Click on the image above to see the full mindmap. |
I am writing a series of posts about how to think about the future. In case you missed Part 1, you can find it here:
How To Think About The Future (Part 1 -- Questions About Questions)
These posts represent my own views and do not represent the official policy or positions of the US Army or the War College, where I currently work.
****************
The great Stoic philosopher Epictetus wrote,
"Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, 'You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be.' And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you." (Italics mine)There are good reasons to focus on questions about things you control. Things you control you can understand or, at least, the data required to understand them is much easier to get. Things you control you can also change (or change more easily). Finally, you only get credit for the things you do with the things you control. Few people get credit for just watching.
Whole disciplines have been built around improving what you do with what you control. MBA and Operations Research programs are both good examples of fields of study that focus mostly on improving decisions about how you use the resources under your control. Indeed, focusing on the things you control is at the center of effectual reasoning, an exciting new take on entrepreneurship and innovation (for example, the entire crowdfunding/startup Quickstarter Project was built on the effectuation principles and are the reason it was as successful as it was).
On the other hand, another great thinker from the ancient world once wrote,
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." Sun Tzu, The Art Of WarSun Tzu went on to outline the exact impact of not thinking about things you don't control:
"If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."Things outside of your control are much more squishy than things under your control. The data is often incomplete, and what is there is often unclear. It is pretty normal for the info to be, as Clausewitz would say, "of doubtful character," and it is rarely structured in nice neat rows with data points helpfully organized with labelled columns. Finally, in an adversarial environment at least, you have to assume that at least some of the info you do have is deceptive--that it has been put there intentionally by your enemy or competitor to put you off the track.
People frequently run from questions about things that are outside of their control. The nature of the info available can often make these kinds of questions seem unresolvable, that no amount of thinking can lead to any greater clarity.
This is a mistake.
Inevitably, in order to move forward with the things you do control, you have to come to some conclusions about the things you do not control. A country's military looks very different if it expects the enemy to attack by sea vs. by land. A company's marketing plan looks very different if it thinks its competitor will be first to market with a new type of product or if it will not. Your negotiating strategy with a potential buyer of your house depends very much on whether you think the market in your area is hot or not.
The US military has a saying: "Intelligence leads operations." This is a shorthand way of driving home the point that your understanding of your environment, of what is happening around you, of the things outside of your control, determines what you do with the things under your control. Whether you do this analysis in a structured, formal way or just go with your gut instinct, you always come to conclusions about your environment, about the things outside your control, before you act.
Since you are going to do it anyway, wouldn't it be nice if there were some skills and tools you could learn to do it better? It turns out that there are. The last 20-30 years has seen an explosion in research about how to better understand the future for those things outside of our control.
More importantly, learning these skills and tools can probably help you understand things under your control better as well. Things under your control often come with the same kinds of squishy data normally associated with things outside your control. The opposite is much less likely to be true.
Much of the rest of this series will focus on these tools and thinking skills, but first, we need to dig more deeply into the nature of the questions we ask about things outside our control and precisely why those questions are so difficult to answer.
(Next: Why Are Questions About Things Outside Your Control So Difficult?)
Actor X (me) and Actor Y can both be important to success or failure, in two quite different ways:
ReplyDelete#1. X OR Y leads to success (either one is sufficient)
#2. X AND Y leads to success (both are necessary)
Things are "under my control" in both instances, but in very different ways. In #1, I can ensure success. In #2, I can give success a chance.
Also, both instances may encounter information that is incomplete, unclear, uncertain, or unstructured. Qualitative methods are designed specifically to deal with this, so this challenge is clearly under my control.
John Hoven
https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnhoven/
John,
ReplyDeleteI guess I would re-define your use of the word "my" in #2 to mean "my organization." As for your second point, I agree but I think it is also reasonable to assume that, in many if not most cases, information about the things under your control is less likely to be unclear, incomplete, etc and, therefore, more amenable to structured techniques such as frequentist statistics. That was the point I was trying to make, not that incomplete data was never an issue with things under your control. Finally, I apologize if I gave the impression I was trying to be absolutist in this. I am not. I was hoping to tie together research, experience, and various rules of thumb I have found useful over the years into a loosely structured series of posts. I hope you'll keep reading but I can already tell you that there are going to be squishy bits around the edges of all of this!
Kris
Kristan,
ReplyDeleteThe principal aim of my comment was to clarify the term “important to success or failure.” This second comment focuses on the term “under my control.”
Let’s suppose that a routine task for myself and my organization is to investigate situations where the available information is incomplete, unclear, uncertain, and unstructured. (For example, we might want to discover the local sources of conflict, and the local sources of stability and resilience.) Our most urgent priority may be to discover what is doable and worth doing. At first, every bit of new information raises new questions.
My organization does this routinely, so I am confident we can learn what is needed to take appropriate action. Consequently, I feel that things are “under my control” the whole time, even when the available information is incomplete, etc.
In contrast, organizations that don’t routinely investigate situations like this will feel things are not “under my control.” But there are methods and tools that can make them feel differently.
John, we are in violent agreement! The under your control/outside of your control construct I am using simply as a starting place. I agree with you completely that, with the proper tools and procedures, you can better understand and manage this uncertainty. In fact, much of the rest of the series is going to focus on precisely that. Thanks for clarifying! Kris
ReplyDelete