A Meaningful Lent

 The Christian observance of Lent starts today with Ash Wednesday and continues until Easter at the start of April. Today you may see Christians walking around with ashes on their heads.

 

I am a churchgoer but not really a believer, but Lent has meant something to me ever since I was sixteen. My mother was constantly badgering me about the dangers of alcoholism, convinced that it was partly hereditary and concerned that most of my close ancestors had a drink problem. Perhaps after attending a mass, one Ash Wednesday I decided to forsake alcohol for Lent, and I have kept up the practice ever since, not just for forty days but for forty years.

 

My logic was and remains that if I can live without alcohol for a spell of more than six weeks (about forty-five days, since for some reason Sundays do not count towards the forty), then I can drink all I like for the rest of the year, sure that I don’t have a problem. For anyone fearing addiction, I recommend the idea.

 

Lent is supposed to be a time of fasting and reflection. It seems especially appropriate this year, because my mood is of one final stretch of discipline before we can start to emerge from the pandemic after Easter.

 

The Ash Wednesday gospel is my favourite. We are told to give alms (generosity to those who need and can use it), fast (practice moderation) and pray (reflective thought), but do each of them covertly, so the practice is clearly for our own discipline and improvement rather than for appearances sake. It often strikes me that this approach seems to be missing when a grand building is ostentatiously dedicated to some philanthropist.

 

This is followed up by the gospel for the first Sunday of Lent, which turns things round and talks of temptations, albeit using imagery of the devil that I personally don’t find very helpful. The temptations are all about the allure of affirmation, status, power and hubris.

 

While classic religious teaching tells us to practice the good things and avoid the bad things in order to be rewarded in heaven, I don’t think we need to wait that long. Doing the good things makes us feel good straight away, and doing the bad things might give a cheap thrill but in the end serves to make us unhappy.

 

Most people’s concept of Lent is to give something up, and indeed fasting is part of the ritual. I give up alcohol myself, but I also support a more positive approach to the season, because giving something up doesn’t really benefit anybody except me. One idea I like is to use Lent for a project. Last year it was during Lent that I tried writing something substantial (I concede that this didn‘t really benefit anyone but me either). I haven’t had an inspiration yet, but perhaps a suitable project will come to mind during the coming days. 

 

I like the way that Lent occurs during the last quarter of winter, at least in the northern hemisphere. That fits the theme of buckling down and showing discipline, but being buoyed by the hope of warmer days ahead following Easter. I have no idea how Easter came to be celebrated in the spring, and it is also not clear to me why Lent should immediately precede it, because the original lenten fast of Jesus occurred after his baptism rather than before his death. Still, it feels a rather serendipitous choice.

 

This year this is true more than ever, for so many reasons beyond the weather. Even the weather reason is stronger than before. Last year it was walking that kept me going, and the best season of all for walking is the spring, so I can look forward to spring even more intently this year. Live sports have more recently played a part in keeping me going. In prior years I often counted down winter whenever driving past Citi Field (home of Mets baseball), anticipating the start of the season. This year that anticipation can be heightened by the possibility of attending games in person once again. I will be near the front of the line.

 

I am hoping that I will actually pay one or two visits to Citi Field before the baseball season starts this year, because it has just opened as a mass vaccination site for Queens residents and I have now become eligible, though sadly it is still very difficult to get an appointment. Yet I expect the supply to ramp up during lent, giving more and more of us the chance to welcome Easter with a new sense of security, though we should not become reckless.

 

I am an optimist about the next phase of the pandemic, because I think much of developed world will start to see the effect already noticeable in Israel when enough vulnerable people are vaccinated. Two more vaccines are in the pipeline, one of them a single dose one and both of them easier to distribute than Pfizer’s. I think the bottlenecks will clear more quickly than people are currently saying.

 

Then I think there will be a tipping point. The numbers will show fewer deaths. Businesses will be clamouring to reopen. Governments will want to see growth resume and the need for stimulus decline. Other lobbies will be vocal, for example airlines and hotels. But the loudest voice will be the people. We have lived through this for two Lents and a whole year in between. We will, cautiously, want to go and see our relatives and book some trips. With all that pressure, I don’t think Dr. Fauci will be able to stop us.

 

There are a couple of other reasons for this Lent to be even more meaningful for me. I am sure I am not alone in having put on weight during the pandemic. We have been deprived of our usual means of exercise, and couches tend to lead to snacking. I have been reluctant to diet, because I always feel weaker when dieting, and I want to keep up my strength in case covid comes along. But I have chosen Lent to rebalance those risks, and will use the period to diet this year. It fits to do this while avoiding all that fattening booze as well. Luckily, our local indoor pool is also open, so I can try to increase my exercise frequency as well.

 

After Easter, I am hoping for other blessings to return. We have a grandchild on the way, and it would be so lovely to be able to book an international trip to meet our new relative, and perhaps Easter will be the time for that. Then there is my choral singing, even more disrupted than most activities because it is especially dangerous. That won’t go back to normal until well after Easter, but at least we can use Easter as a starting point to plan and to dream. 

 

I am aware that for some the idea of enduring one last push, and the urgency of a reduction of pandemic restrictions, is far more serious than it is for me. We have managed to obtain a change of scene for two long spells during the last year, we have not been financially challenged, and my wife has benefited from the many advantages of working from home. It is not so hard to face a few more weeks of discipline in our situation. For those out of work or out of money or out of health or out of friends, the symbolic Easter cannot come soon enough.

 

The thought that came to me way back in 1977 about giving up alcohol for lent might be one of the most consequential thoughts I have ever had. It has shaped a lot in my life. For that alone I can be grateful for the annual Christian ritual. Beyond that, Lent has not always meant much to me, but this year it seems to have arrived at a perfect time. The headlines today are all about bad weather, vaccine shortages and economic hardships. Let us try to endure all of these things for a few more weeks. Easter is just around the corner.  

How the Edge Misleads

 The leading edge is a common term in business, so common that it is often jokingly termed the bleeding edge. Many distributions in life follow a bell curve, concentrated in the middle, and where the left hand group early adopters or the first over the parapet, can be termed the leading edge. This could represent the first customers of a new product, or the first firms trying to monetise a new technology, or the first people able to overcome some barrier.

 

It is just as well that most distributions naturally follow a normal or bell pattern. An illustrative example is the demand for Covid vaccines. The supply follows a standard bell curve, because some companies are quicker than others in developing a vaccine and some authorities are quicker in making one available. But the demand is not a bell curve at all; instead most people want a jab as soon as possible. The result is a market failure and a mismatch of supply and demand. Luckily, in most situations both supply and demand have features leading to a bell distribution, so both sides have a chance of matching each other, and also of adapting from early adopters.

 

It is these early adopters that led me to a concept I introduced last week and called the misleading edge. The issue is that early adopters are in no way typical, but special – that is how they become early adopters. And while early adopters offer the opportunity for adaptation and learning, the fact that they are special creates various risks from the wrong lessons being learned.

 

I believe an illustrative example arises in uses of new technologies. Some bright spark works out that a device like a wristwatch can be produced that offers medical data such as heart rate. The first producer is a computer nerd, so puts little effort into an easy user experience, instead opting for complexity. The first customers, the early adopters, are also nerdy, young fitness fanatics.

 

The producer looks at these first results and draws conclusions. Yes, there is a market for this product. Fitness fanatics are interested in all sorts of data, and are quite prepared to navigate small screens to secure a plethora of information. As a result, the producer doubles down on this customer segment. They succeed in creating a profitable niche.

 

What is the problem? It is possible that the producer has spurned a far larger opportunity, and a far more beneficial one for society. Older, less fit people could derive medical information from such a device that might save their life or at least improve its quality. But these people don’t see the marketing. If they see the marketing, they find it confusing. If by luck their child spots the marketing, works out its value for mum, and gives it as a gift, the parent still does not use it because the screen is too small to read and the user manual is full of technical claptrap. The producer does not see the potential, or gives up too soon, and fails to make the adaptations to unlock the true potential of the innovation. The early adopters have given misleading signals that have placed the technology or a sub-optimal trajectory.

 

I believe this is one reason why many new technologies remain niche for longer than they should. I also believe that a corporate culture that refuses to fall into the misleading edge trap is one reason behind the success of Apple.

 

The misleading edge applies just as much in situations that have nothing to do with products. An important example concerns diversity and inclusion, and the speed with which a minority enters an arena they had previously been excluded from.

 

Last week I argued that the women that first became successful in many fields often had special characteristics. That is just what one would expect; the problem is that this misleading edge of early adapters caused the wrong lessons to be drawn, damaging the wider diversity project.

 

I identified three archetypes of early successes. The first group are phenomena, women of such exceptional talents that they could knock down any barrier. Then there are impersonators, women who happen to have a set of skills more common in men, and thereafter equipped to succeed in a game still biased by rules set by men. The third group are kittens, women picked by men for reasons that suit men, including pliability or flattery or lack of threat.

 

The phenomena are fantastic examples but flawed role models, because few can emulate their talents. The myth of the American dream is perpetuated because a few phenomena demonstrate what is possible: it is just highly unlikely. By the same token, men can sustain a set of biased rules by pointing out that it is plainly possible to succeed; they can also delude themselves that the rules are not biased. Finally, the phenomena can make the men feel inadequate, and cause them to delay any relaxation of those rules.

 

The impersonators are also poor role models, because they might lead others to try to emulate their methods in order to succeed, directly contrary to the goal of broadening the diversity of skills and behaviours. Through no fault of their own, impersonators can prolong an exclusive culture. This cohort is also rather open to derision and unconscious bullying.

 

The kittens have an even more insidious success. They are often over-promoted and struggle, at the expense of their own mental health. They allow the exclusive group to maintain domination, while convincing themselves and others that the culture has changed, and also perpetuate the myth that women are somehow unsuitable or inferior.

 

The correct response to those at a leading edge is to welcome them and support them but avoid taking unhelpful lessons from them. This may take patience, and may also involve challenging advice offered by those from the leading edge and their advocates. Even if a quota is reached quickly, that does not imply success or a reason to slow down diversity efforts. Success is only assured once the profiles of successful women are themselves as diverse as those of their male colleagues.

 

The pitfalls of the misleading edge apply equally to other aspects of human diversity. The early ethnically different leaders often have a colonial type background, making them impersonators. Early LBGT leaders could be either impersonators or kittens, so much so that for a time the typical profile of a gay man among straight society was far from representative. We can celebrate these successes, but must double down until a wider sample break through the barriers. Many of these journeys remain far from complete.

 

Many companies in the developed world have reached a stage where they believe they have achieved true diversity. They would do well to look beyond the quotas and to look beyond the examples offered by the misleading edge. Until they do, they are more likely to emulate Fitbit (market capitalisation $1.7Bn) than Apple ($2.3 Trn).      

The Misleading Edge

 Over Christmas we watched the latest series of The Crown, and enjoyed it very much. The portrayals of Charles and Diana were believable. Everybody likes to vilify one of them and sanctify the other, but I have believed that they were both victims of nearly impossible circumstances. In particular, Charles was let down by his male role models. To its credit, the series pulled few punches, though I would have appreciated or more edgy portrayal of Prince Andrew. Perhaps we can look forward to that in the last two series.

 

The timeline for the series coincided with the decade that Margaret Thatcher dominated British politics. She is another character who divides, in that most people either adore her or hate her. I lean towards the latter, but I do accept that some of her reforms were timely. We left-wingers tend to gloss over the winter of discontent and the hegemony of Jones, Scanlon and Scargill. A correction was needed, just not a correction of the scale and heartlessness that thatcher provided.

 

One of the funniest moments in the series came when the Queen sought a clubby companionship with Thatcher by pointing out that they were both women of a similar age, and how remarkable it was to have such power in the hands of women. The Queen then asked why Thatcher had not appointed any other women to her cabinet. Thatcher replied with a misogynist remark that in her judgment (or experience, or opinion), women were not up to the job. Olivia Coleman’s face spoke volumes. I have no idea whether the conversation actually took place, but it does seem consistent with Thatcher’s personality.

 

Thatcher did not really consider herself a woman, at least not in the aspect of competence for senior executive positions. She was certainly a phenomenon. As a woman, we could also call her an impersonator. Her route to success was to behave like a man, indeed an extreme version of masculinity.

 

While we were watching the series, I got into a family conversation about our worst bosses. In Shell I had over twenty bosses: most of them were not very good, and the later ones tended to be worse than the early ones. I believe the role of boss is under-trained, misunderstood and also under-resourced, in that most bosses are expected to do so much else that they usually can’t find the time to do their boss job properly.

 

It was easy to decide my worst boss, an unfortunate gentleman recruited from outside into Shell who was comically out of his depth. At least, it was comical when we could overlook the damage his appointment did to the business, his team and to himself. He certainly was a major contribution to my breakdown in 2000.

 

What struck me was the winners of the silver and bronze medals in the terrible boss competition. I awarded those accolades to my only two female bosses.

 

The first was a bit of a Thatcher character, ruthless, ambitious and uncompromising. Those attributes are not always disastrous, but in the case of this woman they were allied with selfishness and some paranoia, leading her to betray her own team and others with some regularity.

 

The second was completely different. She was a delightful, charming woman, not lacking in insight, but promoted out of her depth and revealed as unable to make decisions or to lead. As a subordinate, I was faced was a blockage above me whenever I wanted to get anything done.

 

This last boss feels like a classic example of a third archetype I might call a kitten. Her femininity had drawn favourable attention of men throughout her career, and they were seduced into promoting her. She was the sort of woman that men were delighted to have as a peer, a pleasure to be round a no real competition to their own ambition.

 

In the case of female leaders, I suspect these three archetypes used to be typical of the few who first made it into the higher ranks. There were a few phenomena, immensely talented women who could not be stopped, and who were great motivators to other women but not really good examples of role models, since most simply lacked their talent. There were rather more impersonators, able to succeed by being like men, suppressing their femininity. And then we had the kittens, welcomed by men but ultimately ineffective.

 

Sheryl Sandberg is a good example of the impersonator category (though also quite phenomenal), and she wrote the famous instruction manual for other ambitious women, Lean In, with the basic advice for women to suppress femininity. I always thought this was disastrous advice for most women. Why try to succeed by developing the one attribute where you are likely to be inferior to male counterparts, masculinity?

 

Women suffered many impediments on their journey to being respected and promoted as leaders. Their education used to be worse, their parents steered them into limiting professions, panels full of men selected against the criterion of people like them, i.e. more men, and women in relationships are often still the ones expected to sacrifice career, especially when they become parents.  

 

Those are the fundamental reasons why women have taken a long time to rise to the top, despite belatedly effective diversity policies in companies. Perhaps we are now past this misleading edge concept, in which the first women to break through were phenomena, impersonators or kittens.

 

My suggestion is that it is important not to take the wrong lessons from the misleading edge. I think Sandberg’s book did damage. I think the kittens did more damage, by making men feel good when they should have felt guilty and by perpetuating myths about female unsuitability when they were over promoted. The phenomena are wonderful (unless called Thatcher), but can hardly be replicated.

 

Instead, companies need to push diversity as long as it takes for real breakthroughs, even if the early results disappoint. And women should follow my favourite general advice, to be themselves. I believe women will ultimately be superior leaders, just as the current crop of female political leaders are showing. It will just take perseverance. If my career started today, I expect that my female bosses would be more numerous, and among the best rather than the worst. The leading edge are necessary, but they are not sufficient, nor indicative, nor necessarily good examples to follow.

 

This week Bagehot in The Economist gave praise to Britain’s Tory party for its diversity success. They have given us two prime ministers and now the most diverse cabinet in history. However, I do wonder if we are still witnessing a misleading edge. The ethnic minority success stories, while impressive, feel a little bit kittenish to me. I hope I am wrong.

 

If I am right about the idea of a misleading edge, it would apply equally to other facets of diversity, for example racial and sexual diversity. I could argue that the first out gay men to emerge in public were kittens like Larry Grayson. These trailblazers are good, so long as we don’t declare success too early, or try to clone them too closely, or assume that those that follow them will have the same attributes.

 

Inequities are still legion, but there is also much to celebrate in terms of diversity in societies in the developed world. But let us be careful not to fall into traps posed by the misleading edge.