johnmaconline

Every day we’re presented with 100’s if not 1000’s of tradeoffs. Most we don’t think much about.

Creamer or black?
Running shoes or slippers?
Scrolling through Instagram or reading a book?

These are true black and white, this or that tradeoffs. As singular tradeoffs, they don’t move the needle much. But stack them up over time, day after day, and they result in progress in some direction. 

Are you happy with the direction you’re going?

The tradeoffs we do think about, care about and ruminate over help us find our tribes.

Less privacy for better national security?
Higher taxes for a government-funded addiction program?
Higher grocery bills for a healthier food supply?

Although marketed by the tribe as black and white, this or that tradeoffs, they aren’t really. It’s not that simple. These tradeoffs are nuanced, grey, and the best answer is only the best answer for a particular tribe. 

In these cases, the tribes are in control of the direction. Are you happy with the direction your tribe is going?

Which of these types of tradeoffs do you have more control over? Which should get more of your brain power?

A plane crashed because the crew didn’t honor the pre-flight checklist.
A student failed the test because she didn’t study the provided materials.
A manager made the wrong priority call because one of the team members neglected to update his status on the Trello board. 

And also…

A plane crashed because the pre-flight checklist didn’t cover the piece that failed.
A student failed the test because she couldn’t access the required materials.
A manager made the wrong priority call because some required work was not shown on the Trello board.  

Our systems both solve and cause many of our problems, and when something goes wrong, we often debate whether the problem is with the human or the system. 

First, we must recognize that a system only works if the people respect it and work within it. We have some level of human culpability within the system.

At the same time, if the system is not producing the desired outcomes (regardless of its correctness), we must ignore or, better yet, rise above it. Only then can a new and better system result.

Even when a system exists, we must always ask ourselves, “Is this a good system? Can we improve it? How can we make it easier to follow?”

It seems to me that getting better at teaching, creating, questioning, and improving systems might be one of the best educational investments we could ever make.

The World is trying to convince you that you deserve the A+ life and that you are a failure if you don’t get it. 

What is the A+ life? 

• Rich enough to build and launch your own spacecraft
• Healthy enough to live to 120
• Happy enough to have zero regrets
• Important enough to need a helicopter and private jet
• Beautiful enough that people fawn over you
• Successful enough that everyone knows your name

You deserve it.

The travesty of the hyperbolic A+ life sales pitch is that it has the opposite effect. 

“If I’m not the best, what’s the point?”

Here is the point:  having enough, contributing enough, and being enough doesn’t require sitting at the top of ~7.5 billion people or even in the top 1%.

Maybe you, or I, will never be the best at anything external, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have value to offer. Nor does it mean you can’t be wildly happy and content, i.e., successful. 

The secret is striving for the B+ life.

Not mediocre. Excelling at your life. Caring about the people in your life. Adding value in something that you care about. Letting the headlines go. 

How do you get there? 

You focus on Your World and stop worrying about The World. 

Let the A+ life go. It’s not for you. 

The New York Times bestseller list is labeled incorrectly. Actually, it’s an outright lie.

The bestsellers list doesn’t track the books that have sold the most copies. It turns out that making this list is less about math and more about curation.

“Here are the books and authors that are (pre)selling well, we like, and fit into our view of the world. We think you should read these.”

If you, like me, look at this list to find your next book, how does that make you feel?

The engineer in me is pissed at the blatant truth-bending. Because, of course, the NYT know that they are lying. They could have just as easily and more accurately labeled it “NYT Great Books” list. 

But does it matter?

As a younger man, I would definitely have said, “Yes, it matters.” Because that younger me saw the world as black and white, right and wrong, and this is wrong.  

The current me, however, is better at understanding the nuance. Understanding the grey. Understanding the importance, purpose, and advantage of the grey. 

Does it really matter if the title of this list is bending the truth?

I don’t think so. At least in a case like this. I probably am happier with a curated list anyway. 

What if, however, we weren’t talking about books? What if the list was tracking COVID deaths, votes, or taxes?

Sometimes it matters.

Continuing the series on real-life versions of the trolley problem. Today I posit the trolley problem around government hostage negotiations.

A terrorist group has taken a group of five American tourists as hostages in a foreign country. They will kill them unless the US provides a cache of military weapons as ransom. These weapons will be used against a village of 60 local residents. You are the US president, and you must make a decision. You have two options:

1. Do nothing, and the hostages will die. The local residents will live.
2. Trade the weapons for the hostages, and they will live. The local residents will now die at the hands of the terrorist group.

What is the right thing to do?

Let’s add nuance.

What if one of the hostages was your brother?
What if the hostages weren’t tourists but government representatives?
What if the local residents were religious fundamentalists?
What if the local residents were democratic and American-friendly?
What if one of the local residents was famous in that country?
What if one of the hostages was famous in America?
What if the village population included 30 children?
What if the village population included American missionaries?
What if you had a friendly relationship with the terrorist group leader?
What if you could trade the weapons, and nobody would find out?
What if the hostage group contained members of the competing political party?
What if you had to personally deliver the cache of weapons?

Continuing the series on real-life versions of the trolley problem. Today we wrap a trolley problem around abortion.

A pregnant woman’s life is in danger. If she continues to carry the baby, she will die. If she aborts the baby, she will live. She is currently incoherent, and you must make the decision. You have two options:

1. Do nothing, and she will die. The baby will live.
2. Abort the baby, and the baby will die. She will live.

What is the right thing to do?

Let’s add nuance.

What if the pregnancy was an accident, and the woman doesn’t want the baby?
What if the chances of the woman dying are less than 100%?
What if the baby has Spina Bifida?
What if the baby is a result of rape?
What if the woman is your wife?
What if the woman has other children and abuses them?
What if the woman is a prostitute?
What if the woman is a heroin addict and the baby will be born addicted?
What if the baby is actually babies — twins?

I love the trolley problem.

I love it because it’s a simple thought experiment that uncovers the complexity of real-life ethical dilemmas. It’s lose-lose, no matter what we pick. We are guilty, whether or not we took action. 

Although studied deeply at a personal level in academia, the trolley problem is also a dilemma for leadership — community, company, nation, beer-league hockey team, whatever. Most times, when leadership makes a decision, some will benefit, and others will suffer.

As a leader, how do we determine which of the two non-ideal outcomes is better? And as a member of the group, how do we show empathy towards leadership and the other members?  

Here is the original construct:

A runaway trolley is barreling down the tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, five people are tied up. You are standing next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different track. However, you notice a single person on the other track. You have two options:

1. Do nothing. The five people die. 
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley. One person dies.

What is the right thing to do?

The answer seems straightforward here, but it gets fuzzier if we add some nuance. For example, what if the five people were convicted murderers and the single person was a young mother?

Over the next several daily posts, I will posit real-life versions of this dilemma, hoping to provoke thought and increase empathy for all involved. 

How many customers do you need?
How many days of Paid Time Off do you currently have?
How many burgers do we need to serve at the picnic?
How many friends will make you happy?
How many front desk workers will be required?
How many Instagram followers will make you an influencer?
How many credits do you need to graduate?
How many simultaneous users do you need to support?
How many minutes of scrolling through Facebook is too much?

So many times we get caught up in the complexity of the situation. The “who, what, where, why, and how” wraps us in a deadlock.

Sometimes we should start with the “how many” question. It’s simple and can be effective.

“How many” doesn’t answer all of the questions, but it does remove one of the variables. This helps us bound the problem and points us in a direction.

If you’re struggling with a big and complex problem, try asking the “how many” question.

You got a bonus. You deserve this shiny new black truck.
You got a raise. You deserve a little something for yourself.
You work hard. You deserve to take that vacation.
You’re a great worker. You deserve a raise.
You’re tired. You deserve to be pampered.
You’re a good person. You deserve a good life.

“You deserve it” is a powerful sales pitch that hits deep in our core. Marketers know this and use it because it works. It works because if we deserve it, we’re rightfully getting what is ours. If we rightfully get what is ours, we satisfy our internal sense of justice.

“I got a new truck and justice has been done!”

But that’s all it is — a sales pitch.

Don’t conflate “I deserve” with “I desire.”