How fragile we are...

(Published earlier in Dicht! Magazin, in German language – see link below)

The lyrics of a song by the musician Sting "Fragile" are worth listening to - apart from the music. When I look at the world around me, I often think of this song. And the book "Antifragility" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. In our current uncertain, or rather VUCA, times [1], it is important to think about how we want to organise our lives, our companies, our societies and our coexistence - or not. Because this is currently anything but sustainable. One need only look at the catastrophic problems that currently exist in too many parts of the world. It makes you realise how fragile the balance in our world has become. In my previous articles, I have pointed out some of the causes and effects, such as the experiment in neoliberalism, which in my opinion has failed disastrously. And that we should focus on the future labour force rather than sticking to "tried and tested" ways of working. Another topic was Maslow's pyramid, where the bottom point is different from what you think when you see how we act.

Nature as a whole, on the other hand, is not fragile. Yes, species suffer and die, but others quickly take their place. Taleb's book is a good read here, explaining well that his notion of "antifragility" goes beyond robustness and resilience. Disasters make antifragile systems stronger and better. But also that this requires a whole new way of organising. Our over-optimised companies and oversimplified worldviews - as they are surprisingly still taught in business programmes - are basically the opposite of this. An example of this is our endeavour to create "roadmaps for the future". Dominic Hofstetter says that they lead straight to the graveyard [2] and I tend to agree with him. Question: do you still have annual planning cycles in your company? Not just in financial terms, but also in terms of projects? Isn't that strange in today's world?

In any case, I have learnt in the last year that failure, i.e. knowing what doesn't work, is more important than knowing what works. Failed experiments should be documented and reflected upon. We should stop trying to predict and prevent shocks. We should also stop working on minimising product risk and try to build antifragile systems, as nature does. We should try to minimise system risk. Systems can become stronger if they benefit from failures and/or damage. It is crucial that people and organisations have a vested interest in the outcome. This makes the outcome better and behaviour more responsible and ethical - both very important for our future. The financial world is beginning to realise this... see some recent notes from me on this, like [3].

Let's move on to a recent example of failure: to be honest - and I know it's very rare to make such a statement - but the last Afera annual conference was not the best, to put it nicely. This was not due to the people who worked hard to organise it. It just didn't meet the needs and the desired appeal of the user audience. At the end of the day, I will have to take responsibility for this. And I do. It was my fault, but we have to learn from our mistakes. As all progress starts with being brutally honest, we take on board the (sometimes quite harsh) comments of our participants and build on them. We will revisit the whole thing. And to conclude my thoughts on how we can make our industries more antifragile and better prepared for the future, I must return to the theme of technocratic companies. This means that expertise is highly valued (probably too highly), that it is goal-orientated, that there is a structural hierarchy, that it is pragmatic and that there are data-driven decision-making processes. And, of course, there is meritocratic promotion of employees. Does that sound familiar to you? It may sound good, but...they often lack the "human" factor. They can become disconnected from reality. Both internally and externally. Ultimately, companies are driven by people with their human needs - keyword: SCARF [4]. Those who are good at interpersonal skills may be undervalued in such systems - wrongly! The same applies to the experience factor - the famous "knowing where to start". A VUCA world with an antifragile industry needs a diverse workforce with diverse perspectives and tough internal and external discussions, regardless of hierarchy. And this will only be possible in a psychologically safe and honest environment. This is a prerequisite for "antifragility", which we should shape.

Notes and literature:

[1] VUCA - volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity

[2] https://medium.com/in-search-of-leverage/innovating-in-complexity-part-i-why-most-roadmaps-lead-straight-to-the-graveyard-ced-34b5a23fa

[3] https://www.dhirubhai.net/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7143185157229858817

[4] SCARF - acronym for Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, Fairness - describes basic human needs based on the findings of modern brain research

Published earlier in Dicht! Magazin, in German language: https://www.isgatec.com/pdf/?file=%2Fmedia%2Ftysbsy2q%2Fdicht-4-2023-ia.pdf&page=30

?