Shades of Grey

Some things are easy to see as a spectrum. Colour is an example. It is clear to all of us that there are an infinity of grey shades between black and white, or of green between yellow and blue. Light is another area where we can all see gradation. Rory McIlroy won the PGA championship last night in something you could not really call light, but you could not quite call dark either.

In our human urge to simplify, unless we see something clearly as continuous, we model or assume it as discrete. Take sound. Loudness and softness is clearly a spectrum, but what about musical pitch? The piano has a series of discrete notes. But are there notes in between these notes?

Actually, there are, it is another spectrum. Sometimes, in choirs, directors ask us to try a difficult exercise. We all start on one note (difficult enough for some choirs…). Then we have to move up to the next piano note in sixteen pulses, gradually. So we are being asked to sing sixteen notes, all different, all between two notes on a piano. It is a tough test. I can sometimes do it if I concentrate very hard and if I have good singers around me. The first steps are tiny, then after six or eight steps we land somewhere half way, then keep moving on up. The exercise is fun, and revealing.

Actually, the piano only offers an approximation for perfect chords. The inventors chose sensible note increments to produce something playable at almost melodic. But every time the piano plays a major triad (do, mi and so), the so note is a little bit flat and mi a little bit sharp. As singers we are supposed to be aware of this when singing accompanied, and adjust our pitch accordingly. Adding in the tendencies of various vowels to sound flatter or sharper than others, it is no wonder that chamber singing is an art that people can improve upon for a whole lifetime.

That is for me a telling example. In order to simplify, we often see spectra as lines of discrete points or even binary choices. We also see circles or spheres as lines or planes – think of Gallileo. It is just as well that we do, for otherwise everything would be so complicated that we would be mentally paralysed. But we would do well to remember that reality is usually the more complex option.

 One of the most dangerous examples is of how we think of each other. “Does he or she really like me?” has been pondered by all of us at some stage in our lives. The presumption is that our acquaintances fall neatly into two boxes, those we like and those we do not. The reality is anything but – we like some things about most people and dislike others. The overall score is usually somewhere in the middle.

It would help us in our search for friends or lovers to remember this. Rather than jump to a binary conclusion, too often a negative one, we could accept a more nuanced picture. Then we could acknowledge the areas of compatibility and work on the areas of potential tension. We could maintain a good self esteem as well as avoiding any arrogance. Our lives would generally be less fraught. Remember this also next time you are tempted to conclude that your boss hates you.

Like many things, our trouble may have started with religion. Though, in blaming religion, I should point out that religion itself is a classic example of something with good and bad points rather than all good or all bad. Many religious teachings are of simple models. We are good or evil. We sin, and can be saved or damned. The world is a battle between good and evil. Taking it a bit further, priests, especially infallible popes, are perfect role models. Our religion is right, so all the others are wrong.

Well, we only have to think a bit to know better, even if we are religious believers. Such simplicity creates destructive relationships, causes wars, and inhibits learning. It also clouds our view of historical figures. Some presidents or kings were good, others bad, we learn. The truth is most had their good and bad points and just did their best in the circumstances they inherited.

We take this over-simplification into our politics. We have allies and enemies, partners or competitors. This applies between countries, companies or between departments or individuals in companies. It is simple. But it does not often work.

The most obvious current example covers the tensions in the Middle East. I have many American commentators supporting Israel in whatever they may choose to do. This is justified by something binary – either religious destiny, or historical retribution, or a separation of the sides into right and wrong, or something so simple as supporting ones allies. Well, I support Israel too. And I support the Palestinians. And I recognize that fair grievances exist on all sides and that mistakes are sometimes made, mistakes which ought to be condemned. Absolute support does not intelligent politics or productive discourse make.

The same false separation into goodies and baddies has harmed our approach to other conflicts. Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria have not been success stories for this approach. In these cases, let us also pay some credit to those leaders, like Obama, who acknowledge some of the complexities. Even in Ukraine, there are complexities that partially justify the Russian position, though a lot of it clearly requires condemnation.

My favourite example in corporate life came in the arena of partnerships or alliances between companies. In my experience, these often had massive potential, but usually failed. I often wondered why, and now I think it is because most of us could not get our heads around the nuanced relationship with the other side. We needed to cooperate and share, but within a fixed framework. Both parties had their own goals, and there were also shared goals. There was also the possibility of eventual divorce. For many of us, this complexity was too much, and we retreated to binary positions, usually to the detriment of the cooperation necessary to create value from the partnership.

A different example concerns trade offs, whether in business or our personal lives. We can usually see such choices as a spectrum, with pros and cons. But in practice there can be more than two variables in play. A choice may only hold good while other factors remain unchanged, or we may need to make complex choices between three or more variables. The more the variables, the more messy is the optimization.

In the Guardian weekly, Oliver Burkeman calls these trilemmas. A good example is a project where we have to manage quality, time and cost. Surely, something has to suffer. With their abundant KPI’s, many modern managers struggle to even accept the need for such trade-offs, and put their staff in situations where there is no win.

By the way, this is only one of many wonderful ways of understanding life offered by Oliver Burkeman. I recommend him completely, and intend soon to buy one of his books so I can enjoy him even more. This week he raised the challenge of precrastination, that is wasting time on trivial matters to “clear the decks” before embarking on the important. Don’t most of us do exactly that? I certainly do.

Finally, back to politics, this time party politics. In most democratic systems, we need parties, otherwise there can be no practical order. But a good system encourages new parties to emerge every so often, and somehow creates somewhere between three and six credible parties at any one time. That way we can acknowledge that no party is ever likely to reflect all of our views, and we can look for the one with the highest weighted average, understanding that this is likely to change every few years.

Sadly, many democracies tend to end up with bipolar systems, with only two strong parties, who then corral all the talent and the funds to sustain their duopolies. The result is entrenched and failed thinking and tribal politics, made worse where there is gerrymandering or advantages for incumbents. It would improve US politics at a stroke if a third or fourth force could appear. I am looking forward to the general election in the UK next year, where we can hope for four credible options for the first time. Germany has five, and is the richer for it. I dare to hope that technology and stronger education will improve matters over time – though I confess I see few signs of it so far.

So let us all embrace grey, though maybe not Christian Grey, a unipolar character if ever there was one. We know that sometimes we need black and white to help us create order and make decisions. That is good. But as often as possible, let us acknowledge the many shades of grey, and let them into our thinking. It could help us in so many ways.     

In Celebration of today's Youth

I have just enjoyed a marvelous week singing in Princeton with the Westminster Choir College Summer School.

There was so much to love about the week. It was the strongest choir I had ever sung with, so the week was full of learning and it rekindled my desire to improve. The music was superb and the concert excellent. The teachers were great. The surroundings were also lovely – Princeton is the most pleasant US university town we have visited so far. The whole week was a fantastic gift, I feel completely privileged to have been a part of the festival.

But despite all those reasons for joy, something else about the week stood out for me. Of fifty eight in the choir, about fifty were in their twenties. And collectively they were a credit to their generation.

I heard and saw nothing but respect throughout the week. They were all at ease in any company. They had each embraced their own style, whether of dress or character, and all seemed comfortable with their choice and the choice of those around them. In hardly any eyes did I see any pain or discomfort. I did not observe one cigarette during the week. Their talent was incredible, but so too their discipline, their motivation, and their humility.

When I compare myself at that age and what I remember of my peers, the contrast is striking. Many of us had serious social issues, notably in how we related to the opposite gender but also in our attitudes to people of difference and society at large. We were less mature, less balanced, and less at peace.

This wonderful phenomenon set me thinking. Firstly, was this a unique group? Are we witnessing a general improvement, or rather a growth in inequality of personality, with the lucky ones getting more mature and the less lucky ones less? I am inclined to take the more optimistic view.

I have to acknowledge that this was an elite group. They were predominantly white, and many showed signs of having wealthy parents – many were driving fancier cars than mine. They are high achievers within their field. And their field of choral music is one that will attract team players and offers many life lessons. Finally, guys that specialize in choral music are very likely to be in touch with their feminine side, an evident fact this week. That helped to take any macho or sexual tension out of the group.

But I believe I witnessed the extreme upper end of a general trend rather than something confined to elites. I have evidence.

First, this is not the first occasion I have been impressed with youth. In my latter years at Shell, I noticed many the incoming kids to be markedly more mature than those who had gone before. Admittedly that was an elite group as well, albeit a different one.

Then I think of the friends of my children. When my daughter was in her teens, her group was more mature than previous generations, though quite a few exhibited growing pains. Her friends seem to have developed into wonderful twenty-somethings as well. Now I am going through the same process with two more teenagers, and, if anything, their friends are even more mature and balanced. OK, I accept these anecdotes still refer to elite groups.

For a more general analysis, I turn to the Economist of last week. The findings are clear. Across multiple dimensions, there seem to be improvements across the board, at least in rich and middle-income countries. Teenage crime is well down. Teenage pregnancy is starkly lower. Smoking and drug and alcohol abuse are sharply down as well. Happily, it does seem as though there is a general trend here.

The Economist offered some possible reasons why things have improved. Some credit was paid to stronger enforcement and better policing. But most credit was offered to better parenting.

I agree. There are many supporting factors. Dads are much more willing to play a role than they were even twenty years ago. While Mum’s and Dad’s are both working nowadays, they can sometimes work from home or take advantage of other flexible arrangements. The housework burden on Mums has reduced thanks to things like dishwashers.

More important, Mums and Dads have a better idea what to do nowadays. There are all sorts of self-help books available now. Perhaps most important, the emphasis seems to have moved from respecting authority, doing what one is told, and putting on a good show for the neighbours (or priest, or head teacher, or grandparents) towards growth and respect for society and humanity.

Perhaps most important of all, there is now more of a climate of acceptance. Difference used to feared and condemned, then tolerated, but now celebrated. Any child in former times growing up in a home with divorce or mixed race or lacking any of a number of other expected norms was likely to feel some resentment or shame. Most of us were secretly ashamed of something or resentful of something else, and our growth was inhibited as a result.

This is a massive social change with a huge positive payoff. Divorce is as common as ever, but now it can even help kids after a few years, since some kids can benefit from three or even four parents. The most admired kids nowadays are often the mixed race ones, with their exotic looks and fused cultures. Of course, these trends are happening at different speeds in different countries and social groups, but the overall trend is positive almost everywhere.

I also pay respect to smarter education. Teaching style nowadays is less about facts and more about growth and discovery. There has also been a move where respect for authority has been supplemented by respect for peers and self, and even respect for the planet.

Finally, and maybe even more valuably, kids are much better at helping each other now, thanks to technology. We like to complain about their constant texting and gaming, but we tend to forget the positive side. Kids now are never bored, so they do not brood resentment as easily as former generations. Google gives them solutions to most things, and Facebook to the rest. Social media helps a segmentation, whereby almost all kids can find a respectful group of peers to grow with and learn from and to gain self-confidence.

Whatever the reasons, these trends can only pertain good for humanity. Being with such young people fills me with joy. It helps me move beyond the headline of an isolated gun spree or abysmal politics or the perennial moans of my own peers. The future can only be bright, especially considering that the parenting and social network factors continue to spread around the world. Think also, if my lot have managed to be reasonable parents, this next group will be spectacular ones.

It will take time. The older generation may have left an improved micro legacy as parents, but our macro legacy is horrible, characterized by inequality, dysfunction and disrespect. Maybe as many as half of these talented people at Princeton will struggle to make a decent living. Of the ones who do, many will join the misery that I observed on the opposite carriageway as a drove there, sitting on the Gawanus for two hours every morning.

There must be a better way. Slowly, humanity will discover it. It will be achieved bottom up rather than top down. And it will be delivered by the wonderful people I had the pleasure of meeting this week, and their many peers. Wow, this makes me feel so good. 

In Praise of Germany

So my prediction was right for once, and Germany won. Actually, I have never placed a bet on sports, and am pretty sure the bookies would beat me. However, every so often I delude myself. I also fancied a tip from Gary Lineker on the BBC website to back Algeria as the last surviving Africans at 10-1 or so. Simply because they were in Group eight that looked a good bet – and it would have paid out. Oh well.

I was very happy for Germany, and not only because I picked them. They were the best team, and played exciting and intelligent football. They were the least dirty team in the last sixteen and always played with a fair spirit, diving and surrounding the referee much less than other teams. They never needed penalties to advance.

There was also a lot to admire in what lay behind the win. There was a consistency of plan and approach over ten years or more. Team ethic was always emphasized over individual brilliance. The team valued work ethic and persistence. There was a clear approach, but also a readiness to adjust mid-game. The depth of squad was second to none. And the team made full use of a diverse array of talents, whether in age, style or background.

In all these factors, the team shared a lot of traits with the German nation itself. The poor Germans get such a bad press; it is time for the residual resentment from the Hitler years to be set aside. True, the policies carried out by that regime were especially odious, and many Germans actively colluded or at least stood aside. But that generation has largely passed away now. We have also seen many subsequent examples to show that a patriotic rhetoric and a compliant media, combined with pressure of expectations, can pull most people along in its slipstream.

It is time to stop the veiled references to the wars. It is especially time to stop casting aspersions at the German character. We have got into the habit as seeing admirable strengths as somehow dangerous or threatening, or at least worthy of ridicule.

For if you look at the last sixty years, many of the world’s most wonderful human achievements have occurred because of Germans. Adenaur was a leading light behind the EU. Brandt learned how to lead a divided country with practicality as well as principle. The unification project was executed with brilliance. Germany led the process of integration of other Warsaw pact countries into a strong, safe, prosperous Europe. Finally, having steered the introduction of a single currency, Germany played the leading role in holding it together during the financial crisis.

Meanwhile, from the wreckage of the war, a social system has been built as strong as any in the world. Drive through Germany and it is impossible not to feel a sense of development, stability, peace and prosperity. This is much stronger than in neighbouring countries. Behind this lie ethical and spiritual values, and a focus on family and education.

As well as some extraordinary leaders, Germany has used the same strengths that helped the soccer team prevail in Brazil. There is teamwork, a focus on the fundamentals and on the long term.

German companies have an unusual degree of cooperation between management and their staff, through the work council concept. Fundamentals place quality ahead of slogans and campaigns. And the long-term is served through consistency of strategy and implementation. It helps that many German companies are family-held, so the mixed blessing of instant pressure from the markets can be held at bay.

These strengths come through most clearly in the Mittelstand, a cluster of specialist companies holding world-leading positions, often in obscure fields like ball-bearing manufacture. There are larger leaders too, notably in the automotive sector, where VW have played their hand consistently well for a long time.

I worked quite a lot in Germany, and these admirable qualities were in abundance, though I also found the place extremely frustrating. There was a strong conservatism, expressed through respect for hierarchy and age. Change did not come easily, and bureaucracy could be heavy. I found this rather stifling when I worked there. It does not surprise me that Germany has been slow to produce leaders in technology or retail, sectors where pace and flexibility matter more.

Contrary to stereotype, I have always found Germans fun and rewarding colleagues. Even in large groups, I have never seen any tendency towards militarism or groupthink. There is always respect and decency, and sometimes even humour.

What is gratifying to witness now is the way Germany is using its strengths for the global good. Angela Merkel is an exceptional leader, but I hope this trend is deeper and will outlast her.

Germany is clearly leading the EU with brilliance, but its influence spreads more widely nowadays. Have you noticed how Mrs Merkel is often in the news around the troublespots of the world? In Ukraine, the situation may well have spun out of control without her steady hand – she has respect of both Putin and Obama. In Iran, the negotiating group is P5+1 – the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany. Germany also takes the lead in speaking truth to the power that is Israel, especially delicate and laudable given the history.

Germany is also being deft in handling its powerful ally, the US. It is not easy being an ally of a hegemon. Britain tries fawning. France tries occasional sulks. South Americans mix resentment with dependence. As far as I can observe, only Germany is consistent and sticks to facts and issues.

Recently, it has been Germany that has shown the strongest principles over the Snowden revelations. Others have used them for domestic short-term gain or have been silenced by their own complicity, but Germany has spoken out consistently and with clarity. It is obvious that this is a matter of deep principle, coming from the recent history of East Germany and the Stasi.

I greatly admire the move on Friday to send home a senior US diplomat. This is not without risk, but the reasons were made clear, and are far more than a pandering to local opinion. It gave rise to an interview I saw on US public television on Friday evening.

The German invitee stressed the seriousness of how her government saw the subject. The US invitee was an embarrassment, but a telling one. He was condescending and dismissive, arguing that everyone spies on everyone else and that the Germans would get over it in time. Sadly, the administration probably feels the same way. They underestimate Mrs Merkel. She will not back down until there is authentic recognition and restorative action on the US side. I will celebrate the benefits to humanity, as well as enjoying the spectacle.

As Russia reasserts itself and China rises, such maturity will become ever more crucial. Hopefully, other nations will ally more and more around German opinion, and a powerful force for good will grow as a result. The world needs it.

So it is time we changed our attitude to Germany. Their World Cup team deserves higher praise than “ruthless efficiency” and so does their national psyche. Mrs Merkel deserves a Nobel prize and her nation deserves permanent Security Council status. We should all fight stereotypical portrayals, fed by lazy media in Greek streets and even at the Eurovision Song Contest as well as the sports studios, and start to fully recognize the force for good we have in the world.

Congratulations Germany, and thank you.   

Time to target Privilegism

This year, there have been many documentaries on US television looking back at the racial discrimination of the past. The height of the civil rights movement was during the mid 1960’s and many programs have commemorated fifty-year anniversaries of various events.

As well as filling in gaps in my education, the programs have certainly provoked thought. Usually, I end up in disbelief that humanity was so base only fifty years ago, during my own lifetime, and in the richest country on earth.

Rampant racial discrimination tarnished almost every aspect of society only fifty years ago. Blacks had to fight against enforced separation on buses, and to bring something approaching equality in schools and the workplace.

Given where society in the West has reached now, it seems almost incredible how backward we were then. But, as well as mourning the sins of the past, we can also celebrate the extraordinary progress made in such a short time.

Racism has moved from being systemic, general, then hidden but widespread, then grudgingly accepted as wrong, now widely seen as unacceptable and even actively confronted by most of us. That is a lot of big steps achieved in a short period of years.

Now we have FIFA campaigns, and ostracizing of Donald Sterling to show how overt racism has become wholly unacceptable. Even the antics of John Terry a couple of years ago seem unthinkable now.

Nonetheless, we cannot declare victory. There are parts of the world where racism is still systemic. Most kids in Asia still desire to lighten their skin. And, even in the West, there are still huge differences in outcomes.

While implementing behaviours and structures that overtly discriminate have been outlawed, the results of these past behaviours still drive outcomes. It is very obvious here in the US, where school performance, housing quality and crime signal a society that is still starkly divided.

What made us racist? It is worth trying to answer the question, in order to work to remove it, and also to check whether other discriminations may still exist and how we might combat them. There are many factors.

We are frightened of the unknown and unfamiliar, and can react by making fun of it. Fear played a factor in many of our early racist behaviours. But fear cannot really explain sustained racism.

Once we move beyond fear and grow familiar with difference, we react to peers and other influences. It can make us feel more secure as part of a group if we define that group by some characteristics and reject those who don’t comply. That slows down progress, especially as media and older role models tend to lag behind. Our parents were racist, so it feels natural for us to follow them, until we have enough evidence to make us see its folly. Some shameful leaders, notably but not exclusively religious ones, talk about maintaining traditions as an excuse.  Again, this inertia factor will reduce over time, and cannot explain sustained structural racism.

Another factor is greed. Greed comes from a desire to maintain the status quo because it suits us and we are threatened by change. Part of the fear of change can be a fear of reprisal, whereby the injured party turns the tables and demands reparation for past wrongs. Greed lies behind a lot of immigration fears. It can also manifest itself socially: we don’t want to see our house value threatened by black neighbours or our golf club status challenged by a black daughter-in-law. Greed is harder to break down, but it will eventually, since most of us are decent enough to see its wrong-headedness.

So we need a factor that we use to justify our views. That is a belief in superiority, or at least a patronization of differences.

At its heart, we used to think it was OK to belittle black people because somehow we had evolved further. We could list excuses for this – our superior education, moral fibre and so on – which helped us to justify the belief. As a result, we could claim we were showing pity others when we were really patronizing them. And we could justify discrimination too, on the grounds that somehow they were not ready, whether it was to vote, or perform management jobs, or appreciate culture.

Now isn’t this hateful? Before you claim you could never think like this, just check back. Have you ever made or accepted remarks about Roma (gypsies) and their way of life?

I believe this belief in superiority is the factor that makes racism and other discrimination persist. With all the other factors, we can’t really find excuses than hold water. With this one, the excuse is still weak, but it can still stick.

For of course we can find empirical evidence to support such beliefs. Educational attainment is generally lower for first generation immigrants (though by now working class whites are the lowest attaining group of all). Africa and the Middle East have terrible problems with governance.

I read a piece recently which helps to explain why. It introduced me to Epidemiology, a newly fashionable and useful science. A study tried to explain why alcoholism and poor marital relations persist in Glasgow. There is evidence that it goes back a hundred years, when housing was so poor that families were crammed into pitiful space. This drove men to the pub and away from regular discourse with their wives. And, crucially, that tendency has persisted through generations, passed by a mixture of genes and environment.

This makes sense to me. Advantages persist across generations. Where we are born and how we are brought up (especially early months) determine a lot of our fate, and now we learn that not just our parents, but also the starts of our grandparents and great-grandparents matter too. Advantage has hysteresis, so it tends to stick around. It takes a long time to turn around a supertanker.

So what we see as superiority is really the result of privileged history. I have focused on racism but this applies to all the other forms of bias. Happily we have recently made great progress in many of these areas too over the last fifty years, though so much more remains to be done.

Even those determined for merit to rise should take pause from this argument. The Economist defends private schooling because it pushed the elite forward faster, promoting human development. But surely our evolution would be better served, over multiple generations, if that merit stripped away the effects historical accidents? So rather than token programs to let in a few gifted kids from tougher backgrounds, the selection should be actively skewed to make it harder for those coming from privilege to get in than for those without it.

I think the time has come to lump all the biases together, and work at their common root cause, that of a false belief in superiority. National and religious superiority are nowadays the worst examples. Does God really bless America (over the rest of humanity)?

Let us campaign against privilegism, or at the least challenge our own privilegist behaviours and views. Probably 99.9% of my advantages were due to the accident of birth. How can I ever disdain another human (except maybe those like Bush or Cameron who would score 99,99%)?

Public policy is hugely skewed in favour of the privileged, since we vote for it for exactly the same reasons we used to be racist. Each time we complain of a tax or yawn when we see boats capsizing off Lampedusa we can reflect a bit more and gradually challenge others, just like we learned to with racism. Let us be clear also that a small government or libertarian agenda is little more than a privilegist one. Instead, the purpose of global government should be to skew the paying field in the other direction. This is not about forced equality or communism, but a rebalancing of opportunity.

Perhaps in fifty years time we will be able to enjoy retrospective TV programmes, marvel at how backward we used to be, and celebrate our wonderful progress against privilegism.