Clockware and swarmware in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill

The tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico offers a vivid illustration of how we must be the master of both clockware and swarmware.

“Clockware” is a term that describes working in ways that are rational, planned, standardized, repeatable, controlled and measured. In contrast, “swarmware” refers to working in ways that explore new possibilities through experimentation, trials, autonomy, freedom, intuition and working at the edge of knowledge and experience. The idea is to say just enough to paint a picture or describe the absolute boundaries, and then get the people in situations with high levels of complexity active in trying whatever they think might work.

When drilling and operating a well with over a mile of water between the platform and the well head at the bottom, things need to be thoroughly thought out, precisely planned, operated within extremely tight tolerances, and with the highest levels of vigilance.

Apparently that did not happened. A cascading series of small lapses—each by itself perhaps not so bad—led to a catastrophic failure. And the failure occurred in ways for which there were no quick solutions.

Now we are facing a gusher of oil and gas that can’t be staunched and is threatening ecosystem and livelihood along vast areas in the Gulf and along the coast.

As we saw after hurricane Katrina, when there is widespread disaster encompassing a complex array of problems, clockware approaches lead to dismal failure. The top down, command-and-control approaches move too slowly and are not effective in mobilizing the needed scope of the response. They also do not promote the innovation and application of creative and novel responses necessary in the huge number of unique situations.

What is called for is a swarmware approach. Everybody needs to be trying everything that could possibly work. On the ground experimentation will demonstrate what is effective in various situations.

The people closest to the situations need to be empowered, mobilized and given the resources and support they need to find and execute what works on the ground.

The command and control folks will find all kinds of reasons to not do it that way.

But when the problems are as messy as the ones in the Gulf, it takes messy strategies and messy solutions to mount an effective response.

Working on the edge

If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough. -- Mario Andretti

 

In the past few weeks, a critically important idea has come up over and over again in my conversations with people who are leading in environments of rapid change, uncertainty or disagreement. 

 

These conversation all start with affirmation of a compelling vision, and the commitment of time and energy that it takes to bring that vision to life. Pretty soon we get to the part about how difficult and tiring it is trying to control all of the pieces of the effort. Eventually get to the challenges of building a structure, organization or container that would allow for control of all those pieces.

The people holding these wonderful visions are often frustrated, or tired, or highly stressed. Some question whether they will be able to move the effort far enough to realize the vision.

So then I draw out this little diagram:

I point out that creativity and new possibility don’t happen in the circles of order or control. Life may seem so much more manageable when our work is orderly and some of may yearn for control, but very little innovation can take place there.

At the other end is chaos and the extreme of apathy and despair (chamos). In chaos, a lot may be happening but very little may be getting done. What does get done takes more effort and and leaves more bruised egos and hurt feelings. In chamos, everyone pretty much gives up.

Nothing new and exciting happens at the two extremes. People are incapable of acting out of apathy and despair. People are strongly discouraged from innovating when control is exerted too strongly.

To realize our visions for better organizations, better communities and a better world, it will take us choosing to work on the edge between order and chaos.

My next posting will discuss what it is like to work on the edge.

Wisdom of Mark Twain

Today is the 100th anniversary of the death of Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens). He was an author, lecturer, humorist, philosopher, social commentator, and cat lover.

Here are some pearls of his wisdom that strike me as having lasting relevance.

On being our best selves:

• In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.
• A statesman gains little by the arbitrary exercise of ironclad authority upon all occasions that offer, for this wounds the just pride of his subordinates, and thus tends to undermine his strength. A little concession, now and then, where it can do no harm is the wiser policy.
• The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
• The miracle, or the power, that elevates the few is to be found in their perseverance under the promptings of a brave, determined spirit.

On Success:

• Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.
• Success is a journey, not a destination. It requires constant effort, vigilance and re-evaluation.
• The secret of success is making your vocation your vacation.
• Work and play are words used to describe the same thing under differing conditions.

On Courage:

• Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear. Except a creature be part coward it is not a compliment to say it is brave.
• It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare.

On Vision:

• You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
• Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.

 On Risking:

• The secret of getting ahead is getting started. The secret of getting started is breaking your complex, overwhelming tasks into small manageable tasks, and then starting on the first one.
• Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

 On Ethics:

• Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
• I am different from [George] Washington; I have a higher, grander standard of principle. Washington could not lie. I can lie, but I won't.

 On Communication:

• The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.
• It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
• If you have nothing to say, say nothing.

On Cats:

• A cat is more intelligent than people believe, and can be taught any crime.
• If man could be crossed with the cat it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat.
• If animals could speak the dog would be a blundering outspoken fellow, but the cat would have the rare grace of never saying a word too much.
• One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives.

(Picture by S.B. Durkee: http://www.susandurkee.com/mark-twain-and-friend.htm)

Advice for riding a dead horse

These are unprecedented times. It has simply never been this way before. Our world had never been more interconnected and interdependent.

To be successful, leaders need to deal with high levels of complexity and situations loaded with abstraction, diversity, ambiguity and paradox. Our familiar mental models do not equip us for this. Our mental models are based on short-term, straight-line ideas of cause and effect.

As we focus on lasting change in groups, organizations and the community, success only comes through using processes that:

• focus on working with all the parts as a single system,
• accept that solutions emerge as situations unfold, and
• involve the people concerned in developing the solutions.

But we know that getting to the place where we can abandon our familiar mental models can be a long and difficult struggle.

And some folks will never get there.

So for the folks who would prefer to stick with the familiar straight-line models to deal with increasingly complex situations, here’s some time-tested advice on how to ride a dead horse.

Dakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. Some of us, however, try other strategies with dead horses, including:

• Buying a bigger, stronger whip.
• Appointing a committee to study the horse.
• Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
• Comparing the state of dead horses in today's environment.
• Change the requirements declaring that “This horse is not dead.”
• Hire contractors to ride the dead horse.
• Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed. 

If you have other strategies for riding dead horses, please post as comments. Or if you are convinced that you can still get some mileage from a dead horse, tell us how that is working for you.

For every complex problem there is always an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

There’s my favorite H. L. Mencken quote again. The truth of those few words keeps coming up over and over again in my life.

David Brooks’ column in the New York Times on Friday, April 9, 2010, talks about two kinds of organizational leaders:

• Those who believe that there is a clear, simple solution for every complex problem and confidently drive their organizations based on belief in themselves and those solutions.

• Those that understand that complex problems do not have clear, simple solutions and are much more humble in the way they lead.

Brooks references Jim Collins, author of “Good to Great” and “How the Mighty Have Fallen.” Collins celebrates reliably successful leaders who combine “extreme personal humility with intense professional will.”

Brooks provides a wonderful description of an organizational leader who can be successful in today highly complex environments:

She believes we only progress through a series of regulated errors. Every move is a partial failure, to be corrected by the next one. Even walking involves shifting your weight off-balance and then compensating with the next step.

She knows the world is too complex and irregular to be known, so life is about navigating uncertainty. She understands she is too quick to grasp at pseudo-objective models and confident projections that give the illusion of control. She has to remember George Eliot’s image — that life is like playing chess with chessmen who each have thoughts and feelings and motives of their own. It is complex beyond reckoning.

She spends more time seeing than analyzing. Analytic skills differ modestly from person to person, but perceptual skills vary enormously.

Anybody can analyze, but the valuable people can pick out the impermanent but crucial elements of a moment or effectively grasp a context. This sort of perception takes modesty; strong personalities distort the information field around them. This sort of understanding also takes patience. As the Japanese say, don’t just study a topic. Get used to it. Live in it for a while.

Because of her limitations, she tries to construct thinking teams. In one study, groups and individuals were given a complicated card game called the Wason selection task. Seventy-five percent of the groups solved it, but only 14 percent of individuals did.

She tries not to fall for the seductions that Collins says mark failing organizations: the belief that one magic move will change everything; the faith in perpetual restructuring; the tendency to replace questions with statements at meetings.

How many organizational leaders do you know who match this description? I want to see many more of them and that is what my work with New Possibilities Associates is about.

The Starfish Story Revised

How do we change our neighborhoods, communities, nations and world? This  story has been told countless times by speakers trying to inspire individual action in the face of monumental tasks.

The Starfish Story 

While walking along a beach, an elderly gentleman saw someone in the distance leaning down, picking something up and throwing it into the ocean.  

As he got closer, he noticed that the figure was that of a young man, picking up starfish one by one and tossing each one gently back into the water.  

He came closer still and called out, "Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?"

The young man paused, looked up, and replied "Throwing starfish into the ocean."

The old man smiled, and said, "I must ask, then, why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?"

To this, the young man replied, "The sun is up and the tide is going out. If I don't throw them in, they'll die."

Upon hearing this, the elderly observer commented, "But, young man, do you not realize that there are miles and miles of beach and there are starfish all along every mile? You can't possibly make a difference!"

The young man listened politely. Then he bent down, picked up another starfish, threw it into the back into the ocean past the breaking waves and said, "It made a difference for that one." 

This has been circulated in many versions, usually with no mention of author. It is said to be paraphrased from "The Star Thrower" by Loren Eiseley, 1907 - 1977.

I have always found this story slightly disturbing. I am uncomfortable with the conclusion some people draw for the story that saving one is enough.

It reminds me of a remark that I have heard many times through the course of my career made by someone justifying an expensive, but not very effective social program: “If we only helped one [baby, child, mother, family, community, patient, client, etc.], it will have been worth it.”

I always wanted to ask the name of the one that had been helped and go talk to them, but I never did.

My mind goes to the question, “How can we clear the starfish off beach and back into the water twice a day, every day?”

Here is another version of the Starfish Story where that happens.

The Starfish Story Revised

One summer's day a little girl was walking on a long, winding beach. She came across a starfish that had been washed ashore and was now wriggling and drying up quickly in the hot sun. She reached down, gently picked up the starfish by one of its five points, and tossed it back to the sea. The little girl smiled and continued walking along the beach. But after a few steps, she found another starfish. It too was dying in the sun. No sooner had she tossed this one back when she came across another starfish. And then another one. She tossed each one back.
 
She reached the top of a dune and came to a sudden stop. What she saw below startled and amazed her. Stretching out in front of her were hundreds upon hundreds- possibly thousands upon thousands -of dying starfish washed up on the beach. Suddenly, she exploded into action and to toss as many starfish as possible, one by one, back to the sea.
 
She was so busy tossing back the starfish, that she never noticed that a person had stopped to watch her. Soon a whole crowd had gathered. They were all pointing at the little girl and laughing. "That little girl's crazy," said one. "I know," said another, "doesn't she know that every summer thousands of starfish get washed up on the beach and die? It's just the way things are." "There are so many starfish. She couldn't possibly make a difference."
 
The little girl was still too busy tossing back starfish to notice them. Finally, one man decided he had seen enough. He walked over to the little girl. "Little girl," he said, "there are thousands of starfish washed up on the beach, you can't possibly hope to make a difference. Why don't you give up and go play on the beach with the other children?" The little girl's smile suddenly vanished. She saw the crowd of people for the first time, and realized they had all been laughing at her. Now they had fallen silent, awaiting her answer to the man's question.
 
She was hot. She was tired and close to tears. She began to think that maybe he was right- maybe they were all right. She had been tossing back starfish for what seemed like hours, and a carpet of starfish still covered the beach. How could she have possibly thought she could make a difference? Her arms fell limp at her sides, and the starfish she was holding fell back to the hot sand. She started to walk away.
 
Suddenly she stopped, turned around, reached back down and picked up the starfish she had dropped. She swung back her arm and tossed the starfish as far as she possibly could. When it landed with a plop, she turned to her questioner, and with a huge smile on her face she said: "I made a difference to that one!"

Inspired, a little boy emerged from the crowd, picked up a starfish and sent it soaring back to the sea. "And I made a difference to that one!" he said. One by one every member of the crowd joined in sending drying starfish back to the sea, calling "I made a difference to that one" with each toss. 

Soon the voices began to quiet down, and the little girl wondered if people were getting tired or discouraged. And then she looked across the beach and what she saw startled and amazed her: All the starfish were gone.

There—that feels a lot better.

We are called to realize that if anything is going to be saved, it will take many of us working together. We can’t save one, we can only save all.

And that all of our intentions and actions send out ripples that affect the world in ways we cannot know in advance and may never know.

Problem solving is the problem

A quote I have been coming back to frequently is this one from H. L. Mencken:

For every complex problem there is always a solution that is clear, simple and wrong.

This seems to be more and more true as we face issues and conditions that require an approach different from what know as problem solving.

Problem solving has us believe that things can be clearly defined and are discrete in themselves. It also leads us to believe that to solve a problem, all we have to do is look at the issue in the narrowest context and apply a short-term, straight-line fix.

Although there are issues and conditions that can be successfully addressed this way, fewer and fewer issues and conditions will respond to this approach—and certainly not the most important ones.

Nearly every problem faced by an organization is exceedingly complex. Yet we act as if simple cause and effect is at work. We push to find the one simple reason things have gone wrong.

When we consider the truly critical issues of our time such as environmental deterioration, poverty, endemic ill-health, urban blight, social polarization, etc., we find it virtually impossible to view them as problems that exist in isolation --or, as problems capable of being solved in their own terms.

The reason the important problems do not respond to simple, problem solving solutions is that they entail much higher levels of complexity:

• Things are much more interconnected and interrelated. Our actions and their results are now widely separated in time and space.
• The future is unfamiliar and unpredictable. Solutions cannot be calculated in advance based on what has worked in the past. Emergent solutions have to worked out as situations unfold.
• People involved look at things very differently because of greater diversity and lower trust. Solutions cannot be given by authorities; the people involved must participate in creating and implementing solutions.

High complexity demands new ways of solving problems. 
When there are low levels of complexity, simple, straight-line solutions often will be enough to stay on track. Simple problems can be solved using processes that are familiar:

• focus on the parts of a problem in isolation,
• rely heavily on what has worked in the past or elsewhere (“best practices”), and
• participants  are open to solutions proposed by leaders or experts.

As we focus on lasting change in groups, organizations and the community, we are dealing with increasingly high levels of the three types of complexity where success only comes through using processes that:

• focus on working with all the parts as a single system,
• accept that solutions emerge as situations unfold, and
• involve the people concerned in developing the solutions.

The problems we are seeing today are more and more the unintended result of the solutions implemented during the last round of problem solving.

We can draw our lesson from Einstein:

A problem cannot be solved at the same level of thinking at which it was created.

Lead with clockware AND swarmware

When life is far from certain, lead with clockware and swarmware in tandem.  

Balance data and intuition, planning and acting, safety and risk, giving due honor to each.

“Clockware” is a term that describes working ways that are rational, planned, standardized, repeatable, controlled and measured. In contrast, “swarmware” refers to working in ways that explore new possibilities through experimentation, trials, autonomy, freedom, intuition and working at the edge of knowledge and experience. The idea is to say just enough to paint a picture or describe the absolute boundaries, and then get the people in situations with high levels of complexity active in trying whatever they think might work.

    “For jobs where supreme control is demanded, good old clockware is the way to go. Where supreme adaptability is required, out-of-control swarmware is what you want.”—Kevin Kelly

    “Cohesive teams are needed for day-to-day issues. Spontaneous learning networks that have open conflict and dialogue are vital to handling strategic issues.”—Ralph Stacey

It is not a question of saying that one is good and the other is bad. The issue is about finding an appropriate mix for a given situation. Where the world is certain and there is a high level of agreement among people—where people have to repeat the same process over and over to get the optimal results, like the activities in the operating room during a routine surgery—clockware is appropriate. In a clockware situation, agents give up some of their freedom and personal mental models to accomplish something they have collectively agreed upon. The group displays less emergent, creative behavior, and begins to act more like a machine. There is nothing wrong with this.

However, where the world is far from certainty and agreement (near the edge of chaos) swarmware is needed with its adaptability, openness to new learning and flexibility. Swarmware is also needed in situations for which the old clockware processes are no longer adequate for accomplishing the purpose, in situations for which the purpose has changed or in situations in which creativity is desirable for its own sake.

Thoughts on Changing the World

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”  -- Margaret Mead

It is almost impossible to know how we accomplish such monumental tasks.
 

But the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and it continues, step by step by step. Mahatma Ghandi said you must become the change you want to see in the world.
 

Every action throws concentric rings, like a stone thrown in a pond.
 

Here is a story from One Thousand and One Nights:

The Caliph Harun al-Rashid, of Baghdad was walking in disguise, when he saw an old man planting a date tree. Date trees take at least 50 years to fruit, so there was no chance the old man would ever benefit from it.
 
The Caliph went over and asked why he was doing that.
 
The man replied, “For my grandchildren.”
 
The Caliph gave the man a gold dinar. The man recognized him, and said, “Behold, my Caliph! Not even in the ground yet, and this tree hath already borne fruit!”

The Caliph laughed, and gave him another Gold dinar.

The man said, “Behold a miracle, my Caliph! Not even in the ground yet, and this tree hath borne 2 crops in a single year!” 

Why tell that story? Stories are about patterns.
 

More often than not, when you get totally committed to a really difficult task, it doesn’t take as long as you expect.
 

Somehow, things start snowballing.
 

The first time is always the hardest time, then things get easier. Get started. Do anything. Do what you can where you are with what you have.
 

Ghandi said to do what you must, and not worry about the fruits. We won’t see rewards for this kind of work, but do it anyway.
 

Nothing frustrates the naysayers more than persistence and success.

Thoughts on healthcare reform, systems and transformation

Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Senate version of a healthcare reform bill and a set of “fixes” that will go back to Senate for approval.

Here are two questions that this long national exercise raises for me:
1.  In what ways is healthcare in the United States a system?
2.  What kind of change are we getting? Is it transformation?

U.S. healthcare as a system?
Healthcare in the U.S. is and is not a system. (Duality, paradox, ambiguity--you can’t avoid it.) The way healthcare is delivered in this country is so fragmented that virtually no one would call it a coherent or sustainable system. Yet everything is connected to everything else, so in that sense it is a system.

All of the fragments work to optimize conditions, outcomes and benefits for themselves. Sometimes this is in competition with other fragments, often it is in isolation from other fragments, only rarely in cooperation or collaboration.

So what we have is a many-headed monster that we have had difficulty even perceiving, let alone taming.

If you accept the axiom that all systems are perfectly designed to achieve the results they get, then the facts that we pay far more for healthcare in this country and get less than best in the world results should come as no surprise.

What kind of change are we getting?
There was a lot of rhetoric last night about this. The voices against the plan that passed said this change is too much, too fast. I ask is it big enough and fast enough?

Changes can be viewed as incremental, transitional, or transformational.

Those who were against the plan that passed said they favored an incremental approach: fix a few of the fragments, slowly over time. Although this approach may be problematic for a number of reasons, let’s look at the systems ramifications.

The best way to get unintended consequences is in trying to address in isolation small fragments of a complex systems. Since everything is so interconnected and incoherent, it is almost impossible to see how actions in one part will eventually have consequences later. In fact, many current problems are the unintended and unanticipated effects of the last fragmented fix.

A really transformational approach that would completely change the system, viewing it as an interconnected whole, making it coherent was not on the table. One  transformational approach to healthcare is the single payer approach called Medicare for All in H. R. 676.

This plan, in bill form, is under 30 pages long. It completely transforms the whole healthcare system. And because it is addressing the whole system, it gets to the simplicity and elegance that lies beyond the complications trying to bring coherence to a collection of disjointed fragments. It is really worth reading if you are interested in a transformational, systems approach to a wicked social problem.

Find H.R. 676 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.676:

What we are getting in the healthcare legislation that is now moving through Congress is a transitional change. It tries to bring the fragments into a more coherent alignment without really transforming the system. It seems to be based on a sincere effort to comprehend the whole system, rather than look at fragments in isolation, but it does not rise above the complications of maintaining a system that is inherently fragmented.

A commentator on the BBC last night characterized the healthcare bill as just a piece of consumer legislation.

Let’s hope it is at least that.

Eight key learnings in transformational change

Over the course of my working with individuals, groups, organizations and communities on transformational change, some things happen often enough that they demand attention.

Here are eight lessons I have learned from my work about what makes change happen:

1. The vision powers and unites everything.
2. It takes people with a passionate commitment to the vision to ignite progress. But it does not take a lot of them in the beginning.
3. If we want new results, we will have to do new things. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results—Einstein.
4. People support what they create. Local ownership and a meaningful role in decision making are necessary for energy, creativity and commitment.
5. When partnership members are diverse, able to adapt to individual conditions, and united by common vision and values, the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts. It will look and act more like a social movement than a chain of command.
6. When committed people self-organize to solve common problems, new solutions may emerge. But we cannot control or predict what those solutions will be or when they will happen. Prepare to be surprised.
7. Small actions can produce enormous results.
8. Results can come surprisingly quickly once a tipping point is reached.

Here's the elevator message on transformational change:

1. A few passionate people can ignite progress.
2. People support what they create.
3. Small actions can produce enormous results.

What lessons have you learned?

People who have conversations that matter are happier

According to a new study reported by the New York Times, people who spend more time in conversations that matter are happier than people whose conversations are more about small talk.

So not only do conversations that matter lead to better solutions, wiser action, and stronger community, they increase the quality of people's lives.

Here is an excerpt form the article:

March 17, 2010
Talk Deeply, Be Happy?
By RONI CARYN RABIN

Would you be happier if you spent more time discussing the state of the world and the meaning of life — and less time talking about the weather?

It may sound counterintuitive, but people who spend more of their day having deep discussions and less time engaging in small talk seem to be happier, said Matthias Mehl, a psychologist at the University of Arizona who published a study on the subject.

“We found this so interesting, because it could have gone the other way — it could have been, ‘Don’t worry, be happy’ — as long as you surf on the shallow level of life you’re happy, and if you go into the existential depths you’ll be unhappy,” Dr. Mehl said.

But, he proposed, substantive conversation seemed to hold the key to happiness for two main reasons: both because human beings are driven to find and create meaning in their lives, and because we are social animals who want and need to connect with other people.

“By engaging in meaningful conversations, we manage to impose meaning on an otherwise pretty chaotic world,” Dr. Mehl said. “And interpersonally, as you find this meaning, you bond with your interactive partner, and we know that interpersonal connection and integration is a core fundamental foundation of happiness.”

Read the article here: Talk Deeply, Be Happy?

We live in a new world.

For every complex problem there is always an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. – H. L. Mencken

These are unprecedented times. It has simply never been this way before.
Our world had never been more interconnected and interdependent.
In order to understand and function successfully, we need to deal with high levels of complexity, and situations loaded with abstraction, diversity, ambiguity and paradox. Our familiar mental models do not equip us for this.

It is hard to see beyond the horizons of the short time spans with which we usually work. Next month, next quarter are less important that next year, next generation.

Few people are trained to recognize and work in high levels of complexity. Our mental models are based on short-term, straight-line ideas of cause and effect. Before we can recognize high levels of complexity, we have understand what it is. We can’t see it until we believe in it.

This blog is about how to function and flourish in this complex, interconnected world.