Charlie Munger once said of the legal profession that it was very much like a pie-eating contest where the winner gets to eat more pie.
I laughed at that.
Because many other professions are the same. The capable staff gets more work to do; and having proven himself, gets promoted into handling more responsibilities.
But for most part, workaholics love their pie.
And to a large extent, for some, they don’t care about winning or losing at pie-eating. What matters to them is they get to eat pie.
Maybe that appreciation for work is what we need. Not to obsess so much over the winning or losing but instead, focus on the pie. And when the pie is no longer tasty, you quit. Because there wasn’t so much at stake to begin with.
There are lots of excuses to choose from for a business to avoid the sustainability pressures upon them. Especially those who doesn’t want to have anything to do with activities that are not geared towards generating profits. One of them is the lack of standards in terms of what constitutes being sustainable.
And so the wheel turns and regulators churn out a whole bunch of different kinds of standards: CSRD, TCFD, GRI, CDP, SASB, UN SDGs – and all of them are basically reporting standards.
Technically they don’t tell you exactly what being a sustainable business is about; but they do emphasize some aspects and bring to fore different aspects of the business that may not be captured in more traditional business disclosures.
Nevertheless, no one is going to be able to tell you what is the ‘sustainability standard’ threshold that marks your business as being sustainable. There are ways to look good in each of those disclosure standards of course – and businesses sure knows how to cherry-pick the ones. The whole industry could even gear up to pander to that kind of work.
Yet at the heart of building a sustainable business is really considering the relationship of the business with everything else other than profits. And only you as the leader, the business owner, the manager, the employee can make decisions that determine how sustainable the business it. The metrics that you care about will naturally be tailored to your business.
You don’t have to wait for some regulators or the ‘market’ to make up their mind.
I was listening to this episode of John Dickson’s Undeceptions Podcast, in which he and his guests discuss Guilt. With sin being a vital part of the Christian faith, it is unsurprising that a Christian podcast will explore this topic of guilt. What is surprising to me is that the culture of victimhood that we find ourselves in today is so intertwined with the sense of guilt that is ever-present in our lives. I say it as though it’s a statement of truth, but don’t take my word here for it.
Playing the victim has become so much more acceptable, so it has become a way to avoid culpability. If you’re the victim, it’s hard to be in the wrong; in fact, you’ve probably been wronged by some perpetrator – whether it is the system or some rules and process that didn’t have you in mind or just someone else! Moreover, we are now more conscious of the ‘victim-blaming’ behaviours, so it is all the more advantageous to identify oneself with and as the victim.
Yet in trying to stave off our guilt about the conditions of life that we might have to go through, the sense that we did not live the best life we could have, we might also take away our agency. When you cast yourself as the victim, you’re just someone subject to others and everything else.
What if we don’t have to be the victim to be non-guilty?
Since starting my career in the environmental sector more than 10 years ago, I’ve been dealing with waste management issues. Frankly, the circular economy wasn’t spoken of yet. And in any case, a lot of the waste generated cannot be recycled. The fact is that we never even quite gone into the first ‘R’ of the three ‘R’s yet.
Total waste generated and disposed in Singapore (tonnes per annum), Source: NEA Statistics
The thing is, as the country’s population grew and economic activities multiplied, waste growth continued. There was probably a dip in terms of per capita waste generation, but the overall amount of waste we were disposing of grew even if the gross waste generation didn’t quite reach the ‘peak’ we had in 2017.
Our ability to manage this waste is important and it is largely because we’ve been able to get rid of them and maintain the cleanliness of our city, and not burden our businesses with the excessive waste that we have been able to keep up with our economic growth and remained an attractive destination for business, and economic activities. These are, of course, the positive externalities of having a robust waste management programme.
Yet waste is a complicated matter; the fact that waste management produces a positive externality doesn’t necessarily mean that we need to have more of it because that is usually based on the amount of waste that needs to be managed. On the other hand, when you subsidise the management activity, there is a risk that you’re undercharging the people generating the waste, which is the source of the problem in the first place. That brings us beyond the territories of your traditional economic externality analysis.
So, it becomes a political issue. And there’s even a question of willingness to pay, not in the traditional sense that people will not do it anymore. It is about how much you can keep charging the people without losing political support and risking losing votes. This is why public policy surrounding waste is complex, and you can’t leave it to a technocratic government to solve such a problem. You can employ some of the technocratic arguments to help you get some buy-in, but you’d likely need to deploy more tactics than that.
In public finance, there are multiple approaches to determining how to use the public budget. There will always be the standard expenditures that will have to be costed in, the overheads to cover the public service.
Then there are past liabilities that will need to be paid for. But then, each time, the government can make a decision whether those liabilities are still worth their while to continue financing.
After which, we determine the infrastructure and other investments essential for development of the society. When it comes to investing into infrastructure, the government will definitely need to meet needs, but they might have to ask themselves what kind of social benefits are generated in order to work out whether the price tag for fulfilling those needs make sense.
This is the realm of externalities. And the reason we care about that is because the free market would not. If private benefits exceed private costs, then the free market will find its own means of fulfilling those needs. When there are externalities, the government has to step in. From a business point of view, where there are negative externalities, it is a revenue-opportunity for the government. And where there are positive externalities, the ruling political party can get some political mileage out of it.
Such is the interaction across politics and economics that is worth a bit more attention.
We are embarrassed about our mistakes. We need to get over them, and often, we do so by avoiding them. Please don’t talk about it or revisit the experience. That can be psychologically comforting. But are we doing justice to the cost that we bear for the mistakes?
I’ve written quite a fair bit in the past about the social or culture attitude towards mistakes, and I think a lot of the ideas are still worth exploring:
All of this is so that we can build and develop wisdom, where we know how to work within and navigate a dynamic environment. The problem with theoretical approaches and specific methodologies to achieving outcomes is that they assume that there is an ordered, stable environment within which we conduct our activities. Sometimes, that is just not exactly the case.
The only time you have to say something is a feature, not a bug, is when it appears to be a flaw. The notion behind this idea is that there was an intention. That aspect of a software, or product design, or service experience was not supposed to be a flaw but an intentional part of the design. It assumes there was an intention, some objective being served.
The reason people might think it was a bug could be because:
They had different objectives from that of the way the product designer had imagined the objectives of their users to be
They were not the target audience of the product/service
They were forcefully making a product fit their needs
They did not know how to use the product – which could reflect badly on the UI design or the UI of whatever instructions needed
The product had a poor product-market fit
The product designers were giving excuses for themselves
There isn’t supposed to be a debate whether something is a feature or a bug. It should always be resolved by the one who had designed the product/service. If it was a result of something being overlooked, it is a bug, and pointing out that it could be a feature is just an excuse.
You bought an expensive foie gras meal and paid for it but can’t finish it. So who foots the bill?
If you finish it and get sick as a result? Is the doctor’s fee part of your foie gras bill?
If you don’t finish, and it goes into a food waste heap that requires public subsidy to manage and clean up, are the taxpayers footing your bill?
Would knowing all that change your decision to buy that foie gras meal?
What if you knew the future path of your choices? Who would you allow to foot the bill? How far ahead would you care about the consequences of your actions?
This is a story about externalities, cost and consequences. Who should care? Who should we care for? How much should we care? No one teaches us all these? We have to work them out and make decisions.
The faceless corporate had been painted as the enemy of man in popular culture and broader artistic endeavour. The idea is haunting. Some kind of machinery driving its machinations through its cogs and gears to achieve some broad vague goal that sounds appealing in concept but nefarious in practice.
Of course, the reality is that it is not just the corporate that can behave and seem this way. There is the bureacracy that is a manifestation if a “government” or even a non-profit. There is also loose organisations centered on single-dimensional stuff (hobbies, interest groups, certain kind of political activism, etc).
The point is this idea of a “corporate” or some kind of machinery is anti-thetical to being human. Why would that be so? Here’s the tricky part.
We are all complex and multi-dimensional that in creating singular objectives or goals and trying to relentlessly pursue them reduces us to something less than human. And those “big entities” essentially embody this limited dimensionality compared to what life really is. Same goes with money, when we make everything in business about that. We reduce richness with riches. What a shame.
We don’t have to be anti-corporate. But we probably would do better to understand why its reach should not be all-extending.
One of the big struggles of corporate is that when you have clearly defined roles where there are job titles, managers, and the ‘managed’, there is this false sense that you get promoted because you’ve proven yourself. Now, you start being required to work with entirely new skills, and you no longer have to use that much of what you were good at.
The tricky bit often in management is that the corporates are not sufficiently focused on training and bringing you up to the level required because mass training is easier to justify than just training a handful of people. Moreover, in many organisations, being in management has a lot more to do with handling internal politics and jostling for resources than to do with getting the real work done. Politics is of course important because that enables the delivery team to be able to deliver but if you just got promoted from being the best performer in the delivery team, you’re almost completely oblivious to what this new management role really is about! Not to mention growing the skills overnight to be able to do the new job well.
Some organisations, like the military that operate based on the old British aristocratic style tries to overcome this problem by having two classes within the service. The commissioned officer and the non-comissioned officer tracks are ways in which you focus one group on the ‘leadership’ (really, it is more management) skills. In contrast, the other group are more focused on ‘operations’ (or what is deemed more as ‘follower’ type) tasks. Of course, reality is a lot more complex than that but this form of organisation, while crude, aligns expectations and allows the specialists to focus on the frontline nitty gritty and have the ‘leaders’ focus on the big picture elements. Over time, though the commissioned officers have ever been trained in the basics, they lose their ability to really keep up with the changes on the ground to be able to command at high level.
Yet that form of organisation is probably not ideal as it can be a bit elitist and does not incentivise people to perform in ways that allows them to utilise their potential well. It boxes people into neat categories that serves the organisation more than the individual, and at some point, a lot of people would give up on the system as they find themselves uninterested in being thumbed down as second-class citizens, or being forced only to do the big ‘leading’ kind of stuff.
The market presents a new way of organising people, and as our markets develop, I’d expect a lot more small tiny firms to exists and serve large swathe of people when technology enables them to.
