The Platform of Desire, Part 2

Desire or Rationality?

We live in an era created by science and rational thought. But the culture that we live in is not rational. It is sub-rational, almost primal, in its elevation of the expression of desire over everything else.

This elevation of desire is a two-edged promise. It on the one hand, a promise of engagement in all that life has to offer.

On the other a promise of total exhaustion, of even annihilation, if embraced without thought, direction and boundaries.  It is the power behind the passion of ambition and human connection.

Images of desire capture our attention, draw us into experiences that touch us, change us and can ultimately transform us into new persons. Our rational selves rarely do that. It is the passion of desire that makes it possibly for us to make the sacrifices to be people who create the goodness that lies dormant in the potential that we all have.

If that desire is let loose, never guided by our rational selves, then like Icarus' flight to the sun, we can crash and burn.

Desire = Love

I'm calling desire those inner drives that draw us toward what we love. Philosopher James K. A. Smith sees this love lived out in a sort of secular liturgy of worship. There are rituals that we observe because they reinforce the importance of our desires.

“…  we are primarily desiring animals rather than merely thinking things, I also think that what constitutes our ultimate identities – what makes us who we are, the kind of people we are – is what we love. More specifically, our identity is shaped by what we ultimately love or what we love as ultimate – what, at the end of the day, gives us a sense of meaning, purpose, understanding, and orientation to our being-in-the-world. What we desire or love ultimately is a (largely implicit) vision of what we hoped for, what we think the good life looks like. The vision of the good life shapes all kinds of actions and decisions and habits that we undertake, often without our thinking about it. ”

Our loves and desires are shaped by how we live in the world around us.  The social and organizational systems and structures that are the context of our life and work is a place of engagement where we either find our desires fulfilled or frustrated.  Our happiness is not so much about what we think, but how we intersect with the social and organizational places where we live and work. Smith writes,

So when I say that love defines us, I don’t mean our love for the Chicago Cubs or chocolate chip scones, but rather our desire for a way of life. This element of ultimacy … is fundamentally religious. But religion here refers primarily not to a set of beliefs or doctrines but rather to a way of life. What’s at stake is not primarily ideas but love, which functions on a different register. Our ultimate love/desire is shaped by practices, not ideas that are merely communicated to us.

Or to put it another way, our real world context is both outside of us and within us. The  connection between our desires and the physical places where we spend our days is intimate and integral to every aspect of our lives.

If you are like me, there are places you go to find restoration and perspective. For me it is the spiritual geography of wild places. Remove the technological noise and perspective returns. At these places, we reconnect with the desires that drive us toward what we love.

When I go to a place like Max Patch (below) I find myself standing on a high mountain bald with a 360 degree vista of mountain ridges.

Max Patch Edge

The vastness of this mountain scape, like that of this panorama of the Grand Tetons of Jackson Hole (below), touches me deep inside, reminding me of vastness of the opportunities that we each have each day to make a difference.

Jackson Hole Valley

The desires of my life and work resonate with the bigness of these mountains. It is why I constantly return to them, where I find balance and proportion between me as an individual and the bigness of the world in which I live and work.

Smith presents a compelling view that contemporary consumerism is set of liturgical practices that both inform and form us as people. He writes,

"Because our hearts are oriented primarily by desire, by what we love, and because those desires are shaped and molded by the habit-forming practices in which we participate, it is the rituals and practices of the mall - the liturgies of mall and market - that shape our imaginations and how we orient ourselves to the world. Embedded in them is a common set of assumptions about the shape of human flourishing, which becomes an implicit telos, or goal, of our desires and actions. That is, the visions of the good life embedded in these practices become surreptitiously embedded in us through our participation in the rituals and rhythms of these institutions. These quasi-liturgies effect an education of desire, a pedagogy of the heart. ..."

What is true of the mall's impact upon us is also true of the social and organizational structures where we live and work. They are not inert, neutral, artificial places. They are living contexts which engage our desires, and where our lives take root in a real world.  These "places" affect how we develop as human beings. 

It is this deeper truth that lies behind the design development of office space between those of an open plan and the closed kind advocated by Susan Cain in her book, The Quiet.  The architecture of space in social and organizational structures affects who we are and how we perform. This is the tangible representation of the role that human desire has.

A Structure for Desire?

We don't look at the way we organize our businesses and organizations from this point of view though. We tend to see space or organizational systems as just a place where work takes place. We think of organizational structural design as primarily about creating efficiency and production. We don't think of them as a determining factor in how people connect to their inner desire for meaning and impact.Three Goals of Life-Work-CircleofImpact It is the same reason we don't see people, but rather human resources. It is the utilitarian mindset of the industrial age that cannot see what is evident when one stands outside of that context.

The effect of this mindset is to diminish our understanding of human potential, reducing it to whatever is needed for the task assigned. Consequently, any connection to human desire is lost all together.

It was James K. A. Smith who provided me the insight to see something in my work with clients that had been evident all along: three human desires that everyone has. Desires for personal meaning, healthy, happy relationships and to make a difference that matters.

What we love drives us towards these desires. And we need to structure the social and organizational systems of our lives and work to enable these desires to find fulfillment. 

In part 3 of this essay, I will look at how we can create organizational structures that enable people who work within them to find personal meaning, healthy, happy relationships, and to make a difference that matters.


The Platform of Desire, Part 1

“It is experience, rather than understanding, that influences behavior.” - Marshall McLuhan

Recently, my friend David Pu’u asked me about my vision. In a moment of rare, uninhibited candor I said,

“I want to change everything related to 20th century organizational purpose and structure. I want to replace the institutions that created the problems we face now.  I no longer want to be sad because of the waste of human potential that I see around me.”

The structures that I am referring to are not just organizational structures, but also social, moral and ideological structures. It is important to understand that these structures are systems of processes that affect us through our experience of them. Circle of Impact

From the vantage point of my Circle of Impact model, my conclusion is that ideas change, relationships change, but the social and organizational structures that comprise the context in which we think and relate do not change without great forces of disruption.

This is especially so as social and organizational structures disconnect Ideas (Values, Vision, Purpose and Impact) and Relationships from the processes and order of the institution. These structures are highly resistant to change, and only change when people join together around a set of common values, a shared purpose and a clear understanding of what difference their organization should make.

The Structure Lives

I have had a long standing interest in the structure of organizations. Not the structure of the organizational chart; but the living structure, the one that actually functions.

If an organization's structure was a spy, it would be a double agent, both working for and against the people of the organization.

The structure of an organization, whether it is a bricks & mortal business or a social media business, is designed for a purpose. Henry Ford's assembly line that made the Model T was designed for the purpose of mass production. Facebook's platform structure is also designed for a purpose.

A business' purpose and the purpose of its organizational structure are not the same.  The former is born out of the values that inform its mission; the latter out of the need for order and efficiency.

Marshall McLuhan said a half century ago that "the medium is the message".  At that time, he was speaking about how the form in which a message is delivered is a message in-and-of-itself. The form of communication is as important as the content of the message.

The classic example from McLuhan's era, the 1960s, is the effect of the nightly pictures of the Vietnam War. During the dinner hour each night, we saw pictures of US aircraft dropping napalm incendiary bombs, of piles of dead bodies, of unclothed children running from the fires of bombings, and executions in the streets. 

The visual medium of television created an experience, whether accurately or not, which words in a newspaper or magazines, and governmental spokespersons could not. The medium was greater than the message in itself.

Today, the digital revolution is an extension of this same reality. Even in a day when any photo can be Photoshopped, pictures carry a stronger influence than words.

The medium, the structure, the platform is the message, and always has been.

It is important to understand how organizational structures and social media platforms affect us. They are not neutral, but a living context which change in response to our actions.

Consider for a moment the morale in your office today. Is everyone happy and productive?  Or are there people who are disgruntled and angry about being there.

Several years ago, in collaboration with a global group of colleagues, an ebook of a conversation about morale in the workplace was published called Managing Morale in a Time of Change. It is worth reading. Without stating it, the conversation points to the impact that organizational structure has on the people who work with it.  The structure attempts to dictate identity and behavior.  To paraphrase McLuhan's words at the beginning of this post,

"It is the experience of working within a highly integrated corporate structure, not the understanding of its structure, that produces issues of low morale."

The medium of structure is a message to which we must pay attention.This is true regardless of size or organizational form, whether industrial or digital. We are influenced by the structures of the organizations where we engage in life and work. This is also true for all things digital and virtual,especially the form of social media platforms.

Social Media Platforms as Organizational Structures

I began to think about this after listening to Mitch Joel's Twist Image and Joseph Jaffe's Across the Sound shared podcast as they discussed Facebook's future. I left a comment at Mitch's blog. Here's apart of it.

... Facebook is a new thing. But it thinks like an old thing. It thinks bigger is better. It’s the old industrial mindset. The bigger it gets, the harder it will be to change course. I’ve felt for some time that FB has about five years of relevance left before it is replaced by multiple platforms that someone figures out how to tie together without creating confusion. This is already happening.

Why? Because people change, and it isn’t that they want more, they want better or different. Facebook is changing their expectations, their behaviors, and their attitudes towards themselves. We already see it in the proliferation of so many different social media platforms.

Here’s where I see the shift.

It used to be that we individuals had to fit into the institutional structures, and Facebook is an institutional structure, to find relevance and identity. The institution was king, and we were simply serfs. Now, that scenario is flipped, and the individual is king, and becoming more so, and Facebook is just an optional tool for our use. For these platforms it is a race to relevance in a fickle marketplace.

It isn’t that these platforms are changing, people are changing by using these tools to express themselves in way that they did not have in previous eras. They / we will gravitate toward those platforms / tools we need right now. I find Facebook is the lowest common denominator social media platform that provides a basic level of interaction, but not much more. I know they are trying to add features, but the mold / brand is set. FB is a slave to their own brand, not we to them.

The medium of social media is changing us. It is a platform for change. And, we, just may be changing faster than the platforms can keep up. Why is this?

What is it about social media that makes it so appealing?

How does it touch us, touch those aspects of our lives that other structures can not?

How can we better utilize these platforms to align the Four Connecting Ideas with our relationships in the organziational structures where we live and work?

These are the questions that I find most compelling.

We'll look at these questions in Part 2 of The Platform of Desire.


Bridging the Gap between Idea and Application

072

Think with me for a moment about the transitions we experience. 

A transition is from one place to the next. It is like a journey of going from one destination to another. It is a path that often doesn't allow us to see very far ahead. Yet, we go forward, either because we must or we have a map that helps us know the way.

Each one of us is in transition right now. 

How do I know this? Two reasons.

One, experience has teaches us so. 

Two, to be in transition is to live.

Now, visualize some aspect of your life or work that you would like to fulfill or resolve. It may be an opportunity or a problem.

As you visualize it, you could probably give it a name like:

Find a job.

Complete a sale.

Convince her to marry me.

Get out of debt.

End the office bickering.

Start a business.

Help a child.

Each of these desires is an idea in our mind.

Each is a destination in the future that we'd like to reach.

Each one helps us to understand what is important right now.

Each idea points towards the future.

We can envision a desired future because we can visualize it, see it, taste it, touch it, smell it, feel it.

Is it real? It is a real idea, a real concept. So, yes, it is real, yet unrealized.

The more vivid that vision, the more the desire grows in us to see the idea transcend the abstract and become concrete, become real in a different way.

IdeaGapAction

The greatest challenge facing most of us is not having a vision, or goals, or passion or dreams, or even their reality.

The greatest challenge is how to transition from the abstract to the concrete, and bring it to life.

This question has been present with me daily for a very long time.

I'm a slow reader. I take my time. Sometimes reading the same paragraph over and over, and not going forward until I can see it in practice.

I read looking for ways to apply the ideas that the author presents. It is hard when the book is filled with compelling, inspiring ideas, and yet, there isn't much practicality in them.

The same is true of presenters who have really great ideas, but there is something missing.

What's missing is a clear path through to application.

If you have experienced this gap between ideas and actions then you are in good company.  You can learn to bridge the gap. Use the Circle of Impact Leadership Guides in conversation, and the bridge over the gap will become clear.

Here's what I've learned.

1. We bridge not by appreciating the value of an idea, but its application.

We have to ask ourselves. If I find this idea compelling, or believe in this idea,what actions am I under obligation to do. For example, if you respect someone, how will you practice it so others will see you as a respect-filled person.

2. There are a lot of ideas that are compelling that are not grounded in reality.

Their appeal is to the emotions. That is fine, but it is insufficient. Ideas that have an emotional appeal without clear application serve to create anxiety and doubt in the long run. It becomes very important to bridge the gap between our emotions and the experience of our ideas finding a successful application in life.

3. There is no formula for bridging the gap. You create your own path to action.

We take one step at a time, and then take another. Even though you can see the future, it doesn't mean that you know how to get there.

The first time I learned to do orienteering, it was in the winter in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Our group had one map, one compass and we knew where we were, and where we needed to be on the map by dinner time. We bushwacked up a mountain in knee deep snow with backpacks on. We took it one step, one reading at a time. We'd looked ahead only as far as we could see, from one tree, to another, then to a bush, or a rock, or another tree. Each was a reference point translating the abstract picture of the map onto the snowy forest floor. We'd use our tools, plot each point forward, and walk to it, then do another, and another. We did that all day, for 6 hours, until it turned dark and we took shorter steps until we got to our camp for the night.

4. We discover how to take those steps in conversations with others. 

Yesterday, during one of the Leading from the Middle workshop sessions, we had a lively exchange about a number of ideas. Each one of them were compelling in some way. As we used the Circle of Impact Leadership Guides, we reached a point of clarity about what needed to be done. I asked for volunteers to help the people who shared their particular vision or problem. After the session, these people gathered together and begin to talk about how they can support or help the person with the idea. Out of those conversations, the first steps toward action were identified. 

This is how we bridge the gap between our ideas and their practical application. If you need some help, just ask. We can bridge the gap together. If you have team or a board that seems stuck, give me a call, let's see how we can help them the transition from where they are to where they need to be.