What Is The Most Valuable Thing You Have That You Can Give Away For Free?

what-is-a-good-idea.png

A good idea will keep you awake during the morning, but a great idea will keep you awake during the night. – Marilyn vos Savant

Being able to have and hold ideas is what makes us human. It’s an ability that can trap us in prisons of thought and belief and it’s an ability that can free us to create extraordinary things. But what is a good idea and how can you recognize it?

I think we have to approach this question indirectly because the word “idea” is used in too many way too easily. Let’s look at the word “theory” instead because that’s a good substitute. In an introduction to a set of papers on theory development titled “Nothing Is Quite So Practical as a Good Theory” Andrew H. Van de Ven (1989) introduces a few papers on the subject.

Cherrypicking from this paper let’s start with insisting that a good idea needs to be practical. It needs to be something that you can do. It also needs to be useful, to you, or to someone else. A good idea needs to be based in reality, grounded in data. A good idea explains something that you didn’t understand until then and a good idea predicts what will happen if you follow it.

Can you think of any ideas that you have that fit this list? You’ll find any number of good ideas in books – many are written entirely around one big idea. Take Felix Dennis’s How To Get Rich, for example. It pretty much comes down to “Get on with it.” In fact, his poem at the start of the book reads “The first step? Just do it, And bluff your way through it” One of my favourite books, Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance says “the most important thing is peace of mind”.

A good idea can keep you going. That one in Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance has served me well for twenty years. Your choice of ideas governs how you live and act and the choices you make. The ideas you hold will make you rich or keep you poor, give you freedom or hold you in bondage. You are entirely in the power of your ideas.

There’s nothing quite as valuable as a good idea but the great thing about a good idea, is that you can give it away and still have it. You don’t lose anything by telling someone else your good idea because when you’re done you both have it. It’s multiplied.

If you’re the kind of person that’s full of ideas, then you have a good chance at having a good one every once in a while. What you have to ask yourself is if you’re willing to be the kind of person that can execute on a good idea.

If you can, you’re set.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Is Setting Goals Good Or Bad?

too-many-goals.png

Thursday, 8.24pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Each of us has about 40 chances to accomplish our goals in life. I learned this first through agriculture, because all farmers can expect to have about 40 growing seasons, giving them just 40 chances to improve on every harvest. – Howard Graham Buffett

Should you set goals or not? If you have a goal do you improve your chances of achieving it? Or do they just get abandoned, like many New Year’s resolutions?

My YouTube spinner put some videos on copywriting in front of me, including some by Michael Masterson. I had a look at one of his books and saw him reference Dale Carnegie, who said that most people struggle because they haven’t set goals but others struggle because they have too many goals.

This struck a chord with me because I have found goal setting a pointless pastime personally and professionally. Personally, goals are often mechanical, like saving a certain percentage of your income, or almost impossible to sustain, like giving up sugar.

Professionally, most people set goals they can easily achieve because if their salaries are tied to achieving goals it makes sense to make them as simple as possible.

On the other hand, some bosses seem to think that you can set unattainable goals to motivate people but what’s more likely is that when people realize that they can’t reach those goals. they either stop or go somewhere else.

Some goals are the wrong ones for you – like setting a goal to make money when what you need to figure out is what you’re going to do that will create value for someone else and therefore make money.

But you can also have too many goals – where you’re trying to do everything and that can end up with you doing nothing much. There just isn’t enough time to go around and do a little bit of everything hoping to achieve something big.

If you want to actually make something happen having eggs in lots of baskets is a losing strategy. What you want to do is put all those eggs in one basket and watch that basket really closely.

Then again, the word “goal” is a useful bit of shorthand – something that forces you to describe what you’re trying to do.

Once you’ve done that then you can look at what you do and stop doing all the things that don’t contribute towards achieving your goal.

Maybe the real value of working towards a goal has nothing to do with the goal itself. It’s your new-found ability to say “No!” to anything that does not move you towards it.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Why Does The Small Stuff Take So Much Time?

your-work.png

Wednesday, 5.58pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work, driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to a job that you need so you can pay for the clothes, car and the house that you leave empty all day in order to afford to live in it. – Ellen Goodman

I don’t think the quote above is as relevant these days – but it might be again. It all depends on how people around the world in positions of power decide how others should live their lives. And somehow, we don’t seem to make particularly good choices when it comes to the lives of others.

I have a notebook upstairs, somewhere. It’s a hardback notebook with a blue marbled cover and I made notes in it when I was being taught electronics repair by a laboratory technician a long time ago. We treated broken devices like patients and looked for symptoms so we could diagnose a fault and figure out how to fix it. I used to read sites like Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ that told you how to fix all kinds of devices.

On one of our repair sessions we took apart a couple of VCRs and my teacher told me about how you an older model was often better than a newer model. On the old ones, it turns out, engineers often used higher quality components. Porcelain wheels rather than ceramic, for instance. Or they would have more heads to read the tape. They were trying to get the thing to work and work well so they put more into it.

Once it was working, however, the next task was to take things away, to make it lighter and cheaper, so that it was more affordable while keeping the quality at a level that was appropriate.

You could look at this as a bad thing – a designer’s effort was going into making something worse rather than better. But you could also look at this as a process of becoming more efficient, using less material to deliver the same outcome.

I was thinking about this in the context of service work today where a lot of the time a customer doesn’t get a physical product. For example, if you delivered a consulting service and had to print out a copy of your report, get it bound and hand-deliver it to every person in a company you’d think very differently about it than if you were asked to email it to a list. A real, physical thing makes you think, makes you wonder if you can do something more efficiently. You’ll print your report double sided, and give it only to those people who really need it, for a start.

I wonder if we don’t think about efficiency in the context of digital services because it’s hard to see things building up. We don’t mind people working long hours, spending lots of time in meetings, writing briefs that don’t answer the questions people actually have. Or actually, we do, but we don’t put the time in to design a better way of working by being clearer about what needs to be done and what doesn’t.

The thing for most people is that the job they do to earn a living takes up much of their waking days – but should it? The core of anything is what they deliver to a customer, what the customer gets from you. You have to know how to do that. And you probably have a reason why you do it. Whether you’re a computer programmer or a bus driver, the job is something that’s wrapped up in layers that look like the image above.

But then there’s what you would do with your time if you had the choice – what you would do even if you weren’t paid for it. This the utopian situation that Keynes suggested was a possibility, that you could work for 15 hours a week or less and still be as productive as you needed to be, leaving the rest of your week to do what interested you.

This utopia hasn’t come to pass because we don’t value our time in the same way we value materials. We will do everything we can to reduce the cost of materials but we don’t have the same pressure to reduce the burden of time. After all, if you pay someone a salary then you’d rather get as many working hours out of them as possible. If you pay them per hour then they have the same incentive, to stretch out billable time as much as possible.

I don’t know what the answer to this is but it seems a shame that we are willing to put the effort in to make a device as efficient as it can be but we don’t do that for humans.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

It’s Hard To Know What To Do Until You’ve Done It

terms-of-reference.png

Tuesday, 7.08pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Major organizational changes create uncertainty. But the point is to move quickly – faster than you are comfortable – because in hindsight, you will always wish you had made changes even sooner. – Irene Rosenfeld

I’ve been reading the Economist for a change, because it’s a little more effort to get the Financial Times. I had forgotten how well written articles are in that publication and I want to reflect on one particular piece on enquiries.

Things go wrong. Little things and big things, and when they do one of the options a government has is to run a public enquiry. This study has to serve several purposes, say what when wrong, who made a mistake, help the victims and try and change things. It’s not an easy thing to do and the people who run them have to know what they’re doing.

But who do you get? It’s often judges that are used who are great at fact finding but not so good at telling you what to do next. In fact not many people could probably tell you what to do next, but they could tell you what to do to avoid what happened. Which won’t happen the same way again for a while.

What’s interesting is that the starting point, according to the Economist, is usually a discussion over the terms of reference – what are we going to look at and what are we going to do?

I’m not a particularly prescriptive person because I don’t know what’s going to happen. But once you’ve tried something out then prescriptions start to get important. If you know that you need to do something in a certain way then you need to make that clear – somehow – in policy, in writing, you’ve got to get across what you want.

The thing is that even if you do that you won’t know if it’s going to work. People can read what you say and then go off and do their own thing. Looking at problems and then suggesting changes is one thing, but you don’t know if it’s helped until it gets tested in real life.

A better approach, according to Economist, might be to run drills, stress tests – something like a mock cyber attack so you can see if your defences work. That’s how the Scouts introduce young people to fire safety – by writing a plan and doing a drill.

Maybe that’s what we need a lot more in different areas of business.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

How To Be A Better Greater Fool

greater-fool.png

Sunday, 8.01pm

Sheffield, U.K.

The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark. – Michelangelo

I’m into Aaron Sorkin’s “The Newsroom” at the moment and in season 1, episode 10 one of the characters, Sloan Sabbith, talks about how the Greater Fool is an economic term for a patsy, someone who buys long and sells short, the person left holding the ball, the hot potato, the asset. She says that “This whole country was made by greater fools.”

And that explained something to me, something I have missed for a while. If you want to be rich you have to be willing to be the greater fool. If you want to achieve your dreams you have to be willing to be the greater fool. If you want to do anything all with your life, well… you get the picture.

Why is this – why do you need to understand and figure out what this means for you? It comes down to this – what kind of person are you? Are you the kind of person that tells others what assets to buy and sell? Are you the kind of person that buys and sells assets for others? Or are you the kind of person that buys and sells assets for others?

Whatever business we’re in we probably can see ourselves in one of these roles. We provide advice, we help with transactions or we build assets. For example, in the business of education you’re in the advice business if you’re a lecturer, you’re in the transaction business if you’re in management and you’re doing research and publishing you’re in the assets business. Sort of.

It’s probably not a clean model but with advice you have knowledge without responsibility or reward. With transactions you have a slice of the pie that may make you rich but you’re always conscious that you make a tiny percentage of the real money. But with the assets business you’ve got a chance of building real value.

That value is not just in money – it’s your ability to control resources that include time. If you know what you’re doing and are recognised as an expert then people value your time. This might be one reason why people go long on a field, spend many years learning and mastering a particular kind of work. This is a long-term investment in their own learning and development, one that they believe that they can sell short.

You know the story of the factory owner who had a problem that no one could figure out. Finally, they called an expert who walked around and then marked an X and asked them to replace that part. The expert sent in a huge bill for $10,000 and the owner exploded – asking how the expert could justify the bill for a walk and a chalk mark. The expert itemised the bill as, “$1: walking around and making an X, $9,999: knowing where to make the X.”

The greater fool is often used as a derisory term – I’ve used it when talking about cryptocurrencies. But what the Newsroom script told me is that we all have to be greater fools if we want to make something of ourselves. It doesn’t matter what you want to do – whether it’s to start a business, learn a trade, develop a skill, start a practice. You’re going to invest many hours, perhaps much money, to make a long-term investment in what you believe in.

And when you do that, in your own way, you’re a part of building the future.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Radical Change And Money And Winning – Some Complications

radical-change.png

Saturday, 9.32pm

Sheffield, U.K.

All we have to do is search this island until we find a book with a title like Practical Boat-Building for Beginners – From Terry Pratchett’s “The Last Continent”

Do you think I should be pleased with a 20x increase on my cryptocurrency assets? They’re still tiny, by the way. I’m not sure. I didn’t really do anything. At the start of 2021 I updated my position on trading crypto and came to the conclusion that I would have lost money over the period if I had tried to be clever and do any actual trading.

What I did do was buy a bit back in 2018, sell almost straight away, then buy in again in 2019, mainly because I didn’t know how to withdraw the money and then I did nothing. Then, as you probably are aware, crypto became news again in May 2021. Prices soared and then started coming down. I would have probably done nothing if not reminded by my other half that it’s going down, why not sell. That seemed obvious once it was pointed out so I did and now the market is continuing to do its thing. You can see this history in the chart below.

2021-05-22-crypto-update.png

I didn’t really want to talk about trading but it’s relevant in a way to what I do want to explore. In my last post I talked about radical change and trying to understand it better. So I started watching videos from the momentum community. What I’ve learned so far is that there are lots of change models and one way to look at them is using the categories that are in the image that starts this post. So, how can things change?

One kind of change is around individuals and groups. You can change your own mind, work with those around you to change theirs. If you want to catalyse change on issues that matter to you, from the environment to equality, you can take the first step and start doing things differently.

Another kind of change is by creating or choosing alternatives. There are options and you can make a strong statement by the choices you make for how to spend your money or time.

And yet another kind of change is by changing dominant institutions, doing things that will replace them, get them to change how they do things and better represent and protect the people that live under their influence.

It’s not hard to think of how we can all make a difference, however small, in all of these ways. Eating less meat, using less packaging, going for environmentally friendly alternatives, recycling, being kind – they’re all changes that help. Using free software, where the free is free as in freedom not as in free beer.

It’s hard to be ignorant these days and it’s also very easy to be ignorant. You can wall yourself inside your personal echo chamber or you can look around and see what’s going on and do a little thinking, maybe a little reading.

Take blockchains and cryptocurrencies, for example. Their selling point is that they’re decentralised, not controlled and so give people back their freedom. I’m a fairly technical sort of person and I had to use an exchange to get involved in this game – an exchange that recently listed for over $70 billion. I’m trading an asset class that’s so volatile that it’s created its own speculative ecosystem. Today is Bitcoin Pizza day where pizzas were bought with bitcoin that now has a market value of somewhere in the region of half a trillion dollars. If you believe that you can get hold of something that will appreciate in that sort of way then why would you ever give it away? I suppose it depends if you’re the owner of the mine or someone looking to buy a pizza.

The point I’m trying to make is that it’s hard to see how this decentralized utopia is being realised. Maybe it will, one day, when you can give all those unbanked people the ability to do transactions without banks. Create an alternative. Or you could create micro loans, like Muhammad Yunus. Depressingly, if you read the Wikipedia entry, this is not without issues either.

Here’s the thing. Institutions work. But people don’t always know why they work – and that’s the problem. The Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto wrote a book that I have lying around somewhere that explained this pretty well. Older democracies have institutions that have evolved over time, and work because they’ve found a way to work that works. For example there is usually a separation between politicians, judges and generals in countries that work. In countries that don’t – well, just think of whether these institutions are truly separate or not. Who controls the legislature, do judges act independently and who will the army back – the country or the person they want?

Change is complicated but it’s needed in the world. You can change yourself. You can make better choices. And you can put pressure on organisations to be better.

If you want to, that is.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Why Advising Others Is Not A Great Business To Be In

critical-systems-thinking.png

Friday, 8.25pm

Sheffield, U.K.

An expert is somebody who is more than 50 miles from home, has no responsibility for implementing the advice he gives, and shows slides. – Edwin Meese

One of the most useful books I have read on systems thinking is Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers by Mike Jackson, which introduced me to the system of systems model, something that I talk about in the introduction to this blog. It’s from this book that I created the image below.

ssm.png

Now, what’s interesting about this model is the x-axis, the people part. The place where a lot of good real-world happens is in the central column, where you have people who want to try and make things happen and who are willing to work together, even if they don’t always agree. In such situations you have to understand their purpose and once you know what that is you can figure out what needs to be done and how to do it.

This is a good place – it’s the place where business happens. But it’s also a safe space, where you don’t rock the boat and you accept the prevailing ideology because you’re getting paid. For example, if you get hired by a corporation to advise them on something you don’t then go about criticising their practices. If anything you go easy on them. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you and all that.

But there are places where you start to see something more like the right hand column, where people don’t just get along. Russell Ackoff sort of talked about this as a situation where the system does not serve the people in it and where they want to point that out. People who are disadvantaged and want a voice.

Mike’s 2001 paper on “Critical systems thinking and practice” talks about these areas – the complex problems in societies where you have people who are disadvantaged in situations that involve conflict. Solutions that involve “hard” approaches, logic and analysis, or “soft” approaches that don’t question the status quo – find it difficult to deal with “coercive” contexts, one’s where there is an unequal power distribution and the person with the power uses that to “solve” the problem. This raises questions of how to intervene in such situations and how to free the downtrodden – how to emancipate them? Or free oneself.

This kind of change is radical change and you can’t do radical when you’re afraid of losing what you have. People are scared of losing what they have – and that’s why our natural state of being is conservative. We’re biologically wired to “bury the hatchet in the head of a common enemy” – from what I remember of Wole Soyinka. Being liberal is hard – it takes a certain kind of person to be open to others and care about more than their immediate family. And liberals lose when people are afraid – and we’re seeing that all over the world in country after country.

So what’s the solution. Jackson argues that it comes down to helping people help themselves. I remember listening to a TED talk where one of the speakers talked about how their skills in leading workshops went back to training their received during the civil rights movement. These days I suppose that kind of thing is what you find in things like the momentum movement. The kind of things that have actually started to make things like environmentalism and social equality matter in the world today.

I might look at these a little more in the next few posts.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

What Is A Safe Space And How Do You Create It?

safe-spaces.png

Thursday, 6.44pm

Sheffield, U.K.

The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences. – Ruth Benedict

I’ve been thinking about differences for some time now. It’s probably because of the media. The choices I’m making about what to watch are conditioned by what appears and there is clearly a shift in content that’s on offer. Take “The Good Doctor” which addresses themes of neurodiversity and colour really quite well.

When you start being aware of differences you also think about how you can create a situation where they don’t matter or don’t make a difference. The characteristics people have, whether protected or not, may impact their observable behaviour and interactions with each other. From a systems point of view these interactions overlaid with activities create the day-to-day experience we have. If that experience isn’t working how do we approach the problem – what can we do to have an informed discussion about what’s going on and what can be done?

I think this is a problematic area and a solution within a group seems unlikely – and this also dents one of the tenets of the research area I’m interested in. Action Research is a way of carrying out research where you engage with a group and try to create change as a process. But what if it’s not possible to create change in certain situations by entering the group – what if the only way to do it is to work away from the group itself. How would that work?

The obvious starting point is to look at what some papers say. “Fragile subjectivities: constructing queer safespaces” by Gilly Hartal (2017) talks about how frame theory might help by showing what is important in a particular context. The paper argues that five frames can help to understand what “safe” looks like, and these are captured in the picture that starts this post. First, the space needs to be separate, fortified. Then, within the space people must be able to speak and know that they will remain anonymous. Next, it needs to be inclusive but also needs to be able to separate people with very different identities. And finally it needs to be protected from unpredictable happenings.

Now, in any group that’s trying to fix itself you have the problems of anonymity and identity and the challenges of saying what you really think and feel. If the problem is really the situation then you can get on and talk about what’s going on. But if the problem is the people then how can you ever get started?

If we look for models of dealing with people problems we come across an old one – the confessional – and a newish one – therapy. The confessional is fortified, a box, it’s anonymous – you’re hidden and whatever you say is secret and will never be revealed. The therapist’s practice tries to recreate that experience. In both situations you probably have everything you need to construct the safe space model in Hartal’s paper.

The approach to these sorts of questions in the Systems Thinking space appear to be related to critical systems thinking although I’m not entirely sure if what I think of as the approach that is needed and the approach that is actually described in the literature are the same. In fact I’m pretty certain they’re not.

So I better get on and study that a bit more.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

What Will It Take To Make You Feel Safe At Work?

organisational-levels.png

Wednesday, 7.16pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe. – Frederick Douglass

I’m reading Brian Wilson’s Systems: Concepts, methodologies and applications as I reflect on my own practice and puzzling over something. If you’re trying to make a situation better and you understand that you can’t do it by just working on one element in that situation then you’re well on your way to thinking systemically, about the whole that’s in front of you. Just like you can’t become the best runner you can be by exercising just your left leg so that you can accelerate from a standing start as fast as possible. You also need to do the rest of the work, build up other muscles and your heart.

Anything we do consists of a set of activities. In organisations, we do these activities in concert with others. At the highest level, then, you can map out the activities and how they relate to each other. Think of this like the interactions between marketing, purchasing and engineering, for example, among others. Activities tell you what should be happening but of course they don’t happen by themselves. There are also people involved and there is a network of relationships between them that lies below the activities that you have identified. It’s the connections and interplay between the people in the organisation that makes it all work.

When you want to improve the situation you start by looking at the activities and seeing if you can do them more effectively. To do them more effectively you then focus on the people and how they work together. The thing is that even if you try and restructure the work or add or remove reporting or change or add people it’s possible that things don’t get better. And I wondered why this might be – why is it that if we are more efficient in what we do and who does what things can still just not work.

This reminded me of the basement model of your body and how you might not be aware of what’s going on under the surface of your conscious self. In the same way we don’t always see what’s happening below the obvious and visible aspects of our organisations. If you look below the activities and the network you might see people and how they feel – and I saw this as in the picture above. Maybe some people are fine – they’re on the boat doing a job they can do well or they’re in charge steering things. Others have fallen overboard, struggling with what they have on, beset with problems. Others have been overwhelmed, sinking below the surface, with nothing left to give.

The challenge for leaders in organisations is having conversations at the deeper levels of the model. You can talk about activities and you can talk about roles and interactions. The last level, however, is hidden and hard to access, not least because people are worried about the impact it will have on their jobs and how they are perceived. It’s difficult to create a truly safe space to have these kinds of difficult conversations. But if you don’t then everything you talk about is at a superficial level, treating the symptoms and not the underlying cause.

I have no answers to this problem. Maybe Wilson’s book will address it later in the text but for now, it’s an open question. How do you create a safe space for others and yourself?

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

A First Pass At Understanding Viable Systems

viable-systems-model.png

Tuesday, 6.38pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Many leaders are tempted to lead like a chess master, striving to control every move, when they should be leading like gardeners, creating and maintaining a viable ecosystem in which the organization operates. – Stanley A. McChrystal

I’ve been thinking about organisations and how you can work out if something is working or not. I saw a presentation about how informal networks between people play a large role in what happens in organisations, regardless of the formal organisation chart and read an article about the viable system model (VSM) and how it can help you think about training – and this got me interested in looking once again at the VSM and whether it’s useful.

The VSM was developed by Stafford Beer and the images that are used to represent it have always felt alien and ugly to me. There are too many straight lines and icons and connectors. That’s fine if you’re designing an electronic circuit or an architectural floor plan but I found it hard to deal with when working with the fuzzy business of day-to-day work and life.

But if I redraw what the VSM means in the less intimidating picture that starts this post it lets me see what’s going on. We start by looking at where work is done, where value is delivered. You probably create value in more than one place – with different products and services so we next look at how you coordinate what’s going on. Next, you look at how you control and deliver – what’s important and what’s not and what happens first and what happens next. Then you look at information, how do you look outwards and decide what to communicate inwards. And finally you have the policy and vision – what is it that you are trying to do as a whole.

These five elements are called System 1 through 5 respectively. And you can look at them at different levels – they’re recursive so each value delivery unit has these five elements in there as well. It’s easy to recognise this when you think of something like your house. What are the value centers – doing your work, raising the kids, looking after the house? You have to talk to each other and coordinate what you’re doing. You decide what to do based on what’s on your schedules and what you’ve agreed to do. You decide what to do based on the information you have, choosing one class over another for the kids or going for a job that’s closer to home. And you do all this because of how you want to live your life and raise your family.

Now, is knowing this model valuable? Does it help us understand what’s going on any better? On the one hand, it’s simply labelling things you do anyway, things you have to do otherwise nothing would work. On the other hand, having these elements named gives you a checklist – how often do you get into trouble because you haven’t taken the time to coordinate things with your other half and the kids have ended up being forgotten at nursery? Once, in my case, which is not bad going for a decade or so.

I have to say, I’m not sure it’s much more useful than as a checklist. Yes you have to have those five elements, but then again you don’t. Sometimes what you want to do is something you figure out after doing lots of things for a while. Policy might emerge from the work. Coordination is all very well if you have the time. But sometimes you have to make the call and just get it done your way. Even though this model tells you that these things need to happen it can’t tell you how you should do each bit in your particular situation – that’s something that’s up to you.

And the biggest issue of all is that people don’t fall neatly into a model. If coordination is not happening because two people aren’t communicating you can’t fix that by asking them to use a particular form because the underlying problem might be that they were in a relationship and then fell out and now hate each other.

Sometimes I think that the solution to most human problems might come down to the simple approach. Get people to change. If that doesn’t work, change the people.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh