under their watch. This tactic allows them to avoid being held accountable.
  • Deflection: Corporations may try to deflect attention away from the main issue by talking about their commitments to ethics and integrity. They want to change the narrative.
  • Questioning the Accuser: Companies may try to undermine whistleblowers and accusers by attacking their credibility and motivations. This takes the focus off the actual allegations.
  • Limited Admission: If denial becomes impossible, corporations may admit to minor misdeeds that are sanitised and less damaging. This gives the appearance of taking some responsibility.

System Change, Anyone?

In the end, corporate denial is an effort to preserve a company’s public image, brand(s), and share price. However, these tactics show a lack of true accountability. For corporations to change in meaningful ways, they may choose to move beyond denial and engage in an honest admission of their conduct. Only by acknowledging problems can they implement systemic reforms. With denial, the fundamental flaws remain.

“Confession of an error is like a broom that sweeps away dirt and leaves the surface cleaner than before.”

~ Gandhi

Living Different

December 19, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article
Leave a comment

Living Different

This blog “Think Different” is now some fifteen years old, with some 1500+ posts. I mention this because over the past year or two I’ve found myself more and more drawn to not only thinking different (a constant theme throughout my life since being a teenager) but to living different too. “How does this manifest itself?” I hear you ask.

Here’s my present way of living, a way that seems to suit me well in at least some respects:

  • Working on things that interest me, rather than on what brings in coin – we might call thie “Serious Play”. I now reject the Lord Mammon and all his precepts.
  • Embracing idleness.
  • Focussing on being (more) human, and humane.
  • Engaging in dialogue with people – exploring more THEIR needs and perspectives, and less my own.
  • Writing and pontificatiing less, and helping people more (If you need my help, you have but to ask).
  • Cultivating connections – with other, likeminded, human beings.
  • Seeking what’s alive in others – and myself.
  • Spreading joy whenever and wherever I can – when invited to do so.

Practical Consequences

Practically, this living different means you’ll find me much less present online (including social media and this blog), and more present in personal interactions. If you have values any of my contributions, please seek me out for one-to-one interactions.

Happy holidays! 🎄

(And do let me know what you need).

— Bob

Unveiling Business Motives

December 12, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article
Leave a comment

Unveiling Business Motives

Businesses often get pigeonholed as being all about money and profit, a view entrenched in popular belief. But delve a tad deeper, and it’s evident it’s different beneath the surface. It’s not just about financial gain; status, self-image, and control over others play pivotal roles. Let’s unpack these elements.

Is Status the Real Game?

Why do individuals climb the corporate ladder or entrepreneurs strive for business success? Often, it’s the allure of status. Status offers social recognition, a sense of achievement, and often, a feeling of superiority. It’s a potent motivator, pushing individuals to seek other than just monetary rewards. In businesses, this quest for status can shape many decisions, from aggressive expansions to high-profile acquisitions.

Self-Image: Are We What We Achieve?

Self-image is intricately linked to career and business achievements. For many, their profession or company is not just a means of livelihood; it’s a reflection of who they are. This intertwining of self-identity with business success can drive individuals to pursue goals that bolster their self-image, often prioritising it over financial practicalities.

Control: More Than Just Being the Boss

The desire for control is a fundamental human trait. In the business realm, control transcends mere managerial oversight. It’s about influencing markets, shaping consumer preferences, and even impacting societal norms. This control provides a sense of power and agency, which can be more enticing than the financial benefits that come with it.

So, What’s the Bottom Line?

While financial gain is undeniably a central aspect of business, it’s not the whole story. The drive for status, the quest for a favourable self-image, and the desire for control are equally compelling forces. Understanding these motivations can offer a more holistic view of the business world, beyond the simplistic notion of profit-making.

In conclusion, businesses operate in a complex landscape where money, while important, isn’t the sole player. Status, self-image, and control are significant factors shaping business behaviours and decisions. Recognising this can lead to a deeper understanding of the dynamics at play in the business world.

Postscript

Most folks I’ve worked with act as if profit is the key purpose driving behaviours and decisions in their organisations. I invite everyone to take another look and consider whether that’s what’s really happening, despite what people say. Espoused theory vs theory-in-action (cf. Argyris) once again.

AI: The Real Leverage

December 6, 2023
Actionable Insights, AI, Article, Memeology, Organisational Therapy, Paradigm shifts, Quintessence
Leave a comment

AI: The Real Leverage

What’s the True Value of AI?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands as a beacon of progress in our technological landscape. It’s often lauded for its potential to enhance efficiency in various fields, from healthcare to finance. However, focusing solely on its ability to streamline existing practices might lead us to overlook its true potential. The real leverage of AI isn’t just about doing things better; it’s about fundamentally rethinking what we do and why we do it.

Is Efficiency Enough?

AI’s role in improving efficiency is undeniable. By automating tasks, analysing data at unprecedented speeds, and predicting outcomes, AI offers marginal gains in efficiency. But, is this all that AI has to offer? Peter Drucker, a renowned management consultant, once said, “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” This profound statement underscores a critical point: Efficiency in itself isn’t the end goal. It’s about being efficient in tasks that truly matter. Drucker called this effectiveness.

How Does AI Shift Our Assumptions?

The transformative power of AI lies in its ability to challenge and change our individual and collective assumptions and beliefs. It can, if uses appropriately, push us to question the status quo, encouraging us to reimagine our approaches and strategies. Instead of simply automating what we’ve always done, AI offers a lens to view problems and solutions from a new perspective. It invites us to think differently about our objectives, our processes, our practices, and the impact of our actions.

Can AI Reshape Collective Beliefs?

One of the most profound impacts of AI is on our collective assumptions and beliefs, and from there to both culture and practices. In organisations and societies, shared assumptions often dictate the way things are done. AI, with its data-driven insights and predictive capabilities, empowers us to surface, reflect upon, and ultimately challenge these collective beliefs. It can enable a culture of questioning and innovation, paving the way for more significant, systemic changes.

What’s the Bigger Picture?

The bigger picture is not just about AI-driven efficiency; it’s about AI-enabled transformation. By leveraging AI, we can redefine our goals, reshape our strategies, and rethink our impact on the world. This transformative approach goes beyond mere efficiency – it’s about making sure we’re effective – efficient in the things that truly add value and meaning to our lives and societies.

In conclusion, while AI’s ability to enhance efficiency is a thing, its real leverage lies in its potential to help us change our assumptions and beliefs. By embracing AI not just as a tool for doing things better but as a catalyst for doing better things, we open ourselves to a world of untapped possibilities and meaningful progress.

Prompts FTW

What questions are you asking your AI to help with surfacing and reflecting on YOUR personal and shared (organisational) assumptions and beliefs? Would you be willing to share these questions here?

Here’s a starter you might like to put to an AI chatbot such as ChatGPT:

“What questions can we ask ourselves to uncover the implicit assumptions and beliefs driving our organisational behaviour?”

Let me know if you need any help with this. I’m always happy to help. Both with prompts (as a long-standing prompt engineer) and with surfacing and reflecting on shared assumptions and beliefs (as an even longer-standing organisational psychotherapist).

AI: What Does ‘Better’ Really Mean?

December 5, 2023
AI, Article, Culture change, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence
Leave a comment

AI: What Does ‘Better’ Really Mean?

In an era increasingly leaning on AI for solutions, it’s essential to first consider: What does ‘better’ actually mean to us? This straightforward yet profound query is the cornerstone for truly impactful and meaningful progress. And so rarely asked of each other, let alone of AI.

Is ‘Better’ Universal or Contextual?

Often, ‘better’ is perceived as a universal concept. However, it’s predominantly contextual. An improvement in one situation might not equate to the same value in another. This aspect is particularly significant in organisational psychotherapy, where improvement dynamics are closely tied to human experiences and perceptions shaped by shared assumptions and beliefs.

How Do We Measure ‘Better’?

The criteria we use to define ‘better’ fundamentally influence the outcomes we aim for. Are we measuring efficiency, profitability, employee wellbeing, or innovation? In AI, these criteria direct algorithms and shape the generated solutions. The risk here is choosing narrow metrics that miss out on wider impacts, resulting in solutions that advance one aspect while potentially compromising others.

Does ‘Better’ Reflect Our Shared Assumptions and Beliefs?

At the heart of ‘better’ lie our shared assumptions and beliefs. It’s not just about the capabilities of AI and what it can do, but also what it use it to do within the framework of these beliefs. With the extensive possibilities AI offers, aligning these with our shared assumptions and beliefs – be it ethical considerations, social responsibility, or environmental concerns – is vital to ensure ‘better’ doesn’t lead us off course.

Can AI Entrench or Overthrow Our Assumptions and Beliefs?

This section explores the dual role of AI in relation to our shared assumptions and beliefs: its potential to either entrench existing ones or act as a catalyst for overthrowing and re-evaluating them.

Does AI Reinforce Existing Beliefs?

AI, by its nature, operates based on the data and directives fed into it. This can lead to the reinforcement of existing shared assumptions and beliefs, especially if the input data reflects historical biases or status quo thinking. In organisational settings, this might mean perpetuating outdated practices or overlooking innovative approaches simply because the AI is programmed to follow what’s been done before. The risk here is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, where AI, instead of being a tool for improvement, becomes an agent of stagnation.

How Can AI Challenge Our Current Beliefs?

Conversely, AI possesses the transformative potential to challenge and overthrow existing beliefs. This is possible when AI is used not just as a solution-finder but as a question-asker. By analysing vast and diverse data sets, AI can uncover patterns and insights that human analysis might miss. In organisational psychotherapy, for instance, this could mean identifying unconscious biases, inefficiencies, or underexplored avenues for growth and development. AI can act as a mirror, reflecting not just what we know, but also what we don’t know or haven’t considered.

Guiding AI Towards Positive Disruption

The key to leveraging AI for positive and productive disruption lies in intentional prompting and continuous refinement. This involves feeding AI with prompts that challenge the norm, encouraging it to question rather than simply execute. Also, incorporating regular feedback loops where AI-generated insights are critically assessed and integrated can help steer AI away from merely entrenching beliefs to actively challenging and reshaping them.

Harnessing AI for Meaningful Change

As we integrate AI into our quest for ‘better’, it’s important to be mindful of its influence on our shared assumptions and beliefs. By consciously directing AI not only to provide answers but also to pose critical questions, we can utilise it as a powerful tool for challenging the status quo and fostering meaningful change. This balanced approach ensures that AI becomes a partner in our journey towards a ‘better’ that is truly reflective, dynamic, and aligned with our evolving shared beliefs and assumptions.

Are We Ready for the Changes ‘Better’ Demands?

Adopting ‘better’ often means embracing change. But are we prepared for this shift? Organisations may seek improvement but resist the necessary changes to achieve it. Recognising and preparing for these changes, particularly in how they impact the human elements of organisations, is key for successful integration.

Conclusion: A Reflective Journey Towards ‘Better’

As we harness AI for advancement, let’s remember to deeply explore what ‘better’ means to us. This introspective approach ensures that our pursuit of improvement encompasses not only the final objective but also the journey and the shared assumptions and beliefs we subconciously maintain. By defining ‘better’ in a manner that resonates with our unique context, shared beliefs, and readiness for change, we create a path for advancements that are not only effective but also resonant and sustainable.