Cancel Culture
I experienced a very mild incidence of ‘cancel culture’. One of my Facebook friends posted a comment on their wall about the recent incident at the Oscars in which one actor struck another. Judging from the opinions expressed on social and general news media, opinion is divided on this case.
I expressed an opinion that ran counter to that of the friend who posted. About 24 hours later, I received a message from said friend advising me that they had deleted my comment from the wall as ‘they didn’t want to start an argument on their wall’.
Our Facebook walls are our own property. They are ‘monarchies’ and we are the king, queen or dictator thereof. We have the right to say what stays on our wall and what doesn’t.
The corollary is that, if we post something in the public domain, we can expect comments. Not every person who comments may agree with us (as I’ve found). That’s what we call the right to free speech. Provided it isn’t insulting or ‘offensive’ (which can mean many different things these days) they have a right to post. Equally, removing comments with which one disagrees on one’s own posts is one’s right.
Unfortunately, there’s a diverse range of opinions on this planet. Human beings generally tend to unite into ‘tribes’ united by disparate factors such as:
- Race
- Religion
- Nationality
- Political views
- Education, etc
One has only to look at the number of Facebook groups covering a multitude of special interests to realise how many diverse ‘tribes’ there are in this world. Strength is in unity: e pluribus unum and all that…. But it means one group may disagree with another.
We can also be members of more than one Facebook ‘tribe’. For example, I can be a member of my school Facebook group, my university Facebook group, a Facebook group that unites fans of sci-fi - the list is endless.
Back to my original comment. Facebook is, first and foremost, a public forum. If we put something out in public (even if our comments are visible to ‘friends only’) it’s reasonable to expect people to react (favourably or unfavourably) depending on their point of view. Depending on the nature of the comment (I assume that it isn’t gratuitously or intentionally ‘offensive’), we can then engage in a discussion based on logic and reason, to discuss any contentious issues and agree a way forward or agree to disagree.
Thanks to social media it’s too easy to ‘cancel’ those whose values, opinions and comments disagree with us or ours. Whilst this may make us feel ‘good’ and/or ‘protected’, it means that we risk turning our social media platform into our own private echo chamber where only views that chime with ours are acceptable.
I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with me. I am happy to engage in debate as described above. However, walking away suggests a lack of the emotional and intellectual maturity to engage in rational discussion and to argue a case with another.
Looking back on history, when rulers could not come to an agreement, they usually went to war, resulting in the wholesale slaughter and/or subjugation of the subject by another power. This has been constantly repeated and is, perhaps, the ultimate ‘cancellation’.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services. For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610
Labels: Leisure, Social
80/20 Thinking
How many of us have heard of the ‘Pareto Principle’, the old 80/20 ratio? Bit of history: it was developed by Italian Vilfredo Pareto at the University of Lausanne in 1896 in his ‘Cours d'Economie Politique’ when he showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population.
Since then, innumerable cases of what has now become known as ‘the 80/20 rule’ have been (and continue to be) identified. The principle (or rule) asserts that, 20% of effort accounts for 80% of results, or that 20% of the faults in a system account for 80% of problems, etc.
The ‘Pareto Principle’ isn’t set in stone. We may, for example, experience a 70/30 instead of an 80/20 spread, but the principle (less causes more) still holds.
The conclusion is that if we can successfully identify where the 80/20 rule is at work in our lives and businesses, we can focus our efforts more effectively, earn higher profits, live happier lives, enjoy better relationships. The list is endless and limited only by one’s imagination.
There are objections, ranging from the Chinese philosophy yin and yang to diplomats’ conversations. Taking the first, it states that, to appreciate (say) the light, one needs an equal amount of darkness (not just 20%). Swap ‘good and evil’ for ‘light and darkness’ and so on and one can continue the argument.
In response to this, the answer is that our lives don’t need to reflect a consistent 80/20 balance 100% of the time. In some areas we need to be unbalanced; where we need to be efficient, then perhaps the 80/20 principle does apply. Where the concern is being effective, then more time is needed. It’s the difference between ‘doing things with minimal wastage’ (efficiency) and ‘doing things right’ (effectiveness). Surgeons concentrate on effectiveness, production lines on efficiency.
In terms of the ‘diplomatic conversation’, when experienced diplomats claim that they gather their best information at the innumerable social and official functions that they attend (and which take up a lot more than 20% of their time), their view is that they learn whose judgement is sound and whose not. This is true, but once you’ve identified the ‘sound’ and ‘unsound’ people, you would then want to focus more on the ‘sound’ ones and minimise time spent with the rest.
80% of business may be done on the golf course, but that doesn’t necessarily mean mean we send almost five hours on the golf course (well, some people may!). Allowing for eating, sleeping and other necessary activities, I suspect the answer is closer to 20%. If you choose to use 20% of your time on this activity, then people will notice and comment that ‘You spend all your time on the golf course!’.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services. For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610.
Labels: Career, Customer Care, Financial, Leadership, Productivity, Strategy, Teamwork
(Anti-) Social Media?
In 2021, I wrote about the pros and cons of Facebook and LinkedIn. I know there are other social media channels out there, all of which have their points.
Months on, I still wonder whether social media (SM) is really adding value to our lives, or whether it continues to act as an ‘outlet for egos’. It is certainly an effective way of reaching a large audience and has, I’m sure, benefitted a number of small businesses who use Facebook (FB) and Instagram (IG) to sell their goods.
LinkedIn (LI) seems to be degenerating into a social commentary box, where users flaunt their moral, ‘woke’ or politically correct credentials or feel that they must post at least once/week, rather than a professional network. The lines between personal and public/professional life are blurring into one (not helped, perhaps, by the coronavirus outbreak which has forced many to work from home).
We are what we post. I recently saw a video of a group of ladies shocked that the boyfriend of one of them had no social media accounts whatsoever. How do they find out about him? Is there something ‘wrong’ with him? No one thinks of actually asking one of his friends about him or of assessing his character for themselves. SM means we already have the answers we need without having to do any of the work ourselves. All that is needed is to post that someone is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ person (and to encourage others to do the same)
SM allows us to share news, pictures and images in an instant. Inevitably, it has attracted its share of ‘undesirables’ whose sole purpose it is to spread disinformation, libel, lies or hatred. There is reason to believe that FB has been used to influence election results or focus attitudes on certain groups or people.
At best, the amount of ‘white noise’ being generated on SM is increasing, making it more difficult to follow whom one wants.
The response for some is to switch to a new platform, until that, too, becomes too ‘noisy’. Policing is, at best, light. Hardly surprising when one considers the volume of traffic generated by users. Small wonder that FB has been taken to task for allowing ‘hate speech’ and other antisocial behaviour on its platform.
We need to ask ourselves how we use SM and whether we’re actually contributing anything useful.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services. For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610.
Labels: Leisure, Social
What Ukraine Has Taught Us
People and world governments have been shocked by Russia’s invasion of The Ukraine. Another refugee crisis, another diplomatic crisis, international repercussions, re-aligned relationships, a squeeze on the world economy and markets are some of the results.
Could we have ‘seen this coming?’ In hindsight, maybe. The signs were (amongst others) an increasingly paranoid and aggressive president of Russia, a Western fixation on the right to self-determination, an increasingly rambunctious neighbour leaning to the West on Russia’s border, and a desire to secure that border.
Equally, the signs that a crisis might be averted were Russia’s seeming willingness to engage in finding a ‘diplomatic solution’, increased shipments of arms to the Ukraine, and perhaps a wistful feeling of ‘He wouldn’t, would he?’ amongst those who didn’t want a war.
The lessons:
- Russia’s leader still resents what happened to the greatness of the Soviet Union in the 90s;
- He’s still operating on a narrative that Russia’s borders are insecure;
- He feels NATO is slowly encroaching on territory that, ‘rightfully’ belongs to Russia;
- He has the power to exert his will;
- He will do whatever it takes to stay in power.
This is a man who has crushed all opposition, imprisoned and murdered political opponents. In the narrative he has created, this is all necessary for Russia’s return to greatness. In the days of the Cold War, the world respected (and even feared?) Russia. This position has ow been supplanted, to an extent, by what Russia used to perceive as an upstart rival: China.
China has achieved by economic means what the USSR failed to achieve by political and militarily ones. Both have many similarities, but the key difference is how China has understood and exploited the power of the world’s markets to achieve its ends. Both are similar in that they are:
- Repressive regimes where dissent is not tolerated;
- Willing to use force to quell disagreement or dissent;
- Resentful of intrusion into their ‘domestic politics’ (but don’t seem to mind interfering in others’ – ask Australia and Taiwan);
- Willing to invade territories to secure their interests.
The ‘Ukraine story’, if nothing else, has taught the world that it has lapsed into a dangerous false sense of security. A sad reminder still of ‘si vis pacem, para bellum’ (‘If you desire peace, prepare for war,’ Publius Vegetius Renatus, De Re Militari)?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services. For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610.
Labels: Crisis Management, Leadership, Strategy
