The Macro perspective
If you were to walk into a forest and ask, who is in charge here? Who would respond and what would they say?
“I am!” exclaims the mushroom.
“Noooohoh, its me!!” says the owl.
“Good luck breathing without us!” says the tree
Personification aside, there doesn’t seem to be an internal debate about what exactly or how much each part of the whole is contributing within the forest. Every actor within the system does what they do best like decompose things, hunting and eating things or turning carbon dioxide into oxygen. As each actor is contributing their unique skills, they also seem to understand a unifying purpose that informs each action. Their common purpose may be something simple like ‘maintaining a balance in the system’. If every action I take originates from this simple purpose, a self-organization can give way within each individual actor. Balance is struck as each self-organizing system interacts with one another while fulfilling the same purpose.
Humans do this as well, primarily through unspoken social agreements. Everyone knows adults shouldn’t throw tantrums in restaurants but how do we know? Is it written somewhere or is it against the law? Not explicitly, and yet we have the innate tendency to live according to a common understanding. While our social agreements have given way to a certain level of order, I believe we can achieve more with this innate ability. Can we define or reveal our purpose in a deeper way?
As we dive into an increasingly global economy, I believe our greatest challenge, as a whole human system, will be to uncover a meaningful purpose with which everyone can work from.
The Micro perspective
Lets say that “maintaining the global system balance” is where all human behavior originates and a common purpose has been established. Where do we go from here? I believe that the tools we have for measurement and execution, especially in business, are insufficient if we are to fulfill our purpose.
At the end of the day, all business is driven by money or capital. Marjorie Kelly says we need to make a “shift from capital-ism”, the belief that maximizing capital matters more than anything else. I’m not sure that this is the most effective shift we can make, I see a greater value in re-defining what we mean by ‘capital’. I feel that the true issue lies in how we account and value components both ‘outside’ and ‘within’ the system. Externalities are not a new concept to economists but truly accounting for their value is an exciting emerging science.
Enter Ecosystem Services. David Holzman’s exploration of accounting for natures benefits did an excellent job of explaining some of todays top ecosystem accountants. This is an amazing opportunity for us to value the goods that have been inherently free of charge for so long. Its happening today on a varying scale of complexity. Vietnam for example, invested $1.1 million in mangrove plantings to protect their coastline instead of an annual $7.3 million expense in maintaining man made dykes. Ecosystem services are valued by how much human welfare they can provide and human welfare is directly dependent on the balance within the ecosystem. If this truth was accurately reflected in our capital exchanges, we would be living in a very different world. There is the issue of integrating such an expansive definition of capital, which brings us to the issue of measurement.
“That which can be measured can be monitored”
How are we to value something like fertile soil? by how many crops are yielded from it? by how much life is flourishing with it? by how it protects against erosion? Its hard to quantify things that have such a complex utility but its easy to feel that there is value in something like fertile soil.
Enter Intuitive thinking and the teachings of Roger Martin in the Rotman Design Challenge. He talks about analytical versus intuitive thinking. This is where things get really challenging. Governing between analytical facts and deductive reasoning versus intuitive choices and abductive logic is incredibly difficult. These are not things that have a crystal clear, definitively drawn definition. It becomes an issue of social agreement once again, the unwritten and unspoken yet clearly understood rules that dictate our everyday lives. This inherently brings us back to the macro perspective and our greater motivational purpose of balance.
And round and round we go.
