Moving up a Level

Here is a little trick I learnt as a Shell GBLP faculty, but which applies in many situations. If you are bogged down in detail or want to communicate powerfully, consider moving the conversation to the next level up.

By explaining the GBLP context, I hope I can make this clearer. In GBLP, candidates were asked to play a particular role in a series of business exercises. Maybe they were handling an operational meeting with a difficult partner, or trying to coach a staff member, or trying to get a project back on track. The simulations were written to be challenging and to require a lot of thinking and acting spontaneously.

Candidates often struggled, and in different ways. Two types of struggle were very common. Some became overwhelmed and found it hard to act with structure or make any progress at all. Others were quite active, but got lost in detail, hammering on about the issue at hand but unable to give any context or motivation.

It was hard to help the overwhelmed. Often they just needed more composure or experience at this kind of situation, and were betraying their immaturity and lack of readiness for this sort of tough role. Either they needed more time or practice, or perhaps their career had some limiting factors.

But my tip could help the detail people. I would ask them to appeal to a higher authority. That didn’t mean God, or even the boss, but something more in reach. They could progress if they found some common ground with the person they were arguing with.

Three types of common ground were often readily available, if only candidates could emerge from the morass and step back far enough. One was the vision or strategy. The second was the customer. And the third was the team or staff.

If they were stuck in an argument, the role players on the other side were told to just carry on. But if the candidate had the presence of mind to change the discussion, the role player responded. So something like: “This is all true and we have to resolve it, but let us not forget what we are trying to do here for our customer. He does not care about this detail, but he definitely wants us to reach an agreement.” Something similar for vision or strategy or team can easily replace the customer.

This does the trick. It changes the nature of the discussion. The other side always responds, even if it is not a role-play exercise. By appealing to some common ground, the atmosphere becomes about seeking a resolution rather than prolonging a dispute.

I call this moving up a level and I try to use it in many situations. It is a good general rule, that if you seem to be stuck in a dispute, moving up a level always helps.

Sometimes the dispute as an internal one with yourself. Should I tip this waiter who provided very ordinary service? Wow, that mechanic should have warned me before handing me that bill? That driver was rude and dangerous, I want to pay him back.

This sort of everyday situation makes us angry, gives us stress, and causes us to start fights. But try going up a level. Perhaps you are in a foreign country where things are cheap and even a 30% tip would amount to less than your daily Starbucks. Perhaps the mechanic will respond better to some humour or some begging than to anger, and you can do a better deal and remain friends for next time. And the driver will be rude and dangerous to others whether you honk your horn or not, but your kids in the back seat care will be put more in jeopardy if you start driving the same way.

Sometimes I wonder if this basic rule has eluded some of our politicians. It was obvious from the start that the brinkmanship leading to the closing down of congress was not going to work, but the players became more and more stuck in their petty argument and failed to see the big picture. For them the biggest picture they ever see is a headline in tomorrow’s local newspaper. Gradual erosion of their party base would be a more useful starting point. Public trust in democracy and the decline in America’s standing in the world might be even more useful to bear in mind.

There are some interesting books appearing about the origins of the first world war as we approach its centenary. That moment in 1914 shaped much of the next hundred years so it is fascinating to find out about the characters involved. One thing is clear, people became so stuck in the tiny detail that they initiated something of huge negative consequence to themselves and everyone else. One player was obsessed by a personal sleight. An army leader put building his power base above all else. Tragically, no one was able to go up a level.

Obama is a master at going up a level. He is always able to see and articulate a bigger picture, and use it to motivate people. That is how he got elected and then re-elected. Kennedy had the same, whereas someone like Angela Merkel relies more on the daily grind. It remains to be seen whether Obama’s legacy reflects this ability, though the recent deal with Iran looks promising, and it is possibly the harbinger of other good things. Kennedy may have been flawed in many ways, but ultimately his legacy includes major progress on minority rights and the beginning of the de-escalation of the cold war. That is not bad.

But the Obama example shows that going up a level, while always a good approach, is rarely sufficient. Two other things are necessary.

The first is the ability to find a higher power to appeal to. You cannot go up a level when there is no such common ground. This is why the level of the nation state remains such a frustrating blocker to progress on many issues. Climate change is one example, but others include eradication of poverty, reforming finance and middle east tensions. A little bit of common ground would go a long way in each example, but the only appeal anyone can make is an altruistic one. That is not enough when weighed against the interests of re-election and national competition.

The second requirement goes back to the example. Moving to a higher level can take the conversation away from petty disputes. But the petty disputes do not go away. At some point it is still necessary to resolve them, and that takes hard, painstaking work. Obama has shown himself notably unwilling or unable to do this.

I recently read a quote from Bill Clinton about Obama, in both Time and the Economist. Clinton points out that Obama has been brilliant at all the difficult things, but has been undermined by failing in all the easy ones. Success needs both.

So remember the skill of taking disputes to a higher level, it almost always works. But remember also to come back and fix the disputes as well. Even in a positive atmosphere, that is still needed. 

Houston, we have a Problem

A recent article in Time about Texas caught my eye (28^th October edition). On first reading, it gives the impression of trying to extol Texas. Now I have some biases against the place, so it was healthy to read something rowing in the other direction. I suspect many Time readers are coastal liberals like me so well done the editor for including the piece so prominently.

Now most of my impressions of Texas are negative. Just now we are swamped in the US by retrospectives about the assassination of JFK. One thing I didn’t realize was that back then Texas, and especially Dallas, was almost a country within a country, with mutual disrespect on both sides. It was quite a statement by JFK to even go there, and of course the outcome only entrenched the negative view of the place from New York or California.

Ten years ago we had Enron. Nowadays we have Ted Cruz. These are not positive role models to people like me. More, I have actually spent some time in Houston, while working for Shell, and now I have some meaningful comparison from my time in New York City. Houston does not come out well.

Once I had a spare day during a Houston trip. I read the guides, and asked many people what I should do. The response was one I had never received before. Nothing. At least nothing that would interest me. I was told I could drive to Galveston, but it had been damaged by a storm and there wasn’t much there even before that. Apparently West Texas is beautiful and has interesting features, but it would take hours and hours to drive there. The city had an art gallery, but with no current exhibition and little to recommend the core collection. Time and again, I was directed to shopping malls. Shopping malls! No thanks. In the end, I stayed in the hotel and read.

From many visits, Houston left other impressions. Sure, the people were pleasant, and more relaxed than in New York. I visited some private houses, and they were mainly sumptuous. Restaurants were great, albeit with appalling waste from ridiculous portion sizes. But mainly I remember the place as one enormous concrete shopping mall. The city sprawls over huge distances, traversable only by car, and anyone driving a regular saloon in the heavy traffic would feel intimidated by all the SUV’s. Obesity is everywhere. And, while the place is ethnically diverse, it seems much more segregated than NYC, many whites living in the gated communities and the rest serving them.

So I came to the article with certain preconceptions. In the end, I read it several times. Actually, on closer inspection, it is more of a horror story than an advertisement for the place.

The starting point is that people are moving to Texas. Three of the five fastest growing US cities are in Texas. The question is, why? Are they being pushed, or pulled?

The main pull is jobs, specifically in energy, as the US shale boom gathers pace. Now, fair is fair, the US has managed this opportunity well, and Texas especially so. Even here there is a caveat. We are quick to argue for lighter regulation. But do you remember the fatal fire at the chemical depot in Waco, Texas, earlier this year? The owners may well have been cavalier with safety, cheered on by the light regulatory environment.

The other pull elements from the article are less convincing. Essentially, the pull is that people of modest means can live more cheaply there. Taxes and duties are low, and housing costs are lower due to plentiful land. So people priced out of the market in other states can at least get by in Texas.

But at what cost? OK, the cultural void that I referred to from my own experience is not so critical. But it seems that the way Texas makes things affordable is to sacrifice other more important things, essentially anything that can be deferred. Education is underfunded and weak, so investing in one’s kids is sacrificed. Welfare is rudimentary and healthcare more expensive, so insurance against ill health or job loss is sacrificed too. The article does not mention pensions, but for sure many of the newer jobs will provide less pension benefits than unionized work in NYC, so comfort in old age must be sacrificed too.

So, as individuals and families, people move to Texas to survive today at the cost of tomorrow. And the sacrifice may be wider than for families. Infrastructure is neglected. The model seems to maximize carbon emissions. And there is another unmentioned critical commodity – water. US water usage is unsustainable, and the south and southwest are the reason. A combination of population growth in arid climates and underpricing of water stores up a monumental problem for the next generation.

So all these pull factors are perhaps really push factors. To be fair, the article acknowledges this possibility. It is not that people rush to Texas because they want to. It is because their only way to afford life today is to sacrifice everything else, and Texas is where that is most possible. In the desperate need for a job and reduced expenses right now, people sacrifice their old age, health security, kids, culture, and safety. Oh yes, all this and the planet too.

The article is clear why this is happening. The reason is inequality, specifically the hollowing out of middle-income jobs, driven by globalization and technology. I fear that this is not just cyclical. The Economist recently tracked the share of GDP taken by labour and capital. This had been essentially constant for generations, but now shows a decisive and continuing shift in favour of capital.

The article makes an attempt at the end to derive some things other states could learn from Texas. The list betrays the real problem. Top is education. This must become smarter and cheaper. This is true, but hardly an advert for Texas, a state of poor and unequal education attainment, one of only five to reject the national core curriculum. Smart education is good, but less education is not.

The second purported lesson seems to be about reducing housing costs by simplifying zoning laws. Perhaps there is some scope here, but also a lot of risk. Houston has land to spare, and sprawls further every year. NYC and San Francisco do not, and perhaps are more pleasant, and environmentally sustainable, as a result.

The other lessons are all about accepting the sacrifices. We can deregulate, and anticipate more Wacos. We can cut tax, and accept more homelessness, addiction, traffic queues, crime, early death, and much else.

So for me the article is powerful, and its real lesson is wider than its headline message. The article accepts the new reality, and shows how some states are adapting to it with a race to the bottom. But such adaptation, especially as advocated by firebrands like Mr. Cruz, does not just accept the new reality, it accelerates and embeds it.

What we must do instead is to confront this reality, and not just with platitudes about education. Fighting globalization and technology is for fools, not least because of the wonderful benefits for all of us. But structurally fighting its negative side effects is eminently possible. We can price common but finite assets like water more logically. We can remove perverse tax advantages for wealthy people and capital. We can extend pre-school education for all. We can explore a living wage. We can renew investment in infrastructure. In short, we can look to Texas, and do the opposite.                 

Is there a Soldier in all of us?

Nowadays, more and more adverts leave me bemused.

There are lots of reasons for this. Firstly, I now spend a lot of time in the USA. There are a lot of adverts here. Many TV programmes have the first advert break before the titles. More adverts, more chance to be bemused. And there is a cultural factor too, with some things American simply not understood by those with less experience of the US.

Next, I’m getting older. I used to belittle my Mum for not trying to understand the internet. Well, gradually that becomes me, as the next generations of modern technology confuse me so much that I go into denial. New technology is where a lot of advertising dollars are nowadays, so it is no wonder I’m bemused.

Finally, advertisers are segmenting more. In the past, many adverts had a very wide target audience. This has narrowed considerably, as the discipline has matured, and technology has enabled smarter use of data. It is noticeable. When I watch sports, most ads are for rugged cars, or for Viagra. Those are the same thing really. When I watch news, the ads are for medical goods for old people – very depressing. When I oversee the programmes my kids are watching, all I see are mobile phones and games.

So I should not be surprised to be bemused on occasion. But one particular ad running at the moment set me thinking. It is for a Call of Duty game product. The footage is of four teenage boys engaging in fantasy violence. The tag line at the end is “There is a soldier in all of us”. Something in me was repelled by that claim.

Such violent ads don’t just bemuse me, they also repel me. Many games seem to glorify violence, to maximise it, legitimatize it, and trivialize its impact. This might be damaging.

Of course it is only a game, and players will generally be quite adept at separating their fantasy world from anything real. It might even be argued that giving young boys a way to let off steam with computer guns will make them less likely to seek out the real thing.

I am not so sure. The heroes are violent. Violence is portrayed as fun. Most problems are solved through force, albeit with some military type of strategy. Characters are one-dimensional good guys or bad guys. There appears little consequence of violence apart from the positive reinforcement of moving to the next level.

Computer games are the most blatant, but the same tendency occurs in Hollywood movies and TV series. Cops and private eyes and vigilantes and even regular guys are portrayed in gun battles. Many mainstream movies seem to require a few car chases and some shootouts. Personally, it just gives me a headache. But I guess I must be in a minority (and not in the target group) since marketing people nowadays know what their customers want.

Surely there is a risk that this translates into the minds of some kids? Not all kids have non-violent homes and schools to ensure fantasy remains as fantasy. It only takes a few to create a more violent society. There may follow a vicious cycle of negative role models, more armed police, ghettos, and force prevailing in more situations.

This ad would have washed over me like all the others were it not for the tagline. Is there really a soldier in all of us? I don’t think there ever was in me, even as a young boy. I am not sure that there is a soldier in many girls.

Was I so unusual a child, and if so, why? Do I have some innate feminine tendencies? Maybe, who knows? I certainly had an older Dad who played less of a role in my life than my Mum. Did I have an unusual group of peers? For the middle class England of my generation, I don’t think I did. I certainly was not physically strong, but that might have been an effect rather than a cause for an aversion to violence.

One thing that I always had was skepticism. If someone told me what to think, I would always doubt. An advert always led me to question why someone would want me to think a certain way. I got this, together with resulting frugality, from my Mum. On balance, skepticism has been a great gift, so thanks Mum.

Linked to the soldier reference, at least in the US, is unthinking veneration of the armed forces. The seventh inning stretch at MLB games is just the tip of that iceberg. Now, I respect for military personnel. It is a job someone has to do that I would not like myself. Mind you, so is garbage collector, and we don’t sing for them during baseball matches. A military career is a choice, one with unusually good lifetime benefits attached in fact, though of course there are significant risks. No doubt many join in order to serve, and I certainly don’t begrudge the benefits.

But uncritical veneration has its risks too. Military methods project force as a means of settling disputes. They tend to over-simplify good and evil. They can also place a nation about general humanity, and lead to a culture where spying on friends is acceptable.

So “there is a soldier in all of us” hit me twice. It seems to defend not just violence but also a military way of life. I did not like it.

So, have I degenerated into another “why oh why?” old man, critical and bitter of others, yet offering no solutions. Maybe I have. I won’t descend to the knee jerk reaction of some columnists, blaming the parents and the youth of today, and advocating bans on computer games. That is too simplistic.

Actually, there is reason to be optimistic. Violence is markedly down in most developed societies. Recently I read a theory that a leading cause may be the abolition of lead in petrol, which had a positive effect of young male hormones. Perhaps getting rid of trans fats would do the same.

As well as a less violent generation of boys, we also have some excellent mayors and other politicians with helpful campaigns. The trend towards acceptance of homosexuality can only help, enabling boys to find less simplistic role models.

And the steady rising influence of women in public life is perhaps the most helpful trend. It is symptomatic that the only functioning part of the US congress nowadays appears to be its female contingent. One day we might get some female generals. One day, a deal could be negotiated and successfully implemented to rid a state of chemical weapons without mainstream opinion labeling it a surrender. Watch out, Obama and Kerry: if you strike a deal on Iran, and I sincerely hope you do, be ready for the backlash at home.

I’m not sure we can do much about the violent games or even the Hollywood movies, beyond the sort of regulation we already have. They may well contribute to more needless early deaths, but popular demand usually wins out.

What we can do is applaud our enlightened legislators who campaign for things like reducing lead in petrol or gun control or smarter education for all, usually in the teeth of opposition from the rich white male reactionary tendency. We can be skeptical in our own lives and encourage it with young people we influence. But, most of all, we can wait with optimism for when boys can proudly announce that there is no soldier in them without risking social acceptance, and when women finally get to achieve balance in positions of power. If even bullying in the NFL can be scrutinized, perhaps we don’t have much longer to wait.