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.
Someone asked whether God forgives every single sin conceivable or possible. Most likely, the person asking the question thinks of ‘sin’ as some immoral, atrocious deed. As Christians, we see sin as inherently a rebellion against God and His order.
So, I’d answer that God, indeed, can forgive every single sin. And He has shown that by sending Christ to die on the cross. He made Christ pay the price for every sin.
The follow-on question, of course, is, “So why isn’t everyone saved?”
That is because I’d continue, “Every sin is forgiven, but not every sinner is repentant.”
The modern narrative about wrong-doing and forgiveness is such that forgiveness is an antidote against resentment, as if the forgiveness is for the victim or recipient of the wrongdoing, rather than the wrongdoer. And then that’s it; we say nothing about the wrong-doer or the part he/she has. Apologies? Making a restitution? What if that is beyond the person? The very least is repentance. Repentance is an appreciation of what sin constitutes, acknowledgement of culpability, and recognising the forgiveness for what it is, and subsequently being liberated from the guilt.
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?
There is a fair bit of stress that is associated with uncertainty and we know it. Yet modernity gives us a lot of tools to prepare, and make certain bits of the future which only makes us crave for more control and perhaps heighten our expectations that the uncertainty can be eliminated.
So part of our stress now comes from the expectation of certainty. We no longer how to enjoy flexibility, and embrace the dynamism that exists in uncertainty. And then when everything is under control, we find ourselves bored, craving for some kind of variation and so on.
As the aspects of work that has complete certainty slowly gets outsourced to computers, robots and perhaps even artificial intelligence, we are going to be getting the harder bits of work. The ones that require us to actually embrace uncertainty; the type that involves no one knowing the answer. We need to regain our ability to think and solve problems bit by bit as opposed to treating everything as though there has to be a right answer and we have to get it right.
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.
We all want to make the world a better place. And in Singapore, we’ve somewhat cultivated the idea that we need to force people to take the right action or they won’t. Often it is because they will point to others who have not done it and say ‘why don’t you ask them?’
The people who failed to bring their trays back to the shelves at the hawker centres before NEA’s mandate had excuses – they were busy, the cleaners had to have something to do, they forgot, and so on. But it was never clear enough that they ‘had to’ do it. Once the mandate and the penalties came, it was clear. As clear as day. So, mandates make requirements clear to a large extent. It makes people sit up and recognise they had to take some action. More so than the consequences of dirty hawker centers, or when you have to take over a messy table.
What can we learn from this that we can apply to climate change?
If we don’t feel hit by the experience of a messy, unclean hawker centre, it is even harder to feel like we need to take any particular course of action just because we have a few more hot days. After all, one could turn up the air-conditioning (which worsens the problem at the system level). So mandates are needed to help with the coordination. The direct consequences alone are insufficient because of externalities, so the government should step in to ‘make them feel the pain’.
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.
