Purposive Drift

Some sound advice from Jeffrey McGrew of Because we can, “Six tips for those about to leap into business for themselves.”
1. Get as debt-free as possible, and try your best to stay that way.
2. Plans are worthless, planning is essential.
3. Listen to everything everyone has to say, but then go ahead and do what you were going to do anyways.
4. Look (and learn) before you Leap.
5. Have a solid plan B in place.
6. You’ve probably already got a niche, you just don’t know it yet.
You can read his explanation here and watch him and Jillian Northrup talking about how they set up their business here. Nice to be pointing to a business that actually designs and makes tangible things.
(Thanks to Russell Davies for the tip)

As 2008 proceeds a general mood of gloom deepens. Despite finding my own plans thwarted (see “Waiting for the dead cat bounce”) I see in the growing dismal news signals that a long nightmare may be coming to an end and that, just maybe, very soon we can start focusing on dealing the predicaments that face us rather than being subjected to the implementation of a set of half baked theories designed, intentionally or not, to benefit the flashocracy.
In the meantime, here are some words from the Sixties from the wise and under valued Geoffrey Vickers:
“The appropriate attitude to our predicament, however fearful it may be, does not depend on our optimism or even on our hope. It was best expressed in the words of a member of the Connecticut Assembly in 1780, when proceeding were threatened by panic induced by a darkening of the sky so unprecedented as to suggest the arrival of a prophesied Judgement Day. He ruled – “Either this is the end of the world or it is not. If it is not, our business should proceed. If it is, I prefer to be found doing my duty. Let lights be brought.’
Let lights be brought. Not more power; but that much rarer, subtler, more demanding fruit of human spirit – more light.”
From “Freedom in a Rocking Boat”, page 125

My friend Rosie Dalziel died five years ago. Her illness was sudden. Her death was unexpected. I miss her.
Here is what I said at her funeral:

Continue reading Remembering Rosie

I recently wrote to a friend of mine enthusing about Meg Wheatley, describing her, among other things, as a “real realist”. To which my friend very sensibly replied, “what is an unreal realist”. My rather puny response was “For start all those hard headed people, who talk about “the bottom line”.”
On Saturday I encountered an article in the Guardian’s weekend magazine, “Last flight of the honeybee?”. I still haven’t recovered. Among other follies it described was that apparently three quarters of the honey bees in the US are shipped to the orchards of California’s Central Valley for three weeks each year to pollinate the almond flowers. We are talking here of a $1.9bn a year industry that supplies 80% of the world’s almonds.
Even if there wasn’t a threat of honeybees disappear altogether, which is apparently a real concern, this practice seems utterly bizarre – but no doubt there are hard headed, realistic reasons for doing things this way and for continuing the practice in the face of losing the bees that do the work. (Why am I reminded of the cod in Canada’s Grand Banks and the realists, who despite warnings, went on fishing them?)
So maybe my current nomination for the title unreal realists would be the Almond Industry of California, along with the rest of us, who happily go along with these disconnects between systems and consequences.

Thanks to Axel Albin of tinygigantic I have just discovered Meg Wheatley. I intend to write some more about her ideas when I have had more time to digest them, but after an afternoon of listening to interviews, watching videos and reading some of her articles I have a sense of of her as great truth teller and some one, who, without false optimism, offers a way forward through many of of the dilemmas that face us all. But for now here is a taster from an interview with Scott London:
“We really have to “de-engineer” our thinking, which means that we have to examine how mechanistically we are oriented — even in our treatment of one another. This is especially true in corporations. We believe that we can best manage people by making assumptions more fitting to machines than people. So we assume that, like good machines, we have no desire, no heart, no spirit, no compassion, no real intelligence — because machines don’t have any of that. The great dream of machines is that if you give them a set of instructions, they will follow it.
I see the history of management as an effort to perfect the instructions that you hope someone will follow this time — even though they have never followed directions in their whole life.
When I spoke of “de-engineering” our thinking, I wanted us to realize that at bottom we are alive, we are human beings. We possess all of the attributes that somehow disappeared in the mechanistic way of thinking. At the organizational level, the same is true. You cannot give an organization of people a set of directions, a re-engineered business process, a new org-chart, a new boss, a new set of behavioral expectations. You can’t just legislate that. It doesn’t happen. Yet corporations were, at the time of the reengineering frenzy, spending literally millions and millions of dollars to develop new engineering plans for the organization.
The 70 to 80 percent failure rate of those re-engineering efforts was, for me, totally predictable. Some say it was even higher than that over the long-term. Wherever you are taking an engineering approach to human , you are going to get an enormous level of backlash and resistance and bitterness because people have not been included.”

Just finished watching a really refreshing interview with Russell Davies on the Joined Up Company’s site. Watch it and nod as he talks about the importance of doing lots of small useful things, why big companies can’t do them and how the real digital revolution lies in making products magical by using digital technology. You can see it here.

For some years now I have been urging my friend, Karen Mahony to write something about the business she set up in Prague with her partner Alex.
Back in 2003 when we were in another gloomy economic period I wrote a piece pointing people to her blog. I concluded:
“Karen is a master at identifying, creating and navigating networks. If you are hoping to create a space to do good work and make a comfortable living in the new economy – and yes there is a new economy, despite the bubble and bust – this may be the place to learn how to do it.”
A couple of years later I wrote another piece that included this bit about Karen:
“I have often urged her to keep a record of her activities, because she is one of the few people who really gets network thinking. The businesses she runs with Alex – Baba Studio, The Magic Realist Press and Baba Store are wonderful examples of 21st Century businesses and if she were ever able to find time to write a book about how they have managed to achieve so much in so little time, it would be a great text for people who would like to build ‘good’ businesses.”
Now at last, I am please to say that she is finally getting some of her experience down in text. She has taken some of Hugh MacLeod’s rules from his “How to be creative” and is giving her own take on them. When I last looked she had got up to number five. She is doing roughly one a day, so I guess the simplest thing to do is to link to her blog. You can find them there yourself. Or, if you instist, you can start here.

Regular readers may have picked up on the plans we had to sell our house on the hill above Crouch End over looking the valley to Alexandra Palace. When we began thinking of it we had a mixture of motives. Mimi, my partner, has increasingly felt the need to spend more time in Chile to be close to her mother. Our son, Ben, the digital native, is making his own way in the world and will soon be moving out. So it looked like a good time to make a change. And the slightly scruffy, friendly, bohemian Crouch End we moved to nearly twenty years ago is changing. Still very pleasant. Still with real shops like butchers, bakers, fishmongers, a hardware store and so on. But changing.
The signs are on the kerbside. It used to be Citroen 2CVs, Renault 4s and slightly battered Volvo estates. Now it is BMWs, Saabs, a variety of 4x4s and a scattering of Porsches, Ferraris, Maseratis, with the occasional sighting of a Bentley.
So it seemed time to move on.
We first start thinking of making a move a the height of the property madness when people seemed to be shovelling suitcases of money at anything with a roof over it. We didn’t do it then because Mimi, my partner, was busily getting qualified as a Coach and Mentor and the stresses of selling a house seemed to much to take on as well.
When we eventually got round to it, even before we approach an estate agent, we had a very good offer from a private buyer. A nice family, the kind of people one would welcome to take over a place that had been a good home to us. Sadly, the day before they were due to exchange contracts on their home, their buyer dropped out. So far as I know they still haven’t sold.
After that we went to an estate agent, who found us an enthusiastic buyer. We also had found what could have been a small London base in an area we liked.
Plans seemed to be going well.
It looked as if we could sell our house and move in to our new base, all before we went on a trip to Chile for six weeks at the beginning of last December.
Then I began to feel a bit uneasy. Our buyer seemed to be dragging her feet. My unease was confirmed when I got a call from her asking if she could bring a friend to have a chat. It turned out that she had a younger brother who worked in financial services who had told her that she should ask for a ten per cent reduction. My estate agent said, “She’s having a laugh”. I politely declined her revised offer and as we were off to Chile in a few weeks took the house off the market.
When we got back from Chile we put the house back on the market, but the fizz had clearly gone and the collapse I had been anticipating for some time had clearly begun.
So what now?
Well there may be a dead cat bounce, that moment when confidence briefly returns to a market before it begins a much longer plunge. There are few tiny signals that this may take place. Some of the big boys are begin to buy some of what had been seen as the toxic bundles of mortgages in the belief that they may not be as toxic as most had feared. The Abbey and Barclays are busily building up market share in the retail mortgage market, which may prompt some of their rivals to move away from their current ultra risk adverse positions. The media may get bored with their sky is falling in headlines and move to a now is the time to buy line. Who knows, but if the cat does bounce and we get a reasonable offer, we may go ahead with something like our original plans.
And if the cat don’t bounce?
This is where things get very purposive drifty.
The idea of selling the house was that it was an easy way of buying some financial and geographic freedom. Now we will have to get a bit more inventive and attentive to get to that place. And, curiously, now we have have had a taste of summer and accepted that we are likely to stay on here a while, this looks like a pretty good place to stay. It has been a good base for nearly twenty years, so a few more years here means that we can continue to enjoy it and may even generate some new possibilities we hadn’t thought of.
You can then add into the equation the probability that from a pure investment point of view it almost certainly makes sense to hold on to our house for several more years. Even with quite a severe downturn (and this looks increasingly likely) the shifts I talked about at the beginning of this piece are changing the demographics and hence the values in this area. The kerbside doesn’t lie. So taking a five to ten year view, what we have now will be worth a lot more in real terms than it is now or even was a few months ago.
So here we are, back to purposive drift. The house is still on the market. We know we want to create a state of greater financial and geographic freedom. How this will come about is still the unknown. We may still sell the house, (Anyone looking for a nice place to live, with a good long term upside, and prepared to make a sensible offer can do so here) Some other way of achieving the state we would like may emerge from an unexpected and unpredictable place – it’s all a question of remaining open and sensitive to context, events and keeping the purposive in purposive drift.
And, who knows, the cat may bounce.

I first started looking at obituaries back in the mid-seventies when I did some research on the influence of the security services on the media. What I discovered then was that obituaries were often more fact filled than things published during someone’s lifetime and sometimes held key information that open up whole new areas of inquiry. But what really drew my attention to the form was a deliciously vicious obituary of Gerry Healey the leader of the WRP, which again was probably more truthful than anything written before.
Since then I have made it habit to scan the orbit columns when I buy a newspaper and as result have discovered all sorts of interesting people and ideas I might not otherwise have come across.
My latest find was the novelist and travel writer Michael De Larrabeiti, whose obituary appeared in the Independent. Apparently he was best known for his Borrible Trilogy, three children’s books operating in similar territory to Roald Dahl and Richmal Compton, whose books my son adored. But what really intrigued me was the short biography on his web site tracing his trajectory from working class boy in Battersea to writer in Cotswolds, which seems to echo a journey made by a number of people I admire from a similar background in the immediate post-war years. The kind of journey I wonder whether people could still make now.

“Making connections most people don’t make. That’s probably the secret of producing interesting new art, new stories. That’s what we read the stimulating writers for, why the good classics remain revelatory and forever informative. Always something new you hadn’t noticed before. The regurgitators are probably useful, in that they familiarise the novel, as it were, to the middle-brow audience. This gradually brings the originals to their attention, usually after they are dead. There’s no point in looking for Sunday Times approval or using it, or academic approval, as a yardstick. If you do something a bit fresh, make those fresh connections, you are more or less guaranteeing yourself a cheap flat on the margins of the city or a cardboard box in the middle.”
Michael Moorcock in an interview in 3AM