Tag: politics

Numbers have stories

Fabrizio1 Comment

If the chances to contract a disease increase 10%, we would all be much more worried and depending on the disease even panic. Yet it would be more accurate to ask how much the disease is common in our population: if originally out of 100 people 1 catched the disease, the 10% increase would sound much less worrying than if 90 did.

If a company boasts a 100% increase in revenue in the past 3 years, we would feel confident in its good shape. Yet it would be better to ask how it got there year after year: if the revenue progression would be something like 100 – 150 – 250 – 200, than we might want to inquire what happened during the last year and our confidence would fade.

These are just a couple of examples of size instinct, the tendency to be impressed by a lonely number out of context.

Even though it requires more effort, we should always attempt to evalute things within their stories, to avoid being pulled back and forth by the latest trending number. This is true also when we try to tell about the latest marketing campaign, or the results of the latest customer satisfaction survey.

Against denigration and disregard

Fabrizio5 Comments

We attach labels to people and groups of people, partly because we try to make sense of what we do not understand, and partly to reinforce our identity and belonging to a different group.

“People that are born in that period are weak.”
“People that work in that team are lazy.”
“People that come from that geographical area are dishonest.”

Even if we assume that these types of labels have some truth behind them (they usually do not and are more of a reflection of our internal insecurities, yet humor me for the sake of the argument), the best and more effective approach would be to first understand the deeper level of the manifestation that inititated the labelling, and then try to imagine and build an environment in which the deeper reason can either be leveraged or addressed.

So, for example, if we believe that a group of people is particularly weak, on a deeper level this might mean that they are better in touch with their own feelings and emotions. As a reaction, we could try to figure out a way to make sure that their improved understanding of their selves could be employed and put to good use.

If we assert that a certain team or department is lazy, it might be because they do not have the tools necessary to effectively do their job, or because their team lead is not sufficiently motivating. As a reaction, we might want to try to facilitate their tasks and work in any possible way, or look for another manager.

This happens very seldom. The easiest and most common reaction to labelling is either denigration or disregard. Denigration is where every form of extremism is born: we reinforce the labelling by supporting it with every evidence we might find, and we feed it to the public forum every time it is possible. Disregard is instead working around the group and their characteristics, building walls to keep them out, pretending they do not exist.

It takes a great deal of awareness and courage to act differently when we catch ourselves in lazy labelling.

Add or subtract

FabrizioLeave a comment

What if the next Democratic candidate at the White House would start their campaign speech by saying: “I do appreciate the work the Trump administration has done so far, particularly for what concerns the boost to the economy, the renovated focus on national security and the efforts put into establishing a negotiating table with North Korea. And to further bring America towards the future, here is how my administration is going to build up and expand on the these and other themes.”

There is really no effective benefit in going one against the other, a part from reinforcing each others’ views and widening the gap that separate us. In politics, as well as in business, interpersonal relationships and society in general, you can either add or subtract to the work of others who came before you.

Adding is the path towards unity, forward motion, long-term and prosperity. It is about building bridges and building them together, trying to go somewhere nobody has been before. Consider this the next time you are asked to take on a new assignment.

Near-enemies

Fabrizio1 Comment

I love the concept of near-enemies.

In Buddhism, near-enemies are manifestations that are quite close to a desired state, yet are actually a whole lot different. So different, they are actually dangerous.

A desired state of Buddhists, for example, is equanimity. That is to say, a way of being calm and focused no matter what happens around you. It is “stability in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune“.

Equanimity has a clear enemy, a “far-enemy”. That is restlesness, anxiety, the desire to have things the way we want them to be. The near-enemy, though, is indifference.

From the outside, equanimity and indifference look perhaps the same. Yet they are substantially different: equanimity is not desiring things to be one way or the other; indifference is not caring whether things are one way or the other. With equanimity, we feel everything: the good, the bad, the ugly, the despair, the difficulties, the joy, the sorrow. We are simply not stuck there. With indifference, we feel nothing.

This makes me think of how much we are nowadays focused on near-enemies.

Activity, for example, that is an active force, a state in which things happen and are being done, is often mistaken for its near-enemy busyness, that rarely leads to any progress.

In the same way, our popularity (definitely not a Buddhist concept), that is the condition in which we are liked, admired, supported by others, is often mistaken for its modern near-enemies likes, fans, followers, visits, clicks or any other vanity metric of your choice.

If we expand the concept a little, we can also see how easily we are distracted by near-enemies in our pursue of something we deem important. We do not want our community to be racist or bigot or closed, we want to pursue an ideal of openness. And to do that, we aim at a target, we attack, we label and brand, we separate. Ending up in a community that is even more close than it was before.

Near-enemies are an incredibly powerful concept. If we manage to go behind their seduction, if we do not fall for their attractiveness and easiness of reach, if we force ourselves to open to the real objective of our journey. That is when the highest states that we want to achieve – for us, our families, companies, communities – become not only attainable, but also natural.

Discrimination is never a business choice

FabrizioLeave a comment

If you own a business, I still believe you should be free to decide who you serve. It is unpleasant, inappropriate and unsavvy if you base this decision on traits such as race, religion, sexual orientation, political support, and similar. Yet it is a decision you should be able to make.

On the other hand, you should also be aware of something.

If your decision is discriminatory, you are also contributing to a more closed community. If you only serve people of a certain race, religion, sexual orientation, you should expect a selection in your clientele. And possibly in your staff, in your entourage, in people hanging around your business, in people making decisions about your business, in who’s giving you feedback, in who’s recommending how to improve. And on and on and on.

It might be exactly what you are seeking to achieve, and yet there is no way the type of environment you are building around your business will make you thrive, succeed and, eventually, grow as a human being and as a business leader. You’ll be poorer, in quite many ways, and so will your community.

If you don’t want certain customers for silly reasons, you’ll end up worst off. What you are doing is not conscious, it’s the mere result of the hype on an issue set by some politicians or unthoughtful leaders who care zero about you.