Mr Optimiser vs. Mr Sceptic

Is it always right to be demanding a committed decision in the interest of cost certainty?

A brief introduction to some old friends

This is an extract from the cutting-room floor of the dissertation from my first MSc, which I would have been preparing to present this time last year. You will find the full details of citations within the dissertation, available to download or review on-line from my homepage.

When I wrote these notes in early 2020, I was retracing the earliest academic PM arguments addressing how much to plan vs how much to adapt. The Public Private Partnership model of project delivery I was researching is up-front time and focus intensive. Whilst it is not immune to change, any change is administratively cumbersome because of the interacting contracts and hierarchy of approvals required. Post the Pathfinder or Vanguard projects therefore, optimisation (or at least certainty of cost, time, and scope), is characteristically fitting for PPP. This is very different to some of the research and development type project environments, post WWII, that reflects where much of the “fragmented adhocracy” of project management theory today begins. These particular notes, primarily the contemporary revisits of the work of Klein and Meckling from 1958, plus the original paper itself, offered an interesting comparison of these motivations.

———start———

Extracts of my unsubmitted summary notes as follows:-

In describing project management theory as a set of models and techniques for planning and control, Packendoff (1995) pp319 observes three shortcomings of preceding research and theorising. The notion that a general theory and field exists in its own right; a lack of empirical rigour; and treating projects as tools. He invites future research to consider expectations, actions and learning in project settings. Referencing a diversity of theoretical perspective, with more focus on middle-range rather than extremes in different types of project.

A second key question to answer will be how to determine whether early optimisation is the correct priority. The counter view is one of retained flexibility and agility. This has been a central debate from the earliest days of modern project management thinking from the 1950s. Brady et al (2012) reflected on the importance of pioneering thinking in mainstream project management in the early Cold War years of California’s Research and Development think tank RAND. The work of Klein et al (1958 pp 361) sought to better manage project environments typified with high levels of uncertainty at project start. Brady et al argue that initial flexibility in project management approach from this early time was quickly (by the 1960s) replaced by a focus on control (Brady 2012 pp719). Klein et al caricatured Mr Optimiser and Mr Sceptic and compared the approaches to project planning in R&D situations (where it was argued the greatest levels of uncertainty exist).

Mr Optimiser (UK spelling) makes key decisions early, plans thoroughly, and creates a clear and highly integrated path to conclude. Mr Sceptic (UK spelling) adopts a strategy of deliberate flexibility in the early stages, opting to take advantage of project learning, making later decisions on key elements and narrowing a range of alternatives as information is acquired to ultimately arrive at a single construction method.

Klein argues Mr Optimiser is cost certain at an earlier point, and will happen upon the optimum unique choices on occasion. Mr Sceptic will be making more informed decisions but incur more cost and waste on average, as a result of allowing several options to be explored deeper into a project. Mr Optimiser is however committed to these early decisions. If sub-optimal decisions are made, Mr Optimiser is either incurring additional time and cost to change, or accepts the sub-optimal outcome (Klein 1958, pp 355).

This comparison is still relevant today. Government procurement is permanently under pressure to show value for money. It is therefore counter-intuitive to expect a Mr Sceptic approach to project procurement. The early commitment to a project programme is a standard expectation of tendering response in traditional or privately funded government new build programmes therefore. In challenging 20th thinking on theory of the firm, Nightingale returns to Mr Optimiser and Mr Sceptic. Mr Optimiser representing determinism and reductionism, internally driven causations, rationally driving towards maximum utility (Nightingale 2008 pp539). Mr Sceptic’s view of the firm being driven by managerial decision making and Boardroom mediation of the external requirements of shareholders and stakeholders. (Nightingale 2008 pp544).

Turner et al (2014 pp44) and Brady et al (2012), return to Klein’s Optimiser and Sceptic analogy in considering the knowledge problem. Brady et al conclude “Mr Sceptics programme is designed in part to produce information…to be able to make more informed decisions” (pp 723). Brady et al pp719 refers to Shenhar and Dvir (2007) who point out project management is based on “predictable, relatively simple, and rational models”. Brady argued that “the role of uncertainty, learning and informal processes are underplayed in traditional models of project management, in favour of simplistic, rule-based models” pp720. Brady et al further refer to Lenfle and Loch (2010) who call for a reconsideration of the concepts of Klein and Meckling, arguing that “project management has come to emphasise control over flexibility and novelty, and that this has prevented the project management discipline from occupying a central position in organisations efforts to implement strategic change and innovation” pp728.

The notion of project management being an operational undertaking, and success being defined in the context of time, cost, and quality, is further challenged by Dvir et al 2011 pp21. They offer alternative key factors (pp20) with utilisation of existing knowledge and integrated project teams with fast problem-solving capability and the ability to adapt being two key elements. Muller (2012) highlights Dvir and Lechler who both examine relationships between three planning variables and project success (2004). Planning variables being planning quality, goal changes, and plan-changes. Planning is significantly a positive contributor to customer satisfaction and efficiency; goal changes having the highest negative direct effect on customer satisfaction (pp 10) and the combination of goal and plan changes were a stronger factor than quality of planning…pp29

———end———

Observations

Mr Optimiser vs Mr Sceptical had military research and development ideals in mind. 1958 had the cold war as its backdrop. The Sputnik shock was in 1957. The Polaris programme and PERT, military research and RAND and universities, ties to contractor becoming more project orientated. The history of PM sits deeply embedded here. What this paper specifically reflects is an innovation centric project motivation vs optimisation of cost. These two character analogies present a useful modern day sentiment when considering if cost or novelty is most desired.

These are perspectives I will be returning to as I introduce other contemporary subjects of the present day. This underlying need to clarify primary motivation, seemingly pertinent in any contemporary setting.

Essays and detailed notes these blogs are building toward include:

My views of the 2020 HM Government Construction Playbook. (status: available on request and forming a blog subject soon)
High Reliability Organisations (HROs) as a guide to contingent planning and training. (status: an essay plan from MSc exam preparations is being reviewed to share as a blog).
Accountability vs Responsibility – the confused position and a fix. (status: first draft completed but still under review).

About Me

In psychology we are required to look beneath the mask. This blog series is attempting to unmask some hidden parts of projects to engender a more collaborative way.

Find my professional mask here:

dissertation, Klein, meckling, Mr Sceptic, Mr Skeptic, MSc, optimise, PM, Project

The enquiring mind

Yesterday, I reflected upon a leader, Lieutenant Colonel Oakland McCulloch (US Army, retired). A man who applies much to what it means to be. How to actively apply one’s learning, and be dutiful to the shared influence and better outcomes that result. It required me to rethink a post from the day before. In the end I saw both perspectives, and found them each to be reflecting upon the same needs in delivering change.

To adequately address my own narrowed perspective I used a practice from another mode of my learning to help me reconcile and reframe my understanding. I found a middle way.

Consider these five factors, as attitudes or modes of any enquiry.

1. Vigilance – awareness, exploration, new insight. Not better understanding of what you know, but new understanding of what you do not. Changed perspective, wider perspectives, and in their differences comes understanding that is new.

2. Sensitivity – to what is being witnessed a dynamic perspective of actions or changing state, not a static unmoving object to covet or reject.

3. Acuity – meaning to separate, differentiate, and observe the moving parts, the layers, the processes of change they represent.

4. Noticing – your own physical reaction, emotion, desire or need. Perhaps also that of the other(s) you are modelling in your mind.

5. Reminding – staying present to the enquiry, remaining vigilant. With a humility that expects to find new meaning from what may otherwise be thought of as known. Acknowledging but not becoming engaged with the distractions – re minding back to the present enquiry.

This is the best way to outline the phenomena of the active engagement of an open mind,. Not that I am finished looking. These are learnings from contemplation, when looking outward. These are learnings from meditation when looking inward. They are skills to learn and to develop. They need not be linked to religious belief from East or West, but they have long traditions in both and can be embraced within whatever suits best.

I now do this everyday. From an increasingly diverse range of accounts of how to apply this meditative practice. And like everything I learn I attempt to apply it. In my daily life, my research, and my work. I am enquiring as to its merit at scale. It is why I have presented it as a means to make enquiry here. I think it becomes a tonic to modal confusion. A means to tease out deeper rooted problems. By applying vigilance to what is assumed to be known, to prospect and see anew.

Cognitive science and psychology both sit happily here. Scientists like John Vervaeke produce contemporary, helpful insights that connect mindfulness to the study of the mind. The above perspective was first glimpsed from one of his Dharma days. Where he was introducing Metta, or the outward looking contemplative practice – but as had already been informing the Vipassana, or inward looking meditative focus, it sits alongside. There is so much of his material and influence to share, but I’m reading his many references to wider work before I do. Importantly, he says, is to understand what this mindfulness is not. It is not a practice of finding contentment. This is not escape. This is embracing change. Cognitive Science is indicating it is this observational modality that offers the benefits with mindfulness.

This is being mode. This is addressing modal confusion. This is the interconnectivity of layers of time bound intended change. Projects | within projects. From mind to management. Starting with yourself.

Leading is control

Being a leader, not having the badge

Who else needs to know?

Leadership is made, not purchased, not born. Yesterday I posted a challenge as to why we only look at the leader and not the controls. Today, I wear the other shoe, and seek to show them as a pair. I happened upon a book someone else was reading last weekend. I made a comment on LinkedIn, and I was soon in discussion directly with its author. Surprised as I was with the one to one access, it is completely in keeping with the man. Communication is all, he says. Oak McCulloch, a military leader, living up to both title and first name.

His book “Your Leadership Legacy : becoming the leader you were meant to be”, was, courtesy of very polite prompt, ordered on the Tuesday – Oak’s influence and follow up both said and seen here too. The book arrived on the Thursday afternoon. It was read in a few hours there and then. Another brief discussion accommodated as I concluded this learning project. His words and influence are now sitting between my last blog and this.

Understanding the concepts of what it takes to be a leader is not that difficult. Actually doing the things required of leaders, day in and day out, is another story. Thus, the dichotomy … It’s Not About You; It’s All About You
Oakland McCulloch, in summarising the key sentiment of his book

Leadership or controls?

His view is that leadership is all. I have just blogged that we need to take a closer look at the controls, and not just the leadership. Yet, I think we both agree.

Outcomes are steered home or put to the rocks by the clarity of vision, purpose, and execution. The first thing this leader did in each assignment he was set, was check what this vision was intending to be. Next was to check that the control framework was fit for the changes required. The control framework that enables the visibility, the behaviours, and the trust to be aligned. All this within the wider framework of the wider control environment within which he served.

Without a leadership interest in the controls, I conclude we are being presented with neither.

Objectives and Guideposts – building trust

There is reference to Oak’s constant journaling of what leadership is. Journaling that he began from his first cadet days. I really like that. It immediately adds an authenticity to the read. There are quotes from other leaders throughout this book, as a positive reinforcement. They fit perfectly to the first-hand experience and anecdotes. Each seems to have been a message lived by, not retrospectively sought. The book therefore reads as by someone who has lived a life in leadership, reflecting upon its duty, but also diligently seeking more knowledge from others. The mentors. The experiences. The sage words written and passed on. But also recording the pithy sentiments, learned meaning that transformed something more within. Kept accessible to reflect upon and re-apply. That is the dedication to becoming the bastion of the role, not just the title it bestows.

This is the essence of the being mode. Aiming to be more, and not just owning knowledge but seeking it out to apply it. The being leader, leading by example.

v | b | t

He further enshrines the necessity of teaching and being taught. The terms used here I equate to the visibility | behaviour | trust categories I am advocating elsewhere. To delegate by increments of trust, that are backed up by the clarity of what is expected and enabling the recipient to feel empowered to do so with their own flare. Compare that to how we in construction delegate in contract. Low trust, defensive scopes of service intended to have ambiguity to wiggle around our own lack of clarity of prioritised goal, and a tendency to over burden method and dictate behaviours via reporting but ignore the necessary checking and presence to help or intervene. What lessons does each attitude reflect and teach here?

The relevance to projects, and of psychology

I am reminded of the work of Jungian psychologists like Robert Moore or Jean Bolen, in explaining the necessary maturity required to be the balanced leader. Frameworks of personal development can be built from these theories. In Jungian Archetype language leadership is the King or Queen archetype. Moore argues this inner part is in everyone, but that it is the last to develop fully, and only if other key parts have matured first. Only then can the tyrannical petulance and demands of the spoilt child be avoided, or the weakling child be countered along with its passive aggressive apathy.

Moore suggests many never advance beyond this stage because to advance means to find balance to many conflicting but necessary needs. Our instincts and need to train, the warrior preparedness for fight or flight. Our caring and nurturing side, as reflecting our ability to love. Our need to develop ideas and tools to explain and do more, and be less beholden to chance, as our means to teach, mentor, study, discover, and learn anew.

It is this hard-won inner balance within each of these archetypes; the balance between each of their competing desires; that we then take all our delicately balanced parts into the outer world. It is here we attempt to keep our own balance, and account for the imbalance of others toward shared objectives, shared obstacles, as intended changes to what is otherwise just chance. These are all projects | within projects. But they all start with you.

Father figures

I will admit a bias in my enjoyment of this book. One known to any who know me at all. My father was a military leader. The Royal Navy has a history of its own heroes to boast, as do I. He had to learn all these lessons of leadership from a standing start. Both through experience and later found academics. From his first CSEs at 30 years old, to an MA in Military Strategy in his mid-forties. Working his way up from the most junior rating at 16, to then retire a Commander. A rare story indeed.

There is much in this book I no doubt reflect upon as strengths acknowledged in my own first leader. A tall shadow from which to emerge without some reflective doubt. It is only later in life that I was able to acknowledge my unfinished business with developing my inner King.

From mind to management

With that in mind I will conclude with a final psychological observation. It is with an open mind we should look to understand what leadership is intending each of us to be. Personality and trait theory would argue there is no single flavour of a better way to be. It is therefore our first duty to know ourselves. Our weakness’, our strengths, and our blind spots to both. As with all learning it is then the application that counts. Reading of how others did something well is not a text book to learn by heart. It is a glimpse at what it meant to them, to be. Blindly following another’s formulae is, by its very nature, not to understand what it is to lead. To be, is to apply ourselves to better ends.

Be your own mind

I recommend this read. It is a perspective worth seeing. Reflecting upon behaviours worth applying. Presented from an authority and institution of some trust. It has the clarity of word Oak tells us Napoleon always sought. At around 50,000 words it is a decent single sitting meal. One of those I think Francis Bacon would have offered to be slowly chewed and digested.

“Your Leadership Legacy : becoming the leader you were meant to be” by Oakland McCulloch.

About Me

In psychology we are required to look beneath the mask. This blog series is attempting to unmask some hidden parts of projects to engender a more collaborative way.

Find my professional mask here:

book review, control, jung, leadership, psychology, trust

Reshuffling our thinking

Ignore the cards, let’s revisit the games we play

Reshuffling the deck

How influential should a leader wish to be? And how influential should we want them to be? In positions of administration and mandated service, how much latitude should they even expect to have?

For those of us reliant upon the BBC for our daily news feed, we are being treated to a moment to consider this again. Boris Johnson moving a few chairs around at the top table of government. The media offering us plenty of opinion on character, and on motivations. A little less light on intended change to direction of travel, and how this impacts the affairs of state.

Link here to the BBC report I read as I write this. Opening line reads

“this is a mad way to run the country”
quotes Laura Kuenssberg of an unnamed member of government.

I am unclear whether this is directed at this reshuffle, this government, or our political system per se. Hats to fit all heads, I think.

We all deal these cards

Not that these hats are worn any differently beyond our political leaders. This reflects the reality of daily life for us all. There is truth revealed here as to each of us in our basic having mode of possession, not the being mode of active participation. Being present in authority would be to have only the service of those you lead in mind – rather than to covet the trappings of power as to reflect a more personal criteria of having gained a symbol of success.

No one suit makes a deck

My despair at the political class has no ideology attached. I’ll happily call foul on either side when the rhetoric is louder than the dialogue. I have been unconvinced of the absolute truth of the individual vs the collective, or the size and role of state, or if meritocracy, utilitarianism, capitalism, or socialism divides our ownerships best. All reflect boundaries, winners and losers, belief not fact, incomplete judgement, false promises, and a necessary subterfuge of one flavour of human project of ownership against another. I turned to philosophy only to find it presenting bigger words for the same opinions. My despair is at the predictability of it all. The lessons we simply have no way to learn. That the politics of nation simply reflect the culture of the people, or that the people have simply become immune to the politics that have long since forgotten who they are meant to serve.

But we should be slower to tut and roll our eyes. Or nail our colours to a mast. I see nothing here beyond what we each do; in every decision we make. This is self-interest doing what it does best, taking care of the first conscious being that counts.

We are all Jokers and Knaves

Laura Kuennssberg may delight in that opening quote from the nameless source. Personally, I think it could be reframed to any company, any family, any industry, political movement, sports team, charity, or international agency you would wish to frame. We serve ourselves. Then we see what we can do for the rest. It is no way to run anything, but it is a way to personally survive.

Aces high and low

Here is the project connection. We make much of the necessary leadership to ensure a project is organised into the right framework of delivery. Why is it only ever the leadership that is our focus, and not the infrastructure of the project as a whole? What is it about our projects that demands so much of the leader and so little of ourselves? Or more correctly, why is it that I hear so often of the disconnect between the two? Secretly, we all know why. But no one dares say it out loud. We all know how low we can go. That we are fallible. That we are capable of great harm in our selfish moments of greatest charm. Being seen to do the right thing. Being focused upon the very exacting standards of behaviour society demands, or our authority have sought fit to define. We all tick that box when it’s a question of blame.

Avoiding the 52 card pick-up

Let me cut to the solution, rather than add to the rolled eyes. The solution begins at home. Each of us can revert to this notion of being mode, not simply having. We can then look around and ask if others are doing the same. From daily life, this becomes more informed. It provides a little more influence. Generates societal reframing and better questions to ask. It also directs those who ask questions on our behalf. The likes of Laura Kuenssberg to ask the questions of others that she is asking of herself, that we are all asking of ourselves. The better questions become more enlightening because we are more enlightened to our own fallibility. It prompts more fundamental questions. What is motivating this change? Is this action enabling a bigger change to become real or is it enacting something we simply wish to have, or that we wish to keep.

This becomes a way to ask these more fundamental questions at all scales. It is addressing different levels of decision-making against the same basic metrics of motivation. It includes the leaders we have chosen to be our servants. Or selecting from those volunteering themselves to take up such an unenviable role. We get to see if they are simply seeking to have. Or is this selfless service of us all, and the shared intended change toward what we all wish to become. This is a line of questioning that can be put to any scale of authority. But it is necessarily uncomfortable. Which is why it is the line of questioning that must start with your authority over yourself. Are you becoming more, and adding value? Or just seeking to have more, own more, and add value only to yourself?

Cards on the table

I am not offering opinion on the politics. But I will present an observation of the motivations I see. This reshuffle seems clearly motivated by a desire to have something self-serving. A more amenable cabinet. A distraction of attention towards less difficult media questions. But deeper than that is an equally cynical having mode to flag. That could be said of any reshuffle. What is it about any reshuffle that leaves each head on a block so “nauseous and clammy” as the BBC report here? Why was each and every position under threat, each so unclear of their own safety, to be denied opportunity to be more tomorrow than they were yesterday? Why is this discomfort even news?

The nausea begins with a lack of transparency by the decision-making. The clammy hands coming from the lack of clear method of selection criteria and impetus for each change. The hand holding the axe could have been asked directly, what is intended by the change? What is this intended to facilitate, to become? Asking that why more than once cuts a little closer to deeper truth.

Of those with the clammy hands, looking up fearfully upon the axe, the same can then be asked of them. What intended change did you have in mind that is now denied? What does your fear reveal of underlying having or being modes?

Watch the dealer, be aware the potential slight of hand, based upon the trust

In both cases, is this just raw and naked ambition to progress? Not because of desire or interest in a specific area of government, or leading a cabinet of the best able to perform the roles – but just having a senior role at all or having a cabinet that is less of a threat to the power that is had. Or, in my v | b | t language. Little is visible, behaviour is necessarily self-serving, and trust is a flavouring to be applied sparingly by all.

Anyone know a project like that…? We all do it, or at least see it and do nothing to intervene.

Control the game, not the cards

Accordingly, the critical control framework is where I look to first. To support such a precarious environment, we need a robustness. A 21st Century robustness that befits the holding of such precious a cargo as the affairs of state should demand. Who in government ever knows how central government or local government frameworks of control work before their appointed role? How long does that take to learn each time we have a major change? How overwhelmed must each willing volunteer be when that first red box is opened upon a new desk? How isolated from the daily lives of all those public servants they oversee must that necessarily reflect?

But why is it always such a surprise? Why is this infrastructure of administration not known by people before they know they need to know? Or have any clarity on the control framework that is also suppose to support them to do a most difficult task. What support do they have that offers them a means to make the right decisions, not just the safe ones. As they begin their temporary time at the wheel, how do they know when to stick or twist?

Learning the game, before playing the game

How much has any of this really changed in the modern era of government? Beyond the axes of austerity aimed at Excel spreadsheets in secret darkened rooms. Where is the control framework that these leaders become accountable for whilst in position, but also dependent upon and able to be assessed against as the process of intended changes they and their government are overseeing. The framework to hold the processes, that become action towards the promises made. Their five years of intended change.

Playing the cards you are dealt

There is much to be critical of here. But if we are to move past defensive decision-making behaviours by those at the top, we need to afford them the same protections to do their job, as the protection we demand they give to us. It is not charisma and charm but ability in clearly defined parameters of administration we should want to see. My view therefore is let’s not just replace one career politician with another and hope for a different result. Let’s revisit the framework of the departments each leader temporarily sits and determine if they are protecting the processes they are designed to house. Present a clarity of assurance of decision-making that this framework then supports. Consider the capability of the people against the same framework of control, with a clarity of role and responsibility. Claim back the clarity of accountability of these leadership roles. Hold them responsible to this performance and give them the power to make necessary changes to the frameworks that better make this so. And let’s require all politicians to have demonstrable knowledge of how these processes apply. So that we can be the first to vote in those already trained in the most rudimentary tasks that are the being mode of the titles they all covet and wish to have.

Card games to play at home

These are no different a set of parameters I am presenting in projects of any scale. Understanding the intended change. Operating this change by the best framework it requires. Assessed across visibility | behaviour | trust. Starting with the projects of mind. Equally applicable to projects of state.

I therefore repeat the first challenge. This is firstly to be aimed at ourselves. Psychological safety cuts both ways. As does the assessment of visibility | behaviour | trust we demand. Start with these questions of ourselves, and those we and our press then choose to ask.

About Me

In psychology we are required to look beneath the mask. This blog series is attempting to unmask some hidden parts of projects to engender a more collaborative way.

Find my professional mask here:

being present, having to being, leadership, psychology

Trust in philosophy

What do Stanford say about trust?

These are summary notes and observations from reviewing the philosophical considerations of what trust is, in one of the best free resources of academic thought I have found. In summarising this encyclopaedia entry (link here and below), there is positive confirmation that visibility | behaviour | trust (v | b | t) reflects other conclusions of interactions between these three variables I am attempting to integrate into project assessment. However, it also presents some rather tricky obstacles if trust is to be a meaningful assessment criteria aimed toward measuring likelihood of project success.

This single entry in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (SEP) is around 15,000 words. It comes immediately to the point by presenting trust in terms of risk. Next is an exploration of what conditions are required to enable trust. Comparison is also made to trustworthiness, which is reflected upon as a property, not an attitude as is required to have trust. For a trusted relationship to exist, both parties are required to have the property of trustworthiness.

One ongoing challenge I have set myself is testing through examples that visibility, behaviour and trust are functional parts of a whole. This encyclopaedia entry presents a connection to all three…

“The trustor might try to reduce this risk by monitoring or imposing certain constraints on the behaviour of the trustee; but after a certain threshold perhaps, the more monitoring and constraining they do, the less they trust this person. Trust is relevant “before one can monitor the actions of … others” (Dasgupta 1988: 51) or when out of respect for others one refuses to monitor them. One must be content with them having some discretionary power or freedom, and as a result, with being somewhat vulnerable to them (Baier 1986; Dasgupta 1988).”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/

The highlights and underlining in this quoted extract are my additions. The key observation here being that in my own enquiry to seek evidence of a v | b | t relationship, this acknowledged encyclopaedic resource offers a unifying link more succinctly than I could otherwise have hoped.

This therefore appears a satisfactory venture into the philosophical discussion. However, further observations are reflected upon below. These are useful additional details but each presents new challenges to my ongoing enquiry.

Reliance vs Trust

A further subtlety offered is to distinguish mere reliance, from a breach of trust. The SEP presents this via Annette Baier (1986: 235) “although people who monitor and constrain others’ behaviour may rely on them, they do not trust them if their reliance can only be disappointed rather than betrayed.” This presents a challenge to my own thinking on what behaviour is to trust therefore, and in the context of project relationships requires me to consider again my v | b | t core. My only counter to this observation is the additional factoring of the control framework to necessarily consider reliance or trust by all project parties and whether adequate levels of interaction have been permitted to enable a shared interest in outputs the project itself can rely. This passage revisits the vulnerability of the one party. I pose this as a vulnerability to the project itself. With less trust, there becomes a greater reliance upon this control framework. I flag this here as an open question to resolve. (cf. Goldberg 2020 via SEP).

Developmental trust

“therapeutic trust” (Nickel 2007: 318; Hinchman 2017 via SEP) which is highlighted as a dynamic attitude toward another – with hope of eliciting an improving trustworthy nature in time. In a project setting I would equate this to the many leadership and management challenges of coaching and development of skills, and the delicate balance of offering increasing responsibility and the controlled hope for a responsive (i.e., changing) trustworthy behaviour. (cf McGeer 2008: 241; Horsburgh 1960 and Pettit 1995 via SEP). As with reliance vs trust in a project context, this is a two way interaction with an appropriate control environment providing backup to this trust gap.

Competence plus motivation

“When we trust people, we rely on them not only to be competent to do what we trust them to do, but also to be willing or motivated to do it.” This too draws upon an external evaluation, albeit deficient, with the SEP referencing Jones criticisms of risk-assessment theories making no attempt to distinguish between trust and mere reliance and therefore criticized for this reason (cf. Jones 1999 via SEP). Other accounts of motivation deemed to require distinctions be made of motives being a determinant of whether trustworthiness is availed (cf. Katherine Hawley “motives-based” theories (2014) via SEP). A third category is also presented; “non-motives-based theories”, which are also not risk-assessment theories (Hawley 2014, SEP). Each strive to distinguish between trust and mere reliance, though not by associating a particular kind of motive with trustworthiness.

Acknowledging a potential boundary case

Perhaps the crucial reflections upon this philosophical summary is to acknowledge the difficulty arising if attempting a singular understanding of what trust and trustworthiness are – whether or not this is beyond mere reliance and reliability. The SEP entry presents the complexity of determining if trust is warranted, and whether such determinants are internal to the trustor or able to be externally accounted for.

Significant problems to my enquiry can now be flagged by virtue of this one summary of the philosophical framework of trust. Trust’s value and therefore its measurement is problematic. Accounts disagree on its rational justification (or even if rationality has different qualities in consideration of trust) or the potential for its illusory properties, or their misrepresentation. The SEP entry gives reason to think trust and distrust have great value when deemed very high and become integral to moral and societal norms and social contracts. Trust is also deemed essential in the exchange of knowledge and therefore wider truth. It argues that it is trust that enables human cooperation, and commitments to future return.

Some hard truth

But I have to therefore ponder upon whether trust can become a tangible measure at all. This SEP entry presents a difference between truth and end-directed rationality. Questions are posed on what trust is – is it an emotion, or a belief, or something else building up to a mental attitude? Various theories are offered across each. It poses questions as to how can trust be developed, and from what to what?

Upon my first reading of this account therefore, I conclude any modelling involving trust as a variable is unlikely to reach quantitative precision given the abstract and diverse parameters it could entail. This is useful. It informs and better frames my ongoing research. Flagging an upcoming obstacle of some size. The very real constraints to which this whole enquiry could ultimately be bound.

I trust you agree with my caution…

Stanford EP / trust

About Me

In psychology we are required to look beneath the mask. This blog series is attempting to unmask some hidden parts of projects to engender a more collaborative way.

Find my professional mask here:

philosophy, trust

Project threat

What is the biggest obstacle to your project success?

Researching the theory of Systems Dynamics recently I found a reference to the value of asking why. Five times the same question is asked, and each time a more fundamental truth is revealed. Forrester’s early work of SD did not offer this idea, but it seems to work. I can certainly vouch for the value of the follow up question in a consulting context.

When do you want to retire?

I found myself saying the following in answer to this question on LinkedIn a few days ago:

I spent 25 years planning for retirement. I nearly cashed it all in.
My answer now is never. Rethink your tomorrows if you are wishing them away…
Ask yourself what you want to look back on with pride when you take your last breath. Then get started on that in the here and now.
Author via LinkedIn

Perhaps more easily said when the only obstacles in the way of doing what you want, is not knowing what you want. For others I think the reality of life’s challenges cannot so easily be dismissed. I was however reminded of a few truths I had to face of my own. My own modal confusion. Only really uncovered as I faced up to deeper and deeper questions of why. Of then seeing myself being caught up in an illusion that repaying debt and building a nest egg could be my life purpose. Finding plenty of motivations based upon having, not being. It all meant nothing when my wife’s health became a focus anew. I am more present now. But it took several years to be clearer on a better path. My gravest error was confusing a correlation of circumstances with cause.

Correlation is not causation[1]

This is what I deem the greatest risk to this research project. Me. Or more specially my bias and the danger of conflation. My bias is influenced by my wider reading, my professional experience, and my personal journey. I have become convinced there is link between the layers of perspective afforded by each.

Illusory correlation

Illusory correlation is the psychological term for it. It seems to fit just as well towards projects beyond those of the mind. So is even my remedy simply proof of the illusion too? My visibility | behaviour | trust ( v | b | t ) has informed my own intended change. Visibility of this risk was the first step. Second was to reset behaviours via the control environment to manage it. Thereby increasing trust.

This website a further increase in visibility, another layer of assurance. My behaviour caught by a decision to be taking time, as much as it takes. This is about thoroughness, not speed. Therein the trust via the process.

A better deadline

Finding a passion for learning and research. Being present to this task seems to be my project. It therefore only needs one deadline…

…and no retirement plan.

[1] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-correlation-2794986

Francis Bacon saw through it

With a few days yet before I rely upon my academic betters to once more guide my learning, I find myself seeking passages from older text that I doubt my psychology syllabus will stretch to. Here are a few lines from one of the stalwarts of applied learning, Francis Bacon. Like all sciences before it, psychology as a science spawned from Philosophy, these passages a case in point. In reminding myself how the essay was once the command of all thought, this author was one of the best.

Nature is often hidden; sometimes overcome; seldom extinguished…bend nature, as a wand…let not a man trust his victory over his nature, too far, for nature will lay buried a great time, and yet revive, upon occasion or temptation…
they are happy men, whose nature’s sort with their vocations…
whatsoever a man commandeth upon himself, let him set hours for it, but whatsoever is agreeable to his nature, let him take no care for any set times; for his thoughts will fly to it, of themselves; so as the spaces of other business, or studies, will suffice…
A man’s nature, runs either to herb or weeds; therefore let him seasonably water the one; and destroy the other.
Francis Bacon 1561-1626, extracts from his essay “Of nature of men”

Just as our respect for all nature begins with our understanding of its will, so too must we understand ourselves if we are to harness our best and manage our worst. There is stoic resolve here, but also hedonistic understanding. To know yourself is to perhaps find both stoic indifference but to also have a quiet peace if doing what your nature has you do best, with least effort. On those rarefied occasions we are blessed enough to choose.

These sage words also remind me of Jungian shadow, those repressed parts of our psyche that we dare to override but reappear unannounced all the same. Psychological impact of denial of what we are. That we do well not to repress, but to understand, integrate, and respect. Thereby finding means to improve. And then make good nourishment from those unwanted weeds.

These are the projects within each of us. Of which psychology can aid us better intend change, rather than simply react to it. This too will become a place for my evaluation of what connects all projects. Increased visibility as leading to our understanding, enabling us to better address our behaviours, and therein trust ourselves more. The more of ourselves we can acknowledge the more consistent our truth to ourselves. All of which I contend myself with thinking Francis Bacon knew quite some centuries before…

About Me

In psychology we are required to look beneath the mask. This blog series is attempting to unmask some hidden parts of projects to engender a more collaborative way.

Find my professional mask here:

Francis Bacon, having to being, philosophy, psychology, Truth

We cannot talk about that!

Something from the weekend, Sir?

This is from my weekend LinkedIn observations. The Danish Government showing themselves able to be authoritative and present, by increasing their visibility, behaving in an accountable way, acknowledging low levels of trust and extending the trust they assume.

Full article from Bloomberg {here}. “Doctor Who Espoused Sex Helped Denmark Weather Covid Storm”. My LinkedIn post {here} and comments from some Danish friends confirming the positive impact of the honesty underlying the actions of Soren Brostrom.

In my opinion this is one more example of a project | within a project, this time at National scale. I also observe this as an attempt to create a singular truth of this project despite the information gaps in place. The metrics of visibility | behaviour | trust positing a useful backdrop to frame my rant.

Danish example

How to behave as a decision-maker in highly uncertain situations. Acknowledge the uncertainty, make brave decisions that are transparent in their reasoning, and actively manage the low trust otherwise present. All motivated by a higher underlying trust in the electorate.

Result: a greater confidence that the project is one that is shared

British example

Continued behaviours reflecting power aimed at deflecting blame. Defensive decision-making. Hidden reasoning intent on managing the science not being open to its wider opinions. All based on the same low level of trust by the electorate, but reciprocated as something to be managed not improved.

Result: reinforced distrust, split agendas.

What I am presenting here is the range of intended change these comparisons are offering. This is an ongoing enquiry and test of this idea.

About Me

In psychology we are required to look beneath the mask. This blog series is attempting to unmask some hidden parts of projects to engender a more collaborative way.

Find my professional mask here:

trust, Truth

A seeker of truth

A short story of an early truth bearer, one of my Sunday best. A piece from my journal.

Classical truth

The air is heavy, acrid, and still.  Dust hanging heavy and unmoving, resisting the pull of yet undiscovered gravity, held defiant by the raising heat from classical sunshine in this typical Greek summers’ day.  A little chaff from a nearby cornfield catches in the throat of our first truth seeker.  Both the chaff and this chastened man are dried-up remnants of their best days.

Our vagabond figure, clings to the edges of his robes.  A tunic of questionable colour long faded in summers long past.  Frayed cloth edges grabbing fresh dust as they sway back and forth to the cadence of stoic, hardened bare feet.

This is the outskirts of Athens, in 400BC.  The long, curly, grey-white beard of this anti-sophisticate are well known to us now.  As is the thinning hair atop his head.  But the Zeus like features, seen upon modern day depictions of this man, are perhaps a little generous.  For this face is politely described as characterful; the nose robust; eyes a little big, or perhaps sockets a little small.  Features better suited to a battlefield than a play.

And this face has seen battle.  And fared well.  Bravery.  Courage.  Discipline.  All terms he proved demonstrable in his youth - in later life undefinable against his wit.  His was a reputation long standing for calm in chaos, to which even Spartans had given ground.  A resilience to hardship.  On long marches with empty stomach, seemingly impervious to winter bite, or summer heat.  All it would seem, completely in keeping with these latter-day choices to roam free, without burden of duty or possessions.  This tunic of questionable colour then, hiding enough, but reflecting all.

These are times none of us in this modern era can really know.  They have been romanticised, and sanitised, over some two thousand four hundred years.  A reflection of their significance, and of much of what we take for granted, but at this moment, on this road, still raw and real.  As are many of the stings this man of words has dealt.  Stings to many with long memory, thick veins of vanity, strong influence, and thin skin.  It is a meeting with these 500 or so wounded peers, to whom this dusty road leads.  The likes of Plato and Xephonese capturing all.

Indeed, it will not even be written by this wisest of souls.  For nothing of this man’s great mind was captured directly by his own hand.

This simple life and the wisdom within it, needs a little context.  For these are times when the norms of life, had different meaning to those we would contemplate today.  Society has been crafted, redrafted, redefined, many times, and would be many more.  In Egypt for example, these Athenians and Spartans are little more than a curiosity.  But in all comparison of civilisations of this time, all forms of hierarchy of government stem from authority of the few.  Egyptian theocracy, Athenian democracy and  oligarchy, outside tribalism masquerading as aristocracy, all retain a tyrannical edge.  Settlement by force.  A powerbase and peace kept and broken by spear.

Not that most people in Athens or anywhere else on earth would really have had much to say of comparison between one tyranny or the next.  For most of the world’s people, that had ever been, served no purpose of their own making.  One master may determine the relative misery of those beneath, with much greater variance than the higher authority they depend.  In spending life in service of another, seeing little more than the dirt in front of your face, and on the faces of those closest in kinship.  It matters little who is holding the whip, beyond how keenly they deem it of use.  For in these times, and all that had gone before, the great majority of peoples lived, or suffered, as slaves.  Born into slavery, traded into slavery, or commuted there by their conquerors – the ones with better spears.  If not slaves, then labourers, or craftsmen, or traders, or soldiers, or all.  But all at the mercy of the next spear.

This is perhaps what makes this man on the road the most remarkable of all the truth seekers that will follow.  At least in the west.  This man of wisdom, who asked why and probed for better answers.  Took on all-comers in discourse.  He defiantly sought for better definitions from men of influence, stripping bare self-interest, revealing false piety, knocking at hollow argument and empty head.  This man lived a free life, defiant of all subjugates, and all faith.  At a time that none had seen need to outline life in such terms.

And what truth do we learn from this greatest of all rebels?  First amongst the philosopher class to ask much but to answer question with another question.  We learn that wisdom is found in knowing that you do not know.  And that truth is found from within.  From your reason and your divine spirit.  And as such your truth, is perhaps yours alone.  But that it cannot therefore just be taught or administered.  And always it should be questioned.  For this is the Socratic way.

Warren 24^th January 2021

About Me

In psychology we are required to look beneath the mask. This blog series is attempting to unmask some hidden parts of projects to engender a more collaborative way.

Find my professional mask here:

philosophy, socratise, Truth

Being more integrated

Dish watcher 👀

I’m trying to find everyday examples of applying a mode of being vs having, that can translate into project application. Here’s a comparison of two similar projects of repair and how they differed in control framework and why.

In the last month my boiler and my dishwasher both needed expert repair. Neither were time consuming or expensive. In theory one manner of engaging a service repair could have worked for both. However, here’s how they compare using the criteria of visibility | behaviour | trust.

Boiler

This was a recurrence of a problem. A case of wear or tear of a known weakness in a system, a valve that is prone to perish. My relationship with my heating engineer is long-standing and mutually respectful. He charges at reasonable rates. I do not shop around. He explains the fix, because I want to know. I know enough to give him an idea of what he is likely to need to repair. I can offer no value to the repair, other than give authority to conduct what must be done. He is responsible. I am accountable.

Dishwasher

A leak in an old appliance. An asset being sweated to it’s last. Unexpected failure and cause unknown. With no prior knowledge I was prepared to learn some basic checks for wear, blockages, replacements of rudimentary parts such as rubber seals. All were performed as a make-do and see, and a means to understand a little more. No success. Time for the local repair man who I also know well enough. Available but not for two weeks. I chose to wait for this someone because of past experience and trust.

Comparison

The boiler system repair was to be instructive. Dishwasher was enquiring. I offered little ability toward either expert. But there was benefit in being more attentive to the situation least well understood.

I remained close at hand as the dishwasher was expertly checked over. Nothing obvious was wrong, so further enquiry began. I remained. I offered him some latitude to experiment. He fed back immediately. We shared ideas, his with the expert perspective. Mine only from a basic understanding but a willingness to learn. Note how proximity was key. How this enabled optioneering. Being present offered the expert more latitude and clarity on progress on the go.

A fix was eventually found, authorised immediately, permitted to be performed and to fail. It happened to be a good idea and it fixed the problem. Kudos to him. But the risk of failure was retained by me, as project initiator.

In broad terms here is how each compared.

Boiler repair

Clarity of understanding: medium-high

Chance of failure: medium-low

Visibility: low

Behaviour: distant and instructive

Trust: High

Dishwasher repair

Clarity of understanding : low

Chance of failure: high

Visibility: high

Behaviour: present and enquiring

Trust: High

Judging the control framework to project need

The key project observation to make is the control framework I implemented in each. I was engaged enough to at least be an informed buyer. It enabled me to determine a need to be closer when the uncertainty was higher, but also when the specialism necessary was less. It could have been very easy to use the same distant and authoritative approach to each. I think most people do just that. Simply have a contract of service. Be happy with a result, or debate what level of service was received. But note the success of the second, was modestly influenced by the initiator, and trust retained by acknowledging a risk was not better passed on – despite me being no better able to manage it therein.

How relevant is this as a comparison for commercial projects?

This simple comparison is a foreshadow of additional comparisons I will be introducing in upcoming blogs. I see direct comparison to larger scale commercial projects to explain what distance we can close when being an active participant vs passively having change implemented on our behalf. Using these same metrics of what I, as project initiator, could actively be. What it is to be part of the process vs to have an outcome bestowed.

These are the same metrics I am introducing throughout this series. This reasoning will be used in each case. It may offer some insight into how we can all assess how active and present project actors are. Or the more present they should be required to demonstrably be. Next, I will introduce a concept I think we all misunderstand. The transient nature of responsibility, and static nature of who must be held to account.

I am building a case. I am gathering examples of comparison in more complex situations. I hope you will stick around to see more…

please comment, share, subscribe

About Me

In psychology we are required to look beneath the mask. This blog series is attempting to unmask some hidden parts of projects to engender a more collaborative way.

Find my professional mask here:

behaviour, integrated, personal projects of repair, trust, visibility