"Ex Unitate Vires" - from unity comes strength. What an irony that the apartheid government in South Africa chose this Latin phrase as their motto. That a system based on division and segregation would choose the concept of unity as its guiding thought is not without irony.
With Nelson Mandela, the concept of the "rainbow nation" became the guiding light, where unity celebrates and benefits from diversity.
These two approaches to unity illustrate the dilemma we face as leaders in shaping and defining an organisation's ethos and culture.
Do we become one by excluding the world, closing ranks and excluding 'others', OR do we become one by including the world and inviting all?
Do we as an industry include the full reality of the poorest and most disenfranchised, or do we rely on formal definitions of structure and belonging?
This question is at the heart of the current debate about the emerging CSDDDirective being discussed (and falling short) at EU level. One cocoa industry leader recently said, in the presence of farmer representatives: “We are in this boat together” - without irony or the self awareness that some are riding in first class, on the burden of others.
Corporate responsibility is the litmus test of sustainability, and the EU parliament with its espoused ideals of unity, are leaving the poorest behind.
Otto von Bismark is attributed with the quote, "Laws are like sausages. It is best not to see them being made." The backroom deals and compromises required to find common ground often contrast sharply with the general population's high ideals for institutions.
Is there hope in the current confusion? Should we give up when so much has been invested in building momentum towards a more integrated view on our food supply chains? In start-up life we are often confronted by our dreams being dashed by market contact…
Can the proponents of CSDDD take inspiration from holistic start-up learnings?
The confusion about where the current legislation is going, reveals a more profound principle that Jan Smuts referred to in his book on Holism and Evolution. The emergent qualities of the evolutionary process often bring about attributes that cannot be seen in the individual components.
Half a lightbulb doesn't burn bright; it flames out unless the whole design is in place. You need the vacuum to sustain the flame. No one will look at a piece of thread, some wires and a glass dome and go: "Voila, the revolution in education the world has waited for!"
Yet, with the lightbulb, countless imaginations could be ignited, and the knowledge of generations could be shared, enjoyed and expanded at a pace never before seen in human history.
The totality of a vision's impact is not evident in the solution's individual components. As a leader, you are, however, constantly asked to define your singular focus through either exclusion or inclusion.
The ONE seduction
Too often, these decisions become clouded by the "sound advice" reflected by your sounding boards. The business, and especially a start-up business, is nudged by two seductive choices:
Simplistic reductionism
Early optimisation
Keep it simple, stupid!
Many founders will empathise with this video showing a hypothetical Nikolai Tesla pitching wireless electricity to VCs. Are you in the mobile market or the energy market?
Disaggregation of value chains and additive new functionality is often measured against the old paradigm. Are you a phone or a camera?
This does not anticipate how having a phone in your camera will change how you make, enjoy and consume photos. The idea of combining the photo-taking device with the viewing device was not obvious in the early prototypes.
In this instance, a camera phone is a new kind of device, distinct from both a camera and a phone. Its oneness defines value as an emergent quality.
Yet, if you listen to the thousands of voices on the road to demonstrating that value, you may give up on the vision.
Of course, such combinations do not always pay off. Mostly because creating a "washer-dryer" doesn't transform the user experience; it is simply additive, functionally. Often, combined functionality can backfire and become subtractive as it does neither job well.
At this juncture we should avoid the seduction of viewing the legislative pieces in isolation. A unified and fair playing field will release a lot of energy for innovation and greater connection between consumers and people who nourish them.
The CSDDD is both social and environmental. This is its strength.
Follow the money!
Another challenge to unfolding the full potential value of a vision lies in settling on the first area of traction or revenue stream.
At the start, a new innovation will out-compete the incumbent on one specific dimension. The flattery of the market nudges the company to then over-optimise on that dimension.
Perhaps you are faster or cheaper, and the market feedback is that they want smarter or cheaper versions of what they know, not completely different.
This is challenging, especially in value propositions that rely on network effects or platform business models.
Imagine if Amazon settled on simply being a better bookstore!
In the legislative arena there is a gravitational pull towards the shiny seduction of satellite images and high tech traceability solutions. Often missing the human potential of new social contracts. Business models based on click from the sky data cannot engage or define a whole that transcends the parts.
It’s the people stupid
Although useful and provocative in products, these two tendencies (reductionism and premature optimisation) develop new depth when applied to nurturing start-up teams.
The biggest challenge a founder faces by far is building the right team to realise a vision. In politics it is no different.
A TEAM is, by definition, an emergent quality. It only comes into being among a special group of individuals in a particular set of circumstances.
How does one anticipate and design for greatness in a team when it will only come into being once it exists and then only in that particular set of circumstances?
Individual personalities and personal peculiarities might not seem desirable when viewed in isolation, but an otherwise awkward person might find their groove in a team in the right mix.
A team strategy that only looks at the essential job descriptions and reduces interactions and collaboration to a narrow set of meetings cannot engage a team in a way that connects with great collaboration. Defining what is included and excluded from your "team" identity requires considering how value scales with chemistry. Chemistry is a wet and fleshy science.
Diversity serves as fuel for performance and resilience. Preserving diverse perspectives and resources will bring a team closer to unlocking serendipity and the "luck" that world-class teams rely on.
A professional class of politicians is not diverse. A professional class of managers is not diverse. The emergent qualities of monoculture debates will invariably over-optimise for self interest. This can be seen in the posturing of politicians facing election cycles, provoking extreme positions and reneging on long standing agreements.
Doing dialogue
Timing is also crucial. The nature and pace of activity might frustrate a detail-oriented savant used to working at scale when your start-up is still finding its way and product market fit is still a slippery fish avoiding a hook. The same person could accelerate deployment and elevate the whole team just a year later.
The inclusion/exclusion boundary for a holistic team definition becomes an art form in staging. Knowing WHEN to pull the team together is almost as important as knowing WHO needs to be on the team. Early optimisation for a particular culture or deliverable could be fatal and harm a team's ability to adapt to conflicting or confusing market signals.
A team settled into "performing" at one output level will have a lot of confirmation bias when dealing with unexpected signals. Curiosity about identity and boundaries becomes an essential part of defining your oneness.
And being ONE is profoundly powerful. Nothing compares to the power and efficiency of a team that has found its ONE guiding narrative. Perhaps we should expand the old adage to read:
One team, One dream, One time.
How might we design for emergent behaviours? How can we spot the whole inside the fracture of fragments? Can you focus on the single vision that brings simplicity and clarity to complexity?
Let's take that leap!
Three key reflections:
1. In
Can we provide a more inclusive view of the whole? What solutions and challenges emerge when we see the rainbow?
2. Out
Are we curious about the boundaries? What solutions emerge when we increase or decrease scope?
3. Now
Are the right voices in the dialogue? Do we even know who is missing? Is there a deliberate staging for engagement to ensure we harness the full value?