 In the technology world, the term workaround
means a temporary solution, prior to a fix being instituted. But in the
real world, where systems are complex, workarounds are evolutionary and
continual – they are ‘simply’ the way the world works. Evolutionary adaptation is
a process of making small changes to see what works, and to work around
obstacles to the success of the species. Bacteria and viruses are
especially good at this, and despite our attempts to 'protect'
ourselves by soaking our world with toxic chemicals, these remarkable
creatures keep learning and evolving to stay one step ahead of us.
Products that “kill 99% of all germs” notwithstanding, the total
biomass of bacteria on this planet exceeds the total biomass of
humanity. Cancers, alas, are similarly adaptable.
Humans, too,
are excellent at finding workarounds. We learn what works by performing
multiple experiments, and when we find something that works, we adopt
it. The failures we document, at least in our memories, and resolve not
to repeat them.
If you’ve ever conducted cultural anthropology in
organizations you’ve worked with, you’ve probably observed the lengths
people will go to to do their jobs the best way possible despite
the obstacles in their path. Those obstacles can be physical (groups
far apart that need to work together), or cultural (how to tell the
boss that everything is screwed up without falling victim to the ‘shoot
the messenger’ syndrome). Or they may be a consequence of the
diseconomies of size (bureaucracy increases by the square of the number
of staff members). Or they may be imposed, perhaps with the best
intentions, by hierarchical managers. Whatever the cause, the workers
always seem to find workarounds that allow them to do their job as
effectively as possible, despite the obstacles, and sometimes at the
risk of violating policies, orders or accepted practices.
The
same thing applies in society at large: Traffic flows in uncontrolled
intersections tend in most situations to be faster and more effective
than those with stoplights, no matter how well synchronized. We 'work
around' accidents, sick children, dysfunctional marriages, and the loss
of loved ones, without an instruction manual, and manage, for the most
part, to cope pretty well through it all. We live in a world with
millions of laws and regulations, but the reality is that most of them
are largely unenforced and probably unenforceable, so we mostly ‘take
the law into our own hands’ and do what we must to compensate and adapt.
And then, as I keep saying (call it Pollard’s Law), after we do what we must, then we do what’s easy, and then we do what’s fun.
In our terrible modern world, there is no time for anything else: If it
isn’t (yet) a must, and isn’t easy or fun, it simply won’t get done.
That’s why, for the most part, Getting Things Done-style
time management systems that try to defy Pollard’s Law are doomed to
fail, and why the only hope for procrastinators is learning to say no
to the urgent but (ultimately) unimportant tasks that consume most of
our time: By refusing to do them, we take them off the ‘must’ list and
make room for more of the ‘easy’ and ‘fun’ list items. Or, at least, we
manage to get through the rest of the ‘must’ list without burning ourselves out.
Our
workarounds are designed primarily to allow us to comply with the items
on our ‘must’ list without becoming completely dysfunctional. But what
if, instead of, or in addition to, workarounds for compliance, we were
to develop some subversive workarounds that would allow us to do some really important
things that would otherwise never get done (important things like
ending global warming, ending world poverty, you know, saving the world
and stuff), by making those things easier or more fun to do? That is,
instead of trying to make them ‘musts’ for politicians (which is
hopeless, since we all know what the real ‘musts’ are for politicians,
and who they serve).
A natural enterprise is a type of
workaround. At some point in our life, many of us reach the stage at
which working as a wage slave for a dysfunctional large and rapacious
organization becomes, for one of a variety of reasons (stress, disgust)
intolerable. We ‘must’ do something else, something more human, more
responsible. A few drop out and become hermits or revolutionaries or
suicides, but for most we look for a workaround – the least amount of
change that meets the requirement.
Initially, then, we look
for an established organization that needs our gift and/or passion and
appears tolerable to work for. If that doesn’t pan out, we may be
prepared to compromise and do something we don’t really love, or aren’t
particularly talented at, as long as it’s for an organization that
seems to have its heart in the right place, and/or co-workers we like.
Failing that, we may try to find the easiest way to entrepreneurship –
usually a sole proprietorship with minimal costs and risks, or starting
a business in a tried and true industry using the processes that are
the fastest – buying your way into an established market.
That
usually fails (for all the reasons my many natural enterprise articles
explain), so then we reach a crossroads of either (a) doing our
homework and investing the time and energy to establish a truly
natural enterprise, or (b) giving up and getting seduced back into the
corporatist world with a shrug that “it really wasn’t that bad” or
“tried the alternatives and none of them worked”. The decision on which
of (a) or (b) we will pursue is not a decision at all – it is
foreordained based on our perception of what we ‘must’ do, what is easy
and what is fun. My starry-eyed ambition is to convince people that
natural entrepreneurship is both easier and more fun than they might
think, but there’s really no point talking with them until they’ve
decided on their own terms they ‘must’ give it a try.
An
intentional community likewise is a type of workaround. We will try it
only if and when we ‘must’ find another way of living in community –
when living as a nuclear family in an anonymous, transient
builder-designed (for their benefit, not yours) ‘community’ where no
one knows or trusts anyone else becomes simply intolerable. In these
circumstances we will probably look to blame our family first, for not
being everything we need, and most will try serial monogamy before
realizing that that is not the problem. Then, we will look for an
intentional community that is already established and looking for new
members. Only when that fails will we consider looking for partners and
establishing our own. We will only do it when we must, when the thought
of any other alternative is unbearable. And it won’t be easy, so it had
better be fun.
I could
go on and explain that networks for peer-to-peer connectivity,
co-organization, co-operation and co-development are also workarounds,
but you get the idea.
So how could we ‘foment’ change by making
such workarounds easier and more fun? And can we also foment
dissatisfaction so that an “I’d like to do this some day” becomes an “I
must do this now?”
I
think the answer to the first question is yes, and that’s why I’m so
hot on building ‘working models’ and discovering and telling stories of
success at creating natural enterprises, intentional communities and
(to stretch the meaning of the term a bit) ‘peer production’ networks.
Nothing succeeds like success, and working models show it’s easier than
most might think, while success stories show it’s more fun than most
might dare believe.
I’m not so sure about the second question.
I’ve said before that while my genius (where my gift and passion
overlap) is imagining possibilities, my purpose (how I’m destined to
apply that genius) is fomenting dissatisfaction. I’ve done a lot of
that on this blog, but I’d argue that the people who I’ve pushed closer
to The Edge through
my writing were already ready, and just waiting for a nudge. I haven’t
changed minds, just tapped into a dissatisfaction that was already
there. And to the extent I can’t (yet) proffer working models to give
productive, easy, joyful vent to that dissatisfaction, I may be doing
no good at all. Some of my readers have said, in fact, that I should
suspend blogging until I have (co-)developed (or at least connected
with) successful working models that those who I can get to acknowledge
the ‘must’ can immediately apply and adapt easily and joyfully. One
wrote to me: “We like reading How to Save the World, but would
appreciate more ‘how’, more instruction and less urging”.
The thing about workarounds, though, is that they’re adaptive in a specific context
– no bacteria send a message out to other bacteria saying “here’s the
template for working around the latest toxic human chemical”.
Workarounds may be co-developed by a small group, but they’re personal,
suited to a very specific situation. So perhaps what is needed, more
than workaround databases and additional “how” instructions, is more capacity
for workarounds in general, some redevelopment of our latent ability to
adapt instead of waiting to be told what to do. This is the essence of
my Let-Self-Change philosophy.
Is
there a general ‘methodology’ for discovering and instituting
workarounds? If there is, I suspect it would be something like this:
- Observe
and understand the current state – why things are the way they are, and
how they got that way. Get other perspectives if you can.
- Articulate why the current state is intolerable – why the cost of not changing is so high that change is a ‘must’. If you can’t do this, stop there.
- Identify
the alternative workarounds, and which and how many of them might be
easily tried (multiple experiments), before deciding what the ‘best’
workaround is. Do this collectively with others who appreciate the need
for change and understand the current state.
- Try as many of the
simplest alternatives as possible. Come to a consensus on which ones
work best. If they’re unsatisfactory, try less simple alternatives.
- If the alternatives you plan to institute will affect people you care about, tell them what you’re going to do.
- Usually, though not always, it is better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission for workarounds. Use your discretion in this.
- Make the changes. Help others understand and make them, too.
- If (as often happens) the changes encounter additional obstacles, find workarounds for them, too (back to step 1).
- Don’t
be stubborn, unduly idealistic, or too wedded to your initial ideas,
but also don’t give up at the first sign of resistance. In a word, be
adaptable. Do what works – which might not be what you thought at first
would work.
- If you get bogged down in the process, just begin.
Sometimes intentionality alone can start, and accomplish, remarkable
things. And you always learn more about the real problem once you start
exploring and trying solutions.
And finally, if the changes you have decided upon are all things other people have to do, and nothing you have to do (i.e. no Let-Self-Change), then acknowledge that the chance of this actually happening is zero. |
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
