There is a bright future for complexity, what with one thing always leading to another.
-
There is no work-life balance
LiNE Zine has an interview with Lotte Bailyn of MIT, who is:
…working with organizations of various kinds to look at the way they do their work. We look at things like their work practices, their work structure, the cultural assumptions surrounding who’s a good worker, and how they evaluate performance. With them we work to rethink those aspects in such a way that employees are able to live up to their highest potential in their work, and are also able to integrate their work with their personal lives. That is what we call the dual agenda.
That’s interesting work, and one of the most interesting things is that they specifically DO NOT talk about work-life balance, a term I find misleading.
We specifically do not use the term “balance” because it connotes that these two domains in people’s lives have to be equal; that it’s a balance scale – hence if one goes up, the other goes down. The underlying premise of our work is that this need not necessarily be so. We talk about “the integration of work and personal life” to show that work is also part of life. The term “work-life” implies that somehow the two are different, and of course they are not. Work is obviously an important part of life but shouldn’t be the only part.
That’s a very good point. Actually, I’d take it one step further. Looking at my own life, I certainly don’t see a work life and a private life. I just see one life, mine, being expressed in different aspects. And these aspects are so mixed and so mutually dependent, that it makes no sense to attempt to separate them. They are already as integrated as they can be, and there seems to be no time where I am 100% at work or 100% off work. I’m always just me, living my life. And it feels good.
-
IT policies at Semco
I’ve gotta hit you with one more quote from CIO Insight’s brilliant interview with Ricardo Semler. This one’s about IT policies:
One of the things I’ve noticed with this security issue is that IT people want to make sure that their systems are intact, private, confidential “blah, blah, blah” but they think nothing whatsoever of invading the e-mail privacy of their own employees. That’s very interesting to me, because it’s not only a double standard, but a violation of constitutional rights. Companies have taken the blind assumption that because the system is theirs, then anything that people do on it has to be available to them. I think it’s a very hypocritical mode, and it deals with fundamental freedom issues that I don’t think people have completely thought through.
…And what’s most interesting is that we searched far and wide for anybody who could tell us what kind of software or system could be installed on our [server] that would make it impossible for our own IT people to spy on people’s e-mail. We did not find one. We had to customize one.
Imagine that: A company that actually goes out of it’s way to ENSURE that employees’ emails stay private. That is an immensely powerful statement of faith in people.
-
Common sense at Semco
CIO insight has a truly excellent interview with Ricardo Semler, the CEO of Semco. Here’s my favourite bit from the interview:
When you want somebody hired, let’s say it’s for a leadership position of some kind, you go to the system and you advertise that you think someone is needed. Then on a given day – say, Wednesday at 4 o’clock, meeting room 11 – you say we’re going to discuss this, whoever’s interested. Because of the fundamental tenet that we don’t want anyone involved in anything that they really don’t want to do, all of our meetings are on a voluntary basis, meaning that the meetings are known, and then whoever is interested can and will show up, and should also leave the moment they become uninterested. It is a bit unnerving to watch these things, because people come in, plunk their things down, and then 15 minutes later somebody else says “Bye bye, see you.” But the fact is that whoever is left there has a stake in the decision being made, and the decision is final in the sense that it’s going to be implemented after the meeting.
All meetings are voluntary. How cool is that? Read the interview, it’s great! Also, for those of us who know Open Space Technology: That’s the law of two feet right there!
-
The happy leader
What is it that the best leaders do that gives them their results? How do great leaders motivate and inspire? Why do they do it?
I’m convinced, that it’s very simple: The best leader is the happy leader. One who sets the happiness of himself and his people above anything else. There are many examples of such leaders, and we’ve written an article about The Happy Leader that describes a few cases both in Denmark and internationally. The article also contains specific tips on how to get the same results for yourself.
The article is only available in danish, but if there’s demand for it, I’ll translate it into english.
-
Quote
We are coming to understand health not as the absence of disease, but rather as the process by which individuals maintain their sense of coherence (i.e. sense that life is comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful) and ability to function in the face of changes in themselves and their relationships with their environment.
-Aaron AntonovskyAt a recent Happy at Work seminar for a large group of hospital staff, one participant told me to check out Aaron Antonovsky for his views on health – she thought his thoughts matched ours. I think so too :o)
-
The rise of open-source politics
Politics today is mostly top-down. The parties/candidates and their advisors define the politics and the message, often not by talking to people but through polls.
…top-down politics is all about maintaining control. “Think of an established brand with a lot invested in control of its image,” … “The idea of opening that up is scary.”
But maybe we’re seeing a shift away from that towards open source politics. In an excellent article on the nation, Micah Sifry looks at the rise of open source politics:
Using open-source coding as a model, it’s not a stretch to believe the same process could make politics more representative and fair. Imagine, for example, how a grassroots network could take over some of the duties normally performed by high-priced consultants who try to shape a campaign message that’s appealing. If the people receiving the message create it, chances are it’s much more likely to stir up passions.
Here’s my favourite quote from the article:
In the same way that TV took politics away from the grassroots, the Internet will give it back.
I’m really fired up by this vision, which melds perfectly with my dream of an open space-based political party. I think the internet can be an excellent medium, especially combined with regular meetings in physical space also. Something happens when people get together in the same room at the same time with a purpose that doesn’t as readily happen on-line.
-
Art money
This is a seriously cool concept: Art money.
Art Money measures 12×18 cm and is an original work of art by the artist hand. It has a purchasing power equal to 20 Euro when first introduced and increase in value by five Euro p.a. for 7 years after which it settles and holds 50 Euro forever.
Art Money can be used to buy art or services from all the registered BIAM artists at up to 50% of the sales price. Art Money can be spent in registered BIAM shops and businesses up to a % set by the individual business. Art Money can be used as payment for accommodation at any BIAM host. Art Money can be spent 100% in the BIAM market. Art Money can also be spent at non-registered shops and businesses around the world when ever accept if found.
Not only is the money beautiful – the concept is very interesting. Imagine a wallet full of art. Now THAT’S wealth :o)
-
Two kinds of decisions
Why is it, that you eat that extra helping of ice cream, even though you know full well, that it’s not good for you? Why do you smoke that cigarette and why don’t you go out and exercise? We may now have the answer!
It seems that we use our emotions short-term decisions and analytical thinking for decisions that have no immediate consequenses, according to a new study published on October 15 2004 by the National Institutes of Health.
For the study, a research team which included NIA grantee David Laibson, Ph.D., of Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, MA, asked 14 participants to choose between receiving money at an earlier or later date. For instance, a participant might be asked to choose between receiving $27.10 today versus $31.25 in a month; or $27.10 in two weeks versus $31.25 in six weeks. As the participants made these choices, their brains were scanned using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). This imaging tool enables researchers to measure second-by-second brain function in thousands of specific brain regions.
When participants chose between incentives that included an immediate reward, fMRI scans indicated heightened activity in parts of the brain, such as the limbic system, that are associated with emotional decision making. In contrast, deliberative and analytic regions of the brain, such as the prefrontal and parietal cortex, were activated by all decisions, even those that did not involve an immediate reward. However, when participants resisted immediate rewards and instead chose delayed rewards, activity was particularly strong in these deliberative areas of the brain.
“Our research suggests that consumers have competing economic value systems. Our emotional brain has a hard time imaging the future, even though our logical brain clearly sees the future consequences of our current actions,” Dr. Laibson says. “Our emotion brain wants to max out the credit card, even though our logical brain knows we should save for retirement.”
From my personal experience, I remember the first time I tried Bungee jumping. I’d signed up for it a week ahead, with a (in retrospect) rather cavalier attitude. Bungee jumping – pphhh. Thousands of people do it, rationally it can’t be that difficult or dangerous. But let me tell you, as the actual moment approached all the rational, logical arguments went out the window and I was SCARED!
One implication of this study seems to be, that if you want people to deal rationally with a threatening issue, it’s good to do it ahead of time, before the issue becomes immediately critical. Another implications is, that once the situation IS critical, emotions will come into the foreground. There is nothing wrong with that, you just need to appreciate it and to make room for expressing those emotions.
