• Blog Stats

    • 12,087 hits
  • Follow Positive Health Leadership on WordPress.com
  • PHLeadership

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Meta

  • Advertisements

Top CEO’s Refocus on More than Profits…Hurray!

According to recent news, it was indicated that Practicing Paneugenesis becomes the Corporate Way – Now and Again. To practice paneugenesis means to generate comprehensive improvements by creating interactions so everyone and everything benefits. In corporate speak it means benefitting all stakeholders, not just shareholders.

The August 21, 2019 Daily broadcast What American C.E.O.s Are Worried About by Andrew Ross Sorkin, a financial columnist for The New York Times, reported that “…almost 200 chief executives, including the leaders of Apple, Pepsi and Walmart, argued that companies must invest in employees, protect the environment and deliver value to customers.” The declaration that “Shareholder Value Is No Longer Everything, Top C.E.O.s Say“, aligns with practicing paneugenesis. I encourage  you to listen to this inspirational show!

This show reported that 100 years ago businesses did do what was best for customers, employees and communities until Milton Friedman influenced their actions. This August 21, 2019 Daily Show, reported that these nearly 200 executives tried this week to redefine the role of a corporation in society. They indicated a corporations new philosophy would be more aligned with Practicing Paneugenesis. They also reported they were doing this, not out of altruism or because it was the right thing to do, but because it is the politically needed way to act and because it was the best way to do business now.

In other words acting in ways that align with paneugenesis would be more profitable. Of course this aligns with what Aaron Antonovsky implied in his 1996 article,”The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion” when he commented on page 12, “…No on contends that museums payoff in cash.” By this, he suggested that museums are not strictly profitable but are profitable to society because they help create a better society for everyone and everything.

The August 21st’s NYT’s Daily show reported that the change such that business became more focused on profit was influenced by Milton Friedman’s view that profits were above all else. His work suggested that higher profits were the best thing corporations could do for society. They also suggested Friedman’s work influenced the 1980’s greed focus that generated multiple corporate raiders who cut costs to boost profits. These changes did lead to higher profits but they also led to layoffs, lower charitable contributions and decreased pensions plans to benefit the associated stock. As was seen, the actions that led to higher corporate stock prices led to a decreased quality of life in society.

The report also indicated that the philosophy change toward a more expansive view of stakeholders began to change with financial crisis 10 years ago and the major shift of benefits toward the 1% at the expense of the rest of us. They also reported that these changes are what helped fuel the rise of political activists and now presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Once again this reflects the needed shift from a short to a long-term, or from an acute toward chronic dedication. Although they indicate the change is happening because our times indicate it is now right thing to do and more profitable, research suggest it is always more profitable if we use a a longer lens.This is how it was and how it should be because it is the most beneficial way to generate a richer society for everyone and everything.
In more news about this change, Tom Wilson, Chief Executive of All State suggested in his August 21, 2019 New York Times column that we pay people more. His article, “Save Capitalism by Paying People More” because changing the role of shareholders was only a start. He therefore emphasizes that Boards and C.E.O.s must create more higher-paying jobs.  However, in my view this perspective is too limited. It cannot just be about creating jobs for today but about creating a sustainable better future tomorrow.  This means we won’t know exactly the job to be done, but we to create more good and not just less bad the focus has to be on generating comprehensive improvements by creating interactions so everyone and everything benefits.

Please share your thoughts. I look forward to hearing about the how you catch the wave and practice paneugenesis so you will generate all good by creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits. Overall this focus on how to improve, not just prevent decline is selfish, selfless and synergistic.  Please share how you generate more good, not just less bad.

For me this is about how we can Exceed expectations as I share in this video:

PS- sorry I have not posted for a couple of months. I have been busy collecting dots and plan to share the many things I have been learning…

 

Be Well’r,
Craig Becker

Be selfish, selfless, & synergistic so everyone and everything benefits!

Email me if you want to discuss: 
Email: BeWellr@gmail.com

 

 

Advertisements

Use Prospective Hindsight to Create a Better Tomorrow

I define Prospective Hindsight as looking back from an idealized outcome or a desired future. As we all know, hindsight is 20/20.  Using hindsight from a desired future has been shown to be a great way to see how that future can be created. Often it is used to find problems, but it also can be used to design a helpful path to a desired future.  Of course the first step is imagining and making clear the desired future.  This is the first step, Operationalize or develop an understandable vision fo the future that is desirable.

New Research Supports Using Prospective Hindsight

UConn Today wrote about the New research that suggests “The Power of Empathy in Product Development” is helpful. The research to be published, “Head vs. Heart: the Effect of Objective versus Feelings-Based Mental Imagery on New Product Creativity,” will appear in the June 2019 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research. Marketing professors Kelly Herd (University of Connecticut) and Ravi Mehta (University of Illinois) found that creativity was improved if they took a few minutes before beginning to envision, or think about how the customer would feel eating the snack.  In other words, they used Prospective Hindsight to Operationalize and Idealized Outcome and it helped.

Paul Hawken also used Prospective Hindsight in his new book that he edited, “Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming“. In the book he explains how we must work toward a society that heals rather than steals the future in the great book he edited. The book outlines multiple interdependent and interconnected ways to work together to start creating a better tomorrow today. In other words, this book helps people see what a better future could look like and what we can start doing to make that new future a reality.

Most importantly, Paul Hawken ends by explaining this isn’t just a good way to do things, they are the best alternative. These suggestions are a better way because using these methods will generate higher monetary gains than are possible with the traditional, “business as usual”, methods that we know are causing problems.

The book resonated with me because all of my work is focused on how to picture and then create a better tomorrow.  As a professor I aim in my publications, presentations and classes to give people tools to design and create an idealized tomorrow. My desire is not to only be able to do what has been done, but to do better.  Better, from my view, means the new ways will benefit everyone and everything through the generation of comprehensive improvements by creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits.  I define these actions as practicing paneugenesis or creating all good.

To demonstrate I am not just dreaming of something that could be, this post shares others making their vision a reality.  These examples are ones that have developed a clear picture of a desired tomorrow (their Operationalize and Idealized Outcome).  These examples also have a description or examples of what must exist for their vision to happen (Precursors).  These examples also have an outline about what needs to happen starting (Optimize the Process) to make it happen.  These examples also explain how they will know they are making progress so they can to Plot Progress to demonstrate the benefits being achieved.

These examples include The International Living Future Institute and their challenges, “The Ray” for improving transportation, and Elon Musk’s vision for clean energy production for everyone’s home.

A Desirable Living Future

The International Living Future Institute is a global network dedicated to creating a healthy future for all.  To make this happen they have the ongoing “Living Building Challenge“, the “Living Product Challenge“, and the “Living Community Challenge“.

The Living Building Challenge is the world’s most rigorous proven performance standard for buildings. People from around the world use a regenerative design framework to create spaces that, like a flower, give more than they take. These types of buildings are being built around the world. See Certified buildings here.

The Living Product Challengeis a framework for manufacturers to create products that are healthy, inspirational and give back to the environment.  This challenge aims to create products that regenerate nature and improve our quality of life.

The Living Community Challenge is a framework for master planning, design, and construction. It is a tool to create a symbiotic relationship between people and all aspects of the built environment. The program is a call to action to governments, campuses, planners, developers and neighborhood groups to create communities that are as connected and beautiful as a forest. You can view community’s actively involved making the vision a reality here.

“The Ray” is an Operationalized an Idealized Outcome for Transportation

Named after Ray Anderson, the world renown innovator from Interface, this item is highway material that would rebuild transportation into a restorative, rather than destructive activity. “The Ray” would create a regenerative highway ecosystem.  Right now they are testing on “The Ray’s” 18-mile stretch of I-85. Several pilot projects are already underway. Click here and or watch the video’s below to see their Technology Showcase to learn about the solar-powered vehicle charging, tire safety check station, solar-paved highways and all their other exciting pursuits.

If you are interested, Ray Anderson was the founder and visionary leader of Interface Carpets who rebuilt that company from ecologically destructive to being restorative.

Image result for anderson one day people like me will go to jail

As noted previously, the late Ray Anderson helped Interface Global make better carpets, increase productivity, profits, and morale, while it also helped not just work to solve the climate crisis but to regenerate a better environment. They put in place a better way for everyone and everything.

Elon Musk’s Vision

Elon Musk’s organizations want to collect solar energy to fuel life.  Extra energy could support the grid.  These video’s show an exciting vision, though I would like to know more about at the current status of these projects. Please share if you can provide an update.

I look forward to hearing about the how you practice paneugenesis like these examples.  To practice paneugenesis means to generate all good by creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits. Please share your thoughts and any other examples of where you see this happening. Thank you.

Be Well’r,
Craig Becker

Be selfish, selfless, & synergistic so everyone and everything benefits!

If you want to contact me:
Email: BeWellr@gmail.com

 

Do we need an Independent Referee for Life?

For some time I have been thinking about the importance of perceived fairness.  Evidence suggests fairness is innate because we see it in very young children.  I also believe I have seen the concept of fairness in my dogs.  Is it a law such that even dogs want fairness?

As I had been thinking about it, I learned about Michael Lewis’s new Podcast, Against the Rules. This podcast promotes itself by explaining how it will “…look at what’s happened to fairness.  The podcasts look in financial markets, newsrooms, basketball games, courts of laws and much more.  He asks, what happens to a world where everyone hate the referee?”  I have only listened to a few, however what I have heard have been great!

To me, fairness is a basic necessity or a precursor to being able to do better than what is expected or what have been called best practices. For me fairness is the 0 I emphasize in my exceeding expectations video (below).

Please share your thoughts about how we can build fairness into our daily lives so people don’t feel cheated.  When things aren’t fair, everybody loses something because the cumulative benefits, though tilted toward one party, will still be less for all.  I will continue to work at generating comprehensive improvements beyond just being fair through the creation of pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits, or by practicing paneugenesis.  I look forward to hearing about the how you help generate all good for everyone and everything.

If you want to contact me:
Email: BeWellr@gmail.com

Update: Evidence that Culture Beats Strategy – A Story…

As of May 6, 2019, I learned about a wrinkle to this story.  The wrinkle appeared when I listened to Michael Lewis’s Against The Rules Podcast, “The Alex Kogan Experience”  on Against the Rules with Michael Lewis and it puts into doubt some of the claims.  I encourage you to listen to this podcast to go along with this post.  Enjoy!

Original Post:
Once again, in my continual quest to learn, it seemed all was connected and a story was formed.  In the morning I listened to the NYT’s Daily broadcast: The Whistle-Blowers at Boeing from The Daily in Podcasts. The story made clear, despite quality managers, the culture did not make it possible for them to do their job.

Evidence between culture and strategy relates to short and long-term results.  Strategy’s can work for a short time, but in the end, culture determines what happens. This Daily episode resonated with so many other things I had been reviewing and hearing, it indicated to me there was a story being told.  This is the story I heard being told…

Although I am late reading Jeremy Rifkin’s 2000 book, “Age of Access: The New culture of hyper capitalism where all of life is a paid for experience“, it is currently relevant.  Now, because I have the ability to use hindsight, I am amazed by his prescience or foreknowledge about how technology would impact our world.   He accurately  predicted the changes that have taken place because of the Internet, FaceBook, and our almost constant reliance to our online world.  Throughout the book he talks about how it will, and now has, impacted and changed our culture.

Most importantly, near the end, he explains that culture is the precursor or necessary prerequisite to commerce or a market economy.  He points out that trust and empathy, something developed from face to face contact, is necessary for a caring society.  He was concerned that having only an online relationship could cause harm.

I then heard an example of how the harm he predicted may be attributed to online interactions in Carole Cadwalladr’s TED Talk, Facebook’s role in Brexit — and the threat to democracy. Through this presentation she outlines how an online culture was the instigator for Brexit and Trump.  Of course, all of this was possible because of our innate gullibility and our brain biases or the mental illusions we face as humans.

Then I heard another TED Talk by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie,The danger of a single story.  In her presentation she explained how all these things in very simple terms. She explained how it all relates to when we rely on a single story.  Kahneman and Tversky’s work backs up her presentation when they talked about the representativeness heuristic.  The representative heuristic happens when people ignore base rates or likely outcomes and become biased by a story that seems representative, this therefore becomes The danger of a single story.

People are easily manipulated.  The original research on representativeness heuristic explained how i a situation where there were 100 people, 70 of which were lawyers and 30 engineers.  Despite knowing this, after a description was given of a random member of that group that was representative of a lawyer or an engineer, those initial 70-30 base rate probabilities were ignored if they were asked to pick the likely profession of a member of the group.  Instead of using the 70-30 base rate, the participant instead used the description or story to predict which profession, lawyer or engineer, the random participant held. If no description of a random participant was provided, people correctly used the base rates provided to make their prediction.  In other words, people were manipulated by the story.

If this summary is not clear due to its brevity, I encourage you to watch either or both of the short YouTube video’s below about the representative heuristic.  I also encourage you to read MIchael Lewis’s book, The Undoing Project or the many examples of these studies provided online.  Overall these studies demonstrated an innate mental bias we have related to stories.

 

To finish the story, I read a January 19, 2019 column, More Schools and Fewer Tanks for the Mideast, from my favorite columnist, Thomas Friedman.  In this column he drove home the point of developing and creating a CULTURE for a better tomorrow is the most important and effective way.  The story suggests that we need to take action to help others become all they can so we can live and help develop a better world, instead of destroying what could be.

Below is Friedman’s column:

The U.S. should send more soft power and less hard power to the region.

Tunisians last week celebrated the anniversary of their 2011 revolution.Yassine Gaidi/Anadolu Agency, via Getty Images

Tunisians last week celebrated the anniversary of their 2011 revolution.Yassine Gaidi/Anadolu Agency, via Getty Images

President Trump’s sudden announcement that he’s pulling U.S. troops out of Syria and shrinking their number in Afghanistan has prompted a new debate about American ground forces in the Middle East and whether keeping them there is vital or not. I’m asking myself the same question. To answer that question, though, I need to start with another question:

Why is it that the one Arab Spring country that managed to make a relatively peaceful transition from dictatorship to a constitutional democracy — with full empowerment for its women — is the country we’ve had the least to do with and where we’ve never sent soldiers to fight and die? It’s called Tunisia.

Yes, Tunisia, the only Middle East country to achieve the ends that we so badly desired for Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan, did so after having hosted more U.S. Peace Corps workers over the last 50 years than U.S. military advisers and after having received only about $1 billion in U.S. aid (and three loan guarantees) since its 2010-11 democracy revolution.

By comparison, the U.S. is now spending about $45 billion a year in Afghanistan — after 17 years of trying to transform it into a pluralistic democracy. That is an insane contrast. Especially when you consider that Tunisia’s self-propelled democracy is such an important model for the region, but an increasingly frail one.

American service members arriving in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in 2017.Andrew Renneisen/Getty Images

American service members arriving in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in 2017.Andrew Renneisen/Getty Images

It’s threatened by labor strikes, the spillover of instability from Libya, a slowing economy that can’t produce enough jobs or income for its educated young people, a 2016 International Monetary Fund loan that restricts the government from hiring, all causing stresses among the key players in its power-sharing deal involving trade unionists, Islamists, old-regime types and new democrats. For now, Tunisia is holding together, but it could sure use one week’s worth of what we spend in Afghanistan.

Why could Tunisia transition to democracy when others couldn’t? It starts with its founding father, Habib Bourguiba, Tunisia’s leader from independence, in 1956, to 1987.

Though he was a president-for-life like other Arab autocrats, Bourguiba was unique in other ways: He kept his army very small and did not waste four decades trying to destroy Israel; he was actually a lonely voice calling for coexistence.

He educated and empowered Tunisian women and allowed relatively strong civil society groups to emerge — trade unions, lawyers’ syndicates, women’s groups, who were vital to toppling Bourguiba’s tyrannical successor and forging a new Constitution with Tunisia’s Islamic movement. Tunisia was also blessed by having little oil, so it had to invest in its people’s education.

Tunisia, in short, had the cultural underpinnings to sustain a democratic revolution. But political and cultural transformations move at different speeds. The U.S. (myself included) wanted to rush the necessary cultural transformation of Afghanistan and Iraq, but as Peter Drucker once noted, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” That fact — plus our own incompetence and their corruption — has eaten alive the U.S. democracy efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All of this shapes how I think about Trump’s abrupt order to withdraw from Syria and desire to get out of Afghanistan. I think he is right on Afghanistan. We’ve defeated Al Qaeda there; it’s time for us to negotiate with the Taliban and Pakistan the best phased exit we can — and take as many people who worked for us as we can. Afghanistan has hard countries around it — Russia, Pakistan, India, China and Iran — and they have the ability to contain and manage the disorder there. We gave at the office.

I’d keep our special forces in Syria, though, but not because we’ve yet to defeat ISIS. ISIS is a direct byproduct of the wider regional struggle between Sunnis and Shiites, led by Saudi Arabia and Iran. ISIS arose as an extreme Sunni response to the extreme efforts by Iran and pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria to ethnically cleanse and strip power from Sunnis in Iraq and Syria. As long as Iran pursues that strategy, there will be an ISIS in some form or other.

That’s why the only peace process that could have a stabilizing effect across the Middle East today is not between Israelis and Palestinians — but between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

What the small, not-all-that-costly U.S. force in Syria does that is most important is prevent the awful there from becoming the truly disastrous in a couple ways. It does so in part by protecting the Kurds and moderate Sunnis from the murderous Syrian government and Turkey. The mainstream Syrian and Iraqi Kurds have been, for the most part, forces for decency and Western values in that corner of the world. One day we might build on their islands of decency; they’re worth preserving.

Our forces also help stabilize northeastern Syria, making it less likely that another huge wave of refugees will emerge from there that could further destabilize Lebanon and Jordan and create nativist backlashes in the European Union like the earlier wave did. To me, the European Union is the other United States of the world, and we and NATO have a vital interest in protecting the E.U. from being fractured over a fight over the influx of Mideast refugees.

Finally, I’d take $2 billion of the $45 billion we’d save from getting out of Afghanistan and invest it regionally in all the cultural changes that made Tunisia unique — across the whole Arab world. I’d give huge aid to the American University in Cairo, the American University in Beirut, the American University of Iraq, Sulaimani, and the American University of Afghanistan.

And I’d massively expand the scholarship program we once ran by which top Arab public school students were eligible for a U.S.-funded scholarship to any U.S.-style liberal arts college in Lebanon or anywhere else in the region.

I’d also massively expand student visas and scholarships — especially for Arab women — for study in America. And I’d offer 5,000 scholarships for Iranians to come to America to get graduate degrees in science, engineering or medicine, with visas available in Dubai. That line would be so long! Nothing would embarrass the Iranian regime more.

And I’d give Tunisia a $1 billion interest-free loan and quadruple the size of the Tunisian American Enterprise Fund that promotes start-ups there.

The other $43 billion I’d spend on new infrastructure in America.

Since 9/11, we’ve relied almost entirely on hard power. Some was needed, some is still needed, but most of it failed. It’s time we tried more soft power. It’s time we focused on giving more Arabs and Iranians access to the ingredients that enabled Tunisia to transform itself by itself into a democracy without a single U.S. war fighter.

Yes, it will take a long time. But there was never a shortcut, and the approach we tried with the Pentagon in the lead has only led to multiple dead ends.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Thomas L. Friedman is the foreign affairs Op-Ed columnist. He joined the paper in 1981, and has won three Pulitzer Prizes. He is the author of seven books, including “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” which won the National Book Award. @tomfriedmanFacebook

 

Please share your thoughts.  I will continue to work at generating comprehensive improvements through the creation of pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits, or by practicing paneugenesis.  I look forward to hearing about the how you help generate all good for everyone and everything.

If you want to contact me:
Email: BeWellr@gmail.com

Best Practices are Contraindicated for Improvement

** Valuable input related to statistical theory was provided Allen Scott for this post

The concept of “Best Practices,” is often the well-intentioned aim of many best efforts (see We are Being Ruined by Best Intentions and Best Efforts).  Upon reflection, for several reasons, “Best practices” is contraindicated for any goal that aims to continually improve.

1.  “Best Practices” is a misnomer.  Best practices means this those practices are the standard adn are what should be done.  If not, it suggests operating procedures are being done incorrectly or have there are problematic processes.  This means implementing “Best Practices” will fix problems and get things back to where they should be.  This also means these efforts do not actually “improve.”  Our goals should be to exceed expectations – see video.

2. “Best Practices” implies an end point, that is, once the best practices are adopted – we are done.  Adopting “Best Practices” cannot lead to the best outcomes, over the longer term, because conditions constantly change and these changing conditions means practices must be continually improved.  It is for this reason, practices should be assessed or monitored using Process Behavior Charts** regularly so efforts can be continually improved.  The idea of “Best Practices” runs counter to the idea of continual improvement.

3. Best practices are always contextual, that is they depend on the circumstances.  What is being understood as best practices were best for where they were developed and used but may not apply to the situation where they are being applied.

4. Even more concerning about “Best Practices” is the idea that supposed best practices are being implemented on top of current practices before the existing processes are assessed and understood.  This means efforts could be considered full scale tampering. How could it be known whether these “Best Practices” were not already being used?  Additionally, this type of tampering is problematic because we are adjusting the processes based on the results instead of first understanding the existing process.  Tampering always results in greater variation and worse results, most notably over the longer term.

Instead, study successful practices that led to desired outcomes. In addition, at the same time, it is important to learn more about current processes to see how to improve existing efforts rather than tamper with those processes.  This can be done by conducting research and empowering those involved by getting them real-time information about relevant processes by having them Flow Chart their processes and showing them how to use process behavior charts.  This information help them understand how to improve their processes as it relates to the overall system.  Improving the system will help not only with the project at hand, it will also help the organization become a national model  because it will help the organization more effectively achieve its mission and as a by-product have higher profitability, improved employee morale, higher customer satisfaction, lower wastes and be more likely to create pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits.

Many points captured here are expressed in this updated version of the video about how to Exceed Expectations.  Enjoy.

5. If needed, here is more information about the theory of variation (statistical theory):

**Walter Shewhart discovered two causes of variation in any process that changes over time:

 • Common causes — causes that are inherent in a system (process or product) over time, affect everyone working in the system and affect all outcomes of the system. 

• Special causes — causes that are not always part of a system (process or product) or do not affect everyone, but arise because of specific circumstances.

If only common causes of variation are present, the system is stable or predictable, it has an identity, and prediction of future performance is possible, with a high degree of belief.  When Special or assignable causes are present, this makes the system unstable and unpredictable.  This means we will not be able to accurately predict future performance of the system.

Shewhart created a tool most recently called the Process Behavior Chart to separate the two sources of variation and guide the action of management. Understanding the source of variation directs action by management. If this theory of variation is not understood, most attempts at improvement (in stable systems) will fail and many will make things worse. W. Edwards Deming called these actions without knowledge “tampering.” Applied, Shewhart theory will help us to realize no amount of care, skill, and hard work  will overcome fundamental flaws in our system. If we keep doing what we are doing, we will keep getting about what we are getting. Feedback from current and especially past successes and failures will also be critical information for systemic change. The problems cannot be understood or evaluated without the aid of statistical theory and the effects of any attempt at improvement cannot be evaluated without statistical methods. 

I look forward to hearing about how you continually improve your processes so you are able to generate comprehensive improvements by creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits.

Help make it a Great Week for everyone and everything!

Be Well’r,
Craig Becker

Be selfish, selfless, & synergistic so everyone and everything benefits!

Contact me at:
Email: BeWellr@gmail.com

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Best Practices and Meeting Specifications are Orwellian

Orwellian” is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. Orwellian can be deceptive and manipulative use of language.  It is Orwellian when words do not convey meaning but corrupt meaning.  This causes us to alter our perception and create a false reality. (see video)

Most of us know this happens when many politicians speak.  It is however very common in our language. Health Centers are Orwellian because they are not where we go for health, “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being”, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) but are places to treat sickness. Health  is “…not merely the absence of disease and infirmity.”  There are many more examples. For instance I am reading more about quality management methods and a recent section discussed best practices and another talked about specifications.  These are examples of Orwellian terms.

Best practices and meeting specifications are the same idea in different contexts.  Best practices are generally for a service organization and meeting specifications is for a manufacturing organization. Do these practices produce the best outcome?

If we review the idea, at best, these methods would help the employee and organization achieve what is considered the minimum acceptable, NOT THE BEST.  Despite being called best practices, what would you call practices that are not the best but acceptable?   The idea  of “Best Practice” also halts a search for improvement because if it is the best practice, why search for better ways?

Higher quality or quality management practices as espoused by W. Edwards Deming means lower costs and increased productivity.  This definition is different than the general understanding and is another example of Orwellian talk. High quality is not just meeting specifications or doing what is considered best practices it is instilling continual and never ending improvement through innovation.

Meeting specifications, therefore, is the bare minimum, NOT high quality. 

Innovation is the way to improve.  Innovation, however can only happen after statistical control is achieved through reduced variation.  This means the process will produce a predictable outcome, something not possible without stability.  Innovation comes from improving the process with better methods.

Whether we are discussing products, services, or life, it is all about the process.  Do not let Orwellian speak keep you from taking action that will result in better outcomes.  Our lifestyle is our process. By continually improving our lifestyle process, the product of a better life will take care of itself.  Study, learn, and experiment so you can innovate and improve the process of your life. As you continually improve the process, the result will be a better and better outcome.

For me the way to continually improve my process is to find ways to cause all good by generating comprehensive improvements by creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic, interactions so everyone and everything benefits or the Practice of Paneuegenesis. I encourage you to engage in the practice so you can “Make it a Great Week!

Be Well’r,
Craig Becker

Be selfish, selfless, & synergistic so everyone and everything benefits!

Contact me at:
Email: BeWellr@gmail.com

 

The World is Moving Forward – The US Is Distracted…

For those of you who follow me, you know NYT Columnist Thomas Friedman is one of my favorite writers.  I learn a lot from him.  In his November  28, 2017 column:, “Forget Trump and Discover the World“,  he demonstrates how other countries are making big strides in creating a better tomorrow by moving forward.  For instance, India is developing its digital 21st century economy and we are missing it.  He points out how India is also building a new renewable energy power grid without any US technology.

Oh, and by the way, for those of you who want to preserve coal jobs, this 800-megawatt solar farm “was built with over 5,000 skilled and semiskilled workers,” said Kolli. “We believe the renewable energy sector will create over one million new generation jobs to meet the 175-gigawatt target set by Prime Minister Modi.”

Greenko builds these plants, he added, “in five months using Chinese panels and European inverter-grid integration technologies made in India.” (Notice the absence of U.S. technology in that loop.) Greenko is also making huge strides in battery technology to store solar energy, so it can be used when the sun is not shining, and the company is now in the midst of building the first grid-connected battery storage system integrated with its solar farms.

For me his points are captured in his last paragraph.

So while we’ve been following Trump’s tweets about bringing back “beautiful coal,” India built a billion-user ID network bigger than Twitter and giant solar power plants that are cheaper than coal.

Isn’t interesting how we are focused on how to recapture the past and the rest of the world has focused developing a better tomorrow.  Creating a better tomorrow has been the focus of all my work.  That better tomorrow is an idealized outcome we must imagine and then create.  For our desired future to be realized, the necessary precursors, such as a clean energy power grid and an organization of digital information technology must be in place.

A way to make this happen is …

Practice Paneugenesis using this 4 Step to Process

  1. Determine Desired Idealized Outcome
  2. Develop Necessary Precursors to make Desired Outcome Possible
  3. Optimize the Process to Develop Skills and abilities that  Precursors possible, and
  4. Plot Progress to document, demonstrate, and celebrate Improvement

The world is moving forward toward a better tomorrow.  It seems our distractions are causing the US to be left behind.

We can move forward and contribute toward creating a better tomorrow.  The first necessary step is to look past what is wrong and imagine what could be, that idealized outcome.  We then must roll up our sleeves and work hard toward creating it.  As I have documented, moving forward to create more positives, effectively eliminates, makes irrelevant and or effectively prevents problems. In this way, even if problems aren’t a problem, we all get to enjoy the better tomorrow developed.

I look forward to hearing about the progress you make in generating comprehensive improvements by practicing pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic acts by practicing paneugenesis.  This means you are creating all good so everyone and everything benefits!

Be Well’r,
Craig Becker

Be selfish, selfless, & synergistic so everyone and everything benefits!

If you want to contact me:
Email: BeWellr@gmail.com

%d bloggers like this: