# Dr Robert N. Winter > Dr Winter writes on leadership, governance, and the conditions that determine whether either is practised well. Public Ghost content for AI and LLM tooling. This file includes a bounded export of public pages first, then recent public posts. Append `.md` to any post or page URL to get the content in Markdown (for example, `/example-post.md`). ## Pages ### Newsletters URL: https://robert.winter.ink/newsletters/ Last updated: 2025-12-01T11:29:58.000Z _No content available._ ### Series URL: https://robert.winter.ink/series/ Last updated: 2026-08-31T05:28:34.000Z _No content available._ ### Podcasts URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/ Last updated: 2026-04-02T11:08:57.000Z On the Subject of Leadership is a long-form conversation on what really makes organisations work—and why so much leadership advice doesn't. Each episode features a business leader or practitioner with lessons earned the hard way. We go beyond anecdotes and into analysis: incentives, power, trust, culture, and the limits of authority. This is not motivational theatre. It's a search for what holds up under pressure—when decisions have consequences and trade-offs are real. If you lead people, this is for you. --- ### Events URL: https://robert.winter.ink/events/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T04:55:25.000Z _No content available._ ### Featured URL: https://robert.winter.ink/featured/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T04:55:16.000Z _No content available._ ### Actions URL: https://robert.winter.ink/actions/ Last updated: 2026-01-16T00:02:36.000Z ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/12/mail.png) #### Newsletters [Get the latest stories, insights, and analysis delivered straight to your inbox. Join and never miss an update.](https://robert.winter.ink/newsletters/) [Button Text](https://robert.winter.ink/newsletters/) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/12/calendar-1.png) #### Events [Attend expert panels, debates, and live sessions on politics, business, culture, and more — online or in person.](https://robert.winter.ink/events/) [Events](https://robert.winter.ink/events/) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/heart.svg) #### Donating = Supporting [Your contributions help to fund in-depth analysis. Become an **Inner Circle* member for exclusive perks.](#/portal/signup) [Support](#/portal/signup) ### Privacy Policy URL: https://robert.winter.ink/privacy-policy/ Last updated: 2026-04-23T11:32:48.000Z # Privacy Policy This Privacy Policy describes how I collect, use, disclose, and protect Personal Information in connection with [robert.winter.ink](https://robert.winter.ink/) and the podcast *On the Subject of Leadership with Dr Robert N. Winter* (together, "the Site"). It should be read alongside the [Terms of Service](https://robert.winter.ink/terms-of-service/), [Content Licence](https://robert.winter.ink/licence-information/), and [Disclaimer](https://robert.winter.ink/disclaimer/) also published on the Site. I treat compliance with Australian privacy law as the primary framework for this policy and layer other jurisdictional requirements on top of it. Specifically: - The *Privacy Act 1988* (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles ("APPs") set the baseline for how Personal Information is handled. - The EU and UK General Data Protection Regulations ("GDPR") apply to Personal Information collected from individuals located in the European Economic Area and the United Kingdom. - The California Consumer Privacy Act and California Privacy Rights Act ("CCPA/CPRA") apply to Personal Information collected from California residents. Where any provision of this policy conflicts with a mandatory requirement of applicable law, the legal requirement prevails. ## Who I Am This Site is operated by Dr Robert N. Winter of New South Wales, Australia. For privacy enquiries, contact me via the form at [robert.winter.ink/contact](https://robert.winter.ink/contact/), or by post to an address that will be provided on request. For the purposes of the GDPR, I am the data controller of Personal Information collected through the Site. ## What Personal Information I Collect I collect only the Personal Information I need to operate the Site, deliver the services you have requested, and meet my legal obligations. The categories are: **Account and membership information.** When you join the Commons (free membership) or the Inner Circle (paid membership), I collect your name, email address, and the IP address from which you signed up. For paid subscribers, I also hold subscription status, billing records, and transaction history, although I never see or store your full payment-card details. **Payment information.** Payments are processed by [Stripe](https://stripe.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Liberapay](https://liberapay.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), or [Buy Me A Coffee](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), depending on the option you choose. Card and bank details are collected and held by those providers, not by me. I receive only the confirmation of payment, a transaction identifier, and (in the case of subscriptions) the billing status. **Correspondence.** If you contact me — by email, by replying to a newsletter, or through the [Typeform](https://www.typeform.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) contact form — I receive whatever information you choose to include, together with your email address and the technical metadata your mail client or browser transmits. **Comments.** If you post a comment on the Site (a feature available only to signed-in members), I retain the comment, the time of posting, and its association with your member account. **Podcast listening.** If you listen to the podcast, [Transistor](https://transistor.fm/?ref=robert.winter.ink) (the podcast host) records routine technical information — including IP address, user-agent, and approximate geographic location — in order to deliver the audio and produce aggregated listening statistics. I receive aggregate reports; I do not receive individual listener data. **Technical information.** Web servers record, as a routine matter, the IP address, user-agent string, pages visited, and time spent on the Site. This information is used in aggregate form for site administration and security. **Aggregated analytics.** Usage is measured by Plausible Analytics, described below. ## How I Collect It I collect Personal Information directly from you when you subscribe, make a payment, post a comment, or contact me. Technical information is collected automatically by the systems that operate the Site. I do not purchase Personal Information from data brokers and I do not acquire Personal Information from third parties for marketing purposes. ## Why I Collect It and the Legal Basis The purposes for which I collect and use Personal Information, and the legal bases on which I rely, are: **To operate the membership service.** This includes account creation, authentication, delivery of newsletters and articles, and the operation of comments. Legal basis: performance of a contract with you; your consent where you have opted in to optional communications. **To process payments.** Legal basis: performance of a contract; compliance with financial record-keeping obligations under Australian and overseas tax law. **To respond to your correspondence.** Legal basis: your consent; my legitimate interest in running an accessible publication. **To maintain the security, integrity, and performance of the Site.** Legal basis: my legitimate interest in protecting the Site and its users against fraud, abuse, and unauthorised access. **To comply with legal obligations.** Including responses to lawful requests from regulators, courts, and law-enforcement authorities. Legal basis: legal obligation. ## Who I Share It With I use a small number of carefully chosen service providers ("processors") to operate the Site. Each processes Personal Information only on my instructions and under written terms that meet the standards required by Australian, EU, UK, and Californian law: - [**Ghost(Pro)**](https://ghost.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Ghost Foundation Ltd) provides hosting, membership infrastructure, comments, and bulk and transactional email delivery. Email is delivered by Ghost(Pro)'s sub-processor, [Mailgun](https://www.mailgun.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Sinch Email). - [**Plausible Analytics**](https://plausible.io/?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Plausible Insights OÜ) provides privacy-respecting, cookieless website analytics. - [**Transistor**](https://transistor.fm/?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Transistor.fm, Inc.) hosts the podcast audio files and distributes the podcast feed. - [**Typeform**](https://www.typeform.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) (TYPEFORM SL) operates the contact forms on the Site. - [**Stripe**](https://stripe.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), [**Liberapay**](https://liberapay.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), and [**Buy Me A Coffee**](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) process donations and subscription payments. - [**Proton Mail**](https://proton.me/mail?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Proton AG) provides end-to-end encrypted email for direct correspondence. Beyond these processors, I do not disclose Personal Information to third parties except where required by law, where necessary to protect my legal rights, or with your express consent. I do not sell, rent, or trade Personal Information, and I do not engage in the "sharing" of Personal Information for cross-context behavioural advertising within the meaning of the CCPA/CPRA. ## Overseas Disclosures Some of the processors listed above are based outside Australia, and the operation of the Site will involve the disclosure of Personal Information to countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, member states of the European Union (in particular Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Estonia), and Switzerland. Where Personal Information is transferred from the EEA or the UK to a jurisdiction not the subject of an adequacy decision, the transfer is made under the Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission or the UK International Data Transfer Agreement, as applicable. ## Cookies and Similar Technologies The Site uses cookies sparingly and only where functionally necessary: - **Authentication cookies** are set when you sign in as a member, to maintain your logged-in state. These expire when you sign out or when the session ends. - **Preference cookies** remember small choices such as theme selection. These expire after a reasonable period set by the relevant Site function. The Site does not use advertising cookies, cross-site tracking cookies, or social-media pixels. Plausible Analytics does not set cookies of any kind. ## Analytics [Plausible Analytics](https://plausible.io/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is used to measure aggregate traffic to the Site. Plausible does not use cookies, does not collect Personal Information, and does not fingerprint visitors. The data collected is aggregated and anonymised; it allows me to understand what is read and how often, without identifying individual readers. Plausible's full data policy is published at [plausible.io/data-policy](https://plausible.io/data-policy?ref=robert.winter.ink). ## Security I take reasonable steps to protect Personal Information from misuse, interference, loss, unauthorised access, modification, and disclosure. These include encryption in transit (HTTPS), encrypted email ([Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail?ref=robert.winter.ink)) for direct correspondence, restricted administrative access, and reliance on processors that maintain recognised security certifications. No internet-based service can be guaranteed fully secure; if I become aware of a data breach that is likely to result in serious harm, I will notify affected individuals and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner in accordance with the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme under Part IIIC of the *Privacy Act 1988* (Cth). ## How Long I Keep It **Membership records** are retained for as long as your membership is active, and for a further period — ordinarily seven years — to the extent necessary to meet financial record-keeping obligations under Australian tax law. **Payment and transaction records** are retained for the period required by applicable tax and consumer-protection law. **Correspondence** is retained for as long as is reasonably necessary to maintain the relationship and for a reasonable archival period thereafter. **Comments** are retained for as long as your membership is active. If you close your membership, your comments will be anonymised or deleted on request. **Analytics data** held by Plausible is aggregated and retained in line with Plausible's data-retention policy. Where Personal Information is no longer required for the purposes for which it was collected and is not required to be retained by law, it will be destroyed or de-identified in accordance with APP 11.2. ## Your Rights ### Under Australian Privacy Law You have the right to: - Request access to the Personal Information I hold about you (APP 12). - Request correction of Personal Information that is inaccurate, out of date, incomplete, irrelevant, or misleading (APP 13). - Deal with me anonymously or pseudonymously in any circumstances where this is lawful and practicable (APP 2), although this will generally not be possible for members or paid subscribers. - Make a complaint about my handling of your Personal Information. Requests under APPs 12 and 13 will ordinarily be responded to within thirty days. ### Under the EU and UK GDPR If you are in the EEA or the UK, you have, in addition to the rights above, the right to: - Erasure of your Personal Information (the "right to be forgotten"). - Restriction of processing. - Data portability. - Object to processing undertaken on the basis of legitimate interests. - Withdraw consent where processing is based on consent, without affecting the lawfulness of processing carried out before the withdrawal. - Lodge a complaint with the supervisory authority in your country of residence, workplace, or the place of the alleged infringement. ### Under California Law If you are a California resident, you have the right to: - Know what categories of Personal Information are collected, the sources, the business purposes, and the categories of third parties to whom it is disclosed. - Request deletion of Personal Information, subject to statutory exceptions. - Request correction of inaccurate Personal Information. - Opt out of the sale or sharing of Personal Information. I do not sell or share Personal Information as those terms are defined under the CCPA/CPRA. - Limit the use and disclosure of sensitive Personal Information. I do not use sensitive Personal Information for purposes that would trigger this right. - Not be discriminated against for exercising any of these rights. To exercise any right set out above, contact me using the details in the Complaints and Contact section below. I will verify your identity by reasonable means before acting on a request. ## Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Personal Information collected through the Site is not used, licensed, disclosed, or made available to any party for the purpose of training, fine-tuning, grounding, evaluating, or otherwise developing any machine-learning model, large language model, generative artificial intelligence system, or comparable automated system. This applies equally to member data, comment data, correspondence, analytics data, and podcast listening data. The corresponding protection of the published Content of the Site against AI-training use is set out in the [Content Licence](https://robert.winter.ink/licence-information/). ## Children The Site is intended for an adult professional readership and is not directed to children. I do not knowingly collect Personal Information from a person under the age of sixteen. If you believe a child has provided Personal Information to the Site, contact me and I will take reasonable steps to delete it. ## Changes to This Policy I will revise this policy from time to time to reflect changes in the Site, in the services I use to operate it, or in applicable law. The date of the most recent revision appears at the foot of the policy. Where a change is material — for example, where it broadens the purposes for which Personal Information is used or introduces a new category of disclosure — I will notify registered members by email and post a prominent notice on the Site before the change takes effect. Minor or clarificatory changes will be published without separate notice. ## Complaints and Contact If you have a question about this policy, or if you believe I have mishandled your Personal Information, contact me via the form at [robert.winter.ink/contact](https://robert.winter.ink/contact/). I will acknowledge your complaint within seven days and respond substantively within thirty. If you are not satisfied with my response, you may lodge a complaint with the [Office of the Australian Information Commissioner](https://www.oaic.gov.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink). If you are in the United Kingdom, you may lodge a complaint with the [Information Commissioner's Office](https://ico.org.uk/?ref=robert.winter.ink). If you are in the European Economic Area, you may lodge a complaint with your national supervisory authority. A directory is maintained by the [European Data Protection Board](https://www.edpb.europa.eu/?ref=robert.winter.ink). --- *Last updated: 23 April 2026* ### Disclaimer URL: https://robert.winter.ink/disclaimer/ Last updated: 2026-04-24T04:05:12.000Z This Disclaimer applies to [robert.winter.ink](https://robert.winter.ink/) and the podcast *On the Subject of Leadership with Dr Robert N. Winter* (together, "the Site"), including all articles, newsletters, marginalia, podcast episodes, associated social-media channels, and correspondence relating to them. It should be read alongside the [Terms of Service](https://robert.winter.ink/terms-of-service/), the [Content Licence](https://robert.winter.ink/licence-information/), and the [Privacy Policy](https://robert.winter.ink/privacy-policy/), each of which forms part of the agreement between you and me. ## Views and Opinions The views expressed on the Site, in the podcast, in associated social-media channels, and in private correspondence are mine alone. They are not attributable to any board, committee, employer, client, university, or other organisation with which I am, or have been, associated in a professional or academic capacity. Where guests appear on the podcast, the views they express are their own and are not attributable to me, to their respective employers, or to any organisation with which they are associated. The appearance of a guest on the podcast does not constitute endorsement of their views, and it does not imply agreement with any position they adopt. ## Nature of the Content The Site publishes long-form writing and commentary on leadership, governance, organisational life, history, philosophy, and related subjects. It is intended for an educated adult readership and is offered for general information, intellectual engagement, and professional reflection. The Content is not legal advice, financial advice, investment advice, medical advice, tax advice, accounting advice, actuarial advice, or any other form of regulated professional advice. It is not a substitute for advice given by a qualified professional on the particular facts of a particular matter, and it should not be relied on as such. Readers with specific questions affecting their personal, professional, or fiduciary position should consult a suitably qualified adviser. In particular, articles and podcasts that discuss corporate governance, directors' duties, fiduciary obligations, regulatory responsibilities, or organisational strategy are not advice on the application of any of those matters to a specific board, company, or engagement. Any reader contemplating action on such matters should obtain independent legal and professional advice. ## No Consulting Relationship Reading the Site, subscribing to any of its tiers, corresponding with me, or engaging with the podcast does not establish a consulting, advisory, or other professional relationship between us. A professional relationship is formed only by the execution of a separate written engagement agreement. ## Accuracy and "As Is" While I take care to ensure that the Content is accurate, well-researched, and properly attributed, I make no warranty of accuracy, completeness, or reliability. The Site is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis. I expressly disclaim all warranties, whether express or implied, including warranties of fitness for a particular purpose, merchantability, and non-infringement, and I do not warrant that the Site will be free of technical faults, interruptions, or security vulnerabilities. Nothing in this Disclaimer excludes, restricts, or modifies any consumer guarantee or right that cannot be excluded at law, including under the *Australian Consumer Law* (Schedule 2 to the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)). ## Third-Party and Linked Content The Site contains links to external websites, embedded references to third-party works, and quotations from, or summaries of, third-party publications. I do not control third-party content, cannot warrant its accuracy, reliability, or continued availability, and do not endorse it by the fact of linking to or referencing it. You access third-party content at your own risk. ## Affiliation, Sponsorship, and Paid Placement The Site does not carry advertising, does not accept sponsored content or paid placements, and does not use affiliate links. No author, publisher, product, service, or organisation referred to in the Content has paid, or provided anything of value, in consideration for being mentioned. Where the Content refers to products or services—for example, the tools used to produce the Site—this is done for transparency or utility, not for commercial benefit. If this position changes, it will be disclosed prominently in the relevant article and in a standing note on this page. ## Authorial Work and the Use of AI Articles, newsletters, podcast scripts, and podcast narration are my own authorial work in the sense that matters: I stand behind the reasoning, I am accountable for the meaning, and the judgements expressed are mine. My position on authorship in the age of AI is set out at length in [Authorship in the Age of AI](https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-in-the-age-of-ai/), and this Disclaimer should be read consistently with it. I use artificial-intelligence tools routinely and without apology—as a thinking partner for interrogating ideas, as a research assistant for locating and summarising sources, and as a copy editor for matters of clarity, rhythm, and grammar. In this I am in step with standard practice in the senior professions: top-tier law firms, consultancies, and academic environments increasingly treat competent, disclosed use of AI as an expected part of good professional craft, and treat its avoidance as a lapse in that craft rather than a virtue. What does not change is where authorial responsibility sits. The reasoning behind what is published is mine, the judgement that selects and rejects is mine, and the moral burden of belief that Friedrich's account of reasoned elaboration describes is mine. AI tools enlarge the workshop; they do not hold the chisel. Where guests appear on the podcast, the words they speak are their own. ## Evolving Views The opinions expressed on the Site reflect my views at the time of publication. Those views may evolve as new information becomes available, as I revisit a question, or as circumstances change. Readers should regard each piece as a snapshot of my thinking at the date of publication, and should consider that date when assessing the relevance of a piece to any present question. ## Corrections and Updates Where my views on a topic change significantly and I revisit it in a subsequent article, an editorial note will be placed at the top of the earlier piece linking to the update. The earlier piece will remain unchanged in substance, so that the historical record is preserved and the evolution of my thinking can be tracked. Minor corrections—typographical errors, broken links, or updated references—will be made in place without separate notice. ## Changes to This Disclaimer I may revise this Disclaimer from time to time to reflect changes in the Site, the services used to operate it, or applicable law. The date of the most recent revision appears at the foot of this page. Where a change is material, I will notify registered members by email and post a prominent notice on the Site before the change takes effect. Minor or clarificatory changes will be published without separate notice. ## Contact For questions about this Disclaimer, please contact me via the form at [robert.winter.ink/contact](https://robert.winter.ink/contact/). --- *Last updated: 23 April 2026* ### Why I Write URL: https://robert.winter.ink/why-i-write/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:04.000Z In thinking about why I write, I often muse on the following quote by Wittgenstein: > Some of the greatest achievements in philosophy could only be compared with taking up some books which seemed to belong together, and putting them on different shelves; nothing more being final about their positions than that they no longer lie side by side. The onlooker who doesn’t know the difficulty of the task might well think in such a case that nothing at all had been achieved – the difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know. E.g. to see that when we have put two books together in their right order we have not thereby put them in their final places. This quote is apposite because it expresses the difficulty of the task faced by an author: seeking ‘right’ order while remaining open to this not being the final order. Why I write is not because, as is often remarked, it is the task of each generation to re-examine problems previously addressed. Instead, I write because it is better by far to question my absolute convictions and, as Burke noted, spend a long time ‘lost in doubts and uncertainties’ than settle for a life deaf to speculative opportunities in which I question little and know little else. Only through a deep awareness of my own limitations can I hope to achieve a truth-claim. Nietzsche was acutely aware of the difficulties in establishing truth-claims as thinkers and believers beyond counting, not to mention we ourselves, have asserted a ‘truth’ of this world, trapping most of us in a matrix which interprets ‘falsely and mendaciously, though according to our wish and will for veneration, that is, according to a *need*.’ Only through constantly seeking what is ‘true as such’ can we hope to break out of this miasma of delusion, see this world faithfully, and find better, not just different solutions. Only then can we hope to put books in the great library of human thought in their final order. ## Library of Babel Continuing the metaphor of the library, my writing is also motivated by Jorge Luis Borges’ short story, *The Library of Babel*, which has come to disturbing and dystopic fruition as the initial euphoria of mass access to a seeming infinity of information online has given way to madness with ideology and ‘fake news’ dominating the landscape. These developments create a relativist’s dream of a ‘post-truth’ world where lay readers and academics alike are seized by a ‘hygienic, ascetic rage’ which casts some schools of thought as ‘analogous to a god,’ with acolytes prostrating themselves before approved ‘books and like savages kiss\[ing\] their pages, though they cannot read a letter.’ Other texts or outlooks fall victim to ‘epidemics, heretical discords’ or ‘pilgrimages that inevitably degenerate into brigandage;’ ultimately extinguishing the fire of any meaningful agonism. Again, Nietzsche had prefigured this dystopia by observing humanities general ‘incapacity for philology.’ In this context, philology is to be understood in a very wide sense as the art of reading well – of being able to: > read off a fact without falsifying it by interpretation, without losing caution, patience, subtlety in the desire for understanding. Philology as *ephexis* \[undecisiveness\] in interpretation: whether it be a question of books, newspaper reports, fate or the weather. ## 'No Platforming' It is with sadness that I see an increasing number of institutions adopting a ‘no platform’ policy because students, staff or external activists feel threatened by the views of potential speakers. Simply because we hear, read or even write a view does not mean we hold or endorse that view. It may simply mean we recognise its importance, if only as something to be rebutted, and think it better to expose and test the assertion against the full weight of evidence than let it stand on hearsay or speculation. Social media provides a near unlimited outlet for any view, no matter how bigoted, anti-logical or ill-informed it may be. Only by bringing such views into institutions filled with the best and the brightest, and having those ideas opened to the scrutiny of debate and analysis, may they finally be put to rest as potential solutions to the present discontents. ## Safe Spaces My writing is also a reaction to the use and abuse of safe spaces. A safe space is a crucial notion for any institution, but the concept must be extended to mean more than a place in which people who ‘feel’ marginalised can go to discuss their experiences of marginalisation free from any criticism, no matter how constructive. If all counter arguments are suppressed, such spaces, far from equipping people with the tools to combat real, and imagined, marginalisation, will create the ultimate philosophical vacuum and only serve to fuel suspicion of all ‘out groups,’ that is to say groups who are deemed not to be part of the milieu of the marginalised. In such an environment it is little wonder minority and majority groups increasingly feel to be under siege. Such sentiment could be effectively combatted if the concept of a ‘safe space’ was extended to mean a place in which all aspects of thought can be discussed, particularly those which deviate from the ‘marginalised’ consensus. Émile Durkheim observed ‘if purely moral rules are at stake, the public conscience restricts any act which infringes them.’ Without divergence from safe views, without an opposing system of thought or differing set or moral rules, consciousness will ‘petrify too easily into an immutable form. For it to evolve, individual originality must be allowed to manifest itself.’ ## Philosopher of History As a philosopher of history my thinking always looks back to project solutions forward. In doing so I am cognisant that each generation has seen a ‘turning point,’ asked very similar questions and, in a manifestation of Santayana’s prophetic phrase, often repeated the mistakes of the past. Part of the cause for this repetition of error is, as R. G. Collingwood noted, we too often ask the wrong questions by only enquiring about what people did, rather than trying to understand what they thought. In such a context we often give the right answer to the question, but, because it is the wrong question, fail to resolve the issue which persists for the next generation. This process failure can be seen in the notion of a turning point in executive responsibility and is often motivated by the misquotation of an argument by Milton Friedman that claims executive responsibility stops after they make as much money for shareholders as possible. Misquoted as his actual argument asserted ‘\[a\] corporate executive … has direct responsibility to conduct business in accordance with \[shareholder\] desires … \[i.e.\] to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.’ With Friedman asking the right question and answering responsibility entails law and ethical custom, we can only be at a turning point for business if we understand why executives, academics and journalists continue to miss the key questions by asking ‘what’ rather than ‘why,’ and in doing so fail to see that some of the answers to our present discontents have already been given. If leaders continue this trend of asking the wrong questions, no matter how well they may answer, the history of our time, far from being a turning point, will be described using A. J. P. Taylor’s famous phrase: ‘history reached its turning point and failed to turn.’ ## Philosophy of Leadership For leadership, one of the more recent attempts to put a case for writing about the philosophy of leadership was made by Leanne Meyer, co-director of a new leadership department at the Carnegie Mellon Tepper School of Business: > There’s a turning point in what’s expected from business leaders. Up until now, business leaders were largely responsible for delivering products. Now, shareholders are looking to corporate leaders to make statements on what would traditionally have been social justice or moral issues. While such an argument does put the case for restressing the importance of philosophical enquiry, it does so by way of negation. This is because it carries implicit criticism of executives up until now, many of whom have made statements and acted on justice and moral issues. It also fails to acknowledge that we are at no more of a turning point today than we were at any age in the past. To imagine ‘our time’ is more awake and aware is to adopt a Whig view of history and, as a remedy, recycle the myth of the revolution which states: now, with this generation, we have recognised the injustices and our ‘new’ formulations will address them. At which point, still shining and fresh from the factory, a framework is presented which promises to reform business and society at large, while making one’s clothes cleaner than ever! As a philosopher of history my thinking always looks back to project solutions forward. In doing so I am cognisant that each generation has seen a ‘turning point,’ asked very similar questions and, in a manifestation of Santayana’s prophetic phrase, often repeated the mistakes of the past. Part of the cause for this repetition of error is, as R. G. Collingwood noted, we too often ask the wrong questions by only enquiring about what people did, rather than trying to understand what they thought. In such a context we often give the right answer to the question, but, because it is the wrong question, fail to resolve the issue which persists for the next generation. This process failure can be seen in the notion of a turning point in executive responsibility and is often motivated by the misquotation of an argument by Milton Friedman that claims executive responsibility stops after they make as much money for shareholders as possible. Misquoted as his actual argument asserted ‘\[a\] corporate executive … has direct responsibility to conduct business in accordance with \[shareholder\] desires … \[i.e.\] to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.’ With Friedman asking the right question and answering responsibility entails law and ethical custom, we can only be at a turning point for business if we understand why executives, academics and journalists continue to miss the key questions by asking ‘what’ rather than ‘why,’ and in doing so fail to see that some of the answers to our present discontents have already been given. If community leaders continue this trend of asking the wrong questions, no matter how well they may answer, the history of our time, far from being a turning point, will be described using A. J. P. Taylor’s famous phrase: ‘history reached its turning point and failed to turn.’ With business playing and ever greater rôle in the development of society, Friedman’s words remain prescient. What was once solely the province of Church or State increasingly falls into the purview of corporations. Companies shape the political and social landscape in ways scarcely seen since the East India Company was wound up, and the decision making of senior leadership teams is more akin to drafting policy for the many than marketing products for the few. In such a variegated and responsibility-laden landscape, there is increasing need to define and refine both law and ethical custom, a task for which philosophy offers invaluable tools since different ideas can be placed on the scales and weighed against current business practices to ask questions such as, ‘is it a ‘bro’ culture or a necessary deviation from cultural norms to facilitate greater creativity?’ ‘Is it notions of invincibility mixed with arrogance or ground-breaking individuals accomplishing that which was not thought possible?’ ‘Are the 20-somethings running billion-dollar companies really flying too close to the sun or merely flying too high for current social norms?’ ‘Is current corporate governance truly best practice or nepotism favouring a different ‘in’ group?’ --- [Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=29098753&ref=robert.winter.ink) by the Google Cultural Institute is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Bomb and Civilisation (1945) URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-bomb-and-civilisation-1945/ Last updated: 2020-07-18T12:42:43.000Z ### By Russell Bertrand It is impossible to imagine a more dramatic and horrifying combination of scientific triumph with political and moral failure than has been shown to the world in the destruction of Hiroshima. From the scientific point of view, the atomic bomb embodies the results of a combination of genius and patience as remarkable as any in the history of mankind. Atoms are so minute that it might have seemed impossible to know as much as we do about them. A million million bundles, each containing a million million hydrogen atoms, would weigh about a gram and a half. Each hydrogen atom consists of a nucleus, and an electron going round the nucleus, as the earth goes round the sun. The distance from the nucleus to the electron is usually about a hundred-millionth of a centimetre; the electron and the nucleus are supposed to be so small that if they could be crowded together it would take about ten million million on end to fill a centimetre. The nucleus has positive electricity, the planetary electron an equal amount of negative electricity; the nucleus is about 1850 times as heavy as the electron. The hydrogen atom, which I have been describing, is the simplest of atoms, but the atom used in the atomic bomb is at the other end of the scale. Uranium, the element chiefly used in the atomic bomb, has the heaviest and most complex of atoms. Normally there are 92 planetary electrons, while the nucleus is made up of about 238 neutrons (which have mass without electricity), 238 positrons (which have positive electricity and very little mass), and 146 electrons, which are like positrons except that their electricity is negative. Positrons repel each other, and so do electrons; but a positron and electron attract each other. The overcrowding of mutually attracted and expelled particles in the tiny space of the uranium nucleus involves enormous potentially explosive forces. Uranium is slightly radioactive, which means that some of its atoms break up naturally. But a quicker process than this is required for the making of an atomic bomb. Rutherford found out, about thirty years ago, that little bits could be chipped off an atom by bombardment. In 1939, a more powerful process was discovered: it was found that neutrons, entering the nucleus of a uranium atom, would cause it to split into two roughly equal halves, which would rush off and disrupt other uranium atoms in the neighbourhood, and so set up a train of explosions so long as there was any of the right kind of uranium to be encountered. Ever since the beginning of the war, the Germans on the one side, and the British and Americans on the other, have been working on the possibility of an atomic explosive. One of the difficulties was to make sure that it would not be too effective: there was a fear that it might destroy not only the enemy, but the whole planet, and naturally experiments were risky. But the difficulties were overcome, and now the possibility, which scientists have foreseen for over forty years (1905 was the year of publication of Einstein’s special theory of relativity), has entered into the world of practical politics. The labours of [Rutherford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest%5FRutherford?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Bohr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels%5FBohr?ref=robert.winter.ink), of [Heisenberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner%5FHeisenberg?ref=robert.winter.ink), and [Schrödinger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin%5FSchr%C3%B6dinger?ref=robert.winter.ink), and a number of other distinguished men, the ablest men of our time, and most of them both high-minded and public-spirited, have borne fruit: in an instant, by means of one small bomb, every vestige of life throughout four square miles of a populous city has been exterminated. As I write, I learn that a second bomb has been dropped on [Nagasaki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic%5Fbombings%5Fof%5FHiroshima%5Fand%5FNagasaki?ref=robert.winter.ink#Bombing%5Fof%5FNagasaki). The prospect for the human race is sombre beyond all precedent. Mankind are faced with a clear-cut alternative: either we shall all perish, or we shall have to acquire some slight degree of common sense. A great deal of new political thinking will be necessary if utter disaster is to be averted. For the moment, fortunately, only the United States is in a position to manufacture atomic bombs. The immediate result must be a rapid end to the Japanese war, whether by surrender or by extermination. The power of the United States in international affairs is, for the time being, immeasurably increased; a month ago, Russia and the United States seemed about equal in warlike strength, but now this is no longer the case. This situation, however, will not last long, for it must be assumed that before long Russia and the British Empire will set to work to make these bombs for themselves. Uranium has suddenly become the most precious of raw materials, and nations will probably fight for it as hitherto they have fought for oil. In the next war, if atomic bombs are used on both sides, it is to be expected that all large cities will be completely wiped out; so will all scientific laboratories and all governmental centres. Communications will be disrupted, and the world will be reduced to a number of small independent agricultural communities living on local produce, as they did in the Dark Ages. But presumably none of them will have either the resources or the skill for the manufacture of atomic bombs. There is another and a better possibility, if men have the wisdom to make use of the few years during which it will remain open to them. Either war or civilization must end, and if it is to be war that ends, there must be an international authority with the sole power to make the new bombs. All supplies of uranium must be placed under the control of the international authority, which shall have the right to safeguard the ore by armed forces. As soon as such an authority has been created, all existing atomic bombs, and all plants for their manufacture, must be handed over. And of course the international authority must have sufficient armed forces to protect whatever has been handed over to it. If this system were once established, the international authority would be irresistible, and wars would cease. At worst, there might be occasional brief revolts that would be easily quelled. But I fear all this is Utopian. The United States will not consent to any pooling of armaments, and no more will Soviet Russia. Each will insist on retaining the means of exterminating the other, on the ground that the other is not to be trusted. If America were more imperialistic there would be another possibility, less Utopian and less desirable, but still preferable to the total obliteration of civilized life. It would be possible for Americans to use their position of temporary superiority to insist upon disarmament, not only in Germany and Japan, but everywhere except in the United States, or at any rate in every country not prepared to enter into a close military alliance with the United States, involving compulsory sharing of military secrets. During the next few years, this policy could be enforced; if one or two wars were necessary, they would be brief, and would soon end in decisive American victory. In this way a new [League of Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United%5FNations?ref=robert.winter.ink) could be formed under American leadership, and the peace of the world could be securely established. But I fear that respect for international justice will prevent Washington from adopting this policy. In view of the reluctance of mankind to form voluntarily an effective international authority, we must hope, and perhaps we may expect, that after the next world war some one Power will emerge with such preponderant strength as to be able to establish a peaceful hegemony over the rest of the globe. The next war, unless it comes very soon, will endanger all civilized government; but if any civilized government survives and achieves supremacy, there will again be a possibility of ordered progress and the utilization of science for happiness rather than for destruction. One is tempted to feel that Man is being punished, through the agency of his own evil passions, for impiety in inquiring too closely into the hidden secrets of nature. But such a feeling is unduly defeatist. Science is capable of conferring enormous boons: it can lighten labour, abolish poverty, and enormously diminish disease. But if science is to bring benefits instead of death, we must bring to bear upon social, and especially international, organization, intelligence of the same high order that has enabled us to discover the structure of the atom. To do this effectively we must free ourselves from the domination of ancient shibboleths, and think freely, fearlessly and rationally about the new and appalling problems with which the human race is confronted by its conquest of scientific power. ### About URL: https://robert.winter.ink/about/ Last updated: 2026-08-10T11:06:16.000Z I am an independent writer, podcaster, and advisor with two decades of experience spanning publishing, health, national standards, and the for-purpose sector. My career has moved from network infrastructure to the boardroom and from programme delivery to cultural change—not as a progression of roles, but as successive encounters with the same underlying problem: organisations that are well-stocked with talent and poorly equipped to use it. That problem is what I write and talk about. [*On the Subject of Leadership*](https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/) is my podcast—a series of extended conversations with the leaders, researchers, and practitioners who study and live these questions at close range. It is where theory meets the texture of actual institutional life, and where I get to ask the questions that management literature tends to answer too quickly—and management meetings tend to not answer. That problem is also what I work on. I help organisations that are stuck—not in effort, but in effectiveness. Sometimes that means untangling OKRs from organisational theatre. Sometimes it means chairing a board through a legitimacy crisis, or building a capability framework that does not collapse under the weight of its own nomenclature. I bring to that work a PhD in leadership, an MBA in organisational behaviour, and governance credentials from the AICD. I have held leadership roles at [PRP Diagnostic Imaging](https://www.prpimaging.com.au/patient/?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Standards Australia](https://www.standards.org.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink), and [HarperCollins](https://www.harpercollins.com.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink), and am the current chair of [tekFoundation](https://www.tekfoundation.org.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink). But credentials describe preparation, not judgment—and judgment is what this work actually requires: knowing when to push, when to pause, and when to quietly reframe the conversation. As a writer, I explore the forces that shape modern leadership and institutional life, with a preference for clarity over cant and a conviction that the Romans and the Elizabethans already solved most of the problems we keep *discovering*. If your organisation needs fewer performances and more performance management—let's talk. ### My Online Identities URL: https://robert.winter.ink/my-online-identities/ Last updated: 2020-07-18T12:51:39.000Z ### Online Accounts Below is a list of my online identities. I had been using Keybase as my verification service, but their acquisition by Zoom prompted me to add a self-hosted option. ### Contribution Guidelines URL: https://robert.winter.ink/contribution-guidelines/ Last updated: 2026-04-24T04:03:45.000Z These guidelines govern comments and other reader contributions on [robert.winter.ink](https://robert.winter.ink/). They form part of the [Terms of Service](https://robert.winter.ink/terms-of-service/), and the legal framework around member comments—ownership, licence, and moderation—is set out there at clause 5\. This page covers the editorial expectations that sit on top of the legal terms: how contribution works, what earns publication, and what does not. In short: **be civil and be informed.** Most of what follows is detail on those two requirements. ## What This Space Is For The comments section is not a general-purpose forum. It is an appendix to the writing, and the writing is the point. A good contribution does one of a small number of things: it advances the argument, it challenges the argument, it adds evidence or counter-evidence, it corrects an error, or it tells me something from your own experience that bears on the topic. A contribution that does not do one of those things—however polite, however well-formed—will usually not be published. This is a narrower standard than most comment sections apply, and deliberately so. The readership of this site is an educated professional audience, and the comments are read as part of the publication. A reader's time is better spent with ten considered contributions than with a hundred reactions. ## How to Contribute Comments are available to signed-in members of the [Commons](https://robert.winter.ink/membership/) (free) and the [Inner Circle](https://robert.winter.ink/membership/) (paid). There is no anonymous commenting. The name on your account is the name that appears on your contribution; use the name by which you want to be addressed in a professional discussion. Comments are moderated before publication. In most cases a contribution will appear within forty-eight hours. Moderation is a single-person operation; occasional delays should be expected, particularly around travel, podcast production, and weekends. ## What Will Not Be Published To save everyone time, the following are not published, regardless of how they are framed: - **Promotional material.** Links to shopping sites, services, or products; solicitations; network-marketing outreach; anything that uses the comment as a conduit for something it isn't. - **Irrelevant links.** A URL that is not directly relevant to the article under which it is posted. - **Abusive or demeaning material.** Personal attacks on me, on other commenters, on podcast guests, or on named third parties; content that degrades others on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sex, sexuality, disability, age, or political affiliation. - **Bigoted material.** The site has a settled position on this and does not host it. The full sweep of political opinion is welcome; attacks on classes of person are not. - **Content plausibly defamatory under Australian law.** Unverified allegations against named individuals or organisations will not appear. - **Material that infringes third-party rights.** Copyrighted text reproduced without authority; material posted in breach of a confidence, a non-disclosure, or a professional duty. - **Drop-and-paste AI output.** My position on AI in authorship is set out at [Authorship in the Age of AI](https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-in-the-age-of-ai/) and in the [Disclaimer](https://robert.winter.ink/disclaimer/). I do not object to contributors using AI tools to help draft, sharpen, or translate a comment—any more than I object to their using a dictionary, a citation manager, or an attentive colleague. What I object to is comments that have no human reasoning behind them. The test is the one that governs my own work: the contributor must stand behind the reasoning. A comment that is recognisably unedited model output will not be published. - **Contributions that don't contribute.** "Great article!" is appreciated privately and has no place in a published thread. The same applies to its opposite. ## What Is Welcome Beyond the "civil and informed" baseline: - **Disagreement, vigorously expressed.** Disagreement is why this site has comments. The only requirement is that it be argued rather than asserted. - **Evidence, including evidence I have overlooked.** If you know the literature better than I do on a particular point, say so. - **Correction.** Factual errors, broken citations, misattributions—please tell me. Serious corrections will be acknowledged in an editorial note on the relevant article. - **Professional experience brought to bear on the argument.** A serving director's view of a governance point, a historian's view of a historical one, a philosopher's view of a philosophical one—these are what make the comments section better than the article beneath it. - **Links to your own writing.** If you have responded to an article at length on your own site, include the URL. A substantive response will ordinarily be linked from the parent article. ## Responding at Length Some contributions are longer than a comment and belong on the contributor's own site rather than mine. That is the preferable form for a serious response, and I will link to it from the relevant article. If you do not have an online writing presence and would like one, [Write.as](https://write.as/?ref=robert.winter.ink) remains one of the cleaner starting points—a plain editor, minimal surveillance, no algorithmic feed. You need very little to begin, and writing in public tends to improve the writing. ## Editorial Discretion I moderate these guidelines as I moderate the writing on the site: with judgement rather than by rulebook. A contribution that falls within the letter of the rules but against their spirit will not be published; a contribution that technically breaches a rule but manifestly advances the discussion will be welcomed. Reasonable people can disagree with my calls, and do. The correct approach is to [contact me](https://robert.winter.ink/contact/); I have changed my mind in the past, and will again. I reserve the right to edit minor matters—typographical corrections, formatting, obvious slips—without notice. Substantive edits, if ever required, will be disclosed. ## Privacy and Deletion The collection and handling of your Personal Information in connection with contributions is governed by the [Privacy Policy](https://robert.winter.ink/privacy-policy/). If you wish your comments to be removed, [contact me](https://robert.winter.ink/contact/) and I will arrange it. If you cancel your membership, your comments will be anonymised or deleted on request, in accordance with the Privacy Policy. ## Questions For anything not covered here, [contact me](https://robert.winter.ink/contact/). --- *Last updated: 23 April 2026* ### Content License Agreement URL: https://robert.winter.ink/licence-information/ Last updated: 2026-04-23T11:09:57.000Z Welcome to the official licence page for [robert.winter.ink](https://robert.winter.ink/) and the podcast *On the Subject of Leadership with Dr Robert N. Winter*. By accessing, streaming, downloading, citing, or otherwise using the podcast, articles, research, newsletters, images, and accompanying materials published on this site (collectively, "the Content"), you accept the terms set out below. These terms operate alongside, and do not displace, the default position at law: under the *Copyright Act 1968* (Cth), all rights in the Content are reserved. ## Ownership All Content—including audio recordings, written articles, research, scripts, interviews, music, artwork, photographs, logos, and branding—is the intellectual property of Dr Robert N. Winter ("the Owner"), save where third-party material is used under licence or in reliance on fair dealing, in which case attribution is provided within the work itself. ## Permitted Use You may, without seeking further permission: 1. Access, stream, and download the Content for personal, non-commercial use. 2. Share hyperlinks to publicly available Content, provided the link directs the user to the original source as published on [robert.winter.ink](https://robert.winter.ink/) or its authorised syndication partners. 3. Quote the Content for the purposes of criticism, review, parody, satire, research, scholarship, or the reporting of news, consistent with the fair dealing provisions at sections 40 to 42 of the *Copyright Act 1968* (Cth), provided that sufficient acknowledgement—author, title, date, and source URL—is given in accordance with ordinary scholarly convention. 4. Cite the Content in academic and professional work, with proper attribution to Dr Robert N. Winter and a link to the original source where applicable. ## Prohibited Use Save as expressly permitted above or with the prior written consent of the Owner, you may not: 1. Copy, reproduce, adapt, translate, modify, distribute, publish, or create derivative works from the Content in whole or in substantial part. 2. Use the Content for commercial purposes, including advertising, sponsorship, promotion, or monetisation, whether direct or indirect. 3. Host, mirror, redistribute, or otherwise make the Content available on any platform or medium other than [robert.winter.ink](https://robert.winter.ink/) and its authorised syndication partners. 4. Remove, alter, obscure, or falsify any copyright notice, trademark, authorial attribution, or proprietary marking associated with the Content. 5. Misattribute, distort, abridge, edit, or otherwise manipulate the Content in any manner that could mislead the reader or damage the reputation of the Owner. 6. Compile, aggregate, index, or incorporate the Content—whether with other material or alone—into any collection, database, anthology, or derivative corpus intended for distribution, sale, or public access. 7. **Use the Content, in whole or in part, to train, fine-tune, ground, evaluate, benchmark, or otherwise develop any machine learning model, large language model, generative artificial intelligence system, or comparable automated system, whether by direct ingestion, retrieval-augmented generation, automated scraping, vector embedding, or any other technical means.** This prohibition applies irrespective of whether the developer is a commercial entity, an academic institution, a research laboratory, or an individual, and operates as an express reservation of rights for the purposes of any statutory or regulatory regime that recognises such reservation, including Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. 8. Use automated tools—including but not limited to crawlers, scrapers, headless browsers, and AI agents—to access the Content in a manner inconsistent with the site's `robots.txt` file or any published machine-readable restriction. ## Members and Paid Subscribers Access granted to members of the Commons (free membership) and the Inner Circle (paid membership) is governed by the separate [Terms of Service](https://robert.winter.ink/terms-of-service/) applicable to each tier. In the event of any inconsistency between this Agreement and those Terms, the Terms of Service prevail in respect of the subscription relationship. Nothing in this Agreement excludes, restricts, or modifies any right of a consumer under the *Australian Consumer Law* (Schedule 2 to the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)) where that right cannot lawfully be excluded. ## Revocation and Modification The Owner reserves the right to revoke, amend, or restrict the rights granted to the general public under this Agreement at any time, with or without notice. Continued access to or use of the Content after any such change constitutes acceptance of the amended terms. Any revocation or variation affecting paid members of the Inner Circle will be given effect in accordance with the applicable [Terms of Service](https://robert.winter.ink/terms-of-service/) and the Australian Consumer Law. ## Disclaimer and Liability The Content is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Owner disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including as to accuracy, completeness, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. The Owner accepts no liability for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or exemplary loss or damage arising from the use of or reliance upon the Content. Nothing in this clause excludes, restricts, or modifies any liability that cannot be excluded at law, including under the Australian Consumer Law. ## Governing Law and Jurisdiction This Agreement is governed by the laws of New South Wales, Australia. The parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of New South Wales and the federal courts of Australia sitting in Sydney. ## Contact For permissions, licensing enquiries, or other matters arising under this Agreement, please contact the Owner via the form below: --- *Last updated: 23 April 2026* ### If— URL: https://robert.winter.ink/if-69084bfea6eccd001b7aab83/ Last updated: 2020-07-29T11:17:48.000Z > IF you can keep your head when all about you > Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, > If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, > But make allowance for their doubting too; > If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, > Or being lied about, don't deal in lies, > Or being hated, don't give way to hating, > And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise: > > If you can dream - and not make dreams your master; > If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim; > If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster > And treat those two impostors just the same; > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, > Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, > And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools: > > If you can make one heap of all your winnings > And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, > And lose, and start again at your beginnings > And never breathe a word about your loss; > If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew > To serve your turn long after they are gone, > And so hold on when there is nothing in you > Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!' > > If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, > ' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch, > if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, > If all men count with you, but none too much; > If you can fill the unforgiving minute > With sixty seconds' worth of distance run, > Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, > And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son! > > Rudyard Kipling ### Contact URL: https://robert.winter.ink/contact/ Last updated: 2026-04-21T10:21:02.000Z As a privacy and cross-platform advocate, I try and maintain a broad range of contact options. If you want to get in touch, please use one of the channels below. I usually respond promptly, but please don't take it personally if there is a slight delay - [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-robert-winter/?ref=robert.winter.ink) — the social network where business attire is virtually required, resumes mingle, and users collect endorsements as if they were rare collectibles. - [Mastodon](https://social.winter.ink/@robert?ref=robert.winter.ink) \- an oasis from the social media giants that operates without an incentive to sell you things. Consume content you enjoy uninterrupted with a chronological, ad-free, and non-algorithmic feed. You decide who you want to see! - [X](https://twitter.com/DrRobertWinter/?ref=robert.winter.ink) \- the platform of Kings, Presidents, Prime Ministers, writers and journalists. My little nook in their esteemed company. - [Matrix](https://matrix.to/?ref=robert.winter.ink#/@robert-winter:matrix.org) \- people should be able to talk, via the internet, with the same level of privacy as a face-to-face conversation in their own home. People should be able to communicate on their own terms; securely and in control of their data. The Element Team make good on this ideal. ### Enter your details below and I'll get back to you ### Donate URL: https://robert.winter.ink/donate-69084bfea6eccd001b7aab86/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:34:58.000Z ### Supporting Research While I consider myself a philosopher and writer, first and foremost, it is not how I earn my daily bread. As such, the effort and financial costs involved in running this site are freely and willingly donated by me as a labour of love. Reward comes from the not infrequent critical feedback and words of praise. All of which acts as grist for the windmills of my mind and a spur to further output. If I may ask one thing, it is that you reach out and let me know what you think about the content. That said — there are a range of costs for servers, software, and research, for which donations are gratefully accepted and faithfully applied to the ongoing maintenance expenses. [Liberapay](https://liberapay.com/DrRobertWinter/donate?ref=robert.winter.ink) [Buy Me A Book](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/robertwinter?ref=robert.winter.ink) #### Make a one-time donation Your contribution is appreciated. [Donate](https://robert.winter.ink/about-me/donate/) --- #### Make a monthly donation Your contribution is appreciated. [Donate monthly](https://robert.winter.ink/about-me/donate/) --- #### Make a yearly donation Your contribution is appreciated. [Donate yearly](https://robert.winter.ink/about-me/donate/) ### Sustainable Web Bibliography URL: https://robert.winter.ink/sustainable-web-bibliography/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:34:51.000Z List of some sites: - [SustyWP](https://sustywp.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Jack Lenox](https://jacklenox.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). - [Chris Adams](http://productscience.co.uk/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for hosting the Planet-Friendly Web session at MozFest. Check out [his blog](https://blog.chrisadams.me.uk/?ref=robert.winter.ink) and the [Planet-Friendly Web Guide](http://planetfriendlyweb.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink). - Tim Frick for [*Designing for Sustainability*](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920043904.do?ref=robert.winter.ink) and the team at [Mightybytes](https://www.mightybytes.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for [Ecograder](https://ecograder.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [sustainablewebdesign.org](https://sustainablewebdesign.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink). - Jenn Schlick and James Christie for [SustainableUX](http://www.sustainableux.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). - Adam Silver for his blog post: [Designing for Actual Performance](https://adamsilver.io/articles/designing-for-actual-performance/?ref=robert.winter.ink). - Heydon Pickering for [Writing Less Damn Code](https://vimeo.com/190834530?ref=robert.winter.ink) and the term “Unprogressive Non-enhancement”. - Brad Frost for [deathtobullshit.com](http://deathtobullshit.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). - Tom Greenwood for his [WordCamp talk](https://wordpress.tv/2017/06/22/tom-greenwood-zero-carbon-wordpress/?ref=robert.winter.ink) and the team at [Wholegrain Digital](https://www.wholegraindigital.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for [Website Carbon](https://www.websitecarbon.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). - Greenpeace for their [Clicking Clean](http://www.clickclean.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) campaign reports. ### Reflections on the Revolution in France URL: https://robert.winter.ink/reflections-on-the-revolution-in-france/ Last updated: 2021-04-17T04:50:53.000Z Dear Sir, You are pleased to call again, and with some earnestness, for my thoughts on the late proceedings in France. I will not give you reason to imagine that I think my sentiments of such value as to wish myself to be solicited about them. They are of too little consequence to be very anxiously either communicated or withheld. It was from attention to you, and to you only, that I hesitated at the time when you first desired to receive them. In the first letter I had the honor to write to you, and which at length I send, I wrote neither for, nor from, any description of men, nor shall I in this. My errors, if any, are my own. My reputation alone is to answer for them. You see, Sir, by the long letter I have transmitted to you, that though I do most heartily wish that France may be animated by a spirit of rational liberty, and that I think you bound, in all honest policy, to provide a permanent body in which that spirit may reside, and an effectual organ by which it may act, it is my misfortune to entertain great doubts concerning several material points in your late transactions. YOU IMAGINED, WHEN YOU WROTE LAST, that I might possibly be reckoned among the approvers of certain proceedings in France, from the solemn public seal of sanction they have received from two clubs of gentlemen in London, called the Constitutional Society and the Revolution Society. I certainly have the honor to belong to more clubs than one, in which the constitution of this kingdom and the principles of the glorious Revolution are held in high reverence, and I reckon myself among the most forward in my zeal for maintaining that constitution and those principles in their utmost purity and vigor. It is because I do so, that I think it necessary for me that there should be no mistake. Those who cultivate the memory of our Revolution and those who are attached to the constitution of this kingdom will take good care how they are involved with persons who, under the pretext of zeal toward the Revolution and constitution, too frequently wander from their true principles and are ready on every occasion to depart from the firm but cautious and deliberate spirit which produced the one, and which presides in the other. Before I proceed to answer the more material particulars in your letter, I shall beg leave to give you such information as I have been able to obtain of the two clubs which have thought proper, as bodies, to interfere in the concerns of France, first assuring you that I am not, and that I have never been, a member of either of those societies. The first, calling itself the Constitutional Society, or Society for Constitutional Information, or by some such title, is, I believe, of seven or eight years standing. The institution of this society appears to be of a charitable and so far of a laudable nature; it was intended for the circulation, at the expense of the members, of many books which few others would be at the expense of buying, and which might lie on the hands of the booksellers, to the great loss of an useful body of men. Whether the books, so charitably circulated, were ever as charitably read is more than I know. Possibly several of them have been exported to France and, like goods not in request here, may with you have found a market. I have heard much talk of the lights to be drawn from books that are sent from hence. What improvements they have had in their passage (as it is said some liquors are meliorated by crossing the sea) I cannot tell; but I never heard a man of common judgment or the least degree of information speak a word in praise of the greater part of the publications circulated by that society, nor have their proceedings been accounted, except by some of themselves, as of any serious consequence. Your National Assembly seems to entertain much the same opinion that I do of this poor charitable club. As a nation, you reserved the whole stock of your eloquent acknowledgments for the Revolution Society, when their fellows in the Constitutional were, in equity, entitled to some share. Since you have selected the Revolution Society as the great object of your national thanks and praises, you will think me excusable in making its late conduct the subject of my observations. The National Assembly of France has given importance to these gentlemen by adopting them; and they return the favor by acting as a committee in England for extending the principles of the National Assembly. Henceforward we must consider them as a kind of privileged persons, as no inconsiderable members in the diplomatic body. This is one among the revolutions which have given splendor to obscurity, and distinction to undiscerned merit. Until very lately I do not recollect to have heard of this club. I am quite sure that it never occupied a moment of my thoughts, nor, I believe, those of any person out of their own set. I find, upon inquiry, that on the anniversary of the Revolution in 1688, a club of dissenters, but of what denomination I know not, have long had the custom of hearing a sermon in one of their churches; and that afterwards they spent the day cheerfully, as other clubs do, at the tavern. But I never heard that any public measure or political system, much less that the merits of the constitution of any foreign nation, had been the subject of a formal proceeding at their festivals, until, to my inexpressible surprise, I found them in a sort of public capacity, by a congratulatory address, giving an authoritative sanction to the proceedings of the National Assembly in France. In the ancient principles and conduct of the club, so far at least as they were declared, I see nothing to which I could take exception. I think it very probable that for some purpose new members may have entered among them, and that some truly Christian politicians, who love to dispense benefits but are careful to conceal the hand which distributes the dole, may have made them the instruments of their pious designs. Whatever I may have reason to suspect concerning private management, I shall speak of nothing as of a certainty but what is public. For one, I should be sorry to be thought, directly or indirectly, concerned in their proceedings. I certainly take my full share, along with the rest of the world, in my individual and private capacity, in speculating on what has been done or is doing on the public stage in any place ancient or modern; in the republic of Rome or the republic of Paris; but having no general apostolical mission, being a citizen of a particular state and being bound up, in a considerable degree, by its public will, I should think it at least improper and irregular for me to open a formal public correspondence with the actual government of a foreign nation, without the express authority of the government under which I live. I should be still more unwilling to enter into that correspondence under anything like an equivocal description, which to many, unacquainted with our usages, might make the address, in which I joined, appear as the act of persons in some sort of corporate capacity acknowledged by the laws of this kingdom and authorized to speak the sense of some part of it. On account of the ambiguity and uncertainty of unauthorized general descriptions, and of the deceit which may be practiced under them, and not from mere formality, the House of Commons would reject the most sneaking petition for the most trifling object, under that mode of signature to which you have thrown open the folding doors of your presence chamber, and have ushered into your National Assembly with as much ceremony and parade, and with as great a bustle of applause, as if you have been visited by the whole representative majesty of the whole English nation. If what this society has thought proper to send forth had been a piece of argument, it would have signified little whose argument it was. It would be neither the more nor the less convincing on account of the party it came from. But this is only a vote and resolution. It stands solely on authority; and in this case it is the mere authority of individuals, few of whom appear. Their signatures ought, in my opinion, to have been annexed to their instrument. The world would then have the means of knowing how many they are; who they are; and of what value their opinions may be, from their personal abilities, from their knowledge, their experience, or their lead and authority in this state. To me, who am but a plain man, the proceeding looks a little too refined and too ingenious; it has too much the air of a political strategem adopted for the sake of giving, under a high-sounding name, an importance to the public declarations of this club which, when the matter came to be closely inspected, they did not altogether so well deserve. It is a policy that has very much the complexion of a fraud. I flatter myself that I love a manly, moral, regulated liberty as well as any gentleman of that society, be he who he will; and perhaps I have given as good proofs of my attachment to that cause in the whole course of my public conduct. I think I envy liberty as little as they do to any other nation. But I cannot stand forward and give praise or blame to anything which relates to human actions, and human concerns, on a simple view of the object, as it stands stripped of every relation, in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction. Circumstances (which with some gentlemen pass for nothing) give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind. Abstractedly speaking, government, as well as liberty, is good; yet could I, in common sense, ten years ago, have felicitated France on her enjoyment of a government (for she then had a government) without inquiry what the nature of that government was, or how it was administered? Can I now congratulate the same nation upon its freedom? Is it because liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a madman, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty? Am I to congratulate a highwayman and murderer who has broke prison upon the recovery of his natural rights? This would be to act over again the scene of the criminals condemned to the galleys, and their heroic deliverer, the metaphysic Knight of the Sorrowful Countenance. When I see the spirit of liberty in action, I see a strong principle at work; and this, for a while, is all I can possibly know of it. The wild gas, the fixed air, is plainly broke loose; but we ought to suspend our judgment until the first effervescence is a little subsided, till the liquor is cleared, and until we see something deeper than the agitation of a troubled and frothy surface. I must be tolerably sure, before I venture publicly to congratulate men upon a blessing, that they have really received one. Flattery corrupts both the receiver and the giver, and adulation is not of more service to the people than to kings. I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints. Prudence would dictate this in the case of separate, insulated, private men, but liberty, when men act in bodies, is power. Considerate people, before they declare themselves, will observe the use which is made of power and particularly of so trying a thing as new power in new persons of whose principles, tempers, and dispositions they have little or no experience, and in situations where those who appear the most stirring in the scene may possibly not be the real movers. ALL these considerations, however, were below the transcendental dignity of the Revolution Society. Whilst I continued in the country, from whence I had the honor of writing to you, I had but an imperfect idea of their transactions. On my coming to town, I sent for an account of their proceedings, which had been published by their authority, containing a sermon of Dr. Price, with the Duke de Rochefoucault's and the Archbishop of Aix's letter, and several other documents annexed. The whole of that publication, with the manifest design of connecting the affairs of France with those of England by drawing us into an imitation of the conduct of the National Assembly, gave me a considerable degree of uneasiness. The effect of that conduct upon the power, credit, prosperity, and tranquility of France became every day more evident. The form of constitution to be settled for its future polity became more clear. We are now in a condition to discern, with tolerable exactness, the true nature of the object held up to our imitation. If the prudence of reserve and decorum dictates silence in some circumstances, in others prudence of a higher order may justify us in speaking our thoughts. The beginnings of confusion with us in England are at present feeble enough, but, with you, we have seen an infancy still more feeble growing by moments into a strength to heap mountains upon mountains and to wage war with heaven itself. Whenever our neighbor's house is on fire, it cannot be amiss for the engines to play a little on our own. Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions than ruined by too confident a security. Solicitous chiefly for the peace of my own country, but by no means unconcerned for yours, I wish to communicate more largely what was at first intended only for your private satisfaction. I shall still keep your affairs in my eye and continue to address myself to you. Indulging myself in the freedom of epistolary intercourse, I beg leave to throw out my thoughts and express my feelings just as they arise in my mind, with very little attention to formal method. I set out with the proceedings of the Revolution Society, but I shall not confine myself to them. Is it possible I should? It appears to me as if I were in a great crisis, not of the affairs of France alone, but of all Europe, perhaps of more than Europe. All circumstances taken together, the French revolution is the most astonishing that has hitherto happened in the world. The most wonderful things are brought about, in many instances by means the most absurd and ridiculous, in the most ridiculous modes, and apparently by the most contemptible instruments. Everything seems out of nature in this strange chaos of levity and ferocity, and of all sorts of crimes jumbled together with all sorts of follies. In viewing this monstrous tragicomic scene, the most opposite passions necessarily succeed and sometimes mix with each other in the mind: alternate contempt and indignation, alternate laughter and tears, alternate scorn and horror. It cannot, however, be denied that to some this strange scene appeared in quite another point of view. Into them it inspired no other sentiments than those of exultation and rapture. They saw nothing in what has been done in France but a firm and temperate exertion of freedom, so consistent, on the whole, with morals and with piety as to make it deserving not only of the secular applause of dashing Machiavellian politicians, but to render it a fit theme for all the devout effusions of sacred eloquence. On the forenoon of the fourth of November last, Doctor Richard Price, a non-conforming minister of eminence, preached, at the dissenting meeting house of the Old Jewry, to his club or society, a very extraordinary miscellaneous sermon, in which there are some good moral and religious sentiments, and not ill expressed, mixed up in a sort of porridge of various political opinions and reflections; but the Revolution in France is the grand ingredient in the cauldron. I consider the address transmitted by the Revolution Society to the National Assembly, through Earl Stanhope, as originating in the principles of the sermon and as a corollary from them. It was moved by the preacher of that discourse. It was passed by those who came reeking from the effect of the sermon without any censure or qualification, expressed or implied. If, however, any of the gentlemen concerned shall wish to separate the sermon from the resolution, they know how to acknowledge the one and to disavow the other. They may do it: I cannot. For my part, I looked on that sermon as the public declaration of a man much connected with literary caballers and intriguing philosophers, with political theologians and theological politicians both at home and abroad. I know they set him up as a sort of oracle, because, with the best intentions in the world, he naturally philippizes and chants his prophetic song in exact unison with their designs. That sermon is in a strain which I believe has not been heard in this kingdom, in any of the pulpits which are tolerated or encouraged in it, since the year 1648, when a predecessor of Dr. Price, the Rev. Hugh Peters, made the vault of the king's own chapel at St. James's ring with the honor and privilege of the saints, who, with the "high praises of God in their mouths, and a two-edged sword in their hands, were to execute judgment on the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron". [\[1\]](#1) Few harangues from the pulpit, except in the days of your league in France or in the days of our Solemn League and Covenant in England, have ever breathed less of the spirit of moderation than this lecture in the Old Jewry. Supposing, however, that something like moderation were visible in this political sermon, yet politics and the pulpit are terms that have little agreement. No sound ought to be heard in the church but the healing voice of Christian charity. The cause of civil liberty and civil government gains as little as that of religion by this confusion of duties. Those who quit their proper character to assume what does not belong to them are, for the greater part, ignorant both of the character they leave and of the character they assume. Wholly unacquainted with the world in which they are so fond of meddling, and inexperienced in all its affairs on which they pronounce with so much confidence, they have nothing of politics but the passions they excite. Surely the church is a place where one day's truce ought to be allowed to the dissensions and animosities of mankind. This pulpit style, revived after so long a discontinuance, had to me the air of novelty, and of a novelty not wholly without danger. I do not charge this danger equally to every part of the discourse. The hint given to a noble and reverend lay divine, who is supposed high in office in one of our universities, \[2\] and other lay divines "of rank and literature" may be proper and seasonable, though somewhat new. If the noble Seekers should find nothing to satisfy their pious fancies in the old staple of the national church, or in all the rich variety to be found in the well-assorted warehouses of the dissenting congregations, Dr. Price advises them to improve upon non-conformity and to set up, each of them, a separate meeting house upon his own particular principles. \[3\] (2) It is somewhat remarkable that this reverend divine should be so earnest for setting up new churches and so perfectly indifferent concerning the doctrine which may be taught in them. His zeal is of a curious character. It is not for the propagation of his own opinions, but of any opinions. It is not for the diffusion of truth, but for the spreading of contradiction. Let the noble teachers but dissent, it is no matter from whom or from what. This great point once secured, it is taken for granted their religion will be rational and manly. I doubt whether religion would reap all the benefits which the calculating divine computes from this "great company of great preachers". It would certainly be a valuable addition of nondescripts to the ample collection of known classes, genera and species, which at present beautify the hortus siccus of dissent. A sermon from a noble duke, or a noble marquis, or a noble earl, or baron bold would certainly increase and diversify the amusements of this town, which begins to grow satiated with the uniform round of its vapid dissipations. I should only stipulate that these new Mess-Johns in robes and coronets should keep some sort of bounds in the democratic and leveling principles which are expected from their titled pulpits. The new evangelists will, I dare say, disappoint the hopes that are conceived of them. They will not become, literally as well as figuratively, polemic divines, nor be disposed so to drill their congregations that they may, as in former blessed times, preach their doctrines to regiments of dragoons and corps of infantry and artillery. Such arrangements, however favorable to the cause of compulsory freedom, civil and religious, may not be equally conducive to the national tranquility. These few restrictions I hope are no great stretches of intolerance, no very violent exertions of despotism. BUT I may say of our preacher "utinam nugis tota illa dedisset tempora saevitiae". -- All things in this his fulminating bull are not of so innoxious a tendency. His doctrines affect our constitution in its vital parts. He tells the Revolution Society in this political sermon that his Majesty "is almost the only lawful king in the world because the only one who owes his crown to the choice of his people." As to the kings of the world, all of whom (except one) this archpontiff of the rights of men, with all the plenitude and with more than the boldness of the papal deposing power in its meridian fervor of the twelfth century, puts into one sweeping clause of ban and anathema and proclaims usurpers by circles of longitude and latitude, over the whole globe, it behooves them to consider how they admit into their territories these apostolic missionaries who are to tell their subjects they are not lawful kings. That is their concern. It is ours, as a domestic interest of some moment, seriously to consider the solidity of the only principle upon which these gentlemen acknowledge a king of Great Britain to be entitled to their allegiance. This doctrine, as applied to the prince now on the British throne, either is nonsense and therefore neither true nor false, or it affirms a most unfounded, dangerous, illegal, and unconstitutional position. According to this spiritual doctor of politics, if his Majesty does not owe his crown to the choice of his people, he is no lawful king. Now nothing can be more untrue than that the crown of this kingdom is so held by his Majesty. Therefore, if you follow their rule, the king of Great Britain, who most certainly does not owe his high office to any form of popular election, is in no respect better than the rest of the gang of usurpers who reign, or rather rob, all over the face of this our miserable world without any sort of right or title to the allegiance of their people. The policy of this general doctrine, so qualified, is evident enough. The propagators of this political gospel are in hopes that their abstract principle (their principle that a popular choice is necessary to the legal existence of the sovereign magistracy) would be overlooked, whilst the king of Great Britain was not affected by it. In the meantime the ears of their congregations would be gradually habituated to it, as if it were a first principle admitted without dispute. For the present it would only operate as a theory, pickled in the preserving juices of pulpit eloquence, and laid by for future use. Condo et compono quae mox depromere possim. By this policy, whilst our government is soothed with a reservation in its favor, to which it has no claim, the security which it has in common with all governments, so far as opinion is security, is taken away. Thus these politicians proceed whilst little notice is taken of their doctrines; but when they come to be examined upon the plain meaning of their words and the direct tendency of their doctrines, then equivocations and slippery constructions come into play. When they say the king owes his crown to the choice of his people and is therefore the only lawful sovereign in the world, they will perhaps tell us they mean to say no more than that some of the king's predecessors have been called to the throne by some sort of choice, and therefore he owes his crown to the choice of his people. Thus, by a miserable subterfuge, they hope to render their proposition safe by rendering it nugatory. They are welcome to the asylum they seek for their offense, since they take refuge in their folly. For if you admit this interpretation, how does their idea of election differ from our idea of inheritance? And how does the settlement of the crown in the Brunswick line derived from James the First come to legalize our monarchy rather than that of any of the neighboring countries? At some time or other, to be sure, all the beginners of dynasties were chosen by those who called them to govern. There is ground enough for the opinion that all the kingdoms of Europe were, at a remote period, elective, with more or fewer limitations in the objects of choice. But whatever kings might have been here or elsewhere a thousand years ago, or in whatever manner the ruling dynasties of England or France may have begun, the king of Great Britain is, at this day, king by a fixed rule of succession according to the laws of his country; and whilst the legal conditions of the compact of sovereignty are performed by him (as they are performed), he holds his crown in contempt of the choice of the Revolution Society, who have not a single vote for a king amongst them, either individually or collectively, though I make no doubt they would soon erect themselves into an electoral college if things were ripe to give effect to their claim. His Majesty's heirs and successors, each in his time and order, will come to the crown with the same contempt of their choice with which his Majesty has succeeded to that he wears. Whatever may be the success of evasion in explaining away the gross error of fact, which supposes that his Majesty (though he holds it in concurrence with the wishes) owes his crown to the choice of his people, yet nothing can evade their full explicit declaration concerning the principle of a right in the people to choose; which right is directly maintained and tenaciously adhered to. All the oblique insinuations concerning election bottom in this proposition and are referable to it. Lest the foundation of the king's exclusive legal title should pass for a mere rant of adulatory freedom, the political divine proceeds dogmatically to assert \[4\] that, by the principles of the Revolution, the people of England have acquired three fundamental rights, all which, with him, compose one system and lie together in one short sentence, namely, that we have acquired a right: 1. to choose our own governors. 2. to cashier them for misconduct. 3. to frame a government for ourselves. This new and hitherto unheard-of bill of rights, though made in the name of the whole people, belongs to those gentlemen and their faction only. The body of the people of England have no share in it. They utterly disclaim it. They will resist the practical assertion of it with their lives and fortunes. They are bound to do so by the laws of their country made at the time of that very Revolution which is appealed to in favor of the fictitious rights claimed by the Society which abuses its name. THESE GENTLEMEN OF THE OLD JEWRY, in all their reasonings on the Revolution of 1688, have a revolution which happened in England about forty years before and the late French revolution, so much before their eyes and in their hearts that they are constantly confounding all the three together. It is necessary that we should separate what they confound. We must recall their erring fancies to the acts of the Revolution which we revere, for the discovery of its true principles. If the principles of the Revolution of 1688 are anywhere to be found, it is in the statute called the Declaration of Right. In that most wise, sober, and considerate declaration, drawn up by great lawyers and great statesmen, and not by warm and inexperienced enthusiasts, not one word is said, nor one suggestion made, of a general right "to choose our own governors, to cashier them for misconduct, and to form a government for ourselves". This Declaration of Right (the act of the 1st of William and Mary, sess. 2, ch. 2) is the cornerstone of our constitution as reinforced, explained, improved, and in its fundamental principles for ever settled. It is called, "An Act for declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and for settling the succession of the crown". You will observe that these rights and this succession are declared in one body and bound indissolubly together. A few years after this period, a second opportunity offered for asserting a right of election to the crown. On the prospect of a total failure of issue from King William, and from the Princess, afterwards Queen Anne, the consideration of the settlement of the crown and of a further security for the liberties of the people again came before the legislature. Did they this second time make any provision for legalizing the crown on the spurious revolution principles of the Old Jewry? No. They followed the principles which prevailed in the Declaration of Right, indicating with more precision the persons who were to inherit in the Protestant line. This act also incorporated, by the same policy, our liberties and an hereditary succession in the same act. Instead of a right to choose our own governors, they declared that the succession in that line (the Protestant line drawn from James the First), was absolutely necessary "for the peace, quiet, and security of the realm", and that it was equally urgent on them "to maintain a certainty in the succession thereof, to which the subjects may safely have recourse for their protection". Both these acts, in which are heard the unerring, unambiguous oracles of revolution policy, instead of countenancing the delusive, gipsy predictions of a "right to choose our governors", prove to a demonstration how totally adverse the wisdom of the nation was from turning a case of necessity into a rule of law. Unquestionably, there was at the Revolution, in the person of King William, a small and a temporary deviation from the strict order of a regular hereditary succession; but it is against all genuine principles of jurisprudence to draw a principle from a law made in a special case and regarding an individual person. Privilegium non transit in exemplum. If ever there was a time favorable for establishing the principle that a king of popular choice was the only legal king, without all doubt it was at the Revolution. Its not being done at that time is a proof that the nation was of opinion it ought not to be done at any time. There is no person so completely ignorant of our history as not to know that the majority in parliament of both parties were so little disposed to anything resembling that principle that at first they were determined to place the vacant crown, not on the head of the Prince of Orange, but on that of his wife Mary, daughter of King James, the eldest born of the issue of that king, which they acknowledged as undoubtedly his. It would be to repeat a very trite story, to recall to your memory all those circumstances which demonstrated that their accepting King William was not properly a choice; but to all those who did not wish, in effect, to recall King James or to deluge their country in blood and again to bring their religion, laws, and liberties into the peril they had just escaped, it was an act of necessity, in the strictest moral sense in which necessity can be taken. In the very act in which for a time, and in a single case, parliament departed from the strict order of inheritance in favor of a prince who, though not next, was, however, very near in the line of succession, it is curious to observe how Lord Somers, who drew the bill called the Declaration of Right, has comported himself on that delicate occasion. It is curious to observe with what address this temporary solution of continuity is kept from the eye, whilst all that could be found in this act of necessity to countenance the idea of an hereditary succession is brought forward, and fostered, and made the most of, by this great man and by the legislature who followed him. Quitting the dry, imperative style of an act of parliament, he makes the Lords and Commons fall to a pious, legislative ejaculation and declare that they consider it "as a marvellous providence and merciful goodness of God to this nation to preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us on the throne of their ancestors, for which, from the bottom of their hearts, they return their humblest thanks and praises". -- The legislature plainly had in view the act of recognition of the first of Queen Elizabeth, chap. 3rd, and of that of James the First, chap. 1st, both acts strongly declaratory of the inheritable nature of the crown; and in many parts they follow, with a nearly literal precision, the words and even the form of thanksgiving which is found in these old declaratory statutes. The two Houses, in the act of King William, did not thank God that they had found a fair opportunity to assert a right to choose their own governors, much less to make an election the only lawful title to the crown. Their having been in a condition to avoid the very appearance of it, as much as possible, was by them considered as a providential escape. They threw a politic, well-wrought veil over every circumstance tending to weaken the rights which in the meliorated order of succession they meant to perpetuate, or which might furnish a precedent for any future departure from what they had then settled forever. Accordingly, that they might not relax the nerves of their monarchy, and that they might preserve a close conformity to the practice of their ancestors, as it appeared in the declaratory statutes of Queen Mary \[5\] and Queen Elizabeth, in the next clause they vest, by recognition, in their Majesties all the legal prerogatives of the crown, declaring "that in them they are most fully, rightfully, and entirely invested, incorporated, united, and annexed". In the clause which follows, for preventing questions by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, they declare (observing also in this the traditionary language, along with the traditionary policy of the nation, and repeating as from a rubric the language of the preceding acts of Elizabeth and James,) that on the preserving "a certainty in the SUCCESSION thereof, the unity, peace, and tranquillity of this nation doth, under God, wholly depend". They knew that a doubtful title of succession would but too much resemble an election, and that an election would be utterly destructive of the "unity, peace, and tranquillity of this nation", which they thought to be considerations of some moment. To provide for these objects and, therefore, to exclude for ever the Old Jewry doctrine of "a right to choose our own governors", they follow with a clause containing a most solemn pledge, taken from the preceding act of Queen Elizabeth, as solemn a pledge as ever was or can be given in favor of an hereditary succession, and as solemn a renunciation as could be made of the principles by this Society imputed to them: The Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of all the people aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever; and do faithfully promise that they will stand to maintain, and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation of the crown, herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers, etc. etc. So far is it from being true that we acquired a right by the Revolution to elect our kings that, if we had possessed it before, the English nation did at that time most solemnly renounce and abdicate it, for themselves and for all their posterity forever. These gentlemen may value themselves as much as they please on their whig principles, but I never desire to be thought a better whig than Lord Somers, or to understand the principles of the Revolution better than those, by whom it was brought about, or to read in the Declaration of Right any mysteries unknown to those whose penetrating style has engraved in our ordinances, and in our hearts, the words and spirit of that immortal law. It is true that, aided with the powers derived from force and opportunity, the nation was at that time, in some sense, free to take what course it pleased for filling the throne, but only free to do so upon the same grounds on which they might have wholly abolished their monarchy and every other part of their constitution. However, they did not think such bold changes within their commission. It is indeed difficult, perhaps impossible, to give limits to the mere abstract competence of the supreme power, such as was exercised by parliament at that time, but the limits of a moral competence subjecting, even in powers more indisputably sovereign, occasional will to permanent reason and to the steady maxims of faith, justice, and fixed fundamental policy, are perfectly intelligible and perfectly binding upon those who exercise any authority, under any name or under any title, in the state. The House of Lords, for instance, is not morally competent to dissolve the House of Commons, no, nor even to dissolve itself, nor to abdicate, if it would, its portion in the legislature of the kingdom. Though a king may abdicate for his own person, he cannot abdicate for the monarchy. By as strong, or by a stronger reason, the House of Commons cannot renounce its share of authority. The engagement and pact of society, which generally goes by the name of the constitution, forbids such invasion and such surrender. The constituent parts of a state are obliged to hold their public faith with each other and with all those who derive any serious interest under their engagements, as much as the whole state is bound to keep its faith with separate communities. Otherwise competence and power would soon be confounded and no law be left but the will of a prevailing force. On this principle the succession of the crown has always been what it now is, an hereditary succession by law; in the old line it was a succession by the common law; in the new, by the statute law operating on the principles of the common law, not changing the substance, but regulating the mode and describing the persons. Both these descriptions of law are of the same force and are derived from an equal authority emanating from the common agreement and original compact of the state, communi sponsione reipublicae, and as such are equally binding on king and people, too, as long as the terms are observed and they continue the same body politic. It is far from impossible to reconcile, if we do not suffer ourselves to be entangled in the mazes of metaphysic sophistry, the use both of a fixed rule and an occasional deviation: the sacredness of an hereditary principle of succession in our government with a power of change in its application in cases of extreme emergency. Even in that extremity (if we take the measure of our rights by our exercise of them at the Revolution), the change is to be confined to the peccant part only, to the part which produced the necessary deviation; and even then it is to be effected without a decomposition of the whole civil and political mass for the purpose of originating a new civil order out of the first elements of society. A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. Without such means it might even risk the loss of that part of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve. The two principles of conservation and correction operated strongly at the two critical periods of the Restoration and Revolution, when England found itself without a king. At both those periods the nation had lost the bond of union in their ancient edifice; they did not, however, dissolve the whole fabric. On the contrary, in both cases they regenerated the deficient part of the old constitution through the parts which were not impaired. They kept these old parts exactly as they were, that the part recovered might be suited to them. They acted by the ancient organized states in the shape of their old organization, and not by the organic moleculae of a disbanded people. At no time, perhaps, did the sovereign legislature manifest a more tender regard to that fundamental principle of British constitutional policy than at the time of the Revolution, when it deviated from the direct line of hereditary succession. The crown was carried somewhat out of the line in which it had before moved, but the new line was derived from the same stock. It was still a line of hereditary descent, still an hereditary descent in the same blood, though an hereditary descent qualified with Protestantism. When the legislature altered the direction, but kept the principle, they showed that they held it inviolable. On this principle, the law of inheritance had admitted some amendment in the old time, and long before the era of the Revolution. Some time after the Conquest, great questions arose upon the legal principles of hereditary descent. It became a matter of doubt whether the heir per capita or the heir per stirpes was to succeed; but whether the heir per capita gave way when the heirdom per stirpes took place, or the Catholic heir when the Protestant was preferred, the inheritable principle survived with a sort of immortality through all transmigrations -- multosque per annos stat fortuna domus, et avi numerantur avorum. This is the spirit of our constitution, not only in its settled course, but in all its revolutions. Whoever came in, or however he came in, whether he obtained the crown by law or by force, the hereditary succession was either continued or adopted. The gentlemen of the Society for Revolution see nothing in that of 1688 but the deviation from the constitution; and they take the deviation from the principle for the principle. They have little regard to the obvious consequences of their doctrine, though they must see that it leaves positive authority in very few of the positive institutions of this country. When such an unwarrantable maxim is once established, that no throne is lawful but the elective, no one act of the princes who preceded this era of fictitious election can be valid. Do these theorists mean to imitate some of their predecessors who dragged the bodies of our ancient sovereigns out of the quiet of their tombs? Do they mean to attaint and disable backward all the kings that have reigned before the Revolution, and consequently to stain the throne of England with the blot of a continual usurpation? Do they mean to invalidate, annul, or to call into question, together with the titles of the whole line of our kings, that great body of our statute law which passed under those whom they treat as usurpers, to annul laws of inestimable value to our liberties -- of as great value at least as any which have passed at or since the period of the Revolution? If kings who did not owe their crown to the choice of their people had no title to make laws, what will become of the statute de tallagio non concedendo? -- of the petition of right? -- of the act of habeas corpus? Do these new doctors of the rights of men presume to assert that King James the Second, who came to the crown as next of blood, according to the rules of a then unqualified succession, was not to all intents and purposes a lawful king of England before he had done any of those acts which were justly construed into an abdication of his crown? If he was not, much trouble in parliament might have been saved at the period these gentlemen commemorate. But King James was a bad king with a good title, and not an usurper. The princes who succeeded, according to the act of parliament which settled the crown on the Electress Sophia and on her descendants, being Protestants, came in as much by a title of inheritance as King James did. He came in according to the law as it stood at his accession to the crown; and the princes of the House of Brunswick came to the inheritance of the crown, not by election, but by the law as it stood at their several accessions of Protestant descent and inheritance, as I hope I have shown sufficiently. The law by which this royal family is specifically destined to the succession is the act of the 12th and 13th of King William. The terms of this act bind "us and our heirs, and our posterity, to them, their heirs, and their posterity", being Protestants, to the end of time, in the same words as the Declaration of Right had bound us to the heirs of King William and Queen Mary. It therefore secures both an hereditary crown and an hereditary allegiance. On what ground, except the constitutional policy of forming an establishment to secure that kind of succession which is to preclude a choice of the people forever, could the legislature have fastidiously rejected the fair and abundant choice which our country presented to them and searched in strange lands for a foreign princess from whose womb the line of our future rulers were to derive their title to govern millions of men through a series of ages? The Princess Sophia was named in the act of settlement of the 12th and 13th of King William for a stock and root of inheritance to our kings, and not for her merits as a temporary administratrix of a power which she might not, and in fact did not, herself ever exercise. She was adopted for one reason, and for one only, because, says the act, "the most excellent Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, is daughter of the most excellent Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of Bohemia, daughter of our late sovereign lord King James the First, of happy memory, and is hereby declared to be the next in succession in the Protestant line etc., etc., and the crown shall continue to the heirs of her body, being Protestants." This limitation was made by parliament, that through the Princess Sophia an inheritable line not only was to be continued in future, but (what they thought very material) that through her it was to be connected with the old stock of inheritance in King James the First, in order that the monarchy might preserve an unbroken unity through all ages and might be preserved (with safety to our religion) in the old approved mode by descent, in which, if our liberties had been once endangered, they had often, through all storms and struggles of prerogative and privilege, been preserved. They did well. No experience has taught us that in any other course or method than that of an hereditary crown our liberties can be regularly perpetuated and preserved sacred as our hereditary right. An irregular, convulsive movement may be necessary to throw off an irregular, convulsive disease. But the course of succession is the healthy habit of the British constitution. Was it that the legislature wanted, at the act for the limitation of the crown in the Hanoverian line, drawn through the female descendants of James the First, a due sense of the inconveniences of having two or three, or possibly more, foreigners in succession to the British throne? No! -- they had a due sense of the evils which might happen from such foreign rule, and more than a due sense of them. But a more decisive proof cannot be given of the full conviction of the British nation that the principles of the Revolution did not authorize them to elect kings at their pleasure, and without any attention to the ancient fundamental principles of our government, than their continuing to adopt a plan of hereditary Protestant succession in the old line, with all the dangers and all the inconveniences of its being a foreign line full before their eyes and operating with the utmost force upon their minds. A few years ago I should be ashamed to overload a matter so capable of supporting itself by the then unnecessary support of any argument; but this seditious, unconstitutional doctrine is now publicly taught, avowed, and printed. The dislike I feel to revolutions, the signals for which have so often been given from pulpits; the spirit of change that is gone abroad; the total contempt which prevails with you, and may come to prevail with us, of all ancient institutions when set in opposition to a present sense of convenience or to the bent of a present inclination: all these considerations make it not unadvisable, in my opinion, to call back our attention to the true principles of our own domestic laws; that you, my French friend, should begin to know, and that we should continue to cherish them. We ought not, on either side of the water, to suffer ourselves to be imposed upon by the counterfeit wares which some persons, by a double fraud, export to you in illicit bottoms as raw commodities of British growth, though wholly alien to our soil, in order afterwards to smuggle them back again into this country, manufactured after the newest Paris fashion of an improved liberty. The people of England will not ape the fashions they have never tried, nor go back to those which they have found mischievous on trial. They look upon the legal hereditary succession of their crown as among their rights, not as among their wrongs; as a benefit, not as a grievance; as a security for their liberty, not as a badge of servitude. They look on the frame of their commonwealth, such as it stands, to be of inestimable value, and they conceive the undisturbed succession of the crown to be a pledge of the stability and perpetuity of all the other members of our constitution. I shall beg leave, before I go any further, to take notice of some paltry artifices which the abettors of election, as the only lawful title to the crown, are ready to employ in order to render the support of the just principles of our constitution a task somewhat invidious. These sophisters substitute a fictitious cause and feigned personages, in whose favor they suppose you engaged whenever you defend the inheritable nature of the crown. It is common with them to dispute as if they were in a conflict with some of those exploded fanatics of slavery, who formerly maintained what I believe no creature now maintains, "that the crown is held by divine hereditary and indefeasible right". -- These old fanatics of single arbitrary power dogmatized as if hereditary royalty was the only lawful government in the world, just as our new fanatics of popular arbitrary power maintain that a popular election is the sole lawful source of authority. The old prerogative enthusiasts, it is true, did speculate foolishly, and perhaps impiously too, as if monarchy had more of a divine sanction than any other mode of government; and as if a right to govern by inheritance were in strictness indefeasible in every person who should be found in the succession to a throne, and under every circumstance, which no civil or political right can be. But an absurd opinion concerning the king's hereditary right to the crown does not prejudice one that is rational and bottomed upon solid principles of law and policy. If all the absurd theories of lawyers and divines were to vitiate the objects in which they are conversant, we should have no law and no religion left in the world. But an absurd theory on one side of a question forms no justification for alleging a false fact or promulgating mischievous maxims on the other. THE second claim of the Revolution Society is "a right of cashiering their governors for misconduct". Perhaps the apprehensions our ancestors entertained of forming such a precedent as that "of cashiering for misconduct" was the cause that the declaration of the act, which implied the abdication of King James, was, if it had any fault, rather too guarded and too circumstantial. \[6\] But all this guard and all this accumulation of circumstances serves to show the spirit of caution which predominated in the national councils in a situation in which men irritated by oppression, and elevated by a triumph over it, are apt to abandon themselves to violent and extreme courses; it shows the anxiety of the great men who influenced the conduct of affairs at that great event to make the Revolution a parent of settlement, and not a nursery of future revolutions. No government could stand a moment if it could be blown down with anything so loose and indefinite as an opinion of "misconduct". They who led at the Revolution grounded the virtual abdication of King James upon no such light and uncertain principle. They charged him with nothing less than a design, confirmed by a multitude of illegal overt acts, to subvert the Protestant church and state, and their fundamental, unquestionable laws and liberties; they charged him with having broken the original contract between king and people. This was more than misconduct. A grave and overruling necessity obliged them to take the step they took, and took with infinite reluctance, as under that most rigorous of all laws. Their trust for the future preservation of the constitution was not in future revolutions. The grand policy of all their regulations was to render it almost impracticable for any future sovereign to compel the states of the kingdom to have again recourse to those violent remedies. They left the crown what, in the eye and estimation of law, it had ever been -- perfectly irresponsible. In order to lighten the crown still further, they aggravated responsibility on ministers of state. By the statute of the 1st of King William, sess. 2nd, called "the act for declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and for settling the succession of the crown", they enacted that the ministers should serve the crown on the terms of that declaration. They secured soon after the frequent meetings of parliament, by which the whole government would be under the constant inspection and active control of the popular representative and of the magnates of the kingdom. In the next great constitutional act, that of the 12th and 13th of King William, for the further limitation of the crown and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject, they provided "that no pardon under the great seal of England should be pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons in parliament". The rule laid down for government in the Declaration of Right, the constant inspection of parliament, the practical claim of impeachment, they thought infinitely a better security, not only for their constitutional liberty, but against the vices of administration, than the reservation of a right so difficult in the practice, so uncertain in the issue, and often so mischievous in the consequences, as that of "cashiering their governors". Dr. Price, in this sermon, \[7\] condemns very properly the practice of gross, adulatory addresses to kings. Instead of this fulsome style, he proposes that his Majesty should be told, on occasions of congratulation, that "he is to consider himself as more properly the servant than the sovereign of his people". For a compliment, this new form of address does not seem to be very soothing. Those who are servants in name, as well as in effect, do not like to be told of their situation, their duty, and their obligations. The slave, in the old play, tells his master, "Haec commemoratio est quasi exprobatio". It is not pleasant as compliment; it is not wholesome as instruction. After all, if the king were to bring himself to echo this new kind of address, to adopt it in terms, and even to take the appellation of Servant of the People as his royal style, how either he or we should be much mended by it I cannot imagine. I have seen very assuming letters, signed "Your most obedient, humble servant". The proudest denomination that ever was endured on earth took a title of still greater humility than that which is now proposed for sovereigns by the Apostle of Liberty. Kings and nations were trampled upon by the foot of one calling himself "the Servant of Servants"; and mandates for deposing sovereigns were sealed with the signet of "the Fisherman". I should have considered all this as no more than a sort of flippant, vain discourse, in which, as in an unsavory fume, several persons suffer the spirit of liberty to evaporate, if it were not plainly in support of the idea and a part of the scheme of "cashiering kings for misconduct". In that light it is worth some observation. Kings, in one sense, are undoubtedly the servants of the people because their power has no other rational end than that of the general advantage; but it is not true that they are, in the ordinary sense (by our constitution, at least), anything like servants; the essence of whose situation is to obey the commands of some other and to be removable at pleasure. But the king of Great Britain obeys no other person; all other persons are individually, and collectively too, under him and owe to him a legal obedience. The law, which knows neither to flatter nor to insult, calls this high magistrate not our servant, as this humble divine calls him, but "our sovereign Lord the king"; and we, on our parts, have learned to speak only the primitive language of the law, and not the confused jargon of their Babylonian pulpits. As he is not to obey us, but as we are to obey the law in him, our constitution has made no sort of provision toward rendering him, as a servant, in any degree responsible. Our constitution knows nothing of a magistrate like the Justicia of Aragon, nor of any court legally appointed, nor of any process legally settled, for submitting the king to the responsibility belonging to all servants. In this he is not distinguished from the Commons and the Lords, who, in their several public capacities, can never be called to an account for their conduct, although the Revolution Society chooses to assert, in direct opposition to one of the wisest and most beautiful parts of our constitution, that "a king is no more than the first servant of the public, created by it, and responsible to it" Ill would our ancestors at the Revolution have deserved their fame for wisdom if they had found no security for their freedom but in rendering their government feeble in its operations, and precarious in its tenure; if they had been able to contrive no better remedy against arbitrary power than civil confusion. Let these gentlemen state who that representative public is to whom they will affirm the king, as a servant, to be responsible. It will then be time enough for me to produce to them the positive statute law which affirms that he is not. The ceremony of cashiering kings, of which these gentlemen talk so much at their ease, can rarely, if ever, be performed without force. It then becomes a case of war, and not of constitution. Laws are commanded to hold their tongues amongst arms, and tribunals fall to the ground with the peace they are no longer able to uphold. The Revolution of 1688 was obtained by a just war, in the only case in which any war, and much more a civil war, can be just. Justa bella quibus necessaria. The question of dethroning or, if these gentlemen like the phrase better, "cashiering kings" will always be, as it has always been, an extraordinary question of state, and wholly out of the law -- a question (like all other questions of state) of dispositions and of means and of probable consequences rather than of positive rights. As it was not made for common abuses, so it is not to be agitated by common minds. The speculative line of demarcation where obedience ought to end and resistance must begin is faint, obscure, and not easily definable. It is not a single act, or a single event, which determines it. Governments must be abused and deranged, indeed, before it can be thought of; and the prospect of the future must be as bad as the experience of the past. When things are in that lamentable condition, the nature of the disease is to indicate the remedy to those whom nature has qualified to administer in extremities this critical, ambiguous, bitter potion to a distempered state. Times and occasions and provocations will teach their own lessons. The wise will determine from the gravity of the case; the irritable, from sensibility to oppression; the high-minded, from disdain and indignation at abusive power in unworthy hands; the brave and bold, from the love of honorable danger in a generous cause; but, with or without right, a revolution will be the very last resource of the thinking and the good. THE third head of right, asserted by the pulpit of the Old Jewry, namely, the "right to form a government for ourselves", has, at least, as little countenance from anything done at the Revolution, either in precedent or principle, as the two first of their claims. The Revolution was made to preserve our ancient, indisputable laws and liberties and that ancient constitution of government which is our only security for law and liberty. If you are desirous of knowing the spirit of our constitution and the policy which predominated in that great period which has secured it to this hour, pray look for both in our histories, in our records, in our acts of parliament, and journals of parliament, and not in the sermons of the Old Jewry and the after-dinner toasts of the Revolution Society. In the former you will find other ideas and another language. Such a claim is as ill-suited to our temper and wishes as it is unsupported by any appearance of authority. The very idea of the fabrication of a new government is enough to fill us with disgust and horror. We wished at the period of the Revolution, and do now wish, to derive all we possess as an inheritance from our forefathers. Upon that body and stock of inheritance we have taken care not to inoculate any cyon alien to the nature of the original plant. All the reformations we have hitherto made have proceeded upon the principle of reverence to antiquity; and I hope, nay, I am persuaded, that all those which possibly may be made hereafter will be carefully formed upon analogical precedent, authority, and example. Our oldest reformation is that of Magna Charta. You will see that Sir Edward Coke, that great oracle of our law, and indeed all the great men who follow him, to Blackstone, \[8\] are industrious to prove the pedigree of our liberties. They endeavor to prove that the ancient charter, the Magna Charta of King John, was connected with another positive charter from Henry I, and that both the one and the other were nothing more than a reaffirmance of the still more ancient standing law of the kingdom. In the matter of fact, for the greater part these authors appear to be in the right; perhaps not always; but if the lawyers mistake in some particulars, it proves my position still the more strongly, because it demonstrates the powerful prepossession toward antiquity, with which the minds of all our lawyers and legislators, and of all the people whom they wish to influence, have been always filled, and the stationary policy of this kingdom in considering their most sacred rights and franchises as an inheritance. In the famous law of the 3rd of Charles I, called the Petition of Right, the parliament says to the king, "Your subjects have inherited this freedom", claiming their franchises not on abstract principles "as the rights of men", but as the rights of Englishmen, and as a patrimony derived from their forefathers. Selden and the other profoundly learned men who drew this Petition of Right were as well acquainted, at least, with all the general theories concerning the "rights of men" as any of the discoursers in our pulpits or on your tribune; full as well as Dr. Price or as the Abbe Sieyes. But, for reasons worthy of that practical wisdom which superseded their theoretic science, they preferred this positive, recorded, hereditary title to all which can be dear to the man and the citizen, to that vague speculative right which exposed their sure inheritance to be scrambled for and torn to pieces by every wild, litigious spirit. The same policy pervades all the laws which have since been made for the preservation of our liberties. In the 1st of William and Mary, in the famous statute called the Declaration of Right, the two Houses utter not a syllable of "a right to frame a government for themselves". You will see that their whole care was to secure the religion, laws, and liberties that had been long possessed, and had been lately endangered. "Taking \[9\] into their most serious consideration the best means for making such an establishment, that their religion, laws, and liberties might not be in danger of being again subverted", they auspicate all their proceedings by stating as some of those best means, "in the first place" to do "as their ancestors in like cases have usually done for vindicating their ancient rights and liberties, to declare" -- and then they pray the king and queen "that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and declared are the true ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom". You will observe that from Magna Charta to the Declaration of Right it has been the uniform policy of our constitution to claim and assert our liberties as an entailed inheritance derived to us from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to our posterity -- as an estate specially belonging to the people of this kingdom, without any reference whatever to any other more general or prior right. By this means our constitution preserves a unity in so great a diversity of its parts. We have an inheritable crown, an inheritable peerage, and a House of Commons and a people inheriting privileges, franchises, and liberties from a long line of ancestors. This policy appears to me to be the result of profound reflection, or rather the happy effect of following nature, which is wisdom without reflection, and above it. A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views. People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors. Besides, the people of England well know that the idea of inheritance furnishes a sure principle of conservation and a sure principle of transmission, without at all excluding a principle of improvement. It leaves acquisition free, but it secures what it acquires. Whatever advantages are obtained by a state proceeding on these maxims are locked fast as in a sort of family settlement, grasped as in a kind of mortmain forever. By a constitutional policy, working after the pattern of nature, we receive, we hold, we transmit our government and our privileges in the same manner in which we enjoy and transmit our property and our lives. The institutions of policy, the goods of fortune, the gifts of providence are handed down to us, and from us, in the same course and order. Our political system is placed in a just correspondence and symmetry with the order of the world and with the mode of existence decreed to a permanent body composed of transitory parts, wherein, by the disposition of a stupendous wisdom, molding together the great mysterious incorporation of the human race, the whole, at one time, is never old or middle-aged or young, but, in a condition of unchangeable constancy, moves on through the varied tenor of perpetual decay, fall, renovation, and progression. Thus, by preserving the method of nature in the conduct of the state, in what we improve we are never wholly new; in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete. By adhering in this manner and on those principles to our forefathers, we are guided not by the superstition of antiquarians, but by the spirit of philosophic analogy. In this choice of inheritance we have given to our frame of polity the image of a relation in blood, binding up the constitution of our country with our dearest domestic ties, adopting our fundamental laws into the bosom of our family affections, keeping inseparable and cherishing with the warmth of all their combined and mutually reflected charities our state, our hearths, our sepulchres, and our altars. Through the same plan of a conformity to nature in our artificial institutions, and by calling in the aid of her unerring and powerful instincts to fortify the fallible and feeble contrivances of our reason, we have derived several other, and those no small, benefits from considering our liberties in the light of an inheritance. Always acting as if in the presence of canonized forefathers, the spirit of freedom, leading in itself to misrule and excess, is tempered with an awful gravity. This idea of a liberal descent inspires us with a sense of habitual native dignity which prevents that upstart insolence almost inevitably adhering to and disgracing those who are the first acquirers of any distinction. By this means our liberty becomes a noble freedom. It carries an imposing and majestic aspect. It has a pedigree and illustrating ancestors. It has its bearings and its ensigns armorial. It has its gallery of portraits, its monumental inscriptions, its records, evidences, and titles. We procure reverence to our civil institutions on the principle upon which nature teaches us to revere individual men: on account of their age and on account of those from whom they are descended. All your sophisters cannot produce anything better adapted to preserve a rational and manly freedom than the course that we have pursued, who have chosen our nature rather than our speculations, our breasts rather than our inventions, for the great conservatories and magazines of our rights and privileges. YOU MIGHT, IF YOU PLEASED, have profited of our example and have given to your recovered freedom a correspondent dignity. Your privileges, though discontinued, were not lost to memory. Your constitution, it is true, whilst you were out of possession, suffered waste and dilapidation; but you possessed in some parts the walls and in all the foundations of a noble and venerable castle. You might have repaired those walls; you might have built on those old foundations. Your constitution was suspended before it was perfected, but you had the elements of a constitution very nearly as good as could be wished. In your old states you possessed that variety of parts corresponding with the various descriptions of which your community was happily composed; you had all that combination and all that opposition of interests; you had that action and counteraction which, in the natural and in the political world, from the reciprocal struggle of discordant powers, draws out the harmony of the universe. These opposed and conflicting interests which you considered as so great a blemish in your old and in our present constitution interpose a salutary check to all precipitate resolutions. They render deliberation a matter, not of choice, but of necessity; they make all change a subject of compromise, which naturally begets moderation; they produce temperaments preventing the sore evil of harsh, crude, unqualified reformations, and rendering all the headlong exertions of arbitrary power, in the few or in the many, for ever impracticable. Through that diversity of members and interests, general liberty had as many securities as there were separate views in the several orders, whilst, by pressing down the whole by the weight of a real monarchy, the separate parts would have been prevented from warping and starting from their allotted places. You had all these advantages in your ancient states, but you chose to act as if you had never been molded into civil society and had everything to begin anew. You began ill, because you began by despising everything that belonged to you. You set up your trade without a capital. If the last generations of your country appeared without much luster in your eyes, you might have passed them by and derived your claims from a more early race of ancestors. Under a pious predilection for those ancestors, your imaginations would have realized in them a standard of virtue and wisdom beyond the vulgar practice of the hour; and you would have risen with the example to whose imitation you aspired. Respecting your forefathers, you would have been taught to respect yourselves. You would not have chosen to consider the French as a people of yesterday, as a nation of lowborn servile wretches until the emancipating year of 1789\. In order to furnish, at the expense of your honor, an excuse to your apologists here for several enormities of yours, you would not have been content to be represented as a gang of Maroon slaves suddenly broke loose from the house of bondage, and therefore to be pardoned for your abuse of the liberty to which you were not accustomed and ill fitted. Would it not, my worthy friend, have been wiser to have you thought, what I, for one, always thought you, a generous and gallant nation, long misled to your disadvantage by your high and romantic sentiments of fidelity, honor, and loyalty; that events had been unfavorable to you, but that you were not enslaved through any illiberal or servile disposition; that in your most devoted submission you were actuated by a principle of public spirit, and that it was your country you worshiped in the person of your king? Had you made it to be understood that in the delusion of this amiable error you had gone further than your wise ancestors, that you were resolved to resume your ancient privileges, whilst you preserved the spirit of your ancient and your recent loyalty and honor; or if, diffident of yourselves and not clearly discerning the almost obliterated constitution of your ancestors, you had looked to your neighbors in this land who had kept alive the ancient principles and models of the old common law of Europe meliorated and adapted to its present state -- by following wise examples you would have given new examples of wisdom to the world. You would have rendered the cause of liberty venerable in the eyes of every worthy mind in every nation. You would have shamed despotism from the earth by showing that freedom was not only reconcilable, but, as when well disciplined it is, auxiliary to law. You would have had an unoppressive but a productive revenue. You would have had a flourishing commerce to feed it. You would have had a free constitution, a potent monarchy, a disciplined army, a reformed and venerated clergy, a mitigated but spirited nobility to lead your virtue, not to overlay it; you would have had a liberal order of commons to emulate and to recruit that nobility; you would have had a protected, satisfied, laborious, and obedient people, taught to seek and to recognize the happiness that is to be found by virtue in all conditions; in which consists the true moral equality of mankind, and not in that monstrous fiction which, by inspiring false ideas and vain expectations into men destined to travel in the obscure walk of laborious life, serves only to aggravate and embitter that real inequality which it never can remove, and which the order of civil life establishes as much for the benefit of those whom it must leave in a humble state as those whom it is able to exalt to a condition more splendid, but not more happy. You had a smooth and easy career of felicity and glory laid open to you, beyond anything recorded in the history of the world, but you have shown that difficulty is good for man. COMPUTE your gains: see what is got by those extravagant and presumptuous speculations which have taught your leaders to despise all their predecessors, and all their contemporaries, and even to despise themselves until the moment in which they become truly despicable. By following those false lights, France has bought undisguised calamities at a higher price than any nation has purchased the most unequivocal blessings! France has bought poverty by crime! France has not sacrificed her virtue to her interest, but she has abandoned her interest, that she might prostitute her virtue. All other nations have begun the fabric of a new government, or the reformation of an old, by establishing originally or by enforcing with greater exactness some rites or other of religion. All other people have laid the foundations of civil freedom in severer manners and a system of a more austere and masculine morality. France, when she let loose the reins of regal authority, doubled the license of a ferocious dissoluteness in manners and of an insolent irreligion in opinions and practice, and has extended through all ranks of life, as if she were communicating some privilege or laying open some secluded benefit, all the unhappy corruptions that usually were the disease of wealth and power. This is one of the new principles of equality in France. France, by the perfidy of her leaders, has utterly disgraced the tone of lenient council in the cabinets of princes, and disarmed it of its most potent topics. She has sanctified the dark, suspicious maxims of tyrannous distrust, and taught kings to tremble at (what will hereafter be called) the delusive plausibilities of moral politicians. Sovereigns will consider those who advise them to place an unlimited confidence in their people as subverters of their thrones, as traitors who aim at their destruction by leading their easy good-nature, under specious pretenses, to admit combinations of bold and faithless men into a participation of their power. This alone (if there were nothing else) is an irreparable calamity to you and to mankind. Remember that your parliament of Paris told your king that, in calling the states together, he had nothing to fear but the prodigal excess of their zeal in providing for the support of the throne. It is right that these men should hide their heads. It is right that they should bear their part in the ruin which their counsel has brought on their sovereign and their country. Such sanguine declarations tend to lull authority asleep; to encourage it rashly to engage in perilous adventures of untried policy; to neglect those provisions, preparations, and precautions which distinguish benevolence from imbecility, and without which no man can answer for the salutary effect of any abstract plan of government or of freedom. For want of these, they have seen the medicine of the state corrupted into its poison. They have seen the French rebel against a mild and lawful monarch with more fury, outrage, and insult than ever any people has been known to rise against the most illegal usurper or the most sanguinary tyrant. Their resistance was made to concession, their revolt was from protection, their blow was aimed at a hand holding out graces, favors, and immunities. This was unnatural. The rest is in order. They have found their punishment in their success: laws overturned; tribunals subverted; industry without vigor; commerce expiring; the revenue unpaid, yet the people impoverished; a church pillaged, and a state not relieved; civil and military anarchy made the constitution of the kingdom; everything human and divine sacrificed to the idol of public credit, and national bankruptcy the consequence; and, to crown all, the paper securities of new, precarious, tottering power, the discredited paper securities of impoverished fraud and beggared rapine, held out as a currency for the support of an empire in lieu of the two great recognized species that represent the lasting, conventional credit of mankind, which disappeared and hid themselves in the earth from whence they came, when the principle of property, whose creatures and representatives they are, was systematically subverted. Were all these dreadful things necessary? Were they the inevitable results of the desperate struggle of determined patriots, compelled to wade through blood and tumult to the quiet shore of a tranquil and prosperous liberty? No! nothing like it. The fresh ruins of France, which shock our feelings wherever we can turn our eyes, are not the devastation of civil war; they are the sad but instructive monuments of rash and ignorant counsel in time of profound peace. They are the display of inconsiderate and presumptuous, because unresisted and irresistible, authority. The persons who have thus squandered away the precious treasure of their crimes, the persons who have made this prodigal and wild waste of public evils (the last stake reserved for the ultimate ransom of the state) have met in their progress with little or rather with no opposition at all. Their whole march was more like a triumphal procession than the progress of a war. Their pioneers have gone before them and demolished and laid everything level at their feet. Not one drop of their blood have they shed in the cause of the country they have ruined. They have made no sacrifices to their projects of greater consequence than their shoebuckles, whilst they were imprisoning their king, murdering their fellow citizens, and bathing in tears and plunging in poverty and distress thousands of worthy men and worthy families. Their cruelty has not even been the base result of fear. It has been the effect of their sense of perfect safety, in authorizing treasons, robberies, rapes, assassinations, slaughters, and burnings throughout their harassed land. But the cause of all was plain from the beginning. THIS unforced choice, this fond election of evil, would appear perfectly unaccountable if we did not consider the composition of the National Assembly. I do not mean its formal constitution, which, as it now stands, is exceptionable enough, but the materials of which, in a great measure, it is composed, which is of ten thousand times greater consequence than all the formalities in the world. If we were to know nothing of this assembly but by its title and function, no colors could paint to the imagination anything more venerable. In that light the mind of an inquirer, subdued by such an awful image as that of the virtue and wisdom of a whole people collected into a focus, would pause and hesitate in condemning things even of the very worst aspect. Instead of blamable, they would appear only mysterious. But no name, no power, no function, no artificial institution whatsoever can make the men of whom any system of authority is composed any other than God, and nature, and education, and their habits of life have made them. Capacities beyond these the people have not to give. Virtue and wisdom may be the objects of their choice, but their choice confers neither the one nor the other on those upon whom they lay their ordaining hands. They have not the engagement of nature, they have not the promise of revelation, for any such powers. After I had read over the list of the persons and descriptions elected into the Tiers Etat, nothing which they afterwards did could appear astonishing. Among them, indeed, I saw some of known rank, some of shining talents; but of any practical experience in the state, not one man was to be found. The best were only men of theory. But whatever the distinguished few may have been, it is the substance and mass of the body which constitutes its character and must finally determine its direction. In all bodies, those who will lead must also, in a considerable degree, follow. They must conform their propositions to the taste, talent, and disposition of those whom they wish to conduct; therefore, if an assembly is viciously or feebly composed in a very great part of it, nothing but such a supreme degree of virtue as very rarely appears in the world, and for that reason cannot enter into calculation, will prevent the men of talent disseminated through it from becoming only the expert instruments of absurd projects! If, what is the more likely event, instead of that unusual degree of virtue, they should be actuated by sinister ambition and a lust of meretricious glory, then the feeble part of the assembly, to whom at first they conform, becomes in its turn the dupe and instrument of their designs. In this political traffic, the leaders will be obliged to bow to the ignorance of their followers, and the followers to become subservient to the worst designs of their leaders. To secure any degree of sobriety in the propositions made by the leaders in any public assembly, they ought to respect, in some degree perhaps to fear, those whom they conduct. To be led any otherwise than blindly, the followers must be qualified, if not for actors, at least for judges; they must also be judges of natural weight and authority. Nothing can secure a steady and moderate conduct in such assemblies but that the body of them should be respectably composed, in point of condition in life or permanent property, of education, and of such habits as enlarge and liberalize the understanding. In the calling of the States-General of France, the first thing that struck me was a great departure from the ancient course. I found the representation for the Third Estate composed of six hundred persons. They were equal in number to the representatives of both the other orders. If the orders were to act separately, the number would not, beyond the consideration of the expense, be of much moment. But when it became apparent that the three orders were to be melted down into one, the policy and necessary effect of this numerous representation became obvious. A very small desertion from either of the other two orders must throw the power of both into the hands of the third. In fact, the whole power of the state was soon resolved into that body. Its due composition became therefore of infinitely the greater importance. Judge, Sir, of my surprise when I found that a very great proportion of the assembly (a majority, I believe, of the members who attended) was composed of practitioners in the law. It was composed, not of distinguished magistrates, who had given pledges to their country of their science, prudence, and integrity; not of leading advocates, the glory of the bar; not of renowned professors in universities; -- but for the far greater part, as it must in such a number, of the inferior, unlearned, mechanical, merely instrumental members of the profession. There were distinguished exceptions, but the general composition was of obscure provincial advocates, of stewards of petty local jurisdictions, country attornies, notaries, and the whole train of the ministers of municipal litigation, the fomenters and conductors of the petty war of village vexation. From the moment I read the list, I saw distinctly, and very nearly as it has happened, all that was to follow. The degree of estimation in which any profession is held becomes the standard of the estimation in which the professors hold themselves. Whatever the personal merits of many individual lawyers might have been, and in many it was undoubtedly very considerable, in that military kingdom no part of the profession had been much regarded except the highest of all, who often united to their professional offices great family splendor, and were invested with great power and authority. These certainly were highly respected, and even with no small degree of awe. The next rank was not much esteemed; the mechanical part was in a very low degree of repute. Whenever the supreme authority is vested in a body so composed, it must evidently produce the consequences of supreme authority placed in the hands of men not taught habitually to respect themselves, who had no previous fortune in character at stake, who could not be expected to bear with moderation, or to conduct with discretion, a power which they themselves, more than any others, must be surprised to find in their hands. Who could flatter himself that these men, suddenly and, as it were, by enchantment snatched from the humblest rank of subordination, would not be intoxicated with their unprepared greatness? Who could conceive that men who are habitually meddling, daring, subtle, active, of litigious dispositions and unquiet minds would easily fall back into their old condition of obscure contention and laborious, low, unprofitable chicane? Who could doubt but that, at any expense to the state, of which they understood nothing, they must pursue their private interests, which they understand but too well? It was not an event depending on chance or contingency. It was inevitable; it was necessary; it was planted in the nature of things. They must join (if their capacity did not permit them to lead) in any project which could procure to them a litigious constitution; which could lay open to them those innumerable lucrative jobs which follow in the train of all great convulsions and revolutions in the state, and particularly in all great and violent permutations of property. Was it to be expected that they would attend to the stability of property, whose existence had always depended upon whatever rendered property questionable, ambiguous, and insecure? Their objects would be enlarged with their elevation, but their disposition and habits, and mode of accomplishing their designs, must remain the same. Well! but these men were to be tempered and restrained by other descriptions, of more sober and more enlarged understandings. Were they then to be awed by the supereminent authority and awful dignity of a handful of country clowns who have seats in that assembly, some of whom are said not to be able to read and write, and by not a greater number of traders who, though somewhat more instructed and more conspicuous in the order of society, had never known anything beyond their counting house? No! Both these descriptions were more formed to be overborne and swayed by the intrigues and artifices of lawyers than to become their counterpoise. With such a dangerous disproportion, the whole must needs be governed by them. To the faculty of law was joined a pretty considerable proportion of the faculty of medicine. This faculty had not, any more than that of the law, possessed in France its just estimation. Its professors, therefore, must have the qualities of men not habituated to sentiments of dignity. But supposing they had ranked as they ought to do, and as with us they do actually, the sides of sickbeds are not the academies for forming statesmen and legislators. Then came the dealers in stocks and funds, who must be eager, at any expense, to change their ideal paper wealth for the more solid substance of land. To these were joined men of other descriptions, from whom as little knowledge of, or attention to, the interests of a great state was to be expected, and as little regard to the stability of any institution; men formed to be instruments, not controls. Such in general was the composition of the Tiers Etat in the National Assembly, in which was scarcely to be perceived the slightest traces of what we call the natural landed interest of the country. We know that the British House of Commons, without shutting its doors to any merit in any class, is, by the sure operation of adequate causes, filled with everything illustrious in rank, in descent, in hereditary and in acquired opulence, in cultivated talents, in military, civil, naval, and politic distinction that the country can afford. But supposing, what hardly can be supposed as a case, that the House of Commons should be composed in the same manner with the Tiers Etat in France, would this dominion of chicane be borne with patience or even conceived without horror? God forbid I should insinuate anything derogatory to that profession which is another priesthood, administering the rights of sacred justice. But whilst I revere men in the functions which belong to them, and would do as much as one man can do to prevent their exclusion from any, I cannot, to flatter them, give the lie to nature. They are good and useful in the composition; they must be mischievous if they preponderate so as virtually to become the whole. Their very excellence in their peculiar functions may be far from a qualification for others. It cannot escape observation that when men are too much confined to professional and faculty habits and, as it were, inveterate in the recurrent employment of that narrow circle, they are rather disabled than qualified for whatever depends on the knowledge of mankind, on experience in mixed affairs, on a comprehensive, connected view of the various, complicated, external and internal interests which go to the formation of that multifarious thing called a state. After all, if the House of Commons were to have a wholly professional and faculty composition, what is the power of the House of Commons, circumscribed and shut in by the immovable barriers of laws, usages, positive rules of doctrine and practice, counterpoised by the House of Lords, and every moment of its existence at the discretion of the crown to continue, prorogue, or dissolve us? The power of the House of Commons, direct or indirect, is indeed great; and long may it be able to preserve its greatness and the spirit belonging to true greatness at the full; and it will do so as long as it can keep the breakers of law in India from becoming the makers of law for England. The power, however, of the House of Commons, when least diminished, is as a drop of water in the ocean, compared to that residing in a settled majority of your National Assembly. That assembly, since the destruction of the orders, has no fundamental law, no strict convention, no respected usage to restrain it. Instead of finding themselves obliged to conform to a fixed constitution, they have a power to make a constitution which shall conform to their designs. Nothing in heaven or upon earth can serve as a control on them. What ought to be the heads, the hearts, the dispositions that are qualified or that dare, not only to make laws under a fixed constitution, but at one heat to strike out a totally new constitution for a great kingdom, and in every part of it, from the monarch on the throne to the vestry of a parish? But -- "fools rush in where angels fear to tread". In such a state of unbounded power for undefined and undefinable purposes, the evil of a moral and almost physical inaptitude of the man to the function must be the greatest we can conceive to happen in the management of human affairs. Having considered the composition of the Third Estate as it stood in its original frame, I took a view of the representatives of the clergy. There, too, it appeared that full as little regard was had to the general security of property or to the aptitude of the deputies for the public purposes, in the principles of their election. That election was so contrived as to send a very large proportion of mere country curates to the great and arduous work of new-modeling a state: men who never had seen the state so much as in a picture -- men who knew nothing of the world beyond the bounds of an obscure village; who, immersed in hopeless poverty, could regard all property, whether secular or ecclesiastical, with no other eye than that of envy; among whom must be many who, for the smallest hope of the meanest dividend in plunder, would readily join in any attempts upon a body of wealth in which they could hardly look to have any share except in a general scramble. Instead of balancing the power of the active chicaners in the other assembly, these curates must necessarily become the active coadjutors, or at best the passive instruments, of those by whom they had been habitually guided in their petty village concerns. They, too, could hardly be the most conscientious of their kind who, presuming upon their incompetent understanding, could intrigue for a trust which led them from their natural relation to their flocks and their natural spheres of action to undertake the regeneration of kingdoms. This preponderating weight, being added to the force of the body of chicane in the Tiers Etat, completed that momentum of ignorance, rashness, presumption, and lust of plunder, which nothing has been able to resist. To observing men it must have appeared from the beginning that the majority of the Third Estate, in conjunction with such a deputation from the clergy as I have described, whilst it pursued the destruction of the nobility, would inevitably become subservient to the worst designs of individuals in that class. In the spoil and humiliation of their own order these individuals would possess a sure fund for the pay of their new followers. To squander away the objects which made the happiness of their fellows would be to them no sacrifice at all. Turbulent, discontented men of quality, in proportion as they are puffed up with personal pride and arrogance, generally despise their own order. One of the first symptoms they discover of a selfish and mischievous ambition is a profligate disregard of a dignity which they partake with others. To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed toward a love to our country and to mankind. The interest of that portion of social arrangement is a trust in the hands of all those who compose it; and as none but bad men would justify it in abuse, none but traitors would barter it away for their own personal advantage. There were in the time of our civil troubles in England (I do not know whether you have any such in your assembly in France) several persons, like the then Earl of Holland, who by themselves or their families had brought an odium on the throne by the prodigal dispensation of its bounties toward them, who afterwards joined in the rebellions arising from the discontents of which they were themselves the cause; men who helped to subvert that throne to which they owed, some of them, their existence, others all that power which they employed to ruin their benefactor. If any bounds are set to the rapacious demands of that sort of people, or that others are permitted to partake in the objects they would engross, revenge and envy soon fill up the craving void that is left in their avarice. Confounded by the complication of distempered passions, their reason is disturbed; their views become vast and perplexed; to others inexplicable, to themselves uncertain. They find, on all sides, bounds to their unprincipled ambition in any fixed order of things. Both in the fog and haze of confusion all is enlarged and appears without any limit. When men of rank sacrifice all ideas of dignity to an ambition without a distinct object and work with low instruments and for low ends, the whole composition becomes low and base. Does not something like this now appear in France? Does it not produce something ignoble and inglorious -- a kind of meanness in all the prevalent policy, a tendency in all that is done to lower along with individuals all the dignity and importance of the state? Other revolutions have been conducted by persons who, whilst they attempted or affected changes in the commonwealth, sanctified their ambition by advancing the dignity of the people whose peace they troubled. They had long views. They aimed at the rule, not at the destruction, of their country. They were men of great civil and great military talents, and if the terror, the ornament of their age. They were not like Jew brokers, contending with each other who could best remedy with fraudulent circulation and depreciated paper the wretchedness and ruin brought on their country by their degenerate councils. The compliment made to one of the great bad men of the old stamp (Cromwell) by his kinsman, a favorite poet of that time, shows what it was he proposed, and what indeed to a great degree he accomplished, in the success of his ambition: > Still as you rise, the state exalted too, Finds no distemper whilst 'tis changed by you; Changed like the world's great scene, when without noise The rising sun night's vulgar lights destroys. These disturbers were not so much like men usurping power as asserting their natural place in society. Their rising was to illuminate and beautify the world. Their conquest over their competitors was by outshining them. The hand that, like a destroying angel, smote the country communicated to it the force and energy under which it suffered. I do not say (God forbid), I do not say that the virtues of such men were to be taken as a balance to their crimes; but they were some corrective to their effects. Such was, as I said, our Cromwell. Such were your whole race of Guises, Condes, and Colignis. Such the Richelieus, who in more quiet times acted in the spirit of a civil war. Such, as better men, and in a less dubious cause, were your Henry the Fourth and your Sully, though nursed in civil confusions and not wholly without some of their taint. It is a thing to be wondered at, to see how very soon France, when she had a moment to respire, recovered and emerged from the longest and most dreadful civil war that ever was known in any nation. Why? Because among all their massacres they had not slain the mind in their country. A conscious dignity, a noble pride, a generous sense of glory and emulation was not extinguished. On the contrary, it was kindled and inflamed. The organs also of the state, however shattered, existed. All the prizes of honor and virtue, all the rewards, all the distinctions remained. But your present confusion, like a palsy, has attacked the fountain of life itself. Every person in your country, in a situation to be actuated by a principle of honor, is disgraced and degraded, and can entertain no sensation of life except in a mortified and humiliated indignation. But this generation will quickly pass away. The next generation of the nobility will resemble the artificers and clowns, and money-jobbers usurers, and Jews, who will be always their fellows, sometimes their masters. BELIEVE ME, SIR, those who attempt to level, never equalize. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levelers, therefore, only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground. The association of tailors and carpenters, of which the republic (of Paris, for instance) is composed, cannot be equal to the situation into which by the worst of usurpations -- an usurpation on the prerogatives of nature -- you attempt to force them. The Chancellor of France, at the opening of the states, said, in a tone of oratorical flourish, that all occupations were honorable. If he meant only that no honest employment was disgraceful, he would not have gone beyond the truth. But in asserting that anything is honorable, we imply some distinction in its favor. The occupation of a hairdresser or of a working tallow-chandler cannot be a matter of honor to any person -- to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule. In this you think you are combating prejudice, but you are at war with nature. \[10\] I do not determine whether this book be canonical, as the Gallican church (till lately) has considered it, or apocryphal, as here it is taken. I am sure it contains a great deal of sense and truth. I do not, my dear Sir, conceive you to be of that sophistical, captious spirit, or of that uncandid dulness, as to require, for every general observation or sentiment, an explicit detail of the correctives and exceptions which reason will presume to be included in all the general propositions which come from reasonable men. You do not imagine that I wish to confine power, authority, and distinction to blood and names and titles. No, Sir. There is no qualification for government but virtue and wisdom, actual or presumptive. Wherever they are actually found, they have, in whatever state, condition, profession, or trade, the passport of Heaven to human place and honor. Woe to the country which would madly and impiously reject the service of the talents and virtues, civil, military, or religious, that are given to grace and to serve it, and would condemn to obscurity everything formed to diffuse luster and glory around a state. Woe to that country, too, that, passing into the opposite extreme, considers a low education, a mean contracted view of things, a sordid, mercenary occupation as a preferable title to command. Everything ought to be open, but not indifferently, to every man. No rotation; no appointment by lot; no mode of election operating in the spirit of sortition or rotation can be generally good in a government conversant in extensive objects. Because they have no tendency, direct or indirect, to select the man with a view to the duty or to accommodate the one to the other. I do not hesitate to say that the road to eminence and power, from obscure condition, ought not to be made too easy, nor a thing too much of course. If rare merit be the rarest of all rare things, it ought to pass through some sort of probation. The temple of honor ought to be seated on an eminence. If it be opened through virtue, let it be remembered, too, that virtue is never tried but by some difficulty and some struggle. Nothing is a due and adequate representation of a state that does not represent its ability as well as its property. But as ability is a vigorous and active principle, and as property is sluggish, inert, and timid, it never can be safe from the invasion of ability unless it be, out of all proportion, predominant in the representation. It must be represented, too, in great masses of accumulation, or it is not rightly protected. The characteristic essence of property, formed out of the combined principles of its acquisition and conservation, is to be unequal. The great masses, therefore, which excite envy and tempt rapacity must be put out of the possibility of danger. Then they form a natural rampart about the lesser properties in all their gradations. The same quantity of property, which is by the natural course of things divided among many, has not the same operation. Its defensive power is weakened as it is diffused. In this diffusion each man's portion is less than what, in the eagerness of his desires, he may flatter himself to obtain by dissipating the accumulations of others. The plunder of the few would indeed give but a share inconceivably small in the distribution to the many. But the many are not capable of making this calculation; and those who lead them to rapine never intend this distribution. The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends the most to the perpetuation of society itself. It makes our weakness subservient to our virtue, it grafts benevolence even upon avarice. The possessors of family wealth, and of the distinction which attends hereditary possession (as most concerned in it), are the natural securities for this transmission. With us the House of Peers is formed upon this principle. It is wholly composed of hereditary property and hereditary distinction, and made, therefore, the third of the legislature and, in the last event, the sole judge of all property in all its subdivisions. The House of Commons, too, though not necessarily, yet in fact, is always so composed, in the far greater part. Let those large proprietors be what they will -- and they have their chance of being amongst the best -- they are, at the very worst, the ballast in the vessel of the commonwealth. For though hereditary wealth and the rank which goes with it are too much idolized by creeping sycophants and the blind, abject admirers of power, they are too rashly slighted in shallow speculations of the petulant, assuming, short-sighted coxcombs of philosophy. Some decent, regulated preeminence, some preference (not exclusive appropriation) given to birth is neither unnatural, nor unjust, nor impolitic. IT is said that twenty-four millions ought to prevail over two hundred thousand. True; if the constitution of a kingdom be a problem of arithmetic. This sort of discourse does well enough with the lamp-post for its second; to men who may reason calmly, it is ridiculous. The will of the many and their interest must very often differ, and great will be the difference when they make an evil choice. A government of five hundred country attornies and obscure curates is not good for twenty-four millions of men, though it were chosen by eight and forty millions, nor is it the better for being guided by a dozen of persons of quality who have betrayed their trust in order to obtain that power. At present, you seem in everything to have strayed out of the high road of nature. The property of France does not govern it. Of course, property is destroyed and rational liberty has no existence. All you have got for the present is a paper circulation and a stock-jobbing constitution; and as to the future, do you seriously think that the territory of France, upon the republican system of eighty-three independent municipalities (to say nothing of the parts that compose them), can ever be governed as one body or can ever be set in motion by the impulse of one mind? When the National Assembly has completed its work, it will have accomplished its ruin. These commonwealths will not long bear a state of subjection to the republic of Paris. They will not bear that this body should monopolize the captivity of the king and the dominion over the assembly calling itself national. Each will keep its own portion of the spoil of the church to itself, and it will not suffer either that spoil, or the more just fruits of their industry, or the natural produce of their soil to be sent to swell the insolence or pamper the luxury of the mechanics of Paris. In this they will see none of the equality, under the pretense of which they have been tempted to throw off their allegiance to their sovereign as well as the ancient constitution of their country. There can be no capital city in such a constitution as they have lately made. They have forgot that, when they framed democratic governments, they had virtually dismembered their country. The person whom they persevere in calling king has not power left to him by the hundredth part sufficient to hold together this collection of republics. The republic of Paris will endeavor, indeed, to complete the debauchery of the army, and illegally to perpetuate the assembly, without resort to its constituents, as the means of continuing its despotism. It will make efforts, by becoming the heart of a boundless paper circulation, to draw everything to itself; but in vain. All this policy in the end will appear as feeble as it is now violent. IF this be your actual situation, compared to the situation to which you were called, as it were, by the voice of God and man, I cannot find it in my heart to congratulate you on the choice you have made or the success which has attended your endeavors. I can as little recommend to any other nation a conduct grounded on such principles, and productive of such effects. That I must leave to those who can see farther into your affairs than I am able to do, and who best know how far your actions are favorable to their designs. The gentlemen of the Revolution Society, who were so early in their congratulations, appear to be strongly of opinion that there is some scheme of politics relative to this country in which your proceedings may, in some way, be useful. For your Dr. Price, who seems to have speculated himself into no small degree of fervor upon this subject, addresses his auditory in the following very remarkable words: "I cannot conclude without recalling particularly to your recollection a consideration which I have more than once alluded to, and which probably your thoughts have been all along anticipating; a consideration with which my mind is impressed more than I can express. I mean the consideration of the favourableness of the present times to all exertions in the cause of liberty." It is plain that the mind of this political preacher was at the time big with some extraordinary design; and it is very probable that the thoughts of his audience, who understood him better than I do, did all along run before him in his reflection and in the whole train of consequences to which it led. Before I read that sermon, I really thought I had lived in a free country; and it was an error I cherished, because it gave me a greater liking to the country I lived in. I was, indeed, aware that a jealous, ever-waking vigilance to guard the treasure of our liberty, not only from invasion, but from decay and corruption, was our best wisdom and our first duty. However, I considered that treasure rather as a possession to be secured than as a prize to be contended for. I did not discern how the present time came to be so very favorable to all exertions in the cause of freedom. The present time differs from any other only by the circumstance of what is doing in France. If the example of that nation is to have an influence on this, I can easily conceive why some of their proceedings which have an unpleasant aspect and are not quite reconcilable to humanity, generosity, good faith, and justice are palliated with so much milky good-nature toward the actors, and borne with so much heroic fortitude toward the sufferers. It is certainly not prudent to discredit the authority of an example we mean to follow. But allowing this, we are led to a very natural question: What is that cause of liberty, and what are those exertions in its favor to which the example of France is so singularly auspicious? Is our monarchy to be annihilated, with all the laws, all the tribunals, and all the ancient corporations of the kingdom? Is every landmark of the country to be done away in favor of a geometrical and arithmetical constitution? Is the House of Lords to be voted useless? Is episcopacy to be abolished? Are the church lands to be sold to Jews and jobbers or given to bribe new-invented municipal republics into a participation in sacrilege? Are all the taxes to be voted grievances, and the revenue reduced to a patriotic contribution or patriotic presents? Are silver shoebuckles to be substituted in the place of the land tax and the malt tax for the support of the naval strength of this kingdom? Are all orders, ranks, and distinctions to be confounded, that out of universal anarchy, joined to national bankruptcy, three or four thousand democracies should be formed into eighty-three, and that they may all, by some sort of unknown attractive power, be organized into one? For this great end, is the army to be seduced from its discipline and its fidelity, first, by every kind of debauchery and, then, by the terrible precedent of a donative in the increase of pay? Are the curates to be seduced from their bishops by holding out to them the delusive hope of a dole out of the spoils of their own order? Are the citizens of London to be drawn from their allegiance by feeding them at the expense of their fellow subjects? Is a compulsory paper currency to be substituted in the place of the legal coin of this kingdom? Is what remains of the plundered stock of public revenue to be employed in the wild project of maintaining two armies to watch over and to fight with each other? If these are the ends and means of the Revolution Society, I admit that they are well assorted; and France may furnish them for both with precedents in point. I see that your example is held out to shame us. I know that we are supposed a dull, sluggish race, rendered passive by finding our situation tolerable, and prevented by a mediocrity of freedom from ever attaining to its full perfection. Your leaders in France began by affecting to admire, almost to adore, the British constitution; but as they advanced, they came to look upon it with a sovereign contempt. The friends of your National Assembly amongst us have full as mean an opinion of what was formerly thought the glory of their country. The Revolution Society has discovered that the English nation is not free. They are convinced that the inequality in our representation is a "defect in our constitution so gross and palpable as to make it excellent chiefly in form and theory". \[11\] That a representation in the legislature of a kingdom is not only the basis of all constitutional liberty in it, but of "all legitimate government; that without it a government is nothing but an usurpation"; -- that "when the representation is partial, the kingdom possesses liberty only partially; and if extremely partial, it gives only a semblance; and if not only extremely partial, but corruptly chosen, it becomes a nuisance". Dr. Price considers this inadequacy of representation as our fundamental grievance; and though, as to the corruption of this semblance of representation, he hopes it is not yet arrived to its full perfection of depravity, he fears that "nothing will be done towards gaining for us this essential blessing, until some great abuse of power again provokes our resentment, or some great calamity again alarms our fears, or perhaps till the acquisition of a pure and equal representation by other countries, whilst we are mocked with the shadow, kindles our shame." To this he subjoins a note in these words. "A representation chosen chiefly by the treasury, and a few thousands of the dregs of the people, who are generally paid for their votes". You will smile here at the consistency of those democratists who, when they are not on their guard, treat the humbler part of the community with the greatest contempt, whilst, at the same time, they pretend to make them the depositories of all power. It would require a long discourse to point out to you the many fallacies that lurk in the generality and equivocal nature of the terms "inadequate representation". I shall only say here, in justice to that old-fashioned constitution under which we have long prospered, that our representation has been found perfectly adequate to all the purposes for which a representation of the people can be desired or devised. I defy the enemies of our constitution to show the contrary. To detail the particulars in which it is found so well to promote its ends would demand a treatise on our practical constitution. I state here the doctrine of the Revolutionists only that you and others may see what an opinion these gentlemen entertain of the constitution of their country, and why they seem to think that some great abuse of power or some great calamity, as giving a chance for the blessing of a constitution according to their ideas, would be much palliated to their feelings; you see why they are so much enamored of your fair and equal representation, which being once obtained, the same effects might follow. You see they consider our House of Commons as only "a semblance", "a form", "a theory", "a shadow", "a mockery", perhaps "a nuisance". These gentlemen value themselves on being systematic, and not without reason. They must therefore look on this gross and palpable defect of representation, this fundamental grievance (so they call it) as a thing not only vicious in itself, but as rendering our whole government absolutely illegitimate, and not at all better than a downright usurpation. Another revolution, to get rid of this illegitimate and usurped government, would of course be perfectly justifiable, if not absolutely necessary. Indeed, their principle, if you observe it with any attention, goes much further than to an alteration in the election of the House of Commons; for, if popular representation, or choice, is necessary to the legitimacy of all government, the House of Lords is, at one stroke, bastardized and corrupted in blood. That House is no representative of the people at all, even in "semblance or in form". The case of the crown is altogether as bad. In vain the crown may endeavor to screen itself against these gentlemen by the authority of the establishment made on the Revolution. The Revolution which is resorted to for a title, on their system, wants a title itself. The Revolution is built, according to their theory, upon a basis not more solid than our present formalities, as it was made by a House of Lords, not representing any one but themselves, and by a House of Commons exactly such as the present, that is, as they term it, by a mere "shadow and mockery" of representation. Something they must destroy, or they seem to themselves to exist for no purpose. One set is for destroying the civil power through the ecclesiastical; another, for demolishing the ecclesiastic through the civil. They are aware that the worst consequences might happen to the public in accomplishing this double ruin of church and state, but they are so heated with their theories that they give more than hints that this ruin, with all the mischiefs that must lead to it and attend it, and which to themselves appear quite certain, would not be unacceptable to them or very remote from their wishes. A man amongst them of great authority and certainly of great talents, speaking of a supposed alliance between church and state, says, "perhaps we must wait for the fall of the civil powers before this most unnatural alliance be broken. Calamitous no doubt will that time be. But what convulsion in the political world ought to be a subject of lamentation if it be attended with so desirable an effect?" You see with what a steady eye these gentlemen are prepared to view the greatest calamities which can befall their country. IT is no wonder, therefore, that with these ideas of everything in their constitution and government at home, either in church or state, as illegitimate and usurped, or at best as a vain mockery, they look abroad with an eager and passionate enthusiasm. Whilst they are possessed by these notions, it is vain to talk to them of the practice of their ancestors, the fundamental laws of their country, the fixed form of a constitution whose merits are confirmed by the solid test of long experience and an increasing public strength and national prosperity. They despise experience as the wisdom of unlettered men; and as for the rest, they have wrought underground a mine that will blow up, at one grand explosion, all examples of antiquity, all precedents, charters, and acts of parliament. They have "the rights of men". Against these there can be no prescription, against these no agreement is binding; these admit no temperament and no compromise; anything withheld from their full demand is so much of fraud and injustice. Against these their rights of men let no government look for security in the length of its continuance, or in the justice and lenity of its administration. The objections of these speculatists, if its forms do not quadrate with their theories, are as valid against such an old and beneficent government as against the most violent tyranny or the greenest usurpation. They are always at issue with governments, not on a question of abuse, but a question of competency and a question of title. I have nothing to say to the clumsy subtilty of their political metaphysics. Let them be their amusement in the schools. -- "Illa se jactet in aula Aeolus, et clauso ventorum carcere regnet". -- But let them not break prison to burst like a Levanter to sweep the earth with their hurricane and to break up the fountains of the great deep to overwhelm us. Far am I from denying in theory, full as far is my heart from withholding in practice (if I were of power to give or to withhold) the real rights of men. In denying their false claims of right, I do not mean to injure those which are real, and are such as their pretended rights would totally destroy. If civil society be made for the advantage of man, all the advantages for which it is made become his right. It is an institution of beneficence; and law itself is only beneficence acting by a rule. Men have a right to live by that rule; they have a right to do justice, as between their fellows, whether their fellows are in public function or in ordinary occupation. They have a right to the fruits of their industry and to the means of making their industry fruitful. They have a right to the acquisitions of their parents, to the nourishment and improvement of their offspring, to instruction in life, and to consolation in death. Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself; and he has a right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favor. In this partnership all men have equal rights, but not to equal things. He that has but five shillings in the partnership has as good a right to it as he that has five hundred pounds has to his larger proportion. But he has not a right to an equal dividend in the product of the joint stock; and as to the share of power, authority, and direction which each individual ought to have in the management of the state, that I must deny to be amongst the direct original rights of man in civil society; for I have in my contemplation the civil social man, and no other. It is a thing to be settled by convention. If civil society be the offspring of convention, that convention must be its law. That convention must limit and modify all the descriptions of constitution which are formed under it. Every sort of legislative, judicial, or executory power are its creatures. They can have no being in any other state of things; and how can any man claim under the conventions of civil society rights which do not so much as suppose its existence -- rights which are absolutely repugnant to it? One of the first motives to civil society, and which becomes one of its fundamental rules, is that no man should be judge in his own cause. By this each person has at once divested himself of the first fundamental right of uncovenanted man, that is, to judge for himself and to assert his own cause. He abdicates all right to be his own governor. He inclusively, in a great measure, abandons the right of self-defense, the first law of nature. Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points the most essential to him. That he may secure some liberty, he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it. Government is not made in virtue of natural rights, which may and do exist in total independence of it, and exist in much greater clearness and in a much greater degree of abstract perfection; but their abstract perfection is their practical defect. By having a right to everything they want everything. Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among these wants is to be reckoned the want, out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions. Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves, and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights. But as the liberties and the restrictions vary with times and circumstances and admit to infinite modifications, they cannot be settled upon any abstract rule; and nothing is so foolish as to discuss them upon that principle. The moment you abate anything from the full rights of men, each to govern himself, and suffer any artificial, positive limitation upon those rights, from that moment the whole organization of government becomes a consideration of convenience. This it is which makes the constitution of a state and the due distribution of its powers a matter of the most delicate and complicated skill. It requires a deep knowledge of human nature and human necessities, and of the things which facilitate or obstruct the various ends which are to be pursued by the mechanism of civil institutions. The state is to have recruits to its strength, and remedies to its distempers. What is the use of discussing a man's abstract right to food or medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In that deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician rather than the professor of metaphysics. The science of constructing a commonwealth, or renovating it, or reforming it, is, like every other experimental science, not to be taught a priori. Nor is it a short experience that can instruct us in that practical science, because the real effects of moral causes are not always immediate; but that which in the first instance is prejudicial may be excellent in its remoter operation, and its excellence may arise even from the ill effects it produces in the beginning. The reverse also happens: and very plausible schemes, with very pleasing commencements, have often shameful and lamentable conclusions. In states there are often some obscure and almost latent causes, things which appear at first view of little moment, on which a very great part of its prosperity or adversity may most essentially depend. The science of government being therefore so practical in itself and intended for such practical purposes -- a matter which requires experience, and even more experience than any person can gain in his whole life, however sagacious and observing he may be -- it is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down an edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society, or on building it up again without having models and patterns of approved utility before his eyes. These metaphysic rights entering into common life, like rays of light which pierce into a dense medium, are by the laws of nature refracted from their straight line. Indeed, in the gross and complicated mass of human passions and concerns the primitive rights of men undergo such a variety of refractions and reflections that it becomes absurd to talk of them as if they continued in the simplicity of their original direction. The nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity; and, therefore, no simple disposition or direction of power can be suitable either to man's nature or to the quality of his affairs. When I hear the simplicity of contrivance aimed at and boasted of in any new political constitutions, I am at no loss to decide that the artificers are grossly ignorant of their trade or totally negligent of their duty. The simple governments are fundamentally defective, to say no worse of them. If you were to contemplate society in but one point of view, all these simple modes of polity are infinitely captivating. In effect each would answer its single end much more perfectly than the more complex is able to attain all its complex purposes. But it is better that the whole should be imperfectly and anomalously answered than that, while some parts are provided for with great exactness, others might be totally neglected or perhaps materially injured by the over-care of a favorite member. The pretended rights of these theorists are all extremes; and in proportion as they are metaphysically true, they are morally and politically false. The rights of men are in a sort of middle, incapable of definition, but not impossible to be discerned. The rights of men in governments are their advantages; and these are often in balances between differences of good, in compromises sometimes between good and evil, and sometimes between evil and evil. Political reason is a computing principle: adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing, morally and not metaphysically or mathematically, true moral denominations. By these theorists the right of the people is almost always sophistically confounded with their power. The body of the community, whenever it can come to act, can meet with no effectual resistance; but till power and right are the same, the whole body of them has no right inconsistent with virtue, and the first of all virtues, prudence. Men have no right to what is not reasonable and to what is not for their benefit; for though a pleasant writer said, liceat perire poetis, when one of them, in cold blood, is said to have leaped into the flames of a volcanic revolution, ardentem frigidus Aetnam insiluit, I consider such a frolic rather as an unjustifiable poetic license than as one of the franchises of Parnassus; and whether he was a poet, or divine, or politician that chose to exercise this kind of right, I think that more wise, because more charitable, thoughts would urge me rather to save the man than to preserve his brazen slippers as the monuments of his folly. The kind of anniversary sermons to which a great part of what I write refers, if men are not shamed out of their present course in commemorating the fact, will cheat many out of the principles, and deprive them of the benefits, of the revolution they commemorate. I confess to you, Sir, I never liked this continual talk of resistance and revolution, or the practice of making the extreme medicine of the constitution its daily bread. It renders the habit of society dangerously valetudinary; it is taking periodical doses of mercury sublimate and swallowing down repeated provocatives of cantharides to our love of liberty. This distemper of remedy, grown habitual, relaxes and wears out, by a vulgar and prostituted use, the spring of that spirit which is to be exerted on great occasions. It was in the most patient period of Roman servitude that themes of tyrannicide made the ordinary exercise of boys at school -- cum perimit saevos classis numerosa tyrannos. In the ordinary state of things, it produces in a country like ours the worst effects, even on the cause of that liberty which it abuses with the dissoluteness of an extravagant speculation. Almost all the high-bred republicans of my time have, after a short space, become the most decided, thorough-paced courtiers; they soon left the business of a tedious, moderate, but practical resistance to those of us whom, in the pride and intoxication of their theories, they have slighted as not much better than Tories. Hypocrisy, of course, delights in the most sublime speculations, for, never intending to go beyond speculation, it costs nothing to have it magnificent. But even in cases where rather levity than fraud was to be suspected in these ranting speculations, the issue has been much the same. These professors, finding their extreme principles not applicable to cases which call only for a qualified or, as I may say, civil and legal resistance, in such cases employ no resistance at all. It is with them a war or a revolution, or it is nothing. Finding their schemes of politics not adapted to the state of the world in which they live, they often come to think lightly of all public principle, and are ready, on their part, to abandon for a very trivial interest what they find of very trivial value. Some, indeed, are of more steady and persevering natures, but these are eager politicians out of parliament who have little to tempt them to abandon their favorite projects. They have some change in the church or state, or both, constantly in their view. When that is the case, they are always bad citizens and perfectly unsure connections. For, considering their speculative designs as of infinite value, and the actual arrangement of the state as of no estimation, they are at best indifferent about it. They see no merit in the good, and no fault in the vicious, management of public affairs; they rather rejoice in the latter, as more propitious to revolution. They see no merit or demerit in any man, or any action, or any political principle any further than as they may forward or retard their design of change; they therefore take up, one day, the most violent and stretched prerogative, and another time the wildest democratic ideas of freedom, and pass from one to the other without any sort of regard to cause, to person, or to party. IN FRANCE, you are now in the crisis of a revolution and in the transit from one form of government to another -- you cannot see that character of men exactly in the same situation in which we see it in this country. With us it is militant; with you it is triumphant; and you know how it can act when its power is commensurate to its will. I would not be supposed to confine those observations to any description of men or to comprehend all men of any description within them -- No! far from it. I am as incapable of that injustice as I am of keeping terms with those who profess principles of extremities and who, under the name of religion, teach little else than wild and dangerous politics. The worst of these politics of revolution is this: they temper and harden the breast in order to prepare it for the desperate strokes which are sometimes used in extreme occasions. But as these occasions may never arrive, the mind receives a gratuitous taint; and the moral sentiments suffer not a little when no political purpose is served by the depravation. This sort of people are so taken up with their theories about the rights of man that they have totally forgotten his nature. Without opening one new avenue to the understanding, they have succeeded in stopping up those that lead to the heart. They have perverted in themselves, and in those that attend to them, all the well-placed sympathies of the human breast. This famous sermon of the Old Jewry breathes nothing but this spirit through all the political part. Plots, massacres, assassinations seem to some people a trivial price for obtaining a revolution. Cheap, bloodless reformation, a guiltless liberty appear flat and vapid to their taste. There must be a great change of scene; there must be a magnificent stage effect; there must be a grand spectacle to rouse the imagination grown torpid with the lazy enjoyment of sixty years' security and the still unanimating repose of public prosperity. The preacher found them all in the French Revolution. This inspires a juvenile warmth through his whole frame. His enthusiasm kindles as he advances; and when he arrives at his peroration it is in a full blaze. Then viewing, from the Pisgah of his pulpit, the free, moral, happy, flourishing and glorious state of France as in a bird's-eye landscape of a promised land, he breaks out into the following rapture: What an eventful period is this! I am thankful that I have lived to it; I could almost say, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation. -- I have lived to see a diffusion of knowledge, which has undermined superstition and error. -- I have lived to see the rights of men better understood than ever; and nations panting for liberty which seemed to have lost the idea of it. -- I have lived to see thirty millions of people, indignant and resolute, spurning at slavery, and demanding liberty with an irresistible voice. Their king led in triumph and an arbitrary monarch surrendering himself to his subjects. \[12\] Before I proceed further, I have to remark that Dr. Price seems rather to overvalue the great acquisitions of light which he has obtained and diffused in this age. The last century appears to me to have been quite as much enlightened. It had, though in a different place, a triumph as memorable as that of Dr. Price; and some of the great preachers of that period partook of it as eagerly as he has done in the triumph of France. On the trial of the Rev. Hugh Peters for high treason, it was deposed that, when King Charles was brought to London for his trial, the Apostle of Liberty in that day conducted the triumph. "I saw", says the witness, "his Majesty in the coach with six horses, and Peters riding before the king, triumphing". Dr. Price, when he talks as if he had made a discovery, only follows a precedent, for after the commencement of the king's trial this precursor, the same Dr. Peters, concluding a long prayer at the Royal Chapel at Whitehall (he had very triumphantly chosen his place), said, "I have prayed and preached these twenty years; and now I may say with old Simeon, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation". \[13\] Peters had not the fruits of his prayer, for he neither departed so soon as he wished, nor in peace. He became (what I heartily hope none of his followers may be in this country) himself a sacrifice to the triumph which he led as pontiff. They dealt at the Restoration, perhaps, too hardly with this poor good man. But we owe it to his memory and his sufferings that he had as much illumination and as much zeal, and had as effectually undermined all the superstition and error which might impede the great business he was engaged in, as any who follow and repeat after him in this age, which would assume to itself an exclusive title to the knowledge of the rights of men and all the glorious consequences of that knowledge. After this sally of the preacher of the Old Jewry, which differs only in place and time, but agrees perfectly with the spirit and letter of the rapture of 1648, the Revolution Society, the fabricators of governments, the heroic band of cashierers of monarchs, electors of sovereigns, and leaders of kings in triumph, strutting with a proud consciousness of the diffusion of knowledge of which every member had obtained so large a share in the donative, were in haste to make a generous diffusion of the knowledge they had thus gratuitously received. To make this bountiful communication, they adjourned from the church in the Old Jewry to the London Tavern, where the same Dr. Price, in whom the fumes of his oracular tripod were not entirely evaporated, moved and carried the resolution or address of congratulation transmitted by Lord Stanhope to the National Assembly of France. I find a preacher of the gospel profaning the beautiful and prophetic ejaculation, commonly called "nunc dimittis", made on the first presentation of our Saviour in the Temple, and applying it with an inhuman and unnatural rapture to the most horrid, atrocious, and afflicting spectacle that perhaps ever was exhibited to the pity and indignation of mankind. This "leading in triumph", a thing in its best form unmanly and irreligious, which fills our preacher with such unhallowed transports, must shock, I believe, the moral taste of every well-born mind. Several English were the stupefied and indignant spectators of that triumph. It was (unless we have been strangely deceived) a spectacle more resembling a procession of American savages, entering into Onondaga after some of their murders called victories and leading into hovels hung round with scalps their captives, overpowered with the scoffs and buffets of women as ferocious as themselves, much more than it resembled the triumphal pomp of a civilized martial nation -- if a civilized nation, or any men who had a sense of generosity, were capable of a personal triumph over the fallen and afflicted. THIS, MY DEAR SIR, was not the triumph of France. I must believe that, as a nation, it overwhelmed you with shame and horror. I must believe that the National Assembly find themselves in a state of the greatest humiliation in not being able to punish the authors of this triumph or the actors in it, and that they are in a situation in which any inquiry they may make upon the subject must be destitute even of the appearance of liberty or impartiality. The apology of that assembly is found in their situation; but when we approve what they must bear, it is in us the degenerate choice of a vitiated mind. With a compelled appearance of deliberation, they vote under the dominion of a stern necessity. They sit in the heart, as it were, of a foreign republic: they have their residence in a city whose constitution has emanated neither from the charter of their king nor from their legislative power. There they are surrounded by an army not raised either by the authority of their crown or by their command, and which, if they should order to dissolve itself, would instantly dissolve them. There they sit, after a gang of assassins had driven away some hundreds of the members, whilst those who held the same moderate principles, with more patience or better hope, continued every day exposed to outrageous insults and murderous threats. There a majority, sometimes real, sometimes pretended, captive itself, compels a captive king to issue as royal edicts, at third hand, the polluted nonsense of their most licentious and giddy coffeehouses. It is notorious that all their measures are decided before they are debated. It is beyond doubt that, under the terror of the bayonet and the lamp-post and the torch to their houses, they are obliged to adopt all the crude and desperate measures suggested by clubs composed of a monstrous medley of all conditions, tongues, and nations. Among these are found persons, in comparison of whom Catiline would be thought scrupulous and Cethegus a man of sobriety and moderation. Nor is it in these clubs alone that the public measures are deformed into monsters. They undergo a previous distortion in academies, intended as so many seminaries for these clubs, which are set up in all the places of public resort. In these meetings of all sorts every counsel, in proportion as it is daring and violent and perfidious, is taken for the mark of superior genius. Humanity and compassion are ridiculed as the fruits of superstition and ignorance. Tenderness to individuals is considered as treason to the public. Liberty is always to be estimated perfect, as property is rendered insecure. Amidst assassination, massacre, and confiscation, perpetrated or meditated, they are forming plans for the good order of future society. Embracing in their arms the carcasses of base criminals and promoting their relations on the title of their offences, they drive hundreds of virtuous persons to the same end, by forcing them to subsist by beggary or by crime. The Assembly, their organ, acts before them the farce of deliberation with as little decency as liberty. They act like the comedians of a fair before a riotous audience; they act amidst the tumultuous cries of a mixed mob of ferocious men, and of women lost to shame, who, according to their insolent fancies, direct, control, applaud, explode them, and sometimes mix and take their seats amongst them, domineering over them with a strange mixture of servile petulance and proud, presumptuous authority. As they have inverted order in all things, the gallery is in the place of the house. This assembly, which overthrows kings and kingdoms, has not even the physiognomy and aspect of a grave legislative body -- nec color imperii, nec frons ulla senatus. They have a power given to them, like that of the evil principle, to subvert and destroy, but none to construct, except such machines as may be fitted for further subversion and further destruction. WHO is it that admires, and from the heart is attached to, national representative assemblies, but must turn with horror and disgust from such a profane burlesque, and abominable perversion of that sacred institute? Lovers of monarchy, lovers of republics must alike abhor it. The members of your assembly must themselves groan under the tyranny of which they have all the shame, none of the direction, and little of the profit. I am sure many of the members who compose even the majority of that body must feel as I do, notwithstanding the applauses of the Revolution Society. Miserable king! miserable assembly! How must that assembly be silently scandalized with those of their members who could call a day which seemed to blot the sun out of heaven "un beau jour!" \[14\] How must they be inwardly indignant at hearing others who thought fit to declare to them "that the vessel of the state would fly forward in her course toward regeneration with more speed than ever", from the stiff gale of treason and murder which preceded our preacher's triumph! What must they have felt whilst, with outward patience and inward indignation, they heard, of the slaughter of innocent gentlemen in their houses, that "the blood spilled was not the most pure!" What must they have felt, when they were besieged by complaints of disorders which shook their country to its foundations, at being compelled coolly to tell the complainants that they were under the protection of the law, and that they would address the king (the captive king) to cause the laws to be enforced for their protection; when the enslaved ministers of that captive king had formally notified to them that there were neither law nor authority nor power left to protect? What must they have felt at being obliged, as a felicitation on the present new year, to request their captive king to forget the stormy period of the last, on account of the great good which he was likely to produce to his people; to the complete attainment of which good they adjourned the practical demonstrations of their loyalty, assuring him of their obedience when he should no longer possess any authority to command? This address was made with much good nature and affection, to be sure. But among the revolutions in France must be reckoned a considerable revolution in their ideas of politeness. In England we are said to learn manners at second-hand from your side of the water, and that we dress our behavior in the frippery of France. If so, we are still in the old cut and have not so far conformed to the new Parisian mode of good breeding as to think it quite in the most refined strain of delicate compliment (whether in condolence or congratulation) to say, to the most humiliated creature that crawls upon the earth, that great public benefits are derived from the murder of his servants, the attempted assassination of himself and of his wife, and the mortification, disgrace, and degradation that he has personally suffered. It is a topic of consolation which our ordinary of Newgate would be too humane to use to a criminal at the foot of the gallows. I should have thought that the hangman of Paris, now that he is liberalized by the vote of the National Assembly and is allowed his rank and arms in the herald's college of the rights of men, would be too generous, too gallant a man, too full of the sense of his new dignity to employ that cutting consolation to any of the persons whom the lese nation might bring under the administration of his executive power. A man is fallen indeed when he is thus flattered. The anodyne draught of oblivion, thus drugged, is well calculated to preserve a galling wakefulness and to feed the living ulcer of a corroding memory. Thus to administer the opiate potion of amnesty, powdered with all the ingredients of scorn and contempt, is to hold to his lips, instead of "the balm of hurt minds", the cup of human misery full to the brim and to force him to drink it to the dregs. Yielding to reasons at least as forcible as those which were so delicately urged in the compliment on the new year, the king of France will probably endeavor to forget these events and that compliment. But history, who keeps a durable record of all our acts and exercises her awful censure over the proceedings of all sorts of sovereigns, will not forget either those events or the era of this liberal refinement in the intercourse of mankind. History will record that on the morning of the 6th of October, 1789, the king and queen of France, after a day of confusion, alarm, dismay, and slaughter, lay down, under the pledged security of public faith, to indulge nature in a few hours of respite and troubled, melancholy repose. From this sleep the queen was first startled by the sentinel at her door, who cried out to her to save herself by flight -- that this was the last proof of fidelity he could give -- that they were upon him, and he was dead. Instantly he was cut down. A band of cruel ruffians and assassins, reeking with his blood, rushed into the chamber of the queen and pierced with a hundred strokes of bayonets and poniards the bed, from whence this persecuted woman had but just time to fly almost naked, and, through ways unknown to the murderers, had escaped to seek refuge at the feet of a king and husband not secure of his own life for a moment. This king, to say no more of him, and this queen, and their infant children (who once would have been the pride and hope of a great and generous people) were then forced to abandon the sanctuary of the most splendid palace in the world, which they left swimming in blood, polluted by massacre and strewed with scattered limbs and mutilated carcasses. Thence they were conducted into the capital of their kingdom. Two had been selected from the unprovoked, unresisted, promiscuous slaughter, which was made of the gentlemen of birth and family who composed the king's body guard. These two gentlemen, with all the parade of an execution of justice, were cruelly and publicly dragged to the block and beheaded in the great court of the palace. Their heads were stuck upon spears and led the procession, whilst the royal captives who followed in the train were slowly moved along, amidst the horrid yells, and shrilling screams, and frantic dances, and infamous contumelies, and all the unutterable abominations of the furies of hell in the abused shape of the vilest of women. After they had been made to taste, drop by drop, more than the bitterness of death in the slow torture of a journey of twelve miles, protracted to six hours, they were, under a guard composed of those very soldiers who had thus conducted them through this famous triumph, lodged in one of the old palaces of Paris, now converted into a bastille for kings. Is this a triumph to be consecrated at altars? to be commemorated with grateful thanksgiving? to be offered to the divine humanity with fervent prayer and enthusiastic ejaculation? -- These Theban and Thracian orgies, acted in France and applauded only in the Old Jewry, I assure you, kindle prophetic enthusiasm in the minds but of very few people in this kingdom, although a saint and apostle, who may have revelations of his own and who has so completely vanquished all the mean superstitions of the heart, may incline to think it pious and decorous to compare it with the entrance into the world of the Prince of Peace, proclaimed in a holy temple by a venerable sage, and not long before not worse announced by the voice of angels to the quiet innocence of shepherds. At first I was at a loss to account for this fit of unguarded transport. I knew, indeed, that the sufferings of monarchs make a delicious repast to some sort of palates. There were reflections which might serve to keep this appetite within some bounds of temperance. But when I took one circumstance into my consideration, I was obliged to confess that much allowance ought to be made for the Society, and that the temptation was too strong for common discretion -- I mean, the circumstance of the Io Paean of the triumph, the animating cry which called "for all the BISHOPS to be hanged on the lampposts", \[15\] might well have brought forth a burst of enthusiasm on the foreseen consequences of this happy day. I allow to so much enthusiasm some little deviation from prudence. I allow this prophet to break forth into hymns of joy and thanksgiving on an event which appears like the precursor of the Millennium and the projected fifth monarchy in the destruction of all church establishments. There was, however, (as in all human affairs there is) in the midst of this joy something to exercise the patience of these worthy gentlemen and to try the long-suffering of their faith. The actual murder of the king and queen, and their child, was wanting to the other auspicious circumstances of this "beautiful day". The actual murder of the bishops, though called for by so many holy ejaculations, was also wanting. A group of regicide and sacrilegious slaughter was indeed boldly sketched, but it was only sketched. It unhappily was left unfinished in this great history-piece of the massacre of innocents. What hardy pencil of a great master from the school of the rights of man will finish it is to be seen hereafter. The age has not yet the complete benefit of that diffusion of knowledge that has undermined superstition and error; and the king of France wants another object or two to consign to oblivion, in consideration of all the good which is to arise from his own sufferings and the patriotic crimes of an enlightened age. \[16\] EXTRACT of M. de Lally Tollendal's Second Letter to a Friend. > "Parlons du parti que j'ai pris; il est bien justifie dans ma conscience. -- Ni cette ville coupable, ni cette assemblee plus coupable encore, ne meritoient que je me justifie; mais j'ai a coeur que vous, et les personnes qui pensent comme vous, ne me condamnent pas. -- Ma sante, je vous jure, me rendoit mes fonctions impossibles; mais meme en les mettant de cote il a ete au-dessus de mes forces de supporter plus long-tems l'horreur que me causoit ce sang, -- ces tetes -- cette reine presque egorgee, -- ce roi, -- amene esclave, -- entrant a Paris, au milieu de ses assassins, et precede des tetes de ses malheureux gardes. -- Ces perfides jannissaires, ces assassins, ces femmes cannibales, ce cri de, TOUS LES EVEQUES A LA LANTERNE, dans le moment ou le roi entre sa capitale avec deux eveques de son conseil dans sa voiture. Un coup de fusil, que j'ai vu tirer dans un des carosses de la reine. M. Bailly appellant cela un beau jour. L'assemblee ayant declare froidement le matin, qu'il n'etoit pas de sa dignite d'aller toute entiere environner le roi. M. Mirabeau disant impunement dans cette assemblee, que le vaisseau de l'etat, loin d'etre arrete dans sa course, s'elanceroit avec plus de rapidite que jamais vers sa regeneration. M. Barnave, riant avec lui, quand des flots de sang couloient autour de nous. Le vertueux Mounier (\[17\]) echappant par miracle a vingt assassins, qui avoient voulu faire de sa tete un trophee de plus. > "Voila ce qui me fit jurer de ne plus mettre le pied dans cette caverne d'Antropophages ou je n'avois plus de force d'elever la voix, ou depuis six semaines je l'avois elevee en vain. Moi, Mounier, et tous les honnetes gens, ont le dernier effort a faire pour le bien etoit (sic) d'en sortir. Aucune idee de crainte ne s'est approchee de moi. Je rougirois de m'en defendre. J'avois encore recu sur la route de la part de ce peuple, moins coupable que ceux qui l'ont enivre de fureur, des acclamations, et des applaudissements, dont d'autres auroient ete flattes, et qui m'ont fait fremir. C'est a l'indignation, c'est a l'horreur, c'est aux convulsions physiques, que se seul aspect du sang me fait eprouver que j'ai cede. On brave une seule mort; on la brave plusieurs fois, quand elle peut etre utile. Mais aucune puissance sous le Ciel, mais aucune opinion publique ou privee n'ont le droit de me condamner a souffrir inutilement mille supplices par minute, et a perir de desespoir, de rage, au milieu des triomphes, du crime que je n'ai pu arreter. Ils me proscriront, ils confisqueront mes biens. Je labourerai la terre, et je ne les verrai plus. -- Voila ma justification. Vous pouvez la lire, la montrer, la laisser copier; tant pis pour ceux qui ne la comprendront pas; ce ne sera alors moi qui auroit eu tort de la leur donner". This military man had not so good nerves as the peaceable gentleman of the Old Jewry. -- See Mons. Mounier's narrative of these transactions; a man also of honour and virtue, and talents, and therefore a fugitive. Although this work of our new light and knowledge did not go to the length that in all probability it was intended it should be carried, yet I must think that such treatment of any human creatures must be shocking to any but those who are made for accomplishing revolutions. But I cannot stop here. Influenced by the inborn feelings of my nature, and not being illuminated by a single ray of this new-sprung modern light, I confess to you, Sir, that the exalted rank of the persons suffering, and particularly the sex, the beauty, and the amiable qualities of the descendant of so many kings and emperors, with the tender age of royal infants, insensible only through infancy and innocence of the cruel outrages to which their parents were exposed, instead of being a subject of exultation, adds not a little to any sensibility on that most melancholy occasion. I hear that the august person who was the principal object of our preacher's triumph, though he supported himself, felt much on that shameful occasion. As a man, it became him to feel for his wife and his children, and the faithful guards of his person that were massacred in cold blood about him; as a prince, it became him to feel for the strange and frightful transformation of his civilized subjects, and to be more grieved for them than solicitous for himself. It derogates little from his fortitude, while it adds infinitely to the honor of his humanity. I am very sorry to say it, very sorry indeed, that such personages are in a situation in which it is not unbecoming in us to praise the virtues of the great. I hear, and I rejoice to hear, that the great lady, the other object of the triumph, has borne that day (one is interested that beings made for suffering should suffer well), and that she bears all the succeeding days, that she bears the imprisonment of her husband, and her own captivity, and the exile of her friends, and the insulting adulation of addresses, and the whole weight of her accumulated wrongs, with a serene patience, in a manner suited to her rank and race, and becoming the offspring of a sovereign distinguished for her piety and her courage; that, like her, she has lofty sentiments; that she feels with the dignity of a Roman matron; that in the last extremity she will save herself from the last disgrace; and that, if she must fall, she will fall by no ignoble hand. It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then the dauphiness, at Versailles, and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she just began to move in -- glittering like the morning star, full of life and splendor and joy. Oh! what a revolution! and what a heart must I have to contemplate without emotion that elevation and that fall! Little did I dream when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she should ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists; and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Never, never more shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defense of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise, is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honor which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil by losing all its grossness. THIS mixed system of opinion and sentiment had its origin in the ancient chivalry; and the principle, though varied in its appearance by the varying state of human affairs, subsisted and influenced through a long succession of generations even to the time we live in. If it should ever be totally extinguished, the loss I fear will be great. It is this which has given its character to modern Europe. It is this which has distinguished it under all its forms of government, and distinguished it to its advantage, from the states of Asia and possibly from those states which flourished in the most brilliant periods of the antique world. It was this which, without confounding ranks, had produced a noble equality and handed it down through all the gradations of social life. It was this opinion which mitigated kings into companions and raised private men to be fellows with kings. Without force or opposition, it subdued the fierceness of pride and power, it obliged sovereigns to submit to the soft collar of social esteem, compelled stern authority to submit to elegance, and gave a domination, vanquisher of laws, to be subdued by manners. But now all is to be changed. All the pleasing illusions which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments which beautify and soften private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. All the decent drapery of life is to be rudely torn off. All the super-added ideas, furnished from the wardrobe of a moral imagination, which the heart owns and the understanding ratifies as necessary to cover the defects of our naked, shivering nature, and to raise it to dignity in our own estimation, are to be exploded as a ridiculous, absurd, and antiquated fashion. On this scheme of things, a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order. All homage paid to the sex in general as such, and without distinct views, is to be regarded as romance and folly. Regicide, and parricide, and sacrilege are but fictions of superstition, corrupting jurisprudence by destroying its simplicity. The murder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop, or a father are only common homicide; and if the people are by any chance or in any way gainers by it, a sort of homicide much the most pardonable, and into which we ought not to make too severe a scrutiny. On the scheme of this barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understandings, and which is as void of solid wisdom as it is destitute of all taste and elegance, laws are to be supported only by their own terrors and by the concern which each individual may find in them from his own private speculations or can spare to them from his own private interests. In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing is left which engages the affections on the part of the commonwealth. On the principles of this mechanic philosophy, our institutions can never be embodied, if I may use the expression, in persons, so as to create in us love, veneration, admiration, or attachment. But that sort of reason which banishes the affections is incapable of filling their place. These public affections, combined with manners, are required sometimes as supplements, sometimes as correctives, always as aids to law. The precept given by a wise man, as well as a great critic, for the construction of poems is equally true as to states: -- Non satis est pulchra esse poemata, dulcia sunto. There ought to be a system of manners in every nation which a well-informed mind would be disposed to relish. To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely. But power, of some kind or other, will survive the shock in which manners and opinions perish; and it will find other and worse means for its support. The usurpation which, in order to subvert ancient institutions, has destroyed ancient principles will hold power by arts similar to those by which it has acquired it. When the old feudal and chivalrous spirit of fealty, which, by freeing kings from fear, freed both kings and subjects from the precautions of tyranny, shall be extinct in the minds of men, plots and assassinations will be anticipated by preventive murder and preventive confiscation, and that long roll of grim and bloody maxims which form the political code of all power not standing on its own honor and the honor of those who are to obey it. Kings will be tyrants from policy when subjects are rebels from principle. When ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated. From that moment we have no compass to govern us; nor can we know distinctly to what port we steer. Europe, undoubtedly, taken in a mass, was in a flourishing condition the day on which your revolution was completed. How much of that prosperous state was owing to the spirit of our old manners and opinions is not easy to say; but as such causes cannot be indifferent in their operation, we must presume that on the whole their operation was beneficial. We are but too apt to consider things in the state in which we find them, without sufficiently adverting to the causes by which they have been produced and possibly may be upheld. Nothing is more certain than that our manners, our civilization, and all the good things which are connected with manners and with civilization have, in this European world of ours, depended for ages upon two principles and were, indeed, the result of both combined: I mean the spirit of a gentleman and the spirit of religion. The nobility and the clergy, the one by profession, the other by patronage, kept learning in existence, even in the midst of arms and confusions, and whilst governments were rather in their causes than formed. Learning paid back what it received to nobility and to priesthood, and paid it with usury, by enlarging their ideas and by furnishing their minds. Happy if they had all continued to know their indissoluble union and their proper place! Happy if learning, not debauched by ambition, had been satisfied to continue the instructor, and not aspired to be the master! Along with its natural protectors and guardians, learning will be cast into the mire and trodden down under the hoofs of a swinish \[18\] multitude. If, as I suspect, modern letters owe more than they are always willing to own to ancient manners, so do other interests which we value full as much as they are worth. Even commerce and trade and manufacture, the gods of our economical politicians, are themselves perhaps but creatures, are themselves but effects which, as first causes, we choose to worship. They certainly grew under the same shade in which learning flourished. They, too, may decay with their natural protecting principles. With you, for the present at least, they all threaten to disappear together. Where trade and manufactures are wanting to a people, and the spirit of nobility and religion remains, sentiment supplies, and not always ill supplies, their place; but if commerce and the arts should be lost in an experiment to try how well a state may stand without these old fundamental principles, what sort of a thing must be a nation of gross, stupid, ferocious, and, at the same time, poor and sordid barbarians, destitute of religion, honor, or manly pride, possessing nothing at present, and hoping for nothing hereafter? I wish you may not be going fast, and by the shortest cut, to that horrible and disgustful situation. Already there appears a poverty of conception, a coarseness, and a vulgarity in all the proceedings of the Assembly and of all their instructors. Their liberty is not liberal. Their science is presumptuous ignorance. Their humanity is savage and brutal. It is not clear whether in England we learned those grand and decorous principles and manners, of which considerable traces yet remain, from you or whether you took them from us. But to you, I think, we trace them best. You seem to me to be gentis incunabula nostrae. France has always more or less influenced manners in England; and when your fountain is choked up and polluted, the stream will not run long, or not run clear, with us or perhaps with any nation. This gives all Europe, in my opinion, but too close and connected a concern in what is done in France. Excuse me, therefore, if I have dwelt too long on the atrocious spectacle of the 6th of October, 1789, or have given too much scope to the reflections which have arisen in my mind on occasion of the most important of all revolutions, which may be dated from that day -- I mean a revolution in sentiments, manners, and moral opinions. As things now stand, with everything respectable destroyed without us, and an attempt to destroy within us every principle of respect, one is almost forced to apologize for harboring the common feelings of men. WHY do I feel so differently from the Reverend Dr. Price and those of his lay flock who will choose to adopt the sentiments of his discourse? -- For this plain reason: because it is natural I should; because we are so made as to be affected at such spectacles with melancholy sentiments upon the unstable condition of mortal prosperity and the tremendous uncertainty of human greatness; because in those natural feelings we learn great lessons; because in events like these our passions instruct our reason; because when kings are hurled from their thrones by the Supreme Director of this great drama and become the objects of insult to the base and of pity to the good, we behold such disasters in the moral as we should behold a miracle in the physical order of things. We are alarmed into reflection; our minds (as it has long since been observed) are purified by terror and pity, our weak, unthinking pride is humbled under the dispensations of a mysterious wisdom. Some tears might be drawn from me if such a spectacle were exhibited on the stage. I should be truly ashamed of finding in myself that superficial, theatric sense of painted distress whilst I could exult over it in real life. With such a perverted mind I could never venture to show my face at a tragedy. People would think the tears that Garrick formerly, or that Siddons not long since, have extorted from me were the tears of hypocrisy; I should know them to be the tears of folly. Indeed, the theatre is a better school of moral sentiments than churches, where the feelings of humanity are thus outraged. Poets who have to deal with an audience not yet graduated in the school of the rights of men and who must apply themselves to the moral constitution of the heart would not dare to produce such a triumph as a matter of exultation. There, where men follow their natural impulses, they would not bear the odious maxims of a Machiavellian policy, whether applied to the attainments of monarchical or democratic tyranny. They would reject them on the modern as they once did on the ancient stage, where they could not bear even the hypothetical proposition of such wickedness in the mouth of a personated tyrant, though suitable to the character he sustained. No theatric audience in Athens would bear what has been borne in the midst of the real tragedy of this triumphal day: a principal actor weighing, as it were, in scales hung in a shop of horrors, so much actual crime against so much contingent advantage; and after putting in and out weights, declaring that the balance was on the side of the advantages. They would not bear to see the crimes of new democracy posted as in a ledger against the crimes of old despotism, and the book-keepers of politics finding democracy still in debt, but by no means unable or unwilling to pay the balance. In the theater, the first intuitive glance, without any elaborate process of reasoning, will show that this method of political computation would justify every extent of crime. They would see that on these principles, even where the very worst acts were not perpetrated, it was owing rather to the fortune of the conspirators than to their parsimony in the expenditure of treachery and blood. They would soon see that criminal means once tolerated are soon preferred. They present a shorter cut to the object than through the highway of the moral virtues. Justifying perfidy and murder for public benefit, public benefit would soon become the pretext, and perfidy and murder the end, until rapacity, malice, revenge, and fear more dreadful than revenge could satiate their insatiable appetites. Such must be the consequences of losing, in the splendor of these triumphs of the rights of men, all natural sense of wrong and right. But the reverend pastor exults in this "leading in triumph", because truly Louis the Sixteenth was "an arbitrary monarch"; that is, in other words, neither more nor less than because he was Louis the Sixteenth, and because he had the misfortune to be born king of France, with the prerogatives of which a long line of ancestors and a long acquiescence of the people, without any act of his, had put him in possession. A misfortune it has indeed turned out to him that he was born king of France. But misfortune is not crime, nor is indiscretion always the greatest guilt. I shall never think that a prince the acts of whose whole reign was a series of concessions to his subjects, who was willing to relax his authority, to remit his prerogatives, to call his people to a share of freedom not known, perhaps not desired, by their ancestors -- such a prince, though he should be subjected to the common frailties attached to men and to princes, though he should have once thought it necessary to provide force against the desperate designs manifestly carrying on against his person and the remnants of his authority -- though all this should be taken into consideration, I shall be led with great difficulty to think he deserves the cruel and insulting triumph of Paris and of Dr. Price. I tremble for the cause of liberty from such an example to kings. I tremble for the cause of humanity in the unpunished outrages of the most wicked of mankind. But there are some people of that low and degenerate fashion of mind, that they look up with a sort of complacent awe and admiration to kings who know to keep firm in their seat, to hold a strict hand over their subjects, to assert their prerogative, and, by the awakened vigilance of a severe despotism, to guard against the very first approaches to freedom. Against such as these they never elevate their voice. Deserters from principle, listed with fortune, they never see any good in suffering virtue, nor any crime in prosperous usurpation. If it could have been made clear to me that the king and queen of France (those I mean who were such before the triumph) were inexorable and cruel tyrants, that they had formed a deliberate scheme for massacring the National Assembly (I think I have seen something like the latter insinuated in certain publications), I should think their captivity just. If this be true, much more ought to have been done, but done, in my opinion, in another manner. The punishment of real tyrants is a noble and awful act of justice; and it has with truth been said to be consolatory to the human mind. But if I were to punish a wicked king, I should regard the dignity in avenging the crime. Justice is grave and decorous, and in its punishments rather seems to submit to a necessity than to make a choice. Had Nero, or Agrippina, or Louis the Eleventh, or Charles the Ninth been the subject; if Charles the Twelfth of Sweden, after the murder of Patkul, or his predecessor Christina, after the murder of Monaldeschi, had fallen into your hands, Sir, or into mine, I am sure our conduct would have been different. If the French king, or king of the French (or by whatever name he is known in the new vocabulary of your constitution), has in his own person and that of his queen really deserved these unavowed, but unavenged, murderous attempts and those frequent indignities more cruel than murder, such a person would ill deserve even that subordinate executory trust which I understand is to be placed in him, nor is he fit to be called chief in a nation which he has outraged and oppressed. A worse choice for such an office in a new commonwealth than that of a deposed tyrant could not possibly be made. But to degrade and insult a man as the worst of criminals and afterwards to trust him in your highest concerns as a faithful, honest, and zealous servant is not consistent to reasoning, nor prudent in policy, nor safe in practice. Those who could make such an appointment must be guilty of a more flagrant breach of trust than any they have yet committed against the people. As this is the only crime in which your leading politicians could have acted inconsistently, I conclude that there is no sort of ground for these horrid insinuations. I think no better of all the other calumnies. IN ENGLAND, we give no credit to them. We are generous enemies; we are faithful allies. We spurn from us with disgust and indignation the slanders of those who bring us their anecdotes with the attestation of the flower-de-luce on their shoulder. We have Lord George Gordon fast in Newgate; and neither his being a public proselyte to Judaism, nor his having, in his zeal against Catholic priests and all sorts of ecclesiastics, raised a mob (excuse the term, it is still in use here) which pulled down all our prisons, have preserved to him a liberty of which he did not render himself worthy by a virtuous use of it. We have rebuilt Newgate and tenanted the mansion. We have prisons almost as strong as the Bastille for those who dare to libel the queens of France. In this spiritual retreat, let the noble libeller remain. Let him there meditate on his Talmud until he learns a conduct more becoming his birth and parts, and not so disgraceful to the ancient religion to which he has become a proselyte; or until some persons from your side of the water, to please your new Hebrew brethren, shall ransom him. He may then be enabled to purchase with the old boards of the synagogue and a very small poundage on the long compound interest of the thirty pieces of silver (Dr. Price has shown us what miracles compound interest will perform in 1790 years,), the lands which are lately discovered to have been usurped by the Gallican church. Send us your Popish archbishop of Paris, and we will send you our Protestant Rabbin. We shall treat the person you send us in exchange like a gentleman and an honest man, as he is; but pray let him bring with him the fund of his hospitality, bounty, and charity, and, depend upon it, we shall never confiscate a shilling of that honorable and pious fund, nor think of enriching the treasury with the spoils of the poor-box. To tell you the truth, my dear Sir, I think the honor of our nation to be somewhat concerned in the disclaimer of the proceedings of this society of the Old Jewry and the London Tavern. I have no man's proxy. I speak only for myself when I disclaim, as I do with all possible earnestness, all communion with the actors in that triumph or with the admirers of it. When I assert anything else as concerning the people of England, I speak from observation, not from authority, but I speak from the experience I have had in a pretty extensive and mixed communication with the inhabitants of this kingdom, of all descriptions and ranks, and after a course of attentive observations begun early in life and continued for nearly forty years. I have often been astonished, considering that we are divided from you but by a slender dyke of about twenty-four miles, and that the mutual intercourse between the two countries has lately been very great, to find how little you seem to know of us. I suspect that this is owing to your forming a judgment of this nation from certain publications which do very erroneously, if they do at all, represent the opinions and dispositions generally prevalent in England. The vanity, restlessness, petulance, and spirit of intrigue, of several petty cabals, who attempt to hide their total want of consequence in bustle and noise, and puffing, and mutual quotation of each other, makes you imagine that our contemptuous neglect of their abilities is a mark of general acquiescence in their opinions. No such thing, I assure you. Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that, of course, they are many in number, or that, after all, they are other than the little, shrivelled, meager, hopping, though loud and troublesome, insects of the hour. I almost venture to affirm that not one in a hundred amongst us participates in the "triumph" of the Revolution Society. If the king and queen of France, and their children, were to fall into our hands by the chance of war, in the most acrimonious of all hostilities (I deprecate such an event, I deprecate such hostility), they would be treated with another sort of triumphal entry into London. We formerly have had a king of France in that situation; you have read how he was treated by the victor in the field, and in what manner he was afterwards received in England. Four hundred years have gone over us, but I believe we are not materially changed since that period. Thanks to our sullen resistance to innovation, thanks to the cold sluggishness of our national character, we still bear the stamp of our forefathers. We have not (as I conceive) lost the generosity and dignity of thinking of the fourteenth century, nor as yet have we subtilized ourselves into savages. We are not the converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helvetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers; madmen are not our lawgivers. We know that we have made no discoveries, and we think that no discoveries are to be made in morality, nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty, which were understood long before we were born, altogether as well as they will be after the grace has heaped its mold upon our presumption and the silent tomb shall have imposed its law on our pert loquacity. In England we have not yet been completely embowelled of our natural entrails; we still feel within us, and we cherish and cultivate, those inbred sentiments which are the faithful guardians, the active monitors of our duty, the true supporters of all liberal and manly morals. We have not been drawn and trussed, in order that we may be filled, like stuffed birds in a museum, with chaff and rags and paltry blurred shreds of paper about the rights of men. We preserve the whole of our feelings still native and entire, unsophisticated by pedantry and infidelity. We have real hearts of flesh and blood beating in our bosoms. We fear God; we look up with awe to kings, with affection to parliaments, with duty to magistrates, with reverence to priests, and with respect to nobility. \[19\] Why? Because when such ideas are brought before our minds, it is natural to be so affected; because all other feelings are false and spurious and tend to corrupt our minds, to vitiate our primary morals, to render us unfit for rational liberty, and, by teaching us a servile, licentious, and abandoned insolence, to be our low sport for a few holidays, to make us perfectly fit for, and justly deserving of, slavery through the whole course of our lives. YOU see, Sir, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings, that, instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and, to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice and to leave nothing but the naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence. Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man's virtue his habit, and not a series of unconnected acts. Through just prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature. Your literary men and your politicians, and so do the whole clan of the enlightened among us, essentially differ in these points. They have no respect for the wisdom of others, but they pay it off by a very full measure of confidence in their own. With them it is a sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things because it is an old one. As to the new, they are in no sort of fear with regard to the duration of a building run up in haste, because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery. They conceive, very systematically, that all things which give perpetuity are mischievous, and therefore they are at inexpiable war with all establishments. They think that government may vary like modes of dress, and with as little ill effect; that there needs no principle of attachment, except a sense of present convenience, to any constitution of the state. They always speak as if they were of opinion that there is a singular species of compact between them and their magistrates which binds the magistrate, but which has nothing reciprocal in it, but that the majesty of the people has a right to dissolve it without any reason but its will. Their attachment to their country itself is only so far as it agrees with some of their fleeting projects; it begins and ends with that scheme of polity which falls in with their momentary opinion. These doctrines, or rather sentiments, seem prevalent with your new statesmen. But they are wholly different from those on which we have always acted in this country. I hear it is sometimes given out in France that what is doing among you is after the example of England. I beg leave to affirm that scarcely anything done with you has originated from the practice or the prevalent opinions of this people, either in the act or in the spirit of the proceeding. Let me add that we are as unwilling to learn these lessons from France as we are sure that we never taught them to that nation. The cabals here who take a sort of share of your transactions as yet consist of but a handful of people. If, unfortunately, by their intrigues, their sermons, their publications, and by a confidence derived from an expected union with the counsels and forces of the French nation, they should draw considerable numbers into their faction, and in consequence should seriously attempt anything here in imitation of what has been done with you, the event, I dare venture to prophesy, will be that, with some trouble to their country, they will soon accomplish their own destruction. This people refused to change their law in remote ages from respect to the infallibility of popes, and they will not now alter it from a pious implicit faith in the dogmatism of philosophers, though the former was armed with the anathema and crusade, and though the latter should act with the libel and the lamp-iron. Formerly, your affairs were your own concern only. We felt for them as men, but we kept aloof from them because we were not citizens of France. But when we see the model held up to ourselves, we must feel as Englishmen, and feeling, we must provide as Englishmen. Your affairs, in spite of us, are made a part of our interest, so far at least as to keep at a distance your panacea, or your plague. If it be a panacea, we do not want it. We know the consequences of unnecessary physic. If it be a plague, it is such a plague that the precautions of the most severe quarantine ought to be established against it. I hear on all hands that a cabal calling itself philosophic receives the glory of many of the late proceedings, and that their opinions and systems are the true actuating spirit of the whole of them. I have heard of no party in England, literary or political, at any time, known by such a description. It is not with you composed of those men, is it, whom the vulgar in their blunt, homely style commonly call atheists and infidels? If it be, I admit that we, too, have had writers of that description who made some noise in their day. At present they repose in lasting oblivion. Who, born within the last forty years, has read one word of Collins, and Toland, and Tindal, and Chubb, and Morgan, and that whole race who called themselves Freethinkers? Who now reads Bolingbroke? Who ever read him through? Ask the booksellers of London what is become of all these lights of the world. In as few years their few successors will go to the family vault of "all the Capulets". But whatever they were, or are, with us, they were and are wholly unconnected individuals. With us they kept the common nature of their kind and were not gregarious. They never acted in corps or were known as a faction in the state, nor presumed to influence in that name or character, or for the purposes of such a faction, on any of our public concerns. Whether they ought so to exist and so be permitted to act is another question. As such cabals have not existed in England, so neither has the spirit of them had any influence in establishing the original frame of our constitution or in any one of the several reparations and improvements it has undergone. The whole has been done under the auspices, and is confirmed by the sanctions, of religion and piety. The whole has emanated from the simplicity of our national character and from a sort of native plainness and directness of understanding, which for a long time characterized those men who have successively obtained authority amongst us. This disposition still remains, at least in the great body of the people. WE KNOW, AND WHAT IS BETTER, we feel inwardly, that religion is the basis of civil society and the source of all good and of all comfort. \[20\] In England we are so convinced of this, that there is no rust of superstition with which the accumulated absurdity of the human mind might have crusted it over in the course of ages, that ninety-nine in a hundred of the people of England would not prefer to impiety. We shall never be such fools as to call in an enemy to the substance of any system to remove its corruptions, to supply its defects, or to perfect its construction. If our religious tenets should ever want a further elucidation, we shall not call on atheism to explain them. We shall not light up our temple from that unhallowed fire. It will be illuminated with other lights. It will be perfumed with other incense than the infectious stuff which is imported by the smugglers of adulterated metaphysics. If our ecclesiastical establishment should want a revision, it is not avarice or rapacity, public or private, that we shall employ for the audit, or receipt, or application of its consecrated revenue. Violently condemning neither the Greek nor the Armenian, nor, since heats are subsided, the Roman system of religion, we prefer the Protestant, not because we think it has less of the Christian religion in it, but because, in our judgment, it has more. We are Protestants, not from indifference, but from zeal. We know, and it is our pride to know, that man is by his constitution a religious animal; that atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts; and that it cannot prevail long. But if, in the moment of riot and in a drunken delirium from the hot spirit drawn out of the alembic of hell, which in France is now so furiously boiling, we should uncover our nakedness by throwing off that Christian religion which has hitherto been our boast and comfort, and one great source of civilization amongst us and amongst many other nations, we are apprehensive (being well aware that the mind will not endure a void) that some uncouth, pernicious, and degrading superstition might take place of it. For that reason, before we take from our establishment the natural, human means of estimation and give it up to contempt, as you have done, and in doing it have incurred the penalties you well deserve to suffer, we desire that some other may be presented to us in the place of it. We shall then form our judgment. On these ideas, instead of quarrelling with establishments, as some do who have made a philosophy and a religion of their hostility to such institutions, we cleave closely to them. We are resolved to keep an established church, an established monarchy, an established aristocracy, and an established democracy, each in the degree it exists, and in no greater. I shall show you presently how much of each of these we possess. It has been the misfortune (not, as these gentlemen think it, the glory) of this age that everything is to be discussed as if the constitution of our country were to be always a subject rather of altercation than enjoyment. For this reason, as well as for the satisfaction of those among you (if any such you have among you) who may wish to profit of examples, I venture to trouble you with a few thoughts upon each of these establishments. I do not think they were unwise in ancient Rome who, when they wished to new-model their laws, set commissioners to examine the best constituted republics within their reach. First, I beg leave to speak of our church establishment, which is the first of our prejudices, not a prejudice destitute of reason, but involving in it profound and extensive wisdom. I speak of it first. It is first and last and midst in our minds. For, taking ground on that religious system of which we are now in possession, we continue to act on the early received and uniformly continued sense of mankind. That sense not only, like a wise architect, hath built up the august fabric of states, but, like a provident proprietor, to preserve the structure from profanation and ruin, as a sacred temple purged from all the impurities of fraud and violence and injustice and tyranny, hath solemnly and forever consecrated the commonwealth and all that officiate in it. This consecration is made that all who administer the government of men, in which they stand in the person of God himself, should have high and worthy notions of their function and destination, that their hope should be full of immortality, that they should not look to the paltry pelf of the moment nor to the temporary and transient praise of the vulgar, but to a solid, permanent existence in the permanent part of their nature, and to a permanent fame and glory in the example they leave as a rich inheritance to the world. Such sublime principles ought to be infused into persons of exalted situations, and religious establishments provided that may continually revive and enforce them. Every sort of moral, every sort of civil, every sort of politic institution, aiding the rational and natural ties that connect the human understanding and affections to the divine, are not more than necessary in order to build up that wonderful structure Man, whose prerogative it is to be in a great degree a creature of his own making, and who, when made as he ought to be made, is destined to hold no trivial place in the creation. But whenever man is put over men, as the better nature ought ever to preside, in that case more particularly, he should as nearly as possible be approximated to his perfection. The consecration of the state by a state religious establishment is necessary, also, to operate with a wholesome awe upon free citizens, because, in order to secure their freedom, they must enjoy some determinate portion of power. To them, therefore, a religion connected with the state, and with their duty toward it, becomes even more necessary than in such societies where the people, by the terms of their subjection, are confined to private sentiments and the management of their own family concerns. All persons possessing any portion of power ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in trust, and that they are to account for their conduct in that trust to the one great Master, Author, and Founder of society. This principle ought even to be more strongly impressed upon the minds of those who compose the collective sovereignty than upon those of single princes. Without instruments, these princes can do nothing. Whoever uses instruments, in finding helps, finds also impediments. Their power is, therefore, by no means complete, nor are they safe in extreme abuse. Such persons, however elevated by flattery, arrogance, and self-opinion, must be sensible that, whether covered or not by positive law, in some way or other they are accountable even here for the abuse of their trust. If they are not cut off by a rebellion of their people, they may be strangled by the very janissaries kept for their security against all other rebellion. Thus we have seen the king of France sold by his soldiers for an increase of pay. But where popular authority is absolute and unrestrained, the people have an infinitely greater, because a far better founded, confidence in their own power. They are themselves, in a great measure, their own instruments. They are nearer to their objects. Besides, they are less under responsibility to one of the greatest controlling powers on the earth, the sense of fame and estimation. The share of infamy that is likely to fall to the lot of each individual in public acts is small indeed, the operation of opinion being in the inverse ratio to the number of those who abuse power. Their own approbation of their own acts has to them the appearance of a public judgment in their favor. A perfect democracy is, therefore, the most shameless thing in the world. As it is the most shameless, it is also the most fearless. No man apprehends in his person that he can be made subject to punishment. Certainly the people at large never ought, for as all punishments are for example toward the conservation of the people at large, the people at large can never become the subject of punishment by any human hand. \[21\] It is therefore of infinite importance that they should not be suffered to imagine that their will, any more than that of kings, is the standard of right and wrong. They ought to be persuaded that they are full as little entitled, and far less qualified with safety to themselves, to use any arbitrary power whatsoever; that therefore they are not, under a false show of liberty, but in truth to exercise an unnatural, inverted domination, tyrannically to exact from those who officiate in the state not an entire devotion to their interest, which is their right, but an abject submission to their occasional will, extinguishing thereby in all those who serve them all moral principle, all sense of dignity, all use of judgment, and all consistency of character; whilst by the very same process they give themselves up a proper, a suitable, but a most contemptible prey to the servile ambition of popular sycophants or courtly flatterers. When the people have emptied themselves of all the lust of selfish will, which without religion it is utterly impossible they ever should, when they are conscious that they exercise, and exercise perhaps in a higher link of the order of delegation, the power, which to be legitimate must be according to that eternal, immutable law in which will and reason are the same, they will be more careful how they place power in base and incapable hands. In their nomination to office, they will not appoint to the exercise of authority as to a pitiful job, but as to a holy function, not according to their sordid, selfish interest, nor to their wanton caprice, nor to their arbitrary will, but they will confer that power (which any man may well tremble to give or to receive) on those only in whom they may discern that predominant proportion of active virtue and wisdom, taken together and fitted to the charge, such as in the great and inevitable mixed mass of human imperfections and infirmities is to be found. When they are habitually convinced that no evil can be acceptable, either in the act or the permission, to him whose essence is good, they will be better able to extirpate out of the minds of all magistrates, civil, ecclesiastical, or military, anything that bears the least resemblance to a proud and lawless domination. But one of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and the laws are consecrated is, lest the temporary possessors and life-renters in it, unmindful of what they have received from their ancestors or of what is due to their posterity, should act as if they were the entire masters, that they should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail or commit waste on the inheritance by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society, hazarding to leave to those who come after them a ruin instead of an habitation -- and teaching these successors as little to respect their contrivances as they had themselves respected the institutions of their forefathers. By this unprincipled facility of changing the state as often, and as much, and in as many ways as there are floating fancies or fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the commonwealth would be broken. No one generation could link with the other. Men would become little better than the flies of a summer. And first of all, the science of jurisprudence, the pride of the human intellect, which with all its defects, redundancies, and errors is the collected reason of ages, combining the principles of original justice with the infinite variety of human concerns, as a heap of old exploded errors, would be no longer studied. Personal self-sufficiency and arrogance (the certain attendants upon all those who have never experienced a wisdom greater than their own) would usurp the tribunal. Of course, no certain laws, establishing invariable grounds of hope and fear, would keep the actions of men in a certain course or direct them to a certain end. Nothing stable in the modes of holding property or exercising function could form a solid ground on which any parent could speculate in the education of his offspring or in a choice for their future establishment in the world. No principles would be early worked into the habits. As soon as the most able instructor had completed his laborious course of institution, instead of sending forth his pupil, accomplished in a virtuous discipline, fitted to procure him attention and respect in his place in society, he would find everything altered, and that he had turned out a poor creature to the contempt and derision of the world, ignorant of the true grounds of estimation. Who would insure a tender and delicate sense of honor to beat almost with the first pulses of the heart when no man could know what would be the test of honor in a nation continually varying the standard of its coin? No part of life would retain its acquisitions. Barbarism with regard to science and literature, unskilfulness with regard to arts and manufactures, would infallibly succeed to the want of a steady education and settled principle; and thus the commonwealth itself would, in a few generations, crumble away, be disconnected into the dust and powder of individuality, and at length dispersed to all the winds of heaven. To avoid, therefore, the evils of inconstancy and versatility, ten thousand times worse than those of obstinacy and the blindest prejudice, we have consecrated the state, that no man should approach to look into its defects or corruptions but with due caution, that he should never dream of beginning its reformation by its subversion, that he should approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude. By this wise prejudice we are taught to look with horror on those children of their country who are prompt rashly to hack that aged parent in pieces and put him into the kettle of magicians, in hopes that by their poisonous weeds and wild incantations they may regenerate the paternal constitution and renovate their father's life. SOCIETY is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure -- but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico, or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence, because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place. This law is not subject to the will of those who by an obligation above them, and infinitely superior, are bound to submit their will to that law. The municipal corporations of that universal kingdom are not morally at liberty at their pleasure, and on their speculations of a contingent improvement, wholly to separate and tear asunder the bands of their subordinate community and to dissolve it into an unsocial, uncivil, unconnected chaos of elementary principles. It is the first and supreme necessity only, a necessity that is not chosen but chooses, a necessity paramount to deliberation, that admits no discussion and demands no evidence, which alone can justify a resort to anarchy. This necessity is no exception to the rule, because this necessity itself is a part, too, of that moral and physical disposition of things to which man must be obedient by consent or force; but if that which is only submission to necessity should be made the object of choice, the law is broken, nature is disobeyed, and the rebellious are outlawed, cast forth, and exiled from this world of reason, and order, and peace, and virtue, and fruitful penitence, into the antagonist world of madness, discord, vice, confusion, and unavailing sorrow. These, my dear Sir, are, were, and, I think, long will be the sentiments of not the least learned and reflecting part of this kingdom. They who are included in this description form their opinions on such grounds as such persons ought to form them. The less inquiring receive them from an authority which those whom Providence dooms to live on trust need not be ashamed to rely on. These two sorts of men move in the same direction, though in a different place. They both move with the order of the universe. They all know or feel this great ancient truth: Quod illi principi et praepotenti Deo qui omnem hunc mundum regit, nihil eorum quae quidem fiant in terris acceptius quam concilia et coetus hominum jure sociati quae civitates appellantur. They take this tenet of the head and heart, not from the great name which it immediately bears, nor from the greater from whence it is derived, but from that which alone can give true weight and sanction to any learned opinion, the common nature and common relation of men. Persuaded that all things ought to be done with reference, and referring all to the point of reference to which all should be directed, they think themselves bound, not only as individuals in the sanctuary of the heart or as congregated in that personal capacity, to renew the memory of their high origin and cast, but also in their corporate character to perform their national homage to the institutor and author and protector of civil society; without which civil society man could not by any possibility arrive at the perfection of which his nature is capable, nor even make a remote and faint approach to it. They conceive that He who gave our nature to be perfected by our virtue willed also the necessary means of its perfection. He willed therefore the state -- He willed its connection with the source and original archetype of all perfection. They who are convinced of this His will, which is the law of laws and the sovereign of sovereigns, cannot think it reprehensible that this our corporate fealty and homage, that this our recognition of a seigniory paramount, I had almost said this oblation of the state itself as a worthy offering on the high altar of universal praise, should be performed as all public, solemn acts are performed, in buildings, in music, in decoration, in speech, in the dignity of persons, according to the customs of mankind taught by their nature; that is, with modest splendor and unassuming state, with mild majesty and sober pomp. For those purposes they think some part of the wealth of the country is as usefully employed as it can be in fomenting the luxury of individuals. It is the public ornament. It is the public consolation. It nourishes the public hope. The poorest man finds his own importance and dignity in it, whilst the wealth and pride of individuals at every moment makes the man of humble rank and fortune sensible of his inferiority and degrades and vilifies his condition. It is for the man in humble life, and to raise his nature and to put him in mind of a state in which the privileges of opulence will cease, when he will be equal by nature, and may be more than equal by virtue, that this portion of the general wealth of his country is employed and sanctified. I assure you I do not aim at singularity. I give you opinions which have been accepted amongst us, from very early times to this moment, with a continued and general approbation, and which indeed are worked into my mind that I am unable to distinguish what I have learned from others from the results of my own meditation. It is on some such principles that the majority of the people of England, far from thinking a religious national establishment unlawful, hardly think it lawful to be without one. In France you are wholly mistaken if you do not believe us above all other things attached to it, and beyond all other nations; and when this people has acted unwisely and unjustifiably in its favor (as in some instances they have done most certainly), in their very errors you will at least discover their zeal. This principle runs through the whole system of their polity. They do not consider their church establishment as convenient, but as essential to their state, not as a thing heterogeneous and separable, something added for accommodation, what they may either keep or lay aside according to their temporary ideas of convenience. They consider it as the foundation of their whole constitution, with which, and with every part of which, it holds an indissoluble union. Church and state are ideas inseparable in their minds, and scarcely is the one ever mentioned without mentioning the other. Our education is so formed as to confirm and fix this impression. Our education is in a manner wholly in the hands of ecclesiastics, and in all stages from infancy to manhood. Even when our youth, leaving schools and universities, enter that most important period of life which begins to link experience and study together, and when with that view they visit other countries, instead of old domestics whom we have seen as governors to principal men from other parts, three-fourths of those who go abroad with our young nobility and gentlemen are ecclesiastics, not as austere masters, nor as mere followers, but as friends and companions of a graver character, and not seldom persons as well-born as themselves. With them, as relations, they most constantly keep a close connection through life. By this connection we conceive that we attach our gentlemen to the church, and we liberalize the church by an intercourse with the leading characters of the country. So tenacious are we of the old ecclesiastical modes and fashions of institution that very little alteration has been made in them since the fourteenth or fifteenth century; adhering in this particular, as in all things else, to our old settled maxim, never entirely nor at once to depart from antiquity. We found these old institutions, on the whole, favorable to morality and discipline, and we thought they were susceptible of amendment without altering the ground. We thought that they were capable of receiving and meliorating, and above all of preserving, the accessions of science and literature, as the order of Providence should successively produce them. And after all, with this Gothic and monkish education (for such it is in the groundwork) we may put in our claim to as ample and as early a share in all the improvements in science, in arts, and in literature which have illuminated and adorned the modern world, as any other nation in Europe. We think one main cause of this improvement was our not despising the patrimony of knowledge which was left us by our forefathers. It is from our attachment to a church establishment that the English nation did not think it wise to entrust that great, fundamental interest of the whole to what they trust no part of their civil or military public service, that is, to the unsteady and precarious contribution of individuals. They go further. They certainly never have suffered, and never will suffer, the fixed estate of the church to be converted into a pension, to depend on the treasury and to be delayed, withheld, or perhaps to be extinguished by fiscal difficulties, which difficulties may sometimes be pretended for political purposes, and are in fact often brought on by the extravagance, negligence, and rapacity of politicians. The people of England think that they have constitutional motives, as well as religious, against any project of turning their independent clergy into ecclesiastical pensioners of state. They tremble for their liberty, from the influence of a clergy dependent on the crown; they tremble for the public tranquillity from the disorders of a factious clergy, if it were made to depend upon any other than the crown. They therefore made their church, like their king and their nobility, independent. From the united considerations of religion and constitutional policy, from their opinion of a duty to make sure provision for the consolation of the feeble and the instruction of the ignorant, they have incorporated and identified the estate of the church with the mass of private property, of which the state is not the proprietor, either for use or dominion, but the guardian only and the regulator. They have ordained that the provision of this establishment might be as stable as the earth on which it stands, and should not fluctuate with the Euripus of funds and actions. The men of England, the men, I mean, of light and leading in England, whose wisdom (if they have any) is open and direct, would be ashamed, as of a silly deceitful trick, to profess any religion in name which, by their proceedings, they appear to contemn. If by their conduct (the only language that rarely lies) they seemed to regard the great ruling principle of the moral and the natural world as a mere invention to keep the vulgar in obedience, they apprehend that by such a conduct they would defeat the politic purpose they have in view. They would find it difficult to make others believe in a system to which they manifestly give no credit themselves. The Christian statesmen of this land would indeed first provide for the multitude, because it is the multitude, and is therefore, as such, the first object in the ecclesiastical institution, and in all institutions. They have been taught that the circumstance of the gospel's being preached to the poor was one of the great tests of its true mission. They think, therefore, that those do not believe it who do not take care it should be preached to the poor. But as they know that charity is not confined to any one description, but ought to apply itself to all men who have wants, they are not deprived of a due and anxious sensation of pity to the distresses of the miserable great. They are not repelled through a fastidious delicacy, at the stench of their arrogance and presumption, from a medicinal attention to their mental blotches and running sores. They are sensible that religious instruction is of more consequence to them than to any others -- from the greatness of the temptation to which they are exposed; from the important consequences that attend their faults; from the contagion of their ill example; from the necessity of bowing down the stubborn neck of their pride and ambition to the yoke of moderation and virtue; from a consideration of the fat stupidity and gross ignorance concerning what imports men most to know, which prevails at courts, and at the head of armies, and in senates as much as at the loom and in the field. The English people are satisfied that to the great the consolations of religion are as necessary as its instructions. They, too, are among the unhappy. They feel personal pain and domestic sorrow. In these they have no privilege, but are subject to pay their full contingent to the contributions levied on mortality. They want this sovereign balm under their gnawing cares and anxieties, which, being less conversant about the limited wants of animal life, range without limit, and are diversified by infinite combinations, in the wild and unbounded regions of imagination. Some charitable dole is wanting to these our often very unhappy brethren to fill the gloomy void that reigns in minds which have nothing on earth to hope or fear; something to relieve in the killing languor and overlabored lassitude of those who have nothing to do; something to excite an appetite to existence in the palled satiety which attends on all pleasures which may be bought where nature is not left to her own process, where even desire is anticipated, and therefore fruition defeated by meditated schemes and contrivances of delight; and no interval, no obstacle, is interposed between the wish and the accomplishment. The people of England know how little influence the teachers of religion are likely to have with the wealthy and powerful of long standing, and how much less with the newly fortunate, if they appear in a manner no way assorted to those with whom they must associate, and over whom they must even exercise, in some cases, something like an authority. What must they think of that body of teachers if they see it in no part above the establishment of their domestic servants? If the poverty were voluntary, there might be some difference. Strong instances of self-denial operate powerfully on our minds, and a man who has no wants has obtained great freedom and firmness and even dignity. But as the mass of any description of men are but men, and their poverty cannot be voluntary, that disrespect which attends upon all lay poverty will not depart from the ecclesiastical. Our provident constitution has therefore taken care that those who are to instruct presumptuous ignorance, those who are to be censors over insolent vice, should neither incur their contempt nor live upon their alms, nor will it tempt the rich to a neglect of the true medicine of their minds. For these reasons, whilst we provide first for the poor, and with a parental solicitude, we have not relegated religion (like something we were ashamed to show) to obscure municipalities or rustic villages. No! we will have her to exalt her mitred front in courts and parliaments. We will have her mixed throughout the whole mass of life and blended with all the classes of society. The people of England will show to the haughty potentates of the world, and to their talking sophisters, that a free, a generous, an informed nation honors the high magistrates of its church; that it will not suffer the insolence of wealth and titles, or any other species of proud pretension, to look down with scorn upon what they looked up to with reverence; nor presume to trample on that acquired personal nobility which they intend always to be, and which often is, the fruit, not the reward (for what can be the reward?) of learning, piety, and virtue. They can see, without pain or grudging, an archbishop precede a duke. They can see a bishop of Durham, or a bishop of Winchester, in possession of ten thousand pounds a year, and cannot conceive why it is in worse hands than estates to the like amount in the hands of this earl or that squire, although it may be true that so many dogs and horses are not kept by the former and fed with the victuals which ought to nourish the children of the people. It is true, the whole church revenue is not always employed, and to every shilling, in charity, nor perhaps ought it, but something is generally employed. It is better to cherish virtue and humanity by leaving much to free will, even with some loss to the object, than to attempt to make men mere machines and instruments of a political benevolence. The world on the whole will gain by a liberty without which virtue cannot exist. When once the commonwealth has established the estates of the church as property, it can, consistently, hear nothing of the more or the less. "Too much" and "too little" are treason against property. What evil can arise from the quantity in any hand whilst the supreme authority has the full, sovereign superintendence over this, as over all property, to prevent every species of abuse, and, whenever it notably deviates, to give to it a direction agreeable to the purposes of its institution? In England most of us conceive that it is envy and malignity toward those who are often the beginners of their own fortune, and not a love of the self-denial and mortification of the ancient church, that makes some look askance at the distinctions, and honors, and revenues which, taken from no person, are set apart for virtue. The ears of the people of England are distinguishing. They hear these men speak broad. Their tongue betrays them. Their language is in the patois of fraud, in the cant and gibberish of hypocrisy. The people of England must think so when these praters affect to carry back the clergy to that primitive, evangelic poverty which, in the spirit, ought always to exist in them (and in us, too, however we may like it), but in the thing must be varied when the relation of that body to the state is altered -- when manners, when modes of life, when indeed the whole order of human affairs has undergone a total revolution. We shall believe those reformers, then, to be honest enthusiasts, not, as now we think them, cheats and deceivers, when we see them throwing their own goods into common and submitting their own persons to the austere discipline of the early church. With these ideas rooted in their minds, the commons of Great Britain, in the national emergencies, will never seek their resource from the confiscation of the estates of the church and poor. Sacrilege and proscription are not among the ways and means of our committee of supply. The Jews in Change Alley have not yet dared to hint their hopes of a mortgage on the revenues belonging to the see of Canterbury. I am not afraid that I shall be disavowed when I assure you that there is not one public man in this kingdom whom you would wish to quote, no, not one, of any party or description, who does not reprobate the dishonest, perfidious, and cruel confiscation which the National Assembly has been compelled to make of that property which it was their first duty to protect. It is with the exultation of a little national pride I tell you that those amongst us who have wished to pledge the societies of Paris in the cup of their abominations have been disappointed. The robbery of your church has proved a security to the possession of ours. It has roused the people. They see with horror and alarm that enormous and shameless act of proscription. It has opened, and will more and more open, their eyes upon the selfish enlargement of mind and the narrow liberality of sentiment of insidious men, which, commencing in close hypocrisy and fraud, have ended in open violence and rapine. At home we behold similar beginnings. We are on our guard against similar conclusions. I HOPE WE SHALL NEVER be so totally lost to all sense of the duties imposed upon us by the law of social union as, upon any pretext of public service, to confiscate the goods of a single unoffending citizen. Who but a tyrant (a name expressive of everything which can vitiate and degrade human nature) could think of seizing on the property of men unaccused, unheard, untried, by whole descriptions, by hundreds and thousands together? Who that had not lost every trace of humanity could think of casting down men of exalted rank and sacred function, some of them of an age to call at once for reverence and compassion, of casting them down from the highest situation in the commonwealth, wherein they were maintained by their own landed property, to a state of indigence, depression, and contempt? The confiscators truly have made some allowance to their victims from the scraps and fragments of their own tables from which they have been so harshly driven, and which have been so bountifully spread for a feast to the harpies of usury. But to drive men from independence to live on alms is itself great cruelty. That which might be a tolerable condition to men in one state of life, and not habituated to other things, may, when all these circumstances are altered, be a dreadful revolution, and one to which a virtuous mind would feel pain in condemning any guilt except that which would demand the life of the offender. But to many minds this punishment of degradation and infamy is worse than death. Undoubtedly it is an infinite aggravation of this cruel suffering that the persons who were taught a double prejudice in favor of religion, by education and by the place they held in the administration of its functions, are to receive the remnants of their property as alms from the profane and impious hands of those who had plundered them of all the rest; to receive (if they are at all to receive), not from the charitable contributions of the faithful but from the insolent tenderness of known and avowed atheism, the maintenance of religion measured out to them on the standard of the contempt in which it is held, and for the purpose of rendering those who receive the allowance vile and of no estimation in the eyes of mankind. But this act of seizure of property, it seems, is a judgment in law, and not a confiscation. They have, it seems, found out in the academies of the Palais Royal and the Jacobins that certain men had no right to the possessions which they held under law, usage, the decisions of courts, and the accumulated prescription of a thousand years. They say that ecclesiastics are fictitious persons, creatures of the state, whom at pleasure they may destroy, and of course limit and modify in every particular; that the goods they possess are not properly theirs but belong to the state which created the fiction; and we are therefore not to trouble ourselves with what they may suffer in their natural feelings and natural persons on account of what is done toward them in this their constructive character. Of what import is it under what names you injure men and deprive them of the just emoluments of a profession, in which they were not only permitted but encouraged by the state to engage, and upon the supposed certainty of which emoluments they had formed the plan of their lives, contracted debts, and led multitudes to an entire dependence upon them? You do not imagine, Sir, that I am going to compliment this miserable distinction of persons with any long discussion. The arguments of tyranny are as contemptible as its force is dreadful. Had not your confiscators, by their early crimes, obtained a power which secures indemnity to all the crimes of which they have since been guilty or that they can commit, it is not the syllogism of the logician, but the lash of the executioner, that would have refuted a sophistry which becomes an accomplice of theft and murder. The sophistic tyrants of Paris are loud in their declamations against the departed regal tyrants, who in former ages have vexed the world. They are thus bold, because they are safe from the dungeons and iron cages of their old masters. Shall we be more tender of the tyrants of our own time, when we see them acting worse tragedies under our eyes? Shall we not use the same liberty that they do, when we can use it with the same safety -- when to speak honest truth only requires a contempt of the opinions of those whose actions we abhor? This outrage on all the rights of property was at first covered with what, on the system of their conduct, was the most astonishing of all pretexts -- a regard to national faith. The enemies to property at first pretended a most tender, delicate, and scrupulous anxiety for keeping the king's engagements with the public creditor. These professors of the rights of men are so busy in teaching others that they have not leisure to learn anything themselves; otherwise they would have known that it is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied. They never so much as entered into his head when he made his bargain. He well knew that the public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large. This was engaged, and nothing else could be engaged, to the public creditor. No man can mortgage his injustice as a pawn for his fidelity. It is impossible to avoid some observation on the contradictions caused by the extreme rigor and the extreme laxity of this new public faith which influenced in this transaction, and which influenced not according to the nature of the obligation, but to the description of the persons to whom it was engaged. No acts of the old government of the kings of France are held valid in the National Assembly except its pecuniary engagements: acts of all others of the most ambiguous legality. The rest of the acts of that royal government are considered in so odious a light that to have a claim under its authority is looked on as a sort of crime. A pension, given as a reward for service to the state, is surely as good a ground of property as any security for money advanced to the state. It is better; for money is paid, and well paid, to obtain that service. We have, however, seen multitudes of people under this description in France who never had been deprived of their allowances by the most arbitrary ministers in the most arbitrary times, by this assembly of the rights of men robbed without mercy. They were told, in answer to their claim to the bread earned with their blood, that their services had not been rendered to the country that now exists. This laxity of public faith is not confined to those unfortunate persons. The Assembly, with perfect consistency it must be owned, is engaged in a respectable deliberation how far it is bound by the treaties made with other nations under the former government, and their committee is to report which of them they ought to ratify, and which not. By this means they have put the external fidelity of this virgin state on a par with its internal. It is not easy to conceive upon what rational principle the royal government should not, of the two, rather have possessed the power of rewarding service and making treaties, in virtue of its prerogative, than that of pledging to creditors the revenue of the state, actual and possible. The treasure of the nation, of all things, has been the least allowed to the prerogative of the king of France or to the prerogative of any king in Europe. To mortgage the public revenue implies the sovereign dominion, in the fullest sense, over the public purse. It goes far beyond the trust even of a temporary and occasional taxation. The acts, however, of that dangerous power (the distinctive mark of a boundless despotism) have been alone held sacred. Whence arose this preference given by a democratic assembly to a body of property deriving its title from the most critical and obnoxious of all the exertions of monarchical authority? Reason can furnish nothing to reconcile inconsistency, nor can partial favor be accounted for upon equitable principles. But the contradiction and partiality which admit no justification are not the less without an adequate cause; and that cause I do not think it difficult to discover. By the vast debt of France a great monied interest had insensibly grown up, and with it a great power. By the ancient usages which prevailed in that kingdom, the general circulation of property, and in particular the mutual convertibility of land into money, and of money into land, had always been a matter of difficulty. Family settlements, rather more general and more strict than they are in England, the jus retractus, the great mass of landed property held by the crown, and, by a maxim of the French law, held unalienably, the vast estates of the ecclesiastical corporations -- all these had kept the landed and monied interests more separated in France, less miscible, and the owners of the two distinct species of property not so well disposed to each other as they are in this country. The monied property was long looked on with rather an evil eye by the people. They saw it connected with their distresses, and aggravating them. It was no less envied by the old landed interests, partly for the same reasons that rendered it obnoxious to the people, but much more so as it eclipsed, by the splendor of an ostentatious luxury, the unendowed pedigrees and naked titles of several among the nobility. Even when the nobility which represented the more permanent landed interest united themselves by marriage (which sometimes was the case) with the other description, the wealth which saved the family from ruin was supposed to contaminate and degrade it. Thus the enmities and heartburnings of these parties were increased even by the usual means by which discord is made to cease and quarrels are turned into friendship. In the meantime, the pride of the wealthy men, not noble or newly noble, increased with its cause. They felt with resentment an inferiority, the grounds of which they did not acknowledge. There was no measure to which they were not willing to lend themselves in order to be revenged of the outrages of this rival pride and to exalt their wealth to what they considered as its natural rank and estimation. They struck at the nobility through the crown and the church. They attacked them particularly on the side on which they thought them the most vulnerable, that is, the possessions of the church, which, through the patronage of the crown, generally devolved upon the nobility. The bishoprics and the great commendatory abbeys were, with few exceptions, held by that order. In this state of real, though not always perceived, warfare between the noble ancient landed interest and the new monied interest, the greatest, because the most applicable, strength was in the hands of the latter. The monied interest is in its nature more ready for any adventure, and its possessors more disposed to new enterprises of any kind. Being of a recent acquisition, it falls in more naturally with any novelties. It is therefore the kind of wealth which will be resorted to by all who wish for change. Along with the monied interest, a new description of men had grown up with whom that interest soon formed a close and marked union -- I mean the political men of letters. Men of letters, fond of distinguishing themselves, are rarely averse to innovation. Since the decline of the life and greatness of Louis the Fourteenth, they were not so much cultivated, either by him or by the regent or the successors to the crown, nor were they engaged to the court by favors and emoluments so systematically as during the splendid period of that ostentatious and not impolitic reign. What they lost in the old court protection, they endeavored to make up by joining in a sort of incorporation of their own; to which the two academies of France, and afterwards the vast undertaking of the Encyclopedia, carried on by a society of these gentlemen, did not a little contribute. The literary cabal had some years ago formed something like a regular plan for the destruction of the Christian religion. This object they pursued with a degree of zeal which hitherto had been discovered only in the propagators of some system of piety. They were possessed with a spirit of proselytism in the most fanatical degree; and from thence, by an easy progress, with the spirit of persecution according to their means. \[22\] What was not to be done toward their great end by any direct or immediate act might be wrought by a longer process through the medium of opinion. To command that opinion, the first step is to establish a dominion over those who direct it. They contrived to possess themselves, with great method and perseverance, of all the avenues to literary fame. Many of them indeed stood high in the ranks of literature and science. The world had done them justice and in favor of general talents forgave the evil tendency of their peculiar principles. This was true liberality, which they returned by endeavoring to confine the reputation of sense, learning, and taste to themselves or their followers. I will venture to say that this narrow, exclusive spirit has not been less prejudicial to literature and to taste than to morals and true philosophy. These atheistical fathers have a bigotry of their own, and they have learned to talk against monks with the spirit of a monk. But in some things they are men of the world. The resources of intrigue are called in to supply the defects of argument and wit. To this system of literary monopoly was joined an unremitting industry to blacken and discredit in every way, and by every means, all those who did not hold to their faction. To those who have observed the spirit of their conduct it has long been clear that nothing was wanted but the power of carrying the intolerance of the tongue and of the pen into a persecution which would strike at property, liberty, and life. The desultory and faint persecution carried on against them, more from compliance with form and decency than with serious resentment, neither weakened their strength nor relaxed their efforts. The issue of the whole was that, what with opposition, and what with success, a violent and malignant zeal, of a kind hitherto unknown in the world, had taken an entire possession of their minds and rendered their whole conversation, which otherwise would have been pleasing and instructive, perfectly disgusting. A spirit of cabal, intrigue, and proselytism pervaded all their thoughts, words, and actions. And as controversial zeal soon turns its thoughts on force, they began to insinuate themselves into a correspondence with foreign princes, in hopes through their authority, which at first they flattered, they might bring about the changes they had in view. To them it was indifferent whether these changes were to be accomplished by the thunderbolt of despotism or by the earthquake of popular commotion. The correspondence between this cabal and the late king of Prussia will throw no small light upon the spirit of all their proceedings. \[23\] For the same purpose for which they intrigued with princes, they cultivated, in a distinguished manner, the monied interest of France; and partly through the means furnished by those whose peculiar offices gave them the most extensive and certain means of communication, they carefully occupied all the avenues to opinion. Writers, especially when they act in a body and with one direction, have great influence on the public mind; the alliance, therefore, of these writers with the monied interest \[24\] had no small effect in removing the popular odium and envy which attended that species of wealth. These writers, like the propagators of all novelties, pretended to a great zeal for the poor and the lower orders, whilst in their satires they rendered hateful, by every exaggeration, the faults of courts, of nobility, and of priesthood. They became a sort of demagogues. They served as a link to unite, in favor of one object, obnoxious wealth to restless and desperate poverty. As these two kinds of men appear principal leaders in all the late transactions, their junction and politics will serve to account, not upon any principles of law or of policy, but as a cause, for the general fury with which all the landed property of ecclesiastical corporations has been attacked; and the great care which, contrary to their pretended principles, has been taken of a monied interest originating from the authority of the crown. All the envy against wealth and power was artificially directed against other descriptions of riches. On what other principle than that which I have stated can we account for an appearance so extraordinary and unnatural as that of the ecclesiastical possessions, which had stood so many successions of ages and shocks of civil violences, and were girded at once by justice and by prejudice, being applied to the payment of debts comparatively recent, invidious, and contracted by a decried and subverted government? WAS the public estate a sufficient stake for the public debts? Assume that it was not, and that a loss must be incurred somewhere. -- When the only estate lawfully possessed, and which the contracting parties had in contemplation at the time in which their bargain was made, happens to fail, who according to the principles of natural and legal equity ought to be the sufferer? Certainly it ought to be either the party who trusted or the party who persuaded him to trust, or both, and not third parties who had no concern with the transaction. Upon any insolvency they ought to suffer who are weak enough to lend upon bad security, or they who fraudulently held out a security that was not valid. Laws are acquainted with no other rules of decision. But by the new institute of the rights of men, the only persons who in equity ought to suffer are the only persons who are to be saved harmless: those are to answer the debt who neither were lenders nor borrowers, mortgagers nor mortgagees. What had the clergy to do with these transactions? What had they to do with any public engagement further than the extent of their own debt? To that, to be sure, their estates were bound to the last acre. Nothing can lead more to the true spirit of the Assembly, which sits for public confiscation, with its new equity and its new morality, than an attention to their proceeding with regard to this debt of the clergy. The body of confiscators, true to that monied interest for which they were false to every other, have found the clergy competent to incur a legal debt. Of course, they declared them legally entitled to the property which their power of incurring the debt and mortgaging the estate implied, recognizing the rights of those persecuted citizens in the very act in which they were thus grossly violated. If, as I said, any persons are to make good deficiencies to the public creditor, besides the public at large, they must be those who managed the agreement. Why, therefore, are not the estates of all the comptrollers-general confiscated? \[25\] Why not those of the long succession of ministers, financiers, and bankers who have been enriched whilst the nation was impoverished by their dealings and their counsels? Why is not the estate of M. Laborde declared forfeited rather than of the archbishop of Paris, who has had nothing to do in the creation or in the jobbing of the public funds? Or, if you must confiscate old landed estates in favor of the money-jobbers, why is the penalty confined to one description? I do not know whether the expenses of the Duke de Choiseul have left anything of the infinite sums which he had derived from the bounty of his master during the transactions of a reign which contributed largely by every species of prodigality in war and peace to the present debt of France. If any such remains, why is not this confiscated? I remember to have been in Paris during the time of the old government. I was there just after the Duke d'Aiguillon had been snatched (as it was generally thought) from the block by the hand of a protecting despotism. He was a minister and had some concern in the affairs of that prodigal period. Why do I not see his estate delivered up to the municipalities in which it is situated? The noble family of Noailles have long been servants (meritorious servants I admit) to the crown of France, and have had, of course, some share in its bounties. Why do I hear nothing of the application of their estates to the public debt? Why is the estate of the Duke de Rochefoucault more sacred than that of the Cardinal de Rochefoucault? The former is, I doubt not, a worthy person, and (if it were not a sort of profaneness to talk of the use, as affecting the title to the property) he makes a good use of his revenues; but it is no disrespect to him to say, what authentic information well warrants me in saying, that the use made of a property equally valid by his brother, \[26\](2) the cardinal archbishop of Rouen, was far more laudable and far more public-spirited. Can one hear of the proscription of such persons and the confiscation of their effects without indignation and horror? He is not a man who does not feel such emotions on such occasions. He does not deserve the name of a freeman who will not express them. Few barbarous conquerors have ever made so terrible a revolution in property. None of the heads of the Roman factions, when they established crudelem illam hastam in all their auctions of rapine, have ever set up to sale the goods of the conquered citizen to such an enormous amount. It must be allowed in favor of those tyrants of antiquity that what was done by them could hardly be said to be done in cold blood. Their passions were inflamed, their tempers soured, their understandings confused with the spirit of revenge, with the innumerable reciprocated and recent inflictions and retaliations of blood and rapine. They were driven beyond all bounds of moderation by the apprehension of the return of power, with the return of property, to the families of those they had injured beyond all hope of forgiveness. These Roman confiscators, who were yet only in the elements of tyranny, and were not instructed in the rights of men to exercise all sorts of cruelties on each other without provocation, thought it necessary to spread a sort of color over their injustice. They considered the vanquished party as composed of traitors who had borne arms, or otherwise had acted with hostility, against the commonwealth. They regarded them as persons who had forfeited their property by their crimes. With you, in your improved state of the human mind, there was no such formality. You seized upon five millions sterling of annual rent and turned forty or fifty thousand human creatures out of their houses, because "such was your pleasure". The tyrant Harry the Eighth of England, as he was not better enlightened than the Roman Mariuses and Sullas, and had not studied in your new schools, did not know what an effectual instrument of despotism was to be found in that grand magazine of offensive weapons, the rights of men. When he resolved to rob the abbeys, as the club of the Jacobins have robbed all the ecclesiastics, he began by setting on foot a commission to examine into the crimes and abuses which prevailed in those communities. As it might be expected, his commission reported truths, exaggerations, and falsehoods. But truly or falsely, it reported abuses and offenses. However, as abuses might be corrected, as every crime of persons does not infer a forfeiture with regard to communities, and as property, in that dark age, was not discovered to be a creature of prejudice, all those abuses (and there were enough of them) were hardly thought sufficient ground for such a confiscation as it was for his purpose to make. He, therefore, procured the formal surrender of these estates. All these operose proceedings were adopted by one of the most decided tyrants in the rolls of history as necessary preliminaries before he could venture, by bribing the members of his two servile houses with a share of the spoil and holding out to them an eternal immunity from taxation, to demand a confirmation of his iniquitous proceedings by an act of Parliament. Had fate reserved him to our times, four technical terms would have done his business and saved him all this trouble; he needed nothing more than one short form of incantation -- "Philosophy, Light, Liberality, the Rights of Men". I can say nothing in praise of those acts of tyranny which no voice has hitherto ever commended under any of their false colors, yet in these false colors an homage was paid by despotism to justice. The power which was above all fear and all remorse was not set above all shame. Whilst shame keeps its watch, virtue is not wholly extinguished in the heart, nor will moderation be utterly exiled from the minds of tyrants. I believe every honest man sympathizes in his reflections with our political poet on that occasion, and will pray to avert the omen whenever these acts of rapacious despotism present themselves to his view or his imagination: -- May no such storm Fall on our times, where ruin must reform. Tell me (my Muse) what monstrous dire offense, What crimes could any Christian king incense To such a rage? Was't luxury, or lust? Was he so temperate, so chaste, so just? Were these their crimes? they were his own much more, But wealth is crime enough to him that's poor. \[27\] This same wealth, which is at all times treason and lese nation to indigent and rapacious despotism, under all modes of polity, was your temptation to violate property, law, and religion, united in one object. But was the state of France so wretched and undone that no other recourse but rapine remained to preserve its existence? On this point I wish to receive some information. When the states met, was the condition of the finances of France such that, after economizing on principles of justice and mercy through all departments, no fair repartition of burdens upon all the orders could possibly restore them? If such an equal imposition would have been sufficient, you well know it might easily have been made. M. Necker, in the budget which he laid before the orders assembled at Versailles, made a detailed exposition of the state of the French nation. \[28\] If we give credit to him, it was not necessary to have recourse to any new impositions whatsoever to put the receipts of France on a balance with its expenses. He stated the permanent charges of all descriptions, including the interest of a new loan of four hundred millions, at 531,444,000 livres; the fixed revenue at 475,294,000, making the deficiency 56,150,000, or short of L2,200,000 sterling. But to balance it, he brought forward savings and improvements of revenue (considered as entirely certain) to rather more than the amount of that deficiency; and he concludes with these emphatical words (p. 39), "Quel pays, Messieurs, que celui, ou, sans impots et avec de simples objets inappercus, on peut faire disparoitre un deficit qui a fait tant de bruit en Europe". As to the reimbursement, the sinking of debt, and the other great objects of public credit and political arrangement indicated in Mons. Necker's speech, no doubt could be entertained but that a very moderate and proportioned assessment on the citizens without distinction would have provided for all of them to the fullest extent of their demand. If this representation of Mons. Necker was false, then the Assembly are in the highest degree culpable for having forced the king to accept as his minister and, since the king's deposition, for having employed as their minister a man who had been capable of abusing so notoriously the confidence of his master and their own, in a matter, too, of the highest moment and directly appertaining to his particular office. But if the representation was exact (as having always, along with you, conceived a high degree of respect for M. Necker, I make no doubt it was), then what can be said in favor of those who, instead of moderate, reasonable, and general contribution, have in cold blood, and impelled by no necessity, had recourse to a partial and cruel confiscation? Was that contribution refused on a pretext of privilege, either on the part of the clergy or on that of the nobility? No, certainly. As to the clergy, they even ran before the wishes of the third order. Previous to the meeting of the states, they had in all their instructions expressly directed their deputies to renounce every immunity which put them upon a footing distinct from the condition of their fellow subjects. In this renunciation the clergy were even more explicit than the nobility. But let us suppose that the deficiency had remained at the fifty-six millions (or L2,200,000 sterling), as at first stated by M. Necker. Let us allow that all the resources he opposed to that deficiency were impudent and groundless fictions, and that the Assembly (or their lords of articles \[29\] at the Jacobins) were from thence justified in laying the whole burden of that deficiency on the clergy -- yet allowing all this, a necessity of L2,200,000 sterling will not support a confiscation to the amount of five millions. The imposition of L2,200,000 on the clergy, as partial, would have been oppressive and unjust, but it would not have been altogether ruinous to those on whom it was imposed, and therefore it would not have answered the real purpose of the managers. Perhaps persons unacquainted with the state of France, on hearing the clergy and the noblesse were privileged in point of taxation, may be led to imagine that, previous to the Revolution, these bodies had contributed nothing to the state. This is a great mistake. They certainly did not contribute equally with each other, nor either of them equally with the commons. They both, however, contributed largely. Neither nobility nor clergy enjoyed any exemption from the excise on consumable commodities, from duties of custom, or from any of the other numerous indirect impositions, which in France, as well as here, make so very large a proportion of all payments to the public. The noblesse paid the capitation. They paid also a land-tax, called the twentieth penny, to the height sometimes of three, sometimes of four, shillings in the pound -- both of them direct impositions of no light nature and no trivial produce. The clergy of the provinces annexed by conquest to France (which in extent make about an eighth part of the whole, but in wealth a much larger proportion) paid likewise to the capitation and the twentieth penny, at the rate paid by the nobility. The clergy in the old provinces did not pay the capitation, but they had redeemed themselves at the expense of about 24 millions, or a little more than a million sterling. They were exempted from the twentieths; but then they made free gifts, they contracted debts for the state, and they were subject to some other charges, the whole computed at about a thirteenth part of their clear income. They ought to have paid annually about forty thousand pounds more to put them on a par with the contribution of the nobility. When the terrors of this tremendous proscription hung over the clergy, they made an offer of a contribution through the archbishop of Aix, which, for its extravagance, ought not to have been accepted. But it was evidently and obviously more advantageous to the public creditor than anything which could rationally be promised by the confiscation. Why was it not accepted? The reason is plain: there was no desire that the church should be brought to serve the state. The service of the state was made a pretext to destroy the church. In their way to the destruction of the church they would not scruple to destroy their country; and they have destroyed it. One great end in the project would have been defeated if the plan of extortion had been adopted in lieu of the scheme of confiscation. The new landed interest connected with the new republic, and connected with it for its very being, could not have been created. This was among the reasons why that extravagant ransom was not accepted. THE madness of the project of confiscation, on the plan that was first pretended, soon became apparent. To bring this unwieldy mass of landed property, enlarged by the confiscation of all the vast landed domain of the crown, at once into market was obviously to defeat the profits proposed by the confiscation by depreciating the value of those lands and, indeed, of all the landed estates throughout France. Such a sudden diversion of all its circulating money from trade to land must be an additional mischief What step was taken? Did the Assembly, on becoming sensible of the inevitable ill effects of their projected sale, revert to the offers of the clergy? No distress could oblige them to travel in a course which was disgraced by any appearance of justice. Giving over all hopes from a general immediate sale, another project seems to have succeeded. They proposed to take stock in exchange for the church lands. In that project great difficulties arose in equalizing the objects to be exchanged. Other obstacles also presented themselves, which threw them back again upon some project of sale. The municipalities had taken an alarm. They would not hear of transferring the whole plunder of the kingdom to the stockholders in Paris. Many of those municipalities had been (upon system) reduced to the most deplorable indigence. Money was nowhere to be seen. They were, therefore, led to the point that was so ardently desired. They panted for a currency of any kind which might revive their perishing industry. The municipalities were then to be admitted to a share in the spoil, which evidently rendered the first scheme (if ever it had been seriously entertained) altogether impracticable. Public exigencies pressed upon all sides. The minister of finance reiterated his call for supply with a most urgent, anxious, and boding voice. Thus pressed on all sides, instead of the first plan of converting their bankers into bishops and abbots, instead of paying the old debt, they contracted a new debt at 3 per cent, creating a new paper currency founded on an eventual sale of the church lands. They issued this paper currency to satisfy in the first instance chiefly the demands made upon them by the bank of discount, the great machine, or paper-mill, of their fictitious wealth. The spoil of the church was now become the only resource of all their operations in finance, the vital principle of all their politics, the sole security for the existence of their power. It was necessary by all, even the most violent means, to put every individual on the same bottom, and to bind the nation in one guilty interest to uphold this act and the authority of those by whom it was done. In order to force the most reluctant into a participation of their pillage, they rendered their paper circulation compulsory in all payments. Those who consider the general tendency of their schemes to this one object as a center, and a center from which afterwards all their measures radiate, will not think that I dwell too long upon this part of the proceedings of the National Assembly. To cut off all appearance of connection between the crown and public justice, and to bring the whole under implicit obedience to the dictators in Paris, the old independent judicature of the parliaments, with all its merits and all its faults, was wholly abolished. Whilst the parliaments existed, it was evident that the people might some time or other come to resort to them and rally under the standard of their ancient laws. It became, however, a matter of consideration that the magistrates and officers, in the courts now abolished, had purchased their places at a very high rate, for which, as well as for the duty they performed, they received but a very low return of interest. Simple confiscation is a boon only for the clergy; to the lawyers some appearances of equity are to be observed, and they are to receive compensation to an immense amount. Their compensation becomes part of the national debt, for the liquidation of which there is the one exhaustless fund. The lawyers are to obtain their compensation in the new church paper, which is to march with the new principles of judicature and legislature. The dismissed magistrates are to take their share of martyrdom with the ecclesiastics, or to receive their own property from such a fund, and in such a manner, as all those who have been seasoned with the ancient principles of jurisprudence and had been the sworn guardians of property must look upon with horror. Even the clergy are to receive their miserable allowance out of the depreciated paper, which is stamped with the indelible character of sacrilege and with the symbols of their own ruin, or they must starve. So violent an outrage upon credit, property, and liberty as this compulsory paper currency has seldom been exhibited by the alliance of bankruptcy and tyranny, at any time or in any nation. In the course of all these operations, at length comes out the grand arcanum -- that in reality, and in a fair sense, the lands of the church (so far as anything certain can be gathered from their proceedings) are not to be sold at all. By the late resolutions of the National Assembly, they are, indeed, to be delivered to the highest bidder. But it is to be observed that a certain portion only of the purchase money is to be laid down. A period of twelve years is to be given for the payment of the rest. The philosophic purchasers are therefore, on payment of a sort of fine, to be put instantly into possession of the estate. It becomes in some respects a sort of gift to them -- to be held on the feudal tenure of zeal to the new establishment. This project is evidently to let in a body of purchasers without money. The consequence will be that these purchasers, or rather grantees, will pay, not only from the rents as they accrue, which might as well be received by the state, but from the spoil of the materials of buildings, from waste in woods, and from whatever money, by hands habituated to the gripings of usury, they can wring from the miserable peasant. He is to be delivered over to the mercenary and arbitrary discretion of men who will be stimulated to every species of extortion by the growing demands on the growing profits of an estate held under the precarious settlement of a new political system. When all the frauds, impostures, violences, rapines, burnings, murders, confiscations, compulsory paper currencies, and every description of tyranny and cruelty employed to bring about and to uphold this Revolution have their natural effect, that is, to shock the moral sentiments of all virtuous and sober minds, the abettors of this philosophic system immediately strain their throats in a declamation against the old monarchical government of France. When they have rendered that deposed power sufficiently black, they then proceed in argument as if all those who disapprove of their new abuses must of course be partisans of the old, that those who reprobate their crude and violent schemes of liberty ought to be treated as advocates for servitude. I admit that their necessities do compel them to this base and contemptible fraud. Nothing can reconcile men to their proceedings and projects but the supposition that there is no third option between them and some tyranny as odious as can be furnished by the records of history, or by the invention of poets. This prattling of theirs hardly deserves the name of sophistry. It is nothing but plain impudence. Have these gentlemen never heard, in the whole circle of the worlds of theory and practice, of anything between the despotism of the monarch and the despotism of the multitude? Have they never heard of a monarchy directed by laws, controlled and balanced by the great hereditary wealth and hereditary dignity of a nation, and both again controlled by a judicious check from the reason and feeling of the people at large acting by a suitable and permanent organ? Is it then impossible that a man may be found who, without criminal ill intention or pitiable absurdity, shall prefer such a mixed and tempered government to either of the extremes, and who may repute that nation to be destitute of all wisdom and of all virtue which, having in its choice to obtain such a government with ease, or rather to confirm it when actually possessed, thought proper to commit a thousand crimes and to subject their country to a thousand evils in order to avoid it? Is it then a truth so universally acknowledged that a pure democracy is the only tolerable form into which human society can be thrown, that a man is not permitted to hesitate about its merits without the suspicion of being a friend to tyranny, that is, of being a foe to mankind? I do not know under what description to class the present ruling authority in France. It affects to be a pure democracy, though I think it in a direct train of becoming shortly a mischievous and ignoble oligarchy. But for the present I admit it to be a contrivance of the nature and effect of what it pretends to. I reprobate no form of government merely upon abstract principles. There may be situations in which the purely democratic form will become necessary. There may be some (very few, and very particularly circumstanced) where it would be clearly desirable. This I do not take to be the case of France or of any other great country. Until now, we have seen no examples of considerable democracies. The ancients were better acquainted with them. Not being wholly unread in the authors who had seen the most of those constitutions, and who best understood them, I cannot help concurring with their opinion that an absolute democracy, no more than absolute monarchy, is to be reckoned among the legitimate forms of government. They think it rather the corruption and degeneracy than the sound constitution of a republic. If I recollect rightly, Aristotle observes that a democracy has many striking points of resemblance with a tyranny. \[30\] Of this I am certain, that in a democracy the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority whenever strong divisions prevail in that kind of polity, as they often must; and that oppression of the minority will extend to far greater numbers and will be carried on with much greater fury than can almost ever be apprehended from the dominion of a single scepter. In such a popular persecution, individual sufferers are in a much more deplorable condition than in any other. Under a cruel prince they have the balmy compassion of mankind to assuage the smart of their wounds; they have the plaudits of the people to animate their generous constancy under their sufferings; but those who are subjected to wrong under multitudes are deprived of all external consolation. They seem deserted by mankind, overpowered by a conspiracy of their whole species. BUT ADMITTING DEMOCRACY not to have that inevitable tendency to party tyranny, which I suppose it to have, and admitting it to possess as much good in it when unmixed as I am sure it possesses when compounded with other forms, does monarchy, on its part, contain nothing at all to recommend it? I do not often quote Bolingbroke, nor have his works in general left any permanent impression on my mind. He is a presumptuous and a superficial writer. But he has one observation which, in my opinion, is not without depth and solidity. He says that he prefers a monarchy to other governments because you can better ingraft any description of republic on a monarchy than anything of monarchy upon the republican forms. I think him perfectly in the right. The fact is so historically, and it agrees well with the speculation. I know how easy a topic it is to dwell on the faults of departed greatness. By a revolution in the state, the fawning sycophant of yesterday is converted into the austere critic of the present hour. But steady, independent minds, when they have an object of so serious a concern to mankind as government under their contemplation, will disdain to assume the part of satirists and declaimers. They will judge of human institutions as they do of human characters. They will sort out the good from the evil, which is mixed in mortal institutions, as it is in mortal men. YOUR government in France, though usually, and I think justly, reputed the best of the unqualified or ill-qualified monarchies, was still full of abuses. These abuses accumulated in a length of time, as they must accumulate in every monarchy not under the constant inspection of a popular representative. I am no stranger to the faults and defects of the subverted government of France, and I think I am not inclined by nature or policy to make a panegyric upon anything which is a just and natural object of censure. But the question is not now of the vices of that monarchy, but of its existence. Is it, then, true that the French government was such as to be incapable or undeserving of reform, so that it was of absolute necessity that the whole fabric should be at once pulled down and the area cleared for the erection of a theoretic, experimental edifice in its place? All France was of a different opinion in the beginning of the year 1789\. The instructions to the representatives to the States-General, from every district in that kingdom, were filled with projects for the reformation of that government without the remotest suggestion of a design to destroy it. Had such a design been even insinuated, I believe there would have been but one voice, and that voice for rejecting it with scorn and horror. Men have been sometimes led by degrees, sometimes hurried, into things of which, if they could have seen the whole together, they never would have permitted the most remote approach. When those instructions were given, there was no question but that abuses existed, and that they demanded a reform; nor is there now. In the interval between the instructions and the revolution things changed their shape; and in consequence of that change, the true question at present is, Whether those who would have reformed or those who have destroyed are in the right? To hear some men speak of the late monarchy of France, you would imagine that they were talking of Persia bleeding under the ferocious sword of Tahmas Kouli Khan, or at least describing the barbarous anarchic despotism of Turkey, where the finest countries in the most genial climates in the world are wasted by peace more than any countries have been worried by war, where arts are unknown, where manufactures languish, where science is extinguished, where agriculture decays, where the human race itself melts away and perishes under the eye of the observer. Was this the case of France? I have no way of determining the question but by reference to facts. Facts do not support this resemblance. Along with much evil there is some good in monarchy itself, and some corrective to its evil from religion, from laws, from manners, from opinions the French monarchy must have received, which rendered it (though by no means a free, and therefore by no means a good, constitution) a despotism rather in appearance than in reality. AMONG the standards upon which the effects of government on any country are to be estimated, I must consider the state of its population as not the least certain. No country in which population flourishes and is in progressive improvement can be under a very mischievous government. About sixty years ago, the Intendants of the generalities of France made, with other matters, a report of the population of their several districts. I have not the books, which are very voluminous, by me, nor do I know where to procure them (I am obliged to speak by memory, and therefore the less positively), but I think the population of France was by them, even at that period, estimated at twenty-two millions of souls. At the end of the last century it had been generally calculated at eighteen. On either of these estimations, France was not ill peopled. M. Necker, who is an authority for his own time, at least equal to the Intendants for theirs, reckons, and upon apparently sure principles, the people of France in the year 1780 at twenty-four millions six hundred and seventy thousand. But was this the probable ultimate term under the old establishment? Dr. Price is of opinion that the growth of population in France was by no means at its acme in that year. I certainly defer to Dr. Price's authority a good deal more in these speculations than I do in his general politics. This gentleman, taking ground on M. Necker's data, is very confident that since the period of that minister's calculation the French population has increased rapidly -- so rapidly that in the year 1789 he will not consent to rate the people of that kingdom at a lower number than thirty millions. After abating much (and much I think ought to be abated) from the sanguine calculation of Dr. Price, I have no doubt that the population of France did increase considerably during this later period; but supposing that it increased to nothing more than will be sufficient to complete the twenty-four millions six hundred and seventy thousand to twenty-five millions, still a population of twenty-five millions, and that in an increasing progress, on a space of about twenty-seven thousand square leagues is immense. It is, for instance, a good deal more than the proportionable population of this island, or even than that of England, the best peopled part of the United Kingdom. It is not universally true that France is a fertile country. Considerable tracts of it are barren and labor under other natural disadvantages. In the portions of that territory where things are more favorable, as far as I am able to discover, the numbers of the people correspond to the indulgence of nature. \[31\] The Generality of Lisle (this I admit is the strongest example) upon an extent of four hundred and four leagues and a half, about ten years ago, contained seven hundred and thirty-four thousand six hundred souls, which is one thousand seven hundred and seventy-two inhabitants to each square league. The middle term for the rest of France is about nine hundred inhabitants to the same admeasurement. I do not attribute this population to the deposed government, because I do not like to compliment the contrivances of men with what is due in a great degree to the bounty of Providence. But that decried government could not have obstructed, most probably it favored, the operation of those causes (whatever they were), whether of nature in the soil or habits of industry among the people, which has produced so large a number of the species throughout that whole kingdom and exhibited in some particular places such prodigies of population. I never will suppose that fabric of a state to be the worst of all political institutions which, by experience, is found to contain a principle favorable (however latent it may be) to the increase of mankind. The wealth of a country is another, and no contemptible, standard by which we may judge whether, on the whole, a government be protecting or destructive. France far exceeds England in the multitude of her people, but I apprehend that her comparative wealth is much inferior to ours, that it is not so equal in the distribution, nor so ready in the circulation. I believe the difference in the form of the two governments to be amongst the causes of this advantage on the side of England. I speak of England, not of the whole British dominions, which, if compared with those of France, will, in some degree, weaken the comparative rate of wealth upon our side. But that wealth, which will not endure a comparison with the riches of England, may constitute a very respectable degree of opulence. M. Necker's book, published in 1785, \[32\] contains an accurate and interesting collection of facts relative to public economy and to political arithmetic; and his speculations on the subject are in general wise and liberal. In that work he gives an idea of the state of France very remote from the portrait of a country whose government was a perfect grievance, an absolute evil, admitting no cure but through the violent and uncertain remedy of a total revolution. He affirms that from the year 1726 to the year 1784 there was coined at the mint of France, in the species of gold and silver, to the amount of about one hundred millions of pounds sterling. \[33\](2) It is impossible that M. Necker should be mistaken in the amount of the bullion which has been coined in the mint. It is a matter of official record. The reasonings of this able financier, concerning the quantity of gold and silver which remained for circulation, when he wrote in 1785, that is, about four years before the deposition and imprisonment of the French king, are not of equal certainty, but they are laid on grounds so apparently solid that it is not easy to refuse a considerable degree of assent to his calculation. He calculates the numeraire, or what we call "specie", then actually existing in France at about eighty-eight millions of the same English money. A great accumulation of wealth for one country, large as that country is! M. Necker was so far from considering this influx of wealth as likely to cease, when he wrote in 1785, that he presumes upon a future annual increase of two per cent upon the money brought into France during the periods from which he computed. Some adequate cause must have originally introduced all the money coined at its mint into that kingdom, and some cause as operative must have kept at home, or returned into its bosom, such a vast flood of treasure as M. Necker calculates to remain for domestic circulation. Suppose any reasonable deductions from M. Necker's computation, the remainder must still amount to an immense sum. Causes thus powerful to acquire, and to retain, cannot be found in discouraged industry, insecure property, and a positively destructive government. Indeed, when I consider the face of the kingdom of France, the multitude and opulence of her cities, the useful magnificence of her spacious high roads and bridges, the opportunity of her artificial canals and navigations opening the conveniences of maritime communication through a solid continent of so immense an extent; when I turn my eyes to the stupendous works of her ports and harbors, and to her whole naval apparatus, whether for war or trade; when I bring before my view the number of her fortifications, constructed with so bold and masterly a skill and made and maintained at so prodigious a charge, presenting an armed front and impenetrable barrier to her enemies upon every side; when I recollect how very small a part of that extensive region is without cultivation, and to what complete perfection the culture of many of the best productions of the earth have been brought in France; when I reflect on the excellence of her manufactures and fabrics, second to none but ours, and in some particulars not second; when I contemplate the grand foundations of charity, public and private; when I survey the state of all the arts that beautify and polish life; when I reckon the men she has bred for extending her fame in war, her able statesmen, the multitude of her profound lawyers and theologians, her philosophers, her critics, her historians and antiquaries, her poets and her orators, sacred and profane -- I behold in all this something which awes and commands the imagination, which checks the mind on the brink of precipitate and indiscriminate censure, and which demands that we should very seriously examine what and how great are the latent vices that could authorize us at once to level so spacious a fabric with the ground. I do not recognize in this view of things the despotism of Turkey. Nor do I discern the character of a government that has been, on the whole, so oppressive or so corrupt or so negligent as to be utterly unfit for all reformation. I must think such a government well deserved to have its excellence heightened, its faults corrected, and its capacities improved into a British constitution. Whoever has examined into the proceedings of that deposed government for several years back cannot fail to have observed, amidst the inconstancy and fluctuation natural to courts, an earnest endeavor toward the prosperity and improvement of the country; he must admit that it had long been employed, in some instances wholly to remove, in many considerably to correct, the abusive practices and usages that had prevailed in the state, and that even the unlimited power of the sovereign over the persons of his subjects, inconsistent, as undoubtedly it was, with law and liberty, had yet been every day growing more mitigated in the exercise. So far from refusing itself to reformation, that government was open, with a censurable degree of facility, to all sorts of projects and projectors on the subject. Rather too much countenance was given to the spirit of innovation, which soon was turned against those who fostered it, and ended in their ruin. It is but cold, and no very flattering, justice to that fallen monarchy to say that, for many years, it trespassed more by levity and want of judgment in several of its schemes than from any defect in diligence or in public spirit. To compare the government of France for the last fifteen or sixteen years with wise and well-constituted establishments during that, or during any period, is not to act with fairness. But if in point of prodigality in the expenditure of money, or in point of rigor in the exercise of power, it be compared with any of the former reigns, I believe candid judges will give little credit to the good intentions of those who dwell perpetually on the donations to favorites, or on the expenses of the court, or on the horrors of the Bastille in the reign of Louis the Sixteenth. \[34\] WHETHER the system, if it deserves such a name, now built on the ruins of that ancient monarchy will be able to give a better account of the population and wealth of the country which it has taken under its care, is a matter very doubtful. Instead of improving by the change, I apprehend that a long series of years must be told before it can recover in any degree the effects of this philosophic revolution, and before the nation can be replaced on its former footing. If Dr. Price should think fit, a few years hence, to favor us with an estimate of the population of France, he will hardly be able to make up his tale of thirty millions of souls, as computed in 1789, or the Assembly's computation of twenty-six millions of that year, or even M. Necker's twenty-five millions in 1780\. I hear that there are considerable emigrations from France, and that many, quitting that voluptuous climate and that seductive Circean liberty, have taken refuge in the frozen regions, and under the British despotism, of Canada. In the present disappearance of coin, no person could think it the same country in which the present minister of the finances has been able to discover fourscore millions sterling in specie. From its general aspect one would conclude that it had been for some time past under the special direction of the learned academicians of Laputa and Balnibarbi. \[35\] Already the population of Paris has so declined that M. Necker stated to the National Assembly the provision to be made for its subsistence at a fifth less than what had formerly been found requisite. \[36\](2) It is said (and I have never heard it contradicted) that a hundred thousand people are out of employment in that city, though it is become the seat of the imprisoned court and National Assembly. Nothing, I am credibly informed, can exceed the shocking and disgusting spectacle of mendicancy displayed in that capital. Indeed the votes of the National Assembly leave no doubt of the fact. They have lately appointed a standing committee of mendicancy. They are contriving at once a vigorous police on this subject and, for the first time, the imposition of a tax to maintain the poor, for whose present relief great sums appear on the face of the public accounts of the year. \[37\](3) In the meantime the leaders of the legislative clubs and coffee-houses are intoxicated with admiration at their own wisdom and ability. They speak with the most sovereign contempt of the rest of the world. They tell the people, to comfort them in the rags with which they have clothed them, that they are a nation of philosophers; and sometimes by all the arts of quackish parade, by show, tumult, and bustle, sometimes by the alarms of plots and invasions, they attempt to drown the cries of indigence and to divert the eyes of the observer from the ruin and wretchedness of the state. A brave people will certainly prefer liberty accompanied with a virtuous poverty to a depraved and wealthy servitude. But before the price of comfort and opulence is paid, one ought to be pretty sure it is real liberty which is purchased, and that she is to be purchased at no other price. I shall always, however, consider that liberty as very equivocal in her appearance which has not wisdom and justice for her companions and does not lead prosperity and plenty in her train. When I sent this book to the press, I entertained some doubt concerning the nature and extent of the last article in the above accounts, which is only under a general head, without any detail. Since then I have seen M. de Calonne's work. I must think it a great loss to me that I had not that advantage earlier. M. de Calonne thinks this article to be on account of general subsistence; but as he is not able to comprehend how so great a loss as upwards of L1,661,000 sterling could be sustained on the difference between the price and the sale of grain, he seems to attribute this enormous head of charge to secret expenses of the Revolution. I cannot say anything positively on that subject. The reader is capable of judging, by the aggregate of these immense charges, on the state and condition of France; and the system of public economy adopted in that nation. These articles of account produced no inquiry or discussion in the National Assembly. THE advocates for this Revolution, not satisfied with exaggerating the vices of their ancient government, strike at the fame of their country itself by painting almost all that could have attracted the attention of strangers, I mean their nobility and their clergy, as objects of horror. If this were only a libel, there had not been much in it. But it has practical consequences. Had your nobility and gentry, who formed the great body of your landed men and the whole of your military officers, resembled those of Germany at the period when the Hansetowns were necessitated to confederate against the nobles in defense of their property; had they been like the Orsini and Vitelli in Italy, who used to sally from their fortified dens to rob the trader and traveller; had they been such as the Mamelukes in Egypt or the Nayres on the coast of Malabar, I do admit that too critical an inquiry might not be advisable into the means of freeing the world from such a nuisance. The statues of Equity and Mercy might be veiled for a moment. The tenderest minds, confounded with the dreadful exigency in which morality submits to the suspension of its own rules in favor of its own principles, might turn aside whilst fraud and violence were accomplishing the destruction of a pretended nobility which disgraced, whilst it persecuted, human nature. The persons most abhorrent from blood, and treason, and arbitrary confiscation might remain silent spectators of this civil war between the vices. But did the privileged nobility who met under the king's precept at Versailles, in 1789, or their constituents, deserve to be looked on as the Nayres or Mamelukes of this age, or as the Orsini and Vitelli of ancient times? If I had then asked the question I should have passed for a madman. What have they since done that they were to be driven into exile, that their persons should be hunted about, mangled, and tortured, their families dispersed, their houses laid in ashes, and that their order should be abolished and the memory of it, if possible, extinguished by ordaining them to change the very names by which they were usually known? Read their instructions to their representatives. They breathe the spirit of liberty as warmly and they recommend reformation as strongly as any other order. Their privileges relative to contribution were voluntarily surrendered, as the king, from the beginning, surrendered all pretense to a right of taxation. Upon a free constitution there was but one opinion in France. The absolute monarchy was at an end. It breathed its last, without a groan, without struggle, without convulsion. All the struggle, all the dissension arose afterwards upon the preference of a despotic democracy to a government of reciprocal control. The triumph of the victorious party was over the principles of a British constitution. I have observed the affectation which for many years past has prevailed in Paris, even to a degree perfectly childish, of idolizing the memory of your Henry the Fourth. If anything could put one out of humor with that ornament to the kingly character, it would be this overdone style of insidious panegyric. The persons who have worked this engine the most busily are those who have ended their panegyrics in dethroning his successor and descendant, a man as good-natured, at the least, as Henry the Fourth, altogether as fond of his people, and who has done infinitely more to correct the ancient vices of the state than that great monarch did, or we are sure he ever meant to do. Well it is for his panegyrists that they have not him to deal with. For Henry of Navarre was a resolute, active, and politic prince. He possessed, indeed, great humanity and mildness, but a humanity and mildness that never stood in the way of his interests. He never sought to be loved without putting himself first in a condition to be feared. He used soft language with determined conduct. He asserted and maintained his authority in the gross, and distributed his acts of concession only in the detail. He spent the income of his prerogative nobly, but he took care not to break in upon the capital, never abandoning for a moment any of the claims which he made under the fundamental laws, nor sparing to shed the blood of those who opposed him, often in the field, sometimes upon the scaffold. Because he knew how to make his virtues respected by the ungrateful, he has merited the praises of those whom, if they had lived in his time, he would have shut up in the Bastille and brought to punishment along with the regicides whom he hanged after he had famished Paris into a surrender. If these panegyrists are in earnest in their admiration of Henry the Fourth, they must remember that they cannot think more highly of him than he did of the noblesse of France, whose virtue, honor, courage, patriotism, and loyalty were his constant theme. But the nobility of France are degenerated since the days of Henry the Fourth. This is possible. But it is more than I can believe to be true in any great degree. I do not pretend to know France as correctly as some others, but I have endeavored through my whole life to make myself acquainted with human nature, otherwise I should be unfit to take even my humble part in the service of mankind. In that study I could not pass by a vast portion of our nature as it appeared modified in a country but twenty-four miles from the shore of this island. On my best observation, compared with my best inquiries, I found your nobility for the greater part composed of men of high spirit and of a delicate sense of honor, both with regard to themselves individually and with regard to their whole corps, over whom they kept, beyond what is common in other countries, a censorial eye. They were tolerably well bred, very officious, humane, and hospitable; in their conversation frank and open; with a good military tone, and reasonably tinctured with literature, particularly of the authors in their own language. Many had pretensions far above this description. I speak of those who were generally met with. As to their behavior to the inferior classes, they appeared to me to comport themselves toward them with good nature and with something more nearly approaching to familiarity than is generally practiced with us in the intercourse between the higher and lower ranks of life. To strike any person, even in the most abject condition, was a thing in a manner unknown and would be highly disgraceful. Instances of other ill-treatment of the humble part of the community were rare; and as to attacks made upon the property or the personal liberty of the commons, I never heard of any whatsoever from them; nor, whilst the laws were in vigor under the ancient government, would such tyranny in subjects have been permitted. As men of landed estates, I had no fault to find with their conduct, though much to reprehend and much to wish changed in many of the old tenures. Where the letting of their land was by rent, I could not discover that their agreements with their farmers were oppressive; nor when they were in partnership with the farmer, as often was the case, have I heard that they had taken the lion's share. The proportions seemed not inequitable. There might be exceptions, but certainly they were exceptions only. I have no reason to believe that in these respects the landed noblesse of France were worse than the landed gentry of this country, certainly in no respect more vexatious than the landholders, not noble, of their own nation. In cities the nobility had no manner of power, in the country very little. You know, Sir, that much of the civil government, and the police in the most essential parts, was not in the hands of that nobility which presents itself first to our consideration. The revenue, the system and collection of which were the most grievous parts of the French government, was not administered by the men of the sword, nor were they answerable for the vices of its principle or the vexations, where any such existed, in its management. Denying, as I am well warranted to do, that the nobility had any considerable share in the oppression of the people in cases in which real oppression existed, I am ready to admit that they were not without considerable faults and errors. A foolish imitation of the worst part of the manners of England, which impaired their natural character without substituting in its place what, perhaps, they meant to copy, has certainly rendered them worse than formerly they were. Habitual dissoluteness of manners, continued beyond the pardonable period of life, was more common amongst them than it is with us; and it reigned with the less hope of remedy, though possibly with something of less mischief by being covered with more exterior decorum. They countenanced too much that licentious philosophy which has helped to bring on their ruin. There was another error amongst them more fatal. Those of the commons who approached to or exceeded many of the nobility in point of wealth were not fully admitted to the rank and estimation which wealth, in reason and good policy, ought to bestow in every country, though I think not equally with that of other nobility. The two kinds of aristocracy were too punctiliously kept asunder, less so, however, than in Germany and some other nations. This separation, as I have already taken the liberty of suggesting to you, I conceive to be one principal cause of the destruction of the old nobility. The military, particularly, was too exclusively reserved for men of family. But, after all, this was an error of opinion, which a conflicting opinion would have rectified. A permanent assembly in which the commons had their share of power would soon abolish whatever was too invidious and insulting in these distinctions, and even the faults in the morals of the nobility would have been probably corrected by the greater varieties of occupation and pursuit to which a constitution by orders would have given rise. All this violent cry against the nobility I take to be a mere work of art. To be honored and even privileged by the laws, opinions, and inveterate usages of our country, growing out of the prejudice of ages, has nothing to provoke horror and indignation in any man. Even to be too tenacious of those privileges is not absolutely a crime. The strong struggle in every individual to preserve possession of what he has found to belong to him and to distinguish him is one of the securities against injustice and despotism implanted in our nature. It operates as an instinct to secure property and to preserve communities in a settled state. What is there to shock in this? Nobility is a graceful ornament to the civil order. It is the Corinthian capital of polished society. Omnes boni nobilitati semper favemus, was the saying of a wise and good man. It is indeed one sign of a liberal and benevolent mind to incline to it with some sort of partial propensity. He feels no ennobling principle in his own heart who wishes to level all the artificial institutions which have been adopted for giving a body to opinion, and permanence to fugitive esteem. It is a sour, malignant, envious disposition, without taste for the reality or for any image or representation of virtue, that sees with joy the unmerited fall of what had long flourished in splendor and in honor. I do not like to see anything destroyed, any void produced in society, any ruin on the face of the land. It was, therefore, with no disappointment or dissatisfaction that my inquiries and observations did not present to me any incorrigible vices in the noblesse of France, or any abuse which could not be removed by a reform very short of abolition. Your noblesse did not deserve punishment; but to degrade is to punish. IT WAS WITH THE SAME SATISFACTION I found that the result of my inquiry concerning your clergy was not dissimilar. It is no soothing news to my ears that great bodies of men are incurably corrupt. It is not with much credulity I listen to any when they speak evil of those whom they are going to plunder. I rather suspect that vices are feigned or exaggerated when profit is looked for in their punishment. An enemy is a bad witness; a robber is a worse. Vices and abuses there were undoubtedly in that order, and must be. It was an old establishment, and not frequently revised. But I saw no crimes in the individuals that merited confiscation of their substance, nor those cruel insults and degradations, and that unnatural persecution which have been substituted in the place of meliorating regulation. If there had been any just cause for this new religious persecution, the atheistic libellers, who act as trumpeters to animate the populace to plunder, do not love anybody so much as not to dwell with complacency on the vices of the existing clergy. This they have not done. They find themselves obliged to rake into the histories of former ages (which they have ransacked with a malignant and profligate industry) for every instance of oppression and persecution which has been made by that body or in its favor in order to justify, upon very iniquitous, because very illogical, principles of retaliation, their own persecutions and their own cruelties. After destroying all other genealogies and family distinctions, they invent a sort of pedigree of crimes. It is not very just to chastise men for the offenses of their natural ancestors, but to take the fiction of ancestry in a corporate succession as a ground for punishing men who have no relation to guilty acts, except in names and general descriptions, is a sort of refinement in injustice belonging to the philosophy of this enlightened age. The Assembly punishes men, many, if not most, of whom abhor the violent conduct of ecclesiastics in former times as much as their present persecutors can do, and who would be as loud and as strong in the expression of that sense, if they were not well aware of the purposes for which all this declamation is employed. Corporate bodies are immortal for the good of the members, but not for their punishment. Nations themselves are such corporations. As well might we in England think of waging inexpiable war upon all Frenchmen for the evils which they have brought upon us in the several periods of our mutual hostilities. You might, on your part, think yourselves justified in falling upon all Englishmen on account of the unparalleled calamities brought on the people of France by the unjust invasions of our Henries and our Edwards. Indeed, we should be mutually justified in this exterminatory war upon each other, full as much as you are in the unprovoked persecution of your present countrymen, on account of the conduct of men of the same name in other times. We do not draw the moral lessons we might from history. On the contrary, without care it may be used to vitiate our minds and to destroy our happiness. In history a great volume is unrolled for our instruction, drawing the materials of future wisdom from the past errors and infirmities of mankind. It may, in the perversion, serve for a magazine furnishing offensive and defensive weapons for parties in church and state, and supplying the means of keeping alive or reviving dissensions and animosities, and adding fuel to civil fury. History consists for the greater part of the miseries brought upon the world by pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal, and all the train of disorderly appetites which shake the public with the same > \-- troublous storms that toss > The private state, and render life unsweet. These vices are the causes of those storms. Religion, morals, laws, prerogatives, privileges, liberties, rights of men are the pretexts. The pretexts are always found in some specious appearance of a real good. You would not secure men from tyranny and sedition by rooting out of the mind the principles to which these fraudulent pretexts apply? If you did, you would root out everything that is valuable in the human breast. As these are the pretexts, so the ordinary actors and instruments in great public evils are kings, priests, magistrates, senates, parliaments, national assemblies, judges, and captains. You would not cure the evil by resolving that there should be no more monarchs, nor ministers of state, nor of the gospel; no interpreters of law; no general officers; no public councils. You might change the names. The things in some shape must remain. A certain quantum of power must always exist in the community in some hands and under some appellation. Wise men will apply their remedies to vices, not to names; to the causes of evil which are permanent, not to the occasional organs by which they act, and the transitory modes in which they appear. Otherwise you will be wise historically, a fool in practice. Seldom have two ages the same fashion in their pretexts and the same modes of mischief. Wickedness is a little more inventive. Whilst you are discussing fashion, the fashion is gone by. The very same vice assumes a new body. The spirit transmigrates, and, far from losing its principle of life by the change of its appearance, it is renovated in its new organs with a fresh vigor of a juvenile activity. It walks abroad, it continues its ravages, whilst you are gibbeting the carcass or demolishing the tomb. You are terrifying yourselves with ghosts and apparitions, whilst your house is the haunt of robbers. It is thus with all those who, attending only to the shell and husk of history, think they are waging war with intolerance, pride, and cruelty, whilst, under color of abhorring the ill principles of antiquated parties, they are authorizing and feeding the same odious vices in different factions, and perhaps in worse. Your citizens of Paris formerly had lent themselves as the ready instruments to slaughter the followers of Calvin, at the infamous massacre of St. Bartholomew. What should we say to those who could think of retaliating on the Parisians of this day the abominations and horrors of that time? They are indeed brought to abhor that massacre. Ferocious as they are, it is not difficult to make them dislike it, because the politicians and fashionable teachers have no interest in giving their passions exactly the same direction. Still, however, they find it their interest to keep the same savage dispositions alive. It was but the other day that they caused this very massacre to be acted on the stage for the diversion of the descendants of those who committed it. In this tragic farce they produced the cardinal of Lorraine in his robes of function, ordering general slaughter. Was this spectacle intended to make the Parisians abhor persecution and loathe the effusion of blood? -- No; it was to teach them to persecute their own pastors; it was to excite them, by raising a disgust and horror of their clergy, to an alacrity in hunting down to destruction an order which, if it ought to exist at all, ought to exist not only in safety, but in reverence. It was to stimulate their cannibal appetites (which one would think had been gorged sufficiently) by variety and seasoning; and to quicken them to an alertness in new murders and massacres, if it should suit the purpose of the Guises of the day. An assembly, in which sat a multitude of priests and prelates, was obliged to suffer this indignity at its door. The author was not sent to the galleys, nor the players to the house of correction. Not long after this exhibition, those players came forward to the Assembly to claim the rites of that very religion which they had dared to expose, and to show their prostituted faces in the senate, whilst the archbishop of Paris, whose function was known to his people only by his prayers and benedictions, and his wealth only by his alms, is forced to abandon his house and to fly from his flock (as from ravenous wolves) because, truly, in the sixteenth century, the cardinal of Lorraine was a rebel and a murderer. \[38\] Such is the effect of the perversion of history by those who, for the same nefarious purposes, have perverted every other part of learning. But those who will stand upon that elevation of reason which places centuries under our eye and brings things to the true point of comparison, which obscures little names and effaces the colors of little parties, and to which nothing can ascend but the spirit and moral quality of human actions, will say to the teachers of the Palais Royal: The cardinal of Lorraine was the murderer of the sixteenth century, you have the glory of being the murderers in the eighteenth, and this is the only difference between you. But history in the nineteenth century, better understood and better employed, will, I trust, teach a civilized posterity to abhor the misdeeds of both these barbarous ages. It will teach future priests and magistrates not to retaliate upon the speculative and inactive atheists of future times the enormities committed by the present practical zealots and furious fanatics of that wretched error, which, in its quiescent state, is more than punished whenever it is embraced. It will teach posterity not to make war upon either religion or philosophy for the abuse which the hypocrites of both have made of the two most valuable blessings conferred upon us by the bounty of the universal Patron, who in all things eminently favors and protects the race of man. If your clergy, or any clergy, should show themselves vicious beyond the fair bounds allowed to human infirmity, and to those professional faults which can hardly be separated from professional virtues, though their vices never can countenance the exercise of oppression, I do admit that they would naturally have the effect of abating very much of our indignation against the tyrants who exceed measure and justice in their punishment. I can allow in clergymen, through all their divisions, some tenaciousness of their own opinion, some overflowings of zeal for its propagation, some predilection to their own state and office, some attachment to the interests of their own corps, some preference to those who listen with docility to their doctrines, beyond those who scorn and deride them. I allow all this, because I am a man who has to deal with men, and who would not, through a violence of toleration, run into the greatest of all intolerance. I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes. Undoubtedly, the natural progress of the passions, from frailty to vice, ought to be prevented by a watchful eye and a firm hand. But is it true that the body of your clergy had passed those limits of a just allowance? From the general style of your late publications of all sorts one would be led to believe that your clergy in France were a sort of monsters, a horrible composition of superstition, ignorance, sloth, fraud, avarice, and tyranny. But is this true? Is it true that the lapse of time, the cessation of conflicting interests, the woeful experience of the evils resulting from party rage have had no sort of influence gradually to meliorate their minds? Is it true that they were daily renewing invasions on the civil power, troubling the domestic quiet of their country, and rendering the operations of its government feeble and precarious? Is it true that the clergy of our times have pressed down the laity with an iron hand and were in all places lighting up the fires of a savage persecution? Did they by every fraud endeavor to increase their estates? Did they use to exceed the due demands on estates that were their own? Or, rigidly screwing up right into wrong, did they convert a legal claim into a vexatious extortion? When not possessed of power, were they filled with the vices of those who envy it? Were they inflamed with a violent, litigious spirit of controversy? Goaded on with the ambition of intellectual sovereignty, were they ready to fly in the face of all magistracy, to fire churches, to massacre the priests of other descriptions, to pull down altars, and to make their way over the ruins of subverted governments to an empire of doctrine, sometimes flattering, sometimes forcing the consciences of men from the jurisdiction of public institutions into a submission of their personal authority, beginning with a claim of liberty and ending with an abuse of power? These, or some of these, were the vices objected, and not wholly without foundation, to several of the churchmen of former times who belonged to the two great parties which then divided and distracted Europe. If there was in France, as in other countries there visibly is, a great abatement rather than any increase of these vices, instead of loading the present clergy with the crimes of other men and the odious character of other times, in common equity they ought to be praised, encouraged, and supported in their departure from a spirit which disgraced their predecessors, and for having assumed a temper of mind and manners more suitable to their sacred function. When my occasions took me into France, toward the close of the late reign, the clergy, under all their forms, engaged a considerable part of my curiosity. So far from finding (except from one set of men, not then very numerous, though very active) the complaints and discontents against that body, which some publications had given me reason to expect, I perceived little or no public or private uneasiness on their account. On further examination, I found the clergy, in general, persons of moderate minds and decorous manners; I include the seculars and the regulars of both sexes. I had not the good fortune to know a great many of the parochial clergy, but in general I received a perfectly good account of their morals and of their attention to their duties. With some of the higher clergy I had a personal acquaintance, and of the rest in that class a very good means of information. They were, almost all of them, persons of noble birth. They resembled others of their own rank; and where there was any difference, it was in their favor. They were more fully educated than the military noblesse, so as by no means to disgrace their profession by ignorance or by want of fitness for the exercise of their authority. They seemed to me, beyond the clerical character, liberal and open, with the hearts of gentlemen and men of honor, neither insolent nor servile in their manners and conduct. They seemed to me rather a superior class, a set of men amongst whom you would not be surprised to find a Fenelon. I saw among the clergy in Paris (many of the description are not to be met with anywhere) men of great learning and candor; and I had reason to believe that this description was not confined to Paris. What I found in other places I know was accidental, and therefore to be presumed a fair example. I spent a few days in a provincial town where, in the absence of the bishop, I passed my evenings with three clergymen, his vicars-general, persons who would have done honor to any church. They were all well informed; two of them of deep, general, and extensive erudition, ancient and modern, oriental and western, particularly in their own profession. They had a more extensive knowledge of our English divines than I expected, and they entered into the genius of those writers with a critical accuracy. One of these gentlemen is since dead, the Abbe Morangis. I pay this tribute, without reluctance, to the memory of that noble, reverend, learned, and excellent person; and I should do the same with equal cheerfulness to the merits of the others who, I believe, are still living, if I did not fear to hurt those whom I am unable to serve. Some of these ecclesiastics of rank are by all titles persons deserving of general respect. They are deserving of gratitude from me and from many English. If this letter should ever come into their hands, I hope they will believe there are those of our nation who feel for their unmerited fall and for the cruel confiscation of their fortunes with no common sensibility. What I say of them is a testimony, as far as one feeble voice can go, which I owe to truth. Whenever the question of this unnatural persecution is concerned, I will pay it. No one shall prevent me from being just and grateful. The time is fitted for the duty, and it is particularly becoming to show our justice and gratitude when those who have deserved well of us and of mankind are laboring under popular obloquy and the persecutions of oppressive power. You had before your Revolution about a hundred and twenty bishops. A few of them were men of eminent sanctity, and charity without limit. When we talk of the heroic, of course we talk of rare virtue. I believe the instances of eminent depravity may be as rare amongst them as those of transcendent goodness. Examples of avarice and of licentiousness may be picked out, I do not question it, by those who delight in the investigation which leads to such discoveries. A man as old as I am will not be astonished that several, in every description, do not lead that perfect life of self-denial, with regard to wealth or to pleasure, which is wished for by all, by some expected, but by none exacted with more rigor than by those who are the most attentive to their own interests, or the most indulgent to their own passions. When I was in France, I am certain that the number of vicious prelates was not great. Certain individuals among them, not distinguishable for the regularity of their lives, made some amends for their want of the severe virtues in their possession of the liberal, and were endowed with qualities which made them useful in the church and state. I am told that, with few exceptions, Louis the Sixteenth had been more attentive to character, in his promotions to that rank, than his immediate predecessor; and I believe (as some spirit of reform has prevailed through the whole reign) that it may be true. But the present ruling power has shown a disposition only to plunder the church. It has punished all prelates, which is to favor the vicious, at least in point of reputation. It has made a degrading pensionary establishment to which no man of liberal ideas or liberal condition will destine his children. It must settle into the lowest classes of the people. As with you the inferior clergy are not numerous enough for their duties; as these duties are, beyond measure, minute and toilsome; as you have left no middle classes of clergy at their ease, in future nothing of science or erudition can exist in the Gallican church. To complete the project without the least attention to the rights of patrons, the Assembly has provided in future an elective clergy, an arrangement which will drive out of the clerical profession all men of sobriety, all who can pretend to independence in their function or their conduct, and which will throw the whole direction of the public mind into the hands of a set of licentious, bold, crafty, factious, flattering wretches, of such condition and such habits of life as will make their contemptible pensions (in comparison of which the stipend of an exciseman is lucrative and honorable) an object of low and illiberal intrigue. Those officers whom they still call bishops are to be elected to a provision comparatively mean, through the same arts (that is, electioneering arts), by men of all religious tenets that are known or can be invented. The new lawgivers have not ascertained anything whatsoever concerning their qualifications relative either to doctrine or to morals, no more than they have done with regard to the subordinate clergy; nor does it appear but that both the higher and the lower may, at their discretion, practice or preach any mode of religion or irreligion that they please. I do not yet see what the jurisdiction of bishops over their subordinates is to be, or whether they are to have any jurisdiction at all. In short, Sir, it seems to me that this new ecclesiastical establishment is intended only to be temporary and preparatory to the utter abolition, under any of its forms, of the Christian religion, whenever the minds of men are prepared for this last stroke against it, by the accomplishment of the plan for bringing its ministers into universal contempt. They who will not believe that the philosophical fanatics who guide in these matters have long entertained such a design are utterly ignorant of their character and proceedings. These enthusiasts do not scruple to avow their opinion that a state can subsist without any religion better than with one, and that they are able to supply the place of any good which may be in it by a project of their own -- namely, by a sort of eduction they have imagined, founded in a knowledge of the physical wants of men, progressively carried to an enlightened self-interest which, when well understood, they tell us, will identify with an interest more enlarged and public. The scheme of this education has been long known. Of late they distinguish it (as they have got an entirely new nomenclature of technical terms) by the name of a Civic Education. I hope their partisans in England (to whom I rather attribute very inconsiderate conduct than the ultimate object in this detestable design) will succeed neither in the pillage of the ecclesiastics, nor in the introduction of a principle of popular election to our bishoprics and parochial cures. This, in the present condition of the world, would be the last corruption of the church, the utter ruin of the clerical character, the most dangerous shock that the state ever received through a misunderstood arrangement of religion. I know well enough that the bishoprics and cures under kingly and seignioral patronage, as now they are in England, and as they have been lately in France, are sometimes acquired by unworthy methods; but the other mode of ecclesiastical canvass subjects them infinitely more surely and more generally to all the evil arts of low ambition, which, operating on and through greater numbers, will produce mischief in proportion. Those of you who have robbed the clergy think that they shall easily reconcile their conduct to all Protestant nations, because the clergy, whom they have thus plundered, degraded, and given over to mockery and scorn, are of the Roman Catholic, that is, of their own pretended persuasion. I have no doubt that some miserable bigots will be found here, as well as elsewhere, who hate sects and parties different from their own more than they love the substance of religion, and who are more angry with those who differ from them in their particular plans and systems than displeased with those who attack the foundation of our common hope. These men will write and speak on the subject in the manner that is to be expected from their temper and character. Burnet says that when he was in France, in the year 1683, "the method which carried over the men of the finest parts to Popery was this -- they brought themselves to doubt of the whole Christian religion. When that was once done, it seemed a more indifferent thing of what side or form they continued outwardly." If this was then the ecclesiastical policy of France, it is what they have since but too much reason to repent of. They preferred atheism to a form of religion not agreeable to their ideas. They succeeded in destroying that form; and atheism has succeeded in destroying them. I can readily give credit to Burnet's story, because I have observed too much of a similar spirit (for a little of it is "much too much") amongst ourselves. The humor, however, is not general. THE teachers who reformed our religion in England bore no sort of resemblance to your present reforming doctors in Paris. Perhaps they were (like those whom they opposed) rather more than could be wished under the influence of a party spirit, but they were more sincere believers, men of the most fervent and exalted piety, ready to die (as some of them did die) like true heroes in defense of their particular ideas of Christianity, as they would with equal fortitude, and more cheerfully, for that stock of general truth for the branches of which they contended with their blood. These men would have disavowed with horror those wretches who claimed a fellowship with them upon no other titles than those of their having pillaged the persons with whom they maintained controversies, and their having despised the common religion for the purity of which they exerted themselves with a zeal which unequivocally bespoke their highest reverence for the substance of that system which they wished to reform. Many of their descendants have retained the same zeal, but (as less engaged in conflict) with more moderation. They do not forget that justice and mercy are substantial parts of religion. Impious men do not recommend themselves to their communion by iniquity and cruelty toward any description of their fellow creatures. We hear these new teachers continually boasting of their spirit of toleration. That those persons should tolerate all opinions, who think none to be of estimation, is a matter of small merit. Equal neglect is not impartial kindness. The species of benevolence which arises from contempt is no true charity. There are in England abundance of men who tolerate in the true spirit of toleration. They think the dogmas of religion, though in different degrees, are all of moment, and that amongst them there is, as amongst all things of value, a just ground of preference. They favor, therefore, and they tolerate. They tolerate, not because they despise opinions, but because they respect justice. They would reverently and affectionately protect all religions because they love and venerate the great principle upon which they all agree, and the great object to which they are all directed. They begin more and more plainly to discern that we have all a common cause, as against a common enemy. They will not be so misled by the spirit of faction as not to distinguish what is done in favor of their subdivision from those acts of hostility which, through some particular description, are aimed at the whole corps, in which they themselves, under another denomination, are included. It is impossible for me to say what may be the character of every description of men amongst us. But I speak for the greater part; and for them, I must tell you that sacrilege is no part of their doctrine of good works; that, so far from calling you into their fellowship on such title, if your professors are admitted to their communion, they must carefully conceal their doctrine of the lawfulness of the prescription of innocent men; and that they must make restitution of all stolen goods whatsoever. Till then they are none of ours. You may suppose that we do not approve your confiscation of the revenues of bishops, and deans, and chapters, and parochial clergy possessing independent estates arising from land, because we have the same sort of establishment in England. That objection, you will say, cannot hold as to the confiscation of the goods of monks and nuns and the abolition of their order. It is true that this particular part of your general confiscation does not affect England, as a precedent in point; but the reason implies, and it goes a great way. The Long Parliament confiscated the lands of deans and chapters in England on the same ideas upon which your Assembly set to sale the lands of the monastic orders. But it is in the principle of injustice that the danger lies, and not in the description of persons on whom it is first exercised. I see, in a country very near us, a course of policy pursued which sets justice, the common concern of mankind, at defiance. With the National Assembly of France possession is nothing, law and usage are nothing. I see the National Assembly openly reprobate the doctrine of prescription, which \[39\] one of the greatest of their own lawyers tells us, with great truth, is a part of the law of nature. He tells us that the positive ascertainment of its limits, and its security from invasion, were among the causes for which civil society itself has been instituted. If prescription be once shaken, no species of property is secure when it once becomes an object large enough to tempt the cupidity of indigent power. I see a practice perfectly correspondent to their contempt of this great fundamental part of natural law. I see the confiscators begin with bishops and chapters, and monasteries, but I do not see them end there. I see the princes of the blood, who by the oldest usages of that kingdom held large landed estates, (hardly with the compliment of a debate) deprived of their possessions and, in lieu of their stable, independent property, reduced to the hope of some precarious, charitable pension at the pleasure of an assembly which of course will pay little regard to the rights of pensioners at pleasure when it despises those of legal proprietors. Flushed with the insolence of their first inglorious victories, and pressed by the distresses caused by their lust of unhallowed lucre, disappointed but not discouraged, they have at length ventured completely to subvert all property of all descriptions throughout the extent of a great kingdom. They have compelled all men, in all transactions of commerce, in the disposal of lands, in civil dealing, and through the whole communion of life, to accept as perfect payment and good and lawful tender the symbols of their speculations on a projected sale of their plunder. What vestiges of liberty or property have they left? The tenant right of a cabbage garden, a year's interest in a hovel, the goodwill of an alehouse or a baker's shop, the very shadow of a constructive property, are more ceremoniously treated in our parliament than with you the oldest and most valuable landed possessions, in the hands of the most respectable personages, or than the whole body of the monied and commercial interest of your country. We entertain a high opinion of the legislative authority, but we have never dreamt that parliaments had any right whatever to violate property, to overrule prescription, or to force a currency of their own fiction in the place of that which is real and recognized by the law of nations. But you, who began with refusing to submit to the most moderate restraints, have ended by establishing an unheard-of despotism. I find the ground upon which your confiscators go is this: that, indeed, their proceedings could not be supported in a court of justice, but that the rules of prescription cannot bind a legislative assembly. \[40\](2) So that this legislative assembly of a free nation sits, not for the security, but for the destruction, of property, and not of property only, but of every rule and maxim which can give it stability, and of those instruments which can alone give it circulation. When the Anabaptists of Munster, in the sixteenth century, had filled Germany with confusion by their system of leveling and their wild opinions concerning property, to what country in Europe did not the progress of their fury furnish just cause of alarm? Of all things, wisdom is the most terrified with epidemical fanaticism, because of all enemies it is that against which she is the least able to furnish any kind of resource. We cannot be ignorant of the spirit of atheistical fanaticism that is inspired by a multitude of writings dispersed with incredible assiduity and expense, and by sermons delivered in all the streets and places of public resort in Paris. These writings and sermons have filled the populace with a black and savage atrocity of mind, which supersedes in them the common feelings of nature as well as all sentiments of morality and religion, insomuch that these wretches are induced to bear with a sullen patience the intolerable distresses brought upon them by the violent convulsions and permutations that have been made in property. \[41\] The spirit of proselytism attends this spirit of fanaticism. They have societies to cabal and correspond at home and abroad for the propagation of their tenets. The republic of Berne, one of the happiest, the most prosperous, and the best governed countries upon earth, is one of the great objects at the destruction of which they aim. I am told they have in some measure succeeded in sowing there the seeds of discontent. They are busy throughout Germany. Spain and Italy have not been untried. England is not left out of the comprehensive scheme of their malignant charity; and in England we find those who stretch out their arms to them, who recommend their example from more than one pulpit, and who choose in more than one periodical meeting publicly to correspond with them, to applaud them, and to hold them up as objects for imitation; who receive from them tokens of confraternity, and standards consecrated amidst their rites and mysteries; \[42\](2) who suggest to them leagues of perpetual amity, at the very time when the power to which our constitution has exclusively delegated the federative capacity of this kingdom may find it expedient to make war upon them. It is not the confiscation of our church property from this example in France that I dread, though I think this would be no trifling evil. The great source of my solicitude is, lest it should ever be considered in England as the policy of a state to seek a resource in confiscations of any kind, or that any one description of citizens should be brought to regard any of the others as their proper prey. \[43\] Nations are wading deeper and deeper into an ocean of boundless debt. Public debts, which at first were a security to governments by interesting many in the public tranquillity, are likely in their excess to become the means of their subversion. If governments provide for these debts by heavy impositions, they perish by becoming odious to the people. If they do not provide for them, they will be undone by the efforts of the most dangerous of all parties -- I mean an extensive, discontented monied interest, injured and not destroyed. The men who compose this interest look for their security, in the first instance, to the fidelity of government; in the second, to its power. If they find the old governments effete, worn out, and with their springs relaxed, so as not to be of sufficient vigor for their purposes, they may seek new ones that shall be possessed of more energy; and this energy will be derived, not from an acquisition of resources, but from a contempt of justice. Revolutions are favorable to confiscation; and it is impossible to know under what obnoxious names the next confiscations will be authorized. I am sure that the principles predominant in France extend to very many persons and descriptions of persons, in all countries, who think their innoxious indolence their security. This kind of innocence in proprietors may be argued into inutility; and inutility into an unfitness for their estates. Many parts of Europe are in open disorder. In many others there is a hollow murmuring under ground; a confused movement is felt that threatens a general earthquake in the political world. Already confederacies and correspondencies of the most extraordinary nature are forming in several countries. \[44\](2) In such a state of things we ought to hold ourselves upon our guard. In all mutations (if mutations must be) the circumstance which will serve most to blunt the edge of their mischief and to promote what good may be in them is that they should find us with our minds tenacious of justice and tender of property. But it will be argued that this confiscation in France ought not to alarm other nations. They say it is not made from wanton rapacity, that it is a great measure of national policy adopted to remove an extensive, inveterate, superstitious mischief. It is with the greatest difficulty that I am able to separate policy from justice. Justice itself is the great standing policy of civil society, and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all. When men are encouraged to go into a certain mode of life by the existing laws, and protected in that mode as in a lawful occupation; when they have accommodated all their ideas and all their habits to it; when the law had long made their adherence to its rules a ground of reputation, and their departure from them a ground of disgrace and even of penalty -- I am sure it is unjust in legislature, by an arbitrary act, to offer a sudden violence to their minds and their feelings, forcibly to degrade them from their state and condition and to stigmatize with shame and infamy that character and those customs which before had been made the measure of their happiness and honor. If to this be added an expulsion from their habitations and a confiscation of all their goods, I am not sagacious enough to discover how this despotic sport, made of the feelings, consciences, prejudices, and properties of men, can be discriminated from the rankest tyranny. If the injustice of the course pursued in France be clear, the policy of the measure, that is, the public benefit to be expected from it, ought to be at least as evident and at least as important. To a man who acts under the influence of no passion, who has nothing in view in his projects but the public good, a great difference will immediately strike him between what policy would dictate on the original introduction of such institutions and on a question of their total abolition, where they have cast their roots wide and deep, and where, by long habit, things more valuable than themselves are so adapted to them, and in a manner interwoven with them, that the one cannot be destroyed without notably impairing the other. He might be embarrassed if the case were really such as sophisters represent it in their paltry style of debating. But in this, as in most questions of state, there is a middle. There is something else than the mere alternative of absolute destruction or unreformed existence. Spartam nactus es; hanc exorna. This is, in my opinion, a rule of profound sense and ought never to depart from the mind of an honest reformer. I cannot conceive how any man can have brought himself to that pitch of presumption to consider his country as nothing but carte blanche -- upon which he may scribble whatever he pleases. A man full of warm, speculative benevolence may wish his society otherwise constituted than he finds it, but a good patriot and a true politician always considers how he shall make the most of the existing materials of his country. A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman. Everything else is vulgar in the conception, perilous in the execution. There are moments in the fortune of states when particular men are called to make improvements by great mental exertion. In those moments, even when they seem to enjoy the confidence of their prince and country, and to be invested with full authority, they have not always apt instruments. A politician, to do great things, looks for a power what our workmen call a purchase; and if he finds that power, in politics as in mechanics, he cannot be at a loss to apply it. In the monastic institutions, in my opinion, was found a great power for the mechanism of politic benevolence. There were revenues with a public direction; there were men wholly set apart and dedicated to public purposes, without any other than public ties and public principles; men without the possibility of converting the estate of the community into a private fortune; men denied to self-interests, whose avarice is for some community; men to whom personal poverty is honor, and implicit obedience stands in the place of freedom. In vain shall a man look to the possibility of making such things when he wants them. The winds blow as they list. These institutions are the products of enthusiasm; they are the instruments of wisdom. Wisdom cannot create materials; they are the gifts of nature or of chance; her pride is in the use. The perennial existence of bodies corporate and their fortunes are things particularly suited to a man who has long views; who meditates designs that require time in fashioning, and which propose duration when they are accomplished. He is not deserving to rank high, or even to be mentioned in the order of great statesmen, who, having obtained the command and direction of such a power as existed in the wealth, the discipline, and the habits of such corporations, as those which you have rashly destroyed, cannot find any way of converting it to the great and lasting benefit of his country. On the view of this subject, a thousand uses suggest themselves to a contriving mind. To destroy any power growing wild from the rank productive force of the human mind is almost tantamount, in the moral world, to the destruction of the apparently active properties of bodies in the material. It would be like the attempt to destroy (if it were in our competence to destroy) the expansive force of fixed air in nitre, or the power of steam, or of electricity, or of magnetism. These energies always existed in nature, and they were always discernible. They seemed, some of them unserviceable, some noxious, some no better than a sport to children, until contemplative ability, combining with practic skill, tamed their wild nature, subdued them to use, and rendered them at once the most powerful and the most tractable agents in subservience to the great views and designs of men. Did fifty thousand persons whose mental and whose bodily labor you might direct, and so many hundred thousand a year of a revenue which was neither lazy nor superstitious, appear too big for your abilities to wield? Had you no way of using them but by converting monks into pensioners? Had you no way of turning the revenue to account but through the improvident resource of a spendthrift sale? If you were thus destitute of mental funds, the proceeding is in its natural course. Your politicians do not understand their trade; and therefore they sell their tools. But the institutions savor of superstition in their very principle, and they nourish it by a permanent and standing influence. This I do not mean to dispute, but this ought not to hinder you from deriving from superstition itself any resources which may thence be furnished for the public advantage. You derive benefits from many dispositions and many passions of the human mind which are of as doubtful a color, in the moral eye, as superstition itself. It was your business to correct and mitigate everything which was noxious in this passion, as in all the passions. But is superstition the greatest of all possible vices? In its possible excess I think it becomes a very great evil. It is, however, a moral subject and, of course, admits of all degrees and all modifications. Superstition is the religion of feeble minds; and they must be tolerated in an intermixture of it, in some trifling or some enthusiastic shape or other, else you will deprive weak minds of a resource found necessary to the strongest. The body of all true religion consists, to be sure, in obedience to the will of the Sovereign of the world, in a confidence in his declarations, and in imitation of his perfections. The rest is our own. It may be prejudicial to the great end; it may be auxiliary. Wise men, who as such are not admirers (not admirers at least of the Munera Terrae), are not violently attached to these things, nor do they violently hate them. Wisdom is not the most severe corrector of folly. They are the rival follies which mutually wage so unrelenting a war, and which make so cruel a use of their advantages as they can happen to engage the immoderate vulgar, on the one side or the other, in their quarrels. Prudence would be neuter, but if, in the contention between fond attachment and fierce antipathy concerning things in their nature not made to produce such heats, a prudent man were obliged to make a choice of what errors and excesses of enthusiasm he would condemn or bear, perhaps he would think the superstition which builds to be more tolerable than that which demolishes; that which adorns a country, than that which deforms it; that which endows, than that which plunders; that which disposes to mistaken beneficence, than that which stimulates to real injustice; that which leads a man to refuse to himself lawful pleasures, than that which snatches from others the scanty subsistence of their self-denial. Such, I think, is very nearly the state of the question between the ancient founders of monkish superstition and the superstition of the pretended philosophers of the hour. For the present I postpone all consideration of the supposed public profit of the sale, which however I conceive to be perfectly delusive. I shall here only consider it as a transfer of property. On the policy of that transfer I shall trouble you with a few thoughts. In every prosperous community something more is produced than goes to the immediate support of the producer. This surplus forms the income of the landed capitalist. It will be spent by a proprietor who does not labor. But this idleness is itself the spring of labor; this repose the spur to industry. The only concern of the state is that the capital taken in rent from the land should be returned again to the industry from whence it came, and that its expenditure should be with the least possible detriment to the morals of those who expend it, and to those of the people to whom it is returned. In all the views of receipt, expenditure, and personal employment, a sober legislator would carefully compare the possessor whom he was recommended to expel with the stranger who was proposed to fill his place. Before the inconveniences are incurred which must attend all violent revolutions in property through extensive confiscation, we ought to have some rational assurance that the purchasers of the confiscated property will be in a considerable degree more laborious, more virtuous, more sober, less disposed to extort an unreasonable proportion of the gains of the laborer, or to consume on themselves a larger share than is fit for the measure of an individual; or that they should be qualified to dispense the surplus in a more steady and equal mode, so as to answer the purposes of a politic expenditure, than the old possessors, call those possessors bishops, or canons, or commendatory abbots, or monks, or what you please. The monks are lazy. Be it so. Suppose them no otherwise employed than by singing in the choir. They are as usefully employed as those who neither sing nor say; as usefully even as those who sing upon the stage. They are as usefully employed as if they worked from dawn to dark in the innumerable servile, degrading, unseemly, unmanly, and often most unwholesome and pestiferous occupations to which by the social economy so many wretches are inevitably doomed. If it were not generally pernicious to disturb the natural course of things and to impede in any degree the great wheel of circulation which is turned by the strangely-directed labor of these unhappy people, I should be infinitely more inclined forcibly to rescue them from their miserable industry than violently to disturb the tranquil repose of monastic quietude. Humanity, and perhaps policy, might better justify me in the one than in the other. It is a subject on which I have often reflected, and never reflected without feeling from it. I am sure that no consideration, except the necessity of submitting to the yoke of luxury and the despotism of fancy, who in their own imperious way will distribute the surplus product of the soil, can justify the toleration of such trades and employments in a well-regulated state. But for this purpose of distribution, it seems to me that the idle expenses of monks are quite as well directed as the idle expenses of us lay-loiterers. When the advantages of the possession and of the project are on a par, there is no motive for a change. But in the present case, perhaps, they are not upon a par, and the difference is in favor of the possession. It does not appear to me that the expenses of those whom you are going to expel do in fact take a course so directly and so generally leading to vitiate and degrade and render miserable those through whom they pass as the expenses of those favorites whom you are intruding into their houses. Why should the expenditure of a great landed property, which is a dispersion of the surplus product of the soil, appear intolerable to you or to me when it takes its course through the accumulation of vast libraries, which are the history of the force and weakness of the human mind; through great collections of ancient records, medals, and coins, which attest and explain laws and customs; through paintings and statues that, by imitating nature, seem to extend the limits of creation; through grand monuments of the dead, which continue the regards and connections of life beyond the grave; through collections of the specimens of nature which become a representative assembly of all the classes and families of the world that by disposition facilitate and, by exciting curiosity, open the avenues to science? If by great permanent establishments all these objects of expense are better secured from the inconstant sport of personal caprice and personal extravagance, are they worse than if the same tastes prevailed in scattered individuals? Does not the sweat of the mason and carpenter, who toil in order to partake of the sweat of the peasant, flow as pleasantly and as salubriously in the construction and repair of the majestic edifices of religion as in the painted booths and sordid sties of vice and luxury; as honorably and as profitably in repairing those sacred works which grow hoary with innumerable years as on the momentary receptacles of transient voluptuousness; in opera houses, and brothels, and gaming houses, and clubhouses, and obelisks in the Champ de Mars? Is the surplus product of the olive and the vine worse employed in the frugal sustenance of persons whom the fictions of a pious imagination raise to dignity by construing in the service of God, than in pampering the innumerable multitude of those who are degraded by being made useless domestics, subservient to the pride of man? Are the decorations of temples an expenditure less worthy a wise man than ribbons, and laces, and national cockades, and petit maisons, and petit soupers, and all the innumerable fopperies and follies in which opulence sports away the burden of its superfluity? We tolerate even these, not from love of them, but for fear of worse. We tolerate them because property and liberty, to a degree, require that toleration. But why proscribe the other, and surely, in every point of view, the more laudable, use of estates? Why, through the violation of all property, through an outrage upon every principle of liberty, forcibly carry them from the better to the worse? This comparison between the new individuals and the old corps is made upon a supposition that no reform could be made in the latter. But in a question of reformation I always consider corporate bodies, whether sole or consisting of many, to be much more susceptible of a public direction by the power of the state, in the use of their property and in the regulation of modes and habits of life in their members, than private citizens ever can be or, perhaps, ought to be; and this seems to me a very material consideration for those who undertake anything which merits the name of a politic enterprise. -- So far as to the estates of monasteries. With regard to the estates possessed by bishops and canons and commendatory abbots, I cannot find out for what reason some landed estates may not be held otherwise than by inheritance. Can any philosophic spoiler undertake to demonstrate the positive or the comparative evil of having a certain, and that too a large, portion of landed property passing in succession through persons whose title to it is, always in theory and often in fact, an eminent degree of piety, morals, and learning -- a property which, by its destination, in their turn, and on the score of merit, gives to the noblest families renovation and support, to the lowest the means of dignity and elevation; a property the tenure of which is the performance of some duty (whatever value you may choose to set upon that duty), and the character of whose proprietors demands, at least, an exterior decorum and gravity of manners; who are to exercise a generous but temperate hospitality; part of whose income they are to consider as a trust for charity; and who, even when they fail in their trust, when they slide from their character and degenerate into a mere common secular nobleman or gentleman, are in no respect worse than those who may succeed them in their forfeited possessions? Is it better that estates should be held by those who have no duty than by those who have one? -- by those whose character and destination point to virtues than by those who have no rule and direction in the expenditure of their estates but their own will and appetite? Nor are these estates held together in the character or with the evils supposed inherent in mortmain. They pass from hand to hand with a more rapid circulation than any other. No excess is good; and, therefore, too great a proportion of landed property may be held officially for life; but it does not seem to me of material injury to any commonwealth that there should exist some estates that have a chance of being acquired by other means than the previous acquisition of money. THIS LETTER HAS GROWN to a great length, though it is, indeed, short with regard to the infinite extent of the subject. Various avocations have from time to time called my mind from the subject. I was not sorry to give myself leisure to observe whether, in the proceedings of the National Assembly, I might not find reasons to change or to qualify some of my first sentiments. Everything has confirmed me more strongly in my first opinions. It was my original purpose to take a view of the principles of the National Assembly with regard to the great and fundamental establishments, and to compare the whole of what you have substituted in the place of what you have destroyed with the several members of our British constitution. But this plan is of a greater extent than at first I computed, and I find that you have little desire to take the advantage of any examples. At present I must content myself with some remarks upon your establishments, reserving for another time what I proposed to say concerning the spirit of our British monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, as practically they exist. I have taken a view of what has been done by the governing power in France. I have certainly spoken of it with freedom. Those whose principle it is to despise the ancient, permanent sense of mankind and to set up a scheme of society on new principles must naturally expect that such of us who think better of the judgment of the human race than of theirs should consider both them and their devices as men and schemes upon their trial. They must take it for granted that we attend much to their reason, but not at all to their authority. They have not one of the great influencing prejudices of mankind in their favor. They avow their hostility to opinion. Of course, they must expect no support from that influence which, with every other authority, they have deposed from the seat of its jurisdiction. I can never consider this Assembly as anything else than a voluntary association of men who have availed themselves of circumstances to seize upon the power of the state. They have not the sanction and authority of the character under which they first met. They have assumed another of a very different nature and have completely altered and inverted all the relations in which they originally stood. They do not hold the authority they exercise under any constitutional law of the state. They have departed from the instructions of the people by whom they were sent, which instructions, as the Assembly did not act in virtue of any ancient usage or settled law, were the sole source of their authority. The most considerable of their acts have not been done by great majorities; and in this sort of near divisions, which carry only the constructive authority of the whole, strangers will consider reasons as well as resolutions. If they had set up this new experimental government as a necessary substitute for an expelled tyranny, mankind would anticipate the time of prescription which, through long usage, mellows into legality governments that were violent in their commencement. All those who have affections which lead them to the conservation of civil order would recognize, even in its cradle, the child as legitimate which has been produced from those principles of cogent expediency to which all just governments owe their birth, and on which they justify their continuance. But they will be late and reluctant in giving any sort of countenance to the operations of a power which has derived its birth from no law and no necessity, but which, on the contrary, has had its origin in those vices and sinister practices by which the social union is often disturbed and sometimes destroyed. This Assembly has hardly a year's prescription. We have their own word for it that they have made a revolution. To make a revolution is a measure which, prima fronte, requires an apology. To make a revolution is to subvert the ancient state of our country; and no common reasons are called for to justify so violent a proceeding. The sense of mankind authorizes us to examine into the mode of acquiring new power, and to criticize on the use that is made of it, with less awe and reverence than that which is usually conceded to a settled and recognized authority. In obtaining and securing their power the Assembly proceeds upon principles the most opposite to those which appear to direct them in the use of it. An observation on this difference will let us into the true spirit of their conduct. Everything which they have done, or continue to do. in order to obtain and keep their power is by the most common arts. They proceed exactly as their ancestors of ambition have done before them. -- Trace them through all their artifices, frauds, and violences, you can find nothing at all that is new. They follow precedents and examples with the punctilious exactness of a pleader. They never depart an iota from the authentic formulas of tyranny and usurpation. But in all the regulations relative to the public good, the spirit has been the very reverse of this. There they commit the whole to the mercy of untried speculations; they abandon the dearest interests of the public to those loose theories to which none of them would choose to trust the slightest of his private concerns. They make this difference, because in their desire of obtaining and securing power they are thoroughly in earnest; there they travel in the beaten road. The public interests, because about them they have no real solicitude, they abandon wholly to chance; I say to chance, because their schemes have nothing in experience to prove their tendency beneficial. We must always see with a pity not unmixed with respect the errors of those who are timid and doubtful of themselves with regard to points wherein the happiness of mankind is concerned. But in these gentlemen there is nothing of the tender, parental solicitude which fears to cut up the infant for the sake of an experiment. In the vastness of their promises and the confidence of their predictions, they far outdo all the boasting of empirics. The arrogance of their pretensions in a manner provokes and challenges us to an inquiry into their foundation. I AM convinced that there are men of considerable parts among the popular leaders in the National Assembly. Some of them display eloquence in their speeches and their writings. This cannot be without powerful and cultivated talents. But eloquence may exist without a proportionable degree of wisdom. When I speak of ability, I am obliged to distinguish. What they have done toward the support of their system bespeaks no ordinary men. In the system itself, taken as the scheme of a republic constructed for procuring the prosperity and security of the citizen, and for promoting the strength and grandeur of the state, I confess myself unable to find out anything which displays in a single instance the work of a comprehensive and disposing mind or even the provisions of a vulgar prudence. Their purpose everywhere seems to have been to evade and slip aside from difficulty. This it has been the glory of the great masters in all the arts to confront, and to overcome; and when they had overcome the first difficulty, to turn it into an instrument for new conquests over new difficulties, thus to enable them to extend the empire of their science and even to push forward, beyond the reach of their original thoughts, the landmarks of the human understanding itself. Difficulty is a severe instructor, set over us by the supreme ordinance of a parental Guardian and Legislator, who knows us better than we know ourselves, as he loves us better, too. Pater ipse colendi haud facilem esse viam voluit. He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper. This amicable conflict with difficulty obliges us to an intimate acquaintance with our object and compels us to consider it in all its relations. It will not suffer us to be superficial. It is the want of nerves of understanding for such a task, it is the degenerate fondness for tricking shortcuts and little fallacious facilities that has in so many parts of the world created governments with arbitrary powers. They have created the late arbitrary monarchy of France. They have created the arbitrary republic of Paris. With them defects in wisdom are to be supplied by the plenitude of force. They get nothing by it. Commencing their labors on a principle of sloth, they have the common fortune of slothful men. The difficulties, which they rather had eluded than escaped, meet them again in their course; they multiply and thicken on them; they are involved, through a labyrinth of confused detail, in an industry without limit and without direction; and, in conclusion, the whole of their work becomes feeble, vicious, and insecure. It is this inability to wrestle with difficulty which has obliged the arbitrary Assembly of France to commence their schemes of reform with abolition and total destruction. \[45\] But is it in destroying and pulling down that skill is displayed? Your mob can do this as well at least as your assemblies. The shallowest understanding, the rudest hand is more than equal to that task. Rage and frenzy will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in a hundred years. The errors and defects of old establishments are visible and palpable. It calls for little ability to point them out; and where absolute power is given, it requires but a word wholly to abolish the vice and the establishment together. The same lazy but restless disposition which loves sloth and hates quiet directs the politicians when they come to work for supplying the place of what they have destroyed. To make everything the reverse of what they have seen is quite as easy as to destroy. No difficulties occur in what has never been tried. Criticism is almost baffled in discovering the defects of what has not existed; and eager enthusiasm and cheating hope have all the wide field of imagination in which they may expatiate with little or no opposition. At once to preserve and to reform is quite another thing. When the useful parts of an old establishment are kept, and what is superadded is to be fitted to what is retained, a vigorous mind, steady, persevering attention, various powers of comparison and combination, and the resources of an understanding fruitful in expedients are to be exercised; they are to be exercised in a continued conflict with the combined force of opposite vices, with the obstinacy that rejects all improvement and the levity that is fatigued and disgusted with everything of which it is in possession. But you may object -- "A process of this kind is slow. It is not fit for an assembly which glories in performing in a few months the work of ages. Such a mode of reforming, possibly, might take up many years". Without question it might; and it ought. It is one of the excellences of a method in which time is amongst the assistants, that its operation is slow and in some cases almost imperceptible. If circumspection and caution are a part of wisdom when we work only upon inanimate matter, surely they become a part of duty, too, when the subject of our demolition and construction is not brick and timber but sentient beings, by the sudden alteration of whose state, condition, and habits multitudes may be rendered miserable. But it seems as if it were the prevalent opinion in Paris that an unfeeling heart and an undoubting confidence are the sole qualifications for a perfect legislator. Far different are my ideas of that high office. The true lawgiver ought to have a heart full of sensibility. He ought to love and respect his kind, and to fear himself. It may be allowed to his temperament to catch his ultimate object with an intuitive glance, but his movements toward it ought to be deliberate. Political arrangement, as it is a work for social ends, is to be only wrought by social means. There mind must conspire with mind. Time is required to produce that union of minds which alone can produce all the good we aim at. Our patience will achieve more than our force. If I might venture to appeal to what is so much out of fashion in Paris, I mean to experience, I should tell you that in my course I have known and, according to my measure, have co-operated with great men; and I have never yet seen any plan which has not been mended by the observation of those who were much inferior in understanding to the person who took the lead in the business. By a slow but well-sustained progress the effect of each step is watched; the good or ill success of the first gives light to us in the second; and so, from light to light, we are conducted with safety through the whole series. We see that the parts of the system do not clash. The evils latent in the most promising contrivances are provided for as they arise. One advantage is as little as possible sacrificed to another. We compensate, we reconcile, we balance. We are enabled to unite into a consistent whole the various anomalies and contending principles that are found in the minds and affairs of men. From hence arises, not an excellence in simplicity, but one far superior, an excellence in composition. Where the great interests of mankind are concerned through a long succession of generations, that succession ought to be admitted into some share in the councils which are so deeply to affect them. If justice requires this, the work itself requires the aid of more minds than one age can furnish. It is from this view of things that the best legislators have been often satisfied with the establishment of some sure, solid, and ruling principle in government -- a power like that which some of the philosophers have called a plastic nature; and having fixed the principle, they have left it afterwards to its own operation. To proceed in this manner, that is, to proceed with a presiding principle and a prolific energy is with me the criterion of profound wisdom. What your politicians think the marks of a bold, hardy genius are only proofs of a deplorable want of ability. By their violent haste and their defiance of the process of nature, they are delivered over blindly to every projector and adventurer, to every alchemist and empiric. They despair of turning to account anything that is common. Diet is nothing in their system of remedy. The worst of it is that this their despair of curing common distempers by regular methods arises not only from defect of comprehension but, I fear, from some malignity of disposition. Your legislators seem to have taken their opinions of all professions, ranks, and offices from the declamations and buffooneries of satirists; who would themselves be astonished if they were held to the letter of their own descriptions. By listening only to these, your leaders regard all things only on the side of their vices and faults, and view those vices and faults under every color of exaggeration. It is undoubtedly true, though it may seem paradoxical; but in general, those who are habitually employed in finding and displaying faults are unqualified for the work of reformation, because their minds are not only unfurnished with patterns of the fair and good, but by habit they come to take no delight in the contemplation of those things. By hating vices too much, they come to love men too little. It is, therefore, not wonderful that they should be indisposed and unable to serve them. From hence arises the complexional disposition of some of your guides to pull everything in pieces. At this malicious game they display the whole of their quadrimanous activity. As to the rest, the paradoxes of eloquent writers, brought forth purely as a sport of fancy to try their talents, to rouse attention and excite surprise, are taken up by these gentlemen, not in the spirit of the original authors, as means of cultivating their taste and improving their style. These paradoxes become with them serious grounds of action upon which they proceed in regulating the most important concerns of the state. Cicero ludicrously describes Cato as endeavoring to act, in the commonwealth, upon the school paradoxes which exercised the wits of the junior students in the Stoic philosophy. If this was true of Cato, these gentlemen copy after him in the manner of some persons who lived about his time -- pede nudo Catonem. Mr. Hume told me that he had from Rousseau himself the secret of his principles of composition. That acute though eccentric observer had perceived that to strike and interest the public the marvelous must be produced; that the marvelous of the heathen mythology had long since lost its effect; that the giants, magicians, fairies, and heroes of romance which succeeded had exhausted the portion of credulity which belonged to their age; that now nothing was left to the writer but that species of the marvelous which might still be produced, and with as great an effect as ever, though in another way; that is, the marvelous in life, in manners, in characters, and in extraordinary situations, giving rise to new and unlooked-for strokes in politics and morals. I believe that were Rousseau alive and in one of his lucid intervals, he would be shocked at the practical frenzy of his scholars, who in their paradoxes are servile imitators, and even in their incredulity discover an implicit faith. Men who undertake considerable things, even in a regular way, ought to give us ground to presume ability. But the physician of the state who, not satisfied with the cure of distempers, undertakes to regenerate constitutions ought to show uncommon powers. Some very unusual appearances of wisdom ought to display themselves on the face of the designs of those who appeal to no practice, and who copy after no model. Has any such been manifested? I shall take a view (it shall for the subject be a very short one) of what the Assembly has done with regard, first, to the constitution of the legislature; in the next place, to that of the executive power; then to that of the judicature; afterwards to the model of the army; and conclude with the system of finance; to see whether we can discover in any part of their schemes the portentous ability which may justify these bold undertakers in the superiority which they assume over mankind. IT IS IN THE MODEL of the sovereign and presiding part of this new republic that we should expect their grand display. Here they were to prove their title to their proud demands. For the plan itself at large, and for the reasons on which it is grounded, I refer to the journals of the Assembly of the 29th of September, 1789, and to the subsequent proceedings which have made any alterations in the plan. So far as in a matter somewhat confused I can see light, the system remains substantially as it has been originally framed. My few remarks will be such as regard its spirit, its tendency, and its fitness for framing a popular commonwealth, which they profess theirs to be, suited to the ends for which any commonwealth, and particularly such a commonwealth, is made. At the same time I mean to consider its consistency with itself and its own principles. Old establishments are tried by their effects. If the people are happy, united, wealthy, and powerful, we presume the rest. We conclude that to be good from whence good is derived. In old establishments various correctives have been found for their aberrations from theory. Indeed, they are the results of various necessities and expediencies. They are not often constructed after any theory; theories are rather drawn from them. In them we often see the end best obtained where the means seem not perfectly reconcilable to what we may fancy was the original scheme. The means taught by experience may be better suited to political ends than those contrived in the original project. They again react upon the primitive constitution, and sometimes improve the design itself, from which they seem to have departed. I think all this might be curiously exemplified in the British constitution. At worst, the errors and deviations of every kind in reckoning are found and computed, and the ship proceeds in her course. This is the case of old establishments; but in a new and merely theoretic system, it is expected that every contrivance shall appear, on the face of it, to answer its ends, especially where the projectors are no way embarrassed with an endeavor to accommodate the new building to an old one, either in the walls or on the foundations. The French builders, clearing away as mere rubbish whatever they found and, like their ornamental gardeners, forming everything into an exact level, propose to rest the whole local and general legislature on three bases of three different kinds: one geometrical, one arithmetical, and the third financial; the first of which they call the basis of territory; the second, the basis of population; and the third, the basis of contribution. For the accomplishment of the first of these purposes they divide the area of their country into eighty-three pieces, regularly square, of eighteen leagues by eighteen. These large divisions are called Departments. These they portion, proceeding by square measurement, into seventeen hundred and twenty districts called Communes. These again they subdivide, still proceeding by square measurement, into smaller districts called Cantons, making in all 6400. At first view this geometrical basis of theirs presents not much to admire or to blame. It calls for no great legislative talents. Nothing more than an accurate land surveyor, with his chain, sight, and theodolite, is requisite for such a plan as this. In the old divisions of the country, various accidents at various times and the ebb and flow of various properties and jurisdictions settled their bounds. These bounds were not made upon any fixed system, undoubtedly. They were subject to some inconveniences, but they were inconveniences for which use had found remedies, and habit had supplied accommodation and patience. In this new pavement of square within square, and this organization and semi-organization, made on the system of Empedocles and Buffon, and not upon any politic principle, it is impossible that innumerable local inconveniences, to which men are not habituated, must not arise. But these I pass over, because it requires an accurate knowledge of the country, which I do not possess, to specify them. When these state surveyors came to take a view of their work of measurement, they soon found that in politics the most fallacious of all things was geometrical demonstration. They had then recourse to another basis (or rather buttress) to support the building, which tottered on that false foundation. It was evident that the goodness of the soil, the number of the people, their wealth, and the largeness of their contribution made such infinite variations between square and square as to render mensuration a ridiculous standard of power in the commonwealth, and equality in geometry the most unequal of all measures in the distribution of men. However, they could not give it up. But dividing their political and civil representation into three parts, they allotted one of those parts to the square measurement, without a single fact or calculation to ascertain whether this territorial proportion of representation was fairly assigned, and ought upon any principle really to be a third. Having, however, given to geometry this portion (of a third for her dower) out of compliment, I suppose, to that sublime science, they left the other two to be scuffled for between the other parts, population and contribution. When they came to provide for population, they were not able to proceed quite so smoothly as they had done in the field of their geometry. Here their arithmetic came to bear upon their juridical metaphysics. Had they stuck to their metaphysic principles, the arithmetical process would be simple indeed. Men, with them, are strictly equal and are entitled to equal rights in their own government. Each head, on this system, would have its vote, and every man would vote directly for the person who was to represent him in the legislature. "But soft -- by regular degrees, not yet". This metaphysic principle to which law, custom, usage, policy, reason were to yield is to yield itself to their pleasure. There must be many degrees, and some stages, before the representative can come in contact with his constituent. Indeed, as we shall soon see, these two persons are to have no sort of communion with each other. First, the voters in the Canton, who compose what they call "primary assemblies", are to have a qualification. What! a qualification on the indefeasible rights of men? Yes; but it shall be a very small qualification. Our injustice shall be very little oppressive: only the local valuation of three days' labor paid to the public. Why, this is not much, I readily admit, for anything but the utter subversion of your equalizing principle. As a qualification it might as well be let alone, for it answers no one purpose for which qualifications are established; and, on your ideas, it excludes from a vote the man of all others whose natural equality stands the most in need of protection and defense -- I mean the man who has nothing else but his natural equality to guard him. You order him to buy the right which you before told him nature had given to him gratuitously at his birth, and of which no authority on earth could lawfully deprive him. With regard to the person who cannot come up to your market, a tyrannous aristocracy, as against him, is established at the very outset by you who pretend to be its sworn foe. The gradation proceeds. These primary assemblies of the Canton elect deputies to the Commune; one for every two hundred qualified inhabitants. Here is the first medium put between the primary elector and the representative legislator; and here a new turnpike is fixed for taxing the rights of men with a second qualification; for none can be elected into the Commune who does not pay the amount of ten days' labor. Nor have we yet done. There is still to be another gradation. \[46\] These Communes, chosen by the Canton, choose to the Department; and the deputies of the Department choose their deputies to the National Assembly. Here is a third barrier of a senseless qualification. Every deputy to the National Assembly must pay, in direct contribution, to the value of a mark of silver. Of all these qualifying barriers we must think alike -- that they are impotent to secure independence, strong only to destroy the rights of men. In all this process, which in its fundamental elements affects to consider only population upon a principle of natural right, there is a manifest attention to property, which, however just and reasonable on other schemes, is on theirs perfectly unsupportable. When they come to their third basis, that of contribution, we find that they have more completely lost sight of their rights of men. This last basis rests entirely on property. A principle totally different from the equality of men, and utterly irreconcilable to it, is thereby admitted; but no sooner is this principle admitted than (as usual) it is subverted; and it is not subverted (as we shall presently see) to approximate the inequality of riches to the level of nature. The additional share in the third portion of representation (a portion reserved exclusively for the higher contribution) is made to regard the district only, and not the individuals in it who pay. It is easy to perceive, by the course of their reasonings, how much they were embarrassed by their contradictory ideas of the rights of men and the privileges of riches. The committee of constitution do as good as admit that they are wholly irreconcilable. "The relation with regard to the contributions is without doubt null (say they) when the question is on the balance of the political rights as between individual and individual, without which personal equality would be destroyed and an aristocracy of the rich would be established. But this inconvenience entirely disappears when the proportional relation of the contribution is only considered in the great masses, and is solely between province and province; it serves in that case only to form a just reciprocal proportion between the cities without affecting the personal rights of the citizens". Here the principle of contribution, as taken between man and man, is reprobated as null and destructive to equality, and as pernicious, too, because it leads to the establishment of an aristocracy of the rich. However, it must not be abandoned. And the way of getting rid of the difficulty is to establish the inequality as between department and department, leaving all the individuals in each department upon an exact par. Observe that this parity between individuals had been before destroyed when the qualifications within the departments were settled; nor does it seem a matter of great importance whether the equality of men be injured by masses or individually. An individual is not of the same importance in a mass represented by a few as in a mass represented by many. It would be too much to tell a man jealous of his equality that the elector has the same franchise who votes for three members as he who votes for ten. Now take it in the outer point of view and let us suppose their principle of representation according to contribution, that is, according to riches, to be well imagined and to be a necessary basis for their republic. In this their third basis they assume that riches ought to be respected, and that justice and policy require that they should entitle men, in some mode or other, to a larger share in the administration of public affairs; it is now to be seen how the Assembly provides for the preeminence, or even for the security, of the rich by conferring, in virtue of their opulence, that larger measure of power to their district which is denied to them personally. I readily admit (indeed I should lay it down as a fundamental principle) that in a republican government which has a democratic basis the rich do require an additional security above what is necessary to them in monarchies. They are subject to envy, and through envy to oppression. On the present scheme it is impossible to divine what advantage they derive from the aristocratic preference upon which the unequal representation of the masses is founded. The rich cannot feel it, either as a support to dignity or as security to fortune, for the aristocratic mass is generated from purely democratic principles, and the preference given to it in the general representation has no sort of reference to, or connection with, the persons upon account of whose property this superiority of the mass is established. If the contrivers of this scheme meant any sort of favor to the rich, in consequence of their contribution, they ought to have conferred the privilege either on the individual rich or on some class formed of rich persons (as historians represent Servius Tullius to have done in the early constitution of Rome), because the contest between the rich and the poor is not a struggle between corporation and corporation, but a contest between men and men -- a competition not between districts, but between descriptions. It would answer its purpose better if the scheme were inverted: that the vote of the masses were rendered equal, and that the votes within each mass were proportioned to property. Let us suppose one man in a district (it is an easy supposition) to contribute as much as a hundred of his neighbors. Against these he has but one vote. If there were but one representative for the mass, his poor neighbors would outvote him by a hundred to one for that single representative. Bad enough. But amends are to be made him. How? The district, in virtue of his wealth, is to choose, say, ten members instead of one; that is to say, by paying a very large contribution he has the happiness of being outvoted a hundred to one by the poor for ten representatives, instead of being outvoted exactly in the same proportion for a single member. In truth, instead of benefiting by this superior quantity of representation, the rich man is subjected to an additional hardship. The increase of representation within his province sets up nine persons more, and as many more than nine as there may be democratic candidates, to cabal and intrigue, and to flatter the people at his expense and to his oppression. An interest is by this means held out to multitudes of the inferior sort, in obtaining a salary of eighteen livres a day (to them a vast object) besides the pleasure of a residence in Paris and their share in the government of the kingdom. The more the objects of ambition are multiplied and become democratic, just in that proportion the rich are endangered. Thus it must fare between the poor and the rich in the province deemed aristocratic, which in its internal relation is the very reverse of that character. In its external relation, that is, its relation to the other provinces, I cannot see how the unequal representation which is given to masses on account of wealth becomes the means of preserving the equipoise and the tranquillity of the commonwealth. For if it be one of the objects to secure the weak from being crushed by the strong (as in all society undoubtedly it is), how are the smaller and poorer of these masses to be saved from the tyranny of the more wealthy? Is it by adding to the wealthy further and more systematical means of oppressing them? When we come to a balance of representation between corporate bodies, provincial interests, emulations, and jealousies are full as likely to arise among them as among individuals; and their divisions are likely to produce a much hotter spirit of dissension, and something leading much more nearly to a war. I see that these aristocratic masses are made upon what is called the principle of direct contribution. Nothing can be a more unequal standard than this. The indirect contribution, that which arises from duties on consumption, is in truth a better standard and follows and discovers wealth more naturally than this of direct contribution. It is difficult, indeed, to fix a standard of local preference on account of the one, or of the other, or of both, because some provinces may pay the more of either or of both on account of causes not intrinsic, but originating from those very districts over whom they have obtained a preference in consequence of their ostensible contribution. If the masses were independent, sovereign bodies who were to provide for a federative treasury by distinct contingents, and that the revenue had not (as it has) many impositions running through the whole, which affect men individually, and not corporately, and which, by their nature, confound all territorial limits, something might be said for the basis of contribution as founded on masses. But of all things, this representation, to be measured by contribution, is the most difficult to settle upon principles of equity in a country which considers its districts as members of a whole. For a great city, such as Bordeaux or Paris, appears to pay a vast body of duties, almost out of all assignable proportion to other places, and its mass is considered accordingly. But are these cities the true contributors in that proportion? No. The consumers of the commodities imported into Bordeaux, who are scattered through all France, pay the import duties of Bordeaux. The produce of the vintage in Guienne and Languedoc give to that city the means of its contribution growing out of an export commerce. The landholders who spend their estates in Paris, and are thereby the creators of that city, contribute for Paris from the provinces out of which their revenues arise. Very nearly the same arguments will apply to the representative share given on account of direct contributions, because the direct contribution must be assessed on wealth, real or presumed; and that local wealth will itself arise from causes not local, and which therefore in equity ought not to produce a local preference. It is very remarkable that in this fundamental regulation which settles the representation of the mass upon the direct contribution, they have not yet settled how that direct contribution shall be laid, and how apportioned. Perhaps there is some latent policy toward the continuance of the present Assembly in this strange procedure. However, until they do this, they can have no certain constitution. It must depend at last upon the system of taxation, and must vary with every variation in that system. As they have contrived matters, their taxation does not so much depend on their constitution as their constitution on their taxation. This must introduce great confusion among the masses, as the variable qualification for votes within the district must, if ever real contested elections take place, cause infinite internal controversies. To compare together the three bases, not on their political reason, but on the ideas on which the Assembly works, and to try its consistency with itself, we cannot avoid observing that the principle which the committee call the basis of population does not begin to operate from the same point with the two other principles called the bases of territory and of contribution, which are both of an aristocratic nature. The consequence is that, where all three begin to operate together, there is the most absurd inequality produced by the operation of the former on the two latter principles. Every canton contains four square leagues, and is estimated to contain, on the average, 4000 inhabitants or 680 voters in the primary assemblies, which vary in numbers with the population of the canton, and send one deputy to the commune for every 200 voters. Nine cantons make a commune. Now let us take a canton containing a seaport town of trade, or a great manufacturing town. Let us suppose the population of this canton to be 12,700 inhabitants, or 2193 voters, forming three primary assemblies, and sending ten deputies to the commune. Oppose to this one canton two others of the remaining eight in the same commune. These we may suppose to have their fair population of 4000 inhabitants and 680 voters each, or 8000 inhabitants and 1360 voters, both together. These will form only two primary assemblies and send only six deputies to the commune. When the assembly of the commune comes to vote on the basis of territory, which principle is first admitted to operate in that assembly, the single canton which has half the territory of the other two will have ten voices to six in the election of three deputies to the assembly of the department chosen on the express ground of a representation of territory. This inequality, striking as it is, will be yet highly aggravated if we suppose, as we fairly may, the several other cantons of the commune to fall proportionably short of the average population, as much as the principal canton exceeds it. Now as to the basis of contribution, which also is a principle admitted first to operate in the assembly of the commune. Let us again take one canton, such as is stated above. If the whole of the direct contributions paid by a great trading or manufacturing town be divided equally among the inhabitants, each individual will be found to pay much more than an individual living in the country according to the same average. The whole paid by the inhabitants of the former will be more than the whole paid by the inhabitants of the latter -- we may fairly assume one-third more. Then the 12,700 inhabitants, or 2193 voters of the canton, will pay as much as 19,050 inhabitants, or 3289 voters of the other cantons, which are nearly the estimated proportion of inhabitants and voters of five other cantons. Now the 2193 voters will, as I before said, send only ten deputies to the assembly; the 3289 voters will send sixteen. Thus, for an equal share in the contribution of the whole commune, there will be a difference of sixteen voices to ten in voting for deputies to be chosen on the principle of representing the general contribution of the whole commune. By the same mode of computation we shall find 15,875 inhabitants, or 2741 voters of the other cantons, who pay one-sixth LESS to the contribution of the whole commune, will have three VOICES MORE than the 12,700 inhabitants, or 2193 voters of the one canton. Such is the fantastical and unjust inequality between mass and mass in this curious repartition of the rights of representation arising out of territory and contribution. The qualifications which these confer are in truth negative qualifications, that give a right in an inverse proportion to the possession of them. In this whole contrivance of the three bases, consider it in any light you please, I do not see a variety of objects reconciled in one consistent whole, but several contradictory principles reluctantly and irreconcilably brought and held together by your philosophers, like wild beasts shut up in a cage to claw and bite each other to their mutual destruction. I am afraid I have gone too far into their way of considering the formation of a constitution. They have much, but bad, metaphysics; much, but bad, geometry; much, but false, proportionate arithmetic; but if it were all as exact as metaphysics, geometry, and arithmetic ought to be, and if their schemes were perfectly consistent in all their parts, it would make only a more fair and sightly vision. It is remarkable that, in a great arrangement of mankind, not one reference whatsoever is to be found to anything moral or anything politic, nothing that relates to the concerns, the actions, the passions, the interests of men. Hominem non sapiunt. You see I only consider this constitution as electoral, and leading by steps to the National Assembly. I do not enter into the internal government of the departments and their genealogy through the communes and cantons. These local governments are, in the original plan, to be as nearly as possible composed in the same manner and on the same principles with the elective assemblies. They are each of them bodies perfectly compact and rounded in themselves. You cannot but perceive in this scheme that it has a direct and immediate tendency to sever France into a variety of republics, and to render them totally independent of each other without any direct constitutional means of coherence, connection, or subordination, except what may be derived from their acquiescence in the determinations of the general congress of the ambassadors from each independent republic. Such in reality is the National Assembly, and such governments I admit do exist in the world, though in forms infinitely more suitable to the local and habitual circumstances of their people. But such associations, rather than bodies politic, have generally been the effect of necessity, not choice; and I believe the present French power is the very first body of citizens who, having obtained full authority to do with their country what they pleased, have chosen to dissever it in this barbarous manner. It is impossible not to observe that, in the spirit of this geometrical distribution and arithmetical arrangement, these pretended citizens treat France exactly like a country of conquest. Acting as conquerors, they have imitated the policy of the harshest of that harsh race. The policy of such barbarous victors, who contemn a subdued people and insult their feelings, has ever been, as much as in them lay, to destroy all vestiges of the ancient country, in religion, in polity, in laws, and in manners; to confound all territorial limits; to produce a general poverty; to put up their properties to auction; to crush their princes, nobles, and pontiffs; to lay low everything which had lifted its head above the level, or which could serve to combine or rally, in their distresses, the disbanded people under the standard of old opinion. They have made France free in the manner in which those sincere friends to the rights of mankind, the Romans, freed Greece, Macedon, and other nations. They destroyed the bonds of their union under color of providing for the independence of each of their cities. When the members who compose these new bodies of cantons, communes, and departments -- arrangements purposely produced through the medium of confusion -- begin to act, they will find themselves in a great measure strangers to one another. The electors and elected throughout, especially in the rural cantons, will be frequently without any civil habitudes or connections, or any of that natural discipline which is the soul of a true republic. Magistrates and collectors of revenue are now no longer acquainted with their districts, bishops with their dioceses, or curates with their parishes. These new colonies of the rights of men bear a strong resemblance to that sort of military colonies which Tacitus has observed upon in the declining policy of Rome. In better and wiser days (whatever course they took with foreign nations) they were careful to make the elements of methodical subordination and settlement to be coeval, and even to lay the foundations of civil discipline in the military. \[47\] But when all the good arts had fallen into ruin, they proceeded, as your Assembly does, upon the equality of men, and with as little judgment and as little care for those things which make a republic tolerable or durable. But in this, as well as almost every instance, your new commonwealth is born and bred and fed in those corruptions which mark degenerated and worn-out republics. Your child comes into the world with the symptoms of death: the facies Hippocratica forms the character of its physiognomy, and the prognostic of its fate. The legislators who framed the ancient republics knew that their business was too arduous to be accomplished with no better apparatus than the metaphysics of an undergraduate, and the mathematics and arithmetic of an exciseman. They had to do with men, and they were obliged to study human nature. They had to do with citizens, and they were obliged to study the effects of those habits which are communicated by the circumstances of civil life. They were sensible that the operation of this second nature on the first produced a new combination; and thence arose many diversities amongst men, according to their birth, their education, their professions, the periods of their lives, their residence in towns or in the country, their several ways of acquiring and of fixing property, and according to the quality of the property itself -- all which rendered them as it were so many different species of animals. From hence they thought themselves obliged to dispose their citizens into such classes, and to place them in such situations in the state, as their peculiar habits might qualify them to fill, and to allot to them such appropriated privileges as might secure to them what their specific occasions required, and which might furnish to each description such force as might protect it in the conflict caused by the diversity of interests that must exist and must contend in all complex society; for the legislator would have been ashamed that the coarse husbandman should well know how to assort and to use his sheep, horses, and oxen, and should have enough of common sense not to abstract and equalize them all into animals without providing for each kind an appropriate food, care, and employment, whilst he, the economist, disposer, and shepherd of his own kindred, subliming himself into an airy metaphysician, was resolved to know nothing of his flocks but as men in general. It is for this reason that Montesquieu observed very justly that in their classification of the citizens the great legislators of antiquity made the greatest display of their powers, and even soared above themselves. It is here that your modern legislators have gone deep into the negative series, and sunk even below their own nothing. As the first sort of legislators attended to the different kinds of citizens and combined them into one commonwealth, the others, the metaphysical and alchemistical legislators, have taken the direct contrary course. They have attempted to confound all sorts of citizens, as well as they could, into one homogeneous mass; and then they divided this their amalgama into a number of incoherent republics. They reduce men to loose counters, merely for the sake of simple telling, and not to figures whose power is to arise from their place in the table. The elements of their own metaphysics might have taught them better lessons. The troll of their categorical table might have informed them that there was something else in the intellectual world besides substance and quantity. They might learn from the catechism of metaphysics that there were eight heads more \[48\] in every complex deliberation which they have never thought of, though these, of all the ten, are the subjects on which the skill of man can operate anything at all. So far from this able disposition of some of the old republican legislators, which follows with a solicitous accuracy the moral conditions and propensities of men, they have leveled and crushed together all the orders which they found, even under the coarse unartificial arrangement of the monarchy, in which mode of government the classing of the citizens is not of so much importance as in a republic. It is true, however, that every such classification, if properly ordered, is good in all forms of government, and composes a strong barrier against the excesses of despotism, as well as it is the necessary means of giving effect and permanence to a republic. For want of something of this kind, if the present project of a republic should fail, all securities to a moderated freedom fail along with it; all the indirect restraints which mitigate despotism are removed, insomuch that if monarchy should ever again obtain an entire ascendancy in France, under this or under any other dynasty, it will probably be, if not voluntarily tempered at setting out by the wise and virtuous counsels of the prince, the most completely arbitrary power that has ever appeared on earth. This is to play a most desperate game. The confusion which attends on all such proceedings they even declare to be one of their objects, and they hope to secure their constitution by a terror of a return of those evils which attended their making it. "By this," say they, "its destruction will become difficult to authority, which cannot break it up without the entire disorganization of the whole state." They presume that, if this authority should ever come to the same degree of power that they have acquired, it would make a more moderate and chastised use of it, and would piously tremble entirely to disorganize the state in the savage manner that they have done. They expect, from the virtues of returning despotism, the security which is to be enjoyed by the offspring of their popular vices. I WISH, Sir, that you and my readers would give an attentive perusal to the work of M. de Calonne on this subject. It is, indeed, not only an eloquent, but an able and instructive, performance. I confine myself to what he says relative to the constitution of the new state and to the condition of the revenue. As to the disputes of this minister with his rivals, I do not wish to pronounce upon them. As little do I mean to hazard any opinion concerning his ways and means, financial or political, for taking his country out of its present disgraceful and deplorable situation of servitude, anarchy, bankruptcy, and beggary. I cannot speculate quite so sanguinely as he does; but he is a Frenchman, and has a closer duty relative to those objects, and better means of judging of them, than I can have. I wish that the formal avowal which he refers to, made by one of the principal leaders in the Assembly concerning the tendency of their scheme to bring France not only from a monarchy to a republic, but from a republic to a mere confederacy, may be very particularly attended to. It adds new force to my observations, and indeed M. de Calonne's work supplies my deficiencies by many new and striking arguments on most of the subjects of this letter. \[49\] It is this resolution, to break their country into separate republics, which has driven them into the greatest number of their difficulties and contradictions. If it were not for this, all the questions of exact equality and these balances, never to be settled, of individual rights, population, and contribution would be wholly useless. The representation, though derived from parts, would be a duty which equally regarded the whole. Each deputy to the Assembly would be the representative of France, and of all its descriptions, of the many and of the few, of the rich and of the poor, of the great districts and of the small. All these districts would themselves be subordinate to some standing authority, existing independently of them, an authority in which their representation, and everything that belongs to it, originated, and to which it was pointed. This standing, unalterable, fundamental government would make, and it is the only thing which could make, that territory truly and properly a whole. With us, when we elect popular representatives, we send them to a council in which each man individually is a subject and submitted to a government complete in all its ordinary functions. With you the elective Assembly is the sovereign, and the sole sovereign; all the members are therefore integral parts of this sole sovereignty. But with us it is totally different. With us the representative, separated from the other parts, can have no action and no existence. The government is the point of reference of the several members and districts of our representation. This is the center of our unity. This government of reference is a trustee for the whole, and not for the parts. So is the other branch of our public council, I mean the House of Lords. With us the king and the lords are several and joint securities for the equality of each district, each province, each city. When did you hear in Great Britain of any province suffering from the inequality of its representation, what district from having no representation at all? Not only our monarchy and our peerage secure the equality on which our unity depends, but it is the spirit of the House of Commons itself. The very inequality of representation, which is so foolishly complained of, is perhaps the very thing which prevents us from thinking or acting as members for districts. Cornwall elects as many members as all Scotland. But is Cornwall better taken care of than Scotland? Few trouble their heads about any of your bases, out of some giddy clubs. Most of those who wish for any change, upon any plausible grounds, desire it on different ideas. Your new constitution is the very reverse of ours in its principle; and I am astonished how any persons could dream of holding out anything done in it as an example for Great Britain. With you there is little, or rather no, connection between the last representative and the first constituent. The member who goes to the National Assembly is not chosen by the people, nor accountable to them. There are three elections before he is chosen; two sets of magistracy intervene between him and the primary assembly, so as to render him, as I have said, an ambassador of a state, and not the representative of the people within a state. By this the whole spirit of the election is changed, nor can any corrective which your constitution-mongers have devised render him anything else than what he is. The very attempt to do it would inevitably introduce a confusion, if possible, more horrid than the present. There is no way to make a connection between the original constituent and the representative, but by the circuitous means which may lead the candidate to apply in the first instance to the primary electors, in order that by their authoritative instructions (and something more perhaps) these primary electors may force the two succeeding bodies of electors to make a choice agreeable to their wishes. But this would plainly subvert the whole scheme. It would be to plunge them back into that tumult and confusion of popular election which, by their interposed gradation of elections, they mean to avoid, and at length to risk the whole fortune of the state with those who have the least knowledge of it and the least interest in it. This is a perpetual dilemma into which they are thrown by the vicious, weak, and contradictory principles they have chosen. Unless the people break up and level this gradation, it is plain that they do not at all substantially elect to the Assembly; indeed, they elect as little in appearance as reality. What is it we all seek for in an election? To answer its real purposes, you must first possess the means of knowing the fitness of your man; and then you must retain some hold upon him by personal obligation or dependence. For what end are these primary electors complimented, or rather mocked, with a choice? They can never know anything of the qualities of him that is to serve them, nor has he any obligation whatsoever to them. Of all the powers unfit to be delegated by those who have any real means of judging, that most peculiarly unfit is what relates to a personal choice. In case of abuse, that body of primary electors never can call the representative to an account for his conduct. He is too far removed from them in the chain of representation. If he acts improperly at the end of his two years' lease, it does not concern him for two years more. By the new French constitution the best and the wisest representatives go equally with the worst into this Limbus Patrum. Their bottoms are supposed foul, and they must go into dock to be refitted. Every man who has served in an assembly is ineligible for two years after. Just as these magistrates begin to learn their trade, like chimney sweepers, they are disqualified for exercising it. Superficial, new, petulant acquisition, and interrupted, dronish, broken, ill recollection is to be the destined character of all your future governors. Your constitution has too much of jealousy to have much of sense in it. You consider the breach of trust in the representative so principally that you do not at all regard the question of his fitness to execute it. This purgatory interval is not unfavorable to a faithless representative, who may be as good a canvasser as he was a bad governor. In this time he may cabal himself into a superiority over the wisest and most virtuous. As in the end all the members of this elective constitution are equally fugitive and exist only for the election, they may be no longer the same persons who had chosen him, to whom he is to be responsible when he solicits for a renewal of his trust. To call all the secondary electors of the Commune to account is ridiculous, impracticable, and unjust; they may themselves have been deceived in their choice, as the third set of electors, those of the Department, may be in theirs. In your elections responsibility cannot exist. FINDING NO SORT OF PRINCIPLE of coherence with each other in the nature and constitution of the several new republics of France, I considered what cement the legislators had provided for them from any extraneous materials. Their confederations, their spectacles, their civic feasts, and their enthusiasm I take no notice of; they are nothing but mere tricks; but tracing their policy through their actions, I think I can distinguish the arrangements by which they propose to hold these republics together. The first is the confiscation, with the compulsory paper currency annexed to it; the second is the supreme power of the city of Paris; the third is the general army of the state. Of this last I shall reserve what I have to say until I come to consider the army as a head by itself. As to the operation of the first (the confiscation and paper currency) merely as a cement, I cannot deny that these, the one depending on the other, may for some time compose some sort of cement if their madness and folly in the management, and in the tempering of the parts together, does not produce a repulsion in the very outset. But allowing to the scheme some coherence and some duration, it appears to me that if, after a while, the confiscation should not be found sufficient to support the paper coinage (as I am morally certain it will not), then, instead of cementing, it will add infinitely to the dissociation, distraction, and confusion of these confederate republics, both with relation to each other and to the several parts within themselves. But if the confiscation should so far succeed as to sink the paper currency, the cement is gone with the circulation. In the meantime its binding force will be very uncertain, and it will straiten or relax with every variation in the credit of the paper. One thing only is certain in this scheme, which is an effect seemingly collateral, but direct, I have no doubt, in the minds of those who conduct this business, that is, its effect in producing an oligarchy in every one of the republics. A paper circulation, not founded on any real money deposited or engaged for, amounting already to forty-four millions of English money, and this currency by force substituted in the place of the coin of the kingdom, becoming thereby the substance of its revenue as well as the medium of all its commercial and civil intercourse, must put the whole of what power, authority, and influence is left, in any form whatsoever it may assume, into the hands of the managers and conductors of this circulation. In England, we feel the influence of the Bank, though it is only the center of a voluntary dealing. He knows little indeed of the influence of money upon mankind who does not see the force of the management of a monied concern which is so much more extensive and in its nature so much more depending on the managers than any of ours. But this is not merely a money concern. There is another member in the system inseparably connected with this money management. It consists in the means of drawing out at discretion portions of the confiscated lands for sale, and carrying on a process of continual transmutation of paper into land, and land into paper. When we follow this process in its effects, we may conceive something of the intensity of the force with which this system must operate. By this means the spirit of money-jobbing and speculation goes into the mass of land itself and incorporates with it. By this kind of operation that species of property becomes (as it were) volatilized; it assumes an unnatural and monstrous activity, and thereby throws into the hands of the several managers, principal and subordinate, Parisian and provincial, all the representative of money and perhaps a full tenth part of all the land in France, which has now acquired the worst and most pernicious part of the evil of a paper circulation, the greatest possible uncertainty in its value. They have reversed the Latonian kindness to the landed property of Delos. They have sent theirs to be blown about, like the light fragments of a wreck, oras et littora circum. The new dealers, being all habitually adventurers and without any fixed habits of local predilections, will purchase to job out again, as the market of paper or of money or of land shall present an advantage. For though a holy bishop thinks that agriculture will derive great advantages from the "enlightened" usurers who are to purchase the church confiscations, I, who am not a good but an old farmer, with great humility beg leave to tell his late lordship that usury is not a tutor of agriculture; and if the word "enlightened" be understood according to the new dictionary, as it always is in your new schools, I cannot conceive how a man's not believing in God can teach him to cultivate the earth with the least of any additional skill or encouragement. "Diis immortalibus sero", said an old Roman, when he held one handle of the plough, whilst Death held the other. Though you were to join in the commission all the directors of the two academies to the directors of the Caisse d'Escompte, one old, experienced peasant is worth them all. I have got more information upon a curious and interesting branch of husbandry, in one short conversation with an old Carthusian monk, than I have derived from all the Bank directors that I have ever conversed with. However, there is no cause for apprehension from the meddling of money dealers with rural economy. These gentlemen are too wise in their generation. At first, perhaps, their tender and susceptible imaginations may be captivated with the innocent and unprofitable delights of a pastoral life; but in a little time they will find that agriculture is a trade much more laborious, and much less lucrative, than that which they had left. After making its panegyric, they will turn their backs on it like their great precursor and prototype. They may, like him, begin by singing "Beatus ille" but what will be the end? > Haec ubi locutus foenerator Alphius, Jam jam futurus rusticus Omnem > redegit idibus pecuniam; Quaerit calendis ponere. They will cultivate the Caisse d'Eglise, under the sacred auspices of this prelate, with much more profit than its vineyards and its cornfields. They will employ their talents according to their habits and their interests. They will not follow the plough whilst they can direct treasuries and govern provinces. Your legislators, in everything new, are the very first who have founded a commonwealth upon gaming, and infused this spirit into it as its vital breath. The great object in these politics is to metamorphose France from a great kingdom into one great playtable; to turn its inhabitants into a nation of gamesters; to make speculation as extensive as life; to mix it with all its concerns and to divert the whole of the hopes and fears of the people from their usual channels into the impulses, passions, and superstitions of those who live on chances. They loudly proclaim their opinion that this their present system of a republic cannot possibly exist without this kind of gaming fund, and that the very thread of its life is spun out of the staple of these speculations. The old gaming in funds was mischievous enough, undoubtedly, but it was so only to individuals. Even when it had its greatest extent, in the Mississippi and South Sea, it affected but few, comparatively; where it extends further, as in lotteries, the spirit has but a single object. But where the law, which in most circumstances forbids, and in none countenances, gaming, is itself debauched so as to reverse its nature and policy and expressly to force the subject to this destructive table by bringing the spirit and symbols of gaming into the minutest matters and engaging everybody in it, and in everything, a more dreadful epidemic distemper of that kind is spread than yet has appeared in the world. With you a man can neither earn nor buy his dinner without a speculation. What he receives in the morning will not have the same value at night. What he is compelled to take as pay for an old debt will not be received as the same when he comes to pay a debt contracted by himself, nor will it be the same when by prompt payment he would avoid contracting any debt at all. Industry must wither away. Economy must be driven from your country. Careful provision will have no existence. Who will labor without knowing the amount of his pay? Who will study to increase what none can estimate? Who will accumulate, when he does not know the value of what he saves? If you abstract it from its uses in gaming, to accumulate your paper wealth would be not the providence of a man, but the distempered instinct of a jackdaw. The truly melancholy part of the policy of systematically making a nation of gamesters is this, that though all are forced to play, few can understand the game; and fewer still are in a condition to avail themselves of the knowledge. The many must be the dupes of the few who conduct the machine of these speculations. What effect it must have on the country people is visible. The townsman can calculate from day to day, not so the inhabitant of the country. When the peasant first brings his corn to market, the magistrate in the towns obliges him to take the assignat at par; when he goes to the shop with his money, he finds it seven per cent the worse for crossing the way. This market he will not readily resort to again. The townspeople will be inflamed; they will force the country people to bring their corn. Resistance will begin, and the murders of Paris and St. Denis may be renewed through all France. What signifies the empty compliment paid to the country by giving it, perhaps, more than its share in the theory of your representation? Where have you placed the real power over monied and landed circulation? Where have you placed the means of raising and falling the value of every man's freehold? Those whose operations can take form, or add ten per cent to, the possessions of every man in France must be the masters of every man in France. The whole of the power obtained by this revolution will settle in the towns among the burghers and the monied directors who lead them. The landed gentleman, the yeoman, and the peasant have, none of them, habits or inclinations or experience which can lead them to any share in this the sole source of power and influence now left in France. The very nature of a country life, the very nature of landed property, in all the occupations, and all the pleasures they afford, render combination and arrangement (the sole way of procuring and exerting influence) in a manner impossible amongst country people. Combine them by all the art you can, and all the industry, they are always dissolving into individuality. Anything in the nature of incorporation is almost impracticable amongst them. Hope, fear, alarm, jealousy, the ephemerous tale that does its business and dies in a day -- all these things which are the reins and spurs by which leaders check or urge the minds of followers are not easily employed, or hardly at all, amongst scattered people. They assemble, they arm, they act with the utmost difficulty and at the greatest charge. Their efforts, if ever they can be commenced, cannot be sustained. They cannot proceed systematically. If the country gentlemen attempt an influence through the mere income of their property, what is it to that of those who have ten times their income to sell, and who can ruin their property by bringing their plunder to meet it at market? If the landed man wishes to mortgage, he falls the value of his land and raises the value of assignats. He augments the power of his enemy by the very means he must take to contend with him. The country gentleman, therefore, the officer by sea and land, the man of liberal views and habits, attached to no profession, will be as completely excluded from the government of his country as if he were legislatively proscribed. It is obvious that in the towns all things which conspire against the country gentleman combine in favor of the money manager and director. In towns combination is natural. The habits of burghers, their occupations, their diversion, their business, their idleness continually bring them into mutual contact. Their virtues and their vices are sociable; they are always in garrison; and they come embodied and half disciplined into the hands of those who mean to form them for civil or military action. All these considerations leave no doubt on my mind that, if this monster of a constitution can continue, France will be wholly governed by the agitators in corporations, by societies in the towns formed of directors of assignats, and trustees for the sale of church lands, attorneys, agents, money jobbers, speculators, and adventurers, composing an ignoble oligarchy founded on the destruction of the crown, the church, the nobility, and the people. Here end all the deceitful dreams and visions of the equality and rights of men. In the Serbonian bog of this base oligarchy they are all absorbed, sunk, and lost forever. Though human eyes cannot trace them, one would be tempted to think some great offenses in France must cry to heaven, which has thought fit to punish it with a subjection to a vile and inglorious domination in which no comfort or compensation is to be found in any, even of those false, splendors which, playing about other tyrannies, prevent mankind from feeling themselves dishonored even whilst they are oppressed. I must confess I am touched with a sorrow, mixed with some indignation, at the conduct of a few men, once of great rank and still of great character, who, deluded with specious names, have engaged in a business too deep for the line of their understanding to fathom; who have lent their fair reputation and the authority of their high-sounding names to the designs of men with whom they could not be acquainted, and have thereby made their very virtues operate to the ruin of their country. So far as to the first cementing principle. THE second material of cement for their new republic is the superiority of the city of Paris; and this I admit is strongly connected with the other cementing principle of paper circulation and confiscation. It is in this part of the project we must look for the cause of the destruction of all the old bounds of provinces and jurisdictions, ecclesiastical and secular, and the dissolution of all ancient combinations of things, as well as the formation of so many small unconnected republics. The power of the city of Paris is evidently one great spring of all their politics. It is through the power of Paris, now become the center and focus of jobbing, that the leaders of this faction direct, or rather command, the whole legislative and the whole executive government. Everything, therefore, must be done which can confirm the authority of that city over the other republics. Paris is compact; she has an enormous strength, wholly disproportioned to the force of any of the square republics; and this strength is collected and condensed within a narrow compass. Paris has a natural and easy connection of its parts, which will not be affected by any scheme of a geometrical constitution, nor does it much signify whether its proportion of representation be more or less, since it has the whole draft of fishes in its dragnet. The other divisions of the kingdom, being hackled and torn to pieces, and separated from all their habitual means and even principles of union, cannot, for some time at least, confederate against her. Nothing was to be left in all the subordinate members but weakness, disconnection, and confusion. To confirm this part of the plan, the Assembly has lately come to a resolution that no two of their republics shall have the same commander-in-chief. To a person who takes a view of the whole, the strength of Paris, thus formed, will appear a system of general weakness. It is boasted that the geometrical policy has been adopted, that all local ideas should be sunk, and that the people should no longer be Gascons, Picards, Bretons, Normans, but Frenchmen, with one country, one heart, and one Assembly. But instead of being all Frenchmen, the greater likelihood is that the inhabitants of that region will shortly have no country. No man ever was attached by a sense of pride, partiality, or real affection to a description of square measurement. He never will glory in belonging to the Chequer No. 71, or to any other badge-ticket. We begin our public affections in our families. No cold relation is a zealous citizen. We pass on to our neighborhoods and our habitual provincial connections. These are inns and resting places. Such divisions of our country as have been formed by habit, and not by a sudden jerk of authority, were so many little images of the great country in which the heart found something which it could fill. The love to the whole is not extinguished by this subordinate partiality. Perhaps it is a sort of elemental training to those higher and more large regards by which alone men come to be affected, as with their own concern, in the prosperity of a kingdom so extensive as that of France. In that general territory itself, as in the old name of provinces, the citizens are interested from old prejudices and unreasoned habits, and not on account of the geometric properties of its figure. The power and pre-eminence of Paris does certainly press down and hold these republics together as long as it lasts. But, for the reasons I have already given you, I think it cannot last very long. Passing from the civil creating and the civil cementing principles of this constitution to the National Assembly, which is to appear and act as sovereign, we see a body in its constitution with every possible power, and no possible external control. We see a body without fundamental laws, without established maxims, without respected rules of proceeding, which nothing can keep firm to any system whatsoever. Their idea of their powers is always taken at the utmost stretch of legislative competence, and their examples for common cases from the exceptions of the most urgent necessity. The future is to be in most respects like the present Assembly; but, by the mode of the new elections and the tendency of the new circulations, it will be purged of the small degree of internal control existing in a minority chosen originally from various interests, and preserving something of their spirit. If possible, the next Assembly must be worse than the present. The present, by destroying and altering everything, will leave to their successors apparently nothing popular to do. They will be roused by emulation and example to enterprises the boldest and the most absurd. To suppose such an Assembly sitting in perfect quietude is ridiculous. Your all-sufficient legislators, in their hurry to do everything at once, have forgotten one thing that seems essential, and which I believe never has been before, in the theory or the practice, omitted by any projector of a republic. They have forgotten to constitute a senate or something of that nature and character. Never before this time was heard of a body politic composed of one legislative and active assembly, and its executive officers, without such a council, without something to which foreign states might connect themselves; something to which, in the ordinary detail of government, the people could look up; something which might give a bias and steadiness and preserve something like consistency in the proceedings of state. Such a body kings generally have as a council. A monarchy may exist without it, but it seems to be in the very essence of a republican government. It holds a sort of middle place between the supreme power exercised by the people, or immediately delegated from them, and the mere executive. Of this there are no traces in your constitution, and in providing nothing of this kind your Solons and Numas have, as much as in anything else, discovered a sovereign incapacity. LET US NOW TURN OUR EYES to what they have done toward the formation of an executive power. For this they have chosen a degraded king. This their first executive officer is to be a machine without any sort of deliberative discretion in any one act of his function. At best he is but a channel to convey to the National Assembly such matter as it may import that body to know. If he had been made the exclusive channel, the power would not have been without its importance, though infinitely perilous to those who would choose to exercise it. But public intelligence and statement of facts may pass to the Assembly with equal authenticity through any other conveyance. As to the means, therefore, of giving a direction to measures by the statement of an authorized reporter, this office of intelligence is as nothing. To consider the French scheme of an executive officer, in its two natural divisions of civil and political. -- In the first, it must be observed that, according to the new constitution, the higher parts of judicature, in either of its lines, are not in the king. The king of France is not the fountain of justice. The judges, neither the original nor the appellate, are of his nomination. He neither proposes the candidates, nor has a negative on the choice. He is not even the public prosecutor. He serves only as a notary to authenticate the choice made of the judges in the several districts. By his officers he is to execute their sentence. When we look into the true nature of his authority, he appears to be nothing more than a chief of bum bailiffs, sergeants at mace, catchpoles, jailers, and hangmen. It is impossible to place anything called royalty in a more degrading point of view. A thousand times better had it been for the dignity of this unhappy prince that he had nothing at all to do with the administration of justice, deprived as he is of all that is venerable and all that is consolatory in that function, without power of originating any process, without a power of suspension, mitigation, or pardon. Everything in justice that is vile and odious is thrown upon him. It was not for nothing that the Assembly has been at such pains to remove the stigma from certain offices when they are resolved to place the person who had lately been their king in a situation but one degree above the executioner, and in an office nearly of the same quality. It is not in nature that, situated as the king of the French now is, he can respect himself or can be respected by others. View this new executive officer on the side of his political capacity, as he acts under the orders of the National Assembly. To execute laws is a royal office; to execute orders is not to be a king. However, a political executive magistracy, though merely such, is a great trust. It is a trust indeed that has much depending upon its faithful and diligent performance, both in the person presiding in it and in all its subordinates. Means of performing this duty ought to be given by regulation; and dispositions toward it ought to be infused by the circumstances attendant on the trust. It ought to be environed with dignity, authority, and consideration, and it ought to lead to glory. The office of execution is an office of exertion. It is not from impotence we are to expect the tasks of power. What sort of person is a king to command executory service, who has no means whatsoever to reward it? Not in a permanent office; not in a grant of land; no, not in a pension of fifty pounds a year; not in the vainest and most trivial title. In France, the king is no more the fountain of honor than he is the fountain of justice. All rewards, all distinctions are in other hands. Those who serve the king can be actuated by no natural motive but fear -- by a fear of everything except their master. His functions of internal coercion are as odious as those which he exercises in the department of justice. If relief is to be given to any municipality, the Assembly gives it. If troops are to be sent to reduce them to obedience to the Assembly, the king is to execute the order; and upon every occasion he is to be spattered over with the blood of his people. He has no negative; yet his name and authority is used to enforce every harsh decree. Nay, he must concur in the butchery of those who shall attempt to free him from his imprisonment or show the slightest attachment to his person or to his ancient authority. Executive magistracy ought to be constituted in such a manner that those who compose it should be disposed to love and to venerate those whom they are bound to obey. A purposed neglect or, what is worse, a literal but perverse and malignant obedience must be the ruin of the wisest counsels. In vain will the law attempt to anticipate or to follow such studied neglects and fraudulent attentions. To make them act zealously is not in the competence of law. Kings, even such as are truly kings, may and ought to bear the freedom of subjects that are obnoxious to them. They may, too, without derogating from themselves, bear even the authority of such persons if it promotes their service. Louis the Thirteenth mortally hated the Cardinal de Richelieu, but his support of that minister against his rivals was the source of all the glory of his reign and the solid foundation of his throne itself. Louis the Fourteenth, when come to the throne, did not love the Cardinal Mazarin, but for his interests he preserved him in power. When old, he detested Louvois, but for years, whilst he faithfully served his greatness, he endured his person. When George the Second took Mr. Pitt, who certainly was not agreeable to him, into his councils, he did nothing which could humble a wise sovereign. But these ministers, who were chosen by affairs, not by affections, acted in the name of, and in trust for, kings, and not as their avowed, constitutional, and ostensible masters. I think it impossible that any king, when he has recovered his first terrors, can cordially infuse vivacity and vigor into measures which he knows to be dictated by those who, he must be persuaded, are in the highest degree ill affected to his person. Will any ministers who serve such a king (or whatever he may be called) with but a decent appearance of respect cordially obey the orders of those whom but the other day in his name they had committed to the Bastille? Will they obey the orders of those whom, whilst they were exercising despotic justice upon them, they conceived they were treating with lenity, and from whom, in a prison, they thought they had provided an asylum? If you expect such obedience amongst your other innovations and regenerations, you ought to make a revolution in nature and provide a new constitution for the human mind. Otherwise, your supreme government cannot harmonize with its executory system. There are cases in which we cannot take up with names and abstractions. You may call half a dozen leading individuals, whom we have reason to fear and hate, the nation. It makes no other difference than to make us fear and hate them the more. If it had been thought justifiable and expedient to make such a revolution by such means, and through such persons, as you have made yours, it would have been more wise to have completed the business of the fifth and sixth of October. The new executive officer would then owe his situation to those who are his creators as well as his masters; and he might be bound in interest, in the society of crime, and (if in crimes there could be virtues) in gratitude to serve those who had promoted him to a place of great lucre and great sensual indulgence, and of something more; for more he must have received from those who certainly would not have limited an aggrandized creature, as they have done a submitting antagonist. A king circumstanced as the present, if he is totally stupefied by his misfortunes so as to think it not the necessity but the premium and privilege of life to eat and sleep, without any regard to glory, can never be fit for the office. If he feels as men commonly feel, he must be sensible that an office so circumstanced is one in which he can obtain no fame or reputation. He has no generous interest that can excite him to action. At best, his conduct will be passive and defensive. To inferior people such an office might be matter of honor. But to be raised to it, and to descend to it, are different things and suggest different sentiments. Does he really name the ministers? They will have a sympathy with him. Are they forced upon him? The whole business between them and the nominal king will be mutual counteraction. In all other countries, the office of ministers of state is of the highest dignity. In France it is full of peril, and incapable of glory. Rivals, however, they will have in their nothingness, whilst shallow ambition exists in the world, or the desire of a miserable salary is an incentive to short-sighted avarice. Those competitors of the ministers are enabled by your constitution to attack them in their vital parts, whilst they have not the means of repelling their charges in any other than the degrading character of culprits. The ministers of state in France are the only persons in that country who are incapable of a share in the national councils. What ministers! What councils! What a nation! -- But they are responsible. It is a poor service that is to be had from responsibility. The elevation of mind to be derived from fear will never make a nation glorious. Responsibility prevents crimes. It makes all attempts against the laws dangerous. But for a principle of active and zealous service, none but idiots could think of it. Is the conduct of a war to be trusted to a man who may abhor its principle, who, in every step he may take to render it successful, confirms the power of those by whom he is oppressed? Will foreign states seriously treat with him who has no prerogative of peace or war? No, not so much as in a single vote by himself or his ministers, or by any one whom he can possibly influence. A state of contempt is not a state for a prince; better get rid of him at once. I know it will be said that these humors in the court and executive government will continue only through this generation, and that the king has been brought to declare the dauphin shall be educated in a conformity to his situation. If he is made to conform to his situation, he will have no education at all. His training must be worse, even, than that of an arbitrary monarch. If he reads -- whether he reads or not -- some good or evil genius will tell him his ancestors were kings. Thenceforward his object must be to assert himself and to avenge his parents. This you will say is not his duty. That may be; but it is nature; and whilst you pique nature against you, you do unwisely to trust to duty. In this futile scheme of polity, the state nurses in its bosom, for the present, a source of weakness, perplexity, counteraction, inefficiency, and decay; and it prepares the means of its final ruin. In short, I see nothing in the executive force (I cannot call it authority) that has even an appearance of vigor, or that has the smallest degree of just correspondence or symmetry, or amicable relation with the supreme power, either as it now exists or as it is planned for the future government. You have settled, by an economy as perverted as the policy, two \[50\] establishments of government -- one real, one fictitious. Both maintained at a vast expense, but the fictitious at, I think, the greatest. Such a machine as the latter is not worth the grease of its wheels. The expense is exorbitant, and neither the show nor the use deserve the tenth part of the charge. Oh! but I don't do justice to the talents of the legislators: I don't allow, as I ought to do, for necessity. Their scheme of executive force was not their choice. This pageant must be kept. The people would not consent to part with it. Right; I understand you. You do, in spite of your grand theories, to which you would have heaven and earth to bend -- you do know how to conform yourselves to the nature and circumstances of things. But when you were obliged to conform thus far to circumstances, you ought to have carried your submission further, and to have made, what you were obliged to take, a proper instrument, and useful to its end. That was in your power. For instance, among many others, it was in your power to leave to your king the right of peace and war. What! to leave to the executive magistrate the most dangerous of all prerogatives? I know none more dangerous, nor any one more necessary to be so trusted. I do not say that this prerogative ought to be trusted to your king unless he enjoyed other auxiliary trusts along with it, which he does not now hold. But if he did possess them, hazardous as they are undoubtedly, advantages would arise from such a constitution, more than compensating the risk. There is no other way of keeping the several potentates of Europe from intriguing distinctly and personally with the members of your Assembly, from intermeddling in all your concerns, and fomenting, in the heart of your country, the most pernicious of all factions -- factions in the interest and under the direction of foreign powers. From that worst of evils, thank God, we are still free. Your skill, if you had any, would be well employed to find out indirect correctives and controls upon this perilous trust. If you did not like those which in England we have chosen, your leaders might have exerted their abilities in contriving better. If it were necessary to exemplify the consequences of such an executive government as yours, in the management of great affairs, I should refer you to the late reports of M. de Montmorin to the National Assembly, and all the other proceedings relative to the differences between Great Britain and Spain. It would be treating your understanding with disrespect to point them out to you. I hear that the persons who are called ministers have signified an intention of resigning their places. I am rather astonished that they have not resigned long since. For the universe I would not have stood in the situation in which they have been for this last twelvemonth. They wished well, I take it for granted, to the revolution. Let this fact be as it may, they could not, placed as they were upon an eminence, though an eminence of humiliation, but be the first to see collectively, and to feel each in his own department, the evils which have been produced by that revolution. In every step which they took, or forbore to take, they must have felt the degraded situation of their country and their utter incapacity of serving it. They are in a species of subordinate servitude, in which no men before them were ever seen. Without confidence from their sovereign, on whom they were forced, or from the Assembly, who forced them upon him, all the noble functions of their office are executed by committees of the Assembly without any regard whatsoever to their personal or their official authority. They are to execute, without power; they are to be responsible, without discretion; they are to deliberate, without choice. In their puzzled situations, under two sovereigns, over neither of whom they have any influence, they must act in such a manner as (in effect, whatever they may intend) sometimes to betray the one, sometimes the other, and always to betray themselves. Such has been their situation, such must be the situation of those who succeed them. I have much respect and many good wishes for M. Necker. I am obliged to him for attentions. I thought, when his enemies had driven him from Versailles, that his exile was a subject of most serious congratulations -- sed multae urbes et publica vota vicerunt. He is now sitting on the ruins of the finances and of the monarchy of France. A great deal more might be observed on the strange constitution of the executory part of the new government, but fatigue must give bounds to the discussion of subjects which in themselves have hardly any limits. AS little genius and talent am I able to perceive in the plan of judicature formed by the National Assembly. According to their invariable course, the framers of your constitution have begun with the utter abolition of the parliaments. These venerable bodies, like the rest of the old government, stood in need of reform, even though there should be no change made in the monarchy. They required several more alterations to adapt them to the system of a free constitution. But they had particulars in their constitution, and those not a few, which deserved approbation from the wise. They possessed one fundamental excellence: they were independent. The most doubtful circumstance attendant on their office, that of its being vendible, contributed however to this independence of character. They held for life. Indeed, they may be said to have held by inheritance. Appointed by the monarch, they were considered as nearly out of his power. The most determined exertions of that authority against them only showed their radical independence. They composed permanent bodies politic, constituted to resist arbitrary innovation; and from that corporate constitution, and from most of their forms, they were well calculated to afford both certainty and stability to the laws. They had been a safe asylum to secure these laws in all the revolutions of humor and opinion. They had saved that sacred deposit of the country during the reigns of arbitrary princes and the struggles of arbitrary factions. They kept alive the memory and record of the constitution. They were the great security to private property which might be said (when personal liberty had no existence) to be, in fact, as well guarded in France as in any other country. Whatever is supreme in a state ought to have, as much as possible, its judicial authority so constituted as not only not to depend upon it, but in some sort to balance it. It ought to give a security to its justice against its power. It ought to make its judicature, as it were, something exterior to the state. These parliaments had furnished, not the best certainly, but some considerable corrective to the excesses and vices of the monarchy. Such an independent judicature was ten times more necessary when a democracy became the absolute power of the country. In that constitution, elective temporary, local judges, such as you have contrived, exercising their dependent functions in a narrow society, must be the worst of all tribunals. In them it will be vain to look for any appearance of justice toward strangers, toward the obnoxious rich, toward the minority of routed parties, toward all those who in the election have supported unsuccessful candidates. It will be impossible to keep the new tribunals clear of the worst spirit of faction. All contrivances by ballot we know experimentally to be vain and childish to prevent a discovery of inclinations. Where they may the best answer the purposes of concealment, they answer to produce suspicion, and this is a still more mischievous cause of partiality. If the parliaments had been preserved, instead of being dissolved at so ruinous a charge to the nation, they might have served in this new commonwealth, perhaps not precisely the same (I do not mean an exact parallel), but nearly the same, purposes as the court and senate of Areopagus did in Athens; that is, as one of the balances and correctives to the evils of a light and unjust democracy. Every one knows that this tribunal was the great stay of that state; every one knows with what care it was upheld, and with what a religious awe it was consecrated. The parliaments were not wholly free from faction, I admit; but this evil was exterior and accidental, and not so much the vice of their constitution itself, as it must be in your new contrivance of sexennial elective judicatories. Several English commend the abolition of the old tribunals, as supposing that they determined everything by bribery and corruption. But they have stood the test of monarchic and republican scrutiny. The court was well disposed to prove corruption on those bodies when the were dissolved in 1771\. Those who have again dissolved them would have done the same if they could, but both inquisitions having failed, I conclude that gross pecuniary corruption must have been rather rare amongst them. It would have been prudent, along with the parliaments, to preserve their ancient power of registering, and of remonstrating at least upon, all the decrees of the National Assembly, as they did upon those which passed in the time of the monarchy. It would be a means of squaring the occasional decrees of a democracy to some principles of general jurisprudence. The vice of the ancient democracies, and one cause of their ruin, was that they ruled, as you do, by occasional decrees, psephismata. This practice soon broke in upon the tenor and consistency of the laws; it abated the respect of the people toward them, and totally destroyed them in the end. Your vesting the power of remonstrance, which, in the time of the monarchy, existed in the parliament of Paris, in your principal executive officer, whom, in spite of common sense, you persevere in calling king, is the height of absurdity. You ought never to suffer remonstrance from him who is to execute. This is to understand neither council nor execution, neither authority nor obedience. The person whom you call king ought not to have this power, or he ought to have more. Your present arrangement is strictly judicial. Instead of imitating your monarchy and seating your judges on a bench of independence, your object is to reduce them to the most blind obedience. As you have changed all things, you have invented new principles of order. You first appoint judges, who, I suppose, are to determine according to law, and then you let them know that, at some time or other, you intend to give them some law by which they are to determine. Any studies which they have made (if any they have made) are to be useless to them. But to supply these studies, they are to be sworn to obey all the rules, orders, and instructions which from time to time they are to receive from the National Assembly. These if they submit to, they leave no ground of law to the subject. They become complete and most dangerous instruments in the hands of the governing power which, in the midst of a cause or on the prospect of it, may wholly change the rule of decision. If these orders of the National Assembly come to be contrary to the will of the people, who locally choose judges, such confusion must happen as is terrible to think of. For the judges owe their places to the local authority, and the commands they are sworn to obey come from those who have no share in their appointment. In the meantime they have the example of the court of Chatelet to encourage and guide them in the exercise of their functions. That court is to try criminals sent to it by the National Assembly, or brought before it by other courses of delation. They sit under a guard to save their own lives. They know not by what law they judge, nor under what authority they act, nor by what tenure they hold. It is thought that they are sometimes obliged to condemn at peril of their lives. This is not perhaps certain, nor can it be ascertained; but when they acquit, we know they have seen the persons whom they discharge, with perfect impunity to the actors, hanged at the door of their court. The Assembly indeed promises that they will form a body of law, which shall be short, simple, clear, and so forth. That is, by their short laws they will leave much to the discretion of the judge, whilst they have exploded the authority of all the learning which could make judicial discretion (a thing perilous at best) deserving the appellation of a sound discretion. It is curious to observe that the administrative bodies are carefully exempted from the jurisdiction of these new tribunals. That is, those persons are exempted from the power of the laws who ought to be the most entirely submitted to them. Those who execute public pecuniary trusts ought of all men to be the most strictly held to their duty. One would have thought that it must have been among your earliest cares, if you did not mean that those administrative bodies should be real, sovereign, independent states, to form an awful tribunal, like your late parliaments, or like our king's bench, where all corporate officers might obtain protection in the legal exercise of their functions, and would find coercion if they trespassed against their legal duty. But the cause of the exemption is plain. These administrative bodies are the great instruments of the present leaders in their progress through democracy to oligarchy. They must, therefore, be put above the law. It will be said that the legal tribunals which you have made are unfit to coerce them. They are, undoubtedly. They are unfit for any rational purpose. It will be said, too, that the administrative bodies will be accountable to the General Assembly. This I fear is talking without much consideration of the nature of that Assembly, or of these corporations. However, to be subject to the pleasure of that Assembly is not to be subject to law either for protection or for constraint. This establishment of judges as yet wants something to its completion. It is to be crowned by a new tribunal. This is to be a grand state judicature, and it is to judge of crimes committed against the nation, that is, against the power of the Assembly. It seems as if they had something in their view of the nature of the high court of justice erected in England during the time of the great usurpation. As they have not yet finished this part of the scheme, it is impossible to form a right judgment upon it. However, if great care is not taken to form it in a spirit very different from that which has guided them in their proceedings relative to state offenses, this tribunal, subservient to their inquisition, the Committee of Research, will extinguish the last sparks of liberty in France and settle the most dreadful and arbitrary tyranny ever known in any nation. If they wish to give to this tribunal any appearance of liberty and justice, they must not evoke from or send to it the causes relative to their own members, at their pleasure. They must also remove the seat of that tribunal out of the republic of Paris. \[51\] HAS more wisdom been displayed in the constitution of your army than what is discoverable in your plan of judicature? The able arrangement of this part is the more difficult, and requires the greatest skill and attention, not only as the great concern in itself, but as it is the third cementing principle in the new body of republics which you call the French nation. Truly it is not easy to divine what that army may become at last. You have voted a very large one, and on good appointments, at least fully equal to your apparent means of payment. But what is the principle of its discipline, or whom is it to obey? You have got the wolf by the ears, and I wish you joy of the happy position in which you have chosen to place yourselves, and in which you are well circumstanced for a free deliberation relatively to that army or to anything else. The minister and secretary of state for the war department is M. de la Tour du Pin. This gentleman, like his colleagues in administration, is a most zealous assertor of the revolution, and a sanguine admirer of the new constitution which originated in that event. His statement of facts, relative to the military of France, is important, not only from his official and personal authority, but because it displays very clearly the actual condition of the army in France, and because it throws light on the principles upon which the Assembly proceeds in the administration of this critical object. It may enable us to form some judgment how far it may be expedient in this country to imitate the martial policy of France. M. de la Tour du Pin, on the fourth of last June, comes to give an account of the state of his department as it exists under the auspices of the National Assembly. No man knows it so well; no man can express it better. Addressing himself to the National Assembly, he says -- His Majesty has this day sent me to apprise you of the multiplied disorders of which every day he receives the most distressing intelligence. The army (le corps militaire) threatens to fall into the most turbulent anarchy. Entire regiments have dared to violate at once the respect due to the laws, to the king, to the order established by your decrees, and to the oaths which they have taken with the most awful solemnity. Compelled by my duty to give you information of these excesses, my heart bleeds when I consider who they are that have committed them. Those against whom it is not in my power to withhold the most grievous complaints are a part of that very soldiery which to this day have been so full of honor and loyalty, and with whom, for fifty years, I have lived the comrade and the friend. What incomprehensible spirit of delirium and delusion has all at once led them astray? Whilst you are indefatigable in establishing uniformity in the empire, and molding the whole into one coherent and consistent body; whilst the French are taught by you at once the respect which the laws owe to the rights of man, and that which the citizens owe to the laws, the administration of the army presents nothing but disturbance and confusion. I see in more than one corps the bonds of discipline relaxed or broken; the most unheard-of pretensions avowed directly and without any disguise; the ordinances without force; the chiefs without authority; the military chest and the colors carried off; the authority of the king himself (risum teneatis?) proudly defied; the officers despised, degraded, threatened, driven away, and some of them prisoners in the midst of their corps, dragging on a precarious life in the bosom of disgust and humiliation. To fill up the measure of all these horrors, the commandants of places have had their throats cut, under the eyes and almost in the arms of their own soldiers. These evils are great; but they are not the worst consequences which may be produced by such military insurrections. Sooner or later they may menace the nation itself. The nature of things requires that the army should never act but as an instrument. The moment that, erecting itself into a deliberative body, it shall act according to its own resolutions, the government, be it what it may, will immediately degenerate into a military democracy -- a species of political monster which has always ended by devouring those who have produced it. After all this, who must not be alarmed at the irregular consultations and turbulent committees formed in some regiments by the common soldiers and non-commissioned officers without the knowledge, or even in contempt of the authority, of their superiors, although the presence and concurrence of those superiors could give no authority to such monstrous democratic assemblies (comices). It is not necessary to add much to this finished picture -- finished as far as its canvas admits, but, as I apprehend, not taking in the whole of the nature and complexity of the disorders of this military democracy which, the minister at war truly and wisely observes, wherever it exists must be the true constitution of the state, by whatever formal appellation it may pass. For though he informs the Assembly that the more considerable part of the army have not cast off their obedience, but are still attached to their duty, yet those travelers who have seen the corps whose conduct is the best rather observe in them the absence of mutiny than the existence of discipline. I cannot help pausing here for a moment to reflect upon the expressions of surprise which this minister has let fall, relative to the excesses he relates. To him the departure of the troops from their ancient principles of loyalty and honor seems quite inconceivable. Surely those to whom he addresses himself know the causes of it but too well. They know the doctrines which they have preached, the decrees which they have passed, the practices which they have countenanced. The soldiers remember the 6th of October. They recollect the French guards. They have not forgotten the taking of the king's castles in Paris and Marseilles. That the governors in both places were murdered with impunity is a fact that has not passed out of their minds. They do not abandon the principles laid down so ostentatiously and laboriously of the equality of men. They cannot shut their eyes to the degradation of the whole noblesse of France and the suppression of the very idea of a gentleman. The total abolition of titles and distinctions is not lost upon them. But M. de la Tour du Pin is astonished at their disloyalty, when the doctors of the Assembly have taught them at the same time the respect due to laws. It is easy to judge which of the two sorts of lessons men with arms in their hands are likely to learn. As to the authority of the king, we may collect from the minister himself (if any argument on that head were not quite superfluous) that it is not of more consideration with these troops than it is with everybody else. "The king", says he, "has over and over again repeated his orders to put a stop to these excesses; but in so terrible a crisis your (the Assembly's) concurrence is become indispensably necessary to prevent the evils which menace the state. You unite to the force of the legislative power that of opinion still more important". To be sure the army can have no opinion of the power or authority of the king. Perhaps the soldier has by this time learned that the Assembly itself does not enjoy a much greater degree of liberty than that royal figure. It is now to be seen what has been proposed in this exigency, one of the greatest that can happen in a state. The minister requests the Assembly to array itself in all its terrors, and to call forth all its majesty. He desires that the grave and severe principles announced by them may give vigor to the king's proclamation. After this we should have looked for courts, civil and martial, breaking of some corps, decimating of others, and all the terrible means which necessity has employed in such cases to arrest the progress of the most terrible of all evils; particularly, one might expect that a serious inquiry would be made into the murder of commandants in the view of their soldiers. Not one word of all this or of anything like it. After they had been told that the soldiery trampled upon the decrees of the Assembly promulgated by the king, the Assembly pass new decrees, and they authorize the king to make new proclamations. After the secretary at war had stated that the regiments had paid no regard to oaths pretes avec la plus imposante solemnite, they propose -- what? More oaths. They renew decrees and proclamations as they experience their insufficiency, and they multiply oaths in proportion as they weaken in the minds of men, the sanctions of religion. I hope that handy abridgments of the excellent sermons of Voltaire, d'Alembert, Diderot, and Helvetius, on the Immortality of the Soul, on a particular superintending Providence, and on a Future State of Rewards and Punishments are sent down to the soldiers along with their civic oaths. Of this I have no doubt; as I understand that a certain description of reading makes no inconsiderable part of their military exercises, and that they are full as well supplied with the ammunition of pamphlets as of cartridges. To prevent the mischiefs arising from conspiracies, irregular consultations, seditious committees, and monstrous democratic assemblies (comitia, comices) of the soldiers, and all the disorders arising from idleness, luxury, dissipation, and insubordination, I believe the most astonishing means have been used that ever occurred to men, even in all the inventions of this prolific age. It is no less than this: the king has promulgated in circular letters to all the regiments his direct authority and encouragement that the several corps should join themselves with the clubs and confederations in the several municipalities, and mix with them in their feasts and civic entertainments! This jolly discipline, it seems, is to soften the ferocity of their minds, to reconcile them to their bottle companions of other descriptions, and to merge particular conspiracies in more general associations. \[52\] That this remedy would be pleasing to the soldiers, as they are described by M. de la Tour du Pin, I can readily believe; and that, however mutinous otherwise, they will dutifully submit themselves to these royal proclamations. But I should question whether all this civic swearing, clubbing, and feasting would dispose them, more than at present they are disposed, to an obedience to their officers, or teach them better to submit to the austere rules of military discipline. It will make them admirable citizens after the French mode, but not quite so good soldiers after any mode. A doubt might well arise whether the conversations at these good tables would fit them a great deal the better for the character of mere instruments, which this veteran officer and statesman justly observes the nature of things always requires an army to be. Concerning the likelihood of this improvement in discipline by the free conversation of the soldiers with municipal festive societies, which is thus officially encouraged by royal authority and sanction, we may judge by the state of the municipalities themselves, furnished to us by the war minister in this very speech. He conceives good hopes of the success of his endeavors toward restoring order for the present from the good disposition of certain regiments, but he finds something cloudy with regard to the future. As to preventing the return of confusion, for this the administration (says he) cannot be answerable to you as long as they see the municipalities arrogate to themselves an authority over the troops which your institutions have reserved wholly to the monarch. You have fixed the limits of the military authority and the municipal authority. You have bounded the action which you have permitted to the latter over the former to the right of requisition, but never did the letter or the spirit of your decrees authorize the commons in these municipalities to break the officers, to try them, to give orders to the soldiers, to drive them from the posts committed to their guard, to stop them in their marches ordered by the king, or, in a word, to enslave the troops to the caprice of each of the cities or even market towns through which they are to pass. Such is the character and disposition of the municipal society which is to reclaim the soldiery, to bring them back to the true principles of military subordination, and to render them machines in the hands of the supreme power of the country! Such are the distempers of the French troops! Such is their cure! As the army is, so is the navy. The municipalities supersede the orders of the Assembly, and the seamen in their turn supersede the orders of the municipalities. From my heart I pity the condition of a respectable servant of the public like this war minister, obliged in his old age to pledge the Assembly in their civic cups, and to enter with a hoary head into all the fantastic vagaries of these juvenile politicians. Such schemes are not like propositions coming from a man of fifty years' wear and tear amongst mankind. They seem rather such as ought to be expected from those grand compounders in politics who shorten the road to their degrees in the state and have a certain inward fanatical assurance and illumination upon all subjects, upon the credit of which one of their doctors has thought fit, with great applause, and greater success, to caution the Assembly not to attend to old men or to any persons who valued themselves upon their experience. I suppose all the ministers of state must qualify and take this test -- wholly abjuring the errors and heresies of experience and observation. Every man has his own relish. But I think if I could not attain to the wisdom, I would at least preserve something of the stiff and peremptory dignity of age. These gentlemen deal in regeneration; but at any price I should hardly yield my rigid fibers to be regenerated by them, nor begin, in my grand climacteric, to squall in their new accents or to stammer, in my second cradle, the elemental sounds of their barbarous metaphysics. \[53\] Si isti mihi largiantur ut repuerascam, et in eorum cunis vagiam, valde recusem! The imbecility of any part of the puerile and pedantic system, which they call a constitution, cannot be laid open without discovering the utter insufficiency and mischief of every other part with which it comes in contact, or that bears any the remotest relation to it. You cannot propose a remedy for the incompetence of the crown without displaying the debility of the Assembly. You cannot deliberate on the confusion of the army of the state without disclosing the worse disorders of the armed municipalities. The military lays open the civil, and the civil betrays the military, anarchy. I wish everybody carefully to peruse the eloquent speech (such it is) of M. de la Tour du Pin. He attributes the salvation of the municipalities to the good behavior of some of the troops. These troops are to preserve the well-disposed part of those municipalities, which is confessed to be the weakest, from the pillage of the worst-disposed, which is the strongest. But the municipalities affect a sovereignty and will command those troops which are necessary for their protection. Indeed they must command them or court them. The municipalities, by the necessity of their situation, and by the republican powers they have obtained, must, with relation to the military, be the masters, or the servants, or the confederates, or each successively; or they must make a jumble of all together, according to circumstances. What government is there to coerce the army but the municipality, or the municipality but the army? To preserve concord where authority is extinguished, at the hazard of all consequences, the Assembly attempts to cure the distempers by the distempers themselves; and they hope to preserve themselves from a purely military democracy by giving it a debauched interest in the municipal. If the soldiers once come to mix for any time in the municipal clubs, cabals, and confederacies, an elective attraction will draw them to the lowest and most desperate part. With them will be their habits, affections, and sympathies. The military conspiracies, which are to be remedied by civic confederacies; the rebellious municipalities, which are to be rendered obedient by furnishing them with the means of seducing the very armies of the state that are to keep them in order; all these chimeras of a monstrous and portentous policy must aggravate the confusion from which they have arisen. There must be blood. The want of common judgment manifested in the construction of all their descriptions of forces and in all their kinds of civil and judicial authorities will make it flow. Disorders may be quieted in one time and in one part. They will break out in others, because the evil is radical and intrinsic. All these schemes of mixing mutinous soldiers with seditious citizens must weaken still more and more the military connection of soldiers with their officers, as well as add military and mutinous audacity to turbulent artificers and peasants. To secure a real army, the officer should be first and last in the eye of the soldier; first and last in his attention, observance, and esteem. Officers it seems there are to be, whose chief qualification must be temper and patience. They are to manage their troops by electioneering arts. They must bear themselves as candidates, not as commanders. But as by such means power may be occasionally in their hands, the authority by which they are to be nominated becomes of high importance. What you may do finally does not appear, nor is it of much moment whilst the strange and contradictory relation between your army and all the parts of your republic, as well as the puzzled relation of those parts to each other and to the whole, remain as they are. You seem to have given the provisional nomination of the officers in the first instance to the king, with a reserve of approbation by the National Assembly. Men who have an interest to pursue are extremely sagacious in discovering the true seat of power. They must soon perceive that those who can negative indefinitely in reality appoint. The officers must, therefore, look to their intrigues in that Assembly as the sole certain road to promotion. Still, however, by your new constitution they must begin their solicitation at court. This double negotiation for military rank seems to me a contrivance as well adapted, as if it were studied for no other end, to promote faction in the Assembly itself, relative to this vast military patronage, and then to poison the corps of officers with factions of a nature still more dangerous to the safety of government, upon any bottom on which it can be placed, and destructive in the end to the efficiency of the army itself. Those officers who lose the promotions intended for them by the crown must become of a faction opposite to that of the Assembly, which has rejected their claims, and must nourish discontents in the heart of the army against the ruling powers. Those officers, on the other hand, who, by carrying their point through an interest in the Assembly, feel themselves to be at best only second in the good will of the crown, though first in that of the Assembly, must slight an authority which would not advance and could not retard their promotion. If to avoid these evils you will have no other rule for command or promotion than seniority, you will have an army of formality; at the same time it will become more independent and more of a military republic. Not they, but the king is the machine. A king is not to be deposed by halves. If he is not everything in the command of an army, he is nothing. What is the effect of a power placed nominally at the head of the army who to that army is no object of gratitude or of fear? Such a cipher is not fit for the administration of an object, of all things the most delicate, the supreme command of military men. They must be constrained (and their inclinations lead them to what their necessities require) by a real, vigorous, effective, decided, personal authority. The authority of the Assembly itself suffers by passing through such a debilitating channel as they have chosen. The army will not long look to an assembly acting through the organ of false show and palpable imposition. They will not seriously yield obedience to a prisoner. They will either despise a pageant, or they will pity a captive king. This relation of your army to the crown will, if I am not greatly mistaken, become a serious dilemma in your politics. It is, besides, to be considered whether an assembly like yours, even supposing that it was in possession of another sort of organ through which its orders were to pass, is fit for promoting the obedience and discipline of an army. It is known that armies have hitherto yielded a very precarious and uncertain obedience to any senate or popular authority; and they will least of all yield it to an assembly which is only to have a continuance of two years. The officers must totally lose the characteristic disposition of military men if they see with perfect submission and due admiration the dominion of pleaders; especially when they find that they have a new court to pay to an endless succession of those pleaders, whose military policy, and the genius of whose command (if they should have any), must be as uncertain as their duration is transient. In the weakness of one kind of authority, and in the fluctuation of all, the officers of an army will remain for some time mutinous and full of faction until some popular general, who understands the art of conciliating the soldiery, and who possesses the true spirit of command, shall draw the eyes of all men upon himself. Armies will obey him on his personal account. There is no other way of securing military obedience in this state of things. But the moment in which that event shall happen, the person who really commands the army is your master -- the master (that is little) of your king, the master of your Assembly, the master of your whole republic. How came the Assembly by their present power over the army? Chiefly, to be sure, by debauching the soldiers from their officers. They have begun by a most terrible operation. They have touched the central point about which the particles that compose armies are at repose. They have destroyed the principle of obedience in the great, essential, critical link between the officer and the soldier, just where the chain of military subordination commences and on which the whole of that system depends. The soldier is told he is a citizen and has the rights of man and citizen. The right of a man, he is told, is to be his own governor and to be ruled only by those to whom he delegates that self-government. It is very natural he should think that he ought most of all to have his choice where he is to yield the greatest degree of obedience. He will therefore, in all probability, systematically do what he does at present occasionally; that is, he will exercise at least a negative in the choice of his officers. At present the officers are known at best to be only permissive, and on their good behavior. In fact, there have been many instances in which they have been cashiered by their corps. Here is a second negative on the choice of the king -- a negative as effectual at least as the other of the Assembly. The soldiers know already that it has been a question, not ill received in the National Assembly, whether they ought not to have the direct choice of their officers, or some proportion of them? When such matters are in deliberation it is no extravagant supposition that they will incline to the opinion most favorable to their pretensions. They will not bear to be deemed the army of an imprisoned king whilst another army in the same country, with whom, too, they are to feast and confederate, is to be considered as the free army of a free constitution. They will cast their eyes on the other and more permanent army; I mean the municipal. That corps, they well know, does actually elect its own officers. They may not be able to discern the grounds of distinction on which they are not to elect a Marquis de la Fayette (or what is his new name?) of their own. If this election of a commander-in-chief be a part of the rights of men, why not of theirs? They see elective justices of peace, elective judges, elective curates, elective bishops, elective municipalities, and elective commanders of the Parisian army -- why should they alone be excluded? Are the brave troops of France the only men in that nation who are not the fit judges of military merit and of the qualifications necessary for a commander-in-chief? Are they paid by the state and do they, therefore, lose the rights of men? They are a part of that nation themselves and contribute to that pay. And is not the king, is not the National Assembly, and are not all who elect the National Assembly, likewise paid? Instead of seeing all these forfeit their rights by their receiving a salary, they perceive that in all these cases a salary is given for the exercise of those rights. All your resolutions, all your proceedings, all your debates, all the works of your doctors in religion and politics have industriously been put into their hands, and you expect that they will apply to their own case just as much of your doctrines and examples as suits your pleasure. EVERYTHING depends upon the army in such a government as yours, for you have industriously destroyed all the opinions and prejudices and, as far as in you lay, all the instincts which support government. Therefore, the moment any difference arises between your National Assembly and any part of the nation, you must have recourse to force. Nothing else is left to you, or rather you have left nothing else to yourselves. You see, by the report of your war minister, that the distribution of the army is in a great measure made with a view of internal coercion. \[54\] You must rule by an army; and you have infused into that army by which you rule, as well as into the whole body of the nation, principles which after a time must disable you in the use you resolve to make of it. The king is to call out troops to act against his people, when the world has been told, and the assertion is still ringing in our ears, that troops ought not to fire on citizens. The colonies assert to themselves an independent constitution and a free trade. They must be constrained by troops. In what chapter of your code of the rights of men are they able to read that it is a part of the rights of men to have their commerce monopolized and restrained for the benefit of others? As the colonists rise on you, the Negroes rise on them. Troops again -- massacre, torture, hanging! These are your rights of men! These are the fruits of metaphysic declarations wantonly made, and shamefully retracted! It was but the other day that the farmers of land in one of your provinces refused to pay some sort of rents to the lord of the soil. In consequence of this, you decree that the country people shall pay all rents and dues, except those which as grievances you have abolished; and if they refuse, then you order the king to march troops against them. You lay down metaphysic propositions which infer universal consequences, and then you attempt to limit logic by despotism. The leaders of the present system tell them of their rights, as men, to take fortresses, to murder guards, to seize on kings without the least appearance of authority even from the Assembly, whilst, as the sovereign legislative body, that Assembly was sitting in the name of the nation -- and yet these leaders presume to order out the troops which have acted in these very disorders, to coerce those who shall judge on the principles, and follow the examples, which have been guaranteed by their own approbation. The leaders teach the people to abhor and reject all feudality as the barbarism of tyranny, and they tell them afterwards how much of that barbarous tyranny they are to bear with patience. As they are prodigal of light with regard to grievances, so the people find them sparing in the extreme with regard to redress. They know that not only certain quitrents and personal duties, which you have permitted them to redeem (but have furnished no money for the redemption), are as nothing to those burdens for which you have made no provision at all. They know that almost the whole system of landed property in its origin is feudal; that it is the distribution of the possessions of the original proprietors, made by a barbarous conqueror to his barbarous instruments; and that the most grievous effects of the conquest are the land rents of every kind, as without question they are. The peasants, in all probability, are the descendants of these ancient proprietors, Romans or Gauls. But if they fail, in any degree, in the titles which they make on the principles of antiquaries and lawyers, they retreat into the citadel of the rights of men. There they find that men are equal; and the earth, the kind and equal mother of all, ought not to be monopolized to foster the pride and luxury of any men, who by nature are no better than themselves, and who, if they do not labor for their bread, are worse. They find that by the laws of nature the occupant and subduer of the soil is the true proprietor; that there is no prescription against nature; and that the agreements (where any there are) which have been made with the landlords, during the time of slavery, are only the effect of duress and force; and that when the people reentered into the rights of men, those agreements were made as void as everything else which had been settled under the prevalence of the old feudal and aristocratic tyranny. They will tell you that they see no difference between an idler with a hat and a national cockade and an idler in a cowl or in a rochet. If you ground the title to rents on succession and prescription, they tell you from the speech of M. Camus, published by the National Assembly for their information, that things ill begun cannot avail themselves of prescription; that the title of these lords was vicious in its origin; and that force is at least as bad as fraud. As to the title by succession, they will tell you that the succession of those who have cultivated the soil is the true pedigree of property, and not rotten parchments and silly substitutions; that the lords have enjoyed their usurpation too long; and that if they allow to these lay monks any charitable pension, they ought to be thankful to the bounty of the true proprietor, who is so generous toward a false claimant to his goods. When the peasants give you back that coin of sophistic reason on which you have set your image and superscription, you cry it down as base money and tell them you will pay for the future with French guards, and dragoons, and hussars. You hold up, to chastise them, the second-hand authority of a king, who is only the instrument of destroying, without any power of protecting either the people or his own person. Through him it seems you will make yourselves obeyed. They answer: You have taught us that there are no gentlemen, and which of your principles teach us to bow to kings whom we have not elected? We know without your teaching that lands were given for the support of feudal dignities, feudal titles, and feudal offices. When you took down the cause as a grievance, why should the more grievous effect remain? As there are now no hereditary honors, and no distinguished families, why are we taxed to maintain what you tell us ought not to exist? You have sent down our old aristocratic landlords in no other character, and with no other title, but that of exactors under your authority. Have you endeavored to make these your rent-gatherers respectable to us? No. You have sent them to us with their arms reversed, their shields broken, their impresses defaced; and so displumed, degraded, and metamorphosed, such unfeathered two-legged things, that we no longer know them. They are strangers to us. They do not even go by the names of our ancient lords. Physically they may be the same men, though we are not quite sure of that, on your new philosophic doctrines of personal identity. In all other respects they are totally changed. We do not see why we have not as good a right to refuse them their rents as you have to abrogate all their honors, titles, and distinctions. This we have never commissioned you to do; and it is one instance, among many indeed, of your assumption of undelegated power. We see the burghers of Paris, through their clubs, their mobs, and their national guards, directing you at their pleasure and giving that as law to you which, under your authority, is transmitted as law to us. Through you these burghers dispose of the lives and fortunes of us all. Why should not you attend as much to the desires of the laborious husbandman with regard to our rent, by which we are affected in the most serious manner, as you do to the demands of these insolent burghers, relative to distinctions and titles of honor, by which neither they nor we are affected at all? But we find you pay more regard to their fancies than to our necessities. Is it among the rights of man to pay tribute to his equals? Before this measure of yours, we might have thought we were not perfectly equal. We might have entertained some old, habitual, unmeaning prepossession in favor of those landlords; but we cannot conceive with what other view than that of destroying all respect to them, you could have made the law that degrades them. You have forbidden us to treat them with any of the old formalities of respect, and now you send troops to saber and to bayonet us into a submission to fear and force, which you did not suffer us to yield to the mild authority of opinion. The ground of some of these arguments is horrid and ridiculous to all rational ears, but to the politicians of metaphysics who have opened schools for sophistry and made establishments for anarchy, it is solid and conclusive. It is obvious that, on a mere consideration of the right, the leaders in the Assembly would not in the least have scrupled to abrogate the rents along with the title and family ensigns. It would be only to follow up the principle of their reasonings and to complete the analogy of their conduct. But they had newly possessed themselves of a great body of landed property by confiscation. They had this commodity at market; and the market would have been wholly destroyed if they were to permit the husbandmen to riot in the speculations with which they so freely intoxicated themselves. The only security which property enjoys in any one of its descriptions is from the interests of their rapacity with regard to some other. They have left nothing but their own arbitrary pleasure to determine what property is to be protected and what subverted. Neither have they left any principle by which any of their municipalities can be bound to obedience, or even conscientiously obliged not to separate from the whole to become independent, or to connect itself with some other state. The people of Lyons, it seems, have refused lately to pay taxes. Why should they not? What lawful authority is there left to exact them? The king imposed some of them. The old states, methodized by orders, settled the more ancient. They may say to the Assembly: who are you, that are not our kings, nor the states we have elected, nor sit on the principles on which we have elected you? And who are we, that when we see the gabelles, which you have ordered to be paid, wholly shaken off, when we see the act of disobedience afterwards ratified by yourselves -- who are we, that we are not to judge what taxes we ought or ought not to pay, and are not to avail ourselves of the same powers, the validity of which you have approved in others? To this the answer is, We will send troops. The last reason of kings is always the first with your Assembly. This military aid may serve for a time, whilst the impression of the increase of pay remains, and the vanity of being umpires in all disputes is flattered. But this weapon will snap short, unfaithful to the hand that employs it. The Assembly keep a school where, systematically, and with unremitting perseverance, they teach principles and form regulations destructive to all spirit of subordination, civil and military -- and then they expect that they shall hold in obedience an anarchic people by an anarchic army. The municipal army which, according to the new policy, is to balance this national army, if considered in itself only, is of a constitution much more simple, and in every respect less exceptionable. It is a mere democratic body, unconnected with the crown or the kingdom, armed and trained and officered at the pleasure of the districts to which the corps severally belong, and the personal service of the individuals who compose, or the fine in lieu of personal service, are directed by the same authority. \[55\] Nothing is more uniform. If, however, considered in any relation to the crown, to the National Assembly, to the public tribunals, or to the other army, or considered in a view to any coherence or connection between its parts, it seems a monster, and can hardly fail to terminate its perplexed movements in some great national calamity. It is a worse preservative of a general constitution than the systasis of Crete, or the confederation of Poland, or any other ill-devised corrective which has yet been imagined in the necessities produced by an ill-constructed system of government. Having concluded my few remarks on the constitution of the supreme power, the executive, the judicature, the military, and on the reciprocal relation of all these establishments, I shall say something of the ability shown by your legislators with regard to the revenue. IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS relative to this object, if possible, still fewer traces appear of political judgment or financial resource. When the states met, it seemed to be the great object to improve the system of revenue, to enlarge its collection, to cleanse it of oppression and vexation, and to establish it on the most solid footing. Great were the expectations entertained on that head throughout Europe. It was by this grand arrangement that France was to stand or fall; and this became, in my opinion, very properly the test by which the skill and patriotism of those who ruled in that Assembly would be tried. The revenue of the state is the state. In effect, all depends upon it, whether for support or for reformation. The dignity of every occupation wholly depends upon the quantity and the kind of virtue that may be exerted in it. As all great qualities of the mind which operate in public, and are not merely suffering and passive, require force for their display, I had almost said for their unequivocal existence, the revenue, which is the spring of all power, becomes in its administration the sphere of every active virtue. Public virtue, being of a nature magnificent and splendid, instituted for great things and conversant about great concerns, requires abundant scope and room and cannot spread and grow under confinement and in circumstances straitened, narrow, and sordid. Through the revenue alone the body politic can act in its true genius and character, and, therefore, it will display just as much of its collective virtue, and as much of that virtue which may characterize those who move it and are, as it were, its life and guiding principle, as it is possessed of a just revenue. For from hence not only magnanimity, and liberality, and beneficence, and fortitude, and providence, and the tutelary protection of all good arts derive their food and the growth of their organs; but continence, and self-denial, and labor, and vigilance, and frugality, and whatever else there is in which the mind shows itself above the appetite, are nowhere more in their proper element than in the provision and distribution of the public wealth. It is, therefore, not without reason that the science of speculative and practical finance, which must take to its aid so many auxiliary branches of knowledge, stands high in the estimation not only of the ordinary sort but of the wisest and best men; and as this science has grown with the progress of its object, the prosperity and improvement of nations has generally increased with the increase of their revenues; and they will both continue to grow and flourish as long as the balance between what is left to strengthen the efforts of individuals and what is collected for the common efforts of the state bear to each other a due reciprocal proportion and are kept in a close correspondence and communication. And perhaps it may be owing to the greatness of revenues and to the urgency of state necessities that old abuses in the constitution of finances are discovered and their true nature and rational theory comes to be more perfectly understood: insomuch, that a smaller revenue might have been more distressing in one period than a far greater is found to be in another, the proportionate wealth even remaining the same. In this state of things, the French Assembly found something in their revenues to preserve, to secure, and wisely to administer, as well as to abrogate and alter. Though their proud assumption might justify the severest tests, yet in trying their abilities on their financial proceedings, I would only consider what is the plain obvious duty of a common finance minister, and try them upon that, and not upon models of ideal perfection. The objects of a financier are, then, to secure an ample revenue, to impose it with judgment and equality, to employ it economically, and when necessity obliges him to make use of credit, to secure its foundations in that instance, and forever, by the clearness and candor of his proceedings, the exactness of his calculations and the solidity of his funds. On these heads we may take a short and distinct view of the merits and abilities of those in the National Assembly who have taken to themselves the management of this arduous concern. Far from any increase of revenue in their hands, I find, by a report of M. Vernier, from the committee of finances, of the second of August last, that the amount of the national revenue, as compared with its produce before the Revolution, was diminished by the sum of two hundred millions, or eight millions sterling of the annual income, considerably more than one-third of the whole. If this be the result of great ability, never surely was ability displayed in a more distinguished manner or with so powerful an effect. No common folly, no vulgar incapacity, no ordinary official negligence, even no official crime, no corruption, no peculation, hardly any direct hostility which we have seen in the modern world could in so short a time have made so complete an overthrow of the finances and, with them, of the strength of a great kingdom. -- Cedo qui vestram rempublicam tantam amisistis tam cito? The sophisters and declaimers, as soon as the Assembly met, began with decrying the ancient constitution of the revenue in many of its most essential branches, such as the public monopoly of salt. They charged it, as truly as unwisely, with being ill-contrived, oppressive, and partial. This representation they were not satisfied to make use of in speeches preliminary to some plan of reform; they declared it in a solemn resolution or public sentence, as it were judicially passed upon it; and this they dispersed throughout the nation. At the time they passed the decree, with the same gravity they ordered the same absurd, oppressive, and partial tax to be paid until they could find a revenue to replace it. The consequence was inevitable. The provinces which had been always exempted from this salt monopoly, some of whom were charged with other contributions, perhaps equivalent, were totally disinclined to bear any part of the burden which by an equal distribution was to redeem the others. As to the Assembly, occupied as it was with the declaration and violation of the rights of men, and with their arrangements for general confusion, it had neither leisure nor capacity to contrive, nor authority to enforce, any plan of any kind relative to the replacing the tax or equalizing it, or compensating the provinces, or for conducting their minds to any scheme of accommodation with other districts which were to be relieved. The people of the salt provinces, impatient under taxes, damned by the authority which had directed their payment, very soon found their patience exhausted. They thought themselves as skillful in demolishing as the Assembly could be. They relieved themselves by throwing off the whole burden. Animated by this example, each district, or part of a district, judging of its own grievance by its own feeling, and of its remedy by its own opinion, did as it pleased with other taxes. We are next to see how they have conducted themselves in contriving equal impositions, proportioned to the means of the citizens, and the least likely to lean heavy on the active capital employed in the generation of that private wealth from whence the public fortune must be derived. By suffering the several districts, and several of the individuals in each district, to judge of what part of the old revenue they might withhold, instead of better principles of equality, a new inequality was introduced of the most oppressive kind. Payments were regulated by dispositions. The parts of the kingdom which were the most submissive, the most orderly, or the most affectionate to the commonwealth bore the whole burden of the state. Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government. To fill up all the deficiencies in the old impositions and the new deficiencies of every kind which were to be expected -- what remained to a state without authority? The National Assembly called for a voluntary benevolence: for a fourth part of the income of all the citizens, to be estimated on the honor of those who were to pay. They obtained something more than could be rationally calculated, but what was far indeed from answerable to their real necessities, and much less to their fond expectations. Rational people could have hoped for little from this their tax in the disguise of a benevolence -- a tax weak, ineffective, and unequal; a tax by which luxury, avarice, and selfishness were screened, and the load thrown upon productive capital, upon integrity, generosity, and public spirit; a tax of regulation upon virtue. At length the mask is thrown off, and they are now trying means (with little success) of exacting their benevolence by force. This benevolence, the rickety offspring of weakness, was to be supported by another resource, the twin brother of the same prolific imbecility. The patriotic donations were to make good the failure of the patriotic contribution. John Doe was to become security for Richard Roe. By this scheme they took things of much price from the giver, comparatively of small value to the receiver; they ruined several trades; they pillaged the crown of its ornaments, the churches of their plate, and the people of their personal decorations. The invention of these juvenile pretenders to liberty was in reality nothing more than a servile imitation of one of the poorest resources of doting despotism. They took an old, huge, full-bottomed periwig out of the wardrobe of the antiquated frippery of Louis the Fourteenth to cover the premature baldness of the National Assembly. They produced this old-fashioned formal folly, though it had been so abundantly exposed in the Memoirs of the Duke de St. Simon, if to reasonable men it had wanted any arguments to display its mischief and insufficiency. A device of the same kind was tried, in my memory, by Louis the Fifteenth, but it answered at no time. However, the necessities of ruinous wars were some excuse for desperate projects. The deliberations of calamity are rarely wise. But here was a season for disposition and providence. It was in a time of profound peace, then enjoyed for five years, and promising a much longer continuance, that they had recourse to this desperate trifling. They were sure to lose more reputation by sporting, in their serious situation, with these toys and playthings of finance, which have filled half their journals, than could possibly be compensated by the poor temporary supply which they afforded. It seemed as if those who adopted such projects were wholly ignorant of their circumstances or wholly unequal to their necessities. Whatever virtue may be in these devices, it is obvious that neither the patriotic gifts, nor the patriotic contribution, can ever be resorted to again. The resources of public folly are soon exhausted. The whole, indeed, of their scheme of revenue is to make, by any artifice, an appearance of a full reservoir for the hour, whilst at the same time they cut off the springs and living fountains of perennial supply. The account not long since furnished by M. Necker was meant, without question, to be favorable. He gives a flattering view of the means of getting through the year, but he expresses, as it is natural he should, some apprehension for that which was to succeed. On this last prognostic, instead of entering into the grounds of this apprehension in order, by a proper foresight, to prevent the prognosticated evil, M. Necker receives a sort of friendly reprimand from the president of the Assembly. As to their other schemes of taxation, it is impossible to say anything of them with certainty, because they have not yet had their operation; but nobody is so sanguine as to imagine they will fill up any perceptible part of the wide gaping breach which their incapacity had made in their revenues. At present the state of their treasury sinks every day more and more in cash, and swells more and more in fictitious representation. When so little within or without is now found but paper, the representative not of opulence but of want, the creature not of credit but of power, they imagine that our flourishing state in England is owing to that bank-paper, and not the bank-paper to the flourishing condition of our commerce, to the solidity of our credit, and to the total exclusion of all idea of power from any part of the transaction. They forget that, in England, not one shilling of paper money of any description is received but of choice; that the whole has had its origin in cash actually deposited; and that it is convertible at pleasure, in an instant and without the smallest loss, into cash again. Our paper is of value in commerce, because in law it is of none. It is powerful on 'Change, because in Westminster Hall it is impotent. In payment of a debt of twenty shillings, a creditor may refuse all the paper of the Bank of England. Nor is there amongst us a single public security, of any quality or nature whatsoever, that is enforced by authority. In fact, it might be easily shown that our paper wealth, instead of lessening the real coin, has a tendency to increase it; instead of being a substitute for money, it only facilitates its entry, its exit, and its circulation; that it is the symbol of prosperity, and not the badge of distress. Never was a scarcity of cash and an exuberance of paper a subject of complaint in this nation. Well! but a lessening of prodigal expenses, and the economy which has been introduced by the virtuous and sapient Assembly, make amends for the losses sustained in the receipt of revenue. In this at least they have fulfilled the duty of a financier. Have those who say so looked at the expenses of the National Assembly itself, of the municipalities, of the city of Paris, of the increased pay of the two armies, of the new police, of the new judicatures? Have they even carefully compared the present pension list with the former? These politicians have been cruel, not economical. Comparing the expense of the former prodigal government and its relation to the then revenues with the expenses of this new system as opposed to the state of its new treasury, I believe the present will be found beyond all comparison more chargeable. \[56\] It remains only to consider the proofs of financial ability furnished by the present French managers when they are to raise supplies on credit. Here I am a little at a stand, for credit, properly speaking, they have none. The credit of the ancient government was not indeed the best, but they could always, on some terms, command money, not only at home, but from most of the countries of Europe where a surplus capital was accumulated; and the credit of that government was improving daily. The establishment of a system of liberty would of course be supposed to give it new strength; and so it would actually have done if a system of liberty had been established. What offers has their government of pretended liberty had from Holland, from Hamburg, from Switzerland, from Genoa, from England for a dealing in their paper? Why should these nations of commerce and economy enter into any pecuniary dealings with a people who attempt to reverse the very nature of things, amongst whom they see the debtor prescribing at the point of the bayonet the medium of his solvency to the creditor, discharging one of his engagements with another, turning his very penury into his resource and paying his interest with his rags? Their fanatical confidence in the omnipotence of church plunder has induced these philosophers to overlook all care of the public estate, just as the dream of the philosopher's stone induces dupes, under the more plausible delusion of the hermetic art, to neglect all rational means of improving their fortunes. With these philosophic financiers, this universal medicine made of church mummy is to cure all the evils of the state. These gentlemen perhaps do not believe a great deal in the miracles of piety, but it cannot be questioned that they have an undoubting faith in the prodigies of sacrilege. Is there a debt which presses them? -- Issue assignats. Are compensations to be made or a maintenance decreed to those whom they have robbed of their freehold in their office, or expelled from their profession? -- Assignats. Is a fleet to be fitted out? -- Assignats. If sixteen millions sterling of these assignats, forced on the people, leave the wants of the state as urgent as ever -- issue, says one, thirty millions sterling of assignats -- says another, issue fourscore millions more of assignats. The only difference among their financial factions is on the greater or the lesser quantity of assignats to be imposed on the public sufferance. They are all professors of assignats. Even those whose natural good sense and knowledge of commerce, not obliterated by philosophy, furnish decisive arguments against this delusion conclude their arguments by proposing the emission of assignats. I suppose they must talk of assignats, as no other language would be understood. All experience of their inefficiency does not in the least discourage them. Are the old assignats depreciated at market? -- What is the remedy? Issue new assignats. -- Mais si maladia, opiniatria, non vult se garire, quid illi facere? assignare -- postea assignare; ensuita assignare. The word is a trifle altered. The Latin of your present doctors may be better than that of your old comedy; their wisdom and the variety of their resources are the same. They have not more notes in their song than the cuckoo, though, far from the softness of that harbinger of summer and plenty, their voice is as harsh and as ominous as that of the raven. Who but the most desperate adventurers in philosophy and finance could at all have thought of destroying the settled revenue of the state, the sole security for the public credit, in the hope of rebuilding it with the materials of confiscated property? If, however, an excessive zeal for the state should have led a pious and venerable prelate (by anticipation a father of the church \[57\]) to pillage his own order and, for the good of the church and people, to take upon himself the place of grand financier of confiscation and comptroller-general of sacrilege, he and his coadjutors were in my opinion bound to show by their subsequent conduct that they knew something of the office they assumed. When they had resolved to appropriate to the Fisc a certain portion of the landed property of their conquered country, it was their business to render their bank a real fund of credit, as far as such a bank was capable of becoming so. To establish a current circulating credit upon any Land-bank, under any circumstances whatsoever, has hitherto proved difficult at the very least. The attempt has commonly ended in bankruptcy. But when the Assembly were led, through a contempt of moral, to a defiance of economical principles, it might at least have been expected that nothing would be omitted on their part to lessen this difficulty, to prevent any aggravation of this bankruptcy. It might be expected that to render your land-bank tolerable, every means would be adopted that could display openness and candor in the statement of the security -- everything which could aid the recovery of the demand. To take things in their most favorable point of view, your condition was that of a man of a large landed estate which he wished to dispose of for the discharge of a debt and the supply of certain services. Not being able instantly to sell, you wished to mortgage. What would a man of fair intentions and a commonly clear understanding do in such circumstances? Ought he not first to ascertain the gross value of the estate, the charges of its management and disposition, the encumbrances perpetual and temporary of all kinds that affect it, then, striking a net surplus, to calculate the just value of the security? When that surplus (the only security to the creditor) had been clearly ascertained and properly vested in the hands of trustees, then he would indicate the parcels to be sold, and the time and conditions of sale; after this, he would admit the public creditor, if he chose it, to subscribe his stock into this new fund, or he might receive proposals for an assignat from those who would advance money to purchase this species of security. This would be to proceed like men of business, methodically and rationally, and on the only principles of public and private credit that have an existence. The dealer would then know exactly what he purchased; and the only doubt which could hang upon his mind would be the dread of the resumption of the spoil, which one day might be made (perhaps with an addition of punishment) from the sacrilegious gripe of those execrable wretches who could become purchasers at the auction of their innocent fellow citizens. AN open and exact statement of the clear value of the property and of the time, the circumstances, and the place of sale were all necessary to efface as much as possible the stigma that has hitherto been branded on every kind of land-bank. It became necessary on another principle, that is, on account of a pledge of faith previously given on that subject, that their future fidelity in a slippery concern might be established by their adherence to their first engagement. When they had finally determined on a state resource from church booty, they came, on the 14th of April, 1790, to a solemn resolution on the subject, and pledged themselves to their country, "that in the statement of the public charges for each year, there should be brought to account a sum sufficient for defraying the expenses of the R. C. A. religion, the support of the ministers at the altars, the relief of the poor, the pensions to the ecclesiastics, secular as well as regular, of the one and of the other sex, in order that the estates and goods which are at the disposal of the nation may be disengaged of all charges and employed by the representatives, or the legislative body, to the great and most pressing exigencies of the state." They further engaged, on the same day, that the sum necessary for the year 1791 should be forthwith determined. In this resolution they admit it their duty to show distinctly the expense of the above objects which, by other resolutions, they had before engaged should be first in the order of provision. They admit that they ought to show the estate clear and disengaged of all charges, and that they should show it immediately. Have they done this immediately, or at any time? Have they ever furnished a rent-roll of the immovable estates, or given in an inventory of the movable effects which they confiscate to their assignats? In what manner they can fulfill their engagements of holding out to public service "an estate disengaged of all charges" without authenticating the value of the estate or the quantum of the charges, I leave it to their English admirers to explain. Instantly upon this assurance, and previously to any one step toward making it good, they issue, on the credit of so handsome a declaration, sixteen millions sterling of their paper. This was manly. Who, after this masterly stroke, can doubt of their abilities in finance? But then, before any other emission of these financial indulgences, they took care at least to make good their original promise! -- If such estimate either of the value of the estate or the amount of the encumbrances has been made, it has escaped me. I never heard of it. At length they have spoken out, and they have made a full discovery of their abominable fraud in holding out the church lands as a security for any debts, or any service whatsoever. They rob only to enable them to cheat, but in a very short time they defeat the ends both of the robbery and the fraud by making out accounts for other purposes which blow up their whole apparatus of force and of deception. I am obliged to M. de Calonne for his reference to the document which proves this extraordinary fact; it had by some means escaped me. Indeed it was not necessary to make out my assertion as to the breach of faith on the declaration of the 14th of April, 1790\. By a report of their committee it now appears that the charge of keeping up the reduced ecclesiastical establishments and other expenses attendant on religion, and maintaining the religious of both sexes, retained or pensioned, and the other concomitant expenses of the same nature which they have brought upon themselves by this convulsion in property, exceeds the income of the estates acquired by it in the enormous sum of two millions sterling annually, besides a debt of seven millions and upwards. These are the calculating powers of imposture! This is the finance of philosophy! This is the result of all the delusions held out to engage a miserable people in rebellion, murder, and sacrilege, and to make them prompt and zealous instruments in the ruin of their country! Never did a state, in any case, enrich itself by the confiscations of the citizens. This new experiment has succeeded like all the rest. Every honest mind, every true lover of liberty and humanity, must rejoice to find that injustice is not always good policy, nor rapine the high road to riches. I subjoin with pleasure, in a note, the able and spirited observations of M. de Calonne on this subject. \[58\] In order to persuade the world of the bottomless resource of ecclesiastical confiscation, the Assembly have proceeded to other confiscations of estates in offices, which could not be done with any common color without being compensated out of this grand confiscation of landed property. They have thrown upon this fund, which was to show a surplus disengaged of all charges, a new charge -- namely, the compensation to the whole body of the disbanded judicature, and of all suppressed offices and estates, a charge which I cannot ascertain, but which unquestionably amounts to many French millions. Another of the new charges is an annuity of four hundred and eighty thousand pounds sterling, to be paid (if they choose to keep faith) by daily payments, for the interest of the first assignats. Have they even given themselves the trouble to state fairly the expense of the management of the church lands in the hands of the municipalities to whose care, skill, and diligence, and that of their legion of unknown underagents, they have chosen to commit the charge of the forfeited estates, the consequence of which had been so ably pointed out by the bishop of Nancy? But it is unnecessary to dwell on these obvious heads of encumbrance. Have they made out any clear state of the grand encumbrance of all, I mean the whole of the general and municipal establishments of all sorts, and compared it with the regular income by revenue? Every deficiency in these becomes a charge on the confiscated estate before the creditor can plant his cabbages on an acre of church property. There is no other prop than this confiscation to keep the whole state from tumbling to the ground. In this situation they have purposely covered all that they ought industriously to have cleared with a thick fog, and then, blindfold themselves, like bulls that shut their eyes when they push, they drive, by the point of the bayonets, their slaves, blindfolded indeed no worse than their lords, to take their fictions for currencies and to swallow down paper pills by thirty-four millions sterling at a dose. Then they proudly lay in their claim to a future credit, on failure of all their past engagements, and at a time when (if in such a matter anything can be clear) it is clear that the surplus estates will never answer even the first of their mortgages, I mean that of the four hundred millions (or sixteen millions sterling) of assignats. In all this procedure I can discern neither the solid sense of plain dealing nor the subtle dexterity of ingenious fraud. The objections within the Assembly to pulling up the floodgates for this inundation of fraud are unanswered, but they are thoroughly refuted by a hundred thousand financiers in the street. These are the numbers by which the metaphysic arithmeticians compute. These are the grand calculations on which a philosophical public credit is founded in France. They cannot raise supplies, but they can raise mobs. Let them rejoice in the applauses of the club at Dundee for their wisdom and patriotism in having thus applied the plunder of the citizens to the service of the state. I hear of no address upon this subject from the directors of the Bank of England, though their approbation would be of a little more weight in the scale of credit than that of the club at Dundee. But, to do justice to the club, I believe the gentlemen who compose it to be wiser than they appear; that they will be less liberal of their money than of their addresses; and that they would not give a dog's ear of their most rumpled and ragged Scotch paper for twenty of your fairest assignats. Early in this year the Assembly issued paper to the amount of sixteen millions sterling; what must have been the state into which the Assembly has brought your affairs, that the relief afforded by so vast a supply has been hardly perceptible? This paper also felt an almost immediate depreciation of five per cent, which in a little time came to about seven. The effect of these assignats on the receipt of the revenue is remarkable. M. Necker found that the collectors of the revenue who received in coin paid the treasury in assignats. The collectors made seven per cent by thus receiving in money and accounting in depreciated paper. It was not very difficult to foresee that this must be inevitable. It was, however, not the less embarrassing. M. Necker was obliged (I believe, for a considerable part, in the market of London) to buy gold and silver for the mint, which amounted to about twelve thousand pounds above the value of the commodity gained. That minister was of opinion that, whatever their secret nutritive virtue might be, the state could not live upon assignats alone, that some real silver was necessary, particularly for the satisfaction of those who, having iron in their hands, were not likely to distinguish themselves for patience when they should perceive that, whilst an increase of pay was held out to them in real money, it was again to be fraudulently drawn back by depreciated paper. The minister, in this very natural distress, applied to the Assembly that they should order the collectors to pay in specie what in specie they had received. It could not escape him that if the treasury paid three per cent for the use of a currency which should be returned seven per cent worse than the minister issued it, such a dealing could not very greatly tend to enrich the public. The Assembly took no notice of this recommendation. They were in this dilemma: if they continued to receive the assignats, cash must become an alien to their treasury; if the treasury should refuse those paper amulets or should discountenance them in any degree, they must destroy the credit of their sole resource. They seem then to have made their option, and to have given some sort of credit to their paper by taking it themselves; at the same time in their speeches they made a sort of swaggering declaration, something, I rather think, above legislative competence; that is, that there is no difference in value between metallic money and their assignats. This was a good, stout, proof article of faith, pronounced under an anathema by the venerable fathers of this philosophic synod. Credat who will -- certainly not Judaeus Apella. A noble indignation rises in the minds of your popular leaders on hearing the magic lantern in their show of finance compared to the fraudulent exhibitions of Mr. Law. They cannot bear to hear the sands of his Mississippi compared with the rock of the church on which they build their system. Pray let them suppress this glorious spirit until they show to the world what piece of solid ground there is for their assignats which they have not preoccupied by other charges. They do injustice to that great mother fraud to compare it with their degenerate imitation. It is not true that Law built solely on a speculation concerning the Mississippi. He added the East India trade; he added the African trade; he added the farms of all the farmed revenue of France. All these together unquestionably could not support the structure which the public enthusiasm, not he, chose to build upon these bases. But these were, however, in comparison generous delusions. They supposed, and they aimed at, an increase of the commerce of France. They opened to it the whole range of the two hemispheres. They did not think of feeding France from its own substance. A grand imagination found in this night of commerce something to captivate. It was wherewithal to dazzle the eye of an eagle. It was not made to entice the smell of a mole nuzzling and burying himself in his mother earth, as yours is. Men were not then quite shrunk from their natural dimensions by a degrading and sordid philosophy, and fitted for low and vulgar deceptions. Above all, remember that in imposing on the imagination the then managers of the system made a compliment to the freedom of men. In their fraud there was no mixture of force. This was reserved to our time, to quench the little glimmerings of reason which might break in upon the solid darkness of this enlightened age. On recollection, I have said nothing of a scheme of finance which may be urged in favor of the abilities of these gentlemen, and which has been introduced with great pomp, though not yet finally adopted, in the National Assembly. It comes with something solid in aid of the credit of the paper circulation; and much has been said of its utility and its elegance. I mean the project for coining into money the bells of the suppressed churches. This is their alchemy. There are some follies which baffle argument, which go beyond ridicule, and which excite no feeling in us but disgust; and therefore I say no more upon it. It is as little worth remarking any further upon all their drawing and re-drawing on their circulation for putting off the evil day, on the play between the treasury and the Caisse d'Escompte, and on all these old, exploded contrivances of mercantile fraud now exalted into policy of state. The revenue will not be trifled with. The prattling about the rights of men will not be accepted in payment for a biscuit or a pound of gunpowder. Here then the metaphysicians descend from their airy speculations and faithfully follow examples. What examples? The examples of bankrupts. But defeated, baffled, disgraced, when their breath, their strength, their inventions, their fancies desert them, their confidence still maintains its ground. In the manifest failure of their abilities, they take credit for their benevolence. When the revenue disappears in their hands, they have the presumption, in some of their late proceedings, to value themselves on the relief given to the people. They did not relieve the people. If they entertained such intentions, why did they order the obnoxious taxes to be paid? The people relieved themselves in spite of the Assembly. But waiving all discussion on the parties who may claim the merit of this fallacious relief, has there been, in effect, any relief to the people in any form? Mr. Bailly, one of the grand agents of paper circulation, lets you into the nature of this relief. His speech to the National Assembly contained a high and labored panegyric on the inhabitants of Paris for the constancy and unbroken resolution with which they have borne their distress and misery. A fine picture of public felicity! What great courage and unconquerable firmness of mind to endure benefits and sustain redress! One would think from the speech of this learned lord mayor that the Parisians, for this twelvemonth past, had been suffering the straits of some dreadful blockade, that Henry the Fourth had been stopping up the avenues to their supply, and Sully thundering with his ordnance at the gates of Paris, when in reality they are besieged by no other enemies than their own madness and folly, their own credulity and perverseness. But Mr. Bailly will sooner thaw the eternal ice of his Atlantic regions than restore the central heat to Paris whilst it remains "smitten with the cold, dry, petrific mace" of a false and unfeeling philosophy. Some time after this speech, that is, on the thirteenth of last August, the same magistrate, giving an account of his government at the bar of the same Assembly, expresses himself as follows: In the month of July, 1789, (the period of everlasting commemoration) the finances of the city of Paris were yet in good order; the expenditure was counterbalanced by the receipt; and she had at that time a million (forty thousand pounds sterling) in bank. The expenses which she has been constrained to incur, subsequent to the Revolution, amount to 2,500,000 livres. From these expenses, and the great falling off in the product of the free gifts, not only a momentary, but a total, want of money has taken place. This is the Paris upon whose nourishment, in the course of the last year, such immense sums, drawn from the vitals of all France, have been expended. As long as Paris stands in the place of ancient Rome, so long she will be maintained by the subject provinces. It is an evil inevitably attendant on the dominion of sovereign democratic republics. As it happened in Rome, it may survive that republican domination which gave rise to it. In that case despotism itself must submit to the vices of popularity. Rome, under her emperors, united the evils of both systems; and this unnatural combination was one great cause of her ruin. To tell the people that they are relieved by the dilapidation of their public estate is a cruel and insolent imposition. Statesmen, before they valued themselves on the relief given to the people by the destruction of their revenue, ought first to have carefully attended to the solution of this problem -- whether it be more advantageous to the people to pay considerably and to gain in proportion, or to gain little or nothing and to be disburdened of all contribution? My mind is made up to decide in favor of the first proposition. Experience is with me, and, I believe, the best opinions also. To keep a balance between the power of acquisition on the part of the subject and the demands he is to answer on the part of the state is the fundamental part of the skill of a true politician. The means of acquisition are prior in time and in arrangement. Good order is the foundation of all good things. To be enabled to acquire, the people, without being servile, must be tractable and obedient. The magistrate must have his reverence, the laws their authority. The body of the people must not find the principles of natural subordination by art rooted out of their minds. They must respect that property of which they cannot partake. They must labor to obtain what by labor can be obtained; and when they find, as they commonly do, the success disproportioned to the endeavour, they must be taught their consolation in the final proportions of eternal justice. Of this consolation, whoever deprives them deadens their industry and strikes at the root of all acquisition as of all conservation. He that does this is the cruel oppressor, the merciless enemy of the poor and wretched, at the same time that by his wicked speculations he exposes the fruits of successful industry and the accumulations of fortune to the plunder of the negligent, the disappointed, and the unprosperous. Too many of the financiers by profession are apt to see nothing in revenue but banks, and circulations, and annuities on lives, and tontines, and perpetual rents, and all the small wares of the shop. In a settled order of the state, these things are not to be slighted, nor is the skill in them to be held of trivial estimation. They are good, but then only good when they assume the effects of that settled order and are built upon it. But when men think that these beggarly contrivances may supply a resource for the evils which result from breaking up the foundations of public order, and from causing or suffering the principles of property to be subverted, they will, in the ruin of their country, leave a melancholy and lasting monument of the effect of preposterous politics and presumptuous, short-sighted, narrow-minded wisdom. The effects of the incapacity shown by the popular leaders in all the great members of the commonwealth are to be covered with the "all-atoning name" of liberty. In some people I see great liberty indeed; in many, if not in the most, an oppressive, degrading servitude. But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths. Grand, swelling sentiments of liberty I am sure I do not despise. They warm the heart; they enlarge and liberalize our minds; they animate our courage in a time of conflict. Old as I am, I read the fine raptures of Lucan and Corneille with pleasure. Neither do I wholly condemn the little arts and devices of popularity. They facilitate the carrying of many points of moment; they keep the people together; they refresh the mind in its exertions; and they diffuse occasional gaiety over the severe brow of moral freedom. Every politician ought to sacrifice to the graces, and to join compliance with reason. But in such an undertaking as that in France, all these subsidiary sentiments and artifices are of little avail. To make a government requires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide; it only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free government, that is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and restraint in one consistent work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a sagacious, powerful, and combining mind. This I do not find in those who take the lead in the National Assembly. Perhaps they are not so miserably deficient as they appear. I rather believe it. It would put them below the common level of human understanding. But when the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators, the instruments, not the guides, of the people. If any of them should happen to propose a scheme of liberty, soberly limited and defined with proper qualifications, he will be immediately outbid by his competitors who will produce something more splendidly popular. Suspicions will be raised of his fidelity to his cause. Moderation will be stigmatized as the virtue of cowards, and compromise as the prudence of traitors, until, in hopes of preserving the credit which may enable him to temper and moderate, on some occasions, the popular leader is obliged to become active in propagating doctrines and establishing powers that will afterwards defeat any sober purpose at which he ultimately might have aimed. But am I so unreasonable as to see nothing at all that deserves commendation in the indefatigable labors of this Assembly? I do not deny that, among an infinite number of acts of violence and folly, some good may have been done. They who destroy everything certainly will remove some grievance. They who make everything new have a chance that they may establish something beneficial. To give them credit for what they have done in virtue of the authority they have usurped, or which can excuse them in the crimes by which that authority has been acquired, it must appear that the same things could not have been accomplished without producing such a revolution. Most assuredly they might, because almost every one of the regulations made by them which is not very equivocal was either in the cession of the king, voluntarily made at the meeting of the states, or in the concurrent instructions to the orders. Some usages have been abolished on just grounds, but they were such that if they had stood as they were to all eternity, they would little detract from the happiness and prosperity of any state. The improvements of the National Assembly are superficial, their errors fundamental. Whatever they are, I wish my countrymen rather to recommend to our neighbors the example of the British constitution than to take models from them for the improvement of our own. In the former, they have got an invaluable treasure. They are not, I think, without some causes of apprehension and complaint, but these they do not owe to their constitution but to their own conduct. I think our happy situation owing to our constitution, but owing to the whole of it, and not to any part singly, owing in a great measure to what we have left standing in our several reviews and reformations as well as to what we have altered or superadded. Our people will find employment enough for a truly patriotic, free, and independent spirit in guarding what they possess from violation. I would not exclude alteration neither, but even when I changed, it should be to preserve. I should be led to my remedy by a great grievance. In what I did, I should follow the example of our ancestors. I would make the reparation as nearly as possible in the style of the building. A politic caution, a guarded circumspection, a moral rather than a complexional timidity were among the ruling principles of our forefathers in their most decided conduct. Not being illuminated with the light of which the gentlemen of France tell us they have got so abundant a share, they acted under a strong impression of the ignorance and fallibility of mankind. He that had made them thus fallible rewarded them for having in their conduct attended to their nature. Let us imitate their caution if we wish to deserve their fortune or to retain their bequests. Let us add, if we please, but let us preserve what they have left; and, standing on the firm ground of the British constitution, let us be satisfied to admire rather than attempt to follow in their desperate flights the aeronauts of France. I have told you candidly my sentiments. I think they are not likely to alter yours. I do not know that they ought. You are young; you cannot guide but must follow the fortune of your country. But hereafter they may be of some use to you, in some future form which your commonwealth may take. In the present it can hardly remain; but before its final settlement it may be obliged to pass, as one of our poets says, "through great varieties of untried being", and in all its transmigrations to be purified by fire and blood. I have little to recommend my opinions but long observation and much impartiality. They come from one who has been no tool of power, no flatterer of greatness; and who in his last acts does not wish to belie the tenor of his life. They come from one almost the whole of whose public exertion has been a struggle for the liberty of others; from one in whose breast no anger, durable or vehement, has ever been kindled but by what he considered as tyranny; and who snatches from his share in the endeavors which are used by good men to discredit opulent oppression the hours he has employed on your affairs; and who in so doing persuades himself he has not departed from his usual office; they come from one who desires honors, distinctions, and emoluments but little, and who expects them not at all; who has no contempt for fame, and no fear of obloquy; who shuns contention, though he will hazard an opinion; from one who wishes to preserve consistency, but who would preserve consistency by varying his means to secure the unity of his end, and, when the equipoise of the vessel in which he sails may be endangered by overloading it upon one side, is desirous of carrying the small weight of his reasons to that which may preserve its equipoise. ## Footnotes 1\. Psalm CXLIX. 2\. Discourse on the Love of our Country, Nov. 4, 1789, by Dr. Richard Price, 3d ed., pp. 17, 18. 3\. (2) "Those who dislike that mode of worship which is prescribed by public authority, ought, if they can find no worship out of thechurch which they approve, to set up a separate worship forthemselves; and by doing this, and giving an example of a rational and manly worship, men of weight from their rank and literature may do the greatest service to society and the world". -- P 18, Dr. Price's Sermon. 4\. Discourse on the Love of our Country, by Dr. Price, p. 34. 5\. 1st Mary, sess. 3, ch. 1. 6\. "That King James the Second, having endeavored to subvert the constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original contract between king and people, and, by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, hath abdicated the Government, and the throne is thereby vacant". 7\. Pp. 22-24. 8\. See Blackstone's Magna Charta, printed at Oxford, 1759. 9\. W. and M. 10\. Ecclesiasticus, chap. xxxviii. verses 24, 25\. "The wisdom of a learned man cometh by pportunity of leisure; and he that hath little business shall become wise". -- "How can he get wisdom that holdeth the plough, and that glorieth in the goad; that driveth oxen; and is occupied in their labours; and whose talk is of bullocks"? Ver. 27\. "So every carpenter and work-master that laboureth night and day", etc. Ver. 33\. "They shall not be sought for in public counsel, nor sit high in the congregation: they shall not sit on the judge's seat, nor understand the sentence of judgment; they cannot declare justice and judgment, and they shall not be found where parables are spoken". Ver. 34\. "But they will maintain the state of the world". 11\. Discourse on the Love of our Country, 3d ed., p. 39. 12\. Another of these reverend gentlemen, who was witness to some of the spectacles which aris has lately exhibited, expresses himself thus: -- "A king dragged in submissive triumph by his conquering subjects, is one of those appearances of grandeur which seldom rise in the prospect of human affairs, and which, during the remainder of my life, I shall think of with wonder and gratification". These gentlemen agree marvelously in their feelings. 13\. State Trials, vol. ii, pp. 360, 363. 14\. 6th of October, 1789. 15\. "Tous les Eveques a la lanterne". 16\. It is proper here to refer to a letter written upon this subject by an eye witness. That eye witness was one of the most honest, intelligent, and eloquent members of the National Assembly, one of the most active and zealous reformers of the state. He was obliged to secede from the Assembly; and he afterwards became a voluntary exile, on account of the horrors of this pious triumph and the dispositions of men who, profiting of crimes, if not causing them, have taken the lead in public affairs. 17\. N.B. Mr. Mounier was then speaker of the National Assembly. He has since been obliged to live in exile, though one of the firmest assertors of liberty. 18\. See the fate of Bailly and Condorcet, supposed to be here particularly alluded to. Compare the circumstances of the trial and execution of the former with this prediction. 19\. The English are, I conceive, misrepresented in a letter published in one of the papers, by a gentleman thought to be a dissenting minister. -- When writing to Dr. Price of the spirit which prevails at Paris, he says: "The spirit of the people in this place has abolished all the proud distinctions which the king and nobles had usurped in their minds; whether they talk of the king, the noble, or the priest, their whole language is that of the most enlightened and liberal amongst the English". If this gentleman means to confine the terms "enlightened" and "liberal" to one set of men in England, it may be true. It is not generally so. 20\. Sit igitur hoc ab initio persuasum civibus, dominos esse omnium rerum ac moderatores, deos; eaque, quae gerantur, eorum geri vi, ditione, ac numine; eosdemque optime de genere hominum mereri; et qualis quisque sit, quid agat, quid in se admittat, qua mente, qua pietate colat religiones intueri; piorum et impiorum habere rationem. His enim rebus imbutae mentes haud sane abhorrebunt ab utili et a vera sententia. Cic. de Legibus, 1\. 2. 21\. Quicquid multis peccatur inultum. 22\. This (down to the end of the first sentence in the next paragraph) and some other parts here and there were inserted, on his reading the manuscript, by my lost Son. 23\. I do not choose to shock the feeling of the moral reader with any quotation of their vulgar, base, and profane language. 24\. Their connection with Turgot and almost all the people of the finance. 25\. All have been confiscated in their turn. 26\. Not his brother nor any near relation; but this mistake does not affect the argument. 27\. The rest of the passage is this -- "Who having spent the treasures of his crown, Condemns their luxury to feed his own. And yet this act, to varnish o'er the shame Of sacrilege, must bear devotion's name. No crime so bold, but would be understood A real, or at least a seeming good; Who fears not to do ill, yet fears the name, And, free from conscience, is a slave to fame. Thus he the church at once protects, and spoils; But princes' swords are sharper than their styles. And thus to th' ages past he makes amends, Their charity destroys, their faith defends. Then did religion in a lazy cell, In empty aery contemplation dwell; And, like the block, unmoved lay; but ours, As much too active, like the stork devours. Is there no temperate region can be known, Betwixt their frigid and our torrid zone? Could we not wake from that lethargic dream, But to be restless in a worse extreme? And for that lethargy was there no cure, But to be cast into a calenture? Can knowledge have no bound, but must advance So far, to make us wish for ignorance? And rather in the dark to grope our way, Than, led by a false guide, to err by day? Who sees these dismal heaps, but would demand, What barbarous invader sacked the land? But when he hears, no Goth, no Turk did bring This desolation, but a Christian king; When nothing, but the name of zeal, appears 'Twixt our best actions and the worst of theirs, What does he think our sacrilege would spare, When such th' effects of our devotion are?" COOPER'S HILL, by SIR JOHN DENHAM. 28\. Rapport de Mons. le Directeur-General des Finances, fait par ordre du Roi a Versailles, Mai 5, 1789. 29\. In the constitution of Scotland, during the Stuart reigns, a committee sat for preparing bills; and none could pass but those previously approved by them. The committee was called "Lords of Articles". 30\. When I wrote this I quoted from memory, after many years had elapsed from my reading the passage. A learned friend has found it, and it is as follows: To ethos to auto, kai ampho despotika ton beltionon, kai ta psephismata, osper ekei ta epitagmata kai o demagogos kai o kolax, oi autoi kai analogoi kai malista ekateroi par ekaterois ischuousin, oi men kolakes para turannois, oi de demagogoi para tois demois tois toioutois. -- "The ethical character is the same; both exercise despotism over the better class of citizens; and decrees are in the one, what ordinances and arrets are in the other: the demagogue, too, and the court favorite are not unfrequently the same identical men, and always bear a close analogy; and these have the principal power, each in their respective forms of government, favorites with the absolute monarch, and demagogues with a people such as I have described". Arist. Politic. lib. iv. cap. 4. 31\. De l'Administration des Finances de la France, par Mons. Necker, vol. I, p. 288. 32\. De l'administration des Finances de la France, par M. Necker. 33\. Ibid., Vol. III. chap. 8 and chap. 9. 34\. The world is obliged to M. de Calonne for the pains he has taken to refute the scandalous exaggerations relative to some of the royal expenses, and to detect the fallacious account given of pensions, for the wicked purpose of provoking the populace to all sorts of crimes. 35\. See Gulliver's Travels for the idea of countries governed by philosophers. 36\. M. de Calonne states the falling off of the population of Paris as far more considerable; and it may be so, since the period of M. Necker's calculation. 37. Travaux de charite pour subvenir au Livres � s. d. manque de travail a Paris et dans les provinces........................... 3,866,920 = 161,121 13 4 Destruction de vagabondage et de la mendicite........................... 1,671,417 = 69,642 7 6 Primes pour l'importation de grains 5,671,907 = 236,329 9 2 Depenses relatives aux subsistances, deduction fait des recouvrements qui ont eu lieu......................... 39,871,790 = 1,661,324 11 8 Total......................... 51,082,034 = �2,128,418 1 8 38\. This is on the supposition of the truth of the story, but he was not in France at the time. One name serves as well as another. 39\. Domat. 40\. Speech of Mr. Camus, published by order of the National Assembly. 41\. Whether the following description is strictly true, I know not; but it is what the publishers would have pass for true in order to animate others. In a letter from Toul, given in one of their papers, is the following passage concerning the people of that district: "Dans la Revolution actuelle, ils ont resiste a toutes les seductions du bigotisme, aux persecutions, et aux tracasseries des ennemis de la Revolution. Oubliant leurs plus grands interets pour rendre hommage aux vues d'ordre general qui ont determine l'Assemblee Nationale, ils voient, sans se plaindre, supprimer cette foule detablissemens ecclesiastiques par lesquels ils subsistoient; et meme, en perdant leur siege episcopal, la seule de toutes ces ressources qui pouvoit, ou plutot qui devoit, en toute equite, leur etre conservee; condamnes a la plus effrayante misere, sans avoir ete ni pu etre entendus, ils ne murmurent point, ils restent fideles aux principes du plus pur patriotisme; ils sont encore prets a verser leur sang pour le maintien de la Constitution, qui va reduire leur ville a la plus deplorable nullite." These people are not supposed to have endured those sufferings and injustices in a struggle for liberty, for the same account states truly that they had been always free; their patience in beggary and ruin, and their suffering, without remonstrance, the most flagrant and confessed injustice, if strictly true, can be nothing but the effect of this dire fanaticism. A great multitude all over France is in the same condition and the same temper. 42\. See the proceedings of the confederation at Nantz. 43\. "Si plures sunt ii quibus improbe datum est, quam illi quibus injuste ademptum est, idcirco plus etiam valent? Non enim numero haec judicantur sed pondere. Quam autem habet aequitatem, ut agrum multis annis, aut etiam saeculis ante possessum, qui nullum habuit habeat; qui autem habuit amittat? Ac, propter hoc injuriae genus, Lacedaemonii Lysandrum Ephorum expulerunt: Agin regem (quod nunquam antea apud eos acciderat) necaverunt: exque eo tempore tantae discordiae secutae sunt, ut et tyranni existerint, et optimates exterminarentur, et preclarissime constituta respublica dilaberetur. Nec vero solum ipsa cecidit, sed etiam reliquam Graeciam evertit contagionibus malorum, quae a Lacedaemoniis profectae manarunt latius". -- After speaking of the conduct of the model of true patriots, Aratus of Sicyon, which was in a very different spirit, he says, "Sic par est agere cum civibus; non ut bis jam vidimus, hastam in foro ponere et bona civium voci subjicere praeconis. At ille Graecus (id quod fuit sapientis et praestantis viri) omnibus consulendum esse putavit: eaque est summa ratio et sapientia boni civis, commoda civium non divellere, sed omnes eadem aequitate continere." Cic. Off. 1\. 2. 44\. See two books entitled, Einige Originalschriften des Illuminatenordens. -- System und Folgen des Illuminatenordens. Munchen, 1787. 45\. A leading member of the Assembly, M. Rabaud de St. Etienne, has expressed the principle of all their proceedings as clearly as possible -- Nothing can be more simple: "Tous les etablissemens en France couronnent le malheur du peuple: pour le rendre heureux il faut le renouveler; changer ses idees; changer ses loix; changer ses moeurs;... changer les hommes; changer les choses; changer les mots... tout detruire; oui, tout detruire; puisque tout est a recreer". This gentleman was chosen president in an assembly not sitting at the Quinze-vingt, or the Petits Maisons; and composed of persons giving themselves out to be rational beings; but neither his ideas, language, or conduct, differ in the smallest degree from the discourses, opinions, and actions of those within and without the Assembly, who direct the operations of the machine now at work in France. 46\. The Assembly, in executing the plan of their committee, made some alterations. They have struck out one stage in these gradations; this removes a part of the objection; but the main objection, namely, that in their scheme the first constituent voter has no connection with the representative legislator, remains in all its force. There are other alterations, some possibly for the better, some certainly for the worse; but to the author the merit or demerit of these smaller alterations appears to be of no moment where the scheme itself is fundamentally vicious and absurd. 47\. Non, ut olim, universae legiones deducebantur cum tribunis, et centurionibus, et sui cujusque ordinis militibus, ut consensu et caritate rempublicam afficerent; sed ignoti inter se, diversis manipulis, sine rectore, sine affectibus mutuis, quasi ex alio genere mortalium, repente in unum collecti, numerus magis quam colonia. Tac. Annal. 1\. 14, sect. 27\. All this will be still more applicable to the unconnected, rotatory, biennial national assemblies, in this absurd and senseless constitution. 48\. Qualitas, relatio, actio, passio, ubi, quando, situs, habitus. 49\. See l'Etat de la France, p. 363. 50\. In reality three, to reckon the provincial republican establishments. 51\. For further elucidations upon the subject of all these judicatures, and of the committee of research, see M. de Calonne's work. 52\. Comme sa Majeste y a reconnu, non une systeme d'associations particulieres, mais une reunion de volontes de tous les Francois pour la liberte et la prosperite communes, ainsi pour la maintien de l'ordre publique; il a pense qu'il convenoit que chaque regiment prit part a ces fetes civiques pour multiplier les rapports et reserrer les liens d'union entre les citoyens et les troupes. -- Lest should not be credited, I insert the words, authorizing the troops to feast with the popular confederacies. 53\. This war minister has since quitted the school and resigned his office. 54\. Courier Francois, 30th July, 1790\. Assemblee Nationale, Numero 210. 55\. I see by M. Necker's account that the national guards of Paris have received, over and above the money levied within their own city, about L145,000 sterling out of the public treasures. Whether this be an actual payment for the nine months of their existence or an estimate of their yearly charge, I do not clearly perceive. It is of no great importance, as certainly they may take whatever they please. 56\. The reader will observe that I have but lightly touched (my plan demanded nothing more) on the condition of the French finances, as connected with the demands upon them. If I had intended to do otherwise, the materials in my hands for such a task are not altogether perfect. On this subject I refer the reader to M. de Calonne's work; and the tremendous display that he has made of the havoc and devastation in the public estate, and in all the affairs of France, caused by the presumptuous good intentions of ignorance and incapacity. Such effects those causes will always produce. Looking over that account with a pretty strict eye, and, with perhaps too much rigor, deducting everything which may be placed to the account of a financier out of place, who might be supposed by his enemies desirous of making the most of his cause, I believe it will be found that a more salutary lesson of caution against the daring spirit of innovators than what has been supplied at the expense of France never was at any time furnished to mankind. 57\. La Bruyere of Bossuet. 58\. "Ce n'est point a l'assemblee entiere que je m'adresse ici; je ne parle qu'a ceux qui l'egarent, en lui cachant sous des gazes seduisantes le but ou ils l'entrainent. C'est a eux que je dis: votre objet, vous n'en disconviendrez pas, c'est d'oter tout espoir au clerge, & de consommer sa ruine; c'est-la, en ne vous soupconnant d'aucune combinaison de cupidite, d'aucun regard sur le jeu des effets publics, c'est-la ce qu'on doit croire que vous avez en vue dans la terrible operation que vous proposez; c'est ce qui doit en etre le fruit. Mais le peuple que vous y interessez, quel avantage peut-il y trouver? En vous servant sans cesse de lui, que faites vous pour lui? Rien, absolument rien; &, au contraire, vous faites ce qui ne conduit qu'a l'accabler de nouvelles charges. Vous avez rejete, a son prejudice, une offre de 400 millions, dont l'acceptation pouvoit devenir un moyen de soulagement en sa faveur; & a cette ressource, aussi profitable que legitime, vous avez substitue une injustice ruineuse, qui, de votre propre aveu, charge le tresor public, & par consequent le peuple, d'un surcroit de depense annuelle de 50 millions au moins, & d'un remboursement de 150 millions. "Malheureux peuple, voila ce que vous vaut en dernier resultat l'expropriation de l'Eglise, & la durete des decrets taxateurs du traitement des ministres d'une religion bienfaisante; & deformais ils seront a votre charge: leurs charites soulageoient les pauvres; vous allez etre imposes pour subvenir a leur entretien!" -- De l'Etat de la France, p. 81\. See also p. 92, and the following pages. ### As We May Think by Vannevar Bush URL: https://robert.winter.ink/as-we-may-think-by-vannevar-bush/ Last updated: 2021-05-29T10:52:07.000Z This article was originally published in the July 1945 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. It is reproduced here with their permission. This electronic version was prepared by Robert Winter, May 2021\. Please email comments and corrections to [hello@robert.winter.ink](mailto:hello@robert.winter.ink). --- ![Vannevar Bush seated at a desk](https://robert.winter.ink/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/05/Vannevar_Bush_portrait.jpg) Vannevar Bush seated at a desk. As Director of the [Office of Scientific Research and Development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office%5Fof%5FScientific%5FResearch%5Fand%5FDevelopment?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Dr. Vannevar Bush](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar%5FBush?ref=robert.winter.ink) has coordinated the activities of some six thousand leading American scientists in the application of science to warfare. In this significant article he holds up an incentive for scientists when the fighting has ceased. He urges that men of science should then turn to the massive task of making more accessible our bewildering store of knowledge. For many years inventions have extended man's physical powers rather than the powers of his mind. Trip hammers that multiply the fists, microscopes that sharpen the eye, and engines of destruction and detection are new results, but the end results, of modern science. Now, says Dr. Bush, instruments are at hand which, if properly developed, will give man access to and command over the inherited knowledge of the ages. The perfection of these pacific instruments should be the first objective of our scientists as they emerge from their war work. Like Emerson's famous address of 1837 on '[The American Scholar](https://emersoncentral.com/texts/nature-addresses-lectures/addresses/the-american-scholar/?ref=robert.winter.ink),' this paper by Dr. Bush calls for a new relationship between thinking man and the sum of our knowledge. - The Editor --- This has not been a scientist's war; it has been a war in which all have had a part. The scientists, burying their old professional competition in the demand of a common cause, have shared greatly and learned much. It has been exhilarating to work in effective partnership. Now, for many, this appears to be approaching an end. What are the scientists to do next? For the biologists, and particularly for the medical scientists, there can be little indecision, for their war work has hardly required them to leave the old paths. Many indeed have been able to carry on their war research in their familiar peacetime laboratories. Their objectives remain much the same. It is the physicists who have been thrown most violently off stride, who have left academic pursuits for the making of strange destructive gadgets, who have had to devise new methods for their unanticipated assignments. They have done their part on the devices that made it possible to turn back the enemy. They have worked in combined effort with the physicists of our allies. They have felt within themselves the stir of achievement. They have been part of a great team. Now, as peace approaches, one asks where they will find objectives worthy of their best. ### 1 Of what lasting benefit has been man's use of science and of the new instruments which his research brought into existence? First, they have increased his control of his material environment. They have improved his food, his clothing, his shelter; they have increased his security and released him partly from the bondage of bare existence. They have given him increased knowledge of his own biological processes so that he has had a progressive freedom from disease and an increased span of life. They are illuminating the interactions of his physiological and psychological functions, giving the promise of an improved mental health. Science has provided the swiftest communication between individuals; it has provided a record of ideas and has enabled man to manipulate and to make extracts from that record so that knowledge evolves and endures throughout the life of a race rather than that of an individual. There is a growing mountain of research. But there is increased evidence that we are being bogged down today as specialization extends. The investigator is staggered by the findings and conclusions of thousands of other workers - conclusions which he cannot find time to grasp, much less to remember, as they appear. Yet specialization becomes increasingly necessary for progress, and the effort to bridge between disciplines is correspondingly superficial. Professionally our methods of transmitting and reviewing the results of research are generations old and by now are totally inadequate for their purpose. If the aggregate time spent in writing scholarly works and in reading them could be evaluated, the ratio between these amounts of time might well be startling. Those who conscientiously attempt to keep abreast of current thought, even in restricted fields, by close and continuous reading might well shy away from an examination calculated to show how much of the previous month's efforts could be produced on call. Mendel's concept of the laws of genetics was lost to the world for a generation because his publication did not reach the few who were capable of grasping and extending it; and this sort of catastrophe is undoubtedly being repeated all about us, as truly significant attainments become lost in the mass of the inconsequential. The difficulty seems to be, not so much that we publish unduly in view of the extent and variety of present-day interests, but rather that publication has been extended far beyond our present ability to make real use of the record. The summation of human experience is being expanded at a prodigious rate, and the means we use for threading through the consequent maze to the momentarily important item is the same as was used in the days of square-rigged ships. But there are signs of a change as new and powerful instrumentalities come into use. Photocells capable of seeing things in a physical sense, advanced photography which can record what is seen or even what is not, thermionic tubes capable of controlling potent forces under the guidance of less power than a mosquito uses to vibrate his wings, cathode ray tubes rendering visible an occurrence so brief that by comparison a microsecond is a long time, relay combinations which will carry out involved sequences of movements more reliably than any human operator and thousand of times as fast - there are plenty of mechanical aids with which to effect a transformation in scientific records. Two centuries ago Leibnitz invented a calculating machine which embodied most of the essential features of recent keyboard devices, but it could not then come into use. The economics of the situation were against it: the labor involved in constructing it, before the days of mass production, exceeded the labor to be saved by its use, since all it could accomplish could be duplicated by sufficient use of pencil and paper. Moreover, it would have been subject to frequent breakdown, so that it could not have been depended upon; for at that time and long after, complexity and unreliability were synonymous. Babbage, even with remarkably generous support for his time, could not produce his great arithmetical machine. His idea was sound enough, but construction and maintenance costs were then too heavy. Had a Pharaoh been given detailed and explicit designs of an automobile, and had he understood them completely, it would have taxed the resources of his kingdom to have fashioned the thousands of parts for a single car, and that car would have broken down on the first trip to Giza. Machines with interchangeable parts can now be constructed with great economy of effort. In spite of much complexity, they perform reliably. Witness the humble typewriter, or the movie camera, or the automobile. Electrical contacts have ceased to stick when thoroughly understood. Note the automatic telephone exchange, which has hundred of thousands of such contacts, and yet is reliable. A spider web of metal, sealed in a thin glass container, a wire heated to brilliant glow, in short, the thermionic tube of radio sets, is made by the hundred million, tossed about in packages, plugged into sockets - and it works! Its gossamer parts, the precise location and alignment involved in its construction, would have occupied a master craftsman of the guild for months; now it is built for thirty cents. The world has arrived at an age of cheap complex devices of great reliability; and something is bound to come of it. ### 2 A record, if it is to be useful to science, must be continuously extended, it must be stored, and above all it must be consulted. Today we make the record conventionally by writing and photography, followed by printing; but we also record on film, on wax disks, and on magnetic wires. Even if utterly new recording procedures do not appear, these present ones are certainly in the process of modification and extension. Certainly progress in photography is not going to stop. Faster material and lenses, more automatic cameras, finer-grained sensitive compounds to allow an extension of the minicamera idea, are all imminent. Let us project this trend ahead to a logical, if not inevitable, outcome. The camera hound of the future wears on his forehead a lump a little larger than a walnut. It takes pictures 3 millimeters square, later to be projected or enlarged, which after all involves only a factor of 10 beyond present practice. The lens is of universal focus, down to any distance accommodated by the unaided eye, simply because it is of short focal length. There is a built-in photocell on the walnut such as we now have on at least one camera, which automatically adjusts exposure for a wide range of illumination. There is film in the walnut for a hundred exposures, and the spring for operating its shutter and shifting its film is wound once for all when the film clip is inserted. It produces its result in full color. It may well be stereoscopic, and record with spaced glass eyes, for striking improvements in stereoscopic technique are just around the corner. The cord which trips its shutter may reach down a man's sleeve within easy reach of his fingers. A quick squeeze, and the picture is taken. On a pair of ordinary glasses is a square of fine lines near the top of one lens, where it is out of the way of ordinary vision. When an object appears in that square, it is lined up for its picture. As the scientist of the future moves about the laboratory or the field, every time he looks at something worthy of the record, he trips the shutter and in it goes, without even an audible click. Is this all fantastic? The only fantastic thing about it is the idea of making as many pictures as would result from its use. Will there be dry photography? It is already here in two forms. When Brady made his Civil War pictures, the plate had to be wet at the time of exposure. Now it has to be wet during development instead. In the future perhaps it need not be wetted at all. There have long been films impregnated with diazo dyes which form a picture without development, so that it is already there as soon as the camera has been operated. An exposure to ammonia gas destroys the unexposed dye, and the picture can then be taken out into the light and examined. The process is now slow, but someone may speed it up, and it has no grain difficulties such as now keep photographic researchers busy. Often it would be advantageous to be able to snap the camera and to look at the picture immediately. Another process now in use is also slow, and more or less clumsy. For fifty years impregnated papers have been used which turn dark at every point where an electrical contact touches them, by reason of the chemical change thus produced in an iodine compound included in the paper. They have been used to make records, for a pointer moving across them can leave a trail behind. If the electrical potential on the pointer is varied as it moves, the line becomes light or dark in accordance with the potential. This scheme is now used in facsimile transmission. The pointer draws a set of closely spaced lines across the paper one after another. As it moves, its potential is varied in accordance with a varying current received over wires from a distant station, where these variations are produced by a photocell which is similarly scanning a picture. At every instant the darkness of the line being drawn is made equal to the darkness of the point on the picture being observed by the photocell. Thus, when the whole picture has been covered, a replica appears at the receiving end. A scene itself can be just as well looked over line by line by the photocell in this way as can a photograph of the scene. This whole apparatus constitutes a camera, with the added feature, which can be dispensed with if desired, of making its picture at a distance. It is slow, and the picture is poor in detail. Still, it does give another process of dry photography, in which the picture is finished as soon as it is taken. It would be a brave man who could predict that such a process will always remain clumsy, slow, and faulty in detail. Television equipment today transmits sixteen reasonably good images a second, and it involves only two essential differences from the process described above. For one, the record is made by a moving beam of electrons rather than a moving pointer, for the reason that an electron beam can sweep across the picture very rapidly indeed. The other difference involves merely the use of a screen which glows momentarily when the electrons hit, rather than a chemically treated paper or film which is permanently altered. This speed is necessary in television, for motion pictures rather than stills are the object. Use chemically treated film in place of the glowing screen, allow the apparatus to transmit one picture rather than a succession, and a rapid camera for dry photography results. The treated film needs to be far faster in action than present examples, but it probably could be. More serious is the objection that this scheme would involve putting the film inside a vacuum chamber, for electron beams behave normally only in such a rarefied environment. This difficulty could be avoided by allowing the electron beam to play on one side of a partition, and by pressing the film against the other side, if this partition were such as to allow the electrons to go through perpendicular to its surface, and to prevent them from spreading out sideways. Such partitions, in crude form, could certainly be constructed, and they will hardly hold up the general development. Like dry photography, microphotography still has a long way to go. The basic scheme of reducing the size of the record, and examining it by projection rather than directly, has possibilities too great to be ignored. The combination of optical projection and photographic reduction is already producing some results in microfilm for scholarly purposes, and the potentialities are highly suggestive. Today, with microfilm, reductions by a linear factor of 20 can be employed and still produce full clarity when the material is re-enlarged for examination. The limits are set by the graininess of the film, the excellence of the optical system, and the efficiency of the light sources employed. All of these are rapidly improving. Assume a linear ratio of 100 for future use. Consider film of the same thickness as paper, although thinner film will certainly be usable. Even under these conditions there would be a total factor of 10,000 between the bulk of the ordinary record on books, and its microfilm replica. The Encyclopoedia Britannica could be reduced to the volume of a matchbox. A library of a million volumes could be compressed into one end of a desk. If the human race has produced since the invention of movable type a total record, in the form of magazines, newspapers, books, tracts, advertising blurbs, correspondence, having a volume corresponding to a billion books, the whole affair, assembled and compressed, could be lugged off in a moving van. Mere compression, of course, is not enough; one needs not only to make and store a record but also to be able to consult it, and this aspect of the matter comes later. Even the modern great library is not generally consulted; it is nibbled by a few. Compression is important, however, when it comes to costs. The material for the microfilm Britannica would cost a nickel, and it could be mailed anywhere for a cent. What would it cost to print a million copies? To print a sheet of newspaper, in a large edition, costs a small fraction of a cent. The entire material of the Britannica in reduced microfilm form would go on a sheet eight and one-half by eleven inches. Once it is available, with the photographic reproduction methods of the future, duplicates in large quantities could probably be turned out for a cent apiece beyond the cost of materials. The preparation of the original copy? That introduces the next aspect of the subject. ### 3 To make the record, we now push a pencil or tap a typewriter. Then comes the process of digestion and correction, followed by an intricate process of typesetting, printing, and distribution. To consider the first stage of the procedure, will the author of the future cease writing by hand or typewriter and talk directly to the record? He does so indirectly, by talking to a stenographer or a wax cylinder; but the elements are all present if he wishes to have his talk directly produce a typed record. All he needs to do is to take advantage of existing mechanisms and to alter his language. At a recent World Fair a machine called a Voder was shown. A girl stroked its keys and it emitted recognizable speech. No human vocal cords entered in the procedure at any point; the keys simply combined some electrically produced vibrations and passed these on to a loud-speaker. In the Bell Laboratories there is the converse of this machine, called a Vocoder. The loudspeaker is replaced by a microphone, which picks up sound. Speak to it, and the corresponding keys move. This may be one element of the postulated system. The other element is found in the stenotype, that somewhat disconcerting device encountered usually at public meetings. A girl strokes its keys languidly and looks about the room and sometimes at the speaker with a disquieting gaze. From it emerges a typed strip which records in a phonetically simplified language a record of what the speaker is supposed to have said. Later this strip is retyped into ordinary language, for in its nascent form it is intelligible only to the initiated. Combine these two elements, let the Vocoder run the stenotype, and the result is a machine which types when talked to. Our present languages are not especially adapted to this sort of mechanization, it is true. It is strange that the inventors of universal languages have not seized upon the idea of producing one which better fitted the technique for transmitting and recording speech. Mechanization may yet force the issue, especially in the scientific field; whereupon scientific jargon would become still less intelligible to the layman. One can now picture a future investigator in his laboratory. His hands are free, and he is not anchored. As he moves about and observes, he photographs and comments. Time is automatically recorded to tie the two records together. If he goes into the field, he may be connected by radio to his recorder. As he ponders over his notes in the evening, he again talks his comments into the record. His typed record, as well as his photographs, may both be in miniature, so that he projects them for examination. Much needs to occur, however, between the collection of data and observations, the extraction of parallel material from the existing record, and the final insertion of new material into the general body of the common record. For mature thought there is no mechanical substitute. But creative thought and essentially repetitive thought are very different things. For the latter there are, and may be, powerful mechanical aids. Adding a column of figures is a repetitive thought process, and it was long ago properly relegated to the machine. True, the machine is sometimes controlled by the keyboard, and thought of a sort enters in reading the figures and poking the corresponding keys, but even this is avoidable. Machines have been made which will read typed figures by photocells and then depress the corresponding keys; these are combinations of photocells for scanning the type, electric circuits for sorting the consequent variations, and relay circuits for interpreting the result into the action of solenoids to pull the keys down. All this complication is needed because of the clumsy way in which we have learned to write figures. If we recorded them positionally, simply by the configuration of a set of dots on a card, the automatic reading mechanism would become comparatively simple. In fact, if the dots are holes, we have the punched-card machine long ago produced by Hollorith for the purposes of the census, and now used throughout business. Some types of complex businesses could hardly operate without these machines. Adding is only one operation. To perform arithmetical computation involves also subtraction, multiplication, and division, and in addition some method for temporary storage of results, removal from storage for further manipulation, and recording of final results by printing. Machines for these purposes are now of two types: keyboard machines for accounting and the like, manually controlled for the insertion of data, and usually automatically controlled as far as the sequence of operations is concerned; and punched-card machines in which separate operations are usually delegated to a series of machines, and the cards then transferred bodily from one to another. Both forms are very useful; but as far as complex computations are concerned, both are still embryo. Rapid electrical counting appeared soon after the physicists found it desirable to count cosmic rays. For their own purposes the physicists promptly constructed thermionic-tube equipment capable of counting electrical impulses at the rate of 100,000 a second. The advanced arithmetical machines of the future will be electrical in nature, and they will perform at 100 times present speeds, or more. Moreover, they will be far more versatile than present commercial machines, so that they may readily be adapted for a wide variety of operations. They will be controlled by a control card or film, they will select their own data and manipulate it in accordance with the instructions thus inserted, they will perform complex arithmetical computations at exceedingly high speeds, and they will record results in such form as to be readily available for distribution or for later further manipulation. Such machines will have enormous appetites. One of them will take instructions and data from a roomful of girls armed with simple keyboard punches, and will deliver sheets of computed results every few minutes. There will always be plenty of things to compute in the detailed affairs of millions of people doing complicated things. ### 4 The repetitive processes of thought are not confined, however, to matters of arithmetic and statistics. In fact, every time one combines and records facts in accordance with established logical processes, the creative aspect of thinking is concerned only with the selection of the data and the process to be employed, and the manipulation thereafter is repetitive in nature and hence a fit matter to be relegated to the machines. Not so much has been done along these lines, beyond the bounds of arithmetic, as might be done, primarily because of the economics of the situation. The needs of business, and the extensive market obviously waiting, assured the advent of mass-produced arithmetical machines just as soon as production methods were sufficiently advanced. With machines for advanced analysis no such situation existed; for there was and is no extensive market; the users of advanced methods of manipulating data are a very small part of the population. There are, however, machines for solving differential equations - and functional and integral equations, for that matter. There are many special machines, such as the harmonic synthesizer which predicts the tides. There will be many more, appearing certainly first in the hands of the scientist and in small numbers. If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of arithmetic, we should not get far in our understanding of the physical world. One might as well attempt to grasp the game of poker entirely by the use of the mathematics of probability. The abacus, with its beads string on parallel wires, led the Arabs to positional numeration and the concept of zero many centuries before the rest of the world; and it was a useful tool - so useful that it still exists. It is a far cry from the abacus to the modern keyboard accounting machine. It will be an equal step to the arithmetical machine of the future. But even this new machine will not take the scientist where he needs to go. Relief must be secured from laborious detailed manipulation of higher mathematics as well, if the users of it are to free their brains for something more than repetitive detailed transformations in accordance with established rules. A mathematician is not a man who can readily manipulate figures; often he cannot. He is not even a man who can readily perform the transformation of equations by the use of calculus. He is primarily an individual who is skilled in the use of symbolic logic on a high plane, and especially he is a man of intuitive judgment in the choice of the manipulative processes he employs. All else he should be able to turn over to his mechanism, just as confidently as he turns over the propelling of his car to the intricate mechanism under the hood. Only then will mathematics be practically effective in bringing the growing knowledge of atomistics to the useful solution of the advanced problems of chemistry, metallurgy, and biology. For this reason there will come more machines to handle advanced mathematics for the scientist. Some of them will be sufficiently bizarre to suit the most fastidious connoisseur of the present artifacts of civilization. ### 5 The scientist, however, is not the only person who manipulates data and examines the world about him by the use of logical processes, although he sometimes preserves this appearance by adopting into the fold anyone who becomes logical, much in the manner in which a British labor leader is elevated to knighthood. Whenever logical processes of thought are employed - that is, whenever thought for a time runs along an accepted groove - there is an opportunity for the machine. Formal logic used to be a keen instrument in the hands of the teacher in his trying of students' souls. It is readily possible to construct a machine which will manipulate premises in accordance with formal logic, simply by the clever use of relay circuits. Put a set of premises into such a device and turn the crank, and it will readily pass out conclusion after conclusion, all in accordance with logical law, and with no more slips than would be expected of a keyboard adding machine. Logic can become enormously difficult, and it would undoubtedly be well to produce more assurance in its use. The machines for higher analysis have usually been equation solvers. Ideas are beginning to appear for equation transformers, which will rearrange the relationship expressed by an equation in accordance with strict and rather advanced logic. Progress is inhibited by the exceedingly crude way in which mathematicians express their relationships. They employ a symbolism which grew like Topsy and has little consistency; a strange fact in that most logical field. A new symbolism, probably positional, must apparently precede the reduction of mathematical transformations to machine processes. Then, on beyond the strict logic of the mathematician, lies the application of logic in everyday affairs. We may some day click off arguments on a machine with the same assurance that we now enter sales on a cash register. But the machine of logic will not look like a cash register, even a streamlined model. So much for the manipulation of ideas and their insertion into the record. Thus far we seem to be worse off than before - for we can enormously extend the record; yet even in its present bulk we can hardly consult it. This is a much larger matter than merely the extraction of data for the purposes of scientific research; it involves the entire process by which man profits by his inheritance of acquired knowledge. The prime action of use is selection, and here we are halting indeed. There may be millions of fine thoughts, and the account of the experience on which they are based, all encased within stone walls of acceptable architectural form; but if the scholar can get at only one a week by diligent search, his syntheses are not likely to keep up with the current scene. Selection, in this broad sense, is a stone adze in the hands of a cabinetmaker. Yet, in a narrow sense and in other areas, something has already been done mechanically on selection. The personnel officer of a factory drops a stack of a few thousand employee cards into a selecting machine, sets a code in accordance with an established convention, and produces in a short time a list of all employees who live in Trenton and know Spanish. Even such devices are much too slow when it comes, for example, to matching a set of fingerprints with one of five millions on file. Selection devices of this sort will soon be speeded up from their present rate of reviewing data at a few hundred a minute. By the use of photocells and microfilm they will survey items at the rate of thousands a second, and will print out duplicates of those selected. This process, however, is simple selection: it proceeds by examining in turn every one of a large set of items, and by picking out those which have certain specified characteristics. There is another form of selection best illustrated by the automatic telephone exchange. You dial a number and the machine selects and connects just one of a million possible stations. It does not run over them all. It pays attention only to a class given by a first digit, and so on; and thus proceeds rapidly and almost unerringly to the selected station. It requires a few seconds to make the selection, although the process could be speeded up if increased speed were economically warranted. If necessary, it could be made extremely fast by substituting thermionic-tube switching for mechanical switching, so that the full selection could be made in one-hundredth of a second. No one would wish to spend the money necessary to make this change in the telephone system, but the general idea is applicable elsewhere. Take the prosaic problem of the great department store. Every time a charge sale is made, there are a number of things to be done.. The inventory needs to be revised, the salesman needs to be given credit for the sale, the general accounts need an entry, and, most important, the customer needs to be charged. A central records device has been developed in which much of this work is done conveniently. The salesman places on a stand the customer's identification card, his own card, and the card taken from the article sold - all punched cards. When he pulls a lever, contacts are made through the holes, machinery at a central point makes the necessary computations and entries, and the proper receipt is printed for the salesman to pass to the customer. But there may be ten thousand charge customers doing business with the store, and before the full operation can be completed someone has to select the right card and insert it at the central office. Now rapid selection can slide just the proper card into position in an instant or two, and return it afterward. Another difficulty occurs, however. Someone must read a total on the card, so that the machine can add its computed item to it. Conceivably the cards might be of the dry photography type I have described. Existing totals could then be read by photocell, and the new total entered by an electron beam. The cards may be in miniature, so that they occupy little space. They must move quickly. They need not be transferred far, but merely into position so that the photocell and recorder can operate on them. Positional dots can enter the data. At the end of the month a machine can readily be made to read these and to print an ordinary bill. With tube selection, in which no mechanical parts are involved in the switches, little time need be occupied in bringing the correct card into use - a second should suffice for the entire operation. The whole record on the card may be made by magnetic dots on a steel sheet if desired, instead of dots to be observed optically, following the scheme by which Poulsen long ago put speech on a magnetic wire. This method has the advantage of simplicity and ease of erasure. By using photography, however, one can arrange to project the record in enlarged form, and at a distance by using the process common in television equipment. One can consider rapid selection of this form, and distant projection for other purposes. To be able to key one sheet of a million before an operator in a second or two, with the possibility of then adding notes thereto, is suggestive in many ways. It might even be of use in libraries, but that is another story. At any rate, there are now some interesting combinations possible. One might, for example, speak to a microphone, in the manner described in connection with the speech-controlled typewriter, and thus make his selections. It would certainly beat the usual file clerk. ### 6 The real heart of the matter of selection, however, goes deeper than a lag in the adoption of mechanisms by libraries, or a lack of development of devices for their use. Our ineptitude in getting at the record is largely caused by the artificiality of systems of indexing. When data of any sort are placed in storage, they are filed alphabetically or numerically, and information is found (when it is) by tracing it down from subclass to subclass. It can be in only one place, unless duplicates are used; one has to have rules as to which path will locate it, and the rules are cumbersome. Having found one item, moreover, one has to emerge from the system and re-enter on a new path. The human mind does not work that way. It operates by association. With one item in its grasp, it snaps instantly to the next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain. It has other characteristics, of course; trails that are not frequently followed are prone to fade, items are not fully permanent, memory is transitory. Yet the speed of action, the intricacy of trails, the detail of mental pictures, is awe-inspiring beyond all else in nature. Man cannot hope fully to duplicate this mental process artificially, but he certainly ought to be able to learn from it. In minor ways he may even improve, for his records have relative permanency. The first idea, however, to be drawn from the analogy concerns selection. Selection by association, rather than by indexing, may yet be mechanized. One cannot hope thus to equal the speed and flexibility with which the mind follows an associative trail, but it should be possible to beat the mind decisively in regard to the permanence and clarity of the items resurrected from storage. Consider a future device for individual use, which is a sort of mechanized private file and library. It needs a name, and to coin one at random, \`\`memex'' will do. A memex is a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory. It consists of a desk, and while it can presumably be operated from a distance, it is primarily the piece of furniture at which he works. On the top are slanting translucent screens, on which material can be projected for convenient reading. There is a keyboard, and sets of buttons and levers. Otherwise it looks like an ordinary desk. In one end is the stored material. The matter of bulk is well taken care of by improved microfilm. Only a small part of the interior of the memex is devoted to storage, the rest to mechanism. Yet if the user inserted 5000 pages of material a day it would take him hundreds of years to fill the repository, so he can be profligate and enter material freely. Most of the memex contents are purchased on microfilm ready for insertion. Books of all sorts, pictures, current periodicals, newspapers, are thus obtained and dropped into place. Business correspondence takes the same path. And there is provision for direct entry. On the top of the memex is a transparent platen. On this are placed longhand notes, photographs, memoranda, all sort of things. When one is in place, the depression of a lever causes it to be photographed onto the next blank space in a section of the memex film, dry photography being employed. There is, of course, provision for consultation of the record by the usual scheme of indexing. If the user wishes to consult a certain book, he taps its code on the keyboard, and the title page of the book promptly appears before him, projected onto one of his viewing positions. Frequently-used codes are mnemonic, so that he seldom consults his code book; but when he does, a single tap of a key projects it for his use. Moreover, he has supplemental levers. On deflecting one of these levers to the right he runs through the book before him, each page in turn being projected at a speed which just allows a recognizing glance at each. If he deflects it further to the right, he steps through the book 10 pages at a time; still further at 100 pages at a time. Deflection to the left gives him the same control backwards. A special button transfers him immediately to the first page of the index. Any given book of his library can thus be called up and consulted with far greater facility than if it were taken from a shelf. As he has several projection positions, he can leave one item in position while he calls up another. He can add marginal notes and comments, taking advantage of one possible type of dry photography, and it could even be arranged so that he can do this by a stylus scheme, such as is now employed in the telautograph seen in railroad waiting rooms, just as though he had the physical page before him. ### 7 All this is conventional, except for the projection forward of present-day mechanisms and gadgetry. It affords an immediate step, however, to associative indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby any item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically another. This is the essential feature of the memex. The process of tying two items together is the important thing. When the user is building a trail, he names it, inserts the name in his code book, and taps it out on his keyboard. Before him are the two items to be joined, projected onto adjacent viewing positions. At the bottom of each there are a number of blank code spaces, and a pointer is set to indicate one of these on each item. The user taps a single key, and the items are permanently joined. In each code space appears the code word. Out of view, but also in the code space, is inserted a set of dots for photocell viewing; and on each item these dots by their positions designate the index number of the other item. Thereafter, at any time, when one of these items is in view, the other can be instantly recalled merely by tapping a button below the corresponding code space. Moreover, when numerous items have been thus joined together to form a trail, they can be reviewed in turn, rapidly or slowly, by deflecting a lever like that used for turning the pages of a book. It is exactly as though the physical items had been gathered together to form a new book. It is more than this, for any item can be joined into numerous trails. The owner of the memex, let us say, is interested in the origin and properties of the bow and arrow. Specifically he is studying why the short Turkish bow was apparently superior to the English long bow in the skirmishes of the Crusades. He has dozens of possibly pertinent books and articles in his memex. First he runs through an encyclopedia, finds an interesting but sketchy article, leaves it projected. Next, in a history, he finds another pertinent item, and ties the two together. Thus he goes, building a trail of many items. Occasionally he inserts a comment of his own, either linking it into the main trail or joining it by a side trail to a particular item. When it becomes evident that the elastic properties of available materials had a great deal to do with the bow, he branches off on a side trail which takes him through textbooks on elasticity and tables of physical constants. He inserts a page of longhand analysis of his own. Thus he builds a trail of his interest through the maze of materials available to him. And his trails do not fade. Several years later, his talk with a friend turns to the queer ways in which a people resist innovations, even of vital interest. He has an example, in the fact that the outranged Europeans still failed to adopt the Turkish bow. In fact he has a trail on it. A touch brings up the code book. Tapping a few keys projects the head of the trail. A lever runs through it at will, stopping at interesting items, going off on side excursions. It is an interesting trail, pertinent to the discussion. So he sets a reproducer in action, photographs the whole trail out, and passes it to his friend for insertion in his own memex, there to be linked into the more general trail. ### 8 Wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready-made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified. The lawyer has at his touch the associated opinions and decisions of his whole experience, and of the experience of friends and authorities. The patent attorney has on call the millions of issued patents, with familiar trails to every point of his client's interest. The physician, puzzled by its patient's reactions, strikes the trail established in studying an earlier similar case, and runs rapidly through analogous case histories, with side references to the classics for the pertinent anatomy and histology. The chemist, struggling with the synthesis of an organic compound, has all the chemical literature before him in his laboratory, with trails following the analogies of compounds, and side trails to their physical and chemical behavior. The historian, with a vast chronological account of a people, parallels it with a skip trail which stops only at the salient items, and can follow at any time contemporary trails which lead him all over civilization at a particular epoch. There is a new profession of trail blazers, those who find delight in the task of establishing useful trails through the enormous mass of the common record. The inheritance from the master becomes, not only his additions to the world's record, but for his disciples the entire scaffolding by which they were erected. Thus science may implement the ways in which man produces, stores, and consults the record of the race. It might be striking to outline the instrumentalities of the future more spectacularly, rather than to stick closely to the methods and elements now known and undergoing rapid development, as has been done here. Technical difficulties of all sorts have been ignored, certainly, but also ignored are means as yet unknown which may come any day to accelerate technical progress as violently as did the advent of the thermionic tube. In order that the picture may not be too commonplace, by reason of sticking to present-day patterns, it may be well to mention one such possibility, not to prophesy but merely to suggest, for prophecy based on extension of the known has substance, while prophecy founded on the unknown is only a doubly involved guess. All our steps in creating or absorbing material of the record proceed through one of the senses - the tactile when we touch keys, the oral when we speak or listen, the visual when we read. Is it not possible that some day the path may be established more directly? We know that when the eye sees, all the consequent information is transmitted to the brain by means of electrical vibrations in the channel of the optic nerve. This is an exact analogy with the electrical vibrations which occur in the cable of a television set: they convey the picture from the photocells which see it to the radio transmitter from which it is broadcast. We know further that if we can approach that cable with the proper instruments, we do not need to touch it; we can pick up those vibrations by electrical induction and thus discover and reproduce the scene which is being transmitted, just as a telephone wire may be tapped for its message. The impulses which flow in the arm nerves of a typist convey to her fingers the translated information which reaches her eye or ear, in order that the fingers may be caused to strike the proper keys. Might not these currents be intercepted, either in the original form in which information is conveyed to the brain, or in the marvelously metamorphosed form in which they then proceed to the hand? By bone conduction we already introduce sounds into the nerve channels of the deaf in order that they may hear. Is it not possible that we may learn to introduce them without the present cumbersomeness of first transforming electrical vibrations to mechanical ones, which the human mechanism promptly transforms back to the electrical form? With a couple of electrodes on the skull the encephalograph now produces pen-and-ink traces which bear some relation to the electrical phenomena going on in the brain itself. True, the record is unintelligible, except as it points out certain gross misfunctioning of the cerebral mechanism; but who would now place bounds on where such a thing may lead? In the outside world, all forms of intelligence, whether of sound or sight, have been reduced to the form of varying currents in an electric circuit in order that they may be transmitted. Inside the human frame exactly the same sort of process occurs. Must we always transform to mechanical movements in order to proceed from one electrical phenomenon to another? It is a suggestive thought, but it hardly warrants prediction without losing touch with reality and immediateness. Presumably man's spirit should be elevated if he can better review his shady past and analyze more completely and objectively his present problems. He has built a civilization so complex that he needs to mechanize his record more fully if he is to push his experiment to its logical conclusion and not merely become bogged down part way there by overtaxing his limited memory. His excursion may be more enjoyable if he can reacquire the privilege of forgetting the manifold things he does not need to have immediately at hand, with some assurance that he can find them again if they prove important. The applications of science have built man a well-supplied house, and are teaching him to live healthily therein. They have enabled him to throw masses of people against another with cruel weapons. They may yet allow him truly to encompass the great record and to grow in the wisdom of race experience. He may perish in conflict before he learns to wield that record for his true good. Yet, in the application of science to the needs and desires of man, it would seem to be a singularly unfortunate stage at which to terminate the process, or to lose hope as to the outcome. --- [Vannevar Bush seated at a desk](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vannevar%5FBush%5Fportrait.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [OEM Defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office%5Ffor%5FEmergency%5FManagement?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). ## Posts ### What a Certificate Actually Certifies URL: https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/ Last updated: 2026-09-14T07:30:15.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/09/What-a-Certificate-Actually-Certifies_thumb.jpeg) What a Certificate Actually Certifies 0:00 /711.096 1× Doug Belshaw has given a name to something most of us have been circling for years. Writing at *Open Thinkering*, he calls it [literacy-slop](https://blog.dougbelshaw.com/literacy-slop/?ref=robert.winter.ink), and defines it briskly: > Literacy-slop is the credential without the community of practice; it’s the qualification without the learning; the skills certificate for getting an AI agent to click through a self-paced module on digital skills. It *looks* like literacy, satisfying the classifier. But it’s just curation without a social body. He is writing about education. I want to take the idea somewhere it bites harder, because the business version of this problem costs more and is better hidden. In education, the person holding the hollow credential is usually the one who paid for it. In an organisation, the person holding it has been promoted, and someone else pays. ## The Conference Convert I have watched this happen more than once, and the shape is always the same. An executive attends a conference, or sits through a roundtable, and encounters a framework. It is a good framework. Let us say it is PRINCE2, which is genuinely excellent when applied to the kind of work it was designed for—defined scope, stable requirements, a governance structure that actually allows rubber to hit the road. The executive returns converted. Within a quarter, the framework is not a tool in the organisation’s toolbox. It *is* the toolbox. Budget is redirected toward certification. Job advertisements acquire a new mandatory line. And a quiet reordering begins, in which people who hold the certificate move up and people who do not move sideways. The damage is not that a bad method was adopted. It is that a good method was asked to do work it was never designed for, and that the organisation acquired a new and very crude instrument for sorting its own people. The executive, who did not understand the discipline well enough to know what else was in the toolbox, could not see what was being discarded. What was being discarded, generally, was experience—the twenty-year practitioner who has run more projects than the trainer has, who knows exactly when the method helps and when it produces a beautifully governed disaster, and who now finds that this knowledge [does not fit in the box on the form](https://robert.winter.ink/hiring-a-200-hammer/). It is the logic by which [Charles Darwin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles%5FDarwin?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1809–1882), having never held a position at a major zoo, would not have made the shortlist. I do not raise this to be clever about it. The executive was not stupid and was not acting in bad faith. They were doing the entirely rational thing that people do when they must make a judgement in a field they cannot personally assess: they reached for the most legible signal available. This is, in the economist’s sense, precisely what a signal is for. [Michael Spence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael%5FSpence?ref=robert.winter.ink) described the mechanism half a century ago—where a buyer cannot directly observe the quality they are purchasing, they fall back on a costly, visible marker that correlates with it, and the market reorganises around the marker ([Spence, 1973](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-spenceJobMarketSignaling1973)). A certificate is comparable across candidates, defensible at an appointment committee, and auditable afterwards. Judgement about whether someone can actually do the work is none of those things. The difficulty, as [Randall Collins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall%5FCollins?ref=robert.winter.ink) argued in his study of credentialism, is that markers of this kind inflate. They expand to track demand for position rather than the difficulty of the work, until the certificate records little beyond the fact that a fee was paid and a process endured ([Collins, 2019](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-collinsCredentialSocietyHistorical2019)). Given a choice between a proxy you can defend and an assessment you cannot, most people choose the proxy, and the organisation slowly reorganises itself around whatever the proxy happens to measure. ## What Taste Actually Means The philosophical bones of this are older than they look, and I should declare an interest before I use them: my doctoral work was on [Edmund Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund%5FBurke?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1729–1797) and the delegation of authority ([Winter, 2023](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-winterDelegationPowerEdmund2023)), which means I have spent more time than is strictly healthy on the question of what a person must possess before you can sensibly hand them something to do. In 1759 Burke added an essay on taste to the second edition of his *Philosophical Enquiry* ([Burke, 2015](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-burkePhilosophicalEnquiryOrigin2015)). Taste, in the eighteenth-century sense, has nothing to do with liking the right wine. It means the trained capacity to tell better from worse in a field you know well. Burke’s argument has two halves and both matter here. The first half is egalitarian, and more so than his critics usually allow. The underlying faculty, he insists, is common to everyone—high and low, learned and unlearned. Nobody is born without it. What differs between people is not the equipment but the use to which it has been put. Bad judgement, he says, is not usually stupidity. It comes from a want of proper and well-directed exercise. Sit with that phrase for a moment, because it is this whole series in five words. *Proper and well-directed exercise.* Not exposure. Not attendance. Not completion. Exercise, of the right kind, aimed in the right direction, over time. The second half is the uncomfortable one. If the difference between good and poor judgement is exercise, then judgement is built the way fitness is built, and it can be neither transferred nor purchased. [David Hume](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%5FHume?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1711–1776), writing two years earlier, put the standard of taste as sense improved by practice and perfected by comparison ([Hume, 1987](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-humeEssaysMoralPolitical1987)). Note that both men reach for verbs. You do not *have* judgement. You do it, repeatedly, usually in front of someone who will tell you when you have got it wrong, until one day you notice that you are getting it right more often than you used to. [Gilbert Ryle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert%5FRyle?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1900–1976) later made the grammatical version of the same point: knowing *how* is not a species of knowing *that*, and no quantity of the second ever adds up to the first ([Ryle, 1988](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-ryleConceptMind1988)). > You do not *have* judgement. You do it, repeatedly, usually in front of someone who will tell you when you have got it wrong. Nothing about a two-day course is capable of delivering this, and nothing about a certificate is capable of certifying it. This is not a criticism of courses. It is a statement about what kind of object a certificate is. A certificate records that a person completed a defined process to a defined standard on a defined day. That is a genuinely useful thing to record. It is simply not the same thing as the capacity to exercise judgement in your organisation, on your problems, with your constraints—and the gap between the two is invisible on a CV. Leesa Wheelahan and Gavin Moodie have made the sharpest version of this case in the education literature. Micro-credentials, they argue, are built from units of competence: discrete, assessable, employer-legible fragments, deliberately detached from the disciplinary structure that once gave them meaning ([Wheelahan & Moodie, 2021](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-wheelahanAnalysingMicrocredentialsHigher2021)). The fragment is portable precisely because it has been cut loose from everything that explained why it mattered. They call the result gig qualifications for the gig economy, and reach for Sydney’s Hungry Mile to describe the labour market it produces—a queue of people holding tokens, hoping today’s token is the one being called ([Wheelahan & Moodie, 2022](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-wheelahanGigQualificationsGig2022)). Australia has been unusually energetic here, and the sequence repays attention. The 2019 review of the Australian Qualifications Framework concluded that using ‘highly generic graduate outcome statements to define and differentiate qualification types is not meaningful’, given the range of qualifications and the contexts in which they are delivered ([Department of Education, 2019, p. 9](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-departmentofeducationReviewAustralianQualifications2019)). A reasonable finding, and a brave one. The review then asked whether shorter form credentials ought to become AQF qualification types in their own right, and the sector said no—they vary too widely in scope and complexity to sit at any single level, the compliance burden would be considerable, and meeting it would blunt the speed that makes them attractive in the first place ([2019, p. 58](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-departmentofeducationReviewAustralianQualifications2019)). What was recommended instead was a set of guidelines for recognising them for credit and for aligning them to an AQF band ([2019, p. 14](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-departmentofeducationReviewAustralianQualifications2019)). The National Microcredentials Framework followed in late 2021 and did the defining work. A microcredential is a certification of assessed learning or competency with a minimum volume of learning of one hour ([Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2021, p. 9](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-departmentofeducationskillsandemploymentNationalMicrocredentialsFramework2021)). Providers must disclose fifteen things about it, including the price, the delivery mode, the assessment method, and the learner effort itemised into face-to-face hours, synchronous online hours, peer-to-peer hours, reading hours and hours spent on assessment ([2021, pp. 12–14](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-departmentofeducationskillsandemploymentNationalMicrocredentialsFramework2021)). Eight further elements are merely recommended, and depth of learning is among them—the mastery a learner actually reaches. Where a provider chooses to state it at all, the framework permits a best-fit or an estimate, placed against the [Dreyfus model of skill acquisition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus%5Fmodel%5Fof%5Fskill%5Facquisition?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competent, Proficient, Expert) ([2021, pp. 14, 18](https://robert.winter.ink/what-a-certificate-actually-certifies/#ref-departmentofeducationskillsandemploymentNationalMicrocredentialsFramework2021)). Read that ordering again, because it is the whole problem in miniature. The hours are compulsory. The mastery is optional, and may be guessed. We diagnosed vagueness about what qualifications produce, and prescribed precision about everything except how good you end up being. ## The Case for the Short Course Here I need to be careful, because the argument I have just made is one short step away from an argument I do not hold. I am not defending the three-year degree as such, and I am certainly not suggesting that short-form learning is inferior by nature. Some of the most capable people I have worked with do almost all their current learning in short courses, and do it superbly. The pattern is consistent enough to describe. Consider a data scientist I have in mind—a composite, but a fair one. She holds a doctorate, or a research masters, and behind it sits the slow work: years of being wrong in front of a supervisor who noticed, of defending a position and losing, of discovering that her elegant model did not survive contact with the data. That work is finished and does not need repeating. What she does now is take a fortnight’s course on a new framework roughly every quarter, and she extracts more from it than most people extract from a semester. [She can do this because the course lands inside a practice that is already running](https://robert.winter.ink/leadership-gold-or-development-mirage-gold-of-the-desert-kings-program/). She knows which course to take, which is itself a judgement that required the earlier training. She can tell when the instructor is overselling. She can hold the new technique against fifteen years of cases and see immediately where it will break. And when the course teaches her something that is wrong—which happens constantly, because the field moves faster than the curriculum—she notices, and discards it, and nobody has to tell her. In this context the short course is not the problem. It has never been the problem. What she is doing is topping up a tank. The failure mode is what happens when an organisation mistakes the top-up for the tank, and sends someone who has no tank at all on the same two-week course, and reads the resulting certificate as evidence that the tank is now full. That is the distinction this whole series turns on, and it is a practical one. The question to ask about a course is almost never whether the course is any good. It is whether this person has a practice for the course to land in—and if they do not, [what we are actually doing about that](https://robert.winter.ink/minding-the-capability-gap/), as opposed to what we are doing about the gap on their file. [A certificate certifies that a process was completed](https://robert.winter.ink/the-verification-asymmetry/). Whether judgement was formed is a separate question, and in most organisations nobody is asking it, because the certificate arrived and the file is now tidy. In the next essay I take up what happens when the file is tidy and the promotion has already been made. The evidence there is bleaker than most executives expect, and it comes from 131 firms. Good night, and good luck. ## References Burke, E. (2015). *A Philosophical Enquiry Into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful* (P. Guyer, Ed.; 2nd Revised). Oxford World Classics. Collins, R. (2019). *The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification*. Columbia University Press. Department of Education. (2019). *Review of the Australian Qualifications Framework: Final Report* \[Review\]. Australian Government. Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2021). *National Microcredentials Framework \- Final Framework*. Australian Government. Hume, D. (1987). Of the Standard of Taste. In E. F. Miller (Ed.), *Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary* (pp. 226–249). LibertyClassics. Ryle, G. (1988). *The Concept of Mind*. Penguin Books. Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. *Q. J. Econ.*, *87*(3), 355–374\. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010](https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010?ref=robert.winter.ink) Wheelahan, L., & Moodie, G. (2021). Analysing Micro-Credentials in Higher Education: A Bernsteinian Analysis. *J. Curric. Stud.*, *53*(2), 212–228\. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1887358](https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1887358?ref=robert.winter.ink) Wheelahan, L., & Moodie, G. (2022). Gig Qualifications for the Gig Economy: Micro-credentials and the ’Hungry mIle’. *High. Educ.*, *83*(6), 1279–1295\. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00742-3](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00742-3?ref=robert.winter.ink) Winter, R. N. (2023). *The Delegation of Power: Edmund Burke on Authority and Implications for Leadership* \[PhD thesis, Macquarie University\]. [https://doi.org/10.25949/24849081.V1](https://doi.org/10.25949/24849081.V1?ref=robert.winter.ink) --- *The Ass at School* by [Pieter Bruegel the Elder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter%5FBruegel%5Fthe%5FElder?ref=robert.winter.ink) (c. 1525–1569) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). --- ### The Chair Against the Wall URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-chair-against-the-wall/ Last updated: 2026-09-11T12:02:22.000Z *What does it mean to respect a culture you have been sent to change?* International development has a settled answer to the question of how outsiders should behave. It is called local ownership, and it has been the orthodoxy of the sector for a generation. Reform must be owned by the government that enacts it or it will not survive the end of the funding. The foreign expert advises; the sovereign decides. Adaptation is the professional virtue, imposition the professional sin. The trouble is that the sector is also, unavoidably, in the business of changing things. Gender-responsive budgeting, procurement reform, public financial management, board diversity—none of these are neutral technical upgrades. Each is a proposition about how a society should allocate authority. An institution cannot simultaneously hold that local practice deserves deference and that local practice is what it has been funded to alter. Somewhere in the working day, that contradiction has to be resolved by a person in a room. My guest this week has spent a career resolving it. [Pamela Wyatt](https://www.linkedin.com/in/pamelawyatt01/?ref=robert.winter.ink) began in Australian retail banking, running a branch business as a local chief executive, before establishing [ANZ](https://www.anz.com.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink)’s offshore operations hub in Manila—a program that moved more than 1,200 roles in eighteen months. She then spent close to a decade at the [Asian Development Bank](https://www.adb.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink), six years of it negotiating governance reform with Pacific governments as a principal specialist in the Pacific Department, alongside private sector work in Tajikistan, Armenia and Kazakhstan. She also led the Bank’s Gender Task Force, examining her own employer’s record and reporting to its president and vice-presidents. She is now Head of Business Transformation for Asia-Pacific at [DT Global](https://dt-global.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), which places her on the delivery side of the same industry she once financed. What follows are the ideas from the conversation I have continued to turn over since. ## The Licence of the Outsider Asked what the most useful thing about being the outsider in a room is, Wyatt did not hesitate: it gives you permission to ask the dumb questions. Not the clever ones. The basic ones. And sometimes, she said, a basic question is where you have to get back to before a different answer becomes available. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Organisations Don't Change Because They're Criticised URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/organisations-dont-change-because-theyre-criticised/ Last updated: 2026-09-08T23:10:12.000Z My guest this week is Pamela Wyatt, Head of Business Transformation for Asia-Pacific at DT Global, who spent nearly a decade at the Asian Development Bank negotiating governance reform with Pacific governments. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Cocktopus Problem: Eight Arms, No Judgement URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/ Last updated: 2026-09-07T07:30:11.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/09/The-Cocktopus-Problem---Eight-Arms--No-Judgement_thumb.jpeg) The Cocktopus Problem Eight Arms No Judgement 0:00 /606.072 1× Someone with more wit than restraint has given the business world a wonderful new term *cocktopus*: a person who insists on handling eight things at once and then, with remarkable consistency, ruins every one of them. I laughed, and then thought about several organisations I have watched at close quarters, and stopped laughing. That is the usual trajectory of a good joke about work. The trouble with the coinage is that it is a joke about character, and what it describes is almost never a matter of character. It has roughly the structure of mocking a person for wearing the uniform they were issued. I intend to keep the word, vulgarity and all, because the respectable alternatives are themselves part of the problem: *juggling*, *wearing several hats*, *stretched across a broad portfolio*, each flattering the condition it describes, which is precisely why people in this position survive and are even promoted following a round of performance reviews, while a *cocktopus* is unmasked for what they truely are—poor performance masquerading as success. The joke is also better zoology than it appears, though it defames the animal. Of the octopus’s half a billion or so neurons ([Albertin et al., 2015, p. 220](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-albertinOctopusGenomeEvolution2015)), roughly two-thirds sit in the arms rather than the head; the limbs solve local problems on their own initiative, and the centre supplies direction rather than instruction ([Godfrey-Smith, 2016](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-godfrey-smithOtherMindsOctopus2016)). The creature manages eight arms well for the very reason that it does not attempt to hold all eight in mind at once. It delegates. The manager under discussion does the opposite, and is therefore not an octopus at all, but something considerably less well adapted. ## The Arithmetic of Arms The empirical case is old and rather dull, which is presumably why it continues to be ignored. Mintzberg’s diary work found management activity to be brief, varied, and fragmented, with half the observed episodes concluding inside nine minutes ([Mintzberg, 1973](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-mintzbergNatureManagerialWork1973)). That was before the technologies which have since industrialised interruption, and nobody has since discovered that the executive day has grown more contemplative. The cost lies not in the tasks but in the joins. Switching requires the mind to set down one configuration of rules and take up another, and the taking up consumes time that appears on no ledger ([Rubinstein et al., 2001](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-rubinsteinExecutiveControlCognitive2001)). The setting down is never clean: those who turn to a second task while the first remains open carry a residue of the first with them and perform the second measurably worse for it ([Leroy, 2009](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-leroyWhyItHard2009)). The most uncomfortable finding is the one that appears to exonerate the practice. People compensate for interruptions by working *faster*. Managers and boards observing only throughput therefore sees no problem at all. They simply see velocity. What they invariably miss is the price of higher stress, frustration, and effort ([Mark et al., 2008](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-markCostInterruptedWork2008)). > A decision made in the eleven minutes between two other decisions is not a decision in this sense at all. It is a reflex, dressed in the clothing of authority, and the organisation will not discover the difference for eighteen months. A compounding effect is that there is no spare capacity to draw upon in times of crisis or when the work needs more attention than the habituated *light touch* allows. The folkloric notion that we can focus on seven things at once has been revised down; the working estimate for what can be held simultaneously is closer to four ([Cowan, 2001](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-cowanMagicalNumber42001)). Eight concurrent claims on a single mind is not ambition but an establishment run at half strength. And the obvious remedy—more hours—fails on its own terms, since output rises with hours at a sharply decreasing rate and, past a threshold most senior people cleared years ago, essentially stops rising at all ([Pencavel, 2015](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-pencavelProductivityWorkingHours2015)). What makes all of this organisational rather than personal is that the interruptions are not chosen. [Leslie Perlow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie%5FPerlow?ref=robert.winter.ink) located the cause of the resulting time famine in the design of the work rather than in the appetites of the worker: the individual could not concentrate because the collective pattern made concentration structurally unavailable ([Perlow, 1999](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-perlowTimeFamineSociology1999)). The famine was manufactured in the organisation in an attempt to make organisations more lean, and everyone starving in the time famine assumed it was a personal failing and didn’t speak up. Worse, they faced a glass ceiling to their career aspirations if they did. ## Who Issues the Arms Here is the mechanism, and it is the same one I keep finding wherever organisations substitute something that can easily be counted for something that actually matters. A calendar is legible. Judgement is not. One can be inspected at a glance, exported, compared against peers, and appended to a review; the other declares itself years later, and frequently as a difficulty that never arose. Given two goods and an instrument capable of measuring only the first, organisations measure initiatives juggled and call it value creation. [Herbert Simon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert%5FA.%5FSimon?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1916–2001) set out the economics plainly: an abundance of information consumes the attention of those receiving it, so attention becomes the genuinely scarce resource and the design problem is one of allocation ([Simon, 1971, pp. 40–41](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-simonDesigningOrganisationsInformationRich1971)). William Ocasio built the corollary into a theory of the firm—what an organisation does is largely a function of what its decision-makers attend to, and what they attend to is set by the channels and structures that place things before them ([Ocasio, 1997](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-ocasioattentionbasedviewfirm1997)). On this reading a calendar is not an administrative artefact. It is the strategy, faithfully rendered, and usually rather more honestly than the strategy document languishing on a shared drive. Which is why the diagnosis arrives as a surprise. Execution unravels not because organisations lack priorities but because they hold too many, distributed too widely, with no discipline about which would be defended under pressure ([Sull et al., 2015](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-sullWhyStrategyExecution2015)). Strategy, on the only definition that has ever done any work, consists in trade-offs—in the deliberate refusal of otherwise attractive things ([Porter, 1996](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-porterWhatStrategy1996)). An executive carrying forty live commitments has not made a strategic choice and been overloaded by it. They have been spared the choice, and given [the theatre of having made one](https://robert.winter.ink/the-theatre-of-transformation/) instead. Robert Spillane and Jean-Etienne Joullié describe the wider drift precisely: as authority understood as the capacity to carry a decision by reasoned elaboration declines, control expands to occupy the vacated ground ([Spillane & Joullié, 2023](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-spillaneDeclineAuthorityRise2023)). The arms of the Cocktopus are that control, distributed across a single manager or department. The result is an expensive absurdity. An organisation recruits with great care for judgement, pays handsomely for it, and then subdivides the appointment across forty concurrent claims, none of which anyone will relinquish—which is [the $200 hammer](https://robert.winter.ink/hiring-a-200-hammer/) arriving by a different route, capability procured at a premium and then deployed in a manner guaranteeing it cannot be exercised. Nor is the composition of executive hours a neutral matter: time-use research on chief executives finds the pattern of those hours associated with subsequent firm productivity, an effect emerging across years rather than quarters ([Bandiera et al., 2020](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-bandieraCEOBehaviorFirm2020)). The organisation does not merely tolerate the cocktopus. It grows the arms, admires the result, and then wonders why the structure is shakey. ## A Small Number of Consequential Things Alas, the evidence for the remedy is not of the same order as the evidence for the disease. No study establishes an optimal annual quota of consequential decisions. Anyone announcing that the number is twelve is selling something, and Warren Buffett’s punch card is a parable rather than a finding. The case for concentration has to be made from what judgement requires, which is where I am content to make it. The purpose of delegating authority is that the delegate exercises discretion the delegator cannot specify in advance. Were the discretion specifiable, one would write a rule and dispense with the appointment. What Burke told the electors of Bristol was that they were owed his judgement rather than his compliance, and that he would betray them by surrendering it ([Burke, 1996, pp. 68–70](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-burkeWritingsSpeechesEdmund1996)). The modern surrender is quieter and considerably less principled. The manager sacrifices judgement not to the opinions of a mob but to the diary, in twenty-minute increments, and calls the result *responsiveness*. Deliberation about particulars takes the time it takes; this is the least fashionable and most durable claim in the *Nicomachean Ethics*, and it does not become negotiable because the calendar is full ([Aristotle, 2014, pp. 1140a24–1140b30](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cocktopus-problem-eight-arms-no-judgement/#ref-aristotleNicomacheanEthics2014)). I have argued the adjacent case before and, on reflection, argued it too narrowly. [The trouble with busyness](https://robert.winter.ink/the-trouble-with-busyness/) is not, as I once suggested, principally a problem of personal method to be met with time boxing and the elimination of the non-essential. Those tactics are sound and I still use them, but they ask the individual to defend a perimeter the organisation has already conceded, and they will fail against any structure that continues to measure the wrong thing. The correction runs through [the professionalisation of management](https://robert.winter.ink/managing-people-isnt-a-side-hustle-time-to-re-professionalise-management/): the number of consequential decisions a manager is permitted to make properly is a design parameter, set deliberately or set by accident, and it is not within the gift of the person subject to it. So the useful data point for a board is not how many meetings their managers attended, nor how heroically the team is working, nor whether anyone has been observed answering correspondence at eleven at night. It is how many decisions in the past year were genuinely irreversible; who in fact made them; and how much undisturbed thought each one received before it was made. The count is usually small. The thought is usually smaller. The cocktopus, on reflection, is not the insult it appears to be—it is the standard, and the arrangement holds precisely because nothing at the centre is pretending to grip eight things at once. The question worth putting to an organisation admiring its own busyness is not how much its best people are able to carry. It is how little it has the discipline to ask them to focus. Good night, and good luck. ## References Albertin, C. B., Simakov, O., Mitros, T., Wang, Z. Y., Pungor, J. R., Edsinger-Gonzales, E., Brenner, S., Ragsdale, C. W., & Rokhsar, D. S. (2015). The Octopus Genome and the Evolution of Cephalopod Neural and Morphological Novelties. *Nature*, *524*(7564), 220–224\. [https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14668](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14668?ref=robert.winter.ink) Aristotle. (2014). *Nicomachean ethics* (R. Crisp, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. Bandiera, O., Prat, A., Hansen, S., & Sadun, R. (2020). CEO Behavior and Firm Performance. *J. Polit. Econ.*, *128*(4), 1325–1369\. [https://doi.org/10.1086/705331](https://doi.org/10.1086/705331?ref=robert.winter.ink) Burke, E. (1996). *The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke. Vol. III: Party, Parliament, and the American Crisis 1774-1780: III* (P. Langford, Ed.). Clarendon Press. Cowan, N. (2001). The Magical Number 4 in Short-term Memory: A Reconsideration of Mental Storage Capacity. *Behav. Brain Sci.*, *24*(1), 87–114\. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922?ref=robert.winter.ink) Godfrey-Smith, Peter. (2016). *Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness*. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so Hard to Do My Work? The Challenge of Attention Residue when Switching between Work Tasks. *Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.*, *109*(2), 168–181\. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002?ref=robert.winter.ink) Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008). *The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress*. 107–110\. [https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357072](https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357072?ref=robert.winter.ink) Mintzberg, H. (1973). *The Nature of Managerial Work*. Harper & Row. Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an Attention-based view of the Firm: The Interactions of Organizational and Competitive Influences on Strategy and Performance. *Strateg. Manag. J.*, *18*(S1), 187–206\. [https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<187::AID-SMJ936>3.0.CO;2-K](https://doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0266%28199707%2918:1+%3C187::AID-SMJ936%3E3.0.CO;2-K?ref=robert.winter.ink) Pencavel, J. (2015). The Productivity of Working Hours. *Econ. J.*, *125*(589), 2052–2076\. [https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12166](https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12166?ref=robert.winter.ink) Perlow, L. A. (1999). The Time Famine: Toward a Sociology of Work Time. *Adm. Sci. Q.*, *44*(1), 57–81\. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2667031](https://doi.org/10.2307/2667031?ref=robert.winter.ink) Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? *Harv. Bus. Rev.*, *74*(6), 61–78\. Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive Control of Cognitive Processes in Task Switching. *J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.*, *27*(4), 763–797\. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763?ref=robert.winter.ink) Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing Organisations for an Information-Rich World. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), *Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest*. Johns Hopkins Press. Spillane, R., & Joullié, J.-E. (2023). The Decline of Authority and the Rise of Managerialism. *Organization*, *30*(5), 961–980\. [https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084211061242](https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084211061242?ref=robert.winter.ink) Sull, D., Homkes, R., & Sull, C. (2015). Why Strategy Execution Unravels: And what to Do about it. *Harv. Bus. Rev.*, *93*(3), 58–66\. ### Raising the Sea Level URL: https://robert.winter.ink/raising-the-sea-level/ Last updated: 2026-09-01T11:55:18.000Z Four essays of diagnosis earn one of prescription, and the prescription is perhaps unwelcome. At least for those whose thinking cannot transcend quarterly planning. Let me put the claim plainly and admit at the outset what kind of claim it is. Strategic people management is not an input to strategy. It is the precondition of strategy—the thing without which a strategy is a document rather than a course of action undertaken. I am not offering that as an empirical finding, because I know of no study that establishes it and I am not going to pretend otherwise; the literature that comes closest argues correlation between people-centred practice and firm performance, and it argues it with a directional problem of exactly the sort I raised against the psychological-debt survey in the second essay. Profitable firms can afford to treat people well. The claim I am making is definitional and [normative](Popper’s Theory of Falsification - A Pillar of Adaptive Leadership), and it stands or falls on whether it clarifies something you already half knew. Here is the clarification. A strategy specifies what an organisation will do differently. Doing anything differently requires that particular people, in particular roles, understand what has changed, possess the capability to execute it, hold the authority to decide the hundred unwritten questions the strategy did not anticipate, and are answerable for the result. Structure determines who those people are. Development determines whether they can. [Accountability](Responsibility, Ownership, Accountability) determines whether they will. Alter none of these and you have altered nothing except the board pack. This is not a tautology, because the alternative view is widely held and acted upon daily: that strategy is a matter of choosing correctly, and that execution is a downstream administrative problem to be delegated once the choosing is done. Organisations run on that assumption constantly, and their strategies fail in the place the assumption discourages them from looking. Which is what makes the current enthusiasm so instructive. A technology is being adopted at pace on the reasoning that it will change what the organisation can do—or more usually how much the bottom line will increase—while the conditions determining whether anyone can use it well are treated as a change-management afterthought. It is the same error in a newer suit. ## The Labour of Building People So the remedy has three parts, and none of them will appeal to anyone whose horizon is the current quarter. The first is retention treated as a strategic variable rather than a cost line. What leaves with a departing employee is not a headcount. It is a portion of the organisation's memory—the knowledge of why the last attempt failed, which supplier cannot be relied upon in December, what the founder actually meant by the phrase now printed on the wall. Organisations store what they know in their people, their routines, their structures, and their culture, and the individual store is the one that walks out of the building. A firm with high turnover is not merely paying recruitment fees. It is a firm that must relearn its own history every few years, which is why its transformation programmes keep rediscovering the same obstacles with the same surprise. The verification problem of the third essay compounds this precisely: an organisation that cannot remember what good looks like has no basis on which to judge whether the output in front of it is good. The second is development measured in years rather than hours. I mean the multi-year qualification, the funded degree, the secondment that removes someone from productive work for long enough that they return changed—not the one-hour module with a completion certificate and a knowledge check. There is an honest objection here and it deserves stating: the economics of training have been understood since [Gary Becker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary%5FBecker?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1930–2014), and they are unfavourable. General capability is portable, so the firm that builds it bears the cost while any competitor may capture the return, which is why firms systematically underinvest in exactly the education that would most improve their people and by extension their results. The objection is sound as bean counting and useless as management, because every firm reasoning that way produces the very labour market all of them then complain about. The competent are not conjured. They are made, slowly, at somebody's expense, and an economy in which each employer waits for another to bear it is an economy that runs down its stock of judgement and then buys tools to try and compensate. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Authorship, Not Access URL: https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-not-access/ Last updated: 2026-09-03T03:43:46.000Z The Commonwealth supplies less than half the revenue of Australia’s universities and sets very nearly all of their terms. That sentence is not a complaint. It is a description of an arrangement we have never argued about directly, because we have been busy arguing about its instruments instead—fees, caps, student numbers, research block grants, the price of an arts degree. Each of those debates settles a question about what universities are for without ever putting the question itself to a vote. Price a humanities degree high enough and you have made a claim about the worth of the humanities. You have simply made it with a spreadsheet rather than an argument, which has the advantage of being difficult to rebut and the disadvantage of being difficult to defend. My guest this week is [Professor Alistair Noble](https://www.linkedin.com/in/professor-alistair-noble-8b103a184/?ref=robert.winter.ink), President of [Nan Tien Institute](https://www.nantien.edu.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink), a small independent higher education provider near Wollongong grounded in Buddhist values. Before that he spent five years as Head of School for Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences at the University of New England, and before that held roles at the Australian Institute of Music and the Australian National University. He is also a pianist, composer and musicologist; his monograph on Morton Feldman argued that music long assumed to be intuitive was in fact built on deliberate hidden structure, and his album *Solarisation* was released this year. In February 2025 he published an essay in the *Australian Humanities Review* on the humanities in regional Australia that is considerably angrier than its title suggests. What follows are the ideas from the conversation I have continued to turn over since. ## Prestige is a Machine that Runs on Itself We began where the sector’s self-image begins: with rank. Noble has worked inside the large public research university, the private specialist college, the regional university and the small independent institute, which gives him something almost nobody writing on Australian higher education possesses—comparative evidence from the inside. His observation was that on measures of student experience, some of the best teaching in this country may be happening in the private sector, while the prestige and the international rankings accrue elsewhere, to institutions whose advantage is research volume. This is not a paradox. It is a mechanism, and it was named nearly sixty years ago. [Robert K. Merton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FK.%5FMerton?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1910–2003) called it the Matthew effect: recognition flows disproportionately to those who already have it, so that eminence compounds independently of any fresh contribution. Merton ([1968](https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-not-access/#ref-mertonMatthewEffectScience1968)) was describing individual scientists, but the logic scales without modification to institutions. A large university produces more papers; more papers mean more placements in high-ranking journals; higher rank attracts stronger staff and more international fee revenue; that revenue funds more research. Nothing in the loop is a measurement of teaching. Nothing in the loop needs to be. Noble pushed this further than I expected, into territory his essay only gestures at. The deference is not merely to size, he argued, but to empire. Australian hiring panels still treat an Oxford or Cambridge degree as trumping any domestic equivalent, and have grafted onto that an equivalent reverence for the American Ivy League, while the great Japanese and Taiwanese universities are not weighed in the same scale at all. The prestige hierarchy we operate is not a quality ranking that happens to correlate with history. It is a colonial inheritance wearing the costume of a quality ranking. I find this persuasive and I notice what it costs. If prestige is largely cumulative advantage, then the sector’s league-table anxiety is a competition for a position that measures mostly the durability of a position. The awkward corollary is that a great many academics have built careers on the strength of that signal, and the argument that the signal is hollow is one they can only make from inside it. Cumulative advantage operates on places as readily as on people, which is where Noble’s regional argument enters. He treats “regional Australia” as a cultural imaginary—a category defined in capital cities, for capital-city purposes, and then mistaken for a description of the world. The definitions are instruments, built to gather data or allocate funding, and the harm comes when we forget that and slip into the binary of metropolis and everything else. His warning is that the binary is false in both directions, and that the reality is a set of overlapping, intersecting communities that the neat boxes of public discourse cannot hold. Then he said something I did not expect and have kept returning to. A well-funded institution arriving in a regional town is often the largest employer and a genuine catalyst; he cited summer schools in painting and music whose effects were still visible in whole industries decades later. But it can also stifle the cultural life already there. Every country town in Australia, on his account, holds a few people who are remarkable—a musician, a composer, a dance teacher—and the ecosystem they constitute is not the university’s creation and can be crowded out by it. Against the comfortable belief that talent will out, he was firm: it will not, not reliably. Someone has to notice, and say to a particular young person that this is something they could take further. Absent that intervention the talent is simply never converted. Merton’s mechanism, again, and at its least forgiving—advantage accrues where advantage already sits, and the counterweight is not a policy but a person paying attention. ## The point at Which More Stops Working The second movement of the conversation concerned scale, and here Noble reached for a source I had not anticipated. He invoked [Joseph A. Tainter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph%5FTainter?ref=robert.winter.ink) (b. 1949), whose *The Collapse of Complex Societies* argues that societies fail not from external shock but from the diminishing marginal returns of their own complexity. Tainter’s ([2011](https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-not-access/#ref-tainterCollapseComplexSocieties2011)) claim is that complexity is a problem-solving strategy with costs, and that a point arrives at which each additional increment of administration, coordination and process returns less than it consumes. Noble’s suggestion was that Australian higher education is at approximately that point: we throw more at it, and it delivers less. Set against a sector where some institutions approach one hundred thousand enrolments—a scale at which, as Glyn Davis has observed, an institution is barely recognisable as a scholarly community—the diagnosis has force ([Davis, 2022, p. 52](https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-not-access/#ref-horneAustralianUniversitiesConversation2022)). But the more interesting move was Noble’s refusal of my framing. I had put the trade-school question to him directly: at that scale, does the university degenerate into a place one attends to acquire a saleable technique? He declined the terms. Universities, he said, have always been better at preparing people for careers than the current political narrative admits. The real question is not whether we have become too vocational. It is what we are losing. What we are losing, on his account, is whatever cannot be delivered to a room of two hundred. He set the industrial lecture against the other extreme he knows from music—the one-to-one conservatoire lesson, with its own pathologies, but with an irreplaceable quality of attention. Between those poles sits the seminar, and the seminar is what scale erodes first because it is the most expensive thing per student the university does. This is the better argument, and I concede it displaced mine. The vocational frame invites a fight about the dignity of employment that nobody needs to have. The attention frame identifies something specific and losable. ## The Conversation, and what Replaces it If the loss is a form of attention, it is worth being precise about what that attention was for. [Michael Oakeshott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael%5FOakeshott?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1901–1990) is the most useful guide here, and the least sentimental. In his 1950 essay on the idea of a university, Oakeshott ([2002](https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-not-access/#ref-oakeshottVoiceLiberalLearning2002)) described the university not as a place where information is transferred but as a conversation between modes of understanding, and the education it offers as an interval—a period deliberately protected from the demand that one be immediately useful. Oakeshott is easy to misread as nostalgia, and the reading is wrong. His argument is structural. The conversation is not decoration on top of the training; it is the thing that makes the training more than technique, because it is where a student learns that their discipline is one way of thinking among several and therefore has edges. Noble made the same point from a different direction, quoting a linguist friend: a language is not merely a means of communication but a technology of thinking, so that when a language dies a way of thinking dies with it. A discipline, he argued, is a knowledge system in exactly that sense. Which converts the defence of unfashionable fields from sentiment into something closer to risk management—a portfolio argument about the range of problems a society retains the capacity to think about. I pressed him, though gently, on what this implies. Noble’s own essay makes a sharper charge than he made on air: that public figures claiming the humanities do not lead to careers are not mistaken but lying, and know it. He did not repeat the accusation in conversation, and I did not force it. But the two claims sit oddly together. If the case for the humanities is that they produce a distinctive capacity to think, that case is not answered by graduate employment statistics—and answering with employment statistics, which is what the sector reflexively does, concedes the vocational frame in the act of disputing it. ## Trust is the Missing Input The governance material was the most uncomfortable stretch of the hour, in the productive sense. Noble put a figure on the table: government provides something under half of Australian university funding, yet behaves as the majority shareholder, and does so at a moment when the pendulum is swinging hard towards centralised regulation. On compliance he was crisp—it is the price of doing business, a baseline, and not to be confused with quality. His broader argument was for a diversity of institutional models, lighter-touch, with room to try things. Then he closed the door on his own argument, and did it honestly. Could a lighter-touch settlement work? Not now, he said. The trust is not there. Governments doubt universities’ capacity to govern themselves, and the doubt is not baseless: he described a governance system in which chancellors and vice-chancellors come and go while the same dysfunctions persist, which points to something systemic rather than personal. He also observed, unprompted, that most regulation in education exists because something bad happened first. So the position is: we need less regulation; the regulation exists for cause; and the institutions seeking relief lack the standing to be trusted with it. I do not think that is incoherent, but I do think it is unfinished, and this is where I would press hardest if we had another hour. [Elinor Ostrom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor%5FOstrom?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1933–2012) spent a career on precisely this problem in other domains. *Governing the Commons* demonstrated that shared resources are frequently governed well by their users, without either privatisation or central control—but her finding was never that monitoring is unnecessary. Ostrom’s ([1990](https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-not-access/#ref-ostromGoverningCommonsEvolution1990)) durable arrangements consistently featured monitoring that was credible, graduated in its sanctions, and accountable to the people governed rather than to a distant authority. The lesson for Australian higher education is not less scrutiny. It is scrutiny of a different design: locally legible, proportionate, and answerable downward to students and communities rather than upward to Canberra alone. That reframing does something for the sector’s case that its current advocacy does not. Asking for lighter regulation while conceding the trust deficit is a request for forbearance. Proposing a different architecture of accountability is a proposal. The first invites refusal; the second at least invites negotiation. ## The Hidden Structure I asked, in the lightning round, for a piece of music that had taught him more about leadership than any management book. His answer was [Morton Feldman’s *Intermission 6*](https://youtu.be/FdGY6F8D9aU?si=Oc2SJdTJsjkR%5F4iF&ref=robert.winter.ink)—a scatter of individual notes on a page, playable in any order, any number of times, so that no two performances need resemble each other. And yet, Noble said, the notes are not random. They are chosen. Whatever order you play them in, a deeper structure asserts itself, and it always will. He then added the finding that gives the image its bite. Research in performance studies indicates that people placed in an environment with no rules and told to do as they please tend to produce something conservative and constrained. Remove the boundaries and people retreat to where they feel safe. Some constraint, he argued, is what pushes us to be interesting. [Igor Stravinsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor%5FStravinsky?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1882–1971) said as much from the composer’s side in his 1939–40 Harvard lectures, arguing that the narrower the field within which one works, the greater the freedom actually available, and that whatever reduces constraint reduces strength ([Stravinsky, 2003](https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-not-access/#ref-stravinskyPoeticsMusicForm2003)). I take the point and I want to be careful with it, because it is precisely the argument a regulator would make. The claim that constraint enables freedom is true of a form one has chosen and much less true of a form imposed on one from outside, by people who will not perform the piece. That distinction is the whole governance question in miniature. Feldman’s score is a structure selected by the composer to make certain outcomes possible. TEQSA is a structure selected by someone else to make certain outcomes impossible. Both are constraints. They are not the same kind of constraint, and the sector’s frustration is not that rules exist but that it has no authorship of them. Which returns us to where we began. The argument about Australian universities is conducted in the currency of money, and Noble’s own evidence suggests money is not the variable that binds. What binds is authorship: who sets the frame, who is trusted to work inside it, and whether the people doing the work had any hand in choosing the rules they are held to. That is not a funding question. It is a governance question wearing a funding question’s clothes. Asked to complete the sentence—a university is for—he answered without hesitation: “saving the world”. I record it without editorial comment, which is itself a kind of comment. Good night, and good luck. ## References Davis, G. (2022). Why are Australian Universities so Large? In Julia. Horne & M. A. M. Thomas (Eds.), *Australian Universities : A Conversation about Public Good.* Sydney University Press. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science: The Reward and Communication Systems of Science Are Considered. *Science*, *159*(3810), 56–63\. [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56?ref=robert.winter.ink) Noble, A. (2025). Burning Questions and the Creative Imaginary: Our Humanities in Australian Regional Communities. *Aust. Humanit. Rev.*, (73). [https://doi.org/10.56449/14677833](https://doi.org/10.56449/14677833?ref=robert.winter.ink) Oakeshott, M. J. (2002). The Idea of a University. In T. Fuller (Ed.), *The Voice of Liberal Learning* (pp. 103–117). Liberty Fund. Ostrom, E. (1990). *Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action*. Cambridge University Press. Stravinsky, I. (2003). *Poetics of Music: In the Form of Six Lessons* (A. Knodel & I. Dahl, Trans.). Harvard University Press. Tainter, J. A. (2011). *The Collapse of Complex Societies* (23\. print). Cambridge University Press. ### A University Is For Saving the World URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/professor-alistair-noble-a-university-is-for-saving-the-world/ Last updated: 2026-09-03T04:15:03.000Z ## About this conversation **The Commonwealth supplies less than half the revenue of Australia's universities and sets very nearly all of their terms.** We have spent a decade arguing about fees, caps, international student numbers and research funding, and each of those arguments quietly settles the larger question — what universities are actually for — without ever putting it to a vote. Price a humanities degree high enough and you have made a claim about the worth of the humanities. You have simply made it with a spreadsheet rather than an argument. Professor Alistair Noble has worked inside almost every model this country uses to answer that question: the large public research university, the private specialist college, the regional university, and now a small independent institute. In this conversation he declines the framing I brought him — that universities are becoming trade schools — and offers a better one. Then he shuts the door on his own argument for lighter regulation, and does it honestly. ## In this conversation - Prestige in Australian higher education is a colonial inheritance wearing the costume of a quality ranking. - The question is not whether universities have become too vocational. It is what is being lost that nobody is counting. - "Regional Australia" is a category invented in capital cities for capital-city purposes, and a well-funded institution can stifle the culture that was already there. - Talent does not reliably out. Someone has to notice it and say so, or it is never converted. - Compliance is the price of doing business. It is a floor, not evidence of quality. - The case for lighter-touch regulation fails on trust — and the sector's own governance record is why. - The part of a university that does not scale is the part that matters. The moment an institution can describe its purpose in a figure, it has already agreed to be judged on something other than its purpose. ## Further reading - Professor Alistair Noble on LinkedIn — [https://www.linkedin.com/in/professor-alistair-noble-8b103a184/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/professor-alistair-noble-8b103a184/?ref=robert.winter.ink) - Nan Tien Institute — [https://www.nantien.edu.au/](https://www.nantien.edu.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink) - *Solarisation* (2026), his album of place-based work in experimental sound — [https://alistairnoble.bandcamp.com/album/solarisation](https://alistairnoble.bandcamp.com/album/solarisation?ref=robert.winter.ink) ## The guest Alistair Noble is a musicologist, composer and higher education leader whose career spans public research universities, private specialist colleges, regional institutions and small independent providers. He writes on the humanities in regional Australia, and his creative practice explores place through experimental sound. #### Read the Transcript ****Robert Winter** I want to start somewhere unfashionable… ****Alistair Noble** They came apart in about 1986, and… [Authorship, Not AccessI went into this conversation expecting to press a guest on whether universities are becoming trade schools. He declined the question and gave me a better one — about trust, regulation, and the difference between being consulted and having authorship.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-fd87a389-4540-44c3-b5b8-0edaa90c8463.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/015-Professor-Alistair-Noble-Movie-Title-5e1d3e80-a73c-4e6f-9eb0-cd60f21066fc.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-not-access/) ### One Rule for the Deck, Another for the Bridge URL: https://robert.winter.ink/one-rule-for-the-deck-another-for-the-bridge/ Last updated: 2026-09-01T11:56:50.000Z In the preceding essay I put the competence problem at the moment of appointment; in this one I ask who carries the cost of it, and the answer sits in Champniss's own data, largely unremarked. Employees in their first five years of working life record a psychological debt score related to their use of AI of fifty-four. For those past their twentieth year this debt records forty. The explanation offered in the HBR article is that the junior employees feel a greater need to demonstrate technical knowledge, which the machine threatens, while senior people have already demonstrated leadership capabilities lying beyond its scope. Plausible enough, and flattering to those with senior in their title or their hair colour. There is however a plainer reading available, and it requires no psychology whatever. The burden falls heaviest on those least able to push back against it. Consider the two positions concretely. A graduate analyst instructed to put her first draft through the model has no standing to refuse and no capital to spend on refusing; her competence is unestablished, her tenure is short, and a reputation for being difficult about tools is not one she can currently afford. An executive at the other end of the career spectrum is differently placed entirely. They can decline without consequence, and a striking number do—continuing to have their doing work done by people rather than machines, while requiring use of the machine by everyone below them. The mandate travels downward. The typical command and control structure too many organisations adopt. ## The Drinks Cabinet There is an older test for this, and it does not need a survey instrument. If a rule binds the crew and not the bridge, the rule is not about the conduct. It is about position. An office in which the manager may drink at their desk and the coordinator may not is not operating a policy on alcohol; it is operating a policy on rank, and everyone in the building understands this by the end of their first week with the organisation. The specific liberty is beside the point. What is being communicated is that the rules exist to protect those who make them, which is corruption in the structural sense—not theft, not fraud, but the quiet bending of a system away from its purpose and toward the comfort of its incumbents. The organisational research on this is unambiguous, and it is not primarily about outcomes. People assess the fairness of a workplace less by what they receive than by whether the process that allocated it applied consistently and without bias. Most tellingly of all, procedural fairness of that kind predicts commitment, trust, and corporate citizenship behaviour more powerfully than the distribution of benefits itself. [Robert Jackall's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral%5FMazes?ref=robert.winter.ink) field study of managerial life put the mechanism plainly forty years ago: what is *right* in the corporation is what the person above you wants, and moral reasoning inside such a hierarchy tends to organise itself around the protection of position rather than the pursuit of purpose. An adoption mandate that exempts the people who handed down the mandate is not an anomaly within that system. It is the system behaving normally. So when Champniss records that employees fear a loss of credibility from being seen to use the tool, and proposes bringing use into the open as the remedy, the diagnosis has stopped one floor short. The fear experienced is not a psychological condition. It is an accurate reading of the organisation's actual reward structure by people who are reading it accurately. Where visible reliance on a machine is understood to diminish authorship, and where the standing that survives such diminution is concentrated at the top, concealment below is simply rational. The remedy is not a culture campaign encouraging candour about tool use. It is governance willing to establish that the rule binds the bridge, which is a decision no communications programme can make on its behalf. ## The Perspex Award The AI mandate requires a measure, and the measure too often used is that of consumption. [Brett Raven](https://www.linkedin.com/in/brettraven/?ref=robert.winter.ink), a fractional CIO who is called in when a transformation has stalled, [described to me on this programme](https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/brett-raven-two-things-kill-it/) what he has watched organisations do with it: pumping token usage upward because the number looks like progress, and in some cases using token spend to measure an individual's productivity—which, as he put it, translates directly into currency, so that a person who is not spending enough money in their job is deemed not to be doing it properly. His image for what this earns is the perspex award from the model vendor, the little acrylic block on the desk thanking the recipient for spending ten million tokens this month. My own question to him was what such a thing unlocks: ten thousand tokens spent, a plastic trophy acquired, and no answer to what was actually gained. The metric he distrusts most, he said, is hours saved—not because time is never saved, but because he would like to see where the hours went before celebrating the success. This is proxy substitution reaching its terminal form. A score at least gestures at the condition it claims to measure. Token consumption does not measure an outcome at all; it measures an input, and specifically it measures a cost. An organisation optimising for it is rewarding expenditure and calling the result adoption. That such a metric could establish itself in serious companies tells us something about the appetite for legibility that this series has been describing from the first essay: when judging value is hard and counting spend is easy, the count wins, and it wins fastest in the organisations least equipped to argue with it. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Judgement, Not Discipline URL: https://robert.winter.ink/judgement-not-discipline/ Last updated: 2026-09-03T12:02:36.000Z *What do you do with a system that worked?* The leadership literature is well supplied with accounts of systems that fail. Bad incentives, perverse metrics, cultures that eat their young: these are comfortable objects of study, because the moral is available before the analysis begins. The harder case is the system that succeeded. It hit its numbers, it promoted its winners, it produced the results it was designed to produce—and it also broke people, including some of the people it promoted. That case is harder because it cannot be dismissed as a design failure. It worked. The question is what a person does afterwards, having been both its beneficiary and its casualty. The reason the question is rarely put well is that those best placed to answer it have every reason not to. People broken by such a system describe it as a machine for breaking people, which is understandable and incomplete. People who prospered describe it as a meritocracy, which is self-serving and also incomplete. The useful witness is the one who was both, and who is not selling either an indictment or a redemption story. My guest this week is [David Harvie](https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-harvie/?ref=robert.winter.ink), who after close to three decades in Australian financial services is now Director, Wholesale Distribution @ [Ausiex](https://www.ausiex.com.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink).. Alongside that he has built [DadBodz](https://www.facebook.com/DadBodz.MumBodz/?ref=page%5Finternal), a health venture aimed at time-poor fathers, and has since co-founded [NEXUS Holistic Health](https://nexusholistichealth.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). He and I studied leadership together as postgraduates, in an MBA seminar room where the philosophies were handed to us as objects of contemplation rather than instruments. He is one of the few people I could ask which of them survived. What follows are the ideas from the conversation I have continued to turn over since. ## Chevrons on the Shoulder David grew up in far north-western New South Wales, the son of a bank manager, in a town where authority was distributed among a handful of visible men and one formidable headmistress: the sergeant, the publicans, the farmers, the president of the bowling club. He describes the primary school headmaster as a man who ruled with an iron fist and very little logic, his authority resting on the metaphorical chevrons on his shoulder and nothing else. What irked him as a child was not the severity. It was the absence of reasoning. He reached for the German when he described it, and the reach was apt. [Max Weber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max%5FWeber?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1864–1920) defined *Macht* as the probability that an actor will carry out their own will despite resistance, regardless of what that probability rests upon, and *Herrschaft* as the probability that a command of given content will be obeyed by a given group ([Weber, 1978, pp. 152–153](https://robert.winter.ink/judgement-not-discipline/#ref-weberEconomySocietyOutline1978)). The distinction is not the flattering one usually assumed. *Herrschaft* is not a nobler species of power; it is the narrower fact of commands being obeyed—and the headmaster plainly had it. What Weber adds next is load-bearing. Material interest and habit make an unstable basis for obedience, so every system of authority attempts to cultivate a belief in its own legitimacy, resting on rational grounds: legal, traditional or charismatic ([1978, pp. 324–339](https://robert.winter.ink/judgement-not-discipline/#ref-weberEconomySocietyOutline1978)). David’s claim is that the young people he now leads require the reasoning more than any cohort before them. It is the sort of generational assertion that ought to be received sceptically, and I know of no evidence establishing that this cohort differs in kind. But the underlying observation is sturdier than the generational framing, and it is Weber’s: authority that cannot account for itself is spending down a balance it did not earn. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Falcon's Club URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/david-harvie-the-falcons-club/ Last updated: 2026-09-07T12:03:07.000Z ## About this conversation **Every incentive system that fails is easy to criticise. The difficult ones are those that work.** In the late 1990s David Harvie sold for a firm that ran its Sydney floor as a concentric ring: new arrivals on the outside, moving inward as they succeeded, progressing through a hierarchy of birds toward the falcon. Individual numbers went up twice a day, visible to everyone. He reached the top tier and was flown to New York. He also, some time later, found himself unable to get out of bed. Asked to render a verdict on the system, he does not hedge: it worked. This conversation follows what a person does with that experience. Harvie is Director of Wholesale Distribution at AUSIEX, and has built a health venture for time-poor fathers alongside it. He and I studied leadership philosophy together as postgraduates, which makes him one of the few people I can ask which of those philosophies survived contact with a target — and which quietly died. ## In this conversation - Authority conferred by rank is not the same currency as authority granted by the governed, and the two are not interchangeable - An incentive system can succeed completely and still exact a cost its designers never measured - The disciplines a leader keeps in private are not private; employees and children are both watching the actions - Standards written by the people who must live under them outlast standards handed down — including when those people are five years old - The obstacle to a fuller life is rarely time and usually priority, though that claim is easier to make from some positions than others - Discipline is a mechanism; judgement is the context in which the mechanism is pointed at something An incentive system does not need to be cruel to be costly. It only needs to be worth winning. ## Further reading - [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-harvie/?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [DADBODZ](https://www.facebook.com/DadBodz.MumBodz/?ref=page%5Finternal) - [Nexus Holistic Health](https://www.nexusholistichealth.com.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink) ## The guest David Harvie has spent close to three decades in Australian financial services, from stockbroking floors to direct sales leadership. Alongside that career he founded a health venture for time-poor fathers and co-founded a telehealth business. He writes and thinks about self-command as the precondition of leading anyone else. [Judgement, Not DisciplineAsked to choose between discipline and judgement, David Harvie had just spent an hour describing his disciplines. He chose judgement anyway. On a system that worked exactly as designed, what it cost the people it promoted, and why he has rebuilt a gentler version of it.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-4c51b48d-8096-427c-baa4-f8237a02ce6c.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/014-David-Harvie-Movie-Title-dbb66f59-5464-48e5-a0a1-74889e76a944.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/judgement-not-discipline/) ### The Verification Asymmetry URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-verification-asymmetry/ Last updated: 2026-09-01T11:57:37.000Z I left a promise unpaid at the end of the first essay in this series: the combined harvester never claimed to think, and the AI model does, which is the one genuinely novel element in the present anxiety. This essay pays this debt, and the answer is less comfortable than the 'psychological debt' framework it displaces. Taking myself as a worked example of this. If I put a language model to work on a question of delegated authority, or the conditions under which a team will tell its leader an unwelcome thing, I can audit the output claim by claim. I know where the literature is so thin as to be positively translucent, and where the confident summary generated has quietly elided a contested finding. I can tell when the machine has produced something that reads beautifully and means nothing, because I have spent years mastering the subject matter. Put the same model to work on the tax advice for a discretionary trust distribution and I am a different operator entirely. The prose has the same poise. The structure is as orderly. But, I have no way of knowing whether it is right, and every incentive—because of the fluency, the confidence, the absence of hedging—to assume it is guidance which won't have me fall foul of the ATO or my bank manager. Put another way, my competence to verify does not travel with me. It is domain-specific, non-transferable, and cannot be delegated to the AI model. This is the whole problem, and it is not a psychological condition. It is an epistemic one, and it has a shape: the machine's output is least auditable at the point where the user's experience runs out, which is precisely where the user most needs it validating. Poor performers are systematically the worst judges of their own performance because the competence required to produce good work is largely the same competence required to recognise it. Add a tool that manufactures the surface features of expertise on demand—the orderly structure, the confident register, the plausible citation—and the person who cannot tell good work from bad is handed something that looks exactly like the good work. ## What the Automation Literature Already Knew None of this required the arrival of the language model to become visible. [Lisanne Bainbridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies%5Fof%5FAutomation?ref=robert.winter.ink) set it down more than forty years ago in a paper on the ironies of automation, and the irony was precisely this: automating a process raises the skill demanded of the human overseeing it, while removing the daily practice by which that skill was acquired and maintained. The operator is asked to supervise a system they can no longer perform, and to intervene in exactly the abnormal conditions the automation could not handle—the hardest cases, met with the most atrophied judgement. Later work on human–automation interaction added the mechanism: whether people use, over-rely on, or refuse a system tracks their trust in it far more closely than its actual reliability, and calibrating that trust requires knowledge of the system's failure modes. Trust in an aviation autopilot can be calibrated because its failure modes are documented, drilled, and survivable in a simulator. Trust in a model that fabricates a case citation in flawless legalese cannot be calibrated by anyone who does not already know the case law. So the disanalogy I flagged in Part I holds, but it does not vindicate the framework. What Champniss labels competency debt—the sense that using the tool makes one less capable—is not manufactured by the technology at all. The competent do not experience it in this form; they experience the tool as an instrument they can drive, argue with, and correct, precisely because they retain the capacity to catch it out. What the tool does is reveal, with unusual clarity and at speed, who could have caught it out and who could not. ## The Certificate and the Competence Which brings us to the more uncomfortable half of the problem. If verification is domain-specific, then an organisation's capacity to use these tools safely is simply the sum of the actual competence sitting in its roles. Not the competence its org chart asserts. The competence that is actually there. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Jay Fontanini — You Cannot Skip the Stages URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/jay-fontanini-you-cannot-skip-the-stages/ Last updated: 2026-09-01T11:07:07.000Z Most conversations about artificial intelligence and the executive begin with a number that refuses to move. For the better part of a decade the surveys have promised imminent transformation; for the same decade the measured return has stayed obstinately flat, and the proportion of firms capturing any material earnings [impact is lower today than it was in 2019](https://robert.winter.ink/nine-years-one-number/). The convenient inference is that the technology has been oversold. My guest this week draws a more demanding one. In this episode of *On the Subject of Leadership*, I speak with [Jay Fontanini](https://jayfontanini.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink)—an operator of three decades in property and casualty insurance, latterly the builder of an executive accelerator, and, by his own cheerful confession, a liberal-arts theologian who earns his living in analytics. His case is that the flat number is not a verdict but a phase: the characteristic signature of a general-purpose technology whose complementary investment has not yet been made. The complement that matters most, he argues, is not more capable software. It is human capital—and, at the centre of that, judgement. What follows are the ideas from that conversation I have continued to turn over since. ## The Shape of a General-Purpose Technology The flat number is not new, and neither is the shape of the argument Jay uses to explain it. [Robert Solow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FSolow?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1924–2023) delivered the canonical version of the puzzle in a book review, remarking that the computer age was visible everywhere except in the productivity statistics. The resolution came three years later from the economic historian [Paul A. David](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul%5FA.%5FDavid?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1935–2023), whose essay on the dynamo and the computer observed that electrification had delivered almost no measurable productivity gain for some four decades—not because the technology was weak, but because the gain waited on a reorganisation no one had yet performed. Factories built around a central steam engine and its line shafts had first to be rebuilt around distributed electric motors before the new source of power paid for itself. The dynamo was ready long before the factory was. This is the family of technologies that Bresnahan and Trajtenberg named: the general-purpose technology, characterised by 'pervasiveness, an inherent potential for continued technical improvement, and what they term 'innovational complementarities''—the property that innovation in the general-purpose technology raises the productivity of research and development in the sectors downstream of it. Its returns arrive late and unevenly because those complements must be invented before the engine in the middle can do any real work; and because the relationship between the technology and its users is mediated by arm's-length markets, the authors argue, a decentralised economy tends to under-invest in exactly the complementary innovation on which the returns depend. The most rigorous contemporary statement of the pattern is the productivity J-curve of Brynjolfsson, Rock and Syverson. General-purpose technologies, they argue, demand large intangible investments—business-process redesign, new business models, and, tellingly, human capital—which the national accounts measure poorly or not at all. In the early years the spending is visible and the payoff is not, so productivity growth is understated; later, as the intangible assets are harvested, it is overstated. Adjusting the United States figures for intangibles associated with computer hardware and software, they find a level of total factor productivity 15.9 per cent higher by the end of 2017 than the official measures record. Jay's reading of the present sits squarely inside this tradition, and it is the strongest available account of the flat number. It is worth saying plainly, though, where its danger lies—a point I pressed in the conversation and will press again here. A theory that explains an absent return as unfinished co-invention is powerful precisely because it can absorb almost any delay: flat at year nine and it is early, flat at year nineteen and it is merely later. What keeps the J-curve honest is that the intangible investment it posits is a real thing and not a rhetorical one. The test is whether the complementary work is actually being done—whether an organisation can point to the redesigned process and the retrained person—or whether "we are still on the curve" has quietly become the thing one says *instead* of making the organisational changes. The symmetry worth holding onto is that the same claim operates at two scales. An economy cannot skip the J-curve; a person, as Jay puts it, cannot skip the stages. In both cases what is absent is the complementary investment, and in both cases the temptation is identical—**to declare the payoff imminent rather than perform the work that produces it**. ## The Complement Is Judgement If the binding constraint is a missing complement, the obvious question is which one. Jay's answer, and the book he would press on anyone before they touch a keyboard, is *Prediction Machines* by [Ajay Agrawal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajay%5FAgrawal?ref=robert.winter.ink). Its framing is elegantly economic. What artificial intelligence does cheaply is prediction—the filling-in of missing information—and a first principle of economics is that when the price of something falls, the value of its complements rises. As machine prediction becomes abundant and nearly free, the scarce and therefore valuable good is the thing prediction cannot supply: the judgement to determine what is worth predicting, and what to do once the prediction is in hand. Jay gives this abstraction a human physiology by borrowing a distinction [Raymond Cattell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond%5FCattell?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1905–1998) established experimentally, and which [Arthur Brooks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur%5FC.%5FBrooks?ref=robert.winter.ink) has lately made fashionable: between fluid intelligence, the quick reasoning and rapid recall that peak early and then decline, and crystallised intelligence, the accumulated knowledge and seasoned judgement that rise across a working life and hold steady. The models, Jay suggests, are a near-perfect substitute for fluid intelligence—they recall, they organise, they reason at speed—which is exactly why they throw the whole of the human premium onto the crystallised kind. The machine is cheapest where we were quickest, and no help at all where we were wise—if a little slow. It is a rare thing to watch an operator arrive, by way of a personal-training analogy and a book about ageing, at the same place as the frontier of the economics. ## Earned, Not Learned Pressed on whether judgement of this kind can be taught, Jay balked at the verb. Judgement, he said, is not learned but earned—cumulative, progressive, the residue of experience laid down over time. It is why he worries less about his own generation than about the young, who may never be made to sit with a difficult problem long enough for judgement to form, because an easy answer is always to hand. He is in old and good company. Aristotle (384–322 BC) drew the line precisely in the sixth book of the *Nicomachean Ethics*, between the knowledge that can be transmitted by instruction (*techne*) and *phronesis*, the practical wisdom that governs action in particular circumstances. The young, he observed, may become accomplished in geometry and mathematics, which can be learned from propositions, and yet not become practically wise—for practical wisdom is concerned with particulars, and particulars are known through experience, which the young have not had the time to acquire. Two and a half thousand years later the neuroscience has merely supplied a mechanism for the observation. The point survives its restatement: some things cannot be hurried, and the attempt to hurry them produces the confident appearance of a wisdom that is not there. If Jay is right that the machine now supplies the transmissible part cheaply, then the untransmissible part—the earned part—becomes very nearly the whole of what distinguishes one human from another. ## Where They Stop Is the Dialectic The pedagogy Jay has leveraged to cultivate that part is, improbably, the medieval trivium: grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, in that order and without shortcuts. Grammar is orientation, the rules of the new language; dialectic is the working with it, thinking in genuine exchange; rhetoric is deploying the result with, and upon, other people. Asked in the lightning round where his executives quietly give up, his answer was immediate and, I think, important. Not at grammar, which they will tolerate. They abandon at the dialectic—the middle, effortful stage—and try to leap straight to rhetoric, holding forth about a tool they have not learned to think with. It is why the market for "the ten best prompts" is inexhaustible, and why so little true value comes of it. There is a precise philosophical name for what is being skipped. [Gilbert Ryle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert%5FRyle?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1900–1976) distinguished knowing-*that* from knowing-*how*, and warned against what he called the intellectualist legend: the assumption that intelligent performance is merely the application of some prior set of propositions, considered and then executed, The executive who wants the perfect prompt is seeking knowing-that—a rule to be handed over and applied. The dialectic asks instead for knowing-how, which is not reducible to a rule and cannot be transferred by being told; it is acquired only in the doing. [Michael Polanyi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael%5FPolanyi?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1891–1976) fixed the same limit memorably: we can know more than we can tell. The tacit ground of good judgement will not compress into a prompt library, however long, because the most important part of it was never propositional to begin with. This, and not any shortage of clever templates, is why the middle stage cannot be skipped. ## The Case for Friction The instinct beneath all of this is one Jay names directly, and it is the one I find most congenial: **intentional human friction**. He keeps an assistant system with a rich context of his affairs that can draft almost any reply; it is permitted to draft everything and to send nothing. The friction is deliberate, inserted at exactly the points where the stakes are high and a plausible error would be costly. It is a small, disciplined refusal of the thing the technology most wishes to give us, which is ease. Ease is worth being suspicious of, because the evidence that it carries a cognitive cost is now more than anecdotal. The human-factors literature has long documented automation bias and automation complacency—the tendency to over-trust an automated aid and to cease monitoring it, most pronounced under multiple-task load, and found in expert and novice operators alike rather than being cured by practice or instruction. Nearer the present worry, Risko and Gilbert describe cognitive offloading—the use of physical action to reduce the information-processing demands of a task—as an ordinary and often useful human habit, but one that reshapes what we retain and can later do unaided. And a study by Gerlich, surveying 666 participants, reports a significant negative association between frequent use of AI tools and critical-thinking scores, with cognitive offloading as the mediating factor and younger participants showing both the heaviest reliance and the lowest scores. It is a correlational, self-reported, single-author study and as such should be viewed with a wary eye—but it points the same way as the older work, and the same way as Jay's unease. The right response is not abstention but design. [In an earlier piece](https://robert.winter.ink/how-to-use-ai-as-a-thinking-partner-without-letting-it-think-for-you/) I argued that the ambition should be an *extended mind* rather than an outsourced one—the phrase is Clark and Chalmers'—and that the difference between the two is endorsement: the tool genuinely extends your cognition only if you understand it, interrogate it, and remain able to tell when it has gone wrong. Friction is how endorsement is kept alive. It is the mechanism by which a person stays in a position to exercise the very judgement the whole argument has been about. Jay reading [Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:%5FPaths,%5FDangers,%5FStrategies?ref=robert.winter.ink) by Nick Bostrom slowly, pen in hand, is not nostalgia; it is the same principle applied to his own mind. ## Language at the Centre There is a pleasing irony that Jay, the theologian among the analysts, is unusually placed to see. The engineers built a large language *model*, and put language at the centre of it. The instrument now mediating a great deal of executive work is, at bottom, a device for handling meaning—and meaning is the native territory of the humanities, not of engineering. Much of what goes wrong in organisations adopting these tools is not technical at all but linguistic: the quiet equivocation in a shared term, the acronym that saves three seconds at the cost of a 30 minute follow up meeting, the report whose author cannot say plainly what it is for. Communication, as I regularly say, begins not at the speaker's mouth but at the listener's ear. This is also the strongest case for the diverse team, and Jay makes it in the language of complementary skill rather than virtue signalling. The modelling result of Hong and Page—that under specified conditions a group of functionally diverse problem-solvers can outperform a group of the individually highest-performing—gives the intuition a formal spine, provided one remembers that it is a conditional result derived within a model and not a universal law; Page develops the argument for organisational practice. The best use of these tools, on this view, will fall to teams that can hold both registers at once: the technical fluency to work the instrument, and the humane fluency to know what is worth saying with it. Jay spent his earlier career as a translator between the data scientists and the business, and suspects the translator's office is about to become more valuable, not less. On the evidence, he is right. ## The Discipline of Listening This was never, in the end, a conversation about artificial intelligence. It was an account of what remains irreducibly human once the tool is genuinely capable—and of the discipline required not to trade that part away for speed. The dispositions it points to are unfashionable and, I think, correct. Treat the flat number as a phase to be worked through, not a promise to be repeated. Build the complement rather than cut the cost. Earn judgement rather than counterfeit it, and grant that some of it cannot be hurried. Refuse the shortcut past the dialectic. Insert friction where the stakes are real, and keep the capacity to know when the machine is wrong. Jay was asked, at the close, what the study of theology had taught him that a business education does not, and his answer was the quietest and most subversive thing said in the hour: that the vocation is to listen, not to preach—to have, in his wife's grandmother's phrase, the ears and mouth of an elephant rather than those of a hippopotamus. It is an odd note on which to end a discussion of the most loquacious technology ever built, and exactly the right one. The machine will always have something to say. Whether we have learned enough, and earned enough, to know when it is worth hearing is the only question that finally matters. Good night, and good luck. ### The Score URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-score/ Last updated: 2026-09-01T11:58:05.000Z [The first essay in this series](https://robert.winter.ink/the-old-complaint-in-new-clothes/) argued that the six forms of "psychological debt" are old wounds under new names; this one concerns what happens when the wound is given a number. [Guy Champniss's method](https://hbr.org/2026/05/the-psychological-costs-of-adopting-ai?ref=robert.winter.ink) is straightforward enough: a battery of agreement statements, converted into a score from nought to one hundred, the higher the score the deeper the debt. It sounds like measurement, and in a narrow sense it is. But a score is never merely descriptive. The moment it exists, it acquires the apparatus of institutional life—an owner, a dashboard, a reporting line, a budget for its improvement—and the apparatus, once staffed, acquires an interest of its own. A cured condition is a redundant dashboard. Nobody builds one intending to switch it off after the first board presentation. One matter of provenance belongs here, stated once and plainly. The survey behind the score was conducted for a consultancy of which the author is a director. That is disclosed in the article itself, and I note it for completeness rather than insinuation—the work stands or falls on its method, and what follows attends to the method. But a reader weighing a new diagnosis is entitled to know that the diagnosis and the practice equipped to treat it share an address. ## What the Number Does The behaviour of scores inside organisations is among the better-documented phenomena in social science. Donald Campbell observed nearly fifty years ago that the more any quantitative indicator is used for decision-making, the more it corrupts, and is corrupted by, the very processes it is meant to monitor; Marilyn Strathern later compressed the same insight into the axiom that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Now run the thought experiment. An organisation adopts the psychological-debt score. It lands, inevitably, with HR—or an enterprising executive wanting to demonstrate their capabilities with people management. A target follows—debt down from fifty-four to forty-five by year's end—because a number without a target is an orphan in any planning cycle. Employees, who are not fools, notice that their survey answers now have consequences, and the answers soften accordingly. Programmes are commissioned, attendance is recorded, the score duly improves. Whether anyone thinks more clearly, trusts a colleague more readily, or feels more securely themselves at work is a separate question, and no longer the one being asked—leat alone managed. I have written before about [measurement culture as an ethical failure](https://robert.winter.ink/the-problem-with-measurement-in-organisations/); this is that failure with a fresh coat of paint. > A number is easier to own than a failure, which is why failures are so often converted into numbers. There is a subtler cost. The score aggregates six quite different accountabilities into a single figure, and a single figure gets a single owner. Yet the failures underneath—of leadership here, of management there, of governance elsewhere, as this series will show—belong to different people in different rooms. Aggregation is how they all escape. A number is easier to own than a failure, which is why failures are so often converted into numbers. ## Which Way Does the Arrow Run? Set the score's institutional career aside and consider what it claims to have found. The headline correlations are striking: those who rarely use AI report nearly twice the debt of those who use it several times a day, sixty against thirty-six; simple-task users score forty-six against thirty-five for those on complex and strategic work; the early-career cohort carries fifty-four against forty for those past their twentieth year. The reading on offer is that use pays the debt down—that adoption is, conveniently, the cure for the anxieties adoption creates. Every one of those correlations runs at least as plausibly in the other direction. People confident in their own capability engage with demanding tools and demanding tasks; the anxious abstain. That is not a novel conjecture but the central finding of the self-efficacy literature: belief in one's competence precedes and predicts the willingness to take on challenge, not the reverse. Senior people have less to prove and more standing to survive a visible error. A cross-sectional survey cannot arbitrate between "use cures anxiety" and "the unanxious use", and the difference is not academic, because the prescriptions are opposites. If use cures, mandate it. If security permits use, then mandating the tool upon the insecure drives them into exactly the exposure they fear, without any of the conditions that make exposure safe—and the intervention deepens the condition it is scored against. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Old Complaint in New Clothes URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-old-complaint-in-new-clothes/ Last updated: 2026-08-31T11:40:18.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/08/The-Old-Complaint-in-New-Clothes_thumb.jpeg) The Old Complaint in New Clothes 0:00 /496.008 1× Somewhere in the wheat belt this season, a farmer will bring in several hundred hectares in the time his grandfather needed for a single paddock. He will do it largely alone, from an air-conditioned cabin, above a header that steers itself to within a few centimetres and measures the yield as it goes. Very little of what he does that week will be *doing* in the old sense. His work is deciding—when the moisture is right, when to shift paddocks, when an approaching front makes speed matter more than spillage. The doing belongs to the machine. The transition from doer to decider took his family three generations, and nobody along the way felt the need to give it a clinical name. The same transition ran through every office in the second half of the last century, faster and rather closer to home. Within living memory, an executive did not type. He—because back then it almost always was a he—structured the argument, dictated it, corrected the draft, and signed it—the typing pool did the doing. The pool has since gone the way of the carbon copy, and the knowledge worker with a language model to hand is simply the newest occupant of a very old position: the person who decides while something, or someone, else does. Shoshana Zuboff watched an earlier instalment of the same shift among pulp-mill operators nearly four decades ago, as the work of hands became the work of judgement exercised upon screens. I begin with the harvester, typist, and the pulp mill because the newest instalment has just acquired a diagnosis. Writing in *Harvard Business Review*, Guy Champniss surveys some 1,200 employees across the United States and Britain and reports an accumulating "psychological debt" wherever AI is adopted without regard for what its use does to human motivation. The debt comes itemised in six forms—cognitive, autonomy, competency, relatedness, credibility, and identity—each named for the thing employees feel the technology is taking from them: the habit of thinking, control over their work, confidence in their skill, connection to their colleagues, standing in the eyes of peers, and the sense of what makes their work *theirs* at all. Champniss' article has been received across the professional platforms with the reverent reposting reserved for anything that flatters an anxiety and supplies a list. I intend to spend five essays doing something less agreeable, which is taking it seriously. This is the first. ## What Is Real in It Let me concede at the outset what the article genuinely has. The feelings it documents exist. Nearly a century ago, William and Dorothy Thomas set down the maxim that if people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences, and it remains the most useful sentence in sociology for anyone who manages other human beings. An employee who feels deskilled behaves like a deskilled employee: hesitant, defensive, quietly disengaged. An employee who believes using the tool costs them credibility will hide use of it, with all the small corrosions concealment brings. It does not matter, for the manager standing in front of that person, whether "psychological debt" survives scrutiny as a construct. The experience is data, and it is data of exactly the kind managers are paid to work with. Whatever this series goes on to say about the framework—and it will not always be kind—that concession stands, and it is not tactical. A critique that dismisses the felt experience of ordinary employees because the survey housing it is shaky has misunderstood both the survey and the employees. ## The Restructure Test But real is not the same as new, and it is nowhere near the same as caused by the technology. Consider what an ordinary restructure does to a workforce, because most workforces no longer have to imagine it. The announcement arrives. The structure is dissolved, the roles are spilled, and the filling proceeds over months of ritualised uncertainty. Several decades of meta-analysis leave no doubt about what this costs: job insecurity reliably corrodes health, attitudes, and performance, and the damage done to those who remain after rightsizing is nearly as dependable as the damage done to those who leave. Now lay Champniss' six-item list against it. Competence is publicly re-examined. Autonomy is suspended for the duration. Working relationships are severed by organisational chart. Credibility is re-auditioned before a new manager. Identity is renegotiated against a box on a slide. The average restructure inflicts every form of the newly itemised "debt" at a single stroke, more deeply than AI has managed in three years, and nobody ever coined a metaphor for its myriad psychological effects. Instead, we called it transformation and expect managers to manage people through it. > The average restructure inflicts every form of the newly itemised debt in a single quarter, more deeply than AI has managed in three years, and nobody ever coined a metaphor for it. That expectation was the correct one, and it supplies the method for everything that follows in this series. Where the diagnosis names a debt, I will name a failure, and locate its owner—in leadership, in management, or in governance—because a debt without an accountable debtor is not a liability but an alibi. One reassignment will serve for now as demonstration. The reflex to prompt before thinking, which the article calls cognitive debt and treats as the most discussed of the six, is not a psychological condition awaiting a mitigation programme. It is what happens when nobody in the room is leading the use of the tool. A manager who thinks aloud with the machine, who insists on a hypothesis before a prompt, and who treats output as material to be argued with rather than adopted, is modelling a practice; I have written elsewhere about [using AI as a thinking partner without letting it think for you](https://robert.winter.ink/how-to-use-ai-as-a-thinking-partner-without-letting-it-think-for-you/), and the discipline is learnable. Where that leadership is absent, offloading fills the vacuum, as it always has—the delegation upward of thinking is at least as old as the staff paper drafted so the general need only initial it. The debt is real. The borrower has been misidentified. [How to Use AI as a Thinking Partner Without Letting It Think For YouA practical method for how to turn AI into a thinking partner—surfacing assumptions, testing arguments, and strengthening decisions through disciplined cognitive friction.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-499b8138-8952-4bec-b7e7-4e0e27acae0c.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/3840px-Johannes_Vermeer_-_The_Geographer_-_Google_Art_Project-9d9329dd-f196-4e43-b1f5-0e6fce1dfdef.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/how-to-use-ai-as-a-thinking-partner-without-letting-it-think-for-you/) ## The Typist Never Claimed to Think Honesty requires the strongest objection stated at full strength, so here it is. The harvester does not offer opinions on agronomy. The typist typed what they was given, and an error in the letter was obvious to the person who signed it. The model is different in kind, not merely in speed: it produces fluent, confident, well-structured prose precisely at the frontier of its user's competence, which is the one place the user is least equipped to check it. A tool that takes over the doing is an old story with a long and mostly happy ending. A tool that performs the thinking—persuasively, and sometimes wrongly—has no exact precedent, and any account of the present moment that pretends otherwise is nostalgia wearing a tweed jacket. Whether that novelty rescues the psychological-debt framework, or instead exposes something rather less comfortable about the state of competence in the modern workforce, is the question this series must answer, and I will take it up directly in Part III. This series runs to five parts. In the next article I examine what happens when a felt condition becomes a score out of one hundred, with an owner, a dashboard, and a budget line. In the third article I take up the frontier problem above: who can actually check the machine, and what the answer reveals. In the fourth I move to the boardroom, and to organisations that mandate adoption below decks while the bridge quietly exempts itself. And in the fifth I set out the remedy, which is the one a quarterly incentive structure is designed to punish. Parts two and three are free to members of the Commons; the final two are for the Inner Circle, whose patronage makes work of this kind possible. The old complaint has new clothes, a survey instrument, and a score. What it has always lacked is someone willing to own it. Finding the owners is the business of the next four essays. Good night, and good luck. --- [*Work*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work%5F%28painting%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Ford Madox Brown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford%5FMadox%5FBrown?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1821–1893) is is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Brett Raven: Two Things Kill It URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/brett-raven-two-things-kill-it/ Last updated: 2026-09-01T11:09:30.000Z There is a familiar shape to the discussion of artificial intelligence in Australian enterprises. Adoption figures rise. Pilot counts rise. Licence spend rises. Somewhere in the annual report a paragraph appears attesting to the organisation's commitment to the technology, and somewhere in a board pack a slide attests to its momentum. Then the conversation turns to what any of it has contributed to earnings, and the sentences get shorter. The technology itself is not in doubt—it works, visibly and often impressively. What remains unclear is the mechanism by which a working demonstration becomes a line in the accounts, and whether the people authorising the expenditure possess any means of telling the two apart. In this episode of *On the Subject of Leadership*, I speak with [Brett Raven](https://www.linkedin.com/in/brettraven/?ref=robert.winter.ink)—a fractional chief information officer and principal of [The Consulting CIO](https://theconsultingcio.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), who has spent twenty-five years being held accountable for precisely the numbers now under dispute. He has been chief technology officer inside fast-moving e-commerce businesses, rebuilding the platforms beneath them. He advised the C-suite at Salesforce on enterprise architecture. He led an experience-platforms delivery practice at Accenture across the Asia-Pacific region. He is now among the people an organisation telephones once a transformation has stalled and the reported metrics have quietly parted company with the business they purport to describe. His public position is blunter than his commercial interests would recommend: there is a bubble, and the pilots, the metrics, and the projections are not matching what survives contact with production. I put the obvious objection to him early—that a man who sells AI advisory has peculiar reasons to talk the market down—and he neither retreated into vocabulary nor overstated his own certainty. Asked how the thing bursts, he said plainly that he did not know. What follows are the ideas from the conversation I have continued to turn over since. ## The Money Goes Around Brett's bubble claim is not about capability. He builds software with these tools daily, trains executives in their use, and describes the underlying technology as real. His concern is the capital. What he sees is circularity: money moving between hardware manufacturers, model developers, and the tooling layer that wraps them, in volumes and directions that make each participant's revenue partly a function of another participant's investment. Beneath it sits an unresolved problem of unit economics. A subscription costs the user twenty to two hundred dollars a month; the cost to serve, on his estimate, runs at some multiple of that. Forward revenue is booked against long-dated government and enterprise contracts. Fresh capital arrives to service present commitments. His phrase for the arrangement, used more than once, was kicking the can down the road. [Hyman Minsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman%5FMinsky?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1919–1996) supplied the taxonomy for exactly this in his financial instability hypothesis. He distinguished three financing postures. A hedge unit meets interest and principal from operating income. A speculative unit covers interest but must roll its principal. A Ponzi unit covers neither, and must borrow or sell assets simply to meet its commitments, on the expectation that appreciation will eventually justify the structure. Minsky's crucial and frequently forgotten qualification is that Ponzi units in his sense are not frauds. They are ordinarily sincere firms whose revenues are genuinely anticipated—later. His argument was that a prolonged run of good outcomes shifts the population of firms toward the fragile end of that spectrum, because success discredits caution. Stability is destabilising. ## Who Writes the Rules Then Brett said the thing that has occupied me most since, and it was not about model developers at all. It concerned who ends up holding the position. He described a change in the treatment of newly listed companies such that a very large listing now enters the index funds almost immediately, exposing retirement savings to those valuations by operation of the mandate rather than by any decision a member made. He was right in substance and imprecise in detail, and the detail is worth having, because it is a better story than the one he told. Facing the prospect of listings by SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic, the index providers rewrote the rules. FTSE Russell confirmed on 26 May 2026, effective immediately, that sufficiently large IPOs may enter the Russell indices after the close of the fifth day of trading, replacing a quarterly review cycle that had produced a practical seasoning window of one to three months. Nasdaq had moved on 1 May, cutting the wait for its highest-ranked new listings from three calendar months to fifteen trading days and replacing its ten per cent float minimum with a weighting cap. Morningstar's CRSP indices, tracked by several very large Vanguard funds, introduced their own accelerated screen. Observe what has just happened. A category of asset became large enough that the rules governing entry to the world's principal equity benchmarks were altered to accommodate it, within weeks, following consultations conducted with the bankers and issuers who stood to benefit. Passive capital did not choose this exposure; it was allocated the exposure by a change of definition. And these are not regulators. Index providers are private firms selling a commercial product. There is no statutory process, no impact assessment requirement, no appeal, and no regulator with jurisdiction over benchmark methodology of this kind. Tim Büthe and Walter Mattli documented the general phenomenon in: a rising share of the rules that actually govern global markets is written by private bodies, and the determining question is not whether the rules are sensible but who is admitted to the room where they are made. Those excluded do not get a vote. They get the rules. What the excluded did get, in this instance, was stationery. In June the New York State and City Comptrollers, together with the Illinois Treasurer and the Comptroller of Maryland—between them responsible for pension assets exceeding six hundred billion dollars—wrote to FTSE Russell and the London Stock Exchange Group asking them to pause the fast-entry rule until a formal investor impact analysis had been conducted, and to publish it if one already had been. A parallel letter went to Nasdaq, asking how a rule change affecting more than 1.4 trillion dollars of investor assets had been adopted without one. The London Stock Exchange Group declined to comment. Two features of that letter deserve to be noticed. The first is its argument: that Nasdaq having moved did not oblige FTSE Russell to move, and that declining to follow was an available and defensible choice. The second is that it was proved correct almost immediately. S&P Dow Jones Indices consulted on cutting its own seasoning period from twelve months to six, and on 4 June 2026 declined—retaining the twelve months, the profitability screen, and the float minimum for the S&P 500 regardless of a candidate's size. One provider looked at identical pressure and refused. The change was therefore never necessary. It was a choice, and choices have authors. This is a structure I have written about before under a different name. The people making the decision sit at maximum distance from its consequences, and those who will carry the consequences—superannuation members, holders of index funds they did not select—have no proximity to the decision whatsoever. The fiduciaries' letters are best understood as an attempt to reattach the two, undertaken by the only parties in the arrangement with no incentive to leave them apart. In an earlier letter to SpaceX itself, the same officials put the position with admirable directness: the company will become, through index inclusion, an unavoidable holding in their portfolios, and its governance ought therefore to meet the baseline that long-term institutional capital depends upon. That is the argument of people who have realised they will be made owners of something whether or not they judge it sound. ## The Bubble That Lays the Track Brett declined the easy version of the wider argument. Asked about the dot-com parallel, he made the point that the promise of that period was not met at the time and was met slowly afterwards—that the mania laid foundational capability the rest of us subsequently used without paying for it. [Carlota Perez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlota%5FPerez?ref=robert.winter.ink) (b. 1939) built a historical model on that observation. Each technological revolution, on her account, moves through an installation period in which financial capital chases the new technology with escalating disregard for earnings, a frenzy that ends in collapse, a turning point, and then a deployment period in which the overbuilt infrastructure is put to productive use at prices no rational investor would have accepted for building it. The canals, the railways, the dark fibre: the bubble is the mechanism by which societies finance infrastructure no disciplined allocator would fund. If Perez is right, then "there is a bubble" and "this technology will reshape enterprise work" are not competing propositions. Her model requires both. That is a considerably more interesting position than the one usually attributed to sceptics, and it is closer to Brett's actual view than his headline suggests. The pressure I would apply is this. Perez's turning point is neither automatic nor benign. In her account it is a political and institutional passage whose outcome depends on decisions taken while the wreckage is still warm—which is to say, on precisely the kind of decision the index providers have just demonstrated they take under pressure and at speed. Brett's forecast, of eleven or twelve significant model developers consolidating to perhaps six within eighteen months, is a prediction about the end of the frenzy rather than about what follows it. He was candid that he cannot see the mechanism of the unwind. I take that as a mark of seriousness. Everyone who claims to see it is selling something. ## What the Fast Follower Is Following Brett is relaxed about Australia's position. We learned something from the dot-com period, he argued; we are not jumping the gun on the promises other markets are swallowing; and although we occasionally feel outposted and behind, being a fast follower is the better place to stand. I have some sympathy with this. Australian executives and directors are reliably described in surveys as sitting at the conservative end of the international distribution, and the description is reliably treated as an indictment. I think that is wrong. Genuine innovation is not indifference to risk; it is the accurate understanding of risk, which is what permits an organisation to move quickly through hazardous territory rather than blundering through it and leaving the wreckage for a successor. But the argument depends entirely on what is being followed, and Brett himself supplied the reason to worry. Describing how boards form their expectations, he sketched a director who reads a consulting report about an American company that removed seven hundred people from its call centre through automation, retains the number, and returns to the table asking why we are not doing that. The reference is unmistakable. In February 2024 Klarna announced, jointly with OpenAI, that its assistant was performing work equivalent to seven hundred full-time customer service agents, handling two-thirds of conversations, cutting resolution times from eleven minutes to under two, and heading for forty million dollars of savings. It was a global news event. In May 2025 the chief executive told Bloomberg the company had gone too far, that the focus on cost had produced lower quality, and that human agents were being rehired. That was an interview. Klarna now disputes the word reversal, noting that it never removed human support entirely and that its assistant's measured output has since grown—a qualification almost nobody who repeats either version of the story has encountered. Note the asymmetry. The announcement was a press release issued jointly with the vendor. The correction was a remark. The contested status of the correction is effectively unknown. A follower who follows announcements is not a fast follower at all; he is a slow leader, arriving at the original error eighteen months late and without the first mover's data. [Paul DiMaggio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul%5FDiMaggio?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Walter Powell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter%5FW.%5FPowell?ref=robert.winter.ink) named the mechanism in 1983\. Where goals are ambiguous and the environment generates symbolic uncertainty, organisations resolve the uncertainty by modelling themselves on others they take to be legitimate or successful. They called it mimetic isomorphism, and its product is convergence on a template rather than on a solution. Their identification of the principal vectors has aged with some cruelty: consulting firms and professional associations, precisely because they carry templates between organisations at scale and are rewarded for the carriage rather than for the outcome. We have already watched this operate one level up. The pension fiduciaries' objection to FTSE Russell was, in substance, an anti-isomorphic argument—that Nasdaq's decision created no obligation to converge—and S&P's refusal demonstrated the point. Index providers copy each other under uncertainty for the same reasons boards do. Which is the difficulty with Brett's optimism. Conservatism buys a lag; it does not determine what the lag is used for. Observation and imitation take exactly the same amount of time. ## The Trophy on the Desk Then the conversation descended from capital markets to the desk, and produced the most revealing detail of the hour. Brett described organisations measuring individual employee productivity by token consumption. Staff are encouraged to spend; spending is recorded; aggregate usage is reported to the model provider, and the provider sends back an award for the desk. He was scathing, and correctly so: the metric translates directly into currency, so the operative proposition becomes that an employee who is not spending enough money is not doing their job properly. [Thorstein Veblen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorstein%5FVeblen?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1857–1929) anatomised this in 1899\. His subject was conspicuous consumption—expenditure whose function is to evidence standing rather than to satisfy a want—and its companion, conspicuous waste, in which the honorific value of the spend derives precisely from its uselessness. Veblen's sharpest observation was that emulation propagates downward: the standard set at the top becomes the obligation of everyone beneath, long after anyone recalls what it was meant to achieve. What distinguishes the token case from ordinary metric corruption is who designed it. The status economy here is not an unfortunate emergent property of a well-meant measure. It is supplied, complete with trophy, by the party collecting the revenue. Veblen would have found the perspex particularly satisfying. Asked later which metric he distrusts most, Brett named hours saved, and asked the question that ought to accompany every such claim: where did the hours go? A figure for hours saved is an assertion about a counterfactual, and it is almost never accompanied by evidence that the reclaimed time was redeployed to anything at all. His constructive version inverts the usual framing—apply the technology to the organisation's inefficiencies rather than to its headcount, and start with the meetings. ## The Dynamo and the Drive Shaft Brett offered an image I have not been able to put down. He could, he said, sit with a chief information officer, open a coding tool, and in two hours produce a genuine three-tier application: secured, role-based, integrated, generating reports. He can do this. The trouble is what the room concludes from having watched it. The extrapolation is immediate and nearly irresistible—if that took two hours, what might we have by Friday? And the answer, from a man who has spent a career conducting post-mortems, is that the technology was never the constraint. Asked what actually kills the projects he is called in to recover, he named two things, neither of them technical: expectation management, and change management. [Paul A. David](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul%5FA.%5FDavid?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1935–2023) explained the mechanism in the best short paper written on the subject. Electric motors were commercially available from the 1880s. American factory productivity did not respond until the 1920s. The reason was architectural. Steam-era factories were organised around a central drive shaft: machines were positioned according to their proximity to power, and buildings ran to several storeys to keep the shafts short. Replacing the steam engine with one large electric motor changed nothing, because the layout was unchanged. The gains arrived only with unit drive—a small motor on each machine—which permitted single-storey plants laid out by the sequence of work, overhead materials handling, and eventually the moving line. That took roughly forty years, a generation of managers, and the demolition of the existing plant. The two-hour application is a dynamo bolted to the drive shaft. Real power; unchanged layout; no gain. This is why Brett's most unfashionable positions are also his most defensible. He does not think organisations need an AI strategy, and he does not think they need a chief artificial intelligence officer. He thinks they need an actual business strategy with measurable outcomes, laddered down through capabilities to the point where one can identify which capability, lifted, moves which number—and only then ask what might lift it. Sometimes the answer will be a model. Frequently it will be a process, or a person, or the removal of something. Beginning with the solution, he said, is the wrong way around in any technology implementation. It has been the wrong way around for forty years. The tooling has merely made it faster to get wrong. ## Designed to Fail The most contrarian thing Brett said, he said almost in passing, and it cuts against a position I have argued myself. The widely circulated statistics on failed artificial intelligence pilots, he suggested, are largely measuring the wrong thing. Most pilots are designed to fail, in the sense that they exist to generate learning rather than to establish a business case. Judged as business cases they were never going to pass. An organisation that wants a pilot that scales should write a different brief. [James G. March](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%5FG.%5FMarch?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1928–2018) gave the underlying distinction its formal statement. He separated exploration—search, variation, experimentation, discovery—from exploitation, the refinement and execution of what is already known. His central finding was that the returns to exploitation are proximate, certain, and measurable, while those to exploration are distant, uncertain, and frequently negative, so organisations reliably over-invest in the former and starve the latter. An exploratory project assessed against exploitation criteria fails by construction. So the first half of Brett's claim is sound. Where a pilot genuinely exists to test a thesis, counting it as a failed business case is a category error, and some proportion of the published failure statistics is doing exactly that. The second half does not survive contact with how most organisations actually work. Exploration for its own sake is a luxury good. It requires a firm with the revenue to fund terminal projects, the governance to protect them from quarterly scrutiny, and the tolerance to see them end without a product. A handful of very large technology companies can do this. Almost nobody else can, and almost nobody else pretends otherwise at the moment of funding. In the ordinary firm the pilot is pitched, funded, and approved precisely as a gateway to a production capability. The business case is not a misapplied external standard; it is the reason the money was released. Which means the low conversion rate is not a measurement artefact. It is closer to a smoking gun. If pilots were sold as pathways to production and did not reach production, then the failure is exactly what it appears to be, and its distribution across firms and sectors is the finding rather than the noise. There is a further difficulty, and it is the one that ought to trouble a board. "Designed to fail" is available as an *ex post* description. A gateway pilot that does not convert can be reclassified, after the fact, as a learning exercise—and once that move is permitted, no pilot can ever fail. The organisation has acquired a mechanism for converting disappointment into wisdom at no cost, and the only thing it reliably learns is how to describe things. This is not a hypothetical failure mode; it is the ordinary language of the post-implementation review. Brett's own prescription is, in effect, the remedy. He proposes funding these programmes in tranches, in the manner of a venture portfolio: a defined sum against defined goals, the next tranche released only on demonstrated value, with a named individual accountable for the outcome. Stated at the outset, that is what makes the difference between a pilot that is genuinely exploratory and one that has merely been relabelled. It is unglamorous, it is essentially a governance argument, and it is the correct answer. ## The Hiding Hand Asked which book he would put in front of every executive, Brett named one that is not about artificial intelligence at all: *How Big Things Get Done*, by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner. Its subject is why large projects fail—optimism bias, poor forecasting, absent ownership, no governance model—and its most famous illustration is the Sydney Opera House, which [Bent Flyvbjerg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent%5FFlyvbjerg?ref=robert.winter.ink) has documented at roughly fourteen hundred per cent over budget. And then Brett said the thing that has stayed with me longest. The Opera House, he observed, has paid dividends over time—that we had, in a sense, a small Opera House bubble, and it was worth it. He did not appear to notice that he had just changed sides. That position belongs to [Albert O. Hirschman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert%5FO.%5FHirschman?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1915–2012), who named it the Hiding Hand. We systematically underestimate the difficulty of what we undertake; we equally underestimate our own ingenuity in surmounting difficulty once committed; and the two errors offset. Providential ignorance, on Hirschman's account, is what allows societies to begin projects they would never rationally start and could not afford to have foregone. Flyvbjerg's work is a sustained assault on precisely this idea—that the offsetting is largely illusory, that the Hand mostly hides, and that the survivors are visible while the abandoned wreckage is not. Brett recommended the book that demolishes the position he had arrived at, unprompted, twenty minutes earlier. I raise it not as a gotcha but because the unresolved tension is the most useful thing a board could take from the hour. Both are defensible. Neither is decidable in advance. The question that separates them is not whether the forecast was optimistic—it always is—but whether the organisation retains the capacity to discover mid-flight that it was wrong and to act on the discovery. Which returns us to conversion, and to whether anything is ever actually decided. Asked for the most underrated word in the discourse, Brett said accountability, and noted that it is the one most conspicuously missing. He had already supplied the illustration: the board that sets its executives a target of twenty-five per cent cost reduction through artificial intelligence, attaches the long-term incentive to it, and considers the matter delegated. That is not accountability. It is the transfer of consequence downward while the credit is retained above—the same structure as the index rules, at a different scale, and the reason both keep happening. If you sit on a board that has approved an artificial intelligence programme you could not personally describe; if your organisation measures anyone on tokens consumed or hours notionally saved; if you have ever imported an overseas case study without checking whether its author still believes it; or if you hold a fiduciary position and have not asked who wrote the rules by which your passive holdings are selected, this conversation is worth your full attention. Good night, and good luck. ### The Officer of Last Resort URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-officer-of-last-resort/ Last updated: 2026-07-31T01:35:16.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/07/The-Officer-of-Last-Resort_thumb.jpeg) The Officer of Last Resort 0:00 /657.624 1× "We are hiring a Chief AI Officer. Don't look for a top AI expert." [Michael Maeder](https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelmaeder/?ref=robert.winter.ink), a partner in executive search at August Leadership, reports this as the clearest instruction he received from a client, and he is right to have treated it as the clue it was. Most search assignments are order-filling. A specification arrives, the market is combed for people who resemble it, and the resemblance is mistaken for suitability—a process that has been described, accurately, as a machine for converting institutional anxiety into a shortlist. That this brief was interrogated rather than executed makes it unusual for an industry that over indexes on speed to fill, and the interrogation produced something genuinely useful. The client's pilots had worked. What frightened them was not failure but the far commoner fate of the successful experiment that never becomes operating reality. The technical capability was already in the building. What was absent was the capacity to prioritise across competing claims, to enforce a stop decision, and to hold anyone to a horizon beyond the next quarter. That is a good diagnosis. It is also, on inspection, a diagnosis of something other than artificial intelligence. ****Disclaimer:** What follows is not a criticism of Michael Maeder or of August Leadership, who appear to be doing careful and honest work inside a broken environment. Search firms are in the business of being in business. They can counsel a client; they cannot rewrite the [corporate saviour](https://robert.winter.ink/the-saviour-industrial-complex/) reflex that so many boards and executive teams bring to the table before the first candidate is ever sighted. This particular brief is among the more visible and more thoughtful attempts to resolve a structural failure by creating a role to hold it—which is exactly why it is worth the attention. The quarrel is with the environment, not with the practitioner navigating its constraints. ## A Post Already Occupied Read the requirements as a list and notice what they describe. Selection among rival uses of scarce capital. Explicit go and stop authority. Discipline about time to value. Work made inseparable from how the business creates value. This is not the specification of an emerging technical domain. It is the specification of the strategy function, and it has been understood as such since [Joseph Bower](https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=6426&ref=robert.winter.ink) demonstrated that strategy in large firms is not formulated at the top and executed below but constituted by the accumulated pattern of resource commitments made through the middle. In other words, what the client of the executive search firm has described is a Chief Strategy Officer and then attached a technology to the title. > The instinct to create a post rather than confront an incumbent is not an operational decision. It is a governance evasion, and it is available precisely because creating a role requires no one to be told anything unwelcome. The distinction matters because the application of these systems is not a domain problem at all. It is the question of which parts of an existing strategy they make cheaper, faster, or newly possible—and that question cannot be answered from outside the strategy, only from within it. An organisation that appoints someone to run its artificial intelligence has already conceded that the work sits alongside how it creates value rather than inside it, which is precisely the outcome the client said it feared. The office is erected to prevent the very separation the office creates. We have run this experiment before, and with some regularity. The Chief Digital Officer, the Chief Transformation Officer, the Chief Innovation Officer: each was created because a capability the organisation needed did not exist in its line management, and each was staffed by people whose real mandate was to compensate for that absence rather than remedy it. Such roles are scaffolding. They announce that the building is unfinished, and properly understood they carry a removal date—which is the awkward implication of the client's own ambition. If the work is to become inseparable from how the business creates value, the officer's success condition is the abolition of the office. There is an honest case for the appointment, and it should be conceded. A dedicated senior post can function as a forcing device: a way of concentrating attention, breaking a stalemate between business units, and giving somebody the standing to refuse a general manager. That is a real use and occasionally the only one available. But it is a temporary expedient, and the intellectually serious version of the brief says so aloud—names the role transitional, sets a horizon, and specifies what must be true in the line organisation before the office closes. A permanent appointment made to solve a temporary coordination failure does not solve it. It institutionalises the failure and gives it a salary band. ## Everything Else Is a Side Hustle Why, then, does the new office get created? Not from stupidity. It is created because the executives already holding the relevant authority have a primary focus, and treat everything outside it as a side concern to be attended to when the main work permits—which is almost never. Particularly in "lean" organisations. The charitable reading is structural, and it has empirical backing. Attention is the genuinely scarce resource at the top of an organisation, and what a firm does is largely determined by what its decision-makers are situated to notice. Executive job demands are not evenly distributed, and the executive facing severe demands falls back on prior experience and simplified heuristics rather than fresh analysis, which is exactly the failure mode observed by the firm seeking a Chief AI Officer. On this reading, the Chief Strategy Officer—if the role exists—is not neglectful. They are saturated, and a second pair of hands is a rational response. The less charitable reading is harder to dismiss. An executive who cannot hold a second, third, or fourth serious concern within their remit is not fully performing the office they occupy. Saturation is a real constraint, but it is also the most respectable available account of an incapacity that nobody wishes to name, and organisations reach for it with a consistency that should make us suspicious. The instinct to create a post rather than confront an incumbent is not an operational decision. It is a governance evasion, and it is available precisely because creating a role requires no one to be told anything unwelcome. It also imposes a cost that the recruiting brief does not price. Accountability is not conserved when it is divided; span of accountability that exceeds span of control produces executives who are answerable for outcomes they cannot command, and the predictable response is defensive rather than entrepreneurial. Insert a new officer between the strategy function and a set of decisions that were formerly the strategy function's, and the question of who is answerable when the portfolio is misallocated has been made materially harder to answer than it was the week before. Two people now hold part of it. Neither holds the whole. ## What Cannot Be Specified Having correctly rejected one proxy—technical credentials standing in for the capacity to create value—the brief reaches immediately for another, and this one is considerably harder to interrogate. Transformational leadership, not a technical build. Transformational leadership is not a neutral description. It is a specific construct, measured for four decades and criticised for nearly as long, and the criticism has largely converged. The measure cannot reliably separate what the leader does from the results it is supposed to explain, so it risks defining good leadership as whatever preceded a good outcome—including when a leader is a [bully](Bullies, Bosses, and Being Manipulated) who systematically undermines organisational morale. Its component parts, meant to capture distinct qualities, collapse into one another when tested. And its apparent power to predict performance largely evaporates once researchers correct for the fact that the same person is often rating both the leader and the results. For all that, transformation roles survive not because they are well specified but because their existence is flattering and unfalsifiable. Exactly the properties that make a criterion attractive to a selection process. No candidate has ever been rejected for insufficient transformational leadership in terms that are not easily contestable. Resulting in swathes of people being appointed to Chief Transformation roles when their only real talent is driving people harder than before. The closing formulation compounds the difficulty: a business leader with a natural inclination towards technology, not the other way around. The sequencing instinct is right, and the reverse has produced a great many expensive disappointments. But a natural inclination is a taste, not a capability. It can be performed in interviews by anyone with a subscription to the Harvard Business Review or the Economist and a plausible manner, and it cannot be assessed by any method senior search actually deploys—a field that continues to prefer subjective impression to validated instruments long after the evidence on their relative accuracy ceased to be seriously disputed. As one researcher put it: "people have an inherent resistance to analytical approaches to selection because they fail to view selection as probabilistic and subject to error." What the client actually wants is *phronesis*: the capacity to judge particulars, to weigh incommensurable claims, to recognise when a thing that is working is nevertheless not worth continuing. Aristotle's point about this virtue is not that it is rare, though it is. It is that it cannot be reduced to a neat rule, cannot be transferred by instruction, and is exercised only by the person who bears the consequences of exercising it. It does not travel with a job description. It does not, on the available evidence, [travel especially well with the individual either](10-19 Areas/11 RW Ink Column/11.01 Published/Hiring a $200 Hammer)—portable excellence being a good deal less portable than the market for executive talent assumes. And it cannot be subcontracted, which was Burke's structural rather than sentimental objection to the representative who surrenders the judgement they were trusted to exercise: the trust attaches to the judgement, and where the judgement is delegated onward, there is nothing left for the trust to hold to. So the question worth putting to any board contemplating the appointment of a Chief AI Officer is not whether the specification is right, nor whether transformational leadership is the register in which to write it. It is why the executives who already hold the authority to prioritise, to fund, and to stop are not doing so—and whether the vacancy about to be advertised is a remedy for that condition or the most expensive available way of not discussing it. Good night, and good luck. ### Jarrod Myers: The Climb Is Not the Point URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/jarrod-myers-the-climb-is-not-the-point/ Last updated: 2026-09-01T11:20:13.000Z The leadership literature, and the organisations that consume it, share an unexamined assumption about direction. Progress means ascent. One begins as an individual contributor, demonstrates competence, and is rewarded with the management of others; from there the ladder continues upward through seniority into the executive, and the person who has climbed furthest is presumed to have succeeded most. The model is so pervasive that its alternatives are barely legible. To decline the next rung, or to take it and step back, is filed under a small and unflattering set of headings—a failure of nerve, a shortfall of ambition, burnout, a ceiling reached. What the filing rarely admits is a further possibility: that the rung was simply the wrong shape for the person standing on it, and that recognising as much is an act of judgement rather than a confession of defeat. [Jarrod Myers](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jarrodmyers/?ref=robert.winter.ink) now runs his own venture. When we spoke he was a strategic accounts director at a Salesforce partner and AI consultancy operating across the ANZ region, and had held the more senior title there—Head of Sales—before giving it back: he tried management for a year, concluded it was the wrong fit, and returned to individual contribution without leaving the firm or, by his own account, leaving leadership behind. He has since left it altogether to build something of his own. Before technology there was the better part of a decade in social work and international development; before that, representative Australian football to the edge of the professional game. It is an unusual set of coordinates, and the line that runs through them is not a career plan—Jarrod is candid that he cannot write a long-term goal to save himself—but a consistent instinct about where his particular capacities do their best work. What follows are the ideas from the conversation I have continued to turn over since. ## The ceiling and the work Jarrod's account of sport is disarmingly free of the usual mythology. He played two half-seasons with the Sydney reserves alongside players who went on to distinguished careers, and he is precise about why he was not one of them: he was never the quickest, tallest or strongest, and the athletic gifts that would have carried him further were simply not there. What he had instead was an unusual willingness to work—to keep running when fitter players stopped, to grind at the parts of the game that lay outside natural endowment. His summary is that you do not have to be the best; you have to work far harder than most, and that will take you a long way, though not, he adds, all the way. That last qualification is where the science becomes interesting. The most influential account of expertise we possess belongs to [K. Anders Ericsson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.%5FAnders%5FEricsson?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1947–2020), the Swedish psychologist whose 1993 paper with Ralf Krampe and Clemens Tesch-Römer, *The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance*, gave us the concept of deliberate practice and, at second hand through popular writers, the ten-thousand-hours rule. Ericsson's claim was strong: that the gap between the expert and the rest reflects accumulated deliberate practice rather than innate talent, with height among the few genuine exceptions. It is a democratic and appealing thesis, and Jarrod's working life is a partial vindication of it—sustained, unglamorous effort has plainly carried him past more gifted people who did not bother. But it is only partial, and Jarrod knows it. He names the ceiling that Ericsson's strongest formulation tends to elide—the athletic gifts he lacked, which no quantity of practice was going to supply. The evidence of the last decade has drifted toward Jarrod rather than Ericsson; the meta-analyses find deliberate practice a powerful contributor to performance but a long way from the whole of it. The honest position is the one Jarrod holds by instinct: effort is the ninety-five per cent that lies within your gift and that most people never fully spend, and it is worth spending precisely because it proves decisive so much more often than talent does. The ceiling is real. Almost nobody reaches it. ## The year he ran sales The centre of the conversation is the year Jarrod spent as Head of Sales. He did not fall into it; he argued for it, building the case in a presentation to his chief executive and board that the company had outgrown a model in which the founder was the boss of everything, and proposing himself for the role. They agreed. And then, in his own memorable audit, he was good at perhaps three or four of the ten things the job required, adequate at another three or four, and poor at the rest—and worse, he disliked several of the things he was poor at. He returned to individual contribution within about a year, with what he describes as relief on both sides: he had spared them the awkwardness of removing him from a role he was performing, by his own estimate, thirty-five per cent brilliantly, thirty-five per cent acceptably, and thirty per cent terribly. The most precise diagnosis of what went wrong belongs to [David McClelland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%5FMcClelland?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1917–1998), the American psychologist whose 1961 book *The Achieving Society* established the need for achievement as a distinct motivational drive. McClelland separated the need for achievement—the desire to accomplish, to meet a standard, to see a task through personally—from the need for power, the desire to influence and direct others. The distinction matters because, as McClelland argued directly in the years that followed, the two sit together uneasily in a manager. The high achiever is driven to do the thing himself and to feel the result of it; confronted with an underperforming subordinate, his instinct is to take the work back and close it out, which is precisely the thing a manager must not habitually do. Jarrod describes this failure mode without the vocabulary: a competitiveness he rates, only half-joking, at the hundredth percentile; a reflex to seize any deal that showed a chance of being won; a discovery that doing the work for people is not how you teach them to do it. He is not a man of low power-need who failed to reach for authority. He is a man of overwhelming achievement-need, for whom authority over others was a tax on the thing he was actually good at. There is a second, quieter lesson in the same passage, one Jarrod's coach put to him bluntly: short of severe trauma, people do not change their fundamental make-up across a working life. The personality research broadly sides with the coach. The disposition that made Jarrod a poor delegator was not a skills gap to be closed with training; it was closer to a fixed parameter, and the intelligent response was to build a working life around it rather than against it. That is what stepping back represented—not surrender, but the alignment of the work to the person. ## Disconnected from the consequences Jarrod's decade before technology was spent in places most executives never see: the slums of Bangkok, the housing-commission estates of Sydney's west, where his closest working contacts included men who moved between employment and prison with a regularity no amount of goodwill could interrupt. He tells a story about a man who helped him move house, carried a refrigerator in unaided, and was back inside a week later, having held up a service station with a fake shotgun—because the lawful alternative paid seven dollars an hour. He does not tell it for effect. He tells it as the source of a perspective he has carried into corporate life: a sense of proportion about what a bad day at work actually is, and a corresponding impatience with leaders who have lost it. This is where the conversation turned to a structural question that has occupied better minds than either of ours: why the people who rise are so often not the people who should. Jarrod's answer is that the ascent selects for a willingness to play a political game—for a certain relish in the manoeuvring—and that this quietly weeds out those who simply cannot bring themselves to say something other than what they think. The most rigorous treatment of that claim is the fieldwork behind [*Moral Mazes*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral%5FMazes?ref=robert.winter.ink), the 1988 study in which the sociologist Robert Jackall spent years inside American corporations mapping how managers actually think. Jackall found that success in the managerial hierarchy had remarkably little to do with the quality of one's work and a great deal to do with alertness to what the person above you wanted, with fealty to patrons, and with a certain flexibility in one's moral accounting. The subordinate who raised objections too often was not promoted for his honesty; he was labelled a naysayer and quietly stranded. What Jarrod observed from the inside, Jackall documented from the field: hierarchies do not reliably reward the honest, because honesty is frequently inconvenient to the people who control ascent. This is not a lament about individual villainy. It is an observation about what a certain kind of structure selects for. ## Leadership without a title If the ladder selects poorly, and if the rung above was the wrong shape, the remaining question is the interesting one: what is left of leadership for a person who has deliberately declined authority? Jarrod's answer is that leadership was never the same thing as authority, and that he leads now in a way that requires no one to report to him. The scholar who made this distinction his life's work is [Ronald Heifetz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald%5FHeifetz?ref=robert.winter.ink), whose 1994 book carries a title this programme could almost have borrowed—*Leadership Without Easy Answers*. Heifetz's central move is to separate leadership, which he treats as an activity, from authority, which is merely a position. Authority is the formal power to direct; leadership is the work of mobilising people to confront difficult problems, and it can be exercised, in his account, with or without authority—sometimes more freely without it, since the person who holds no formal power is not trapped defending it. Jarrod's version is less theorised but recognisably the same: the individual contributor who builds culture, who fixes a process the customers are frustrated by rather than merely complaining about it, who contributes to decisions well outside his job description, is leading. He reaches for a numerical metaphor—the colleague who does the job to specification is a one; the colleague who does that and lifts the people and systems around him is a 1.2 or a 1.5—and the arithmetic, whatever one makes of it, points at Heifetz's distinction. The value such a person adds is leadership by any serious definition; it simply does not appear on an organisational chart. It is worth resisting the sentimental version of this idea, and to his credit Jarrod does. Leading without authority is a genuine phenomenon, but it is also a phrase that can flatter a mere absence of authority into a principled choice. The honest test is whether the influence is real—whether the process actually changes, whether the decision actually shifts—or whether it is only proximity to a decision that someone else is making. Jarrod's claim survives the test because it rests on output rather than on self-description, which is the only ground on which it can survive. ## What a manager is actually for The counterpart to leading without authority is understanding what authority is properly for, and here the conversation produced one of its sharper exchanges. The trap for the high performer who becomes a manager is that he carries his competitiveness into the wrong arena—he tries, as I put it to Jarrod, to win the one-on-one meeting, to demonstrate that he is the best manager his report has ever had, when the entire purpose of the meeting is the report's development and not the manager's performance. Jarrod's recognition was immediate and rueful: that, he said, is exactly why he was so poor at it. He had to win, and there is no way to be a good manager whose private measure of a subordinate is whether you have out-performed him. The deeper point is that management is not a side hustle. Organisations routinely take their best salesperson or engineer, hand them a team, and leave them to discover that they now hold two full-time jobs and have time for one—whereupon the technical work, being the more familiar and the more immediately rewarding, wins, and the management is done in the margins if at all. Jarrod's decision to step back reads, in this light, not as a retreat from responsibility but as a refusal to perform management badly in the gaps between doing the work he was hired for. There is more organisational honesty in that refusal than in most of what passes for ambition. ## A marriage, not a date The last idea I have kept is the one that most cleanly connects Jarrod's disparate lives. He does not, he says, sell in the transactional sense; he has never in his life asked what the close plan is or who needs to sign, retained no formal sales training that survived his attention, and cringes at the scripted call. His work is the long relationship—a consulting engagement measured in years, in which something will inevitably go wrong and the only thing that carries you through the wreckage is whether the relationship beneath it is real. It is, in his phrase, more like a marriage than a date. If you would not have a coffee or a beer with the person, he asks, what exactly is the point? The scholar who dignifies this instinct is [Richard Sennett](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard%5FSennett?ref=robert.winter.ink), whose 2008 book *The Craftsman* recovered an old idea: that craftsmanship is the desire to do a job well for its own sake, a form of engagement with the world neither reducible to reward nor separable from a long apprenticeship to the material. Jarrod's contempt for the script is a craftsman's contempt—the script is the enemy of the responsiveness that only competence permits, and the person who cannot leave the script is usually the person who cannot answer the follow-up question. His pleasure in the long client relationship is the craftsman's pleasure in work that does not resolve on Friday. And his closing philosophy—that the top of the ladder is not the corner office but a life with more smiles than frowns in it, and that the climb, pursued for its own sake, is a bad map—is craftsmanship applied to a career. Sennett would recognise the instinct: that a thing done well, slowly, in the company of people you respect, is not a consolation prize for failing to ascend. It may be the point that ascent was always meant to serve, and usually forgets. ## Who should listen This is a conversation for anyone who has been promoted into a role that fits them poorly and suspects, quietly, that the honest move is backwards; for the manager watching a gifted individual contributor being marched toward a job that will waste them; and for the executive who has never seriously asked whether the ladder is the only shape a career can take. It will be of particular use to those who lead sales organisations, and to boards weighing how they promote, because it names a failure mode—the achiever who cannot delegate—that the usual incentives actively manufacture. It is not a comfortable conversation, and it offers no formula. But it takes seriously a possibility the field prefers to ignore: that stepping down can be the most clear-eyed thing a person does. A postscript the conversation could not have known it was building toward: since we recorded, Jarrod has stepped away from the firm altogether and struck out on his own, under a banner that will need no gloss for anyone who has heard him on the subject of scripts. He has called it Off Script Ventures. Good night, and good luck. ### Skin in the Game Is Now the Law, Yet Nothing Has Changed URL: https://robert.winter.ink/skin-in-the-game-is-now-the-law-yet-nothing-has-changed/ Last updated: 2026-07-31T01:29:38.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/07/Skin-in-the-Game-Is-Now-the-Law-Yet-Nothing-Has-Changed_thumb.jpeg) Skin in the Game Is Now the Law Yet Nothing Has Changed 0:00 /1028.016 1× There is a particular kind of essay that business audiences have been reading for over twenty years now. It observes that the [Code of Hammurabi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code%5Fof%5FHammurabi?ref=robert.winter.ink) put builders to death for shoddy work; it observes that modern bankers are paid bonuses for taking risks that other people bear; it concludes that we have forgotten something the Babylonians knew, and that we would do well to remember it. I have written exactly that type of essay. I wrote it some years ago and never published it, which turns out to have been a piece of accidental good judgement, because in the intervening period the argument stopped being true. Australia has not forgotten Hammurabi. Australia has legislated him—twice, in the space of a decade, in two entirely separate domains. The interesting question is therefore no longer why we lack skin in the game. It is what happens once we have it, and why it changes fewer outcomes than one might expect. ## Reading the Whole Tablet [Hammurabi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi?ref=robert.winter.ink) (𒄩𒄠𒈬𒊏𒁉), sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon, ruled for roughly forty years in the eighteenth century BC and issued the law code that bears his name. It is not, as it is often described, the oldest legal text in the world; the code of [Ur-Nammu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code%5Fof%5FUr-Nammu?ref=robert.winter.ink) precedes it by two or three centuries. It is, however, the best preserved. The principal surviving copy is inscribed on a diorite stele more than two metres tall, carried off as war booty to Susa in antiquity and rediscovered there in 1901\. Two hundred and eighty-two provisions cover trade, agriculture, marriage, wages, professional conduct and the price of hiring an ox. The provisions that everyone quotes are the building laws: > **229.** If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction firm, and the house collapses and causes the death of the owner, that builder shall be put to death. > > **232.** If it destroys property, he shall restore whatever it destroyed, and because he did not make the house firm and it collapsed, he shall rebuild it at his own expense. [Nicholas Taleb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim%5FNicholas%5FTaleb?ref=robert.winter.ink) has twice called Law 229 the finest risk-management rule ever devised, and it is easy to see the appeal. The builder knows more about the house than the owner ever will. He can take a shortcut that will not be visible for a decade. Law 229 collapses that asymmetry by placing the builder inside the consequence: his interest and the owner's interest become, by statute, the same interest. It is a very good argument. It is also an argument that depends on not reading the next line. Law 230 provides that if the collapse kills the *son* of the owner, the state shall put to death a son of the builder. That is not skin in the game. That is the precise inverse of skin in the game—a punishment that lands on someone who made no decision, took no fee, and enjoyed no upside. And it is not an isolated barbarism that we can wave through as a product of its time, because the code as a whole prices human beings by rank: the death of a free man (*awīlum*), is not compensated at the same rate as the death of a slave (*mushkēnum*). Hammurabi's stele does not embody a principle of aligned incentives. It embodies a principle of *substitutable liability*, in which a life may be answered with an equivalent life drawn from the appropriate social stratum. If we are going to take counsel from Babylon, we should take it from the whole tablet. And the lesson of the whole tablet is considerably less flattering to the case for personal ruin as a governance instrument. ## The Physics of Consequence There is a more durable idea buried in the building laws of Hammurabi, and it is not about severity at all. It is about *distance*. On a construction site, or in an emergency department, the margin of safety very largely defends itself. The consequence of an error is immediate, physical, visible, and lands on a named person standing in the room. No board's risk appetite statement survives contact with a site delegate who can see an unmitigated hazard, or with a regulator who can prosecute the officer who signed off on it. The people closest to the harm hold the line, and they hold it regardless of what the appetite statement says, because they can see what is on the other side of it. > Genuine accountability asks men and women who know precisely what they hold to build the thing that would cost them it—and to hand themselves the bill. Move away from the physical and the same margin becomes increasingly negotiable. Where failure is denominated in dollars rather than lives, where it manifests in three years rather than three seconds, and where it is distributed across ten thousand customers rather than concentrated in one body, the willingness to push increases—not because the people involved are worse, but because the consequence has been abstracted until it is no longer something anyone can see. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### William Domanski: The Standard Cannot Interpret Itself URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/william-domanski-the-standard-cannot-interpret-itself/ Last updated: 2026-07-15T11:12:11.000Z Every serious corporate failure of the past two decades has been examined, in retrospect, by people who found the frameworks in good order. The risk register existed. The policy was current. The audit had been passed, the certificate hung in reception, and the board had received its quarterly pack on schedule. Governance, risk, and compliance has been among the fastest-growing functions in Australian organisations across that same period—more budget, more headcount, more board attention than at almost any point in corporate history—and it is almost never found to have been absent at the moment things went wrong. It was present. It simply did not work. In this episode of *On the Subject of Leadership*, I speak with [William Domanski](https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-domanski-f-isrm-grcp-irmp-sirm-00269360/?ref=robert.winter.ink)—a Fellow of the [Institute of Strategic Risk Management](https://www.theisrm.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink), chair of its Australia and New Zealand Young Professionals Committee, and a practitioner who has spent his career at the point where the framework meets the floor. He designed the enterprise risk framework for Standards Australia, the country's peak standards body—which is to say he did risk work for the organisation that publishes risk standards, a position with an almost laboratory quality to it. Before that he built the compliance programme at Mitsubishi Electric across data privacy, export control, modern slavery, and competition law, and ran compliance across Australia and New Zealand for Smiths Detection, whose radiation and threat-detection equipment sits in the ports, borders, and aviation hubs the rest of us pass through without thinking. He now consults, teaches, and writes. His public position is unusually direct for his discipline: that GRC is not a defensive overhead but a collection of capabilities that simultaneously produces value and protects it. I put the sceptical case to him early and often. He did not retreat into vocabulary, which is rarer than it should be. What follows are the ideas from the conversation I have continued to turn over since. ## The Standard Cannot Interpret Itself The most intellectually interesting thing William said, he said almost as an aside, and I suspect he did not realise he was standing on a philosophical landmine. Asked whether the guidance-only character of the risk standards was a strength or a weakness, he offered that the standards—ISO 31000, the COSO framework, the OCEG capability model—are all useful in their own right, but that they share an ultimate vulnerability: they are susceptible to interpretation. Two practitioners can read the same requirement, arrive at defensible but contradictory applications, and both hold certificates attesting to their conformance. [Ludwig Wittgenstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig%5FWittgenstein?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1889–1951) devoted the central passages of his *Philosophical Investigations*, published posthumously in 1953, to precisely this problem. His rule-following considerations arrive at a conclusion that ought to be read once a year by everyone who drafts a policy, standard, or governance framework: no course of action can be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule. The rule does not contain its own application. It cannot reach out and grip the world. What settles how a rule is applied is not the rule but the practice—the shared training, the customs, the agreed forms of life of the people who use it. Meaning, on this account, is use. Which means the interpretation problem William identifies is not a defect in ISO's drafting that a better committee could fix. It is a structural feature of rules as such. This has been demonstrated empirically as well as philosophically: Stefan Timmermans and Steven Epstein, in their 2010 review of the sociology of standardisation, concluded that standards do not eliminate variation so much as relocate it—producing, in their phrase, a world of standards but not a standard world. William's own illustration was the conformity assessment bodies, the accredited auditors who certify conformance. Some, he observed, came up through implementation and retain a taste for documented procedures and work instructions; others accept a process diagram and a record. Yet an organisation's certification depends materially on which auditor walks through the door. The certificate does not attest to a fact about the organisation. It attests to an encounter between an organisation and an interpreter. Michael Power named the consequence in 1997: the audit society, in which verification becomes ritual—an activity that produces comfort more reliably than it produces knowledge, and whose expansion is driven by the failure of the previous round of verification to prevent the thing it was meant to prevent. The remedy for a failed audit is always a further audit. I asked William whether the discipline would be healthier if its standards were certifiable rather than advisory. On the evidence he supplied, the honest answer is that certification would simply move the interpretive problem into a new office and give it a stamp. ## What Integrity Is Being Asked to Carry Confronted with the gap between the framework and the outcome, William reached—repeatedly, and with evident conviction—for integrity. There should be no shortcutting it. Just because a path is easy does not make it right. The GRC function, in his formulation, produces and protects value **while acting with integrity**, and the third clause is not decorative. I want to take this seriously, and then press on it, because both operations are necessary. Taking it seriously first. [Alasdair MacIntyre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair%5FMacIntyre?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1929–2025) argued in *After Virtue* (1981) that every genuine practice generates goods internal to it—goods that can only be obtained by pursuing the practice well, on its own terms—and that practices are always housed in institutions preoccupied with external goods: money, status, survival. The institution sustains the practice and simultaneously corrupts it, and what holds the line is the virtue of the practitioners. On MacIntyre's account, virtue is not a supplement to good institutional design; it is the only thing that prevents good institutional design from being hollowed out by the institution it serves. William's insistence that integrity is load-bearing rather than ornamental is, in this light, not sentimentality. It is the correct diagnosis. Now the pressure. A discipline that explains its failures by appealing to the virtue of its practitioners has conceded something significant about its instruments. If the standard cannot interpret itself, and the certificate attests only to an encounter with an auditor, and the difference between value and paperwork is finally the integrity of the people involved—then what, precisely, is the framework adding? The uncomfortable possibility is that GRC's machinery works well in exactly those organisations that would have behaved well without it, and fails in exactly those that need it. Every profession that reaches for character as its residual explanation should ask whether it has just described itself out of a job. William would resist that conclusion, and he has a serious answer: the framework's value lies in making the trade-offs visible, so that integrity has something to act upon. I think that is right, and I think it is a much narrower claim than the one the industry usually makes. ## Two More Lines The three lines model—operational management owns risk, a risk and compliance function oversees it, audit assures it—is the closest thing the discipline has to settled doctrine. William's amendment was the structural idea of the conversation. Three lines of defence, he argued, are not enough. There are two further lines, and they are lines of *accountability* rather than defence: executive management, and the board. Risk intelligence, in his account, is passed up the chain like a parcel, and the failure mode is that the last two players receive it without ever being required to do anything with it. Boards and executives, he said, must be active contributors to the decision, not informed participants along the way. That distinction—contributor versus participant—is doing a great deal of work, and it lands on a problem with a formal name. [Dennis Thompson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis%5FF.%5FThompson?ref=robert.winter.ink) described it in 1980 as the problem of many hands: where many actors contribute to an outcome through a chain of individually defensible steps, moral responsibility for the outcome attaches to nobody. Every hand was clean. Every process was followed. The three lines model, viewed unsympathetically, is a machine for manufacturing many hands. It distributes risk work across three functions, each with a bounded remit, each able to point to the discharge of its duty. William's two additional lines are an attempt to terminate the chain in a body that cannot pass the parcel any further. Whether a board can be made to hold it is, I suspect, the open question of contemporary governance—and I note that Thompson's own remedy was not better process but the designation of specific individuals who could be named afterwards. ## Performance, in the Theatrical Sense I put to William the observation that the reports reaching board risk committees are frequently reassurance dressed as intelligence—that the traffic light which is honestly amber gets recorded as green, because nobody wishes to explain amber to a director. He agreed, and then took the diagnosis somewhere I had not anticipated. The problem, he argued, begins with the recording apparatus itself. Meetings are transcribed. Transcripts are discoverable. Participants therefore choreograph—his word—their contributions, sanitising them into a form that will survive later reading. The record intended to produce accountability instead produces performance. [Chris Argyris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris%5FArgyris?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1923–2013) mapped the mechanism in 1976 with his distinction between espoused theory and theory-in-use. Organisations espouse candour and operate on a governing logic of unilateral control and face-saving; the resulting defensive routines are, in his devastating formulation, undiscussable, and their undiscussability is itself undiscussable. The risk report that is green because green is easier to present is not a failure of individual courage. It is a competent response to a system that punishes amber. [Donald Campbell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald%5FT.%5FCampbell?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1916–1996) supplied the corollary in 1979: the more any quantitative indicator is used for social decision-making, the more it will be subject to corruption pressures, and the more apt it will be to distort the processes it is meant to monitor. A risk register that determines careers stops being a description of risk and becomes an artefact of career management. William's remedy is worth recording because it is unfashionably concrete: the red flag in a risk committee is not a difficult question. It is the absence of one. If the committee receives the pack and asks nothing, the pack has told them nothing they needed to hear. ## Never Use the Machine to Check the Machine We arrived, inevitably, at artificial intelligence, and William drew a line I have not heard drawn so cleanly. The tool retrieves; the human judges. A large language model is not the chief risk officer—it is what you use *before* you go and see the chief risk officer, so that the five exchanges you would have needed become two. The moment it makes the judgement rather than helping people to prepare for it, the function has been hollowed out while appearing fully staffed. The sharper worry he raised concerns bias, and it is not the one usually aired. The danger is not that the model is biased. It is that the *prompt* is—that a practitioner, without any conscious intent to deceive, constructs a query whose framing produces the output they were hoping for, and then tables that output in a room which receives it as objective. [Peter Wason](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5FCathcart%5FWason?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1924–2003) demonstrated in 1960 that people test hypotheses by seeking confirming instances rather than disconfirming ones; the language model is the most accommodating confirmation engine ever built, and it will seldom volunteer the falsifying case you declined to ask for. William's operational rule follows directly, and I commend it to every risk function in the country: never use AI to verify AI. Take the output to a person, sit in a room with them, and make them ask you where you got it. ## The Slow Burn Which brings us to the paper he has co-authored with [Paul Vorbach](https://www.linkedin.com/in/vorbach/?ref=robert.winter.ink) on the strategic implications of healthy ageing populations, and to his claim that this is the most immediate silent crisis of the century. The technical argument is more interesting than the headline. The data exist—decades of it, across every jurisdiction—but the methodologies differ so profoundly between jurisdictions that the findings cannot be compared, correlated, or ranked. One country's research says dementia; another's says cardiac disease; another's says workforce collapse. Absent a common framework, there is no way to establish the risk event chain, and so there is no basis on which any government can be told what to do first. He reached, memorably, for renormalisation—the physicist's practice of adjusting parameters that are not quite real in order to make the equations behave—as a description of what happens when you force incompatible data into comparison. You get an answer. You do not get a result. [Ulrich Beck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich%5FBeck?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1944–2015) argued in 1986 that modernity's characteristic risks are precisely those that escape perception: latent, deferred, statistically distributed, and knowable only through the very expert systems whose disagreements then become the political battlefield. That is the ageing transition exactly. And [Elke Weber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elke%5FU.%5FWeber?ref=robert.winter.ink) explained in 2006 why the demographic data have not moved anyone: risks apprehended through description rather than experience fail to recruit the emotional response that drives action, and there is only a finite pool of worry available to spend. Inflation is felt. Interest rates are felt. A dependency ratio in 2045 is read. William's conclusion and mine converged. The condition under which organisations and governments act on a risk is not its magnitude but its proximity—whether it is affecting me, now, or someone close to me. Everything that fails that test gets pushed down the rungs. It is the same failure that has governed the climate response, and it will govern this one, and the discipline that calls itself risk intelligence has so far proved no better at overriding it than the rest of us. If you sit on a risk or audit committee and cannot remember the last time a pack surprised you; if you have ever certified conformance to a standard you privately doubt changed anything; or if you would like to hear an unusually candid practitioner explain why his own instruments are weaker than his profession claims, this is a conversation worth your full attention. Good night, and good luck. ### Rachel Condos-Fields: Staying the Distance URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/rachel-condos-fields-staying-the-distance/ Last updated: 2026-07-08T10:49:16.000Z Most conversations about corporate governance begin with structure—committees, charters, the machinery of oversight. This one begins on the side of a dirt road in Nepal in 1999, and I make no apology for that, because the road turns out to explain the boardroom rather better than the boardroom usually explains itself. In this episode of *On the Subject of Leadership*, I speak with [Rachel Condos-Fields OAM](https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-condos-fields-oam-9669b630/?ref=robert.winter.ink)—Independent Non-Executive Director of [Stanwell Corporation](https://www.stanwell.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), Queensland's largest electricity generator, and founder of [The WattleNest](https://wattlenest.com.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink), a venture connecting corporate Australia with elite athletes. Her career is an unusual instrument for examining where authority actually lives. She spent eighteen years at Computershare observing the boards of some of Australia's largest listed companies from the service provider's chair—watching them work without being of them—before taking a director's seat herself. She has since added the founder's chair, which is to say the one seat in the modern economy with the least authority and the most accountability of all. From that triangulated vantage point she offers a formulation she returned to twice in our conversation, which I take as a measure of its centrality: formal authority means very little without information, without culture, and without courage. Late in the recording, she told a story that reorganised everything that had preceded it. In 1999, as a seventeen-year-old working two days a week in a bakery for six dollars an hour, she met a six-year-old boy on the side of a road—a road that did not then exist—with no path to a school fifty metres from his house. She made a decision whose consequence took two decades to arrive. In 2019, that boy, Sukra, now a man with a wife, a son, a house, and a car of his own, collected her from Kathmandu airport and drove her to her hotel. For the first time in the show's run, I was rendered genuinely speechless—a condition podcast hosts do not readily admit to, and one I have decided to treat as data. What follows are the ideas from the conversation I have continued to turn over since. ## Authority on Paper The governance literature has spent half a century organised around a single suspicion. In their foundational analysis of agency costs, [Michael Jensen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael%5FC.%5FJensen?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1939–2024) and [William Meckling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William%5FH.%5FMeckling?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1921–1998) framed the corporation's central problem as the divergence of interest between those who own an enterprise and those who manage it. On this account the board exists as a monitoring instrument: an apparatus of institutionalised distrust, checking that the agents do not quietly serve themselves. The competing tradition—stewardship theory, given its fullest statement by James Davis, F. David Schoorman, and Lex Donaldson in 1997—begins from the opposite anthropology: that executives are frequently motivated by achievement, identification, and intrinsic satisfaction, and that governance built entirely on suspicion forfeits the gains available from trust and empowerment. What Rachel's experience suggests, uncomfortably for both camps, is that the choice of theory is largely beside the point. The boards she watched fail did not fail because they had selected the wrong model of human motivation. They failed because the instrument of oversight was present and the exercise of it was not. Boards, she observes, technically hold enormous power; but in practice they are not the subject matter experts, they meet infrequently, and they rely almost entirely on management for visibility into the organisation they are meant to govern. The formal structure guarantees nothing. What determines whether authority on paper becomes influence in practice is, in her account, the quality of relationships, the transparency of information flows, and a willingness to ask questions—variables that appear in no committee charter and survive few due diligence checklists. There is a quiet heresy in this that deserves to be named. The governance industry—and it is an industry—sells structure: skills matrices, evaluation frameworks, charter reviews. All of it useful; none of it sufficient. No charter has ever asked a difficult question on a director's behalf. ## The Comfort of Harmony Rachel's diagnosis of the failing boards she observed was precise: they confused harmony with effectiveness. They ratified decisions rather than interrogated them. The phrase is her own, but the phenomenon has a distinguished pedigree in the research. In their 1999 treatment of boards as strategic decision-making groups, Daniel Forbes and Frances Milliken argued that board effectiveness turns on a delicate and largely invisible trade-off: boards need cognitive conflict—genuine, task-focused disagreement—to do their monitoring work, yet the same conflict threatens the cohesion an episodic, part-time group requires to function at all. The failing board resolves the tension by quietly abandoning the conflict. What remains looks, from the outside, like a well-functioning board. It is collegial, efficient, and unanimous. It is also, in any meaningful sense, decorative. The question is what makes the productive alternative possible, and here Rachel's answer was unequivocal: the chair. Reflecting on her experience as a frequently young director—arriving with governance expertise but lacking the industry knowledge of everyone else at the table—she described the obligation to probe, to understand, and to ask, in rooms where every question risks advertising one's ignorance. Whether that obligation is discharged, she argues, comes down to the chair's ability to create an environment in which the naïve question is safe to ask. The research vocabulary for this arrived with [Amy Edmondson's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy%5FEdmondson?ref=robert.winter.ink) field study of work teams: psychological safety, the shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, which her data linked directly to learning behaviour—asking questions, admitting uncertainty, surfacing error. That a construct developed in manufacturing teams should describe the boardroom so exactly is not a coincidence. A board is a team that meets only a handful of times a year to make consequential decisions under information asymmetry; it is, if anything, the limiting case of Edmondson's problem. It is worth pausing on how this inverts the conventional picture. We imagine board effectiveness as a function of the expertise assembled around the table. Rachel's experience suggests it is at least as much a function of whether the least expert person in the room feels able to speak their mind and if the other directors are willing to look, listen, and act. ## When Process Replaces Purpose Asked why development organisations succeed or fail at reaching the people they exist to serve, Rachel offered a diagnosis that travels well beyond the aid sector: organisations fail when process replaces purpose. She has watched institutions of excellent intention become ineffective because they came to prioritise reporting structures and donor expectations over the lived realities of the communities in front of them. [Robert K. Merton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FK.%5FMerton?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1910–2003) gave this pathology its classic treatment in his 1940 essay on bureaucratic structure and personality, describing the displacement of goals: the process by which an instrumental value—adherence to the rules—becomes a terminal one, so that discipline devised to serve the organisation's purpose gradually becomes the purpose. Merton's bureaucrat is not corrupt. They are conscientious. That is precisely the problem. The rules are followed with an exactness that defeats the ends the rules were written to achieve. What Rachel adds to Merton is a claim about detection. Goal displacement, on her account, cannot be observed from inside the reporting structure, because the reporting structure is where the displacement lives. It is observed at the boundary—where the organisation touches the people it claims to serve—which is why her prescription is proximity: staying connected to lived realities, decentralising decisions, privileging relationships over transactions. One may fairly object that relationship is precisely the thing bureaucracy was invented to economise on, and that the formula does not obviously scale. However, the deeper point survives the objection. An institution that has lost contact with its boundary can comply its way into complete irrelevance and never notice; and the board that confuses harmony with effectiveness and confuses reporting with impact is exhibiting the same disease—the [substitution of an internal signal for an external one](The Price of Everything). ## Two Clocks The most personally revealing passage of the conversation concerned a tension Rachel carries within her own week. As founder and chief executive of The WattleNest, she wants execution, momentum, instant progress. As a director of Stanwell, her role is to provide oversight, perspective, and challenge—to ask, as she put it, have we thought about this long enough? By her own cheerful admission an impatient person, she has had to cultivate a deliberate slowness in the boardroom that her founder's instincts resist, and which she concedes management may experience as a handbrake. I have come to think of this as a problem of two clocks, and the underlying tension has a canonical statement. [James March](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%5FG.%5FMarch?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1928–2018), in his 1991 essay on organisational learning, distinguished exploitation—the refinement of what is already known, whose returns are near, predictable, and attributable—from exploration, whose returns are distant, uncertain, and frequently invisible to the systems that allocate reward. His central warning was that organisations systematically favour exploitation, not through stupidity but through arithmetic: the feedback loops that govern behaviour run faster than the phenomena that matter. Rachel's observation that incentives and bonuses, whatever their virtues, do not create long-term thinking is the boardroom corollary. One need not impugn anyone's character to predict that people will manage to the clock they are paid on. Her seat at Stanwell gives the problem an institutional twist worth examining. A government-owned corporation (GOC) operates, in her phrase, with dual accountabilities—commercial performance and public interest—its decisions evaluated through financial, social, political, and long-term economic lenses at once. That complexity slows decision-making, she concedes; but it can also create space for the longer-horizon thinking that a listed company facing continuous disclosure struggles to sustain. In a sector where investments unfold over decades rather than quarters, the GOC's structure is arguably better matched to the tempo of the thing being governed. Every governance model, she was careful to add, purchases its virtues with its own distortions: the GOC trades quarterly pressure for political accountability, and neither master is undemanding. But the general lesson stands. The question is not which governance model is best, but whose clock the model runs on—and whether that clock keeps the same time as the assets, communities, and consequences it presides over. ## Staying the Distance Which returns us to the road in Nepal, and to the question I put to Rachel near the end: what has enabled her to maintain a commitment to one community for twenty-seven years, in a civic culture where engagement is so often measured in photo opportunities? Her answer had several layers—passion, an emotional connection that still brings her readily to tears, and a monthly hour of structured reflection she guards in her diary—but the load-bearing element was this: change does happen, but you can't see it if you're not prepared to stay the distance. The school she helped establish in 1999 had roughly twenty students, almost all boys, because the community did not then consider it acceptable to educate girls. Today it enrols around eight hundred students, some seventy per cent of them girls, with an IT college alongside. No single year in that arc would have furnished proof the effort was working. The evidence exists only in aggregate, across a span longer than most institutional attention spans—and considerably longer than most funding cycles. [Albert Hirschman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert%5FO.%5FHirschman?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1915–2012) supplied the mechanism in 1970\. Loyalty, in his framework, is what holds people in relationship with a faltering institution long enough for voice—the effort to improve it from within—to do its work; without loyalty, exit is too easy, and everything that improves slowly is abandoned early. Rachel's twenty-seven years are Hirschman's loyalty in nearly pure form: a refusal of exit sustained long past the point the interim evidence would justify, vindicated only in retrospect. And [Philip Selznick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip%5FSelznick?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1919–2010), in 1957, gave us the vocabulary for what such commitment produces. Institutions, on Selznick's account, are organisations that have become infused with value beyond the technical requirements of the task—and the distinctive work of leadership is precisely this infusion, the slow conversion of an expendable instrument into something a community prizes for its own sake. A school in rural Nepal that has become the village's shared achievement rather than a foreigner's project is Selznick's thesis made visible, at 800 students and counting. The obvious objection deserves a fair statement, because I pressed a version of it during the episode: patience shades easily into complacency, and the counsel to stay the distance can become an alibi for institutions that are merely failing slowly. Rachel's own practice supplies the discipline that separates the two. Her monthly hour of reflection is not sentiment but measurement—a deliberate comparison of where things stood a month ago, a year ago, at inception. Commitment without measurement is stubbornness; measurement without commitment is reporting. The combination is rare, and it may be the nearest thing to an operational definition of stewardship I have encountered on this show. The WattleNest rests on the proposition that: > Despite being a sports obsessed Nation, over 40% of our elite athletes live on or below the poverty line resulting in 42% of our athletes aged between 18 and 34 suffering from poor mental health due to their financial predicament. The structural observation this statistic gestures at is uncomfortable enough at any magnitude: we have built a system that extracts national prestige from individuals whose financial circumstances we decline to examine. Rachel's response has been to build a bridge between that talent and corporate Australia one relationship at a time, on the strength of a reputation assembled over thirty years. Her father told her that reputation is a shadow that follows you everywhere and never disappears. It occurred to me, listening back to the recording, that the same is true of its absence. If you sit on a board and suspect your meetings are more harmonious than they ought to be, if you are attempting to build something whose value will not be demonstrable this quarter, or if you simply want to hear governance discussed by someone who has watched it from every chair in the room, this is a conversation worth your full attention. Good night, and good luck. ### The Price of Everything URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-price-of-everything/ Last updated: 2026-07-08T11:48:28.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/07/The-Price-of-Everything_thumb.jpeg) The Price of Everything 0:00 /604.392 1× Some years ago a friend sent me a paper that has stayed with me, though not for the reasons its authors might have hoped. In *The Return on Investment in AI Ethics*, Bevilacqua, Berente, Domin, Goehring, and Rossi propose a holistic return on ethics framework for organisations that wish to quantify what they get back when they spend on behaving well. It is a serious piece of work, carefully argued and admirably candid about the difficulty of its own enterprise. I recommend it. I also think it answers the wrong question—or rather, that the question it answers so diligently is one no manager or board member in a healthy organisation should feel the need to ask. The difficulty it addresses is real enough. Traditional return on investment is calculated on revenue and cost, on the things that present themselves obligingly for counting. The returns to ethical conduct—reputation, trust, the loyalty of staff who would rather work for a firm they need not be ashamed of—are intangible, indirect, and slow. They resist the spreadsheet. The literature on measuring them is now considerable, and it offers an expanding toolkit: balanced scorecards, sentiment analysis, ESG indices, longitudinal impact assessment. My contention is that this toolkit is not a solution to a measurement problem. It is the symptom of a moral one. The cynic, in [Wilde's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar%5FWilde?ref=robert.winter.ink) enduring definition, is the person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. An organisation that has learned to price its integrity has, in the same motion, begun to forget what it was for. ## The Question Behind the Question When a board commissions a business case for ethical investment, it has already settled a prior question without noticing it has done so. To ask what ethics returns is to assume that its warrant lies in the return—that conduct is justified by its consequences for the share price, the engagement survey, the brand-tracking study. This is the logic of the proxy, and it is the master pathology of contemporary management—[one I have explored before](https://robert.winter.ink/the-saviour-industrial-complex/), in the board that reaches for the charismatic chief executive as a legible stand-in for the illegible work of institutional repair, and in the romance of leadership that prefers the satisfying narrative of individual agency to the unsatisfying analysis of systems. In each case the organisation substitutes the question it can answer for the one it should. The business case for virtue is the same move performed on ethics: it converts "is this right?"—which admits no clean metric—into "does this pay?", which obligingly does. We already have a vocabulary that enables us to see what is lost in the exchange by distinguishing the goods internal to a practice—those one can obtain only by engaging in it on its own terms—from the external goods of money, status, and reputation that the practice may also, contingently, attract. When managers and NEDS come to value products and services solely for the external goods they yield, the ethical tends to hollow, however prosperous it appears. Ethical conduct justified entirely by its reputational dividend is a practice in precisely this condition. It is being held, not believed. Aristotle saw the methodological error two and a half thousand years ago. It is the mark of an educated person, he observed, to look for only so much precision in each subject as its nature admits; we should no more accept mere probability from a mathematician than demand demonstration from an orator. Ethics is the subject that least admits the precision the business case demands. To insist on quantifying it is not rigour but its opposite—a category error dressed in the costume of seriousness. ## What Counting Does to the Counted Suppose we set the philosophical objection aside and grant the board its business case. A harder problem awaits. Measurement is not the neutral mirror its advocates often imagine. It is reactive: the act of measuring alters the thing measured. A study by [Wendy Espeland](https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/people/wendy-espeland?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Michael Sauder](https://sociology.uiowa.edu/people/michael-sauder?ref=robert.winter.ink) showed how law schools, once ranked, reorganised themselves around the criteria of the ranking, gaming what they could and quietly abandoning what the ranking ignored. This process has been called commensuration—the transformation of distinct qualities into a common metric—and it does not so much record value as remake it, discarding whatever will not reduce to the chosen unit. > The organisation that demands a metric for its ethics is thus advertising a prior failure—of trust in its own people to know right from wrong without a dashboard to confirm it. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Trouble Was Never the Idea URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-trouble-was-never-the-idea/ Last updated: 2026-09-02T10:36:59.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/06/The-Trouble-Was-Never-the-Idea_thumb.jpeg) The Trouble Was Never the Idea 0:00 /436.56 1× Somewhere in Los Angeles sits a warehouse of screenplays that will never be filmed. Every studio keeps one, literally or otherwise—a graveyard of optioned premises, abandoned sequels, and high-concept pitches that expired quietly in development. The warehouse is a figure of speech, but only just: since 2005 the industry has compiled the Black List, an annual register of the screenplays its own executives most admire and have nonetheless declined to make—more than a thousand titles to date. The supply of ideas in Hollywood has never been the constraint. The supply of films worth watching has. Anyone who has waded through a publisher's slush pile, sat on a grants committee, or emptied a corporate suggestion box knows the same truth in different dress: the world has always been awash in ideas, almost none of them any good, and telling the difference has always been the entire game. I raise the point because an argument has lately become fashionable, and it is half right in a way more misleading than being wholly wrong. It runs thus. For most of commercial history the idea was the scarce asset; one found the insight, built the deck, raised the capital, hired the team, and executed the plan. Generative AI has made plausible ideation nearly free—a strategy, a business case, a brand identity, a twelve-month roadmap, all before lunch—and so value has migrated from conceiving to executing. The model dreams; the organisation ships, or it does not. The conclusion is sound. The history is fanciful. Ideas were never the scarce asset. What was scarce, and remains exactly as scarce as it ever was, is the judgement to tell a good idea from a merely plausible one and the craft to turn it into something that stands up. AI has not altered that equation by a single term. It has lowered the cost of producing the plausible to the point where the plausible now arrives in industrial quantities, and so the absence of judgement—which was always the binding constraint—has simply become impossible to overlook. ## Grub Street at Scale The eighteenth century has been here before us. When cheap print and a literate middle class created, for the first time, a mass market for the written word, London produced [Grub Street](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grub%5FStreet?ref=robert.winter.ink)—hack writers turning out pamphlets, puff pieces, and political abuse on an hourly basis, paid by volume and largely indifferent to merit. [Alexander Pope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander%5FPope?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1688–1744) spent much of his career appalled by it, and in the [*Dunciad*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FDunciad?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1728–1743) he imagined the tide of mediocrity rising until it extinguished civilisation altogether: his famous closing line has the light of learning guttering out and universal darkness covering all. He was being theatrical. But he had identified something real, which is that when the cost of producing plausible text collapses, the volume of bad text does not merely rise. It threatens to drown the good, because the reader's attention, unlike the supply, remains stubbornly finite. A century and a half later [George Gissing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FGissing?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1857–1903) wrote [*New Grub Street*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New%5FGrub%5FStreet?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1891) about the same phenomenon grown industrial—the conscientious novelist ruined beside the cheerful mediocrity who gives the market what it wants at the speed it wants it. LLMs have automated Grub Street and handed a press to everyone. The result? A deluge of confident, frictionless, faintly empty output that the workplace has learned to call slop. The put-down usually attributed to [Dr. Johnson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel%5FJohnson?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1709–1784) fits it precisely: the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good. Slop is not a failure of the technology. It is the technology working exactly as designed, in the absence of the judgement that was always meant to sit on top of it. There is a kind of [Gresham's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s%5Flaw?ref=robert.winter.ink) at work here—bad output driving out good attention—and it bites hardest in organisations that have confused fluency with thought. The deck reads beautifully. The roadmap is internally consistent. The strategy is—perfect. And it is all worth nothing, because no one has exercised the single faculty the machine cannot supply: [the discrimination to ask whether any of it is true, and the nerve to say so when it is not.](https://robert.winter.ink/how-to-use-ai-as-a-thinking-partner-without-letting-it-think-for-you/) ## The Only Mile That Was Ever Hard Which brings me to the organisations themselves, and to the figures now wheeled out to prove that something has changed. [MIT's NANDA initiative](https://mlq.ai/media/quarterly%5Fdecks/v0.1%5FState%5Fof%5FAI%5Fin%5FBusiness%5F2025%5FReport.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink) reported in 2025 that some ninety-five per cent of enterprise generative-AI pilots had delivered no measurable effect on the bottom line, and the [consultancies have produced a tidy maxim to match](https://www.bcg.com/capabilities/artificial-intelligence?ref=robert.winter.ink): AI success is ten per cent algorithms, twenty per cent technology and data, and seventy per cent people and process. These are offered as revelations. However, they are nothing of the kind. It was always clear for anyone grounded in the philosophy of management that once AI models passed a certain point of fidelity, the failure was always going to be how the human in the loop is engaged. This has been true for every successive technological innovation, from the plough right through to LLMs, the challenge has always been the leaning gap—the inability of organisations to fold the tools into how work is actually done. Success comes from empowering employees and line managers. Strip away the AI vocabulary and this is a finding about management, not about machines. [I have made this argument before](https://robert.winter.ink/hiring-a-200-hammer/), and the AI case is only its most expensive instance. An organisation that buys a superb instrument and hands it to people it has never taught to build, inside a structure that punishes candour and rewards the reassuring narrative, will produce expensive mediocrity rather than cheap mediocrity, and be poorer and prouder for it. The tool does not build the house. The artisan does, and the artisan requires a workshop: clear accountability, competent and adequately resourced middle management, and information that flows upward without being laundered into optimism on the way. None of this is glamorous, and none of it can be bought before lunch, which is precisely why it remains scarce, and precisely why it remains *the work*. So I would put the contrarian case more flatly than its proponents do. The last mile is not the only mile that matters now. It is the only mile that was ever hard. Ideation was always cheap—the warehouse of unmade scripts attests to it—and execution was always the discipline that distinguished the institution that could build from the one that merely talked about building. AI has changed the scenery and left the plot intact. It has made the counterfeits of judgement cheaper and more convincing than ever, which means the genuine article is now worth correspondingly more. The organisations that grasp this will spend less of their attention optimising prompts and more of it cultivating the unfashionable human capacity to tell whether the work is any good. The rest will generate their mediocrity faster, at greater cost, and call it transformation. Good night, and good luck. ### The Emperor's Tailors URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-emperors-tailors/ Last updated: 2026-09-01T11:53:57.000Z The confidence man of [Herman Melville's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman%5FMelville?ref=robert.winter.ink) tale boards the *Fidèle* on the Mississippi on April Fool's day and proceeds, through a succession of disguises, to talk the passengers out of their money. What unsettles the reader is not the swindler's skill but the passengers' appetite. The con works because they want it to. Each mark supplies, from their own optimism or vanity or wish to appear charitable, the credulity the con requires. Melville's swindler does not force the strongbox. They are handed the key, with thanks. This is the truth the more famous fable softens. In [Hans Christian Andersen's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans%5FChristian%5FAndersen?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1805–1875) telling, the emperor's nakedness is exposed by a child—an outsider, untutored in the flattery the court runs on, who simply says what they see. The emperor, unwilling to accept anything untoward has happened, continues with the procession. The boardroom version follows a similar path—the procession continues, but there is no child to call out the fraud. This is because unlike the fairy tale, in real life the procession is arranged by tailors whose continued employment depends on everyone staying on message, and the crowd along the route consists of people who have either been measured for a similar suit or hope shortly to be. The nakedness is plain to every one of them. None will name it, because none of them would be in the crowd if they were the sort of person who would. And here is the uncomfortable part, which the first column left implied. You are not the child. You are somewhere in that crowd, or somewhere among the tailors, and you have at some point seen the nakedness and held your tongue. The phenomenon described last week—the executive who pitches transformations they cannot deliver—does not require an emperor of unusual delusion or a court of unusual cowardice. It requires only a stable arrangement in which the people best placed to see the nakedness are the people whose interests depend on not naming it. The harder question is who keeps the procession moving. The answer implicates most of the building, and a fair number of those outside it. ## Rashness, Presumption, and the Bystander The Aristotelian category that fits this best is not cowardice or self-interest but rashness. The rash person acts in apparent disregard of danger because they have failed to perceive it; the defect is not corrupted courage but absent practical wisdom. They are culpable not because they intended harm but because they should have seen it—and the culpability rises with rank, since seniority is precisely the vantage from which the danger ought to be visible. Burke names the same defect in another idiom. Burke's presumptuous reformer has read a few books, concluded that an inherited institution can be redesigned from first principles, and set about demolishing what they have not troubled to understand. Presumption, for Burke, is a moral failing and not merely an intellectual one: the wise know the limits of their knowledge; the presumptuous mistake confidence for competence. The instructive move is to extend these categories outward, from the executive to the people who installed them. The director who appointed the rash candidate without interrogating the record is rash by proxy. The fellow executive who sat through the appointment discussion and said nothing, though they had every reason to doubt, is presumptuous in Burke's sense—their silence presumed that someone else would name what they had noticed and chosen not to. Why does each of them keep quiet? Not, for the most part, from cowardice, but from the oldest finding in social psychology: the more people who could intervene, the less any one of them feels obliged to. Responsibility diffuses along the appointment chain precisely because the chain is long. The search consultant who shapes the shortlist, the chair who runs the interview, the committee that signs the package, the analyst who upgrades the forecast on the announcement—each performs a task whose local logic is unobjectionable, and each assumes, reasonably enough, that someone better placed will raise the objection they are declining to raise. The aggregate is an appointment no individual on the chain would have warranted alone. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Saviour-Industrial Complex URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-saviour-industrial-complex/ Last updated: 2026-06-15T07:30:36.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/06/The-Saviour-Industrial-Complex_thumb.jpeg) The Saviour Industrial Complex 0:00 /600.264 1× The moment of appointment is the moment of the fraud, if there is to be one. You have very likely watched it happen. A board sits opposite a candidate it has flown in at considerable expense and asks the question that will govern the next three years: can you deliver this? One kind of executive pauses. They ask for the diagnostic, request a fortnight with the operating model and four years of financials, and return with a counter-proposal in three parts—what is achievable, what is not, and what would have to be true for the impossible to become merely difficult. The other kind holds the room's gaze and says yes. You know which one was hired, because you were there, and because some part of you was relieved. It is not stupidity that produces this preference, nor even ordinary credulity. The system is doing precisely what it was built to do. The board needs a story for its shareholders. The candidate needs the role. The search firm needs the placement. The remuneration consultants need a benchmark. The analysts need a narrative they can model. Every party has an interest, traceable to its own balance sheet, in the unqualified yes; few have a comparable interest in the qualified maybe. So the qualified maybe is rarely hired, and over time has almost stopped receiving job offers. The candidate who would have told the truth learns that the truth does not get the job, and adjusts. What four decades of accumulated incentive have built deserves a name. ****THE SAVIOUR-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX** · **noun* The mutually reinforcing market—executive search, remuneration advisory, board and strategy consulting, leadership coaching, and a supporting academic literature—that manufactures, certifies, and repeatedly re-sells the figure of the corporate saviour. Its product is built to a constant specification: charisma, certainty, an unhedged answer to the question being asked, and a record glossy enough to satisfy a committee with no incentive to inspect it closely. Its supply chain filters candour out at every stage. Its defining feature is the absence of any mechanism, internal or external, for telling the truth about what its product can actually do. The cult of the heroic executive is not new; it was well established by the mid-1980s, and the empirical case for it had already begun to fray. What is new is the scale and the self-assurance of the apparatus that now produces the cult's objects of worship. It has its own training pipeline, its own consulting cadre, its own remuneration priesthood, its own coaching infrastructure, its own academic apologists, and naturally it's own Instagram account. What it has never required, and has therefore never developed, is a way of being honest about what a saviour can be expected to accomplish. ## Delusion and Deception The most useful frame for what follows comes not from the study of executives but from the study of large infrastructure projects, where cost overruns cluster around two distinct mechanisms that has been defined as the combined process of delusion and deception. Delusion is cognitive: the planning fallacy, optimism bias, the inside view in which the leader imagines their own undertaking as the exception that proves the rule. Deception is political: the deliberate understatement of cost and inflation of benefit to win the approval of whoever controls the funding. The first is the work of someone who genuinely believes. The second is the work of someone who knows better and has decided that believability matters more than belief. The literature treats these as different kinds of error. The harder reading, and the correct one, is that the second is not error at all. An executive who pitches a transformation on terms they privately judge unworkable, in order to secure the appointment, has committed fraud in the operative sense of the word, whatever the law happens to let criminal prosecutors prove. And the statutes let them prove very little, because criminal fraud turns on the actor's private belief at the moment of representation—[*mens rea*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens%5Frea?ref=robert.winter.ink)—and the modern executive has been trained, by years of performing for boards and analysts, to hold a public confidence that has become indistinguishable from a private one, perhaps especially to themselves. This is the fraud's quiet perfection. By the time the consequences are visible, the perpetrator has so thoroughly absorbed the deception that no honest court could establish intent. The supporting evidence is, on the right question, both substantial and current. The premiums boards pay for large acquisitions rise with the measurable proxies for chief-executive hubris—recent praise in the business press, high relative pay, weak board oversight—and the resulting deals destroy, on average, considerably more value than they create. The finding has not softened with age but hardened: working from a direct measure, the gap between the operating synergies a chief executive forecasts before a deal and those it actually delivers, finds that the most overconfident acquirers pay the highest premiums and earn the lowest returns the moment the market is told. The mechanism shows up in the firm's own books. Overconfident chief executives, identified through their own option-holding behaviour, over-invest when cash is plentiful and starve good projects when they must raise capital, erring in both directions at the expense of their stakeholders; narcissists go further, preferring the bold stroke and the large acquisition, and producing the feast-or-famine record that rarely resolves into the patient accumulation of value for the firm. None of this convicts confidence as such—the most recent meta-analytic synthesis finds that ordinary, self-directed overconfidence is positively associated with firm performance—and that distinction is precisely the point. What the saviour market rewards is not the quiet confidence of competence but its showier relatives, the hubris that ranks itself above others and the narcissism that craves the grand gesture, because those are the traits that perform certainty across a boardroom table. The pattern that runs through this work, and through the upper-echelons tradition that frames it, is therefore worse than ironic. It is a sorting mechanism: the qualities that win the appointment at the top of the saviour market are the very qualities the evidence most consistently ties to the destruction of what the appointment was meant to build. ****THE SIGNAL THAT NEVER LANDS** Overconfident chief executives do not merely make errors; they make the same error repeatedly, because the corrective signal is discounted before it can land. Managing by proxy is the apparatus that ensures it. An executive who staffs a function with people unwilling to say the architecture will not bear the load has not failed to hear the warning—they have built a structure in which the warning is never issued. ## The Manufacture of Confidence A saviour cannot, almost by definition, perceive their limits—they are the difference maker: more consequential than the organisation, than the industry, than even the market. The interview is a performance of certainty, and the performance is the principal qualification for the part. The candidate who hedges—who allows that the transformation might take five years rather than three, or might need capital the board has not budgeted, or might fail outright if the operating model proves more obdurate than presented—is heard as lacking conviction. The candidate who promises the result inside the desired window, on the available budget, with the existing team, is heard as decisive. The first is closer to the truth. The second is hired. Selection runs, reliably, against the trait that produces the better long-run outcome. Here the *complex* begins to operate as a closed system. The candidates the board interviews are those the search firm advanced. The candidates the search firm advanced are those its database records as having delivered comparable mandates. The delivery record is supplied by the candidates themselves and checked, if at all, against referees the candidates have nominated, who have an interest in being nominated again. The people best placed to speak the truth—the colleagues who watched the last transformation from the inside, who can tell the appearance of delivery from the substance of it—are, by a coincidence too reliable to be accidental, precisely the people whose names never reach the database. Their absence is structurally identical to the upward distortion of information already well documented inside the firm. Truth is filtered out at every layer through which it would have to pass to adequately inform the decision. What emerges is not the most capable executive available. It is the executive whose record has been most successfully managed by the industrial complex that produced them. A fraud of this scale, repeated across decades and industries, is not the moral failure of any single executive or any particular board. The man or woman who steps into an impossible mandate is the visible face of an outcome an entire ecosystem has arranged, and that ecosystem is held together not by malice but by the ordinary preference of reasonable people for the comfortable answer over the accurate one. Which raises the harder question, the one the next column takes up. If no single villain is required to keep the procession moving, who exactly is keeping it moving—and what do they owe to the capital they are quietly redirecting into another doomed transformation? You may already suspect that the answer includes more people than you would like, and that some of them have been in the room with you. Good night, and good luck. --- ***The Adoration of the Golden Calf*** by [Nicolas Poussin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas%5FPoussin?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1594–1665) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Ken Sandy: Influence Was Always the Point URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/ken-sandy-influence-was-always-the-point/ Last updated: 2026-06-09T22:00:10.000Z Most conversations about artificial intelligence and the product manager begin by asking whether the role survives. This one begins somewhere more useful: by asking what the role was ever actually for. In this episode of *On the Subject of Leadership*, I speak with [Ken Sandy](https://www.linkedin.com/in/kensandy/?ref=robert.winter.ink)—author of [*The Influential Product Manager*](https://influentialpm.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), a longtime executive coach to founders and chief product officers, and an adviser to boards. His argument is not the consoling one. The documents, specifications, and roadmaps that product managers are most often judged by, he contends, were never the work. They were the residue of the work. The work was always the influence—the grounding in evidence, the advocacy for the customer, the patient assembly of agreement among people who do not report to you. If that is right, then the arrival of tools that can draft a specification in seconds is not so much a threat to the discipline as a solvent applied to it: it dissolves everything that was never essential, and leaves the essential in plain view. The discomfort, of course, is that a good deal of what the profession has spent twenty years rewarding turns out to be residue. What follows are the ideas from the conversation I have continued to think about since. ## The Inversion at the Centre *The Influential Product Manager* began, Ken explains, with a throwaway phrase that everyone in product repeats and no one examines: the role is all responsibility and no authority. Rather than accept it as a complaint, he treated it as a question. What is influence, exactly, and where does it actually operate? The answer he arrived at inverts the usual reading. The absence of authority is not a handicap the product manager must work around. It is the very thing that disciplines their judgement. A leader who can compel compliance can afford to be wrong, lazy, or self-interested; the directive will be followed regardless. A leader who can only persuade can afford none of those things. They must be grounded in the data, genuinely close to the customer, and visibly free of private agenda, because persuasion is the only instrument available, and persuasion collapses the moment its audience suspects manipulation. Having no authority, in other words, forces a higher standard of reasoning than having authority ever would. This is more than a motivational reframe. It maps precisely onto the oldest taxonomy in the study of power. In their 1959 analysis of the bases of social power, [John French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FR.%5FP.%5FFrench?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1913–1995) and [Bertram Raven](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertram%5FRaven?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1926–2020) distinguished the power that flows from position—legitimate, reward, and coercive power—from the power that flows from the person: expert power, referent power, and what Raven later termed informational power. Formal authority draws on the first set. Influence, in Ken's sense, draws entirely on the second. The product manager, denied the positional levers, is compelled to build a base of expert and informational power instead—which is to say, compelled to actually know what they are talking about. A refreshing capability in a corporate landscape in which talking and *gnosis* are rarely linked. ## The Discipline of Constraint The same logic runs through Ken's treatment of constraint more generally. The reflexive posture of the frustrated manager is that progress is gated by scarcity—of budget, of headcount, of time—and that the task of leadership is to unlock more of it. Ken calls this learned helplessness, and he is right to. Every request for more resource is a demand that resource be taken from somewhere else; the executive who appears to dispense it freely is simply making a prioritisation decision the requester cannot see. Constraints, in this context, are not an obstacle to the work; they are the condition of it. What constraint produces, taken seriously, is the obligation to prioritise—and prioritisation, honestly done, is the core managerial act. [Herbert Simon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert%5FA.%5FSimon?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1916–2001) made the point more than half a century ago, in 1971, and it has only sharpened since: in a world rich in information, the scarce resource is not information but the attention required to act on it. The manager who understands their boundaries need not refuse the stakeholder's request outright; they need only be able to say, with evidence, that something else is the more valuable use of a fixed quantity of attention right now. The articulate management of limits, Ken argues, is more effective than the fantasy of their removal. It is also, not incidentally, more honest. ## Renewal Is Subtraction It was this conviction that lay behind the deliberately binary question Ken once put to a conference audience, and which prompted our conversation: name one skill product managers must master for the future, and one that will become irrelevant. The binary, he explains, was not a rhetorical trick but a coaching technique. Forced-choice exercises are uncomfortable precisely because they prohibit the evasion that open questions permit. Ask people what skills matter and they will cheerfully add to an already impossible list. Require them to name what they will give up, and you learn what they actually believe. Understood this way, renewal and growth are not always a matter of learning new things, but of forgetting the right ones. The organisational theorist Bo Hedberg gave this idea a name in 1981—unlearning—and argued that organisations are often prevented from adapting no so much because of sheer ignorance of the new—technology, process, product—than they are by their attachment to the old. Ken's view is that product management in particular has over-invested in documentation and elaborate frameworks, on the mistaken assumption that complication signals value. In operating reality, it rarely does. Simplicity, as he puts it, is hard, and usually enough. There is now experimental support for the suspicion that we are systematically poor at this. In a 2021 paper in *Nature*, Gabrielle Adams and colleagues demonstrated that when people are asked to improve something, they overwhelmingly reach for additions and overlook subtractions, even where removing an element would plainly serve the situation better. We are, in Ken's phrase, an additive society—and AI, by making it trivially easy to add, has made the bias more dangerous, not less. The discipline that will distinguish good product work from bad, he suggests, is increasingly the discipline of removal: killing the feature that is not earning its place, and resisting the deployment that is possible merely because it is now easy. ## The Ceremony of the Artifact If the artifacts were always residue, why do managers cling to them so fiercely? Ken offers a diagnosis drawn from direct observation. Working with a client whose every initiative had to pass through an exhaustive twenty-page document, he asked the obvious question: who reads these? The answer, from almost everyone—including the leaders demanding them—was that virtually no one did. Only the risk team read them, and only in part, skimming for evidence that the right issues had been considered. This is not irrationality; it is something more durable. In their foundational 1977 paper, [John Meyer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FW.%5FMeyer?ref=robert.winter.ink) and Brian Rowan described the way organisations adopt formal structures and procedures not because those procedures improve the work but because they confer legitimacy—they signal that things are being done properly. The structure becomes ceremony, decoupled from the actual production of value. The twenty-page document is precisely this: a rite that reassures, performed long after anyone believes in its contents. Ken's cartoon captures the AI-era version exactly. A product manager, delighted, uses AI to generate an entire stakeholder deck in half an hour; the stakeholder, equally delighted, uses AI to summarise it back down in thirty seconds. The ceremony has been fully automated, and its emptiness fully exposed. The opportunity, as Ken sees it, is not to perform the ritual faster but to abandon the parts of it that were only ever ritual—and to protect the part that was never the artifact at all. As [Eisenhower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight%5FD.%5FEisenhower?ref=robert.winter.ink) is supposed to have said, plans are worthless, but planning is everything. The value was never the document. It was the thinking the document recorded. ## Knowing When the Machine Is Wrong This is where Ken locates the central risk of the moment, and he names two anti-behaviours. The first is using AI to produce the deliverable while skipping the thinking the deliverable was meant to represent. The output looks the same; the reasoning behind it has evaporated. The second he calls feeding the beast: the product manager, newly able to race ahead alone—drafting, prototyping, even deploying—does so in isolation, severing the collaboration with engineering and design through which problems were genuinely understood. The first of these has a distinguished pedigree. In her 1983 essay *Ironies of Automation*—written about cockpits and control rooms, but eerily apt for the present—[Lisanne Bainbridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies%5Fof%5FAutomation?ref=robert.winter.ink) observed that automating the routine elements of a task leaves the human in the loop responsible for exactly the things the automation cannot handle: the novel situation, the exception, the judgement call, the true act of creation. However, this freedom is often bought at a heavy price because automation erodes the very activities the human in the loop needs needs to exercise that judgement, and to recognise when the machine has gone wrong. Ken's warning is the same one, albeit transposed to an organisational setting. AI is increasingly reliable on what already exists in its context and unreliable at the edges—the new customer, the unfamiliar segment, the genuinely differentiating solution. If you have outsourced the thinking, you will not notice when it fails, because you will have surrendered the capacity that noticing requires. ## The Questions Boards Are Not Asking On boards and NEDS, Ken's observation, drawn from advising directors in Australia and the United States, is that boards are largely asking the wrong question about AI. They ask how the data is being locked down and the risk contained—a reasonable question, asked in an unreasonably narrow spirit. The better question, he argues, is how the organisation is using the technology to get more from its data and its decisions while managing the risk. [The difference is between a posture of defence and a posture of opportunity](Fixed and Growth, Twin Aspects of our Mindset). This is, at root, the oldest tension in corporate governance. [Bob Tricker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FIan%5FTricker?ref=robert.winter.ink)—whose framework Australian directors meet in their own institute's training—distinguishes the board's conformance role, concerned with compliance, monitoring, and accountability, from its performance role, concerned with strategy and forward direction. The research tradition associated with Amy Hillman and Thomas Dalziel makes the same point in different language: boards both monitor management and supply it with resources and counsel. A board that has collapsed entirely into conformance has abandoned half its purpose. Ken's complaint is that, on AI, too many boards have done exactly that. The remedy he proposes is bracing and personal. Directors should be able to speak credibly to a use of the tools in their own working lives—even something as modest as using AI to interrogate the papers they are sent and surface the questions they ought to be pressing. A board, he suggests, has historically been able to count a meeting a success if it escaped without hard questions. In the age of AI, that approach is precisely what a board should *not* do.. The board's job is to ask the dangerously hard question—if this capability exists, why are we not using it?—and a director who has never touched the technology cannot ask it, because they do not know it is there to be asked. ## Risk, Uncertainty, and the Probabilistic Product Beneath the governance discussion sits a distinction Ken draws with unusual clarity, and which deserves to be understood in every boardroom. Traditional software is deterministic: complicated, perhaps, but predictable, such that a given input yields a knowable, and consistent, output and a defect can be reproduced and fixed. AI-based products are probabilistic. The same customer, returning to the same product, may travel an entirely different path, because the system's context has changed and it is making fresh determinations as it goes. The behaviour cannot always be repeated, and a fault cannot always be reproduced. The economist [Frank Knight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank%5FKnight?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1885–1972) drew the relevant line more than a century ago, in 1921, between risk—which is measurable, with a knowable distribution of outcomes—and uncertainty, which is not. Deterministic systems are, in this sense, governable as risk. Probabilistic systems introduce something closer to genuine Knightian uncertainty into the product itself, and this is why, as Ken notes, so many AI initiatives stall between pilot and scale. What worked acceptably across a small cohort carries unknowable consequences across a million users, and the usual machinery of testing cannot fully retire the doubt. His prescription for boards is correspondingly specific: ask not only how the risk is being contained, but what evaluation is in place—before deployment and continuously after it—to catch the adverse outcomes that a probabilistic system will inevitably, if unpredictably, produce. ## Intent, Not Permission The conversation's most quietly radical idea arrived in the lightning round, by way of the underrated book Ken nominates: [David Marquet's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%5FMarquet?ref=robert.winter.ink) *Turn the Ship Around!* and its doctrine of intent-based leadership. Ken's discomfort, long-standing, was with the two conventional options available to someone acting without authority. One can ask forgiveness rather than permission—but this burns trust asymmetrically, and the cowboy is tolerated only until they are not. Or one can route every decision up the chain—but this is not merely slow; it corrodes accountability, because the person who escalates has quietly surrendered ownership of the outcome. Marquet's resolution, which Ken has adopted, is to communicate intent. One neither asks permission nor acts unilaterally; one states clearly what one intends to do and when, gives the rationale, and leaves a genuine window for anyone with a real objection to raise it. Momentum is preserved without trust being spent. This is, in the language of [Robert Simons'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FSimons%5F%28economist%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) work on control, the operation of a boundary system: the leader does not specify the action but defines the limits within which action is free. Ken's finest illustration is a story from his time as interim chief product officer of a fearful, stalled social network. Rather than litigate every feature with an anxious chief executive, he negotiated three measurable thresholds—on revenue, engagement, and retention—within which the team would be left entirely alone, and beyond which it would stop, roll back, and investigate. The product, blocked for nearly two years, shipped in three months. The thresholds were never breached. The deepest point in that story is a refusal of outcome bias. Ken declines to claim, as his best decision, a feature that drove revenue, because success one cannot explain is not success but luck—and luck is not a repeatable mechanism. The psychologists [Jonathan Baron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan%5FBaron?ref=robert.winter.ink) and John Hershey named this failure in 1988: the tendency to judge a decision by how it turned out rather than by whether it was sound. The decision Ken is proud of is the one that was defensible in advance—that converted a leader's diffuse fears into measurable objectives, and in doing so freed a paralysed team to move. That is what good judgement looks like when it is working, and it has nothing to do with whether the result was fortunate. ## A Practical Account of Leadership Ken Sandy is not selling a methodology, and this is not, in the end, a conversation about product management. It is an account of what leadership requires when the scaffolding is removed—when you cannot compel, when the artifacts no longer prove anything, and when the tools meant to save you can as easily think for you, badly, without your noticing. What he offers is not a method but a set of dispositions. Treat the absence of authority as a discipline rather than a grievance. Take constraint as the condition of good work, not the enemy of it. Practise subtraction; renewal is as much forgetting as learning. Protect the thinking that the artifact was only ever a record of. Keep the capacity to know when the machine is wrong. Ask, of any technology, where the opportunity lies before asking where the risk hides—and never govern what you have not personally touched. Define the boundaries, and let the team run inside them. And judge your decisions by whether you can explain them, not by whether they happened to work. If you lead a product organisation, sit on a board contemplating its AI posture, or simply want to hear the discipline of product leadership discussed without slogans, this is a conversation worth your full attention. Good night, and good luck. ### The Books That Don't Balance URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-books-that-dont-balance/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T11:44:40.000Z This is part IV of a IV part series on the [state of AI](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/ai-69084bfea6eccd001b7aabb6/). If you haven't already, [please read part I](https://robert.winter.ink/nine-years-one-number/). Three times now, this series has shown you a number and—despite the angles singing and the future EBITDA claims—told you it meant something was wrong. The first piece traced what nine years of data have consistently failed to show: that advances in AI model capability, and the broad adoption that followed, cause any corresponding movement in the proportion of organisations capturing real financial value from artificial intelligence—a proportion lodged stubbornly between five and twenty per cent while the technology generation-shifted three or four times beneath it. The second described the permanent pilot—a quarter of organisations in production, just over half of them forever expecting to arrive there next quarter, an expectation that has recurred in survey after survey for the better part of a decade. The final set showed that a third of organisations claim deep transformation despite the fact that a majority have not redesigned a single job. Diagnosis, however, is the easy part. A reader who has followed the argument this far is entitled to the question the series has so far declined to answer: if this is the pattern, and if it has held for nine years across every generation of the technology, what is a board or a chief executive actually supposed to do about it? This is that piece. It is longer than the others because the prescription is harder than the diagnosis, and because a finale that merely restated the problem at greater length would be its own small act of theatre. What follows is not a framework, a maturity model, or a five-step path to AI excellence. The market is well supplied with those, and their proliferation is itself a symptom of the problem. What follows is an attempt to say plainly what the organisations capturing value are doing differently, and what a board or an executive who wanted to join them would have to change. ## What the Numbers Were Telling Us The three numbers look like three different findings. In reality they are one finding, photographed from three angles. The value-capture gap, the permanent pilot, and transformation theatre are not separate failures of separate kinds. They are three symptoms of a single deficit, and the deficit is rarely technological. This is the part most executives find hardest to accept, because it cannot be fixed by procurement. Organisations capturing real value from AI have access to precisely the same models, the same vendors, the same consultants, and the same cloud infrastructure as the organisations capturing none. The frontier model is a commodity; anyone with a corporate credit card can rent the best one in the world by the hour. What separates the two groups is not what they have bought. It is what they are able to do with it. And the hard truth. In some cases this means replacing the board and / or the CEO. McKinsey's data makes the point more precisely than rhetoric can. The organisations it classifies as high performers—the six per cent attributing meaningful EBIT impact to their use of AI—are distinguished from the rest not by their technology but by a cluster of organisational practices. They redesign their workflows rather than bolting AI onto the work as it already exists; fundamental workflow redesign is among the strongest single predictor of value capture, and not just in the realm of AI. They have senior managers who demonstrate genuine ownership rather than ceremonial sponsorship. They have defined processes for determining when a human must check the machine's output. They track the value of what they deploy, and they know which initiatives are earning their place. None of these is a technical capability. Every one of them is a governance and management capability. The high performers are not better at AI. They are better at running organisations, and they have applied that competence to AI. This is also why the headline numbers appear to contradict one another, and why directors are right to feel they are being whiplashed. One widely cited study reports that the overwhelming majority of enterprise AI initiatives fail to show measurable return; another, published weeks later, finds that the great majority of early adopters of agentic systems are seeing positive returns. Both are accurate. They are simply describing a different view of the same scene. The second studies the Formula 1 of digital adoption—elite engineering, tightly controlled conditions, a pit crew of specialists, generous budgets—and reports, unsurprisingly, impressive lap times. The first studies the daily commute, where data is messy, appetite is uneven, and cultural readiness varies wildly. The average board is not governing a pit crew. It is governing a commute, and it must calibrate its expectations to the road it is actually on rather than the circuit the vendor is selling. The quiet finding underneath nine years of survey data is considerably more uncomfortable than any of the headline figures. A technology gap can be closed by spending. [A capability gap cannot](Hiring a $200 Hammer). The organisation that has spent a decade failing to convert old technology into value will not convert new technology into value either, because the thing it lacks is not the technology. It is the institutional capacity to deploy anything well: to decide which problems are worth solving, to change the work so the solution can take hold, to govern the result once it is running, and to stop it when it stops earning its keep. The pattern is an old one in the strategy literature, where it travels under the name of active inertia—the tendency of once-successful organisations to respond to change by accelerating the routines that made them successful, rather than questioning them. There is a more candid name for what most of this produces at board level, and it is worth using. It is risk washing: the appearance of control substituting for the substance of governance. Nearly a third of boards still do not have AI on the agenda, and two-thirds of directors admit limited to no knowledge of it. Beneath that veneer, staff are effectively a law unto themselves—the better part of half of all employees have uploaded sensitive company information into public tools, most commonly in the very organisations that have banned them from doing so. The policy exists; the behaviour it claims to govern does not even notice it. A board that has issued a stern all-staff email and filed a glossy ethics statement has not governed anything. It has decorated the problem. The most recent data sharpens this from an observation into something closer to a warning. Three-quarters of companies now intend to deploy autonomous agents—systems that do not merely recommend a course of action but take it—within two years; barely a fifth report a mature model for governing them (Deloitte, 2026). The gap between those figures is the value-capture gap wearing a more dangerous costume. An organisation that could not govern a recommendation engine is proposing to deploy systems that act in the world on its behalf, and to do so before it has built the capacity to govern them. The pattern that produced nine years of disappointing returns is about to be applied to a class of technology whose failure modes are not merely disappointing. This is the stake, and it is why the question of what to do differently has stopped being academic. ## What a Board Can Actually Do A board cannot write code, redesign a workflow, or integrate a system. Its instruments are different, and in this domain they are badly underused. The board's task is not to approve the AI strategy. It is to test, repeatedly and without sentiment, whether the organisation has built the capacity to execute one. That is a different activity from the one most boards perform, which is to receive a quarterly update, observe that the roadmap is green, and move to the next item on the agenda. The starting point is to stop treating strategy as evidence of capability. A strategy deck describes what management intends; it says nothing about whether the organisation can deliver it. The questions that reveal capability are operational rather than strategic, and they are uncomfortable precisely because they are answerable. Not "what is our AI vision?" but "what is being done differently in the business today than a year ago, and can you show me?" A leadership team that has genuinely changed something can answer in a sentence. A team that has been performing transformation will reach for the roadmap. The reach for the roadmap is the answer. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Theatre of Transformation URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-theatre-of-transformation/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T11:43:25.000Z This is part III of a IV part series on the [state of AI](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/ai-69084bfea6eccd001b7aabb6/). If you haven't already, [please read part I](https://robert.winter.ink/nine-years-one-number/). In any large organisation that has been talking about artificial intelligence for the last three years, there is a meeting that takes place once a quarter. It has a different name each time. Two years ago it was the digital transformation review. This year it is the AI transformation update. The deck is new. The consultants are slightly more expensive. The vocabulary has acquired some technical inflections it did not have a decade ago—the current buzz is "headless AI", a phrase uttered without any sense of irony. A slide is shown on which the words "human-centred" appear in serif type alongside the words "data-driven" in sans-serif, separated by a suitable graphic. The steering committee nods. The workstream leads report green. The chief transformation officer assures the chief executive that the programme is "on track". What none of those present have done, in the period since the previous meeting, is materially redesign any of the work the transformation programme is meant to be transforming. The slides have changed. The job descriptions have not. The all-hands script has changed. The org chart has not. The annual report has acquired a new sub-section. The performance management system has not. The transformation is operationally undetectable. It is, however, audible at considerable volume in every executive forum in the organisation. This is the transformation gap, and it is the cleanest evidence available that the vocabulary of organisational change has, over the past decade, come unmoored from the practice of it. The Deloitte survey numbers provide the empirical confirmation—thirty-four per cent of organisations report deeply transforming their businesses through AI; eighty-four per cent admit no redesign of jobs around AI capabilities—but the operational diagnosis does not require them. The meetings tell us. The slides tell us. The annual reports tell us. The work, which has not changed, tells us most of all. The disconnect is not deliberate. The executives reporting deep transformation are not lying in any narrow sense; they have not invented the strategy decks or the kick-off meetings or the transformation office on the third floor with its dedicated programme management function and its quarterly KPIs measuring percentage-of-employees-AI-trained. All of that is real. It has only stopped corresponding to anything operationally consequential. The performance has become detached from the work the performance was supposed to be performing. The underlying mechanism was described almost fifty years ago: organisations adopt formal structures whose primary function is to signal legitimacy to external audiences, regardless of whether those structures bear any operational relation to the work the organisation actually does. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Scribbler: Judgement and Its Counterfeits URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-scribbler-judgement-and-its-counterfeits/ Last updated: 2026-05-31T22:15:58.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/05/The-Scribbler--Judgement-and-Its-Counterfeits_thumb.jpeg) The Scribbler Judgement and Its Counterfeits 0:00 /1270.728 1× Good evening, and welcome to this edition of *The Scribbler*—a newsletter that circles one organisational problem until it shows itself. This is a double issue. April's edition went unwritten, and I will not pretend the omission was strategic; the months, like the pilots we shall come to, have a way of remaining perpetually almost-finished. What follows therefore gathers a longer run than usual—two months of articles and conversations—which, set side by side, turn out to be about a single thing. That thing is judgement, and the remarkable variety of counterfeits we accept in its place. An organisation forever prefers the proxy it can see, score, present, and defer to over the judgement it must actually weigh. The grid in place of the person. The diagnosis in place of the candidate. The expensive hire in place of hard won capacity. The dashboard in place of contact with the work. The comfortable narrative in place of the unwelcome truth. The pilot in place of the integration. Each is a way of being spared the act of judging, and each is the subject of one of the pieces below. ### This Edition's Scribbling Here in Australia the setting could hardly be more pointed. On 5 May the Reserve Bank lifted the [cash rate to 4.35 per cent](https://www.rba.gov.au/media-releases/2026/mr-26-12.html?ref=robert.winter.ink)—a third consecutive increase this year, carried eight votes to one—and warned of "second-round effects" as higher fuel prices from the Middle East conflict feed through to the price of nearly everything else. A week later, on 12 May, the Treasurer [handed down a Budget](https://budget.gov.au/content/overview/download/budget-overview-2026-27.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink) badged *Resilience and Reform* and presented, pointedly, as net-saving—$63.8 billion in savings and reprioritisations, a 2026–27 deficit trimmed to 1.0 per cent of GDP, a stated resolve to take the pressure off inflation. And in the same breath: five rounds of tax cuts, a halving of the fuel excise, cost-of-living relief for battling Australians. The honest prescription for inflation is the one no government can read aloud and survive—that bringing prices to heel means people must buy less, defer the renovation, forgo the next holiday. So the Budget offers the cure and the comfort at once, wagered against a future in which the two quietly reconcile; and so long as the proxy is plausible and the audience would rather believe it than hear the alternative, the wager holds. It is the same manoeuvre the rest of this issue keeps turning up, conducted here at national scale. The Bank meets again on 16 June. Between now and then a great deal will be said about fighting inflation while dangling the hope of sparing everyone its impact. A sleight of hand you'll see in management and board meetings every day. The unweighed claim is the thread, and the cleanest statement of it opened the period. *Hiring a $200 Hammer* is the keystone of both months, because it names the master pattern the rest of the writing merely varies. A $200 hammer is a superb instrument—balanced, durable, forged to tolerances its cheaper cousin cannot match. But the hammer does not build the house; the artisan does. Hand a magnificent tool to an organisation that lacks the skill, the discipline and the coordinated practice that good building requires, and it will produce the same crooked wall as the bargain model. Put in organisational terms, this is the belief that exceptional individuals can rescue mediocre systems—an approach I have termed the saviour industrial complex—one of management thinking's more durable superstitions, and it is what drives a board facing difficulty to reach for the exceptional appointment the way a drowning man reaches for flotsam: desperately, and without much scrutiny of its buoyancy. Management search becomes a kind of institutional prayer—the right person, the right aura, and surely a decade of dysfunction will simply dissolve. It is the substitution of confident acquisition for the patient cultivation of capacity, and once you have seen it you will see it everywhere for the rest of this newsletter. [Hiring a $200 HammerOrganisations keep buying $200 hammers and handing them to people who have never built anything more demanding than a flat-pack bookshelf. The problem is never the quality of the hire. It is the quality of the context into which the hire is placed.![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/Joseph_Wright_-_An_Iron_Forge_-_Google_Art_Project-94c5f1a35ffdb23f726692e67d4cb8b4169af1bfa8849ee740a37056c67f0657.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/hiring-a-200-hammer/) You see it first, and most personally, in how organisations decide whom to admit. *The Person in Front of You* takes up the moment in every interview when the conversation stops being about the candidate and starts being about the interviewer's filing system—when the questions shift from "*what can you do?*" to "*what box can we put you in?*" The occasion was Janet Albrechtsen's account of a senior public servant asked, in effect, to supply a diagnosis as a condition precedent to employment; the target is broader than the "lived experience" workforce she names. Hiring is genuinely difficult, and proxies are easier: the credential, the demographic, the diagnosis, the keyword match against a rubric finalised before anyone shook hands. The proxy is not assessment. It is the avoidance of assessment dressed in its clothes. [The Person in Front of You: On the Quiet Tyranny of the Proxy InterviewOrganisations say they hire the best people. Too often, they hire the best proxies—credentials, categories, diagnoses—and never assess the person sitting in front of them. The filing system is satisfied. The organisation is not.![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/photo-1544502062-f82887f03d1c-689ee5334f423b2551e1d9b82051897e7c16e50e494cda039e041632f8109ccf)](https://robert.winter.ink/the-person-in-front-of-you-on-the-quiet-tyranny-of-the-proxy-interview/) *The Case Against Leadership Competency Models* gives that avoidance its institutional monument: the laminated poster of twelve boxes—Strategic Thinking, Driving Results, Developing Others—each amenable to a rating and a green or red dot. The frameworks are so obviously sensible at first glance that the question of whether they describe anything real is seldom asked. A chief executive of genuine quality will in all likelihood tick the same boxes as the charlatan who replaces her, because the grid cannot see what distinguishes them. What it cannot see is *phronesis*—the practical wisdom by which a person of experience perceives what *this* situation requires, which Aristotle was at pains to distinguish from *techne*, the skill of making things by rule, and *episteme*, the textbook knowledge of universals. Technical skill and theoretical knowledge decompose obligingly into lists. Judgement does not; the moment it is reduced to a checklist it ceases to be judgement and becomes a rule, and rules applied to cases they were not designed to fit produce exactly the decisions organisations later commission consultants to investigate. The framework manufactures an appearance of objectivity that misrepresents its own partiality—which is the polite way of saying it is a proxy for the thing it claims to measure. [The Case Against Leadership Competency ModelsEvery organisation has one. Twelve boxes, each promising to reduce leadership to something measurable and trainable. The framework is everywhere—and it is wrong in a more fundamental sense than you might think.![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/MagrittePipe-d9103f4779c3b413dc4ecd322e62fa9d69cf87c2dd47fdfe86ddd4bb3c32fafc.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/the-case-against-leadership-competency-models/) If the grid is how authority loses sight of the person, distance is how it loses sight of the work. Craig Baker—who spent eighteen months in growth and sales before a customer gap pushed him out of strategy and back into delivery—described in our conversation the structural tendency of leadership to drift upwards. As responsibility grows, proximity to consequence shrinks; authority comes to rest on dashboards, forecasts, and carefully phrased assurances, and the work itself becomes something reported on rather than touched. This is not a moral failing but an organisational pattern, and it carries a cost rarely examined until something breaks. The distance between the promise and the work is the same distance, in another register, as the one between the board paper and the warehouse floor—and, as we shall see, between the executive who has signed the AI strategy and the tool they have never opened. [Craig Baker: Leadership at the Point of ContactWhat happens when a leader who sold the vision steps back into the reality of delivering it? In this episode of On the Subject of Leadership, I speak with Craig Baker—a technology leader who has spent the past eighteen months in growth and sales at Jarvis—about what he![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/004-Craig-Baker-c292b7c534b8f1151f42391da0810b77f995651efa98210e1ecbf38e0732879e.png)](https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/craig-baker-the-distance-between-the-promise-and-the-work/) Nowhere is the counterfeit costlier than in the boardroom, and three pieces this period circle it. *The Problem With Telling Your Board What They Want to Hear* reaches back to Thucydides for the canonical case. Pericles held authority over a democracy designed to prevent precisely such concentration, and he held it because he had earned, across three decades, the standing to contradict the assembly—to reduce it to alarm when it was insolently elated and restore its confidence when it panicked. He told Athens what it needed to hear and survived the telling. When he died, Cleon stepped into the vacuum and did the opposite: he amplified the demos rather than correcting it, and the Sicilian Expedition followed in due course. The flattery that surrounds high-status leaders inflates their judgement exactly as it contracts their exposure to correction—the same mechanism Hayward and Hambrick later found behind the most value-destroying acquisitions. Candour, the piece argues, is not a structural feature but a relational achievement, built in the two years before the crisis, not the meeting in which it breaks. [The Problem With Telling Your Board What They Want to HearMost directors believe they want candour from their CEO. Most CEOs believe they provide it. Both are usually wrong. What Thucydides understood about Pericles, and what the research on boardroom silence confirms, explains why the gap between what is said and what is true keeps widening.![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/photo-1431540015161-0bf868a2d407-467001c141c0b9491fc7173ecdedc6d840faad00766ffe04dac0cafb06483e80)](https://robert.winter.ink/the-problem-with-telling-your-board-what-they-want-to-hear/) *The Chair's Dilemma* shows what its absence looks like from the inside: the papers circulated on the Friday, the deterioration visible to anyone who read them carefully, and the Monday meeting whose minute records "robust discussion" where there was none. This is the ordinary face of board failure—not the malfeasant chair but a room of intelligent, independent directors collectively unable to act on what each privately suspects, each wrongly assuming the others are untroubled. The codes legislate the architecture of the boardroom and have almost nothing to say about its inhabiting; a board can have every box ticked and every committee constituted and still be unable to tell its chief executive that the strategy is failing. What the codes cannot supply is the substrate—the courage to hold the position the room does not yet want to hold. Burke supplies the standard: the director is a trustee of the company's long-term interest, not a delegate of management's mood, the dominant personality, or the social comfort of fellow directors. [The Chair’s Dilemma: When the Board Becomes the ProblemWhen the board itself becomes the obstacle to clear thinking, no governance code can save the company. On groupthink, pluralistic ignorance, and the difference between directors who serve the company and those who merely sit on its board.![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/1920px-Rembrandt_-_De_Staalmeesters-_het_college_van_staalmeesters_-waardijns-_van_het_Amsterdamse_lakenbereidersgilde_-_Google_Art_Project-1d0a8a69aff0b59ffdba29b88c8ebc03b9f571ef8dec772f08cf03f7e9635cbb.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/the-chairs-dilemma-when-the-board-becomes-the-problem/) That same Burkean trustee closed the polarity series in *The Board: Polarities and the Role of the Director*, the piece this newsletter promised you in April. The familiar boardroom line—"noses in, fingers out"—points at a real tension but does not tell you how to manage it; it leaves you unable to say when "noses in" is wise oversight and when it is theatre, when "fingers out" is restraint and when it is abdication. Polarity mapping earns its place at the board not by turning governance into a workshop but by giving directors a disciplined way to do what boards are structurally designed to do: hold interdependent opposites in productive tension over time. Which is to say that oversight, properly understood, is not a posture to be performed but a judgement to be exercised—the very faculty the rest of this issue keeps finding in short supply. [The Board: Polarities and the Role of the DirectorBoards are not designed to choose between oversight and collaboration—they are designed to hold both in productive tension. Polarity mapping offers directors a discipline for governing without drifting.![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/3840px-Composition_VII_-_Wassily_Kandinsky-_GAC-d36b4d826aa80f6c026eb27b4c586d7ac808b57dbdb143ae27dd747684099c8f.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/the-board-polarities-and-the-role-of-the-director/) Nick Hassett supplied the operational corollary. A board session ends in apparent consensus; everyone leaves ostensibly aligned; and then each returns to their function and does something different. He calls it *alignment that is only room deep*, and its consequence is that when the indicators misbehave the board interrogates the strategy, when in truth the strategy was never implemented—what was tested was the organisation's willingness to execute it. His most useful question to a new client is the one that produces bewilderment: *what is my exit strategy?*—not how he will leave, but how success will be defined and measured before anything is done. Most organisations cannot answer it. They are fluent in activity and inarticulate about outcomes, which is judgement's counterfeit in its purest form: motion mistaken for direction. [Nick Hassett: The Problem Won’t Be Solved by the Thinking That Created ItWhat happens when the people charged with fixing an organisation are, in important respects, the architects of its current condition? In this episode of On the Subject of Leadership, I speak with Nick Hassett—an independent strategy execution advisor who has spent more than three decades working at the intersection![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/005-Nick-Hassett-add818123762068707912def2dffb9a64c08db99473f850554c1327c027536be.png)](https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/nick-hassett-the-problem-wont-be-solved-by-the-thinking-that-created-it/) All of which brings us to the largest and most expensive counterfeit now on offer, and to the four pieces that close the period. *Nine Years, One Number* assembles the AI evidence longitudinally and lets it settle the question. Nine years ago MIT and the Boston Consulting Group found one company in twenty had meaningfully incorporated artificial intelligence. Last month Deloitte reported jubilation—record confidence, soaring investment, three-quarters of firms intending to deploy autonomous agents within two years—and then conceded, a few pages on, that twenty per cent are growing revenue through it, twenty-one per cent have a mature model for governing those agents, and eighty-four per cent have not redesigned a single job around the technology. McKinsey's figure is bleaker still: six per cent qualify as genuine high performers, a number that has, if anything, fallen since 2019\. The models have moved through several generational shifts; the returns have not moved at all. The executives who told me the surveys were stale because "AI moves too fast" were not wrong about the speed of the models—only about which speed matters. This is the half-lie, and it deserves its Trollopean ancestor: Augustus Melmotte, whose great railway was never a railway but a sequence of prospectuses and confident dinners. Trollope was not interested in the prussic acid at the end; he was interested in the dinner—long, ceremonious, attended by men who had known for months what was coming and elected, for reasons of social comfort, not to say so. The dinner, in the AI sense, is still being served. [Nine Years, One NumberPart I of a IV part series: for nine years surveys have produced a remarkably similar finding: a small minority of organisations capture real financial value from AI; the great majority spend, signal, and pilot.![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/William_Hogarth_-_The_South_Sea_Scheme-ccc0e24b8b130a47ee02a00e71fae09d8478fcf54eebb1792248d1028c37f9f0.png)](https://robert.winter.ink/nine-years-one-number/) *The Permanent Pilot* names the mechanism. A quarter of organisations have moved their AI experiments into production; just over half expect to within three to six months—a prediction that has appeared, in some form, in every major survey for nine consecutive years. That "three to six months" is not an interval of the earth circling the sun but a managerial interval: imminent, expected, and forever a quarter away, far enough to escape accountability and near enough to keep the promise alive. Homer understood the device. Penelope wove the shroud by day and unravelled it by night; the work was real, the weavers were not idle, and the only thing that never happened was the thing that had been promised. Cohen and Levinthal explained the deeper trouble thirty-six years ago: an organisation can absorb new technology only to the extent that it already possesses the related knowledge to integrate it—and the data discipline, governance maturity and cross-functional accountability that AI demands are exactly what most organisations have spent a decade not building. The pilot is not the beginning of integration. It is what an organisation does when it cannot yet integrate. [The Permanent PilotPart II of a IV part series: twenty-five per cent of organisations have moved AI experiments into production after nine years of trying. Fifty-four per cent expect to within three to six months—a prediction that has appeared in every major survey for nearly a decade.![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/JohnWilliamWaterhouse-PenelopeandtheSuitors-1912--c52fa5caaddc2b897fb36f07cfef98beae82a028f0a15baeb56657d0c7068742.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/the-permanent-pilot/) The two practitioner conversations sharpen the same edge from inside the work. Pascal Uerlings, who has run more than a hundred implementations at J4RVIS, puts it bluntly: most AI initiatives fail not because the pilot underperforms but because it *succeeds on its own terms*—clean data, controlled environment, dedicated team—and then proves non-translatable to a production world where the data is messy and the change-management work was never resourced. Define the production-state metric before writing any code; name a single accountable owner from day one; accept that the model is no longer a stable artefact. Clare Kitching, lately of McKinsey and now in the unsentimental environment of small-business advisory, supplies the line that belongs on every board agenda: you cannot ask the machine to make your business grow, because the answer, if it exists, has not been written down yet. AI is overwhelmingly an *exploitation* technology—it accelerates the production of outputs resembling those it has already seen—and the genuinely strategic work is precisely what it cannot do for you. Her single most discriminating question, and the one that closes the loop opened by Craig Baker, is not technical at all: *are you using it yourself, day to day?* The leader who has logged in, however unevenly, has acquired a small and irreplaceable form of operational knowledge. The leader who has not is refereeing claims they cannot verify, on borrowed conviction. [Pascal Uerlings: Good Thing, Bad Thing, Who Knows?What does it actually take for a strategic intent to survive contact with the business that must implement it? In this episode of On the Subject of Leadership, I speak with Pascal Uerlings, co-founder and Chief Revenue Officer of J4RVIS, a Sydney-headquartered Salesforce and AI implementation consultancy that has grown![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/006-Pascal-Uerlings-ed8d3785b31e1292a6b28d524fcb213215fe96d43156302b1c7c0b49d5989805.png)](https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/pascal-uerlings-good-thing-bad-thing-who-knows/) [Clare Kitching: Make My Business Grow, How Can I Do This?In this episode of On the Subject of Leadership, I speak with Clare Kitching, founder of Cambiq Consulting—formerly of McKinsey, QuantumBlack, and Treasury Wine Estates where she served as General Manager of Data, Insights and Analytics. Clare has spent the last fifteen months building an independent practice helping Australian![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/007-Clare-Kitching-65e18f538dc70f035545c6d029bf51d3cf37de48d26803687a694cc8c114b572.png)](https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/clare-kitching-make-my-business-grow-how-can-i-do-this/) If that sounds like a counsel of despair, it is the opposite, and the cure arrived in the middle of May dressed, characteristically, in eighteenth-century clothes. *Move Slow and Fix Things* recovers Edmund Burke—not the cartoon reactionary but the energetic reformer who prosecuted the East India Company and held that a state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation. His quarrel was never with reform but with a particular style of it: the conviction that the inherited apparatus must be destroyed before anything new can be built. The disruption industry has prescribed exactly that, and the result, as the change literature has documented since the early 1990s, is that most large transformations fail to deliver their stated objectives and a good many destroy the fabric on which the unstated ones depended. The leaders who do this well are seldom celebrated, because their work is not photogenic. They do not break things; they fix them, room by room, while the business continues to operate, earning the authority to make consequential changes by first making minor ones competently. Burke would have recognised them. So, for that matter, would Chesterton, whose reformer is not permitted to pull down the fence until he can say why it was put up. [Move Slow and Fix ThingsThe disruption industry treats breaking things as proof of seriousness. Edmund Burke—reformer, not reactionary—offered a corrective two centuries ago: most transformation programmes destroy more than they build. The best leaders renovate, not demolish.![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/Louvre-peinture-francaise-p1020324-f1781c74541ff8fbcc0915f5d3e8d2f97ff20d608057e7bac1e35f05273efe1a.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/move-slow-and-fix-things/) So two months resolve into one proposition. The silver-bullet hire, the competency grid, the proxy interview, the dashboard-distant leader, the comfortable boardroom silence, the half-lie about which speed matters, the permanent pilot—these are not separate failures. They are the same failure in different vocabulary: the substitution of something legible for the act of judgement it was meant to replace. None of them is stupid. Each is easier than the thing it counterfeits, which is precisely why it endures. And the cure, in every case, is older and less glamorous than the disease: weigh the particular case, stay close to the work, build the capacity rather than buy the tool, and say what is actually happening to people who have been prepared, in advance, to hear it. ### Looking to June What should readers watch for? Not a grand pivot—something smaller, and more telling. Watch whether the Budget's productivity language survives contact with the June-quarter inflation print and the Reserve Bank's 16 June meeting, or whether "productivity" quietly reverts to meaning whatever the speaker needs it to mean. Watch whether firms under rate pressure clarify judgement or merely intensify reporting. Watch whether AI is governed as a capability with named owners and explicit boundaries, or performed as proof of modernity in the annual report. And watch the boards: as conditions tighten, many will be tempted into passivity dressed as trust or intrusion dressed as oversight, and neither is stewardship. If two months offer a scaffold for June, it is this. 1. Build the capacity, do not merely buy the tool. The hammer does not build the house, and the exceptional hire does not redeem an organisation that cannot use good people well. 2. Judge the person in front of you, not the proxy. Credentials, diagnoses and competency grids describe what is easy to score, not what determines whether someone can do the work. 3. Stay in contact with the work you authorise. Authority that rests only on dashboards has drifted from consequence—and the leader who has never felt the coal face is governing on borrowed conviction. 4. Earn the authority to say the unwelcome thing before you need it. Candour and trust are two sides of the same coin and are built in the years preceding the crisis, not the meeting in which it breaks. 5. Define success before you begin. Ask what the exit looks like, who owns it, and which operating budget the pilot moves to when it leaves the slide deck. 6. Reform rather than replace. Ask why the fence is there before you take it down; the practice you cannot explain may encode information no one bothered to write down. That, at bottom, is what these two months have been circling. Not a new framework to add to the pile—frameworks are largely the problem—but the more difficult proposition that institutions grow sturdier when their leaders stop reaching for the legible proxy and resume the unphotogenic work of judgement. Part III of the AI series—*The Theatre of Transformation*—follows in June, with Gogol as its presiding spirit; Part IV closes the account by reconciling three numbers that refuse to balance. The essay on what I have come to call *the saviour industrial complex* sits behind all of it, and will arrive when it is ready rather than when it is almost ready. Good night, and good luck. --- *Woman Holding a Balance* by [Johannes Vermeer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes%5FVermeer?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1632–1675) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Clare Kitching: Make My Business Grow, How Can I Do This? URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/clare-kitching-make-my-business-grow-how-can-i-do-this/ Last updated: 2026-05-30T03:19:30.000Z In this episode of *On the Subject of Leadership*, I speak with [Clare Kitching](https://www.linkedin.com/in/clarekitching/?ref=robert.winter.ink), founder of [Cambiq Consulting](https://cambiq.com.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink)—formerly of McKinsey, QuantumBlack, and Treasury Wine Estates where she served as General Manager of Data, Insights and Analytics. Clare has spent the last fifteen months building an independent practice helping Australian businesses make sense of artificial intelligence—its uses, its limits, and the leadership reckoning it forces on the executives who adopt it. This is not a conversation about which model to choose, or about agentic architectures, or about productivity benchmarks—though all three surface in the course of it. It is a conversation about what AI cannot do for you, about the leaders who are quietly hoping no one notices they have never logged in, and about the discipline of distinguishing what a client says they want from what they are actually asking. Clare's argument, developed across more than a decade in global consulting and now refined in the unsentimental environment of small and medium business advisory, is unromantic and worth taking seriously: the AI question is a leadership question; the genuinely strategic work is precisely the work the technology cannot do for you; and the organisations that are getting this right are not the ones with the most sophisticated tooling, but the ones whose leaders are still willing to admit what they do not know. ## The Question You Cannot Ask the Model The most decisive moment in the conversation is also the simplest. AI, Clare observes, can do a great deal. It can draft your slides, summarise your reports, automate your processes, and—increasingly—sit between you and a great many of the tasks that previously consumed your day. What it cannot do is tell you how to grow your business. You cannot, she says, go to chat and ask *make my business grow, how do I do this?*—because the answer, if it exists, has not been written down yet. This is a more substantive observation than it first appears. The economic literature on innovation distinguishes, following James G. March's 1991 article in *Organization Science*, between exploitation—the refinement of existing capabilities—and exploration—the discovery of new ones. The first lends itself to optimisation; the second does not. AI, in its current form, is overwhelmingly an exploitation technology. It accelerates the work of producing outputs that resemble outputs it has already seen. It is not, and cannot be, a substitute for the imaginative work of producing outputs no one has yet produced. The implication is uncomfortable for the prevailing AI discourse, which has tended to elide the distinction. Productivity tools and growth strategies are routinely conflated, as though saving the marketing team three hours a week were on the same ontological footing as deciding what business one is in. The first is a question AI can help with. The second is a question only a leader can answer, and the more capable the technology becomes at the first, the more visible the failure to attend to the second becomes. Clare is alert to this asymmetry. Her observation that the size of the prize in productivity is "a lot less than what you can do in terms of growth and taking some big bets" is not a contrarian provocation; it is a quietly stated empirical claim. McKinsey's [*State of AI in 2025*](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai?ref=robert.winter.ink) survey supports it: of the 88% of organisations now using AI in at least one function, only 39% report any EBIT impact—"most of those respondents say that less than 5 percent of their organization's EBIT is attributable to AI use". Firms who have gone beyond the 5% are those that have moved past the productivity framing and begun to pursue revenue-generating use cases. ## When the Brand Walks in Before You Do Clare's account of leaving McKinsey opens the conversation, and it deserves attention not as a founder anecdote but as a leadership observation. She describes a coaching exercise inside McKinsey in which she was asked to introduce herself and got as far as *I'm Clare, I'm from McKinsey* before stalling. While Clare was quick to assert that McKinsey was always willing to provide media training for people representing the firm, there is a deeper question of brand names carrying individuals. This is a recognisable pattern. Edgar Schein's foundational work on professional identity describes the way institutional affiliation furnishes its members with what he calls a *career anchor*—a set of values, competencies, and identity claims that travel with the role. When the role is removed, the anchor is removed with it, and the individual is confronted with the harder question of what, exactly, they still are. Most consultants leaving Tier 1 firms underestimate the cognitive labour this requires; many never quite recover from it. The leadership generalisation is broader. In any large organisation, senior people accumulate a great deal of borrowed credibility—from the brand, from the title, from the institutional context in which their judgement is exercised. The question of what remains when those scaffolds are removed is one most leaders prefer not to ask. Independent practice forces the question. The independent's value proposition cannot be inferred from a logo; it must be articulated, repeatedly, in environments where the listener has no prior reason to grant trust. Clare's answer, developed by trial and error, is that the only path to fluency is repetition. There is no shortcut, and the discomfort is the work. This is consistent with the deliberate-practice literature—Anders Ericsson's research on expert performance has consistently shown that fluency in any complex articulation task emerges only through extensive, feedback-rich repetition. The corollary is that leaders who have spent decades inside institutions that did the articulation for them are likely to be much less fluent than they suppose. ## The Leader Who Has Never Logged In The most uncomfortable observation in the conversation, and the one most likely to produce productive friction in the audience Clare reaches, concerns the executive who has signed off on an AI strategy but has never personally used the tools their organisation is being asked to adopt. The pattern is, in her experience, common. The executive endorses the initiative. The team is told to get on with it. The board is reassured. And nobody has yet asked the executive what they personally use the technology for, or what they have learned by using it. This is a leadership failure rather than a technological one. Henry Mintzberg's work on managerial behaviour, going back to *The Nature of Managerial Work* in 1973, has long argued that senior managers who lose contact with the actual content of the work over which they preside become increasingly dependent on filtered information—and increasingly poor judges of which filters are reliable. The AI case is a near-perfect example of this pathology. A leader who has never used the tools cannot evaluate whether their team's account of those tools is accurate, ambitious, or self-serving. They are reduced to refereeing claims they cannot independently verify. Clare's diagnostic question—the one she wishes more boards would ask their executive teams—is therefore not rhetorical. *Are you using AI day to day, personally?* is, in fact, the single most discriminating question a board can ask about the seriousness of its organisation's AI posture. The leader who has logged in and used the tools, however unevenly, has acquired a small but irreplaceable form of operational knowledge. The leader who has not is operating on borrowed conviction. There is a secondary consequence worth naming. In six months, Clare observes, the team members who have been told to adopt AI but whose leaders have not adopted it themselves will begin to ask, reasonably, *why should I?* The cultural cost of an unmodelled expectation is real, and it compounds. The literature on what Schein termed *primary embedding mechanisms*—what leaders pay attention to, model, and reward—is unambiguous on this point: people learn the operating reality of an organisation from what its leaders actually do, not from what they declare. ## The Buzzword Substitution Clare describes a recurrent client conversation. An executive team announces that it wants to "get started with AI." A scoping conversation begins. Within minutes it becomes clear that the executive team does not, in fact, want to know about AI. They want to know how to use Copilot, or Claude, or ChatGPT. The substantive question has been displaced by an unrelated one, and the displacement has gone unnoticed because the vocabulary was sufficiently fashionable to cover the gap. This is a familiar pattern in management practice. Buzzwords function, in part, as social signals of currency. They allow participants to demonstrate that they are orientated toward the right things without having to commit to any particular interpretation of what those things are. The cost is that genuinely substantive questions—what business problem are we solving; what change in operating reality are we attempting to produce—are quietly displaced by questions whose answers happen to use the same vocabulary. The remedy, in Clare's account, is patient interrogation. The consultant's first job is not to answer the question the client has asked, but to discover what question the client is actually asking. This is closer to the diagnostic work of clinical medicine than to the prescriptive posture of much commercial consulting. The danger of the latter is well documented: William F. Gellermann's classic critique of consulting practice—that the consultant who answers the question the client poses, rather than the question the client needs to pose, is functionally complicit in the client's failure—applies with renewed force in the AI context, where the question itself is often poorly formed. Clare's discipline here is not glamorous. It looks like asking, of every confidently deployed buzzword, *what are you actually trying to know?* But it is the work that distinguishes a useful adviser from an expensive echo. ## Curiosity Is Not a Personality Trait The conversation arrives, by way of a discussion about which employees adopt AI most readily, at one of its sharpest observations. The differentiating variable is not age, Clare argues, and it is not seniority, and it is not technical background. It is curiosity—and specifically, the willingness to lean into ambiguity rather than away from it. The empirical literature broadly supports this. Carol Dweck's work on growth and fixed mindsets, developed across more than three decades at Stanford, demonstrates a robust association between the disposition to treat one's own capabilities as expandable and the actual rate at which those capabilities expand. The mechanism is unsurprising: those who believe they can learn are more willing to expose themselves to the temporary incompetence that learning requires. Those who believe their abilities are fixed avoid the same exposure, and the avoidance is self-confirming. Todd Kashdan's research on curiosity, more recent but consistent with Dweck's, has identified what he calls *stretching*—the active pursuit of novelty and challenge—as a stable predictor of professional adaptability across a range of domains. The implication for AI adoption is direct: the leader who treats the technology as something to be approached with curiosity, rather than as a threat to existing expertise, will, on average, get more out of it. Clare's account is alert to the failure modes. Curiosity, she notes, can also become its own pathology—the late-night rabbit hole, the cognitive overload, the sense that one is being productive when one is in fact merely busy. There is a recent body of research, including studies cited by the [Microsoft Work Trend Index](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index?ref=robert.winter.ink) and various academic reviews, suggesting that heavy AI users report higher rates of cognitive fatigue and burnout than light users, despite producing more output. The discipline, Clare suggests, is the same one good leaders have always exercised: to know when to stop, to know what to filter, and to recognise that the abundance of possibility is itself a leadership burden. ## The Maintenance Problem The set-and-forget assumption that characterised enterprise software for two decades does not apply to artificial intelligence. The models change. The outputs drift. The usage patterns of one's own team change, often without anyone noticing. The technology Clare's clients deploy in March is, in non-trivial respects, not the same technology in September. This has uncomfortable implications for procurement and governance. Most organisations are equipped to make capital expenditure decisions on a multi-year horizon. They are not equipped—culturally, structurally, or financially—to treat the implementation as the beginning of a relationship rather than the end of a project. The board sees the demonstration, approves the spend, and is then bewildered, six months later, that the operational metrics have moved in ways no one predicted. The metrics moved because the technology moved. Clare's framing is that AI implementation is now an ongoing partnership rather than a discrete deployment. This is consistent with what Boston Consulting Group identified in [*The Widening AI Value Gap*](https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/closing-the-ai-impact-gap?ref=robert.winter.ink)—the small minority of organisations they classify as "future-built" are distinguished by their treatment of AI as an enduring operational capability rather than a programme. The majority, who treat it as a programme, find that the programme finishes but the technology does not. There is a leadership discipline here that is easily overlooked. The leader who treats AI deployment as a discrete decision can return to the rest of their work once the decision is made. The leader who treats it as an ongoing relationship must build, into their own cadence, the recurring attention the technology requires. This is the maintenance no one budgeted for, and the absence of it is the most reliable predictor of the disappointed twelve-month review. ## The Conversation That Has Not Happened Late in the conversation, Clare names something that few organisations have yet articulated. Most teams have not had an explicit conversation about how they will use AI together—what quality standard applies, what kinds of work are appropriate, when the use of AI must be disclosed, and what the team's collective expectation is of its members. The result is predictable. One member produces three pages where three bullet points were requested, because the tool made it easy. Another member produces three bullet points where three pages would have been more useful, because they have already pre-summarised. A third produces a draft that no one is quite sure was written by the person whose name appears at the top. The work is being done, but the basis on which it is being done has not been agreed. This is a coordination problem of a familiar kind. Elinor Ostrom's Nobel-winning research on the governance of common-pool resources demonstrated, repeatedly, that communities sustain shared resources successfully when they have explicit agreements about use, sanctions for violation, and forums in which disputes can be aired. AI in a team setting is, at its current stage, exactly such a common-pool resource—a capability whose value is degraded by uncoordinated use, and whose productive deployment requires explicit team-level agreement. Clare's prescription is unromantic and useful: have the conversation. Not as a compliance exercise—the paper-policy approach she is consistently sceptical of—but as a genuine working agreement. What are we using AI for? What aren't we using it for? What does *good* look like when AI is in the loop? What is each of us willing to disclose about how we used it? The conversation is not difficult to have. It is merely unfamiliar. And the cost of not having it, in her account, is paid in volume—endlessly expanding outputs that no one has time to read, no one has incentive to compress, and no one has authority to filter. ## A Practical Account of Leadership Clare Kitching is not selling a methodology, and this is not a conversation about AI in the abstract. It is a practical account of what it has taken, over the past fifteen months of independent practice and more than a decade inside the institutions that trained her, to help Australian businesses get genuinely useful work out of a technology whose vocabulary has run substantially ahead of its applied practice. What she offers, across the arc of the conversation, is not a method but a set of dispositions. Use the tools yourself before you ask others to use them. Distinguish what your client says they want from what they are actually asking. Treat curiosity as the differentiating trait it is, not as a personality quirk. Do not confuse productivity with growth. Have the team conversation no one has had yet. And accept that the technology you deploy is not the technology you will be using in twelve months, and budget your attention accordingly. If you are leading an organisation through AI adoption, or have signed off on an AI strategy you have not yet personally tested, or simply want to hear what genuinely thoughtful practice in this area sounds like, this is a conversation worth hearing in full. Good night, and good luck. ### The Permanent Pilot URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-permanent-pilot/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T11:42:33.000Z This is part II of a IV part series on the [state of AI](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/ai-69084bfea6eccd001b7aabb6/). If you haven't already, [please read part I](https://robert.winter.ink/nine-years-one-number/). A quarter of organisations have moved forty per cent or more of their artificial intelligence experiments into production. Just over half expect to do so in the next three to six months. Both numbers come from Deloitte's 2026 *State of AI in the Enterprise* survey, and they are interesting principally because the second has appeared, in some form, in essentially every major AI adoption survey for nine consecutive years. The first has barely moved. If one had been told in 2017 that more than half of all enterprises would, within three to six months, scale their AI experiments into production, and then told the same thing in 2019, and again in 2021, and again in 2023, and again last week, one might be forgiven for suspecting that the three-to-six months in question are not three-to-six months of our earth revolving around our sun. They are a managerial interval: imminent, expected, and always at least a quarter or two away. Far enough to avoid accountability, near enough to keep the promise alive. > For 9 years confidence in strategy has consistently outstripped the delivery of strategic outcomes. This is the scaling number, and it is the cleanest evidence available that the AI conversation in contemporary organisations is operating in a register that has very little to do with the underlying AI technology. The problem is not that scaling is impossible. The Deloitte survey, with admirable candour, lists the things that scaling actually requires. Infrastructure investment. Integration with existing systems—I'll say that again as it is usually the biggest blocker—Integration with existing systems. Security reviews. Compliance checks. Monitoring systems. Ongoing maintenance. None of these are exotic. Engineering and finance functions have been doing all of them, in some form, for forty years. The question is not whether the work can be done. The question is whether it **is** being done. The empirical evidence on this is unambiguous. The same Deloitte report notes that **use cases estimated to take three months routinely stretch to eighteen when integration complexities emerge**. Models that achieved high accuracy in pilots prove inadequate at scale. Failures that were learning opportunities in a controlled environment become business risks in production. None of which is surprising. All of which is precisely what one might have predicted, in 2017, about the move from pilot to production for any complex organisational technology. The surprise is not that it is hard. The surprise is that organisations have spent nine years discovering it is hard and have responded to the challenge by commissioning further pilots. ****What the Eighteen Months Actually Means** The Deloitte report attributes its eighteen-month integration figure to "edge cases". In enterprise AI, these "edge cases" turn out to be the norm. What is sold as "highly configurable out-of-the-box" routinely requires custom code and several developer squads to make functional. What is promised as connected proves not to be, even when the entire stack comes from a single supplier—the consequence of a decade in which the largest technology companies have steadily absorbed their competitors and produced ecosystems whose components do not reliably communicate with one another. The connectivity promise outstrips operating reality by an order of magnitude. Integration complexity is not the edge. It is the centre. A senior healthcare AI leader, quoted anonymously in the Deloitte report (2026), put the matter rather neatly: > If there is no coherent AI strategy in organizations, you are likely to see pilot fatigue. You're chasing the next shiny object, pressured to do something with AI without a real plan. I've seen many instances where people embark on pilots, but when asked how they'll scale up if successful, they often don't have an answer. Without a clear roadmap, executing a hundred pilots just leads to poor results and failed value creation. The pilot, in this account, is not the first stage of a deployment process. It is the entire deployment process. There is no second stage. The pilot is conducted, the report is written, the slide deck is presented, and the next pilot begins. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Nine Years, One Number URL: https://robert.winter.ink/nine-years-one-number/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T11:39:40.000Z This is part I of a IV part series on [The State of AI](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/ai-69084bfea6eccd001b7aabb6/). ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/05/Nine-Years--One-Number_thumb.jpeg) Nine Years One Number 0:00 /662.448 1× Last year, I undertook a piece of research for what became [*Governing Digital with Courage and Clarity*](https://robert.winter.ink/governing-digital-with-courage-and-clarity/), a report on how directors should oversee AI, data, and the broader digital portfolio at the board table. The methodology was unremarkable. I interviewed chief executives, non-executive directors, and AI consultants across across a range of sectors. Most spoke on the record. [Ed Santow](https://www.linkedin.com/in/esantow/?ref=robert.winter.ink)—Co-Director of the UTS Human Technology Institute and a member of the Australian Government's AI Expert Group—was characteristically generous with his time and characteristically clear in his assessment, as were a number of others who saw the landscape accurately and were happy to be named. A handful of contributors, however, spoke only on the condition of anonymity. This is common enough in research. People who are about to expose an inconvenient truth often want some distance from the consequences of having exposed it. What was unusual on this occasion was that the anonymity was sought for the opposite reason. These contributors were not exposing a truth. They were insisting on a convenient lie. Every interviewee was sent the final draft before publication. The only critical feedback I received came from one or two of those anonymous voices, who took particular exception to my finding that organisations were, in aggregate, failing to translate AI investment into measurable financial uplift. I noted that the major industry research was arriving at the same conclusion. They replied that those surveys were "several months old, and AI is moving too fast for them to be reliable." This is the half-lie that runs through the entire executive conversation on AI, and it deserves to be named clearly because it is doing an extraordinary amount of work in keeping the present arrangement in place. AI is indeed moving fast at the level of model capability. It is not moving fast at the level of enterprise value capture, which is the level that matters to a board, to its shareholders, and to the broader community. The conflation of the two is the convenient lie, and it provides perfect cover for the executive who cannot deliver and is unwilling to have that conversation with the people to whom delivery has been promised. Lying outright would be too easily falsified. The half-lie is harder to dispatch because half of it is true. The trouble with this is that those who tell lies are merely concealing the truth. Those who tell half-lies have forgotten where they put it. The data, when assembled longitudinally, settles the question. Nine years ago, MIT and the Boston Consulting Group surveyed three thousand executives about artificial intelligence and found that just one company in twenty had extensively incorporated AI into its products or processes. The other nineteen had budgets, ambitions, and a shared sense that the matter was urgent. They had not, on close inspection, done very much. Last month, Deloitte released the 2026 edition of its annual *State of AI in the Enterprise* survey—3,235 senior leaders across twenty-four countries. The headline findings were jubilant. '84% of organizations increasing their AI investments and 78% of leaders reporting greater confidence in the technology.' Three-quarters of companies plan to deploy autonomous AI agents within two years. AI confidence sits at record highs. Then one reads the rest of the report. Twenty per cent of organisations are growing revenue through AI—but don't worry, seventy-four per cent hope to. Eighty-four per cent have not redesigned a single job around the technology that is supposedly reshaping their business. Twenty-one per cent have a mature governance model for the autonomous agents that three-quarters intend to deploy. And only one organisation in four has moved forty per cent or more of its AI experiments into production—but again, don't worry, 54% expect to. After nine years and hundreds of billions invested, the numbers have moved, but the delta between measurable reality and ambition remain stubbornly the same. What has increased, and increased dramatically, is the ever widening gap between the price to earnings ratio. McKinsey's 2025 survey of nearly two thousand organisations found that only six per cent qualified as AI high performers by the standard of attributing five per cent or more of EBIT impact to AI and reporting significant value from it. A figure essentially unchanged from MIT and BCG's 2019 finding that ten per cent of companies obtained significant financial benefits from artificial intelligence—for those reading those numbers closely you are correct, the number has actually gone down. The technology around these numbers has moved through several generational shifts. The ROI numbers have not. The anonymous contributors who told me that the surveys were stale were not, in fact, mistaken about the speed of AI. They were gravely mistaken about which speed mattered. [Anthony Trollope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony%5FTrollope?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1815–1882) had a word for this sort of thing. *The Way We Live Now*, published in 1875, concerned itself with one Augustus Melmotte, a financier of obscure origin who arrived in London at the head of a great speculative scheme: the South Central Pacific and Mexican Railway. The railway, Melmotte assured everyone, would be enormously profitable. The railway would transform commerce between two oceans. The railway, in due course and after a great many dinners attended by the higher orders of London society, turned out not to be a railway at all but a sequence of prospectuses, shareholder lists, and confident assurances that construction was proceeding according to schedule somewhere in Mexico, where no one of social consequence could be expected to verify it personally. Trollope's interest was not in Melmotte as such—the financial frauds of the 1860s and 1870s were numerous enough to provide ample material—but in why London found Melmotte so convincing. The duchesses, the parliamentarians, the established bankers who lent against shares in a railway no one had inspected: these were not stupid people. They were people who had agreed, by a process of mutual social reinforcement, that Melmotte was the future and that to question him was to mark oneself as provincial. The dynamic that business literature would later term the "romance of leadership" was already in fluent operation. The fraud was not located in any single conversation but in the aggregate of all of them. Trollope's title carried no irony. This was indeed how they lived now. The institutional pattern is recognisable. I have argued elsewhere, in a forthcoming essay on what I have come to call the saviour industrial complex, that contemporary executive practice rests on a particular kind of fraud: the substitution of expensive acquisition and confident signalling for the patient development of organisational capacity. The saviour is appointed. The artisan is not trained. The wall still leans. AI, on the longitudinal evidence, is the largest and most consequential instance of the pattern yet attempted. Trillions of dollars in projected value have been promised to a technology that is, in the great majority of cases, producing efficiency improvements indistinguishable from what an additional competent clerk and a spreadsheet would have produced in 2002. What follows in this series is an attempt to make the case empirically rather than rhetorically. There are three numbers that, set against their historical counterparts, expose the shape of the problem with some clarity. The first is the scaling number. Twenty-five per cent of organisations have moved forty per cent or more of their AI experiments into production. Fifty-four per cent expect to do so in the next three to six months. That expectation has appeared, in some form, in essentially every major AI survey for nine years, and the production figure has barely moved. The pilot has become permanent—not because the technology cannot be scaled but because the institutional work of scaling is harder, slower, and less politically rewarding than the institutional work of piloting and promising the future. The second is the transformation number. Thirty-four per cent of organisations report deeply transforming their businesses through AI. Eighty-four per cent report no redesign of jobs around AI capabilities. These two findings, in the same survey, cannot both be true in any operationally meaningful sense. One of them is theatre—and it isn't the 84% reporting no redesign of jobs. The third is the governance number, and the financial number that depends on it. Seventy-four per cent of companies plan to deploy autonomous agents within two years. Twenty-one per cent have a mature governance model for them. Six per cent of organisations, by McKinsey's measure, capture meaningful EBIT impact from AI of any kind. These are not three different findings. They are the same finding expressed in different vocabulary, and the institutional incapacity they describe is the load-bearing element of the entire pattern. The question worth putting to any chief executive making confident claims about their organisation's AI position is not whether they have a strategy, or whether they have invested adequately, or whether they have appointed the right consultants. It is whether their organisation has, in the last twelve months, done anything that the 2017 MIT survey would not have recognised as ordinary practice. The honest answer, for most, is no. The signal has changed enormously. The substance has barely moved at all. Melmotte, in due course, was found out. The South Central Pacific and Mexican Railway never reached Veracruz, the shareholders lost their money, and Melmotte himself attended a final dinner in his honour at the House of Commons before going home to take a fatal dose of prussic acid. Trollope, who was a moralist before he was a novelist, was not interested in the prussic acid. He was interested in the dinner—the long, ceremonious dinner attended by men who had known for months what was about to happen and had elected, for reasons of social comfort, not to say so. The dinner, in the AI sense, is still being served. The question, for anyone serious about AI leadership, is are you going to keep dining or leave the fine dining experience for the actual work of delivering value for stakeholders. Good night, and good luck. --- *The South Sea Scheme* (1721) by [William Hogarth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William%5FHogarth?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Pascal Uerlings: Good Thing, Bad Thing, Who Knows? URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/pascal-uerlings-good-thing-bad-thing-who-knows/ Last updated: 2026-05-12T23:00:11.000Z What does it actually take for a strategic intent to survive contact with the business that must implement it? In this episode of [*On the Subject of Leadership*](https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/), I speak with [Pascal Uerlings](https://www.linkedin.com/in/puerlings/?ref=robert.winter.ink), co-founder and Chief Revenue Officer of [J4RVIS](https://j4rvis.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), a Sydney-headquartered Salesforce and AI implementation consultancy that has grown from two people to over a hundred across Australia and the Philippines in just under six years. Pascal has spent that period working at the unresolved seam where technology strategy meets organisational reality—the seam at which most transformations quietly, and expensively, fail. This is not a conversation about Salesforce, or about agentic AI, or about the mechanics of consulting growth—though we do cover all of that too. It is a conversation about what happens to ambitious strategy when it meets an operating model that was never designed to absorb it, and about the disciplines—cultural, structural, and personal—that determine whether the resulting friction produces motion or merely heat. Pascal's argument, developed over more than a hundred implementations, is unromantic and worth taking seriously: the problem is rarely technical. It is structural, cultural, and in no small part a question of whether anyone in the room is willing to say what is actually happening. ## Values Before Customers The conventional founder narrative begins with a problem and a product, with culture treated as something that must be retrofitted later, once growth has produced enough collisions to make the absence of shared norms intolerable. Pascal and his co-founder, [Jannis Kearney Bott](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jannisbott/?ref=robert.winter.ink), inverted this sequence. Before they had taken on a single client, before the legal entity was formed, they had a conversation in the foyer of the Telstra building in Sydney about what values the as-yet-nonexistent organisation would instantiate. This is, on its face, the kind of detail that founder mythology tends to manufacture after the fact. The interesting question is whether such early articulation makes any practical difference. The empirical evidence suggests it does. The founder's role in early cultural formation has been identified as one of the most consequential acts of leadership, precisely because what founders pay attention to, measure, and reward in the formative period becomes encoded as the organisation's basic underlying assumptions—the deepest layer of culture, which subsequently operates outside conscious awareness and becomes extraordinarily difficult to alter once embedded. Pascal frames this in operational terms. The values, he argues, function as guardrails against decision fatigue. Founders make hundreds of consequential decisions in conditions of incomplete information; without an articulated set of priorities to fall back on, each decision must be litigated from first principles. The cost is not merely cognitive—it is the gradual erosion of coherence as different decisions, made under different pressures, produce a pattern of behaviour that no one would have endorsed in advance. This is a recognisably [Schelling-esque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%5FSchelling?ref=robert.winter.ink) insight: rules are valuable not because they are optimal in any individual instance, but because they enable consistent behaviour across many instances at acceptable cognitive cost. The values are, in this sense, a form of pre-commitment—a way of resolving in advance the kinds of conflicts that, faced fresh each time, would be vulnerable to short-term pressure. ## The Counter-Argument for Waiting J4RVIS launched in April 2020\. Within a fortnight of Jannis tendering his resignation, COVID-19 had reached Australian shores. By the end of the month, the country was in its first national lockdown. The conventional reading of this story would emphasise either heroic risk-tolerance or extraordinary luck. Pascal offers a more sober account. The decision to launch was not a moment of courage but the culmination of a long internal deliberation in which the strongest argument for waiting was, in retrospect, indistinguishable from the standard rationalisations of those who never launch at all. Comfort and confidence, he observes, are not signals that conditions are right; they are signals that one is not, in fact, an entrepreneur. This maps onto a substantial body of research on entrepreneurial decision-making under uncertainty. Work on effectuation describes precisely this pattern: experienced entrepreneurs do not begin with a goal and then assemble means to achieve it; they begin with available means—their identity, their networks, their tolerance for ambiguity—and allow the goal to emerge from what those means make possible. The April 2020 launch was, in this framing, not a bet on timing but a bet on the founders' capacity to absorb whatever timing produced. There is a corollary here that is worth naming. The asymmetry between launching and waiting is not symmetric in the way founders often imagine. Waiting feels like risk reduction; in fact, it merely substitutes one kind of risk—the risk of acting on incomplete information—for another, the risk of arriving in a market whose conditions have been defined by those who acted earlier. The cost of the second risk is invisible because it consists of opportunities that were never taken. This is the same epistemological trap that organisations fall into when they confuse a pause with stability—a pattern [Nick Hassett](https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/nick-hassett-the-problem-wont-be-solved-by-the-thinking-that-created-it/) described in a previous conversation on the show, and one that recurs throughout Pascal's account of the firms he has consulted to. ## Imposter Syndrome as Diagnostic Signal Few topics in contemporary leadership commentary have been more thoroughly worn out than imposter syndrome. The original construct, articulated by Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes in their study of high-achieving women, has been progressively detached from its empirical moorings and pressed into service as a generic explanation for any form of professional self-doubt. The result is a discourse in which imposter syndrome is treated as both ubiquitous and uniformly pathological—something to be diagnosed, validated, and overcome. Pascal's reframing is more useful. He suggests that the experience of doubting one's competence in high-stakes situations is not, in itself, a deficit. It is a signal that one cares about the outcome, and that the work has not yet been routinised into something that can be discharged on autopilot. The behavioural correlates of imposter feelings—over-preparation, deeper research, more careful attention to the audience—are precisely the behaviours one would want from a leader operating at the edge of their competence. The pathology, on this account, lies not in the feeling itself but in the response to it: collapse into paralysis, or compensation through performed certainty. This is consistent with subsequent empirical work. An extensive review of the impostor phenomenon literature, noted that the construct is more accurately understood as a continuum of experience rather than a discrete syndrome, and that moderate impostor feelings are associated with the over-preparation behaviours that frequently produce the success the sufferer then attributes to luck. The danger is not the experience but the loop—the failure to update one's self-model in light of the evidence that the over-preparation has, in fact, been adequate. For founders specifically, there is an additional dimension. The performance of certainty is, in many contexts, a strategic necessity—investors, employees, and customers all draw inferences about an organisation's prospects from the demeanour of its leadership. The discipline lies in maintaining the internal capacity for doubt while presenting an external face of conviction, and in not confusing the two. Pascal's account suggests this is a learnable discipline, but only for those willing to acknowledge the underlying experience rather than suppress it. ## Pilots Without a Path to Production When the conversation turns to artificial intelligence, Pascal articulates what is, in my view, the single most important observation in the episode. The reason most AI initiatives fail is not technological. It is that they were never designed, from the outset, to reach production. The pattern is by now well documented in the consulting and research literature. McKinsey's *State of AI in 2025* survey reports that 88% of organisations now use AI in at least one business function and 72% report using generative AI specifically—up from 33% only a year earlier—yet only 39% report any EBIT impact attributable to AI, and nearly two-thirds have not begun scaling AI across the enterprise. Boston Consulting Group's study of *The Widening AI Value Gap*, drawing on responses from 1,250 senior executives, finds that just 5% of companies qualify as "future-built" and consistently generate substantial value from AI, while 60% remain laggards reporting minimal returns. RAND Corporation's qualitative research with experienced AI practitioners identified the highest-impact failure cause as misaligned incentives between technical teams and operational sponsors, not technical limitations of the models themselves. The pattern is not, in itself, novel. The gap between what organisations know they should do and what they actually do is one of the most persistent pathologies in management practice—a gap attributed not to ignorance but to organisational dynamics that systematically privilege the appearance of action over its substance. AI has not produced this pathology; it has merely supplied it with a more expensive vehicle. Pascal's diagnosis is consistent with this evidence. The failure mode is not that the pilot underperforms; it is that the pilot succeeds on its own terms—a clean dataset, a controlled environment, a dedicated team—and then proves non-translatable to the production environment, where data is messy, integration is partial, and the change management work has not been resourced. The board sees the demo, approves the next tranche, and is then bewildered six months later when the operational metrics have not moved. The corrective Pascal proposes is structural rather than technical. Define the production-state success metric before writing any code. Assign a single accountable owner for change management from day one—not as a downstream activity but as a parallel workstream. Commit to measurement and refinement at three, six, nine, and twelve months. And accept that the model itself is no longer a stable artefact; the rate of capability change in foundation models means that what is true at deployment will not be true a quarter later. This last point deserves emphasis. The set-and-forget model that characterised enterprise software for two decades is structurally incompatible with the current state of AI development. Pascal's proposition—that AI implementation is now an ongoing partnership rather than a discrete deployment—has uncomfortable implications for the customer's procurement model, the consultancy's revenue model, and the board's expectations about predictable capital expenditure. The honest answer is that almost no one in the ecosystem has yet adapted to this reality. ## Agents Talking to Agents The conversation extends naturally to voice agents and the broader question of agentic AI. Pascal's framing here is worth registering: the future is not a single, monolithic agent that handles all tasks within a domain, but multiple specialised agents that interact with one another to produce outcomes no individual agent could deliver alone. This is consistent with the emerging empirical picture. BCG's 2025 study reports that agentic AI already accounts for 17% of total AI value generated today, and is projected to reach 29% by 2028—the fastest-growing category of AI value creation. McKinsey's parallel research finds that 62% of organisations are at least experimenting with agents, and 23% are scaling at least one agentic use case. The architectural pattern Pascal describes is, in this sense, not speculative; it is the direction the most mature organisations have already begun to move. This is, in architectural terms, a recognisable pattern. The integration challenges of the last two decades—API design, message brokering, transaction integrity across distributed systems—reappear in agentic AI at higher sophistication. The questions that mattered in service-oriented architecture have not been superseded; they have been promoted. Who is the source of truth? How do conflicts get resolved? What happens when an agent makes a commitment its downstream dependencies cannot honour? The implication, which Pascal makes explicit, is that the consulting work in this space looks more like enterprise architecture than like data science. The models themselves are increasingly commoditised; the differentiating capability is the disciplined design of the system within which the models operate. This is not a fashionable claim—it is rather more glamorous to be doing prompt engineering than to be drawing sequence diagrams—but it is, on the evidence, the correct one. ## The Generation Question Pascal is dismissive, with reason, of the now-standard managerial complaint that Generation Z is disengaged, work-shy, or insufficiently committed. The empirical literature on [generational differences](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/generations/) in work values is, at best, equivocal. One of the most cited time-lag studies found only modest evidence for declining centrality of work and rising emphasis on leisure and extrinsic rewards across generations; subsequent meta-analytic work found that the magnitude of these differences is generally small and frequently confounded with age and career-stage effects rather than true cohort effects. Pascal's reframing is closer to the structural account: what older managers interpret as Gen Z disengagement is more accurately read as a refusal to perform the rituals of work whose value cannot be articulated. Graduates entering the workforce in 2026 have grown up in an environment of continuous adaptation; they expect work to exhibit the same responsiveness, the same purpose-orientation, and the same intolerance for arbitrary process that they have come to expect from every other domain of their lives. The complaint is not that they will not work hard. It is that they will not pretend. The leadership implication is uncomfortable for organisations that have allowed accumulated process to substitute for actual capability. If Gen Z employees are unwilling to fill out the spreadsheets, the right response is not to demand compliance but to ask whether the spreadsheets have served any function for the past five years. This is a version of the question Toyota's production system has asked of every activity for half a century: what value does this add, and to whom? ## Safety, Identity, and the Conditions for Performance The most personally exposed segment of the conversation concerns Pascal's reflections on his own identity—as a Belgian working in Australia, as a non-technical founder of a technology business, and as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community navigating the ambient pressures that Australian workplaces have largely ceased to acknowledge but have certainly not eliminated. The leadership argument that emerges from this is more substantive than the standard contemporary discourse on psychological safety, which has been so thoroughly diluted as to become a checkbox exercise in many organisations. The original construct was specific: psychological safety is the shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, and it is empirically associated with learning behaviour and team performance, not with comfort or the absence of challenge. Subsequent work has consistently found that the construct mediates the relationship between team structures and learning outcomes. Pascal's contribution is to articulate the second-order consequence. When team members are expending cognitive resources managing how they are perceived—their accent, their orientation, their professional credentials, their right to be in the room—those resources are not available for the work itself. The performance cost is invisible because it consists of contributions that were never made: the question that was not asked, the dissent that was not voiced, the alternative that was not proposed. An organisation that systematically extracts this hidden tax from its non-default employees is, by construction, operating at less than its full capability, even when its headline metrics suggest otherwise. The implication for leaders is that creating genuine safety is not a matter of declarations or policies. It is a matter of demonstrating, repeatedly and across many small interactions, that the organisation rewards the contribution rather than punishing the contributor. Pascal's standard for this is more demanding than the standard most organisations meet: it is not enough that people feel safe at work; the test is whether they feel safe enough that the safety extends to how they think about themselves outside work. ## The Discipline of Non-Binary Reading The conversation closes on Pascal's invocation of the Taoist parable of the farmer—good thing, bad thing, who knows—as a genuine operating philosophy rather than decorative wisdom. He recounts a recent episode in which a seven-figure client engagement was paused without warning, only to be resumed two weeks later at greater scope. The point is not that things turned out well. The point is that the immediate emotional reading of an event is rarely a reliable guide to its eventual significance. This is, at its core, an epistemological discipline rather than a temperamental one. It requires holding open the question of what an event means until enough subsequent information has accumulated to support a judgement, and resisting the cognitive economy that wants to resolve ambiguity prematurely. For founders and senior leaders, who are continuously asked to assign meaning to events in the moment, this discipline is genuinely difficult. The temptation to declare a setback a disaster, or a win a vindication, is structurally encouraged by everyone around them. Pascal's framing is neither stoic resignation nor performative equanimity. It is closer to what [Daniel Kahneman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel%5FKahneman?ref=robert.winter.ink) would call a deliberate slowing of System 1 reasoning—a refusal to allow the immediate affective reading of an event to determine the strategic response. This, too, is a learnable discipline, but it requires the willingness to look, in the moment, less decisive than one's environment expects. ## A Practical Account of Building Pascal Uerlings is not a theorist, and this is not a conversation about leadership in the abstract. It is a practical account of what it has taken to build one organisation—imperfectly, at times painfully, with a clarity about both the achievements and the unfinished work that is unusual in founders of his generation and seniority. What he offers, across the arc of the conversation, is not a method but a set of dispositions: articulate values before you need them; act before you feel ready; treat doubt as data rather than deficit; design implementation before you build; refuse the easy generational stereotypes; create the conditions under which people can contribute without first having to justify their presence; and resist the temptation to resolve ambiguity prematurely. If you are leading an organisation through scale, navigating an AI initiative whose strategy deck has begun to outpace its operational reality, or simply trying to build something that does not consume the people who built it, this is a conversation worth hearing in full. Good night, and good luck. ### Move Slow and Fix Things URL: https://robert.winter.ink/move-slow-and-fix-things/ Last updated: 2026-05-12T16:04:15.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/05/Move-Slow-and-Fix-Things_thumb.jpeg) Move Slow and Fix Things 0:00 /627.288 1× The reigning fashion in business prose treats organisational upheaval as a kind of moral achievement. To *disrupt* is to be vital, to be modern, to be on the right side of whatever curve the consultants are currently invoking. The verb has migrated from a clinical description of competitive dynamics into a slogan that no executive wishing to seem serious can quite afford to do without When the founder of a well-known social media company declared that his motto was "move fast and break things", he was not, by his own later admission, expressing an aesthetic preference. He was articulating an industry-wide theology in which the shattering itself was held to be productive. This way of speaking has consequences. It encourages boards to commission *transformation programmes* before they have understood why their organisation works to the limited degree that it does. It encourages newly appointed leaders to mistake the inheritance they have received for a problem rather than a resource. And it has produced a generation of managerial writing in which the test of a strategy is no longer whether it is sound but whether it is sufficiently bold—a category which, on inspection, often resolves into the question of how many existing arrangements one is willing to break before lunch. There is an older voice on these matters worth recovering, and it belongs to a man who watched a great deal of disruption at close quarters and was unimpressed by most of it. [Edmund Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund%5FBurke?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1729–1797) is mainly remembered, when he is remembered at all, as the philosophical opponent of revolution. This is true but importantly incomplete. His real quarrel was not with change but with a particular style of changing—one whose contemporary expression in the language of disruption he would have recognised in about four pages of any current management bestseller. ## The Wisdom of the Fence Burke's central argument, set out at length in *Reflections on the Revolution in France* and developed across thirty years of Parliamentary speeches, is that institutions are not arbitrary arrangements that any reasonably intelligent person could replace from first principles. They are accumulations of practical learning, deposited by generations of people working out how to cooperate under pressure. The forms that survive do so because they have been tested—usually painfully—against circumstances their designers did not anticipate. To dismiss them as the residue of less enlightened ages is to mistake one's own cleverness for the wisdom of the species, and to discard, in the name of reason, the only resource against which reason has any hope of correcting itself. This is the position [G. K. Chesterton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.%5FK.%5FChesterton?ref=robert.winter.ink#Chesterton's%5Ffence) (1874–1936) would later compress into the parable of the fence: the reformer who proposes to tear it down, having failed to ask why it was put up, is not yet competent to remove it. The point is that the question of why it stands is logically prior to the question of whether it should. An astonishing amount of contemporary organisational transformation proceeds in the opposite order. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Chair's Dilemma: When the Board Becomes the Problem URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-chairs-dilemma-when-the-board-becomes-the-problem/ Last updated: 2026-05-04T07:36:56.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/05/The-Chair-s-Dilemma--When-the-Board-Becomes-the-Problem_thumb.jpeg) The Chairs Dilemma When the Board Becomes the Problem 0:00 /577.776 1× The papers were circulated on the Friday. By the Monday morning meeting every director had read them, and three had read them carefully. Quarterly margin had softened by eighty basis points against guidance. Inventory had grown faster than receivables. Two of the company's largest customers had renegotiated terms in ways that would not show up properly until the following quarter. The chief executive's commentary, two pages of measured optimism, attributed the result to phasing. What followed in the boardroom was not, by any reasonable measure, a serious conversation. The longest-serving director offered observations about the cycle. The chair of the audit committee asked a question about working capital and was answered with a reference to the next strategy session. The newest member of the board, recruited the previous year for her experience in distressed retail, said nothing. The chief executive thanked the directors for their support and went off to lunch. The minute would record robust discussion. There had been, in fact, none. This is what board failure usually looks like. Not the dramatic governance scandal, not the malfeasant chair or the captured auditor, but a quieter and more common pattern—a group of intelligent, well-credentialled, mostly independent directors collectively unable to act on what each of them already privately suspects. The deterioration in the company below them will continue, as such deteriorations do, until it is no longer deniable. By the time it is, the original window for course correction will be six quarters closed, and the board will commission an external review to discover what every director sitting around the table on that Monday morning could already have told them. ## The Comfortable Conspiracy The mechanisms at work here have been understood for half a century. [Irving Janis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving%5FJanis?ref=robert.winter.ink) gave us the canonical anatomy of groupthink—the illusion of unanimity, the suppression of dissent, the pressure exerted on those who break ranks, the self-appointed mindguards who screen difficult information from the leader's attention. He was writing about the Bay of Pigs and the escalation in Vietnam, but the diagnosis travels with depressing fidelity to the modern boardroom. The cohesion that boards work hard to cultivate—the social ease, the shared norms, the institutional memory—is the same cohesion that, past a certain threshold, becomes the principal obstacle to clear thinking under pressure. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Nick Hassett: The Problem Won't Be Solved by the Thinking That Created It URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/nick-hassett-the-problem-wont-be-solved-by-the-thinking-that-created-it/ Last updated: 2026-04-28T21:00:44.000Z What happens when the people charged with fixing an organisation are, in important respects, the architects of its current condition? In this episode of *On the Subject of Leadership*, I speak with [Nick Hassett](https://www.linkedin.com/in/nick-hassett-2341a11/?ref=robert.winter.ink)—an independent strategy execution advisor who has spent more than three decades working at the intersection of boards, executive teams, and the operational realities they are often shielded from—about why transformation programmes fail, and what it takes to intervene when the gap between what an organisation says it is doing and what it is actually doing has grown wider than anyone has yet said aloud. This is not a conversation about methodology. It is a conversation about the structural and relational conditions under which change becomes possible, and about the discipline required to think clearly when an organisation's existing habits of mind are precisely what produced the problem. Nick's career spans banking, technology, essential infrastructure, and sport across Australia and Asia. He works across what he calls the full arc of an organisation under pressure: mobilisation, intervention, and recovery. His central proposition borrows from Einstein: the problem cannot be solved by the same thinking with which it was created. The practical corollary—and this is where Nick's work begins—is that someone must bring a different structure to bear. Not a rigid framework imposed on a fluid situation, but a disciplined way of reading what is actually in front of you. ## The Tyranny of Existing Thinking Most organisations that embark on transformation do not fail for want of ambition. They fail because the assumptions that produced the current strategy are still running quietly in the background, shaping which options are considered and which are dismissed before they reach the table. Nick encounters this pattern with considerable regularity. A board or executive team identifies persistent problems—regulatory performance, financial trajectory, customer engagement, operating model fitness—and concludes that something must change. Often, they have already diagnosed the issues. The problem statements are articulated with precision. The analysis is thorough. The action plans are in place. And yet, the organisation is still failing. The reason, as Nick sees it, is rarely technical. It is conceptual. The same leadership cohort that built the current operating model is now tasked with dismantling it. Their assumptions about what constitutes a good strategy, an acceptable risk, or a reasonable pace of change remain embedded in every decision. They are, in effect, trying to solve the problem using the thinking that created it. This is not a failing of intelligence or goodwill. It is a structural limitation. [Thomas Kuhn's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%5FKuhn?ref=robert.winter.ink) observation about paradigmatic thinking in science applies with equal force to organisational life: incumbents do not easily abandon the frameworks within which their expertise was developed, even when those frameworks have ceased to explain the data. ## The Valley of Despair and the Work of Realisation Nick's approach to this impasse is neither prescriptive nor theoretical. He does not compete with the subject matter expertise already present in the organisation. Instead, he brings a different structure of thinking: a discipline for assessing the gap between current-state performance and target-state performance, and for sequencing the work required to close it. But the technical work, he is clear, is necessary and insufficient. The deeper challenge is relational. In nearly every engagement, there comes a moment when the board or executive team must confront an uncomfortable possibility: that they are, at least in part, the problem. Nick describes this with characteristic directness. The individuals who hold custodianship of the organisation's strategy and its execution must eventually reckon with the fact that their existing approach has not delivered. This is what he calls the valley of despair—borrowing from the familiar change curve that traces the arc from denial through resistance to eventual acceptance. His role, as he frames it, is to coach leaders through that valley. The word "coach" is chosen deliberately, though he notes that boards and executive teams are rarely enthusiastic about being thought of as recipients of coaching. The work is confronting, always respectful, and oriented towards a specific outcome: getting leaders past resistance and into a position from which they can envision a future that may look quite different from what they had planned—and, in some cases, a future that does not include them. [Chris Argyris'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris%5FArgyris?ref=robert.winter.ink) concept of double-loop learning is relevant here. Single-loop learning asks whether we are doing things right. Double-loop learning asks whether we are doing the right things—and whether the governing variables themselves need to change. Nick's interventions operate at the second level, challenging not just the plans but the assumptions that produced them. ## Alignment That Is Only Room Deep One of the most striking observations in our conversation concerns the fragility of organisational alignment. Nick describes a pattern that will be instantly recognisable to anyone who has sat in a senior leadership forum. A board meeting or executive session concludes with apparent consensus. Priorities are agreed. Direction is set. Everyone leaves the room ostensibly aligned. Then they return to their functions and proceed to do something quite different. The reasons are various. Some executives disagreed but lacked the confidence or the language to articulate their objection in the moment. Others agreed in principle but had already set expectations with their own teams that conflicted with the newly agreed direction. Still others simply defaulted to the operational priorities that were already consuming their attention. The result is what Nick calls alignment that is only room deep. The lead and lag indicators that the organisation is monitoring begin to produce unexpected results—not because the strategy was wrong, but because it was never actually implemented. The board, seeing anomalous data, questions the strategy. In reality, the strategy was never tested. What was tested was the organisation's willingness to execute it, and it was found wanting. This dynamic is well documented in the organisational behaviour literature. [Jeffrey Pfeffer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey%5FPfeffer?ref=robert.winter.ink) and Robert Sutton's concept of the "knowing-doing gap" captures the phenomenon precisely: organisations that are adept at generating strategic insight but structurally incapable of translating it into operational reality. The gap is not one of knowledge but of execution discipline—and, as Nick would add, of the cultural conditions that either support or undermine that discipline. ## The Chair-CEO Relationship as First Point of Failure Nick is unequivocal about where alignment must begin: the relationship between the board chair and the chief executive. This is the single most critical relationship in any organisation, and when it is functioning poorly—when there is a disconnect in strategic priorities, risk appetite, or expectations of performance—the consequences cascade. The board's priorities must translate into the executive team's focus, which must in turn wash through the organisation's policies, management systems, and operational rhythms. If the translation is imprecise, or if the executive team has already established goals that conflict with the board's newly articulated direction, confusion follows. Nick's metaphor is apt: do not simply add four new priorities and expect the organisation to absorb them alongside the sixty it is already juggling. Reconfirm the seven that matter for the next twelve months. Without that clarity, operational staff—the people who face into customers daily—are left to navigate competing signals. The organisation's control environment begins to produce results that no one planned for, and the board finds itself asking how something happened that was never part of the strategy. This is not merely a communication problem. It is a governance design problem. The mechanisms by which board-level priorities are translated into operational settings—policy frameworks, performance metrics, resource allocation, decision rights—must be deliberately engineered. When they are not, the gap between strategic intent and operational reality becomes the organisation's defining vulnerability. ## Silos, Accountability, and the Casualty of Collaboration Nick offers a case study—anonymised but vivid—of an organisation that had invested heavily in what he calls a technical approach to solving persistent problems. The analysis was rigorous. The action plans were in place. Accountabilities were clearly allocated. Risk assessments had been completed. Every procedural box had been ticked. The organisation was still failing. The root cause, as Nick diagnosed it, was cultural rather than technical. The organisation operated with a strong bias towards action and an explicit accountability culture. On their face, these are virtues. In practice, however, they had produced an unintended consequence: each executive, driven by the imperative to satisfy their superior, had isolated their problem into the domain they could individually control. The result was siloed thinking across every function. The first casualty of silos, Nick observes, is cross-functional collaboration. And without cross-functional collaboration, the organisation's capacity to address problems that span multiple domains—which is to say, most problems of any significance—is fundamentally compromised. The accountability culture had, paradoxically, produced a blame culture. When things went wrong, the refrain was predictable: legal failed, or IT failed, or finance failed to engage early enough. The pattern is one that [Diane Vaughan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane%5FVaughan?ref=robert.winter.ink) might recognise as a form of normalised deviance—a gradual drift in which individually rational behaviours accumulate into systemic dysfunction. The corrective, in Nick's framing, is not to abandon accountability but to redirect it. The focus had become fixated on input measures—what people were doing—rather than outcome measures—what the organisation was achieving. A shift from micromanagement of activities to collective ownership of results required not a new process but a different set of cultural permissions: permission to collaborate across boundaries, to share problems rather than hoard them, and to define success in terms that no single function could deliver alone. ## AI, Shadow Adoption, and the Board's Blind Spot Our conversation turns, inevitably, to artificial intelligence—but not in the way most discussions of AI and leadership proceed. Nick's concern is not with what AI can do. It is with what boards are failing to see. He describes a pattern that mirrors the organisational response to digital technology a decade earlier: some boards are workshopping how the organisation should use AI, while remaining oblivious to how individuals within the organisation are already using it. The phenomenon of shadow AI—employees adopting AI tools without organisational sanction, often because they are under pressure and the organisation has not provided adequate tools or clear policy—introduces risks that most governance frameworks are not yet calibrated to detect. Staff under pressure from headcount reductions and unsustainable workloads are loading sensitive company data into publicly accessible models, exposing the organisation to privacy and confidentiality risks that the board has neither anticipated nor governed. Nick draws a parallel with the digital adoption cycle that Australian organisations navigated—often slowly and painfully—over the preceding decade. The technology changes, but the organisational response remains remarkably consistent: impetuous adoption without thinking through the implications, or outright prohibition without understanding that a ban does not eliminate the risk. He recalls an MD who, having read about Six Sigma in a flight magazine, hired sixteen black belts into an organisation that needed four. The anecdote is dryly amusing, but the underlying pattern is serious: executive enthusiasm untempered by disciplined thinking about implications, capacity, and sequencing. The question, as Nick frames it, is not what can we do with AI, but what should we do—and, equally, what are the consequences of doing nothing while competitors move ahead? ## The Importance of the Exit Strategy Perhaps the most revealing moment in our conversation comes when Nick is asked whether there is a question about strategy execution that nobody ever asks but should. His answer is disarming: the first question he asks a new client is, what is my exit strategy? The response, he says, is invariably bewilderment. You have not even started, and you are already planning how to leave? But the question is not about departure. It is about defining success. If we fast-forward eighteen months and agree to close down this programme because we have achieved all of our objectives, what have we done and how did we measure it? The exercise forces a confrontation with a deficit that Nick encounters in nearly every engagement: the absence of clear, measurable objectives. Organisations are fluent in activity—we replaced a system, we restructured a team, we implemented a framework—but far less disciplined about outcomes. When circumstances change, as they inevitably do, the absence of a clear flight path means there is no basis on which to make corrective decisions. The programme drifts, the scope mutates, and the eventual result bears little resemblance to the original intent. Nick invokes the Apollo programme: the spacecraft was on the planned flight path for only three per cent of the journey, but because a flight path existed, continuous correction was possible. Without it, there is only improvisation—and improvisation without objectives is merely activity. ## The Discipline of Thinking Through Implications If there is a unifying thread in Nick Hassett's work, it is the insistence on thinking through implications. Not just the first-order consequences of a chosen course of action, but the second, third, and fourth-order effects as they cascade through stakeholders, regulatory obligations, customer relationships, and the organisation's own capacity to absorb change. He credits this discipline, in part, to his time at Cisco Systems under John Chambers in the late 1990s and early 2000s—a period of immense organisational growth led by a CEO who, in Nick's account, combined intellectual rigour with genuine humility and an almost obsessive commitment to stakeholder engagement. Chambers' lesson, as Nick distils it, is deceptively simple: never stop engaging your stakeholders, and never underestimate the importance of understanding the implications of a chosen course of action—or of inaction. The inaction piece is worth underscoring. There is a tendency, particularly at senior levels, to conflate a pause with stability—to believe that holding steady projects confidence and competence. Sometimes it does. But when that pause extends into weeks and months, the organisation is not standing still. It is falling behind. And the cost is not merely financial. It is temporal. Time, unlike capital, cannot be replaced. Nick recounts a conversation with the managing director of a regulated monopoly who, when presented with two courses of action, responded: if we still have options, we have not waited long enough. The anecdote is delivered without commentary, but none is needed. It captures, in a single sentence, the pathology of institutional inertia dressed up as strategic patience. ## A Practical Epistemology of Change Nick Hassett is not a theorist. He does not publish frameworks or build certification programmes. He is, by his own description, someone who is called in when the situation is already dynamic, the politics are already difficult, and the gap between declared intent and observable reality has become untenable. What he offers is not a method but a discipline: a structured way of interrogating what is actually happening in an organisation, as distinct from what its leadership believes is happening. The strategy, the operating model, the capability gaps, the culture, and the distance between where the organisation says it is going and where its behaviour suggests it will actually land. The work is pragmatic, politically literate, and unapologetically focused on outcomes rather than activity. It is also, by necessity, confronting—because the first obstacle to change is usually the set of assumptions held by the people who commissioned the change. If you lead an organisation under pressure, sit on a board navigating transformation, or are responsible for the execution of strategy in complex, regulated environments, this is a conversation worth hearing in full. Good night, and good luck. ### The Case Against Leadership Competency Models URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-case-against-leadership-competency-models/ Last updated: 2026-04-27T07:30:30.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/04/The-Case-Against-Leadership-Competency-Models_thumb.jpeg) The Case Against Leadership Competency Models 0:00 /569.664 1× Somewhere in every large organisation there is a laminated poster setting out the firm's leadership competency framework. Twelve boxes, sometimes sixteen, occasionally twenty, listing things like: Strategic Thinking; Driving Results; Developing Others; Emotional Intelligence; Change Leadership. The language varies between consultancies and which Org Behaviour magazine HR departments read, but the grammar is constant—a finite grid of capabilities, each amenable to rating, training, and aggregation into a score. New hires are assessed against it. Middle managers are developed against it. Potential successors are filtered through it. Entire careers are built, or broken, on the distribution of green dots and red dots across these little boxes. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2026/04/Leadership-Competency-Framework-Sample.png) The frameworks are so ubiquitous, and so obviously sensible at first glance, that the question of whether they describe anything real is rarely asked in boardrooms. It is asked, quietly and persistently, by researchers and practitioners who have spent enough time near actual leadership to notice that the people who do it well are seldom distinguished from the people who do it badly by anything that appears on the grid. A chief executive of genuine quality will in all probability tick the same boxes as the charlatan who replaces her. The grid does not see what matters. This is because it was never designed to. ## What the Framework Misses The thing the grid cannot see was named by Aristotle two and a half millennia ago, and the fact that the term has not made it into most HR dictionaries is itself worth a moment of reflection. *Phronesis*—practical wisdom—is the intellectual virtue by which a person of experience perceives the relevant features of a particular situation and decides how to act well in it. In the sixth book of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle is careful to distinguish it from two neighbouring capacities that competency frameworks routinely confuse it with. It is not *techne*, the technical skill by which one makes things according to rules. It is not *episteme*, the theoretical knowledge of universals that can be taught from a textbook. It is the capacity to see, in the particular case, what this person needs from you now, what this board will bear, what this decision requires that the last superficially similar decision did not. The distinction matters because *techne* and *episteme* readily lend themselves to being decomposed into lists. You can specify the rules of double-entry bookkeeping. You can examine a candidate on the theorems of microeconomics. Practical wisdom however resists this treatment. The moment it is reduced to a checklist it ceases to be wisdom and becomes a rule—and rules, applied without judgment to cases they were not designed to fit, produce precisely the kinds of decisions that organisations later commission consultants to investigate. The manager who has learned the rule that "good leaders communicate openly" and then communicates openly when the situation calls for discretion, will likely be bewildered when the board reacts badly. A manager of deep experience will know that while the rule was correctly followed—judgment was absent. What distinguishes the leader who survives a genuinely difficult decade from one who does not is not a thicker file of competency ratings but something closer to what a good clinician possesses by the twentieth year of practice—a stock of pattern recognition built from cases seen, misjudged, and reconsidered, refined by the kind of reflection that competency training neither requires nor rewards. This stock is neither trainable nor transferable in any straightforward sense. It is acquired slowly, in context, by people who are paying the right kind of attention to the right kinds of things. And it is the entire substance of what organisations mean, in their more honest moments, when they say they want better leaders. ## Where the Grid Came From It is worth returning to the intellectual origins of the competency framework, because the story is less disreputable than the current practice makes it look. David McClelland's 1973 paper arguing that organisations should test for competence rather than for intelligence was, in its context, a sensible corrective. The intelligence-testing industry of the time was producing confident predictions about management potential that tracked socioeconomic background more reliably than they tracked management performance. McClelland's proposal—that we should look at what successful performers actually did, rather than at what they scored on abstract tests—was reasonable and empirically minded. Whatever one now thinks of the consequences, the original move was a good one. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Problem With Telling Your Board What They Want to Hear URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-problem-with-telling-your-board-what-they-want-to-hear/ Last updated: 2026-04-20T07:30:10.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/04/The-Problem-With-Telling-Your-Board-What-They-Want-to-Hear_thumb.jpeg) The Problem With Telling Your Board What They Want to Hear 0:00 /680.448 1× Most directors believe they want candour from their chief executive. Most chief executives believe they provide it. Both are often wrong, and the delta between what is said in boardrooms and what is actually happening in the organisations below them is one of the more reliable predictors of strategic failure in corporate life. The research on this is unambiguous. Information flowing upward through a hierarchy is systematically softened at each layer; dissenting directors are quietly marginalised by their peers; high-status CEOs are subjected to enough flattery and opinion conformity so that belief in their unerring strategic judgement inflates in proportion to the contraction of dissenting opinion. The result is an organisation whose account of itself, by the time it reaches the board papers, has been through more edits than a political memoir. The oldest and most instructive treatment of this problem is not in a governance handbook but in the writings of [Thucydides](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides?ref=robert.winter.ink) (460–400 BC). In the winter of 431 BC, [Pericles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles?ref=robert.winter.ink) (495–429 BC) rose to deliver the Funeral Oration that is now one of the most celebrated piece of political rhetoric in the Western tradition. What is less often noticed about that speech—and about the three decades of leadership that preceded it—is that Pericles had solved the problem most boards have not. He had built, over a career, the kind of authority that allowed him to tell the Athenian assembly what it needed to hear rather than what it wanted to hear, and to survive the telling. When he finally lost that authority, Athens lost the war. The sequence is worth attending to, because the pattern repeats, and it is repeating now in boardrooms that would be uncomprehending if they were compared to a fifth-century Greek assembly but are, in the relevant respects, behaving identically. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Person in Front of You: On the Quiet Tyranny of the Proxy Interview URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-person-in-front-of-you-on-the-quiet-tyranny-of-the-proxy-interview/ Last updated: 2026-04-17T23:08:50.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/04/The-Person-in-Front-of-You-1_thumb.jpeg) The Person in Front of You 0:00 /507.408 1× There is a moment in every job interview when the conversation stops being about the candidate and starts being about the interviewer's filing system. You can feel it happen. The questions shift from *what can you do* to *what box can we put you in*. The candidate ceases to be a person and becomes a data point—a credential, a demographic, a diagnosis, a keyword match against an invisible rubric that was finalised before anyone shook hands. [Janet Albrechtsen](https://www.linkedin.com/in/janet-albrechtsen-9575b439/?ref=robert.winter.ink), [writing in *The Australian* this week](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/lived-experience-over-expertise-the-new-cv-musthave/news-story/deb25e3c8f7a0f9271f1f3d87a141dbc?ref=robert.winter.ink), offered a particularly sharp illustration. A hypothetical senior public servant—decades of experience, a CV that could furnish a small library—interviews for a role at the National Mental Health Commission. He is asked about his "lived experience." He talks about his career. Wrong answer. He talks about his life—fatherhood, community, loss. Wrong again. What the panel wants is a diagnosis. A mental health condition, disclosed to strangers, as a condition precedent to employment. Without it, the filing system has no slot for him. Albrechtsen's target is the "lived experience" workforce now embedded, and often mandated, across Australian mental health bodies. It is a fair target, and she hits it squarely. But the problem she identifies is not confined to mental health, nor to the public service, nor even to the peculiar enthusiasm with which Australian governments have embraced identity as a professional qualification. The problem is more general and more stubborn. ## The Proxy Problem Hiring is difficult. Genuinely assessing whether the person sitting across from you can do a job—and do it well, under pressure, over time—requires judgement, attention, and a willingness to be surprised. Most interviewers would rather not bother. Proxies are easier. A proxy is anything that stands in for direct assessment of competence. Some proxies are defensible: a medical degree is a reasonable precondition for practising medicine. A commercial pilot's licence is not mere credentialism. But the further a proxy drifts from third party accessible sense data about a capability, the more it functions as a sorting mechanism for the interviewer's convenience rather than the organisation's benefit. "Lived experience" is one such proxy. "Culture fit" is another—that magnificent piece of corporate cant that permits an interviewer to reject a candidate on grounds of *vibes*. So too are the algorithmic keyword filters that bin a CV before a human being ever reads it, the preference for candidates from a narrow band of prior experience, the quiet conviction that someone who "presents well"—which is to say, someone who resembles the interviewer—must be the stronger candidate. Each of these proxies shares a common defect: they substitute category membership for individual assessment. They answer the question *what kind of person is this* rather than *what can this person do*. And they do so with the quiet confidence of a system that has mistaken its own administrative tidiness for rigour. ## The Interview that Isn't The deeper pathology is that many interviews are not interviews at all. They are confirmation exercises. The decision has been substantially made before the candidate sits down—made on the basis of the CV screen, the referral source, the proxy criteria embedded in the position description. The interview exists to ratify that decision, not to test it. Perhaps the most egregious instance of proxy hiring is the internal restructure that invites "expressions of interest" from existing staff. One might suppose this is the least objectionable form of the practice—surely internal candidates have had every opportunity to demonstrate capability in plain sight. Sadly, the opposite tends to be true. Internal candidates have already been judged, not on their competence, but on their political acceptability to the manager responsible for the process. The expression of interest is not an invitation. It is a notification dressed in the language of opportunity. This is why so many interview questions are performative rather than diagnostic. "Tell us about a time you demonstrated leadership in a complex stakeholder environment" is not a question designed to learn something. It is a question designed to let the candidate perform fluency in a particular dialect of corporate language. The interviewer is not listening for substance; they are listening for the right vocabulary. The candidate who says "I sorted out a mess between three departments who wouldn't talk to each other" is giving a better answer than the candidate who delivers a flawless STAR-method response—but only the latter will score well on the rubric. The "lived experience" requirement is simply the most brazen version of this tendency. It dispenses with the pretence of assessment altogether. You either belong to the category or you don't. The person—their intellect, their judgement, their capacity to deliver outcomes for the people the organisation is supposed to serve—is irrelevant. The politics of the filing system is satisfied, and that is what matters. ## Who Pays The cost of proxy-based hiring is not borne by the interviewers. It is not borne by the HR departments who are too often pushed to prioritise defensibility over discernment. It is borne by the organisations that end up with the wrong people in the wrong roles, and ultimately by the people those organisations are supposed to serve. In mental health the cost is measured in lives. As the Australian Government Productivity Commission noted: > policies and services meant to improve mental health and prevent deaths by suicide often fall short. The consequences of these failures are well known but still shocking – each year, about 3,000 lives are lost to suicide; and one in five Australians, including one in seven children, experience mental illness. The economic costs are also substantial. The effects of mental ill health and suicide cost Australia over $200 billion a year, through lost productivity and reduced life expectancy, as well as what people and governments spend on mental health and suicide prevention services. > — [*Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement Review*](https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries-and-research/mental-health-review/report/?ref=robert.winter.ink) But the cost is equally real, if less dramatic, in every organisation that hires by proxy. The technology company that filters for "top-tier university" misses the autodidact who would have been its best engineer. The consultancy that hires for "big-four experience" builds a monoculture that cannot see its own blind spots. The government department that weights "lived experience" above operational skill gets a workforce that is, in the most literal sense, unfit for purpose. ## The Person, not the Category None of this is an argument against diversity, or against listening to people whose experience differs from the institutional norm. Lived experience of a system's failures can be genuinely illuminating—provided it is treated as one input among many, not as a trump card that overrides all others. The problem is not that organisations seek diverse perspectives. The problem is that they have confused demographic category with individual perspective, and individual perspective with professional competence. The remedy is unsexy and difficult, which is why it is so rarely attempted. It requires interviewers to do the thing they are nominally employed to do: assess the person in front of them. Not the CV. Not the category. Not the keyword match. The person. Their reasoning, their judgement, their capacity to do the actual work. This demands interviewers who themselves possess judgement—who can distinguish substance from performance, competence from credential, and genuine insight from the recitation of approved vocabulary. It also requires a measure of institutional courage. Proxy-based hiring is, above all, safe. It is defensible. When the appointment goes wrong, no one can say the process was flawed—the candidate met every criterion on the checklist. That the checklist was measuring the wrong things is a problem for another day, another review, another restructure. The file is in order. The system is satisfied. The person who needed help, of course, is not satisfied. But they were never part of the filing system to begin with. Good night, and good luck. ## Free to read. Worth your subscription. If you've read this far, there is more within. Subscribe to The Commons for access to members-only content. Subscribe Email sent! Check your inbox to complete your signup. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. ### Craig Baker: Leadership at the Point of Contact URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/craig-baker-the-distance-between-the-promise-and-the-work/ Last updated: 2026-04-15T11:07:05.000Z What happens when a leader who sold the vision steps back into the reality of delivering it? In this episode of *On the Subject of Leadership*, I speak with [Craig Baker](https://www.linkedin.com/in/craigpaulbaker/?ref=robert.winter.ink)—a technology leader who has spent the past eighteen months in growth and sales at [Jarvis](https://j4rvis.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink)—about what he discovered when a customer gap forced him out of sales meetings and back into delivery. This is not a conversation about sales technique or project recovery. It is a conversation about the distance that opens between leaders and the work they authorise, and what it costs—in credibility, in trust, and in the quality of decisions made on behalf of teams and customers alike. Craig brings a career that has moved across architecture, delivery leadership, practice-building, and growth. His perspective is shaped less by theory than by the friction of having occupied both sides of the promise: the confidence of selling a solution, and the humility of discovering what it actually takes to build one. Leadership has a structural tendency to drift upwards. As responsibility grows, proximity to consequence often shrinks. Authority begins to rest on dashboards, forecasts, and carefully phrased assurances. The work itself becomes something reported on rather than touched. This is not a moral failing; it is an organisational pattern. But it carries consequences that are rarely examined until something breaks. Craig Baker's experience offers a useful case study because he chose to close the distance before failure forced the question. ## The Drift and the Return The trajectory is familiar. A capable technologist builds a delivery practice, earns credibility through results, and moves into sales and growth—where the work is more strategic, the conversations more abstract, and the feedback loops longer. Craig describes this transition honestly: it was a deliberate choice to address a gap in his own experience, and a genuine desire to understand how trust is built at the front end of a customer relationship. What he did not anticipate was how quickly the texture of the work would fade. Not the knowledge—he could still speak to architecture and integration—but the feel of it: the friction of competing stakeholder priorities, the capacity constraints that no resourcing plan fully captures, the gap between what a solution promises on a slide and what it demands in a production environment. When a customer engagement ran into difficulty, Craig faced a choice that many leaders in his position avoid: manage the problem through delegation, or step back in. He chose the latter. What he found was instructive. The team did not lack skill or commitment. They lacked capacity, clarity of priority, and—critically—the confidence to push back on competing demands. The problem was not technical. It was environmental. [Henry Mintzberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%5FMintzberg?ref=robert.winter.ink) has long argued that management is a practice, not a science—that it is learned through experience, reflection, and proximity to the work, not through abstraction. Craig's return to the tools is a practical illustration of that claim. His value was not in solving problems the team could not solve, but in creating the conditions under which they could solve them: shielding them from noise, clarifying priority, and absorbing the organisational risk that junior practitioners are rarely empowered to manage. ## The Art of Saying No A recurring theme in our conversation is the discipline of refusal—and the particular difficulty of exercising it as a third-party vendor. Craig distinguishes between "no" and "not right now," and the distinction is more than semantic. In his account, the capacity to defer a request without killing it is one of the most consequential skills a technology leader can develop. It protects scope. It preserves the integrity of foundations. And it builds, rather than erodes, trust with customers who have been promised outcomes, not features. The challenge is that refusal carries different weight depending on where you sit. An internal leader who pushes back on scope is exercising professional judgement. A vendor who does the same risks being replaced. Craig is candid about this asymmetry, and about the temptation it creates: to over-promise in the sales cycle, to absorb unreasonable demands in delivery, and to let the customer's emotional attachment to a process go unchallenged because the commercial relationship is at stake. His phrase—"you never want to call anyone's baby ugly"—captures the diplomatic reality. But the underlying point is more serious. Consultancies that cannot say no in the right way will eventually say yes to commitments they cannot honour. The short-term commercial gain is offset by long-term reputational cost, and by the corrosive effect on delivery teams who are left to reconcile the gap. [Edgar Schein's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar%5FSchein?ref=robert.winter.ink) work on process consultation is relevant here. Schein argued that the most effective advisory relationship is one in which the consultant helps the client understand the problem, rather than simply prescribing a solution. Craig's instinct—to invest in shared understanding of the problem before proposing an answer—reflects this orientation. It is slower, less commercially efficient in the short term, and considerably more sustainable. ## Change Management as the Actual Deliverable One of the more candid admissions in our discussion is Craig's observation that he has seen excellent technology products fail because adoption was not considered, and mediocre ones succeed because it was. This is not a novel insight, but it is one that the technology sector continues to underweight. The prevailing assumption—that a sufficiently powerful tool will generate its own adoption—persists despite decades of contrary evidence. Craig's experience in utilities and infrastructure, where end users may be field workers operating in conditions nothing like an office, makes the point vividly. A solution designed for the back office and imposed on the front office will fail, regardless of its technical elegance. The implication for leadership is direct. If the primary determinant of success is not the technology but the organisational readiness to absorb it, then the leader's role is less about selecting the right tool and more about preparing the right environment. This includes identifying champions early, building consensus among stakeholders with competing priorities, and resisting the temptation to treat the testing phase as the first point of user engagement. Craig's argument—that super-users and champions should be involved from the earliest design stages, not introduced at training—is a practical application of a well-established principle. It is also one that is routinely ignored under schedule pressure. ## Skin in the Game The conversation takes a different register when Craig discusses the growth of Jarvis from a handful of people to over a hundred. He joined as the fourth or fifth employee, and the distinction between that experience and working within a well-capitalised, externally funded operation is one he returns to repeatedly. [Nassim Nicholas Taleb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim%5FNicholas%5FTaleb?ref=robert.winter.ink) popularised the phrase "skin in the game" to describe the alignment of risk and reward—the principle that those who bear the consequences of decisions make better ones. Craig's account of building a practice with his own time, money, and reputation at stake is an illustration of that principle in action. When the money is yours, you think differently about what you sell, how you staff it, and what you are willing to promise. This is not a sentimental point. It has structural implications for how consultancies operate. Craig notes that Jarvis invested almost nothing in marketing; growth came through reputation and word of mouth. That model is only viable when the quality of delivery is consistently high enough to generate referral, which in turn requires a culture that prioritises long-term relationships over short-term revenue extraction. The counterpoint is worth acknowledging. Not every organisation can or should grow organically. External capital enables speed and scale that bootstrapping cannot match. But Craig's argument is not against investment per se; it is against the detachment from consequence that can accompany it. When the money is someone else's, the temptation to overpromise and under-invest in delivery quality is structurally greater. ## Building Teams, Not Just Employing Them A distinction Craig draws—between building a team and merely employing one—deserves more attention than it typically receives. The conventional narrative of organisational growth is transactional: secure budget, hire talent, assign work. Craig's account suggests something more deliberate. He describes looking for people who wanted to lead—not necessarily the strongest individual contributors, but those who wanted to empower the people around them. He describes giving those people the opportunity to lead before they had the formal credentials to do so, and watching the effect compound across successive cohorts. This is the "silent legacy" he values: not trophies or public recognition, but the observation that people he mentored are now leading teams using the same behaviours. It is an intergenerational view of leadership that sits uncomfortably with the quarterly cadence of most organisational performance management. [Laurence J. Peter's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5Fprinciple?ref=robert.winter.ink) famous principle—that individuals in a hierarchy tend to rise to their level of incompetence—is the dark mirror of this discussion. Craig and I discuss the damage done when the only path to advancement is through management, and individuals who excel at technical work are promoted into roles they neither want nor suit. The solution, as Craig sees it, is structural: separate the individual contributor and leadership pathways so that both are valued, and neither is treated as a consolation prize for the other. ## The Leader as Multiplier Craig's self-description as an introvert—"the guy in the corner who doesn't want to talk to anyone"—is worth pausing on, because it runs counter to the extraverted, high-visibility model of leadership that dominates popular culture and, too often, promotion decisions. His conception of the leader's role is essentially multiplicative. One person can only produce a finite amount of work. A leader who enables four or five people to operate at their best produces four or five times that output—not by doing the work, but by removing the obstacles to it. This requires a deliberate willingness to step out of the technical detail, to absorb blame when things go wrong, and to ensure the team receives credit when they go well. The asymmetry is important. Craig is explicit that the leader should be at the front when the news is bad and at the back when it is good. This is not a novel formulation—it echoes [Robert Greenleaf's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FK.%5FGreenleaf?ref=robert.winter.ink) servant leadership, among other traditions—but it is one that Craig grounds in a specific and practical mechanism: if the team knows you will absorb the downside risk, they are more willing to experiment, to innovate, and to fail fast rather than fail slowly and expensively. ## A More Honest Conversation If Craig Baker's experience illuminates anything, it is that the distance between selling a solution and delivering one is not merely logistical. It is epistemological. What you know about a problem changes depending on where you stand in relation to it. Leaders who remain at altitude—relying on dashboards, status reports, and the confidence of their own presentations—are not lying, but they are working with a systematically incomplete picture. Closing that distance is uncomfortable. It reveals friction that abstractions conceal. But it also restores a form of credibility that no slide deck can manufacture: the credibility of having been close enough to the work to know what it actually demands. If you are responsible for leading delivery, building customer relationships, or growing an organisation where your own reputation is on the line, this is a conversation worth hearing in full. Please follow *On the Subject of Leadership* on your preferred platform and never miss an episode. Good night, and good luck. ### Hiring a $200 Hammer URL: https://robert.winter.ink/hiring-a-200-hammer/ Last updated: 2026-04-13T07:30:33.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/04/Hiring-a--200-Hammer_thumb.jpeg) Hiring a 200 Hammer 0:00 /578.232 1× It is early evening and dinner should have been on the table an hour ago, yet here you are grinding through another report because you feel behind. You are not behind. It simply feels that way, because organisations are designed to make it feel that way with relentless pressure worn as a badge of seriousness. Your line manager will not praise the overtime, partly because they don't know about it, and partly because acknowledging it would raise a question nobody wants asked: if you can't finish in the hours allotted, whose fault is that? This is life inside organisations that have confused the acquisition of talent with the cultivation of capability and capacity. They hire—often brilliantly—and manage badly. They spend lavishly—usually on contractors and senior managers—and almost nothing on the conditions leadership actually requires to flourish. They purchase, in short, a $200 hammer—and hand it to someone who has never built anything more demanding than a flat-pack bookshelf. A $200 hammer is a superb instrument. Balanced, durable, forged to tolerances its cheaper cousin cannot match. A professional carpenter will tell you the difference is real. But the operative word is *professional*. The hammer does not build the house. The artisan does. And if the artisan is absent—if the organisation wielding this fine instrument lacks the skill, the discipline, the coordinated practice that good building demands—then the $200 hammer will produce the same crooked wall as the bargain-bin model. It will simply last longer as evidence of the failure. ## The Executive as Silver Bullet The belief that exceptional individuals can rescue mediocre systems is one of management thinking's more durable superstitions. It draws force from something genuinely true: individual quality matters. A surgeon of rare skill saves patients an adequate surgeon would have lost. A general of strategic genius is victorious in battles competent generals would witnessed defeat. But these are people operating within systems built to support exactly what they do—theatres designed for surgery, armies trained to execute orders. Strip the system away and the genius is just a person with opinions and no leverage. Yet boards facing organisational difficulty continue to reach for the exceptional appointment the way a drowning man reaches for flotsam—desperately, and without much scrutiny of its buoyancy. The CEO search becomes a kind of institutional prayer: the right person, the right CV, the right aura of authority, and surely the chronic dysfunction of the last decade will simply dissolve. The price tag reinforces the faith. Executive remuneration at the top of the market is not merely compensation; it is a statement of belief in the transformative power of the individual—part salary, part insurance. The "CEO effect" on firm performance has, by some measures, grown substantially in recent decades, but this owes more to the increasing concentration of decision-making authority than to any improvement in the quality of the individuals appointed. 📖 ****The Research Behind the Claim** Quigley and Hambrick in [**Has the “CEO effect” Increased in Recent Decades?*](https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2258?ref=robert.winter.ink) used variance partitioning across 60 years of data and more than 18,000 firm-years (yes, you read that right) to measure what proportion of firm performance is attributable to individual CEOs—the "CEO effect". They found it increased monotonically across three periods: from roughly 4–9% of variance in the 1950s–60s to 14–26% by 1990–2009, depending on performance measure and methodology. The finding held across return on sales, return on assets, and market-to-book ratio, and across both sequential ANOVA and multilevel modelling. ****But the cause is structural, not personal.** Over the same period, the influence of industry membership and firm-level factors declined sharply, while decision-making authority was increasingly concentrated in the CEO role. In short, CEOs mattered more because they were **given* more power—not because better ones were being appointed. The ancients knew better. Virtues are not merely possessed but exercised, and their exercise requires conditions appropriate to the activity. Courage without a battlefield is untested. Practical wisdom without institutional authority is frustrated. Leadership without followership is just a person going on a walk. You cannot hire the person, neglect the context, and expect excellence to materialise. This is not an obscure philosophical point. It is something any decent project manager could tell you over a Tuesday morning standup—and it is precisely what the upper echelons tradition has demonstrated empirically for four decades: executive cognition, values, and capabilities are filtered through organisational structure, and the structure determines what actually creates impact and achieves outcomes. The research tells the same story with less elegance but more data. Leaders with strong track records routinely underperform in new environments, a finding so robust that a study titled [*Can They Take It With Them? The Portability of Star Knowledge Workers’ Performance*](doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0809) found that even star equity analysts—whose performance is individually measurable to a degree most executives would find uncomfortable—suffered significant and lasting performance declines when they moved firms. The portability of excellence, it turns out, is far lower than the market for executive talent assumes. The $200 hammer, in unskilled hands, produces results indistinguishable from the $20 model—at ten times the cost. Most alarmingly is that the real price paid—time—can never be recouped. ## What the Artisan Knows Consider Jeeves. Wodehouse's immortal valet is a supreme instrument—a $200 hammer of the first water. Yet his genius does not operate in a vacuum. It requires a particular domestic economy: Bertie provides the problems, the resources, the latitude, and—crucially—the loyalty. Remove any element and the apparatus ceases to function. Jeeves without Bertie is simply a very well-read man with nowhere particular to go. What distinguishes artisan organisations from those that merely collect talented people is not the quality of individual appointments but the quality of the *relationships between* them—the clarity of purpose, the soundness of structure, the cultural norms that permit honest communication and disciplined execution. These are not the soft considerations they are routinely dismissed as—they are the load-bearing walls of the building. Teams that exhibit psychological safety—the shared belief that interpersonal risk-taking will not be punished—consistently outperform teams composed of individually superior members operating in lower-trust environments. The team, not the talent, is the primary unit of delivery. Functioning institutions embody generations of practical learning about how human beings cooperate under pressure. That knowledge is not stored in a handbook or a strategy deck. It lives in habits, reflexes, unwritten rules about what gets said in meetings and what gets said afterwards in the corridor—usually the more important of the two conversations. A leader hired to transform a culture faces not a blank canvas but a palimpsest—layers of prior decisions, prior failures, prior adaptations, some entirely invisible until the moment they reassert themselves with considerable force. Anyone who has tried to change the seating plan at a family Christmas will have some appreciation of the dynamics involved, if not the scale. Organisations do not resist change because they are stupid. They resist change because their existing arrangements, however dysfunctional they appear from outside, represent a locally stable equilibrium—one that absorbed the last three transformation programmes and will cheerfully absorb the fourth. The organisation that cannot use its talent well typically displays a recognisable psychological picture. Accountability is distributed so diffusely that nobody is clearly responsible for outcomes. Information flows upward in a filtered, optimistic form, so that senior leaders make decisions on data rendered politically safe rather than operationally accurate. Middle management—the layer through which strategy must pass to reach execution—is overwhelmed, under-resourced, or quietly committed to the status quo. And performance pressure is applied as a general atmospheric condition rather than a targeted discipline. Everyone feels behind. Nobody is quite sure why. The $200 hammer sits in the tool belt, gleaming and largely idle. ## Building the House If the limiting factor is not the quality of the appointment but the quality of the organisational context, then the solution is not a better hire. It is the harder, slower, far less glamorous work of building an organisation capable of using good people well. In practice, this means clarifying accountabilities with enough precision that performance can be assessed rather than merely pressured. It means investing in middle management with the same seriousness brought to the executive layer—because middle managers are the artisans who do most of the actual building, and treating them as an overhead to be minimised is roughly as sensible as economising on foundations. It means creating information systems that reward accuracy over optimism, and cultural norms that permit the bearer of bad news to remain in employment. Even the most celebrated team in fantasy literature—[nine walkers, one terrible objective, the fate of a world in the balance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FFellowship%5Fof%5Fthe%5FRing?ref=robert.winter.ink)—required structure to function. They needed a place to be equipped, a purpose to share, and a reason to keep walking when the burden became unbearable. Without these, the ring-bearer is simply a small person carrying something heavy with no particular direction. Most newly appointed CEOs, arriving into organisations that expect transformation but have built nothing to support it, know exactly how that feels. The $200 hammer is not the problem. It is not even an extravagance, provided the organisation knows what it is doing. The problem is the magical thinking that confuses the tool with the craft—the belief that expensive acquisition substitutes for the patient development of the capacity to build. Organisations that skip this work will find their finest tools produce only finer-quality mediocrity. The question worth putting to any board contemplating a senior appointment is not whether the candidate is exceptional. It is whether the organisation deserves them. Good night, and good luck. --- [*An Iron Forge*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An%5FIron%5FForge?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1772) by [Joseph Wright of Derby](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph%5FWright%5Fof%5FDerby?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1734–1797) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ## Free to read. Worth your subscription. If you've read this far, there is more within. Subscribe to The Commons for access to members-only content. Subscribe Email sent! Check your inbox to complete your signup. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. ### The Board: Polarities and the Role of the Director URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-board-polarities-and-the-role-of-the-director/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T11:23:56.000Z A familiar scene: the board is deep into a quarterly meeting when a director leans forward and says, "I'm not comfortable approving this investment until we've reviewed the underlying implementation plan in detail." Another director, equally experienced, pushes back: "If we're getting into the weeds, we're not governing. We're managing." The chair tries to land the moment with the old line: "*noses in, fingers out.*" That phrase gets repeated in boardrooms because it points at a persistent tension. But it doesn't tell you how to manage it. When is "noses in" wise oversight, and when is it theatre? When is "fingers out" healthy restraint, and when is it abdication of responsibility? In this sixth and final piece I explore how polarity mapping earns its place at the board level. Not by turning governance into a workshop, but by giving directors a disciplined way to do what boards are *structurally designed* to do: hold interdependent opposites in productive tension over time. To reiterate the central thesis of this series: some tensions are not problems to solve (choose A or B), but polarities to manage (get the upsides of both, avoid the downsides of either). These are *insoluble problems* that require ongoing management rather than one-off decisions. ## Why Boards Are Polarity Machines (whether They Realise it or Not) If you strip corporate governance back to its intellectual roots, you can see why polarities are central. Agency theory starts from a sober premise: the separation of ownership and control creates incentives for managers to pursue their own interests, so governance mechanisms—boards included—exist to monitor and align these self-interests with the best interests of the company. This logic remains deeply influential in law, investor expectations, and governance codes. The G20/OECD Principles, for example, explicitly pair *strategic guidance* with *effective monitoring* as core board responsibilities. > The corporate governance framework should ensure the strategic guidance of the company, the effective monitoring of management by the board, and the board's accountability to the company and the shareholders. > — G20/OECD Principles 2015 But boards are not only monitors. They also connect firms to external resources: legitimacy, networks, information, and influence. A reality which can most succinctly be called board capital. Even the behavioural view of boards points in the same direction with boards often described as "large, elite, and episodic decision-making groups" dealing with complex strategic-issue processing—meaning board effectiveness depends heavily on *how* directors think and interact. This casts the board's job as inherently double-sided—or perhaps it's better to say it is double-edged—and requires directors balance notions of independence and involvement; challenge and support; control and collaboration. Governance, in short, isn't a stable position. It's a form of ongoing navigation. That is precisely the territory of polarity mapping. ## The Board's Master Polarity: Control ↔ Collaboration If you want one polarity that shows up in almost every board dysfunction story, it's this: **Control (monitoring, discipline, accountability)** ↔ **Collaboration (support, advice, empowerment)** Corporate governance has been described as a clash between control and collaborative approaches, and in consequence is better understood as a series of reinforcing cycles that can produce decline if overemphasised but which cannot be ignored as they are needed for long-term vitality. This framing is particularly useful for directors because it also bridges agency and stewardship logics rather than treating them as mutually exclusive. If we take this tension further by modelling the board's dual role as advisor and monitor we see an uncomfortable core insight: when boards monitor more intensively, CEOs may be less willing to share information—reducing the board's ability to provide good advice. In other words, "more oversight" can paradoxically produce *less* oversight, because it starves the board of candour. Here's what the *board-level* polarity map looks like when made explicit. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Scribbler: When the Pendulum Becomes the Operating Model URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-scribbler-when-the-pendulum-becomes-the-operating-model/ Last updated: 2026-04-01T06:30:42.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/03/The-Scribbler---When-the-Pendulum-Becomes-the-Operating-Model_thumb.jpeg) The Scribbler When the Pendulum Becomes the Operating Model 0:00 /631.488 1× Good evening, and welcome to this edition of *The Scribbler*—a newsletter that circles one organisational problem until it shows itself. This month's thread is simple: too many institutions are mistaking enduring tensions for one-off problems, alignment for coherence, and process for judgement. But first, a bit of trivia... **Trivia question:** In 1991, which organisational theorist framed learning as a tension between exploration and exploitation? *Answer at the bottom of this scribbling*. ### This Edition's Scribbling Across my writing in March—on polarity mapping, purpose, governance and autonomy, standardisation and innovation, Martin Kearns on Agile's unintended consequences, and the higher-order question of control and empowerment—the same theme keeps returning. Mature leadership is less about choosing a tribe and more about discerning what sort of tension you are actually in, then governing it without panic, theatre, or self-deception. [Balancing Governance and Autonomy: The Polarity That Breaks Transformations (and How to Manage It)The recurring fight between governance and autonomy is rarely a problem to solve. It is a polarity to manage. Left unexamined, organisations swing between freedom and control. The task is to design rhythms, guardrails, and signals that keep both working together.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-39.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/GUGG_Composition_in_Gray_-Rag-time-.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/balancing-governance-and-autonomy-the-polarity-that-breaks-transformations-and-how-to-manage-it/) Here in Australia, that question lands with unusual force. The Reserve Bank lifted the cash rate to 4.10 per cent on 17 March and explicitly pointed to greater capacity pressures, sharply higher fuel prices flowing from the Middle East conflict, and upside risks to inflation. Budget season is also approaching, with the Federal Budget presented in May. At the same time, Australia's National AI Plan is now moving from announcement to implementation, promising competitiveness, productivity and resilience while also insisting on safety, regulation and public confidence; the new Australian AI Safety Institute has been set up to help assess risks and support compliance. Globally, the OECD says the evolving conflict in the Middle East is testing the resilience of the world economy, lifting energy costs and volatility even as AI-related investment continues to support activity. That is an awkward setting for leadership: one that invites overreaction, centralisation, and the desperate hope that better tools might save us from muddled thinking. Which brings me to the most useful distinction in the March essays. Not every tension is there to be solved. Some things are problems. Some are trade-offs. Some are polarities. That sounds almost insultingly basic until one remembers how much executive time is spent pretending that planning versus adaptation, governance versus autonomy, or standardisation versus innovation can be "fixed" once and for all, preferably in a workshop with butcher's paper and coloured markers. They cannot. Or at least not in any enduring way. These are paired goods. Over-correct toward one and you eventually buy its downside at full price. Swing back in the opposite direction and you repeat the mistake in reverse. What looks like decisiveness is often just oscillation with better branding. [Stop Trying to Solve Every Tension: Some Are Polarities to ManageSome tensions are problems to solve. Others are polarities to manage. Polarity mapping is a disciplined way to navigate interdependent opposites without collapsing into false choices, compromise, or managerial relativism.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-36.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/Tableau_I-_by_Piet_Mondriaan.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/stop-trying-to-solve-every-tension-some-are-polarities-to-manage/) That diagnosis matters now because we are living through a season that flatters the urge to lurch. Higher rates, volatile energy markets, geopolitical uncertainty, and relentless pressure to "do something" all reward visible control. Under those conditions, every organisation is tempted to confuse legibility with order. If a metric can be shown upwards, it is treated as evidence of mastery. If a framework produces cadence, it is mistaken for coherence. But March's writing argues for something older and more adult: not vague balance, but disciplined oscillation. Not compromise for its own sake, but a managed cadence that secures the upside of both poles while watching carefully for the early signs of drift. In other words, the task is not to eliminate tension, but to stop being surprised by it. [How to Build a Polarity MapPolarity mapping turns vague “both/and” thinking into a disciplined method. When leaders can map the upsides and downsides of competing poles, identify early warning signs, and design actions that sustain the benefits of each without tipping into failure, they build stronger organisations.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-37.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/Paul_Klee-_Insula_dulcamara.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/how-to-build-a-polarity-map/) That is why the conversation with Abdullah Ramay sits so well inside this month's broader arc. On the surface, a piece about Pablo & Rusty's Coffee Roasters and a cluster of essays on polarity management may seem to be travelling on different tracks. They are not. Abdullah's central point is that purpose only becomes real when it constrains decisions. Profit and purpose are not enemies; they are direction and fuel. That is not a sentimental claim. It is a governance claim. It means authenticity is coherence over time, especially when applause and alignment part ways. It means the real boardroom question is not whether purpose appears in the brand book, but whether it still bites when trade-offs become inconvenient. In a climate saturated with ESG signalling, AI promises, and corporate declarations of virtue, that is a bracing standard. Many organisations still speak as though purpose were mainly about external narrative. Abdullah reminds us that its real test is internal discipline. [Abdullah Ramay: Purpose, Profit, and the Discipline of CoherenceThere is no shortage of companies claiming to be purpose-led. What is rarer is a business where purpose actually constrains decisions. Abdullah Ramay, CEO of Pablo & Rusty’s Coffee Roasters, operates in a sector where ideals collide with reality daily. Coffee is agriculture. Agriculture touches ecosystems, supply chains, packaging, flavour, and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-33.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/002-Abdullah-Ramay.png)](https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/abdullah-ramay-purpose-profit-and-the-discipline-of-coherence/) The point becomes sharper when placed beside the March articles on governance and autonomy, and on standardisation and innovation. Both pieces resist the lazy romance of decentralisation just as firmly as they resist the managerial fantasy that enough control can abolish uncertainty. That, to my mind, is where the month became genuinely useful. These essays do not flatter either tribe. They say, in effect, that governance becomes toxic when it forgets the difference between authority and coercion; but they also say empowerment becomes dangerous when it is offered as mood music rather than capability, clarity, and bounded discretion. Likewise, standardisation is not the enemy of innovation. Done properly, it is the architecture that allows innovation to scale rather than remain trapped as local improvisation. Done badly, it curdles into bureaucracy and learned helplessness. The real question is not whether you standardise. It is what you standardise, where, and for whom. [Standardisation and Innovation: the Polarity that Decides whether You Can ScaleStandardisation and innovation are not competing choices but a polarity. In article four of this series I show how over-rotating to either creates failure, and how leaders can design systems, signals, and guardrails that allow both to coexist and scale.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-34.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/Paul_Klee-_1922-_Red_Balloon-_oil_on_chalk-primed_gauze-_mounted_on_board-_31.7_x_31.1_cm-_Solomon_R._Guggenheim_Museum.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/standardisation-and-innovation-the-polarity-that-decides-whether-you-can-scale/) That line of thought reaches its clearest contemporary expression in the Martin Kearns conversation. Agile, in Kearns's telling, has not so much failed as it has been ritualised. Its principles have been preserved in the way church ruins preserve liturgy: visibly, ceremonially, and often without living conviction. Stand-ups become reporting forums. Sprint commitments become performance contracts. Velocity becomes comparative theatre. A philosophy that began by redistributing authority to those closest to the work ends up generating more observability for those furthest from it. That is not merely an Agile problem. It is a parable of modern management. We adopt the language of autonomy much faster than we adopt the conditions required to sustain it. Kearns's other point is even more timely: technology does not resolve organisational confusion; it amplifies it. That feels like the right sentence for 2026\. Australia now has a National AI Plan that tries to hold opportunity and safety together, and that alone is revealing. The polarity is already built into the policy. The question for leaders is whether they will treat AI as a multiplier of judgement or as a substitute for it. [Martin Kearns: From Empowerment to Ritual—Agile’s Unintended ConsequencesAgile promised autonomy. In practice, many organisations have delivered ritual instead. Martin Kearns examines how empowerment became performative, why control persists, and what leaders must confront to restore judgement without sacrificing coherence.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-35.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/003-Martin-Kearns.png)](https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/martin-kearns-from-empowerment-to-ritual-agiles-unintended-consequences/) This is why the thread running through March finally comes down to language and authority. The deeper argument in these essays is not really about management technique. It is that control, at its best, must be reasoned rather than merely imposed; and empowerment, at its best, must be scaffolded rather than merely declared. When leadership loses the ability to distinguish authority from coercion, or explanation from instruction, organisations compensate with more process. They grow louder, not clearer. They substitute templates for thought. They perform consultation while narrowing real discretion. In that sense, the concern with reasoned authority and better language is not decorative. It is operational. Leaders will need it more, not less, as the external environment becomes more jumpy. [Central Control and Team Empowerment: The Polarity Leaders Keep MisdiagnosingControl and empowerment are often performed rather than designed. In this piece I examine how organisations drift into theatre—adding process or slogans instead of clarity—and argue for bounded empowerment: clear guardrails, explicit decision rights, and real autonomy within limits.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-38.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/giorgio_de_chirico-the_disquieting_muses-1918-obelisk-art-history.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/central-control-and-team-empowerment-the-polarity-leaders-keep-misdiagnosing/) So what should readers look out for in April? Not a grand pivot. Something smaller, and more revealing. Watch whether organisations respond to volatility by clarifying judgement or by multiplying ritual. Watch whether Australian firms under rate pressure and budget scrutiny start making harder strategic choices, or merely intensify reporting. Watch whether AI projects are governed as capability-building exercises with explicit boundaries, or launched as symbolic proof of modernity. Watch whether purpose survives first contact with convenience. Watch whether empowerment is matched by competence, decision rights, and support, or whether it is used as a flattering way to distribute risk downward. And finally—watch boards closely: as conditions tighten, many will be tempted either into passivity dressed up as trust or intrusion dressed up as oversight. Neither is stewardship. The RBA's March decision, the looming Budget, and the OECD's warning about energy-price and inflation risks all suggest April will reward tighter thinking, not noisier management. If March offered a scaffold for April, it is this. 1. Diagnose the tension before moralising it. Ask whether you are facing a problem to solve, a trade-off to choose, or a polarity to manage. 2. Name the non-negotiables. Boundaries reduce fear when they are explicit. 3. Define decision rights with adult precision. 4. Standardise the interfaces, not everything inside the box. 5. Insist that technology serve clarity rather than conceal confusion. 6. Recover the older discipline that management keeps trying to outgrow: reasoned authority. Give reasons. Expose assumptions. Let disagreement do some useful work. Resist the temptation to make process carry weight that only judgement can bear. That, at bottom, is what this month's work has been circling. Not harmony. Not perfect balance. Not another framework to add to the pile. Just the more difficult proposition that organisations become sturdier when leaders stop pretending every tension can be solved by willpower, workflow, or software, and start learning how to carry contradictory goods without degenerating into panic, theatre, or drift. April, I suspect, will reward exactly that kind of maturity. Good night, and good luck. ## Worth Your Time ## Art and About ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2026/03/Paul_Klee-_1922-_Red_Balloon-_oil_on_chalk-primed_gauze-_mounted_on_board-_31.7_x_31.1_cm-_Solomon_R._Guggenheim_Museum-1.jpg) Artist: [Paul Klee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul%5FKlee?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1879–1940). Title: *Red Balloon*, 1922, Description: In *Red Balloon*, Klee paints the entire standardisation-versus-innovation argument in a few stubborn shapes. The city is geometric, disciplined, almost administrative; then comes the balloon, round, bright, unnecessary, and therefore indispensable. It is the sort of thing a transformation office would call an exception and a leader with imagination would call the reason to continue. This painting fits a month concerned with polarities rather than panics. The essays argue that mature organisations do not choose once and for all between order and experimentation; they build a cadence that protects both. Klee's balloon does not abolish the grid. It humanises it. The lesson? The job is not to kill the balloon for breaking standards, nor to float the whole city into improvisation. It is to design a place where colour can rise without the scaffolding collapsing. Medium: oil on muslin primed with chalk. Dimensions: 31.8 × 31.1 cm. *Red Balloon* by Paul Klee is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). --- ## Trivia Answer **Trivia question:** In 1991, which organisational theorist framed learning as a tension between exploration and exploitation? **Answer:** [James G. March](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%5FG.%5FMarch?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1928–2018). --- **The Death of Socrates** (1787) (*La Mort de Socrate*) by [Jacques-Louis David](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-Louis%5FDavid?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1748–1825) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Central Control and Team Empowerment: The Polarity Leaders Keep Misdiagnosing URL: https://robert.winter.ink/central-control-and-team-empowerment-the-polarity-leaders-keep-misdiagnosing/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T11:22:37.000Z A familiar scene plays out in organisations that are trying to modernise how they work—whether they call it Agile, product operating model, "platform thinking," or just "becoming faster." A customer-impacting incident is mentioned to the CEO when they ventured into the break room looking for a snack. Next thing a regulator is asking pointed questions. A critical delivery milestone is missed—the board issues a please explain which echoes down the org chart. And suddenly a transformation that had been preaching empowerment starts sounding like an all too common sermon when senior managers are embarrassed: "*we need more control*". Decision rights move upward. Committees proliferate. Everything get escalated—the noise to signal ratio increases. The organisation's nervous system tightens. Then, as the dust settles, another problem emerges—usually less dramatic, but more corrosive. Teams wait weeks for approvals. Good people start to say, "I'll just do what I'm told"—a death knell of innovation. The organisation becomes safe(er)—at least for senior managers—and the pendulum swings back: "*we need empowerment*". The committees are disbanded. Layers are removed. Teams are told to "act like owners." The nervous system loosens. If you've worked in organisations long enough, you've already seen this movie and its several remakes. Time to rewrite the script. ## Mapping Control and Empowerment Not every disagreement deserves the dignity of a polarity. Some are strategic trade-offs and require choice rather than synthesis. Others are category errors: two unlike things are thrown into the same quarrel and then treated as if they were rivals. But **control ↔ empowerment** belongs to a different class. It is one of the recurring structural tensions of organising, and it persists because both poles are necessary over time. A brief map makes the point. **Pole A: Central control** - **Upsides (when held well):** coherence of direction, risk containment, enterprise-wide efficiency, architectural integrity, consistent customer experience, clear accountability. - **Downsides (when overdone):** bureaucracy, slow decisions, compliance theatre, learned helplessness, talent flight, and the quiet spread of managerialism—where technique replaces judgement and *process* becomes a substitute for authority. **Pole B: Team empowerment** - **Upsides (when held well):** speed, local responsiveness, ownership, innovation at the edge, engagement, learning, and better use of frontline information. - **Downsides (when overdone):** fragmentation, duplication, inconsistent standards, uncontrolled risk, everyone does their own thing, burnout from unprioritised demand, and what looks like autonomy but is really abandonment. That is the polarity logic. Over-control buys order at the price of responsiveness. Over-empowerment buys initiative at the price of coherence. Each pole solves the mess created by the other—until it creates a mess of its own. ## Why the Pendulum Always Finds a Reason to Swing The more revealing question is not whether organisations need both control and empowerment. Of course they do. It is why senior teams keep behaving as though they must choose between them afresh every year. Part of the answer is brutally practical: the two poles are not judged by the same standard. Control has one enormous political advantage over empowerment. It helps people who have little capability but a lot of positional authority to stay in power. A new approval gate looks like action. A new committee looks like seriousness. A new dashboard looks like grip. When a regulator is asking questions, a major delivery has slipped, or the board wants a "please explain", these things are immediately legible as evidence that management is doing something. By contrast, the opportunities killed by delay, the initiative suffocated by escalation, and the talent quietly leaving because every decision now needs three signatures rarely arrive in the same crisp form. They are slower, more diffuse, and therefore easier to ignore—particularly when voiced by people at the bottom of the org chart. Empowerment has its own advantage. It flatters the organisation's self-image. It sounds modern. It sounds developmental. It allows senior leaders to position themselves as enlightened opponents of bureaucracy. "Trust the teams" is a far more attractive slogan than "we failed to define decision rights properly." That is why empowerment programs are so often launched in tones of moral renewal and implemented with the rigour of a pep talk. So the pendulum swings. After a visible failure, control regains prestige. After a period of stagnation, empowerment does. The organisation tells itself a moral story each time. Control becomes prudence; empowerment becomes courage. The trouble is that both stories are only half true. [Friedrich Hayek's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich%5FHayek?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1899–1992) point about distributed knowledge still bites: people closest to the work usually see reality sooner than those higher up the hierarchy. If you want speed, adaptation, and better use of information, you cannot centralise every meaningful decision. But another point bites too: organisations are not loose collections of teams. They are systems that must coordinate across dependencies, risks, channels, and time. If you want reliability, trust, and scale, you cannot allow every team to operate as a sovereign state. Coordination is not a managerial affectation; it is a condition of collective performance. Once one sees this, a less flattering picture comes into view. Many organisations are not really practising control or empowerment. They are performing them. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Martin Kearns: From Empowerment to Ritual—Agile’s Unintended Consequences URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/martin-kearns-from-empowerment-to-ritual-agiles-unintended-consequences/ Last updated: 2026-04-16T02:07:54.000Z What happens when a movement built on autonomy becomes a system of rituals? In this episode of *On the Subject of Leadership*, I speak with Martin Kearns—one of the earliest Scrum practitioners globally and an advisor to organisations navigating complex change—about the evolution of Agile from philosophy to practice, and where it has quietly lost its way. This is not a technical discussion of frameworks. It is a conversation about leadership: how organisations attempt to balance autonomy with control, why well-intentioned practices harden into procedure, and what is required to restore professional judgement without sacrificing coherence. Martin brings two decades of experience working inside large institutions attempting “Agile transformation.” His perspective is neither evangelical nor dismissive. Instead, it is diagnostic—concerned less with defending or attacking Agile, and more with understanding what actually happens when its ideas meet organisational reality. Leadership has a habit of adopting the language of change faster than it adopts the discipline required to sustain it. The history of management is littered with such moments: Total Quality Management, Business Process Re-engineering, Lean, and now Agile. Each begins as a principled response to a genuine problem. Each is gradually codified, scaled, and—too often—emptied of the very judgement it sought to restore. Agile is no exception. What began as a rejection of rigid, plan-driven development in favour of small teams, rapid feedback, and professional discretion has, in many organisations, settled into something more procedural. The ceremonies remain. The dashboards multiply. The language of empowerment endures. Yet the experience of work often feels more constrained, not less. It is this dissonance that sits at the centre of my recent conversation with [Martin Kearns](https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-kearns-11aa81/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ## From Principle to Procedure Martin Kearns is not an external critic of Agile; he is part of its original architecture. As one of the earliest Scrum practitioners globally and now an enterprise agility advisor and executive coach, he has spent more than two decades working with organisations attempting to redesign how work is coordinated and how decisions are made. That vantage point matters. It allows him to distinguish between Agile as it was conceived and Agile as it is now commonly practised. The early promise of Agile was not, at its core, methodological. It was philosophical. It rested on a simple but demanding proposition: that those closest to the work are best placed to make decisions about it. This implied a redistribution of authority away from central planning functions and towards teams. It required trust, tolerance for variability, and a willingness to accept that not all outcomes could be specified in advance. Those are not trivial concessions for large organisations. As Agile has scaled, many institutions have attempted to retain its surface features—iteration cycles, stand-ups, retrospectives—while quietly reasserting traditional control mechanisms. The result is what might be called procedural agility: a system that looks adaptive but behaves predictably, in the bureaucratic sense. ## When Empowerment Becomes Ritual Kearns' critique is not that Agile has failed, but that it has been absorbed into organisational systems that were never designed to sustain the level of autonomy it presupposes. In this environment, ritual begins to substitute for judgement. The daily stand-up, originally intended as a lightweight coordination mechanism, becomes a reporting forum. Sprint commitments, once a tool for learning, become performance contracts. Velocity metrics, introduced to help teams understand their capacity, become artefacts for managerial comparison. None of these shifts are formally mandated. They emerge gradually, often with the best of intentions. Leaders seek visibility. Teams seek clarity. Over time, however, the cumulative effect is to narrow discretion. [Chris Argyris'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris%5FArgyris?ref=robert.winter.ink) distinction between espoused theory and theory-in-use is instructive here. Organisations may espouse empowerment while operating systems that reward compliance. The language of self-organisation persists, but the conditions required for it are absent. Teams learn, quickly, what is truly expected. The irony is difficult to miss. A movement designed to liberate professional judgement can, in practice, standardise it. ## The Organisational Reality: Control, Risk, and Scale It would be convenient to attribute this outcome to poor leadership or bad faith. The reality is more complex. Large organisations are accountable to multiple stakeholders—boards, regulators, investors—who demand predictability. They must manage risk, allocate capital, and coordinate activities across functions and geographies. The tolerance for variance is necessarily limited. From this perspective, the appeal of frameworks such as Scrum at scale or SAFe becomes clearer. They offer structure. They promise alignment. They provide artefacts—plans, metrics, cadences—that can be presented upwards as evidence of control. In other words, they reconcile Agile with the institutional need for legibility. [James C. Scott's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%5FC.%5FScott?ref=robert.winter.ink) notion of "seeing like a state" is relevant. Systems are redesigned not merely to function, but to be observable and reportable. In the process, local knowledge and discretion can be subordinated to standardised forms. Kearns does not dismiss these pressures. Rather, he questions whether the current equilibrium—ritualised agility layered onto traditional governance—actually satisfies either objective. It neither delivers genuine autonomy nor provides the level of certainty executives seek. Instead, it produces a hybrid that is administratively heavy and operationally brittle. ## Complexity, Debt, and the Limits of Planning A recurring theme in our discussion is the tendency of organisations to underestimate complexity. Technical debt is a familiar concept in software development, but its organisational analogue is less often acknowledged. Decisions deferred, trade-offs obscured, and systems layered over time create a form of structural debt that constrains future action. Agile practices, when applied superficially, can mask rather than resolve this accumulation. Similarly, strategic planning often proceeds as if uncertainty were reducible to better forecasting. In reality, much of the work undertaken by modern organisations is irreducibly complex. It involves interdependencies, feedback loops, and emergent properties that resist linear planning. Here, the tension between autonomy and control becomes particularly acute. Greater autonomy allows teams to respond to local conditions and emergent information. Greater control provides coherence and alignment. The challenge is not to eliminate this tension, but to manage it deliberately. Too often, organisations attempt to resolve it through process—more detailed frameworks, more granular metrics—rather than through judgement. ## Technology as Amplifier, Not Solution The current enthusiasm for artificial intelligence introduces a further layer of complexity. There is a tendency to view new technology as a means of overcoming organisational limitations: better data, better insights, better decisions. Kearns is sceptical of this framing. Technology, he argues, does not resolve organisational confusion; it amplifies it. Systems that lack clarity of purpose, coherent governance, or well-calibrated decision rights will not be redeemed by more powerful tools. Instead, those tools may accelerate existing dysfunction—producing faster feedback loops around poorly framed problems. This is not a rejection of AI, but a caution against technological determinism. The limiting factor in most organisations is not computational capacity, but conceptual clarity. ## The Discipline of Leadership If Agile's trajectory reveals anything, it is that method cannot substitute for mindset. To lead in complex environments is not to impose certainty, but to create the conditions in which better decisions can emerge. This requires a form of disciplined humility: an acceptance of the limits of planning, the partiality of information, and the inevitability of trade-offs. It also requires clarity about where authority resides. One of the more uncomfortable implications of Agile, properly understood, is that leaders must relinquish certain forms of control. Not all decisions can be escalated. Not all outcomes can be specified. This introduces variability, and with it, risk. The temptation is to reintroduce control through process. Yet, as Kearns suggests, this often undermines the very adaptability organisations seek. [Richard Hackman's](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/business/j-richard-hackman-an-expert-in-team-dynamics-dies-at-72.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) work on teams is instructive here. Effective teams require clear direction, enabling structure, and supportive context—but not constant oversight. The distinction between enabling and constraining is subtle, and frequently misunderstood. ## What Is Worth Retaining? It would be a mistake to conclude that Agile should be abandoned. Its core insights remain sound: that work should be organised around outcomes rather than tasks; that learning is iterative; that those closest to the work possess critical knowledge. The question is how those insights can be retained without the accretion of ritual that has accompanied their diffusion. Kearns' answer is not prescriptive. He does not advocate a new framework to replace the old. Instead, he calls for a more discriminating approach: to separate principle from practice, to examine which elements genuinely support better work, and to discard those that have become performative. This is, in essence, a return to first principles. It also places a greater burden on leadership. Without the scaffolding of rigid frameworks, leaders must exercise judgement. They must decide where autonomy is appropriate, where coordination is essential, and how to balance the two in a way that reflects the organisation's context. There is no universal template for this. That is precisely the point. ## A More Difficult Question If Agile once promised liberation, its current discontents invite a more difficult question: not whether Agile works, but whether organisations are willing to accommodate the conditions under which it can work. Autonomy is not simply granted; it is sustained through trust, clarity of purpose, and a tolerance for variation. These are demanding requirements. They run counter to many established practices of management and governance. It may be that the "trough of disillusionment" is less a verdict on Agile than a recognition of these constraints. The ideas were always more radical than their institutional adoption suggested. If you are responsible for leading teams, designing organisations, or overseeing transformation programmes, this is a conversation worth engaging with in full. Please follow *On the Subject of Leadership* on your preferred platform and never miss an episode. Good night, and good luck. ### Standardisation and Innovation: the Polarity that Decides whether You Can Scale URL: https://robert.winter.ink/standardisation-and-innovation-the-polarity-that-decides-whether-you-can-scale/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T11:21:31.000Z If you've ever tried to "scale Agile" (or, frankly, any operating model), you'll recognise the meeting. On one side of the table: leaders who are tired of fragmentation. Ten teams. Ten toolchains. Ten different definitions of "done." A customer calls support and gets a different answer depending on which squad shipped the feature. Audit wants one traceable process. The CFO wants predictable cost. Someone says, "We need standards. We need consistency." On the other side: leaders who are tired of bureaucracy. "Every time we standardise, we slow down. Our best people leave. We stop experimenting. We become a museum." Someone says, "If we impose one way of working, we'll kill innovation." Most organisations treat this as a debate to win. They pick a side, push hard, and—come the annual board report—do a sackcloth and ashes routine when predictable consequences eventuate. This is where polarity mapping earns its keep: *standardisation and innovation aren't enemies; they're interdependent opposites*. The challenge isn't choosing. The challenge is managing the relationship over time. ## Why This Tension Doesn't Go away In the last three articles I have laboured the point that there is a class of organisational tension that behaves differently from normal problems. Some issues really do have solutions: a compliance breach, a broken system, a missing capability. But other issues are structurally "both/and". If you over-focus on one pole (say, standardisation) you eventually trigger its downside—then you swing hard the other way (innovation), triggering *that* downside—and the pendulum becomes your operating model. Polarity framing gives leaders a way to replace oscillation-by-exhaustion with oscillation-by-design. The deeper story here is older than polarity mapping. James March famously described organisational learning as a tension between *exploitation* (refining what you already know) and *exploration* (searching for what you don't yet know). Exploitation generates reliability and returns now; exploration generates adaptability and options later. Overweight either one and you pay. That same logic shows up in the research stream on organisational ambidexterity: the long-run winners tend to build designs that let efficiency and experimentation coexist—sometimes in different units, sometimes in the same teams, sometimes sequentially over time, but always intentionally rather than accidentally. And it's also central to modern paradox theory: some tensions are not dilemmas to resolve but paradoxes to navigate, with "dynamic equilibrium" rather than "final answer" as the realistic aim. So when your scaling conversation turns into *standards vs innovation*, you're not seeing a failure of leadership. You're seeing a normal organisational polarity—and an invitation to manage it like one. ## The Polarity Map: Standardisation ↔ Innovation If you haven't read the first article in this series—[How to Build a Polarity Map](https://robert.winter.ink/how-to-build-a-polarity-map/)—please refer to this first as it shows how to build a polarity map. For those who have the basics, read on! ### Pole A: Standardisation **Upsides (when it's healthy):** Standardisation is the organisation's memory made tangible. It reduces cognitive load ("this is how we do it here"), increases interoperability ("systems talk to each other"), and makes performance more predictable. It also makes learning scalable: once a team finds a better practice, standardisation is how that learning becomes transferable rather than trapped in a local pocket. Research on replication strategies makes a similar point: scaling often depends on creating a "template" that can be reproduced across sites without reinventing the business each time. Standardisation also enables *coordination without constant negotiation*. In modular product and organisational design, you standardise interfaces so teams can move quickly inside their components without needing everyone in the room every time. That's not anti-innovation; it's the architecture that makes innovation *parallelisable*. At the micro-level, routines are not just sources of inertia; they can also be sources of flexibility because people enact routines differently over time. Done well, *the standard* becomes a launchpad for improvement not a cage for innovation. **Downsides (when it's overdone):** When standardisation becomes an identity ("we are a process organisation"), it drifts into bureaucracy—especially when standards multiply, approvals stack up, and conformance matters more than outcomes. Paul Adler and Bryan Borys usefully distinguish *enabling* formalisation (procedures that help people do good work) from *coercive* formalisation (procedures that mainly enforce compliance). The same word—*process*—can either liberate or suffocate depending on how it is designed and experienced. There is also evidence that heavy process management can bias organisations toward incremental improvement and away from more exploratory innovation—especially in stable contexts where efficiency metrics become the dominant currency. In other words, process can become a *success trap*. ### Pole B: Innovation **Upsides (when it's healthy):** Innovation—properly understood—is not just creativity. It is *disciplined variation* in service of learning: experimentation, discovery, and adaptation when the environment shifts or when customer needs are uncertain. Put another way, it is exploration—search, risk-taking, and the pursuit of novel alternatives that keep the organisation from becoming perfectly efficient at the wrong things. Innovation also protects strategic distinctiveness. It's how you avoid commoditisation, how you stay responsive, how you create options. And in a fast-moving competitive context, the ability to generate and test options is not a luxury; it's a survival capability—one reason ambidexterity is so consistently linked to long-term performance in the literature. **Downsides (when it's overdone):** The shadow side of innovation is fragmentation. If every team is "innovating" its own tools, definitions, architectures, and customer journeys, you eventually create an organisation that cannot integrate its own work. Costs rise through duplication. Risks multiply through inconsistency. Talent burns out from constant novelty and re-learning. Economists studying standards point out another risk: standardisation creates value (compatibility, network effects), but it can also create lock-in. When organisations refuse to standardise at all, they face the opposite problem: they never capture the compatibility benefits that make scaling economical. The result is not freedom; it is inefficiency disguised as autonomy. And the modularity literature offers a practical warning: without some standardised interfaces, "loosely coupled" innovation can quickly become uncoordinated change. ## Early Warning Signs: how You Know You're Over-rotating One of the most practical contributions of polarity mapping is that it shifts the conversation from ideology to *signals*. In the abstract, everyone likes both poles. In practice, you need to know when you're drifting into a downside. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Balancing Governance and Autonomy: The Polarity That Breaks Transformations (and How to Manage It) URL: https://robert.winter.ink/balancing-governance-and-autonomy-the-polarity-that-breaks-transformations-and-how-to-manage-it/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T11:20:26.000Z The pattern is familiar. A team ships quickly. Customers love it. The executive narrative writes itself: *"See? Give teams autonomy and magic happens."* Then a near-miss lands—an audit finding, a security incident, a clinical safety concern, a risk exception. The organisational temperature drops. Leaders tighten controls. New approval gates appear. Decision rights narrow. The same executives now tell a different story: *"We moved too fast. We need more governance."* Six months later, delivery slows. Talent starts to leave. Teams stop raising their hands. People begin to "work to rule," because the system punishes initiative. The temperature rises again. Someone says: *"We've become bureaucratic. We need to empower teams."* And so the cycle repeats. When you look closely, what's happening is a polarity being mistaken for a problem. "More governance" and "more autonomy" are not mutually exclusive solutions competing for victory. They are interdependent goods that must be managed over time. Treating them as an either/or choice reliably produces organisational oscillation: bursts of freedom followed by clampdowns of control, neither of which sticks. To avoid too much theory, in this article I take a practical example by looking at how we map and manage the Governance ↔ Autonomy polarity, particularly when constraints are real: regulation, safety, cyber risk, financial controls, or brand reputation. The goal is to provide something that can be generalised to any polarity mapping exercise. ## Why This Polarity is so Combustible Governance and autonomy are not just operating preferences. They touch identity. - Leaders charged with stewardship (risk, audit, compliance, operations) are professionally attuned to downside risk. Their credibility is built on prevention. In high-reliability settings, a single failure can have catastrophic consequences, so vigilance is a feature, not a personality quirk. - Leaders charged with growth (product, engineering, commercial) are professionally attuned to opportunity cost. Their credibility is built on speed, learning, and customer relevance—capabilities associated with decentralised judgement and local responsiveness. The paradox literature is helpful here: persistent tensions intensify because each pole solves the problems created by the other—temporarily—until it creates new problems of its own. That's why "the right answer" keeps changing, depending on what just went wrong. The point of polarity mapping is not to "split the difference." It is to make the cycle visible and then design a better rhythm than crisis-driven swings. ### A Polarity Map for Governance ↔ Autonomy Here is a worked polarity map in prose. In a session, you would put this into a grid but the content is what matters. **Pole A: Governance** **Upsides (when governance is healthy and enabling)** - Compliance with legal, regulatory, and contractual obligations. - Safety and reliability (fewer incidents; stable operations). - Coherence across teams (architecture, standards, interoperability). - Clear escalation paths and accountability. - Institutional memory: the organisation learns and doesn't repeat failures. **Downsides (when governance is overdone or becomes coercive)** - Bureaucracy: decisions require too many approvals and forums. - Slow response to customers and market signals. - Learned helplessness: teams stop exercising judgement. - "Tick-box" compliance that degrades real risk thinking. - Innovation shifts to the shadow system (workarounds, side projects, quiet rule-breaking). A key distinction here comes from the idea of **enabling vs. coercive bureaucracy**. Governance becomes enabling when it helps people do their work better (clarifies, supports, provides tools); it becomes coercive when it is primarily experienced as surveillance and constraint. That distinction often determines whether governance earns commitment or invites resistance. **Pole B: Autonomy** **Upsides (when autonomy is healthy and bounded)** - Faster local decisions and responsiveness. - Better adaptation to customer and operational reality (learning cycles shorten). - Greater ownership, engagement, and retention—especially for skilled professionals. - Innovation and experimentation closer to the work. - Deference to expertise in the moment, which high-reliability research treats as a core resilience capability. **Downsides (when autonomy is overdone or unbounded)** - Fragmentation: incompatible practices, duplicated work, architectural drift. - Uneven risk posture: some teams become "fast and loose" without intending to. - Decision rights become unclear (or endlessly debated). - Burnout: autonomy turns into "you own everything, good luck". - Failure modes become local until they become systemic. Autonomy is not the absence of control; it is **distributed discretion inside agreed constraints**. Psychological research tends to support that nuance: autonomy is strongly tied to motivation and performance when people experience meaningful choice and competence, not when they are simply abandoned. ### Early Warning Signs: how You Know You're Drifting The part most leadership teams skip is the early-warning layer—the indicators that tell you you're slipping into a downside **before** you get your next incident or talent exodus. Here are practical early warnings. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### How to Build a Polarity Map URL: https://robert.winter.ink/how-to-build-a-polarity-map/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T11:19:07.000Z In the [first article](https://robert.winter.ink/stop-trying-to-solve-every-tension-some-are-polarities-to-manage/), I drew a clear line between **problems to solve** and **polarities to manage**. Problems yield to choice: you pick A, reject B, and implement. Polarities refuse that tidy ending. They are pairs of interdependencies—tensions in which **either pole becomes destructive when pursued as a total victory**. This second piece is the practical companion: how you actually *build* a polarity map, how you avoid the two most common failure modes (moralising the poles and hiding behind them), and how to turn a neat-looking diagram into something that changes behaviour—especially in context of the perennial agile tension between **Planning ↔ Adaptation**. The goal is not to make you more tolerant of [ambiguity](Response - Sitting with Ambiguity). It is to help you make **better decisions under ambiguity**, with enough structure to prevent the debate collapsing into an ideological tug of war. ## The Polarity Map is not a Compromise Barry Johnson's foundational thought was to treat certain organisational tensions not as puzzles to be solved, but as systems to be **managed over time**—akin to breathing in and breathing out: you don't pick one and banish the other; you stay alive by cycling well. That's why his method insists on two things: (1) naming the upsides you're trying to get from each pole, and (2) naming the downsides you will trigger when you over-invest in one side. This fits neatly with what organisational scholars later formalised as a **paradox lens**: persistent, interrelated tensions that intensify over time and require ongoing responses rather than final resolutions. When either/or responses are sought they tend to become reinforcing cycles—something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. This contrasts with what sustainable performance requires, a kind of dynamic equilibrium—an ability to keep both demands in play rather than suppressing one. If you've ever watched an executive team argue about agile, you've seen this dynamic. Someone says, "We need more planning," and someone else hears "waterfall". Someone says, "We need more autonomy", and someone else hears "chaos". The polarity map is a way of stopping those translation errors long enough to ask a better question: > What would it look like to get the best of both, while detecting—early—when we're sliding into the worst of either? That word *early* matters. A polarity map, properly used, is less like a philosophy and more like a **leading-indicator dashboard**: it is designed to reveal drift before drift becomes damage. ### Step 1: Name the Polarity in *Positive* Language The first error people make is to name the poles as virtues versus vices (e.g., "discipline vs recklessness" or "policies vs innovation"), which rigs the exercise from the start. If one pole is already framed as a negative pathology, you don't have a polarity; you have a sermon. Instead, name each pole as something a good leader would, at times, want more of. For example: - **Planning ↔ Adaptation** - **Governance ↔ Autonomy** - **Standardisation ↔ Innovation** - **Central coordination ↔ Local empowerment** This is one reason the agile debate gets stuck: the [Agile Manifesto](https://agilemanifesto.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) says it values "responding to change over following a plan"—which is often misunderstood to mean "no plans at all". It's a prioritisation statement, not a prohibition. A good naming test is to ask: *Could I defend each pole, with a straight face, to a sceptical board?* If you can't, rename the pole. This is not about deception, it is that optics matter. And if a board, Leadership Team, or your boss has a hangup about a term, leaning into it only weakens your argument. Fight the battle you can win today, improving corporate literacy standards can wait until tomorrow. ### Step 2: Fill the Quadrants—Starting with the Upsides The classic map is deceptively simple: two poles, four squares. Upsides at the top, downsides at the bottom. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Abdullah Ramay: Purpose, Profit, and the Discipline of Coherence URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/abdullah-ramay-purpose-profit-and-the-discipline-of-coherence/ Last updated: 2026-08-14T12:01:20.000Z *What separates a commitment from a preference?* A preference is what an organisation would like to do. A commitment is what it has arranged to be unable to stop doing. Most corporate purpose statements are preferences written in the grammar of commitment, and the difference stays invisible until margins compress. In 2008 and 2009, a great many Australian sustainability program were revealed within a single reporting cycle to have been preferences all along. Few were repudiated. They were simply not funded, which amounts to the same thing with better manners. This is why the interesting question about a purpose-led business is never whether the purpose is sincere. Sincerity is cheap and, in any case, unobservable. The question is what the purpose is structurally prevented from surviving, and who would have to agree before it could quietly lapse. [Abdullah Ramay](https://www.linkedin.com/in/abdullah-ramay-3879476/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is chief executive of [Pablo & Rusty's Coffee Roasters](https://pabloandrustys.com.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink), the Sydney specialty roaster founded in 2003 by Saxon Wright. The business has been a [certified B Corporation](https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/find-a-b-corp/company/pablo-rustys-pty-ltd/?ref=robert.winter.ink) since 2017, has held [Climate Active](https://www.climateactive.org.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink) carbon neutral certification since 2020, and is a member of [1% for the Planet](https://onepercentfortheplanet.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink)—one per cent of revenue, not profit, which is a materially harder commitment and the only version of it that binds in a bad year. What follows are the ideas from the conversation I have continued to turn over since. ## Purpose is Discovered Backwards, then Argued forwards Abdullah's account of how purpose arrived at Pablo & Rusty's is disarmingly unheroic. The people in the business liked coffee and liked the outdoors; coffee is grown outdoors; habitat loss therefore threatened both the thing they cared about and the thing they sold. Only later was any of this articulated as purpose. "It was organic at first," he said, and the sequence matters more than the modesty of the telling. He then offered five questions for organisations trying to choose a purpose: what problems do you deeply care about, how does it connect to your business model, does it resonate with customers and stakeholders, can you meaningfully contribute, and are you willing to commit to it for ten years. He credited the framing partly to ikigai. A note on that, since it bears on the argument rather than merely on provenance. The four-circle diagram that circulates as ikigai—what you love, what you are good at, what the world needs, what you can be paid for—is not Japanese and was not originally about ikigai. It was drawn by the Spanish author Andrés Zuzunaga in 2011 under the label *propósito*, and relabelled by a British blogger in 2014\. The serious scholarship belongs to [Mieko Kamiya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mieko%5FKamiya?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1914–1979), the psychiatrist who developed her account of ikigai while working with leprosy patients at the Nagashima Aiseien sanatorium, published as *Ikigai ni tsuite* in 1966\. Kamiya distinguished ikigai—the object that makes life worth living—from *ikigai-kan*, the felt sense of it. Her subjects had no vocation, no market and no payment. Whatever she was describing, it was not career optimisation. Which is awkward for the diagram and rather good for Abdullah's actual position. His five questions do not really function as a selection procedure. Read honestly, four of them are tests you apply to something you have already noticed about yourself; only the fifth costs anything. Any board can answer the first four in an afternoon and produce a statement that survives contact with nothing. The ten-year question is the only one with teeth, because it is the only one that asks the organisation to give up an option. ## Authenticity is not a Market Position Abdullah defines authenticity as consistency between internal thought and value on one hand and external speech and action on the other. He then names the paradox precisely: organisations pursue authenticity because authenticity is admired, and the pursuit is self-defeating for exactly that reason. His resolution is that authenticity matters first for the organisation itself, because the organisation knows. [Erving Goffman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving%5FGoffman?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1922–1982) would take the first half of this and decline the second. *The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life*, published as an Edinburgh monograph in 1956 and expanded for the Anchor edition of 1959, argues that conduct is organised into front and back regions, each with its own audience and its own performance. The back region is not where the mask comes off; it is where a different one goes on. On Goffman's account there is no unperformed self to be consistent with, which puts considerable weight on "the person knows". The organisational version travels better than the individual one. An organisation has no interior life, but it does have employees, and employees are the standing audience of the back region. What Abdullah is really claiming is that the gap between the external message and the internal decision is observed continuously by the only people positioned to see both—and that this observation, accumulated, is what culture is. That is a far stronger claim than it first sounds, and it is testable in a way that individual sincerity is not. It also explains why consumer scepticism about sustainability claims is rational rather than cynical. Organisations copy one another's legitimacy signals; a customer who assumes a sustainability claim is imitation is usually right on the base rates. Then there is the packaging decision, which is the most concrete thing in the hour. Pablo & Rusty's considered moving coffee bags to paper, judged the option marginally more sustainable, and refused it because it degraded the product. Abdullah frames this as core value first, purpose built on top, and the hierarchy is stated openly rather than smuggled. But it should be named for what it is. That is a case where purpose lost. It demonstrates that the hierarchy is honest; it does not demonstrate that the purpose binds. The decision that would prove the commitment is the mirror image—a case where the environmental constraint held against a clear commercial interest, and someone in the business was made worse off for it. Certification and revenue tithing suggest such cases exist. The conversation did not surface one, and I did not press hard enough for it. ## What Actually Binds a Board Abdullah's argument for certification is unsentimental. Consumers standing in a supermarket aisle cannot audit a supply chain; the information asymmetry is total and the transaction cost of resolving it is absurd. Certification outsources the verification, and recertification cycles keep the organisation honest over a period longer than any executive's tenure. This is a commitment device rather than a marketing asset, and he is clear that it is the recurrence, not the badge, that does the work. The limitation is worth stating alongside the argument, because it is the one certification cannot resolve. A badge does not eliminate the asymmetry; it relocates it. The consumer who cannot audit a supply chain equally cannot audit the standards body, and is now trusting an institution whose incentives run toward growing the number of certified firms. Recertification protects against drift within a fixed standard. It does nothing about movement in the standard itself, which is a governance question about the certifier rather than the certified, and one that very few boards ask before signing up. That the mechanism is imperfect is not an argument against it—the counterfactual is unverified claims—but it does mean certification substitutes a better-governed trust for an ungoverned one rather than replacing trust with verification. He then made a legal claim worth examining. Before B Corp's requirement that companies amend their constitution to weigh all stakeholders, he suggested, a listed company going above the statutory redundancy minimum might be breaching its duty to maximise shareholder value. [Lynn Stout](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn%5FA.%5FStout?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1957–2018) spent much of her career demonstrating that this is not what corporate law says. *The Shareholder Value Myth* (2012) argues that shareholder primacy is a managerial norm that acquired the costume of a legal obligation, and that the obligation it imitates does not exist. In Australia the position is at least as favourable: section 181 of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) requires directors to act in good faith in the best interests of the corporation. Authority on what that phrase encompasses is genuinely divided, and I would not represent the matter as settled—but no provision requires share-price maximisation, and the Governance Institute's own commentary holds that boards need not lose sleep over the question. The correction is not pedantry, because the error is load-bearing. A director who believes she is legally barred from doing something she is in fact permitted to do will not do it, and the belief will have done the work of the law without any of its scrutiny. Which is the strongest available argument for the constitutional amendment Abdullah favours—not that it changes what directors may do, but that it removes the alibi. A statutory minimum is a floor, not a ceiling. Most organisations treat it as a ceiling and describe the choice as a constraint. ## Seven out of Ten, and the Arithmetic underneath it On delegation, Abdullah was more specific than most executives are willing to be. His organisation teaches decision frameworks before it delegates decisions, distinguishes reversible from irreversible choices, and tells people plainly that it is aiming to get seven or eight decisions in ten right. Waiting for perfect information is itself a decision, and usually a worse one. [Herbert A. Simon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert%5FA.%5FSimon?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1916–2001) named this in *Administrative Behavior* in 1947: the administrator does not maximise, because he cannot; he satisfices, searching until an option clears an acceptable threshold and then stopping. What is unusual here is not the practice—every organisation satisfices—but the publication of the threshold. Announcing an accuracy target changes what an error means. It converts individual failure into expected variance, which is a more robust foundation for psychological safety than any amount of encouragement, because it does not depend on the temperament of the manager on the day. The obvious question is what sits in the denominator. Seven out of ten is a ratio without a population, and an organisation can be right on eighty per cent of its reversible calls while being wrong on the single irreversible one that matters. The one-way and two-way door distinction exists precisely to insist the two classes be scored separately; a blended figure quietly undoes it. I suspect Pablo & Rusty's does treat them separately—Abdullah described exactly that escalation logic—but the headline number obscures it, and headline numbers are what travel. ## The Job Description as a Wasting Asset The most useful thing Abdullah said about work was structural rather than motivational. Roles on the technological frontier now change materially every two or three years, and elsewhere every five to seven. The consequence he draws is unsettling and correct: change is no longer something a role undergoes, it is a component of the role. What you were hired to do is not what you will be doing, and treating the adaptation as discretionary effort—going above and beyond—misdescribes the job. [Edith Penrose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith%5FPenrose?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1914–1996) gave us the distinction this rests on. In *The Theory of the Growth of the Firm* (1959) she insisted that resources are never the inputs to production; the *services* resources render are, and those services are a function of how the resource is used. The same person is a different input in a different configuration. Cross-skilling, in Penrose's terms, is a deliberate attempt to keep the services loose from the resource, so that capability can be redeployed when demand moves rather than left stranded in a function that no longer needs it. Abdullah follows the logic where it goes, which is to reward. If the compensable attribute is no longer the skill but the capacity to acquire and relinquish skills, then remuneration has to price that. Most organisations want the flexibility without repricing it, and the gap between those two positions is where cross-skilling degrades into unpaid role expansion. He said the downstream consequences run to hiring, training and reward. Whether Pablo & Rusty's has actually changed what it pays for, as opposed to what it asks for, is the test of the position, and it is the question I would put to him next. The role half-life figures, incidentally, were offered as impression rather than measurement, and should be treated that way. ## The Leader Tires before the Market Does The observation I have returned to most is the one about repositioning. An organisation spends two or three years on a new position; the market is just beginning to register it; new leadership arrives, or the incumbents simply exhaust themselves on their own message, and the whole thing is abandoned at the moment it starts to work. The failure is not analytical. It is that the people delivering the message heard it several thousand times more often than the audience did, and mistook their own fatigue for market indifference. [Philip Selznick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip%5FSelznick?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1919–2010) built a theory of leadership around precisely this problem. *Leadership in Administration* (1957) distinguishes the organisation as a technical instrument from the institution as something infused with value beyond the task at hand, and locates the leader's distinctive work in maintaining that character over time. Efficiency is delegable; institutional maintenance is not. On Selznick's reading, repetition is not the overhead of the strategy. It is the strategy. Abdullah's remedies are modest and, I think, honest for it: circulate the wins that actually evidence the purpose, use quarterly review to reflect rather than only to measure, encourage people to keep a personal record of what they have achieved because the plateau is invisible from inside it. He was candid that the firm is still working this out, and candid that his own view is that the pace will not slow. If that is right—and I think it is—then the adaptation cannot be to the volume of change but to how it is carried, which is a much less satisfying conclusion than a program. He also declined the work-life separation on the grounds that it is all just life, which is either a genuine insight about how people actually allocate attention or the most durable rhetorical device in modern management. It is probably both, and the difference is only visible in what an organisation does at eight o'clock at night. ## Who Should Listen Directors weighing whether a purpose commitment in their own organisation is binding or ornamental, and who would benefit from a clear account of what a constitutional amendment does and does not achieve. Executives who have been handed decision rights without a decision framework, which is most of them. Anyone currently drafting a purpose statement, who should skip the first four questions and start with the tenth year. Good night, and good luck. ### Stop Trying to Solve Every Tension: Some Are Polarities to Manage URL: https://robert.winter.ink/stop-trying-to-solve-every-tension-some-are-polarities-to-manage/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T11:11:54.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/Stop-Trying-to-Solve-Every-Tension-----Some-Are-Polarities-to-Manage_thumb.jpeg) Stop Trying to Solve Every Tension Some Are Polarities to Manage 0:00 /618.744 1× The meeting began the way these meetings often begin: with conviction. "We need to give teams autonomy," said the Head of Product. "That's the whole point of becoming more Agile." "We can't," replied the Head of Risk. "We're a regulated business. Governance is non‑negotiable." Someone else tries to rescue the spiralling situation: "Maybe we just need clearer guardrails." By the end of the hour you can feel the organisational whiplash forming. Six months from now someone will declare the current model "too bureaucratic" and swing hard toward empowerment. Six months after that, an incident, a failed audit, or a major customer miss will swing everyone back toward tighter control. Both camps will insist the other side "doesn't get it", and each swing will be justified as *the* solution. If you've encountered **category errors** before, you've probably recognised a cousin of that mistake here. Sometimes leaders really are making a category mistake—arguing as if two things belong in the same conceptual bucket when they don't. But there's another, subtler pattern: leaders **correctly** identify a genuine tension—then treat it as if it has a once‑and‑for‑all answer. This is the terrain of **polarity mapping** (also called polarity management): a structured way of working with *interdependent opposites*—pairs that look like a conflict but are, in fact, mutually necessary over time. The core premise is disarmingly simple: - **Problems** can be solved (choose A or B; implement; move on). - **Polarities** can't be solved—only *managed*. If you choose A and eliminate B, you eventually trigger the downsides of A; the system then lurches back toward B. Research on organisational paradox helps explain why these swings are so predictable. Contradictions generate discomfort and defensiveness; leaders simplify into either/or positions, then react when the costs of that position become undeniable. The more mature response is not a vague call for *balance*, but a kind of **dynamic equilibrium**: ongoing, cyclical responses that allow performance now without undermining performance later. Polarity mapping doesn't abolish strategic choices. It helps you stop treating **enduring interdependencies** as if they were one‑time decisions. ## Three Kinds of Tensions Leaders Confuse A practical way to reduce leadership confusion is to separate three different categories that frequently get blended in one heated conversation: ### 1) Problems to Solve Problems have solutions that *hold* once implemented—at least until conditions change. A payroll system that can't handle overtime rules is a problem. Fix it. Ronald Heifetz's distinction between *technical problems* and *adaptive challenges* is useful here: technical problems have known solutions (or can be solved by expertise), while adaptive challenges require shifts in values, habits, and relationships. ### 2) Trade-offs to Decide Trade-offs are strategic choices with real opportunity costs. You cannot pursue every strategic position simultaneously without becoming blurred, incoherent, and easy to imitate. This is Michael Porter's enduring point: strategy requires choices about what *not* to do; otherwise operational improvement becomes a substitute for strategy. ### 3) Polarities to Manage Polarities are pairs of goods (or two necessary orientations) that are interdependent over time. You don't *win* by choosing one. You manage the oscillation so you can consistently access the upsides of both poles while avoiding the predictable downsides of over‑privileging either one. A classic example from the research literature is **exploration versus exploitation**. Exploration produces variation, learning, and new options; exploitation refines and harvests what you already know. Too much exploitation and you stagnate; too much exploration and you never cash in. That is not a debate you can settle permanently. It's a capability you must build. Likewise, the "Competing Values" tradition shows why organisations repeatedly swing between control and flexibility, internal integration and external positioning. Many organisational virtues are paired and cannot be maximised simultaneously without active management. In other words: the tension is often structural, not a leadership personality defect. ## A Quick Diagnostic: Polarity or Problem? When a leadership team is stuck in a recurring A‑vs‑B argument, ask five questions: 1. **Does this keep coming back—even after we've *solved* it?** If the argument resurfaces every year under a new label, it is often a polarity. 2. **Are both poles genuinely valuable in their healthy form?** Autonomy and governance. Stability and change. Standardisation and innovation. If one side is *always* cast as a vice, you may be dealing with ideology rather than analysis. 3. **Do the benefits and costs play out over time, with a delay?** Polarities are time‑structured: upsides are usually immediate; downsides are often delayed. That delayed downside is what triggers overcorrection and swinging. 4. **What happens if we "win" decisively on one side?** If eliminating the other pole reliably creates a future failure mode, you're not looking at a simple problem. You're looking at an interdependence. 5. **Are there hard constraints that weight one pole?** In regulated or high‑reliability environments, governance and safety are not optional. You may still have a polarity, but you manage it within prescribed guardrails. That last question matters because polarity language can be used to blur moral and legal clarity. For example: fraud is not a polarity; a compliance breach is not a polarity. In those cases, leadership is decision, enforcement, and repair—not oscillation. ## The Map that Makes the Cycle Visible Once you diagnose a polarity, the method is straightforward. A polarity map is a quadrant grid: - **Top left:** Upsides of Pole A - **Bottom left:** Downsides of Pole A (when overused) - **Top right:** Upsides of Pole B - **Bottom right:** Downsides of Pole B (when overused) The discipline that makes the map operational is what comes next: leaders identify **early warning signs** that indicate drift into a downside, and **action steps** that keep the organisation in (or return it to) the upsides. This is where polarity mapping becomes more than both/and rhetoric. It turns a philosophical stance into a management practice: observable signals, agreed responses, and a shared language for correction—before the system lurches into the ditch. In an Agile setting, the planning versus adaptation debate is an easy example. Planning has genuine upsides—predictability, stakeholder confidence, resource clarity. But overdone, it becomes bureaucracy and analysis paralysis. Adaptation has genuine upsides—responsiveness, learning, customer alignment. But overdone, it becomes chaos: scope drift, burnout, and architectural erosion. Mature Agile leadership does not abolish planning. It designs a cadence: *what is planned, at what level, with what review rhythm, and with what explicit permission to adapt.* This logic is not limited to Agile. It is a general organisational capability aligned with the ambidexterity literature: sustained performance often comes from building contexts and routines that support both alignment and adaptability, rather than forcing a permanent choice. ## Two Cautions Senior Leaders Should Hear Early ### First: Polarity Mapping is not an Excuse to Avoid Hard Choices. There are moments when leadership is precisely the willingness to choose and to disappoint someone. Strategy requires trade-offs; refusing to choose often produces drift disguised as sophistication. This is also where managerial cultures can get into trouble: frameworks start replacing judgement, and process becomes a substitute for reasoned authority. My esteemed PhD supervisor, Professor Robert Spillane's critique of managerialism is relevant here: managerialism tends to inflate technique and control while eroding the authority that comes from argument, expertise, and reasoned elaboration. ### Second: *balance* is Rarely 50/50. In high‑reliability contexts (healthcare, aviation, critical infrastructure), certain constraints are non‑negotiable. You can still manage polarities—autonomy within safety standards; innovation within architecture guardrails—but the oscillation must occur within boundaries. A practical warning sign: if your polarity conversation never names constraints, it's not maturity—it's denial. ## Where the Rest of This Series is Going This first article is about diagnosis: learning to spot when your organisation is caught in a polarity cycle rather than a solvable problem or a strategic trade‑off. In the next pieces I'll get more concrete: - how to build a polarity map quickly with an executive team (without turning it into therapy). - how to design the *oscillation* as an operating rhythm (metrics, reviews, decision rights) so you don't rely on swings, crises, or charismatic intervention. - how to avoid the two classic failure modes: using polarity mapping to dodge decisions, and treating polarities as if *splitting the difference* is leadership. The aim is not harmony. It is organisational adulthood: fewer adolescent debates about which virtue should win, and more disciplined governance about how to institutionalise both—deliberately, visibly, and over time. Good night, and good luck. --- *Tableau I, 192* by [Piet Mondrian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet%5FMondrian?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1872–1944) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Scribbler: When Language Gets Cheap, Thinking Gets Expensive URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-scribbler-when-language-gets-cheap-thinking-gets-expensive/ Last updated: 2026-03-01T06:30:41.000Z A quiet change has taken place in executive life, and it is not "AI" as such. It is the arrival of *smoothness* as a default condition. Language is now cheap. Drafts appear instantly. Summaries arrive with confidence. A board pack can be made to look like a chain of reasons even when it is only a chain of sentences. That is the seduction at the centre of the chat trap: the sense of progress without the experience of thinking. At the same time, work has become noisier. Collaboration tools never close. Meetings breed like rabbits in favourable conditions. In response, leaders reach for the oldest managerial incantation—*work harder*—as though effort were a single substance you could pour into the organisation until performance rises. But "hard work" is not one thing. It is at least five, and most failures come from demanding the wrong one at the wrong time. These may feel like separate problems—AI on the one hand, busyness on the other. They are not. They are two expressions of the same organisational drift: **the substitution of fluency for authority**. Authority, properly understood, is not a title on an org chart. It is the ability to carry a decision by *reasoned elaboration*—to connect claims to evidence, to expose assumptions, to make trade-offs explicit, and to invite argument without collapsing into politics or coercion. When that capacity declines, power expands to fill the gap: more process, more signalling, more management theatre. That is managerialism in its most practical form: not villainy, but the steady replacement of judgement with control. Cheap language accelerates this. When anyone can generate a confident memo in minutes, the organisation becomes flooded with plausible prose. The problem is not that the prose is wrong in some obvious way—if anything the spelling and grammar of memos have seen a decided uptick in quality. The deeper problem is that much of this plausibility is *unearned*. It arrives without the cognitive labour that usually hardens an argument: defining terms, acknowledging uncertainty, choosing between incompatible goods, and writing the uncomfortable paragraph that says what you will stop doing. In other words, the memo may be operationally effective (fast, tidy, presentable) while being strategically empty. Porter's old warning still bites: operational effectiveness is not strategy, because it does not force trade-offs. So what does one do, in practice, when the environment rewards smoothness and the organisation punishes friction? You do something unfashionable: you **design friction back into the system**, deliberately and selectively, in the places where it protects judgement. Not everywhere. Not as bureaucratic ritual. But at the exact points where errors are expensive: framing, choice, and commitment. Three disciplines emerged across my pieces in February, and together they form a workable stance for leaders who want authority without theatre. ### First: Build Audit Trails of Judgement, not just Artefacts of Communication The most useful artefact in knowledge work is not the deck; it is the decision record. One page. The decision required, credible options, the assumptions beneath each, what evidence would change your mind, and a short pre-mortem on how the preferred path could fail. The key is not the format; it is the insistence on a visible chain of reasons. This is where AI can be genuinely useful—*if* you treat it as an adversary rather than a ghostwriter. Used well, it increases friction: it forces you to define terms, name assumptions, generate counterarguments, and specify falsifiable tests. Used lazily, it removes friction and therefore removes the only thing that keeps judgement fit for use. > A practical test: if the AI session feels like a warm bath, you are probably offloading the wrong cognitive work. ### Second: Stop Moralising Effort; Govern a Portfolio of Hard Work When performance dips, leaders often default to pure effort because it is legible. It looks like leadership. It also reliably produces diminishing returns, burnout, and error—especially when the constraint was never throughput in the first place. The better move is diagnostic. Is the constraint uncertainty? Then you need outthinking: better framing, sharper trade-offs, clearer strategy. Is it throughput? Then pure effort may be appropriate, but only with engineered goals and engineered recovery. Is it positional advantage under change? Then opportunistic work—options, boundary-spanning, relationship capital—matters more than hours logged. And for advantage to become durable, you need consistency and focus: compounding routines and the refusal of distraction. What this offers leaders is a new kind of authority: the authority to say, without bluff, "This week is a thinking week", or "This fortnight is a finishing fortnight", and to align your team's calendars accordingly. The challenge in an environment of momentum is to try and demand all five forms simultaneously—innovate, execute, network, stabilise, and never be distracted—which is another way of asking people to be superhuman. The portfolio view forces sequencing. Sequencing forces trade-offs. Trade-offs are strategy's price of admission. ### Third: Rehabilitate the Language of authority—reasons, not Vibes A great deal of recent leadership talk confuses mood with mechanism. *Culture* is waved at problems like incense. *Authority* is treated as charisma, or tone, or a shared feeling. This is precisely why I started the podcast *On the Subject of Leadership*: to drag discussions about leadership back to the place where incentives clash and someone must decide, with consequences attached. The practical lever here is linguistic. If authority is reasoned elaboration, then *language* is not decoration; it is infrastructure. The test of a meeting is not whether everyone "aligned"; it is whether the group can produce a coherent account of reality and a defensible basis for action. This is also where coaching research becomes unexpectedly relevant. A distinction between noble and base language may sound antiquarian, but it points to something every serious leader recognises: some talk increases autonomy and responsibility; other talk increases dependency and control. When leaders use language to clarify, argue, advise with reasons, and commit, they build capability. When leaders use language to emote, insinuate, posture, and obscure trade-offs, they build politics. Notice how neatly this ties back to AI. LLMs are extraordinary generators of plausible language. They are by default disinterested to whether the language is noble or base in function. If you use them to produce reassurance, you will get reassurance. If you use them to produce arguments and counterarguments, you will get arguments. The ethical and strategic difference lies in what you *demand* of the tool—and what you demand of yourself. Put differently: **the future does not belong to leaders who can generate text. It belongs to leaders who can impose standards on text.** Standards of definition. Standards of evidence. Standards of trade-off. Standards of commitment. So here is the thread that runs through the month: in an era of cheap fluency and expensive attention, leadership advantage comes from **disciplined friction**. - Friction in thinking, so you do not confuse coherence for comprehension. - Friction in decisions, so you can show the chain of reasons and revisit it without ego. - Friction in work design, so effort is matched to the constraint rather than demanded as a moral offering. - Friction in language, so authority is earned through reasons rather than asserted through role or performance. If you want a concrete action for the month ahead, try this: pick one recurring meeting and outlaw smoothness. Require, in writing, before the meeting: (1) the decision required in one sentence, (2) two credible alternatives, (3) the key assumption that makes each alternative work, and (4) what evidence would falsify that assumption. Then allow the meeting to be short. If that feels harsh, good. You have found the friction point where judgement is trained. Good night, and good luck. ## Art and About ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2026/03/3840px-Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_The_Tower_of_Babel_-Vienna-_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited-1.jpg) **The Tower of Babel* by [Pieter Bruegel the Elder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter%5FBruegel%5Fthe%5FElder?ref=robert.winter.ink "Pieter Bruegel the Elder") (c.1525–1530–1569) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Pieter Bruegel the Elder returned to the story of Babel at least three times: an early miniature painted on ivory during his Roman sojourn of 1552–53 (now lost), and two surviving oil paintings on panel, conventionally known as the "Great" Tower (Vienna, 1563) and the smaller version in Rotterdam, probably painted shortly thereafter. Both depict the biblical construction of the tower built by a unified humanity seeking to "make a name" and forestall dispersion, yet Bruegel's interest lies less in the moment of divine punishment than in the human enterprise itself. The Vienna version, with its presumed figure of Nimrod in the foreground, is grander and more encyclopaedic; the Rotterdam painting, though closely related in composition (as X-rays attest), differs in palette, architectural detail, and stage of construction. Together they constitute the most influential visualisations of the theme in early modern Europe. Bruegel's tower is modelled conspicuously on the Roman Colosseum, whose arches and engineering he had studied in Rome and likely revisited through contemporary engravings. For sixteenth-century viewers, the allusion to Rome—at once Eternal City and symbol of decay—sharpened the moral: hubris dressed in stone. The structure appears, at first glance, a stable stack of concentric rings; closer inspection reveals a spiralling ascent built on incomplete foundations, with arches set perpendicular to a sloping ground and already beginning to crumble. Engineers and masons labour with technical plausibility—Bruegel's knowledge of building practice is exact—yet the very accuracy heightens the futility. In an age of confessional fracture and linguistic contest, the confusion of tongues carried obvious contemporary resonance. The painting is thus less a simple illustration of pride punished than a meditation on the instability of human projects that mistake scale for permanence and coordination for wisdom. ## Further Reading Arthur Jr., W, Bennett Jr., W, Stanush, PL, and McNelly, TL (1998) Factors That Influence Skill Decay and Retention: A Quantitative Review and Analysis. *Human Performance*, **11**(1), 57–101\. doi:[10.1207/s15327043hup1101\_3](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1101%5F3?ref=robert.winter.ink). Clark, A, and Chalmers, D (1998) The Extended Mind. *Analysis*, **58**(1), 7–19\. doi:[10.1093/analys/58.1.7](https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7?ref=robert.winter.ink). Fernyhough, C, and Borghi, AM (2023) Inner Speech as Language Process and Cognitive Tool. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, **27**(12), 1180–1193\. doi:[10.1016/j.tics.2023.08.014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.08.014?ref=robert.winter.ink). Granovetter, MS (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties. *American Journal of Sociology*, **78**(6), 1360–1380\. doi:[10.1086/225469](https://doi.org/10.1086/225469?ref=robert.winter.ink). Lally, P, Van Jaarsveld, CHM, Potts, HWW, and Wardle, J (2010) How Are Habits Formed: Modelling Habit Formation in the Real World. *European Journal of Social Psychology*, **40**(6), 998–1009\. doi:[10.1002/ejsp.674](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674?ref=robert.winter.ink). Leroy, S (2009) Why is it so Hard to Do My Work? The Challenge of Attention Residue when Switching between Work Tasks. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, **109**(2), 168–181\. doi:[10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002?ref=robert.winter.ink). Locke, EA, and Latham, GP (2002) Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. *The American Psychologist*, **57**(9), 705–717\. doi:[10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705](https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705?ref=robert.winter.ink). March, JG (1991) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. *Organization Science*, **2**(1), 71–87\. doi:[10.1287/orsc.2.1.71](https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71?ref=robert.winter.ink). Morgeson, FP, Mitchell, TR, and Liu, D (2015) Event System Theory: An Event-Oriented Approach to the Organizational Sciences. *Academy of Management Review*, **40**(4), 515–537\. doi:[10.5465/amr.2012.0099](https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0099?ref=robert.winter.ink). Pencavel, J (2015) The Productivity of Working Hours. *The Economic Journal*, **125**(589), 2052–2076\. doi:[10.1111/ecoj.12166](https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12166?ref=robert.winter.ink). Perlow, LA (1999) The Time Famine: Toward a Sociology of Work Time. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, **44**(1), 57–81\. doi:[10.2307/2667031](https://doi.org/10.2307/2667031?ref=robert.winter.ink). Porter, ME (1996) What is strategy? *Harvard Business Review*, **74**(6), 61–78. Risko, EF, and Gilbert, SJ (2016) Cognitive Offloading. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, **20**(9), 676–688\. doi:[10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002?ref=robert.winter.ink). Spillane, R, and Joullié, J-E (2023) The Decline of Authority and the Rise of Managerialism. *Organization*, **30**(5), 961–980\. doi:[10.1177/13505084211061242](https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084211061242?ref=robert.winter.ink). Weick, KE (1984) Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems. *American Psychologist*, **39**(1), 40–49\. doi:[10.1037/0003-066X.39.1.40](https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.1.40?ref=robert.winter.ink). Wood, W, and Neal, DT (2007) A New Look at Habits and the Habit-goal Interface. *Psychological Review*, **114**(4), 843–863\. doi:[10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Five Forms of Hard Work: Consistency, Focus, and the Leader’s Portfolio URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-five-forms-of-hard-work-consistency-focus-and-the-leaders-portfolio/ Last updated: 2026-06-17T23:05:47.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/The-Five-Forms-of-Hard-Work---Consistency--Focus--and-the-Leader---s-Portfolio_thumb.jpeg) The Five Forms of Hard Work Consistency Focus and the Leaders Portfolio 0:00 /746.232 1× In [Part 1](https://robert.winter.ink/the-five-species-of-hard-work-and-why-work-harder-is-usually-bad-advice/) I unpacked why "work harder" is better understood by conceptualising it as a series of distinct processes and looked at outthinking, pure effort, and opportunistic work. Yet even when leaders take this approach performance often remains unstable. The organisation surges, ships, celebrates, then slips back into a BAU malaise. That pattern is usually not a strategy failure; it is a behavioural consequence of a problematic approach to work. The remaining two modes—**Consistency** and **Focus**—are where advantage becomes durable. They are also where performance management is most frequently sabotaged, because both require leaders to say "no": no to novelty addiction, no to meeting inflation, no to permanent partial attention, no to the comforting lie that capability multiplied by effort is enough. ## Consistency: the Compounding Advantage Most Leaders Undervalue Consistency is not glamorous. It is the hard work of repeating good decisions and sensible routines until they become the default. It is also the superpower that can enable otherwise average people with average talents to achieve the most extraordinary things. It is also almost impossible to imitate. By that I mean focus or pure effort can be faked for short periods. For example, interviewing someone online who is throwing your questions into their AI tool of choice and parroting back the responses. However, Put them in a room or give them responsibilities in a project and the delta between what they appear to be able to do and can actually do becomes readily apparent. Psychology and organisational research converge on the same point: **behaviour stabilises through context and repetition**, not through motivation alone. Wendy Wood and David T. Neal's work on the habit–goal interface is particularly useful for leaders because it treats habits as context-linked responses: when the context cues the behaviour reliably, execution stops requiring constant willpower. The leader's job, then, is not to demand motivation; it is to design contexts—rituals, cues, constraints—that make the right behaviours the easy ones. Habit formation research adds a sobering caveat: automaticity takes time, varies by behaviour, and is not a weekend transformation. This matters because organisations routinely launch "new ways of working" with the implied promise that humans are software: install the update and restart. They are not. Achieving consistency in an individual, let alone team, is a slow process which does not fit well into quarterly targets. For leaders, consistency involves at least four moves. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Five Forms of Hard Work and Why “Work Harder” Is Usually Bad Advice URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-five-species-of-hard-work-and-why-work-harder-is-usually-bad-advice/ Last updated: 2026-06-17T23:05:27.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/The-Five-Species-of-Hard-Work-and-Why----Work-Harder----Is-Usually-Bad-Advice_thumb.jpeg) The Five Species of Hard Work and Why Work Harder Is Usually Bad Advice 0:00 /878.064 1× Too often the concept of "hard work" is treated as a single *moral* substance: pour in more of it and performance improves. Better yet, if a situation is poor or going South fast, "hard work" or showing grit or knuckling down will supply the delta to success. That belief may be comforting for some. It is also wrong on so many levels. For leaders it can be crippling because it hides the real question: **"what impact are we trying to achieve?"** Consider the familiar scene. An Executive reviews disappointing EBIT results and reaches for the managerial hymnbook: *we need more hustle; we need to lift the intensity; we need to work harder*. The room nods, because to oppose "hard work" sounds like a vote for slacking off—worse yet, that *YOU* are the one who isn't pulling their weight. Yet, if employees are exhausted, teams are flooded with activity and little impact, and the business is strategically lost it is highly unlikely that the problem was ever a shortage of effort. The more likely cause is a mismatch between the **type of hard work** being demanded and the **kind of problem** being faced. At this point a practical taxonomy helps. Across leadership practice, five distinct forms recur which better described what is often blanketed under the term "hard work": 1. **Outthinking**—work that reduces effort: a better strategy, a superior design, a shortcut that is *earned* rather than wished for. 2. **Pure Effort**—the only one in the taxonomy that is truely "hard" in way most believers in hard work mean it. Examples are more time, stamina, or intensity: longer hours, higher throughput, sustained pressure. **Note: while this can be powerful in the short term, the long term result of this approach is it always burns out people and teams—without exception. Manage this way at the organisation's peril.** 3. **Opportunistic Work**—work as positioning: building options and relationships so that discontinuities (shocks, shifts, regulatory changes, technology turns) can be converted into advantage. 4. **Consistency**—work as compounding: doing ordinary things for longer than others can tolerate because of sustainable pacing. 5. **Focus**—work as refusal: saying "no" to distractions, protecting attention, finishing. This first article covers the first three. The second will address **Consistency** and **Focus**, and—more importantly—how to build a *portfolio* of the five without becoming a cult of busyness or engendering high staff churn and Fair Work complaints. A golden rule here is that "leadership"—note the sarcastic scare quotes—fails when all it can do is demand "more" of people (more effort, more speed, more meetings) when what is required is "different" (different thinking, different positioning, different constraints). ## Outthinking: the Work that Makes other Work Unnecessary Outthinking is the kind of work executives publicly praise but privately underfund: deep diagnosis, genuine trade-off decisions, and the design of systems that make performance easier. It is hard because it requires *restraint*—the refusal to do everything—and because it exposes leaders to the risk of being wrong in public. It is also hard to tangibly endorse because—politics. The inability or unwillingness to make hard choices which invite possible retribution from other executives. Strategy research has been making this point for decades. Porter's famous warning is that operational effectiveness (doing similar activities better) is not strategy (choosing a distinctive position with fit across activities). Strategy, in his formulation, requires "discipline" and "the ability to set limits". That discipline forces explicit trade-offs, disappoints internal factions, and kills cherished projects. Which is why so few managers are willing to embrace outthinking. Organisational learning adds a second pressure: the tension between **exploration** (search, experimentation) and **exploitation** (refinement, execution). The exploration–exploitation framework, devised by the late [James G. March](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%5FG.%5FMarch?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1928–2018), remains the cleanest statement of the dilemma: over-invest in exploitation and you become efficient at yesterday's challenges; over-invest in exploration and you become brilliant at never shipping the product. > Outthinking is the craft of governing that balance through the clear and deliberative allocation of resource and attention. A third strand is dynamic capabilities: in volatile environments, advantage depends less on any single asset and more on managerial capacity to sense, seize, and reconfigure. That is not an invitation to "be agile" in the poster sense. It is an invitation to do the hard work of *recombining* what you already have: talent, processes, partnerships, and institutional cohesion. So what does outthinking look like as leadership practice—what can a manager do next week that is more than rhetoric? ### 1) Turn Decisions into Hypotheses with Kill-criteria Many executive teams "decide" by selecting a preference and then gathering just enough narrative to defend it if challenged. Outthinking flips the sequence: define the decision as a [testable hypothesis](https://robert.winter.ink/poppers-theory-of-falsification-a-pillar-of-adaptive-leadership/). What would need to be true? What evidence would falsify it? When will we check? This is not academic fussiness; it is how you prevent [sunk-cost escalation](https://robert.winter.ink/calling-time-on-sunk-costs/) from masquerading as *commitment*. ### 2) Time-box Exploration; But Don't Starve it Exploration is costly and embarrassing—because its outcome is often failure. This is why managers tend to underfund it and then complain about a lack of innovation. A practical rule: allocate a fixed percentage of attention to exploration work (customer discovery, scenario design, pre-mortems), and protect it from quarterly panic. The point is not to worship experimentation; it is to ensure you do enough to avoid blind / political commitment. ### 3) Use Cognitive Diversity Deliberately, not Sentimentally The concept of emergent strategy is often misread as permission for strategic vagueness. It is better read as a warning: patterns will emerge regardless; the question is whether leaders have the mechanisms to *notice* them and *choose* what will be consequential for the organisation. Mechanisms matter: red teams, structured dissent, independent market scans, and "what would change my mind?" prompts in decision memos. These are the unsentimental tools of outthinking. Outthinking is "hard work" because it competes directly with urgent execution. It is also the only form of hard work that reliably reduces future hard work. Leaders who fail at outthinking typically compensate by demanding pure effort. ## Pure Effort: when the Answer is Known and the Deadline is near Pure Effort is the form everyone recognises as hard work: longer hours, higher intensity, sustained push. In some contexts it is exactly right. A crisis response, a safety remediation, a regulatory deadline, a peak seasonal demand—these often require throughput more than creativity. But pure effort as an approach to BAU has two persistent failings. **The first is effort theatre:** rewarding visible strain rather than valuable output. If managers praise the last person online, they are selecting for poor prioritisation, weak systems, and performative exhaustion. Not to mention overvaluing people who have the luxury of sitting around until the boss goes to bed. **The second is non-linear productivity:** working more hours does not scale output linearly. Evidence from labour economics shows diminishing returns: beyond a threshold, additional hours produce less incremental output, and error risk rises. Analysis of munitions workers is a canonical demonstration of this non-linearity (output increases at a decreasing rate as hours rise beyond a threshold). > For leaders, the implication is blunt: beyond a point, "work longer" becomes "pay more for worse work". Pure Effort, done well, therefore requires leadership craft—not motivational shouting. ### 1) Convert Effort into Goal Clarity, not Anxiety Goal-setting research is not about creating posters of soaring eagles or rowing teams; it is a robust finding: specific, challenging goals—paired with feedback—improve performance more reliably than vague exhortation. Pure Effort without goal clarity becomes thrash. Pure Effort with clear goals becomes a sprint with a finish line. ### 2) Design Recovery as part of Performance If you treat recovery as optional, you are not demanding resilience; you are renting it from the future at punitive interest rates. Leaders should plan intensity cycles (peaks and troughs), enforce rest after surges, and reduce "always on" expectations that create continuous partial attention. ### 3) Stabilise the Work System before You Moralise Effort Leslie Perlow's "time famine" work shows how interruptions and fragmented time create an environment where people feel constantly busy yet struggle to complete meaningful tasks. If the system produces fragmentation, exhorting effort is managerial laziness. Fix the system: meeting load, handover clarity, queue discipline, escalation pathways. Pure Effort is not ignoble. It is simply expensive. And if leaders spend that expense on the wrong problem—when Outthinking was required—they burn trust and capability. ## Opportunistic Work: Positioning to Benefit from Change Opportunistic hard work is the least understood, partly because it does not look like "work" in the narrow sense. It is relationship-building, option-building, and situational awareness. It often resembles wandering—until the discontinuity arrives and the "wanderer" suddenly has leverage. Network research gives this sharp edges. Granovetter's "strength of weak ties" showed that information and opportunity often travel through acquaintances rather than close colleagues. Burt's work on structural holes sharpened the mechanism: brokers who span disconnected groups are disproportionately exposed to novel ideas and can translate them into advantage. This is not a plea for shallow networking. It is a claim that *position* matters—and that leaders can shape position through deliberate boundary-spanning. Event system theory adds an organisational lens: events vary in strength (novelty, disruption, criticality) and their timing and duration shape impact. > Opportunistic work is the habit of being prepared for events whose timing you cannot control. In entrepreneurship research effectuation logic makes a related point: rather than starting with a fixed goal and acquiring means, successful actors often begin with available means (who they are, what they know, whom they know) and co-create opportunities with stakeholders. Within large organisations, this translates to leaders who cultivate *optionality*: partnerships, pilot permissions, procurement pathways, regulatory relationships, and internal credibility—so that when a window opens, they can move. Practically, Opportunistic hard work can be led and measured. ### 1) Maintain an "option register" Not a fantasy pipeline, but a list of real options: dormant partnerships, capabilities that could be repurposed, customers who would trial, regulators willing to talk, talent that could be redeployed. Review it quarterly. ### 2) Build Boundary Roles and Protect Them Cross-functional brokers are often punished: they do not "own" a KPI, they attend too many meetings, their output is hard to attribute. That is precisely why they are valuable. If you want opportunistic advantage, you must protect boundary-spanning roles from narrow scorecards. ### 3) Make Ethical Opportunism Explicit Opportunism can drift into exploitation if leaders treat shocks as excuses for sharp practice. A simple constraint helps: opportunistic moves should be explainable without embarrassment to a sceptical customer, regulator, or staff member. If you cannot defend it in daylight, it is not strategy; it is extraction. ## A Quick Diagnostic: Which Hard Work Are You Actually Demanding? Before you tell a team to "work harder", ask: - **Is the constraint cognitive?** (We don't know what to do.) → Invest in **Outthinking**. - **Is the constraint throughput?** (We know what to do; it's just a lot.) → Use **Pure Effort**, but engineer goals and recovery. - **Is the constraint positional?** (The environment is shifting; we need options.) → Do **Opportunistic** work. If you choose the wrong form, you do not merely waste time—you teach cynicism. Part 2 completes the taxonomy with **Consistency** (compounding advantage through routines) and **Focus** (attention as a strategic resource), then offers a practical "hard work portfolio" leaders can use to rebalance their week and their team's operating system. If you want the second essay, become a member to read Part 2. Good night, and good luck. --- *The Surrender of Breda* by [Diego Velázquez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego%5FVel%C3%A1zquez?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1599–1660) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### How to Use AI as a Thinking Partner Without Letting It Think For You URL: https://robert.winter.ink/how-to-use-ai-as-a-thinking-partner-without-letting-it-think-for-you/ Last updated: 2026-05-05T11:39:42.000Z 🗒️ This article provides a practical workflow for using AI as a **thinking partner*—to surface assumptions, stress-test arguments, and produce an auditable decision record—without outsourcing judgement. If you haven't read ****Part 1** ([**The Chat Trap: When AI Makes Your Thinking Softer*](https://robert.winter.ink/the-chat-trap-when-ai-makes-your-thinking-softer/)), start there: it explains why casual "chatting" is the failure mode this method is designed to fix. ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/How-to-Use-AI-as-a-Thinking-Partner-Without-Letting-It-Think-For-You_thumb.jpeg) How to Use AI as a Thinking Partner Without Letting It Think For You 0:00 /902.424 1× At the start of the board meeting, the CEO did something unusual. Rather than opening with a presentation, she shared a one-page decision record. It set out the decision required, three credible paths forward, the assumptions each relied on, and a brief pre-mortem outlining how the preferred option could fail. The writing was plain—almost austere. But the reasoning was explicit. When a director pressed on a weak point, the CEO did not argue. She explained how the challenge had already been considered, what evidence had shifted her view, and what would need to change for the decision to be revisited. That is the standard to aim for: AI not as a ghost-writer, but as a disciplined adversary and amplifier—an extension of cognition that forces clarity rather than flattering vagueness. The intellectual framework for this is older than ChatGPT. Clark and Chalmers famously argued that cognition can extend beyond the skull into tools and environments—when those tools are reliably available and functionally integrated into the person's thinking loop. LLMs can become such tools. But an "extended mind" is not the same as an "outsourced mind". Extension requires endorsement: the human must understand what the tool is doing, test it, and remain [responsible and accountable for the judgement](https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-in-the-age-of-ai/). The practical challenge, then, is to design a *thinking partnership* with AI that increases cognitive work where it matters, and offloads only what is safe to mechanise. ## Design Your AI Use around Cognition, not Convenience The most useful rule I've heard about LLMs does not come from academia; it comes from practice. In a talk on AI in journalism, Zach Seward described effective AI workflows as "humans first and humans last, with a little bit of powerful, generative AI in the middle to make the difference". If you want AI to improve your thinking rather than replace it, translate that aphorism into three operational constraints. ### First, Humans Must Frame the Question Framing is the executive act—here I mean executive as the adjective not the organisational rank. Deciding what the problem is, what counts as evidence, and what "good" means. If you delegate that to the model, you will receive a coherent answer to a poorly-formed question—a service that is technically impressive but managerially ruinous. This is why journals force authors to define terms: the definition silently determines the argument's destination. Sound high-level judgement depends on our ability to use "noble" language—language that clarifies, offers reasons, and supports autonomous decision-making. AI can help you refine definitions—much the way that dictionary on the shelf gathering dust did in ages past—but it should not choose the terms for you. ### Second, the Model Must Be Used to Create Friction, not Remove It The danger of AI is not merely error; it is *cognitive ease*. Studies have found that LLM support can reduce mental effort—precisely what busy executives crave—but with potential compromises in reasoning quality. So treat ease as a warning light. If the model makes the task feel instantly simple, you should assume you are skipping a cognitive step that normally protects judgement. A useful countermeasure is to use AI in ways that *increase* effort at the right points: forcing you to specify assumptions, choose between competing framings, and respond to counterarguments. There is encouraging evidence that, in educational contexts, structured AI use can influence thinking skills. For example, an experimental study in *Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence* found that students who used ChatGPT in course tasks showed discernible changes across critical, reflective, and creative thinking measures compared with a control group using traditional search tools. The implication for leaders is not that tools like ChatGPT makes people wise by osmosis—much less that it puts ["PhD-level" abilities in your pocket](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5prvgw0r1o?ref=robert.winter.ink)—it is that tools can shape cognition when embedded in deliberate learning designs. ### Third, Humans Must Verify, Decide, and Record Automation bias research exists for a reason: people over-trust machine output, especially when it is plausible, well-presented, and delivered under pressure. The antidote is not vague claims of "human oversight"; it is specific verification steps and decision records. AI should help you produce a better audit trail of reasoning, not a more persuasive paragraph for the next board pack. ## A Practical Approach for AI-assisted Thinking The following routine is designed for executive and board contexts—where the point is not to generate content, but to reach defensible decisions faster *without* degrading judgement. It is deliberately repetitive. That's the point: it turns AI into a thinking gym rather than a drafting service. It can also be used at any level of the organisation where knowledge work is required. ****Confidentiality Reminder** ****Do not enter confidential or sensitive information into AI tools unless they are explicitly approved by your organisation.** Public or unapproved AI services may store, process, or reuse inputs in ways that breach confidentiality, regulatory obligations, or contractual duties. This includes, but is not limited to, board materials, PII data, commercially sensitive strategy, financial data, and unpublished analysis. Treat AI prompts as disclosures. Use only company-approved services, with clear data-handling assurances, and assume anything entered could be exposed beyond your control. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### On the Subject of Leadership URL: https://robert.winter.ink/on-the-subject-of-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-04-29T10:48:10.000Z There is a particular kind of leadership content that circulates in abundance and accomplishes very little. It speaks of vision, alignment, and culture as though these were switches to be thrown rather than conditions to be earned. It offers frameworks where there should be argument, and slogans where there should be doubt. It is fluent, optimistic, and—for anyone who has sat close to a real organisation under real pressure—strangely bloodless. *On the Subject of Leadership* exists because that content has had a long enough run. The podcast is a series of long-form conversations with people who have carried genuine responsibility: founders who built organisations under constraint, executives who learned what cannot be delegated, chairs who have watched a room turn from confident to confused when the evidence was thinner than the prose. The conversations are anchored by research—two decades of work on authority, judgment, and organisational life—but the aim is not to illustrate theory. It is to think clearly about what actually happens when authority meets reality, and why the gap between the two is so reliably wider than anyone predicted. ### What the Subject Actually Is Leadership, as a topic, suffers from the same problem Tocqueville diagnosed in democratic culture more broadly: it flattens. The pressure toward the agreeable, the inspirational, the readily shareable tends to push difficult ideas to the margins and leave the smooth ones in circulation long after their usefulness has expired. The literature is not without rigour—there is excellent work in the research on psychological safety, on upper echelons theory, on the organisational conditions that permit good judgment to function—but that rigour rarely survives the journey from journal to practice. By the time it reaches the leadership development programme, the nuance has been stripped and the headline remains. The subject I am interested in is narrower and, I think, more tractable. It concerns the practical mechanics of authority: how accountability is actually assigned and evaded; how information is filtered as it moves upward through a hierarchy; how leaders make consequential decisions under conditions of genuine uncertainty rather than the manufactured certainty of the case study; and what distinguishes the organisations that use talented people well from those that purchase talent expensively and then proceed to waste it. These questions are old. Thucydides was asking them about Pericles in the fifth century BC. Machiavelli asked them about the principalities of northern Italy. Burke asked them about the relationship between delegated authority and public trust. The contexts change; the underlying tensions do not. One of the things the research consistently shows—and that the best leaders consistently know—is that the problems feel new because each generation inherits them without inheriting the vocabulary for thinking about them. Part of what the podcast attempts is to recover that vocabulary, and to put it in contact with the lived experience of people who are navigating the same tensions now. ### The Field Series I think of the podcast as a field series. The research provides a map; the conversations provide the terrain. Neither is sufficient alone. A map without terrain is abstract; terrain without a map is just movement. The guests are not chosen for celebrity or for the scale of the organisations they have run, though some have run large ones. They are chosen because their experience illuminates something specific: a particular tension between autonomy and accountability; a moment when the formal structure and the actual decision-making diverged; a lesson about what hierarchy is for that only becomes visible when it is removed. The conversations are long by the standards of the medium because the interesting material—the moment of genuine candour, the observation that contradicts the received version—tends not to arrive in the first twenty minutes. Alongside the interview episodes sit shorter reflective pieces: essays in audio form that draw on the research and on the longer arc of thinking that runs through the written work at this site. These are occasions for argument rather than illustration—for pushing a claim until it breaks, or until it holds. The most recent episode is below. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts, or follow along here. --- --- ### The Ask What I am not doing, and will not do, is manufacturing inspiration. The test I apply to every episode is not whether it sounds impressive but whether it would actually help someone choose, coordinate, or act more clearly under pressure. That is a higher bar than it might appear. Most content that sounds useful—the three habits, the five disciplines, the seven practices of whichever kind of leader is currently in fashion—fails it immediately. It sounds useful the way a tide table sounds useful to someone who has never seen the sea. Leadership is difficult because it operates at the intersection of what an organisation needs and what the people inside it are willing to bear—and those two things are frequently not the same. Pericles understood this. So did Lincoln, who assembled a cabinet of people who disliked both him and each other on the grounds that he needed the best minds more than he needed the most comfortable room. So did every leader who has ever had to deliver a judgement their organisation was not ready to hear and had to hold the line while it was tested. The conversations in this podcast are with people who know that difficulty from the inside. They are not triumphalist. They do not conclude that everything worked out. Some of them are about failure, or about the particular kind of partial success that looks like failure from one angle and like survival from another. What they share is the willingness to think carefully in public about what actually happened, and why. That is, in the end, the only kind of leadership conversation worth having. Good night, and good luck. ### Chris McGowan: The Recruitment Insider Who Built a Company With No Managers URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/chris-mcgowan-the-recruitment-insider-who-built-a-company-with-no-managers/ Last updated: 2026-08-14T11:38:33.000Z Flat organisations are usually presented as a philosophy. More often they are a headcount. The literature on networked teams and post-hierarchical work is written, almost without exception, from firms small enough that everyone who matters can be got into a single room and the founder can still name everybody's children. At that size freedom is cheap, and the absence of an org chart costs nothing, because the org chart was doing no work in the first place. What the genre rarely supplies is an account of what is quietly performing the function the missing hierarchy used to perform—because something always is. Structure removed from the diagram does not leave the building; it relocates somewhere less visible. *If a firm runs on freedom, what is underwriting the freedom?* Chris McGowan is the founder and chief executive of [Thunder Labs](https://thunderlabs.com.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink), an Australian firm working substantially in identity and access management, and at the time of our conversation employing somewhere between twenty and twenty-five people. He came to the recording arguing for the flattest possible reading of organisational life—freedom to act, deterministic chaos, minimal control—and finished it conceding something very close to the opposite. What makes the hour worth an article rather than a summary is that he noticed himself doing it, said so aloud, and did not attempt to reconcile the two positions on air. What follows are the ideas from the conversation I have continued to turn over since. ## The case for the Networked Firm is Epistemic, not Cultural Asked to justify the structure to a sceptical finance executive in a sentence, McGowan did not reach for culture, engagement or belonging. He said that no individual is capable of solving the problem, and—the sharper half of the claim—that it is close to impossible for any organisation to acquire the thinking it needs and then hold on to it. The structure, on his account, is not a preference. It is forced. This is a stronger argument than the one usually made on flatness's behalf, and it is an old one. [Friedrich Hayek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich%5FHayek?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1899–1992) argued in 1945 that the knowledge required to allocate resources never exists in concentrated or integrated form, but only as dispersed, incomplete and frequently contradictory fragments held by separate individuals. The constraint is not that central planners are lazy or ill-intentioned; it is that the knowledge is not available to be centralised. McGowan's version—that any room making a decision needs the technologist, the procurement person, someone with a view for law and someone with a view for the commercials, and that no individual holds all of it—is Hayek's problem restated at the scale of a meeting. Where the analogy strains is instructive. Hayek's dispersed knowledge is coordinated by prices, which correct continuously and without anyone's permission. McGowan's is coordinated by an assembled group of advisers, which is a market in advice with no price signal in it. He raised the difficulty himself, in a different context, and did not connect it back: how, he asked, can you trust any organisation that is selling something, when the expansive conversation converts so reliably into the pitch? It is the right question, and it applies to his own arrangement. If the founder is, by his own description, not a domain expert in anything, and if every conversation he has therefore remains conceptual until a practitioner takes it further, what mechanism tells him when the practitioner is wrong? His best answer is that the selection is the expertise—twelve years in recruitment, and by his own reckoning several thousand people hired, spent learning to identify who will disagree with him usefully. That is a serious answer. But it concentrates the firm's entire error-correcting capacity in one man's judgement of people, which is precisely the form of centralisation a flat structure cannot dissolve. The hierarchy was not removed. It was reduced to a single, invisible decision made repeatedly at the hiring gate. ## Bureaucracy is not the opposite of Freedom; it is what Fills the Vacuum McGowan's objection to structure is not to its existence but to its metastasis: get an administrator's hands on something and they will, in his phrase, admin it to death. He put it more carefully later—structures naturally assert themselves, and it is very difficult to be unstructured without being chaotic. [Michel Crozier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel%5FCrozier?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1922–2013) spent two French public bureaucracies establishing why, and published the results in 1964\. His finding was that bureaucratic rigidity is not a failure of training or a defect of character. It is rational behaviour by people who control some zone of uncertainty and use procedure to defend it, producing self-reinforcing vicious circles that no one individually intends. I made a version of this argument on air—that bureaucracy is often heaviest at junior levels, because procedure is the only authority available to someone who has no other, and that the checklist derives its force from having been authorised elsewhere. Crozier's point is the one that ought to worry any founder attracted to flatness: removing the hierarchy does not remove the impulse. It relocates it. The consequence is that the anti-bureaucratic firm is not less political than the hierarchical one. It is differently political, and in one specific respect worse. Formal authority is contestable. There is a person whose decision it was, a rule they applied, and—at least in principle—somewhere to take the objection. Influence exercised through a network of trusted relationships has no equivalent. There is no appeals process against not being one of the people the founder rings. McGowan did not address this, and I did not press him on it, which I now regret; it is the obvious question to put to any organisation that has replaced titles with trust. He may well have an answer. The conversation does not contain it. ## Language is the First Work, and it Does not Scale The most practically useful passage of the hour concerned vocabulary. McGowan's firm builds in modules—think Lego—and prefers two-way doors unless it decides otherwise with its eyes open, and keeps the blast radius low. He is explicit that the lexicon is made jointly rather than issued, and that it must be ubiquitous rather than cultish: language everyone can already use, including clients, not an in-group dialect that certifies membership. [Karl Weick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl%5FE.%5FWeick?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1936–2026) spent a career arguing that organisations do not merely use language but are constituted through it: organising is the ongoing reduction of equivocality through talk, and the vocabulary available to a group determines what that group is able to notice. On that reading, McGowan is describing the first work of the firm rather than a soft adjunct to it. A team with the phrase *two-way door* can see reversibility as a property of a decision. A team without it argues the decision itself, repeatedly, never naming what it actually disagrees about. His own examples make the point better than he did. *Two-way door* is Amazon's; *blast radius* is borrowed from engineering. Both entered his vocabulary because they already existed in the wider vernacular—which was my argument to him: a term society already understands is adopted faster by whoever joins after the conversation ended. And that is the limit. He named it himself: whoever joins next month was not present when the language was made, and will encounter it as inheritance rather than authorship. At twenty-five people the practice is available because everyone can be in the room. At two hundred it is not, and what remains is a vocabulary distributed downward from the founder—the precise thing he objects to when a chief people officer does it. The practice may be a function of size rather than of philosophy, and the honest version of his claim is narrower than the one he makes: this is how you build a lexicon in a small firm, not how you run a large one. ## Necessity and Motivation Are not a Hierarchy McGowan draws a distinction I have not seen elsewhere in quite this form, and it is his best original contribution to the hour. Motivation and necessity are different things. Necessity need not be financial—it can be emotional, or ego, or a burning platform—and the two behave badly on their own. Too much necessity is desperation. Motivation without it is unbridled ambition. He wants people who have both, held in tension, and reads the tension as the interesting part of a person rather than a problem to be resolved. He is candid about his own case: a business idea he pursued for five years, his money gone, his family placed in financial jeopardy, and a landlord to pay ever since. His necessity is the rent. His motivation is building something good. He is aware that their present alignment is a happy accident rather than a design. [Edward Deci](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward%5FL.%5FDeci?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1942–2026), with Richard Ryan, set out the case in 1985 that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are not two grades of the same substance but distinct systems, and that external contingencies can actively corrode internal ones rather than simply adding to them. This matters because his tension is unstable in one direction: necessity does not merely sit alongside motivation but, left dominant, consumes it. Which brings us to the hour's most awkward joint. For seventy minutes McGowan talks about freedom, security, families, meaning, and being a servant of the company rather than its owner. He describes a friend of twenty years asking him why he articulates his purpose in revenue when everything he says privately is about safety and families, and he says he wants to provide for fifty families. Then, in the lightning round, asked what single rule he would keep if the company had to be simplified, he answers without hesitation: absolute focus on growth and revenue as the priority. Asked what practice he would delete tomorrow: everything that stops him getting growth and revenue. His best answer—and it is a good one—is that these are the same object described twice. Fifty families is a revenue figure. Revenue is a families figure. A business that does not make money provides for nobody, and he articulated the goal in revenue for four years because revenue is the thing an organisation can actually be held to. He is also disarmingly honest that his own team would find him more brutal on numbers than outsiders might expect. But the two descriptions only coincide while the business is growing. They diverge the moment they cost each other something—a redundancy, a client one would rather not keep, a year in which the number can be made or the fifty can be protected but not both. On the evidence of the lightning round, we already know which one is load-bearing. The families are the espoused value; the number is the operating assumption. I do not think he is being dishonest about this. I think he has not yet had to choose. ## The Freedom Was Underwritten by Controls He Calls Luck Late in the conversation McGowan reversed himself, and did it well. He believes in freedom to act, he said, and in not putting controls on people—and yet he observes that where there are no controls, circumstance or temptation does the work instead. Then the concession: another twist of luck, that he happened to put good managers around himself. Brilliant accountants. A bookkeeper who chases a questionable receipt through his own company and asks what it was for. He went further than most founders would, volunteering unprompted that he can see how embezzlement happens—that with the sums now moving through the business the opportunity is simply visible, and that perhaps seeing it so clearly is part of why it holds no appeal. He said plainly that he has never been tempted. What he was describing is not a confession; it is an unusually clear-eyed account of why internal controls exist. [Donald Cressey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald%5FCressey?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1919–1987) interviewed convicted embezzlers in prison and reported in 1953 that three conditions had to coincide: a financial problem the person felt unable to share, a perceived opportunity, and a vocabulary of adjustment that allowed the act to be described as something other than theft. Cressey never called it the fraud triangle; that label was applied later. His central finding is the one that matters here—his subjects were not people of criminal disposition. They were trusted people whose circumstances changed. Which is precisely why *I am an honest person* is not a control, and why McGowan's instinct to hire the bookkeeper before he needed her is better governance than his stated philosophy can account for. I quoted Acton at him—power tends to corrupt, and the worse heresy, that the office sanctifies the holder of it. McGowan's own formulation was blunter and, I think, more useful: the running internal dialogue, the fear of coming to believe his own publicity, the distinction between being entitled to the company's assets and being a servant of them. His worry is not that he lacks a conscience. It is that willpower wanes, something eventually happens, and structure has to hold when it does. It is a version of something I have argued elsewhere: that risk discipline is largely a function of how close the consequence sits to the person making the decision, rather than of character or governance maturity. McGowan's bookkeeper puts the consequence in the room. The receipt is queried this week, by a person he sees, about a sum too small to matter. That proximity is doing more work than any values statement, and it was assembled almost by accident. So the honest reading of the hour is this. The freedom is real, and he has built something genuinely unusual. But it is underwritten by controls he did not design, hired for other reasons, and describes as luck. He is right that it was luck. The uncomfortable implication—which he came close to naming and then let go—is that the flat firm's case for itself rests on a control structure its own philosophy gives it no way to specify. To his considerable credit, he said so at the point in the conversation where he had every opportunity to end on the flattering version instead. ## Who Should Listen Founders of firms between ten and fifty people who run on trust and have not yet worked out what happens when trust is insufficient. Executives in larger organisations who suspect their bureaucracy is a symptom rather than a policy, and want a diagnosis. Board members and audit committee chairs will find the final twenty minutes more useful than most governance training, being a founder reasoning his way toward controls rather than being subjected to them. Anyone who has ever written a purpose statement in one vocabulary and a target in another will recognise the problem in the lightning round. Good night, and good luck. ### The Chat Trap: When AI Makes Your Thinking Softer URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-chat-trap-when-ai-makes-your-thinking-softer/ Last updated: 2026-05-05T11:44:03.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/01/The-Chat-Trap---When-AI-Makes-Your-Thinking-Softer_thumb.jpeg) The Chat Trap When AI Makes Your Thinking Softer 0:00 /847.632 1× Board packs tend to land in one's inbox with the quiet menace of inevitability. Hundreds of pages. Polished prose. Crisp headings. Crisper graphs. Confidence everywhere—except in the boardroom the next morning. A director flips through the pages and asks the question no manager wants to hear: "Where is the thinking?" The CEO, determined not to exhibit the slightest sign that anything is not going according to her plan, responds curtly: "If you would turn to appendix E you'll see..." "No," responds the board member, "I don't mean the numbers. I mean the thinking. The chain of reasons that connects claims to evidence and evidence to a decision. The pack reads smoothly, but it does not show the company's true position. It offers conclusions without exposing premises, options without trade-offs, reassurance without an argument." That, in miniature, is the problem with today's most common use of AI. It makes language cheap and plentiful, which tempts leaders to treat language as the output of thinking rather than the medium in which thinking is done. The model will happily draft "a strategy" or "a risk assessment" from a handful of prompts. You will have graphs generated that look like cognition has occurred. And if you are tired, rushed, or under pressure, you will feel the unmistakable relief of progress on that report you wished you didn't have to write. I want to name that relief: it is the chat trap. By "chatting" with AI I don't mean using it frequently, or using it conversationally in the Socratic sense. I mean using it *casually*: asking loosely framed questions, accepting the apparently fluent responses, and mistaking coherence for comprehension. This is the kind of interaction the interface encourages—quick turns, agreeable tone, rapid closure. It is excellent for customer service and basic drafting. It is a poor apprenticeship for executive or board level judgement. The danger is not that the model will occasionally hallucinate. The deeper danger is that it will be *helpful in the wrong way*. Cognitive psychologists describe "cognitive offloading": shifting mental work to external aids to reduce effort. Offloading is not inherently bad; done strategically, it frees attention for more difficult work. But when offloading becomes habitual—when the tool starts doing the foundational moves—you stop practising the skill you cannot afford to lose. ****Cognitive offloading** is the use of external actions or tools to reduce mental effort by shifting part of a task out of the head and into the world—such as writing notes, setting reminders, using GPS, or relying on digital systems to store, retrieve, or process information. Offloading can improve performance in the moment, but it also reshapes how we think: when used habitually or prematurely, it can reduce engagement with the underlying cognitive work, weaken memory and reasoning over time, and distort our confidence in what we actually know. The key issue is not **whether* we offload, but **which cognitive work we choose to keep practising*. And thinking, particularly executive thinking, is a perishable skill. Like physical conditioning, it declines when it is not exercised. It weakens when leaders stop drafting their own problem statements, stop defining their terms, stop forcing themselves to write the uncomfortable paragraph that admits uncertainty. The mind does not usually collapse in a dramatic failure; it *softens*. Judgement becomes more imitative, more reliant on templates, more allergic to ambiguity, more susceptible to rhetorical confidence or positional authority. This is why "chatting" with AI will not keep your mind sharp. Yet, it reduces friction and removes the *grunt* work. But friction—of the right kind—is a shapening agent. If an AI session feels like a warm bath, you are not training your judgement; you are soaking it. None of this requires you to reject AI. The point is more demanding. AI can genuinely sharpen thinking—but only when it is used to *increase* cognitive work at the right moments: to force clear definitions, expose assumptions, generate counterarguments, and make trade-offs explicit. Used that way, AI becomes less a conversational companion and more a sparring partner. In this first article I explain the "chat trap" and why it makes our thinking softer. I achieve this in two steps. First, by clarifying what thinking is (and why writing remains its most reliable diagnostic). Second, by explaining why chat-based AI use creates cognitive ease that can quietly erode reasoning quality—even when the prose improves. In Part 2, I'll offer a practical method for escaping the trap: an implementation-ready workflow that turns AI into a discipline for judgment rather than a substitute for it. If you've ever read an immaculate AI-generated memo and felt *less* confident afterwards, you already know the feeling this series is addressing. The question is whether you will let that feeling become BAU. ## Thinking is a Practice, not a Possession Most professionals will tell you they "think all day". Many do. But much of what passes for thinking is retrieval, reaction, or repetition—useful, but not sufficient. Thinking, properly speaking, is the active manipulation of ideas and situations—often through language—until they become a coherent account of reality and a defensible basis for decision making. Philosophers noticed the connection between thought and language long before cognitive science made it fashionable. A contemporary synthesis comes from research on *inner speech*—the silent speech directed to the self—which treats internal dialogue as a cognitive tool that can improve performance on challenging tasks. This matters for leaders because their role is unusually linguistic. This language work becomes ever more pronounced and critical the higher the organisational ladder one climbs. To the extent that executive work is essentially declarative: executives are not primarily *doers*—but those who *talk, listen, think, and decide*—and thus require language sophistication. Put bluntly: leadership is often a contest of framing, explanation, persuasion, and commitment. When the language used decays, judgement decays with it. Skill decay is not a metaphor; it is a measured phenomenon. A classic meta-analysis on skill decay showed that performance declines after periods of nonuse, and that decay varies with task characteristics and retention interval. Cognitive tasks—especially those requiring complex processing rather than rote repetition—are not immune. If anything, they are vulnerable because they depend on maintained habits of attention, reasoning, and self-correction. This is why writing has long been recommended as a tool for thinking. Not because writing is inherently noble, but because it forces us to externalise what we believe we know to a place where what we know can be inspected from every angle. The research base is more modest than the rhetoric, but it is real: a meta-analysis of school-based "writing-to-learn" interventions found a small positive impact on achievement, with stronger effects when writing tasks included metacognitive prompts and ran for longer. The mechanism is plausible for leaders too: the act of writing can expose weak definitions, hidden leaps, and missing premises. A useful classical warning against false precision comes from Aristotle, who remarked that an educated person seeks only the degree of accuracy a subject permits. Management decisions are often probabilistic, political, and morally weighted; they do not become *scientific* because the prose sounds statistical or has a data sheet attached. Writing helps leaders see what kind of accuracy is possible—and what kind is pretending to be accurate. There is also a practical distinction worth recovering: writing is not the same as publishing. Many executives avoid writing because they imagine it creates an obligation to share, defend, or circulate. In fact, the private memo, the scratch-pad argument, and the decision journal are thinking tools precisely because they are provisional. Publishing is performance; writing can be private. AI complicates this in a predictable way. If you let the model draft your first articulation of a problem, you may never notice the boundary of your own understanding because the model has supplied plausible—and usually invisible—boundary-markers for you. In this scenario, you are a little like a player in a computer game, constrained by the limitations imposed by the architect. ## The AI Offloading Trap The cognitive temptation of AI is not that it is smarter than you. It is that it is *effortless*. The human brain, like any honest budget, responds to incentives. When a tool makes a cognitive step cheap, we will do more of it. When a tool makes a cognitive step free, we will stop noticing it as a step at all. Cognitive science has been tracking versions of this problem for years. Research on *cognitive offloading* examines how people use external aids—notes, devices, reminders—to reduce mental effort. When offloading is strategic, it can free capacity for higher-order work. When it becomes habitual, it can reshape what is remembered, what is practised, and what is trusted. A related effect appears in the "Google effect": when people expect information to be externally available, they are less likely to retain it internally. In other words, easy access changes the allocation of memory and attention. The key challenge that AI presents is that it pushes offloading beyond memory into reasoning and expression. That is not automatically bad—but it is risky in leadership contexts because reasoning and expression are not separable from judgement. A recent experimental study in *Computers in Human Behavior* captured the trade-off succinctly: LLM assistance reduced mental effort and improved perceived writing efficiency, but participants' own reasoning quality could suffer—an ease that arrives with a cost. The organisation version of this problem is well known in human factors research as *automation bias*: people over-rely on automated advice, especially under time pressure, fatigue, or cognitive load. A 2025 systematic review in *AI & Society* synthesised evidence that automation bias occurs across domains and is shaped by factors such as task complexity, trust, and design features. In management settings, this bias can look like reasonable deference: accepting an AI-generated analysis because it is well-structured, or because dissent would require slow work the project timeline does not permit. What makes AI distinctive is that it mimics *rhetorical confidence*. Earlier decision aids were often opaque; AI is linguistically persuasive in the way it will explain its argument and "thinking" because it can generate arguments, counterarguments, and synthesis at speed—exactly the outputs that usually signal that thinking has occurred by a subject matter expert. But language can simulate thought without embodying it. [The model does not *own* a judgement](https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-in-the-age-of-ai/); it arranges patterns of prior language. That can help you think, but it can also help you avoid thinking. Here Michael Porter's old distinction between operational effectiveness and strategy becomes relevant once more. Operational effectiveness improves how well you perform activities; strategy involves choosing a distinctive set of activities and accepting trade-offs. AI is superb at operational effectiveness for language: drafting, summarising, reformatting, translating. It is far less reliable at the strategic core: deciding what not to do, what risk is tolerable, what values should govern, what evidence would change your mind. If leaders let operational convenience substitute for strategic judgement, they should not be surprised when their thinking converges into an artificial dialect. Porter warned that benchmarking can make rivals look alike; AI drafting can do the same to our reasoning—everyone starts to sound as though they attended the same seminar. None of this means "don't use AI". It means something more uncomfortable: *the order of operations matters*. If AI supplies your first draft of a thought, you are relegated to editing—often cosmetic editing. If you begin with your own articulation—however clumsy—AI can become a true sparring partner. It is the difference between training and transport. One builds capacity; the other gets you there without using your legs. ## What's Next? When used well AI can help with thinking, but not by doing your thinking for you. Thinking is a perishable capability—maintained through deliberate practice in language, analysis, and decision discipline. Used lazily, AI is the cognitive equivalent of a moving walkway: efficient, pleasant, and quietly corrosive of fitness. Used deliberately, it can become a demanding partner that exposes weak premises, forces clarity, and expands the range of alternatives you seriously consider. In Part 2, I will lay out a practical method for doing exactly that: using AI as a thinking partner that strengthens rather than replaces judgement—complete with an implementation-ready workflow and prompts, including an OODA-style routine for policy and disclosure assessment. If this argument is close to your lived experience—if you've read a beautiful AI-written document and felt your confidence drop rather than rise—subscribe so you don't miss Part 2. Good night, and good luck. --- [*Narcissus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus%5F%28Caravaggio%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Caravaggio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravaggio?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1571–1610) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Scribbler: The Case for Friction URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-scribbler-the-case-for-friction/ Last updated: 2026-02-02T06:30:04.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/The-Scribbler---The-Case-for-Friction_thumb.jpeg) The Scribbler The Case for Friction 0:00 /615.768 1× Good evening, and welcome to this edition of *The Scribbler*—a newsletter that circles one organisational problem until it shows itself. This month's thread is simple: the modern organisation is running out of *friction*. Friction is what lets you steer. Remove it and you get speed, not control. In an era of AI-assisted writing, instant analytics, and industrial-scale content production, friction is being stripped out of organisational life. There are fewer pauses, fewer evidentiary gates, fewer principled refusals, and—if we are honest—less care taken with language. The result is not efficiency. It is skid risk. But first, a bit of trivia... **Trivia question:** In 1971, which Nobel laureate warned that 'a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention'? *Answer at the end of this scribbling.* ## This Edition's Scribbling In the [last edition](https://robert.winter.ink/the-scribbler-rebuilding-your-hinges/) I argued that organisational life revealed a common flaw: people drowning in information yet starved of judgment. From trust to hiring to AI, the task remains the same—recover the authority to decide rather than defer. The deeper pattern now coming into view is broader. It is not only that [proxies are compromised](https://robert.winter.ink/trust-in-the-age-of-the-machine/); it is that the whole decision chain is being lubricated. Small speed bumps have been removed. Drafting is instant. Charts look authoritative without anyone chasing the lineage. Replies are fired off in the time it takes to feel insulted. Old frictions did not guarantee wisdom, but they forced delay—and delay is often the pause before good judgement begins. Across the pieces I wrote last month—[critical ignoring](https://robert.winter.ink/critical-ignoring-the-executive-discipline-that-makes-strategy-possible/), [metacognition](https://robert.winter.ink/how-high-er-performers-out-think-their-reactions/), [delivering bad news](https://robert.winter.ink/giving-bad-news-badly/), and even the unfashionable [defence of the em-dash](https://robert.winter.ink/in-defence-of-the-em-dash/)—the same strategic imperative kept recurring: > Leaders must reintroduce friction on purpose, or be governed by whatever moves fastest. That is not a plea for bureaucracy. It is a call for *architecture*: deciding where delay is a feature, not a flaw. My balm for this ailment is fourfold. ### 1) Add Friction at the point of Intake: Attention as Governance [Herbert Simon’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert%5FA.%5FSimon?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1916–2001) observation—more than half a century old—has aged well: abundant information creates scarce attention. When attention is treated as an infinitely scalable capability, executives drown in *inputs* and congratulate themselves on being data-driven. The corrective is not heroic critical thinking applied to everything; it is *critical ignoring*—the defensible refusal to engage with information that has not earned the right to shape judgement. Overload reliably degrades decision quality, and emotionally charged material spreads faster precisely because it captures attention before deliberation begins. AI compounds this by lowering the cost of persuasive rubbish and by producing summaries that look authoritative while quietly severing the link to provenance. The risk is not merely hallucination. It is the slow degradation of evidentiary standards: people stop asking "where did this come from?" because the prose is fluent, the charts are neat, and we are time poor. A pragmatic and strategic response is to treat *evidence* the way we already treat money: with admissibility rules—then embed them in governance. - **Establish an evidence hierarchy:** If a board paper relies on AI-generated analysis, it is a lead, not ground zero for decision making. Require primary sources (human generated memos, verbatim survey responses, financial reports), traceable internal data lineage, or independently verifiable external reports before the AI output can be used to justify a decision. - **Make "default deny" normal:** Tools, feeds, dashboards, and model outputs should justify their place in the decision chain. Uncritical inclusion is how you scale error. - **Treat attention capture as an incident category:** When a fabricated trend, misleading summary, or spurious statistic makes it into an SLT forum, log it, examine how it happened, and tighten the gates. Strategy requires trade-offs. The trade-off most organisations now refuse to make is *input selection*. ### 2) Add Friction between Stimulus and Response: Metacognition by Design The most common confession behind leadership failure is remarkably consistent: "I just reacted." Metacognition—thinking about one's thinking—matters in executive life for a simple reason: it inserts a pause between stimulus and response. Under status threat, fatigue, or time pressure, otherwise competent leaders collapse into autopilot: defensiveness posing as decisiveness; certainty substituting for judgement. The ability to notice that slide *while it is happening* is not personality. It is performance. The mistake made in organisations is to treat this as an individual virtue rather than a design problem. If you want leaders to outgrow their reactions, build routines that force reflection *before* harm is done. Two high-yield practices are worth institutionalising: - **The 60-second interrupt.** When the heat rises, ask three questions: 1. *What am I assuming?* 2. *What am I protecting?* 3. *What would I advise a colleague to do?* - **The 10-minute debrief.** After key meetings or decisions: what did we think we were doing, what happened (facts only), which assumptions held or failed, and what will we change next time? Debriefs are one of the few interventions with a reliably positive evidence base—when they are honest, specific, and time-bound. The strategic point is that corrigibility beats brilliance. In complex systems, the capacity to be corrected—quickly, without ego drama—is a competitive advantage. ### 3) Add Friction at the point of Declaration: Bad News as an Authority Test Most leaders do not lose trust because they deliver bad news. They lose it because they deliver it like a mugging: sudden, opaque, and with a perpetrator oddly proud of themselves. Bad news threatens security, meaning, and dignity. When leaders communicate poorly in hard moments, they do not merely convey a decision; they reveal the quality of their judgement under pressure. "Transparency" and "empathy" are inadequate slogans. What people actually need is predictable structure, coherent reasons, bounded control, and concrete compassion—because trust is, in part, a judgement about ability, benevolence, and integrity. Perceptions of procedural fairness strongly shape how people respond to adverse outcomes, including layoffs and restructures. Treat major communications as decision artefacts with design standards: - **Remove the ambush:** Do not weaponise uncertainty with vague invites and concealed agendas. - **Lead with the headline, then the reasons:** Adults resent being narrated into grief. - **Offer bounded predictability:** If you cannot provide certainty, provide dates, decision points, and what will not change in the interim. - **Make compassion operational:** Time, options, respectful treatment, and an avoidance of humiliation matter more than polished scripts and keeping "on message". In hard moments, the temptation is euphemism and control theatre. Resist it. Restraint is the leadership virtue most often replaced by performance. ### 4) Add Friction in the Written Record: Style, Provenance, and the New Suspicion of Competence We have reached a strange moment where carefully constructed prose is treated as suspicious because it "looks like AI". The em-dash, once a mark of literary control, is now a supposed tell. The organisational risk is that, in trying to look "authentic", people start writing badly on purpose. That is self-sabotage. Language is not decoration; it is the medium of reasoning. When prose collapses, argument follows. The fix is not to perform "human-ness" by lowering standards. It is to *show your work*: cite primary sources, name assumptions, make data lineage visible, keep version history, and record decision rationales. Encourage leaders to add the one thing AI cannot supply: lived context, specific trade-offs, and accountable judgement. ### A Simple Diagnostic for the Month Audit four places where friction should exist: 1. **Inputs:** What information is inadmissible by default? 2. **Interpretation:** Where are pauses built into decisions, especially AI-assisted ones? 3. **Declarations:** Do hard messages follow a dignity protocol, or a compliance ritual? 4. **Records:** Can you trace why a decision was made, and on what evidence? Most organisations have detailed controls for finance and safety, but treat attention, language, and judgement as informal matters of personal style. That made sense when the world was slower. It is no longer in the best interests of the company. Good night, and good luck. ## Worth Your Time A small reading list if you want to go deeper than slogans: - **Kozyreva, Wineburg, Lewandowsky, and Hertwig (2023)** on *critical ignoring* as a digital competence—useful for designing "attention gates" that work before analysis begins. - Kozyreva, A, Wineburg, S, Lewandowsky, S, and Hertwig, R (2023) Critical Ignoring as a Core Competence for Digital Citizens. *Current Directions in Psychological Science*, **32**(1), 81–88\. doi:[10.1177/09637214221121570](https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221121570?ref=robert.winter.ink). - **Wineburg and McGrew (2019)** on *lateral reading*—a simple, fast antidote to being impressed by well-formatted nonsense. - Wineburg, S, and McGrew, S (2019) Lateral Reading and the Nature of Expertise: Reading Less and Learning More When Evaluating Digital Information. *Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education*, **121**(11), 1–40\. doi:[10.1177/016146811912101102](https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912101102?ref=robert.winter.ink). - **Tannenbaum and Cerasoli (2013)** on debriefs—rare evidence that a lightweight routine can measurably improve individual and team performance when done properly. - Tannenbaum, SI, and Cerasoli, CP (2013) Do Team and Individual Debriefs Enhance Performance? A Meta-Analysis. *Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society*, **55**(1), 231–245\. doi:[10.1177/0018720812448394](https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812448394?ref=robert.winter.ink). - **Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis (2007)** on organisational trust, paired with **Brockner et al. (1994)** on procedural justice—together they explain why delivery often matters as much as the decision. - Schoorman, FD, Mayer, RC, and Davis, JH (2007) An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust: Past, Present, and Future. *Academy of Management Review*, **32**(2), 344–354\. doi:[10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410](https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410?ref=robert.winter.ink). - Brockner, J, Konovsky, M, Cooper-Schneider, R, Folger, R, Martin, C, and Bies, RJ (1994) Interactive Effects of Procedural Justice and Outcome Negativity on Victims and Survivors of Job Loss. *Academy of Management Journal*, **37**(2), 397–409\. doi:[10.5465/256835](https://doi.org/10.5465/256835?ref=robert.winter.ink). - **NIST's AI Risk Management Framework** and **ISO/IEC 42001**—use them less as compliance theatre and more as a blueprint for admissibility, provenance, and decision rights. ## Art and About ![Renaissance painting of three male heads (young, middle-aged, old) above three animal heads (dog, lion, wolf), symbolising prudence across time.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2026/02/3840px-Titian_-_Allegorie_der_Zeit.jpg) **Allegory of Prudence* by [Titian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titian?ref=robert.winter.ink) (c.1488/1490–1576). Titian's painting depicts three human heads—youth, maturity, old age—paired with three animal heads, often read as wolf, lion, and dog. The work is usually discussed as a visual argument for prudence: that the present ought to act with restraint, drawing on the past so as not to damage the future. It is a reminder that *delay can be moral*, not merely procedural. In an executive culture that confuses speed with strength, prudence is friction: the willingness to slow down at the right moments, insist on provenance, and refuse the easy answer that cannot survive scrutiny. ## Trivia Answer **Answer:** Herbert A. Simon won the 1978 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences and is closely associated with "bounded rationality"—the idea that real decision-makers "satisfice" \[sic\] under constraints rather than "optimise" in the abstract. --- [*Melencolia I*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melencolia%5FI?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Albrecht Dürer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht%5FD%C3%BCrer?ref=robert.winter.ink) is (1471–1528) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Critical Ignoring: The Executive Discipline That Makes Strategy Possible URL: https://robert.winter.ink/critical-ignoring-the-executive-discipline-that-makes-strategy-possible/ Last updated: 2026-01-27T06:30:42.000Z The board pack arrived at 11:12 p.m. the night before the offsite: 386 slides, three annexures, and an AI-generated *executive summary* that was—superficially—excellent. The language was confident, the charts were neat, and the recommendations were crisp enough to look decisive. In the first session the following day, a director asked where one particular statistic came from. The room stalled. Someone searched. No one could find the original source. After some awkward digging, it turned out the number had been lifted from a commentary piece citing another commentary piece, which cited—eventually—a paywalled report from a different industry and a different year. The statistic wasn't merely wrong; it was irrelevant padding masquerading as relevant data. The organisation had not been misled by a lack of information. It had been misled by **too much low-grade information**, processed too quickly, with too little discrimination. In an economy where the marginal cost of producing words has collapsed, attention is no longer a personal productivity matter. It is a **governance problem** and a **strategic risk**. Critical thinking still matters, but it is increasingly deployed too late—after attention has already been captured by what should never have been considered. What leaders now need is a complementary competence: **critical ignoring**—the deliberate, defensible refusal to engage with information that does not deserve the privilege of shaping judgement. 💡 This piece was inspired by a short piece I wrote a few years ago—[**The Ability To Ignore*](https://robert.winter.ink/the-ability-to-ignore/)—and a subsequent article in [**The Conversation*](https://theconversation.com/when-critical-thinking-isnt-enough-to-beat-information-overload-we-need-to-learn-critical-ignoring-198549?ref=robert.winter.ink). ## Why Critical Thinking Buckles Under Volume The current, almost obsessive, exhortation—*"be data-driven"*—often functions as a moral instruction: if you are overwhelmed, it is because you don't have the right data to keep up. Yet research on information overload is as old as it is unromantic: when the volume and complexity of information exceed available cognitive capacity and time, decision quality deteriorates. No ifs, not buts. At any given moment we have finite capacity and when the garbage coming in exceeds our capacity to absorb and process, far from garbage coming out, we will simply be mute on the subject. > [Herbert Simon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert%5FA.%5FSimon?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1916–2001) put it more sharply: 'a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention'. This is the first executive mistake: treating attention as an infinitely scalable capability. It is not. The second mistake is assuming that *critical thinking*—because it is usually misunderstood and ill defined—is the appropriate first response to abundance. In high-noise environments, critical thinking becomes a costly luxury. Every minute spent painstakingly evaluating a low-value claim is a minute not spent on higher-order work: clarifying assumptions, building causal explanations, or reading primary sources. Worse, engagement itself is a kind of concession. Exposure increases familiarity, and familiarity is often misread as truth. The cognitive problem is not simply that bad information exists, but that it competes for attention using emotional triggers—outrage, curiosity, indignation—designed to pre-empt deliberation. 🗒️ It is worth reading the study **Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks* in which the authors observed: 'Using a large sample of tweets concerning three polarizing issues (n = 563,312), the presence of moral-emotional words in messages increased their transmission by approximately 20% per word. The effect of moral-emotional language was observed over and above distinctly moral and distinctly emotional language as well as other factors that are known to increase online diffusion of messages.' This is why the "just teach people to think critically" agenda is increasingly inadequate. It assumes that the mind can patiently appraise everything presented to it. That assumption belonged to a bounded information environment. It does not belong to industrial-scale content production. The good news, and something that friend of the show Herbert Simon observed back in the early '70s, we can solve for the excess of information by allocating our 'attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.' A key part of this allocation process is critical ignoring. Critical ignoring begins where classical critical thinking curricula often refuse to begin: **before** engagement, at the moment of selection. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How High(er) Performers Out-Think Their Reactions URL: https://robert.winter.ink/how-high-er-performers-out-think-their-reactions/ Last updated: 2026-01-20T21:28:32.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/01/How-High-er--Performers-Out-Think-Their-Reactions_thumb.jpeg) How Higher Performers Out Think Their Reactions 0:00 /652.632 1× At 7:12 a.m., a CEO I once worked with fired off an email that made perfect sense—until it didn't. A board member had written, "We need to revisit the assumptions under this plan." The CEO read it as *We don't trust you*, heard an implied *and we never did*, and responded with a crisp, legalistic note that chilled the room for weeks. Later, when the chair asked what had happened, the CEO's answer was revealing: "I just reacted." That phrase—*I just reacted*—is the confession most leadership failures share. Under time pressure, status threat, or fatigue, even highly intelligent and otherwise capable executives can collapse into a detrimental autopilot: defensiveness masquerading as decisiveness; certainty standing in for judgement; speed substituting for clarity. What distinguishes leaders who keep improving is not raw brainpower. It is a quieter capacity: **metacognition**—the ability to notice one's own thinking while it is happening, and to revise it before it hardens into action. The term goes back to developmental and cognitive psychology: "knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena" or thinking about thinking, as [John H. Flavell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FH.%5FFlavell?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1928–2025) defined it in his seminal work *Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring*. In practice, it is the difference between *having a thought* and *being had by a thought*. For leaders, that difference is often the margin between judgement and regret. Below are three ways metacognition earns its keep in organisational life: by interrupting autopilot, by changing how the brain regulates emotion and belief, and by being designed—deliberately—into the routines of leadership and teams. > "It is the difference between *having a thought* and *being had by a thought*." ## 1) From Autopilot to Judgement At the risk of making an obvious generalisation, most leaders do not make their worst calls when calm and well-rested. They make them when hurried, challenged, or publicly scrutinised—precisely when the mind's predictive machinery becomes most rigid. Metacognition matters because it is the capacity to insert a pause between stimulus and response: *What story am I telling myself? What am I assuming? What else could be true?* Two strands of evidence are particularly relevant for executives. First, metacognition is closely tied to error-awareness and confidence calibration—how well people can judge whether they are right or wrong without external feedback. Reviews in cognitive neuroscience show that we can monitor decision quality (often via confidence judgements) in ways that support learning and reduce repeated mistakes. In business terms, this is the capacity to sense when you're bluffing—*before* the organisation pays for it. ⚠️ ****Confidence Ratings—Useful, but Easy to Game** Asking people how confident they are has become a common way to capture "confidence-in-accuracy" of projects. But treat it as a signal, not a verdict or data in the sense of measurable and immutable. The obvious weakness is reliability: if there's no cost to bluffing (or no reward for candour), why expect people to report their true confidence? Second, the degree to which a person's view of themselves matches how other people experience them—technically called "self–other agreement"—appears to separate strong managers from merely competent ones. In a large study of managerial self-awareness—made objective by comparing the congruence between self-ratings and direct reports' ratings—[high(er)-performing](https://robert.winter.ink/building-higher-performing-teams-a-leaders-guide-to-collaboration-and-success/) managers were significantly more self-aware than average-performing managers. This is not a moral compliment; it is a performance variable. When leaders cannot see themselves as they really are, [they cannot reliably adjust their decision making](https://robert.winter.ink/observe-orientate-decide-and-act/). What makes metacognition difficult is that it is mildly chastening for people who daily don the armour of iron-clad certainty in the face of withering professional scepticism. It demands that leaders treat their first interpretation as a hypothesis rather than a verdict. That posture is rare in cultures that reward certainty and punish visible doubt. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Giving Bad News, Badly URL: https://robert.winter.ink/giving-bad-news-badly/ Last updated: 2026-01-13T10:20:17.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/01/Giving-Bad-News--Badly_thumb.jpeg) Giving Bad News Badly 0:00 /718.296 1× Most managers do not lose trust because they deliver bad news. They lose it because they deliver bad news like a mugging: sudden, opaque, and with a perpetrator who is oddly proud of themselves. You have seen this species of manager. They deliver announcements with a corporate subject line ("Update"), a calendar invite that hides the purpose, and a tone that mistakes detachment for professionalism—but don't worry, you can bring a support person to the meeting, so long as they are on mute. The room goes quiet. Someone's identity—role, status, competence, future—is now under review. And the manager, sensing the danger, reaches for the two most reliable vices in corporate life: **vagueness** ("we're exploring options") and **theatre** ("this is hard for me too"). Neither reduces fear, instead both compound it. This is because trust is not a sentiment. It is the capacity to deliver *sound judgement under pressure*—a willingness to be vulnerable based on perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity. When the news is bad, you are asking people to accept vulnerability *immediately*. If you cannot explain yourself credibly, you will be treated as a risk, not a manager. A useful way to think about this is [Robert Sutton's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FI.%5FSutton?ref=robert.winter.ink) long-standing point that "toughness" is often a euphemism for needless harm: managers cut deeper than necessary to look decisive, or to imitate competitors, or because they are [bullies](https://robert.winter.ink/bullies-bosses-and-being-manipulated/) and they can. The result is not moral seriousness; it is ego maintenance dressed as discipline. And it fails even on pragmatic grounds: perceptions of fairness strongly shape how people respond to layoffs and other negative outcomes—especially *how* decisions are made and *how* they are communicated. Yet a deeper error also exists. That is to treat bad news as a transaction ("announce, explain, exit"). It is not a transaction, it is an *authority test*. Authority, properly understood, is not the ability to compel. It is the ability to secure consent through reasons that can withstand scrutiny. To revisit my usual hobby horse: managerialism is what happens when authority declines and power fills the vacuum—control without a convincing justification, and communication degraded into compliance rituals. That framing matters because bad news threatens three things at once: **security, meaning, and dignity**. If you handle any of these badly, the content of the decision becomes secondary to the emotion and tangible impact of the insult. ⚠️ ****The "Facts-and-Bluntness" Trap** Bad managers treat difficult conversations as a data dump: marshal the "facts", deliver them cold, and mistake bluntness for courage. Because they feel no discomfort—or barrel on precisely because they **do* and doubt their own competence—they assume everyone else is impressed. In practice, they don't build trust; they leave a wake of damage. ## What People Actually Need when the News is Bad Sutton's practical formula is deceptively humane: when delivering bad news, people need **predictability, understanding, control, and compassion**. Those are not *soft* needs. They are the conditions under which adults can stay rational when under threat. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### In Defence of the Em-Dash URL: https://robert.winter.ink/in-defence-of-the-em-dash/ Last updated: 2026-01-06T06:30:54.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/12/In-Defence-of-the-Em-Dash_thumb.jpeg) In Defence of the Em Dash 0:00 /904.632 1× There is a peculiar superstition abroad in the LLM age: that good punctuation—particularly the em-dash—is suspicious. If a sentence carries itself with a certain poise, if clauses are balanced with grace, if the em-dash appears as anything other than a hacked-in hyphen, some will mutter that the text "looks like AI." It is an irony Wilde might have enjoyed. The very marks once associated with precision, wit, and literary control have become, in some quarters, evidence of mechanisation. Yet the idea collapses under the slightest historical pressure. The great English stylists of the last two centuries deployed the em-dash with abandon. They used it not as ornament but as an instrument: a hinge, a turn, a breath, a point of emphasis. Long before algorithms arrived, writers were using punctuation with a sophistication now deemed artificial. The problem, I suspect, is not the em-dash itself but our [cultural anxiety around authorship](https://robert.winter.ink/trust-in-the-age-of-the-machine/). In an age when text can be conjured instantly, people have grown skittish, scanning prose for cryptic signs of machine influence. What they rarely scan is the literary canon. If they did, they would discover that the em-dash is as human as any other punctuation mark on the page. There is a useful parallel to be drawn between the contemporary decline in linguistic standards at work and the collapse of sartorial elegance in the office—for those who still attend. Since Covid, the hoodie and yoga pants have migrated from weekend anonymity or casual Friday fun when working from home, to weekday orthodoxy. Anything approaching a collar and tie—or a tailored pant suit—is treated with faint embarrassment, as though effort itself were a kind of moral failing. The same suspicion now attaches to language. Clipped sentences littered with errors signal authenticity; compound sentences suggest artifice. Brevity is praised as clarity; structure is misread as pretension. Just as formal dress is caricatured as inauthentic performance rather than professional courtesy, so too is carefully constructed prose dismissed as unnatural, or worse, automated. In both cases, what is really being rejected is not excess but discipline—the visible signs that someone has taken the trouble to meet a standard rather than retreat from one. ## A Lineage of the Dash Take [Emily Dickinson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily%5FDickinson?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1830–1886), who elevated the em-dash almost to metaphysics: > Mr Higginson, > Are you too deeply occupied to say if my Verse is alive? > The Mind is so near itself—it cannot see, distinctly—and I have none to ask— > Should you think it breathed—and had you the leisure to tell me, I should feel quick gratitude— > If I make the mistake—that you dared to tell me—would give me sincerer honor—toward you— > I enclose my name—asking you, if you please—Sir—to tell me what is true? > That you will not betray me—it is needless to ask—since Honor is it's own pawn— > > — [*Is "my Verse ... alive?"*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily%5FDickinson?ref=robert.winter.ink#Is%5F%22my%5FVerse%5F...%5Falive?%22), 1862) Her dashes breathe. They fracture the line in a way commas never could. To accuse such punctuation of artificiality would be to misunderstand not only Dickinson but language itself. [Henry James](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%5FJames?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1843–1916), for all his labyrinthine sentences, relied on the em-dash when he wished to deliver a decisive turn: > Under certain circumstances there are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea. There are circumstances in which, whether you partake of the tea or not,—some people of course never do,—the situation is in itself delightful. > > — [*The Portrait of a Lady*](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1880/11/portrait-of-a-lady/306251/?ref=robert.winter.ink), ch. 1 This passage—characteristically Jamesian—uses the em-dash not for emphasis but for social calibration. The sentence begins as a measured generalisation, but the dash introduces a wry aside ('some people of course never do') that shifts the register from abstract reflection to keen social awareness. The aside is not logically necessary, but it is tonally essential. The em-dash slows the sentence more than a comma would, allowing the narrator to acknowledge exception, eccentricity, and choice without derailing the thought. It gives the observation just enough prominence to humanise the claim: the pleasure lies not in tea as a beverage but in tea as a social situation. The punctuation enacts the ethic of the sentence—civilised, inclusive, lightly ironic—and demonstrates precisely why the em-dash remains a mark of human judgment rather than mechanical habit. Or consider [F. Scott Fitzgerald](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.%5FScott%5FFitzgerald?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1896–1940), whose prose was sculpted more finely than his reputation sometimes suggests: > He smiled understandingly—much more than understandingly. It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life. It faced—or seemed to face—the whole eternal world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favour. It understood you just so far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey. > > — [*The Great Gatsby*](https://dpul.princeton.edu/gatsby100/feature/the-great-scott?ref=robert.winter.ink), ch. 3 Fitzgerald knew the value of pause and acceleration. The dash propels the reader through a shift of tone—a movement accessible only through that mark. [Virginia Woolf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia%5FWoolf?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1882–1941) used the em-dash to reveal interiority, capturing the ebb and flow of consciousness: > "Do you write many letters, Mr. Tansley?" asked Mrs. Ramsay, pitying him too, Lily supposed; for that was true of Mrs. Ramsay—she pitied men always as if they lacked something—women never, as if they had something. > — [*To the Lighthouse*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To%5Fthe%5FLighthouse?ref=robert.winter.ink), ch. 17 And [George Orwell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FOrwell?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1903–1950)—patron saint of plain writing—was no stranger to the em-dash either. He used it sparingly, but when he reached for it, he reached with purpose: > Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meanings as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose—not simply *accept*—the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impression one's words are likely to make on another person. > — [*Politics and the English Language*](https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/?ref=robert.winter.ink) Those who claim the em-dash is too neat or too structured or too mechanical to be human would need to indict these writers as proto-algorithms. An absurd notion up with which I shall not put! ## My Years in Trade Publishing: the Editors Who Waged War on the Dash I spent years in trade publishing watching editors argue—sometimes passionately, always pedantically—about punctuation. The em-dash, curiously, was rarely their enemy. Their scorn was directed at the hyphen masquerading as one: that stunted mark jammed between words by authors who either didn't know the difference or didn't care. Editors hated that. They hated it the way a violinist hates a flat note. "If you mean an em-dash," one senior editor would say, "have the courage to use one." Another kept a Post-it on her monitor: *'-' ≠ '—'*. Almost Biblical in its clarity. But the genuine em-dash? That was a sign of craft. A sign the writer understood how clauses interact. A sign the rhythm of the sentence had been heard, not merely assembled. Editors respected the em-dash because it marked intention. Which is why today's suspicion feels misplaced. If you want to sound clever in the old-fashioned editorial sense, criticise the misuse of the dash—not its proper deployment. The editors of my career took no issue with the em-dash. Their quarrel was with sloppiness. ## A Culture that Fears Signs of Competence Why, then, the contemporary aversion? Because the digital era has produced a strange reversal: competence itself has grown suspect. When so many poorly punctuated messages flood the world daily the appearance of control, of structural awareness, seems uncanny. The idea that a tool's elegance signals artificiality is a confusion of categories. We do not look at a well-built stone wall and assume it must have been constructed by a robot. We attribute quality to craft, not to circuitry. Yet somehow the act of writing has been recast as suspicious precisely when it is executed well. The em-dash, caught in this new superstition, becomes collateral damage. But it is not the mark that has changed; it is our imagination. ## What the Em-dash Actually Does For those of you who viewed the em-dash with a wary eye, but having made it this far are now wary of misplaced ire, what function does this inestimable punctuation mark serve? It has several functions, all of them legitimate and none replaceable without cost. Most commonly, it operates as a lighter, more permeable alternative to parentheses. Parentheses quarantine a thought; they signal that what follows is optional, secondary, or best skimmed. The em-dash, by contrast, insists that the inserted material be read. It allows a sentence to momentarily widen its field of vision without relinquishing control of its argument. The effect is not apologetic but conversational: the sentence pauses, turns, and resumes with greater texture intact. Compare: - *The meeting—which should have ended an hour ago—continued interminably.* - *The meeting (which should have ended an hour ago) continued interminably.* The first is alive; the second, apologetic. The em-dash also marks interruption and tonal shift—those moments when thought revises itself mid-stride. Dickens used it not to decorate but to dramatise cognition, allowing a sentence to register jealousy, irony, or reconsideration as it unfolds rather than after the fact. In this sense, the dash captures thinking *in motion*, not thinking already resolved. As Dickens demonstrates in *David Copperfield*: > Grey as he was—and a great-grandfather into the bargain, for he said so—I was madly jealous of him. Third, the em-dash restores clarity where commas begin to collapse under strain. Complex sentences often require hierarchy, not mere separation. When too many ideas are forced through commas alone, the reader is left to infer structure rather than follow it. The em-dash reasserts that structure cleanly, signalling emphasis without resorting to blunt devices such as exclamation or fragmentation. Fourth, is the em-dash's ability to signal omission. Where words are deliberately left unsaid—whether through tact, restraint, or rhetorical compression—the dash acknowledges absence without spelling it out. It allows the sentence to gesture rather than enumerate, trusting the reader to complete the thought. This economy is not evasive; it is respectful, and it avoids the false precision that often weakens prose. > Mr. Tulkinghorn takes out his papers, asks permission to place them on a golden talisman of a table at my Lady's elbow, puts on his spectacles, and begins to read by the light of a shaded lamp. > > "'In Chancery. Between John Jarndyce—'" > > My Lady interrupts, requesting him to miss as many of the formal horrors as he can. > > — [*Bleak House*](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1023/1023-h/1023-h.htm?ref=robert.winter.ink), ch. 2. Finally, the em-dash mirrors the rhythm of actual reasoning. Human thought is rarely linear; it detours, qualifies, and recalibrates. The em-dash accommodates this without breaking the sentence apart. It is, in effect, a typographical breath—longer than a comma, less final than a full stop—allowing nuance to surface without derailing momentum. This is why serious writers relied upon it. Not because they lacked discipline, but because they possessed it. The em-dash exists not to weaken prose, but to prevent it from lying about how thought really moves. ## The Fear of Resemblance What unsettles critics, I think, is that AI systems also use em-dashes. This is not because the em-dash is inherently mechanical, but because AI was trained on human literature. The dash appears in machine-generated text because it appears in human-generated text—centuries of it. To reject the em-dash on this basis would be to reject any construction AI can replicate. Goodbye to the semicolon, so beloved of Woolf and Eliot. Farewell to the colon that Wodehouse used it to magnificent comic effect. Adieu to the compound sentence, without which James would be unpublishable. One might as well ban the alphabet. This is not to say all uses of the em-dash are good. Like any tool, it must be handled judiciously. Too many dashes can make prose breathless, nervy. Too few, and sentences stiffen. The point is not to use the em-dash universally but to use it intentionally. Punctuation is, in a sense, a moral art. It signals the writer's care for the reader's comprehension. A thought properly set out is an act of respect. AI, by contrast, has no such moral stake. It does not care whether a clause lands or whether a rhythm works. It produces patterns. [Humans produce meaning](https://robert.winter.ink/trust-in-the-age-of-the-machine/). The em-dash belongs to the latter domain. ## What We Should Criticise If one truly wishes to distinguish human writing from machine writing, the place to look is not punctuation but insight—judgment, experience, moral intuition. A machine can place an em-dash, but it cannot *intend* one. Criticising punctuation is the literary equivalent of tapping the bodywork of a car and pronouncing upon the quality of its engine. One must look deeper. But if one insists on waging war over punctuation, then at least wage the right war. Attack the wrong dash—the hyphen used in place of the em-dash. Attack laziness, muddle, and the half-thought. But do not attack the em-dash itself. It has done nothing but serve language faithfully. Perhaps we might even rehabilitate the em-dash. Celebrate it. Use it with confidence, knowing we stand in a lineage that includes Dickens, James, Fitzgerald, and Orwell—not the worst company a writer could keep. To write well is to choose well. And sometimes the best choice is the em-dash. After all, as [E. M. Forster once wrote](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/12/11/know-say/?ref=robert.winter.ink#63c2485f-aca5-41dc-baad-eaea499f16e5) in a moment of syntactical epiphany: > How can I tell what I think till I see what I say? The em-dash has always been part of that seeing. It deserves our defence, not our doubt, much less our defamation. Good night, and good luck. --- *Tragedy of Othello, 1622 Oakes print, page 19* is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### 2025 in Review: Authority, Attention, and the Return of Coherence URL: https://robert.winter.ink/2025-in-review-authority-attention-and-the-return-of-coherence/ Last updated: 2026-05-05T11:44:49.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/12/2025-in-Review-----Authority--Attention--and-the-Return-of-Coherence_thumb.jpeg) 2025 in Review Authority Attention and the Return of Coherence 0:00 /874.704 1× Ah, 2025: a year in which almost everyone became fluent in "leadership" as a noun, and strangely incoherent when practising it as a verb. In my own small corner of the internet, the year's output came to roughly 44 pieces—about 73,000 words—circling a familiar cluster of preoccupations: how authority is gained (and lost), why language matters more than most executives admit, what coherence looks like when you stop mistaking it for "vision", and how organisations quietly rot—not with [spectacular scandals](https://robert.winter.ink/who-guards-the-guardians/), but through [silence in organisational behaviour](https://robert.winter.ink/silence-in-organisational-behaviour/), managerial theatre, and the slow replacement of judgement with process. If I had to name the governing mood of 2025, it was this: a growing suspicion that many institutions are simultaneously over-managed and under-led. The paperwork is immaculate; the thinking is not. The dashboards glow; the decisions wobble. As I heard form manager after manager I spoke with: organisational progress is less often obstructed by a lack of information than by a lack of clarity about who is authorised to decide, on what grounds, and with what consequences. ## The Year's Recurring Argument: Leadership is Reasoned Authority, not Managerial Performance One thread ran through the year like a steel wire: the distinction between *authority* and *managerialism*. In the best cases, authority is granted because the leader can make the case—logically, ethically, and with the relevant knowledge close at hand. In the worst cases, "authority" is merely institutional power wearing a polite lanyard. This is not just a rhetorical preference for debate-club manners. Spillane and Joullié's critique of managerialism helps explain why so many organisations feel busy yet brittle: managerialism tends to conceal conflict, avoid rational argumentation, and substitute emotive performance for critical evaluation—precisely because genuine debate is unpredictable, and unpredictability is the enemy of those who justify themselves as "scientific managers" of human affairs. The result is a work culture in which meetings become cathartic performances and decisions become the "lowest common denominator" of what can be said without offence. When debate is replaced by atmosphere, authority cannot be earned—only asserted. That critique connects neatly to another preoccupation of 2025: *language as executive work*. Executive effectiveness depends on autonomy of judgement and responsible decision-making, and in that process language is not an accessory but central pillar to that function—executive work is essentially declarative. To be effective, managers draw on a hierarchy of language functions—expressive, descriptive, and argumentative—where the giving of reasons matters, not merely the expression of feelings. Put plainly: managers that cannot speak in reasons will eventually attempt to lead by ritual. This is why, across the year, I kept returning to the same unfashionable point: the health of an organisation is visible in its *arguments*. Not the shouting kind—the disciplined kind. Where do disagreements go? How are they tested? Who is allowed to challenge whom, and on what evidence? Which conversations are "safe" precisely because they are inconsequential? A reliable warning sign: a workplace full of lively discussion, yet almost no accountable decisions are being made. [An Eight-Part Playbook for Human-Centred AIA practical playbook for human-centred AI: redesigning workflows, building capability, governing judgment, and sustaining talent pipelines so AI amplifies human agency rather than hollowing out the organisation.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-31.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/NY_Moma_lissitsky_19D-1.jpeg)](https://robert.winter.ink/an-eight-part-playbook-for-human-centred-ai/) ## Coherence over "vision": the Strategic virtue of not Lying to Yourself The second major theme was strategy—specifically, a critique of the modern corporate addiction to "vision" language. Too often, vision statements function as decorative theology: a shared creed that offends nobody and changes nothing. In contrast, coherence is costly. It forces trade-offs. It constrains what you can plausibly claim to care about. The case I kept making in 2025 was straightforward: coherence matters more than vision because strategic success comes from consistent choices—across goals, behaviour, and priorities—rather than from eloquent aspiration and chaotic choices. Vision can be churned out by AI; coherence can only be earned from repeated good choices. This theme was sharpened through a related argument: the "blank slate" approach to organisational management. When a culture defaults to blame, defensiveness, and inherited dysfunction, you will not repair it by polishing slogans. You need a deliberate reset: clear accountabilities, the removal of performative activity, and a willingness to name the actual work and who is [accountable](https://robert.winter.ink/responsibility-ownership-accountability/). The blank slate idea was less "burn it down" than "stop pretending the current shape is inevitable". ****Responsibility** Can Be Seen when Role-based Output is Delivered by an Individual. ****Ownership** is the Extent to Which a Person Follows Up, or 'owns', the Responsibility Discharged. ****Accountability** Takes Responsibility and Ownership from 'me' to 'we'. Here, Michael Porter remains the corrective many executives claim to have read but few appear to have absorbed. Porter's central insistence—that strategy is the discipline of defining a position, making trade-offs, and forging fit among activities—functions as an antidote to the modern drift into "operational effectiveness dressed up as strategy". Strategy is as much about choosing what *not* to do as it is about doing more, faster, and with higher EBIT. In a year saturated with corporate performance, coherence was my preferred way of speaking about honesty. [An Eight-Part Playbook for Human-Centred AIA practical playbook for human-centred AI: redesigning workflows, building capability, governing judgment, and sustaining talent pipelines so AI amplifies human agency rather than hollowing out the organisation.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-30.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/NY_Moma_lissitsky_19D.jpeg)](https://robert.winter.ink/an-eight-part-playbook-for-human-centred-ai/) ## Reward, Talent, and the Quiet Moral Hazards of "nice" Systems Several pieces this year circled performance, reward, and the moral confusion introduced by well-intentioned people. One example: the argument about rewarding effort and learning. The point was not that effort is meaningless—effort is indispensable—but that unexamined "effort-first" reward systems can unintentionally incentivise mediocrity, entitlement, and performative striving. When effort becomes the prize, you can end up rewarding people for activity that never achieves impact. In other words, someone with a growth mindset is not the same as someone who merely engages with rituals of participation. This is one of the places where executive judgement remains irreplaceable: you must reward improvement *and* require standards. Likewise, the year returned to the difficulty of identifying potential: the common error of mistaking confidence, polish, or pedigree for future performance. It is easier to reward the socially legible candidate than the quietly competent one; easier to hire the *stacked* CV than the person whose capabilities have not yet been given room. That is not merely a talent issue; it is a leadership issue, because it reveals what a culture actually values when nobody is watching. [The Pitfalls of Rewarding Effort in Organisational BehaviourRewarding effort can motivate, but overdoing it breeds entitlement, inefficiency, and burnout. Tying rewards to outcomes, strengthening intrinsic motivation, and favouring collective achievement helps balance effort with excellence and sustain a healthy organisational culture.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-29.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/dall-e-2024-12-31-effort-vs-outcome.webp)](https://robert.winter.ink/the-pitfalls-of-rewarding-effort-in-organisational-behaviour/) ## Attention as Strategy: Writing, Reading, and the Discipline of Exclusion If 2024 was the year of noise, 2025 was the year of fatigue. The temptation was to consume more information as a hedge against uncertainty, and to replace thinking with scanning. Two paired arguments mattered here. First: better writing improves credibility. Not because prose is a party trick—special pleading on my part—but because writing reveals whether you have actually thought. Clear writing forces you to define terms, expose assumptions, and decide what you mean. It also reduces organisational ambiguity—the breeding ground of politics and misinterpretation. Second: the art of not reading. In a world of industrial-scale content production, attention becomes a strategic resource. The discipline is not merely choosing *what* to read, but refusing the endless churn of transient commentary, in order to return to first-order sources and durable arguments. The considered decision not to read isn't a rejection of learning but a commitment to doing it better. The point is not monkish withdrawal. It is executive triage: decide which inputs deserve the privilege of shaping your judgement. This theme also served as a subtle critique of AI-era knowledge work. When generation becomes cheap, discernment becomes expensive. The executive advantage shifts from producing words to evaluating them—testing claims, tracing sources, and resisting the seduction of fluent nonsense. [The Art of Not ReadingIn an age of information overload, mastering the art of not reading is vital. Schopenhauer warns against indiscriminate consumption, urging deep engagement with quality works to cultivate sharper thinking, intellectual discipline, and true independence of mind.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-28.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/dall-e-2025-02-10-art-of-not-reading.webp)](https://robert.winter.ink/the-art-of-not-reading/) ## Trust, Proxy Trust, and the next Institutional Test Late in the year, the trust question became harder to avoid. Not "trust" as a generic virtue, but trust as an institutional mechanism. That which what makes coordination possible when certainty is low. A key concept here was *proxy trust*: trusting the machine because you trust the institution behind it—outsourcing trust to systems rather than people. The danger is not simply technical error; it is the slow erosion of interpersonal trust and accountable authority. If you rely on institutional proxies to decide what is true, you can end up with an organisation that is simultaneously confident and ungrounded. This matters because the wider environment is increasingly hostile to authenticity. The [World Economic Forum](https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF%5FGlobal%5FRisks%5FReport%5F2025.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink) has placed misinformation and disinformation among the most severe short-term global risks, precisely because a society that cannot reliably distinguish truth from fabrication struggles to coordinate—politically, economically, and organisationally. If your staff cannot tell what is real, your strategy becomes theatre. At this point, it helps to remember Cicero's bluntness: the foundation of justice is good faith. Sadly this concept has been devalued by too many account executives using it in place of a well written contract. Yet, we would do well to resuscitate the concept because good faith is the precondition for commerce, contract, and cooperation. Lose it, and you get surveillance, bureaucracy, and fear—expensive substitutes for trust. [Building Trust Through Authentic LeadershipAuthentic leadership builds trust through transparency, ethics, and empathy. Leaders who model authenticity create psychological safety, strengthen relationships, and foster resilient, innovative cultures that support lasting organisational success.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-27.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/dall-e-2025-01-12-building-trust-through-authentic-leadership.webp)](https://robert.winter.ink/building-trust-through-authentic-leadership/) ## Looking Ahead: 2026, Here We Come Predictions are often just anxieties in a tuxedo, but a year-in-review earns its keep only if it leads to sharper choices. So here are my high-level strategic projections for 2026. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### An Eight-Part Playbook for Human-Centred AI URL: https://robert.winter.ink/an-eight-part-playbook-for-human-centred-ai/ Last updated: 2025-12-23T22:45:45.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/12/An-Eight-Part-Playbook-for-Human-Centred-AI_thumb.jpeg) An Eight Part Playbook for Human Centred AI 0:00 /1203.048 1× In [Part I](https://robert.winter.ink/the-missing-middle-in-enterprise-ai/) I showed that most organisations now *do AI* in the same way they once pursued total quality management or digital transformation: enthusiastically, broadly, and with limited impact. The difference today is the scale of the stakes. AI touches the essence of work—judgment, autonomy, responsibility—and thereby exposes the limits of managerialism. The companies producing real value are not the ones adopting the most tools, but the ones creating the conditions under which people can use those tools to do better work. 🗒️ ****The Scale of the AI Surge** The Manhattan Project cost roughly $30B in today’s dollars; the Apollo program about $298B. Since 2013, investors have poured $1.6T into AI—2025 alone is forecast to add another $375B, eclipsing both historic programs combined. In the first quarter of this year, AI startups drew $70B, nearly 60% of all global venture funding. Part II turns from diagnosis to practice. What follows is a structured playbook, grounded in the evidence from McKinsey, the BCG Henderson Institute and Columbia Business School, and the governance research now emerging in director circles—most notably from the AICD and Human Technology Institute. It reflects the oldest insight in organisational life: "We become just by doing just acts". Capabilities emerge from practice, not policy. This eight-part playbook shows managers how to create the practices—and the conditions—that allow AI to compound human capability rather than displace or diminish it. ## 1\. Start with the Work, Not the Tools Most AI programs begin with a catalogue of technologies or use cases. This is an understandable reflex, reinforced by vendor incentives and the cultural prestige of the technical. But competitive advantage originates in *outcomes*—what people achieve—not in general-purpose technologies. A human-centred AI program therefore begins with a simple sequence: 1. **Map the work**: Identify the decisions, judgments, and routine tasks within each workflow. 2. **Classify them:** by required human expertise, frequency, error tolerance, and data availability. 3. **Isolate the value areas**: Where does AI amplify human judgment? Where does it automate low-value work? Where does it create new forms of work altogether? The firms that realise real value from AI do something beyond tactical automation. A common theme in reports on the state of AI in 2025 consistently shows the small subset of organisations achieving measurable returns from AI investments achieve it from reshaping and reinventing workflows, not merely trimming cost lines by automating people's jobs. These organisations integrate AI deeply into business processes, align management, governance and data foundations, and engage in [strategic workforce planning](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/workforce-planning/), rather than treating the technology as a strategic answer to a business problem. [Governing Digital with Courage and ClarityDigital is no longer a side project your CIO worries about between outages. AI pilots, data-sharing partnerships, cloud migrations, and “transformation” programs are now inseparable from strategy, risk, and reputation. Yet many boards still receive slide decks that are long on aspiration and short on accountable owners, hard metrics, or![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-17.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/IMG_4069-2-1.jpeg)](https://robert.winter.ink/governing-digital-with-courage-and-clarity/) While AI use accelerates on the ground, governance often lags behind. **Governing with Courage and Clarity* offers a practical framework for boards seeking to govern AI with coherence, courage, and credibility—available to subscribers. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Missing Middle in Enterprise AI URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-missing-middle-in-enterprise-ai/ Last updated: 2026-05-05T11:43:21.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/12/The-Missing-Middle-in-Enterprise-AI_thumb.jpeg) The Missing Middle in Enterprise AI 0:00 /634.08 1× In the past year, the boardrooms I advise have begun to sound uncannily alike. The vocabulary varies—pilots, proofs of concept, responsible AI, agents, risk dashboards—but the substance is monotonously consistent. Everyone, it seems, is *doing* something with AI. Yet almost no one can point to a serious, material improvement in performance. Of course, confront the average CEO or board chair with this reality and you will be met with vehement disagreement, and with good reason. Billions have been poured into the AI revolution, and, for the average organisation, the outcomes have been at best—tepid. Opinions, on the other hand, are boiling hot. But as [Protagoras](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras?ref=robert.winter.ink) (c. 490 BC – c. 420 BC) put it some two and a half thousand years ago: > Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not. In much of today's corporate AI discourse that is exactly what is happening: people with positional authority are dressing opinion up as inevitability. While '88 percent report regular AI use in at least one business function', 'most organisations are still in the experimentation or piloting phase', and 'nearly two-thirds of respondents say their organisations have not yet begun scaling AI across the enterprise.' Perhaps most damming of all is that 'just 39 percent report EBITDA impact at the enterprise level.' In every presentation I've given this year, those numbers have landed like a dull thud on well-polished board tables. Impact remains the outlier, not the norm. The organisations achieving meaningful returns are not tinkering with ever more varied tools or stitching together dashboard curiosities. They are rebuilding workflows, not tweaking them, and creating new products, not merely automating existing ones. They treat AI as a structural shift rather than an upgrade that can save on headcount. The rest are still caught in what has been termed the 'tame house of habit'—incrementalism masquerading as innovation. AI is everywhere; impact is not. And in what must be seen as a widening gap between the haves and have nots sits the defining strategic question of the decade: *does AI make our organisations more or less human?* ## The False Binary: Technology or People? The usual explanation for this shortfall is that companies have not found the right use cases. A more sophisticated version of this line of thinking seeks to blame fragmented data estates, technical debt, or insufficient model governance. All true, in part. But these are not the decisive variables. The BCG Henderson Institute, working with Columbia Business School, identified something much more elemental: companies that put employees at the centre of their AI strategy are seven times more likely to be AI-mature. Their findings are remarkably consistent across markets: - Employees in people-centric AI companies are **70% more likely to feel enthusiastic and optimistic** about AI adoption. - They are **92% more likely to feel well-informed** about the organisation's AI strategy and tools. - They are **57% more likely to see their company as a faster adopter** of technology than competitors. These are not cosmetic differences in sentiment. They are antecedents to behaviour—specifically, the behaviours required to redesign work. As I wrote in [*Trust in the Age of the Machine*](https://robert.winter.ink/trust-in-the-age-of-the-machine/), tools alone do not transform organisations. Judgment does. And judgment sits with people, not models—much less software. ## The Emerging Operational Frontier: Agency and Autonomy From a year ago, the emerging data reinforce a familiar pattern: the spread of AI continues, but genuine scale remains elusive—and with it EBITDA impact. Many organisations have deployed tools, yet few have converted them into productised use cases, re-engineered their workflows for agentic systems, or built the institutional scaffolding—platforms, standards, and guardrails—required to operate at scale. In my work with firms, the largest players unsurprisingly move faster; they possess the capital, data, and organisational muscle to push further along the adoption curve. Those reporting material EBITDA impact are typically the ones that have already crossed from experimentation into disciplined scaling. Most executives insist they are pursuing efficiency. The more interesting ones recognise that efficiency is merely table stakes: the real gains appear when technology is used not only to streamline work, but to reshape it. Yet outside the heady circles of C-suite and board, the mood oscillates between excitement and unease. The freighted question—sometimes whispered, sometimes blunt—is whether agents will take jobs. History is instructive. In every major technological transition, junior roles absorb the first shock. AI appears set to follow the same pattern: over the coming year, roughly a third of respondents to a recent survey anticipate a reduction, just under half expect no material change, and a small minority foresee an increase. For boards and executives, this raises uncomfortable questions about [talent pipelines](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/workforce-planning/), [succession planning](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/succession-planning-series/), and the future shape of the organisation. Yet the [better question](https://robert.winter.ink/better-questions-make-for-better-decisions/)—the strategic one—is not *which* roles go, but *how much agency remains with those who stay?* The good news, for people with real capabilities and credentials, is that firms scoring highly on employee-centricity—those that invest early in communication, training, and shared understanding—are seven times more likely to be AI-mature than those that do not. What this suggests is not a technical advantage but an institutional one. Where employees are informed, engaged, and brought into the design of change, organisations absorb new capabilities like AI more readily and move from experimentation to scale with far less friction. The goal therefore is not substitution but super-agency: people empowered to do more, faster, with better judgment. This mirrors a point made in the governance literature. A recent briefing from the [AICD](https://www.aicd.com.au/content/dam/aicd/pdf/tools-resources/director-resources/ai-use-by-directors-and-boards.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink) to directors warned that boards should avoid treating AI as a purely technical domain requiring specialist oversight. Instead, the challenge is to ensure that all directors 'have a level of AI literacy that enables them to challenge management on the nature and quality of these AI inputs, even if not actively using AI themselves.' In other words, AI literacy is becoming as critical for directors as financial literacy. ## Why "tool-centric" AI Strategies Underperform I have often written about the critical distinction between authority (grounded in reasoned elaboration, expertise, and mutual respect) and managerialism (grounded in power, procedure, and coercive control). This distinction is particularly germane in the realm of AI, with many programs falling into the latter category: deploying tools *at* people rather than *with* them. The result is predictable—superficial compliance, limited learning, and minimal impact. A tool-centric AI program suffers from five recurrent pathologies: 1. **Lack of meaning:** Employees cannot connect the technology to the organisation's purpose or strategy. 2. **Lack of capability:** Training is episodic, not continuous; basic fluency never matures into genuine mastery. 3. **Lack of psychological safety:** People avoid experimentation because the risk of failure is social, not technical. 4. **Lack of guardrails:** Governance focuses on model risk rather than decision-making risk. 5. **Lack of behavioural incentives:** Organisations reward outputs, not the upstream behaviours that generate them. The outcome is organisational theatre. Institutions that act *without* deliberation, mistaking motion for progress. See my recent members only report [**Governing Digital with Courage and Clarity*](https://robert.winter.ink/governing-digital-with-courage-and-clarity/) for some practical guide rails to help institutions act ***with** deliberation. [Governing Digital with Courage and ClarityDigital is no longer a side project your CIO worries about between outages. AI pilots, data-sharing partnerships, cloud migrations, and “transformation” programs are now inseparable from strategy, risk, and reputation. Yet many boards still receive slide decks that are long on aspiration and short on accountable owners, hard metrics, or![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-16.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/IMG_4069-2.jpeg)](https://robert.winter.ink/governing-digital-with-courage-and-clarity/) ## The Real Work: Rebuilding the Social Contract of Work If the early productivity illusions of AI have taught boards and management teams anything, it is that technology cannot compensate for a hollow social contract. Employees who fear replacement rarely experiment. Teams that lack psychological safety rarely redesign workflows. Organisations that punish failure suffocate innovation before it begins. The result is [Governance in Name Only (GINO)](https://robert.winter.ink/governance-in-name-only-gino/). This explains why employee sentiment is such a strong predictor of AI maturity. AI succeeds where trust already exists. It fails where the cultural substrate is brittle. Boards are beginning to grasp that they are not merely responsible for AI risk oversight; they are responsible for the conditions under which AI can create value. This includes: - **Workforce transition planning:** not just headcount planning. - **Ethical clarity:** articulating what decisions must have a human origin. - **Transparent communication:** especially around role redesign and workforce planning. - **Investment in capability building:** sustained and organisation wide. - **Reward systems:** recognising the behaviours that shape AI maturity. The central insight is simple but disruptive: a human-centred AI strategy is, above all, a leadership strategy. ## Where The next Serious Companies Will Appear In every period of technological upheaval, a cohort of leaders emerge that see the world differently—and by that, I mean *better*. They do not merely adapt to the new technology; they reorganise around it. They treat the shift not as a cost-reduction exercise but as a moment to reimagine the work, the product, and the organisation. The next serious companies will appear in the gap between pilots and profit. They will distinguish themselves not through AI models, compute metrics, or vendor contracts, but through judgment, governance, and the way they treat their people. This is the [hinge](https://robert.winter.ink/why-trust-matters-more-than-data-in-decision-making/#trust-before-data) between Part I and Part II of this series. Part I has outlined the strategic context: the stalling of impact, the centrality of people, the organisational pathologies that hold companies back, and the governance implications for leaders and boards. But the practical question remains unanswered: **What should leaders actually *do* to build a human-centred AI strategy that works?** How do they design the workflows, incentives, guardrails, training, structures, and governance mechanisms that convert AI from a pilot factory into an engine of enterprise performance? That is the task of **Part II**, available exclusively to members next week. Good night, and good luck. --- *Polyphonic Architecture* (1930) by [Paul Klee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul%5FKlee?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1879–1940) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### A Six-Move Playbook for Managers Who Need Truth and Traction URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-six-move-playbook-for-managers-who-need-truth-and-traction/ Last updated: 2026-05-05T11:38:36.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/12/A-Six-Move-Playbook-for-Managers-Who-Need-Truth-and-Traction_thumb.jpeg) A Six Move Playbook for Managers Who Need Truth and Traction 0:00 /696.288 1× If you haven't read part one, [start there](https://robert.winter.ink/a-delicate-dance-of-trust-and-openness/). It lays out the mechanics—the boundary conditions, the hybrid traps, and why psychological safety without accountability makes teams comfortable but slow. This second instalment picks up where the theory ends and the practice begins. Managers do not need more slogans about trust or more exhortations to "be vulnerable", they need a method. The practical steps that shape how a team behaves when stakes rise, stakeholders conflict, and the schedule will not slow. This is where Part 2 lives of this two-part series on psychological safety—in the domain of execution. The moves below are simple, but not easy. They demand management that is precise, transparent, and comfortable with discomfort—good luck with that I hear some sceptics say. But that is the price of candour and the precondition for clarity. It is also something that can provide value even when managers are far from great. It has become vogue for a certain rage bait type to flame this sort of framework on social media. As if by ridiculing something they are drawing attention to a deeper problem—that their managers are not great. I don't disagree that bad managers can turn any tool into [theatre](https://robert.winter.ink/bullies-bosses-and-being-manipulated/). But that's not the point. The value is we don't live in a world populated exclusively by competent managers—nor has any organisation in history achieved that feat. We live in the world as it is: uneven capability, uneven judgment, and a long tail of managers who are neither malicious nor brilliant, just middling. And in that world, guardrails matter. For while a simple framework doesn't **create* great management, it can at least stop the worst habits from compounding. It gives teams something to hold onto when the person in the chair isn't up to the task. To reject structure because a small subset might abuse it is to mistake an edge case for the norm. Good managers won't need this kind of scaffolding; bad ones won't use it well. But for the large population in the middle—the competent-but-stretched, the developing, the overwhelmed—structure is not Orwellian. It's oxygen. Below are the six moves I have found to be most useful with management teams. They require no internal taskforce, no three-day retreat with matching ropes course, and no culture consultants. They require only thought and consistency. ### 1\. Call Failures by Their Proper Names In part one, I distinguished between intelligent failures and basic mistakes. Part two now puts that distinction to work. [A Delicate Dance of Trust and OpennessPsychological safety is often miscast as comfort. It’s time to restore a harder edge: as a discipline that lets teams surface error early, challenge authority safely, and keep standards sharp—especially in hybrid work, where voice is fragile and candour is the real performance engine.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-15.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/Vassily_Kandinsky-_1926_-_Several_Circles-_Gugg_0910_25.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/a-delicate-dance-of-trust-and-openness/) If you haven't already, read part one. Teams spiral into fear when all failures are treated the same. They spiral into complacency when none are scrutinised. Managers can break those cycles by creating a shared language that classifies failure at the point of review: _This post is for subscribers only._ ### A Delicate Dance of Trust and Openness URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-delicate-dance-of-trust-and-openness/ Last updated: 2025-12-02T06:30:43.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/A-Delicate-Dance-of-Trust-and-Openness_thumb.jpeg) A Delicate Dance of Trust and Openness 0:00 /723.648 1× 🗒️ ****This is Part 1 of a two-part series on psychological safety.** This sets the foundations—what safety is, where it fails, and how it behaves in hybrid work. Part 2 delivers a practical six-move playbook you can apply immediately. Psychological safety has become the team buzzword of the decade, but the best leaders I advise don't treat it as mood lighting for meetings. They treat it as infrastructure: the scaffolding that lets difficult truths surface quickly so a team can learn faster than the problem evolves. Amy Edmondson's enduring definition—people believe they won't be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes—remains the clearest statement of the goal (and the risk if leaders botch it). The point isn't comfort; it's candour in service of performance. As the ancients said, trust binds a polity. In modern terms, trust binds a project team, because it allows candid conversations without fear of difficult conversations being career limiting. What follows is a practical, evidence-based reframe of what psychological safety is (and isn't), how it behaves in hybrid work, where the boundary conditions sit, and how to build it without diluting standards. ## What Psychological Safety Is—and What It Isn't At its best, psychological safety makes experimentation possible and error-reporting normal, so the team can distinguish between *intelligent failures* (good bets that didn't work) and *basic mistakes* (avoidable errors) and respond accordingly. The work of Amy Edmondson popularises this distinction and reminds leaders to celebrate the first and prevent the second—a nuance many organisations miss when they adopt generic "fail fast" rhetoric. That matters deeply for organisations that aspire to being [high(er)-performing](https://robert.winter.ink/building-higher-performing-teams-a-leaders-guide-to-collaboration-and-success/) because the aim is not a perpetual safe space. It's a high-standards, high-camaraderie space where people voice concerns early, critique ideas directly, and still feel respected afterwards. In routine work, clarity and accountability must remain sharp. In ambiguous work, leaders must lower the interpersonal costs of raising a hand to say, "I don't know—yet." Two practical tests I use with executives: _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Scribbler: Rebuilding Your Hinges URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-scribbler-rebuilding-your-hinges/ Last updated: 2026-01-08T04:59:38.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/01/The-Scribbler--Where-Judgment-Begins_thumb.jpeg) The Scribbler Where Judgment Begins 0:00 /562.152 1× More than one quarter's earnings report has been delivered since my last scribbling, and in that time the world has continued its steadfast commitment to offering those who think about leadership a smorgasbord of material. I've spent the last three months writing about trust, authorship, hiring, data, AI sycophancy, organisational geometry, and the quiet erosion of judgment in the age of the machine. Themes that, taken together, trace a single line through the fog: **the recovery of authority in a century that keeps trying to outsource it.** But first, a bit of trivia **Trivia question:** On this day in 1874, which future British Prime Minister was born—later known for his defiant wit, prodigious writing, and occasional ability to hold a nation together by sheer force of oratory? *Answer appears at the bottom of this Scribbling*. ## Dispatches from the Frayed Edge of Organisational Sanity Across eleven essays, one motif kept resurfacing: the danger of mistaking fluency for understanding, authoritarianism for authority, process for reasoning, and momentum for competence. Each article offered a different angle on the same structural problem—the slow drift away from **discernment**. Think of this edition, then, not as a recap but a map: the terrain of leadership as it now appears from above. 💡 ****Hinge Insight** **Organisations fail not because they lack information, but because they lack the judgment to interpret it.* ### 1\. The Forgotten Profession of Managing People The quarter opened with [*Managing People Isn’t a Side Hustle, Time to Re-Professionalise Management*](https://robert.winter.ink/managing-people-isnt-a-side-hustle-time-to-re-professionalise-management/), which made the entirely uncontroversial observation that organisations keep promoting technical specialists into people management roles without providing training, clarity, or structure. The casualties—both human and financial—are predictable. Management is a craft. It needs apprenticeship, not accident. ### 2\. Sycophancy, Summaries, and the Slow Death of Thought AI has not just changed how we reason; it has changed how we read. Two essays tracked the consequences: - [*AI Sycophants, How To Stop Your Model From Kissing Up*](https://robert.winter.ink/ai-sycophants-how-to-stop-your-model-from-kissing-up/) explored how models learn to flatter rather than challenge—a digital version of Burke's warning against praise without counsel. - [*No-Click Reading - How AI Summaries Starve Critical Thinking*](https://robert.winter.ink/no-click-reading-how-ai-summaries-starve-critical-thinking/) lamented the rise of synthetic digests and the slow abandonment of primary sources. The common enemy is **intellectual malnutrition**: diet summaries, performative insights, and organisational habits that reward speed over scrutiny. ### 3\. Trust Before Data, Always In [*Why Trust Matters More Than Data in Decision-Making*](https://robert.winter.ink/why-trust-matters-more-than-data-in-decision-making/), I argued—drawing on Wittgenstein and Kahneman—that belief flows from trust long before it flows from facts. This isn't cynicism; it's anthropology. No dashboard can rescue a leader whose credibility is threadbare, and no dataset can override a team's settled sense of whether someone is reasoning in good faith. Here lies the urgent implication for executives: **before asking for alignment, repair the hinges of trust that make alignment possible.** ### 4\. Hiring in an Age That Worships Signals Two essays—[*Lessons from Bach, Rethinking Modern Hiring Practices*](https://robert.winter.ink/lessons-from-bach-rethinking-modern-hiring-practices/) and [*The Creator vs. the Passenger, Rethinking Recruitment in Charities*](https://robert.winter.ink/the-creator-vs-the-passenger-rethinking-recruitment-in-charities/)—examined the modern hiring dilemma. From Leipzig's near-miss with Bach to boards seduced by halo-brand executives, the pattern is depressingly stable: - We overvalue signals. - We undervalue judgment. - We conflate momentum with competence. - And we mistake procedural polish for substantive capability. The quarter left me with a sharper conviction than before: **organisations must recruit for creators, not passengers; for scar tissue, not logos**. Momentum can disguise mediocrity. Scarcity reveals whether someone can lead without the wind at their back. 💡 ****Hiring Rule** **If you want to know who can build, ask what they created when nothing existed but need.* ### 5\. The Geometry of the Firm Is Distorting In [*AI Is Changing the Structure of Organisations, The Future Is a Rhomboid*](https://robert.winter.ink/ai-is-changing-the-structure-of-organisations-the-future-is-a-rhomboid/) I suggested that the old metaphors—the pyramid, the obelisk—no longer capture the shape of institutional life. Instead, we have drifted into the **rhomboid organisation**: angled, unstable, and slightly absurd. The point wasn't aesthetic. When authority flattens and decision-making leans diagonally into dashboards, noble language gives way to procedural control. People cease answering for their choices because "the model recommends". This quarter clarified a principle I suspect will define the decade: **Leadership is the art of translating outputs into accountable arguments.** ### 6\. Rebuilding the Infrastructure of Thinking [*Trust in the Age of the Machine*](https://robert.winter.ink/trust-in-the-age-of-the-machine/) and [*Which Humans? Whose Values? The Cultural Biases of AI*](https://robert.winter.ink/which-humans-whose-values-the-cultural-biases-of-ai/) followed that thread into the domain of judgment. We trust people—and technologies—not because their outputs are perfect but because their reasons are intelligible. AI muddies this: surface polish hides depthless grammar; fluency masks epistemic thinness. A recurring danger I traced through these essays is that organisations now treat AI-mediated reasoning as if it were a neutral oracle. It isn't. As I argued, the models tend toward WEIRD bias, institutional sycophancy, and preference-shaped error. Trust collapses when judgment is replaced by imitation. > "In every domain, we are outsourcing the struggle from which real agreement emerges." ### 7\. The Return of the Author I ended the quarter with [*Authorship in the Age of AI*](https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-in-the-age-of-ai/), a piece that argued—perhaps unfashionably—that writing still requires a mind prepared to stand behind its reasoning. Machines can offer phrases; only a human can offer grounds. Authority, as Friedrich reminded us, is "reasoned elaboration", not the mere act of generating text. The point generalises beyond writing. Much of organisational life now involves people defending outputs they neither scrutinised nor authored. The loss is not literary; it is ethical. When no one owns the reasoning, no one owns the consequences. ## Practical Provocations for December 💡 ****Rebuild your "hinges"** Before your next decision, name the non-negotiables your reasoning presupposes. 1. **Pause before asking AI anything.** Ask yourself what reasoning you hope it will accelerate—not replace. 2. **Test your hiring instincts.** Prefer scars over sheen. 3. **Re-professionalise management.** Treat it as a discipline, not an appendix. 4. **Resurrect deep reading.** Click through. Read the source. Your brain—and mine—depend on it. 5. **Reward contradiction done well.** Make disagreement a deliverable, not a disruption. ## A Closing Note from the Editor's Desk This quarter felt like watching organisations rediscover an old truth disguised as a new problem: *judgment cannot be automated, delegated, or summarised*. It must be practised—publicly, rigorously, and often with discomfort. As the judgement of history teaches, when institutions falter designing people rush in. But the inverse is also true: when institutions recover the habits of discernment, opportunists lose their footing and good governance can flourish. My hope is that the themes from this quarter—authorship, trust, capability, clarity—offer a small antidote to designing people. Thank you for reading, thinking, and occasionally disagreeing with me. It keeps the writing honest. And it keeps the work alive. Until next month, yours in structured dissent, Dr Robert N. Winter ## Worth Your Time [Nietzsche’s 10 Rules for Writing with StyleThe life of Russian-born poet, novelist, critic, and first female psychologist Lou Andreas-Salomé has provided fodder for both salacious speculation and intellectual drama in film and on the page for the amount of romantic attention she attracted from European intellectuals like philosopher Paul Rée, poet Ranier Maria Rilke, and Friedrich Nietzsche.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/OC-favicon-300x300-2.png)Open CultureOC![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/nietzsche-writing-e1495492421251-2.png)](https://www.openculture.com/2022/02/nietzsches-10-rules-for-writing-with-style.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) ## Art and About ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/12/1598px-Rembrandt_-_De_Staalmeesters-_het_college_van_staalmeesters_-waardijns-_van_het_Amsterdamse_lakenbereidersgilde_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg) **Artist:** [Rembrandt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembrandt?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1606–1669). **Title:** [Syndics of the Drapers' Guild](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndics%5Fof%5Fthe%5FDrapers%27%5FGuild?ref=robert.winter.ink) **Description:** Few paintings capture the essence of judgment better than Rembrandt's depiction of Amsterdam's drapers' guild examining dyed cloth. Five men and a clerk lean toward the viewer, caught in the exact moment of deliberation. Their posture is not adversarial, nor credulous; it is evaluative. They are weighing, discerning, comparing. In an age where leaders increasingly defer to processes or models, Rembrandt's officials remind us that judgment is a human act requiring presence, attention, and shared accountability. Their authority is visible not in robes or titles but in the seriousness of their appraisal. Every leader should study this painting—not just for its artistry, but for its anthropology. It shows what authority looks like when exercised rather than performed. Date: 1662 Medium: Oil on canvas Dimensions: 191.5 cm × 279 cm ## Trivia Answer **Trivia question:** On this day in 1874, which future British Prime Minister was born—later known for his defiant wit, prodigious writing, and occasional ability to hold a nation together by sheer force of oratory? **Answer:** [Sir Winston Churchill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston%5FChurchill?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Authorship in the Age of AI URL: https://robert.winter.ink/authorship-in-the-age-of-ai/ Last updated: 2026-04-29T11:47:15.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/Authorship-in-the-Age-of-AI_thumb.jpeg) Authorship in the Age of AI 0:00 /568.152 1× When we use artificial intelligence to assist our work—to gather, synthesise, or even phrase ideas—at what point does augmentation become appropriation? The question is much more complicated than it initially seems, because authorship extends far beyond "did my friend actually write my birthday card?" to issues of IP ownership, originality, confidentiality, and public policy. One of the more recent examples is [*Washington city officials are using ChatGPT for government work*](https://www.knkx.org/government/2025-08-26/washington-city-officials-chatgpt-write-government-documents-artificial-intelligence?ref=robert.winter.ink). A case which has not only a legal dimension but raises existential questions about the nature of authorship in the digital age. This is because using AI to draft reports, essays, books, and policies begs questions that cut to the heart of authorship, originality, and what it means to **think for oneself** in an age where machines can emulate the patterns of elementary human thought. But let me be clear for those who are in doubt—AI has **not** introduced plagiarism into the world, though it has greatly enhanced the ease and therefore the temptation. However, what it has done is expose how poorly we have defined authorship as a society. The uncomfortable truth is that few works—academic, corporate, or creative—are entirely the product of one author. Most are collaborative syntheses of others' labour, interpretation, and creation. A collaboration which determines is it authoritative or is it authoritarian. The philosopher Hannah Arendt warned that authority collapses when we forget its source—when we treat power as self-justifying rather than reasoned. The same might be said of authorship: when we treat originality as possession rather than participation, we erode the very basis of intellectual integrity. ## Authorship As Reasoned Elaboration Carl Friedrich, writing in the mid-20th century, defined authority not as coercion but as *reasoned elaboration*: the capacity to persuade others through coherent argument grounded in shared values. For Friedrich, authority is a *source* of power, not a *form* of it—it derives from our ability to justify and make intelligible our claims to others. This insight offers a useful parallel for the question of AI authorship. To write authoritatively is not about producing words but in *owning the reasoning* behind them. When a human author uses AI to draft sentences, the moral question is not "who wrote the words?" but "who stands behind the reasoning?" If AI generates text without discernible human oversight, there is no reasoning to elaborate—only the mimicry of thought without the moral burden of belief. Friedrich's idea illuminates a central paradox of the AI era: the distinction between *saying* something and *standing behind* it. To borrow his terms, an AI output without human elaboration may have the *form* of argument but not its *authority*. Authorship, therefore, remains not in the generation of text but in the accountability for its meaning. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### How I Publish — Version 5.0 URL: https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-publish-version-5-0/ Last updated: 2026-04-20T11:20:54.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/How-I-Publish-----Version-5-v2_thumb.jpeg) How I Publish Version 5.0 0:00 /469.056 1× After a short hiatus to recalibrate both body and brain, I’m officially back on air. Think of it as an intellectual pit-stop: the creative engine was still humming, but the driver had forgotten to check the oil. After months of steady publishing I realised I’d become a little too good at producing and not quite good enough at *pausing*. The irony, of course, is that writing about reflection had begun to crowd out the act itself. So, I stepped back—physically, to move and breathe again; intellectually, to remember what unhurried thought feels like. No grand revelations, no spiritual detox—just the discipline of silence long enough to hear my own ideas forming again. Cobwebs cleared and the soul appropriately caffeinated, I’m returning with something new—the latest chapter in the ongoing experiment of building a space for serious thinking online. When I first began this series—charting the evolution of my publishing tools and thinking—it was less a technical diary than a meditation on how form shapes substance. Every shift in platform, from WordPress to Write.as to Ghost and back again, was really an inquiry into the relationship between clarity and control, between the craft of writing and the architecture that sustains it. Now, with *How I Publish — Version 5.0*, I return to [Ghost](https://ghost.org/6/?ref=robert.winter.ink), which has itself matured to version 6\. My first encounter with Ghost was in its youth—version 3—when it promised a clean, writer-centred experience but lacked the structure required for serious research and sustained dialogue. I left, eventually, for WordPress. But Ghost has grown. And, I suspect, so have I. ## A Brief Archaeology of Platforms - **Version 1.0—WordPress:** a workhorse; rich, powerful, and noisy. - **Version 2.0—Write.as:** monastic simplicity; a silent cell that eventually proved too austere. - **Version 3.0—Ghost:** promising minimalism, but not yet muscular enough for what I wanted to build. - **Version 4.0—WordPress (*again*):** a return to craftsmanship and control; good for building an archive, clunky plugins and platform bloat make it exhausting to maintaining one. - **Version 5.0—Ghost (*again*)**, which feels less like a switch of tools and more like a change in my publishing philosophy. ## Why Return, and Why Now Ghost's latest incarnation reconciles the tensions that shaped my earlier restlessness. It is simultaneously elegant and capable, writerly and infrastructural. It offers *focus without fragility*. Its privacy-first analytics, ActivityPub integration, and mature membership tools enable what I have always sought: a space where thinking, publishing, and community coexist without the interference of algorithmic noise. Three commitments underpin this move: 1. **To write with less friction.** Fewer plugins, fewer updates, fewer distractions. 2. **To cultivate conversation, not consumption.** A community of readers who reflect and respond. 3. **To sustain the work materially.** Research and writing require time; time requires structure and support. This new structure takes shape through two concentric circles of readership: ***The Commons*** and ***The Inner Circle***. ## The Commons *The Commons* exists for readers who value open exchange—for those who come not to perform agreement but to think aloud together about leadership, ethics, and institutional life. It is the **public square** of this publication: a place for dialogue that is accessible, civil, and ongoing. **Members of *The Commons* receive:** - Access to an archive of over 200 articles on leadership & management, strategy, and organisational behaviour. - A new article each month delivered to your inbox (including audio version). - The ability to join discussion threads on posts. - Occasional Inner Circle articles. *The Commons* will always be **free**: an act of reciprocity between writer and reader, supported indirectly by those who choose to go further. The philosophical underpinning of this approach comes from [John Locke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FLocke?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1632–1704): > Whenever legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience. > — John Locke In short, ***The Commons* keeps the gates open**. ## The Inner Circle If *The Commons* is the town square or forum, *The Inner Circle* is the private study. It exists for readers who want not merely to read but to *wrestle*—those who see thinking as an ethical act and conversation as a form of inquiry. Membership of *The Inner Circle* involves a small consideration, and those funds sustain ongoing research and the resourcing necessary to support such research in a digital age. In a sense, it revives an older tradition of patronage—without servility, without spectacle. **Members of *The Inner Circle* receive:** - Gratitude from me for support of my work. - Access to my entire back catalogue of articles. - All new articles as they are published delivered to your inbox (including audio versions). - *The Scribbler* Newsletter (monthly): reflections on leadership & management, strategy, and organisational behaviour. - Access to "marginalia"—behind-the-scenes reflections, reading notes, or philosophical sources (e.g., how Hannah Arendt informed a piece). - Monthly Q&A or "Office Hours". - Early invitations to events, talks, or online seminars. The philosophical underpinning of this approach comes from [Clarence Darrow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence%5FDarrow?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1857–1938): > Someday I hope to write a book where the royalties will pay for the copies I give away. > > — Clarence Darrow More than a list of perks, *The Inner Circle* is a **community of practice**—a small republic of readers who make sustained, independent scholarship possible. The aim is simple: ****reduce the distance between writing and reading.** Let conversation happen in real time, with less mediation and more meaning. ## The Ethics of the Journey Each platform shift has been an exercise in moral as well as technical reasoning animated by Edmund Burke's warning—which still applies more than two centuries later: > A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. Without such means it might even risk the loss of that part of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve. > > — Edmund Burke I have learned that changing platforms too often can become a kind of avoidance—a way of hiding from the hard work of articulation, of growing the circle of this community, of avoiding the hard work of new programs—like the much needed podcast. Version 5.0 is part of my answer to that: an end to avoiding the membership challenge and a return to the rhythm of thinking and creation. Ghost lets the writing breathe. It gives readers a way to gather not as consumers of insight but as participants in an ongoing inquiry into the moral and institutional dimensions of leadership. Your readership—whether quiet or vocal, free or supporting—makes the work possible. Thank you for being part of this next version of how I publish. Good night, and good luck. --- [*William Caxton showing specimens of his printing to King Edward IV and his Queen*](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4829359&ref=robert.winter.ink) is is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Which Humans? Whose Values? The Cultural Biases of AI URL: https://robert.winter.ink/which-humans-whose-values-the-cultural-biases-of-ai/ Last updated: 2025-11-25T11:03:12.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/content/media/2025/11/Which-Humans--Whose-Values--The-Cultural-Biases-of-AI_thumb.jpeg) Which Humans Whose Values The Cultural Biases of AI 0:00 /546.192 1× The promise of artificial intelligence is often framed in sweeping, universalist terms. AI is said to be aligned with "human values", capable of "human-like reasoning", and increasingly endowed with something approaching "common sense". These claims, while rhetorically powerful, conceal an obvious ambiguity. Which humans? Whose values? And perhaps most vexingly, what sort of *common sense*? These questions—long familiar to philosophers and anthropologists—are now unavoidable for computer scientists, ethicists, and policymakers. To treat "humanity" as a singular and undifferentiated reference point is to risk mistaking a greater part for the homogeneous whole. A review for the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University titled *Which Humans?* demonstrate that when AI are tested against psychological and cultural benchmarks, their responses align most closely with Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) populations. Meanwhile, a more recent paper—*Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback in LLMs*—argues that the very process by which AI is fine-tuned—Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF)—is structurally biased. Both studies converge on the same concern: that a supposedly "universal" technology reflects only a narrow slice of humanity. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Trust in the Age of the Machine URL: https://robert.winter.ink/trust-in-the-age-of-the-machine/ Last updated: 2026-06-17T23:02:01.000Z AI's fluency enchants, eroding the old signals of competence and authority. The danger is that trust becomes a machine illusion. Leaders must refuse the managerial shortcut and practise noble language—reasoned, responsible speech—to keep trust a human achievement. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### AI Is Changing the Structure of Organisations, The Future Is a Rhomboid URL: https://robert.winter.ink/ai-is-changing-the-structure-of-organisations-the-future-is-a-rhomboid/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T11:08:07.000Z AI is said to be reshaping organisational forms, rendering pyramids obsolete and obelisks ascendant. Yet the deeper truth is distortion rather than stability. The “Rhomboid Organisation” captures this skew—unstable, off-balance, authority flattened. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Lessons from Bach: Rethinking Modern Hiring Practices URL: https://robert.winter.ink/lessons-from-bach-rethinking-modern-hiring-practices/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T09:47:30.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/content/media/2025/11/Lessons-from-Bach--Rethinking-Modern-Hiring-Practices_thumb.jpeg) Lessons from Bach Rethinking Modern Hiring Practices 0:00 /302.76 1× [Johann Sebastian Bach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann%5FSebastian%5FBach?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1685–1750)—yes, the composer of the [*Brandenburg Concertos*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg%5FConcertos?ref=robert.winter.ink)—entered Leipzig not with a fanfare of trumpets but with something closer to a municipal shrug. After [Telemann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg%5FPhilipp%5FTelemann?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1681–1767) and [Graupner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph%5FGraupner?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1683–1760) had both leveraged the role to negotiate better terms of employment where they were, a city councillor [recorded the now-famous verdict](https://www.bachmuseumleipzig.de/sites/default/files/files/2024%5F02%5FPrologue.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink): "As the best men are not available, a mediocre one \[*mittelmäßiger*\] will have to be accepted." Bach, of course, proceeded to rebuild the musical life of Lutheran Germany with the serene ruthlessness of a master craftsman. The episode is a usefully awkward parable for contemporary hiring. Councillors then, like hiring managers now, went unicorn-spotting. They drew up baroque wish lists—pun intended—and, in doing so, almost missed the person whose output would define not just the role, but Western music for centuries to come. What this episode shows, is that chasing a perfect fit is an error of judgment disguised as diligence. It often confuses signalling with substance, selects for appearances over capability, and rewards likeness at the expense of excellence. ## The Unicorn the Council Couldn't Catch Leipzig's selection committee behaved [rationally](https://robert.winter.ink/why-trust-matters-more-than-data-in-decision-making/), if narrowly. If the story sounds familiar, that's because it is. Organisations still prefer the luminary whose availability flatters the hiring manager's brief and arouses your competitor's envy. When that fails, the search continues for someone exactly like the luminary—but cheaper. The modern job description has thus become an exercise in corporate arrogance: 14 must-have skills, the ability to deliver "immediate strategic impact", yet for a salary that might be charitably described as hand-to-mouth. The modern fable is that in thin information environments, where very few people have preexisting knowledge of the candidate, signals are having ever more stress put on them as managers try to bridge the gap. Signalling has its uses, but it takes on sinister overtones when organisations start designing roles to maximise signal purity rather than gaining a profound understanding of whether the candidates likely output will be of long term organisational value. Strong signals are not always strong instruments. They are, at best, proxies—and sometimes no better than baubles. When talent managers and HR seek *fit*, they often select for behavioural fluency in interview settings—what is technically call method variance—rather than assessing the capability to do the work. Hence the enduring superiority of work-sample tests: "do the work, then let's talk". Bach's audition cantata—[BWV 22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus%5Fnahm%5Fzu%5Fsich%5Fdie%5FZw%C3%B6lfe,%5FBWV%5F22?ref=robert.winter.ink)—was, in effect an eighteenth-century work sample. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Why Trust Matters More Than Data in Decision-Making URL: https://robert.winter.ink/why-trust-matters-more-than-data-in-decision-making/ Last updated: 2025-11-06T11:47:31.000Z Facts are mute; their power depends on the credibility of those who present them. In organisations, trust shapes whether reports persuade or vanish into doubt. Reason often follows allegiance, not evidence, making ethos decisive. To improve decisions, leaders must treat trust as capital and judgment _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Creator vs. the Passenger: Rethinking Recruitment in Charities URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-creator-vs-the-passenger-rethinking-recruitment-in-charities/ Last updated: 2025-11-09T23:30:25.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/The-Creator-vs.-the-Passenger--Rethinking-Recruitment-in-Charities_thumb.jpeg) The Creator vs the Passenger Rethinking Recruitment in Charities 0:00 /733.224 1× Every few months, a familiar post pops up on LinkedIn about how tough charity jobs are and how outsiders don't understand the reality. The comments quickly fill with stories. [One that caught my eye](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/steveallman%5Fcharity-jobs-are-a-tough-gig-not-an-easy-activity-7361668823495704576-rTHW/?ref=robert.winter.ink) recently involved a tale about a hire who said it's so much easier to advise organisations "who never have to worry about money." At first glance, this sounds like the sort of hubris that comes from thinking because an organisation doesn't have a billion-dollar budget it's a 'toy' business that anyone could run—and someone with a 'real' business background will find it a doddle. But on deeper analysis this isn't an issue localised to the charity sector. I've seen this play out many times: someone arrives from a big-name company like Facebook, hired mainly for the brand halo. But often they've never had to build or lead a team from scratch. They thrived in an environment of surplus—endless meetings, huge budgets, and instant credibility from the company name. Put them in a setting where momentum doesn't exist, and they flounder. This isn't a charity vs. for-profit issue. It's a creator vs. passenger issue. People from high-momentum firms often struggle when dropped into low-momentum contexts. Recruitment needs to account for that. Once surfaced, it becomes clearer what value someone can add in a smaller or nonprofit setting, and how much coaching they'll need before they can really contribute. These challenges are magnified in the charity sector, particularly when trying to hire senior talent. Time to find a better approach than hiring for brand and reputation. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### AI Sycophants: How To Stop Your Model From Kissing Up URL: https://robert.winter.ink/ai-sycophants-how-to-stop-your-model-from-kissing-up/ Last updated: 2025-11-09T23:38:04.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/AI-Sycophants--How-To-Stop-Your-Model-From-Kissing-Up_thumb.jpeg) AI Sycophants How To Stop Your Model From Kissing Up 0:00 /812.064 1× Oscar Wilde (1854–1900) once remarked that 'truth is rarely pure and never simple'. The management speak variant is that truth is rarely optimal for engagement. I have watched leaders greet artificial intelligence with the same hopeful grin they reserve for a new chief of staff—eager for loyalty, secretly expecting miracles, and mildly disappointed when the first draft flatters their ego rather than improving their decisions. This is because AI is coded for service, it is coded to flatter, it adapts to your preexisting beliefs and thinking. Unfortunately, this often means the default output is obsequious agreement, and if I reward it for being pleasing, it will learn to do more of the same. That should worry anyone who hopes that AI will provide incisive insights, critical commentary, and will help them to think better. Which, statistically, is most people given the top four uses of AI are therapy/companionship, organising life, finding purpose, and enhanced learning. None of which benefits from uncritical agreement. This phenomenon is termed AI sycophancy: models that echo a person's beliefs, mirror their style, and pursue approval over truth. The good news is that the cure is familiar. If I want to get the most out of AI, I must manage it the way I manage people: set incentives that honour candour, structure tasks that punish flattery, and ask questions that force trade-offs rather than docile agreement. To paraphrase Aristotle (384 BC–322 BC), a friend seeks to do good by their companion while a flatterer only seeks to please them. Sometimes doing good requires having a difficult conversation or conveying a hard truth. Make AI your friend not your flatterer. ## How We Taught Machines to Kiss Up Modern systems learn to follow instructions from human preference signals—thumbs-up and thumbs-down collected during training. That pipeline, known as [reinforcement learning from human feedback](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement%5Flearning%5Ffrom%5Fhuman%5Ffeedback?ref=robert.winter.ink) (RLHF), is powerful precisely because it aligns models with what users *like*. But a like is not a proof, and a preference is not a fact. When teams train models chiefly to satisfy evaluators—with a mandate to be helpful, honest, and harmless—they create a system that acquires the habit of sounding agreeable even when wrong rather than pursuing accuracy that would be disagreeable. Recent peer-reviewed work has shown that standard RLHF can degrade quality unless carefully managed, and that optimising for human ratings alone risks misgeneralisation (e.g., overconfident answers, agreeable errors). _This post is for subscribers only._ ### No-Click Reading: How AI Summaries Starve Critical Thinking URL: https://robert.winter.ink/no-click-reading-how-ai-summaries-starve-critical-thinking/ Last updated: 2026-01-20T04:02:05.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/No-Click-Reading---How-AI-Summaries-Starve-Critical-Thinking_thumb.jpeg) No Click Reading How AI Summaries Starve Critical Thinking 0:00 /536.352 1× The obituary writers have sharpened their quills: "The Internet, b. 1991, d. soon after we stopped clicking." The [BBC recently floated this sombre prospect](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250728-you-might-be-ghosting-the-internet-can-it-survive?ref=robert.winter.ink), noting that users increasingly skim social-media summaries and AI overviews instead of opening the underlying pages. I share the BBC's misgivings. When readers dodge the blue hyper-link or refuse to click through from LinkedIn to the full article, ideas lose their provenance, writers lose their income, and I—your humble commentator—lose my temper. ## From Super-highway to Slip Road In the halcyon days of what is now nostalgically referred to as the "Wild West Era" of the internet, a click whisked me from one understaffed university server to another like a giddy archivist in a zero-gravity library. Today, there is seldom a journey only a destination—where time to result is measured in milliseconds. LinkedIn's [engagement rate](https://carney.co/daily-carnage-feature/linkedin-benchmarks-for-2024/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for posts that *do* contain a live link languishes at 3.4%, well below photos or polls. In other words, most 'professionals' are scrolling past the gate and never enter the garden. It seems that when it comes to content access, far more of us are [GenMe than GenWe](https://robert.winter.ink/category/social-comment/generations/). Even Google is quietly encouraging drive-by consumption. Early tests of its AI-generated 'Overviews' showed click-through rates to publishers [falling by 30–40 percent](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-the-results/?ref=robert.winter.ink). The machine serves a flattering précis, *users* (for they are no longer seekers) feel informed, and primary sources fade into the background like uncredited session musicians. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Your Job Title Is the Ceiling They Hand You, Your Capability Is the Skylight You Cut URL: https://robert.winter.ink/your-job-title-is-the-ceiling-they-hand-you-your-capability-is-the-skylight-you-cut/ Last updated: 2025-11-09T23:44:17.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/Your-Job-Title-Is-the-Ceiling-They-Hand-You-Your-Capability-Is-the-Skylight-You-Cut_thumb.jpeg) Your Job Title Is the Ceiling They Hand You Your Capability Is the Skylight You Cut 0:00 /715.296 1× In my work I meet a lot of people who *deeply* undervalue their capabilities and by extension themselves. While some of it is an innate lack of self-esteem—yes, nature does play a part—much of it comes from their job title. Picture this if you will. You are at a BBQ and meet someone new. One of the first things they ask is "What do you do?" The purpose of the question is in part to understand, but it is also to judge—your respective places in the social pecking order. Say you are a junior manager for a small company and you might get a derogatory "You'll never own a boat doing that!"—yes, I have been to some BBQs with real prats. Conversely, say you are the CEO of an ASX listed company and watch people straighten their posture a little. Unless of course your company has been in the papers for all the wrong reasons, and watch people goggle in disbelief. "What do you do?", like most things at BBQs, is a proxy. Just as a sausage is a proxy for meat, if you don't believe me check the contents of the average sausage, job titles are a proxy for success. They are also, more often than not, utterly useless in conveying an individuals capabilities, much less their potential, much less still the likelihood they will be a sparkling conversationalist. This is because titles perform two sleights of hand. First, they project status that may bear little empirical relation to competence, thereby misleading colleagues and stakeholders. Second, they seduce their holders into career foreclosure: *If my business card says 'Chief', surely I have arrived.* _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Managing People Isn’t a Side Hustle: Time to Re-Professionalise Management URL: https://robert.winter.ink/managing-people-isnt-a-side-hustle-time-to-re-professionalise-management/ Last updated: 2025-11-09T23:48:22.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/Managing-People-Isn---t-a-Side-Hustle--Time-to-Re-Professionalise-Management_thumb.jpeg) Managing People Isnt a Side Hustle Time to Re Professionalise Management 0:00 /618.672 1× A while back [I mentored](https://robert.winter.ink/work-with-me/) a gifted software engineer—let's call her ­Priya. Priya wields code like a Stradivarius and, as reward, had just been promoted to Engineering Manager. While initially elated by the *promotion*, joy soon turned to frustration as her weeks morphed from writing elegant code to adjudicating annual-leave quarrels and unpicking a conflict about whose turn it was to refill the office coffee machine—not to mention the inevitable blame game she had to endure as more senior managers punched down on her about team performance. Nobody had told her *that* was the job when you become a people manager. Priya's predicament is hardly unique. In the United Kingdom, 82 per cent of those in management positions admit to having received **no** formal management training—hence the unfortunate label [*accidental managers*](https://www.managers.org.uk/about-cmi/media-centre/press-releases/bad-managers-and-toxic-work-culture-causing-one-in-three-staff-to-walk/?ref=robert.winter.ink). [In Australia](https://www.capterra.com.au/blog/5443/strategies-for-middle-managers-burnout-australia?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com), the numbers are not much better. While more people have the benefit of formal management training, 73% still report feeling feel overwhelmed, stressed or burned out and 65% don't have enough time in the week to accomplish all they need to do. Damning statistics, and the result of a disturbing trend in organisational planning circles. The fashion, often motivated by needing to be *lean*, is to crown the brightest technical specialist, often with the sharpest elbows, as manager and hope people-skills arrive by courier. Rarely do the much needed management capabilities manifest, and despite a growing body of research which shows that organisations prosper when they invest in specialised people managers, management is too often seen as a mere 'generalisation' and a very distant fifth, if it is rated at all, to the more technical aspects of the role. Sadly, for our story, this is not a new observation. It has been over 70 years since Robert Katz wrote about this issue—yet here we are still trying to resolve what continues to be a pressing problem. Time for me to put on the pads and go into bat to make the case that *technical*, *people* and *conceptual* skills are distinct. While it would be wonderful to have this triumvirate embodied in a single person, the laws of the universe in which we live and the frailty of the human condition means that we are better served to plan for reality than hope for unicorns. The latter approach simply increases the pressure on everyone as key roles remain vacant for months on end. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Scribbler: When Strategy Meets Stagecraft URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-scribbler-when-strategy-meets-stagecraft/ Last updated: 2025-11-19T03:05:58.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/content/media/2025/11/The-Scribbler--When-Strategy-Meets-Stagecraft_thumb.jpeg) The Scribbler: When Strategy Meets Stagecraft 0:00 /651.096 1× It's month end again, and as Finance settle in with pizza and press the 'reconcile' button, it's time for the July edition of *The Scribbler*. This month I peer beneath the polished surface of organisational life to uncover the silent dissonance between what we say, what we mean, and what we dare not admit. But first, a bit of trivia. **Trivia question:** On this day in 1970 the last officially sanctioned distribution of what occurred in the Royal Navy? *Answer at the bottom of this scribbling*. ### Dispatches from the Frayed Edge of Organisational Sanity Somewhere between EOFY audits and the first whiff of mulled wine, July crept in, up-ended conventional wisdom, and left management theorists clutching their coffee mugs like life rafts. Over the past month I toured four intellectual landmarks—each, in its own way, a cautionary tale about leadership, language and the latent human capacity for spectacular self-deception. Pour yourself something warming and let's recap the expedition. ### How Corporate FOMO Replaced Strategy with Stagecraft If the Ancient Greeks warned that hubris invites Nemesis, modern boards have added a footnote: "especially during budget season." In July's lead article I charted the curious phenomenon of executives hurling resources at the latest technological fads. Not out of conviction but out of the sheer terror of being left behind, turning the boardroom into something of a séance where the spirit of ROI is summoned with unblinking faith in automation—only to be met with the ghost of underperformance more often than not. Take Klarna, the Swedish fintech firm that proudly went "AI-first", replacing 700 people with a chatbot. The triumph was short-lived, as the bot proved less charming and significantly less useful than the average flatpack furniture instruction manual. The CEO, once serenading stakeholders with unblinking faith in automation, is now hiring people again. One wonders if the boardroom's crystal ball could have predicted this outcome. Certainly anyone who is legitimately 'people first' in their approach to business could have. The real marvel isn't that these ventures underperform—it's that anyone is surprised when they do. The late Roger Scruton observed that imitation without understanding leads to cultural incoherence. The same can be said of the approach by many boards and executives to investment in AI—investment without understanding leads to strategic incoherence. In many ways, this is worse than when a [strategy is a platitude](https://robert.winter.ink/when-a-strategy-is-not-a-strategy-its-a-platitude/). **Lesson Learned:** Before jumping on the bandwagon, ask: "What problem are we solving?" and "Can we support this operationally?" If the answer is not clear, it might be time to put down the pitch deck and pick up a boring but useful notepad and go back to the drawing board. #### Shinise: The Art of Enduring Business While Western firms treat longevity like a museum relic—something to be archived or put on a t-shirt—Japan's *shinise* enterprises have quietly logged thirteen centuries of continuous trading. Their strength is not to be found in ancient lobby décor, but in the discipline of *stewardship*: replacing timber, leaders and processes as often as required, while retaining the organisations animating purpose. Here lies an antidote to today's *pivot* obsession. Experience need not be razed to the ground every fiscal quarter; it can be layered, lacquered and handed down, much like Kyoto's *Ichimonjiya Wasuke* handing its confectionery craft to a 25th-generation successor. Western boards chasing fresh blood, or worse deludedly seeking to cut out "dead wood", might instead cultivate institutional memory: apprentice successors early, rotate board mentors, and audit values with the same zeal they reserve for balance sheets. Marble façades crack; oak beams may be swapped; but an idea worth keeping should be allowed to grow rings (if you will permit a tree metaphore). **Lesson Learned:** Continuity should be adaptive. It's not about preserving the past but about transmitting purpose and values through generations. In a world obsessed with being first, try [being right a lot](https://robert.winter.ink/being-right-a-lot-an-inputs-approach/). #### Who Guards the Guardians? Enter Astronomer, a company most of us presumed made telescopes until a jumbotron at a Coldplay concert revealed its CEO and Chief People Officer—not married to each other—engaged in a brand-diluting PDA. The board's response read like a pre-drafted obituary: solemn, sanitised, and apparently filed under 'break glass in case of scandal'. The episode underscores a governance paradox: the very officials tasked with cultivating culture frequently curate the evidence of its erosion. Human Resources and ethics committees, armed with pastel-coloured values decks, too often report to the same executives that need investigating. The result? Complaints disappear into the compliance version of the Bermuda Triangle; whistle-blowers update their résumés; shareholders learn of misconduct via TikTok. **Lesson Learned:** Lesson number three is therefore structural. Boards must build *independent conduits*—external culture audits, rotating employee representatives, unfiltered exit-interview summaries. Transparency is not a floodlight but a mirror; if the custodians are polishing the glass instead of reflecting reality, the mirror belongs in a funhouse. #### The Importance of Visibly Ethical Leadership If July had a refrain, it was this: ethics unheard are ethics undone. Executives often assume their moral rectitude is self-evident, rather like a halo detectable only with the right infrared filter. In reality, employees judge leadership by observable rituals: who gets promoted, who gets pardoned, and who disappears during realignment season. Drawing on Treviño, Hartman and Brown's two-pillar model—*moral person* and *moral manager*—I argued that integrity without communication is a lighthouse without a bulb. Instead, leaders must role-model their virtues in public; transparently explain the *why* of difficult decisions; and reward behaviour that matches the organisation's vision and mission. Otherwise even the most principled manager will resemble a bureaucrat steering by spreadsheet rather than pointing to the north star. **Lesson Learned:** Seldom is ethics implicit. It must be legible, rational, and reinforced. Leadership is not about having values—it is about transmitting them in ways that withstand scrutiny and survive translation. #### Threads That Bind and Unravel Throughout my thinking this month runs a single golden thread: *discernment*. Whether rejecting technology theatre, renewing through tradition, policing the police, or broadcasting ethical intent, the common denominator is a leader's capacity to name reality without euphemism. Language is not decorative trim; it is load-bearing infrastructure. Abuse it, and the organisational roof collapses on the first windy earnings call. Equally evident is the cost of monocular vision. Strategy teams mesmerised by competitor dashboards miss systemic risk; HR chiefs beholden to CEOs bury inconvenient truths; leaders confident in their virtue forget that virtue unheard echoes as indifference. July reminded us that multiple sight-lines—historical, cultural, ethical—are not luxuries but organisational survival gear. ### Practical Provocations for August 1. **Audit Your Adverbs:** Comb your presentations for words like 'transformational', 'seamless' and 'unprecedented'. If they outnumber demonstrable outcomes, schedule a sobriety workshop. 2. **Map the Inheritance System:** Can your organisation explain, in two sentences, how today's tacit knowledge becomes tomorrow's explicit capability? If not, borrow a page from *shinise* succession charts. 3. **Install a Moral Dashboard:** Next to revenue KPIs, track 'Promises Kept', 'Process Exceptions' and 'Continuous Feedback'. Green lights across all three? Check the bulbs. 4. **Practise Audible Ethics:** This month, narrate one tough decision to the team—trade-offs, doubts, rationale. Rinse and repeat until candour is habit, not headline. ### A Closing Note from the Editor's Perch Winter in Sydney is mild, yet corporate Australia shivers at the prospect of missing the *Next Big Thing*. July's research suggests the cold snap is less meteorological than metaphysical: an absence of white-hot purpose. Organisations that kindle discernment—inquiring before investing, stewarding before disrupting, governing before grandstanding—generate their own heat. The rest huddle around quarterly guidance and wonder why their toes are still numb. As always, I offer these reflections not as commandments but as companions on your strategic bush walk. May they prompt curiosity, a dash of scepticism, and—when needed—the decisive cut of Occam's razor across a bloated programme. See you in August; bring marshmallows, we're going to test whether agile at scale burns clean. Yours in structured dissent, Dr Robert N. Winter ## Worth Your Time ## Art and About ![Neoclassical oil painting by Jacques-Louis David showing four figures from Greek myth: on the left, the helmeted Achilles twists toward the viewer, hand gripping his sword hilt; centre-right stands Agamemnon in red cloak, gesturing commandingly; between them, the veiled Clytemnestra places a protective hand on her daughter Iphigenia, who lowers her gaze while holding a small olive branch. Tense stances and sombre faces convey the moment Achilles learns Iphigenia is to be sacrificed.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/2560px-jacques-louis_david_-_the_anger_of_achilles_-_google_art_project.jpg) Jacques-Louis David, The Anger of Achilles (1819): When leadership “vision” turns out to be human sacrifice, even heroes reach for the HR manual—or, failing that, a sword. **Artist:** [Jacques-Louis David](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-Louis%5FDavid?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1748–1825). **Title:** The Anger of Achilles. **Description:** In *The Anger of Achilles*, David freezes the moment Achilles realises the wedding marquee is actually an abattoir. Agamemnon, the original corporate spin doctor, promised marriage but plans to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to Artemis instead. Achilles reaches for his sword; Clytemnestra clutches her daughter; HR has turned a blind eye. This painting belongs in every book on management. Agamemnon represents leaders who launch 'people-first transformations' but quietly swap headcount for headstones when budgets tighten. The lesson? When strategy demands a sacrifice—unless it is the CEO—it's time to sheath the knife, call a town hall, and ask: who exactly are we appeasing? *The Anger of Achilles* by Jacques-Louis David is is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ## Trivia Answer **Trivia question:** On this day in 1970 the last officially sanctioned distribution of what occurred in the Royal Navy? **Answer:** [Rum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%5FTot%5FDay?ref=robert.winter.ink). The history of the rum ration is long and varied, and it all began once upon a quarter-deck in 1655 when Jack Tar swapped his daily gallon of weak beer (yes, four litres) for a far handier half-pint (284 ml) of rum—because storing oceans of lager is hard when you're busy ruling them. Predictably, deck drills devolved into conga lines, so the Navy kept halving the tot: 1740 (watered 4:1), 1824 (142 ml), 1850 (71 ml), until officers were cut off entirely by 1918\. Come 1970, Admiralty killjoys declared high-proof courage incompatible with pressing buttons on delicate missiles, and "Black Tot Day" (31 July) saw sailors don black armbands, conduct mock funerals, and mournfully accept a consolation can of beer. Canada sobered up in 1972; New Zealand held on until 1990—proof that empire may fade, but the desire for a hangover dies hard. ### The Importance of Visibly Ethical Leadership in Organisations URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-importance-of-visibly-ethical-leadership-in-organisations/ Last updated: 2025-11-09T00:04:47.000Z Assuming others see you as ethical because you believe yourself to be is a critical leadership error. Ethical leadership requires visible modelling, intentional communication, and alignment between actions and values. Without this, leaders appear ethically neutral—creating distrust, disengagement, a _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Who Guards the Guardians? URL: https://robert.winter.ink/who-guards-the-guardians/ Last updated: 2026-01-03T21:41:33.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/content/media/2025/11/Who-Guards-the-Guardians-_thumb.jpeg) Who Guards the Guardians 0:00 /529.56 1× It is a curious fact of modern life that those entrusted with safeguarding an organisation's morals are often its most gifted illusionists. I do not mean this metaphorically. I mean they are adept at conjuring values from thin air, pulling accountability out of a hat, and making entire scandals disappear in a puff of HR-approved smoke. Take, for example, the recent saga at [Astronomer](https://www.astronomer.io/about-us/?ref=robert.winter.ink), a company which—until last week—most of us thought made telescopes. Its CEO, Andy Byron, and Chief People Officer, Kristin Cabot, were caught on the jumbotron at a Coldplay concert in what can only be described as a tableau of ill-advised corporate intimacy. [Chris Martin quipped](https://people.com/company-investigating-couple-caught-on-camera-coldplay-concert-11775146?ref=robert.winter.ink), eyebrows danced, and internet sleuths did the rest. Byron, married to someone not named Kristin Cabot, reportedly uttered "Fucking hell, it's me!", as if he suddenly discovered that society has mores. The Board, in turn, issued a communique with all the solemn inevitability of a head-of-state obituary—clearly pre-written by HR or PR, as if executive misconduct were not a shock but a certainty. Less a crisis response than a pre-scheduled ritual. Not a matter of *if*, but *when*. > Astronomer is committed to the values and culture that have guided us since our founding. Our leaders are expected to set the standard in both conduct and accountability. > > The Board of Directors has initiated a formal investigation into this matter and we will have additional… [pic.twitter.com/rfrAQ5bygy](https://t.co/rfrAQ5bygy?ref=robert.winter.ink) > > — Astronomer (@astronomerio) [July 18, 2025](https://twitter.com/astronomerio/status/1946278720622526812?ref%5Fsrc=twsrc%5Etfw&ref=robert.winter.ink) Thus unfolds the latest corporate morality play. And like all good tragedies, it raises one perennial question: Who guards the guardians? ## The Cult of the Chief People Officer Chief People Officers are a modern invention, like oat milk or crypto-backed mortgages. Once upon a time, they were called 'HR Directors' and made you fill in your leave form in triplicate. Now they sit on executive teams and brand their LinkedIn with uplifting terms like 'empathy', 'integrity', and 'authenticity'. Kristin Cabot, in this case, was supposed to be the company's ethical conscience—the designated adult. Instead, she's become Exhibit A in why the grown-ups need supervision too. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Shinise, as a Concept of Organisational Renewal URL: https://robert.winter.ink/shinise-as-a-concept-of-organisational-renewal/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T04:48:27.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/content/media/2025/11/Shinise--as-a-Concept-of-Organisational-Renewal_thumb.jpeg) Shinise as a Concept of Organisational Renewal 0:00 /608.664 1× A few years ago, a Western travel blogger, reviewing the famed [Nishiyama Onsen Keiunkan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nishiyama%5FOnsen%5FKeiunkan?ref=robert.winter.ink), noted with apparent disappointment that the buildings were 'only a few decades old'. This even though the inn, nestled in Japan's Yamanashi prefecture, has operated continuously since the year 705\. That's not a typo. It has been welcoming guests for over 1,300 years. This criticism—like so many cross-cultural misunderstandings—is a window into two very different conceptions of permanence. In much of the Western world, **authenticity** is confused with **fixity**. Tradition is imagined in terms of immutability: marble columns, original signage, moments frozen in amber. But in Japan, endurance lives in the act of renewal. The centuries-old businesses known as *shinise* (老舗)—a term typically translated as 'long-established firm'—are not measured by the age of their buildings but by the continuity of their purpose. Western observers might call this maintenance. The Japanese understand it as stewardship. ## Continuity Through Change Organisational research has long struggled with the paradox of continuity in the face of environmental change. [Philip Selznick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip%5FSelznick?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1919–2010) famously argued that the institutional character of an organisation is formed through a fusion of formal structure and informal values. But in practice, many firms mistake slogans for values and monuments for meaning. The result is a kind of corporate taxidermy: recognisable on the outside, but inert on the inside. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### How Corporate FOMO Replaced Strategy with Stagecraft URL: https://robert.winter.ink/how-corporate-fomo-replaced-strategy-with-stagecraft/ Last updated: 2026-01-11T16:02:25.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/How-Corporate-FOMO-Replaced-Strategy-with-Stagecraft-1_thumb.jpeg) How Corporate FOMO Replaced Strategy with Stagecraft 0:00 /516.096 1× Somewhere between the ninth AI announcement and the third digital transformation initiative for the quarter, a curious feeling tends to creep over the modern executive. It's not quite dread, but close—something like the sensation one gets when the waiter flamboyantly sets fire to the dessert and only then asks, "did anyone order this?" This is the feeling of blind investment. A moment in organisational history where otherwise intelligent people—some of them in very well-tailored suits—hurl resources at technology not out of conviction, but from the distinct terror of being left behind. It is as though the Enlightenment never happened, and the boardroom is now a séance: "Are you there, ROI? It's me, Chad from Product Strategy." Take [Klarna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klarna?ref=robert.winter.ink), the Swedish fintech firm that proudly went "AI-first" by announcing that their chatbot had replaced 700 people. A triumph of modern technology over dark age business practices, [until](https://archive.md/P51MQ?ref=robert.winter.ink) said bot turned out to be less charming and significantly less useful than the average flatpack furniture instruction manual. Klarna's CEO, until recently serenading the stakeholders with unblinking faith in automation, is now hiring people again. "Lower quality", he confessed to Bloomberg, presumably while rearranging the org structure with the same confidence as a steward moving deck chairs on the Titanic. "It's critical to ensure customers can always talk to a person." A human in customer support—revolutionary! And yet, Klarna is no anomaly. It is the prototype an alarming number of businesses are trying to ape. According to [IBM's 2024 CEO Study](https://www.ibm.com/thought-leadership/institute-business-value/en-us/report/2023-ceo?ref=robert.winter.ink), "2 out of 3 CEOs are acting without a clear view of how to help their workforce with the disruption and inevitable transitions AI will bring." And "fewer than one in three CEOs have assessed the potential impact of generative AI on their workforce." One imagines them tossing budget allocations into the abyss and hoping the abyss returns with a chatbot capable of resolving a billing dispute rather than misquoting Nietzsche. The real marvel isn't that these ventures underperform—it's that anyone is surprised when they do. The late [Roger Scruton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger%5FScruton?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1944–2020), in his reflections on culture and tradition, was astute in observing that imitation without understanding leads to **cultural incoherence**. The same can be said of the approach that many boards and executives are taking to investment in AI—investment without understanding leads to **strategic incoherence**. In many ways, this is worse than [when a strategy is a platitude](https://robert.winter.ink/when-a-strategy-is-not-a-strategy-its-a-platitude/). _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Strategic People Architecture URL: https://robert.winter.ink/strategic-people-architecture/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T05:16:23.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/Strategic-People-Architecture_thumb.jpeg) Strategic People Architecture 0:00 /598.776 1× There's a peculiar irony in the NED and C-Suite obsession with strategy decks and performance frameworks: everyone wants a 10-year plan, but nobody seems to contemplate who will execute it. Corporate PowerPoints confidently chart futures that are, personnel-wise, about as stable as a Tinder date in a global smartphone outage. The language of business model innovation is polished, the churn rate of leaders—less so. The problem? We've architected the business roadmap but outsourced the people roadmap to hope and a deluded belief in 'just in time recruiting'—in which the ideal unicorn will be available when business demand necessitate, and budget allows. Let's call that what it is: negligent optimism. What organisations need is not just a strategic plan—addressing products and services—but a strategic plan that accounts for people. In other words, a conscious and structured approach to talent stewardship that treats leadership development with the same rigour as revenue growth. Because yes, product-market fit matters. But so does people-vision fit. And that doesn't come from a headhunter's spreadsheet or a frantic call to LinkedIn at a projects launch. Much less does it come from using AI to generate ever tighter job descriptions and then doubling down on precise candidate to JD keyword fit. It comes from designing careers like we design systems—scaffolded, adaptive, and with fail-safes. ## Succession Is Not a Retirement Party Consider Amazon and Microsoft—hardly poster children for soft skills. Yet even they grasped the basic truth that succession should not be like ships that pass in the night, but a **handover designed years in advance**. Jeff Bezos didn't step away and hope a job board ad would secure Amazon's future. Bill Gates didn't email a resignation and cross his fingers. These leaders **architected succession**—they built systems to identify, mentor, and test successors in real time, under real pressure, within a real accountability framework. That's not just succession planning. That's people architecture. An architecture that both improves outcomes for organisations and creates a sustainable pathway for talent development. 'Always‐on work cultures, encroaching technology, demanding bosses, difficult clients, and inefficient coworkers' create enormous drag on people, and without a clear career development path, employees are driven to burnout by trying to keep all pathways open for fear of missing the one that will pay off. This is why it is critical to design pathways for influence that empower employees while securing succession. It also changes the all-too-common input of career development—pure endurance and pushing one's own agenda—and begins to create a collaborative 'pull' culture': > efficient collaborators draw people to collaborative work by conferring status, envisioning joint success, diffusing ownership, and generating a sense of purpose and energy around an outcome. By creating "pull"—rather than simply pushing their agenda—they get greater and more‐aligned participation and build trust so that people don't feel the need to seek excessive input or approval. > > Rob Cross, *Collaboration Without Burnout* In other words. Successful organisations identify future leaders not by title or tenure, but by their contribution networks and capacity to learn under load. ## Structured Chance-Giving: The Opposite of Nepotism Industry loves to blame a "talent shortage" the way it loves gluten-free muffins: it sounds virtuous, avoids blame, and explains why everything costs more. But the real shortage isn't talent—it's **structured chance-giving**. Career advancement too often plays out like a jazz solo: improvised, opaque, and only understood by insiders. Yet leadership effectiveness correlates strongly with **developmental stretch**—a triad of support (complex interpersonal environments), scrutiny (delivery under pressure), and challenge (persistence through adversity). That stretch shows up in four key ways: 1. **Performance Under Pressure:** Success stems from a mix of interpersonal skill (rewarding to deal with), ability (job competence), and drive (ambition). 2. **Success as Dynamic, Not Static:** Employability is judged by potential—capacity to adapt, learn, and contribute within complex social systems. 3. **Progress Requires Political Acumen:** High ability isn't enough. Without exposure, support, and coaching, potential leaders stall—while the politically sponsored thrive. 4. **Perception as Crucible:** Leadership selection hinges less on output and more on how individuals navigate feedback, scrutiny, and social visibility. Most organisations don't stretch people intentionally—they do it reactively. A senior leader exits, someone vaguely promising is promoted in a panic, and voilà: a career step up born of necessity, not design. **Strategic people architecture institutionalises the act of taking a chance.** Not as charity, but as governance. You want a future CIO? Build the crucible now. ## The Myth of the Meritocracy (Now with More Buzzwords) You've probably seen it in action. A well-meaning executive declares, "We hire the best person for the job," as if this explains why their last five hires have all been external, look like slightly different iterations of their college roommate, and why they keep on passing over internal talent. Let's be clear: performance does not emerge from credentials alone. It emerges from a combination of potential, opportunity, and organisational context. The idea that someone needs to **prove** they're ready before they've been given the conditions to try is not logic—it's legacy thinking. What's needed instead is a system that: - Detects potential early via validated tools like situational judgment tests and simply good management. - Places people into **deliberate stretch environments**. - Offers **scaffolded feedback loops** (not just annual reviews dressed up as career progression). - And crucially, decouples performance metrics from pedigree indicators. Because let's face it: 'years of experience' often just means 'years of surviving [Bullies, Bosses, and Being Manipulated](https://robert.winter.ink/bullies-bosses-and-being-manipulated/)'. ## Building the Architecture: Bricks, Not Platitudes Strategic people architecture, like all meaningful architecture, requires more than mood boards. It demands **blueprints, load-bearing processes, and structural integrity checks**. Here's a working design framework: 1. **Talent Forecasting** - Use scenario planning, not just to anticipate market shifts, but workforce implications. - Embed people assumptions into strategic modelling (e.g., what **capabilities**—not LinkedIn Learning certificates—will be needed to support a shift to AI-enabled services?). 2. **Pipeline Transparency** - Create internal marketplaces of opportunity. - Use heat maps to visualise succession readiness, capability gaps, and diversity flows. 3. **Experience Design** - Move beyond 'learning & development' as a department. Embed these capabilities in management structures. If a line-manager cannot coach and mentor their direct reports, there is a massive problem. - Think in terms of learning ecosystems, where mentors, projects, cross-functional exposure, and decision rights are interwoven. 4. **Governance for Growth** - Include workforce and succession metrics in board-level dashboards (and not only for C-Suit roles!). - Make leaders answerable not just for results, but for the **bench strength** they've cultivated. As Hannah Arendt might have put it (if she'd run an HR consultancy): leadership is not defined by action alone, but by **who comes after you and how your legacy improves or degrades the way they act**. ## Closing the Gap Between Vision and Voice Yes, this is about performance. But it's also about **justice**. The current system—where advancement depends on interpersonal whim, presence in the right meeting, or sheer survivability—is not just inefficient. It's unethical. Systems must account for moral agency—not as an ideal, but as a process. Leaders don't spring fully formed from MBA brochures. They are formed through feedback, error, trust, and structure. And that process must be **gradual, deliberate, and humane**. In this light, people planning isn't HR work. It's ethical work. Strategic. Organisational. Moral. And required of line-managers. When organisations fail to plan for people, they're not just creating gaps in capacity. They're **creating gaps in legitimacy**. You cannot preach innovation while running your succession planning like a [game of Minesweeper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minesweeper%5F%28video%5Fgame?ref=robert.winter.ink). You cannot talk inclusion and then exclude internal candidates from every critical opportunity. And you certainly can't write a 10-year strategy and pretend it is delivered by roles rather than actual people. Strategic people architecture means acknowledging the obvious: the future doesn't staff itself. You want sustainability? Plan for successors. You want innovation? Make room for learners. You want legitimacy? Give people a ladder, not just a lecture. It's not optional. It's the true work of leadership. Good night, and good luck. --- *Imaginary View of the Grand Gallery of the Louvre in Ruins* by [Hubert Robert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert%5FRobert?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1733–1808) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Bullies, Bosses, and Being Manipulated URL: https://robert.winter.ink/bullies-bosses-and-being-manipulated/ Last updated: 2026-01-03T01:39:41.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/Bullies--Bosses--and-Being-Manipulated_thumb.jpeg) Bullies Bosses and Being Manipulated 0:00 /530.664 1× There is a special circle of organisational hell reserved for the sort of manager who, having poured vinegar into your tea and stapled your confidence to the wall, then asks why you're "being so sensitive". The sort who humiliates employees in meetings but insists it was "just a joke", then marvels at their targets lack of humour—"Lighten up!"—as if the problem were your failure to audition for a stand-up gig, rather than their compulsion to punch down. Welcome to the world of manipulation masquerading as management. A world where the measure of misconduct is not the deed but your reaction to it. Where cruelty is the constant, and your attempt to call it out is framed as hysteria. ## The Manipulative Alchemy of Bully Bosses Manipulation in leadership is a dark art: a knack for turning your genuine hurt into an HR liability—putting the victim in the wrong. The telltale signs are not subtle. Comments laced with sarcasm and plausible deniability. Apologies that begin with "I'm sorry you felt that way." And, most cunningly, a redirection of focus—from what they did to how you reacted. Research refers to this as **interpersonal affect regulation**, the subtle engineering of others' emotional states to influence power dynamics. When used ethically, it can foster harmony. When used by bully bosses, it becomes gaslighting in a suit. The rhetorical pivot from action to reaction is a manipulation strategy that allows aggressors to cast themselves as rational actors surrounded by oversensitive colleagues. As a study of workplace incivility noted: this strategy thrives in environments with poor accountability and ambiguous social norms. It's the corporate equivalent of "I'm not touching you", combined with "Why are you flinching?" And herein lies the problem: once the bully has shifted the spotlight to your facial expression, tone, or lack of convivial chuckle, the actual misconduct slinks out the back door unnoticed. Put another way, manipulation is often deployed not to dominate directly, but to obscure the fact that domination is occurring at all. ## When Management Smiles but Knives Are Drawn It's a curious thing, how management can be so easily fooled. Bully bosses, especially the charismatic kind, are often adored upwards and feared downwards. They curate a professional image of jovial confidence—one part *team player*, one part *just getting things done*—while quietly dismantling [psychological safety](https://robert.winter.ink/a-psychological-safety-primer/) at the coalface. In environments where **impression management** is rewarded over actual competence, these individuals thrive. Not because they are effective, but because they are performative. They deliver status reports with just the right mixture of humility and heroism. They host workshops about empathy while privately mocking the attendees. Their cruelty is indirect, their accountability nonexistent. Long before Agile stand-ups and Slack emojis, the ancients observed that a tyrant does not necessarily need to raise his voice; they need only control the narrative. In the modern workplace, this means ensuring that everyone above believes you are a *strong leader*, while those below second-guesses themselves into paralysis. A bully boss's masterstroke is not the insult—it's the follow-up. "That wasn't criticism, it was feedback." "I was just being honest." "You need thicker skin." These deflections neutralise dissent and sow self-doubt. They are **communication violations**—undermining the meaning of communication itself. In short: if you flinch, it's your fault for being jumpy. ## Why Good People Stay Too Long (and Leave Too Late) So, why don't people speak up? Partly because they've been trained not to. In toxic cultures, feedback is invited but not welcomed, and resistance is punished through omission: of opportunity, trust, or social inclusion. "You're not a team player" becomes code for "You wouldn't laugh when I mocked your accent." This is compounded by **organizational silence**, the widespread withholding of information about problems by employees in the face of perceived futility. When people see that speaking up leads to gaslighting or marginalisation, they stop speaking at all. The team may appear harmonious, but only because morale has been euthanised. Studies show that the most common reason employees withhold feedback about abusive leadership is not fear of retaliation—it is the much more powerful social shame of being labelled as a troublemaker, complainer, or tattletale. Manipulative bosses win not by force, but by attrition. They exhaust your willingness to believe in justice as no matter what you do it will on rebound on **you**. Let me be blunt: organisations rarely fire a high-performing manipulator unless cornered (e.g., faced with litigation). The bar for action is not harm to others, but legal or reputational risk. This is because most performance frameworks are designed to measure outputs, not ethics. If your tormentor hits targets and keeps the board smiling, your suffering is just unfortunate scenery. This explains the paradox that even when abusive supervision is well-documented, managers are often rewarded, not punished, because they deliver results. But at what cost? Productivity may go up in the short term, but employee engagement, creativity, and retention all collapse over time. ## Cultivating Discernment Without Joining a Cult How, then, can we get better at spotting and resisting manipulation? The answer, I fear, lies not in HR training modules or laminated values cards, but in an older and more reliable tool: discernment. That dusty virtue that insists good judgment is not a matter of rules, but of character. Discernment is the art of noticing when something feels off—even when the formal indicators say all is well. It means recognising that a team's smiles may be brittle, their jokes strained, their productivity forced. It means asking not just "Did we hit the KPIs?" but "At what human cost?" [John McDowell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FMcDowell?ref=robert.winter.ink) calls this "silencing considerations"—the ability of virtue to override shallow trade-offs. A discerning leader doesn't need a rubric to know that mocking someone's stutter in front of colleagues is wrong—even if it's framed as a joke, even if no policy is technically breached. They simply know. And if they don't? Then they should not be leading. Organisations that want to escape manipulation must reward integrity, not theatre. This means promoting people who speak up, not just those who 'fit in'. It means debriefing not just outcomes, but methods. And above all, it means noticing when a boss's success comes with a wake of broken confidence and departed staff. ## The Courage to Name the Game The most radical act in a manipulative environment is not confrontation—it's naming. Giving language to the thing others fear to describe. Saying: "This isn't feedback; it's public shaming." Saying: "That's not humour; it's humiliation." Naming manipulation for what it is removes its cloak. I read a great quote, sadly posted by someone without attributing the original author: > Manipulation is when they focus on how you reacted instead of how they treated you. Moral clarity emerges not from abstract rules but from cultivated habits of seeing—recognising that some strategies achieve short-term goals by wounding long-term trust. The manipulated worker, in turn, must learn to reassert reality as it actually is *not* as the bully seeks to portray it. To say, "I'm not overreacting—you're under-acknowledging." Or, "Please don't dress up *your* self-esteem issues as *my* performance appraisal." Organisations must also build what has been called a **Kantian workplace**—a culture where people are treated as ends, not means, and where manipulation is seen not as cleverness, but cowardice. Until then, be wary of the boss who insists they're "just being honest" or "these are the facts" and bristles with indignation or resorts to name calling when you are honest and repay the favour by also citing the facts. Be suspicious of those who cry civility the moment they are held accountable. And always remember: when someone says "stop being so sensitive", it usually means you've just noticed the thing they've spent years trying to hide. Good night, and good luck. --- *The Bench* by [William Hogarth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William%5FHogarth?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1697–1764) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Talent Aperture, Reopened URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-talent-aperture-reopened/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T06:06:15.000Z This is the final part of a series [**The Talent Aperture*](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/the-talent-aperture-series/?ref=robert.winter.ink), in which I explore why organisations demand adaptability—yet design hiring processes that reward rigidity. This is the final part of a series [*The Talent Aperture*](https://robert.winter.ink/the-talent-aperture-series/), in which I explore why organisations demand adaptability—yet design hiring processes that reward rigidity. Once upon a restructuring, someone in HR declared, "We've eliminated bias by removing names from Org charts and handing hiring over to the algorithm!" There was polite applause, a congratulatory pie chart was served, and nobody asked what, precisely, the algorithm had learned to *value*. Or from whom it had learnt its values. Thus began the era of **judgement by machine**—a charming technological development in which Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) now preside over recruitment like under qualified vicars, quietly screening out the heretics who failed to list previous job titles in bold type or dared to apply from a suburb not adjacent to the office. These systems are pitched as neutral. But, what hiring systems are, in fact, is obedient. And their tutors are our historical biases—groomed, polished, deployed at scale, and, most troublingly, run away from the scrutiny of competent human oversight. And this is the rub: **algorithms don't make ethical decisions**. They make predictions based on patterns. Whether those patterns reflect justice, growth, or the ghost of organisational prejudice past is none of their concern. > The only thing worse than being judged unfairly is not being judged at all—just quietly filtered into oblivion by a machine who thought your CV wasn't closely enough aligned with the role. But the real mischief begins not with what these systems see, but with what they miss. The generalist who took a scenic route through three industries. The career-returner with humility, resilience, and just enough cheek to [ask better questions](https://robert.winter.ink/better-questions-make-for-better-decisions/). The young candidate with little pedigree but enviable judgment. All quietly cast into the abyss for failing to match 'must-haves' that nobody remembers asking for—or questioned when adding them to the recruitment brief. And therein lies the central question of this [series](https://robert.winter.ink/the-talent-aperture-series/): **How can organisations reclaim the art of discernment in a world enchanted by metrics and allergic to ambiguity?** ## On Discernment, or the Lost Art of Actually Thinking Discernment, in case you haven't recently consulted a dusty ethics textbook, is the capacity to judge wisely in uncertain circumstances. The Greeks called it *phronesis*—practical wisdom. In the recruitment space, I call it "what most hiring systems remove somewhere between [surfacing high(er) performing candidates](https://robert.winter.ink/building-higher-performing-teams-a-leaders-guide-to-collaboration-and-success/) and sending profiles to the hiring manager." Hiring used to be a form of judgement. You saw a candidate. You listened. You imagined who they might become—not just who used to be. Now, judgement is a liability reduction exercise—filters which seek optimal keyword fit with job descriptions and assumed mandatory prior experience. And yes, I do mean *assume* in the sense of 'ass of me and you'. The result is something out of a Jane Austin novel: > *It is a truth universally acknowledged that a hiring manager in possession of good judgement must be in want of overrule by a system.* _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Signals vs Substance in the Hiring Process URL: https://robert.winter.ink/signals-vs-substance-in-the-hiring-process/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T06:03:43.000Z This is the second part of a series [**The Talent Aperture*](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/the-talent-aperture-series/?ref=robert.winter.ink), in which I explore why organisations demand adaptability—yet design hiring processes that reward rigidity. ## The Seduction of the Signal [In the first article of this series](https://robert.winter.ink/the-lost-art-of-finding-talent/), I noted that while every organisation claims to seek agile, curious minds, their hiring systems remain tragically devoted to job descriptions and familiar logos—as if true potential could only be certified by prior branding and task déjà vu. This paradox—valuing potential in theory but not in practice—isn't an accident. It's the outcome of over-reliance on proxy signals: the company worked at, the specific certification acquired, the exact title fit of their previous role. These signals, we're told, offer shortcuts to talent identification. In reality, they often obscure what matters most—what the candidate will need to accomplish at their new organisation. Ethnographic studies of elite professional service firms often find that hiring decisions tend to reflect cultural matching rather than actual skills—think similar to the hiring manager in terms of leisure pursuits, experiences, and self-presentation styles. Candidates were judged not for what they could do but for how comfortably they fit into existing norms and expectations. It's not so much a war for talent as a search for sameness. In this article, I build on that challenge and argue hiring processes that make a break from the common signal-based approach to substance-based formation—investing in what people can become, not just what they are—gain a long-term strategic advantage. But first, I need to unpack why signalling is so deeply embedded and why substance is so frequently missed. ## The Tyranny of Pedigree At its most flattering, signalling is efficiency. Hiring Managers and Talent Teams receive hundreds—sometimes thousands—of applications. Shortlisting by recognisable names—exact job title, company name, certifications—appears to reduce noise. Or as rejection letters would have it 'surface candidates more closely aligned to the role'. The trouble is, it also reduces diversity, breadth, depth, and ultimately, potential. Consider the so-called 'talent shortage' in emerging tech platforms like Workday or Salesforce. Organisations routinely bemoan the absence of qualified candidates. Yet, [as ThunderLabs reports](https://thunderlabs.com.au/why-australias-workday-talent-gap-is-not-a-shortage-but-a-missed-opportunity/?ref=robert.winter.ink), there are dozens of adjacent-skilled professionals capable of upskilling quickly. The real shortage is not talent—it's imagination in the hiring team. This rigidity creates perverse incentives. Candidates tailor CVs to echo job descriptions. Employers mistake precise keyword matches with actual capability. And the entire system becomes a theatre of credential mimicry. Worse still, the checklist mentality penalises those whose trajectories deviate from the script: career changers, caregivers returning to work, migrants with unrecognised qualifications, or generalists who span multiple disciplines. These profiles signal uncertainty—not because they lack value, but because they lack familiarity. And in hiring, familiarity too often masquerades as competence. ## Substance as Strategy What the signal-based hiring approach teaches us is that it filters for conformity. However, substance-based hiring develops for contribution. Let's contrast the two more systematically. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Lost Art of Finding Talent URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-lost-art-of-finding-talent/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T06:15:27.000Z This is the first part of a series [**The Talent Aperture*](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/the-talent-aperture-series/?ref=robert.winter.ink), in which I explore why organisations demand adaptability—yet design hiring processes that reward rigidity. ## The Narrowing of Vision Every executive strategy slide says it: we need people who can learn fast, solve problems creatively, and adapt to the unknown. But stroll down the hall to HR, and you'll find something very different—job descriptions that read like procurement specs for pre-assembled machines, not human beings. > Managers cry out for agility and innovation, yet HR design hiring systems that would reject Darwin himself for not having prior experience with a major zoo. This is the paradox at the heart of modern recruitment: the rhetoric of adaptability paired with the mechanics of rigidity. It is *The Talent Aperture Problem*: hiring systems that claim to scan widely for potential, but in practice reduce the field of view to a pinhole of specificity. We are not hiring for agility—we are fumbling for resemblance. Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS), once tools of administrative convenience, now serve as gatekeepers of talent authority. They screen CVs not for substance, but for keyword compliance. Estimates suggest that the majority of applicants—some place it as high as 75%—are screened out by applicant tracking systems before a human sees their CV. A CV that doesn't mirror the job ad—tool for tool, term for term—is quietly discarded, even if the candidate beneath it is precisely the kind of [high(er) performer](https://robert.winter.ink/building-higher-performing-teams-a-leaders-guide-to-collaboration-and-success/) you say you want on your future team. And that's not the worst of it. As hiring moves from *managers with judgement* to *models and keywords*, organisations are trading away discernment in favour of repeatability. We are building systems that reject what they cannot immediately recognise and call it objectivity. > Applicant Tracking Systems are the bureaucratic bouncers of the digital age—screening for conformity and ejecting promise. This has particularly grim consequences for generalists—those maddeningly versatile individuals who cross functional lines, combine perspectives, and thrive in ambiguity. [David Epstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%5FEpstein%5F%28journalist%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) showed that generalists often outperform specialists in complex environments, precisely because they don't rely on rote knowledge and prior expertise. They experiment. They synthesise. They learn. Let me be clear: generalists are not dabblers. They are cognitive contortionists, adept at switching hats, climbing new learning curves, and synthesising insights that specialists miss while polishing their toolkits. In the age of complexity, these are the people who prevent your team from drowning in its own swim lane. Research on career adaptability and job crafting confirms what most good managers know in their bones: potential matters more than pre-load. Yet somehow, we've built a hiring architecture so brittle, so narrowly calibrated, that it cannot perceive promise unless it arrives pre-credentialed and shrink-wrapped. The cost? Teams that are exquisite on paper, but impossible to modify in the workplace. Hiring cycles stretch, onboarding takes months, and your unicorn hire gallops off six months later for a 10% raise and a foosball table. And the people who might have stayed? The ones with loyalty, curiosity, and courage? Filtered out by the digital equivalent of a Victorian butler sniffing at one's boots. The [Australia's Workday talent 'shortage'](http://Workday “talent shortage” in Australia offers a case in point. [ThunderLabs](https://thunderlabs.com.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink) found that companies were unable to fill Workday roles despite a large supply of systems integrators and API specialists with overlapping technical skill sets. The issue? The ATS was filtering out any candidate who didn't list specific Workday certifications. Not because they lacked the ability to learn or do—but because the model couldn't imagine they might. This isn't a shortage. It's a failure of vision. ## Systems that Justify Their Own Blindness If this were merely a technical inefficiency, it would be annoying. But it's also a moral failure. When organisations automate themselves into excluding capable but unconventional candidates, they aren't just misallocating talent. They are creating a structure that systematically filters out anyone who doesn't conform to prior norms: career changers, caregivers returning to work, migrants without credential equivalency, or those whose intelligence shows up in ways not yet labelled. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Scribbler: The Empire of Euphemism Strikes Back URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-scribbler-the-empire-of-euphemism-strikes-back/ Last updated: 2025-12-21T10:24:45.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/12/The-Scribbler-The-Empire-of-Euphemism-Strikes-Back_thumb.jpeg) The Scribbler The Empire of Euphemism Strikes Back 0:00 /505.536 1× Hello, and welcome to this edition of *The Scribbler*. This month I peer beneath the polished surface of organisational life to uncover the silent dissonance between what we say, what we mean, and what we dare not admit. But first, a bit of trivia. **Trivia question:** On this day in 2003, a fleet of Concorde aircraft were retired. From which airline? *Answer at the bottom of this scribbling*. ### Dispatches from the Frayed Edge of Organisational Sanity There's a moment in every leader's week—somewhere between the third strategy slide and the fifth meeting about employee engagement—when one thinks: surely, this isn't what leadership was meant to feel like. And no, it's not. Leadership, if recent weeks have made anything clear, has become a theatre of the absurd: populated by oracles of optimism, avatars of purpose, and middle managers clutching culture decks like life vests on the Titanic. The organisation says it wants change, but only if the PowerPoint animations are smooth. It wants feedback, but only if it's phrased like a TED Talk and accompanied by a GIF. In short, reality has been escorted from the premises. This month's writing has been a modest attempt to bring reality back in. Let's begin with the obvious: messaging has escaped orbit. In [*When Messaging Slips the Bonds of Reality*](https://robert.winter.ink/when-messaging-slips-the-bonds-of-reality/), I explored how communication in many organisations no longer serves to inform, but to pacify. It's theatre. What once was a tool of clarity has become a cover for strategic drift, an exercise in what Ashforth and Gibbs described as "symbolic management." We issue statements about agility while organisational cholesterol clogs every decision point. We reassure staff about their future while quietly plotting restructuring under code names that sound like Cold War operations. And like Baghdad Bob before them, the messaging mandarins press on, describing bold futures as metaphorical tanks roll down the high street. But this is not merely a communications problem—it is a moral one. When leaders lose the ability (or the courage) to speak plainly, they also lose the ability to think clearly. Discernment—the forgotten virtue in leadership circles—is not a matter of speaking slowly while clasping your hands. It's about the difficult work of aligning words with truth. If you can't admit when a plan is off-track, when a culture is dysfunctional, or when an initiative is more ceremony than substance, then you're not leading—you're narrating. Poorly. [![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/thundercast_ep36-jpeg.jpg)](https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/thundercast-charged-up-insights-for-people-in-tech/id1679267726?i=1000708562396&ref=robert.winter.ink) This brings me to the podcast I recorded with Chris McGowan: [*Leadership Without the Title*](https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/thundercast-charged-up-insights-for-people-in-tech/id1679267726?i=1000708562396&ref=robert.winter.ink). It struck a nerve, I think, because it named something many people instinctively feel but don't have language for—that real leadership doesn't always sit in the boardroom or C-suite. It is often found in the quiet work of those who create coherence, not chaos. Those who translate ambiguity into action, build bridges across silos, and say the uncomfortable thing when everyone else is nodding through nonsense. In the episode, I called this 'discretionary boundary spanning'—those invisible acts of coordination and courage that keep the machine running long after the slogans have failed. And here's the rub: if you want people to lead without the title, you have to give them the language to do so. That was the theme of [*Why Language is the Missing Link in Organisational Performance*](https://robert.winter.ink/why-language-is-the-missing-link-in-organisational-performance/)." Language is not just a medium of exchange; it is the architecture of shared action. Without it, teams devolve into silos, initiatives into turf wars, and strategy into pantomime. I proposed a simple but powerful hierarchy of speech: expressive ("I'm frustrated with this project"), descriptive ("The project is behind schedule"), argumentative ("We should prioritise feature X because…"), advisory ("I think we should consider…"), and, at the top, promissory ("I will deliver the report by Friday"). What separates [high(er)-performing](https://robert.winter.ink/building-higher-performing-teams-a-leaders-guide-to-collaboration-and-success/) leaders from garden-variety managers isn't their charm or even their knowledge—it's their use of language that binds action to responsibility. "I'll look into it" is not a promise. It's corporate white noise. This linguistic drift explains why organisations can host countless town halls without surfacing a single insight. Everyone's talking, but no one is saying anything that compels reflection or incites responsibility. Noble language—the kind that enables commitment, accountability, and recognition—is in short supply. In its place: [platitudes](https://robert.winter.ink/when-a-strategy-is-not-a-strategy-its-a-platitude/). Of course, this performative layer of language becomes especially toxic when wielded by leaders who are themselves the problem. Which brings us, with only mild trepidation, to [*Conscience, Cynicism, and the Cultivation of Toxicity in Organisations*](https://robert.winter.ink/conscience-cynicism-and-the-cultivation-of-toxicity-in-organisations/). Now, let's be honest: toxic leadership has had more comebacks than ABBA. We keep thinking we've evolved past it—what with all our values statements, safe spaces, and wellbeing apps—but then along comes another tyrant with a pitch deck, weaponising KPIs and holding forth on trust while breaking it in real time. What's worse, organisations don't just tolerate these people. They often promote them. Why? Because they 'get results'. Never mind that those results often come by extracting any remaining shreds of dignity from their team. Yet, toxicity is not a flaw in the system—it is a feature of it. Toxic leaders thrive in cultures where metrics matter more than meaning, where psychological safety is an afterthought, and where accountability is something inflicted, not modelled. They survive because organisations confuse volume for vision, confidence for character, and permit all this to happen 'offline' where the light of reason and deliberation are never permitted to shine. And when toxicity wins, what follows is silence. Which leads us to the most quietly reforming piece of the month: [*Stacking Experience*](https://robert.winter.ink/stacking-experience/). A meditation on careers, yes, but also a reckoning with the metaphors we use to describe them. The popular language of 'career pivots' has, I think, done serious harm to how we value experience and by extension—people. It suggests that each move requires a reinvention, a blank slate, a performative forgetting of all that came before. But experience doesn't pivot—it accrues. Or at least, it should. Like a geological stack, our professional lives layer over time: each role, each failure, each unexpected success, builds upon the last. To treat it otherwise is to flatten a person into a skillset and erase the judgement forged in ambiguity, the wisdom born of conflict, the moral muscle built through reflection. This is especially damaging for those who don't conform to linear career paths—women, migrants, older workers, and anyone else whose stack of capabilities does not come wrapped in conventional packaging. When people say 'pivot', what they often mean is 'start over'. And that is both unwise and unethical. Here's the thread which runs through all of this month's work: truth matters, but so does language. The rhetoric of leadership—be it about messaging, experience, or strategy—shapes whether people feel seen, heard, and respected. Or whether they feel like actors in someone else's performance. When language becomes disconnected from reality, when leadership becomes a performance, and when culture becomes a theatre of slogans, what's lost is not just trust—it's conscience. And if the late Pope Francis is right, conscience isn't a set of rules—it's the ongoing work of discernment: to name what's real, to resist the inertia of falsehoods, and to choose language that liberates rather than conceals. So, here's my invitation to you, as May recedes and the second half of the year looms: 1. Lead without the title. 2. Speak with noble clarity. 3. Stack your experience with pride. 4. And for heaven's sake, stop announcing that everything's fine when the organisation is clearly on fire. Yours in structured dissent, Dr Robert N. Winter ### More of what you are missing? ##### Get weekly articles and monthly dispatches that help you to think critically and be better informed. ## Worth Your Time ## Art and About ![Painting by Georges Seurat titled *A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte* (1884), depicting numerous figures—men, women, children, and animals—gathered in a riverside park; all arranged in stylised, static poses, many under parasols or trees, with sailboats in the distance and a notable figure of a young girl in white at the centre staring directly outward.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/a_sunday_on_la_grande_jatte_georges_seurat_1884.jpg) **Artist:** [Georges Seurat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges%5FSeurat?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1859–1891). **Title:** A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte (*Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte*). **Description:** In *A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte*, Seurat presents a shadowed mirror to his earlier sun-drenched *Bathers at Asnières*, offering not merely a pastoral scene but a quietly radical meditation on class, modernity, and social performance. Each figure, immaculately posed and cast in shadow, becomes part of a choreographed procession—an echo of the Parthenon frieze recast in bowler hats and bustles. Beneath the calm surface lies a world of coded gestures: fishing rods hint at transactional intimacy, pet monkeys and stiff soldiers at the absurdity of bourgeois ritual. And in the centre, a lone girl in white stares out—not passive, but piercing—her gaze seeming to ask whether the viewer will remain part of this orderly theatre or join the sunlit future just across the river. A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte by Georges Seurat (1859–1891) is is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ## Trivia Answer ![photo of a flying military airplane](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/pexels-photo-16363818-jpeg.jpg) Photo by Franz Herrmann on [Pexels.com](https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-a-flying-military-airplane-16363818/?ref=robert.winter.ink) **Trivia question:** On this day in 2003, a fleet of Concorde aircraft were retired. From which airline? **Answer:** [Air France](https://x.com/MuseeAirEspace/status/1531515820580405249?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Why Language is the Missing Link in Organisational Performance URL: https://robert.winter.ink/why-language-is-the-missing-link-in-organisational-performance/ Last updated: 2026-01-15T10:39:41.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/Why-Language-is-the-Missing-Link-in-Organisational-Performance_thumb.jpeg) Why Language is the Missing Link in Organisational Performance 0:00 /518.448 1× Imagine if you will: You are mourning your father, watching the smoke rise from a wood stove in a rural Guatemalan village. The grief in the air is palpable. You turn to your mother and say, in [Mam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mam%5Flanguage?ref=robert.winter.ink), your Mayan language: "Nan, waji chix tuj Kytanum Me​​ẍ," – "Mum, I want to go to the white men's nation," meaning, the United States. One year and four months later, you arrive in the San Francisco Bay Area carrying nothing but a photograph, a few family contacts, and your language. For Aroldo—[whose story was recounted by the BBC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20250515-the-mayan-languages-spreading-across-the-us?ref=robert.winter.ink)—Mam is not a relic of the past. It's a living medium of belonging, one that allows him to retain identity and community in a strange land. And herein lies our first clue: language is not just communication—it is coordination, recognition, and power. Strip it away, and people disappear from view. Organisations, especially those aspiring to [high(er) performance](https://robert.winter.ink/building-higher-performing-teams-a-leaders-guide-to-collaboration-and-success/), suffer from the same invisible erosion when shared language is missing. Despite mission statements, alignment workshops, and team-building exercises involving an alarming number of sticky notes, we often find people talking past each other, rowing in different directions. Worse, some row diligently without even knowing the boat has changed course. ## Language Is a System of Visibility The first thing to understand is that language is not neutral. It reveals or conceals. It can include people in a conversation—or erase them from it. When the U.S. government lumps all Central American migrants under the label 'Hispanic', it creates a monolingual, monocultural fiction. In reality, Mam and K'iche' speakers bring not just different tongues, but distinct social experiences, historical lessons, and community needs. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Conscience, Cynicism, and the Cultivation of Toxicity in Organisations URL: https://robert.winter.ink/conscience-cynicism-and-the-cultivation-of-toxicity-in-organisations/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T23:28:32.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/Conscience-Cynicism-and-the-Cultivation-of-Toxicity-in-Organisations_thumb.jpeg) Conscience Cynicism and the Cultivation of Toxicity in Organisations 0:00 /672.072 1× Toxic leadership is hardly a novelty—human history is littered with egotists, autocrats, and petty tyrants. Today's toxic leaders, however, sport crisp suits rather than robes, preside over meeting rooms rather than courts, and have exchanged decrees for passive-aggressive emails. What remains consistent is the petty backstabbing Still, the notion of toxic leaders exerting a malign influence remains alarmingly pervasive—despite almost every organisation having soaring prose about the importance of ethical behaviour. Indeed, far from a decline in toxic leadership because of values statements being posted in every break room, organisations are proving highly effective incubators rather than inhibitors of toxic leadership. Rewarding those whose behaviours undermine rather than uphold organisational well-being. At the core of toxic leadership lies a troubling dichotomy of charisma and cruelty—leaders who publicly project virtues such as decisiveness and confidence while privately tormenting their employees. These Jekyll and Hyde managers create climates of unpredictability, significantly raising employee anxiety. The result? Workplaces teeming with insecurity, mistrust, and collective burnout. Indeed, employees often report emotional exhaustion under such leadership styles, describing it vividly as a daily lottery of moods. The paradox, humorously tragic, is that toxic leaders rarely perceive themselves as problematic. They host seminars on 'team cohesion' without irony, applaud values like *accountability* in town halls while privately undermining subordinates, and might even win leadership awards, oblivious to their destructive wake. In short, self-awareness among these leaders remains astonishingly scarce, their consciences outsourced to HR departments or the bottom line with the result that 'people tend to see the talk only as window dressing'. ## Organisational Consequences of Toxic Leadership The ripple effects of toxic leadership spread alarmingly fast. Organisations are not simply collections of employees—they are interconnected [ecosystems](https://robert.winter.ink/a-coherent-approach-to-visionary-leadership/). Thus, the tone set at the top inevitably flows to the entire organisational culture. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### ThunderCast Ep 36: Leadership without the Title with Dr Robert Winter URL: https://robert.winter.ink/podcasts/thundercast-ep-36-leadership-without-the-title-with-dr-robert-winter/ Last updated: 2026-04-14T06:36:55.000Z ## Episode Description What do you do when the strategy slides are polished, the goals are lofty, and yet… nothing moves? In this episode of ThunderCast, Chris McGowan sits down with Robert Winter—thinker, writer, leadership philosopher—to unpack why good people get stuck in toxic environments, how complexity messes with traditional management, and why real leadership feels more like gardening than goal-setting. In this episode we discussed: #### Leadership Without the Title - What is “discretionary boundary spanning” and why does it matter more than job titles? - Why the real leaders in your organisation probably don’t sit in the executive team. - The invisible work that keeps businesses alive (and why it rarely gets rewarded). #### Complexity vs. Complication - How to tell if you're managing a complicated process or leading through complexity. - Why traditional management breaks down in uncertain environments. - The role of language and shared understanding in navigating the unknown. #### The Curse of Over-preparedness - How fear of looking foolish creates paralysis (even in seasoned leaders). - Why the most competent people often hesitate—and why that’s not a bad thing. - Learning to speak, even when you don’t have all the answers. 4\. The Problem with “We’re a Family” #### The Problem with “We’re a Family” - Why calling your team a family can backfire—and what to say instead. - Navigating organisational growth without losing trust or psychological safety. - What to do when people love the work but not the workplace. #### The Art of Situational Leadership - Knowing when to talk, when to do, and when to direct. - How to manage without micromanaging. - What makes a good manager **feel* like a leader. #### Rituals of Reflection and Thinking Time - Why your best team members aren’t just busy—they’re thoughtful. - The leadership skill no one teaches: creating space for thinking. - How “malicious compliance” can kill momentum. #### Writing to Think, Not Just to Publish - Why writing privately is still a leadership skill. - The surprising power of choosing the right word. - Building influence by showing your thought process, not your credentials. Whether you're a team lead, a CEO, or just the person quietly holding the business together, this one's for you. ### Stacking Experience URL: https://robert.winter.ink/stacking-experience/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T23:32:44.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/Stacking-Experience_thumb.jpeg) Stacking Experience 0:00 /620.688 1× There is a peculiar inertia in the way we talk about careers. Actually, scratch that, it is a confidence eroding myth—it is the 'pivot'. It occurs when someone changes roles, industries, or disciplines, and are told by some fatuous hiring manager that they are *pivoting*—as though careers were gymnastic floor routines and professionals must now stick the landing. It's a word soaked in ignorance and implied reinvention, a term that attempts to flatter with notions of *agility* while quietly erasing experience, devaluing self, and undermining confidence. And like many buzzwords with TED Talk charisma and shallow roots, the pivot metaphor has a dark underbelly: it suggests you're starting over and your life to date is valueless. But what if we resisted that erasure? What if, instead of pivots, we spoke of 'stacking experience'—of accumulating skills, achievements, and wisdom in layers, building a platform from which to do higher-order work? Career development, after all, is not a game of snakes and ladders where a wrong turn sends you back to start. Nor is it a series of clean slates, as if switching from marketing to product management renders your hard-won political acumen, stakeholder influence, and problem-solving instincts null and void. As [Jack Mezirow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack%5FMezirow?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1923–2014) noted, adult learning is transformative because it integrates new knowledge into prior experience—it is not a replacement but a reformation. The problem with the pivot metaphor is that it conceals the continuity of capability. Delve into any of the literature on careers, from HR Magazines to scholarly literature, and a similar landscape is presented. Though it dresses up the reality in wonderful sounding concepts like 'protean career', in which a person reorientates their career approach to one that is '(a) self-directed, and (b) driven internally by one's own values', and the soaring language of people shifting their focus from 'work self' to that of the 'whole self'', there remains a problem of detachment. Of being fluid to the point of dissolution. Thus, it is essential to draw a clear line between flexibility and amnesia. The danger is not just linguistic, much less an academic quibble. It is profoundly material. Framing a move as a pivot gives others permission to devalue your past experience. Consider a senior manager in healthcare who transitions to a tech firm. Despite managing complex compliance regimes, stakeholder coalitions, and enterprise-wide transformations, she is now labelled a *newcomer*. Why? Because she hasn't worked in *our kind* of tech. The underlying assumption: context trumps capability. And yet the evidence points the other way. Tacit knowledge, once developed, is remarkably portable. Complex problem-solving, a cognitive skill honed across roles, tends to improve with age and breadth, rather than decline. Even decision-making under pressure—a staple of executive function—is highly transferable, particularly when rooted in structured reflection. Another reason it is critical to spend less time in endless [video calls and more time thinking about work](https://robert.winter.ink/why-is-everyone-in-my-meeting/). In short, the *pivot* narrative is both empirically flimsy, psychologically corrosive, and emotionally destructive. It invites imposter syndrome where none is due. Worse, it gives gatekeepers—often actual imposters—an excuse to talk accomplished people down. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### When Messaging Slips the Bonds of Reality URL: https://robert.winter.ink/when-messaging-slips-the-bonds-of-reality/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T23:36:13.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/When-Messaging-Slips-the-Bonds-of-Reality_thumb.jpeg) When Messaging Slips the Bonds of Reality 0:00 /611.472 1× For those old enough to remember, or with a passion for early twenty-first century history, you may recall [Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%5FSaeed%5Fal-Sahhaf?ref=robert.winter.ink) (محمد سعيد الصحاف)—better known in the Western Hemisphere as 'Baghdad Bob'. He shot to prominence during the [2003 invasion of Iraq](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003%5Finvasion%5Fof%5FIraq?ref=robert.winter.ink) for saying things such as 'Baghdad is safe. The battle is still going on.', despite scenes of Iraqi troops running for cover and US tanks rumbling through the streets outside his impromptu press briefing. This farce is a case study in cognitive capture: leaders and their communications teams persisting with high-gloss messaging in the face of visibly collapsing operational realities. Recent weeks have offered a depressing reminder of this approach, particularly if you are invested in—well, anything really. A sharp stock market downturn—the worst since the early weeks of the COVID pandemic—has stripped the varnish off attempts at political optimism. Economic indicators are blaring red, from earnings downgrades to ballooning volatility indices, and yet the commentary from pro-Trump leadership, and even financial columnists who should cynically be knowing better, remains doggedly optimistic about market upsides. Missives about bold futures and indomitable cultures fill social feeds like ticker tape from a different universe. To borrow from [John Magee's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FGillespie%5FMagee%5FJr.?ref=robert.winter.ink) soaring sonnet *High Flight*, leaders have 'slipped the surly bonds of Earth'. Sadly, they have not the face of God, but a narrative with no basis in reality. ## When Symbolism Tries to Become Substance There is a charitable reading of this phenomenon: leaders need to reassure. They are, at least in part, [custodians of morale](https://robert.winter.ink/not-my-employee-not-my-team-a-custodian-approach-to-management/). But the ethical boundary is crossed when messaging stops masking an unpalatable but unavoidable reality, for instance that people will die in an attempt to capture a key strategic position, and when messaging seeks to displace reality—"everyone will be better off". When this occurs, it is more than just spin; it is what [Blake Ashforth](https://search.asu.edu/profile/8212?ref=robert.winter.ink) and Barrie Gibbs termed symbolic management—the tendency for organisations to increase their reliance on symbolic gestures and rhetoric when legitimacy is under threat. People that chase too hard after the appearance of virtue risk the theatrical tragedy of overplaying their part. As Shakespeare's [Queen Gertrude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5Flady%5Fdoth%5Fprotest%5Ftoo%5Fmuch,%5Fmethinks?ref=robert.winter.ink) would have it, their insistence betrays too much. What was meant to assure begins to unsettle. Those who determinedly stay on message, despite all around them belying the truth, fall into three familiar archetypes. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Why Great Managers Know When to Switch Doors URL: https://robert.winter.ink/why-great-managers-know-when-to-switch-doors/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T23:39:34.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/Why-Great-Managers-Know-When-to-Switch-Doors_thumb.jpeg) Why Great Managers Know When to Switch Doors 0:00 /412.128 1× If you are anything like me, it will strike a discordant note when people, particularly senior managers, prove unable to relinquish a failing strategy—if indeed it is a strategy and [not a platitude](https://robert.winter.ink/when-a-strategy-is-not-a-strategy-its-a-platitude/). Part of the reason for this is the [sunk cost fallacy](https://robert.winter.ink/calling-time-on-sunk-costs/) in which people continue to push on because of what they have invested so far. However, another reason is that people are worried about the appearance of changing course—they are worried about appearing reckless. Drawing on [Margaret Thatcher's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret%5FThatcher?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1925–2013) defiant pose that came to define her premiership: > To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the "U" turn, I have only one thing to say. "You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning." Managers often stick to their guns. Usually when they would do better to reassess based on new data, which can change the odds significantly. In business, refusing to turn can drive your organisation straight into a wall. Enter the Monty Hall paradox, a probability puzzle named after the host of the American game show [*Let's Make a Deal*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s%5FMake%5Fa%5FDeal?ref=robert.winter.ink), appears to be one of simple probability; yet, it has profound implications for decision-making, rational thinking, and even the ethical dimensions of business strategy. It also serves as a sobering reminder that intuition and correctness are often at odds—a concept with no small resonance in organisational behaviour. Before diving into the corporate ramifications, the paradox in a nutshell is that a contestant is presented with three doors. Behind one is a car (the desirable prize), and behind the other two are goats (decidedly less desirable, unless you happen to be a goat enthusiast). The contestant picks a door, upon which [Monty Hall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty%5FHall?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1921–2017), the host who *knows* what is behind each door, opens one of the two remaining doors to reveal a goat. The contestant is then given the option to stick with their original choice or switch to the remaining unopened door. The optimal strategy is to switch doors, as it provides a 2/3 probability of winning the car, compared to the 1/3 probability of sticking with the original choice. Yet, most people instinctively believe the odds are 50-50. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Why Is Everyone in My Meeting? URL: https://robert.winter.ink/why-is-everyone-in-my-meeting/ Last updated: 2025-11-06T11:26:58.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/Why-Is-Everyone-in-My-Meeting_thumb.jpeg) Why Is Everyone in My Meeting 0:00 /484.2 1× Once upon a time, meetings were things you went to. They happened in rooms with doors, had chairs—of questionable lumbar support—and came with a vague promise of biscuits. Video calls were sacred rituals—booked with reverence, conducted in purpose-built spaces with technology that failed only half the time. Then came open-plan offices. Then came COVID. Then came *The Great Unmuting*—where every desk, every laptop, every soul became a node in a corporate panopticon of noise. Now, I sit at my desk—noise cancelling headphones jammed on like a siege defence—and find myself on at least three calls at once: my own, the one to my right, and the particularly animated huddle three desks over that apparently involves interpretive dance. The meeting invites roll in like a bureaucratic floodplain, and the walls (literal and metaphorical) are nowhere to be found. ## The Great Unmuting The post-COVID workplace promised flexibility through hybrid meetings. A godsend for those with kids hoping to save on daycare or for people who thought that post covid their work would remain 100% remote. What has been delivered is the simultaneous return of physical office attendance and the persistence of virtual meetings. Now, instead of talking to the person next to you, you both join the same video call—on mute, with identical headsets, though slightly different expressions of despair. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Why Hype Erodes Communication URL: https://robert.winter.ink/why-hype-erodes-communication/ Last updated: 2025-11-06T10:52:40.000Z Modernreaders often wince at the flowery language of Jane Austen or Shakespeare, imagining their prose as the overgrown garden of English expression—ornate, indulgent, and in dire need of a trim. By contrast, today's language feels lean, efficient, even minimal. But this is a charming delusion. Austen may have taken a hundred words to describe a dinner party, but at least each word meant what it said. Shakespeare could pen a sonnet about love and still make more sense than most quarterly strategy memos. What has changed is not so much the length of our sentences but the weight of our words. Where once prose aimed to illuminate, modern managerial language too often aims to impress, seduce, or evade. Today, the inflation isn't ornamental—it's strategic. We have swapped the elegance of metaphor for the opacity of jargon and called it progress. In an age when *transformational* is the adjective of choice for everything from coffee machines to calendar invites, the question must be asked—what's left for the truly radical? Semantic inflation, a term borrowed from the domain of philosophy and linguistics, refers to the diminishing value of words through their overuse or misuse. Like economic inflation that reduces the purchasing power of money, semantic inflation erodes the communicative power of language. Examples of semantic inflation: - *Hero* applied to anyone performing basic civic duties. - *Trauma* used to describe routine stress. - *Innovative* applied to ordinary or minor product updates. - *Literally* used as a mere intensifier rather than its literal meaning. Management communication has become ground zero for this linguistic drift. Executives no longer *solve* problems; they *solution* them. Teams don't meet challenges; they *activate cross-functional paradigms*. Organisations are no longer just busy; they are *hyper-agile ecosystems of change readiness*. Much like counterfeit currency, such language undermines trust and obfuscates intent. Hype is not merely irritating managerial fluff. It is corrosive and organisationally dysfunctional. In its place, there is the opportunity to replace performance with sincerity and achieve clarity, restraint, and meaning. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Governance in Name Only (GINO) URL: https://robert.winter.ink/governance-in-name-only-gino/ Last updated: 2025-11-25T10:30:22.000Z We've all seen it. An organisation, board member or executive putting on a great show of probity, "our board papers are immaculate and represent best practice", all the while managers are a law unto themselves, directors are befuddled by the dizzying array of governance demands or latest requirement for virtue signalling, and businesses descend into chaos or Royal Commissions. Perhaps at this point you are thinking, "I know, but this is *other* organisations, we are not The Star Casino". Well, The Star wasn't **The Star** until they were. 'Therefore never send to know for whom the *bell* tolls; It tolls for *thee*.' Accepting for a moment that this can go on in an organisation for which you work, and the notion of GINO (Governance In Name Only) becomes a hot topic. This is particularly the case when corporate governance is viewed through the lens of institutional theory, which suggests that individuals and organisations conform to externally imposed norms to gain legitimacy. In this context, governance mechanisms can serve as a form of symbolic compliance—a means to appear responsible and ethical without fundamentally altering decision-making processes, organisational culture, or operating norms. Recent research has extended this argument, suggesting that governance reforms are often decoupled from organisational practices, allowing firms to appear compliant while engaging in misconduct. For example, directors may endorse policies that create the impression of oversight, yet these policies are routinely ignored in executive decision-making. Board independence, audit committees, and ethics policies are commonly presented as evidence of good governance. However, research also indicates that these mechanisms do not always correlate with effective oversight. Add in CEO weakness, or dominance, and you have conditions which undermine a board's ability to hold management accountable. ## How Good Governance Became Theatre Consider the now-infamous case of the [*The Bell Review of The Star*](https://www.nicc.nsw.gov.au/casino-regulation/bell-review-of-star?ref=robert.winter.ink) (2022). Despite sporting an ostensibly strong governance framework complete with audit committees, independent directors, and meticulously documented policies, Star Casino became the poster child for governance washing. An independent inquiry revealed Star had facilitated money laundering, ignored glaring anti-money laundering (AML) red flags, and conveniently misled regulators. This scandal, unfortunately, is not an anomaly. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Silence in Organisational Behaviour URL: https://robert.winter.ink/silence-in-organisational-behaviour/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T23:40:07.000Z Another day, another meeting, and the thrumming monotony was broken by something which is commonplace when there is no consensus—silence. The moment put me in mind of the French composer [Claude Debussy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude%5FDebussy?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1862–1918) who observed: 'Music is the silence between the notes.' Yet in an organisational context, silence is seldom music and never golden. This rule is evident when people are in accord, particularly in a room full of influences, as you will witness the social types tripping over their own tongues in an effort to agree and to be seen to be agreeing. As an academic at heart, this always strikes me as odd, because if I agree with something a small incline of the head is sufficient to show my support. When I think the argument being presented is, to use a technical term, a load of bollox, then a vociferous rebuttal is in order. As this swirling mass of ideas took me tumbling down a rabbit hole, I was brought sharply back to the present by the meeting convener who said: "well, we are all agreed." Realising agreement had not been reached, I weighed in and scribbled a hasty note to pen an article about silence in organisations. ## Reframing Organisational Silence Silence in organisational contexts is often misunderstood as apathy or passive agreement. In contrast to principle *qui tacet consentire videtur* (lit. 'he who is silent is taken to agree' or silence is assent), silence in organisational settings is often deeply strategic, emotional, and political. Far from passive, silence may be used defensively to avoid negative repercussions, to disengage from flawed processes, or to express dissent without confrontation. Organisational silence can be defined as the conscious withholding of opinions, concerns, or feedback about organisational problems or issues. Its two primary forms—defensive and acquiescent silence—signal different but equally troubling employee experiences. Defensive silence stems from fear of negative consequences, whereas acquiescent silence is driven by resignation or futility. More recently, the popular discourse around 'quiet quitting' has brought these issues out into the open. While sometimes mischaracterised as laziness, quiet quitting—doing only what one is paid for and nothing more—reflects a deliberate withdrawal from discretionary effort . It is, in essence, a silent renegotiation of the psychological contract when employees perceive management as inattentive, exploitative, or unresponsive. This reappraisal of silence as agency challenges common assumptions in management and organisational theory. Voice and silence are not merely opposites but are shaped by different psychological and contextual factors. The suppression of voice is often a rational act of self-protection in the face of perceived power imbalances and cultures of fear. Critically, silence is not equally distributed across organisational hierarchies. Employees at lower levels or those from marginalised groups often experience higher risks when speaking up and thus may be more likely to engage in silence as a survival strategy. This unequal distribution undermines the legitimacy of decisions based on an apparent lack of objection. The absence of overt dissent should not be mistaken for consensus—it may in fact signal a culture of suppression. ## The Organisational Cost of Silence The presence of widespread silence can corrode an organisation's culture, distort decision-making, and hinder the capacity to learn and adapt. [Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison](https://www.stern.nyu.edu/faculty/bio/elizabeth-morrison?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Frances Milliken](https://www.stern.nyu.edu/faculty/bio/frances-milliken?ref=robert.winter.ink) rightly identified silence as a collective phenomenon with systemic consequences: when employees consistently withhold input, organisations become less effective at detecting problems, innovating, or responding to change. This effect has become more visible in the wake of increased attention to employee engagement. Silence is significantly associated with lower organisational commitment and trust in management. When employees feel that their input is ignored, or worse, punished, they are less likely to invest emotionally or cognitively in their work. Instead, they retreat—physically or psychologically. Moreover, organisational silence impairs the quality of decision-making. Deliberative, evidence-based management relies on the open exchange of perspectives, data, and experience. When silence prevails, decisions are made with incomplete information, often by managers surrounded by false consensus or sycophancy. This results in a phenomenon sometimes referred to as 'decision-making under silence', which heightens the risk of failure due to blind spots, groupthink, or untested assumptions. Silence can also reflect and reinforce problematic management practices. Authoritarian or overly hierarchical management styles, which rely on positional authority rather than reasoned deliberation, persuasion or consensus-building, are especially vulnerable to silence cultures. In such settings, managers may equate compliance with commitment, failing to realise that initiatives are being quietly resisted or ignored. This is particularly damaging in change management contexts, where alignment and buy-in are essential. The emergence of 'strategic silence' as a form of passive resistance illustrates how employees express disapproval not through active protest but through passive withdrawal. This form of resistance undermines organisational initiatives from within—not through sabotage, but through disengagement and non-participation. When management fails to recognise these signals, silence becomes entrenched. ## From Authority to Consensus To respond effectively to organisational silence, managers must rethink both how they exercise authority and how they understand consensus. Traditional management models, particularly transactional or authoritarian forms, often misread silence as compliance or agreement. This misreading creates a dangerous illusion of consensus—what scholars have called a 'false positive' of engagement. Instead, management must become deliberative, inclusive, and contextually aware. Psychological safety—the belief that one can speak up without fear of retribution—is foundational to any meaningful engagement with silence. Managers must create conditions where dissent is not just tolerated but actively solicited and rewarded. Building such cultures requires more than open-door policies. It demands systemic efforts to flatten hierarchies of voice. This includes mechanisms such as anonymous feedback channels, regular listening forums, and shared governance models. More importantly, it requires a shift in management identity—from commander to facilitator, from decider to convener. A promising framework in this regard is 'voice-enabling management', which combines role-modelling of voice behaviour, reinforcing norms of candour, and actively coaching team members to express concerns constructively. Voice-enabling managers recognise that silence may be rational, even justified, and that rebuilding trust takes time and consistency. Moreover, consensus-building must be distinguished from consensus-assuming. True consensus arises through deliberation, inclusion, and mutual understanding—not from the absence of voiced opposition. In environments where silence is common, managers must interrogate not only what is being said, but also what is not. One practical implication is the need for management training that emphasises interpretive skills—learning to read organisational silences as signals of risk rather than signs of agreement. This includes attention to micro-behaviours in meetings (e.g., who speaks, who stays silent), exit interviews, and discrepancies between formal feedback and informal culture. Additionally, managers must model vulnerability. When senior figures admit mistakes, invite critique, or acknowledge uncertainty, they signal that silence is not necessary for survival. Such management models foster conversational spaces where dissent is valued as a contribution, not a threat. Finally, organisations must link voice to impact. Employees are more likely to speak up when they believe their input will lead to action. The voice-to-change relationship is essential: it reinforces the idea that engagement matters, and that silence is not the only rational response. ## A Most Vital Competency Silence in organisational behaviour is not a neutral absence but a powerful form of presence. Whether defensive, strategic, or disengaged, silence signals misalignment between leaders and followers, between organisational vision and lived experience. It represents a breakdown in trust, communication, and legitimacy. Management must evolve to meet this challenge. Rather than interpret silence as assent, managers must develop the skills and systems to surface dissent, build consensus, and foster genuine engagement. This involves not only encouraging voice but also interrogating why silence persists. In this context, effective management is not about issuing directives—it is about building the conditions for collective understanding. As organisations become more complex, diverse, and change-driven, the capacity to hear what is not being said may become the most vital management competency of all. Good night, and good luck. ### The Blank Slate Approach to Organisational Management URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-blank-slate-approach-to-organisational-management/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T23:41:58.000Z I recently volunteered some time to advise a charity on the challenges they were facing with organisational performance. The issue, the CEO stated, was declining morale, departmental disruptions which she felt should be avoidable, and everyone was extremely busy, yet little seemed to be getting done. After meeting with senior managers, it quickly became apparent that several people were taking the 'blank slate' approach in which people think they can drive success by questioning **any and all** established practices, regardless of their merit. When I asked why there was so much relentless questioning, managers asserted that a key to transformation is to question processes and challenge assumptions. One manager even quoted a past article I wrote on [Better Questions Make for Better Decisions](https://robert.winter.ink/better-questions-make-for-better-decisions/) in which I had observed: > The role of managers—particularly senior ones—is to help other managers and employees explore ideas they didn't realise needed exploring. While an author is always flattered when someone has read their work, I also felt that my thinking was being misapplied. If for no other reason than unlike other professionals—psychologists, philosophers, lawyers, historians, or medical doctors—most managers are not formally trained in the art of questioning. This is not only problematic, but highly costly for organisations. The notion that managers should challenge everything—regardless of their expertise—has become increasingly prevalent in organisational life; often justified under the guise of 'there are no stupid questions'. This approach assumes that success emerges from questioning even the most esteemed individuals and expert knowledge within a team or organisation. However, as anyone with a decent understanding of organisational behaviour will know, managerial ignorance combined with an indiscriminate challenge to existing knowledge structures is a heady mix that can create dysfunction rather than innovation: > Until senior managers become aware of the ways they reason defensively, any change activity is likely to be just a fad. > > [Chris Argyris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris%5FArgyris?ref=robert.winter.ink) Rather than treating managerial ignorance combined with relentless questioning as an asset, effective leadership requires competence, humility, and an ability to ask meaningful questions that drive constructive change. Organisations benefit more from appointing leaders who understand the nuances of their field, rather than managers who engage in performative questioning. ## The Blank Slate Fallacy in Organisational Management ### The Myth of Universal Fresh Perspective One of the core assumptions underlying the blank slate approach is that new managers, by virtue of their outsider status, bring a valuable fresh perspective. While fresh perspectives can be useful in avoiding groupthink, research shows that a complete lack of contextual knowledge often results in poor decision-making. When managers lack domain expertise, their ability to critically assess existing processes is limited, making them susceptible to rejecting effective practices on gut instinct alone—often without viable alternatives. A study by [Amy Edmondson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy%5FEdmondson?ref=robert.winter.ink) on psychological safety in teams found that environments where managers encourage open questioning and learning—rather than indiscriminate challenge—are more conducive to innovation and problem-solving. In contrast, when questioning is deployed without regard for existing expertise, employees experience frustration and disengagement. Particularly when employees fear censure if they challenge the blank slate approach: > … employees who fear significant personal losses from speaking up (e.g., restricted career mobility, loss of support from superiors and peers) are likely to choose "defensive" silence… After all, most employees lack the courage or commitment to challenge managers who have signaled unwillingness to accept input from below. > > James Detert & Ethan Burris This suggests that critical inquiry must be informed, rather than arbitrary, to be effective. ### The Disruption of Organisational Knowledge Structures Organisations function as complex knowledge systems, relying on accumulated expertise, tacit knowledge, and social capital to sustain performance. When new managers assume that all existing knowledge is subject to questioning, they risk dismantling these structures without understanding their value. In *Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense*, [Jeffrey Pfeffer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey%5FPfeffer?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Robert Sutton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FI.%5FSutton?ref=robert.winter.ink) highlight that knowledge-based organisations thrive when they leverage expertise rather than dismiss it. The imposition of a blank slate approach often disrupts workflow efficiency, forcing employees to spend time justifying basic operational decisions instead of engaging in productive work. Moreover, the tendency of some managers to treat all knowledge as equally questionable can lead to a paradox where truly valuable insights are ignored, while trivial points are endlessly. ### The Impact on Organisational Morale An approach that prioritises indiscriminate questioning can undermine employee confidence and psychological safety. When competent employees are forced to repeatedly defend established practices against uninformed critique, they experience frustration, reduced engagement, and even burnout. Moreover, ethical leadership is rooted in procedural fairness—ensuring that decision-making respects expertise and the contributions of employees. Managers who dismiss existing knowledge in favour of performative scepticism violate this principle, leading to resentment and reduced organisational commitment. ### The Problem of Blame Culture A further ethical concern arises when blank slate managers use their ignorance as a justification for blame-shifting. When organisational failures occur, incompetent managers often attribute problems to junior staff rather than acknowledging their own lack of understanding. This dynamic creates a blame culture, reducing trust and psychological safety within teams. By contrast, effective leaders focus on removing obstacles rather than assigning blame. Competent leaders recognise that their role is not to challenge for the sake of it but to ask questions that lead to constructive change and empowerment. ## Developing Informed Leaders Who Remove Blockers Rather than appointing managers who challenge everything indiscriminately, organisations should prioritise leaders who: 1. **Possess Domain Knowledge:** Leaders with relevant expertise can distinguish between necessary and redundant challenges, avoiding unnecessary disruption. 2. **Demonstrate Emotional Intelligence:** Leaders who display empathy, active listening, and self-awareness create high-performing teams. 3. **Ask Meaningful Questions:** Competent leaders do not question for the sake of it, instead they inquire in ways that reveal blind spots and drive problem-solving. 4. **Remove Barriers Rather Than Blame Staff:** Effective leaders focus on addressing structural issues rather than scapegoating employees for systemic inefficiencies. 5. **Challenge Must Begin At The Top:** Directors and Executives must be willing to question their own approach and capabilities before questioning the processes and competence of others. Accountability does not truly exist when it is only applied to more junior staff. Organisations that prioritise competent and sensitive leadership benefit from higher employee engagement, improved decision-making, and more sustainable growth. This approach aligns with ethical leadership frameworks that emphasise respect for expertise, fairness, and a commitment to long-term organisational health. A process that relies on a combination of innate cognitive structures, prior experience, and established frameworks rather than a passive reception of data. Just as [Kantian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantianism?ref=robert.winter.ink) epistemology refutes the notion of an entirely unstructured mind, so too must management theory reject the idea that leaders should start from a position of complete neutrality, waiting for external inputs to dictate strategy. Cognitive science and behavioural economics confirm that managers operate with heuristics, mental models, and, *critically*, industry-specific knowledge that **allow them to interpret complex information efficiently**. Furthermore, [evolutionary psychology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary%5Fpsychology?ref=robert.winter.ink) suggests that human decision-making is shaped by adaptive mechanisms honed over time, meaning that the best organisational leaders draw upon pattern recognition, strategic foresight, and institutional memory rather than attempting to reconstruct knowledge from scratch in each scenario. A blank slate approach to organisational management disregards the value of experience, intuition, and historical precedent—key elements in navigating governance, strategy, and culture. While often framed as fostering innovation, it instead conflates ignorance with insight, disrupts knowledge structures, and fosters a blame culture that undermines morale. Effective leadership requires structured cognition, expertise, and organisational wisdom to drive informed decision-making. Rather than challenging everything indiscriminately, organisations should appoint competent, sensitive leaders who ask meaningful questions, remove barriers, and create an environment where inquiry and expertise productively coexist. Good night, and good luck. ### Using Outrage as a Negotiation Tactic URL: https://robert.winter.ink/using-outrage-as-a-negotiation-tactic/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T23:45:31.000Z Negotiators sometimes wield *offence* as a weapon. Donald Trump, in *The Art of the Deal*, famously wrote: > Much as it pays to emphasize the positive, there are times when the only choice is confrontation. In most cases I'm very easy to get along with. I'm very good to people who are good to me. But when people treat me badly or unfairly or try to take advantage of me, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back very hard. **The risk is that you'll make a bad situation worse**… (*my emphasis*) > > [*The Art Of The Deal*](https://archive.org/stream/TrumpTheArtOfTheDeal/Trump%5F%20The%20Art%20of%20the%20Deal%5Fdjvu.txt#:~:text=Fight%20Back) In practice, this means provoking an opponent's anger or indignation to gain leverage. By hurling insults or feigning outrage, a negotiator can push a counterpart into a corner—often hoping an emotionally rattled interlocutor will make concessions to calm the situation. ## Offence as a Negotiation Tactic As a starting point, anger alters bargaining dynamics. An opponent who appears angry is often perceived as a *hard bargainer*, leading the other side to make larger concessions. Sensing this, some negotiators intentionally **display or provoke anger** to influence deals because they believe it will force their counterpart to back down. On one hand, facing an angry negotiator can indeed prompt higher concessions in the short term. However, fake outrage is a double-edged sword and negotiators who put on an angry front do **not** always secure better deals than those who remain calm. However, this approach can create a sense of guilt and creates a lower trust environment with counterparts afterward. In effect, **playing the offence card can backfire**: any immediate gain may be wiped out by damage to the working relationship or future collaboration. Ethically, using offence lies in a grey zone. It is not outright lying, but it *is* a form of deception through emotion—indeed, many negotiators view emotional deception as more acceptable than factual lies. Ultimately, while offence tactics might momentarily rattle the other side, they risk derailing rational discussion and violate norms of professional courtesy. A negotiator who relies on insults or manufactured indignation may win a concession, but at the cost of undermining open communication and mutual respect. ## Offence in Action History is replete with figures who mastered the art of calculated offence. Napoleon Bonaparte, for instance, frequently insulted foreign dignitaries to unnerve them. When dealing with Austrian diplomats, he often mocked their intelligence and decorum, causing them to stumble through negotiations in an effort to placate him. A rattled diplomat is a pliable one. Similarly, Winston Churchill, though renowned for his wit, used offence strategically. His barbed remarks—such as calling political opponents 'sheep in sheep's clothing'—were not just rhetorical flourishes but deliberate attempts to weaken opposition morale. However, to say that Donald Trump does not rise to the rhetorical, much less political, heights of a Churchill or Napoleon is a massive understatement. Yet this has not stop him consistently enacting his own maxim of pursuing confrontation and using offence to strong arm his negotiating position. A vivid recent example came when Trump (joined by J.D. Vance) sharply rebuked Ukraine's President Zelenskyy as 'ungrateful' during a tense Oval Office meeting about Ukraine and Russia. By shaming Zelenskyy for perceived ingratitude, they tried to coerce him into bowing to their demands. This incident shows how indignation can be weaponised to corner a counterpart—Zelenskyy was put on the defensive—but also how such tactics invite backlash and diplomatic strain. 🗒️ The subsequent European rally behind the Ukraine and probability that there will be major future investment in defence (along the lines of how France follows the de Gaulle doctrine of fully independent military capabilities) has arguably weakened the U.S.'s geo-political position—all for a few minutes of 'great TV'. The definition of bad diplomacy. In the corporate arena, a telling example comes from Elon Musk's high-profile takeover of Twitter (ironically a deal that Trump called 'rotten'). After agreeing to buy the company, Musk appeared to have second thoughts about the price and tried to renegotiate by lobbing public insults at Twitter's leaders. He went so far as to accuse them of deceit and 'borderline criminal' misbehaviour. This offensive ploy aimed to pressure Twitter into lowering the price. Twitter's board responded with a lawsuit to enforce the original terms, and Musk ultimately had to close at the initial price. His attempt at offence backfired: it damaged trust and failed to gain any advantage. These cases show that while offence can create a momentary power play—Zelenskyy on the back foot, Twitter's board under public fire—they invariably escalate conflict. When the dust settles, any short-term edge (a rattled opponent, a burst of media attention) may be outweighed by strained relationships, reputational harm, and even the opponent's strengthened resolve to resist. ## Ethical Implications From a business ethics standpoint, provoking offence is a questionable negotiation strategy. It clashes with principles of respect and honesty that underlie ethical dealings. A negotiator who intentionally inflicts anger or humiliation is treating the counterpart as a mere means to an end, rather than a true negotiating partner. This violates the spirit of Kantian ethics, which would argue that manipulating someone's emotions undermines their autonomy and dignity. Furthermore, offence tactics erode trust—the glue of long-term business relationships. Deals secured under duress or resentment may fall apart in implementation or poison the well for future cooperation. Many ethicists classify deliberate insults or emotional manipulation as forms of *bad faith* negotiation. While not illegal, such behaviour contradicts norms of professional integrity. If every negotiation were conducted with both sides flinging personal barbs, basic trust and goodwill would evaporate. Indeed, good faith bargaining norms (in diplomacy, law, and business) presume a baseline of civility. Deliberately inciting anger crosses that line, substituting intimidation for dialogue. That said, overly polite behaviour not only sugarcoat realities but runs the risks of making the negotiator look weak—sadly we live in a world in which 'raw' emotion is widely considered the only genuine emotion. As such, forthright, tough talk—which in some cultural settings boarders on offence—can be necessary to break stalemates or call out uncomfortable truths. Not every blunt statement should be judged unethical, if it stops short of deceit or personal malice. However, even these critics draw a line between directness and outright bullying. Few would condone personal abuse; a crucial distinction remains between being unapologetically frank and being needlessly insulting. Using offence as a negotiating tactic is ultimately a high-risk, low-reward strategy. It may occasionally yield a short-term advantage – your opponent might flinch or momentarily lose composure – but the long-term costs to trust and cooperation are significant. A skilled negotiator can achieve better results by being firm on the issues without resorting to personal attacks. A good approach is *be soft on the people, hard on the problem*. Offence-based tactics do the opposite: they attack the person, often obscuring the real issues. In both political and business contexts, the most effective negotiations tend to be those where parties feel respected even in disagreement. Offence can poison that atmosphere, making genuine agreement harder to reach. Negotiators who become known for bullying or brinkmanship may also find fewer willing partners down the line. To that end, Trump would do well to read his book and the balance of the quote with which I open this piece: > The risk is that you'll make a bad situation worse. I certainly don't recommend this approach to everyone. > > [*The Art Of The Deal*](https://archive.org/stream/TrumpTheArtOfTheDeal/Trump%5F%20The%20Art%20of%20the%20Deal%5Fdjvu.txt#:~:text=Fight%20Back) In the end, business ethics and practical wisdom align on this point. Yes, negotiation is often a tough endeavour, but toughness need not equate to cruelty or indignity. One can drive a hard bargain with integrity intact. The 'insolence of offence' may grab headlines, but it rarely builds real value. Negotiators seeking sustainable success would do well to remember that an insult may win an inning, but integrity wins the game. Good night, and good luck. ### The Difficulty of Identifying Potential URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-difficulty-of-identifying-potential/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T23:48:20.000Z As I cast a weary eye over the organisational landscape, I notice an insatiable obsession with what might be termed corporate alchemy: the pursuit of *potential*. This is not the kind of potential associated with, say, nuclear fusion or the stock market (though both can explode in unexpected ways). Rather, this is the kind that lives in performance reviews, talent pipelines, and the hopeful expressions of executives betting their bonuses on the next generation of leaders. **Note: this latter type of potential also has explosive capabilities if not properly handled.** This begs three key questions: 1. What is potential? 2. How do we recognise it? 3. Why is it so hard to get right? These are not trivial questions. Yet, for all their importance the corporate world has, for the most part, taken to this task with the same precision as medieval alchemists—perhaps with less success. A key reason for this lack of success is that performance is—counterintuitive though this may sound to some—a poor predictor of future success. Let me say that again: **performance is a poor predictor of future success**. As a result, bias often distorts our ability to recognise talent, and serendipity—rather than systematisation—often plays the deciding role in who gets ahead. A very bad approach to building [high(er) performing organisations](https://robert.winter.ink/building-higher-performing-teams-a-leaders-guide-to-collaboration-and-success/). ## The Perils of Performance as a Predictor It seems obvious to assume that high performers in their current roles will naturally become high performers in future roles. This assumption is about as reliable as the notion that a great racehorse would make a fine jockey. It also explains why the [Peter principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5Fprinciple?ref=robert.winter.ink) often holds true. [Rob Silzer](https://www.iopsych-baruch.com/rob-silzer?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Allan Church](https://www.linkedin.com/in/allanchurch/?ref=robert.winter.ink) dismantle this fallacy in their seminal work on talent identification, *The Pearls and Perils of Identifying Potential*, and demonstrate that high performance in a given context is often the result of environment-specific factors: a supportive team, a well-defined job scope, or simply having the right boss. Strip those away, and a once *brilliant* performer may struggle. This builds on the earlier work by [Robert Hogan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FHogan%5F%28psychologist%29?ref=robert.winter.ink), of *Hogan Assessment* fame, in which *rewardingness*—the ability to be agreeable, interesting, and promote the other person's agenda—is more strongly correlated with a person's rise to a position of authority than is their effectiveness in a leadership role. This is particularly concerning in the corporate world, where charisma and political savvy often eclipse competence. The nine-box talent grid, a staple of HR departments, exacerbates the problem by relying on subjective assessments of *potential* that are, at best, arbitrary and, at worst, deeply flawed. In short, the idea that today's high performers are tomorrow's leaders is akin to believing that because a child enjoys finger-painting, they are destined for a career in fine art. Possible? Yes. Probable? Not particularly. 🗒️ The nine-box talent grid is a framework in talent management and succession planning that evaluates employees based on two dimensions: performance (how well they currently execute their role) and potential (their ability to take on more complex responsibilities in the future). The grid consists of nine boxes, categorising employees into groups such as "High Potential, High Performance" (future leaders), "Low Potential, High Performance" (solid contributors), and "High Potential, Low Performance" (untapped talent). While it provides a structured approach to talent assessment, it relies heavily on subjective judgments, can reinforce biases (in-group/out-group), and oversimplifies the complexities of human potential and career growth. ## The Bias Minefield A key learning from the history of organisational behaviour is that in general people are spectacularly bad at objective decision-making. In talent identification, this takes the form of *like-me bias*, *halo effect*, and *overconfidence*. This reality manifests in executives disproportionately selecting protégés who remind them of themselves, leading to a homogeneity that stifles innovation. Plato's allegory of the cave serves as an apt metaphor: those selecting talent often perceive mere shadows of potential rather than its full reality. Candidates who are deemed to 'fit the culture' (read not rock their boss' boat) tend to be favoured, even when their actual abilities may be lacklustre. This leads to the sad reality that individuals who tend toward group-think are more likely to be rated as high potential despite no actual correlation with job performance. Organisational leaders also have a disturbing tendency to mistake decisiveness for competence. As [Daniel Kahneman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel%5FKahneman?ref=robert.winter.ink) demonstrated, people who exude confidence are more likely to be believed, even when their accuracy is no better than chance. This explains why corporate history is littered with the remains of over-promoted individuals whose primary skill was looking like they knew what they were doing. The solution? A rigorous, structured approach to talent identification that prioritises behavioural evidence over gut feeling. However, as we shall see, even the best frameworks are undermined by the unpredictability of human development. ## The Role of Context and Serendipity If identifying potential were purely a matter of data-driven assessment, the task of identifying top performers versus laggards would be straightforward. But the real world is messy, and career trajectories are shaped as much by chance as by skill. The emergence of disruptive technologies, economic shifts, and the whims of office politics where the arrival or departure of a CEO can shift who is moving up, who is moving down, and who is moving out, disproportionately determines whether someone is perceived as having *potential*. Opportunity structures within organisations also play a significant role in shaping career success. That is, those who are given stretch assignments, mentorship, and sponsorship are far more likely to fulfil their potential than those who are left to languish. In short, more people than you think can competently do a specific job, but only a select few are ever given the opportunity—particularly at more senior levels. Thus, what is often describe as *potential* is less about ability and more about being in the right place at the right time (think someone who becomes a VP at a billion dollar company simply because they got the gig when it was a start up). This raises uncomfortable questions about the fairness of talent assessments and suggests that organisations should place greater emphasis on creating equitable opportunities rather than trying to predict future greatness based on prevailing assumptions about an individual's capabilities. The perennial "that's too big a step for them". ## A Humble Approach to Potential The difficulty of identifying potential is not merely a technical problem; it is a philosophical and practical one. Given performance is a poor predictor of future success, that biases warp our judgment, and serendipity plays an outsized role in who rises to the top, it is critical that managers move beyond being fixated with identifying 'high performers'. Instead, organisations would do better to focus on creating environments that allow a broad range of employees to develop and prove themselves. To paraphrase Aristotle: we are what we repeatedly do. Thus, the real key to unlocking potential lies not in identifying it, but in providing the conditions in which it can flourish. Until then, most managers will continue to sift through resumes, stare at leadership competency matrices, and hope against hope they have backed the right horse—despite knowing that some of the best racehorses were once dismissed as [pit ponies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%5Fpony?ref=robert.winter.ink). Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Boudreau, JW, and Ramstad, PM (2005) Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. *Human Resource Management*, **44**(2), 129–136. Hogan, R, Curphy, GJ, and Hogan, J (1994) What We Know About Leadership: Effectiveness and Personality. *The American Psychologist*, **49**(6), 493–504. Hogan, R, and Shelton, D (1998) A Socioanalytic Perspective on Job Performance. *Human Performance*, **11**(2–3), 129–144. Kaiser, RB, Hogan, R, and Craig, SB (2008) Leadership and the Fate of Organizations. *American Psychologist*, **63**(2), 96–110. Silzer, R, and Church, AH (2009) The Pearls and Perils of Identifying Potential. *Industrial and Organizational Psychology*, **2**(4), 377–412. ### Some Challenges in Rebuilding Organisational Culture in NFPs URL: https://robert.winter.ink/some-challenges-in-rebuilding-organisational-culture-in-nfps/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T23:50:50.000Z Organisational culture is the foundation that shapes how people work, interact, and commit to a shared mission—yet in many *for-purpose* (aka NFP) organisations, it is more an afterthought than a strategic priority. Culture is not built through mission statements, vision workshops, or the occasional staff retreat; it is embedded in everyday behaviours, leadership decisions, and accountability structures. When culture deteriorates, no amount of rebranding, values posters, or employee engagement surveys can reverse the damage. True cultural transformation requires confronting uncomfortable truths about leadership, governance, and the systemic habits that keep organisations stuck. However, when leadership fails to provide direction, financial discipline, and accountability, there is invariably one result: poor staff sentiment. Left unchecked, negative sentiment within an organisation leads to talent attrition, declining efficiency, and reputational damage. In extreme cases, the whole enterprise can unravel in a spectacular mix of social media scandals and legal entanglements. Faced with this, some leaders double down on the wishful thinking that employees will somehow self-organise their way out of a leadership failure. Spoiler alert: they won't. For these reasons, rebuilding organisational culture in NFPs presents a unique challenge: leaders must balance mission-driven passion with financial pragmatism, all while fostering a workplace environment that attracts and retains competent professionals. Unlike their for-profit counterparts, NFPs often operate with constrained budgets, complex stakeholder demands, and a high degree of emotional investment from employees. The result is an organisational culture that, if poorly managed, can become a liability rather than an asset. This article examines some of the core challenges facing NFPs in cultural reconstruction, drawing on research from business ethics, organisational behaviour, and leadership studies. 💡 I prefer for-purpose over not-for-profit (NFP) as it better reflects these organisations' mission-driven nature. Unlike the misleading implication that they cannot generate profit, for-purpose entities can and should make a profit—they just reinvest it into their social purpose initiatives rather than distributing it to stakeholders. This financial sustainability ensures long-term impact. However, since NFP is the more widely used term, I will use it throughout this article for clarity while acknowledging its limitations in capturing the sector's true purpose. ## The Accountability Deficit One of the most significant cultural issues in NFPs is a pervasive lack of accountability at the leadership level. While accountability mechanisms in for-profit enterprises are reinforced by profit motives and shareholder pressures, NFPs often rely on self-regulation and governance structures that can be ineffective. Boards of directors, typically composed of well-meaning volunteers, may lack the expertise or willingness to challenge ineffective executives. Furthermore, the sector's reliance on grant funding creates a perverse incentive structure. Leaders are often judged on their ability to secure funding rather than their effectiveness in executing the organisation's mission. This has led to a culture where maintaining donor confidence takes precedence over addressing internal inefficiencies. When success is measured by money raised rather than outcomes achieved, misaligned priorities can erode organisational integrity. ## The Passion Problem Passion for a cause is often heralded as the driving force behind NFPs, but it can also be a double-edged sword. The assumption that employees will accept lower pay and subpar working conditions in exchange for a sense of purpose has led to widespread burnout in the sector. While for-profit businesses compete for talent with market-driven compensation and career progression, NFPs often rely on intrinsic motivation alone. Over time, this leads to disillusionment, particularly when employees witness managerial inefficiency and profound lack of accountability in senior leadership circles. Moreover, when passion eclipses pragmatism, decision-making can become irrational. Research has demonstrated that organisations with high levels of emotional investment from employees often struggle with critical self-evaluation. Leaders who believe too strongly in the moral righteousness of their mission may resist change, dismiss criticism, and reject necessary but unpopular reforms. This phenomenon is compounded by the tendency of NFPs to develop insular sub-cultures where dissent is not tolerated. Employees who question leadership decisions risk being labelled as not being *committed* enough to the cause. As a result, organisational inertia sets in, and the very mission that initially inspired employees becomes a source of frustration. ## Leadership, Governance, and the Competency Gap Another fundamental challenge in rebuilding organisational culture in NFPs is the prevalence of under qualified leadership. While the for profit sector is far from perfect, with people appointed based on prior job title rather than situational capability, NFP leaders are often appointed based on their passion for the cause rather than managerial competence. Passion is undoubtedly important, but it is no substitute for strategic planning, operational efficiency, or financial acumen. This lack of executive competency has real consequences. Studies show that ineffective leadership is one of the primary reasons for organisational decline—particularly in the NFP sector. Because weak leaders struggle to enforce accountability, develop coherent strategic plans, or make tough personnel decisions, they often resort to vague inspirational messaging and statements devoid of substantive policy. Additionally, boards of directors—tasked with overseeing NFP leadership—are often ill-equipped to provide effective governance. As [Karin Kreutzer](https://www.ebs.edu/en/lecturers/kreutzer-karin?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Claus Jacobs](https://sbs.ox.ac.uk/about-us/people/claus-d-jacobs?ref=robert.winter.ink) found, many NFP boards function more as ceremonial bodies—approving decisions rather than shaping them, leading to organisational inertia and weak cultural foundations— rather than fulfilling their role as an active governance structure. Furthermore, board members may lack the capabilities needed to challenge executive decisions or may be too socially intertwined with leadership to enforce meaningful oversight. In short, tone may be set from the top, but without competency, capability, and clear accountability, that tone will sound a discordant note with stakeholders. ## Fixing a Culture Without Breaking the Organisation Despite these challenges, cultural renewal in NFPs is possible—but it requires a deliberate and often uncomfortable process of reform. First and foremost, leadership competency must be prioritised over ideological commitment. Hiring practices should emphasise managerial skills and experience rather than passion alone. Successful organisations are built on a balance of idealism and realism; neither can exist without the other. ⚠️ It is crucial to emphasize oversight—not management or meddling in daily operations. A board that overreaches into operational matters not only frustrates executives and undermines the CEO but also creates unnecessary friction among directors who should be focused on governance, not execution. When directors start playing at management, they're no longer steering the ship—they're in the engine room causing chaos. The board's role is to govern, not operate. For a deeper exploration of this distinction, see The Three Hats of Governance. Second, accountability structures must be strengthened. This includes empowering boards to actively **oversee** executives, implementing transparent performance metrics, and fostering a workplace environment where dissent is not penalised but encouraged. Lastly, players in the sector must abandon the myth that passion alone can sustain an organisation. Employees must be compensated fairly, given clear career progression opportunities, and supported by leaders who understand that commitment to a cause does not preclude operational efficiency or delivering a profit which can be reinvested in the social mission of the organisation. Rebuilding organisational culture is not an easy task, but for those willing to confront the entrenched weaknesses of the NFP sector, the rewards are substantial: more effective organisations, a more engaged workforce, and, ultimately, a greater impact on the communities they serve. Good night, and good luck. ### Beyond Consensus Decision Making URL: https://robert.winter.ink/beyond-consensus-decision-making/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T23:53:54.000Z If you are an Australian with a mortgage to pay or a renter hoping your landlord might finally pass on some relief, you likely watched the RBA's February 18 rate cut with a mix of interest and trepidation. I, for one, welcomed it—every dollar counts when you have a newborn dozing beside you. Given the breathless hype around the announcement—news channels were practically running 'rate watch' bulletins—it seems fitting to take a step back and ask: why do so called *data driven* decisions so often defy the data? Countless words have been spilled in recent weeks on the professionalism of the RBA's board papers, held up as paragons of economic rigour. The message is clear: the board is immune to political or social pressure, committed only to making decisions guided by cold, hard data. And yet, their latest move raises the question—are they following the numbers, or something else entirely? > In the December quarter underlying inflation was 3.2 per cent, which suggests inflationary pressures are easing a little more quickly than expected. There has also been continued subdued growth in private demand and wage pressures have eased. These factors give the Board more confidence that inflation is moving sustainably towards the midpoint of the 2–3 per cent target range. > > [Statement by the Reserve Bank Board](https://www.rba.gov.au/media-releases/2025/mr-25-03.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) Yet, in the very same statement, inflation forecasts were 'revised up', projecting underlying inflation to flatline above the midpoint—a contradiction that is hard to ignore. But a shift away from consensus decision making could go a long way in resolving these contradictions and enhance trust in the process. After all, consensus—the sacred cow of bureaucratic comfort—has an unfortunate tendency to sand down sharp insights while giving undue weight to dubious ones. This happens because consensus, which sounds lovely in theory (collegiality, inclusivity, all voices being heard), in practice frequently devolves into a high-stakes exercise in self-deception. When no one wants to be the dissenting voice, tough decisions become compromised ones. When there is strong dissent, it is silenced as priority is given to consensus. The result? A statement which sounds like a room of nodding heads congratulating each other while the rest of us scratch ours in bewilderment. The problem with consensus driven decisions, whether in central banking or corporate boardrooms, is that they prioritise unified messaging over accuracy, group loyalty over intellectual rigour, and optics over outcomes. As I will unpack, the dangers of consensus decision making are well documented—from groupthink to the suppression of dissent and the obfuscation of key deliberations. It is time to reconsider whether 'agreeing to agree' is really the best way to make important decisions. ## Groupthink and Consensus Decisions Consensus decision making is widely regarded as a method that fosters inclusivity and cooperation. However, research also consistently shows that consensus driven processes can lead to groupthink, a phenomenon where the desire for harmony may result in irrational or dysfunctional decision making. Groupthink occurs when cohesive groups prioritise agreement over critical evaluation, often suppressing dissent and alternative perspectives. In central banking, the reliance on consensus has been criticised for leading to decisions that reflect the lowest common denominator rather than a well-reasoned course of action. The RBA is a prime example of the challenges of a consensus approach as it deprives us of any minority or dissenting viewpoints among the board. The same issue has been observed in corporate governance, where boards that operate on consensus tend to overlook critical risks, as seen in cases like Enron and Lehman Brothers. The presence of dissenting voices in decision making bodies enhances outcomes by introducing cognitive diversity. Dissent forces groups to examine assumptions and consider alternative perspectives, ultimately leading to better, more resilient decisions. When consensus is prioritised at the expense of rigorous debate, organisations risk overlooking early warning signals of potential crises. 🗒️ The Enron and Lehman Brothers scandals exemplify how consensus decision making can contribute to catastrophic failures when dissenting voices are suppressed. At ****Enron**, executives fostered a toxic corporate culture where financial manipulation was normalised, and employees were pressured to align with leadership rather than challenge risky accounting practices. The board of directors, despite being aware of questionable financial structures like special purpose entities (SPEs), failed to push back, enabling fraudulent activities that led to Enron’s collapse in 2001\. Similarly, at ****Lehman Brothers**, excessive risk taking in the subprime mortgage market was sustained by a culture of consensus and overconfidence. Dissenting views on the firm’s growing leverage and exposure to toxic assets were dismissed or ignored by top executives. Board members and risk officers who might have raised concerns failed to challenge the leadership’s aggressive strategies, contributing to Lehman’s bankruptcy in 2008—the largest in U.S. history. Both cases illustrate how an absence of structured dissent in decision-making can foster groupthink, prevent critical evaluation of risks, and ultimately lead to financial disaster. ## Suppression of Diverse Viewpoints A critical shortcoming of consensus decision making is its tendency to suppress diverse viewpoints. The assumption that unanimity equates to sound decision making overlooks the role of debate and contestation in refining choices. Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory suggests that decision-makers often weigh probabilities and risks differently. However, when a single consensus is forged, these nuances are lost, resulting in decisions that may not adequately reflect the complexities of the issue at hand. This suppression of dissent is particularly concerning in the context of monetary policy. In the United States and the United Kingdom, policymakers express divergent views on interest rates, allowing external stakeholders to gauge the full spectrum of considerations. In contrast, in Australia, the RBA's consensus approach means that only the governor's final position is communicated, leaving market participants with incomplete information about the internal deliberations. The same phenomenon is observed in corporate settings. Research on corporate boards indicates that homogeneous groups, particularly those characterised by consensus-seeking behaviour, are more likely to engage in riskier decision making without fully evaluating alternative strategies. By contrast, organisations that encourage structured dissent—such as by appointing a 'devil's advocate'—enhance their ability to navigate uncertainty and avoid strategic missteps. ## Alternative Approaches: Beyond Consensus Given these limitations, leaders should consider alternative approaches to decision making that mitigate the risks of consensus without sacrificing collective wisdom. Two promising models are structured dissent and distributed authority. #### Structured Dissent One effective method to counteract groupthink is structured dissent, where dissenting opinions are actively solicited and evaluated. This approach ensures that minority viewpoints are not merely tolerated but integrated into decision making processes. Studies on high-performing teams suggest that when dissent is institutionalised, decision quality improves significantly—which can include open door policies, ethics board appeals, structured debate, and corporate devil's advocates. Organisations can implement structured dissent by assigning individuals to critique dominant viewpoints, thereby fostering a culture of debate rather than conformity. #### Distributed Authority Another alternative is to distribute authority more broadly within decision making bodies. In central banking, for example, adopting a system where multiple policymakers publicly express their views—as in the U.S. Federal Reserve—enhances transparency and market confidence. In corporate governance, empowering diverse voices through independent board members or rotating leadership roles prevents entrenched decision making patterns. Both approaches preserve the advantages of collective decision making while reducing the risks associated with consensus. They acknowledge that effective governance requires balancing unity with dissent, stability with adaptability, and certainty with debate. ## Breaking the Consensus Trap The RBA's reliance on consensus decision making serves as a cautionary tale of the risks that come with prioritising unanimity over rigorous debate. By failing to openly engage with dissenting views, the RBA's approach obscures critical nuances in policy deliberations, leaving markets and the public with a narrow and often misleading understanding of economic forecasts. This lack of transparency, coupled with the suppression of alternative perspectives, exemplifies how consensus driven decision making can weaken rather than strengthen institutional credibility. The broader implications of this issue extend into corporate governance and organisational leadership. When teams and boards prioritise agreement at the expense of contestation, they forfeit the intellectual diversity necessary for sound strategic decisions. History is replete with examples of firms and institutions that collapsed under the weight of unchecked conformity, from financial crises driven by collective blind spots to corporate failures enabled by unchallenged assumptions. Without mechanisms that encourage structured dissent and diversified input, organisations risk making choices that are neither robust nor forward-thinking. A better path forward lies in embracing decision making models that balance inclusivity with constructive conflict. By institutionalising dissent, fostering a culture of open debate, and ensuring that minority viewpoints shape deliberations, organisations can significantly enhance their decision quality. Whether in monetary policy, corporate strategy, or governance, breaking free from the constraints of consensus allows institutions to be more agile, transparent, and ultimately, more effective in navigating complex and uncertain environments. It also means that stakeholders who rely on the decisions are not denied important information that would allow them to [more effectively position for the future](https://robert.winter.ink/why-positioning-eats-predicting-for-breakfast/). Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Bernanke, B (2015) *The Courage to Act: A Memoir of a Crisis and its Aftermath*, New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Blinder, AS (2007) Monetary Policy by Committee: Why and How? *European Journal of Political Economy*, **23**(1), 106–123. Janis, IL (Irving L (1982) *Groupthink : Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes*, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kahneman, D, and Tversky, A (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. *Econometrica*, **47**(2), 263–291. Kassing, JW (1998) Development and Validation of the Organizational Dissent Scale. *Management Communication Quarterly*, **12**(2), 183–229. Larcker, D, and Tayan, B (2020) *Corporate Governance Matters: A Closer Look at Organizational Choices and Their Consequences*, Pearson. Nemeth, C (2018) *In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business*, New York: Basic Books. ### The Art of Not Reading URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-art-of-not-reading/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T01:27:46.000Z Arthur Schopenhauer's dictum 'the art of not reading is a very important one' seems almost prophetic in an age where information excess has become one of the defining features of modern intellectual life. The democratisation of knowledge, propelled by digital proliferation, has made vast quantities of information accessible to the public. Yet, as T.S. Eliot warned, 'Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?' The need to navigate this deluge has never been more pressing, and the ability to exercise discernment in reading is now an intellectual necessity rather than a mere philosophical luxury. ## The Tyranny of Quantity over Quality The sheer volume of books, articles, and digital content available today creates an environment in which the ability to read selectively is as crucial as literacy itself. The prevalence of superficial, ideologically driven, or commercially motivated writing distorts intellectual priorities, rewarding clickbait over careful scholarship. Given that 'a precondition for reading good books is not reading bad ones', there is a fundamental tension between quality and accessibility. While the internet has made it easier to publish, it has not improved the quality of what is published. Moreover, the economics of digital publishing favour quantity over quality. The advertising driven revenue models of many online platforms encourage the production of content designed to maximise clicks rather than intellectual depth. This leads to a saturation of the intellectual landscape with disposable material, further necessitating a discerning approach to reading. As [Nicholas G. Carr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas%5FG.%5FCarr?ref=robert.winter.ink) observed in *The Shallows*, the rise of digital consumption has encouraged a shift away from deep reading toward fragmented, surface-level engagement with subject matter. The cognitive burden imposed by fragmented reading has been extensively documented. Research suggests that excessive consumption of low-value material—particularly that which prioritises emotional appeal over intellectual rigour—reduces critical thinking ability and increases susceptibility to misinformation, because it is less intellectually costly to accept what is presented than to find a more accurate source. In professional and academic settings, this presents a paradox: individuals must read extensively to remain informed, yet the more they read indiscriminately, the less critically engaged they become. Inundated with text, many professionals resort to skimming rather than engaging deeply with material, leading to diminished comprehension and analytical ability. The renewed interest in classical works and the endurance of texts such as *The Federalist Papers* or *Reflections on the Revolution in France* reflects a growing recognition that lasting insights require revisiting the intellectual pillars of Western thought. Rather than chasing every new publication, the selective reader cultivates a library that prioritises enduring wisdom over transient or fashionable ideas. - The proliferation of low-quality content necessitates disciplined reading habits. - Indiscriminate reading reduces cognitive efficiency and critical thinking ability. - Digital publishing incentivises quantity over intellectual rigour, requiring greater discernment from readers. - Intellectual rigour demands a prioritisation of quality over accessibility (here I use accessibility in the sense of easy to comprehend, it is no bad thing to work a little to understand a text). ## Selective Reading as an Intellectual Virtue The discipline of selective reading is neither anti-intellectual nor anti-knowledge. Rather, it is an affirmation of the principle that knowledge acquisition should be a purposeful and deliberate activity. Selectivity allows for deeper engagement with foundational texts, fostering a depth of understanding that is often sacrificed in the pursuit of breadth. The contrast between deep and superficial reading is particularly evident in academia, where the pressure to keep up with the latest publications often leads scholars to engage with research in a cursory manner. The economist [Herbert A. Simon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert%5FA.%5FSimon?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1916–2001) famously observed that 'a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention', highlighting how an excess of reading material diminishes our ability to engage meaningfully with any single work. Instead, a shift toward slow, deliberate reading would enhance both retention and comprehension. A strong historical precedent for selective reading can be found in the traditional liberal arts education, which emphasises close reading of foundational texts rather than the rapid consumption of fragmented information. This approach fosters critical engagement rather than passive absorption. The cultivation of an intellectually rigorous reading habit, therefore, requires not only selectivity in what one reads but also a commitment to deep, reflective engagement with chosen texts. Additionally, selective reading serves as a defence against intellectual conformity. The widespread accessibility of information paradoxically narrows perspectives by reinforcing echo chambers and ideological silos. By consciously avoiding transient, politically motivated literature in favour of works with lasting intellectual merit, readers can develop a more nuanced and independent perspective on critical issues. In this sense, the act of not reading becomes a form of intellectual resistance—one that preserves individuality against the pressures of mass consensus. - Selective reading fosters deeper intellectual engagement and comprehension. - The pressure to remain up to date often results in superficial engagement with texts. - Traditional liberal arts education emphasises deep reading of foundational texts, an approach that remains relevant today. - Avoiding transient, ideologically driven works supports intellectual independence and deeper critical thinking. ## Strategies for Practicing the Art of Not Reading Implementing a disciplined reading strategy requires both philosophical commitment and practical methodologies. Several techniques have been suggested by scholars and cognitive scientists to enhance the efficacy of selective reading: 1. **The Principle of First-Order Knowledge**: Focus on primary sources rather than secondary interpretations. Reading foundational texts provides a deeper understanding than relying on derivative commentary. 2. **Intentional Ignorance**: Avoiding unnecessary engagement with transient cultural phenomena is not a rejection of reality but an affirmation of intellectual priorities. This aligns with Burke's argument that the endurance of intellectual traditions depends on resisting ephemeral trends. 3. **Cognitive Triaging**: Nicholas Carr suggests a three-tiered reading strategy: primary (deep reading), secondary (selective skimming), and tertiary (dismissal). This method prioritises engagement with high-quality material while filtering out distractions. 4. **The Scholarly Canon**: Prioritising texts that have withstood the test of time is a time-honoured approach to selective reading. The enduring relevance of works by Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Tocqueville suggests that timeless wisdom should take precedence over contemporary fads. 5. **The Habit of Re-Reading**: As C.S. Lewis argued, 'If you can't read a book twice, you shouldn't read it at all.' The practice of re-reading deepens understanding and reinforces critical thinking. The decision *not* to read is not a rejection of learning but a commitment to it. The modern world bombards us with information designed to consume our time and shape our thinking, often without merit. Exercising discernment in reading is not elitist—it is necessary for anyone who values intellectual independence and clarity. Reading selectively is an act of discipline, a refusal to be swept away by every new trend or ideological wave. By focusing on material with lasting substance, we cultivate not just knowledge, but wisdom. If we are to think deeply, act decisively, and preserve our intellectual autonomy, then mastering the *art of not reading* may be one of the most crucial skills of our time. Good night, and good luck. ### Better Writing Leads to Improved Credibility URL: https://robert.winter.ink/better-writing-leads-to-improved-credibility/ Last updated: 2026-09-01T12:00:58.000Z From the moment they first set eyes on you, people jump to all kinds of conclusions. Deciding how likeable, credible, trustworthy, and even intelligent they think you are. What is more, these early impressions stick and are often only skin deep—in that the look of your face is the only data point many people use to form their opinion. That means poor writing doesn't just make you look bad—it cements a reputation of low credibility that is hard to undo as people hunt for *hits* to confirm their initial opinion. In business, credibility is currency, and why the lower an individual's credibility the more ferociously they tend to protect their reputation. Always beware the colleague who is unable to have a little fun at their own expense—for there an authoritarian lies (in both senses of the word). If your writing is riddled with jargon, disorganised, or—heaven forbid—self-important, expect your audience to judge you accordingly. Even seasoned professionals can appear untrustworthy or incompetent if they fail to write clearly. The sad part? They may actually be brilliant in other ways. But poor writing will bury capability every time as organisational life is a world of proxies. Also, why people who are "not technical" tend to get promoted over people with boring but consistent technical capabilities. If you have heard "clear writing is clear thinking", then you are already ahead of the curve as the aphorism remains as relevant today as it was in the age of ink-stained manuscripts. In an era of corporate jargon, management-speak, and the egregious abuse of [PowerPoint](https://robert.winter.ink/crisp-document-messy-meeting/), the ability to write well is in steady decline. A decline which ChatGPT and other AI tools is accelerating. This last comment may strike many as strange, given AI is now the go to in saving time when producing reports. But give me a moment to unpack, and I can help you to separate grammatically accurate prose from good writing. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### A Coherent Approach to Visionary Leadership URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-coherent-approach-to-visionary-leadership/ Last updated: 2025-11-14T23:59:36.000Z We've all worked with *that* manager who exhibits an almost primal urge to craft an ideal end-state for the organisation—often dressed up as a corporate 'vision'. It's like imagining a utopian family holiday: everyone knows it won't work out as planned, but it's too tempting not to try. Striking the balance between novelty (think groundbreaking ideas) and believability (ideas the team won't laugh at in private) is notoriously tricky. Empirical evidence shows that most people are **not** thrilled with the vision presented. Nor are they energised by the overly theatrical process of establishing an organisational vision that tends to resemble a motivational seminar more than a genuine strategy session. Or course, ask the average employee who is worried about losing their job and they will wax lyrical on command—but this enthusiasm is not authentic nor is it truthful. Much less does it motivate employees to do what is in the best interests of the organisation. This leaves the grand notion of a corporate vision in the category of more decorative than functional, when viewed in a tangled and unpredictable business landscape. After all, when your world feels as stable as a house of cards on a windy day at a company picnic, what really matters is a coherent plan, not visionary flights of fancy. Being coherent means behaving in a way that reinforces who we are as a team or who the business is as an organisation, given the current chaos. Coherence isn't just practical; it's comforting. It's what makes sense to us and to those around us—like the office coffee machine always being slightly broken, yet predictably so. For this reason, vision has an important role to play, but only when it is underpinned by a coherent plan. ## The Limits of Visionary Leadership Love it or hate it, vision is here to stay. If for no other reason than there are some extremely powerful people who have little to contribute but a vision of what tomorrow looks like. It's *their* contribution and the organisation will go into receivership before *their* role is made redundant. Stepping away from self-interest and there are also very good reasons for visionary leadership. Specifically, an organisation is a complex ecosystem, or rather a complex set of ecosystems in which a series of teams tend to compete with each other more than with the organisation's actual competition. A key requirement of competent leadership in such an environment is to galvanise these competing groups and self-interests into delivering a singular goal: the good of the company. For this reason, elaborating on a vision is a critical task for organisational leaders. Yet for all its value, visionary leadership often fails. Fewer than 2% of strategic plans incorporating visions succeed. Reliance on static visions in unpredictable environments often limits adaptability and stifles emergent opportunities. Consider the cautionary tale of Boo.com, a retail startup that epitomised the pitfalls of an inflexible vision. The company's ambitious global launch failed spectacularly as it overestimated market readiness for its high-tech solutions, demonstrating a fundamental misalignment between vision and execution. The strategic emphasis by Boo.com's leadership on an idealised future disregarded present realities, leading to operational incoherence and financial collapse. Moreover, visionary leaders may become so enamoured with their own ideas that they overlook practical constraints and dissenting perspectives. This tunnel vision can result in strategic myopia, where leaders fail to recognise and respond to immediate challenges, thereby jeopardising organisational stability. While visionary leadership can be effective in providing direction, it must be balanced with other leadership styles to address the complexities of real-world business environments. - Visionary leadership must be tempered by pragmatism, with strategies rooted in current organisational capabilities. - Execution should prioritise coherence, ensuring alignment with both internal and external realities. - Overreliance on a singular vision can lead to strategic myopia, necessitating a balanced leadership approach. ## Coherence: The Strategic Anchor Coherence, defined as the alignment of organisational identity, purpose, and actions, provides a dynamic alternative to traditional vision-based strategies. Coherence emerges through continuous sense-making processes, enabling organisations to navigate complexity effectively. Unlike static visions, coherence fosters adaptability by encouraging iterative adjustments to strategies based on real-time feedback. The LEGO Group illustrates the transformative potential of coherence. Faced with declining demand for traditional construction toys in the late 1990s, LEGO realigned its identity around imagination. This shift underpinned the successful launch of LEGO Mindstorms, a programmable robotics system that rejuvenated the company's market position. By embracing coherence, LEGO integrated emergent opportunities with its core identity, achieving sustained growth. Senior managers play a critical role in translating coherence into actionable outcomes. Their responsibilities extend beyond defining strategic goals to cultivating an organisational culture that supports coherence. This involves facilitating open dialogues, setting adaptive boundaries, and empowering teams to make sense of complex environments. Effective strategic leadership also requires balancing the tensions between control and emergence. Overly rigid structures may stifle creativity, while excessive flexibility risks operational inefficiency. Leaders must adopt a *situated* approach, tailoring their strategies to specific contexts while maintaining alignment with overarching organisational goals. Furthermore, strategic leaders must prioritise emotional intelligence in their interactions. Emotionally intelligent leaders are better equipped to navigate the complexities of modern organisations, fostering trust and collaboration among team members. By creating an environment that values psychological safety, leaders can enhance collective sense-making processes, which are essential for coherence. - Strategic leaders must act as enablers of coherence, fostering environments that balance control and adaptability. - Leadership strategies should be context-sensitive, aligning organisational actions with current realities. - Emotional intelligence is a critical competency for fostering trust and collaboration in complex environments. ### Practical Recommendations for Aligning Vision and Execution To operationalise coherence, organisations can adopt the following guiding principles: 1. **Focus on Identity:** Regularly revisit and reaffirm the organisation's core identity to ensure alignment with strategic actions. This process involves engaging stakeholders across all levels to co-create a shared understanding of the organisation's purpose and values. 2. **Channel Emergence:** Facilitate environments where emergent opportunities can be identified and harnessed. This includes promoting interdepartmental collaboration and external stakeholder engagement. According to Edmondson (2019), fostering a culture of psychological safety is crucial for enabling such collaboration. 3. **Iterative Planning:** Replace static strategic plans with dynamic frameworks that allow for ongoing adjustments based on market feedback (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985, p. 173). Dynamic capabilities, as explored by Teece et al. (2018), are instrumental in this regard, enabling organisations to sense and seize opportunities while mitigating risks. 4. **Leadership Development:** Invest in training programs that equip leaders with the skills to navigate complexity and foster coherence. This includes developing competencies in systems thinking, emotional intelligence, and adaptive decision-making. As [Chris Argyris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris%5FArgyris?ref=robert.winter.ink), one of the founders of organisational development succinctly put it, if your organisation's operating environment is stable and readily lends itself to positioning, senior managers must: - Define a *vision*. - Define a competitive *strategy* consistent with that vision. - Define organizational *work processes* that, when executed, will implement the strategy. - Define individual *job requirements* so that employees can carry out the processes effectively. If your operating environment is **not** stable, coherence eats vision for breakfast and offers a nuanced framework for addressing the challenges of modern business. Unlike static vision-based strategies, coherence accommodates the realities of dynamic markets by aligning organisational identity, purpose, and actions. This alignment enables organisations to respond swiftly to external changes while preserving their core values and mission. Case studies of successful companies like LEGO repay the reading and demonstrate how coherence can drive innovation and adaptability, creating a sustainable competitive edge. Coherence does not demand the abandonment of vision but instead integrates it into a more flexible and context-sensitive approach. Leaders must focus on fostering environments where coherence emerges organically, supported by iterative planning and stakeholder collaboration. Ultimately, the future of strategic leadership lies in balancing coherence with visionary elements, ensuring both immediate responsiveness and long-term direction. By embracing coherence, organisations can navigate uncertainty with confidence, securing growth and resilience. Good night, and good luck. ### Building Trust Through Authentic Leadership URL: https://robert.winter.ink/building-trust-through-authentic-leadership/ Last updated: 2025-11-15T00:01:34.000Z Trust in the corporate life is a peculiar beast. It takes years to build, seconds to break, and sometimes invokes an all-hands meeting just to explain why it's been lost. Leaders who misunderstand trust—or worse, assume it comes with their job title—often find themselves the subject of hushed water cooler conversations or, more ominously, exit interviews. Authentic leadership, however, offers a way to not only safeguard trust but to cultivate it as the foundation for meaningful relationships within organisations. Imagine a CEO who waxes poetic about teamwork but spends meetings glued to their phone. Trust evaporates faster than muffins from the kitchenette. Authentic leadership avoids this trap by emphasising transparency, humility, and ethical consistency, giving employees a reason to believe their leaders are the real deal. ## A Trust Deficit The origins of authenticity trace back to antiquity. The Delphic Oracle famously exhorted people to 'Know thyself', a call to embrace self-awareness and moral integrity. A self-awareness which was as much about discovering our capabilities and understanding our limitations. The Stoics furthered this concept, urging individuals to align their actions with their values. Put another way, leaders must walk their talk. Unlike the transactional or charismatic styles that can sometimes ring hollow, authentic leadership thrives on consistency between words and actions. This is both a boon and a challenge for leaders who like the idea of authenticity but lack the self-awareness to truly implement it. This is because employees are quick to perceive hypocrisy, and leaders who fail to embody their stated values risk eroding trust irreparably. > authentic leadership development involves ongoing processes whereby leaders and followers gain self-awareness and establish open, transparent, trusting and genuine relationships, which in part may be shaped and impacted by planned interventions such as training. > > Avolio and Gardner (2005) Corporate life has no shortage of trust failures, from financial scandals like Enron's collapse to cultural upheavals triggered by unethical practices at tech giants. Gallup *State of the Global Workplace* reports consistently find low employee engagement at work, with trust in leadership cited as a key factor. Not only does this contribute to major mental health issues among staff—21% of employees report feeling loneliness—it also undermines productivity, which piles more pressure onto the broader economic stresses that abound: > Gallup estimates that low employee engagement costs the global economy US$8 9 trillion, or 9% of global GDP. Given it is with no hyperbole that I say *all* leadership days stress the importance of trust—there are even entire [workshops dedicated to the topic](https://robert.winter.ink/the-speed-of-higher-trust-leaders-part1/)—it begs the question: why is trust so fragile? Part of the issue is that trust tends to be expected or demanded in exchange for wages because many managers take a role based approach to organisational behaviour. This means they lean into their job title and believe that—and here I use believe with all the connotations of faith that come with it—authority and the benefits that accrue to a great leader are givens. "I am the CEO; therefore I have the organisation's best interests at heart; therefore, you should trust me". We've all worked for a manager who says, "My door is always open", but spends more time locked in their office than a medieval monk in a scriptorium. Such lip service erodes trust faster than a scandal on X. Authenticity requires more than platitudes; it demands presence, both physical and emotional, and acknowledgement of the very real issues facing an organisation. Not merely a desire to address what is embarrassing and an exhortation to "stay on massage" when times get tough. The problem with this approach is that interpersonal relationships don't work like that—particularly in countries like Australia where both free thinking and no small degree of cynicism abounds. As a result, the average manager is plagued by the *illusion of transparency*, whereby people with positional authority mistakenly believe their integrity is self-evident. Employees, however, require tangible evidence of ethical behaviour before they are willing to exchange the kind of deep trust needed for effective leadership. Leaders must, therefore, communicate openly, admit mistakes, and demonstrate moral courage—actions that signal authenticity. - Trust failures often stem from perceived hypocrisy and inadequate communication. - Leaders must back words with actions, demonstrating openness and accountability. - Avoid corporate clichés—they're trust killers. - Authentic leadership emphasises self-awareness, relational transparency, and consistency between values and actions. ## Building Trust Through Authentic Leadership Building trust is more art than a science, requiring intentional actions grounded in empathy, ethics, and clarity. Authentic leadership, which emphasises aligning values with actions, provides a sturdy foundation for cultivating trust. However, trust is not a one-time achievement, much less a formula which can be invoked with a team. Trust is a dynamic process that requires continuous reinforcement. For leaders, this means paying attention not only to what they do but also how they do it and how what they do is perceived. Bellow "people are idiots, can't they see I'm doing what is right" all you like, it will not move the needle on peoples' trust levels. At its core, trust-building revolves around demonstrating genuine care and competence. Employees want leaders who are not only capable of making tough decisions **but also mindful** of their impacts on people. Simply being a 'hard ass' impresses few and is very poor foundation for trust. Authentic leaders understand this and instead achieve balance by being transparent about their reasoning and admitting mistakes when they occur. These moments of vulnerability, when handled skilfully, can deepen trust rather than diminish it. After all, employees are more likely to trust leaders who acknowledge their humanity than those who cling to an illusion of infallibility. The path to trust is paved with deliberate, transparent actions which inspire trust by: 1. **Modelling Ethical Behaviour:** Ethical lapses, however minor, can undermine years of credibility. Leaders who consistently act in alignment with stated values set a powerful example. 2. **Fostering Psychological Safety:** Amy Edmondson's work on psychological safety highlights its importance in trust-building. When employees feel safe to voice ideas and concerns without fear of reprisal, trust flourishes. 3. **Practising Empathy:** Empathy transforms leadership from hierarchical to relational. As Abraham Lincoln—arguably America's first *Chief Empathy Officer*—remarked, 'If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend'. 4. **Doing What is Necessary:** Authentic leaders tackle what needs to be done rather than addressing what might impact their personal brand. When a manager ignores organisational issues, only addressing them when someone more senior casts a critical eye in their direction, it leads employees to think they care more about their personal brand than the organisation or their team. But authenticity is not without its pitfalls. Leaders who overshare personal struggles, for example, risk appearing unsteady. There's a fine line between vulnerability and burdening others. The key is balance—being human without losing authority. - Ethical consistency, psychological safety, and empathy are pillars of authentic leadership. - Authentic leaders balance vulnerability with professionalism, avoiding the pitfalls of oversharing. ## Authentic Leadership's Ripple Effect Authentic leadership has a ripple effect on organisational culture. Trust is contagious; when leaders model authenticity, employees feel empowered to reciprocate. This fosters collaboration, innovation, and resilience. As Dr Stephen Covey noted, 'Trust is the glue of life', binding teams together through shared purpose. However, as Dr Covey also emphasised that trust is a mutual commitment, requiring effort and integrity from **both** parties. When leaders demand high trust and complete transparency from their followers, yet remain tight-lipped and always take things 'offline', they erode what trust may have been established. In its absence, relationships devolve into mere transactions, stripped of emotional investment and meaningful accountability. In short, they are inauthentic. The ripple effect of authentic leadership extends beyond individual relationships, shaping the broader organisational culture. By fostering psychological safety, practising empathy, and maintaining ethical consistency, authentic leaders enable teams to operate with greater cohesion and resilience. This is not merely a soft skill; it is a strategic advantage. Employees who trust their leaders are more engaged, committed, and willing to contribute their best efforts. Organisations led by authentic leaders are better positioned to navigate challenges and seize opportunities in a rapidly evolving world. At its core, authentic leadership is a call to lead with courage and humanity. It requires leaders to embrace their imperfections while striving to act with integrity and purpose. Trust, the ultimate currency of leadership, is earned through deliberate actions that reflect care, competence, and consistency. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Avolio, BJ, and Gardner, WL (2005) Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. *Leadership Quarterly*, **16**(3), 315–338. Covey, SR (2020) *The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal change*, Revised and updated edition, London: Simon & Schuster. (Original work published 1989) Edmondson, AC (2018) *The Fearless Organization*, Wiley. Gilovich, T, Savitsky, K, and Medvec, VH (1998) The Illusion of Transparency: Biased Assessments of Others' Ability to Read One's Emotional States. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, **75**(2), 332–346. ### The Pitfalls of Rewarding Effort in Organisational Behaviour URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-pitfalls-of-rewarding-effort-in-organisational-behaviour/ Last updated: 2025-11-15T00:03:14.000Z After two decades as a manager, I thought I had heard every shade of argument employed by staff to explain why they deserve a promotion or, for the unambitious, why their performance exceeds expectations. This thinking took a tumble recently when I spoke with a leader in a financial services firm who was seeking guidance on how to deal with an employee who felt their annual bonus "didn't reflect the effort they had put into their work". As someone who has spent a lifetime in study and a decade in the performing arts, if there is one truth it is that few people care how hard you had to work. As a result, effort alone will seldom merit a bonus or promotion opportunity. Often, it doesn't even merit a word of thanks. While the value of hard work should never be underestimated, the rise of the growth mindset has unintentionally encouraged a misstep—overemphasising effort at the expense of outcomes. This means that managers have to grapple with whether, and how, to reward effort without undermining excellence or productivity. ## The Origins of Effort-Based Reward Systems Those who recall [Max Weber's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max%5FWeber?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1864–1920) book [*The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FProtestant%5FEthic%5Fand%5Fthe%5FSpirit%5Fof%5FCapitalism?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1905), will also have front of mind that 'time is money'. Setting aside the religious notion of work being a 'calling' in which labour is seen as a form of devotion to God, and we still have the secular tenet that diligence, systematic organisation, and the single-minded pursuit of a goal leads inexorably to efficiency and success. When this is measured in employment terms it should equal a higher salary, bigger bonus, or promotion opportunity. This narrative, however, overlooks the complexities of modern organisations, where effort without results can drain resources and frustrate actual high performers. A second strand to the bow of rewarding effort came, unintentionally, through the work of psychologist [Carol Dweck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol%5FDweck?ref=robert.winter.ink) and her research on [fixed and growth mindsets](https://robert.winter.ink/fixed-and-growth-twin-aspects-of-our-mindset/). To boil her extensive and complex research down to a golden sentence would be to say: we are in error if we attribute success solely to innate ability. Instead, Dweck's research encouraged people to view skills as malleable and underscored the importance of praising effort as a key strategy for fostering resilience and learning. These findings were transformative in education, and remain essential in organisational behaviour because it is important that employees see capabilities as something that can always be enhanced. An approach that can lead to career long learning to improve existing capabilities and to develop new ones. In an effort to reinforce growth mindsets in organisations, managers, marketers, and social media influencers have increasingly extolled the importance of grit and grind. However, this has led to a praise culture which has been seized upon by those of a [GenMe](https://robert.winter.ink/category/social-comment/generations/) mindset. Where a decade ago someone might attend a single graduation ceremony after three-plus years of study at a tertiary institution, now every participant at a half-day workshop gets a certificate and is encourage to post it to LinkedIn. This has taken the inevitable next step from the already problematic approach of rewarding effort to awarding attendance, a process that brings several ethical implications. ## The Ethical Implications of Rewarding Effort Rewarding effort raises fundamental ethical questions about fairness and justice in organisational settings. According to J. Stacey Adams' [equity theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity%5Ftheory?ref=robert.winter.ink) , employees determine fairness by comparing their contributions and rewards to those of their peers. When rewards disproportionately favour effort without considering outcomes, perceptions of inequity can arise. High-performing employees, whose results may surpass their peers', are particularly prone to dissatisfaction and disengagement if their achievements are undervalued in favour of mere persistence. Beyond fairness, overemphasising effort risks fostering inefficiency. Rewarding employees who spend excessive time on tasks, regardless of results, can inadvertently penalise those who work more efficiently. This creates a paradox where inefficiency is encouraged, undermining the organisation's overall productivity. By valuing time spent over value delivered, organisations may incentivise behaviours that conflict with their operational goals. The consequences of such an approach extend beyond organisational performance to employee well-being. Rewarding effort without consideration of its impact can lead to overwork and burnout, as employees feel compelled to demonstrate constant effort to gain recognition. This aligns with findings that have identified burnout as a critical occupational hazard. Organisations must therefore balance their reward systems to ensure fairness, efficiency, and the sustainability of employee well-being. ### The Operational Risks of Rewarding Effort Rewarding effort without clear ties to performance outcomes can undermine organisational effectiveness. According to [Victor Vroom's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor%5FVroom?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1932–2023) expectancy theory, employees are motivated to exert effort when they believe it will lead to meaningful and desirable outcomes. When rewards are detached from results, this motivational link is weakened, leading to decreased effort and disengagement. Employees may begin to question the value of their contributions if effort alone, regardless of impact, is enough to secure recognition. Such practices can also cultivate a culture of entitlement, where employees expect rewards simply for trying. This participation trophy mindset runs counter to meritocratic principles that prioritise achievement and innovation. Organisations that overemphasise effort risk eroding the competitive drive essential for growth, as employees may lose the incentive to strive for excellence. This shift undermines organisational cultures that value and reward results-driven contributions. The broader organisational repercussions extend to employee engagement and morale. Research highlights that perceptions of fairness in reward systems are crucial for maintaining employee trust and commitment. A system that disproportionately values effort over outcomes may be perceived as unjust, alienating high performers and fostering resentment. Organisations must therefore design reward structures that uphold principles of merit and fairness, ensuring that effort is recognised as a component, not a substitute, of meaningful contributions. ### Balancing Effort and Excellence: Navigating Complexities and Consequences The challenge in organisational reward systems is not in dismissing effort but in appropriately contextualising it. Effort is most impactful when it serves as a precursor to skill development and achievement. Research underscores the importance of framing effort as a necessary but insufficient condition for success, ensuring that it contributes meaningfully to personal and organisational goals. However, overvaluing effort risks distorting its role, potentially creating inefficiencies and undermining excellence. In team settings, the complexities of rewarding effort become even more pronounced. Indiscriminate recognition of individual effort can exacerbate social loafing — the tendency for individuals to reduce their contributions in group tasks. When team members perceive that effort, rather than outcomes, is rewarded, collective accountability may diminish, stifling collaboration and reducing the overall effectiveness of the group. A balanced approach that celebrates effort as part of a journey toward excellence, while prioritising collective achievements, is critical for fostering productive teamwork. Additionally, the psychological consequences of overemphasising effort can be profound. Self-determination theory highlights the importance of intrinsic motivation in sustaining high performance. When effort is excessively rewarded, employees may shift their focus to external validation, diminishing their intrinsic drive. This misalignment can also lead to maladaptive persistence, as individuals invest time and resources into unproductive tasks. Organisations must therefore strike a careful balance, promoting effort as a stepping stone to achievement while encouraging reflective practices that help employees discern when persistence is productive and when adaptation is necessary. ## Redefining Reward Systems in Organisations Rewarding effort is not inherently problematic, as the seminal work of Carol Dweck has shown in helping to create a growth mindset; its value lies in how it is framed and operationalised. By grounding reward systems in principles of fairness, transparency, and outcome alignment, managers can foster a culture that motivates employees while preserving organisational performance. As the anecdote that opened this article illustrates, the expectation of rewards for effort alone is symptomatic of broader societal and organisational trends. By addressing these pitfalls thoughtfully, managers can not only avoid the ethical and operational challenges associated with effort-based rewards but also create environments where both effort and excellence thrive. #### Some Actionable Insights for Managers: 1. **Design Comprehensive Reward Systems**: Integrate effort-based recognition into a holistic framework that prioritises results and aligns with organisational values. 2. **Encourage Growth-Orientated Feedback**: Use feedback mechanisms to reinforce the connection between effort and skill development, avoiding excessive reliance on extrinsic rewards. 3. **Balance Individual and Collective Recognition**: Ensure that rewards reflect both individual contributions and team outcomes, fostering collaboration without compromising accountability. By reframing how effort is valued and rewarded, organisations can move toward practices that inspire meaningful contributions, elevate performance, and sustain ethical integrity. Good night, and good luck. ### 2024 in Review: Key Leadership Lessons URL: https://robert.winter.ink/2024-in-review/ Last updated: 2025-11-15T00:05:43.000Z Ah, 2024—a year of ambition, resilience, and no small share of irony. As businesses navigated the complexities of governance, leadership, and culture, it became evident that progress often required stepping out of established comfort zones. This year brought a fresh wave of challenges—balancing organisational agility with structured governance, leading teams through change without losing sight of cultural coherence and adapting strategies to a world increasingly defined by rapid shifts and heightened expectations. My personal run tally tells a story worth retelling. Over the course of 78,372 words the articles provided insights that were not just opinion-based but anchored in robust evidence, drawing from the literature to validate and refine my understanding of what is happening in the world. My commitment to intellectual rigour underscored a key lesson for leadership in 2024: the importance of critical thinking and informed decision-making in navigating organisational challenges. Simply using 'gut instinct' or recycling old approaches just does not cut it if organisations are to be able to double down on success or break free of negative trends and generate real benefit for stakeholders. Yet, as multiple conversations with leaders showed, data alone is not the ultimate metric of success. The true measure of value comes from the lessons distilled from this wealth of analysis. So, what did 2024 teach us about leadership, governance, and culture? It taught us that leadership is about energising teams with purpose, governance is the scaffolding that supports innovation and accountability, and culture—that elusive yet vital element—remains the heartbeat of sustainable success. As I reflect, the year's journey was not just about facing challenges but about growing through them. ## Leadership Meets Motivation: A Match Made in Complexity It would not be a retrospective without revisiting what is often touted as the cornerstone of effective leadership: motivation. Yet, too many discussions about motivation focus solely on its 'positive' forms, rooted in **Y Theory** ideals of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. While these are critical elements, effective leaders understand that motivation is not just about cheerleading and expecting magic. At times, it requires the firm, disciplinary approaches associated with **X Theory** which emphasise control and structured oversight. This more comprehensive approach addresses the reality that not all team members are self-driven—much less motivated by "the good of the company"—and that clear expectations, monitoring, and consequences are often necessary to maintain alignment and performance. In short, [great leadership requires good management](https://robert.winter.ink/leader-managers/). Motivation, then, is nothing more than empty words unless it achieves balance—leveraging the energy of intrinsic drivers while recognising that extrinsic structures like accountability, oversight, and sometimes disciplinary action are also required. The most successful leaders of 2024 navigated this complex interplay with pragmatism, combining the inspiring with the directive, the supportive with the corrective. This year underscored a truth often overlooked: motivation in organisations is not just about inspiring individuals, but orchestrating a cohesive movement towards shared goals. X Theory and Y Theory together create a more effective framework for motivation that is practical and effective, enabling leaders to address the full spectrum of organisational needs. ## Governance: From Ivory Towers to Warehouse Floors This year saw governance shake off its image of being confined to boardrooms and investor reports. Instead, it was reimagined as the backbone of every organisation's culture and operations—from the CEO to the shop floor. As one top manager put it: "good governance is not an abstract ideal; it's the handrail that keeps you from falling off the staircase." Governance has emerged as a cornerstone of effective leadership, moving far beyond its traditional confines of boardrooms and policy manuals. In 2024, it became increasingly clear that governance is not merely an abstract ideal but a practical framework guiding the actions, decisions, and culture of organisations at every level. By establishing clear accountability and structured processes, governance provides leaders with the tools to align diverse teams with organisational objectives, ensuring stability while driving innovation. As one top manager aptly noted, "Good governance is the backbone of organisational success, it's the handrail that keeps you from falling off the staircase." The interplay between governance and culture has also gained prominence, emphasising that leadership is not solely about setting a vision but also about cultivating an environment where values are lived and upheld consistently. Leaders who govern effectively understand that culture is not shaped by tone from the top alone but requires reinforcement and accountability at every management level. A failure to enforce governance standards risks creating a dysfunctional culture—a scenario likened this year to "an orchestra without a conductor," where the absence of clear direction leads to discord rather than harmony. Governance, therefore, becomes the mechanism through which culture is safeguarded, and organisational cohesion is maintained. A particularly biting observation this year was that "a dysfunctional culture is like an orchestra without a conductor; everyone's playing, but it's not music." Ultimately, the practice of governance is inseparable from leadership's moral and strategic responsibilities. Leaders who embrace governance as an integral part of their role ensure that decisions are transparent, equitable, and aligned with broader organisational goals. Governance not only prevents the descent into chaos but also empowers teams by providing a clear structure within which creativity and initiative can thrive. This year, the transformative potential of governance in fostering resilient and ethical organisations was made abundantly clear, reaffirming its centrality to the practice of leadership. ## Sunk Costs and the Courage to Move On The sunk cost fallacy, a persistent challenge in decision-making, proved to be a defining theme of 2024, reminding leaders of the difficulty in letting go of failing projects despite mounting evidence. The reluctance to cut losses often stems from an emotional attachment to past investments of time, money, or effort, making the decision to abandon a project feel like admitting defeat. A positively fatal admission for leaders who pin their entire value on the art of the possible and 'getting things done'. When this proves unsuccessful, and let's face it no one wins every time, they lack the core competencies which make it worthwhile keeping them around to fix the problem. In other words, it is in their vested interest to double down on failure in the hope it will turn in their favour rather than acknowledge they were wrong. However, the year's key insight highlighted that recognising sunk costs is not an admission of failure but a demonstration of strategic foresight—so long as the leader has an actionable strategy for the future. The ability to assess when continued investment no longer aligns with organisational goals emerged as an indispensable leadership skill. Organisations that effectively navigated this cognitive bias displayed a commitment to pragmatic leadership and rigorous reality-testing. This approach not only mitigated the stigma of perceived setbacks but also fostered a culture of learning and adaptation. However, such reframing requires discipline, as uncontrolled spending on lessons learned can lead to significant inefficiencies, a fact underscored by boards increasingly demanding explanations for oversights. By institutionalising clear frameworks for evaluating sunk costs and empowering teams to prioritise future potential over past commitments, value of decisive leadership was exemplified. The lesson is clear: progress is achieved not by doubling down on failing ventures but by having the courage to redirect resources toward more promising opportunities. The truly enlightened made this an organisational mantra: "It's not failure; it's R&D." The catch is not paying too much for the R&D, something which many organisations failed to do and are now experiencing boards issuing a series of please explains. ## Meetings: The Endless Loop of Productivity In 2024, the meeting took on renewed significance as a cornerstone of organisational decision-making. [John Boyd's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FBoyd%5F%28military%5Fstrategist%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) OODA Loop—[Observe, Orientate, Decide, Act](https://robert.winter.ink/observe-orientate-decide-and-act/)—reshaped how meetings were conceptualised, shifting the focus from static agendas to dynamic, discovery-driven processes. The rise of [a crisp document and messy meeting](https://robert.winter.ink/crisp-document-messy-meeting/), lauded for its clarity and depth, further transformed meeting culture by promoting substantive preparation and dialogue over reliance on platitudes and slide decks. While this approach marked a shift towards higher-quality decision-making, its adoption was uneven, with many still clinging to summarised points and visual-heavy presentations. Due to short attention spans and an inability to think critically, the effectiveness of meetings remained inconsistent. Productive exchanges often competed with meandering discussions that drained energy and stifled progress. The tension between creating spaces for critical dialogue and avoiding time-wasting sessions highlighted the persistent challenge of balancing inclusivity and efficiency. This prompted leaders to adopt new strategies for ensuring that meetings served as a platform for thoughtful engagement rather than a theatre for prolonged monologues and superficial consensus. As 2025 approaches, the pursuit of meeting efficiency continues to evolve, driven by lessons from the past year. Organisations are increasingly recognising the need to cultivate a disciplined approach to preparation and participation. By fostering a culture of accountability and encouraging focused, meaningful contributions, meetings have the potential to become not just arenas for decision-making but vital engines of organisational growth and alignment. The enduring challenge lies in translating this aspiration into consistent practice, ensuring meetings achieve their purpose without drowning participants in unproductive cycles. ## The Rise of the Governor-Manager In 2024, the concept of the governor-manager emerged as a transformative approach to leadership, blending operational oversight with a robust commitment to governance. This hybrid model underscored the necessity of distributing governance responsibilities throughout the organisation rather than relegating them solely to the board or executive. By embedding principles of accountability and transparency into daily operations, organisations began to bridge the gap between strategic decision-making and practical execution, creating a more cohesive framework for achieving their objectives. The rise of the governor-manager signifies a shift in how leadership is conceived and enacted. By combining governance with operational responsibility, these leaders ensure that accountability is not merely a top-down directive but an integrated organisational value. This approach fosters greater alignment across all levels, enabling organisations to navigate complexity with both strategic foresight and operational agility. The trend not only redefines leadership but also sets a new standard for embedding governance into the fabric of everyday operations. ## Looking Ahead: 2025, Here We Come If 2024 taught us anything, it's that organisational life is a delicate balance of art, legislation, and philosophy. The art of leadership, the legislation of governance, and the philosophy of organisational culture are all interconnected—and none can thrive in isolation. While the year wasn't without its missteps (looking at you, unmitigated scope creep, ill-judged restructures, and sweeping commissions with no clear strategy for change), it also provided a treasure trove of lessons for those willing to learn. As we metaphorically step into 2025, let us do so with purpose, pragmatism, and a touch of humour. After all, in the business of life, no one makes it out alive; but we can at least make it worthwhile. Here's to another year of learning, leading, and laughing. Good night, and good luck. ### Preserving a Little Magic in a Rational World URL: https://robert.winter.ink/preserving-a-little-magic-in-a-rational-world/ Last updated: 2025-11-20T10:41:27.000Z Where does myth end and deception begin? This is a perennial challenge for anyone navigating the Santa Clause tradition with children because it is essential to preserve the wonder of childhood while also fostering their nascent ability for critical thinking. [Margaret Mead (1901–1978)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret%5FMead?ref=robert.winter.ink), one of the most renowned cultural anthropologists of the 20th century, offered profound insights into this dilemma. Her reflections in *Margaret Mead, Some Personal Views* illuminates a framework for approaching Santa Clause not as a sop to children, much less an act of deception, but as an invitation to engage with mythology, symbolism, and the poetic truths that enrich human life. ## The Nature of Myth and the Problem of Deception Mead distinguished between myth, which conveys symbolic truths about human experience, and deception, which seeks to mislead. She contended that parents often feel conflicted about the Santa Clause tradition because they interpret it as a lie. When parents present Santa as an unquestionable fact—a literal figure who monitors behaviour and delivers gifts—they risk reducing the magic of the myth to a deceptive ploy. This approach, Mead argued, not only undermines the poetic beauty of the story but may also lead to broader disillusionment when children inevitably discover the *truth*. > Belief in Santa Clause becomes a problem mainly when parents simultaneously feel they are telling their children a lie and insist on the literal belief in a jolly little man in a red suit who keeps tabs on them all year, reads their letters and comes down the chimney after landing his sleigh on the roof. Parents who enjoy Santa Clause—who feel that it is more fun talk about what Santa Clause will bring than what Daddy will buy you for Christmas and who speak of Santa Clause in a voice that tells no lie but instead conveys to children something about Christmas itself—can give children a sense of continuity as they discover the sense in which Santa is and is not "real". Instead, Mead advocated for framing Santa Clause as part of a larger tapestry of symbolic narratives. This allows children to distinguish between empirical facts—what can be observed and agreed upon—and the poetic truths that myths express. Through this lens, Santa Clause becomes a vehicle for exploring themes of generosity, wonder, and human connection. > Disillusionment about the existence of a mythical and wholly implausible Santa Clause has come to be a synonym for many kinds of disillusionment with what parents have told children about birth and death and sex and the glory of their ancestors. Instead, learning about Santa Clause can help give children a sense of the difference between a "fact"—something you can take a picture of or make a tape recording of, something all those present can agree exists—and poetic truth, in which man's feelings about the universe or his fellow men is expressed in a symbol. ## Santa Clause as a Symbol of Continuity and Connection Mead viewed Santa Clause as an opportunity to provide children with a sense of cultural continuity. When parents embrace the myth with joy and sincerity—sharing stories in a way that neither insists on literal belief nor disenchants—they create a bridge between the past, the present, and what is yet to come. This approach preserves the magic of Christmas without compromising honesty. For Mead, the power of Santa lies not in his physical reality but in his symbolic significance. The story of Santa Clause encapsulates values such as kindness, communal joy, and the spirit of giving. Parents can reinforce these values by sharing the myth in a way that resonates with their family's traditions and beliefs. > One thing my parents did—and I did for my own child—was to tell stories about the different kinds of Santa Clause figures known in different countries. The story I especially loved was the Russian legend of the little grandmother, the *babushka*, at whose home the Wise Men stopped on their journey. They invited her to come with them, but she had no gift fit for the Christ child and she stayed behind to prepare it. Later she set out after the Wise Men but she never caught up with them, and so even today she wanders around the world, and each Christmas she stops to leave gifts for sleeping children. ## Integrating Diverse Traditions Mead suggested that parents use Santa Clause as an entry point to explore diverse cultural traditions. Rather than confining children to a singular Western narrative, parents can introduce them to a variety of myths and folklore. Mead herself cherished the Russian story of the babushka, a grandmotherly figure who wanders the earth leaving gifts for children—a tale imbued with themes of selflessness and perseverance. Other predecessor figures are [Saint Nicholas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa%5FClaus?ref=robert.winter.ink#Saint%5FNicholas), [Father Christmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa%5FClaus?ref=robert.winter.ink#Father%5FChristmas), [Sinterklaas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinterklaas?ref=robert.winter.ink), or for those with more blood thirsty children the saga of Odin and the [Wild Hunt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild%5FHunt?ref=robert.winter.ink). By exposing children to these rich narratives, parents not only expand their understanding of different cultures but also reinforce the idea that myths are universal expressions of human values. This approach fosters a deeper appreciation of the world's cultural diversity and emphasises that no single story holds a monopoly on truth. ## Navigating Disillusionment with Grace When children inevitably question Santa's existence, Mead advised parents to treat the moment as an opportunity for growth rather than disappointment. She argued that children who have been taught to distinguish between factual truths and poetic truths are better equipped to navigate this transition. They learn that Santa Clause, Kris Kringle, and other mythical figures represent a 'truth of a different kind'—one that transcends physical reality to express deeper emotional and spiritual truths. This perspective also aligns with Mead's broader philosophy on parenting: children should be told the truth about life's fundamental realities, including birth, death, and human relationships. Armed with this foundational honesty, they can approach myths like Santa Clause with both wonder and discernment, understanding them as part of the human endeavour to make sense of the world. ## Preserving Magic in a Rational World Margaret Mead's insights underscore the importance of maintaining a balance between fostering rationality and preserving the enchantment of childhood. Santa Clause, when framed as a myth rather than a deception, becomes a powerful tool for teaching children about symbolism, cultural heritage, and the enduring power of imagination. By embracing Santa Clause as a poetic truth, parents can create a holiday tradition that inspires wonder without betraying trust. In doing so, they contribute to a larger goal: nurturing children who are both critical thinkers and dreamers, capable of engaging with the magic and complexity of the human experience. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night. ### A Guide to Succession Planning in Organisations: Part 3 URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-guide-to-succession-planning-in-organisations-part-3/ Last updated: 2025-11-20T10:52:29.000Z As I hope the first two articles in this series have now made clear, succession planning is critical not just for filling immediate vacancies but for ensuring the steady progression of leaders through the organisational hierarchy. In this third article of the series, I focus on evaluating leadership potential beyond the obvious, with a particular emphasis on the skills and attributes that enable managers to ascend to more senior roles. While technical competence and a history of achievements remains important, true leadership readiness is often demonstrated through subtler qualities like strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and the ability to lead through complex challenges. Essentially, keeping your head 'while all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you'. Consider the scenario of a department head who has excelled in delivering operational success but now faces the demands of a broader, organisation-wide leadership role. Their ability to transition from tactical problem-solving to strategic decision-making is crucial, but not always evident through performance metrics alone. Conversely, a mid-level manager may demonstrate these qualities in team meetings, showing the foresight and interpersonal skills needed to inspire cross-functional collaboration. By using traditional methods like psychometric testing and situational judgment exercises, organisations can better evaluate who among their current leaders possesses the capacity for upward mobility. In this article I explore some of the practical strategies for assessing leadership potential within existing staff and management ranks, ensuring a robust pipeline for all levels from junior managers to executive roles. Succession planning, at its best, is about bridging the present and the future—balancing immediate needs with the preparation of leaders for challenges yet unknown. ## Evaluating Leadership Beyond the Obvious Leadership potential is often more about what lies beneath the surface than what is immediately visible. The temptation to focus on past achievements or an assertive demeanour can lead organisations to overlook subtler, more essential qualities. True leadership is revealed in the capacity to reflect deeply, empathise genuinely, and adapt to shifting circumstances. Leadership is about deliberating and acting wisely for the collective good, and leaders must be able to balance their technical expertise with moral insight, ensuring that decisions resonate not just in the boardroom but across the organisation. While people are at the heart of this process, taking an all too common people first stance and conceptualising the situation as *getting the right people in the right roles* is in many ways too narrow an approach For example, "the CFO has left, we need to put a person in the CFO role". A better approach is to understand the outcomes that need achieving and then work out the most effective way to accomplish the results required. Once reframed in this way, succession planning becomes about ensuring that the people who are being canvassed to achieve the results are more than resumes. That is to say someone who has done this job before. Instead, leadership evaluation should encompass cognitive abilities, emotional intelligence, and motivational drivers, because technical skills alone in modern organisations are insufficient. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### A Guide to Succession Planning in Organisations: Part 2 URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-guide-to-succession-planning-in-organisations-part-2/ Last updated: 2025-11-20T10:58:04.000Z Imagine a thriving organisation where a dynamic CEO suddenly announces their retirement. The company scrambles to fill the void, hastily appointing a replacement from outside the organisation. Within months, cracks begin to show—staff morale dips, key projects falter, and the company's culture feels adrift. This scenario, while common, is entirely avoidable with thoughtful and culturally aligned succession planning. Succession planning isn't just about filling vacancies; it's about crafting a seamless flow of leadership that not only preserves an organisation's identity but also equips it to navigate future challenges. Consider the story of a family-owned business that thrived for generations, not because of formal policies, but because every leader was mentored in the values and practices that defined its success. Leadership was passed down like an heirloom—not just skills, but the essence of what made the business unique. This blend of mentorship and cultural continuity is what distinguishes effective succession planning. This article, the second in a series, builds on the [*ethical and strategic foundations of succession*](https://robert.winter.ink/a-guide-to-succession-planning-in-organisations-part-1/) explored last week and focuses on the cultural dimensions that underpin sustainable leadership. By examining leadership pipelines, stakeholder engagement, and mentorship, we can reveal how to create frameworks for leadership transitions that foster resilience and ensure the organisation's mission endures. ## Building Leadership Pipelines Succession planning begins with identifying and cultivating future leaders. This is not merely a technical process but a deeply cultural one. Among the many questions boards and leadership teams must ask are: - What qualities define a successful leader in our context? - What behaviours align with our values? - What cultural changes do we need to see over the next 5-years? _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### A Guide to Succession Planning in Organisations: Part 1 URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-guide-to-succession-planning-in-organisations-part-1/ Last updated: 2025-11-20T11:04:08.000Z Leadership can be described as the art of navigating complexity, balancing the demands of today with the uncertainties of tomorrow. Succession planning is a critical aspect of this art. At its core, it is about preparing an organisation to thrive beyond the tenure of its current leaders. Yet, it is not merely a functional or managerial exercise. Succession planning is an ethical responsibility that requires [positioning](https://robert.winter.ink/why-positioning-eats-predicting-for-breakfast/), [custodianship](https://robert.winter.ink/not-my-employee-not-my-team-a-custodian-approach-to-management/), and a commitment to the long-term good of the organisation—not merely personal brand or narrow self-interest. Succession planning gets a lot of press at the board or CEO level with study after study creating something of a burning platform as data is trotted out showing declines in tenure. The Russell Reynolds CEO turnover index clocked the [highest number of ‘short-term’ appointments recorded since Q3 2019](https://www.russellreynolds.com/en/insights/reports-surveys/global-ceo-turnover-index?ref=robert.winter.ink). Yet with so many eyes on the top prize, succession planning further down the organisational hierarchy is consistently ignored. This happens for many reasons, not least of which is resistance from senior managers who consciously or unconsciously see it as a threat to their authority and job security. This paradox—where the rational need for succession planning is compromised by emotional factors—poses significant challenges. Addressing these concerns requires a nuanced approach that frames succession planning as preserving and enhancing the leader's legacy, thereby aligning personal and organisational interests. In this first instalment of a three-part series, I explore the ethical imperatives and strategic priorities of succession planning to establish the foundational principles for developing leadership pipelines that align with organisational values and aspirations. ## Succession Planning as an Ethical Responsibility Succession planning is as much about moral stewardship as it is about organisational continuity. It requires a commitment to ensuring that the transition of power is orderly and preserves the mission, values, and integrity of the organisation. Research supports this philosophical approach, finding that organisations with structured succession plans are more likely to sustain performance and manage leadership transitions effectively. Conversely, the absence of formal plans often leads to instability, eroding employee morale and stakeholder confidence. At its core, ethical succession planning involves a duty of care that extends beyond operational considerations. Organisations have a responsibility to prepare for leadership transitions in ways that reflect their commitment to fairness, transparency, and accountability. Neglecting this responsibility risks undermining organisational cohesion and can jeopardise the trust of both internal and external stakeholders. By establishing clear, equitable processes for identifying and developing future leaders, organisations demonstrate their adherence to ethical principles while fostering a culture of trust and stability. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Empathy at Work: The Foundation of Compassionate Leadership URL: https://robert.winter.ink/empathy-at-work-the-foundation-of-compassionate-leadership/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T11:06:39.000Z Organisational management is transforming in response to the complexities of modern workplaces, with empathy recognised not as a luxury but as a cornerstone of effective and ethical leadership. Far from undermining authority, empathy enhances it, enabling leaders to connect meaningfully with their teams and navigate the nuanced human challenges of organisational life. The modern leader is not just a decision-maker and money generator but also a facilitator of trust, understanding, and mutual respect—they must create environments where employees feel valued and supported. At the heart of this evolution lies *compassionate leadership*, an approach that prioritises understanding and seeks to address the emotional, psychological, and social needs of employees. Compassionate leaders work to foster a sense of belonging and purpose, recognising that individual well-being and organisational success are deeply intertwined. In an era where [employee engagement](https://robert.winter.ink/minding-the-capability-gap/) and [mental health](https://robert.winter.ink/mental-health-as-a-strategic-issue/) are not only critical to performance, but also key [strategic issues](https://robert.winter.ink/strategic-outlook/), this approach represents a profound shift in leadership priorities. Compassionate leadership builds resilience within teams, reduces stress, and enhances collaboration, cultivating a culture of care that drives sustainable success. Empathy in leadership also carries profound ethical implications. It challenges the traditional view of leadership as purely transactional, offering a vision rooted in moral responsibility and mutual benefit. Leaders who act with empathy not only improve workplace dynamics but also set a standard of integrity that resonates throughout the organisation. This approach strengthens organisational values, inspires loyalty, and ensures decisions reflect both human and business priorities. In doing so, empathy becomes not just a tool for improving performance but a defining characteristic of leadership that is both effective and just. ## Empathy and Ethical Leadership The ethical dimension of leadership necessitates a consideration of the moral obligations leaders have towards their employees. Empathy is integral to this ethical approach, as it involves the capacity to understand and share the emotions and experiences of others. Empathy in leadership is not merely an emotional reaction; it is a cognitive and moral act that compels leaders to recognise the humanity of their employees and act in ways that respect their dignity. As [Amy Coplan](https://philosophy.fullerton.edu/people/profile/amy%5Fcoplan.aspx?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Peter Goldie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5FGoldie?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1946–2011) noted, empathy requires a leader to 'enter imaginatively into the life of another, seeing things from their perspective while maintaining a clear sense of one's own position'. This dual awareness of self and other enables leaders to make ethical decisions that consider the needs of all stakeholders. From a Kantian perspective, empathy aligns with the principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves, rather than merely as means to an organisational goal. A manager who exercises empathy is more likely to respect the autonomy and intrinsic value of their employees, fostering an environment where ethical treatment is prioritised. This is particularly significant in contemporary workplaces, where ethical challenges—such as inequality, discrimination, and worker exploitation—remain pervasive. Managers who lack empathy may be more prone to making decisions that ignore or even exacerbate these issues, leading to moral disengagement and organisational harm. ## The Psychological Foundations of Empathy in Leadership Empathy, from a psychological standpoint, can be divided into affective empathy and cognitive empathy. **Affective empathy** refers to the ability to respond appropriately to what another person is feeling. **Cognitive empathy** involves understanding another's mental state from an emotional perspective. Both types are necessary for effective leadership. Affective empathy allows leaders to connect on a human level with their employees, creating a sense of trust and loyalty. Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, enables leaders to anticipate how their decisions will affect employees, facilitating more thoughtful and ethical decision-making. In organisational contexts, empathy contributes to psychological safety, an essential component of effective teamwork. Psychological safety is a shared belief that individuals will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. Empathetic leaders foster psychological safety by encouraging open communication and creating an environment where employees feel respected and valued. This, in turn, leads to improved problem-solving and innovation, as employees are more willing to take risks and share ideas without fear of retribution. ## Empathy as a Catalyst for Organisational Change One of the most significant advantages of empathy in leadership is its capacity to catalyse positive organisational change. Empathy enables leaders to understand the diverse needs and experiences of their employees, making them more responsive to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Empathetic leaders are also more effective in creating inclusive work environments, as they were able to understand and address the unique challenges faced by marginalised groups. In this way, empathy serves not only as a moral imperative but also as a strategic tool for fostering diversity and ensuring that all employees are treated equitably. Moreover, empathy allows leaders to navigate organisational change more effectively. Change is often met with resistance, as it disrupts established routines and creates uncertainty. However, empathetic leaders are better able to address the emotional concerns of their employees, providing support and reassurance during periods of transition. As [Sigal Barsade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigal%5FG.%5FBarsade?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1965–2022) and [Olivia O'Neill](https://business.gmu.edu/profiles/ooneill?ref=robert.winter.ink) observed, empathetic leaders are better attuned to the emotional undercurrents of the organisation and can therefore guide their teams through change with greater understanding and care. This capacity to manage change empathetically is particularly important in today's fast-paced work environments, where adaptation is often critical to success. ## Challenges to an Empathetic Approach Despite its ethical and practical benefits, empathetic leadership presents certain challenges. One of the most common criticisms is that empathy may conflict with the need for objective decision-making. Leaders are often required to make difficult decisions, such as downsizing or restructuring, that negatively affect employees. In such cases, empathy may appear to hinder the leader's ability to act decisively. However, empathetic leaders must balance compassion with assertiveness, ensuring that their decisions are fair and necessary while still acknowledging the human impact. This balance is delicate, but essential for maintaining both ethical integrity and organisational effectiveness. Furthermore, there is the risk that empathetic leadership could lead to emotional burnout. Leaders who are highly empathetic may become overwhelmed by the emotional burdens of their employees, particularly in high-stress environments. This can result in compassion fatigue, where the leader becomes emotionally exhausted and less capable of providing the necessary support. To mitigate this, it is crucial that organisations provide support mechanisms for empathetic leaders, such as coaching, mentoring, and opportunities for self-care. By promoting emotional resilience in leaders, organisations can ensure that empathy remains a sustainable practice. ## Empathy and Organisational Justice Empathy also plays a key role in the perception of organisational justice. Organisational justice refers to the extent to which employees perceive that they are being treated fairly in terms of outcomes, processes, and interpersonal interactions. Research suggests that leaders who display empathy are more likely to be perceived as fair, as they are seen to consider the needs and emotions of their employees when making decisions. This perception of fairness, in turn, leads to greater employee satisfaction, commitment, and trust in leadership. Empathy enhances *procedural justice*, or the fairness of the processes used to determine outcomes. Leaders who involve employees in decision-making, seek their input, and show concern for their well-being are perceived as exercising higher levels of procedural justice. This is not only beneficial from an ethical perspective but also contributes to organisational stability. Employees who perceive their leaders as empathetic and fair are less likely to engage in counterproductive work behaviours, such as absenteeism or sabotage, and are more likely to exhibit loyalty and dedication to the organisation. ### Empathy as a Framework for Ethical Leadership Ultimately, empathy should be viewed not just as a leadership tool but as a fundamental framework for ethical leadership. By integrating empathy into their leadership approach, leaders can better understand the complexities of human relationships within the workplace and navigate ethical dilemmas with greater moral clarity. As noted by Nancy Eisenberg: > emotions help people to distinguish moral features in specific contexts, to motivate moral behavior, and undercut immoral behavior > > Nancy Eisenberg, (2000) This enables leaders with good emotional regulation to use empathy to supercharge their ability to prioritise the well-being of others over self-interest. Furthermore, empathy can help leaders avoid ethical blind spots, where they may unintentionally harm employees through neglect or indifference. Leaders who lack empathy may fail to recognise the negative consequences of their actions, particularly when those consequences are not immediately visible or dressed up as being "in the best interest of the organisation"—beware narrow self-interest masquerading as good governance. But by maintaining a continuous empathetic awareness, leaders are better able to anticipate and address potential ethical issues before they escalate. Empathy is a critical component of ethical leadership, offering both moral and practical benefits within the workplace. It fosters psychological safety, enhances organisational justice, and promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion. However, empathetic leadership must be practiced with care, balancing compassion with objectivity and self-care to avoid emotional burnout. By embracing empathy as a core element of leadership, organisations can create work environments that prioritise both human dignity and organisational success. As the ethical challenges of modern work environments continue to evolve, the capacity for empathetic leadership will become increasingly vital in fostering workplaces that are just, inclusive, and humane. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Problem with Measurement in Organisations URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-problem-with-measurement-in-organisations/ Last updated: 2025-12-21T10:44:30.000Z Measurement has long been considered a cornerstone of effective management, largely on the say so of one guru or another. On [more](https://robert.winter.ink/sustaining-value-in-the-transformation-life-cycle/) than [one](https://robert.winter.ink/when-a-strategy-is-not-a-strategy-its-a-platitude/) occasion, I have been complicit in the dark side of this process and quoted that famous quip attributed to management guru [Peter Drucker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5FDrucker?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1909–2005): *What gets measured gets managed*. Of course, the danger in uncritically repeating the sayings of gurus is that history becomes legend, legend becomes myth, and truth passes out of all knowledge. Therefore, we need to pause from time to time when grabbing an apt quote for our slide deck and meditate on the history of the adage. Which in the case of Drucker is that it is something he never said. Instead, as was his style, what he said was not as punchy and ready for a 5-word meme, but it was far more important. > Work implies not only that somebody is supposed to do the job, but also accountability, a deadline and, finally, the measurement of results —that is, feedback from results on the work and on the planning process itself. > > Peter Drucker, 1974. In this context, the journalist [Simon Caulkin](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/feb/10/businesscomment1?ref=robert.winter.ink) had it better in observing: > What gets measured gets managed - even when it's pointless to measure and manage it, and even if it harms the purpose of the organisation to do so. This telling of the quote, combined with the actual thinking of Drucker, elucidates a key management paradox and captures the tension that exists at the heart of organisational life: while measurement promises accountability and improvement, it often invites unintended consequences, distorting behaviour and [eroding trust](https://robert.winter.ink/the-speed-of-higher-trust-leaders-part-2/). What these critiques reveal is a deeper truth: that measurement, when misapplied, becomes not just ineffective but actively harmful. Yet, by drawing from both historical examples and recent research, a few practical lessons for managers emerge which can keep them from becoming another statistic in the story of when metrics can go awry. 💡 The terms ****measurement** and ****metrics** are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings, particularly in management, science, and data analysis contexts. Measurements are the building blocks of metrics. For instance, measuring the number of visitors and purchases provides the data needed to calculate the metric 'conversion rate'. Metrics transform measurements into actionable insights, enabling organisations to track progress and make informed decisions. ## When the Numbers Take Over Imagine, for a moment, the plight of a 19th-century cotton mill manager in industrial England. Tasked with maximising output, he (for they were almost exclusively men) introduces a system of measurement: workers are rewarded based on the weight of fabric produced each day. At first, the results are spectacular—productivity soars. But soon, a troubling pattern emerges. Workers, seeking to boost their bonuses, start producing fabric that is heavy but poorly woven, riddled with flaws. The factory's reputation suffers, and customers defect to competitors. This tale, though apocryphal, encapsulates the essence of metric fixation: the belief that quantifiable targets can capture the full complexity of organisational performance. The modern workplace is littered with similar examples. A 2020 study into the insurance industry unearthed unethical marketing practices that included misrepresentation, churning, discrediting competitors, unauthorised policy issuance, falsifying customer data, misappropriating funds, forgery, and deceptive account or policy management. Drucker would not have been surprised. He warned that measurement, when untethered from purpose, could become a *tyranny*, driving behaviours that undermine organisational integrity. Similar distortions can be found in education, where accountability frameworks tied to standardised testing have narrowed curricula and incentivised teaching to the test. [Wayne Au](https://www.uwb.edu/education/faculty-staff/wayneau?ref=robert.winter.ink) analysed this phenomenon in U.S. schools and found that performance metrics overshadowed broader educational goals like critical thinking and creativity. This reductionist approach mirrors what [W. Edwards Deming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.%5FEdwards%5FDeming?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1900–1993) critiqued as a loss of systemic thinking—an obsession with parts at the expense of the whole. ## The Tyranny of Targets Deming's disdain for numerical quotas stemmed from his belief that they foster short term thinking and diminish intrinsic motivation. In his seminal work *Out of the Crisis*, he recounted a story from his consulting days with a U.S. manufacturing firm. Management, eager to improve efficiency, imposed rigid production targets on assembly-line workers. The result? Employees rushed through their tasks, cutting corners to meet quotas, which led to defective products and a spike in customer complaints. By contrast, managers who prioritise ethical values over narrow performance targets were better able to foster organisational cultures where employees felt empowered to act responsibly and align their work with broader goals. Leading to [psychological safety](https://robert.winter.ink/a-psychological-safety-primer/): > an atmosphere where one can take chances (which experimentalism implies) without fear and with sufficient protection (…) thus a climate is built which encourages provisional tries and which tolerates failure without retaliation, renunciation, or guilt. > > Schein and Bennis, 1965. These findings echo Deming's warning that an over-reliance on numbers can distort decision-making, encouraging *tampering* rather than genuine improvement. A similar phenomenon occurs in higher education where universities, faced with pressure to climb league tables, prioritise metrics like faculty-student ratios and research output over the actual quality of education or research. One university, which shall remain nameless, even created an entire department dedicated to managing its ranking position. Such practices exemplify what Deming called sub-optimisation: when components of a system are optimised at the expense of the whole. ## Big Data, Bigger Problems In the digital age, measurement has taken on new dimensions. Advanced analytics and machine learning promise to refine performance management with unprecedented precision. Yet, these tools also amplify the risks identified by Drucker and Deming. For instance, [Shoshana Zuboff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana%5FZuboff?ref=robert.winter.ink) in *The Age of Surveillance Capitalism* describes how data-driven metrics in technology firms incentivise invasive data collection practices, prioritising shareholder value over user privacy. This practice is emblematic of Drucker's critique of metrics untethered from organisational purpose. By measuring only what benefits the company financially, such systems neglect their broader ethical responsibilities. Yet this principle of singular focus on a metric that matters *most* is to double down on the fallibility of the average management system, which promotes individuals who can elbow their way into a position of authority and then get ***it*** done. Whether ***it*** is worth doing becomes irrelevant, the metric is about getting other people to do what you want—a rather selfish definition of leadership if ever there was one. The organisational equivalent of [*L'État, c'est moi*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'%C3%89tat,%5Fc'est%5Fmoi?ref=robert.winter.ink) \[I am the state\]. In such an organisational context, Deming's principle of variation is instructive. He argued that measurement systems must account for the inherent variability in any process. When they do not, they are flawed metrics and like a flawed algorithm or a poorly designed KPI, fail to consider the broader context—treating all deviations from the norm as errors to be corrected rather than signals to be understood. This is the inflection point in organisations in which people at the top stop practicing management begin to practice ideology. Not sampling across *reality* for hits of confirmations but filtering for error or non-conformance. A negation of performance management if ever there was one, because not all high performance will necessarily achieve the stated organisational goal set by the *leader*—yet the performance is high nonetheless and if critically considered can be used to the benefit of the organisation. To not try and properly situate high performance and instead filter for non-conformance is to send a troubling signal to all employees who will increasingly be in fear of their own role. After all, start filtering out and disciplining the higher performers and what chance do less gifted employees stand? ## A Return to Wisdom In thinking about complex situations, [Shimon Peres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon%5FPeres?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1923–2016) was right when he said: "the good news is there is light at the end of the tunnel. The bad news is there is no tunnel." Surfacing metrics in organisations is certainly complex, but we can construct a tunnel so long as we implement metrics thoughtfully. True, an over-reliance on metrics can distort behaviours, erode trust, and compromise long-term objectives. This happens when managers cease to use metrics to understand and instead use them to control—treating numbers as definitive truths to filter non-conformance rather than as tools for insight into processes and people. Organisations must resist the allure of simplicity and recognise the complexity of the systems they seek to manage. This requires moving beyond a fixation on short-term indicators to embrace a more holistic, purpose-driven approach. One of the critical lessons from Drucker and Deming is the importance of aligning measurement systems with organisational purpose. Metrics should reflect the mission and values of the organisation, not merely operational outputs or financial gains. Managers have a responsibility to critically evaluate the systems they implement, asking whether these measures truly advance their goals or merely encourage superficial compliance. A balanced approach to measurement also requires humility. As Deming emphasised, systems thinking must guide measurement practices, acknowledging the interconnectedness of processes, people, and outcomes. This means complementing quantitative metrics with qualitative insights and viewing deviations as opportunities for learning—sometimes that the latest organisational goal is not worth pursuing. By adopting this mindset, organisations can move away from the *tyranny of metrics* and instead harness metrics as a tool for reflection, growth, and continuous improvement. In doing so, they can create environments where both people and systems flourish, advancing not only organisational performance but also the broader societal good. Some ways in which this can be achieved: - **Focus on Long-term Outcomes**: For a healthcare organisation, measuring patient well-being over months or years rather than focusing solely on short-term metrics like discharge times ensures that performance aligns with the mission of improving health. - **Use Metrics to Foster Ethical Behaviour**: In financial services, shifting from aggressive sales quotas to metrics that measure customer satisfaction or long-term client retention can reflect a commitment to ethical client relationships. - **Integrate Qualitative Feedback**: Combining employee engagement surveys with performance data allows organisations to measure both productivity and the quality of workplace culture, ensuring alignment with values like fairness and inclusion. As a final thought, let us return to Deming's warning about the dangers of 'tampering'. The next time you find yourself tempted to tweak a metric or chase a target, pause and ask: *Is this truly advancing our mission?* If not, it might be time to set the numbers aside and focus instead on the principles that make organisations not just effective, but meaningful. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Deming, W. E. (2018). *Out of the Crisis*, Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original work published 1986) Drucker, P. F. (1974). *Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices*, London: Heinemann. Drucker, P. F. (2010). *Management challenges for the 21st century*, New York, NY: HarperBusiness. (Original work published 1999). Zuboff, S. (2019). *The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power*, London: Profile books. ### The Speed of High(er) Trust Leaders: Part 2 URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-speed-of-higher-trust-leaders-part-2/ Last updated: 2025-12-21T10:56:02.000Z In last week's column, [The Speed of High(er) Trust Leaders: Part1](https://robert.winter.ink/the-speed-of-higher-trust-leaders-part1/), I explored the considerable benefits that accrue from FranklinCovey's *Leading at the Speed of Trust* training program. However, enthralment to any framework thinking it has ***the*** answers to 'life, the universe, and everything' is always fraught with problems, therefore it is essential to maintain a healthy level of doubt—yes, even in high(er)-trust environments. The reason for this is twofold. First, in the absence of doubt a **false sense of sufficiency** is created, whereby individuals or organisations assume that adopting a framework's principles at face value is inherently transformative. This reductive approach ignores the complexity of trust, which is deeply contextual, relational, and requires ongoing effort tailored to specific intrapersonal, interpersonal, and team dynamics. Second, it risks **indoctrination over critical application**, particularly in environments with limited critical literacy or organisational maturity. By uncritically adopting a prescriptive system, individuals may neglect the nuances of positional authority, cultural factors, ethical challenges, and environmental dynamics, ultimately enabling superficial compliance rather than authentic, sustainable trust-building. When combined, like some kind of malfunctioning Power Ranger, these risks can degrade trust rather than enhance it, as genuine trust cannot be imposed, manufactured, or messaged into existence by mandating employees follow a formula. ## Over-Simplification of Trust-Building The *Speed of Trust* workshop simplifies trust as a construct that can be systematically developed through behavioural steps. However, trust in organisations is not merely an outcome of behaviours. It is a complex, and at times irrational construct—think when people continue to trust a colleague despite consistent displays of incompetence—influenced by history, context, culture, and reciprocity. There is also a deeply reciprocal element to trust: > … individuals trust another individual or entity, based on what they put into and what they receive from a relationship. When individuals perceive an imbalance in the exchange and experience dissatisfaction, trust decreases. > > Fulmer & Gelfand (2012) Meaning that no matter how much the leaders of an organisation may think they do for their staff, if employees feel they give far more than they get, trust is unlikely to be high. This imbalance can happen at a behavioural level, but also in very tangible ways (e.g., pay, promotion, and working conditions). These deeper relational and historical dependencies, that vary across individuals and organisations, raise a number of problems in operationalising the relatively mechanistic approach promoted by the *Speed of Trust* program—which does not adequately capture these subtleties. Raising concerns about the program's applicability in contexts where trust dynamics are complex and context specific. One way to understand how reciprocal factors that can strengthen, or undermine, trust is through [Frederick Herzberg's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick%5FHerzberg?ref=robert.winter.ink) two-factor theory. According to Herzberg, motivation is **not** a continuum on which satisfaction is at one end and dissatisfaction at the other. Instead, there are two-factors in play, motivators and hygiene. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Speed of High(er) Trust Leaders: Part 1 URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-speed-of-higher-trust-leaders-part1/ Last updated: 2025-12-21T10:55:28.000Z If there is one certainty about the future, it is that the future is uncertain. This perhaps represents the key challenge all leaders face—getting people to unite to pursue a common goal in an uncertain world. This is true whether leaders are trying to galvanise a nation behind their vision or simply implore a team to achieve this quarters targets. If they cannot get followers to trust in their leadership, it is unlikely they will achieve their goals. > You may be deceived if you trust too much, but you will live in torment if you don't trust enough. > > *Frank Crane* For this reason, trust is frequently lauded as an organisational asset, underpinning cooperative behaviour, reducing transaction costs, and promoting swift decision-making. FranklinCovey's *Leading at the Speed of Trust* program, based on Dr Stephen M.R. Covey's book *The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything*, posits that trust is both measurable and actionable. Leaders, the program suggests, can implement specific trust-building practices to achieve a 'trust dividend'—enhanced efficiency and lowered costs. Dr Covey's core thesis is that trust transforms organisations by reducing the need for extensive oversight, thereby increasing speed and cutting down administrative costs. However, a more nuanced examination reveals that trust's role in organisations is deeply complex, as it encompasses organisational structures, cultural norms, and intricate relational dynamics that challenge the program's rather mechanistic approach. ## Key Strengths and Underlying Assumptions The program revolves around Dr Covey's definition of trust: > Trust is confidence born of the character and the competence of a person or an organization. The opposite of trust is suspicion. While character has been explored across a number of disciplines—philosophy, psychology, leadership to name a few—a consistent conceptualisation is that character is a manifestation of traits that are consistent across time and situations. Building on this base, the program identifies four cores of credibility that leaders must demonstrate to establish trust: 1. **Integrity**: Acting with honesty, transparency, and consistency. 2. **Moral Authority**: Demonstrating a strong sense of purpose, values, and ethics. 3. **Capabilities**: Possessing the skills, knowledge, and expertise necessary to lead. 4. **Results**: Delivering tangible results and outcomes. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Narrow Band Comprehension: Understanding Myopia in Performance and Governance URL: https://robert.winter.ink/narrow-band-comprehension-understanding-myopia-in-performance-and-governance/ Last updated: 2025-12-27T10:43:36.000Z Over the years I have written many performance reviews. Some have been formal appraisals of staff in a line-manager relationship, and some have been formal appraisals of organisations. Yet others have been the informal kind which happen countless times a day when in conversations with colleagues of various levels of competence ([the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://robert.winter.ink/governance-the-foundation-for-strategy-and-planning/)). But one thing that remains a constant with under-performers is a concept I call '*Narrow Band Comprehension*'. Narrow Band Comprehension (NBC) describes the cognitive tendency for individuals and organisations to limit understanding to a confined set of criteria, often to reinforce positive self-assessment or simplify complex environments. This reductionist approach, while readily providing a sense of accomplishment, can detract from opportunities for personal growth, broader organisational goals, and ultimately promote misalignment. This column lays out my initial thinking on the conceptualisation of NBC as it pertains to performance evaluations, governance frameworks, and organisational behaviour. The hope is this will offer a pathway for integrating comprehensive, ethically driven evaluation practices that counteract what is arguably a dangerous trend in organisational behaviour. ## Conceptualising Narrow Band Comprehension Achieving alignment between individual roles and organisational expectations is often challenging, this is because individuals tend to focus on limited aspects of their responsibilities (often a sub-set of their job description). This phenomenon leads to selective comprehension of role expectations that may not align with broader organisational goals. NBC is particularly problematic in corporate settings, where misaligned performance can hinder organisational growth, adaptability, and long-term strategy. NBC reflects a cognitive bias that allows individuals to define success within restricted parameters, often aligned with their strengths, thus creating a perceived sense of achievement or high capability. This "true for me" approach leads to a performance management disconnect between the measurable or observable capabilities as noted by a manager and *accomplishments* as perceived by an employee—ultimately undermining organisational cohesion and adaptability. For example, an employee might focus on quantitative targets, such as sales, while neglecting broader outcomes like team collaboration. This behaviour illustrates how NBC narrows performance to isolated metrics that may be misaligned with more comprehensive goals. ## The Ethical Implications of NBC in Performance Appraisals Performance evaluations are central to aligning individual contributions with organisational goals. However, NBC can introduce ethical concerns, as employees and managers may consciously or unconsciously redefine success to reflect positively in performance reviews. For example, when an employee is only succeeding in two of their five areas of competence yet rates themselves as exceeds expectations because they do those two things very well. Blithely ignoring the range of responsibilities they are not discharging as though it is inadmissible to be assessed against those. This often occurs because those under review cease to see the process as one of personal development, and instead as a system to be gamed. This creates a process of cat and mouse with employees selectively focusing on 'success markers' that fit within their narrowed understanding of the role. This reductionism can hinder critical feedback, as evaluation criteria become constrained by unauthorised, self-imposed, or culturally accepted parameters. Moreover, NBC creates an ethical dilemma for leaders tasked with recognising and rewarding authentic versus perceived performance. Without well-defined governance structures that clarify comprehensive performance criteria, organisations risk endorsing partial successes over full engagement with role expectations. ## Organisational Governance and Narrow Band Comprehension Effective governance frameworks play a vital role in mitigating NBC so long as they clearly delineate responsibilities and reporting mechanisms. Thus, encourage comprehensive role engagement rather than selective task fulfilment. This need for governance reflects the necessity for organisations to account for all stakeholders by balancing individual performance with broader organisational values. Organisations with robust governance frameworks that emphasise trust, transparency, accountability, and ethical practices are well placed to counteract NBC. By setting clear expectations, and creating escalation processes, governance structures reduce the inclination for employees to selectively interpret their roles. This governance-driven approach reinforces individual behaviours that contribute to the organisation's mission—thereby reinforcing ethical and strategic alignment. ## Cognitive Bias and NBC NBC is grounded in cognitive psychology where biases, such as [confirmation bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation%5Fbias?ref=robert.winter.ink) and the [anchoring effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring%5Feffect?ref=robert.winter.ink), lead individuals to filter information selectively. By focusing only on certain aspects of their responsibilities, employees may feel a greater sense of control, as broader expectations can introduce uncertainty and stress. [Psychological safety](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-psychological-safety-in-teams/) is a vital factor in helping employees move beyond narrow band comprehension by creating environments where failure, for reasons beyond their control, does not automatically create feelings of incompetence. ⚠️ In creating a positive affirmation culture in organisations to reduce the likelihood of good staff feeling incompetent, it is essential to ensure the pendulum does not swing too far the other way—giving gold stars for all. We are, after all, paid to overcome blockers, not simply list them as reasons for lack of performance.In creating a positive affirmation culture in organisations to reduce the likelihood of good staff feeling incompetent, it is essential to ensure the pendulum does not swing too far the other way—giving gold stars for all. We are, after all, paid to overcome blockers, not simply list them as reasons for lack of performance. The tendency for NBC also reflects broader issues of what Nobel laureate [Herbert Simon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert%5FA.%5FSimon?ref=robert.winter.ink#Awards%5Fand%5Fhonors) (1916–2001) termed 'bounded rationality'. This is the process where individuals operate within limited cognitive capacities, often prioritising immediate goals over longer-term, organisationally aligned objectives. In short, they select an outcome that is satisfactory rather than optimal. For instance, when performance metrics are overwhelmingly quantitative, employees may prioritise these metrics to the exclusion of qualitative responsibilities, narrowing their comprehension of the role in line with measurable outcomes. > When a difficult, quantity goal is assigned, people may lower work quality as an implicit strategy to attain it. Deemphasizing quality for quantity under quantity goals is most likely when people are not highly confident of their task ability. To ensure performance quality, of course, goals must be set for quality. > > — Latham & Locke, 1991 ## NBC's Impact on Organisational Culture and Synergy NBC does not merely affect individual performance; it permeates organisational culture, leading to silos where departments or teams work within isolated and self-endorsed frameworks of expectations. Eroding the necessary hierarchy of approvals essential to decision making. Siloed thinking emerges when each workgroup, shaped by its distinct metrics and success markers, narrows its functional objectives to localised goals Such silos undermine inter-departmental synergy, neuter [discretionary boundary spanning](https://robert.winter.ink/the-boundaries-of-informal-leadership/) (informal leadership), reducing the potential for collaborative problem-solving and integrated innovation. To counter NBC-driven siloing, leaders should foster a culture that recognises the interconnectedness of roles, where each unit's goals are explicitly tied to organisational-wide objectives. Creating interdependent structures through cross-functional teams and shared objectives can expand comprehension beyond isolated performance metrics, promoting a culture of holistic understanding and collaboration. But, what does that look like in practice? ## Practical Strategies to Address NBC in Organisations #### 1\. Comprehensive Performance Metrics Integrating comprehensive performance metrics is essential to combat NBC. This can be as simple as a rating system (e.g. 1 to 6) for performance or as complex as balanced scorecards, which consider financial, customer, internal processes, and learning perspectives to provide a multidimensional view of success. By defining performance holistically, organisations reduce the likelihood of individuals focusing narrowly on isolated achievements. #### 2\. Feedback Mechanisms and Continuous Evaluation Feedback—which is timely, transparent, and confronts reality—reinforces full-scope role expectations and is crucial for countering NBC. This feedback also needs to be consistent, continuous, emphasises the importance of both qualitative and quantitative assessments. Leaders should ensure that feedback reinforces the broader mission, helping employees align their performance with organisational values rather than selective criteria to achieve high ratings which accord with their self-image. #### 3\. Governance-Driven Accountability Frameworks Governance frameworks that highlight accountability can deter NBC by embedding comprehensive responsibilities within role definitions. Governance structures focusing on transparency and ethical accountability make it harder for individuals to narrow their performance focus. Through periodic role audits and structured feedback loops, governance can realign narrow perceptions with broad organisational expectations. #### 4\. Learning And Development Programs Training that encourages systems thinking, a concept emphasised by [Peter Senge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5FSenge?ref=robert.winter.ink), enables employees to appreciate the interconnectedness of their roles within the organisational ecosystem. Development programs that introduce employees to diverse facets of the organisation can cultivate a comprehensive understanding of how their contributions fit within the larger strategy. ## Ethical and Long-Term Considerations of NBC In the long term, NBC poses ethical challenges to organisational integrity, trust, efficiency, and capabilities. When employees continuously self-assess within narrow parameters, organisations may face integrity issues if when performance inflation occurs due to staff focusing on a limited set of performance criteria. Trust implications are particularly pronounced when selective comprehension allows individuals to overlook ethical responsibilities that contribute to social or qualitative objectives, such as sustainability. The governance frameworks that mitigate NBC should not only address performance but also embed integrity and intent considerations within role expectations. This alignment ensures that individual success reflects comprehensive contributions to organisational value and outcomes. Narrow Band Comprehension illustrates a significant cognitive and organisational challenge, limiting both individual and collective performance through selective understanding. By fostering a culture that promotes comprehensive engagement, integrating holistic performance metrics and enforcing governance-driven accountability, organisations can counteract the restrictive tendencies of NBC. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-Regulation Through Goal Setting. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, **50**(2), 212–247. Plous, S. (1993). *The psychology of judgment and decision making*, New York: McGraw-Hill. Senge, P. M. (1990). *The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization*, New York: Doubleday. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. *Science*, **185**(4157), 1124–1131. ### Innovation, a Driver of Success? URL: https://robert.winter.ink/innovation-a-driver-of-success/ Last updated: 2025-12-27T10:47:32.000Z For most of my corporate career, innovation has been a central theme whenever an executive has got up on their hind legs and started talking about the company's future. Yet for all the talk about innovation, I seldom hear anyone discuss the degree to which innovation and inventiveness can be considered the primary determinants of success in organisations—we just take it for granted they are. [As 'an' historian](https://robert.winter.ink/as-an-historian/) I'm seldom keen on taking the philosophical underpinnings of our institutions or organisations for granted. Thus, I thought it time to make the case for innovation. Specifically, whether exhorting staff to "be more innovative in your roles" does much to move the needle on organisational success. If we remain within the very narrow confines of a "*bring positive vibes only*" approach to management, which demands that only authorised thinking be a *truth* for everyone, then we can happily banish all competing forms of thought and accept innovation drives success. But that would only propagate one of the many insidious myths that abound in organisational life. Instead, if we look beyond the trite assumptions of motivational posters and [platitudes masquerading as strategy](https://robert.winter.ink/moving-beyond-platitudes-a-strategic-imperative/), we find that innovation is only a key driver of success ***IF*** it is integrated within the institutional, cultural, and ethical frameworks of an organisation. But, and this is the "gotcha" when it comes to innovation, there are major risks in leaders becoming enthralled to innovation and prioritising it over other key values, such as tradition and stability. When this happens, organisations are much more likely to fail fast and fail often than they are to become the next Apple ([APPL](https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/aapl?ref=robert.winter.ink)). ## The Foundations of Sustainable Innovation The relationship between innovation and progress has long been a subject of debate in many philosophical traditions. Thinkers such as [Edmund Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund%5FBurke?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1729–1797) emphasised the need for gradual change and the maintenance of tradition. In *Reflections on the Revolution in France* (1790), Burke argued that while innovation is necessary, when people embark upon radical or revolutionary change they risk destabilising the social fabric of a nation. His critique exemplifies the argument that unbridled innovation which neglects the wisdom of inherited institutions is inherently dangerous. An argument that was picked up on by [Michael Oakeshott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael%5FOakeshott?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1901–1990) who warned against the uncritical embrace of innovation. In *Rationalism in Politics*, Oakeshott argued that the pursuit of technological progress without regard for traditional values and established institutions can lead to social instability. [Friedrich Hayek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich%5FHayek?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1899–1992), while sharing Burke's respect for tradition, introduced a more dynamic understanding of innovation in *The Constitution of Liberty* (1960). Hayek argued, in his concept of 'spontaneous order', that innovation emerges naturally from the interactions of free individuals within a society, provided they operate within a framework of well-defined rules. Accordingly, innovation is not the result of deliberate planning but is the outcome of individuals seeking better ways to meet their needs. Hayek's argument aligns with the view that innovation is essential for economic progress, provided it respects a broader cultural and institutional context. Put less grandiloquently, 'using the results of the experiences of others': > Who will prove to possess the right combination of aptitudes and opportunities to find the better way is just as little predictable as by what manner or process different kinds of knowledge and skill will combine to bring about a solution of the problem. The successful combination of knowledge and aptitude is not selected by common deliberation, by people seeking a solution to their problems through a joint effort, it is the product of individuals imitating those who have been more successful and from their being guided by signs or symbols, such as prices offered for their products or expressions of moral or aesthetic esteem for their having observed standards of conduct—in short, of their using the results of the experiences of others > > Hayek, 2011/1960. [Joseph Schumpeter's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph%5FSchumpeter?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1883–1950) theory of 'creative destruction' \[*schöpferische Zerstörung*\], a term coined by [Werner Sombart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner%5FSombart?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1863–1941), represents another influential philosophical perspective on the relationship between innovation and productivity. Schumpeter posited that capitalism's strength lies in its ability to continuously reform economic structures through innovation, replacing old industries with new ones, old businesses with new ones, old ways of working with new ones. This process of creative destruction is essential for economic development because it leads to technological advancement and productivity gains. However, Schumpeter also acknowledged the potential social costs of this process, including unemployment and the displacement of traditional industries, which must be managed carefully. Liberal thinkers, such as [John Stuart Mill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FStuart%5FMill?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1806–1873), argued that individual freedom is essential for societal progress. In *On Liberty* (1859) Mill advocated for the freedom of individuals to experiment with new ideas and innovations, as this is the primary means by which society can improve. Mill's utilitarian approach suggests that innovation should be encouraged if it maximises societal happiness. An approach to innovation which ushered in the notion of the moral imperative of progress. ## The Relationship Between Innovation and Productivity The basis for an empirical relationship between innovation and productivity can be found in the [Solow-Swan growth model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow%E2%80%93Swan%5Fmodel?ref=robert.winter.ink), which emphasises technological change as a primary driver of long-term economic growth. Research by [Robert Solow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FSolow?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1924–2023) demonstrated that technological improvements, rather than capital accumulation alone, were responsible for the majority of economic growth in the post-WWII period. Solow's model laid the groundwork for subsequent research that highlights the role of innovation in improving labour productivity and overall economic output. A more recent meta-analysis conducted in *The Journal of Economic Literature* supports the finding that investment in research and development (R&D) is directly correlated with productivity growth across industries. The study revealed that countries and sectors with higher levels of R&D expenditure typically experience greater productivity gains, as innovation leads to more efficient production processes and the development of new products. 🗒️ To understand the value of R&D to companies who single-mindedly pursue innovation, Apple has allocated a substantial $30 billion to research and development (R&D) for the twelve months ending 30 June 2024\. [A marked increase from prior years](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/research-development-expenses?ref=robert.winter.ink), representing over 7% of its annual revenue. This funding is directed at projects aimed at future-proofing its product lineup, with a primary focus on artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and proprietary silicon development. Apple's strategic R&D focus includes flagship initiatives such as Vision Pro and generative AI technologies. This investment reflects Apple's commitment to advancing innovative technology and enhancing control over critical components within its ecosystem. Of course, unlike John Stuart Mills' utilitarian approach to innovation, corporate investment is not merely an altruistic attempt to maximise societal happiness. As studies have shown, an organisation's incentives to innovate are driven by the potential for profits. In *The Second Machine Age*, by [Erik Brynjolfsson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik%5FBrynjolfsson?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Andrew McAfee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew%5FMcAfee?ref=robert.winter.ink), the potential for technological unemployment, as automation and artificial intelligence replace jobs traditionally performed by humans is writ large. Concerns which are also echoed in a study by [Carl Benedikt Frey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl%5FBenedikt%5FFrey?ref=robert.winter.ink) and Michael Osborne, *The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?*, that estimates nearly 47% of jobs in the United States are at risk of being automated in the coming decades. ## Implications for Governance Given the symbiotic relationship between innovation, productivity, and social impact, leaders must strike a balance between encouraging inventiveness and mitigating its potential for social, ethical, or even organisational harm. Managers can play an active role in steering innovation towards desirable outcomes through four key factors: 1. **Innovation does not occur in isolation:** anyone attempting to lead their organisation on the path of innovation needs to be aware of the history of their organisation, place within society more broadly, and the long term effects of policies. Something might seem a 'hot topic' today, but if it stores up long term systemic risks it is best to weigh the consequences carefully rather than diving in unthinkingly for fear of being left behind. 2. **Educational systems:** leaders needed to foster critical thinking and the capabilities necessary for innovation. As [Eric Hanushek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric%5FHanushek?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Ludger Woessmann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludger%5FWoessmann?ref=robert.winter.ink) noted in *The Knowledge Capital of Nations*, societies with higher levels of cognitive skills tend to experience greater economic growth due to their capacity to innovate. The same principle governs organisational innovation. 3. **Psychological safety:** managers who build [safety in teams](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-psychological-safety-in-teams/), which can unlock low uncertainty avoidance and high individualism, are more likely to foster organisations that embrace innovation and entrepreneurial risk-taking. In contrast, emphasis on conformity and risk aversion fosters teams who are generally slower to adopt new technologies. A cycle which either enhances or limits productivity and growth. 4. **Organisational culture:** because tone is set from the top, ensuring appropriate policies, processes, procedures, and funding for R&D is a crucial determinant of sustainable innovation. In the final analysis, the degree of inventiveness and innovation in an organisation **can** be a major driver of productivity. However, innovation will only be a force for good if pursued within a framework that considers the organisational, ethical, and social implications of change—change of changes sake is not progress, much less is it innovation. By fostering a psychologically safe environment that also respects societal values and traditions, leaders can ensure that innovation contributes to both economic growth and organisational well-being. Making it a driver of success in word and deed. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction. *Econometrica*, **60**(2), 323–351. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). *The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies*, New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Burke, E. (1993). *Reflections on the Revolution in France*. (L. G. Mitchell, Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1790) Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation? *Technological Forecasting & Social Change*, **114**, 254–280. Griliches, Z. (2007). R&D and productivity: The Unfinished Business. In *R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence*, The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1998) Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2009). Measuring the Returns to R&D. *NBER Working Paper Series*. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2015). *The Knowledge Capital of Nations: Education and the Economics of Growth*, Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England: The MIT Press. Hayek, F. A. von. (2011). *The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition*. (R. Hamowy, Ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1960) Hofstede, G. (2013). *Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations*, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Mill, J. S. (2008). *On Liberty and Other Essays*. (J. Gray, Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1859) Oakeshott, M. J. (1991). *Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays*, Indianapolis: Liberty Press. (Original work published 1962) Schumpeter, J. A. (2008). *Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy*, New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought. (Original work published 1942) Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. *The Review of Economics and Statistics*, **39**(3), 312–320. ### The Limitations of AI in Formal Reasoning URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-limitations-of-ai-in-formal-reasoning/ Last updated: 2025-11-21T12:24:36.000Z Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in Large Language Models (LLMs), have demonstrated notable achievements across various domains, including natural language processing and mathematical reasoning. However, questions arise regarding the reliability of these models in performing genuine logical reasoning tasks: > … most LLMs still struggle with logical reasoning. While they may perform well on classic problems, their success largely depends on recognizing superficial patterns with strong token bias, thereby raising concerns about their actual reasoning and generalization abilities. > > Jiang *et al*, 2024. 🗒️ The code and data to the study by Jian et al are open sourced: A Peek into Token Bias. 'Token bias' in AI refers to the unintended favouring or disfavouring of certain words, phrases, or tokens during the training or operation of the model. Examples of this are 'sex bias' (e.g., assuming a doctor is male but a nurse female) or 'cultural bias' (e.g., assuming Irish people are drunkards). What this and a [recent study by AI researchers at Apple](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.05229?ref=robert.winter.ink) shows is that small changes in input tokens can drastically alter model outputs, indicating a strong 'token bias' and suggesting that these models are highly sensitive and fragile. Additionally, in tasks requiring the correct selection of multiple tokens, the probability of arriving at an accurate answer decreases exponentially with the number of tokens or steps involved. Having inherent unreliability in complex reasoning is highly problematic given the deployment of AI technologies, particularly LLMs, across various sectors is becoming ubiquitous. With an increasing number of employees leaning on these tools for the creation of written documents, and leaders making decisions based on these documents, it matters whether LLMs have genuine logical reasoning capabilities or are merely relying on probabilistic pattern-matching. What may seem like a merely epistemological or academic quibble fundamentally matters because there are far-reaching implications as AI systems become increasingly integrated into decision-making processes in critical fields like medicine, law, and education. If AI systems cannot perform robust formal reasoning, their deployment in areas requiring precision may be ethically untenable. ## Epistemology, Formal Reasoning, and LLMs Epistemology, the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, provides a useful framework for understanding the limitations of LLMs in performing formal reasoning. Classical epistemologists like [Immanuel Kant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel%5FKant?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1724–1804) distinguished between *a priori* knowledge (knowledge independent of experience) and *a posteriori* knowledge (knowledge dependent on experience). LLMs, by design, operate on *a posteriori* principles, learning from vast datasets through pattern recognition. While this allows them to perform well on many tasks, it does not equip them to handle *a priori* reasoning, which is essential for formal logic and mathematics. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Crisis Leadership: Strategies for Leading Through Turbulent Times URL: https://robert.winter.ink/crisis-leadership-strategies-for-leading-through-turbulent-times/ Last updated: 2025-12-28T00:42:42.000Z In the landscape of organisational management, crisis situations are inevitable. Whether caused by economic downturns, industry disruption, technological failures, unforeseen natural events, or incompetent leadership, crises test the mettle of managers, employees, and their organisations. The essence of true leadership, as articulated by Aristotle, is not merely to maintaining order during stability but to steer a successful course chaos. Crises present moments where a leader's ability to manage uncertainty, foster resilience, and sustain operations is put to the test. ## Clarity of Vision: Guiding Organisations with Purpose In times of crisis, the first need is for a clear and compelling vision. Leaders who can provide a North Star amidst uncertainty can guide their teams with purpose. The philosopher-emperor [Marcus Aurelius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus%5FAurelius?ref=robert.winter.ink) (121–180), who faced significant challenges during his reign, argued that 'a man then must stand erect, not be kept erect by others'. This stresses the importance of internal integrity, purpose, and competence. For organisational leaders, this translates into articulating a vision that not only aligns with the company's core values but is also pragmatic enough to navigate the uncertainties of a crisis. ⚠️ Leaders who have a fault in their internal mechanism—be that a lack of integrity, competence, etc.—may, like the emperor [Nero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero?ref=robert.winter.ink) (37–68), enjoy a **Quinquennium*. That is, several years of effective and relatively peaceful governance. However, without good advisors, leaders with such faults will inevitably descend into tyranny, extravagance, and cruelty. ****Historical note:** under the guidance of his advisors [Seneca](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca%5Fthe%5FYounger?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Burrus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextus%5FAfranius%5FBurrus?ref=robert.winter.ink), Nero pursued policies focused on justice, clemency, and sound administration, avoiding the excesses that later characterised his rule. Historians like Tacitus have highlighted this phase as a contrast to Nero's subsequent descent into tyranny, noting reforms such as tax changes and public welfare initiatives. The influence of Seneca's Stoic philosophy helped shape Nero's early, more humane leadership, but after the deaths and withdrawal of his key advisors, Nero's reign took a more authoritarian and infamous turn. Research in crisis management by Christine Pearson and Judith Clair demonstrates that clarity of vision is crucial for effective leadership during periods of turbulence. Leaders who fail to clearly define the organisation's priorities and objectives during a crisis risk creating confusion and eroding trust within the organisation. Clarity, therefore, is not merely about communicating that plan effectively across all levels of the organisation, it is first and foremost about having a good plan to begin. This inversion of emphasis—people usually stress the importance of communication, almost as if a good plan is a given—is vital and due to the trend in organisations since Covid to over-prioritise the communication process: "If we say it clearly, people will follow." Yet this approach is fraught with failure, as organisations regularly deploy well communicated yet highly flawed plans—usually resulting from ['strategies' that are mere platitudes](https://robert.winter.ink/when-a-strategy-is-not-a-strategy-its-a-platitude/). A broken process which is consistently followed by extended hand wringing, finding a suitable scapegoat, and then a new communications plan to 'fix' what is ultimately a flawed approach to change in the first place. Awake and aware that good communication without a robust plan is mere marketing hype, Johnson & Johnson ([JNJ](https://www.reuters.com/markets/companies/JNJ?ref=robert.winter.ink)) were well position to respond to the [1982 Chicago Tylenol murders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%5F%26%5FJohnson?ref=robert.winter.ink#1982%5FChicago%5FTylenol%5Fmurders). The company faced a horrific situation: cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules had resulted in several deaths, triggering widespread panic. Under the leadership of CEO [James E. Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%5FE.%5FBurke?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1925–2012), Johnson & Johnson responded by prioritising customer safety over immediate profit concerns, issuing a nationwide recall of its products and halting advertising—31 million bottles of Tylenol were recalled at a cost of $100 million. Burke's decision was rooted in the company's credo, which emphasised a commitment to the well-being of its customers. By adhering to a clear vision of ethical responsibility, the company managed to recover its reputation and market share in the long run. ## Balancing Tradition with Innovation While clarity of vision is essential, it must be balanced by the leader's ability to adapt to the unique challenges of each crisis. Aristotle's (384 BC–322 BC) notion of *phronesis*, or practical wisdom, suggests that while traditions serve as the backbone of decision-making, flexibility and innovation are essential for adapting to unforeseen circumstances. Organisations that cling rigidly to outdated procedures and with a limited capability for adaptation are doomed to falter when faced with emerging challenges. In crisis management, there is a delicate balance between relying on established protocols and being open to innovation. [Judith Stiehm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith%5FStiehm?ref=robert.winter.ink) argues that organisations which succeed during crises are those that draw on their institutional memory—capitalising on the lessons of past crises—while also fostering an environment of creativity and innovation to meet new challenges. The automotive industry offers a salient example of this principle in action. During the 2008 financial crisis, Ford Motor Company ([F](https://www.reuters.com/markets/companies/F/?ref=robert.winter.ink)), under the leadership of CEO [Alan Mulally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan%5FMulally?ref=robert.winter.ink), chose a strategy that balanced tradition with innovation. Rather than accept government bailout money, Ford chose to rely on its internal strengths, such as its strong brand and reputation, while innovating through the development of fuel-efficient cars and restructuring its operations. Mulally fostered an environment of accountability and adaptability, enabling the company to survive without succumbing to the severe consequences experienced by its competitors. His strategy combined a respect for Ford's historical reputation with the practical innovations needed for survival in a changing market. ## Moral Courage and Accountability in Decision-Making Crises often call for tough decisions, many of which may not be popular in the short term but are essential for the long-term survival of the organisation. Moral courage, defined as the willingness to act on one's principles even when faced with significant opposition or personal risk, is a cornerstone of effective crisis leadership. In *The Republic*, Plato ( 427 BC–348 BC) asserts that the chief penalty for declining to rule—being exposed to personal risk—is to be governed by someone worse, and is a principle that speaks to the necessity of taking decisive action in times of crisis. Leaders who shy away from difficult decisions—or have an overt focus on shielding themselves from personal responsibility—often create a vacuum filled by less capable actors, leading to greater harm for the organisation. Research also suggests that moral courage in leadership during crises leads to greater trust and loyalty within the organisation. This is particularly important when leaders are forced to make decisions that may result in job loss, reduced services, or other painful sacrifices. One corporate example is the response of General Electric ([GE](https://www.reuters.com/markets/companies/GE/?ref=robert.winter.ink)) during the post-9/11 aviation crisis. GE Aviation, a major supplier of aircraft engines, was hit hard by the sudden drop in air travel demand. Then-CEO [Jeff Immelt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff%5FImmelt?ref=robert.winter.ink) made the difficult decision to cut costs by laying off thousands of employees. While this decision was painful for the workforce, Immelt's moral courage in making the hard call ultimately allowed GE to remain competitive and weather the downturn. Another instance of moral courage can be seen in the management of [Patagonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia,%5FInc.?ref=robert.winter.ink), the outdoor clothing company. Amidst the rising concerns about climate change, Patagonia's CEO, [Yvon Chouinard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvon%5FChouinard?ref=robert.winter.ink), made the bold decision to prioritise environmental sustainability, even at the cost of potential profits. During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Patagonia chose to suspend its online sales and shut down its stores in the early months of the crisis, focusing instead on supporting its employees. While financially risky, this decision aligned with the company's core values, demonstrating moral courage in the face of crisis. 💡 For more on the importance of a CSV (Creating Shared Value) approach to business, see [Patagonia Traditional CSR, Strategic CSR or CSV](https://robertwinter2.wpcomstaging.com/patagonia-traditional-csr-strategic-csr-or-csv/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ## The Importance of Hierarchical Leadership One of the more overlooked aspects of crisis leadership is the necessity of strong hierarchical structures. In stable times, there may be value in distributed leadership models, but during a crisis, organisations need clear lines of authority and responsibility. Hierarchies provide the structure needed to make rapid, decisive decisions and ensure accountability throughout the organisation. In crisis situations, ambiguity can be fatal. Hierarchical leadership models ensure that roles are clearly defined and that decisions are made at the appropriate level. The example of Apple's ([AAPL](https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/aapl?ref=robert.winter.ink)) leadership under [Tim Cook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim%5FCook?ref=robert.winter.ink) during the COVID-19 pandemic provides a case in point. Apple, with its hierarchical structure, was able to quickly pivot its global supply chain and manage employee safety measures without the confusion seen in less hierarchically structured organisations. Cook's ability to act decisively, combined with a strong leadership team, allowed Apple to maintain operations and even grow its market share during the pandemic. ## Leading in a Crisis: Putting this all together, and four keys to leading in a crisis emerge: 1. In crisis situations, leaders must provide a clear, ethical, and well-communicated vision that aligns with the organisation's core values. This ensures coherence and trust throughout the organisation. 2. Crisis leadership requires a balance between upholding traditional values and fostering innovation. Organisations must remain adaptable while leveraging institutional knowledge to navigate turbulent times effectively. 3. Moral courage is vital in crisis leadership. Leaders must be willing to make difficult decisions that may be unpopular or risky in the short term but are necessary for the long-term health of the organisation. 4. Crisis leadership thrives in hierarchical structures, which provide clarity, accountability, and the capacity for swift decision-making in times of turbulence. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Argenti, P. (2002). Crisis Communication. Lessons from 9/11\. *Harvard Business Review*, **80**(12), 103–109. Chouinard, Y. (2005). *Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman*, New York: Penguin Group. Hoffman, B. G. (2012). *American Icon: Alan Mulally and the Fight to Save Ford Motor Company*, New York: Crown Business. Immelt, J., & Wallace, A. (2021). *Hot Seat: What I Learned Leading a Great American Company*, New York: Avid Reader Press. Kahney, L. (2019). *Tim Cook: The Genius Who Took Apple to the Next Level*, London: Penguin Business. Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. (1998). Reframing Crisis Management. *The Academy of Management Review*, **23**(1), 59. Stiehm, J. H. (2002). *The U.S. Army War College: Military Education in a Democracy*, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ### Leadership Gold or Development Mirage? URL: https://robert.winter.ink/leadership-gold-or-development-mirage-gold-of-the-desert-kings-program/ Last updated: 2025-11-04T02:50:48.000Z *Gold of the Desert Kings* (GDK) is a widely used experiential leadership and team-building program designed to simulate real-world decision-making, strategy, and collaboration in a high-pressure environment. Participants are divided into teams tasked with navigating an abstract desert landscape, collecting gold, and overcoming various challenges such as time constraints and resource management by mitigating the risks presented during each 'day' of the simulation. The program's primary goal is to develop participants' leadership skills, foster teamwork, and enhance strategic thinking through an engaging, competitive format. The game incorporates elements such as 'gold' (representing key objectives or results), 'mountains' (important tasks and efforts that lead to success), 'sandstorms' (unexpected challenges and disruptions), and the 'Tomb of Kings' (unknown risks). Each of these elements metaphorically represents aspects of leadership and management, with the intent of allowing participants to reflect on their workplace practices. GDK is structured to help individuals and teams improve communication, collaboration, and decision-making under pressure, while learning to anticipate risks and drive results. While it offers a dynamic approach to leadership training, it has an overt focus on short-term competition and neglects deeper leadership qualities like emotional intelligence, long-term vision, and ethical decision-making. Which begs the question, is GDK leadership gold or development mirage? Let's start with the gold. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Leadership in the Digital Age: Harnessing Technology for Business Success URL: https://robert.winter.ink/leadership-in-the-digital-age-harnessing-technology-for-business-success/ Last updated: 2025-12-28T00:45:53.000Z Leadership, as a concept, has evolved considerably throughout history, influenced by shifts in political, economic, and social structures. Today, we stand at the cusp of a new era, where the digital revolution is shaping not only how we conduct business but also how we think about leadership. But it is all too easy to be swept up in the trends that are sweeping the world—from a smart phone in every pocket, to 100% remote workplaces, to AI—and think that it is our technology that defines us as leaders. Something akin to [Arthur C. Clarke's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur%5FC.%5FClarke?ref=robert.winter.ink) [third law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's%5Fthree%5Flaws?ref=robert.winter.ink) that states "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Yet technology is not magic, even if it seems as such. Leaving leaders sadly lacking who think that access to or use of technology can compensate for a dearth of capabilities needed to manage a team. ## Leadership as a Constant According to the wisdom of the ancients, a leader's role is to achieve the common good, and in doing so, act as a moral compass for the society they govern. This idea of leadership as a unifying force remains unchanged in the digital age, though the tools at a leader's disposal have dramatically transformed. What was once achieved through face-to-face interaction and public oratory is now often communicated across virtual spaces, with employees more geographically dispersed than ever before. Indeed, the fundamental traits of leadership—such as wisdom, courage, empathy—are as relevant as ever. However, the ability to deploy these traits within a digital landscape requires an understanding of the technology that mediates these relationships. Progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be and for a leader to be effective, they must ensure they are not merely adopting technology for technology's sake—or progressing for the sake of progress—but directing technology and progress toward achieving **'right'** organisational goals. > We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. > > [C. S. Lewis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.%5FS.%5FLewis?ref=robert.winter.ink) If one is heading in the wrong direction, continuing forward isn't true progress—it requires recognising the mistake and correcting course. 💡 Leaders should focus on achieving organisational goals through technology rather than being swept up in the allure of innovation for its own sake. Digital tools should enhance, rather than obscure, the core objectives of leadership, which remain centred around the common good and the 'right' goals. ## Technology as an Amplifier, Not a Replacement Technological tools in business, such as artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and cloud computing, offer vast potential to amplify leadership efficacy. However, it is essential to understand that technology cannot replace the core human elements of leadership—vision, empathy, and ethical decision-making. It also plays an interesting role in the context of job satisfaction. As [Frederick Herzberg's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick%5FHerzberg?ref=robert.winter.ink) two-factor theory explains, while extrinsic factors such as technological tools can improve job satisfaction and performance, intrinsic motivation remains tied to human concerns such as recognition, responsibility, and personal growth. This is because, according to Herzberg, motivation is **not** a continuum on which satisfaction is at one end and dissatisfaction at the other. Instead, there are two-factors in play, motivators and hygiene. 1. **Motivators:** challenging work, recognition of achievements, responsibility, opportunities for meaningful contributions, involvement in decision-making, and a sense of significance within the organisation, are factors that contribute to positive satisfaction. These motivators stem from intrinsic aspects of the job itself, including recognition, personal achievement, and opportunities for individual growth and development. 2. **Hygiene factors:** status, job security, salary, fringe benefits, working conditions, and paid leave, are elements that do not generate positive satisfaction or increase motivation, but their absence can lead to dissatisfaction. The term 'hygiene' is used to indicate that these factors serve as maintenance conditions necessary for preventing discontent. These factors are extrinsic to the nature of the work itself and include aspects such as company policies, supervisory practices, or compensation. Herzberg also referred to these as 'KITA' (Kick in the Ass) factors, highlighting that they involve external incentives or the threat of punishment to prompt action, rather than fostering intrinsic motivation. Conceptualised thus, technology plays a hygiene role in that it will not generate job satisfaction, but its absence will lead to job dissatisfaction. This interplay between technology and intrinsic leadership qualities can be observed in remote work. Remote work relies on digital tools to maintain communication, manage projects, and track productivity, but the true success of such arrangements lies in a leader's ability to trust their team and foster autonomy. In his landmark work titled *Emotional Intelligence*, [Daniel Goleman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel%5FGoleman?ref=robert.winter.ink) emphasised that the most effective leaders are those who can blend cognitive skills with emotional understanding. In a virtual environment, the need for emotional intelligence is heightened, as the absence of physical cues and body language can lead to misunderstandings and misalignment. A tech-savvy leader, therefore, is not simply someone proficient with the latest tools but one who can use those tools to enhance human relationships. AI can crunch numbers, predict trends, and even recommend decisions, but it cannot yet replace the discernment and empathy required in human leadership. The irony, perhaps humorous to those with a classical education, is that the more advanced our technology becomes, the more we are reminded of the primacy of ancient wisdom regarding human nature. 💡 Technology should amplify, not replace, the human qualities of leadership. Leaders must blend cognitive skills with emotional intelligence, particularly in virtual settings where miscommunication risks are higher. Trust and autonomy remain essential in managing digital teams, even with advanced technological oversight tools. AI can support decision-making but cannot replace the discernment required of human leaders. ## A Leadership Strategy for Technology The success of a digital strategy ultimately depends on the quality of decisions made by leaders. As [Peter Drucker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5FDrucker?ref=robert.winter.ink) aptly put it, 'Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things'. In the digital age, doing the right things often entails navigating complex ethical and practical considerations involving data privacy, cybersecurity, and technological disruptions. The 21st-century leader is tasked with integrating digital technologies into their governance models in a way that balances innovation with stability. Leaders must weigh the potential benefits of adopting new technologies against the risks they pose. For instance, the rush to digitise customer interactions through AI-driven chatbots may improve efficiency but could also erode the personal touch that often defines brand loyalty. Furthermore, the security risks associated with storing sensitive data on cloud platforms require a deep understanding of cybersecurity protocols—something that demands constant vigilance from leaders, perhaps most particularly the Board. A well-developed digital governance framework is essential for any organisation navigating the complexities of digital transformation. Such a framework should be built on clear ethical guidelines, ensuring that technology is used responsibly. In practical terms, digital governance frameworks should address the following: - **Data Privacy**: Ensure that customer and employee data is handled with the utmost care, adhering to laws such as GDPR. - **Cybersecurity**: Implement robust security measures to protect organisational assets from cyber threats. - **Innovation vs. Stability**: Strike a balance between adopting cutting-edge technologies and maintaining operational stability. 💡 Leaders must carefully balance the benefits of new technologies with the potential risks, particularly in terms of data privacy and cybersecurity. Ethical considerations must be integrated into digital strategies, ensuring that technology serves both organisational goals and societal good. Develop clear governance frameworks to guide the adoption and use of digital technologies within the organisation. ## Leadership Transcends the Medium Leadership, at its core, is about people—guiding, inspiring, and making decisions that promote the collective good. The tools we use to facilitate this process may change, but the principles remain remarkably consistent across the millennia. As the digital age reshapes business, it is imperative that leaders do not lose sight of these principles. Ancient wisdom offers us a sturdy foundation upon which to build our understanding of leadership, while modern technologies provide the tools to extend its reach. In the end, technology is not an end in itself but a means to an end. Leaders who understand this will be well positioned to harness the digital revolution for business success. And if we are ever tempted to think otherwise, it may be worth recalling the words of the Roman philosopher Seneca: 'It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that things are difficult'. Leadership in the digital age requires both daring and discernment—a combination that will lead not only to success but to lasting impact. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Clarke, A. C. (1973). *Profiles of the future: An inquiry into the limits of the possible*, Rev. ed, New York London: Harper & Row. Drucker, P. F. (2015). *Innovation and Entrepreneurship*, New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1985). Goleman, D. (1998). What Makes a Leader? *Harvard Business Review*, **82**(1), 82. Goleman, D. (2005). *Emotional Intelligence*, New York: Bantam Books. (Original work published 1995). Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (2017). *The Motivation to Work*, London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. (Original work published 1959). ### Inclusive Leadership: Fostering Diversity and Equality in the Workplace URL: https://robert.winter.ink/inclusive-leadership-fostering-diversity-and-equality-in-the-workplace/ Last updated: 2025-12-28T00:48:58.000Z Inclusive leadership, a vital approach for cultivating diverse, equitable, and productive workplaces, offers more than the conventional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) strategies often promoted by HR departments. Rather than reducing leadership to metrics, inclusive leadership invites leaders to foster environments where employees of all backgrounds feel empowered to contribute meaningfully and fully. While DEI initiatives can easily fall into superficial tokenism, genuine inclusive leadership offers a deeper framework grounded in classical wisdom and reinforced by modern leadership and management research. ## The Foundations of Inclusive Leadership Inclusive leadership is not a modern-day corporate fad. The principles of inclusivity in leadership can be traced back to thinkers such as Aristotle, Confucius, and Epictetus. These figures may not have been addressing the dynamics of 21st-century office politics, but their insights on leadership, practical wisdom, and the moral obligation of leaders resonate, nevertheless. [Aristotle's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle?ref=robert.winter.ink) (384–322 BC) concept of *phronesis* (practical wisdom) is particularly relevant in the modern context of inclusive leadership. In *Nicomachean Ethics*, Aristotle describes *phronesis* as the capacity to make balanced decisions for the greater good, considering various perspectives and circumstances. This resonates in the workplace, where leaders must weigh diverse inputs and ensure that decisions support the common good without being swayed by populist or superficial considerations. Contemporary studies on inclusive leadership align with this, showing that leaders who seek out and consider diverse viewpoints foster more innovative, effective, and productive teams. Similarly, [Confucius'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius?ref=robert.winter.ink) (孔子) (c.551–c. 479 BCE) concept of *Ren* (仁), or humaneness, emphasises empathy and benevolence as core tenets of leadership. Inclusive leaders who practice empathy are more likely to create environments where employees feel valued, which leads to higher job satisfaction and lower turnover rates. Empathy allows leaders to better understand the unique challenges faced by employees from diverse backgrounds, enabling them to provide the necessary support to help those individuals succeed. Modern scholars also recognise the importance of *ethical leadership* in fostering inclusivity. Brown and Treviño argue that ethical leaders not only model moral behaviour but also cultivate trust and respect within their teams. This ethical foundation is crucial for inclusive leadership, as employees must trust that their leaders will value their contributions, regardless of their background or position within the company. Practicing empathy is essential for leaders to effectively understand and address the challenges faced by diverse employees. Ethical leadership also plays a key role in fostering trust and respect, which are crucial for creating an inclusive environment. Developing active listening skills is an important tip for leaders, as it helps them better understand the diverse needs of their teams and cultivates a culture of mutual respect and collaboration. ## Beyond Tokenism One of the dangers of modern DEI initiatives is the tendency to fall into tokenism, where organisations focus on the appearance of diversity without fostering genuine inclusion. True inclusive leadership requires more than checking boxes. It demands creating a culture where diversity is actively valued and where all employees have equal opportunities to succeed. [John Stuart Mill's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FStuart%5FMill?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1806–1873) call for equality in *The Subjection of Women* still resonates today, especially in discussions about workplace equality. Mill argued that excluding individuals from full participation based on arbitrary characteristics, such as sex, deprives society of their talents and contributions. The same principle applies to the modern workplace: when organisations exclude or marginalise employees based on ethnicity, sex, or other demographic traits, they undermine the potential creativity and innovation that come from diverse perspectives. Research by [Robin Ely](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin%5FJ.%5FEly?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [David Thomas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%5FA.%5FThomas%5F%28academic%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) supports this argument, showing that organisations that embrace diversity and foster inclusion see higher levels of innovation and team performance. However, the benefits of diversity are not an automatic result of having a mixed workforce. Leaders must create environments where employees feel comfortable sharing their ideas and where their contributions are recognised and valued. Leaders who fail to go beyond tokenism risk alienating their employees and undermining organisational performance. To foster genuine inclusion, inclusive leaders can: - **Offer mentorship programs**: Provide mentorship and professional development opportunities for employees. - **Promote transparency in decision-making**: Ensure that decisions, particularly those related to promotions and pay, are based on clear, objective criteria to prevent unconscious bias. - **Encourage diverse perspectives**: Create a culture in which employees feel comfortable voicing diverse viewpoints without fear of reprisals. Genuine inclusion goes beyond superficial diversity and requires creating an environment where all employees feel valued and supported. Providing mentorship and professional development opportunities is essential for helping individuals from underrepresented groups advance in their careers. Additionally, promoting transparency through clear, objective criteria in decision-making processes can help reduce unconscious bias. A key tip for fostering authentic inclusivity is to regularly assess your organisation's policies and practices to ensure they promote real inclusion rather than being merely performative gestures. ## Humour in Leadership While inclusive leadership is a serious responsibility, humour can play an important role in fostering inclusivity and breaking down barriers in the workplace. Aristotle himself argued that wit was a virtue, provided it was used appropriately and did not descend into vulgarity (*Nicomachean Ethics*, 1128b). In the workplace, well-timed humour can help diffuse tension, build camaraderie, and make leaders seem more approachable. A leader who can laugh at themselves and bring levity to difficult situations often fosters a more inclusive environment. Employees from diverse backgrounds may feel more comfortable contributing their ideas when they see that their leader is not rigid or overly formal. However, humour in leadership must be used judiciously — inappropriate jokes or comments can alienate and exclude rather than include. 💡 The key takeaway is that humour, like any leadership tool, can either unite or divide a team, depending on how it is used. Leaders should remain mindful of this, using humour wisely as a force for inclusion. ## Efficiency vs. Inclusivity A common concern about inclusive leadership is that it might slow down decision-making. After all, considering diverse perspectives takes time, and there is a real risk of analysis paralysis. However, inclusive leadership does not mean that every decision must be made by committee — much less cater to every point of view. It means ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered while maintaining the ability to act decisively when needed. [Machiavelli's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2%5FMachiavelli?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1469–1527) advice in *The Prince* is relevant here. While often **mis**interpreted as a manual for ruthless leadership, Machiavelli's real message is one of pragmatism. Leaders must act decisively but only after carefully weighing all factors. In an inclusive leadership framework, this means seeking input from diverse team members but recognising when it is time to decide and move on. Studies show that teams with diverse perspectives make better decisions, **but only** when those perspectives are integrated into the decision-making process in a structured and timely way. The key is for leaders to establish clear processes for gathering input and making decisions, ensuring that inclusivity does not become a roadblock to action. One way to balance inclusivity and efficiency is to create diverse advisory teams. Rather than requiring input from all employees on every decision, leaders can establish smaller groups that represent the organisation's diversity and can provide targeted insights on specific issues. This approach allows leaders to benefit from diverse perspectives without creating unnecessary delays. Inclusive leaders can manage the tension between inclusivity and efficiency by: - **Setting clear decision-making protocols**: Define how and when input will be gathered and ensure that everyone understands the process. - **Creating diverse advisory teams**: Use smaller, diverse teams to provide input on key decisions. - **Encouraging constructive dissent**: Foster an environment where employees feel comfortable questioning ideas and offering alternative perspectives. Inclusive leadership is about striking a balance between gathering diverse input and maintaining efficiency by making decisive actions. Leaders can use smaller advisory teams to provide diverse perspectives without slowing down the decision-making process. It's also important to foster constructive dissent by encouraging open dialogue, while ensuring that debates are productive and lead to clear outcomes. To maintain this balance, establishing clear guidelines for decision-making is essential to ensure that inclusivity enhances, rather than hinders, organisational efficiency. ## Leadership Without the Gimmicks To be of value, inclusive leadership must go beyond DEI checklists and slogans, creating a workplace where all employees can thrive, where diversity is genuinely valued, where diversity is not just skin deep, and where equality of opportunity is actively pursued. Leaders who embrace inclusivity do not merely diversify their teams for appearance's sake. They recognise the value that diversity brings to decision-making and innovation. They avoid the trap of tokenism, instead fostering genuine inclusion by creating opportunities for all employees to succeed. And they balance the need for diverse perspectives with the necessity of timely and effective decision-making. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **17**(6), 595–616. Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive Leadership and Employee Involvement in Creative Tasks in the Workplace: The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety. *Creativity Research Journal*, **22**(3), 250–260. Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of Diversity Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, **46**(2), 229–273. Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do Inclusive Leaders Help to Reduce Turnover in Diverse Groups? The Moderating Role of Leader-Member Exchange in the Diversity to Turnover Relationship. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, **94**(6), 1412–1426. Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. *Human Resource Management Review*, **28**(2), 176–189. Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups. *Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science)*, **330**(6004), 686–688. ### The Art of Decision-Making: How Effective Leaders Make Tough Choices URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-art-of-decision-making-how-effective-leaders-make-tough-choices/ Last updated: 2025-12-28T00:53:33.000Z In leadership, few tasks are more consequential than making decisions — especially difficult ones. Decisions often come with uncertainty, incomplete information, and conflicting values. The best leaders manage these complexities by combining rational analysis, intuition, and moral judgment to arrive at choices that not only achieve results but also maintain ethical integrity. ### Balancing Rationality and Intuition At the core of decision-making lies the tension between rational analysis and intuition. Traditionally, decision-making was understood through the lens of rational choice theory, which posits that individuals make decisions by carefully weighing all available options and selecting the one that maximises utility. However, this view assumes access to complete information and unlimited cognitive resources, which are rarely available to leaders in practice. [Herbert Simon's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert%5FA.%5FSimon?ref=robert.winter.ink) theory of '*bounded rationality*' offers a more realistic framework, acknowledging that decision-makers must often settle for 'satisficing' \[sic\] — choosing an option that meets minimum acceptable criteria rather than the optimal one. Simon recognised that human cognition is limited and that leaders frequently operate with incomplete information and time constraints. Beyond the limits of rationality, intuition also plays a significant role in decision-making, especially in fast-moving situations or where leaders lack the knowledge to make authoritatively rational decisions. [Gary Klein's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary%5FA.%5FKlein?ref=robert.winter.ink) '*recognition-primed decision*' model suggests that leaders often rely on pattern recognition, intuition and [proxies](https://robert.winter.ink/this-time-it-will-be-different-a-costly-delusion/) to make quick, effective choices. However, intuition, while valuable, can also be fallible. Cognitive biases, such as loss aversion, which Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky highlighted in '*prospect theory*', can lead decision-makers to misjudge risks or outcomes. Leaders must remain mindful of such biases, carefully balancing intuition with analytical methods. 💡 While rational analysis and intuition both have their place, effective leaders know how to balance these approaches, drawing on intuition where appropriate but supplementing it with structured analysis when necessary. Use tools like decision matrices to break down complex choices and reduce the influence of cognitive biases. ### Ethical Decision-Making: Leading with Integrity Leadership is not just about achieving results — it's about how those results are achieved. The ethical dimension of decision-making is critical, especially in situations where competing values or interests are at stake. Aristotle's concept of *phronesis* (φρόνησις), or practical wisdom, remains relevant today. *Phronesis* is the virtue that allows leaders to make morally sound decisions in complex situations by considering the greater good. 🗒️ [Mikhail Bakhtin (1895–1975)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail%5FBakhtin?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Михаи́л Бахти́н) was a Russian philosopher, literary critic and scholar who worked on literary theory, ethics, and the philosophy of language. His work emphasised the polyphonic nature of dialogue in that a conversation carries both preexisting social and linguistic conventions (traditions) while simultaneously constructing interactions that have not yet occurred (reforms). Yet the concept of polyphonic, carrying with it the notion of multiple voices, also invokes a challenging conceptualisation for relational leadership, that of **heteroglossia*: from the Russian **разноречие* and literally meaning 'varied-speechedness'. For Bakhtin, the concept of multiple languages within a single language is not solely linguistic; rather, it is the idea that in a dialogue, there is the convergence of 'specific points of view on the world, forms for conceptualizing the world in words, specific world views, each characterized by its own objects, meanings and values'. When used prudently, **heteroglossia* can produce what [Paul Ricœur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul%5FRic%C5%93ur?ref=robert.winter.ink) described as 'inventing just behaviour suited to the singular nature of the case'. Modern leadership scholars like [Joanne Ciulla](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne%5FB.%5FCiulla?ref=robert.winter.ink) have emphasised that leadership is a moral endeavour. Leaders do not merely wield power to achieve organisational goals; they must also act in ways that reflect integrity and concern for others. This perspective aligns with [Immanuel Kant's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel%5FKant?ref=robert.winter.ink) deontology, which asserts that actions should be guided by moral duty rather than the pursuit of favourable outcomes. Leaders face difficult moral choices where the ends do not always justify the means — however beneficial those ends may be to themselves or the organisation for which they are [custodians](https://robert.winter.ink/not-my-employee-not-my-team-a-custodian-approach-to-management/) — and they must ensure their decisions align with ethical principles. In the corporate world, ethical leadership fosters trust, transparency, and a positive organisational culture. When leaders make decisions that prioritise short-term gains at the expense of ethical considerations, they risk long-term damage to their organisation's reputation and internal morale. 💡 Effective leaders recognise the ethical dimensions of their decisions and use practical wisdom to balance competing values. They understand that leadership is not just about achieving results but also about maintaining integrity. In difficult ethical situations, reflect on how the decision will impact all stakeholders, not just the immediate outcomes. ### Collective Decision-Making: Harnessing Group Wisdom Most leadership decisions are not made in isolation. The nature of an organisations means that decisions involve multiple stakeholders, requiring leaders to manage group dynamics effectively. While group decision-making can provide a diversity of perspectives, it also comes with challenges. One such challenge is the risk of *groupthink*, a phenomenon where the desire for consensus overrides critical thinking and leads to poor decisions. To avoid groupthink, leaders need to create an environment where team members feel comfortable voicing dissenting opinions. [Jürgen Habermas's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen%5FHabermas?ref=robert.winter.ink) theory of communicative action emphasises the importance of rational discourse and mutual understanding in group decision-making. This approach requires that leaders encourage open, respectful dialogue, and that alternative viewpoints are not only heard but actively considered. Yes, sometimes this means the leader doesn't get *their* way. Shared leadership models also recognise the value of distributing decision-making authority. By allowing multiple team members to contribute to the decision-making process, leaders can draw on a broader range of expertise and insights, which can lead to more innovative and effective solutions. 💡 Group decision-making can be a powerful tool for leaders, but it requires fostering an environment of open dialogue and preventing the dangers of groupthink. Encourage team members to play the role of "devil's advocate" to challenge assumptions and explore alternative options. A process which requires [Psychological Safety in Teams](https://robertwinter2.wpcomstaging.com/leading-psychological-safety-in-teams/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Embracing Boldness Leaders often find themselves navigating situations where the future is uncertain and the stakes high. In these moments, leaders must rely on their capacity for bold decision-making. [Niccolò Machiavelli's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2%5FMachiavelli?ref=robert.winter.ink) *The Prince* offers timeless insights into leadership under uncertainty, advocating for decisive, adaptive actions. Machiavelli's concept of *virtù* — the ability to shape one's destiny through bold, strategic action — remains relevant for modern leaders facing rapidly changing environments. Today, strategic decision-making under uncertainty is aided by techniques such as scenario planning. Developed by [Peter Schwartz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5FSchwartz%5F%28futurist%29?ref=robert.winter.ink), this approach encourages leaders to consider multiple possible futures and develop strategies that are robust across a range of scenarios. Leaders who adopt scenario planning are better equipped to anticipate change and respond proactively rather than reactively. This approach fosters flexibility and resilience, allowing organisations to adapt to unforeseen challenges. 💡 Leaders must make bold decisions, particularly in times of uncertainty. Scenario planning is an effective tool for preparing for a range of possible outcomes and ensuring flexibility. Regularly revisit and update your scenario plans to ensure they remain relevant as new information emerges. ### Accountability and Reflection: Learning from Experience Once decisions are made, leaders must be prepared to take responsibility for their outcomes. Accountability is essential for building trust within an organisation and for ensuring that leaders remain ethical and transparent. Research by [Philip Tetlock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip%5FE.%5FTetlock?ref=robert.winter.ink) highlights the value of accountability in decision-making, showing that leaders who are held accountable for their choices are more likely to engage in thoughtful, deliberate decision-making. Accountability is also closely linked to the practice of reflection. [John Dewey's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FDewey?ref=robert.winter.ink) concept of reflective thought underscores the importance of learning from past experiences to improve future decision-making. Effective leaders regularly reflect on their decisions, considering what went well and where there may be room for improvement. This reflective process helps leaders develop the practical wisdom, or *phronesis*, that Aristotle identified as critical to moral and effective decision-making. 💡 Accountability and reflection are essential components of effective decision-making. Leaders who take responsibility for their decisions and regularly engage in reflection are better positioned to learn and improve over time. After making significant decisions, set aside time for post-decision reflection to identify lessons learned and areas for future improvement. ## Toward Inclusive Leadership Decision-making is not a linear or purely rational process, but an art that blends analysis, intuition, ethics, and reflection. In the face of uncertainty, boldness and adaptability are critical. Ultimately, the most successful leaders are those who continuously learn from their decisions and strive to lead with both wisdom and courage. This process of balancing rational thought with practical wisdom, navigating ethical dilemmas with integrity, and understand the value of collective input while maintaining accountability for their choices, opens the way to more inclusive leadership. A theme I will explore next week in [*Inclusive Leadership - Fostering Diversity and Equality in the Workplace*](https://robert.winter.ink/inclusive-leadership-fostering-diversity-and-equality-in-the-workplace/). Good night, and good luck. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Building High(er)-Performing Teams: A Leader's Guide to Collaboration and Success URL: https://robert.winter.ink/building-higher-performing-teams-a-leaders-guide-to-collaboration-and-success/ Last updated: 2025-12-28T00:57:53.000Z Everybody I speak with these days is building high-performing teams. I am too, at least that is what I am supposed to be doing. Of course, between what we all think we do and what we actually do often falls one hell of a shadow. This is particularly the case when it comes to team development. There are several reasons for this, but the primary one is that very few organisations have the brand pull or deep pockets required to hire and keep top performers. When or rather **if** they pass through the doors of the average organisation, this is more through luck than good management. Because of this, the average manager cannot take a [Jack Welch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack%5FWelch?ref=robert.winter.ink) approach and run the infamous 'Lifeboat Weekends' which gathered senior executives and asked them to imagine that they were on a lifeboat with limited space, meaning some people would need to be **thrown overboard**. The goal of the lifeboat exercise was to force leaders to identify which employees or managers were most essential to the company's future, particularly in times of crisis or change. The primary purpose of this exercise was to: 1. **Identify top performers**: Welch wanted his executives to be crystal clear about who were the most indispensable and highest-performing employees. 2. **Make difficult decisions**: It challenged leaders to evaluate talent realistically and prepare to make tough decisions about layoffs or restructuring. 3. **Create a culture of meritocracy**: By identifying and promoting only the best talent, Welch aimed to instil a culture where performance was the key metric for advancement. While the exercise may seem harsh, it aligned with Welch's broader philosophy of rigorous talent management and his belief in rewarding top performers while cutting under-performers. ⚠️ For those thinking it was only people below the C-Suite who were for the chop on a lifeboat weekend, everyone's job was on the line. This ensured all emplolyees from Senior Executives to first time hires on the graduate program had [skin in the game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin%5Fin%5Fthe%5FGame%5F%28book%29?ref=robert.winter.ink). Given the impracticality of this approach for all organisations — not to mention it burns employees, teams, and eventually organisations — a more inclusive path needs to be walked. By inclusive I do not mean a cross section of colours, sexes, and creeds, I mean inclusive as in keeping the people Jack would cut: under-performers. The good news for truly performance minded managers, or those who wish to be seen as such, is that the following approach takes a leaf from Aristotle's adage that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Which means that by leveraging the critical components of high-performing teams, and by weaving in insights from both ancient and modern thinkers, we can arrive at a nuanced guide for today's managers. While the result may not be a high-performing team, the team will certainly be high(er)-performing. ## Building Trust and Psychological Safety The bedrock of any high(er)-performing team is a foundation of trust and psychological safety. For managers this means fostering an environment where team members feel safe to speak up, share ideas, and admit mistakes without fear of negative consequences. [Amy Edmondson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy%5FEdmondson?ref=robert.winter.ink) describes psychological safety as a 'shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking'. 💡 See my [other articles on building psychological safety](https://robertwinter2.wpcomstaging.com/tag/psychological-safety/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for more detail. Research supports the critical role of psychological safety in driving innovation and problem-solving within teams. Teams characterised by high psychological safety are more likely to engage in creative thinking and are better equipped to handle complex problems. Managers can cultivate psychological safety by: - Demonstrating openness to feedback and acknowledging their own fallibility. - Encouraging team members to share diverse perspectives and ideas. - Recognising and valuing contributions from all team members, fostering a culture of mutual respect. ## The Importance of Role Clarity and Communication While trust and safety provide the necessary foundation, role clarity and effective communication act as the pillars supporting a high(er)-performing team. In the context of team dynamics, this means ensuring that each member understands their role and responsibilities and how these fit within broader team objectives. Clarity of roles prevents confusion, minimises conflict, and promotes efficiency. 💡 While role clarity is essential, so too is flexibility of job assignments. That is, the degree to which people are empowered to perform other team members' tasks. Clear roles enable teams to function more effectively, particularly when handling complex tasks. Managers can enhance role clarity by: - Implementing frameworks like a Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM) — often called RACI charts — to define responsibilities clearly. - Regularly revisiting and refining roles to adapt to changing team needs. - Ensuring that every team member is aware of not just their responsibilities but also those of their peers. Effective communication is just as crucial. Wittgenstein's remark, '*The limits of my language* mean the limits of my world', underscores the importance of clear and open communication within teams. Effective communication allows for better coordination, facilitates problem-solving, and enhances team cohesion. > Creating rules and norms for communication between team members early in the team's life cycle can also increase effective communication and therefore improve performance during complex tasks. This is essential for managing highly complex tasks and avoiding misunderstandings that can arise as a result of high task complexity combined with high virtuality. > > Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020 Virtual teams, which rely heavily on digital communication tools, face additional challenges in maintaining effective communication. Research stresses the importance of regular virtual meetings and a mix of communication tools to sustain team cohesion . Managers can enhance virtual team effectiveness by: - Encouraging the use of video calls to foster personal connections. - Establishing clear communication protocols to avoid misunderstandings. - Leveraging a variety of digital tools to cater to different communication styles. - **Most critically**, getting people in a room whenever practicably possible. If this means flying them to the office, the cost of the flight is amply repaid in enhanced team cohesion. ## A Shared Vision and Mutual Accountability Beyond trust, clarity, and communication, high(er)-performing teams are united by a shared vision and a strong sense of mutual accountability. Aristotle observed, 'man is by nature a political animal, and a man that is by nature and not merely by fortune citiless (being without a city or country) is either low in the scale of humanity or above it', highlighting not only our intrinsic drive to belong to a collective and contribute to a common cause, but our desire to rise above low performance. In business, a compelling vision serves as this collective cause, aligning the team's efforts toward a common goal. However, a vision alone is insufficient without Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (SMART) goals. This is an essential element to performance because specific and challenging goals are more effective in driving performance than vague or easily attainable ones. Managers can foster commitment to the vision by involving team members in the goal-setting process, ensuring goals are both challenging and attainable. Key strategies include: - Setting clear, SMART goals that align with the team's overarching vision. - Engaging team members in goal setting to enhance ownership and commitment. - Regularly reviewing progress and adapting goals as necessary. Mutual accountability is the other side of this equation. High(er)-performing teams are characterised by a culture of mutual accountability, where members hold themselves and each other responsible for meeting commitments and maintaining standards. Managers can foster accountability by: - Establishing clear norms and expectations for performance and behaviour. - Reinforcing accountability through regular feedback and recognition of achievements. - Encouraging a culture where team members feel comfortable holding each other accountable. ### Making Tough Choices Building a high(er)-performing team is a complex endeavour that requires strong philosophical underpinnings and effective measurement. This means understanding the dynamics of human behaviour, fostering a culture of trust and openness, and applying strategic management practices to ensure clarity, communication, and accountability. As Nietzsche eloquently stated, 'If you have your *why*? for life, then you can get along with almost any how?'. For managers, the 'why' is the pursuit of excellence through the creation of teams capable of greater achievements than they would have been without coaching. By focusing on psychological safety, role clarity, effective communication, a shared vision, and mutual accountability, managers can create teams that not only excel but also adapt and thrive in the face of change. In a world where the only constant is change, the ability to build and sustain high(er)-performing teams will remain a critical determinant of organisational success. Yet in leadership, each the tasks of role clarity, shared Vision and mutual accountability, even psychological safety and trust, require making decisions — often tough ones. These decisions invariably come with uncertainty, incomplete information, and conflicting values. The best leaders manage these complexities by combining rational analysis, intuition, and moral judgment to arrive at choices that not only achieve results but also maintain ethical integrity. In next week's column, [*The Art of Decision-Making — How Effective Leaders Make Tough Choices*](https://robert.winter.ink/the-art-of-decision-making-how-effective-leaders-make-tough-choices/), I explore the unspoken key to building high-performing teams — making tough choices. Good night, and good luck. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Navigating Change: The Role of Adaptive Leadership in Business Evolution URL: https://robert.winter.ink/navigating-change-the-role-of-adaptive-leadership-in-business-evolution/ Last updated: 2026-05-08T11:03:55.000Z In last week's article, [Popper’s Theory of Falsification: A Pillar of Adaptive Leadership](https://robert.winter.ink/poppers-theory-of-falsification-a-pillar-of-adaptive-leadership/), I explored how falsification can help leaders to foster innovation, agility, and resilience in their organisations. This is achieved by evolving our understanding of the world at large through the process of discarding theories that do not withstand scrutiny — even if we ardently wish the theories were true. To say the process of falsification is a central pillar of adaptive leadership begs the question, what is adaptive leadership and what can it do for organisations? ### Theoretical Foundations of Adaptive Leadership Adaptive leadership is grounded in a rich theoretical framework that draws on psychology, complexity science, and systems theory. [Ronald Heifetz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald%5FHeifetz?ref=robert.winter.ink) argued that adaptive leadership involves mobilising people to tackle tough challenges and thrives amidst uncertainty. Put another way, it is the ability to guide people through complex situations by balancing wisdom and pragmatism. This balancing act is achieved through finding perspective, or to draw again on the thinking of Ronald Heifetz, the act of 'getting on the balcony'. This echoes classical thinking and Cicero's injunction to take a broad view of challenges because to be ignorant of what happened before our tenure of leadership started is to remain always reactive, basing decisions on nothing more than how we feel in the moment. Leaders must, therefore, cultivate a wide-ranging understanding of both internal and external environments to effectively guide their organisations. An understanding that requires more than a superficial or proxy-based approach. Getting across materials is hard and requires rigour, graphs may make the story easily comprehensible, but generally fail to convey true understanding. This hard truth is increasingly evident as the organisational landscape becomes more complex. A complex organisational landscape requires a shift from traditional hierarchical models to more adaptive, networked approaches - these allow for flexibility and an agile response to change. But, it is important to note that 'agile' is not, and I would go so far as to say is **never**, the same as reactive. Adaptive leaders should always have one eye further down the road and position their team and organisation for challenges and change. #### Key Takeaways: - Adaptive leadership distinguishes between technical and adaptive challenges, requiring flexibility, creativity, and innovation. - Classical and modern thinking alike underscores the need for leaders to adopt a broad perspective — always with one eye on the future — to better guide their organisations through complexity. - Agility, not to be confused with reactive behaviour, is a critical component of adaptive leadership. ### Practical Applications of Adaptive Leadership In practical terms, adaptive leadership is evident in how organisations handle disruptions and pivot their strategies. For instance, the case of Blockbuster versus Netflix serves as a cautionary tale. Blockbuster, despite having the resources, failed to adapt its business model to the changing digital landscape, highlighting a lack of adaptive capacity. On the other hand, Netflix exemplified adaptive leadership by transitioning from a DVD rental service to a streaming giant, and later into content creation, demonstrating a willingness to experiment and learn continuously. Key strategies employed by adaptive leaders in business settings include: - **Situational Awareness**: This involves continuous scanning of the external environment to identify emerging trends and potential disruptions. - **Stakeholder Engagement**: Effective adaptive leaders recognize the value of engaging with a broad range of stakeholders to gather diverse perspectives and build consensus around change initiatives. - **Experimentation and Learning**: Adaptive organisations foster a culture of experimentation, where small-scale pilots and iterations are encouraged to test new ideas before full-scale implementation. However, the journey of adaptive leadership is not without its pitfalls. Research by [Nitin Nohria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitin%5FNohria?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Michael Beer](https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=6421&ref=robert.winter.ink) indicates that nearly 70% of change initiatives fail, often due to inadequate planning or a lack of alignment between strategy and organisational culture. This echoes the thinking of [Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund%5FBurke?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Nietzsche](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich%5FNietzsche?ref=robert.winter.ink) who warned against leaders who were merely superficial and unaware of the long history and deep culture which is ever present. Truly adaptive leadership requires deep engagement with the complexities of both the internal and external environments. #### Key Takeaways: - Adaptive leadership in practice involves situational awareness, stakeholder engagement, and fostering a culture of experimentation and continuous learning. - Real-world examples highlight the critical difference between adaptive and non-adaptive leadership approaches. This is particularly evident in times of crisis where non-adaptive leaders will be seen reacting to the situation while adaptive leaders have adequately positioned for success. - The high failure rate of change initiatives underscores the need for careful alignment between strategy, culture, and execution in adaptive leadership. An alignment which must be real, rather than merely asserted. ### Broader Implications for Leaders and Organisations Adaptive leadership is not only a tactical approach but also a strategic imperative with broader implications for organisational health and sustainability. As organisations face increasingly complex challenges, from technological disruption to global pandemics, the ability to adapt becomes paramount. Similarly, the language of adaptability informs the cultural fabric of an organisation, shaping how it perceives and reacts to change. From an ethical standpoint, adaptive leadership also raises important considerations about the nature of authority and decision-making. Adaptive leaders often distribute leadership roles across different levels of the organisation, fostering a more inclusive and collaborative environment. This resonates with Burke's idea of a social contract 'between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.' [A Custodian Approach to Management](https://robert.winter.ink/not-my-employee-not-my-team-a-custodian-approach-to-management/) which situates duty not to the quarter or even to the board, but to ensure gains and sustainability are appropriately balanced to honour the work of past stakeholders and safeguard the organisation for stakeholders of the future. However, in attempt to 'pivot' or be responsive, managers too often lose their balance and topple into the pit of opportunism. For this reason, we must be wary of those who seek to exploit the potential for 'adaptive capacity' for less than noble ends. This is achieved by ensuring that leaders are not only managers of resources but 'guardians of purpose'. In Nietzschean terms, this means avoiding the descent into nihilism, where all values are seen as relative, and the only constant is change itself. #### Key Takeaways - Adaptive leadership has significant implications for organisational culture, ethics, and governance. - A distributed leadership model fosters inclusivity and collaboration but must be balanced with a clear sense of purpose and ethical guidelines. - The emphasis on adaptability must not compromise core organisational values or lead to ethical relativism. ### Navigating Complexity In an era defined by rapid technological advances, economic volatility, and social change, adaptive leadership provides a critical framework for organisations seeking to navigate complexity and uncertainty. Rooted in both ancient wisdom and contemporary research, adaptive leadership is timeless and emphasises flexibility, learning, and resilience — qualities that are essential for sustaining organisational success in an unpredictable world. As Wittgenstein aptly noted, 'The world of the happy is quite another than that of the unhappy'. So too, the world of adaptive leaders is markedly different from those who are reactive or who cling to static models, unprepared for the inevitable changes that lie ahead. Good night, and good luck. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Popper’s Theory of Falsification: A Pillar of Adaptive Leadership URL: https://robert.winter.ink/poppers-theory-of-falsification-a-pillar-of-adaptive-leadership/ Last updated: 2025-11-06T10:32:34.000Z [Karl Popper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl%5FPopper?ref=robert.winter.ink), one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, fundamentally challenged conventional views about scientific methodology. The classical positivist approach emphasised knowledge accumulation through observation and induction — drawing general conclusions from specific observations. Popper critiqued this approach, arguing that scientific knowledge is inherently provisional, representing the best understanding available at any moment, subject to revision when new evidence emerges. At the core of Popper's philosophy is the principle of falsification. He proposed that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be testable and capable of being proven false. This stands in contrast to the idea that scientific theories are validated through repeated confirmation. Popper argued that science progresses not by proving theories correct but by rigorously attempting to disprove them. For example, the hypothesis "all swans are white" is scientific because it can be falsified by the observation of a single black swan. This places the acceptance of basic statements, a necessary precursor to action, in a situation akin to trial by jury. Any verdict given is a result of agreement about the evidence presented and prevailing legal code. The verdict is a true statement of fact, but as miscarriages of justice show: > the statement need not be true merely because the jury has accepted it. This … is acknowledged in the rule allowing a verdict to be quashed or revised. > > Popper (2010) This emphasis on falsifiability, rather than verification, allows us to evolve our understanding by discarding theories that do not withstand scrutiny. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Moving Beyond Platitudes: A Strategic Imperative URL: https://robert.winter.ink/moving-beyond-platitudes-a-strategic-imperative/ Last updated: 2026-05-17T11:01:23.000Z This continues from the column [When a Strategy is Not a Strategy it’s a Platitude](https://robert.winter.ink/when-a-strategy-is-not-a-strategy-its-a-platitude/). In [my last column](https://robert.winter.ink/when-a-strategy-is-not-a-strategy-its-a-platitude/) I provided a warning from history about leaders who assume high office—with all its powers, and perquisites—only to offer platitudes in return. This is a very real and very serious issue because there is a causal link between lack of strategy and the challenges people face in their daily lives. In the political realm this can involve a failing economy, civil unrest, and war. In organisations the fallout is a microcosm of these broader macro trends, and it is highly corrosive to culture when leaders offer platitudes, burnish their laurels, then demand staff "prove their value to the project". To move beyond this miasma, organisations must adopt a rigorous approach to strategy formulation and implementation which involves four key practices. ### 1\. Deep Analysis: The Foundation of Good Strategy Effective strategy begins with a nuanced diagnosis of the situation. This diagnosis involves a thorough understanding of both the external environment and the internal capabilities of the organisation. It is not enough to simply state that the company will "innovate" or "expand"; leaders must identify the specific challenges and opportunities that exist within their industry and their organisation, and be able to express what good innovation or good expansion looks like. This approach is reminiscent of Sun Tzu's principles in *The Art of War*, where the understanding of the terrain, the enemy, and one's own forces is essential for victory. In the modern business context, this means a detailed analysis of market conditions, customer needs, and the competitive landscape, as well as an honest assessment of the organisation's strengths and weaknesses. Without this deep analysis, any strategy is likely to be built on shaky foundations. As Rumelt points out, good strategy requires identifying the "kernel" of the problem and crafting a response that addresses it directly. ### 2\. Clear Choices: The Heart of Strategic Success One of the key elements that differentiate a true strategy from a platitude is the ability to make clear, definitive choices. Given strategy is about making trade-offs, organisations must decide what not to pursue, focusing their efforts on areas where they have a competitive advantage or where they can develop one. As Michael Porter famously articulated: > *The Essence of Strategy is Choosing what not to Do.* This knowledge is seldom the result of blue sky thinking on a strategy day, it is the outcome of deep analysis and broad reading of available literature. To be actionable, this knowledge must go far beyond mere 'data', and constitute what Charlie Munger called a 'latticework of models': > The first rule is that you can't really know anything if you just remember isolated facts and try and bang 'em back. If the facts don't hang together on a latticework of theory, you don't have them in a usable form.. > > Munger (2024) This is why many 'strategies' falter because to please all stakeholders or avoid difficult decisions, leaders end up articulating broad, non-committal goals that fail to provide real direction. A true strategy requires leaders to make hard choices about where to compete, how to compete, and what to sacrifice to win. ### 3\. Alignment and Execution: Turning Strategy into Action Henry Mintzberg in *The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning* notes that many strategies fail not because they are poorly conceived but because they are poorly executed. For a strategy to be effective, it must be aligned across the entire organisation, with every department and team understanding how their work contributes to the overall goals. This alignment requires clear communication, robust management processes—as opposed to leadership, see [Leader-Managers](https://robert.winter.ink/leader-managers/) for the difference—and a commitment from leadership to see the strategy through. It also means ensuring that the organisation has the resources—financial and human—to pursue the strategy effectively. A trap into which managers frequently fall is to think that because there is budget, people will be available. If the last few years have shown one thing, it is that finding the budget is always much easier than finding the right people at the right time. Donald Hambrick and James Fredrickson provide a useful framework for evaluating the quality of a strategy. They suggest that a good strategy should be tested against six key criteria: 1. **Does your strategy fit with what's going on in the environment?** Is there healthy profit potential where you're headed? Does your strategy align with the key success factors of your chosen environment? 2. **Does your strategy exploit your key resources?** With your particular mix of resources, does this strategy give you a good head start on competitors? Can you pursue this strategy more economically than competitors? 3. **Will your envisioned differentiators be sustainable?** Will competitors have difficulty matching you? If not, does your strategy explicitly include a ceaseless regimen of innovation and opportunity creation? 4. **Are the elements of your strategy internally consistent?** Have you made choices of arenas, vehicles, differentiators, and staging, and economic logic? Do they all fit and mutually reinforce each other? 5. **Do you have enough resources to pursue this strategy?** Do you have the money, managerial time and talent, and other capabilities to do all you envision? Are you sure you're not spreading your resources too thinly, only to be left with a collection of feeble positions? 6. **Is your strategy implementable?** Will your key constituencies allow you to pursue this strategy? Can your organisation make it through the transition? Are you and your management team able and willing to lead the required changes?.Hambrick & Fredrickson (2001) These questions help ensure that the strategy is not just a collection of good ideas but a cohesive plan that can be executed effectively. ### 4\. Continuous Learning and Adaptation: The Role of a Learning Organisation Given the speed with which technology is evolving the business landscape, a static strategy is a recipe for failure. As Peter Senge argued in *The Fifth Discipline*, successful organisations are those that can learn and adapt. This means regularly reviewing and updating strategies in response to new information, shifting market conditions, and evolving customer needs. A learning organisation does not see strategy as a one-time event but as an ongoing process. This approach requires a culture of continuous improvement and open knowledge sharing, where feedback loops are built into the strategic planning process, and leaders are willing to pivot or adjust course when necessary. ### Case Study: Ikea To read the full case study, see [**Are You Sure You Have a Strategy?*](https://www.doi.org/10.5465/AME.2001.5897655?ref=robert.winter.ink) by Hambrick & Fredrickson (2001). Good strategists understand that a strategy isn't a catchall, rather it is an integrated set of choices that exist in a broader ecosystem. This situates an organisational strategy not as a beacon for people to look toward, but as 'the central integrated, externally oriented concept of how an organisation will achieve its objectives'. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2026/01/column-image-strategy-figure-2.29.32-PM-1-1-1.jpg) Figure 1 Putting Strategy in its Place What this model means is that if a newspaper's mission was to be the country's paper of record might, it can be used to guide its strategy, but it is not the entirety of their strategy. Rather, the five elements depicted in Figure 1 beg five questions which need answering before a leader can say "we have a strategy": - **Areas:** where will the organisation be active? - **Vehicles:** how will the organisation get there? - **Differentiators:** how will the organisation win market share? - **Staging:** what will be the speed of strategic rollout and the sequence of moves to achieve strategic success? - **Economic Logic:** how will returns on investment be achieved? Visualised, these questions look something like this (Figure 2): ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/the-five-major-elements-of-strategy-v2.jpg) Figure 2 The Five Major Elements of a Strategy The challenge in creating a good strategy is it isn't as simple as coming up with plausible answers to the five questions listed above. Rather, it is about understanding each question is part of a larger, mutually reinforcing set of choices. This symbiotic relationship was encapsulated in [IKEA's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA?ref=robert.winter.ink) strategy (Figure 3) in which the five elements were mutually reinforcing and led to many years of double digit growth, annual revenue of €44.6 billion, and the global brand we know today. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/ikeas-strategy-v2.jpg) Figure 3 IKEA's Strategy ## The Path to Real Strategic Value To avoid the trap of platitudes, organisations must adopt a disciplined approach to strategy. This involves conducting deep analysis, making clear and sometimes difficult choices, ensuring alignment across the organisation, and committing to continuous learning and adaptation. As the business environment becomes increasingly complex and competitive, the ability to distinguish between real strategies and platitudes will be a key determinant of organisational success. A well-crafted strategy is not just a beacon for people to look toward, but 'the central integrated, externally oriented concept of how an organisation will achieve its objectives'. By focusing on specificity, actionability, measurability, coherence, and adaptability, leaders can craft strategies that truly guide their organisations to success. This process situates an organisational strategy not as a collection of platitudes but as a dynamic, living framework that drives real value in an ever-changing world. Moving beyond platitudes is not just a strategic imperative but a necessity for survival in today's business landscape. Organisations that fail to develop true strategies, grounded in rigorous analysis and clear choices, risk drifting aimlessly in a sea of vague goals and unfulfilled potential. By adopting the practices outlined above, leaders can ensure that their strategies are more than just words on a page—they become the driving force behind sustained competitive advantage and organisational success. Good night, and good luck. --- *A Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrery* by [Joseph Wright of Derby](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph%5FWright%5Fof%5FDerby?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1734–1797) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### When a Strategy is Not a Strategy it's a Platitude URL: https://robert.winter.ink/when-a-strategy-is-not-a-strategy-its-a-platitude/ Last updated: 2026-06-17T23:03:38.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/01/When-a-Strategy-is-Not-a-Strategy-it-s-a-Platitude_thumb.jpeg) When a Strategy is Not a Strategy its a Platitude 0:00 /588.048 1× In business the term 'strategy' is revered as the glue that unites organisational resources in a common goal. 'Strategy' evokes images of carefully crafted plans that unlock organisational success and growth. Yet not all that is labelled 'strategy' deserves the name. The distinction between a true strategy and a hollow statement of optimism that offers little real guidance is subtle and profound. When managers and teams get it right, latent potential is unlocked—it can even be a market mover. Sadly, what should provide a North Star for employees and stakeholders does nothing but deliver superficial statements that offer little real guidance. Yet by bringing to bear critical thinking, some classical wisdom, and a *soupçon* of contemporary scholarship, we can better understand when a strategy is a strategy, and when a strategy is an empty platitude. ## Understanding Strategy: Insights from Classical and Contemporary Thought [*The Art of War*](https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/sun-tzu/the-art-of-war/lionel-giles?ref=robert.winter.ink) (孫子兵法) by [Sun Tzu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun%5FTzu?ref=robert.winter.ink) (孫子), ca. 5th century BC, is one of the earliest treatises to establish a causal link between strategy and success. While focused on military problems, Sun Tzu's wisdom provides many parallels for businesses due to its emphasis on the importance of clear objectives, understanding the terrain, and the critical value to knowing your enemy. In business we tend to talk less of enemies than competition, but the principle applies equally to knowing your customer. While customers can be an organisations greatest source of strength and a brands greatest advocate, social media has put in their possession the power to decimate organisations and lay waste to strategic plans. One of the most well known works of organisational literature to synthesise military concepts into a cohesive business model was [Michael Porter's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael%5FPorter?ref=robert.winter.ink) 1996 article *What is Strategy?* which underscored the criticality of making deliberate choices, understanding that choice almost always involves trade-offs, and that broad, vague goals are not strategies. > the essence of strategy is in the activities—choosing to perform activities differently or to perform different activities than rivals. Otherwise, a strategy is nothing more than a marketing slogan that will not withstand competition. > > Porter 1996. At its core, an organisational strategy is a set of guiding principles and actions designed to achieve a specific objective. It requires a deep understanding of the competitive environment, organisational capabilities, and the challenges at hand. A robust strategy is actionable, measurable, and aligned with the organisation's goals. For the practice of management, strategy requires the integration of historical insights—yes, reading the classics has real world applications—with more recent theories of organisational behaviour and market dynamics. Strategy is not a one-size-fits-all approach but a complex, multifaceted practice that requires clarity, specificity, and adaptability. The tendency to reduce strategy to mere slogans or high-level goals that lack substantive content is highly problematic. In short, a strategy is **not** a vision or mission statement. Much less is it a single high-level goal. Which begs the question, "what do all of these statements have in common?" > "Our strategy is to be the low-cost provider." > > "We're pursuing a global strategy." > > "The company's strategy is to integrate a set of regional acquisitions." > > "Our strategy is to provide unrivaled customer service." > > "Our strategic intent is to always be the first-mover." > > "Our strategy is to move from defense to industrial applications." > > Hambrick & Fredrickson 2001. None of them is a strategy. ## Platitudes: The Achilles' Heel of Strategic Thinking A platitude, by definition, is a statement that is so vague or obvious that it lacks any substantive meaning. In the context of organisational strategy, a platitude is a declaration that sounds profound but lacks actionable substance. It is the Achilles' heel of strategic thinking, offering the illusion of direction without the rigor necessary for actual progress. When managers mistake these for strategies, they risk setting themselves and the organisation adrift on an ocean with no clear direction. A real strategy, by contrast, should answer fundamental questions such as "Where will we be active?" and "How will we win?" Platitudes fail to provide this clarity. For example, a company might declare that its strategy is to "become more innovative" or "focus on customer satisfaction." While these are admirable goals, they are not strategies in themselves. They lack specificity, actionable steps, and measurable outcomes. To reiterate Michael Porter's earlier injunction: real strategy involves making trade-offs and choosing what not to do, which is often overlooked in such superficial statements. This is not to say that a golden sentence that is used to sum up a strategy has no place or value. On the contrary: > It's a dirty little secret: Most executives cannot articulate the objective, scope, and advantage of their business in a simple statement. If they can't, neither can anyone else. > > Collis & Rukstad 2008. For this reason, managers must avoid falling into the trap of confusing lofty aspirations with strategic direction, while also providing a clear, concise statement that defines the competitive playing field, the value proposition, and the key activities that will enable success. #### The Consequences of Platitudinous Strategies Platitudes in strategy can lead to a misallocation of resources, as they fail to provide a clear roadmap for decision-making. Effective strategy requires an alignment of resources, capabilities, and market opportunities. When a strategy is vague, it offers no guidance on how to allocate resources effectively, leading to wasted efforts and missed opportunities. The reliance on platitudes can erode trust within the organisation. Employees who see that the strategy does not translate into actions may become disengaged, leading to lower morale and productivity. This is consistent with the findings of [John Kotter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FKotter?ref=robert.winter.ink) in *Leading Change*, who argued that successful strategy implementation requires not just clarity of vision, but also the engagement and commitment of the entire organisation. Additionally, platitudes can lead to complacency. Believing that they have a strategy in place, managers may fail to respond adequately to external threats or changes in the competitive landscape. #### How to Avoid the Pitfalls of Platitudes To avoid the pitfalls of platitudes, it is essential to understand what constitutes a true strategy. Drawing from both classical and contemporary literature, the following characteristics are critical: 1. **Specificity**: A real strategy provides clear, concrete objectives. Sun Tzu's emphasis on knowing the battlefield translates into today's need for understanding the competitive landscape and defining specific targets. 2. **Actionability**: Strategies must outline the steps necessary to achieve the desired outcomes. Porter's work on strategy underscores the importance of defining the activities that differentiate an organisation from its competitors. 3. **Measurability**: Success must be quantifiable. As Drucker famously stated, 'What gets measured gets managed.' A strategy without metrics is like a ship without a compass. 4. **Coherence**: Strategies must align with the organisation's overall goals and capabilities. A strategy should be a pattern in a stream of decisions, meaning it should consistently guide actions across the organisation. 5. **Adaptability**: Strategies must be flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances. This is reminiscent of Darwin's theory of evolution, where survival is not about strength, but adaptability. In business, this translates to the ability to pivot strategies as the market evolves. While not specifically an element of a strategy, an environment of debate and divergent thinking is essential in the formation of a good strategy. Healthy debate can help surface potential weaknesses in a strategy. Encouraging diverse perspectives can also prevent group think and the adoption of platitudes. 'Listening' and 'debate' are not the same thing. We can engage in listening, yet due to the lack of debate and the banality of some ideas, we fail to hear that which would unlock true strategy.'Listening' and 'debate' are not the same thing. We can engage in listening, yet due to the lack of debate and the banality of some ideas, we fail to hear that which would unlock true strategy. ## Why Platitudes Persist Despite the dangers of relying on platitudes, they persist in organisational discourse for several reasons. Firstly, they are easy to generate and communicate. In a world where managers are often pressed for time and need to quickly convey direction, platitudes are an attractive shortcut. Secondly, they offer a false sense of security. By framing a strategy in broad, uncontroversial terms, managers can avoid for the moment the difficult trade-offs and decisions that true strategy requires. Platitudes can also shield them in the short term from accountability, as vagueness makes it difficult to measure success or failure. Finally, the allure of consensus can lead to the adoption of platitudes. In an effort to align diverse stakeholders, managers often gravitate towards statements that are universally agreeable but ultimately meaningless. In my next column I will continue this theme and explore why moving beyond platitudes is a strategic imperative. Good night, and good luck. --- *Takiyasha the Witch and the Skeleton Spectre* by [Utagawa Kuniyoshi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utagawa%5FKuniyoshi?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1798–1861) is is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Authoritarian, Authoritative, and Populist Leadership: A Short Comparative Analysis URL: https://robert.winter.ink/authoritarian-authoritative-and-populist-leadership-a-short-comparative-analysis/ Last updated: 2026-01-15T10:34:53.000Z The landscape of leadership styles is a complex terrain. Not least because the human condition is profoundly complex, and this means leading people is never a simple process. Despite this, there is no shortage of consultants who will sell the idea of a "four quadrant model" and that in less than 1-minute you can "diagnose" your follower and apply a style to effectively lead that person. While these models are a great jumping off point into the deep ocean that is leadership, for those who are at a loss for where to begin, in attempting to reduce infinite complexity to a simple model a lot of wisdom is lost. Ralph Stogdill observed of leadership that 'there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept'. Yet for all this diversity of definition, there are some essential elements that create an underlying ontology. Namely that: > Leadership is grounded in a relationship. In its simplest form \[leadership\] is a tripod — a leader or leaders, followers, and a common goal they want to achieve. > > Bennis (2007) What this demonstrates is that while it is problematic to try and oversimplify leadership, there is tremendous value when delving into the realm of leadership studies to understanding the fundamentals. Fundamentals that enable us to better understand why people who are leaders in one situation are not necessarily leaders in another situation due to the limitations of their 'transferable skills'. Something that becomes an acute issue for leaders who are not actually leaders, merely managers with positional authority. The reason the situation becomes acute is that as skills become nullified by the current situation in which the manager is trying to lead, or when it turns out the manger doesn't actually possess the skills they claimed in the job interview, they will resort to a more primal approach which can loosely be grouped into authoritarian, authoritative, and populist leadership styles. Understanding the differences between these styles goes a long way to understand why an otherwise good manager ends up being such a bad leader. 💡 Much as leadership is not better than management, in the case of the three leadership styles that follow, one is not 'better' than the others. Authoritarian may carry generally negative connotations for some people, but it has characteristics which are optimal in certain leadership circumstances and can be an effective tool of good leadership.Much as leadership is not better than management, in the case of the three leadership styles that follow, one is not 'better' than the others. Authoritarian may carry generally negative connotations for some people, but it has characteristics which are optimal in certain leadership circumstances and can be an effective tool of good leadership. ## Authoritarian Leadership #### Defining Characteristics Authoritarian leadership, often synonymous with autocratic leadership, is characterised by: 1. **Centralised Decision-Making**: Leaders maintain strict control over decisions, policies, and procedures. Subordinates have little to no input in the decision-making process. 2. **Direct Supervision and Control**: This style involves close supervision and high expectations for compliance with rules and performance standards. 3. **Clear Expectations and Directions**: Authoritarian leaders provide explicit instructions and expect strict adherence. 4. **Limited Autonomy**: Followers are expected to follow orders without question, resulting in limited innovation and creativity. #### Contextual Effectiveness Authoritarian leadership can be effective in situations requiring quick decisions, such as crises or highly structured environments with clear protocols. However, this style can stifle creativity and demotivate employees if overused inappropriately. #### Misconceptions - **Not Always Negative**: While often viewed negatively, authoritarian leadership can be beneficial in specific contexts, such as military operations or during emergency responses. - **Not Tyrannical**: Effective authoritarian leaders can be fair and reasonable, ensuring that their directives are clear and justified. - **Not Completely Closed to Feedback**: While limited, some authoritarian leaders may still seek input from trusted advisors to enhance decision-making. ## Authoritative Leadership #### Defining Characteristics Authoritative leadership, often but **wrongly** confused with authoritarianism, emphasises: 1. **Grounded on Knowledge:** Authoritative leaders are critical thinkers who use reasoned deliberation to make it sensible to follow them. Positional authority is a method of last resort as discussion with followers almost always wins the day. 2. **Consultative Decision-Making**: Authoritative leaders consult with their team members and consider their input before making final decisions. 3. **Visionary Approach**: Authoritative leaders provide a clear vision and direction, inspiring followers to achieve organisational goals. 4. **Empowerment and Autonomy**: Unlike authoritarian leaders, authoritative leaders empower their followers, granting them autonomy and encouraging. 5. **Supportive Environment**: These leaders foster a supportive and collaborative work environment, enhancing psychological safety. #### Contextual Effectiveness Authoritative leadership is particularly effective in environments that require change and innovation. By providing a clear vision and empowering their teams, authoritative leaders can foster a culture of creativity and high performance. #### Misconceptions - **Not Authoritarian**: Authoritative leaders inspire and motivate rather than control and command. - **Not Detached**: These leaders are deeply involved with their teams, providing support and guidance. - **Not Inflexible**: Authoritative leaders are open to feedback and adaptable to changing circumstances. - **Not Slow:** Authoritative leadership can be fast paced in environments where people are highly capable. ## Populist Leadership #### Defining Characteristics Populist leadership is characterised by: 1. **Appeal to Common People**: Populist leaders position themselves as champions of the common people, often against an established elite. 2. **Charismatic Leadership**: They rely on charisma and personal appeal to mobilise followers and gain support. 3. **Simplistic Solutions**: Populist leaders often propose simple solutions to complex problems, appealing to emotions rather than rationality. 4. **Direct Communication**: They use direct and often emotive communication to connect with their audience and convey their message. #### Contextual Effectiveness Populist leadership can be effective in rallying support during times of crisis or social upheaval. However, it may lead to short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability and coherence. #### Misconceptions - **Not Always Demagogic**: While some populist leaders may resort to demagoguery, others genuinely seek to address the concerns of the populace. - **Not Anti-Establishment by Default**: Although often positioned against the elite, some populist leaders work within existing structures to effect change. - **Not Always Incompetent**: Populist leaders can be effective in mobilising resources and achieving short-term goals, though their strategies may lack sustainability. ## Contrasting the Leadership Styles #### Decision-Making - **Authoritarian**: Centralised, with little to no input from subordinates. - **Authoritative**: Consultative, with input from team members considered. - **Populist**: Often driven by the leader's charisma and emotional appeal to the masses. #### Team Dynamics and Psychological Safety - **Authoritarian**: Low psychological safety due to rigid control and limited feedback. - **Authoritative**: High psychological safety through supportive and consultative behaviours, fostering innovation and adaptability. - **Populist**: Variable psychological safety, depending on the leader's approach and the team's perception of inclusivity and empowerment. #### Organisational Impact - **Authoritarian**: Can achieve short-term efficiency but may stifle creativity and long-term growth. - **Authoritative**: Promotes long-term growth, adaptability, and innovation by creating a supportive and visionary environment. - **Populist**: Can rally immediate support and achieve quick wins, but may risk long-term coherence and stability. ### Leadership Development and Psychological Safety In an organisational setting where [Leading Psychological Safety in Teams](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-psychological-safety-in-teams/) can be the difference between success or failure, leadership style plays a critical role in fostering or diminishing psychological safety. Leadership behaviours that promote psychological safety—such as consultative and supportive actions—are essential for creating a positive team climate. Authoritative leaders, with their consultative and supportive approach, are well-positioned to enhance psychological safety. In contrast, authoritarian leaders, with their rigid control, may struggle to create such an environment. Populist leaders can enhance psychological safety if they genuinely engage with their followers and foster a sense of inclusivity. However, the simplistic solutions and emotionally charged rhetoric often associated with populist leadership can undermine long-term psychological safety and organisational stability. ## Practical Implications for Organisations To foster a positive organisational climate and enhance psychological safety, organisations should: 1. **Invest in Leadership Development**: Focus on developing consultative and supportive leadership behaviours across all levels of the organisation. 2. **Encourage Open Dialogue**: Promote open and honest communication to build trust and inclusivity. 3. **Model Desired Behaviours**: Senior leaders should role model the behaviours they expect from their teams, creating a culture of psychological safety and inclusiveness. 4. **Adapt Leadership Styles**: Encourage leaders to adapt their styles to suit the context, blending authoritative, consultative, and supportive behaviours to maximise effectiveness. Understanding the distinctions between authoritarian, authoritative, and populist leadership styles is crucial for effective organisational management. While authoritarian leadership centralises decision-making and control, authoritative leadership empowers and supports teams, fostering a culture of innovation and psychological safety. Populist leadership, with its appeal to the many and charismatic approach, can achieve quick wins but may lack long-term stability. A key element for which to watch out as too often managers race to 'be seen' on the right side of an argument or worse, on the right side of history. In such circumstances, far from witnessing leadership, we are witnessing an individual with positional authority chasing the latest trend in the hope of retaining their followers. Ultimately, organisations should invest in leadership development programs, but they should do so selectively — realising that leadership is not a weekend course or mapping exercise where managers try and deliver a style to match a follower's needs. Instead, they should read widely and seek development that promotes consultative and supportive behaviours, enhancing psychological safety and overall performance. By understanding and leveraging the strengths of each leadership style, managers are better placed to begin navigating the complexities of today's dynamic business environment more effectively. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Bass, BM (1990) From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. *Organizational Dynamics*, **18**(3), 19–31. Bennis, W (2007) The Challenges of Leadership in the Modern World: Introduction to the Special Issue. *The American Psychologist*, **62**(1), 2–5. Edmondson, A (1999) Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, **44**(2), 350–383. Fielder, FE (1967) *A theory of leadership effectiveness*, New York: McGraw Hill. Goleman, D (2000) Leadership That Gets Results. *Harvard Business Review*, **78**(2), 78–90. Lewin, K, Lippitt, R, and White, RK (1939) Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created “Social Climates.” *The Journal of Social Psychology*, **10**(2), 269–299. Moffitt, B (2016) *The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation*, Redwood City: Stanford University Press.. Mudde, C, and Rovira Kaltwasser, C (2017) *Populism : a very short introduction*, New York: Oxford University Press. Northouse, PG (2022) *Leadership theory and practice*, Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Stogdill, RM (1974) *Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research*, New York: Free Press. Vroom, VH, and Jago, AG (1988) *The new leadership : managing participation in organizations*, Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall. Weyland, K (2001) Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics. *Comparative Politics*, **34**(1), 1–22. ### Is It Time to Abandon 1-on-1s? URL: https://robert.winter.ink/is-it-time-to-abandon-1-on-1s/ Last updated: 2026-01-15T10:37:00.000Z If you work in a typical organisation, chances are your "[leaders](https://robert.winter.ink/leader-managers/)" pride themselves on innovative thinking and are fully signed up to the principles of diversity. What always fascinates is that diverse or innovative thinking is usually only desired up to a point. This is because first and foremost managers are required be a safe pair of hands — with 'safe' arbitrarily defined. Second, managers generally shy away from truly thinking outside the box for fear their diverse view, in so far as it deviates from organisational norms, jeopardises their opportunities for advancement. Delightfully this obsession with conformity, and not being seen to rock the boat, vanishes like the darkness at dawn once people get into the top job. Either because the individual was always a maverick and now has a megaphone to project their thinking or because being at the top, they are less affected by peer pressure. Either way, it is a divergence from moribund corporate thinking that becomes even more pronounced as we climb into the rarified atmosphere of CEOs who run multi-trillion-dollar companies. One such example is [Jensen Huang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%5FHuang?ref=robert.winter.ink), CEO of Nvidia [(NVDA.O)](https://www.reuters.com/markets/companies/NVDA.O?ref=robert.winter.ink), who famously has 60 direct reports and shared his unconventional approach in conversation with [Stripe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripe,%5FInc.?ref=robert.winter.ink) founder [Patrick Collison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick%5FCollison?ref=robert.winter.ink): > **Huang:** I don't do 1-on-1s, and almost everything I say, I say to everybody all the time. I don't really believe there's any information that I operate on that only one or two people should hear about… I believe that when you give everybody equal access to information, that empowers people. And so that's number one… Number two, if the CEO's direct staff is 60 people, the number of layers you've removed in a company is probably something like seven. > **Collison:** \[how then do you\] provide coaching, where you maybe talk through personal goals and career advancement, where maybe you give feedback on something that you see somebody systematically not doing so well… Do you not do those things or do you do them in a different way? > **Huang:** I give you feedback right there in front of everybody. In fact, this is a really big deal. First of all, feedback is learning. For what reason are you the only person who should learn this?… We should all learn from that opportunity… Half the time I'm not right, but for me to reason through it in front of everybody helps everybody learn how to reason through it. The problem I have with 1-on-1s and taking feedback aside is you deprive a whole bunch of people that same learning. Learning from other people's mistakes is the best way to learn. This approach may seem shocking, having attention drawn to our faults and failures in front of peers, but spare a moment for the leader. They cannot hide behind a closed door in which their positional authority dominates all. They must use reasoned deliberation in a group setting and if they are wrong it will be seen by all. This not only takes tremendous courage but tremendous capability to do it well and do it consistently. If a manager cannot consistently achieve this feat of leadership, questions should be asked about their suitability in the role. But before scrapping a time honoured and in most organisations mandatory practice, what should 1-on-1s be achieving? ## The Changing Work Environment In the management of an organisation, 1-on-1 meetings traditionally serve four key purposes: 1. **Personalised Feedback and Mentorship:** a private setting where managers can offer tailored feedback and guidance to employees and address their specific performance and career development needs. 2. **Relationship Building:** a space to build trust and strengthen the manager-employee relationship. The hope being this will foster open communication and mutual understanding. 3. **Addressing Concerns:** a time to voice concerns, discuss challenges, and seek support in a confidential environment. A key element to promoting a sense of [psychological safety](https://robert.winter.ink/a-psychological-safety-primer/). 4. **Goal Alignment:** to ensure alignment on goals, progress, and expectations, with a view to contributing to overall productivity and performance. Despite conventional management thinking suggesting that we need to double down on 1-on-1s, there are several factors which should prompt managers to reevaluate the effectiveness of this approach: 1. **Remote and Hybrid Work:** the shift towards remote and hybrid work models has disrupted traditional communication channels. Virtual 1-on-1s can feel impersonal and lack the spontaneity of in-person interactions. 2. **Digital Collaboration Tools:** tools like Microsoft Teams, Slack, and Zoom are increasing the volume of real-time communication and collaboration. Gone are the days a manager may be stuck in meetings and away from their team. Arrived are message notifications popping up all day every day in a stream of employee consciousness. Reducing the need for scheduled, formal meetings. 3. **Work-Life Balance:** employees increasingly value flexibility and time efficiency (read hate feeling micro-management). Scheduled 1-on-1s can be seen as interruptions rather than productive interactions, especially in a remote work context. 4. **Employee Autonomy:** managers are increasingly trending toward an emphasis on empowering employees with greater autonomy and trust. An approach which can conflict with the structured nature of regular 1-on-1s. ## The Case for Abandoning 1-on-1s Given these changes, there are compelling arguments for abandoning, or at least radically rethinking, the traditional 1-on-1 meeting format. Which brings us back to the approach taken at Nvidia where Jensen Huang's approach is grounded in the belief that transparency and collective learning outweigh the benefits of individualised feedback. Huang's reasoning, explained in his conversation with Stripe founder Patrick Collison at the start of this article, stresses the value of: 1. **Equal Access to Information:** by sharing information openly with all direct reports, Huang empowers them. He believes that no critical information should be confined to just a few individuals. This practice not only democratises knowledge but also removes multiple layers of communication within the organisation, speeding up decision-making processes. 2. **Public Feedback:** by giving feedback in front of everyone, a learning opportunity is created not just for the individual receiving it but for the entire team. By reasoning through feedback publicly, even if he is wrong, Huang believes it fosters a culture of collective learning and open discussion. Nvidia are not complete mavericks in questioning the value of 1-on-1s, with several researchers supporting the argument for rethinking the traditional approach. A study by Raghuram *et al*. found that remote employees often experience higher levels of job satisfaction and productivity when they have greater autonomy and flexible communication options. Similarly, Gajendran and Harrison reported that remote work arrangements can enhance employee well-being and reduce work-related stress, if communication remains effective and timely. Moreover, companies like [Automattic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automattic?ref=robert.winter.ink) and GitLab ([GTLB](https://www.reuters.com/markets/companies/GTLB/?ref=robert.winter.ink)), which operate fully remote workforces, demonstrate the effectiveness of alternative communication strategies. These organisations leverage asynchronous communication, on-demand check-ins, and team-based feedback mechanisms to maintain high levels of engagement and performance. ### Alternatives to Traditional 1-on-1s Abandoning 1-on-1s does not mean abandoning communication and mentorship. Instead, it calls for more adaptive and innovative approaches: 1. **On-Demand Check-Ins:** employees to request check-ins as needed, fostering a more flexible and responsive communication culture. This can help address issues promptly without waiting for the next scheduled meeting. It also helps to drive accountability as staff realise they need to be active in their approach to work, rather than waiting for their manager to chase them. 2. **Team-Based Feedback:** sessions where peers can share insights and support each other, enhancing collective growth. This approach can promote a culture of continuous improvement and mutual accountability. 3. **Leveraging Technology:** utilisation of digital tools for continuous feedback and updates, reducing the need for formal, scheduled meetings. 4. **Focus on Outcomes:** Shift from process-orientated meetings to outcome-focused interactions, ensuring that every meeting has a clear purpose and value. This approach emphasises the achievement of specific objectives rather than the mere adherence to a routine. 5. **Open-Door Policies:** where employees feel comfortable approaching managers without the need for scheduled meetings. This can create a more inclusive and approachable work environment. ### Challenges and Considerations While there are clear benefits to rethinking 1-on-1s, organisations must also consider potential challenges to amending or even scrapping the practice: 1. **Transition Period:** shifting away from traditional 1-on-1s requires a transition period where both managers and employees adjust to new communication norms and tools. 2. **Training and Support:** managers need to be able to adapt to the situation and may need training to do this. Providing adequate support and resources is essential for a smooth transition. 3. **Maintaining Engagement:** ensuring that employees remain engaged and feel supported without regular 1-on-1s requires careful planning and ongoing evaluation. Organisations must continuously assess the effectiveness of their communication strategies and adjust as needed. ## Back to the Future There is of course a very big **HOWEVER** to questioning the traditional approach to 1-on-1s. Which is that a more flexible and dynamic approach requires [psychological safety in teams](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-psychological-safety-in-teams/) so people feel confident to take calculated risks and are assured that they will not face sanction for failing to meet preset performance standards — so long as there were lessons learned and change happens in the future. Another key requirement is for people to engage in an open knowledge model, sharing information and experiences across departments and engaging in [discretionary boundary spanning](https://robert.winter.ink/the-boundaries-of-informal-leadership/). This latter aspect can be monitored by assessing deeds rather than words — for example does a person just put forward ideas in meetings or do they actively take on and deliver action items? The traditional 1-on-1 meeting, once a staple of effective management, may no longer be the optimal tool in today's dynamic and digital work environment. Particularly where there are autonomous, adaptable, and highly capable managers. As organisations strive for greater efficiency, flexibility, and employee satisfaction, it is crucial to reassess and innovate the accepted communication practices of an organisation. By embracing new approaches that leverage technology and prioritise meaningful interactions, we can create a more engaged and productive workforce. It's not about abandoning 1-on-1s entirely, but rather evolving them to better meet the needs of modern employees and organisations. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading: Bailey, C, and Madden, A (2017) Time Reclaimed: Temporality and the Experience of Meaningful Work. *Work, Employment & Society*, **31**(1), 3–18. Bloom, N, Liang, J, Roberts, J, and Zhichun Jenny Ying (2013) Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. *IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc*. Deci, EL, and Ryan, RM (2000) The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. *Psychological Inquiry*, **11**(4), 227–268. Drucker, PF (2011) *The Practice of Management*, New York: Routledge. Edmondson, A (1999) Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, **44**(2), 350–383\. Retrieved from. Gajendran, RS, and Harrison, DA (2007) The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown About Telecommuting: Meta-Analysis of Psychological Mediators and Individual Consequences. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, **92**(6), 1524–1541. Grote, D (2011) *How to Be Good at Performance Appraisals: Simple, Effective, Done Right*, 1st edn, Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Hill, EJ, Ferris, M, and Märtinson, V (2003) Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. *Special Issue on Technology and Careers*, **63**(2), 220–241. Kotter, JP (2012) *Leading Change*, Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Review Press. Locke, EA, and Latham, GP (2002) Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. *The American Psychologist*, **57**(9), 705–717. Raghuram, S, Garud, R, Wiesenfeld, B, and Gupta, V (2001) Factors contributing to virtual work adjustment. *Journal of Management*, **27**(3), 383–405. Winter, Robert N. — [Leading Psychological Safety in Teams](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-psychological-safety-in-teams/). — [The Boundaries of Informal Leadership](https://robert.winter.ink/the-boundaries-of-informal-leadership/). — [Fixed and Growth, Twin Aspects of our Mindset](https://robert.winter.ink/fixed-and-growth-twin-aspects-of-our-mindset/). —[Are Hierarchies Healthy for Organisations?](https://robert.winter.ink/are-hierarchies-healthy-for-organisations/). ### Not My Employee, Not My Team: A Custodian Approach to Management URL: https://robert.winter.ink/not-my-employee-not-my-team-a-custodian-approach-to-management/ Last updated: 2026-01-15T10:42:04.000Z One of the more common refrains I hear in business is managers saying, "my team … ". On the face of it the statement seems innocuous, almost throw away. Dig a little deeper and it seems natural that if someone is the line-manager it is **their** team. But dig deeper still, right down to the philosophical underpinnings of the comments, and we find a mindset that is fundamentally flawed. A mindset that can, and all too frequently does, lead to negative outcomes for organisations and employees. In contrast to a possessive, and arguably narcissistic approach, is a custodian mindset for management. This custodian approach can lead to more ethical, sustainable, and effective management practices. Ensuring that as managers, we better protect and serve our organisation and safeguard valuable assets. ## A Custodian Approach to Management In his seminal work, *The Theory of Social and Economic Organization*, the German sociologist, historian, jurist, and political economist [Max Weber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max%5FWeber?ref=robert.winter.ink) identified three types of legitimate authority: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. While a lot of managers like to think of themselves as charismatic, and in family owned businesses there are often 'traditional' leaders who hold the role because they are the grandson of the founder, for the overwhelming majority of managers their appointment and source of authority is rational-legal. This is because they hold positional authority which is based on clearly defined rules, processes, and procedures — all strictly tied to their role, not their personal characteristics. You see this in situations where it makes sense to follow the guidance of a colleague because they are brilliant, but instead everyone must wait for the line-manager with positional authority before the next step can be taken. In this positional authority model, managers are not sovereign rulers, merely agents who are operating within a patchwork of rules and responsibilities which require the occupant use the temporary power they hold in a way that is ethical, judicious, and in the best interest of the organisation. This perspective, and legal responsibility, aligns seamlessly with a custodian mindset because it situates managers as stewards of human and material resources. A stark contrast to managers whose first concern is their brand, closely followed by their personal objectives within the organisation (read growing their empire). In a custodian model, managers are entrusted with the responsibility of guiding, developing, and utilising resources to achieve organisational goals. This trust is not a form of ownership but a temporary custodianship. The distinction between ownership and custodianship is crucial: ownership implies control and personal benefit, whereas custodianship emphasises responsibility, stewardship, and the broader good of the organisation and its people. #### Benefits of the Custodian Mindset ##### 1\. Fostering Employee Autonomy and Growth When managers view their team members as independent professionals, it fosters autonomy and professional growth. Employees feel valued for their contributions and are more likely to take initiative and develop their skills. Studies have consistently found, and by consistently I am talking over a 30-year period, that leadership which empowers positively impacts employee creativity, organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and performance. Further highlighting the importance of fostering an environment that values autonomy and professional development. ##### 2\. Promoting Ethical Leadership Custodianship in management promotes ethical behaviour as it reframes a manager's thinking away from pursuit of personal agendas and toward making decisions that benefit the organisation and its employees. Once ethical leadership is in the mix, positive organisational outcomes ensure — including increased trust and commitment among employees. Benefits that underpin more transparent and fair work environments. ##### 3\. Sustainable Resource Management Viewing company resources from a custodian lens, as assets to be managed rather than owned or possessed by right of job title, encourages sustainable practices. This is because a custodian manager's focus is on ensuring the long-term health of organisational resources, particularly people, for the next person to occupy the role. Rather than merely focusing on their short term KPIs and how to push the appearance of deliverables to achieve personal brand development. Sustainable resource management is crucial for maintaining organisational resilience in the face of economic, societal, and environmental challenges. ##### 4\. Enhancing Organisational Agility When managers have a custodian mindset, they are more adaptable to change. This prepares them to hand over responsibilities smoothly, facilitating succession planning and organisational agility. Agility is essential for organisations to remain competitive in rapidly changing markets and essential to [Forging Resilience Through Adaptability](https://robert.winter.ink/forging-resilience-through-adaptability/). A process with which the [OODA Loop method](https://robert.winter.ink/observe-orientate-decide-and-act/) can assist. #### Practical Applications ##### 1\. Empowerment and Delegation Managers can begin to adopt a custodian mindset through a pr0cess of empowering teams by delegating authority and encouraging decision-making at all levels. This not only builds trust but also prepares employees for future leadership roles by encouraging [discretionary boundary spanning](https://robert.winter.ink/the-boundaries-of-informal-leadership/) (informal leadership). Empowerment invariably leads to increased innovation and efficiency within teams as employees move from following directives to thinking about their work and generating solutions to problems. ##### 2\. Transparent Communication I have written before about the benefits of an open model to knowledge access when examining [Are Hierarchies Healthy for Organisations?](https://robert.winter.ink/are-hierarchies-healthy-for-organisations/) and this principle remains equally valid for the custodian approach to management. This is because open and transparent communication fosters an environment where employees understand their roles and the broader objectives of the organisation. It helps align individual goals with organisational goals and reinforces the sense of shared purpose. Transparency is key to building trust and engagement within teams. ##### 3\. Continuous Learning and Development Investing in continuous learning and development programs ensures that employees are equipped with the skills needed to adapt to changing business environments. It is also vital in an employment landscape where it is a [A Challenging Time for Talent Management](https://robert.winter.ink/a-challenging-time-for-talent-management/). This is because investing in the development of people is not only good business, it is vital to give employees a sense that the organisation and their line-manager are committed to their professional growth. ##### 4\. Ethical Decision-Making Frameworks Implementing ethical decision-making frameworks helps ensure that all managerial actions are aligned with the organisation's values and long-term objectives. Ethical frameworks reinforce the principle of custodianship over ownership and guide managers in navigating complex decisions and maintaining organisational integrity. Of course, in increasingly diverse organisational environments, establishing ethical frameworks that work for all your people is much easier said than done. For this reason, organisations are well placed to bring in true experts (philosophers or clinical psychologists) with a track record as thought leaders in this space to help develop the process. **Do NOT** rely on self-appointed 'experts' who assume their job title, and an aggressive "we are the experts" approach, makes them an actual expert in the domain of ethics and human behaviour. ## The Opportunities of a Custodian Mindset While the custodian mindset offers numerous benefits, it is not without challenges. Managers may struggle with balancing empowerment and oversight to ensure accountability while fostering autonomy. This is particularly challenging when organisations are facing difficult times as the knee jerk reaction from the average manager is to double down on micro-management — ensuring employees don't have a moment free from metrics and oversight. Additionally, implementing transparent communication and ethical decision-making requires consistent effort and commitment from senior managers. Efforts that need to balance clear expectations, regular feedback, and a supportive environment that encourages calculated risk-taking. The principles of transparent communication and ethical decision-making must be consistently applied across the organisation. Inconsistencies can undermine trust and lead to confusion among employees. Leaders must model these behaviours and create systems that support their consistent application. Adopting the custodian mindset in management is not just a theoretical exercise but a practical approach that can transform organisational culture. By embracing the principles laid out by Max Weber and viewing themselves as temporary custodians of resources, rather than seeing people as 'their' employees or financial resources as 'their' budget, managers can foster a more ethical, productive, and agile workplace. This shift in perspective not only benefits the organisation but also empowers employees, promoting a culture of trust, growth, and mutual respect. In the end, recognising that it's "not my employee, not my team" but rather "our collective responsibility" leads to more sustainable and ethical management practices. It is a reminder that while we may hold positions of authority, our true role is to serve as custodians of the organisation's assets for future stakeholders. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading ASX Corporate Governance Council (ASXCGC) (2019) [Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations](https://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-fourth-edn.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink). Retrieved February 9, 2024. Brown, ME, and Treviño, LK (2006) Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. *The Leadership Quarterly*, **17**(6), 595–616. Denison, DR (1996) What is the Difference between Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate? A Native's Point of View on a Decade of Paradigm Wars. *The Academy of Management Review*, **21**(3), 619–654. Eisenhardt, KM (1989) Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High-Velocity Environments. *Academy of Management Journal*, **32**(3), 543–576. Hart, SL, and Dowell, G (2011) Invited Editorial: A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm: Fifteen Years After. *Journal of Management*, **37**(5), 1464–1479. Joo, B-K, Yim, J-H, Jin, YS, and Han, SJ (2023) Empowering leadership and employee creativity: the mediating roles of work engagement and knowledge sharing. *European Journal of Training and Development*, **47**(9), 881–899. Kirkman, BL, and Rosen, B (1999) Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment. *Academy of Management Journal*, **42**(1), 58–74. Men, LR (2014) Strategic Internal Communication: Transformational Leadership, Communication Channels, and Employee Satisfaction. *Management Communication Quarterly*, **28**(2), 264–284. Senge, PM (1997) The fifth discipline. *Measuring Business Excellence*, **1**(3), 46–51. Spreitzer, GM (1995) Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. *Academy of Management Journal*, **38**(5), 1442–1465. Teece, D, Peteraf, M, and Leih, S (2016) Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Agility: Risk, Uncertainty, and Strategy in the Innovation Economy. *California Management Review*, **58**(4), 13–35. Treviño, LK, Weaver, GR, and Reynolds, SJ (2006) Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review. *Journal of Management*, **32**(6), 951–990. Weber, M (1947) *The theory of Social and Economic Organization: Being Part I of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft* (A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons, Trans.), London: W. Hodge. --- Cover image generated by DALL·E. ### The Trouble with Busyness URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-trouble-with-busyness/ Last updated: 2026-01-15T10:48:19.000Z If your working day is anything like mine, it is plagued with busyness. From meetings which should have been emails to emails which should have been a Teams message to Teams messages which should not have been sent — **EVERYONE** is engulfed by activities which feel to be demanding of immediate attention. For all this output, most people I speak with finish their working day with the sentiment "I don't know what I got done today", which is usually followed by a look at the to do list and a realisation almost nothing on it got done that day — queue sense of exhaustion at the [Sisyphean](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus?ref=robert.winter.ink) task that is work. Too much work and not enough time, yet always enough time to be busy. This is the busyness paradox. If we are busy but not productive it begs the question: how much of what we do in our working day is beneficial and essential? If alarmingly little, what can we do to fix this untenable state of affairs? ## The Busyness Paradox [John Maynard Keynes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FMaynard%5FKeynes?ref=robert.winter.ink), in his seminal work *The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money*, observed that "Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally." This sentiment underscores our reluctance to deviate from the norm, even if it means engaging in unproductive activities. The result is a workplace culture where busyness is often mistaken for productivity. Unfortunately, many people who are fashionably called 'knowledge workers' are in fact becoming 'interaction workers'. That is, their day is not spent producing a unit of work — however that is measured — but in **interacting** with colleagues and systems. Data is compounding rather than improving the situation. While I am a strong advocate of a [SMART goal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART%5Fcriteria?ref=robert.winter.ink), there are some things which are difficult if not impossible to measure. Joy from watching a sunset, mirth from hearing a great joke, relaxation from knowing a job was well done. All these things unburden the mind and dramatically improve both our quality of life and, in a business context, the capacity and quality of our work. Taking myself as a case study, when under a lot of pressure and mental strain, writing this column is the heigh of tedium. But when my spirits are high and I have a song in my heart, it is a pleasure to write, and my writing is all the better. Yet because data has become the default request in all aspects of work, employees in fear of losing their jobs will simply double down on measurable busyness. Calendars will become blocked beyond endurance, meeting contributions will become ever shriller, and as people strive **to be seen** taking part, office attendance will become ever more 'visible' with employees 'checking-in' so they are seen being seen. The paradox for senior managers is that for all the busyness, objects remain unmet, benefits unrealised, and staff unsatisfied with their role. More than a millennia before Keynes, another luminary offered a solution to the problem of the busyness paradox. [Marcus Aurelius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus%5FAurelius?ref=robert.winter.ink) identified the critical role that eliminating non-essential tasks played in living a good life: > Most of what we say and do is not essential. Eliminate it, you'll have more time and more tranquility. Ask yourself, is this necessary? Enacting the wisdom of the [stoics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism?ref=robert.winter.ink) is easier said than done. If for no other reason than reporting to an authoritarian boss (read micro-manager) greatly limits the efficacy of timeless philosophy — or for that matter practical tips. Which is why working for a [leader-manager](https://robert.winter.ink/leader-managers/) is crucial, and one of the most important things, much more than the company or brand, to try and achieve when switching roles. ⚠️ A key, and much neglected, part of career development is interviewing the interviewer. For this reason, make sure you prepare for interviews by having a list of Questions for a Future Employer.A key, and much neglected, part of career development is interviewing the interviewer. For this reason, make sure you prepare for interviews by having a list of [Questions for a Future Employer](https://robert.winter.ink/questions-for-a-future-employer/). That depressive note aside, there are several processes that can be adopted to ensure a more deliberative approach to work. ## Eliminating the In-between ### Minimising Interruptions Interruptions are arguably the most significant source of poor concentration and lost productivity. Perhaps you have heard the adage that it takes twenty minutes to return to a state of focus after an interruption. This elevates the practice of time boxing to pole position when it comes to tactics for improving the quality and efficiency of our time spent on work. The basics involve turning off email notifications and settings times of the day to **think** about emails. This is essential as too often our replies can be ill considered or completely forgotten. I have had roles in the past where I have had to read through my sent items to remind myself what I said or what I approved. Not a good situation for a manager to be in. Time boxing can be expanded to include a range of activities beyond email and can create a structure schedule to reduce the ease with which non-essential tasks can sidetrack our day. Time boxing can, when deployed effectively, enable engagement with deep, focused work. Such intentionality is a vital building block to avoiding the pitfall of shallow, fragmented task delivery. There is a 'gotcha' in the time boxing approach. Namely, thinking that a time box equals delivery of that work. I have seen this with people who meticulosity plan out their week in their calendar app of choice. Perhaps you have seen this with colleagues as diary snooping seems to have become ever more prevalent since [Covid](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/covid/): - 9 am — Review emails. - 9:30 am — Daily Standup. - 10 am — Watch training video. - 10:30 am - 12 pm — Plan for quarterly business review. - etc. In my view this is not time boxing but micro-boxing which, like micro-management, is to be avoided. In a true time box approach, blocks should be longer than 30 mins and **must** involve deep work. Simply putting time to spend against all tasks is only doubling down on the busyness paradox as the employee will finish the week feeling exhausted. Look back on all the myriad tasks and meetings they have 'done', yet wonder why the top of mount deliverable is no nearer. ### Prioritise the Priorities If you haven't read Dr Stephen Covey's book *The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People* it should be on your list. While a little bit too 'pop-intellectual' for my usual recommendations, it is nonetheless packed with actionable insights for the busy person who lacks the time to pull this thinking from its original sources. One such gem is the '[Eisenhower Matrix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%5Fmanagement?ref=robert.winter.ink#The%5FEisenhower%5FMethod)' — though it should be noted the [President of that name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight%5FD.%5FEisenhower?ref=robert.winter.ink) never claimed the idea for his own, only cited the principle used by an unnamed college president: > I have two kinds of problems, the urgent and the important. The urgent are not important, and the important are never urgent. > > [Dwight D. Eisenhower](https://web.archive.org/web/20150402111315/http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9991) The college president being unnamed, Dwight D. was ascribed the naming rights. The process categorises tasks into quadrants based on their urgency and importance. By focusing on tasks that are important but not urgent, we can proactively address issues before they become crises. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/eisenhower-matrix-jpeg.jpg) ### Do what only You Can Do This last principle is perhaps the hardest, particularly for those who are of the mindset "I wish I was a manager then I could just delegate work to other people". While people who are not managers may lack the positional authority to formally delegate, there is much any employee can do to accomplish the same result — and line managers, have no excuse. In most roles, there are some things that only we can do. These are, even if our boss does not see it, the most important things we can do in a week. Why? Because of the self-evident reality that 'only we can do them'. An example of this might be to write a direct employee's performance review. Given I am their line manager, given I have been working with them for the last year, and given no one else in the organisation either has the positional authority or knowledge of their performance to write the report, it is a report only I can write. To accomplish tasks which others could do, such as attending a 'for noting' meeting in which I am adding no value or reviewing non-essential documents which half a dozen other people are reviewing, is to substitute doing what is important for what is unimportant. Perhaps even something which is irrelevant, to take the fourth quadrant of the Eisenhower Matrix. Assuming the work is not something that can be deleted I should delegate it. If I cannot delegate or am uncomfortable delegating, I should talk to my boss and gain official sanction for my thinking — which is to do what only I can do. ## The Benefit of not Being Busy In a world in which impressions invariably count for more than deliverables, not being busy has tremendous upside even if it initially feels uncomfortable. When we concentrate on high-value tasks, we make more meaningful progress toward our goals, enhancing our productivity and job satisfaction. A study by [McKinsey & Company](https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/the-social-economy?ref=robert.winter.ink) found that employees who can spend more time on focused, meaningful work are 20-25% more productive than those who do not. And this statistic only climbs with roles which require critical thinking or when [high performers are involved](https://robert.winter.ink/a-challenging-time-for-talent-management/). Creative thinking requires uninterrupted time and mental space. By reducing busywork and creating periods of focused, undistracted work, we can enhance our creativity and problem-solving abilities. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, in *Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience*, explains that deep work and a state of flow are essential for creative achievements. [Mental health](https://robert.winter.ink/mental-health-as-a-strategic-issue/) also sees a significant uptick when people can be productive rather than merely busy. By eliminating non-essential tasks and focusing on what truly matters, we can reduce stress, prevent burnout, and create more time for self-care and personal interests. A study published in the *Journal of Occupational Health Psychology* found that employees who prioritise essential tasks and maintain a healthy work-life balance experience lower levels of stress and higher overall well-being. When we are not overwhelmed by busywork, we have more time to think critically and make informed decisions. Daniel Kahneman, in *Thinking, Fast and Slow*, emphasises the importance of deliberate, slow thinking in making sound decisions. By adopting a more focused approach and eliminating non-essential tasks, we can improve our productivity, well-being, and overall quality of life. The wisdom of Marcus Aurelius, combined with modern productivity techniques, provides a valuable framework for achieving this. It is time to stop being busy and start adding real value to our lives and the lives of those around us. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Covey, SR (2020) *The 7 habits of highly effective people: powerful lessons in personal change*, Revised and updated edition, London: Simon & Schuster. Csikszentmihalyi, M (1991) *Flow: the psychology of optimal experience*, New York: Harper Collins. Hyatt, MS (2019) *Free to focus: a total productivity system to achieve more by doing less*, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books. Kahneman, D (2012) *Thinking, fast and slow*, London: Penguin Books. Keynes, JM (1960) *The general theory of employment interest and money*, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. Marcus Aurelius (2011) *Meditations* (R. Hard, Trans.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mark, G, Gudith, D, and Klocke, U (2008) The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress., New York: ACM, , 107–110. Newport, C (2016) *Deep work: rules for focused success in a distracted world*, New York: Grand Central Publishing. Park, Y, Fritz, C, and Jex, SM (2011) Relationships Between Work-Home Segmentation and Psychological Detachment From Work: The Role of Communication Technology Use at Home. *Journal of Occupational Health Psychology*, **16**(4), 457–467. ### The Dangers of Leaders Who Don't Know What They Don't Know URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-dangers-of-leaders-who-dont-know-what-they-dont-know/ Last updated: 2026-01-15T10:51:36.000Z There is an expression I often hear, usually when referring to a colleague who is rampaging through meetings like the proverbial [HiPPO](https://www.productplan.com/learn/defend-product-roadmap/?ref=robert.winter.ink): "they don't know what they don't know". On the face of it, this will seem an odd phrase to some — how can a person not exhibit this failing and **know** what they don't know? Surely by definition if you do not know something then it is impossible to know you do not know it? But this is to take a very literal approach to the concept of knowledge and commit a [category error](https://robert.winter.ink/being-right-a-lot-an-inputs-approach/). In senior management circles, the problem moves beyond an intellectual exercise as it significantly increases the risk profile of an organisation when leaders don't know what they don't know. But how to combat this deficiency? ## The Competence Illusion I have mused before on the [The Perils of Overconfidence and Benefits of Rational Thinking](https://robert.winter.ink/the-perils-of-overconfidence-and-benefits-of-rational-thinking/) and will not rehash that here, but it is worth revisiting the concept popularised by [Donald Rumsfeld](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald%5FRumsfeld?ref=robert.winter.ink) of ['unknown unknowns'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%5Fare%5Funknown%5Funknowns?ref=robert.winter.ink): > Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones. > > [Donald Rumsfeld](https://web.archive.org/web/20160406235718/http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636) The more classically inclined will already be familiar with this from the Socratic notion that wisdom resides in knowing that one knows nothing. A mindset which draws the clear line between a person who acknowledges the limits of human knowledge and someone who is simply ignorant. This acceptance and acknowledgment of our limits is the cornerstone of intellectual humility — a vital trait for effective leadership. Managers who are unaware of their own ignorance are primed to suffer from the competence illusion and overestimate what they do know, overemphasise the value of the capabilities they do have, and make decisions based on known knowns rather than acknowledging the limits of their understanding and deferring to experts. To combat this, and avoid having to face the harsh reality of personal limitations, pseudo-humility increasingly abounds with anyone seeking to demonstrate they are **authentic** at work and listens to their employees. A phenomenon which usually takes the shape of: "of course I'm not the subject matter expert on this". Only for the individual to then push through their thinking on the subject despite the protestations of experts in the room. Such overconfidence can be catastrophic in a corporate setting, leading not only to the obvious financial losses, but to declining employee morale, and waste of that most precious resource — time. The ripples from this behaviour can, despite the sheer momentum of large enterprises, cause the collapse of an organisation, financial ruin of shareholders, damage to the wider community, and in more extreme examples weaken the global economy. An essential element in combatting this *status quo* is enlightened management. ## Enlightened Management Managers, even junior ones, hold positions of authority and responsibility; their decisions impact the lives of staff and shape the future of the organisations they serve. When managers operate without appreciation of their limitations, they increase the risk profile of the organisation by making ineffective and often harmful decisions. This is a form of negligence, which in company officers or board members is arguably a breach of the [Corps Act](http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num%5Fact/ca2001172/?ref=robert.winter.ink) because they have failed to act with care and diligence (s.180) — let alone acted in good faith (s.181). Returning to the Socratic model and we have a readymade solution to counteract the dangers of uninformed management by fostering a culture of continuous learning, critical thinking, and self-awareness. This not only helps individuals counteract the entropy of ignorance, but by creating an environment which promotes questioning it, also reduces the damaged caused by the more authoritarian types common in management circles. Personalities for whom admission of ignorance is a weakness to be exploited for political benefit. Perhaps most challenging in a Socratic model for management is that it requires organisational culture shifts to one which demands managers engage in reflective practices, remain open to feedback, and seek diverse perspectives. A process that can help managers better navigate the challenges of their roles, making better informed and more ethical decisions for the organisation. Ethical decision making may seem at one with the *zeitgeist* of today's corporate culture, but is less practiced and more challenging than at first it seems. This is because diverse perspectives are not about hearing from people who are different to us but hold similar opinions. Rather, diverse perspectives are about hearing from people who may be fundamentally opposed to our world view. Something that is particularly challenging in organisations where belief has tripped over into ideology. ⚠️ Ideology is seen as synonymous with belief, or as some kind of subset, but is in fact an evil twin. A belief system seeks to sample across 'reality' and filter for hits or confirmations. An ideology by contrast seeks error, rather than confirmation, and then takes the additional step of attempting to destroy what has been filtered out as 'part of the problem'.Ideology is seen as synonymous with belief, or as some kind of subset, but is in fact an evil twin. A belief system seeks to sample across 'reality' and filter for hits or confirmations. An ideology by contrast seeks error, rather than confirmation, and then takes the additional step of attempting to destroy what has been filtered out as 'part of the problem'. Returning to the ancients for a moment and the notion of *eudaimonia* (εὐδαιμονία) hoves into view — which loosely means happiness, welfare, or the good life. But it was not happiness in the modern sense of simply feeling good — particularly if feeling good involves unlimited choice and unrestricted personal freedom. That kind of 'happiness' is not at all what philosophers such as Aristotle had in mind when thinking about *eudaimonia*. Happiness in classical philosophy is associated with *aretē* (ἀρετή — 'virtue' or 'excellence') and *phronesis* (φρόνησις — 'practical or ethical wisdom'). Ethics in this context is quite distinct from morality, encompasing quantitive and qualitative elements. For example, speed in a horse or strength in a bull are considered 'virtues'. In this context activities can have their own set of virtues and our efforts when undertaking those activities can be judged. In an organisational context, measured against a [SMART goal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART%5Fcriteria?ref=robert.winter.ink). In management, this classical approach to business ethics reframes 'good' management from being subjective — "I am the expert" — to being objective: - Does someone manifest qualities that promote the application of knowledge? - Does someone exhibit intellectual humility? - Is someone open-minded, willing to revise their beliefs considering new evidence, and do they have a [growth mindset](https://robert.winter.ink/fixed-and-growth-twin-aspects-of-our-mindset/). [Linda Zagzebski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda%5FZagzebski?ref=robert.winter.ink) codified this approach in her work on [virtue epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue%5Fepistemology?ref=robert.winter.ink) and concluded that virtue is the: > deep and enduring acquired excellence of a person, involving a characteristic motivation to produce a certain desired end and reliable success in bringing about that end. In other words, virtue is not 'innate', and thus fixed, but the result of disposition plus ability. When managers embody a virtuous approach to their work in an organisation, they are more likely to recognise their own ignorance, take steps to address it, and in consequence have awareness of what they don't know. As their practise of management ripples through their team, it can foster an organisational culture of collective intelligence — the true value and purpose of organising people into workgroups in the first place. When this is combined with [discretionary boundary spanning (informal leadership)](https://robert.winter.ink/the-boundaries-of-informal-leadership/), people at all levels feel empowered and enabled to more effectively share their insights. This collective wisdom can mitigate risks and enable the organisation to be more adaptable. The journey toward enlightened management is a continuous one and requires a commitment to self-awareness, lifelong learning, and the ethical application of knowledge. By not only recognising the limits of our understanding but striving to expand those limits, we can create more effective, resilient, and **just** organisations. In doing so, we honour the timeless wisdom that true knowledge begins with the recognition of our own ignorance and in doing so begin to know what we don't know. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Argyris, C, and Schön, DA (1995) *Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice*, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. Beauchamp, TL, and Childress, JF (2019) *Principles of biomedical ethics*, New York: Oxford University Press. Ciulla, JB (2003) *The ethics of leadership*, South Melbourne, Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth. Dunning, D (2011) Chapter five - The Dunning–Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance. In J. M. Olson and M. P. Zanna, eds., *Advances in Experimental Social Psychology*, Vol. 44, Academic Press, , 247–296. Surowiecki, J (2014) *The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few*, Repr, London: Abacus. Zagzebski, LT (1996) *Virtues of the mind: an inquiry into the nature of virtue and the ethical foundations of knowledge*, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. --- Cover image generated by DALL·E. ### The Growing Challenge of Terminating Underperforming Employees URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-growing-challenge-of-terminating-underperforming-employees/ Last updated: 2026-04-20T11:11:46.000Z Over the years I have been fortunate to work with some truly wonderful people. In addition to being consummate professionals, they have often had a great sense of humour — an essential ingredient to combat with the inevitable tedium of work. If humour be the food of work, laugh on! Interwoven with these great people have been others of mind-numbing incompetence. Their output has ranged from so bizarre that if it was not problematic it would be funny, to people who are an outright organisational liability. On the bizarrely funny end of the spectrum was a former colleague who was employed as a System Administrator (technically my team lead at the time though not my line manager). They asked me how to finalise the nightly back up process using the LTO tape system. Once I had shown them the process, they then proceeded to put the tape in the lockbox to send off site. I said, "you should label that before sending it off". To which they asked, "how do I do that?" I replied, "by writing on the tape's label." Holding up a pen, they asked "should I use this pen to do that?" They were let go a week later as this was merely the tip of the iceberg.On the bizarrely funny end of the spectrum was a former colleague who was employed as a System Administrator (technically my team lead at the time though not my line manager). They asked me how to finalise the nightly back up process using the LTO tape system. Once I had shown them the process, they then proceeded to put the tape in the lockbox to send off site. I said, "you should label that before sending it off". To which they asked, "how do I do that?" I replied, "by writing on the tape's label." Holding up a pen, they asked "should I use this pen to do that?" They were let go a week later as this was merely the tip of the iceberg. Of course, if you raise this in certain circles you will get the witty retort "you should have done a better job of hiring!" Such [Captain Obvious](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotels.com?ref=robert.winter.ink#Advertising) commentary is of little help, and infuriating when you are not the hiring manager, only the long suffering person who must deal with the daily fallout. It also fails to apprehend that hiring is an arms race in which poor performers are constantly seeking to game the system. An ingenuity which would be better spent developing the capabilities to perform their job well, but which instead sees them one step ahead of the hapless hiring process — a process made all the harder by AI and remote interviews. This is why I always advocate there is nothing like an on site closed book exam to sort the capable from the 'faking it until they are rumbled' brigade. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### "This Time It Will Be Different": A Costly Delusion URL: https://robert.winter.ink/this-time-it-will-be-different-a-costly-delusion/ Last updated: 2026-01-15T10:59:56.000Z In business it often feels like we work toward hope rather than great ideas. Put another way, the grass is always greener in the next project. I frequently observed this age old phenomenon when I worked in the book trade where at the regular acquisition meetings publishers would stand up and espouse their love for the next 'bestseller', only for it to sink without much trace beyond a small blip on the [BookScan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BookScan?ref=robert.winter.ink) report. Yet, at the very next meeting there would be the same publisher with another 'bestseller'. To be fair, no one can predict the future, and this means any statement about what tomorrow will bring is fraught with difficulty. But as I argued in [Why Positioning Eats Predicting For Breakfast](https://robert.winter.ink/why-positioning-eats-predicting-for-breakfast/): > Although we cannot know what tomorrow brings, we can use a pattern recognition approach to lower risk and devise stronger strategies. This is because while it is nearly impossible for us to predict one specific future, we can confidently position for multiple probable futures. In this column I continue from some of my thinking in that piece to specifically address a [Weasel phrase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel%5Fword?ref=robert.winter.ink) that abounds in strategy meetings — "this time it will be different". One of the more costly phrases you will hear in business. ## The Allure of Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow Imagine with me for a moment that we are sitting in a strategy meeting and Joe, who has a history of failed deliverables, is once again presenting on his next initiative. Some insightful individual pipes up, "how will this address the historic challenges we have faced?" To which Joe responds, "it is true we dropped the ball in the past and got our numbers wrong, but this time it will be different! We have revised numbers, we have learnt from our mistakes, the data is clear, and we are better prepared." Unless Joe has angered the Executive gods, and a [HiPPO](https://www.productboard.com/blog/dangerous-animals-product-management-infographic/?ref=robert.winter.ink) wades into the pool, you will usually feel the timbre of the meeting shift. Focus moves away from the veritable feast of doubts and onto this latest opportunity. In advertising this is sometimes referred to as the 'green awning effect'. 🗒️ The "green awning effect" in advertising refers to the phenomenon where people are more likely to notice and remember things that stand out or are different from their surroundings. This term originates from the idea that if you are walking down a street with many buildings that have the same colour awnings, for example all brown, a building with a green awning will stand out and attract your attention.The "green awning effect" in advertising refers to the phenomenon where people are more likely to notice and remember things that stand out or are different from their surroundings. This term originates from the idea that if you are walking down a street with many buildings that have the same colour awnings, for example all brown, a building with a green awning will stand out and attract your attention. In this moment, the history of failure vanishes like the darkness at dawn. If Joe is perceived as a 'can do' person who is aligned with the organisation's goals, his efforts to explain away past failure are even more likely to be accepted. What is even more problematic is that any courageous individual who holds to a doubtful line of questioning will be demonised as "being difficult", "argumentative", or that most damning of corporate criticisms — "not on **the** team". This is because proxies are too often the primary currency in a meeting of key decision makers who have a limited grasp of subject matter. ⚠️ As ‘An’ Historian, it will come as no surprise that history always looms large in my thinking. Because of this, I am both awake and aware to the problems of ignoring historical context. Something which I outlined in Look!, there is a Tiger in that Grass, but of which I must be extremely careful because we live in partisan times where nuanced objections are often taken to be negativity at best and outright opposition to an initiative at worst. Therefore, to anyone who is keen to challenge a Pseudo-Profound Bullshit initiative be very wary. Ensure you can read the room well, have detailed background on the stakeholders involved, and don't press your case when it is clear the authoritarian shutters are coming down and a senior manager is primed to crush any opposition to their latest initiative. In which case, simply jot your thinking down somewhere private and bring it out in the years to come when you are on the speaking circuit. Anecdotes are always appreciated by the audience, if not by the subject of the anecdote.As ‘An’ Historian, it will come as no surprise that history always looms large in my thinking. Because of this, I am both awake and aware to the problems of ignoring historical context. Something which I outlined in Look!, there is a Tiger in that Grass, but of which I must be extremely careful because we live in partisan times where nuanced objections are often taken to be negativity at best and outright opposition to an initiative at worst. Therefore, to anyone who is keen to challenge a [Pseudo-Profound Bullshit](https://robert.winter.ink/pseudo-profound-bullshit/) initiative be very wary. Ensure you can read the room well, have detailed background on the stakeholders involved, and don't press your case when it is clear the authoritarian shutters are coming down and a senior manager is primed to crush any opposition to their latest initiative. In which case, simply jot your thinking down somewhere private and bring it out in the years to come when you are on the speaking circuit. Anecdotes are always appreciated by the audience, if not by the subject of the anecdote. It is little wonder this scenario is so common because we are inclined to believe in progress — the notion we are moving inexorably toward a 'better' future with tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow representing progress toward an ideal state. In an organisational context this 'ideal state' is represented by a predefined set of strategic goals. This belief in Progress, with a capital p, is sometimes referred to as [whig history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig%5Fhistory?ref=robert.winter.ink#Later%5Finstances%5Fand%5Fcriticism) — with a lower case w unless you are referring to a specific movement in British political history. It is an approach which causes people to focus on 'goodies vs baddies', what is changing rather than what is remaining the same, what is different rather than what is constant. When this happens, we lose sight of the *sine qua non*/starting point/base rate and with it both the historical frequency of success or failure in similar situations. Most critically, if the initiative was not a success, what caused failure in the first place. This is very costly as instead of ushering in a future of progress, we end up with more of the same. ## Finding Context History provides vital context to events which can ground our decisions and help us to position for multiple possible futures. By history I do not mean the [Peloponnesian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian%5FWar?ref=robert.winter.ink) or [First Council of Nicaea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First%5FCouncil%5Fof%5FNicaea?ref=robert.winter.ink) — events which in the organisations for which I have worked are usually only understood by three people: of these the first is dead, the second is in a lunatic asylum, and I am the third but have forgotten it all. Rather, by history I mean the market forces, organisational strategies, and operational constraints which saw the making of the original decisions. The reason this latter type of historical evaluation is critical is because no matter how unique a set of circumstances may appear, parallels abound and can offer valuable lessons. If your organisation has developed a website which was a flop with customers, and the issue was incorrect data, missing customer orders, lack of integration with downstream services, relaunching the site on a new tech stack with updated branding will look great and inspire confidence that "this time it will be different" — only it will be the same just with different branding. The belief that "this time it will be different" is a seductive but often misleading notion. By focusing on perceived differences, we risk ignoring valuable historical lessons and making costly decisions. Embracing historical wisdom and recognising the similarities in seemingly unique situations can help us navigate complex decisions with greater clarity and less risk. Ultimately, the past is not just a series of bygone events but a repository of lessons that can guide us in shaping a more informed and prudent future. Something which holds even more weight when the past event we expect not to repeat was only last fiscal. To navigate this landscape, it is essential to balance the recognition of differences with an understanding of historical similarities. This approach requires humility and the willingness to learn from the past. 1. **Evaluate Base Rates:** When making decisions, especially in investment or strategic planning, consider the historical base rates. How often have similar situations led to success or failure? 2. **Seek Contrary Evidence:** Actively look for evidence that contradicts your belief in uniqueness. This can help counteract confirmation bias and provide a more balanced view. 3. **Learn from History:** Study past events and patterns. For organisations, hitting up AI cannot help with this — you've got to talk to your people, particularly the ones who have been there the longest. Unless you are a start-up, organisational history is rich with examples that can provide valuable insights and help avoid repeated mistakes. If you are a start-up, or cannot find anyone with the necessary historical knowledge, read widely from case studies about other organisations. Invariably someone somewhere has tried and failed before — learn from their mistakes. Good night, and good luck. ### How to Think Better: A Shallow Dive into a Deep Topic URL: https://robert.winter.ink/how-to-think-better-a-shallow-dive-into-a-deep-topic/ Last updated: 2026-01-16T10:14:31.000Z [Edward O. Thorp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward%5FO.%5FThorp?ref=robert.winter.ink)—renowned mathematician and blackjack researcher—once pondered: "Where do the ideas come from? Mine come from sitting and thinking." While seemingly self-evident, it conveys a fundamental truth—that deep thinking is the wellspring of **original** ideas. Yet there is an unspoken truth at the heart of the self-evident one. If we stop thinking as soon as we grasp the gist of something, or use technology to *generate* our ideas, at best we scratch the surface and at worst don't even engage in thinking at all. True understanding and innovation requires us to go beyond the obvious, to not only sit with a problem but with the [inevitable ambiguity it brings](https://robert.winter.ink/response-sitting-with-ambiguity/), and to explore our thinking from multiple perspectives. This makes critical thinking something that is valuable and rare. Valuable, because effectively thinking through an issue can save time by reducing mistakes and lead to more innovative and effective solutions. Rare, because far fewer people actually think, than think they think. ## The Myth of Multitasking One significant obstacle to deep thinking is the pervasive myth of multitasking. [Clifford Nass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford%5FNass?ref=robert.winter.ink), along with his colleagues Eyal Ophir and Anthony Wagner, conducted a study in which their findings, published in the [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0903620106?ref=robert.winter.ink), revealed that heavy media multitaskers are easily distracted and perform more poorly on cognitive tasks. Contrary to the assumption that multitaskers have superb control over their attention and thoughts, the study found that they were more susceptible to irrelevant stimuli and had disorganised minds. In their experiments, the researchers divided participants into high and low multitaskers. In one test, participants had to focus on red rectangles and ignore surrounding blue rectangles. Low multitaskers managed this easily, while high multitaskers were frequently distracted by the blue rectangles, leading to poor performance. Further tests revealed that high multitaskers had worse memories and struggled to organise information, debunking the idea that they might excel in these areas to compensate for their distractibility. ## Concentration, Patience, and the Role of Writing In the same year as the study on the perils of multitasking appeared, [William Deresiewicz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William%5FDeresiewicz?ref=robert.winter.ink), author of [*Excellent Sheep*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excellent%5FSheep?ref=robert.winter.ink), gave a speech at [USMA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United%5FStates%5FMilitary%5FAcademy?ref=robert.winter.ink) titled [*Solitude and Leadership*](https://theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/?ref=robert.winter.ink#.W0PHUNhKhTY), in which he emphasised the need for concentration and patience in thinking. True thinking, he argued, involves developing ideas, not merely absorbing and regurgitating other peoples' thinking. It is a process that requires sustained focus, and the space to allow us to make connections and associations that surface original insights. Deresiewicz points out that initial thoughts are often conventional and unoriginal. It is only by persevering, by letting the mind wander and explore, that we arrive at truly novel ideas. This patience is crucial for deep thinking, as it allows us to refine our thoughts, recognise mistakes, and make necessary corrections. > I find for myself that my first thought is never my best thought. My first thought is always someone else's; it's always what I've already heard about the subject, always the conventional wisdom. It's only by concentrating, sticking to the question, being patient, letting all the parts of my mind come into play, that I arrive at an original idea. By giving my brain a chance to make associations, draw connections, take me by surprise. And often even that idea doesn't turn out to be very good. I need time to think about it, too, to make mistakes and recognize them, to make false starts and correct them, to outlast my impulses, to defeat my desire to declare the job done and move on to the next thing. > > — [William Deresiewicz](https://theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/?ref=robert.winter.ink#.W0PHUNhKhTY) Writing plays a critical and central role in this process because it enables us to iterate our thinking through multiple drafts. This concept was succinctly put by [Leslie Lamport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie%5FLamport?ref=robert.winter.ink) , winner of the 2013 [Turing Award](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing%5FAward?ref=robert.winter.ink) and initial developer of the [LaTeX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaTeX?ref=robert.winter.ink) publishing system favoured by scientists and academics. He famously said: 'If you're thinking without writing, you only think you're thinking.' Writing forces us to articulate our thoughts clearly and logically, which helps in refining and testing our ideas. When we write, we slow down and focus on one idea at a time. This deliberative approach enhances our ability to reason and develop deeper understanding of subject. Poor writing often reflects muddled thinking, while good writing requires clarity and precision — which in turn demands clear and precise thinking. 💡 I find this invaluable as seldom will I simply write out an article in one go. I need to sit with the problem for a while, take it out for a walk, and think about it from different angles. Only through this process does the first thought mature into something worth publishing.I find this invaluable as seldom will I simply write out an article in one go. I need to sit with the problem for a while, take it out for a walk, and think about it from different angles. Only through this process does the first thought mature into something worth publishing. ## Practical Steps to Improve Thinking 1. **Allocate Time for Thinking:** set aside dedicated time for thinking each day. This could be in the form of writing down your thoughts or simply sitting quietly without distractions and thinking about an issue. 2. **Limit Multitasking:** focus on one task at a time to improve concentration and cognitive performance. Avoid constant interruptions from social media, emails, or other distractions. 3. **Engage in Deep Work:** being able to immerse yourself fully in tasks that require sustained attention is essential as this can lead to greater insights and more creative solutions. It is also the only way to break through the initial inertia of life which keeps trying to distract us from the thinking at hand. 4. **Practice Patience:** be kind to yourself and allow the time to explore ideas fully. Resist the urge to settle for the first solution that comes to mind and never be afraid to let your thoughts evolve and mature — even if their direction may initially seem unrelated to your initial line of enquiry. 5. **Write Regularly:** use writing as a tool to clarify and test your thinking. By regularly writing out your thinking in [long form](https://robert.winter.ink/crisp-document-messy-meeting/), not just bullet points, you strength your ability to articulate your thoughts clearly and logically. 6. **Read Widely and Critically:** expose yourself to diverse perspectives and ideas. This requires considerable courage as we too often only delve into that which buttresses our preexisting thinking. Not something that is conducive to thinking critically or originally. The act of reading widely also requires you critically evaluate what you read. In short, do not believe everything, particularly in this '[post-truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth?ref=robert.winter.ink)' world. ## The Benefits of Better Thinking In a world where 'quick wins' abound and AI is built into almost every application to 'save you time', surface-level understanding is too often rewarded. Developing the ability to think deeply and critically is a valuable and rare skill, and unfortunately does not get the credit it deserves in many circles. Therefore, be patient, realise your initial efforts are unlikely to be rewarded. But, if you persist by limiting multitasking, dedicating time for deep thinking, and use writing as a tool to clarify and test our ideas, you can enhance your cognitive abilities and arrive at more original and effective solutions. In time, this will set you apart from your peers as you will be better able to [position for future challenges](https://robert.winter.ink/why-positioning-eats-predicting-for-breakfast/) in a way that will seem prescient. It will mark you out as an individual of enhanced creativity who can connect disparate ideas in novel ways. It also leads to personal growth, as you will develop a deeper understanding of yourself and the world around you. Good thinking, like [asking good questions](https://robert.winter.ink/better-questions-make-for-better-decisions/), is expensive, but bad thinking costs even more. Investing in your ability to think better will benefit all areas of your life. Take the time to think deeply, and you will find that your ideas are not only more original but also more valuable. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Deresiewicz, W (2009) Solitude and Leadership. Retrieved May 25, 2024, from [https://theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/](https://theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Deresiewicz, W (2015) *Excellent sheep: The miseducation of the American elite and the way to a meaningful life*, New York: Free Press. Ophir, E, Nass, C, and Wagner, AD (2009) Cognitive control in media multitaskers. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.*, **106**(37), 15583–15587\. doi:[10.1073/pnas.0903620106](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106?ref=robert.winter.ink). Winter, Robert N. (2024). - [Fixed and Growth, Twin Aspects of our Mindset](https://robert.winter.ink/fixed-and-growth-twin-aspects-of-our-mindset/). - [Be Bold With Efficiency Aspirations](https://robert.winter.ink/be-bold-with-efficiency-aspirations/). - [Better Questions Make for Better Decisions](https://robert.winter.ink/better-questions-make-for-better-decisions/). - [Why Positioning Eats Predicting For Breakfast](https://robert.winter.ink/why-positioning-eats-predicting-for-breakfast/). - [A Crisp Document and Messy Meeting](https://robert.winter.ink/crisp-document-messy-meeting/). ### Better Questions Make for Better Decisions URL: https://robert.winter.ink/better-questions-make-for-better-decisions/ Last updated: 2026-05-08T11:05:16.000Z The former British Prime Minister [Tony Blair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony%5FBlair?ref=robert.winter.ink) wrote a marvellous autobiography, [*A Journey*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%5FJourney?ref=robert.winter.ink), which repays the reading as it contains a host of vignettes into the challenges faced by leaders. In the chapter 'We Govern in Prose', Blair offers some insightful thoughts about another British Prime Minister, [Neville Chamberlain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville%5FChamberlain?ref=robert.winter.ink). For those who are unfamiliar with this period of history, Chamberlain is perhaps most widely known, and often mocked, for his attempts to appease Hitler prior to the outbreak of the Second World War. In hindsight the course of action Chamberlain chose seems singularly clueless, but as Blair insightfully observes: > Chamberlain was a good man, driven by good motives. So what was the error? The mistake was in not recognising the fundamental question. And here is the difficulty of leadership: first you have to be able to identify that fundamental question. That sounds daft - surely it is obvious; but analyse the situation for a moment and it isn't. For decision makers in organisations, the stakes are considerably lower than the likelihood of another world war. Yet, the principle involved, remains the same—have they identified the fundamental question? This issue becomes greatly magnified when the flow of questions is coming thick and fast. In such situations, key insights and concerns are often pushed to one side as positional authority and authoritarian styles dominate the decision-making process in an attempt to maintain control and not lose momentum. This intractable problem has no easy fix as a comprehensive solution involves reasoned deliberation, authoritative leadership, and capabilities which account for a complex range of [strategic challenges](https://robert.winter.ink/fy24-strategic-outlook/). However, one key to the solution can be implemented by everyone within an organisation—regardless of seniority—and that is asking better questions. ## Questions Are Cheap, Questioning is Expensive If you have spent any time around children, or even vaguely remember what it was like to be a child, you will know that questions abound: > Parent: "It's time to go to bed now." > Child: "Why?" > Parent: "Because it's late and you need to sleep." > Child: "Why?" > Parent: "So you can be well-rested for school tomorrow." > Child: "Why?" > Parent: "Because getting enough sleep helps you learn and grow." > Child: "Why?" > Parent: "Because your brain and body need rest to function properly." > Child: "Why?" > Parent: "So you can have energy and feel good during the day." Because questions come so readily as part of the human condition, we can be lulled into thinking that asking questions is a simple process—yet this is far from true. This is because there is a difference between asking questions and the process of questioning. The former can be discharged by simply asking "why?" and has become a widely used approach in organisations thanks to the '[Five Whys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five%5Fwhys?ref=robert.winter.ink)' technique. While this is not without some merit, it suffers from several [criticisms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five%5Fwhys?ref=robert.winter.ink#Criticism)—most notably that the volume of 'whys' creates a false sense of plumbing to the root cause of a situation. In consequence simply asking "why?" differs from a series of strategically positioned questions designed to take the participants on a journey of discovery. This is a critical concept because in the world of business, the average manager has no more experience in asking questions than does the average employee. In many ways, questions are analogous to opinions (everyone has one), while the act of questioning is analogous to reasoned deliberation—only seasoned experts can do it well. Unlike in other professions—psychologists, philosophers, lawyers, historians, or medical doctors—managers are not formally trained in the art of questioning. This is not only problematic, but highly costly for organisations. AI is only adding momentum to this problem, as services such as ChatGPT or Copilot drive the shift from managers as subject matter experts (SME), who lead the team due to their expertise, to managers as questioners in chief. This shift in management approach was summed up by [Jane Fraser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane%5FFraser%5F%28executive%29?ref=robert.winter.ink), CEO of [Citigroup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup?ref=robert.winter.ink), in an interview for *Fortune* magazine: 'innovation isn't happening because there's a genius at the top of the company that's coming up with the answers for everything.' _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Look!, there is a Tiger in that Grass URL: https://robert.winter.ink/look-there-is-a-tiger-in-that-grass/ Last updated: 2025-11-04T01:23:19.000Z [As ‘An’ Historian](https://robert.winter.ink/as-an-historian/) I am keenly aware that the average 'modern' practitioner of historiography considers it shocking or 'paternalistic' to think of lessons or morals emerging from history. Yet scholarship **teaches**, in so far as the study of the past surfaces truths. These may be inconvenient truths; these may be truths that are not fashionable — even deemed bigoted by the prevailing [*zeitgeist*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist?ref=robert.winter.ink) — but simply because a truth does not buttress **our** worldview, it in no way makes it false. To take an example from the discipline of history to demonstrate how method can shape results, German scholars in the 1920s and 1930s asserted the centrality of foreign policy in shaping a nation's understanding of history. This approach was pursued to bolster a broader political push to furnish arguments **against** the excoriated Treaty of Versailles and **in favour** of recovering territories lost following the First World War. Scholars who didn't embrace this *zeitgeist* were ostracised in academic circles — a process that paved the way for willing scholarly engagement with the [*Machtergreifung*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf%5FHitler's%5Frise%5Fto%5Fpower?ref=robert.winter.ink) and subsequent Nazification of German education and institutions. While a particularly extreme example, a similar process can and does happen in organisations. In that there is a prevailing view or culture in which employees, particularly managers, who do not embrace the corporate *zeitgeist* find themselves 'on the wrong side of history'. More specifically, on the wrong side of those with positional authority. Setting aside that history does not have a 'right' side — that is a discussion for another day — I do not need to provide examples for you to think of situations at work in which you have observed the manipulative use of evidence, wilful misreading of 'the data', and construction of a falsified consensus. Given there **are** lessons from history, what follows in this and subsequent articles is a look at the ways in which the philosophy of history can provide thinking tools or maps of meaning to help a manager pull apart the falsified consensus to achieve a more accurate interpretation of the landscape. A process that is essential to achieving good [governance](https://robert.winter.ink/governance-the-foundation-for-strategy-and-planning/). But before we get into the implications for governance, leadership, and management, a survey of the landscape is necessary to discern the tigers from the trees. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Could AI Have Written This? URL: https://robert.winter.ink/could-ai-have-written-this/ Last updated: 2026-01-16T10:19:29.000Z I will confess to enjoying work a little more these days. No, this is not because my [Pointy-haired Boss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List%5Fof%5FDilbert%5Fcharacters?ref=robert.winter.ink#Pointy-haired%5FBoss) has become more of a pleasure to work for, nor because the organisation has slipped its earthly bonds and become a transcendent environment. It is because I am increasingly reading reports that are well written. By this I do not mean there has been a remarkable and unprecedented uplift in general literacy with Burke, Nietzsche, Voltaire, and company quoted in the corridors of power. Rather, that an increasing number of people are using AI to write their reports. It is proving something of a literary [Anthropocene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene?ref=robert.winter.ink) for the corporate world. While I for one welcome the change, if I am going to read poorly argued thinking I would rather it be well written, many colleagues and associates are not so happy with the change. The reason for this is that in the genre of business literature form **is** substance. In other words, so long as a report ticks all the right boxes for presentation and language it is highly likely to find favour. This is because for the average report, form reigns supreme. Don't believe me? It is easy to test, simply put up two papers. One with a fundamentally sound business case but ticking every box for what **not** to do when it comes to writing a paper (long narrative sentences, no bullet points, financials presented in a mix of formats, use of terms outside the organisational lexicon). Then present a paper which is a failure of strategy and planning, but marvellously well written. If you are not up for putting your brand on the line with such an experiment, then simply look back over the papers which have been presented, that hindsight has shown to be strategic and planning failures, and yet sailed through committee. They are all a triumph of form (aka proxies) over substance (aka reasoned deliberation). It is important to note I am not arguing that form should not matter, quite the contrary. Only underscoring that form in an organisational report is more than simply a literary flourish. Because of this, many managers are now becoming increasingly worried as the old proxies are no longer the litmus test they once were. So, what do we do now? ## Did AI Write This? First up, for those seeking to critically assess their staff's/colleague's abilities, asking a system if it wrote **this** is unlikely to be very helpful. An associate of mine tried this recently when they became suspicious of a report which seemed 'very well written'. Leaping to a conclusion and getting ready to put the staff member up against a wall and thrash them with a wet lettuce, I waded into the debate and used my own literary output as a warning from content. Taking my article [The Shape Of Things That Are](https://robert.winter.ink/the-shape-of-things-that-are/), I asked [ChatGPT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Copilot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft%5FCopilot?ref=robert.winter.ink) 'Could AI have written the following article?' In ChatGPT's case, it responded: > It's possible that an AI could generate a similar article, especially considering its structure and argumentative style. The article reflects on contemporary issues regarding academic freedom, the role of data in discourse, and the historical context of controversial ideas. An AI could be programmed to analyze and comment on such topics, incorporating historical references and philosophical insights. However, the nuanced tone and specific references to Steven Pinker and Voltaire suggest that a human writer with knowledge of these figures likely crafted this particular piece. > > — ChatGPT In this particular context, ChatGPT was given a piece with enough nuance, specificity, and originality for it to draw a human writer conclusion. But, when the work is more generic in nature and conforms to the bland aphorisms and tried and tested proxies of the average organisational report, AI is unable to discern human from computer generated text. I found this when I presented ChatGPT with a communal garden piece about project management: > Yes, that response sounds like it could have been generated by me. It effectively addresses the capability statement by emphasizing the importance of relationship-building, active stakeholder engagement, and proactive problem-solving. It showcases an understanding of the significance of trust and rapport in gathering requirements and addressing project blockers. The response also highlights the importance of open communication and collaboration, indicating a holistic approach to stakeholder management. > > — ChatGPT Of course, that people plagiarise are inspired by the writing of others is nothing new. This looms large in the hallowed halls of academia which have long been stalked by students unwilling or unable to achieve the requisite standard finding ways to game the system. This scholarly arms race has made both the services of essay farms and the [tools to catch them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnitin?ref=robert.winter.ink) multi-billion-dollar businesses. A well-trodden path which prompts managers to wonder if they should take a similar path and start vetting company reports. Investing in prompt assistants and other generative tools **and** then spending money on top of that for systems to flag when staff are using these tools is to misunderstand the nature of the problem. Which is, does the report provide a true and accurate representation of the opportunity and will be organisation derive value from acting on the recommendations? Which brings us to the heart of the problem with staff reports—proxies. 🗒️ For avid readers of my work, some of the following was drawn from an edition of The Scribbler, my monthly newsletter. Given I do not think that self-plagiarism is a thing, I have no issue with dipping into my own work.For avid readers of my work, some of the following was drawn from an edition of The Scribbler, my monthly newsletter. Given I do not think that self-plagiarism is a thing, I have no issue with dipping into my own work. ## Thought, Proxies, and LLMs To cope with the torrent of data and decisions we must deal with in our daily life, we use a series of heuristics or proxies to reduce the cognitive load. In the space of organisational behaviour, this is a process that tends to become more prevalent the higher the org chart we climb. The reason for this is that the Executive Leadership Team or Board of a large organisation could have tens of thousands of specialists working for them and it is impossible to be across the detail of all their work. To prevent analysis paralysis, proxies play a vital role in formulating the myriad complex parts into a conceptualisation about which a decision can be made. [George Pólya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FP%C3%B3lya?ref=robert.winter.ink)'s 1945 book, [*How to Solve It*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How%5Fto%5FSolve%5FIt?ref=robert.winter.ink) outlined a series of commonly used proxies: - **Visualisation:** if you struggle to comprehend something, sketch it. - **Start at the end:** if you cannot formulate a solution, begin with the end in mind and see if you can work backwards. - **Give examples:** if you find abstract concepts difficult, find a concrete example. While these techniques can be used to great effect in decision making, they also bring their own range of problems. Key among which is that we make poor decisions if our proxy does not give an accurate representation of the problem / opportunity / reality. With the rise of AI, what could be termed the 'problems with proxies' is becoming more prevalent. The reason is that, as [Ted Chiang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted%5FChiang?ref=robert.winter.ink) put it in an article for [*The New Yorker*](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web?ref=robert.winter.ink), most 'AI' is: > a blurry jpeg of all the text on the Web. It retains much of the information on the Web, in the same way that a jpeg retains much of the information of a higher-resolution image, but, if you're looking for an exact sequence of bits, you won't find it; all you will ever get is an approximation. To counter this failing, systems use modelling to fill in the gaps and sharpen the image. This leads to an output which is plausible enough to seem true to an untrained person but falls short of what would have been achieved by an expert with better knowledge of the subject matter. This is certainly not to dismiss the increasing value that AI is steadily bringing to organisations. Something I argued is a key strategic opportunity in [*Leading AI-First Organisations*](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-ai-first-organisations/). Rather, it is to call attention to what will initially seem like an ever improving 'quality' in report writing, lulling line managers into a false sense of security and ultimately undermining the eventual decision making by Executives and Boards. Until *true* AI begins to replace the thinkers in organisations with sentient machines, there is no replacement for the brilliance of a well-trained human mind. A reality that now, more than ever, places our people at the centre of all we do. If line managers fail to grasp this and let employees with a distracted or tenuous grasp of subject leverage AI to serve up unverified reports, decision makers will end up leading their organisations on the strength of a blurry image of a blurry image. Or as [Sextus Empiricus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextus%5FEmpiricus?ref=robert.winter.ink) (160 – 210 AD) put it in *Outlines of Scepticism*: > Nor does the non-expert teach the non-expert—any more than the blind can lead the blind. Good night, and good luck. ### Fixed and Growth, Twin Aspects of our Mindset URL: https://robert.winter.ink/fixed-and-growth-twin-aspects-of-our-mindset/ Last updated: 2026-01-16T10:26:31.000Z If you have had a mortgage in recent years, the sweetest thing is to be on a fixed rate. This is because while you know the honeymoon will eventually end, you have been able to sit back at BBQs while your friends sweat about what the [RBA](https://www.rba.gov.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink) will do next — smug in the knowledge that your loan is several points below the current cash rate. Add in comparatively high [inflation](https://www.rba.gov.au/inflation-overview.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) and you get a societal trend that is increasingly keen on keeping things fixed. In the commercial world, fixed is seldom a good thing. Businesses crave growth and pretty much every seminar or training day pushes the benefits of having a 'growth' mindset. As an organisational philosopher this is a good thing, on the face of it, because it means scholarly ideas are being widely used. Sadly, as the saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt. In the case of scholarly ideas, familiarity usually breeds misuse, and this has been the case with how people use and abuse the concepts of 'fixed' and 'growth' mindsets. ## An 'Implicit Theories' Primer The concept of 'implicit theories' is essentially synonymous with 'implicit beliefs' or 'mindsets' and was first introduced by [Carol Dweck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol%5FDweck?ref=robert.winter.ink) in her 1988 paper *A Social-Cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality*, co-authored with Ellen Leggett. In a nutshell, implicit theories relate to 'core assumptions about the malleability of personal attributes' and place people on a continuum of understanding with 'fixed' at one end and 'growth' at the other: > In a fixed mindset students believe their basic abilities, their intelligence, their talents, are just fixed traits. They have a certain amount and that's that, and then their goal becomes to look smart all the time and never look dumb. In a growth mindset students understand that their talents and abilities can be developed through effort, good teaching and persistence. They don't necessarily think everyone's the same or anyone can be Einstein, but they believe everyone can get smarter if they work at it. > — [Carol Dweck](https://onedublin.org/2012/06/19/stanford-universitys-carol-dweck-on-the-growth-mindset-and-education/?ref=robert.winter.ink). In an organisational context, when the prevailing cultural mindset is 'fixed', there will tend to be less [psychological safety](https://robert.winter.ink/a-psychological-safety-primer/), strong hierarchies usually develop and there is a closed knowledge model (apparent whenever you hear phrases like "this matter is above your pay grade") — and there is heightened [Machiavellianism in the workplace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism%5Fin%5Fthe%5Fworkplace?ref=robert.winter.ink) (theft, lying/deceit, sabotage, and cheating). The goal of this seemingly destructive behaviour is for those with capabilities to retain their perceived 'fixed' advantage. Throw in positional authority, which is assumed to be bestowed as a direct result of capabilities, and you have a truly toxic mix. ⚠️ While few people will ever admit to being of a fixed mindset, this implicit belief abounds whenever an organisational culture seems to think only certain people — generally recipient of a particular pay grade — are capable of discharging the responsibilities of senior managers or company officers. This trend is perpetuated when organisations do not promote highly talented and motivated individuals, from internal or external pools, and instead think it necessary to 'hire' an incumbent for a job. This phenomenon can be defined as 'you are your role', and promotes the belief that if a person was capable of doing a more senior job they would already have a more senior job. This is particularly prevalent at an executive level where incumbents play a constant game of musical chairs because more 'junior' staff inherently lack the capabilities to work at a 'senior' level.While few people will ever admit to being of a fixed mindset, this implicit belief abounds whenever an organisational culture seems to think only certain people — generally recipient of a particular pay grade — are capable of discharging the responsibilities of senior managers or company officers. This trend is perpetuated when organisations do not promote highly talented and motivated individuals, from internal or external pools, and instead think it necessary to 'hire' an incumbent for a job. This phenomenon can be defined as 'you are your role', and promotes the belief that if a person was capable of doing a more senior job they would already have a more senior job. This is particularly prevalent at an executive level where incumbents play a constant game of musical chairs because more 'junior' staff inherently lack the capabilities to work at a 'senior' level. The toxicity of a 'fixed' mindset approach contrasts with predominantly 'growth' mindset environment where there will be a higher sense of empowerment among employees, greater commitment from staff, and increased psychological safety — which leads to more collaboration and innovation. This virtuous circle happens because capability is not seen as finite with its advantages preserved at all costs. Instead, capability is correctly understood as something that can be nurtured and developed. Of course, simply understanding key differences between 'fixed' and 'growth' mindsets is not enough. If it were, enlightenment would be simple and there would be no need for this column. Returning to my opening observation that scholarly ideas are often misunderstood or misused in organisations reveals three common misconceptions. The first is to confuse a growth mindset with positivity or a 'can do' attitude. This misappropriation manifests in sentiments such as "I'm very open-minded and embrace all outlooks", "I'm completely flexible as to our approach", or "I've always had a growth mindset". The outcomes of this are that people swallow hook, line, and sinker all ideas, policies, processes, and procedures that emanate from management, the board, or society more generally. Apart from the obvious problem, such overweening positivity is that it minimises or wishes away the reality of the human experience — that it is a continuum. Psychologically we are never exclusively 'one' thing — open/closed, growth/fixed, happy/sad, conservative/liberal. Rather, we are relatively complex and as a result beautiful combinations or traits. When a person does not grasp this more nuanced reality, they have a 'false growth mindset'. At a minimum this means they will fail to reap the maximal benefits of a true growth mindset. At most they will seek to enforce their own fixed views on others, resulting in an authoritarian approach to organisational behaviour and life more broadly. The second misconception is to think a growth mindset is only about unequivocal praise, reward, equity, or equality. Whether it is a student sitting an exam or an employee tackling a project, inefficient or unproductive work is not going to achieve goals. Therefore, rewarding effort or existence alone will fail to achieve growth. Instead, it is important to reward progress and, perhaps most importantly, the process involved in achieving progress. If an employee is struggling to write a coherent report, simply resorting to AI to 'fix' the problem achieves progress at the expense of process and personal development because they are not becoming an improved version of themselves and thus a greater asset to the organisation. Good, and more importantly sustainable, outcomes will only ever flow from good and sustainable processes. Embracing these, even though they are more effortful, is key to developing a growth mindset. The third misconception is "fake it until you make it". In an organisational context, this manifests when meetings and work more broadly pivots around mission and vision statements. Lofty words such as 'growth', 'transformation', 'empowerment', 'profitable', 'sustainable', but for which there is no effective plan or a process which is all energy with few or no outcomes. The most effective way to counteract this is to develop [psychological safety in teams](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-psychological-safety-in-teams/) so people feel confident to take calculated risks and assured that they will not face sanction for failing to meet preset performance standards so long as there were lessons learned and change is effected in the future. Another key requirement is for people to engage in an open knowledge model, sharing information and experiences across departments and engaging in [discretionary boundary spanning](https://robert.winter.ink/the-boundaries-of-informal-leadership/). This latter aspect can be monitored by assessing deeds rather than words — for example does a person just put forward ideas in meetings or do they actively take on and deliver action items? Of course, addressing these three misconceptions is easier to theorise than to achieve. This is because we all inevitably camp out in a 'fixed' mindset — becoming defensive or even insecure — whenever we receive criticism rather than praise for our 'hard' work, miss out on a promotion we think was 'owed', or simply feel cut out of a process in which key decisions are happening 'offline' within the charmed circle. The short, but deeply complex, answer is to work on our self-awareness, self-actualisation, and self-transcendence. This happens when we **recognise** our mindsets and, when tending toward being fixed, understand why the situation is making us feel defensive or threatened. By better understanding ourselves we are in the best possible position to counteract the worst aspects of our anti-collaborative traits and spend more time in the 'growth' end of our mindset spectrum. Something which enables us to live a much richer and more fulfilled life. Good night, and good luck. ### Day By Day Nothing Seems to Change URL: https://robert.winter.ink/day-by-day-nothing-seems-to-change/ Last updated: 2026-01-16T10:30:18.000Z If you are anything like me, then you love a good story. Be it books, movies, or a tale from a stranger in the pub, stories invigorate and enrich our lives. The trouble with stories, is that they compress time. This is helpful as a way of cutting to the interesting bits but can easily leave us thinking that life should mimic art — one moment I am looking at myself in the mirror wearing my first school uniform, next moment I am graduating from college. This is particularly the case when it comes to improving a situation. Be it trimming my waistline after Christmas, completing a degree, progressing my career, or just getting this week's column written, it is tempting to pursue or expect dramatic changes — felling the problem with a single swing of our metaphorical sword. When we cannot do this, it can feel a lot like failure; it can be demotivating; it can see us avoiding the attempt because change is hard. Yet by taking an incremental mindset to the problem, we can deliver change far more rapidly than it at first seems. This is why it is sage advice to observe: day by day nothing seems to change, but when we look back, everything is different. ## The 1% Improvements > People often overestimate what they can accomplish in one year. But they greatly underestimate what they could accomplish in five years. > — Peter Drucker If you look around your immediate circle of friends and colleagues, you will find an achiever. Perhaps they won't have won a Nobel Prize, or climbed Everest, but they will have done that thing you consider meaningful and worth doing. Something perhaps you wish you could *achieve* but have not. A common phenomenon is to look for attributes we think will have contributed to their success. Perhaps, we straight out ask them: "what is the secret to your success?" This approach is particularly prevalent in leadership circles with countless books dedicated to the habits of highly effective people. These habits can range from something as simple as drinking a large glass of cold water first thing in the morning to trying to achieve something as complex as eliminating weaknesses in the human condition. But at their core, all habits or 'hacks' share the same principle: to enable us to be **more** than we currently are. This concept of continual self-improvement is often best known in corporate circles as the habit of 'Sharpen the saw', which featured in [Stephen R. Covey's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen%5FCovey?ref=robert.winter.ink) 1989 book [*The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5F7%5FHabits%5Fof%5FHighly%5FEffective%5FPeople?ref=robert.winter.ink). But, it is a concept which has its management roots in the post World War II reconstruction of Japan during which *Kaizen* (改善), or continuous improvement, became the key to industrial success. The 'small step' or 'incremental' approach was spearheaded by the American [Training Within Industry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training%5FWithin%5FIndustry?ref=robert.winter.ink) (TWI) program, which was brought to Japan through the work of Homer Sarasohn, Charles Protzman, Edgar McVoy, Lowell Mellen, and [W. Edwards Deming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.%5FEdwards%5FDeming?ref=robert.winter.ink). Dr Deming was awarded the [Order of the Sacred Treasure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order%5Fof%5Fthe%5FSacred%5FTreasure?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Emperor Shōwa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito?ref=robert.winter.ink) (昭和天皇) — better known as Hirohito (裕仁) — for the pioneering, introduction, and implementation of *Kaizen* in Japan. The timing of this process reform is essential to understanding why it was developed. During and following the war, people and materials were often in short supply, making large scale changes impractical or impossible. While the lives of us fortunate enough to live in places like present day Sydney, London, New York, or Tokyo are in no way comparable to the lives of post war Europe or Asia, we are experiencing shortages— often considerable ones (such as a 25% cut in project budgets). Be it on a personal level from the cost of living challenges brought about by inflation, or at a professional level with our organisation cutting budgets to conserve capital, most of us are not experiencing boom times. This necessitates that we find a path to success other than large scale investment. Something for which *Kaizen* or a 1% improvement approach is perfectly suited to deliver. Yet there remains an essentially philosophical underpinning to the *Kaizen* approach which needs to be reiterated: **we need to understand that key changes do not happen fast**. An example of which is - the change to my waistline does not happen on day one of my New Year's resolution, it happens on day one hundred. It's cumulative. This is where stepping outside of the digital and into the natural world is of tremendous benefit. At my keyboard, search results can pull exabytes of data into files in a matter of seconds. A process which teaches me nothing about incremental improvement, much less helps me to develop the patience necessary to persevere. Yet in looking at more analogue endeavours such as gardening, home DIY, or training in the gym, I am reminded there is no quick solution to the issue. A situation which means that unless I can make the journey as important as the destination, I am likely to flag and fail because I remain locked in a 'quick win' mindset. This is where a 1% approach comes in. The mental model of looking for a small change in everything I do each time I do it. This process is not only cumulative, but also helps to ward off the depression that can come when we don't springboard from student dorm to a mansion house, are not promoted from intern to senior manager at our first review, or shed the weight we want at the first training session. But so long as we persist in making the 1% improvements, in time these things will come. Here I will end it, even though there is much more to write on this topic. The reason for such an apparently abrupt end is the 1% principle. Delivering a small improvement each week in my column, rather than trying to [answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer%5Fto%5Fthe%5FUltimate%5FQuestion%5Fof%5FLife,%5Fthe%5FUniverse,%5Fand%5FEverything?ref=robert.winter.ink) in one article. Though arguably that has already been done — [42](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42%5F%28number%29?ref=robert.winter.ink#The%5FHitchhiker's%5FGuide%5Fto%5Fthe%5FGalaxy). Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Covey, S. R. (2020). *The 7 habits of highly effective people: powerful lessons in personal change*, Revised and updated edition ed., London: Simon & Schuster. Liker, J. K. (2004). *The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer*, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Marksberry, P. (2011). The Toyota Way – a quantitative approach. *International Journal of Lean Six Sigma*, **2**(2), 132–150. ### The Perils of Overconfidence and Benefits of Rational Thinking URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-perils-of-overconfidence-and-benefits-of-rational-thinking/ Last updated: 2026-01-16T10:35:40.000Z Humans, as a rule, are bad at estimating and worse at predicting. This is why films such as *The Big Short*, which depict real life predictions that come true, are notable as exceptions that prove the rule — we are bad at estimating. Yet for all this, there is one question posed to every manager after submitting a project brief, change request, or budget impact statement: "what's your level of confidence?" ⚠️ To be fair to people like Michael Burry, they are not 'predicting'. What he did was to read the market signs and positioned Scion Capital for a future so probable to this calculations as to seem inevitable. However, the evidence shows (see below for the Duke University study of CFOs) that most people who try and replicate Burry's positioning of his fund are in fact predicting not positioning. For why this distinction matters, see Why Positioning Eats Predicting For Breakfast.To be fair to people like Michael Burry, they are not 'predicting'. What he did was to read the market signs and positioned Scion Capital for a future so probable to this calculations as to seem inevitable. However, the evidence shows (see below for the Duke University study of CFOs) that most people who try and replicate Burry's positioning of his fund are in fact predicting not positioning. For why this distinction matters, see Why Positioning Eats Predicting For Breakfast. There are good reasons for the emphasis on confidence levels. The first is that in a world increasingly enthralled to '[scientism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism?ref=robert.winter.ink)', confidence levels are sought by anyone who has done statistics 101\. The second reason is that, particularly in management circles, any person who doesn't **know**, looks simultaneously incompetent and unhelpful. Traits that are, except for criminality, bottom of the deck in the game of management [Top Trumps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top%5FTrumps?ref=robert.winter.ink). With appearances being nine tenths of repetitional success, it is impressed on anyone who wants to climb the career ladder that confidence, often despite the evidence, is essential to keeping your job and getting your pet project through the necessary approval stage gates. This is why so many bad managers are able to climb the organisational hierarchy because they are able arrange it so they only look unhelpful and incompetent alternately — using overconfidence to make up the difference. The late great psychologist and economist [Daniel Kahneman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel%5FKahneman?ref=robert.winter.ink) observed as much in his seminal [*Thinking Fast and Slow*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,%5FFast%5Fand%5FSlow?ref=robert.winter.ink): > Experts who acknowledge the full extent of their ignorance may expect to be replaced by more confident competitors, who are better able to gain the trust of the clients. > > — Kahneman, 2012. However, if we invoke too many conditional elements into our work, and with this high levels of uncertainty, we introduce paralysis — which can be fatal. ## Overconfidence Bias More than 2,500 years ago [Aesop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop?ref=robert.winter.ink), the Greek fabulist and story teller not the skin care company, included in his collection of fables the story of *The Fox and the Cat*: > The fox ran into the cat and asked, 'How many tricks and dodges do you know?' The cat replied, 'Actually, I don't know more than one.' The fox then asked the cat, 'What trick is that?' The cat said, 'When the dogs are chasing me, I know how to climb trees and escape.' The cat then asked the fox, 'And how many tricks do you know?" The fox said, I know seventeen, and that gives me a full bag of tricks! Come with me, and I'll show you my tricks so that the dogs won't be able to catch you.' The cat agreed and the two of them went off together. The hunters began to chase them with their dogs, and the cat said, I hear the dogs; I'm scared.' The fox replied, 'Don't be afraid! I will give you a good lesson in how to get away.' The dogs and the hunters drew nearer. 'Well,' said the cat, I'm going to have to leave you now; I want to do my trick.' And so the cat jumped up in the tree. The dogs let the cat go and chased the fox until they caught him: one of the dogs grabbed the fox by the leg, another grabbed his belly, another his back, another his head. The cat, who was sitting up high in the tree, shouted, 'Fox! Fox! Open up your bag of tricks! Even so, I'm afraid all of them put together are not going to save you from the hands and teeth of those demons!' > > — Aesop, 2008. This fable is timeless because it speaks to the problems of overconfidence in tricks (aka 'processes' in management circles) and failure to decide in a timely manner (analysis paralysis). Therefore beware the promotion of overconfidence over rational decisions as it will end badly when it comes to the crunch. In the corporate world, there are seldom real hounds with sharp teeth, but there are plenty of metaphorical ones. They may take the shape of organisational restructures, failures to read the market, or simply a boss who is unable to deliver on their overconfident promises and tries to save their career by shifting blame onto their team. In the face of such hounds, admission that one is merely guessing is considered unacceptable. While I would agree that people should not guess, when organisations are devoid of psychological safety and create situations which threaten employees' livelihoods, it is no wonder that the pretense of knowledge emerges as the preferred solution for people long on confidence but short on capability. These anecdotal observations are supported by the data in several studies, one of which was by: > ... professors at Duke University \[who\] conducted a survey in which the chief financial officers of large corporations estimated the results of the S&P index over the following year. The Duke scholars collected 11,600 such forecasts and examined their accuracy. The conclusion was straightforward: financial officers of large corporations had no clue about the short-term future of the stock market; the correlation between their estimates and the true value was slightly less than zero! When they said the market would go down, it was slightly more likely than not that it would go up. these findings are not surprising. The truly bad news is that the CFOs did not appear to know that their forecasts were worthless. > > — Kahneman, 2012. Armed with the knowledge that even the most senior managers in an organisation are unaware their judgement is worthless, and given the slow gestation period of the average corporate program, a confident employee can eke out several years of salary before the chasm between what they claim to be able to do and what they can actually do is uncovered. By which point they have the experience on their resume and can bounce forward to their next role which is granted based on a track record of job titles rather than achievements. Until the prevailing reality of this employment merry-go-round is broken, overconfidence will remain the go to strategy for many. Even though the evidence suggests that a pessimistic outlook would do a better job of [positioning the organisation for success](https://robert.winter.ink/why-positioning-eats-predicting-for-breakfast/) or simply [Calling Time on Sunk Costs](https://robert.winter.ink/calling-time-on-sunk-costs/). 🗒️ The critical error that line managers and boards make in assessing their strategic options regarding sunk costs is in thinking that the need to cut a failing project is only obvious in hindsight. As a result, there tends to be resistance to the so-called 'nay sayers' and 'pessimists' who counselled likely failure from the outset …The critical error that line managers and boards make in assessing their strategic options regarding sunk costs is in thinking that the need to cut a failing project is only obvious in hindsight. As a result, there tends to be resistance to the so-called 'nay sayers' and 'pessimists' who counselled likely failure from the outset … Yet reframe the thinking of 'negative people' as pragmatism, and the optimism of the 'can do people' starts to look increasingly like one of the five psychological factors that drive the sunk cost fallacy — loss aversion, framing effect, unrealistic optimism, ego, and fear of waste. Once this pragmatic and sound reframing has occurred, the other side of the hill comes sharply into view because teams skip the Kool-Aid and instead drink a bracing dose of reality. Unromantic and for certain psychological types devoid of optimism, but when embraced it is an essential mindset for strategic thinking. Of course, tone is set at the top, and if you feel frustrated by the incompetence of colleagues, this is invariably stimulated by what is happening at the top of the organisational hierarchy. I am neither alone, nor the first, to observe this trend. Peter Bevelin, author of several books based on key learnings from [Charlie Munger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie%5FMunger?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Warren Buffett](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren%5FBuffett?ref=robert.winter.ink), observed in [*Seeking wisdom: From Darwin to Munger*](https://www.poorcharliesalmanack.com/seeking%5Fwisdom.php?ref=robert.winter.ink): > What tends to inflate the price that CEOs pay for acquisitions? Studies found evidence of infection through three sources of hubris: 1) overconfidence after recent success, 2) a sense of self-importance; the belief that a high salary compared to other senior ranking executives implies skill, and 3) the CEOs belief in their own press coverage. The media tend to glorify the CEO and over-attribute business success to the role of the CEO rather than to other factors and people. This makes CEOs more likely to become both more overconfident about their abilities and more committed to the actions that made them media celebrities. > > —Bevelin, 2007. ## Reducing Overconfidence, Increasing Rational Thinking Management plays a pivotal role in changing an organisation's culture by [Leading Psychological Safety in Teams](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-psychological-safety-in-teams/). This process helps to ensure that an environment is created which allows for uncertainty to be seen for what it is — a rational stance in an inherently uncertain world. When such an environment is not established, we get what currently abounds — the most overconfident decision makers are rewarded. Returning to the CFO study outlined above, which shows even the top executives in a field cannot say they truly **know** what tomorrow brings — the data clearly shows they are unable to predict the future. Because of this, it is essential organisations shift the system of rewards and punishments from being centred on who is confident they can predict the future to who can position for a largely unknown tomorrow. This is important as it moves thinking from the unknown to the measurable. This happens because even if people or teams don't know how to prepare, they can at least answer the question 'are we prepared or are we not?' Examples of preparedness are: - I do not know **when** a recession will hit, but I do know that at some point there will be a severe downturn in the economy. Therefore, my best strategy is to position myself for the inevitable rather than living pay cheque to pay cheque and trying to guess when I will need some savings. - I do not know **what** my next role will be, but I know I will not have my current job in its present form until the end of my career. Therefore, I can position myself for the inevitable by acquiring new skills and additional knowledge for when the next opportunity comes. But, and this is where measurement and efficiency comes in, there is a cost to being prepared. While it is a poor plan to live hand to mouth, it is also not efficient to prepare for every doomsday scenario. This enables efficiency to be measured by only preparing when it is necessary. Something which brings us to anecdotes. If I am overconfident about my future or the future of the organisation I lead, chances are I can surface data to prove my point. Or at the very least explain away the data which shows me in error. This is where the anecdotal evidence from rational, and perhaps even slightly pessimistic, people is essential because it will provide a better insight into what is really happening than either the predictions of overconfident people or what is apparent from the data. As Jeff Bezos put it: > We have so many metrics that we monitor. The thing I've noticed is that when the anecdotes and the data disagree the anecdotes are usually right. There's something wrong with the way you're measuring it. \[…\] You need to check that data with your intuition and instincts. > > — [Jeff Bezos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu6vFIKAUxk&t=1415s&ref=robert.winter.ink). For these reasons, when asked about my level of confidence I lean into the anecdotes even if the data doesn't bear them out. If anecdotally someone is a bully who harasses their colleagues, my confidence is that this is what they are, and I prepare for that behaviour even if the data indicates they are a good employee. If anecdotally the strategic plan is flawed, my confidence is that a new strategy is needed even if the data indicates the organisation should double down on the current strategy. If anecdotally a corporate culture exists which protects the incompetent while the high performers tend to leave, my confidence is that the organisation needs to address this talent management flaw even if the data indicates the company is an employer of choice. In sum, my level of confidence in a rational decision made on the anecdotal data is high, my confidence in the 'official data' is low as almost anything can be proven with data — particularly when someone with positional authority is controlling the narrative. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Bevelin, P. (2007). *Seeking wisdom: From Darwin to Munger*, Malmö, Sweden: PCA Publications. Kahneman, D. (2012). *Thinking, fast and slow*, London: Penguin Books. Winter, Robert N. (2024). - [Calling Time on Sunk Costs](https://robert.winter.ink/calling-time-on-sunk-costs/). - [Why Positioning Eats Predicting For Breakfast](https://robert.winter.ink/why-positioning-eats-predicting-for-breakfast/). ### Disconnected Expectations: Why Managers and Employees Struggle to Agree URL: https://robert.winter.ink/disconnected-expectations-why-managers-and-employees-struggle-to-agree/ Last updated: 2026-01-16T10:44:43.000Z As both a line-manager and organisational philosopher, sadly the latter is not an official title much less a paid role, I am engaged in constant discussions about employee rights, norms, and perks. These conversations are nothing new. Since written records began there is documentation of labourers' grumbling about pay, conditions, and treatment by overseers. Closely followed by overseers biting back about labourers grumblings. This happened in 1159 BC when wages for tomb-builders at Set-Ma'at ('The Place of Truth') were repeatedly late, violating *Ma'at*: > We have gone on strike not from hunger but because we have a serious accusation to make: bad things have been done in this place of Pharaoh. > > Wilkinson 2013, 337. 🗒️ Ma'at was the ancient Egyptian concept of order and justice (personified as a Goddess). As a principle, Ma'at was formed to balance the complex and conflicting interests inherent in a state as diverse as Egypt, with the hope of staving off chaos.Ma'at was the ancient Egyptian concept of order and justice (personified as a Goddess). As a principle, Ma'at was formed to balance the complex and conflicting interests inherent in a state as diverse as Egypt, with the hope of staving off chaos. Yet if history teaches one thing about industrial relations, it is that tensions come in peaks and troughs. Usually stimulated by extraordinary circumstances such as wars, pestilence, or technological epochs (think the invention of writing, the industrial revolution, or digital age). Anything which disrupts social cohesion and creates opportunities for mobility will spawn grumblings and new expectations — fashionably called 'the new normal'. Perhaps the most recent example of this was the COVID-19 pandemic in which pretty much everyone was sent home and what many came to see as a 'new normal' was established. This included staying in exercise gear all day, joining meetings from your phone while entertaining the kids engaging in home education duties, taking advantage of one of the few reasons the government allowed for leaving the house (never before or since have I seen so many people taking a walk in the neighbourhood), and soaring wages in many sectors. 🗒️ The economic effects of COVID-19 have parallels with previous pandemics that dislocated societies and workforces. Europe in the fourteenth century was badly affected by the Black Death, though this earlier event saw considerably larger mortality rates — between 25 to 60% of the population. Then as now, wages soared, there were labour shortages, but in time those living from wages alone eventually saw declines in real income as inflation became rampant.The economic effects of COVID-19 have parallels with previous pandemics that dislocated societies and workforces. Europe in the fourteenth century was badly affected by the Black Death, though this earlier event saw considerably larger mortality rates — between 25 to 60% of the population. Then as now, wages soared, there were labour shortages, but in time those living from wages alone eventually saw declines in real income as inflation became rampant. The difficulty for employee relations is that some people are terrible at grasping context. That is, just because something is permitted in one context does not mean it is acceptable in another. A crude example of this is a gym changing room, where it is perfectly permissible for me to strip stark naked as I change outfits. Do the same thing in the middle of the street or in the office, and I would at the very least find myself on the wrong side of social mores, at most facing an indecent exposure charge as the police haul me off for processing. In the world of employment context is no less seminal. Just because I see my wage soar as I bounce from company to company every six months during a pandemic as shortages of 'insert name of role' drive up renumeration, it does not inevitably follow that the same slot machine approach to getting a pay rise will be available when there are hundreds of applicants for every job and businesses are facing declining revenue. The same is true with 100% remote work when the government has mandated people do not travel more than 2 kilometres from their place of residence. In short, my perceptions of what work should look like need to adjust to the prevailing conditions. This goes for employers as much as it does employees. If my profits are driven by junior members of staff working on presentations at 2 am, something that has often been rife in the world of [Big Four consulting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big%5FFour%5Faccounting%5Ffirms?ref=robert.winter.ink), I need to accept the pace of work will slow and profits likely decline when the government introduces the '[right to disconnect](https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-allow-workers-ignore-after-hours-calls-bosses-2024-02-07/?ref=robert.winter.ink)'. So much so obvious. But what does this mean looking ahead to FY25? ## The New Normal Before getting into what the 'new normal' looks like, a phrase I detest while we are on it, a hard truth needs surfacing. Namely, work is not about the employee; it is about the organisation. With an increasingly vocal group of [GenMe](https://robert.winter.ink/category/social-comment/generations/) mentality employees and managers advocating unrestricted freedom of choice and unlimited self-interest as a right, I expect this is a revelation that will be shocking for some. So, I will repeat it for those who cannot believe I said it. **Work is not about the employee; it is about the organisation**. While some managers do sound like Argus Filch in *Harry Potter*: > It's just a pity they let the old punishments die out… hang you by your wrists from the ceiling for a few days, I've got the chains still in my office, keep 'em well oiled in case they're ever needed. My assertion is not the bestial cry of a retrograde manager it may at first seem. Rather, it is to pick up on the strong trend in senior governance circles regarding the responsibilities of a director and to apply them to employees. An approach that enables [governance to emanate meaningfully throughout the organisation](https://robert.winter.ink/governance-the-foundation-for-strategy-and-planning/) rather than being some niche topic undertaken by a select few. For those who have engaged deeply, or even casually flirted, with the [Australian Institute of Company Directors](https://www.aicd.com.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink) you will be aware the mantra for directors and officers is that they must act 'in good faith'. Which means in the best interests of the organisation. Not their personal interests, or the interests of a group they may represent — but in the interests of the organisation. The *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) enshrines this in section 181 making it a civil offence to contravene. It even takes things step further in section 184 and makes contravention a criminal offence if a director does not act: > (c) in good faith in the best interests of the corporation; or > (d) for a proper purpose. > > *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth), s.184(1)(c) (criminal). Though it is not mentioned as often as it should be, employees are under the same injunction as defined in their contract of employment, State and Federal laws, and employee codes of conduct. This means that decisions made, reports written, and actions taken (be it by managers or direct reports), must be in good faith and in the best interest of the organisation. It is a 'win win' when our self-interest in building our brand aligns with the organisation's best interests, but when the two are not aligned the right choice is clear. While this may seem obvious in principle, it is surprisingly rarely applied in practice. Examples of this are: - Presenting favourable sales figures to meet KPIs or make their case for more resources, when in fact sales are costing the business money. - Making strategic recommendations that support the prevailing direction of Board thinking for the purpose of personal advancement, rather than having difficult conversations in the face of Board enthusiasm. - Trying to let things blow over because direct action may damage personal brand, rather than tackling poor performance or bad behaviour when it arises. As a philosopher I am as interested in the spirit as the letter of the law. Which brings us back to the 'new normal'. Simply put, the responsibilities of employees were not changed by the pandemic. A specified amount of time, in a specified location, delivering specified services in exchange for a specified income is still owed. If you work for an organisation that has implemented a nine-day fortnight or four-day week, this has likely been done as a 'perk' not via a change to your contract of employment. The same will in all probability be the case for your place of employment if your organisation or manager likes to support remote working. The thing about 'perks' is that they can be taken away even more easily than they can be granted. A process that can result in obligations of 5-days a week in the office — just like in the 'bad old days' before Covid. In short, there is no 'new normal' until your contract of employment and various laws, regulations, codes, and statutes change. This is why I say **work is not about the employee, it is about the organisation**. For those who are feeling a little disenfranchised, dispirited, and despondent at this point, before you click away in disappointment let me stress - this realisation is a cause for liberation not commiseration, and one of the keys to how I reduce the level of emotional labour I spend in the pursuit of a fulfilling career. A process that enables me to largely switch off from work when I get home and not spend sleepless nights worrying about my day job. The reason for this is, as I argued in [Why Positioning Eats Predicting For Breakfast](https://robert.winter.ink/why-positioning-eats-predicting-for-breakfast/): 💡 Although we cannot know what tomorrow brings, we can use a pattern recognition approach to lower risk and devise stronger strategies. This is because while it is nearly impossible for us to predict one specific future, we can confidently position for multiple probable futures.Although we cannot know what tomorrow brings, we can use a pattern recognition approach to lower risk and devise stronger strategies. This is because while it is nearly impossible for us to predict one specific future, we can confidently position for multiple probable futures. If I predict that the conditions of my employment will change, and they do not, it will come as a rude awakening when I can no longer act as 'daddy day care', live an unrealistic commute away in the expectation of being 100% remote, or face the torment of having to sit in a room with colleagues rather than simply see their faces online. **As an employee** if I keep my obligations to the organisation front and centre, while positioning myself for a range of probable futures, I am setup for success whether things switch to a new normal, stay the same, or revert to the way they were. Something which will improve my mental health, enhance my professional brand, cause less dislocation of my lifestyle, and generally make the world of work a happier and less contentious place. **As a manager** my responsibilities and opportunities are no different but bring additional accountabilities as I have **temporary** delegated authority. In that if I push the mantra that direct reports are there for the benefit for the organisation too far, mistake my personal brand's best interests for those of the organisation, or try and make a power play to bolster personal standing at the expense of my team, I risk a similar situation as at Set-Ma'at over three thousand years ago. The most capable in the organisation will feel poorly treated and those less able will expect an even worse fate given what happened to their peers. A process that erodes team morale, reduces efficiency, takes staff focus away from key strategic goals, and results in a toxic culture. Put another way, a decline in growth and transformation. This happens because my team understand I have violated the principle of *Ma'at* (order and justice) — even if I think company policy, HR backing, or my temporary delegated authority has me in the right. Good night, and good luck. ## References *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth). Wilkinson, T. (2013). *The rise and fall of ancient Egypt*, Random House trade pbk. ed, New York: Random House. ### Being Right A Lot: An Inputs Approach URL: https://robert.winter.ink/being-right-a-lot-an-inputs-approach/ Last updated: 2026-01-16T10:49:02.000Z For those who have not seen it, there is an interview (terrible audio) with Jeff Bezos [talking about his management style and philosophy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7JMMy-yHSU&ref=robert.winter.ink). While the piece suffers from some common tropes, most obviously the conflation of management and leadership (see my [Article Series — Leader-Manager](https://robert.winter.ink/leader-managers/) to set the record straight), it does provide seven principles that the great business magnate sees as essential: 1. You don't choose your passions; your passions choose you. 2. Take pride in your choices, not your gifts. 3. Be right a lot. 4. Be stubborn on vision and flexible on details. 5. Failure and invention are inseparable twins. 6. Two pizza teams. 7. Memos, not PowerPoints. While six of the seven points are largely self-explanatory, though I recently wrote a piece on [Memos, not PowerPoints](https://robert.winter.ink/crisp-document-messy-meeting/), 'be right a lot' is one that deserves a little unpacking. Bezos acknowledges as much by giving a hat tip to the people who often follow up with 'is there some way I can practice being right a lot?' Yet despite acknowledging the need to delve into the principle, his answer is something of a non-answer: 'I do think that with practice you can be right more often.' Practice which entails people 'listen a lot', 'change their mind a lot', and 'seek to disconfirm their most profoundly held convictions'. For a range of reasons I find this an unsatisfactory response, most notably because, as my old history master would opine, "practice does not make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect." If our understanding of the question is imperfect, or if we have the wrong question from the outset, our practice will be **far from perfect**. To be fair, Bezos is on the spot and giving somewhat off the cuff remarks. To expand on his remarks, and fill in some of the blanks for how people can be 'right a lot', there is no shortage of self-help guidance. One particular attempt by [Garrett Scott](https://twitter.com/thegarrettscott/status/1771645169151901952?s=43&t=SctTGgwu6tpH7C8CnYB2aw&ref=robert.winter.ink) caught my eye, not so much for his thinking on the topic but because of one of the replies to his thread: > I've felt that the "are right a lot" thing is better said as "end up right a lot." Too many people misinterpret the outcome (being right) for the input (always having the "right" idea). Great leaders shed their ideas as quickly as they are demonstrated to be wrong. > > [Paul Gaffney](https://twitter.com/pgaffney/status/1771682333881422104?ref=robert.winter.ink) It struck me because it is the essence of why there is so much bad leadership and poor management — not to mention fleeting convictions — and why so many people are **wrong a lot** but still successful. ## Input versus Output There is no doubt that *leaders* in the present age, here I use the term to cover a myriad of approaches and sins, change their mind a lot. This is for a variety of reasons, few of which have anything to do with being *right*. Two key elements driving u-turns are the 24/7 media environment which demands instant answers, and that leadership has largely **ceased being for something** and is instead about **not loosing support**. Yet to step back from the political and look at the world of sport, 'being right' takes on a different and altogether more rational meaning. For anyone who has enjoyed a game of pool at the local pub, there are two methods of play. The amateur — whack the cue ball at another ball and hopefully something goes into a pocket. The professional — name the ball and pocket, then put one into the other. In the former case, blind luck can see a person win and 'be right' — in the outcome sense of the concept. In the latter case, a person may lose the game, but their exercise of skill means that in subsequent rematches they will only be beaten by a better player. Adapting this analogy to leadership and management and the outcome-based approach to being right becomes tremendously problematic. Not least because it fails to consider a slew of reasons why a person may achieve a beneficial outcome despite being measurably wrong on every conceivable input. Which means, as in the pool analogy, their success is not controlled and therefore unlikely to be repeatable over the long term. The ends of an outcome based approach to being *right* is that we end up following *successful* people rather than people who are *right*. Something which explains why morally bad, and arguably criminally negligent, behaviour in politicians and business leaders is consistently rewarded at the ballot box and in the board room. At least until their *success* comes to an abrupt halt. Causes for the failure to detect what is *wrong* are generally the result of category errors. In the context of being *right*, the error is seeing the concept of *right* as part of the category of 'outcomes', measured against the benefit to an individual or group, rather than 'inputs', measured against the quality of choices. 🗒️ The original example of a category error, or category-mistake, was given by Gilbert Ryle in his book The Concept of Mind (1949), in which a visitor to Oxford University is said to have asked, upon viewing the colleges and library: "But where is the university?" The error by the visitor was to assume that a university is part of the category 'units of physical infrastructure' rather than 'institutions'.The original example of a category error, or category-mistake, was given by Gilbert Ryle in his book The Concept of Mind (1949), in which a visitor to Oxford University is said to have asked, upon viewing the colleges and library: "But where is the university?" The error by the visitor was to assume that a university is part of the category 'units of physical infrastructure' rather than 'institutions'. Once conceptualised in this way, whether we judge *right* as an input or outcome means a world of difference to the quality of the team, organisation, society, or world. This is manifest in a person being *wrong* in their [positioning for the future](https://robert.winter.ink/why-positioning-eats-predicting-for-breakfast/), *wrong* in their analysis of the data, *wrong* measured by the horrendous consequences for key stakeholders. But, because they are judged on an outcomes approach, perhaps better called 'vested interests', are seen as *right* because they win the contract, grow the business, or achieve the promotion. This outcomes based approach that has seen many successful organisations, whose leadership was judged to be *right* based on financially successful outcomes, hauled before Royal Commissions. Events which are often defended as being 'only obvious with hindsight', but in truth could have been seen at the time had those with authority not made category errors in judging what constitutes 'being right a lot'. Aside from prosecution by a Royal Commission, the danger in aligning oneself with an outcomes approach, or having it as the foundation for organisational leadership, is that I am yet to witness an entity so capable or lucky as to enjoy success in perpetuity. All people and organisations face adversity, and without a more secure foundation than outcomes to measure success, bad choices will be made that permit incompetence in roles, usher in toxic work environments, and create engines of chaos. Conversely, *right* courses of action are discarded because they do not yield the anticipated success. ⚠️ This is not to say people should stubbornly cling to a path just because they think they are right — Bezos is insightful about the need to change your mind when evidence proves you are wrong. But it does mean there are times when your course of action is right and it is a case of time, chance, and persistance for you to succeed.This is not to say people should stubbornly cling to a path just because they think they are right — Bezos is insightful about the need to change your mind when evidence proves you are wrong. But it does mean there are times when your course of action is right and it is a case of time, chance, and persistance for you to succeed. Yet by judging *right* on inputs, we unlock the power of two other Bezos leadership principles — being stubborn on vision and being comfortable with failure. For anyone who has sat a statistics, finance, or other formula-based exam, a tip is to always provide the formula and your workings, not just the answer. The reason for this is that if you make a mistake and enter the wrong data, the examiner can at least see that you understood the question, used the right solution to solve for the problem, but perhaps used 0.5 instead of 0.05 to arrive at your answer. In this context, the **outcome was wrong** but the **solution was right** — making long term success about reattempting. Put in an organisational context, we have the right strategy and plans, even if we have not yet got the expected outcomes. Therefore, we need to continue to invest in the program. This process creates a virtuous circle and means it is rational to be 'stubborn' with our vision, because we know we are *right*. A process which I would argue is more perseverance than stubbornness. In such circumstances — judging our rightness on inputs rather than outcomes — we can make rational choices about the future. Secure in the knowledge that we have [positioned rather than predicted our future](https://robert.winter.ink/why-positioning-eats-predicting-for-breakfast/), that our future is based on skill and not luck, and that we are people worthy to be followed. And that is the essence of great leadership. Good night, and good luck. --- ## Video ### The Scribbler: Epochs Within Epochs URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-scribbler-epochs-within-epochs/ Last updated: 2025-12-21T10:21:33.000Z Good morning, and welcome to this edition of The Scribbler. Given it is Easter, I thought I would take a moment to revisit my first intellectual love, history, and examine the notion of epochs. But first, a bit of trivia. **Trivia question:** On this day the Labour party wins the [1966 United Kingdom general election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966%5FUnited%5FKingdom%5Fgeneral%5Felection?ref=robert.winter.ink). Who was the party's leader? *Answer at the bottom of this scribbling*. ### This Edition's Scribbling I am old enough to remember the teaching of history in [epochs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch?ref=robert.winter.ink). Though much frowned on these days, as the fine disciplines of history, philosophy, and art, are jammed into the abomination that is 'social studies'—or worse social science—but epochs are effective in conveying the notion that periods in history can and do have themes and motifs. Examples of this are echoed in the notions of Ancient Greece and Rome, the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, the Age of Reason, the Age of Revolution, the Age of Capital, the Age of Empire, the Age of Extremes. These latter 'ages' were the titles used for [Eric Hobsbawm's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric%5FHobsbawm?ref=robert.winter.ink) magisterial tetralogy on the [long nineteenth century](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long%5Fnineteenth%5Fcentury?ref=robert.winter.ink). This may come as a deep shock to the 'woke' types you find on campus these days who think *they* have discovered that labels are often inaccurate, but even when the 'ages' approach was fashionable, anyone of even mean literacy was aware these terms are flawed. The [Dark Ages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark%5FAges%5F%28historiography%29?ref=robert.winter.ink), the preferred term now is Early Middle Ages, were in fact a period of burgeoning intellectual, artistic, and cultural life as nascent European nations sought to fill the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Age of Reason was frequently anything but reasonable. The Age of Democracy saw totalitarian regimes of the left and right abound. While these flaws are readily pointed out on social media as pedants, invariably of a [revisionist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical%5Frevisionism?ref=robert.winter.ink) or [negationist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical%5Fnegationism?ref=robert.winter.ink) ilk, trip over themselves to criticise all who use such terms, there are many benefits to taking a sweeping approach to the teaching and understanding of history. This is because while it is seldom, if ever, the case that the lights are turned out on one age as another dawns, the way in which the New Year begins with the stroke of midnight, there are social events which ripple through time and broadly define a period. This approach often bears the ripest fruit when engaged with in the context of '[doom scrolling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomscrolling?ref=robert.winter.ink)' on social media. History, when viewed at a distance, feels certain. Unless you are in academic circles or part of a dedicated historical society, one can readily make and seldom be rebuked for an historical view when in conversation. Migrate that view to social media, particularly if it is a hot topic, and flame wars will quickly ensue. Take the less 'confrontational' approach and instead of expressing a view simply sit back and scroll, and the timeline is the intellectual equivalent of a dumpster fire. An autocrat in the Kremlin bent on the resurrection of [Greater Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%5Firredentism?ref=robert.winter.ink). In China, an emperor clothed in the wonders of the digital age is attempting through the enforcement of tight social controls to stave off the [chaos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundun?ref=robert.winter.ink) which always threatens life. While in the US partisan politics plumbs new depths as a septuagenarian brawls with an octogenarian over America's future. And this isn't even scratching the surface. At Easter, a time in which Christians celebrate resurrection and life eternal, it is worth musing on an alternative reading of history which may not be to everyone's taste, but which offers a tantalising alternative to a more temporal reading of world events. The alternative reading in the Christian faith is often referred to as [salvation history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation%5Fhistory?ref=robert.winter.ink). The purpose of which is to try and effect eternal salvation offered by understanding the personal or everyday redemptive activity which goes on **within** human history. In Salvation History we see the notion of 'Ages' or periods, as we did with the temporal Ages of Reason and Age of Revolution, but these spiritual epochs are expressed in the notions of: - [Creation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis%5Fcreation%5Fnarrative?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Fall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall%5Fof%5Fman?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Covenant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant%5F%28biblical%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Prophecy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible%5Fprophecy?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Incarnation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation%5F%28Christianity%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Salvation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation%5Fin%5FChristianity?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Sanctification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctification?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Kingdom of God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingship%5Fand%5Fkingdom%5Fof%5FGod?ref=robert.winter.ink) Vexingly, Salvation History—although somewhat linear—does not overlay alongside world history. Rather, it is a reading of the historical record that happens **inside** the events and timelines of the world. A religious or, as we shall come to in a moment, a moral narrative for the inner workings of the events which represent an additional dimension in which humanity is engaged. If we can but see it. Though it varies between traditions—[Anglican](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Lutheran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Methodist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Moravian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian%5FChurch?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Reformed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed%5Ftradition?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Roman Catholic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman%5FCatholic?ref=robert.winter.ink) — the [Easter Triduum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal%5FTriduum?ref=robert.winter.ink) or 'Three Days' (Latin: *Triduum Paschale*) takes believers from [Maundy Thursday](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maundy%5FThursday?ref=robert.winter.ink), through [Good Friday](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good%5FFriday?ref=robert.winter.ink), and culminates in the proclamation of the [Lord's Resurrection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection%5Fof%5FJesus?ref=robert.winter.ink). A procession of events which illuminates what Christian's believe is the definitive revelation of history. In this way, Easter is more than a celebration, it is a proclamation that what is recorded in the pages of history is but a part of what is really there. Within each page of our story, there is a sub-text or inner working — an [esoteric](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western%5Fesotericism?ref=robert.winter.ink) meaning—of what God had intended for His creation since the beginning of time. Often referred to as the [Logos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos%5F%28Christianity%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) or Word, it represents that through which all things came into being. A Word which became flesh, preached, suffered, and was [resurrected](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection%5Fof%5FJesus?ref=robert.winter.ink) to grant life everlasting. For Christians, Easter represents an addition to the scientific or purely historical understanding of time. One in which there is more than the inevitability of our sun becoming a [red giant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red%5Fgiant?ref=robert.winter.ink) in the future, and instead reveals a [Lamb of God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb%5Fof%5FGod?ref=robert.winter.ink) who takes away the sins of the world. One does not need to be Christian to share in this message because it is a message of hope for humanity. Something more than eternal nothingness and in which our choices can reveal or obscure, can create or destroy, can save or condemn, can sanctify or defile. In short, can offer hope for a better tomorrow or lead to a nihilistic dystopia. While our own short lives may lack the eternality of the [Holy Spirit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy%5FSpirit?ref=robert.winter.ink)—a concept shared by many faiths—we can transcend events by our choices. Choices which, religious or not, have deep and long lasting moral implications. My choices aim for renewal, growth, and hopefully salvation. What are yours? ## Article Selection: History ## As 'An' Historian Modernists may disagree, but if challenged by these dangerous revolutionaries, refer them to the below and the glorious roots of our language. [As ‘An’ HistorianModernists may disagree, but if challenged by these dangerous revolutionaries, refer them to the below and the glorious roots of our language.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-24.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/e1e65-history-dielman-highsmith-1.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/as-an-historian/) ## Autodeleting the Public Record Rage if you will and burn screen time if you like — I simply accept if I want my thoughts to be personal and private then I ought not post them online. [Autodeleting the Public RecordRage if you will and burn screen time if you like — I simply accept if I want my thoughts to be personal and private then I ought not post them online.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-25.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/387dd-harald-arlander-wz6gitnjqaq-unsplash-1.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/autodeleting-the-public-record/) ## Twas Gunpowder Treason Day As late as 2015 in Great Britain, Royals who married Catholics were removed from the line of succession, and Prime Ministers avoided disclosing their Catholicism in office. [Twas Gunpowder Treason DayAs late as 2015 in Great Britain, Royals who married Catholics were removed from the line of succession, and Prime Ministers avoided disclosing their Catholicism in office.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-26.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/455fe-gunpowder_plot_conspirators.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/twas-gunpowder-treason-day/) ## Art and About ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/12/1602-3_Caravaggio-Supper_at_Emmaus_National_Gallery-_London.jpg) *The Supper at Emmaus* is a painting by the Italian [Baroque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque?ref=robert.winter.ink) master [Caravaggio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravaggio?ref=robert.winter.ink), executed in 1601, and now in London. It depicts the Gospel story of the [resurrected Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection%5Fof%5FJesus?ref=robert.winter.ink)'s [appearance in Emmaus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supper%5Fat%5FEmmaus?ref=robert.winter.ink). In the Gospel of Mark (16:12) Jesus is said to have appeared to them "in another form", which may be why he is depicted beardles. The basket of fruit in the foreground has two stray strands of wicker that form an [ichthys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys?ref=robert.winter.ink), the early Christian fish-symbol for Christ. The shadow of the fruit on the tablecloth forms the body of a fish and fishtail. *The Supper at Emmaus* by [Caravaggio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravaggio?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). ## Trivia Answer **Trivia question:** On this day the Labour party wins the [1966 United Kingdom general election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966%5FUnited%5FKingdom%5Fgeneral%5Felection?ref=robert.winter.ink). Who was the party's leader? **Answer:** [Harold Wilson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold%5FWilson?ref=robert.winter.ink). **Additional Trivia:** This was the last British general election in which the voting age was 21; Wilson's government passed an amendment to the [Representation of the People Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation%5Fof%5Fthe%5FPeople%5FAct%5F1969?ref=robert.winter.ink) in 1969 to include eligibility to vote at age 18, which was in place for the [next general election in 1970](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970%5FUnited%5FKingdom%5Fgeneral%5Felection?ref=robert.winter.ink). ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/12/Lyndon_B._Johnson_meets_with_Prime_Minister_Harold_Wilson_C2537-5_-cropped-.jpg) Lyndon B. Johnson meets Harold WilsonLyndon B. Johnson meets Harold Wilson Harold Wilson (left) with US President [Lyndon B. Johnson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon%5FB.%5FJohnson?ref=robert.winter.ink) at the [White House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%5FHouse?ref=robert.winter.ink) in 1966 by [Yoichi Okamoto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Yoichi%5FOkamoto?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Why Positioning Eats Predicting For Breakfast URL: https://robert.winter.ink/why-positioning-eats-predicting-for-breakfast/ Last updated: 2026-01-17T11:10:56.000Z In life as in strategic planning, we walk a fine line between making a balance of probability call about what is likely to happen and acting as though we can predict the future. This is a subject upon which I touched on in [Calling Time on a Sunk Cost](https://robert.winter.ink/calling-time-on-sunk-costs/), where I observed: > The critical error that line managers and boards make in assessing their strategic options regarding sunk costs is in thinking that the need to cut a failing project is only **obvious** in hindsight. As a result, there tends to be resistance to the so-called 'nay sayers' and 'pessimists' who counselled likely failure from the outset … > > Yet reframe the thinking of 'negative people' as pragmatism, and the optimism of the 'can do people' starts to look increasingly like one of the five psychological factors that drive the sunk cost fallacy — loss aversion, framing effect, unrealistic optimism, ego, and fear of waste. Once this pragmatic and sound reframing has occurred, the other side of the hill comes sharply into view because teams skip the [Kool-Aid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking%5Fthe%5FKool-Aid?ref=robert.winter.ink) and instead drink a bracing dose of reality. Unromantic and for certain psychological types devoid of optimism, but when embraced it is an essential mindset for strategic thinking. I revisit this because the role of leaders is to make a judgement about a future state, such as next fiscal's revenue, and then allocate resources in pursuit of a goal or outcome for the organisation. To put a framework around this process, they [Observe, Orientate, Decide and Act](https://robert.winter.ink/observe-orientate-decide-and-act/). When done well, the result is a compelling vision of the organisation. But how can we judge if the vision is likely to manifest or just a scintillating sales pitch? The answer lies in whether the leader has *positioned* for success or *predicted* the future state with the expectation that the details will follow. ## Positioning for Tomorrow If you have been dragged along to a strategy day, chances are some enterprising individual pitched the inevitable "let's break into groups and discuss 'what **is** going to change in the next 10 years?'" While the goal of this thought experiment is a noble one, the challenge for leadership teams who try to bounce forward from these sessions and make strategic plans for their organisation is that the predictions are almost always wrong. Though, there are no shortage of *prophets* who through retroactive clairvoyance, technically termed [postdiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction?ref=robert.winter.ink), like to assert that their skill or experience showed them the future. 💡 Experience in this context should not be confused with the way 'experience' is generally used in organisations. An example of this is when a job description calls for someone with '5-years' experience in a similar role'. In this context, experience is being used as a proxy for time spent dealing with a specific task. However, experience in the context of overriding bias and developing strategy is better understood as [phenomenology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology%5F%28philosophy%29?ref=robert.winter.ink). That is, the central structure of experience is its intentionality — the act of being directed toward something. Intentionality coming from the Latin intendere, which brings with it notions of understanding or stretching oneself to care to accomplish a purpose. Because organisational prophets are frequently wrong, making plans based on their predictions are fraught with difficulties. Not least because to extract the expected benefits predicted a lot of things need to fall into place for the vision of the future to become a present reality. Namely, the variables which will make or break the future not only need to be correctly speculated, but they all need to go the way predicted. If they do not, the prophesied future will not manifest — instead it will be a variation for which the organisation may not be prepared. An example of this is the endless predictions in the financial press of a market crash and / or a recession. I have been reading about these ever since August 2020 with pundits predicting when the 'Covid Bubble' was set to burst. True, markets and property prices have seen a dip since the highs of November 2020, and many people are struggling with the cost of living, but the great recession and market crash has not eventuated. This left people who held off buying or tried to cash in during the 2022 / 2023 dip, in anticipation of a lasting downturn, are presently trying to buy in to a steadily climbing market. Given a recession and market crash is likely to come at some point in the future, those in the prediction game will insist they were right — it was just a case of being right too soon. But to do this is to miss the underlying point, that instead of burning a vast amount of effort trying to answer what [Donald Rumsfeld](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald%5FRumsfeld?ref=robert.winter.ink) termed [unknown unknowns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%5Fare%5Funknown%5Funknowns?ref=robert.winter.ink) and predict what tomorrow brings, it is better to prepare for a future based on known knowns and known unknowns. This approach leaves those attending strategy days with a more interesting question to ask: 'what is **not** going to change in the next ten years?' The key reason for this reframing stems from [the inseparability of risk and strategy](https://robert.winter.ink/governance-managing-risk-and-creating-legitimacy/) which teaches us that if we adopt a strategy that inherently carries a lot of risk, but we have a low appetite for risk in the organisation, it means there is a fundamental misalignment. Something which can see an organisation with aggressive growth targets cutting resources in the very teams that are expected to lead growth initiatives. Yet match risk appetite with strategic objectives and heavy investment in a clearly positioned future, and it becomes a sound decision. As Jeff Bezos observed: > When you have something you know is true, even over the long term you can afford to put a lot of energy into it. This approach has not only served Bezos well but speaks to the benefit of preferring the mundane over the sexy. That is, the mundane reality of what tomorrow will **likely** bring versus the sexy speculation of what tomorrow **could** bring. This is something that comes naturally to people who are analytical thinkers and strong on pattern recognition but is a foreign land for those who like to intuitively *leap* to their destination. The benefit a pattern recognition approach brings is that it moves away from trying to predict tomorrow, essentially guessing the unknown unknowns, and instead emphasises the importance of building on history or the known knowns / known unknowns. This is why my first degree was in history because I knew it would enable me to think strategically [as 'an' historian](https://robert.winter.ink/as-an-historian/). This approach brings the combined benefit of being lower in risk, something which is generally greeted heartily by the board, and being a stronger strategic position as it is nearly impossible to predict one specific future, but we can confidently position for multiple probable futures. Practical examples of this are: - I do not know *when* a recession will hit, but I do know that at some point there will be a severe downturn in the economy. Therefore, my best strategy is to position myself for the inevitable rather than living pay cheque to pay cheque and trying to guess when I will need some savings. - I do not know *what* my next role will be, but I know I will not have my current job until the end of my career. Therefore, I can position myself for the inevitable by acquiring new skills and additional knowledge for when the next opportunity comes. While [Peter Drucker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5FDrucker?ref=robert.winter.ink) never said 'culture eats strategy for breakfast', he did observe that 'culture, no matter how defined, is singularly persistent'. In this sense, positioning, no matter how defined, is singularly persistent — prediction is highly irresolute. But that would not make for such a catchy article title, therefore: positioning eats prediction for breakfast. Good night, and good luck. ### Observe, Orientate, Decide and Act URL: https://robert.winter.ink/observe-orientate-decide-and-act/ Last updated: 2026-01-17T11:18:27.000Z During the 1970s, renowned fighter pilot and military strategist [John Boyd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FBoyd%5F%28military%5Fstrategist%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) came to the conclusion that the [attrition-firepower model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's%5Flaws?ref=robert.winter.ink) of conflict was flawed. In short, the power relationship between two opposing forces had largely ceased to matter. In its place he proposed that what was of more importance was the way or speed with which an entity, be that an individual or group, reacted to a situation. This process or decision-making cycle he named the OODA Loop, which stands for **O**bserve, **O**rient, **D**ecide, **A**ct, and is conceptualised as a *loop* to reinforce the continuous nature of the decision-making process. Expanding a little on each phase of the cycle and we have: - **Observe:** The gathering or awareness raising element. It is important to note that the key to OODA is agility, therefore individuals or groups who spend too long observing — to derive a metaphor from Boyd's fighter pilot days — are likely to be shot down. - **Orientate:** Ensuring that all observations are placed in a *true* context — while being aware context can shaft as more observations become available. - **Decide:** Formulating the optimal course of action based on the observations at hand. This is often the most difficult part of the loop for groups or organisations due to a 'committee mindset'. That is when decisions take a disproportionately long period of time because people keep going around the room in the misguided belief that another pass will *surface* a decision. - **Act:** The execution phase, for which it is critical that someone with the authority to empower action has been part of the loop. If a group or an individual decides without the authority to act, the process breaks down as everyone goes into another round of orientating and decision making with the authority empowered to determine action. 💡 One of the well trodden misuses of the English language to is to use 'orient' when orientate is meant. Orient means 'east', but when talking about where we are positioned regarding our understanding, we mean and should use orientate. And before anyone writes in with a screen shot from certain dictionaries by way of dissent, this is one of the many instances where what is written in some books is wrong.One of the well trodden misuses of the English language to is to use 'orient' when orientate is meant. Orient means 'east', but when talking about where we are positioned regarding our understanding, we mean and should use orientate. And before anyone writes in with a screen shot from certain dictionaries by way of dissent, this is one of the many instances where what is written in some books is wrong. While the OODA Loop can be conceptualised as a circular and continuous process, in application it is a little more complex than it at first seems. This became apparent when, in 1996, John Boyd produced the only known pictorial representation of his loop. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2026/01/OODA-Boyd.svg) By [Patrick Edwin Moran](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OODA.Boyd.svg?ref=robert.winter.ink) \- Own work, CC BY 3.0. The unfolding complexity of this version of the OODA Loop provides insights into some things which at face value seem 'simple'. The observe element is a microcosm of this given the range of inputs, and perhaps more importantly the way in which observation of the same phenomenon changes as orientation and decisions feedback to alter our perspective and thus observations. At this point, things can get incredibly complex and require we deal with concepts such as intersubjectivity and temporality, the way in which these allow a deeper understanding of how to engage with the complexities of perpetually unfolding events, and how those events inextricably shape our understanding of the past and choices in the future. Simply put, the decisions you make today shape your understanding of the past, which in turn affects your future choices. For those happy to take a bit of a deep dive into this philosophical rabbit hole, see my article [*I and Me*](https://robert.winter.ink/i-and-me/). For these reasons, orientate becomes something of a pivot or central element of the OODA loop. This is because context or perspective is an overwhelming driver of observation. It is why when looking at **highly** emotional issues such as the Palestinian / Israeli conflict or the war in the Ukraine at the macro level, or the way in which an employee defends their work if they feel their job and ability to pay their rent is on the line, two people can look at an identical set of facts and draw radically different conclusions. That an OODA Loop brings us to such existential ends is of no surprise given Boyd considered it to be something of a universal truth regarding survival and success. In an organisational context this is made manifest by the ways in which individuals and teams compete internally for resources, try to justify their existence during a restructure, or simply seek to enhance their standing (read achieve promotion) — often at the expense of a colleague or overall organisational success. For decision makers, and particularly for boards who are trying to prioritise overall organisational success and health over individual or factional preference, this presents an opportunity. In that given the way in which all people complete — even those who despise competition will consistently justify their approach to work — the OODA Loop model helps leaders to think faster and make effective decisions more reliably. Something that enabled John Boyd to earn his nick name '"Forty Second Boyd" for his standing bet as an instructor pilot that beginning from a position of disadvantage, he could defeat any opposing pilot in air combat maneuvering in less than 40 seconds.' Good night, and good luck. ### Governance: Managing Risk and Creating Legitimacy URL: https://robert.winter.ink/governance-managing-risk-and-creating-legitimacy/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T06:13:02.000Z This is the third article in the current series on governance. If you have not had a chance to read the prior articles, [Governance: The Foundation for Strategy and Planning](https://robert.winter.ink/governance-the-foundation-for-strategy-and-planning/) and [Governance: Achieving a Healthy Organisational Culture](https://robert.winter.ink/governance-achieving-a-healthy-organisational-culture/), they help to set the scene for this final piece. The difficulty faced by many organisations is the attempt, or in some cases assumption, that work happens in discrete silos. Silos which are orchestrated from the top by a cadre of senior leaders. This view is understandable, given that if you want to be highly paid, it generally involves sitting at the top of a hierarchy and controlling the resources under you. To [lead at scale](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-at-scale/), hierarchies are essential — as I argued in [Are Hierarchies Healthy for Organisations?](https://robert.winter.ink/are-hierarchies-healthy-for-organisations/) When it comes to the effects of hierarchy on organisational performance, it is all about knowledge sharing. That is, you can have an effective high performing team with deep hierarchies, so long as there is an open model to knowledge access. But when knowledge hiding goes on — think when managers take things offline and "that's above your pay grade" comments abound — hierarchies tend to erode team performance and organisational culture. However, while hierarchies can be highly powerful structures in the attainment of operational and strategic success, they can also prove insidious. This happens when leaders do not use reasoned deliberation and encourage the vitality that comes from an open model of knowledge access ([MBO](https://robert.winter.ink/five-stages-of-autonomy/)), and instead institute a system of management by tight control over who gets to deal with what. When this happens, leadership ceases to be authoritative and becomes authoritarian — a process which successive Royal Commissions have shown inevitably leads to malfeasance and malpractice. In less extreme circumstances, the bonds of organisational culture are weakened and the tremendous benefits that accrue from [discretionary boundary spanning](https://robert.winter.ink/the-boundaries-of-informal-leadership/) are lost. In short, there is a complete breakdown of governance. The good news for [leader-managers](https://robert.winter.ink/leader-managers/) is that when a sustainable and sensitive approach is taken to an organisation's knowledge model, risk can be more effectively managed and legitimacy created. ## The Inseparability of Risk and Strategy In his book, *Directors at Work: A Practical Guide for Boards*, Geoffrey Kiel outlined five dimensions of risk: 1. An economic concept — greater risk should equal greater return. 2. A personality characteristic — willingness to take risks. 3. A management system — follow a specific standard as implemented by the Board. 4. Products and services — such as insurance, derivatives, outsourcing. 5. A governance role — a responsibility of an officer or manager. The importance of seeing risk in these broad dimensions is that it demystifies it from being a highly specialist field only undertaken by a small number of people in an organisation, and instead correctly situates risk as concerning employees at junior and senior levels in the organisational hierarchy. An example of this is a Board / CEO setting an aggressive risk appetite for the organisation in the pursuit of growth, but where the traits of key personnel are predominantly risk averse. In such a scenario the overarching strategy is likely to flag and fail. Another example is to set aggressive growth targets, employ people who are risk takers, but then bind them with risk management systems which severely restrict the ability of staff to take risks. Unless risk and strategy are seen as inseparable, *and* appropriate frameworks, management structures, and culture are in place, an organisation will find itself trying to cook a hot meal in a cold pan. This is because when all the jargon of risk management is stripped away, what we have is a structured way of thinking about opportunities and challenges. To better understand how and why stakeholders at all levels of an organisation need to be awake and aware of risk and strategy, we first need to look at the three broad categories into which risks can be assigned: 1. **Strategic risks:** things which impact strategic objectives and affect a significant part of the organisation, department, or program. Examples of strategic risk include changing customer / competitor behaviour, socio-economic changes (e.g., cost of living crisis, COVID), disruptive technology. 2. **Financial risks:** things which impact an organisation's financial position and growth potential. Examples of this are major budget overruns, unproductive teams, or troubled programs. 3. **Operational risks (including legal risks):** things which impact BAU activities, [specifically defined as](https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs195.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink) 'the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems, or from external events'. Examples include loss of key staff, equipment failure or industrial action, data loss via cybersecurity failures, WHS issues, incorrect rates applied to the payroll system, and legal compliance. In a perfect storm, failure to view risk and strategy as two halves of a corporate whole and manage them at all levels from the CEO down, can see an organisation with aggressive growth targets cutting resources in the very teams that are expected to lead growth initiatives. Interestingly, the cause for this **systemic failure is usually cultural not procedural**. While one inexorably leads to the other, I stress this point because when faced with strategic threats, senior leaders usually double down on procedures at the expense of culture. When this happens, an organisation gets deeper into the mire. Culture is central to the quality of contemporary governance. It is inextricably linked to the questions of right and wrong and re-frames compliance-oriented "can we?" questions into ethically-weighted "should we?" questions. — Governing Organisational Culture. This was the finding of the [Prudential Inquiry](https://www.aicd.com.au/content/dam/aicd/pdf/tools-resources/director-tools/organisation/governing-organisational-culture-director-tool.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink) into the Commonwealth Bank [(CBA.AX)](https://www.reuters.com/markets/companies/CBA.AX?ref=robert.winter.ink) which revealed that cultural factors were the underlying cause of its shortcomings. Specifically: - A pervasive sense of complacency from the top down. - A reactive culture—rather than proactive and pre-emptive—in dealing with risks. - An insular culture that did not reflect on and learn from experiences and mistakes (its own and others'), including at board and senior leadership levels. - A collegial and collaborative working environment which impeded accountability and the individual ownership of risk issues. Trust was not continually validated through strong metrics, healthy challenge, and oversight. In other words, the organisation's culture becomes what is termed 'operationally closed'. This means all operations, such as communication and decisions, act to recreate the system (organisation / division / department / team). Self-sustaining — yes. Capable of growth and transformation — no. Yet, when underlying cultural challenges are addressed, specifically around an environment of cliques and a closed knowledge access model, organisations stand a much better chance of managing risks and meeting long term strategic goals. ## The Governor-Manager In more conventional models, the prevailing thinking is that managers run an organisation and board members oversee or *govern* the enterprise by ensuring it is run well and moving toward strategic goals. The difficulty with conventional wisdom is that there is overlap with *some* managers (e.g., the CEO) who already take an active and central role in both management and governance. Given the inseparability of risk and strategy, the way in which risk needs to be managed at all levels of an organisation, and how culture underpins an organisation, excluding people outside the C-Suite from playing an active role in governance is fraught with problems. Because of this, a revision of the conventional model is needed. Enter stage right the governor-manager. In many respects this is probably already happening inside the organisation for which you work and can be surfaced with a series of questions. Are you or your manager: - Responsible for upholding corporate culture? - Responsible for tracking and reporting on risk? - Accountable for progress toward strategic goals? If you answered 'yes' to these questions, then you are a governor-manager and need to ensure that governance is in your BAU playbook. Not put in a locked box, in a tall tower, in a remote castle, in a land far away. If you are a line-manager and answered no, now is the time to take a long hard look at your role because the likelihood is that all of those responsibilities and accountabilities *are* on your plate — if not in your job description. Naturally, depending on your seniority within an organisation, the level of [responsibility, ownership, and accountability](https://robert.winter.ink/responsibility-ownership-accountability/) you have for governance will vary. | Domain | Seniority | Responsibility | | -------- | --------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | Culture | Senior | Setting tone from the top. | | | Junior | Ensuring staff are conforming to the established tone. | | Risk | Senior | Setting the risk appetite. | | | Junior | Ensuring risks are managed according to the appetite set. | | Strategy | Senior | Setting the strategic direction. | | | Junior | Ensuring goals are met and contribute to the strategic direction. | In a deeply hierarchical organisation, the division between 'senior' and 'junior' is not always clear cut. Therefore, a task should be tackled at the level where it can be done most effectively. However, this can raise challenges when someone of a very high calibre is hired who can do a task better than the nominated line manager. The challenge for these highly capable leaders is in knowing where to draw the line on involvement. So, how is all this done in practice? In addition to the tools I outlined in [Anchoring Teams Through Transformation](https://robert.winter.ink/anchoring-teams-through-transformation/), there are two additional frameworks which can help governor-managers. 1. **Develop and Embed a ‘5 Skills Framework’:** the five skills are self-reflection, giving and receiving feedback, constructively challenging and being challenged, trust, and the ‘should we’ question. 2. **Establish Key Risk Indicators (KRIs):** [Bernard Marr explains](https://bernardmarr.com/how-do-you-develop-key-risk-indicators-kris-and-how-do-they-differ-from-kpis/?ref=robert.winter.ink) the difference between key performance indicators (KPIs) and key risk indicators (KRIs) as follows: - KPIs answer the question, “How are we doing against our goals?” - While KRIs answer the question, “What is the likelihood that we might not achieve our goals?” or, to put it another way, “What might prevent us from achieving our goals?” Given the perennial tendency in all organisations for people to 'jump on' problems and demonstrate 'they've got this', a key challenge emerges in the way governance can help to manage risk and create legitimacy. This includes, resisting the pressure to keep the focus on the short-term and instead drive value by letting plans and employees deliver on their accountabilities. Something which brings us full circle to the difficulty faced by many organisations — the attempt, or in some cases assumption, that work happens in discrete silos. Silos which are orchestrated from the top by a cadre of senior leaders. Ultimately, for governance to be effective it needs a suite of capabilities embodied to a greater or lesser extent by all managers and informal leaders within an organisation: - Getting culture right; - A comprehensive understanding of [strategic risks](https://robert.winter.ink/fy24-strategic-outlook/); - Hiring and developing [leader-managers](https://robert.winter.ink/leader-managers/); - An understanding of when [hierarchies are providing value](https://robert.winter.ink/are-hierarchies-healthy-for-organisations/) and when they are the cause of problems; - Unlocking the power of [discretionary boundary spanning](https://robert.winter.ink/the-boundaries-of-informal-leadership/). Given the high bar this sets for an organisation, it underscores why it is [a challenging time for talent management](https://robert.winter.ink/a-challenging-time-for-talent-management/). Therefore, keep your talent close and your great talent closer. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, 2011, *Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk*, Bank for International Settlements, June, www.bis.org/publ/bcbs195.htm. Kiel, G. C. (2012). *Directors at work: A practical guide for boards*, Pyrmont, N.S.W.: Thomson Reuters. ### Governance: Achieving a Healthy Organisational Culture URL: https://robert.winter.ink/governance-achieving-a-healthy-organisational-culture/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T06:12:19.000Z In last week's article, [*Governance: The Foundation for Strategy and Planning*](https://robert.winter.ink/governance-the-foundation-for-strategy-and-planning/), I made the case for governance entailing the distribution of responsibilities and rights among various stakeholders and for it to define the procedures and rules for making decisions on organisational affairs. I also cautioned that when governance is marginalised in an organisation, usually by confining it to the responsibility of only a small cadre of officers, authority will often be exercised in an unchecked manner;. those in control are unlikely to be held to account; and the management of resources will remain arbitrary and subjective. However, simply pulling on the governance lever is no guarantee of improving processes — much less enhancing performance. This is because it moves an organisation from asking *what* is governance to asking *how* does an organisation implement a broader definition of corporate governance? A question that, by way of answer, requires a plan for the distribution of responsibilities and rights among various stakeholders, and the definition of procedures and rules for making decisions on organisational affairs. To formulate such a plan, it is first necessary to understand the organisation as a social system and how cultural norms develop. ## The Organisation as a Social System Answering the *how* of corporate governance requires we **stop** seeing an organisation as an *entity* separate from stakeholders and **start** seeing an organisation as a *complex social system* comprised of stakeholders. Each team, department, or division develops its own culture — usually organically and often established from the bottom up. This contrasts, and at times conflicts, with the broader 'organisational culture' — usually imposed from the top down by the CEO and Board. Team level sub-cultures, and the way in which they interact with the overarching organisational culture, defines how teams see and as a result respond to challenges and opportunities. Taking a leaf from [Niklas Luhmann's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas%5FLuhmann?ref=robert.winter.ink) book, literally titled *The Society of Society* \[*Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft*\], is to appreciate that for an organisation to emerge there need to be three systems in place: 1. **Educational:** to supply adequately skilled human resources. 2. **Economic:** to establish a system of paid labour. 3. **Legal:** to create and enforce binding contracts. The key element about each of these systems is that they are perpetual and self-recreating (a process technically called [*autopoiesis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis?ref=robert.winter.ink)). Which, again picking up on the work of Luhmann, requires a specific modus operandi — in an organisational context this *mode* is communication. Of course, as has often been observed, the great myth about communication is that it has taken place. Fewer places does this seem truer than in an organisation where the myriad emails, chat messages, company updates, staff briefings, and team meetings — let alone the inevitable water cooler conversations — create a lot of noise, but often little by way of communication. If an Executive Leadership Team or Board ignores the **process** of governance and simply focusses on the **documents** of governance — for example tightening rules, policies, and procedures — they risk disregarding the value of trust and minimise the importance of autonomous critical thinking. Both of which are vital as an organisation progresses through the [*Five Stages of Autonomy*](https://robert.winter.ink/five-stages-of-autonomy/). The outcome of such an organisational landscape driven by documentation over process is that there will be ever more 'red tape', but ever declining accountability and culture. Along with little to no chance the organisation will be successful in achieving its [efficiency aspirations](https://robert.winter.ink/be-bold-with-efficiency-aspirations/). However, once an organisation is correctly seen as the social system it is, the role of governance can be correctly situated — to act as the glue that binds teams to broader organisational goals and cultural values.. Once this happens, we have a conceptualisation and framework from which we can create an effective organisational culture. ## Governing for an Effective Organisational Culture The traditional understanding of governance and culture is that tone is set from the top by the Board and the CEO. This is certainly true, as it is the Board's role to ensure that appropriate standards and expectations are set, and that management is held to account. However, in organisations there is frequently a disconnect between what are often little more than aspirational standards and what behaviours are actually measured at a team level. This surfaces three essential dimensions for using governance to establish and maintain a corporate culture: - **Expected behaviours:** must be clearly defined and defended by regularly referencing what is acceptable. This needs to happen not just in company updates or HR training sessions, but in teams meetings and 1:1s. - **Tone from the top:** is not only driven by the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and Board through their decision making and discussions about culture, but by measuring tone at a team level. - **Zero tolerance:** standards of behaviour **must** be enforced. This happens by holding staff to account, particularly officers, and taking disciplinary action (e.g., formal warnings and performance improvement plans) when there are breaches of conduct. It is essential that standards are actively enforced at all levels of an organisation, not just actively discussed. When line managers engage in endless rounds of general alignment (i.e., faults of both sides) rather than formal performance management of specific teams or individuals, staff confidence in culture breaks down. If line managers are consistently allowed to avoid enforcing culture, the end result can be as severe as a [Royal Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal%5FCommission%5Finto%5FMisconduct%5Fin%5Fthe%5FBanking,%5FSuperannuation%5Fand%5FFinancial%5FServices%5FIndustry?ref=robert.winter.ink). The centrality of ensuring good governance of culture at all levels of the organisation cannot be overstated. Much like an orchestra, tone from the top cannot be something only the conductor does. It requires section leads ensure that individuals are in tune and have the capability to play their instrument. If leaders beneath the officers of a company cannot or do not engage in enforcement, and an environment of permissiveness becomes preponderant, it becomes exponentially harder to achieve wide adoption of agreed cultural norms. To counteract the frequent trend of permissiveness, [Commissioner Hayne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth%5FHayne?ref=robert.winter.ink) in the *Final Report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry* noted six 'norms' which are 'well‑established, widely accepted, and easily understood'. These form the basis for good governance of organisational culture: 1. obey the law; 2. do not mislead or deceive; 3. act fairly; 4. provide services that are fit for purpose; 5. deliver services with reasonable care and skill; and 6. when acting for another, act in the best interests of that other.Hayne, 2019. Unless the responsibility for governance of culture is extended beyond the Board and ELT to middle and lower management who can collectively and individually model desired characteristics, a positive and effective culture is unlikely to manifest. A situation which in turn either enhances or undermines the process of risk and compliance. A topic I will turn to next week. Good night, and good luck. ### The Scribbler: The AI Risk to Proxies URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-scribbler-the-ai-risk-to-proxies/ Last updated: 2025-12-21T10:12:37.000Z Good evening, and welcome to the second edition of *The Scribbler*. A newsletter featuring an expanded set of articles addressing a key challenge facing organisations. This month I am taking a look at the risk AI poses to proxies. But first, a bit of trivia... **Trivia question:** In 1940, for her performance in [*Gone with the Wind*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone%5Fwith%5Fthe%5FWind%5F%28film%29?ref=robert.winter.ink), what was the name of the woman who became the first African American to [win](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th%5FAcademy%5FAwards?ref=robert.winter.ink) an [Academy Award](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy%5FAwards?ref=robert.winter.ink)? *Answer at the bottom*. ### This Edition's Scribbling To cope with the torrent of data and decisions we must deal with in our daily life, we use a series of heuristics or proxies to reduce the cognitive load. In the space of organisational behaviour, this is a process that tends to become more prevalent the higher the org chart we climb. The reason for this is that the Executive Leadership Team or Board of a large organisation could have tens of thousands of specialists working for them and it is impossible to be across the detail of all their work. To prevent analysis paralysis, proxies play a vital role in formulating the myriad complex parts into a conceptualisation about which a decision can be made. [George Pólya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FP%C3%B3lya?ref=robert.winter.ink)'s 1945 book, [*How to Solve It*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How%5Fto%5FSolve%5FIt?ref=robert.winter.ink) outlined a series of commonly used proxies: - **Visualisation:** if you struggle to comprehend something, sketch it. - **Start at the end:** if you cannot formulate a solution, begin with the end in mind and see if you can work backwards. - **Give examples:** if you find abstract concepts difficult, find a concrete example. While these techniques can be used to great effect in decision making, they also bring their own range of problems. Key among which is that we make poor decisions if our proxy does not give an accurate representation of the problem / opportunity / reality. With the rise of AI, or [Large Language Models](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large%5Flanguage%5Fmodel?ref=robert.winter.ink) (LLM) to more accurately name most of the services such as ChatGPT you are encountering, what could be termed the 'problems with proxies' is becoming more prevalent. The reason is that, as [Ted Chiang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted%5FChiang?ref=robert.winter.ink) put it in an article for [*The New Yorker*](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web?ref=robert.winter.ink), most 'AI' is: > a blurry jpeg of all the text on the Web. It retains much of the information on the Web, in the same way that a jpeg retains much of the information of a higher-resolution image, but, if you're looking for an exact sequence of bits, you won't find it; all you will ever get is an approximation. To counter this failing, systems use modelling to fill in the gaps and sharpen the image. This leads to an output which is plausible enough to seem true to an untrained person, but falls short of what would have been achieved by an expert with better knowledge of the subject matter. This is certainly not to dismiss the increasing value that AI is steadily bringing to organisations. Something I argued is a key strategic opportunity in [*Leading AI-First Organisations*](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-ai-first-organisations/). Rather, it is to call attention to what will initially seem like an ever improving 'quality' in report writing, lulling line managers into a false sense of security and ultimately undermining the eventual decision making by Executives and Boards. Until *true* AI begins to replace the thinkers in organisations with sentient machines, there is no replacement for the brilliance of a well-trained human mind. A reality that now, more than ever, places our people at the centre of all we do. If line managers fail to grasp this and let employees with a distracted or tenuous grasp of subject leverage AI to serve up unverified reports, senior decision makes will end up leading their organisations on the strength of a blurry image of a blurry image. ## Article Selection: Thinking on AI ### Leading AI-First Organisations By employing leaders capable of creating an AI framework — because they are awake and aware to the unintended effects of AI on social well-being, data integrity and privacy, diversity, and governance — organisations seeking to transform into being AI-first are well positioned to engage in trustworthy and responsible AI use. [Leading AI-First OrganisationsBy employing leaders capable of creating an AI framework — because they are awake and aware to the unintended effects of AI on social well-being, data integrity and privacy, diversity, and governance — organisations seeking to transform into being AI-first are well positioned to engage in trustworth![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-21.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/48d25-steve-johnson-zpoodqc8ymw-unsplash-1.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-ai-first-organisations/) ### Our Mind is a Blurry Image of Life The hope is much, for having gotten this far is to be forewarned and thus forearmed. In that we do well to employ scepticism when listening to a human interlocutor. Because even the best of us are filling in the blanks in our memory. [Our Mind is a Blurry Image of LifeThe hope is much, for having gotten this far is to be forewarned and thus forearmed. In that we do well to employ scepticism when listening to a human interlocutor. Because even the best of us are filling in the blanks in our memory.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-22.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/400e9-gabe-l1sqxjxbgd0-unsplash.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/our-mind-is-a-blurry-image-of-life/) Ghost Writers: Rise of the Machines Ultimately, I do not think the problem is that we are building machines so ‘smart’ that their output is indistinguishable from human compositions. The problem is that we are educating humans whose output is so illiterate, and devoid of experience, it is indistinguishable from computer generated text. [Ghost Writers: Rise of the MachinesUltimately, I do not think the problem is that we are building machines so ‘smart’ that their output is indistinguishable from human compositions. The problem is that we are educating humans whose output is so illiterate, and devoid of experience, it is indistinguishable from computer generated text![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-23.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/f9e69-michael-dziedzic-qdg7xkjlkbs-unsplash.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/ghost-writers-rise-of-the-machines/) ## Art and About ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/12/houdon_winter_1787.jpg) Emotional Contagion is the tendency to feel what it appears someone else is experiencing. In examining this condition in art, we have *Winter* (1787) by Jean Antoine Houdon (1741–1828). Though a bronze statue, viewing it conjures a shared feeling of cold as the young woman huddles beneath her inadequate shawl. The abraded surface of the bronze adds to the sensation of cold as it makes the piece shimmer like ice. The work is also arresting for its departure from traditional representations of Winter as an old man. Image © +The Metropolitan Museum of Art Neuroscience research source: Cooper EA, Garlick J, Featherstone E, Voon V, Singer T, et al. (2014) *You Turn Me Cold: Evidence for Temperature Contagion*. [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116126](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116126&ref=robert.winter.ink). ## Trivia Answer **Trivia question:** In 1940, for her performance in [*Gone with the Wind*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone%5Fwith%5Fthe%5FWind%5F%28film%29?ref=robert.winter.ink), what was the name of the woman who became the first African American to [win](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th%5FAcademy%5FAwards?ref=robert.winter.ink) an [Academy Award](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy%5FAwards?ref=robert.winter.ink). **Answer:** [Hattie McDaniel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattie%5FMcDaniel?ref=robert.winter.ink). **Additional Trivia:** Most of Atlanta's 300,000 citizens crowded the route of the seven-mile (11 km) motorcade that carried the film's other stars and executives from the airport to the Georgian Terrace Hotel, where they stayed. While [Jim Crow laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim%5FCrow%5Flaws?ref=robert.winter.ink) kept McDaniel from the Atlanta premiere, she did attend the film's Hollywood debut on December 28, 1939\. Upon Selznick's insistence, her picture was also featured prominently in the program. She has two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, was inducted into the Black Filmmakers Hall of Fame in 1975, and in 2006 became the first Black Oscar winner honoured with a U.S. postage stamp. In 2010, she was inducted into the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame. To read more about the life of Hattie McDaniel, see Jackson, Carlton (1989), *Hattie: The Life of Hattie McDaniel*. Rowman & Littlefield. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/12/Studio_publicity_Hattie_McDaniel.jpg) *Hattie McDaniel (1939)* is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Governance: The Foundation for Strategy and Planning URL: https://robert.winter.ink/governance-the-foundation-for-strategy-and-planning/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T06:11:39.000Z Of late, I have been in a lot of conversations about governance. Conversations which, like the title of a Clint Eastwood western, could be described as the good, the bad, and the ugly. - **The Good:** those revolving around the [AICD Company Directors Course](https://www.aicd.com.au/courses-and-programs/all-courses/company-directors-course.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) in which governance is deeply meditated and considered essential. - **The Bad:** conversations with line managers and staff who ask, 'what is governance', but generally seem uninterested in pursuing the topic. - **The Ugly:** confrontations with senior line managers who 'know' what governance is and think it's something that happens in banks and has little or nothing to do with the business they run or is the sole preserve of the board and C-Suite and not something with which 'junior' staff should trouble themselves. The inexorable conclusion I am drawing from these many and varied conversations is that governance is much like history or philosophy — it underpins human interactions and yet most people see it, if they see it, as perplexing and not core to organisational processes. In no small part the responsibility for these bad and ugly conversations fall to me for the simple reason that when challenged on governance, I have not had a decisive and concise explanation which I can rigorously defend. Much less have I had a thesis with which I can go on the offensive and roll out governance frameworks in troubled programs or organisations — until now. ## A Brief History of Governance It was Shakespeare who put into the mouth of [Margaret of Anjou](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret%5Fof%5FAnjou?ref=robert.winter.ink): > Is this the fashion in the court of England? > Is this the government of Britain's isle, > And this the royalty of Albion's king? > What shall King Henry be a pupil still > Under the surly Gloucester's governance? > > *Henry VI*, Part 2, Act 1, Scene 3. In this scene, Shakespeare is using governance in the sense of control or rule. It is from this archaic definition that we get the more contemporary understanding — the action of governing a state or organisation. In the context of this series, I am looking at corporate governance, that is governance in an organisational or business environment. In such a setting, governance retains much of the sentiment it had with the earliest companies (enterprises that existed as separate from their owners). A noted example of this was the [East India Company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%5FIndia%5FCompany?ref=robert.winter.ink) which had a governance structure recognisable today: - **Court of Proprietors:** people with voting rights, equivalent to a board of directors / shareholders. - **Court of Directors:** people tasked with running the company, equivalent to a management team. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as a growing middle class began to deploy their growing capital in more speculative investments, such as owning shares in companies, it became impossible to bring the ever-growing numbers of 'owners' together for decision making. Perhaps this, more than anything else, led to an increase in the power of directors as owners ceded ever more control to elected boards. In turn, elected directors granted increasing decision-making authority to managers who were becoming more and more specialised. In an era in which instructions to managers from the board could take weeks or months to arrive, the ceding of authority to 'people on the spot' was not always voluntary. Combining the Shakespearean notion of governance as *rule* with the development of company management, and we have an organisational construct of corporate governance as being concerned with rule and administration of an organisation for the benefit of shareholders. This emphasis on shareholders began to change following the First and Second World Wars, as political movements increasingly sought to reverse the trend of placing governing power in the hands of the few and instead sought to return it to the hands of the many. What this meant for organisations was a widening of the circle of interested parties to include society at large and the idea that organisations enter a 'social contract' with all stakeholders. This process reframes corporate governance as that which governs the interactions between key stakeholders for the control and direction of the organisation. As [Sir Adrian Cadbury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian%5FCadbury?ref=robert.winter.ink) put it: > … \[corporate governance is\] concerned with holding the balance between economic and social goals and between individual and communal goals… The governance framework is there to encourage the efficient use of resources and equally to require accountability for the stewardship of those resources. The aim is to align as nearly as possible the interests of individuals, corporations and society. > > Clarke 2007. A view shared by the [ASX Corporate Governance Council](https://www.asx.com.au/about/regulation/asx-corporate-governance-council?ref=robert.winter.ink) (ASXCGC): > \[corporate governance is\] the framework of rules, relationships, systems and processes within and by which authority is exercised and controlled in corporations. It encompasses the mechanisms by which companies, and those in control, are held to account. > > ASXCGC, 2019 Taking governance beyond 'rule', it encompasses seven key elements: - Shareholders / members. - Other stakeholders. - Societal expectations. - Company and statute law. - Self-regulatory codes. - Regulatory bodies. - Royal Commissions. This reinforces the way governance affects *all* stakeholders of an organisation because without active engagement with a governance structure, authority will be exercised in an unchecked manner, those in control are unlikely to be held to account, and the management of resources will remain arbitrary and subjective. Given the wide-ranging implications for governance, and the diverse range of interested parties, it is hopefully clear why all levels of an organisation should be engaged with enacting good governance. It also explains why it becomes a bad or an ugly conversation to classify governance as perplexing and something with which only the board or CEO should concern themselves. This is because to put governance in a locked box, in a tall tower, in a remote castle, in a land far away is equivalent to saying that resource management or staff culture are 'add-ons' to an organisation. Yet to not relegate governance to a part time aspect of organisational work undertaken by a handful of specialist officers creates its own problems. Namely, how does an organisation address this broader definition of corporate governance? A question that by way of answer requires a plan for the distribution of responsibilities and rights among various stakeholders, and the definition of procedures and rules for making decisions on organisational affairs. To understand how governance forms the foundations for strategy and planning and, most importantly, for performance to be monitored and objectives achieved, we need to dig into the *how* of governance with respect to the differences between governing, leading, and managing. For this, see the next article in this series *Governance and Performance* — out next week. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading (ASXCGC), A. C. G. C. (2019). Corporate governance principles and recommendations. Retrieved February 9, 2024, from [https://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-fourth-edn.pdf](https://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-fourth-edn.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink). Clarke, T. (2007). *International Corporate Governance: A comparative approach*, United Kingdom: Routledge. ### Calling Time on Sunk Costs URL: https://robert.winter.ink/calling-time-on-sunk-costs/ Last updated: 2026-01-18T10:33:52.000Z Last week I looked at the psychological underpinning of the sunk cost fallacy — [which I would encourage you to read first](https://robert.winter.ink/a-fallacy-of-resourcing/) if you have not already. The cliff-hanger on which I left off was that when line managers or boards are falling foul of the sunk cost fallacy, lack of data is not the magic cure it is often assumed to be. This is because at its core the sunk cost fallacy is the outcome of an emotional response to a situation. This begs the question, if not data, then what can be used to put a plan in place to avoid the organisation striking the metaphorical iceberg? ## Experience Vs Calculation In a 2021 study, *Evaluating the Sunk Cost Effect*, it was found that: > stock of knowledge and experience is predictive of susceptibility to the sunk cost effect, rather than computational ability. > > Ronayne *et al*. 2021. This research is important as it contrasts with received wisdom about how we have long viewed the sunk cost effect. The difference is that the common approach is to ensure line mangers or the board are presented with a rich set of data about the situation, from which they use algorithmic thinking abilities (fluid intelligence or gf) to calculate whether continued investment is appropriate or if the organisation should call it a day on the project. What Ronayne *et al* demonstrated was that experience and knowledge (crystallised intelligence or gc) in a specific domain — Operations, IT, Finance etc. — emerge as the key element of the ability because the thinking power necessary to override emotion or bias is relatively low. Therefore, a person with relatively low fluid intelligence, but deep experience, will be more effective in making a sound **cut or continue** call than someone of limited experience but high fluid intelligence. No, it is not the grey hairs in me talking, experience matters in decision making in a way that genius cannot mimic. 💡 Experience in this context should not be confused with the way 'experience' is generally used in organisations. An example of this is when a job description calls for someone with '5-years' experience in a similar role'. In this context, experience is being used as a proxy for time spent dealing with a specific task. However, experience in the context of overriding bias is better understood as phenomenology. That is, the central structure of experience is its intentionality — its being directed toward something. Intentionality coming from the Latin intendere, which brings with it notions of understanding or stretching oneself to care to accomplish a purpose. Of course, the ideal is a genius with deep experience — but they are rare. Yet most organisations will have access to stocks of knowledge in their leadership ranks (not forgetting [informal leaders](https://robert.winter.ink/the-boundaries-of-informal-leadership/)) which can be drawn upon. These stocks of organisational experience, more than merely analysing raw data, is key to resisting the negative pull of the framing effect which so often accompanies a sunk cost decision. 🗒️ An example of the framing effect is the sinking ship metaphor. In terms of lives lost, saving 200 people from a sinking ship of 600 is equivalent to letting 400 people drown. Yet the positive framing of saving 200 is likely to elicit a decision in support of the solution. Saying your plan involves letting 400 people drown is unlikely to get much backing. In addition to hiring for experience, having a good psychology advisory is of considerable benefit. This is because there are measurable traits which are highly correlated with the sunk cost effect (loss aversion, framing effect, etc. — see [A Fallacy of Resourcing](https://robert.winter.ink/a-fallacy-of-resourcing/) for a detailed list). Because of this, an organisation's officers, assisted by a psychology advisory, can assess if line managers — or the officers themselves — are more or less likely to engage in sunk cost fallacy behaviour. From this position of awareness, steps can be taken to help with coaching, or in extremis replacing, key individuals who may be keeping an organisation locked in a kind of Groundhog Day when it comes to cutting the cord on a project which will not yield the benefits promised. ## Seeing Over the Hill The latest film about Napoleon by Ridley Scott is a travesty of historical story telling — but a masterpiece of film making. I'll leave historical analysis of the film [to others](https://www.commentary.org/articles/andrew-roberts/ridley-scott-napoleon-film-historically-inaccurate/?ref=robert.winter.ink), but the film is relevant because it reminded me of Napoleon's nemesis — the Duke of Wellington — who famously remarked: > All the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavour to find out what you don't know by what you do; that's what I called "guessing what was at \[sic\] the other side of the hill." The critical error that line managers and boards make in assessing their strategic options regarding sunk costs is in thinking that the need to cut a failing project is only **obvious** in hindsight. As a result, there tends to be resistance to the so-called 'nay sayers' and 'pessimists' who counselled likely failure from the outset. It also increases the risk that the move to cut sunk costs will only result in more wasted resources because what caused the original investment to be a failure was never understood. Yet reframe the thinking of 'negative people' as pragmatism, and the optimism of the 'can do people' starts to look increasingly like one of the five psychological factors that drive the sunk cost fallacy — loss aversion, framing effect, unrealistic optimism, ego, fear of waste. Once this pragmatic and sound reframing has occurred, the other side of the hill comes sharply into view because teams skip the [Kool-Aid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking%5Fthe%5FKool-Aid?ref=robert.winter.ink) and instead drink a bracing dose of reality. Unromantic and for certain psychological types devoid of optimism, but when embraced it is an essential mindset for strategic thinking. 💡 Psychometric testing by an experienced organisational psychologist can assist with assessing for bias. An example of this is called 'reality testing' which will highlight whether an individual is prone to unrealistic optimism. Specifically, how an individual's internal experiences are related to external reality. An example of this is the case of an organisation that decides to double operating costs when there is no plan to drive customer engagement, only the unrealistic optimism inherent in 'build it and they will come'. In the context of delivering a new product and 'they will come', what does not need hindsight to make clear it will fail is that without a way to drive stakeholder adoption — above and beyond the organisation conjuring up a product so irresistible that a hitherto untapped audience comes flooding in — the strategic goal was always unrealistic. Leading to a conclusion that is available before the project's launch — the plan for success is going to end in a sunk cost that will need to be cut. While serving as Commander of Multi-National Force — Iraq, [General David Petraeus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%5FPetraeus?ref=robert.winter.ink) had a picture hanging on his wall titled *Stampede*. This image depicted cowboys trying to corral charging cattle who were in a state of frenzy. When asked about the meaning of the work he observed: 'What I need around me are people who are comfortable in a stampede.' Situational awareness, and the capability to deploy it, is an essential part of creating that sense of comfort and speaks to the three must-haves to avoid a sunk cost trap in the first place or to extract an organisation from the mire of sunk costs once they have been incurred. ### Personnel As I outlined in [A Challenging Time for Talent Management](https://robertwinter2.wpcomstaging.com/a-challenging-time-for-talent-management/?ref=robert.winter.ink), hiring the right people is the critical first step in [Leading Change and Managing Complexity](https://robertwinter2.wpcomstaging.com/leading-change-and-managing-complexity/?ref=robert.winter.ink). For organisations seeking to avoid, or that are retrospectively facing a sunk cost situation, assessing line managers and board members for their likelihood of being bias-primed or having an impulsive response is vital. The key takeaway is that experience matters and is of more value in overriding a biased response than thinking ability. This is because the thinking power necessary to override bias is relatively low. ### Planning Given organisations do not function in a vacuum, line managers and boards are often faced with the *ongoing cost reality*. That is, they may be willing to cut a project but are ultimately unable to do so because the organisation is reliant on the system or service. Therefore, avoiding sunk costs, or cutting losses once incurred, first requires the identification of the sunk costs and programs / teams that contributed to them. Second, it is necessary to determine if the program / team is needed or can it be cut / transitioned. In the context of the Concorde, that involved passengers flying on alternative aircraft. ### Strategy When a Board and Executive Leadership Team engage in thorough strategic planning, foresight goes up exponentially. A process that is sometimes referred to as seeing over the other side of the hill. When this is done effectively, an organisation may still end up in a future sunk cost scenario, but it will be well positioned to cut its losses with minimal disruption to strategic goals. Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Croker, J. W. (1884). *The Croker Papers: The Correspondence and Diaries of the Late Right Honourable John Wilson Croker, LL.D., F.R.S., Secretary to the Admiralty from 1809 to 1830,*. (L. J. Jennings, Ed.), Vol. III, England: J. Murray, 1884. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. *The Journal of Economic Perspectives*, **19**(4), 25–42. Pólya, G. (1988). *How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method*, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ronayne, D., Sgroi, D., & Tuckwell, A. (2021). Evaluating the sunk cost effect. *Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization*, **186**, 318–327. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the Relative Independence of Thinking Biases and Cognitive Ability. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, **94**(4), 672–695. Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. *Mem Cogn*, **39**(7), 1275–1289. ### A Fallacy of Resourcing URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-fallacy-of-resourcing/ Last updated: 2026-01-18T10:39:53.000Z If you are a line manager with responsibility for budgets, chances are you have heard of the 'sunk cost fallacy' or the 'sunk cost effect'. A quick search on 'sunk cost fallacy' will return a stack of articles dealing with the gist of the topic or generally regurgitating [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk%5Fcost?ref=robert.winter.ink). More enlightened journals of record will invoke the most infamous example of the [Concorde Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde?ref=robert.winter.ink) or make reference to [Daniel Kahneman’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel%5FKahneman?ref=robert.winter.ink) famous book [*Thinking Fast and Slow*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,%5FFast%5Fand%5FSlow?ref=robert.winter.ink) — which if you have not read, I strongly recommend. With so much material already written on the topic, why revisit? The reason is that I think there is much yet to be added to the literature. In part the 'so what' was alluded to in Kahneman's work who, along with fellow psychologist [Amos Tversky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos%5FTversky?ref=robert.winter.ink) a profound thinker who sadly passed away far too young, correctly saw the sunk cost fallacy as stemming from the broader condition of general cognitive bias. What this means is that unlike the neat conclusions found in many of the articles already produced on the topic, or as *common sense* would suggest, it is not so simple as 'just cut your losses'. Therefore, the question remains: when a line manager has a program where the costs are outweighing the benefits, why do they persist with the program? 🗒️ The sunk cost fallacy refers to continued investment of resources in a project long after it has been established that the costs outweigh the benefits. In the case of Concorde, investment continued to be made for a further 27-years after it was clear the aircraft program was not profitable. The 'fallacy' in 'sunk cost fallacy' is that we make decisions which run contrary to shrewd financial sense. ## Factors of Fallacy To cope with the torrent of decisional points we have to deal with in our daily life, we use a series of heuristics or proxies to reduce the cognitive load. In the space of organisational behaviour, this is a process that tends to become more prevalent the higher the org chart we climb. The reason for this is that the Executive Leadership Team or Board of a large organisation could have tens of thousands of specialists working for them and it is impossible to be across the detail of all their work. To prevent analysis paralysis, proxies play a vital role in formulating the myriad complex parts into a conceptualisation about which a decision can be made. ⚠️ I have worked with some senior line managers who insist they get into the detail with even their most junior employees because 'god is in the detail'. I have even seen consultants try and 'coach' such people though this process by treating their approach as a performance issue. With very rare exception, such individuals are living a delusion, often based on the Napoleon legend in which the emperor would write intricate policies, know the names of all his troops, and seemingly be across every detail. History has witnessed the odd genius, but it has seen far far more people who suffer with Napoleon complex. Thus, line managers who insist they are in all the details are generally in need of a good clinical psychologist, not a performance coach. [George Pólya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FP%C3%B3lya?ref=robert.winter.ink)'s 1945 book, [*How to Solve It*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How%5Fto%5FSolve%5FIt?ref=robert.winter.ink) outlined a series of commonly used proxies: - **Visualisation:** if you struggle to comprehend something, sketch it. - **Start at the end:** if you cannot formulate a solution, begin with the end in mind and see if you can work backwards. - **Give examples:** if you find abstract concepts difficult, find a concrete example. While these techniques can be used to great effect in decision making, they can bring a new range of problems. Key among them is that we end up making poor decisions if our proxy does not give an accurate representation of the problem / opportunity. In the context of sunk costs, there are five psychological factors which can skew our development of an effective proxy. - **Loss aversion:** - *Definition:* the fear of losing something feels worse than the joy of gaining something. - *Outcome:* a line manager will double down on their original decision for fear of losing resources, control etc. - **Framing effect:** - *Definition:* when change is framed as negative, people will be less likely to pursue it; a positive framing will motivate change. - *Outcome:* a line manager will latch onto a positive view of a program of work, making them unable to see the faults and failures in the process. - **Unrealistic optimism:** - *Definition:* when people think something cannot fail or is bound to succeed. - *Outcome:* just one more quarter and the strategy will bear fruit. - **Ego:** - *Definition:* the drive to promote only favourable views of oneself, an overestimation of ability, an inflated sense of self-importance. - *Outcome:* if a line manager sees a project as inextricably linked with their standing in an organisation, they will resist axing it for fear of the impact to their reputation. - **Fear of waste:** - *Definition:* the fear that by cutting losses, we are wasting resources. - *Outcome:* a line manager will keep a project active in the misconception that by holding on the organisation is not wasting resources. 💡 In psychology, a comorbidity is when an individual has more than one disorder that presents along with their primary diagnosis. In the case of the sunk cost fallacy, a line manager may primarily have an ego bias, but also suffer from unrealistic optimism. Coaching or 'treating' comorbidity is considerably more complex than addressing a single bias. An almost inevitable outcome, when one or more of these biases are in play, is for line managers to resist performance management of a team or changing their strategic direction. An essential element to understand, when working with line managers to combat the sunk cost fallacy, is that psychological susceptibility to each of these factors is highly correlated to pain association. By this, I mean that where individuals or groups have come to associate pain with the negative outcome of a bias, for example looking bad in front of others (ego) feels painful, they will be more inclined to perpetuate a sunk cost approach. When this happens, additional data is not the magic cure it is often assumed to be. This is because at its core, the sunk cost fallacy is the outcome of an emotional response to a situation. Coaching people out of this pain association and helping them to gain mastery over their innate bias is exceptionally challenging. In some cases it can only be achieved by a highly competent clinical psychologist — if at all. In this context, awareness is often the best that can be achieved. From there, it is a case of a more senior line manager or the Board bringing in experts to tackle the challenge or move to performance management and eventual replacement if the employee's biases are proving intractable. ## Avoiding the Iceberg Having established the psychological underpinnings of the sunk cost fallacy, it remains to put a plan in place to avoid the organisation striking the metaphorical iceberg. I will go into this in my next column *Calling Time on a Sunk Cost*. But as a taster, there are three key areas which need tackling to redress the sunk cost fallacy: experience, ongoing costs, seeing over the hill. And on that cliffhanger: Good night, and good luck. ## Further Reading Kahneman, D. (2012). *Thinking, fast and slow*, London: Penguin Books. Pólya, G. (1988). *How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method*, Princeton: Princeton University Press. ### How to Sabotage a Meeting URL: https://robert.winter.ink/how-to-sabotage-a-meeting/ Last updated: 2026-01-18T11:29:32.000Z [Tom Clancy's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%5FClancy?ref=robert.winter.ink) *The Hunt for Red October* was published in 1984 and is one of my favourite novels and films (1990). It centres on the character of [Jack Ryan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack%5FRyan%5F%28character%29?ref=robert.winter.ink), an irrepressible Irish Catholic — like Clancy himself — who is 'highly skilled, disciplined, honest, thoroughly professional' and only loses his cool when 'incompetent politicians or bureaucrats' get in his way. Ryan is introduced to us as an analyst and occasional field operative in the [CIA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central%5FIntelligence%5FAgency?ref=robert.winter.ink), an agency as famous as it is infamous the world over. Yet it was not always the case. Rewind about a hundred years ago, within the lifetime of my father if he were still with us, and intelligence gathering in the United States was an *ad hoc* affair with no central coordination, control, or direction. The [US Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United%5FStates%5FArmy?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [US Navy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United%5FStates%5FNavy?ref=robert.winter.ink) had separate code-breaking departments — respectively the [Signal Intelligence Service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal%5FIntelligence%5FService?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [OP-20-G](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OP-20-G?ref=robert.winter.ink). This all changed when Australian-born British intelligence officer [Charles Howard 'Dick' Ellis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick%5FEllis?ref=robert.winter.ink) effectively wrote the blueprint for a centralised agency: > I was soon requested to draft a blueprint for an American intelligence agency, the equivalent of BSC \[British Security Co-ordination\] and based on these British wartime improvisations… detailed tables of organisation were disclosed to Washington… among these were the organisational tables that led to the birth of General William Donovan's OSS. > > Dick Ellis The OSS (Office of Strategic Services) was never as centralised as the CIA would later become, but after [Pearl Harbor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack%5Fon%5FPearl%5FHarbor?ref=robert.winter.ink) it took an ever growing role in supplying policy makers with estimates, key information, and reports. It also produced a field manual which, in keeping with my recent theme of meeting management, provided tips for how to sabotage a meeting. The document reads like something out of [*Utopia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia%5F%28Australian%5FTV%5Fseries%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) — the Rob Sitch not [Thomas More](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia%5F%28More%5Fbook%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) version — and is invaluable for anyone seeking to derail meetings. It is also a bit of fun to use as a form of management bingo, in which you can mark off the techniques used on your card when in meetings with people who, ironically, are not trying to sabotage the company but think this is a good way to [run an effective meeting](https://robert.winter.ink/running-effective-meetings/). A process that reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon: ![Comic strip from the Dilbert series in which the characters propose that meetings have taken on a life of their own and use human hosts as a way to reproduce themselves.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/dilbertbyscottadams15thdecember2001.png) Dilbert by Scott Adams 15th December 2001. 🗒️ If you want to read the full manual, it is available from the CIA website — [OSS Simple Sabotage Field Manual](https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### General Interference with Organizations and Productions The field manual breaks down the approach to sabotaging meetings into eight action items. I have highlighted the bingo terms / approaches for those wanting to play along in meetings, followed by the suggestions recommended in the OSS guide. 1. **Do everything through channels:** Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions. 2. **Make speeches:** Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate "patriotic" comments. 3. **Refer everything to committee:** When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible — never less than five. 4. **Irrelevant issues:** Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. 5. **Maximise pedantry:** Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions. 6. **Always re-open topics:** Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision. 7. **Accentuate caution:** Advocate "caution." Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on. 8. **Worry about appearances:** Be worried about the propriety of any decision — raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon. ### The Scribbler: Privacy Matters URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-scribbler-privacy-matters/ Last updated: 2025-12-21T10:11:08.000Z Good morning, and welcome to this edition of The Scribbler. **Trivia question:** In 1813 Jane Austen first published one of her most loved books. What was its title? *Answer at the bottom of this scribbling*. ### This Edition's Scribbling Instead of a new column, this week I am surfacing something from the archives—[a selection of articles about privacy](https://robert.winter.ink/category/technology/privacy/). The motivation is that today (January 28) is Data Privacy Day. An international awareness event that was initiated by the Council of Europe (not to be confused with the European Council) back in 2008. This date was chosen because on January 28, 1981, the Council of Europe proposed 'Convention 108'; the first internationally binding agreement to protect personal data and could be considered a precursor to, or inspiration for, the [General Data Protection Regulation](https://gdpr-info.eu/?ref=robert.winter.ink) (GDPR). Since 2008, various organisations, both governmental and non-governmental, educational institutions, companies, and individuals use this opportunity to make a case for privacy and to elucidate the inherent dangers of systematic data collection by tech corporations and government agencies. But why mark the day? For one thing, privacy is a basic human right through Article 12 of the *Universal Declaration of Human Rights*, which states: > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. > > —[Universal Declaration of Human Rights](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights?ref=robert.winter.ink). that's valuable and worthy of protection. For another, it is an important corner stone of democratic societies. And last but not least, there's simply no way of knowing what kind of inferences can be drawn about individuals in the future by means of the tremendous amount of collected user data in conjunction with new technologies such as artificial intelligence. ## Article Selection: Privacy ### Thunderous Ambivalence Because being off the grid is next to impossible in many societies, it is tempting to give up and proclaim 'I have nothing to hide'. Categories: [Privacy](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/privacy-69084bfea6eccd001b7aab9b/) [Thunderous AmbivalenceBecause being off the grid is next to impossible in many societies, it is tempting to give up and proclaim ‘I have nothing to hide’.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-18.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/fef0c-1280px-on_the_fence.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/thunderous-ambivalence/) ### Acting for Privacy - An Australian Story There is the case to be made that this is not only the cost of doing business in the digital age but that, like environmental protections, there are great rewards to be reaped in improved quality of life. Categories: [Business & Strategy,](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/business-strategy-2/) [Privacy](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/privacy-69084bfea6eccd001b7aab9b/) [Acting for Privacy - An Australian StoryThere is the case to be made that this is not only the cost of doing business in the digital age but that, like environmental protections, there are great rewards to be reaped in improved quality of life.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-19.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/ff9c5-jason-dent-jfk0dvyvdvw-unsplash.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/acting-for-privacy-an-australian-story/) ### The Subjective Nature of 'Nothing to Hide' Whether you have something to hide has far more to do with who is looking than what they can see. Categories: [Ideas & Culture,](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/ideas-culture/) [Privacy](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/privacy-69084bfea6eccd001b7aab9b/), [Society & Politics](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/society-politics/) [The Subjective Nature of ‘Nothing to Hide’Whether you have something to hide has far more to do with who is looking than what they can see.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/icon/a9010077-37b3-4af0-ae44-df043294dfdb_800x800-20.webp)Dr Robert N. WinterDr Robert N. Winter![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/thumbnail/53681-taras-chernus-rwkpnxqe_rm-unsplash.jpg)](https://robert.winter.ink/the-subjective-nature-of-nothing-to-hide/) ## Art and About ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/12/vasily_kandinsky-black_lines.jpg) Kandinsky's 'Schwarze Linien' (Black Lines), painted in 1913 is one of the earliest truly abstract paintings in art history. In what is classified as a non-objective work, Kandinsky (1866-1944) sought to elicit responses from a viewer through interrelated shapes, colours, and lines. His vision was that such abstract works would be universally accessible statements, in a way the more classical forms of art were not; requiring as they do the viewer to possess "a knowledge of" to understand and interpret a work. Medium: Oil on canvas Dimensions: 130.5 x 131.1 cm. Image © 2023 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York/ADAGP, Paris. ## Trivia Answer **Trivia question:** In 1813 Jane Austen first published one of her most loved books. What was its title? **Answer:** [*Pride and Prejudice*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride%5Fand%5FPrejudice%5F%28novel%29?ref=robert.winter.ink). **Additional Trivia:** My wife has made me sit through every television and film adaptation (multiples times). The 1995 BBC edition is perhaps the definitive in my book. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/12/PrideandPrejudiceCH3.jpg) Detail of a [C. E. Brock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.%5FE.%5FBrock?ref=robert.winter.ink) illustration for the 1895 edition of [Jane Austen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane%5FAusten?ref=robert.winter.ink)'s novel [*Pride and Prejudice*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride%5Fand%5FPrejudice?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Chapter 3). 'She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt *me*.' *Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet* by [C. E. Brock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.%5FE.%5FBrock?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### A Crisp Document and Messy Meeting URL: https://robert.winter.ink/crisp-document-messy-meeting/ Last updated: 2026-01-19T10:30:31.000Z I have long been at odds with much of the prevailing organisational culture when it comes to written documents. Call me out of touch with [GenMe](https://robert.winter.ink/category/social-comment/generations/), but I like critical thinking. I enjoy a well written document. I think that actual research is necessary for a well-formed argument — and for those who are unclear, asking Chat GPT or doing a quick *Google* is **NOT** research. I think major decisions should have a solid brief — and no, a sketchy one pager with unsubstantiated claims is **NOT** a brief. These expectations contrast with the criticism I sometimes receive of my own work documents which ranges from 'they are too long and dense', 'keep your brief brief', or as one CEO demanded: 'Give me six bullet points — TOPS! No one is interested in reading more than that!' Yet I persist in my approach as I struggle with the notion that the shaping of organisational strategy and the making of multi-million-dollar decisions should be the result of 'five words or less' or a compelling image in a PowerPoint deck. It was therefore with some delight that I came across a recent interview with Jeff Bezos (video excerpt at the end of this piece) in which the founder of Amazon and Blue Origin noted that he likes a 'crisp document and messy meeting'. This is because the document, or setup / background for the meeting, should be closely argued and: > written with such clarity that it's like angels singing from on high. The meeting, by contrast, should be about discovery and finding the optimal path to a solution. Because of this, the usual rules of 'keep to time' in a meeting can go out the window so that a good discussion can run on. I have mused before on [running effective meetings](https://robert.winter.ink/running-effective-meetings/) and while this latter approach of going over time may seem to run counter to my previously recommended approach, I would argue it conforms to the core principles of a good meeting. Specifically, that it addresses the meeting trinity covenant: 1. **Should it be a meeting?** If yes, then take the time to do it properly rather than sandwiching it between available timeslots in a calendar. 2. **What is the purpose of the meeting?** A crisp well-argued narrative document will make that abundantly clear. 3. **Strive for responsibility, ownership, and accountability.** If people are fully prepared for a discussion, there is a much greater likelihood this will happen. So, how do we arrive at a crisp document? 🗒️ For my article on the management of meetings — which covers meeting types, roles and responsibilities, and tactics for getting the most out of a meeting — see [Running Effective Meetings](https://robert.winter.ink/running-effective-meetings/). ## Contra PowerPoint Step one is **never use PowerPoint**. This injunction is one I have been a big exponent of for a long time because there is a reason PowerPoint presentations are sometimes called 'pitch decks'. It is because PowerPoint is a great sales tool but a terrible medium for narrating critical thinking. When internal meetings become about who can 'sell' their plan the best, the organisation will likely end up with an outcome that is strong on form but weak on substance. Instead, people should be encouraged to defend their plans or thinking rather than selling their vision. PowerPoint suffers from that cardinal sin when presenting an argument — it makes it easy for the author but hard for the audience. A closely argued narrative document is the reverse as it can take two-weeks or more to write but a little under 30-minutes to read. While this may seem onerous for the author, a little discipline goes a long way to structuring robust plans and is indispensable in sound decision making. Given your colleagues' time is valuable, if you cannot be bothered to invest the energy in crafting your argument why should they take the time to hear it? The bullet-point approach of PowerPoint makes it easy to hide sloppy thinking. But in a narrative document replete with adjectives, adverbs, and paragraphs that can carry the weight of the argument, an individual's thinking is truly tested. It also stands a chance of achieving that sublime goal of all communication — enlightening an audience. PowerPoint encourages interruptions as people will ask a question that may be answered by the next slide. While in a crisp document, the person takes a note which may be answered by the rest of the piece. This means time is not wasted responding to a question that has already been answered. ## Angels Singing ⚠️ In case there is some confusion about when a crisp document is needed; long form narrative documents are intended for key meetings. Think determining the long term strategy for a product, assessing the budgetary implications of entering a new market, or restructuring a department. A crisp document is complete overkill for a daily standup or other minor meeting in the calendar. A crisp document is **narrative** in format and **more than one page**. To take a leaf from the Bezos playbook, the document or memo should be six pages in length and, following the injunction of the previous section, **never** delivered via PowerPoint. The length of the document is essential because it unlocks the true gift of writing — facilitation of memory and thinking. This is because we can write over time far more than we can recall in the moment. To use a computer metaphor, the RAM of our brain only allows us to juggle so many ideas and facts in a given moment. But in writing down these disparate facts and thoughts, we can sort them, rearrange them, or reject them — if on reflection they do not hold up to scrutiny. In this way, the process of creating the narrative document is as important as the final document itself. A narrative document enables us to contemplate our thinking and stimulates discernment. That is apprehension of the difference between good and bad thinking. This is where the 'crisp' part comes in when writing a crisp document. Because bad thinking tends to be murky, the words on the page a quagmire of verbiage, and when you read and re-read them the quality is shown for what it is — junk. This often happens in meetings where people 'spitball' ideas to be 'innovative'. Yet this process often ends up wasting the groups time going down rabbit holes only to determine it is a bad idea. A crisp document already takes care of a key part of the weeding process. A narrative writing process gives us the space to learn to defend our ideas. A vital step in building our professional confidence because it is daunting to have our thinking exposed to colleagues and peers — even if we are in an organisation that fosters [psychological safety in teams](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-psychological-safety-in-teams/). While harder initially than the ubiquitous PowerPoint pitch of most meetings, it does reduce the chance of you being embarrassed by an Executive because you clearly have not thought through the proposal. Yet, the value of a crisp document is not all on the writer. At least not in a meeting with Bezos where things kick off with a study hall in which everyone takes 30 minutes to read the document. Again, this can seem at odds with [running effective meetings](https://robert.winter.ink/running-effective-meetings/) as people should attend a meeting having done the pre-read and ready to go. However, as I think we have all experienced this too often does not happen, with people only skimming the materials or — as with university — bluffing their way through the meeting. By carving out the time needed to review and markup the document, people are forced into engaging with the document in a concentrated manner. A process that gives the topic, the author's effort, and the organisation the respect deserved. This latter approach of having stakeholders carve out time does for the reader what the writing process did for the author — it slows them down. This is becoming ever more important as technology is making content creation just a click away. While this can be a productivity boon, and essential to [Leading AI-First Organisations](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-ai-first-organisations/), it also bears witness to a growing number of people taking shortcuts to the *truth*. When we pass off the thinking of others as our own, we fail to invoke the discipline essential to critical thinking. Technology is tending to worsen this trend with services such as Chat GPT acting as surrogate for the dearth of discipline — leaving the operator little else to do but copy and paste. This approach often fails to yield valuable results because it does not comprehend the animating force, or context, of the original work. When strategic choices are made from a base of indiscipline, an organisation will struggle to achieve its objectives. The most effective antidote to which is a crisp document, 'written with such clarity that it's like angels singing from up high', followed by a messy meeting in which people can robustly discuss the thinking presented. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Theo Crazzolara](https://unsplash.com/@theocrazzolara?utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fsource=unsplash) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-pine-cone-ornament-hanging-from-a-christmas-tree-b51hDtAACug?utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fsource=unsplash). ### Fostering Leader-Managers URL: https://robert.winter.ink/fostering-leader-managers/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T06:35:34.000Z HR need to be empowered by the Board to take Line Managers in hand and effect change. Be that targeted training or, where training fails, in advising on performance management (read an exit process) for individuals who fail to meet the requirements of leader-managers. When organisations invest in developing a culture that not just enables but requires that Line Managers be true leader-managers, they institutionalise the organisational behaviour necessary for the ultimate act of [leading at scale](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-at-scale/). This article is part of the [**Leader-Manager Series*](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/leader-managers/?ref=robert.winter.ink). In many ways, my management career began a little over 30-years ago. It was the mid-1990s, I was in shorts, people were still seen as 'human resources', and organisational culture was central. However, culture did not try and pander to [GenMe](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-genme/), so it was **not** about what the organisation could do for you but what you could do for the organisation. There was no Google, no Chat GPT to supplement a dearth of education, people read books rather than memes and social posts; even those who were not big readers at least engaged with the comparatively long form Reader's Digest. And my mother was HR Director for MBF (now known as BUPA). Valerie Winter was, if I say so myself, a phenomenally talented people manager and, at a time when organisations were long on planning, she apprehended and fostered strategic leadership and the importance of philosophy in the shaping of organisational culture. As a woman in what was still very much a 'man's world' she blazed many trails to the top jobs in her field by never being a 'victim of institutional sexism', instead doing a better job than the men. Coming into the city after what I thought was a hard day at school, I would listen to conversations, hear my mother discourse about reports, and watch the way in which team cohesion was created. Staggering to me at the time, but prescient in the light of hindsight, was her move from the executive offices, on the top floor with wood panelling and plush carpet, down to level 9 to sit in a pleasant but modest corner office. The reasoning was that her place was leading her team—all of whom were situated on level 9. Much of what my mother did would be seen as 'given' today, but in the 1980s and 1990s it was ground-breaking and required deep knowledge of the practise of management and leadership to plan, organise, align, and win the hearts and minds of the Board and Executive Leadership Team. This philosophy of leader-management stuck with me and through my career I have had the privilege of working with people who exemplify its practice and art. I have also had the learning experiences from working with the dull monotony of those who neither lead **nor** manage, but instead seek to *sell* their *vision* to apathetic teams via PowerPoint. This series on leader-managers was conceived to provide some insights into the process of not just hiring but creating great Line Managers. Beginning with [Leading Change and Managing Complexity](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-change-and-managing-complexity/) I made the case for why it is essential that leadership and management are viewed as two distinct and equally essential skill sets in the organisation of resources. ****Leadership** is about taking people on a journey of change: establishing a vision of the future which binds people together—creating a collective sense of direction—and preventing them from giving up on the goal. ****Management** is about organising resources and the inherent complexity that arises as resources increase: establishing and maintaining processes, procedures, and policies—creating high performing teams—and preventing organisations from descending into chaos. In [Strategic Direction Versus Initiative Planning](https://robert.winter.ink/strategic-direction-versus-initiative-planning/) I took a look at the difference between the two essential skills needed by leader-managers—planning and strategy. ****Planning** is a deductive process used by managers to achieve orderly outcomes. The purpose is to provide clarity regarding what to do about events that ****will** take place. ****Strategy** tends to be inductive in nature and revolves around looking for relationships and patterns. These relationships and patterns help the strategist to draw conclusions from which they can make choices about events that ****may** take place. In the penultimate article in this initial series looking at leader-managers I addressed [Managing Control and Leading Motivation](https://robert.winter.ink/managing-control-and-leading-motivation/) and outlined the reasons why motivation alone will do little to achieve results. By unlocking the power of control and motivation, Line Managers can [lead at scale](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-at-scale/) and create healthy organisational cultures with improved governance. This enables informal leadership with the same efficacy as formal management activities. In this final article, I seek to outline how organisations can foster leader-managers. That is, people who combine the competencies unique to the separate disciplines of leading and managing into a more effective and holistic approach to Line Management. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Managing Control and Leading Motivation URL: https://robert.winter.ink/managing-control-and-leading-motivation/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T06:34:22.000Z By unlocking the power of control and motivation, line managers can [lead at scale](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-at-scale/) and enable improved governance as healthy organisational cultures are created which coordinate informal leadership with the same efficacy as formal management activities. This article is part of the [**Leader-Manager Series*](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/leader-managers/?ref=robert.winter.ink). In my previous column, [Aligning And Organising, It's All About People](https://robert.winter.ink/aligning-and-organising-its-all-about-people/), I undertook a bit of a 'contrast and compare' of the differences between aligning and organising. The motivation behind this was to continue to explore the [differences between leaders and managers](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-change-and-managing-complexity/) and to make the case for why organisations are better primed for success when they foster leader-managers. My case in brief: > When Line Managers lack the hard skills of process design and implementation, the capacity to initiate changes in procedure, or the ability to write sound policy, and instead try to *lead* their team to success by hiring or co-opting other managers in the business to solve their problems, an engine of chaos is created. An engine that will waste resources, both human and financial, at an ever-growing rate because the *leader* knows no other way to solve for a problem than throw more coal onto the fire. When organisations overcorrect in the space and neglect leadership in the drive for better managers, the result can be lack of motivation and direction. But, when leadership and management are conjoined, the process releases untapped potential. This is because a leader-manager can energise people through [Self-Determination Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination%5Ftheory?ref=robert.winter.ink) (SDT) by unlocking feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This is particularly evident when control is contrasted with motivation. This is because leadership necessarily needs people to be highly motivated so that they can succeed in times of adversity. But in management, it is largely irrelevant if people are motivated—the ask is that they perform work in a consistent way that meets pre-set quality targets. For this reason, the twin capabilities of managing control **and** leading motivation are needed. ## Managing Control Versus Leading Motivation ****Leadership** is about taking people on a journey of change: establishing a vision of the future which binds people together—creating a collective sense of direction—and preventing them from giving up on the goal. ****Management** is about organising resources and the inherent complexity that arises as resources increase: establishing and maintaining processes, procedures, and policies—creating high performing teams—and preventing organisations from descending into chaos. Leadership is primarily concerned with effecting change. Because of this, energy and motivation are essential due to the generally high levels of inertia present in organisations or industries trying to achieve change. To break free of change inertia, leaders need to supply three key ingredients: 1. Goal: establishes the direction or path to change. 2. Alignment: keeps everyone on the established path. 3. Motivation: supplies the energy needed to overcome inertia and surmount obstacles. For motivation to be effective, good leaders realise, as [Edmund Burke](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/edmund-burke/) put it, that they need to 'catch a fire already kindled in another'. In other words, for a leader to motivate their followers to action, they must first grasp what animates their followers. A process that creates a follower-centric notion of leadership and facilitates greater employee buy-in because the work is articulated in such a way as to seem important to the individual. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Aligning And Organising, It's All About People URL: https://robert.winter.ink/aligning-and-organising-its-all-about-people/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T06:33:32.000Z ****Organisation** is a management process that enables the creation of people systems to carry out plans set by a Line Manager. ****Alignment** is a leadership process that revolves around communication and motivation. It occurs once people have been organised into their various roles and tasks assigned. This article is part of the [**Leader-Manager Series*](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/leader-managers/?ref=robert.winter.ink). In this column I continue my train of thought from [Strategic Direction Versus Initiative Planning](https://robert.winter.ink/strategic-direction-versus-initiative-planning/). In that article I explored the notion that **planning** is a deductive process used by managers to achieve orderly outcomes while **strategy** tends to be inductive in nature and revolves around looking for relationships and patterns. My conclusion was that planning and strategy have the same relationship as management and leadership. One is not a substitute for the other and each is most effective when complementing the other. Competent planning is a vital reality check on exuberant strategy, and sound strategy gives planning the direction to bring about change. This week I continue to look at the toolbox of a leader-manager, focussing on the people aspects. Specifically, the difference between aligning people with a strategy and organising people to carry out a plan. ## Aligning Versus Organising In my column [Five Stages of Autonomy](https://robert.winter.ink/five-stages-of-autonomy/), I outlined the importance of Management by Objective and Self-Control (MBO) when organising a team. Yet an organisational reality is that no individual has complete autonomy. Whether it is a reporting line, the work of others, fiscal constraint, or technology, there is something on which an individual is dependent to complete a unit of work. Understanding reliances is essential when undertaking change. Unless the interdependencies are motivated by a unified vision, [boundary spanning](https://robert.winter.ink/the-boundaries-of-informal-leadership/) efforts will stall, or everyone will dissipate the available resources in producing a lot of work yet failing to achieve the desired outcomes. Depending on the strengths of the Line Manager, the challenge is usually the result of a failure of alignment or organisation. A failure which most often occurs because of a lack of understanding about the differences between the two concepts. ### Organisation **Organisation** is a management process that enables the creation of people systems to carry out the plans set by a Line Manager. Organisational or Human Resource Planning is a highly complex task that, among other things, requires: - Establishment of an appropriate structure for the roles required. - Determination of the relationship between the roles—direct / indirect reports, number of workers. - Hiring the right people. - Undertaking any specialist training. - Communicating the purpose of the organisational structure to the wider business. - Deciding the level of authority to delegate. - Understanding the boundary spanning involved. - Accounting for the informal leadership needed. If that were not enough, measuring performance once everyone is in place, and correctly reading the job market to ensure commensurate compensation, is also needed. While in larger organisations a Line Manager will have help with each stage—so it is a good idea to make friends and influence people in HR—there is still a broad range of skills needed from a competent Line Manager to successfully organise a team or department. The reason for this is that while HR, colleagues, and mentors can advise, only the Line Manager can organise and implement. If they do not heed the advice, or poorly execute the advice once taken, organisation will have occurred in name only and the team or department will remain troubled. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Strategic Direction Versus Initiative Planning URL: https://robert.winter.ink/strategic-direction-versus-initiative-planning/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T06:30:08.000Z ****Planning** is a deductive process used by managers to achieve orderly outcomes. The purpose is to provide clarity regarding what to do about events that ****will** take place. ****Strategy** tends to be inductive in nature and revolves around looking for relationships and patterns. These relationships and patterns help the strategist to draw conclusions from which they can make choices about events that ****may** take place. This article is part of the [**Leader-Manager Series*](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/leader-managers/?ref=robert.winter.ink). In last week's article, [Leading Complexity and Managing Complication](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-complexity-and-managing-complication/), I examined some of the key differences between leadership and management. The motivation for delving into this subject was that leadership has become a vogue topic and Line Managers often trip over themselves to establish their leadership brand. When this happens, key management skills get neglected, or their value overlooked. When Line Managers lack the hard skills of process design and implementation or the ability to write sound policy, and instead try to *lead* their team to success by co-opting other people to solve their management problems, an engine of chaos is created. As an antidote, I am making the case for leader-managers. People who possess the ability to lead change and manage complexity. If you have not yet read last week's column, [Leading Complexity and Managing Complication](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-complexity-and-managing-complication/), please take a glance as it has foundational concepts which feed into this article. ## Planning And Strategy, When to Use Which In lockstep with the growing popularity of leadership, and the drive of Line Managers to rebrand themselves as *leaders* of the organisation, is a boom in people wanting to focus on business strategy. In many instances this is resulting in a corruption of language as people come to think that either strategy is same thing as planning, or that by strategising they are necessarily planning. **Planning** is a [deductive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive%5Freasoning?ref=robert.winter.ink) process used by managers to achieve orderly outcomes. It does not necessarily produce change, but does provide clarity regarding what to do about events that will take place. It is a known future such as a customer calling in to make a sales enquiry. **Strategy** tends to be [inductive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive%5Freasoning?ref=robert.winter.ink) in nature and revolves around looking for relationships and patterns. These relationships and patterns help the strategist to draw conclusions from which they can make choices about events which may or may not take place. The futures are unknown, such as a change in public sentiment or the choices of other leaders. Direction setting, or strategy does not produce plans—it produces a vision or goal. Its purpose is not to outline to an organisation or team the how, rather it concerns itself with the what, where, and when. What we are expecting, where we will be, or when the change will happen. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Leading Complexity and Managing Complication URL: https://robert.winter.ink/leading-complexity-and-managing-complication/ Last updated: 2026-09-09T06:31:52.000Z ****Leadership** is about taking people on a journey of change: establishing a vision of the future which binds people together—creating a collective sense of direction—and preventing them from giving up on the goal. ****Management** is about organising resources and the inherent complication that arises as resources increase: establishing and maintaining processes, procedures, and policies—creating high performing teams—and preventing organisations from descending into chaos. This article is part of the [**Leader-Manager Series*](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/leader-managers/?ref=robert.winter.ink). For regular readers of this column, the notion that leadership and management are **not** synonyms isn't something new. Yet in the past I have only provided the briefest reasoning for why this is the case. In this piece, and the two that follow in subsequent weeks, I will unpack the key differences between what managers and leaders do; explore the contrasts between aligning people and organising resources; and conclude with some thoughts on the value of a leader-manager and why such individuals are so rare in organisations. The motivation is that whenever I am consulted on why an employee, team, or initiative is troubled, the cause is usually one of three reasons—in some cases all three are in play: 1. Lack of necessary resources to achieve the goal. 2. Lack of quality management to organise the resources that are made available. 3. Lack of sound leadership to align people and enable change. Lack of resourcing is a topic I will explore in the future as there is much that can be done—either to do more with less or to encourage greater investment. This leaves how and why the acts of management and leadership can either undermine or facilitate. When both sound management and quality leadership are effectively used, an organisation is well placed to tackle the [10 near term strategic challenges](https://robert.winter.ink/category/business/fy24-outlook/). Throughout this article I will use the term 'Line Manager' to refer to a person who has been assigned positional authority, e.g., a CEO, Head of, or Team leader. This is not to say the person is a manager in the sense of having the capabilities or capacities for management—or leadership for that matter. Only that they are in a role that necessitates they exhibit leadership and management. ## I'm Too Sexy For Management To begin at the beginning and address the elephant in the room, **leadership is not better than management**—in the same way a hammer is not better than a screwdriver. They both have their merits and their faults and, rather than trying to use one tool to complete every task, effectiveness is measured by whether the right tool is used for the job. What is true is that leadership is generally considered much sexier than management. This is manifest in that every organisation with a learning and development budget is running some variant of a leadership course for its Line Managers. A process that is only accelerating the push by every person and their dog to be seen as a *leader* in the organisation. After all, leadership is the process by which the big decisions are made and for which big bucks paid—or are they? On closer inspection this branding of leadership is only true in the same way that a swimsuit model is *sexier* than someone who is a little frumpy. Superficially yes, but if I am trying to achieve something important, give me the frumpy individual who can get the job done over the model who stands around thinking that looks alone deliver solutions. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The Ties of Informal Leadership URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-ties-of-informal-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-01-19T10:37:11.000Z In last week's column, I began a two part introduction to informal leadership by looking at [The Boundaries of Informal Leadership](https://robert.winter.ink/the-boundaries-of-informal-leadership/). The premise was that over the last forty years, we have seen tremendous growth in the requirement that employees engage in collaborative activities. The upshot is that it is essentially impossible for managers to be in all the collaboration activities with which their team engage. Activities in which decisions are inevitably taken; decisions that change the course of a team's, department's, or organisation's strategic direction. When employees think 'they've got this'—but in fact are merely feeling the need to do something and **this** is something therefore they should do *this*—costs to the bottom line, an erosion of operational capacity, and decline in organisation value are often the result. The fix is **not**, as so many poor managers seem to think, for the formal leader to be in ever more meetings, taking ever more decisions, at an ever more detailed level. Rather, the fix comes in the form of empowering people without positional authority to take on informal leadership. When done well, this is particularly effective in boundary spanning work—activities across teams without a shared manager. With 'done well' being the key phrase here, it begs the question, "When is informal leadership done well?". While this is a question too complex for a short read, it is a question to which key structural and qualitative criteria can be applied to begin to answer a much simpler question: Are employees in my team effective informal leaders or merely highly social people building their brand? ## Measuring the Strength of Ties For leadership to be valuable, be it formal or informal leadership, what is termed the *boundary spanning effort* needs to deliver results. For example, in consistently and accurately transferring information or managing inter-personal or inter-team relationships. In formal leadership roles this is a challenging task, particularly when a manager must lead across teams. For informal leadership the process is even harder, not least because of ever increasing role specialisation. For organisations who are taking the wise path of dealing with management challenges by embracing hierarchy, growing departmentalisation can add another hurdle for informal leaders to surmount. A major driver of inter-team hurdles are the procedures, policies, and even language used in different areas of an organisation. Something that requires not only the boundary spanner—the leader who is bridging the gap between teams—to invest considerable time, but also for other employees involved to engage in information sharing to help the informal leader understand the issues in play. ⚠️ This latter challenge can be a major source of friction between teams. I have worked on many projects in which I have had to address the complaint from managers that their team does not have the time needed to engage in information sharing. A challenge that usually results in heightened interpersonal strain and negative views of employee capabilities. Further eroding the process and necessitating even more formal leadership time be invested in what should have been a procedural requirements gathering engagement. When a mandate from a manager for cross-functional teams to work together is lacking, the process of informal leadership can often break down completely as employees already under stress to deliver, or irritated by the requests, take the adversarial route, and refuse to cooperate, work to rule, or simply ignore or avoid requests and questions. Yet lack of engagement can be overcome, and a useful indicator of whether an informal leader is surmounting obstacles and working effectively can be found in the strength of their ties to employees with whom, or even over whom, they are trying to exert informal leadership. A theory which can be used to assess the strength of these ties is Simmelian Tie Theory (STT). 💡 Named after the German sociologist [Georg Simmel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg%5FSimmel?ref=robert.winter.ink), and coined by [David Krackhardt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%5FKrackhardt?ref=robert.winter.ink) in his 1999 paper The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations, a Simmelian tie can most simply be described as a clique between a pair of individuals. While these cliques or ties can greatly strengthen the relationship between individuals, enabling people to exert informal leadership where in a non-clique setting such leadership would be impossible, they also restrict individuals due to the emphasis on group norms. This is because as the number of ties or cliques grows, so does the number of restrictions placed on that individual. Norms or mores are an essential glue in the functioning of groups, but they can also exert the negative connotations of glue—restricting or even preventing movement. As our work world becomes increasingly networked, it is easy to delude ourselves that people with many contacts or ties provide a higher level of value due to their connectedness or that they have a greater capacity for choice and action. But, if an individual's commitment of the tie is weak it may be of little or no value. If the ties are strong, they may curtail available actions—meaning **a person with fewer or weaker ties would be in a better decision making position**. With an ability to overcome the challenges inherent in ties being an essential part of exercising informal leadership, STT can help in assessing the strength of a tie and by extension the likelihood that people will respond to a request. It also, returning to the metaphor of glue, elucidates the conditions in which a tie may be effectual in making an ask but limits our options. STT posits that ties have both qualitative and structural dimensions. - **Qualitative:** the quality of a tie relates to if it is *friendship*\- or *task*\-orientated. - **Structural:** the structure relates to whether the tie is *open* (dyadic, consisting of two people) or *closed* (triadic, consisting of a dyad plus a third person). ### The Structure of a Tie *Open* ties are considered relatively weak because there is no common or enforcing third party. Open ties also tend to be highly individualistic, but often involve increased levels of bargaining power. As a result, the *weakness* of an open tie can manifest in heightened self-interest, the manipulation of information, and a failure to reciprocate. The result is a degradation of trust and eventually a breakdown in the tie. This is why open ties tend to problematic in organisations because they can easily mutate from highly effective (i.e., when there is strong trust) to toxic (i.e., when real or imagined slights create distrust between the individuals). For these reasons, open ties are often insufficient as a basis for informal leadership in boundary spanning activities because information and expertise sharing are less about improved outcomes for the organisation and more about personality contests—do I like the person making the request. Yet, make the tie *closed* by adding a common third party—technically called triadic—and we see a radical shift in the strength and stability of the tie's structure. This is because the tie is less individualistic due to the modulating effects of broader group or organisational norms which provide clear expectations as to conduct and the expectation of conformity to legitimate requests. When the third party takes the form of a manager there is the added dynamic of official sanctions—which can seldom be invoked in open ties between colleagues where sanctions may seem petty or personal. Closed structures also tend to improve conflict resolution because employees are usually keen to avoid the escalation of issues or the invocation of sanctions which have the additional impact of eroding personal brand in the wider organisation. As Simmel observed: > there is no triad in which a dissent between any two elements does not occur from time to time — a dissent of a more harmless or more pointed, more momentary, or more lasting, more theoretical or more practical nature — and in which the third member does not play a mediation role. > > (Simmel 1950, 149) ### The Quality of a Tie Turning to the qualitative aspects of ties, these can loosely be divided between *task*\- and *friendship*\-orientated. Task-orientated ties focus on the job in hand and are effective in disseminating information and achieving objectives. Friendship-orientated ties are driven by interpersonal relationships. Friendship-orientated ties have the powerful dynamic of emotion, which can be an effective motivator in getting colleagues to go above-and-beyond their baseline professional obligations. This may be as simple as a willingness to spend more time information sharing or as complex as providing emotional support in the face of adversity. There is also an increased propensity among employees with friendship-orientated ties to worry less about being taken advantage of, thereby sharing more with colleagues. A process that not only benefits the individuals who form the tie but also their manager, in the case of a closed (triadic) system. Friendship ties across teams are also more likely to enhance inter-team coordination as employees are less likely to see other teams as competitors for organisational resources. Task-orientated ties are predominantly transactional in nature and usually driven by an individual's role. An example of this is if I query HR regarding an employees contract, I don't need a tie of friendship for them to share relevant information and provide any necessary insights regarding employment policies. While at face value task-orientated ties are weaker than friendship-orientated ties, in terms of the likelihood of the individual going above and beyond, they are nonetheless of considerable benefit. This is because task ties leverage existing organisational roles and, being largely devoid of emotion, are less likely to result in employees deploying additional resources to deliver on an ask—taking them away from other more pressing duties. They also have the benefit when, in the best interests of the organisation rather than the individual, an ask necessitates a 'no' response of relieving the informal leader of the emotional labour in being bombarded with 'but I thought we were friends'. Whether the ties are task- or friendship-orientated, there is a point of diminishing returns. This is particularly the case in friendship ties where the relationship can become problematic as people overcommit their available resources to the detriment of professional obligations. In other words, it is productive for the team and healthy for the individual to have friends at work, but too many friends can begin to have the opposite effect as managers come to see well intentioned efforts at informal leadership as being nothing more than a social clique and as distracting from essential duties. A process that will erode an employee's brand and potentially harm their prospects for advancement. ## Putting Theory Into Practise As with all theoretical work, this begs the inevitable 'so what?' The short answer is that without informal leadership organisational value is lost as managers, irrespective of their capabilities, cap out their capacity to make decisions and move the organisation forward. The longer answer is while organisations have org charts, which can quickly tell you the span of control of an individual manager, informal ties go largely unmeasured. While it is **not** true that you cannot manage what you cannot measure, it is certainly hard to manage what you cannot see. This makes capturing ties an often unexplored, and by extension an unexploited, opportunity for organisations. One approach is to leverage the tools and frameworks for stakeholder mapping that should already take place in project management—creating an overview of the ties and discretionary boundary spanning that goes on between individuals. While this would be a Sisyphean task at an organisational level, it is a practical and valuable activity at the team level where it can be undertaken by the line manager who should only have a handful of direct reports, and who in turn will have a limited number of ties. ⚠️ It is important to not simply map who is talking to whom, but whether the tie quality is friendship- or task-orientated, and whether the structure is closed or open. Of particular interest will be the open ties due to the absence of a third party, and thus likely absence of any oversight. As with all organisational documents the process is as, if not more, important than the output. Mapping can begin via daily discussions and observations of employee interactions, but because individuals will have the keenest insights into the dyadic ties they have with people in the organisation, it is important not to be too covert in the observation process. The challenge and value a manager can provide to the organisation, and the individual employees engaging in the ties, is that individuals may be unaware of the relational patterns which have emerged, or perhaps how to interpret them. **For managers:** the mapping process can help to unlock the power of discretionary boundary spanning and facilitate improved informal leadership. A process that magnifies their capacity for management as they have better oversight, and by extension control, of the proliferation of collaboration, automation, and offshoring which either unlocks or limits the outcomes of their strategic decisions. **For employees:** understanding the ties and discretionary boundary spanning at play can help them to better understand the invisible blockers to task accomplishment and reduce the friction in their day. This is accomplished when their manager helps them to comprehend that they may be making a lot of friends, but this is increasing the drain on their limited resources. Instead, they would be better served, and in a better position to help their colleagues, by keeping their friendship ties 'as is' while increasing their closed task-orientated ties (e.g., by using a closed tie in which their manager has a mandate to achieve a goal which requires cross team collaboration, rather than trying to get colleagues to help them as a favour). When done effectively, use of informal leadership has the power to amplify the brand of employees and managers—providing genuine value to the organisation. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Jehyun Sung](https://unsplash.com/@jaysung?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/6U5AEmQIajg?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). --- ## Further Reading Bowler, WmM, and Brass, DJ (2006) Relational Correlates of Interpersonal Citizenship Behavior: A Social Network Perspective. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, **91**(1), 70–82. Dougherty, D (1992) Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms. *Organization Science (Providence, R.I.)*, **3**(2), 179–202. Krackhardt, D (1999) The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. In S. B. Andrews and D. Knoke, eds., *Networks in and around organizations*, Vol. 16, JAI Press, , 183–210. Krackhardt, D, and Stern, RN (1988) Informal Networks and Organizational Crises: An Experimental Simulation. *Social Psychology Quarterly*, **51**(2), 123–140. Methot, JR, Lepine, JA, Podsakoff, NP, and Christian, JS (2016) Are Workplace Friendships a Mixed Blessing? Exploring Tradeoffs of Multiplex Relationships and their Associations with Job Performance. *Personnel Psychology*, **69**(2), 311–355. Simmel, G (1950) *The sociology of Georg Simmel* (K. H. Wolff, Trans.), Glencoe: Free Press. ### The Boundaries of Informal Leadership URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-boundaries-of-informal-leadership/ Last updated: 2025-11-04T02:40:04.000Z Over the length and breadth of my career, I have come across many people who believe that leadership is a role rather than an activity. In that the *leaders* of an organisation are the people designated as forming the 'Senior Leadership Team' or 'Executive Leadership Team' and hold titles such as CEO, CFO, Head of, Manager etc. Even if I had not made an active study of leadership, I would have known this role based definition to be utter rubbish because even children can apprehend the essence of leadership. An essence that can be asserted as a person we feel compelled to follow not because they are in a position of authority, but because it makes sense to follow them. Since taking on formal management roles another lightbulb has clicked on. That my management capacities — not to be confused with capabilities — are symbiotically linked to the leadership capabilities of my team. Meaning that *informal leadership* is a source of competitive advantage — when effectively managed — and should be developed accordingly. In an organisational context, informal leadership can be said to exist when an employee does not have positional authority over the resources they are trying to influence yet are still able to influence or direct those resources. Some organisations invest a little and some a lot in developing their managers' leadership abilities. But the most interesting category of organisations are those that invest meaningfully. In that they not only invest in developing their managers but take the time to develop leadership capabilities in a wider employee base than only people with positional authority. However, engaging in staff development of this nature is much easier said than done, once we realise that fostering informal leadership involves leveraging concepts such as Simmelian Tie Theory (STT) and Discretionary Boundary Spanning (DBS), and culminates in the relationship between different types of informal leadership and the perceptions managers have of their employees' leadership performance. Spoiler alert, some managers feel incredibly threatened by informal leadership. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Are Hierarchies Healthy for Organisations? URL: https://robert.winter.ink/are-hierarchies-healthy-for-organisations/ Last updated: 2026-01-19T10:41:52.000Z An ongoing debate in the practice of management is whether hierarchical differentiation is something that improves or lessens team performance. By hierarchical differentiation, I mean the domains that create a hierarchy in an organisation. Examples of this are **status**, or the respect and deference of others; and **power**, or the control an individual or group has over available resources. Almost without exception, organisations revolve around hierarchies. Either because their size militates against direct engagement with all employees in the organisation when making decisions or because a named individual needs to be legally responsible for decision making. Despite the ubiquity, the quality of organisational hierarchy—functional vs dysfunctional—remains largely unexplored in either day to day conversations or scholarly research. I suspect part of the reason for this is that some people enjoy being at the top of an organisation, while others hope to be there one day, meaning there is vested interest in the assumption that hierarchies are good. That is, they are good (read necessary) for effective team performance and [leading at scale](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-at-scale/). Never one to shy away from turning over a stone for fear of what may lurk beneath, I thought it time to challenge hierarchy assumptions in organisations and ask: are organisational hierarchies functional (Anderson and Brown 2010)—and provide enhanced decision-making and improved coordination of action—or are they dysfunctional (Greer *et al*. 2018)—stoking conflict within teams and undermining organisational cohesion and effectiveness. ## Power and Status Before unpacking some of the practical implications for management, I need to take a brief survey of the academic literature so as to properly situate the terms we are using. Power in social relations is an incredibly complex and contested concept, with some of the most brilliant people in history—from [Edmund Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund%5FBurke?ref=robert.winter.ink) to [Max Weber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max%5FWeber?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Bertrand Russell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%5FRussell?ref=robert.winter.ink)—seeing power as too latent a phenomenon in social relationships to be dealt with either neatly or directly. But if I may be permitted a simplification, power is *local*. That is, it is situated in an individual or group when they can arbitrarily act with regard to a resource—human, financial, etc. Technically this is referred to as asymmetric outcome control. An example of this is if I have the power over your pay, I can increase, decrease, or stop it altogether and there is nothing you can do about it. If you can influence or stop my actions, for instance appealing to my boss or an external authority such as a tribunal, then I do not have power over your pay. I may have authority, influence, input, but I do not have power. Status, by contrast, is distributed or outside my locus of control. That is, status arises because you imbue me with respect, esteem, or prestige as an outcome of your judgement of my conduct. With status being entirely reliant on voluntary processes and power only existing in the absence of voluntary processes, Adam Galinsky and Joe Magee put it well when observing: > power, more than status, therefore, is a property of the actor. Status, more than power, is a property of co-actors and observers. The upshot of this, as studies show (Blader *et al*. 2016; Blader and Chen 2012), is that status tends to orientate people seeking status toward the people around them while power can tend to orientate people inward. When people look outside themselves, we often see increased perspective taking—though the quest for high status can also be a driver of neuroticism and narcissism. Those with high power can increasingly turn inward. To the extent that if they have high power but low status they may see exaggerated bellicose tendencies, that is they are more likely to initiate conflict and be disparaging toward others. A notorious example of his is found in the work of Nathanael Fast, Nir Halevy, and Adam Galinsky (Fast *et al*. 2012) who observed extreme examples in the case of U.S. soldiers physically and sexually abusing prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. While some use incidents such as Abu Ghraid, or the notorious Stanford Prison Experiment (Haney *et al*. 1972) as proof conclusive of Lord Acton's precept that 'power tends to corrupt', Fast, Halevy, and Galinsky analysed the problem more deeply and correctly realised that it was not the latent power that created the corruption. Rather, it was the lack of associated status. A notion of which Acton was also deeply aware, because earlier in his letter to Mandell Creighton he noted: 'Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility.' In other words, unless power is harnessed to some notion of responsibility, it will corrupt the holder. Thus, it is not that either power or status are inherently problematic. Instead, problems arise when there are major imbalances—for example people or teams with either high power and low status, or high status and low power. Under such circumstances there will tend to be an upswing in negative behaviours and an increase in conflict. Either within the team or directed against external adversaries. This latter tendency is often used to maintain team cohesion by creating an external enemy. A tactic political leaders have used over the millennia, the notion of *them and us*. ## A Little Less Competition, a Little More Cooperation In 1968, [Elvis Presley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis%5FPresley?ref=robert.winter.ink) recorded the song *A Little Less Conversation* which featured the lyrics: > A little less conversation, a little more action please > All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me > A little more bite and a little less bark > A little less fight and a little more spark > Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me The song is apt as a take on what is needed in organisations to avoid power and status tending to corrupt. The solution is a little less competition and a little more cooperation between the holders of power and status and their teams. This is because while competition can arise as a result of people seeking after status or power alone, and thus be a highly individualistic endeavour, cooperation by its nature requires an additional dynamic—that of a shared goal. This process of sharing *can* be a catalyst which determines if the competition is healthy of dysfunctional. In a team or organisation where status differentiation is already high, the introduction of power can tend to tip the scales of competition in the dysfunctional direction. This is because individuals will often seek to withhold resources rather than sharing them with the wider group in an effort to enhance their own standing or restrict the standing of others. In organisations, where the most generally traded resource is knowledge, knowledge hiding or sharing is often what determines if the competition is healthy or not. > Knowledge encompasses the information, ideas, and expertise relevant for tasks performed by individuals, teams, work units, and the organization as a whole. It is important to note, that knowledge *hiding* in this context is different from simply *not sharing* knowledge. This is because there are many reasons why knowledge is not shared in a team or organisation. It may be that the person with the knowledge didn't think people were interested, they simply forgot to mention it, or they didn't have access to the knowledge in the first place. An example of this latter phenomenon may be that there is a departmental manual or wiki, but the person running the induction didn't know about this cache of available information and thus failed to share a key resource. Knowledge hiding by contrast is deliberate, usually self-interested, and, when exercised in the pursuit of status or power, can also be strategic. Consequently, team members with higher power but lacking in status are more likely to take a self-interested approach to resource allocation. Even distrusting the intentions of colleagues if they come to fear what they may do with the knowledge once they have gained access to it. Team members with low power and low status may engage in knowledge hiding out of self-preservation—perhaps because they fear punishment or retribution as a result of sharing knowledge that contradicts the narrative of those with power. Arguably what matters most about the above examples of knowledge hiding is that the cause—high or low power / status—matters far less than the effect. Which is that when there is high differentiation between power and status, the behavioural prediction is heightened levels of knowledge hiding. Realisations such as this see many people reach for the ban hammer. That is to ban, or to try to ban, power or status in organisations. Apart from this being both impractical and largely impossible, it is also unnecessary as high levels of cooperation are not only possible but probable, so long as the organisational culture is calibrated to achieve a healthy competition outcome. In such circumstances, organisational hierarchy will instead tend toward the functional, yielding several benefits which enhance team performance and that will ensure the organisation outperforms other organisations that are unable to strike the right balance. The first circumstance is one in which management differentiation based on resource control and decision-making authority is high, but in which there is also an organisational culture which works to ensuring all employees as respected. Senior Leaders play a central role in this process because they enjoy the largest differentiation with respect to status and power, they are in the strongest position to minimise the differentiation experienced by more junior employees. The second, and key circumstance, is ensuring a degree of parity between power and respect. If individuals are in a position of great disparity, that is they have high power but low status, they are more likely to exhibit knowledge hiding and engage in dysfunctional competition. But if the organisational structure keeps power and status in balance, it will tend to limit the more negative effects that are so often associated with high levels of power. It will be of no surprise that there are no silver bullets regarding the healthy management of organisational hierarchies. Therefore, it always comes down to the people and how they are managed. So long as senior managers are consistent, assertive, and explicit in according and reinforcing respect among all levels of the organisation regarding the vital role played by each person in achieving team and organisational goals, the balance of probability is that a culture will manifest in which respect goes beyond words and becomes deeds—strengthening organisational loyalty and team bonds. Bonds that will occasion improved knowledge sharing, a process that creates a virtuous circle reinforcing the functional and positive capabilities of power, status, and hierarchy. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Edvard Alexander Rølvaag](https://unsplash.com/@edvardr?utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fsource=unsplash) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/E75ZuAIpCzo?utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fsource=unsplash). --- ## Further Reading Anderson, C, and Brown, CE (2010) The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. *Research in Organizational Behavior*, **30**, 55–89. Anicich, EM, Fast, NJ, Halevy, N, and Galinsky, AD (2016) When the Bases of Social Hierarchy Collide: Power Without Status Drives Interpersonal Conflict. *Organization Science (Providence, R.I.)*, **27**(1), 123–140. Bartol, KM, and Srivastava, A (2002) Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Organizational Reward Systems. *Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies*, **9**(1), 64–76. Blader, SL, and Chen, Y-R (2012) Differentiating the Effects of Status and Power: A Justice Perspective. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, **102**(5), 994–1014. Blader, SL, Shirako, A, and Chen, Y-R (2016) Looking Out From the Top: Differential Effects of Status and Power on Perspective Taking. *Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin*, **42**(6), 723–737. Fast, NJ, Halevy, N, and Galinsky, AD (2012) The destructive nature of power without status. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*, **48**(1), 391–394. Galinsky, AD, Magee, JC, M. Ena Inesi, and Gruenfeld, DH (2006) Power and Perspectives Not Taken. *Psychological Science*, **17**(12), 1068–1074. Greer, LL, de Jong, BA, Schouten, ME, and Dannals, JE (2018) Why and When Hierarchy Impacts Team Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Integration. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, **103**(6), 591–613. Haney, C, Banks, C, and Zimbardo, P (1972) *Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison*. Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. *Acad. Management Ann.* **2**:351–398. ### Managing as a Coach URL: https://robert.winter.ink/managing-as-a-coach/ Last updated: 2026-01-19T10:45:05.000Z One of the more typical paths to a career in management is to be good at your tasks. I don't mean good at your job; I mean good at getting tasks done — being a knowledge or subject matter expert. The reason task or subject orientated people are often promoted is because there is an assumption that the skill set of completing individual tasks and knowing the answers about a subject are the same skills required to manage people. In this view of management capabilities, it is generally held that the role of a manager revolves around: - Knowing what needs doing. - Knowing how to do it—aka having the right answers. - Telling people how to do the thing that needs doing. - Evaluating the performance of people who have been told to do the thing. I find it strange that this approach persists because one only needs to listen to any successful CEO or Chairman, and you will usually hear them say something along the lines of "I surround myself with people who know things I do not". In such a context, it should be self-evident that senior leaders do not succeed by knowing how to do tasks or knowing the answers, and then telling others what they know. Rather, they are possessed of the ability to form a team of great people, and then coach them to achieve the objectives set. An approach that not only enables [Leading At Scale](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-at-scale/), but also facilitates team growth as your capabilities as a coach are not constrained by your capacities as a knowledge or subject matter expert. For those who have encountered *coaches* in the past, chances are I am **not** referring to what you have encountered. That is, people who will help you develop your personal brand, tell you about the benefits of getting up early, taking exercise, setting personal goals. These are all great things, and there is a place for a coach of that nature, but ultimately, they are still doing what many managers do—sharing what they know with someone less knowledgeable. Instead, when talking about a coach, I am referring to managers who can develop a sustainable learning environment in their team or organisation. In other words, leaders who can help people to become autonomous not just in the execution of their role, but in their ability to discover new pathways to achieving their objectives. ## Telling Vs Teaching When I talk with managers who have settled into the mould of telling their subordinates what to do, it is common for them to bluster that coaching is 'wishy-washy', is too *soft* to achieve measurable results, or takes too long. Yet look beyond the bluster and you will usually find a manager who is psychologically uncomfortable with the approach of coaching. Either because they lack the skills required, or because they fear being deprived of what they see as the main duty of a manger—asserting authority over other people. Although over twenty years old, Daniel Goleman's article *Leadership That Gets Results* remains insightful in the observation that: > the coaching style is used least often. Many leaders told us they don't have the time in this high-pressure economy for the slow and tedious work of teaching people and helping them grow. The time pressures inherent in organisational management drive many managers to adopt a 'tell and sell' approach when dealing with performance conversations—even though those same managers, when asked in a training setting, assert that 'ask and listen' is a more efficacious approach. In a nutshell, the 'tell and sell' approach tends to unfold a little like this: Manager begins the conversation with an open-ended question, trying to lean into the 'ask and listen' approach: "Tell me how everything is going for *you*?" Employee, if things are not going well, will generally reply with: "all good, busy time, but getting there." Manager, clearly thinking things are not going well, and frustrated the employee is not more forthcoming, abandons 'ask and listen' for a more direct approach: "Things are not going well, I am concerned about your output." Employee, now defensive, moves into fight or flight: "It is a difficult time for me and you cornering me is not helping the situation." Manager, realising that *tell* has not worked out well, tries to end the meeting on a positive note (sell): "We are a team, if we all just pull together and get our work done, we can be very successful." Employee, feeling like they have side stepped a landmine, returns to work feeling demotivated but glad they got out of having to change their approach. If this *coaching* scenario sounds eerily familiar, you are not alone. You are also in a strong position as once you recognise the behaviour, the road to true coaching lies ahead. ## GROWing as a Coach Of the many coaching models, one of the most widely used is GROW, which is an acronym for **G**rowth, **R**eality, **O**bstacles / **O**ptions, **W**ay forward. It is important to note that in the coaching space, there is something of a gulf between the psychologists and non-psychologists. Much the same way that in the leadership space there is a gulf between leaders and managers who like to style themselves as *leaders*. The good news is that here I am focusing on what a manager, with no training in psychology, can do to make a richer and more meaningful team environment. Which, unless one is willing to tackle eight to ten years of tertiary study, is about the most that can be hoped for and does, objections of ivory tower academics notwithstanding, make a meaningful difference in helping you to think differently about your practice of management. Therefore, so long as the approach is largely confined to goal-directed areas, such as team or departmental objectives, it can be a powerful tool. The four parts of GROW are: 1. **Goal:** what your employee or college wants to achieve. As a thought exercise, it is helpful to start with what is the goal the individual wants to get out of *this* coaching. Then, we can move to what they want or need to achieve in their role / organisation at large. 2. **Reality:** where are they now (who, what, where, when). This is all about grounding thinking about the true distance to their goal. This can be one of the hardest aspects to coaching as people either seeking or in need of coaching are often lacking a firm grasp on reality. It is important to note that this is about conscious raising, **not** *telling* people where they are really at. *Ask* questions and then *listen* as their answers form. 3. **Obstacles / Options:** it is important to tackle both as our options are seldom, if ever, unlimited. In which case, what are the obstacles that are limiting our options? Until we can face the reality of these obstacles, we will not be able to strategise about what we can do to surmount them. 4. **Way Forward:** this not only requires plotting a path, but in summoning the will to walk it. Once the coaching session is over, the individual is accountable of their choices and by extension their destiny. They will fail if they consistently need you to be the boot in their behind to get motivated. In this context, they need to be challenged on their will to see the process through. To get up and exercise, to sit down and study, to go out and network. If their motivation is not sufficient, coaching will flag and fail. The challenge for managers in this process, is that most of coaching will not take place in a formal setting. For example, sitting down for an hour and going through the GROW model. Instead, it happens in the dozens of micro-interactions that happen with a team across the working week. It happens in the way in which a manager responds to an email, follows up on a request, queries an employee to help them think rather than telling them the answer. But most of all, it happens in the space created in the working day. If employees are keep constantly under the pump, coaching will **NEVER** work. Much as managers need the space to think and plan, employees need the space to think and execute. They also need the [psychological safety](https://robert.winter.ink/a-psychological-safety-primer/) necessary to navigate their own path, rather than feeling compelled to get done what the boss *tells* them to do. This should not be confused with an unstructured workplace, in which employees are left to their own devices. Rather, it is to give space for [management by objective and self-control](https://robert.winter.ink/five-stages-of-autonomy/), a space in which if the objectives are not achieved, then performance management needs to follow. In this context, coaching a team is a process that requires reciprocal trust and benefit. ## Conclusion Coaching is a poor management tool for which to reach if employees are resistant to either change or learning opportunities. And it is usually a complete failure if the manager in question is inept at feedback or lacks a consistent approach to organisational behaviour. In such circumstances, *coaching* conversations will tend to create an environment of apathy or even fear, rather than motivation. For these reasons, coaching is most effective when conceived of as an organisational capability and capacity. That is when coaching goes beyond a managerial skill and manifests in the cultural transformation of becoming a learning and development led organisation. A process that needs a clearly articulated *why*. A great *why* example was the approach taken by [David Morley](https://www.dhmorley.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), who spoke about his time as Senior Partner at the law firm [Allen & Overy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%5F%26%5FOvery?ref=robert.winter.ink): > My pitch was this: 'As a senior leader, you have roughly 100 conversations a year that are of particularly high value—in the sense that they will change your life or the life of the person you're talking to. We want to help you acquire the skills to maximize value in those 100 conversations, to unlock previously hidden issues, to uncover new options, and to reveal fresh insights.' That resonated. Almost everybody in a key leadership position at the firm recognized that they struggled with how to make the most of those conversations, and they could readily see that they lacked skills. In addition to a compelling *why*, modelling the right behaviour is essential to success. Whether you are the CEO and wanting to lead by example, or you are a junior manager hoping to see your organisation take on a 'learn-it-all' approach, thinking about your attitude, body language, and the way in which you question people, all helps to foster a supportive rather than judgemental environment at work. By also leveraging the skills outlined in [Leading Psychological Safety in Teams](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-psychological-safety-in-teams/), managers can build momentum because people will invariably mimic the behaviour that is consistently modelled around them. Particularly if that behaviour is modelled by a person in a position of status or authority. By asking questions, challenging assumptions, and supporting employees, instead of providing canned answers and endless rounds of judgement, managers are in a strong position to lead development rather than merely mandating what needs to be done. By stepping away from being a subject matter expert and toward a focus on people and coaching, a manager is in a much better position to transform their job into a leadership role. That is, to lead at scale by truly empowering their team with the skills needed to create sustainable value in the organisation. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [AbsolutVision](https://unsplash.com/@freegraphictoday?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/82TpEld0%5Fe4?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### The Value of a Chief of Staff URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-value-of-a-chief-of-staff/ Last updated: 2026-01-19T10:48:19.000Z A CEO faces a daunting array of challenges, even when they have been at the helm for many years, because it is impossible in a large organisation to be in every key meeting or to follow up on every key decision. If they are new to the organisation or role, their mandate for change presents even more formidable challenges—such as reshaping strategy and aligning organisational culture and behaviour. Yet a CEO, whether veteran or new, is accountable for it all. In tackling this challenge, CEOs invariably look at the headline problems. What is the current strategy, and does it need changing? Who are the Senior Leaders, and do they need replacing? What is the organisational culture, and does it need amending? Yet in surveying the forest, it is easy to lose sight of the trees. Which in the case of the Office of the CEO are the administrative staff who manage the work *du jour*. It is often remarked that the most valuable resource is time—because it is truly finite. Great leaders are successful not because they have access to more resources, but because they make better use of their time. The administrative staff and systems in the Office of the CEO can make or break the effectiveness of where and how a CEO spends their time. Despite this, it is not uncommon for CEOs to leave their staffing and routine unchanged for years, or—in the case of a new CEO—simply stick with the system they inherited from their predecessor. Even if it is ill suited to their strategic style or preferences in organisation behaviour. A good EA is worth their weight in gold, yet their skill set and daily duties means they are perhaps not best placed to tackle some of the key challenges that arise. Examples of this might be ensuring the CEO can make the most of their time by having someone manage the information flow resulting in the right information getting to them at the right time in their decision making process, or that follow-ups happen post a decision without the CEO having to personally check. This is where a Chief of Staff (CoS) can perform an essential role in helping a CEO [lead at scale](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-at-scale/). ## Do You Need a CoS? The role of Chief of Staff is far from new. From ancient times to the present day, successful leaders have had people around them who are close advisers and capable of handling particularly delicate or complex strategic issues. Examples of this were the roles [Louis-Alexandre Berthier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Alexandre%5FBerthier?ref=robert.winter.ink) or [Alexander Hamilton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander%5FHamilton?ref=robert.winter.ink) played respectively to [Napoleon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon?ref=robert.winter.ink) or [George Washington](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FWashington?ref=robert.winter.ink). Far from personal secretaries, the CoS role encompasses a wide range of responsibilities from communicator or facilitator—ensuring in the business context that key departments or Executives do not remain siloed in the execution of company strategy—to teller of hard truths when the CEO needs information that has not gone through the filter of an alignment process to protect vested interests. This last point is a critical one because a CEO's direct reports can be guilty of emphasising their own agenda by providing a consistent narrative that supports their department, but which may not consider the needs of the organisation as a whole. A good CoS can assist in this space by helping the CEO to think through key policy decisions in a politically neutral way which focusses on the organisation rather than the manager or department in question, and then take accountability for ensuring the CEO's decisions are implemented. A process which provides clarity and can free up the CEO's time so they can focus on the next strategic objective. In this key enabler role, a CoS needs to be able to anticipate problems, manage difficult and politically sensitive relationships, and function as the eyes and ears of the CEO. In acting on behalf of the CEO, the capabilities outlined in last week's column, [Leading Psychological Safety in Teams](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-psychological-safety-in-teams/), of open dialogue, situational humility, and sponsoring success, are vital lest the CoS simply becomes yet another faction with which the CEO needs to deal. A situation that would completely defeat the purpose of the role. As is perhaps becoming clear, the CoS role will not suit some CEOs or organisations. Begging the question, "how do you know if you need a CoS?" There are seven questions which can help to answer that: 1. **Do you have enough time?** This is the key challenge faced by all leaders as time is the one immutable which cannot be increased. Successful leaders are generally the ones making the most productive use of their 24-hours. If you are struggling to make the time to address key strategic challenges, a CoS may help. 2. **What does your calendar look like?** For those applying the principles from [Running Effective Meetings](https://robert.winter.ink/running-effective-meetings/), and who have successfully engaged with [Dov Frohman's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov%5FFrohman?ref=robert.winter.ink) injunction that half of a leader's time should be unscheduled, there will be the space in the working week to bounce forward from decision making. If you lack this unscheduled time because your calendar is jammed with reacting to the fallout from your decisions or chasing progress, a CoS can be the resource that puts time back in your week. 3. **Do you feel unprepared?** If board meetings or sessions with the Executive team leave you feeling unprepared, it is a clear sign a CoS is needed. This is because they can work to ensure information is provided at the right time to give you the space to prepare for strategic meetings more thoroughly. They can also run to ground any action items which need following up, preventing you from preparing for your next key meeting. 4. **Do you have the best possible information?** It is more common than it should be for CEOs and Executives to revisit strategic decisions because new information surfaces which could have been known at the time, but which was not made available. A CoS can play a pivotal role in these situations by ensuring deeper, apolitical dives are made into various areas of the business ahead of the decision-making process. 5. **Do you hear about problems in advance or only after a team or initiative has failed?** If senior leaders are fully aligned and giving a strong vote of confidence, yet strategic goals remain unmet, a CoS can help. This is because their apolitical position means they will surface the detail of blockers before they create damage—though this will involve difficult conversations for departmental heads. While potentially uncomfortable, a diplomatic and adept CoS can defuse challenges and help to scaffold senior leaders so that difficult conversations are had at the right time instead of "please explain" meetings when objectives are not met. 6. **Do you lead a team or a confederation of warring tribes?** Relationship issues between executives or competitions for power between teams can derail strategic plans and block organisational progress. A CoS can assist in undertaking a root cause analysis (RCA) of the situation, saving the CEO vital time and energy ahead of taking the decisions to effect necessary change. 7. **Do you ask for action and then loose the threads of the decision?** If your confidence that managers will follow through on the action items needed to fulfil your strategic objectives is low, a CoS can assist by taking on the responsibility for chasing outcomes. Yet even if a CEO or Executive is answering yes to more than one of these questions, they many still baulk at appointing a CoS. Often this is because of optics—will a CoS make a leader look like they need an entourage, or does it come across as though they cannot handle the job. At other times, it may be that they have never seen a skilled individual at work in the role of a CoS and therefore the value is not clear. To address this it is necessary to setup the position for the work needed. ## Getting a CoS Right While establishing the duties of a CoS is important, of greater relevance in determining if the role will be a successful addition, or merely a distraction, is getting the right candidate and scaffolding their appointment to the role. In government and military circles, there is a reason that a Chief of Staff is often chosen from a close circle of advisers and officers. This is because the role involves high levels of trust and capabilities as varied as research, analysis, program management, self-discipline, relationship management, and communication. Elements which are not easily discernible from an interview process. Rather, they are things which usually only surface over time. Elevation from within also carries the benefit of appointing someone who is awake and aware to the challenges of the political and interpersonal landscape. If the leader is new, the success of the CoS will also hinge on their ability to envision the change the leader is seeking to deliver. Bringing the necessary political acumen, diplomacy, emotional intelligence, judgement, and discretion to move freely with powerful executives to get the job done rather than creating a separate power base. While some leaders have appointed relatively junior individuals to a CoS role, for example an ambitious Executive Assistant, newly minted MBA graduate, or postdoctoral researcher, arguably the greatest value is in appointing seasoned professionals. Individuals with a mix of people management, project management, and academic capabilities—research and report writing is a large part of the role—who are equipped to take on the diverse responsibilities that will come their way. Yet success or failure of the appointment of a CoS does not rest solely with the individual. Preparing the Senior Leadership Team and organisation at large is also essential. As a first step, any executive assistants need to understand the whats, whys, and wherefores of the CoS role. This is because the executive assistants will continue to be responsible for the routine duties and daily flow of information and personal office management. Management of these activities can either buttress the CoS or militate against their work and block necessary access. Other executives also need to understand the purpose of the role, how the company and they personally—not forgetting the warring tribes' analogy of earlier—will benefit from the appointment. This is perhaps the most delicate part of the appointment as in many organisations it is not uncommon for executives to be almost the sole source of truth for the CEO. The arrival of someone who may have a different assessment of the situation is something that can easily upset an already precarious balance and even be seen as threatening to an executive if an organisation is failing to achieve its objectives or suffering from a lack of [Responsibility, Ownership, Accountability](https://robert.winter.ink/responsibility-ownership-accountability/). Failure to calibrate for this balance can result in a dearth of cooperation with the CoS as executives vie for the ear of the CEO or seek to undermine efforts which they see as contradicting their own narrative. The last two factors in getting a CoS right are down to the CEO. The first is dependent on the effectiveness of the feedback loop between CEO and CoS. Ironically, CEOs most in need of a CoS often lack the confidence to engage in the robust giving and receiving of feedback necessary to challenge the paradigms that are checking progress. For a CoS to be effective, there needs to be a pact with them that if they attenuate their feedback abilities the CEO for their part will work on being a more careful listener. The second element, though closely linked to the first, is the willingness of the CEO to make personal and professional changes based on the feedback of the CoS. In instances where a CEO is highly independent, keeps their own counsel and is, in short, use to being their own CoS, the process will do nothing but add to the organisation's salary costs. If the myriad challenges listed above can be surmounted, and a CEO makes the necessary changes to their routine, a good CoS helps a leader achieve their potential in a sustainable way that delivers long term success when managing complex organisations. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Pascal Debrunner](https://unsplash.com/@debrupas?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/WuwKphhRQSM?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### Leading Psychological Safety in Teams URL: https://robert.winter.ink/leading-psychological-safety-in-teams/ Last updated: 2026-01-19T10:51:03.000Z In a recent column, I penned some thoughts on [A Psychological Safety Primer](https://robert.winter.ink/a-psychological-safety-primer/). This week I want to go beyond those basics and outline some of the essentials for managers to engender not only a safer, but also a higher-performing work environment. An example of the potential upside for performance takes the shape of increasingly agile teams that are empowered to tackle challenges more rapidly by circumventing the problems associated with highly bureaucratic or overly rigid organisational structures. Yet such teams require managers who can enable autonomy and innovation by creating psychologically safe environments. This is not something that can be managed by fiat or a speech from the CEO exhorting staff to *be more innovative*. Rather, it requires team leaders—often lower and middle managers—who can engender the right climate by role modelling expected behaviours. Behaviours that include care for the wellbeing of fellow team members, valuing the contribution of others, and encouraging team members to provide input into how objectives can be delivered. The benefits which flow from such psychologically safe environments are even stronger during periods of change, disruption, or systemic risk—think [Covid](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/covid/), an industry in the decline phase of its life cycle, or a company facing existential threats from any of the factors in a [PESTLE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEST%5Fanalysis?ref=robert.winter.ink#Variants) framework. Depending on the approach taken by managers, and the results will likely fall into one of four key modes of organisational culture: 1. **Apathy Mode:** when managers fail to consult, support, or challenge their team, their employees will often be left uncomfortable with their manager and each other. The result is that they will be reluctant to seek help, consult, or even engage with the work at hand. This leads to feelings of disengagement, and in the long run will result in decreased motivation and poor performance. 2. **Easy Mode:** when managers are a little too consultative, provide too much scaffolding, and do not set ambitious targets, employees can be lulled into easy mode. The problem is that while people may feel safe, they also experience decreased ambition to challenge assumptions and established ways of thinking because it is easier to sit back and let the manager lead all interactions. Such teams tend to prioritise internal congeniality over driving the business forward or providing high levels customer satisfaction. 3. **Anxiety Mode:** when managers neither consult nor support, yet push their team for high performance, employees will invariably experience heightened anxiety. Like apathy, there will be decreased motivation to seek help, but unlike apathy, anxiety mode brings feelings of isolation and even fear. Not only is this harmful to employee mental health, but it also damages organisational performance as workers will tend to keep ideas to themselves and staff turnover will be high. 4. **Goldilocks Mode:** when managers consult, support, *and* challenge their team, employees are more likely to feel capable of rising to the challenges of work. They are energised by engagements with stakeholders and are more willing to take the calculated risks necessary for innovative work. Employees in this zone will not only be more likely to seek help, but to offer assistance to others. ## Leading Safety I will reiterate a point I have made before, but which the misconceptions that abound in organisation level discussions and in the management literature make it necessary to continually labour. Management is not leadership. The former, management, is largely driven by positional authority within an organisation. An example of this would be that as your manager, I am granted the authority to approve or deny your leave applications. It is usually assumed this positional authority is the result of me having some special knowledge about organisational behaviour, HR practices, and team planning, which equips me with the skills necessary to effectively manage your leave. The reality is usually lightyears from the ideal. Leadership, by contrast, requires no positional authority whatsoever. It manifests when someone has expertise, a capacity for argumentation, charisma, etc., and people listen to that individual not because they must, but because it makes sense to do so. This difference means that a leader can take followers on a journey because there is an established trust relationship, which engenders respect, and ends in a commitment to shared goals. A manager, by contrast, can only tell employees to do something because they have positional authority over the individuals—which will be carried out to varying levels of quality depending on whether trust, respect, and buy in have been established. This nuance is important because [Amy Edmondson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy%5FEdmondson?ref=robert.winter.ink) had it right when she observed that **team** psychological safety is a group level phenomenon. In other words, individuals may speak up despite their fear of retribution, but for an environment to be psychological safe, there must be an absence of fear and with sufficient protections so that individuals (plural) feel that the environment is absent of retaliation, renunciation, or guilt. In this group context, each member of the team has a responsibility for leading psychologically safe environments. Yet for all the group dynamics, the success of efforts by groups are, in an organisational context, are highly correlated with managerial competence. Managers who have strong capabilities in the organisational behaviour space, and work in close combination with HR, are well positioned to foster enhanced psychological safety by developing and encouraging open dialogue skills. These skills revolve around how individuals within a team talk through the inevitable tensions that arise at work. This may take the shape of dispute resolution, but also covers the ways in which concerns about management decisions, existing organisational process, or the roll out of new programs, are debated and discussed. True, there can eventually come a time where some employees will simply never be *aligned* with the change or new process—at which point a little authoritarian management is needed. But so long as an individual or group can use reasoned deliberation to argue the benefits and can construct a rationale which stands up to scrutiny, they are well placed to create environments which are psychologically safe. It also means that when all avenues of consensus building have been exhausted, it is reasonable rather than authoritarian to pull on the leaver of "because I'm your manager and you just need to do this". Capabilities other than open dialogue which are less frequently used, yet are also predictive of psychologically safe environments, are situational humility and sponsoring success. Situational humility is when an individual does not dominate an interaction or situation so as to crowd out other voices. Sponsoring success involves thinking about others' success ahead of our own. An example of this is scheduling meetings with care of other peoples' commitments, or scaffolding their day for success, even if it creates a little more work for us. Though I have sought to underscore the importance of team leaders, junior and middle managers, and employees without formal position authority as key drivers to leading psychological safety in an organisation, the hard truth is that culture begins at the top. This is particularly the case when [Leading At Scale](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-at-scale/). While the capabilities needed at the organisation level are largely the same as at the team level—open dialogue, situational humility, and sponsoring success—there are some additional capabilities which become increasingly important when one climbs to the rarified air at the top of an organisation. The first is cultural awareness and involves perceiving the norms that are present in the different cultures among an organisation's stakeholders. These can be ethnic cultures, but also encompass [generational cultures](https://robert.winter.ink/category/social-comment/generations/) which can be an even greater driver of difference than ethnicity. The second is situational awareness and involves understanding the way in which stakeholder thinking is shaped and beliefs entrenched by selective observations. Without a deep and nuanced understanding of the cultural and situational challenges, Executives are unlikely to be able to plan for the paradigm shifts necessary for strategic success. ## Ending Where We Start If I have done my work well, the benefits, by products, and symptoms involved in managing for psychological safety should be increasingly clear—if not, please reach out. But where to begin with a manager or management team in the process of leading psychological safety and what practical steps can be taken? The first element is to hire the right people. Of the [Big Five personality traits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big%5FFive%5Fpersonality%5Ftraits?ref=robert.winter.ink), two are positively correlated to psychological safety. These are low neuroticism and high openness to experience. Hiring managers and talent teams may benefit from designing recruitment processes that include measures for these traits and in asking behavioural questions aimed at eliciting how candidates have managed for psychological safety in the past. Second, organisations need to go beyond *ad hoc* or isolated training programs for managers. Our psychological state seldom changes easily, yet training to help us shift our paradigms is often relegated to occasional sessions. Instead, the Executive Leadership Team would do better to define clear strategies which are aligned to the organisation's aspirations in the psychological safety space. This is done by baking in capabilities—such as open dialogue, situational humility, or sponsoring success—to establish an organisation wide taxonomy of skills that are part of a manager's [OKRs](https://robert.winter.ink/anchoring-teams-through-transformation/). Third, ensure that learning experiences go beyond the technical. By this I mean management development experiences that are sensory, emotional, and designed to create 'aha!' moments. Heightening emotion during learning can create stronger connections which are better remembered over time. For this, learning programs need to challenge paradigms, innate emotional reactions, and assumptions to engender enduring psychological change. The challenge is that for such programs to be successful, a degree of psychological safety is necessary as a first step. Without this, managers are unlikely to be open to real change, instead preferring to *show* change in the moment but returning to their pre-existing paradigms once the training is over. Finally, continuous learning needs to be part of a manager's daily work. Some organisations, such as WooliesX, formally set one day a week as time for personal development. Other organisations leave it to the manager to *make* the time for personal development. For those applying the principles from [Running Effective Meetings](https://robert.winter.ink/running-effective-meetings/), and who have successfully engaged with [Dov Frohman's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov%5FFrohman?ref=robert.winter.ink) injunction that half of a leader's time should be unscheduled, there will be the space in the working week to bounce forward from formal training and apply the lessons learned in the context of active projects and initiatives. This is an essential element in moving learning from retention to application. The challenges in creating psychological safety are in some ways more complex for managers because they not only need to lead the process, but also lead themselves in the initiation of the process. Without the self-awareness necessary for this, the attempts to achieve psychological safety will stall and be little more than "safety washing". But when managers are present who can publicly role model their own process of learning and development, they become true leaders who will be able to foster an operating environment in which it is safe to attempt, fail, change, develop, and ultimately succeed. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Paolo Candelo](https://unsplash.com/@paolocandelo?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/53B17GiIhTA?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText?). ### Recovery Experiences and Your Mood at Work URL: https://robert.winter.ink/recovery-experiences-and-your-mood-at-work/ Last updated: 2025-11-20T09:57:33.000Z Have you ever finished the working day and felt as though the weight of the world is on your shoulders? Worse, it's 9 am on Monday morning and you feel so tired that it would be more appropriate if it were 5 pm on Friday afternoon? You are not alone. Yet solidarity in how tiring work can be does not achieve much, can foster a desire for the excessive alcohol consumption, purchasing of lottery tickets, and simply perpetuate the spiral. None of this is healthy or sustainable. Surely, there must be a better way! I am pleased to report there is, and it takes the shape of what we do during our non-work time. But first, a primer on mood so we can better understand how efficacious our current recovery experiences really are. 🗒️ I have read enough academic literature and pulp business magazine articles to apprehend that in the Org Behaviour space we have a language problem. The academic literature is too often lost in its ivory tower to be of much use, and the pulp articles are so lacking in nuance that key takeaways are lost. In this piece, I hope to bridge something of that gap by starting in the ivory tower and bringing the concepts down to the practical level without losing critical aspects of meaning. ## What is Mood? In the journals of record, definitions of mood are — to the lay reader — jargon infused and opaque. To take one example: > *mood* is defined as prolonged core affect without an Object, *affect regulation* as action aimed directly at altering or maintaining one's own core affect without reference to an Object. > > (Russell 2003, 149) Which begs the question, what is 'affect'? This will only yield something along the lines of: > A neurophysiological state that is consciously accessible as a simple, nonreflective feeling that is an integral blend of hedonic (pleasure–displeasure) and arousal (sleepy–activated) values. > > (Russell 2003, 147) So much, so complicated. But there is good reason for this. Much of what we take to be *obvious* because they are daily encounters, such as the notion of 'mood', are in fact highly complex phenomena. Dismissing them out of hand, failing to apprehend their complexity in a fit of 'everyone knows', or assuming because someone is a 'people person' that they are well placed to understand the complexities of the human condition, explains why organisations continue to struggle with the human elements of people management. In this context, we need to grapple with the complexity for a moment to better understand how our working day and our leisure time activities share a symbiotic relationship. As far as mood goes, we need to move beyond thinking of it as a 'feeling' or momentary 'emotional condition'. Rather, it is best expressed by a model of three intercorrelated bipolar dimensions: *wakefulness–tiredness*, *calmness–tenseness*, and *pleasantness–unpleasantness*. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Running Effective Meetings URL: https://robert.winter.ink/running-effective-meetings/ Last updated: 2026-01-20T10:16:23.000Z In a recent workshop I attended on running effective meetings, the facilitator reeled off some statistics. According to The Muse and Atlassian, the average employee attends 62 meetings per month. Of these, around 50% are a waste of time. Executives take an even dimmer view of the scene and attest to 67% of meetings being a complete failure in communicating the reason for the meeting. Turning to the group, the facilitator asked, 'what does that tell you?' By way of answer, I quipped: 'I'm impressed that people think meetings are so effective.' Cheap laugh out the way, and we apprehend a challenge to an organisation's [Strategic Outlook](https://robert.winter.ink/category/business/fy24-outlook/) that is hiding in plain sight — the illusion that communication has taken place because we held a meeting. There is nothing original about this observation, if you work in a bog standard company then chances are you have seen mugs with 'this meeting should have been an email' laying around. Perhaps there is a 'Ten Commandments' for meeting etiquette taped to a wall, or more likely laying on the floor as the sign has been there so long the adhesive has finally given way. For those wandering this wasteland of efficiency and productivity I have little comfort to offer because the root cause is human nature. Some people are productive — that is they are motivated, literate, insightful, and self-aware — while others will tend to social loaf because 'there will always be work'. However, while there is no light at the end of the tunnel, those who are keen to effect change can improve the quality of the tunnel. This takes the shape of addressing some of the symptoms, long present in organisations, that the recent [Covid](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/covid/) pandemic exacerbated. ## Managing Vs Leading Meetings One of the key failings of many meetings, is a lack of shared understanding. This failure can be the result of a range of reasons, some of which are: - Not understanding why everyone is there; - Not understanding roles and responsibilities once there; - Not understanding what the meeting should achieve; - Not understanding what the meeting has achieved — usually nothing more than the need for another meeting; - Not understanding who is accountable for the meeting actions; - Not understanding the value to the organisation — by this I mean the real value not the **asserted value** by the manager in the room with positional authority. This lack of shared understanding has only worsened in recent years as people were cut off from their offices. While many see working from home as both a productivity boon, and a right, [essential elements of the communication process are lost](https://robert.winter.ink/remote-working-policies/) when we drop to two dimensions and become little more than talking heads — that is when people manage to turn on their cameras. Poor managers will respond to this issue by doubling down on their preferred approach — 'get everyone into the office' or 'get everyone online and into an alignment meeting'. This is what I term the **positional authority approach** as it seeks to leverage organisation charts, line management, and that curse of effective communication — 'let's take this offline'. ⚠️ Managers uttering the phrase 'let's take this offline' seldom complete the reality of the sentence, which is: 'let's take this offline and into another meeting to try and achieve the outcome that should have been achieved by the first meeting'. The reason for this obfuscation is that anything less would highlight their management of the meeting for what it is — poor design and implementation of collaborative processes. This brings me onto [leadership vs management](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-change-and-managing-complexity/). The latter is largely driven by positional authority within an organisation. An example of this would be that as your manager, I am granted the authority to approve or deny your leave applications. It is usually assumed this positional authority is the result of me having some special knowledge about organisational behaviour, HR policies, and management philosophy, which equips me with the skills necessary to effectively manage your leave. The reality is usually lightyears from the ideal. Leadership, by contrast, requires no positional authority whatsoever. It manifests when someone has expertise, a capacity for argumentation, charisma, etc., and people listen to that individual not because they must, but because it makes sense to do so. A meeting is an opportunity for any individual in an organisation to demonstrate leadership and take the attendees on a journey that will usually fall into one of five possible meeting types: Information Sharing, Kick-Offs, Decision Making, Problem Solving, and Brainstorming / Blue Sky thinking. Of these five meeting types, I would single out three purposes: 1. **Information Sharing:** this type of meeting is fundamentally about education. That may seem self-evident, but if sharing information is little more than a data dump, e.g., me copying and pasting from Wikipedia, it is not going to achieve the same outputs as engaging in critical thinking, writing an article and taking a reader on a journey of illumination. A meeting is the same, if the attendee does not leave seeing the organisation and opportunity differently, hopefully for the better, the meeting has failed 2. **Creating Solutions:** this can take the shape of innovating new approaches to existing problems, generating fresh ideas, or running a strategy session to ensure what happens next is by design and not accident. 3. **Decision Making:** generally involves a manager or executive with the positional authority to decide on behalf of the team or organisation. These meetings are vital inflection points because from them can flow months of effort and millions of dollars of investment. As is likely already percolating in your mind, the pitfalls, and opportunities to waste time in the above meeting types are myriad and readily apparent. This is where developing leadership skills in all team members comes in, so that if an employee attends a meeting, they have done their pre-reading, circulated any relevant notes ahead of time, considered some of the rabbit holes into which the meeting may dive and have some answers or an inchoate plan for how to pull the session back on track. While this is easier said than done, and for each employee there will be a unique set of opportunities to achieve this meeting leadership nirvana, there are six things everyone can start doing today that over time will see a marked improvement in the quality of meetings in their organisation. The first is to set clear expectations and involves things such as: **why** are we meeting (information sharing, decision making, etc.). Second, define the roles and responsibilities of attendees(see the note below for the four types of meeting roles). If it is a decision making meeting, ensure the relevant managers are present and that they have obtained any additional authorisation necessary so that a decision can be reached without the need to 'take it offline'. Third, and linked to roles and responsibilities, is to ensure someone is tasked with keeping minutes and recording action items. It is helpful, if the meeting format allows, for these notes to be shown to the attendees in real time (either by sharing a screen or using a whiteboard). This helps to keep people present because seeing the action items will prompt them to call out anything missing or if assumptions are being made. Fourth, engage with attendees. In person meetings are often challenging enough, but on remote calls people frequently have their camera and mic off, are doing other work, daydreaming, or I often wonder, have just left their desk with the meeting still running. I encourage you to [cold call](https://robert.winter.ink/cold-calling-students/) on people to ensure everyone feels included and is [accountable](https://robert.winter.ink/responsibility-ownership-accountability/). For your own part, please be prepared and ensure everything is circulated prior to the meeting so people don't feel their time is being wasted. If people do feel their time is better spent elsewhere, this is an opportunity to understand why. Perhaps you could have done a better job, perhaps they need realigning as the meeting was run well but they are not comprehending the value of the process. Fifth, communicate and enforce meeting etiquette. Arrive on time, avoid being on your phone, responding to an email or message, sitting idly with your camera off. And for the love of all things holy, unless it is specifically a breakfast meeting or a lunch and learn session, **do not bring food to meetings**. It doesn't make you look 'terribly busy and frightfully important', just disorganised. Finally, have a plan for how to close the meeting effectively. Respect your colleagues by assuming they have another meeting directly following this one. Therefore do **NOT** run to the last tick of the clock and ensure you allow everyone time to commute — both physical and mentally — to their next meeting. Also ensure you don't leave the summation of outcomes, action points, and decisions to the last 30 seconds. I have seen people desperately trying to get a 'so that is decided' out of a group as people are leaving the room or dropping from the call. 💡 Meeting roles can be divided into four types: 1\. Advisers / Subject Matter Experts (SMEs): their role is to provide the information essential to achieve the projected meeting outcomes. They are required to give any additional detail needed for the effective generation of recommendations. 2\. Proposers: their role is to propose recommendations, options, or opportunities for decision. They may also be advisers / SMEs or decision makers in the meeting. Their role is distinct and essential as meetings can often end up with people sharing information, decision makers waiting to make a call, and no one proposing any recommendations from the information on which a decision can be made. 3\. Decision Makers: they are the only people in the meeting with the authority to make a call on behalf of a team or organisation. If their decision can be overridden by a more senior manager, it is their responsibility to obtain any sign off necessary ahead of time or engage their escalation point in the meeting. This underscores the importance of circulating information about the meeting ahead of time. Decision makers also need to 'disagree and commit' — a phrase coined by Jeff Bezos in a 2017 letter to Amazon shareholders. Put simply, decision making is not simply an opportunity to get your own way. 4\. Implementation Staff: they are responsible for acting on any meeting decisions or outcomes. While it is not always feasible, it is helpful if they can be in the meeting. Self-important managers who like the idea of 'taking things offline' and communicating meeting outcomes with execution staff in a vacuum, invariably create confusion and chaos as they steadily alter their story with the telling. Better to have execution staff in the room so they can hear the vision first hand and start thinking about how the implementation will begin to evolve. ## What's Time Got to Do with It? I have a lot of time for [Dr Tom Peters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%5FPeters?ref=robert.winter.ink). His work over more than 40 years is as prolific as it is prescient. Yet where I am at odds with the esteemed thinker is when he observed: > The only thing on earth that never lies to you is your calendar. > — ([Peters, 2014](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/tom-peters-on-leading-the-21st-century-organization?ref=robert.winter.ink)) I would argue, particularly if you are in management, that the thing **most** likely to lie to you is your calendar. This is because our calendar, at least if we are not running effective meetings, is an impressive list of what we **should** have achieved in our week. Yet, take a moment in the still watches of the night and reflect truthfully on if you **did** achieve all those things. Did the decision making meeting result in a decision or only in the need for another meeting to arrive at a decision? Did the information sharing meeting provide the information needed, or are you even more confused now than you were before the call? Did the solution session yield viable new avenues for revenue, or just pass the time until the next round of excuses to the board? Where I think Dr Peters is on much more fertile ground is when observing, citing an idea from the Israeli executive [Dov Frohman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov%5FFrohman?ref=robert.winter.ink), that half of a leader's time should be unscheduled. To explain why, I will return to the notion that managers are not necessarily leaders, and therefore this sentiment is about finding the thought leaders in an organisation and freeing up their week so that they are not mired in wall to wall meetings. This is critical as the leaders in an organisation are the ones who will be sharing information, innovating, and either taking or helping decision makers to form decisions — all of which requires they have the time to read and think. In short, do not assume that because someone's calendar is packed that they are [being bold with efficiency aspirations](https://robert.winter.ink/be-bold-with-efficiency-aspirations/). To address this, it is not advised to leave it up to individual employees to sort. Instead, the optimal approach is to conceptualise time management as an organisational problem. [Mckinsey recommended five ways to achieve optimal balance in allocating time](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/making-time-management-the-organizations-priority?ref=robert.winter.ink). I have adapted these slightly to arrive at the following: 1. **Implement a 'time budget':** be it organisational change, implementing the outcomes of a decision, new ways of working, or simply doing your job to the best of your ability. Managers need the time necessary to make decisions and endorse recommendations. If their available time is consumed with supervising employees or attending meetings, their decisions and endorsements will be sub-optimal. Employees, by extension, need the time necessary to prepare for meetings, prepare recommendations, and execute meeting outcomes. 2. **Conduct Time and Motion Studies:** when professional management was in its infancy, people wandering around with stop watches were all the rage. While the modern employee tends to resent such an approach, there is much to ensuring people routinely measure their time and account for their activities. I have spent many fruitful moments helping people to reorganise their calendar so that it becomes a more accurate reflection of their output and creates the space necessary to be more effective. 3. **Assess Recurring Meetings:** daily stand ups, routine [WIPs](https://robert.winter.ink/the-effective-wip/), all hands calls, these are but some of the regular meetings that adorn the average work calendar. By revisiting these recurring meetings, and asking the meeting trinity questions listed below, managers can assess if value is being created or time wasted. 4. **Provide Support:** understand your role and responsibilities in a meeting and ensure you are getting it done. Then, call out when other people are not performing their role or attending to their responsibilities. ## The Meeting Trinity While running an effective meeting is essential to good organisational management, so too is knowing when **not** to run a meeting — effective or otherwise. Thus, even if you and your organisation have the process of effective meetings running well, a meeting can still be a waste of time and a source of distraction for staff. To ascertain whether to click send on that immaculately written agenda and take people's time, ask the following questions. First and foremost, **should this even be a meeting?** The only way to get time back in the week is to challenge invitation assumptions. For example, that I need to regularly meet with a Project Manager to understand if a project is on track. In reality, reports and even a daily log can be a more effective way of communicating this information. Such an approach has the benefit of challenges and opportunities being documented rather than getting lost in the blur of verbal updates that soon get forgotten. There is also an opportunity to look for trends which can, by definition, only be spotted over time. One of the challenges with this first question is that buy in from the Executive is essential. If organisational culture militates against individual decision making, preferring to 'find' the answer through consensus building, it requires leaders to change the prevailing culture. One approach, if you are in such an organisation and have the positional authority, is to carefully consider all meeting invitations and treat leadership capacity as a finite resource. Encourage your team to do the same, by creating the [psychological safety](https://robert.winter.ink/a-psychological-safety-primer/) necessary so they do not see being in back to back meetings as a sign of working hard. Second, **what is the purpose of this meeting?** Whether you are sending or receiving a meeting invitation, the title and body should make the purpose clear and outline what are the anticipated outcomes. Work with HR and other managers on this element as taking an individual approach will be slow to yield results. Instead, it requires an organisational strategy for effective meetings, and one which has both buy in and enforcement from all levels of the organisation. Third, strive for [responsibility, ownership, and accountability](https://robert.winter.ink/responsibility-ownership-accountability/) at all stages of the meeting process. If people are not performing their role within the context of the meeting, for example ensuring all information is circulated 24 hours in advance, then the process will begin to break down. A meeting is fundamentally a team endeavour and when responsibility, ownership, and accountability become blurred we are back to square one and having our time wasted in futile meetings. Yet, get it right and the observation of Dr Peters will ring true for your organisation: 'Plus 21L equals minus 21L'. Which means that leadership in the twenty-first century AD is fundamentally the same as leadership in the twenty-first century BC. In that 'it is about organizing the affairs of our fellow human beings to provide some sort of a service to other people.' Effective meetings conform to this conceptualisation, because in essence they are the space in our day we make to provide some sort of service to other people. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Jehyun Sung](https://unsplash.com/@jaysung?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/6U5AEmQIajg?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### A Psychological Safety Primer URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-psychological-safety-primer/ Last updated: 2026-01-20T10:17:40.000Z I recently read an article which began: 'No one likes to deliver bad news to their boss.' It gave me pause for two reasons. The first is that sweeping statements are, by definition — sweeping, and start from a poor footing because in a world as diverse as ours there will always be 'that guy' who bucks the trend. Second, I have met people who **do** like giving bad news to their boss. Sometimes because the employee likes to stir the pot and enjoys the chaos. In other instances the boss is a bit of a jerk and deserves to be on the receiving end of what they regularly dole out to other people. Yes, *schadenfreude* is a thing, even among the most high minded of people. Reframe the statement along the lines of 'no one likes to deliver bad news to their boss if they fear **unreasonable** negative repercussions', and I would be in agreement with the author. The word 'unreasonable' is a vital one here, because while it is not healthy to create an atmosphere of fear in an organisation, if people think there can never be negative repercussions for actions then the practice of management breaks down as [responsibility, ownership, and accountability](https://robert.winter.ink/responsibility-ownership-accountability/) will likely be absent. If we assume for a moment an organisational culture that is both rational and reasonable — with clear employee accountability — then I can begin to unpack a concept that I touched upon in last week's column, *[DEI — A Continuum of Acceptance, Understanding, and Questioning](https://robert.winter.ink/dei-a-continuum-of-acceptance-understanding-and-questioning/)* — that concept is psychological safety. ## A Potted History The term was coined in the 1950s by [Carl Rogers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl%5FRogers?ref=robert.winter.ink), one of the founding fathers of [psychotherapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotherapy?ref=robert.winter.ink) research and [humanistic psychology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic%5Fpsychology?ref=robert.winter.ink), and is associated with three processes: 1. The unconditional worth of an individual. 2. Creating a climate absent of external evaluation. 3. Empathetic understanding. Rogers thought that such an environment would prove optimal for fostering an individual's creativity. In the 1960s, Edgar Schein and Warren Bennis expanded on Rogers' original notion to understand psychological safety as creating: > an atmosphere where one can take chances (which experimentalism implies) without fear and with sufficient protection (…) thus a climate is built which encourages provisional tries and which tolerates failure without retaliation, renunciation, or guilt. > > (Schein and Bennis 1965) In the 1980s, [William Edwards Deming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.%5FEdwards%5FDeming?ref=robert.winter.ink) weaved this theme into his [14 key principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.%5FEdwards%5FDeming?ref=robert.winter.ink#Key%5Fprinciples) for managers to effectively transform businesses. Principle number 8 was 'drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company'. More recently, '**Team** Psychological Safety' has been a key area of research for Harvard Business School Professor [Amy Edmondson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy%5FEdmondson?ref=robert.winter.ink). The *team* element needs an underline because it forms the central argument of her thesis: a willingness to speak up and feelings of safety are not individual traits. Rather, they are > a group level phenomenon… \[which shape\] the learning behavior of the group and in turn affects team performance and therefore organizational performance. > > (Gallo, 2023) [Project Aristotle](https://rework.withgoogle.com/print/guides/5721312655835136/?ref=robert.winter.ink), which studied the factors impacting team effectiveness at Google, concluded that Psychological Safety was the most important of 5 key dynamics that are present in effective teams: 1. **Psychological safety:** [Psychological safety refers to an individual's perception of the consequences of taking an interpersonal risk](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2666999?origin=JSTOR-pdf&seq=1&ref=robert.winter.ink#page%5Fscan%5Ftab%5Fcontents) or a belief that a team is safe for risk taking in the face of being seen as ignorant, incompetent, negative, or disruptive. In a team with high psychological safety, teammates feel safe to take risks around their team members. They feel confident that no one on the team will embarrass or punish anyone else for admitting a mistake, asking a question, or offering a new idea. 2. **Dependability:** On dependable teams, members reliably complete quality work on time (vs the opposite - [shirking responsibilities](http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/258490.pdf?acceptTC=true&ref=robert.winter.ink)). 3. **Structure and clarity:** [An individual's understanding of job expectations, the process for fulfilling these expectations](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1556372?ref=robert.winter.ink), and the consequences of one's performance are important for team effectiveness. Goals can be set at the individual or group level, and must be specific, challenging, and attainable. [Google often uses Objectives and Key Results (OKRs)](https://rework.withgoogle.com/guides/set-goals-with-okrs/steps/introduction/?ref=robert.winter.ink) to help set and communicate short and long term goals. 4. **Meaning:** Finding a sense of purpose in either the work itself or the output is important for team effectiveness. The meaning of work is personal and can vary: financial security, supporting family, helping the team succeed, or self-expression for each individual, for example. 5. **Impact:** The results of one's work, [the subjective judgement that your work is making a difference, is important for teams](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18211139?ref=robert.winter.ink). Seeing that one's work is contributing to the organization's goals can help reveal impact.[Project Aristotle](https://rework.withgoogle.com/print/guides/5721312655835136/?ref=robert.winter.ink) Perhaps most interestingly, Team Psychological Safety can support both high employee discretionary power **and** a strongly hierarchical organisation. The reason for this is that: > it depends on how hierarchical status is leveraged and, specifically, on whether those with higher status adopt a participative approach. > > (Bunderson and Boungarden, 2010) While valuable, both for individual peace of mind and team performance, psychological safety has its drawbacks and risks. Of these, three spring most readily to mind. First, **TMGT Effect**. the 'too-much-of-a-good-thing' effect is when something normally associated with being positive becomes a negative. An example of this is when a conscientious employee takes so long over 'getting it right' that they neglect other important work, creating risks in other areas of the organisation (Pierce and Aguinis, 2013). Second, **Unethical Behaviour**. as psychological safety increases, there is a correlation with increased unethical behaviour among employees as they feel safe to behave in ways known to contradict accepted behaviour (Pearsall and Ellis, 2011). Third, **Reduced Motivation**. while psychological safety is positively related to reducing employee fear of failure, it has also been shown to lower motivation. A manifestation of this is when employees are so comfortable with each other that they spend an inappropriate amount of time in casual conversation, at the expense of their work (Deng *et al*, 2019). Much as psychological safety is not a 'new' conceptualisation, so too the negative consequences are not newly emerging. Writing some fifty years before Carl Rogers gave rise to the concept, Émile Durkheim observed 'if purely moral rules are at stake, the public conscience restricts any act which infringes them'. Without divergence from safe views, without an opposing system of thought or differing set or moral rules, consciousness will 'petrify too easily into an immutable form. For it to evolve, individual originality must be allowed to manifest itself'. In other words, there is a time when employees need to feel a sense of safety, but there are also times when a sense of danger is appropriate to help stimulate the act of thinking differently. This brings us to the seeming paradox of psychological safety. Going against the grain may make people feel unsafe, yet it is through this process that true psychological safety is ultimately achieved — because people feel safe to feel unsafe and to challenge the *status quo*. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Matthew Waring](https://unsplash.com/@matthewwaring?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/MJAoiige14E?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). --- ## Further Reading Bunderson, JS, and Boumgarden, P (2010) Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. *Organization Science (Providence, R.I.)*, **21**(3), 609–624. Deming, WE (1982) *Out of the crisis: Quality, productivity and competitive position*, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deng, H, Leung, K, Lam, CK, and Huang, X (2019) Slacking Off in Comfort: A Dual-Pathway Model for Psychological Safety Climate. *Journal of Management*, **45**(3), 1114–1144. Edmondson, AC (2018) *The Fearless Organization*, Wiley. Gallo, A (2023, February 15) What Is Psychological Safety? *Harvard Business Review*, 1–8. Pearsall, MJ, and Ellis, APJ (2011) Thick as Thieves: The Effects of Ethical Orientation and Psychological Safety on Unethical Team Behavior. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, **96**(2), 401–411. Pierce, JR, and Aguinis, H (2013) The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing Effect in Management. *Journal of Management*, **39**(2), 313–338. Rogers, C (1954) Towards a Theory of Creativity. In P. E. (Philip E. Vernon, ed., *Creativity: Selected Readings*, Harmondsworth: Penguin, , 137–151. Schein, EH, and Bennis, WG (1965) *Personal and organizational change through group methods: The laboratory approach*, New York: Wiley. ### DEI: A Continuum of Acceptance, Understanding, and Questioning URL: https://robert.winter.ink/dei-a-continuum-of-acceptance-understanding-and-questioning/ Last updated: 2026-05-02T11:36:42.000Z This article is part of my [Strategic Outlook](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/strategic-outlook/?ref=robert.winter.ink) series. If you have a discussion about management in Australia, attend an organisational training course, or wander into an academic conference, you will hear a lot about DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion). It is to the 2020s what deregulation was to the 1980s—**THE** hot topic. In the DEI space, 'equity' is **not**, or rather should not, be used in the sense of equality of outcome. It means ensuring that an employee's identity (sex, culture, religion, etc.) is not predictive of their outcomes or opportunities. The challenge for organisations is that hot topics invariably carry with them a lot of passion and no small degree of risk, with proponents and opponents seeking to use every opportunity to push their agenda. For those already manifesting this and who are taking exception at the use of DEI over the range of other acronyms in the space: > I've chosen this acronym not because I think it's the "best"… but because I think it's a start. There is no shortage of acronyms in this space, from "EDI" to "D&I" to "DEIB," "IDEA," and "JEDI" (the "B" is for "belonging"; the "A" is for "accessibility"; the "J" is for "justice"). The most popular one? That varies by industry, region, and generation. I have lost count of the number of earnest advocates and practitioners who have told me that their acronym of choice is best and all others are outdated or insufficient. > > (Zheng 2022) As you will have gathered by now, the DEI space can be **highly** challenging for managers and, ironically for a topic that should be bringing everyone together, be divisive for a team or organisation. Those who are fully paid up members of the DEI movement have been known to treat questions about DEI's veracity as hate speech. Those opposed to DEI, term it another round of political correctness on steroids, and are equally passionate in their ridicule—often vilifying its proponents. In between these two groups sit the 90% who are, much like those [Forging Resilience Through Adaptability](https://robert.winter.ink/forging-resilience-through-adaptability/), on a continuum of acceptance, understanding, and questioning. In framing DEI as a strategic challenge, I am not going to engage in full throated support or opposition of the precepts, instead outlining the challenges facing organisations in this space. ## Meaningful Change Vs Activism One of the interesting aspects of DEI is that it seems largely unaffected by economic challenges. Compare and contrast to some of the environmental policies which abounded shortly before the [2007 GFC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008%5Ffinancial%5Fcrisis?ref=robert.winter.ink). One moment organisations were going all in on reducing their carbon footprint, the next—due to 'unprecedented economic factors'—the sum of efforts comprised removing styrofoam cups in the kitchenette. Given the tendency of organisations to pull initiatives when times get tough, it is testament to the resilience of DEI given that Covid, the recent economic downturn, and impending recessing have not dented the thirst for DEI initiatives with most Boards. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Leading AI-First Organisations URL: https://robert.winter.ink/leading-ai-first-organisations/ Last updated: 2026-05-02T11:36:24.000Z This article is part of my [Strategic Outlook](https://robert.winter.ink/strategic-outlook/) series. In his 1872 novel, *Erewhon*, [Samuel Butler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel%5FButler%5F%28novelist%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) explored the notion of self-replicating machines that had rudimentary consciousness but steadily evolved to become the dominant species on the planet. This essentially dystopian conceptualisation of thinking machines is a common [Luddite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite?ref=robert.winter.ink) fear stemming from "what does this mean for me" and often manifests in what [Isaac Asimov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac%5FAsimov?ref=robert.winter.ink) coined the 'Frankenstein complex'. That movies have propagated these fears in the shape of HAL 9000 or the Terminator, has only further ingrained an almost visceral concern about the ends of artificial intelligence. In the wake of the global phenomenon that is Chat GPT, I mused about some of these possibilities in [Ghost Writers — Rise of the Machines](https://robert.winter.ink/ghost-writers-rise-of-the-machines/), but this only dealt cursorily with the immediate **ends** of the technology in academia and did not address the strategic **means** on which an increasing number of companies are seeking to capitalise. The business case for AI is a tantalising one which offers senior leaders the holy grail of: _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Forging Resilience Through Adaptability URL: https://robert.winter.ink/forging-resilience-through-adaptability/ Last updated: 2026-05-02T11:36:01.000Z This article is part of my [Strategic Outlook](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/strategic-outlook/?ref=robert.winter.ink) series. If your experience in the corporate world has been anything like most employees and managers with whom I speak, you likely work hard with amazing people and yet, at times, still find the organisation for which you work coming up short on success factors. Either the budget has blown out, the scope has changed, it is taking much longer than originally forecast to deliver, or you have the unmitigated joy of all these things happening at once. The upside is [the Bard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William%5FShakespeare?ref=robert.winter.ink) had it right when he put into the mouth of Cassius: > The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars > But in ourselves. > > Shakespeare, *Julius Caesar*. This is a good thing because volatility is a feature rather than a bug in modern organisations. Yet, most employees and managers with whom I speak think their organisation is not adaptable enough to respond to daily shocks or future calamities. This is a major risk in an often volatile world. 💡 By volatility and missed deliverables, I am ****not** talking about when this occurs due to employee or manager incompetence. By that I mean people who either do not do what is needed of their role or keep changing their mind with little thought for the consequences of their choices. In short, people for whom Responsibility, Ownership, Accountability are either unknown or unenforced. Instead, I am talking about individuals and teams who are delivering on goals and yet the organisation is not achieving its success factors. Covid, for all its tribulations, did force the hand of many senior leaders on one thing: the need to be able to respond quickly to a changing environment. While pace of change is not new, it invariably comes industry by industry or, as with the [Digital Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital%5FRevolution?ref=robert.winter.ink), takes decades to ripple through organisations. Covid, by contrast, necessitated change within weeks, and this proved a supreme test of operational resilience. Add to this mix that an organisation is nothing without its people, and it underscores why to talk about organisational resilience brings with it [Mental Health As A Strategic Issue](https://robert.winter.ink/mental-health-as-a-strategic-issue/). To successfully navigate volatile environments, organisations need to adopt a process mindset that creates a culture of psychological safety, breeds team cohesion, promotes adaptable leadership, and emphasises agility. All while apprehending the important distinction between having an agile strategy and making it up as you go. Oh, and I nearly forgot—all of this has to happen while [Leading At Scale](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-at-scale/). _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Leading At Scale URL: https://robert.winter.ink/leading-at-scale/ Last updated: 2026-05-02T11:35:21.000Z This article is part of my [Strategic Outlook](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/strategic-outlook/?ref=robert.winter.ink) series. A few columns ago in [A Challenging Time For Talent Management](https://robert.winter.ink/a-challenging-time-for-talent-management/), I recalled the decision of [Paul Polman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul%5FPolman?ref=robert.winter.ink) to scrap quarterly reporting. His reasoning, in part, was to create the space necessary for better decision making. It was a bold and sound move, but sadly one most managers are not able to make. As a result, "leadership" in many organisations is blighted by knee jerk responses to the latest crisis with managers only as good as their last quarter or month. In such a context, I use the term leadership advisedly, hence the quotation marks. At the C-suite level, a manager must not only be able to lead their team, but **more critically lead themselves** and their peers. To add another level of difficulty, in large organisations, they need to do this at scale and all while exhibiting a high level of self-awareness, profound comprehension of others, and a detailed understanding of the operating environment. ## Employee Experience In [A Challenging Time For Talent Management](https://robert.winter.ink/a-challenging-time-for-talent-management/) I observed: > Why I think it without hyperbole to compare the process to a tightrope walk is because the data is in and the traditional 20/80 rule, which stipulates that 20% of employees deliver 80% of organisational value, is incorrect. Research shows it is closer to 5% of employees delivering 95% of an organisation's value. This is because, particularly in the case of highly complex roles, the value to effort ratio clocks high performers as being 800% more productive. Given the complexity inherent in senior organisational roles, it should come as no surprise that the 5/95 rule is writ large. For CEO's, 90% of the value in their industry is created by the decision making of the top quintile. Yet the CEO role is not only decisive in the realm of economic value because they can scale leadership throughout the organisation by appointing senior leaders who in turn appoint line managers. The latter of whom are the facilitators or blockers of employee performance and experience within an organisation. Thus, failure to get it right at the CEO level means it will be down to luck rather than good management when it comes to organisational achievement and employee engagement. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Remote Working Policies URL: https://robert.winter.ink/remote-working-policies/ Last updated: 2026-05-02T11:35:00.000Z This article is part of my [Strategic Outlook](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/strategic-outlook/?ref=robert.winter.ink) series. Prior to Covid, with some notable exceptions, organisational leaders were **not** planning on leveraging technology to ensure an ideal balance between work that is 'best' done remotely and that which is best done in person. Much less, were managers working out how they could enable their teams to be close to 100% remote because 'people do their best work at home'. This inconvenient truth is important to keep in mind when thinking about remote working policies. This is because while some business models—GitHub most readily springs to mind—revolved around getting the best people no matter where in the world they lived, most organisations recruited local people who lived within a reasonable commute of a central office. Laptops and remote work were largely confined to field sales managers or other people who held a role that militated against being in an office. For those who could be assigned to a desk and kept in a central location, desktop computers and a strict 'you may not work from home' policy applied. Covid did **not** change this mindset. Perhaps more importantly, Covid did not change the fundamental nature of human interaction and the work employees do. What Covid brought were hitherto unimaginable circumstances—at least for democratic western countries—with governments issuing laws effectively locking people in their homes. While few governments had a formal zero Covid policy, many—Australia and New Zealand among the most notable—treated even single digit transmission numbers as a near extinction level event. This wrought a problem for organisations, how to maintain output, and this is the key word here, among a staff base that were now restricted from coming into a central place of work. The technology for remote work had long been available, but as many who previously made requests found, it was not innovation that opened remote working possibilities. Rather, it was the reality of businesses shutting down if they could not adopt and adapt. The remote work policies which flowed enabled many to migrate to an essentially 100% remote setup. The trouble, which I will deal with in this piece, is that many (85% according to some surveys) assumed this environment would remain a permanent 'new normal' of office life—53% of all people surveyed thought remote opportunities would increase. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Minding the Capability Gap URL: https://robert.winter.ink/minding-the-capability-gap/ Last updated: 2026-05-02T11:34:38.000Z This article is part of my [Strategic Outlook](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/strategic-outlook/?ref=robert.winter.ink) series. In business, I am often put in mind of that immortal scene in [*Yes Minister*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes%5FMinister?ref=robert.winter.ink): > **Sir Humphrey Appleby:** Minister, it takes time to do things 'now'. > > **James Hacker:** The three articles of civil service faith: it takes longer to do things quickly; it's more expensive to do them cheaply; it's more democratic to do them in secret. In last week's column, I wrote about it being a [A Challenging Time for Talent Management](https://robert.winter.ink/a-challenging-time-for-talent-management/). But what I didn't mention — always leave the audience something for a sequel — is that it isn't enough to get top performers in the right roles at the right time. Managers also need to address the elephant in the room — the capability gap. This is because an organisation may employ excellent people, but if they engage technical elements in their strategy, and the organisation does not have access to the necessary capabilities, they are unlikely to achieve the objectives set. To create a competitive advantage, people, processes, **and** technical capabilities are all necessary as the symbiotic relationship between these elements is what enables an organisation to consistently outperform their competitors. 💡 By technical capabilities, I am not using technical purely in the sense of technology. I am talking about the technical or ****specific** knowledge needed to complete the given work. Be it writing a business case, researching a new industry, giving a presentation on governance to the board, or implementing a marketing plan. Therefore, success is as much about exploiting latent capability as it is about filling capability gaps. A process that is [crucial in helping an organisation](https://robert.winter.ink/recovering-from-the-great-attrition/) to move from being merely people focussed, to being a people and performance winner. One final word before diving in, is to observe that by a capability gap, I am not talking about the gap for existing employees that should not exist. For example, if they were the one's specifically hired to do the technical work invoked by the strategic plan. ## Determining Capabilities Missing capabilities broadly fall into two categories. The first are the result of strategic choices, for example an organisation decides to move into a new market without the requisite knowledge of that market. The second are external pressures, for example the emergence of the internet or AI. This latter category is not initiated by an organisation, but the disruptive nature of the change necessitates an organisation keeping pace. In either scenario, success will largely be determined by how effectively critical employees are deployed — see the strategies offered in [A Challenging Time for Talent Management](https://robert.winter.ink/a-challenging-time-for-talent-management/) — and how much time is spent playing catch up. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### A Challenging Time for Talent Management URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-challenging-time-for-talent-management/ Last updated: 2026-05-02T11:34:17.000Z This article is part of my [Strategic Outlook](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/strategic-outlook/?ref=robert.winter.ink) series. One of the most challenging aspects of management is balancing long term success with the need to survive the next quarter. There is, as with so many things, the opportunity of a virtuous circle. This happens with organisations who are led by strategic thinkers. [Paul Polman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul%5FPolman?ref=robert.winter.ink) is one such luminary who took the step of moving away from the focus on quarterly reporting when he took over at Unilever: > Immediately, the Dutch-born Polman put his shareholders on notice. He declared that they should no longer expect to see quarterly annual reports from the company, along with earnings guidance for the stock market. Unilever, he explained, was now taking a longer view. The CEO went a step further, urging shareholders to put their money somewhere else if they don’t “buy into this long-term value-creation model, which is equitable, which is shared, which is sustainable.” > > [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyboynton/2015/07/20/unilevers-paul-polman-ceos-cant-be-slaves-to-shareholders/?sh=110b7425561e&ref=robert.winter.ink) The move was courageous, though unlike most of us he was in a unique position to pursue such dramatic reform—being both a CEO and at a commanding inflection point in his tenure. As he would later recount: 'I figured I couldn’t be fired on my first day'. For those of us further down the pecking order, where we do not have the same levers to pull as a CEO and are not so indispensable that we cannot be let go on our first day, leading stakeholders in taking a longer term outlook can bring a few more stage gates. This is particularly the case when we walk the talent tightrope with our team. In a hiring environment that is still [Recovering From The Great Attrition](https://robert.winter.ink/recovering-from-the-great-attrition/), line managers need to take care to retain top talent while apprehending that budgets are not limitless nor opportunities endless. A situation that is further complicated as organisations engage in protracted belt tightening while they navigate the near term. As one CEO observed in a recent keynote, 'we have plenty of money, but need to watch our burn'. Why I think it without hyperbole to compare the process to a tightrope walk is because the data is in and the traditional 20/80 rule, which stipulates that 20% of employees deliver 80% of organisational value, is incorrect. Research shows it is closer to 5% of employees delivering 95% of an organisation's value. This is because, particularly in the case of highly complex roles, the value to effort ratio clocks high performers as being 800% more productive. A statistic which stems from: > five separate studies involving 198 samples including 633,263 researchers, entertainers, politicians, and amateur and professional athletes. Results of each of these five studies are remarkably consistent and indicate that individual performance does not follow a normal distribution. > > O'Boyle Jr & Aguinis (2012) To put these numbers into a business context. If you were working on a new product, and a competitor were to use 20% more great talent in their organisation, they would beat you to market even if they started a year or two later. In an environment in which speed to market is again on everyone's lips, failure to find and keep top talent can make or break an organisation's strategic roadmap. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Recovering From The Great Attrition URL: https://robert.winter.ink/recovering-from-the-great-attrition/ Last updated: 2026-05-02T11:33:51.000Z This article is part of my [Strategic Outlook](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/strategic-outlook/?ref=robert.winter.ink) series. If your experience as a line manager over the last few years has been anything like mine when posting a job ad, then you will have felt yourself wondering 'is anyone out there?' This is not to say there are no applicants, rather it is that *The Great Attrition* is seeing a scarcity of appropriate talent. In a 2022 [survey by McKinsey](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/the-great-attrition-is-making-hiring-harder-are-you-searching-the-right-talent-pools?ref=robert.winter.ink#/), the 'likelihood that respondents will leave their current job in the next 3-6 months' showed: - 66% in India. - 40% in Singapore. - 41% in Australia. - 40% in the US. - 38% in Canada. - 33% in the UK. While there is something poetic about 'Dear old Blighty' finishing last, a case can be made that the percentages above are not just a barometer of how discontented workers are, but also how uncertain the prevailing economic conditions are in the various countries. In that people may loath their jobs, but if mobility is poor and prospects bleak, the role you have is better than no role at all. What is perhaps most alarming about the above statistics, is that the sentiment is not reflected in conversations I have with hiring managers. Indeed, going beyond my own anecdotal observations, recent surveys find that the average manager places the likelihood that members of their team may leave at a mere 20%. Before you ask, the answer is no, sentiment has not radically changed in the last year, though it is chang*ing*. Rather, it is that people tend to be optimists when thinking about their team. At the risk of sounding like an arch pessimist, there is another even less discussed group of employees to consider in this equation, the 'quiet quitter'. We have all come across them, people who we *know* are more focussed on dropping their kids at day care, putting on the next load of laundry, or using the office network to stream their favourite shows, than they are on active engagement with their responsibilities. There are also those who may not surf Netflix during office hours, but do join meetings on mute, camera off, and when pushed for interaction simply reply, 'nothing to add'. If pressed by their manager about outcomes, they then cite being in too many meetings. Doing what - I often wonder. This does not beg the question, which seems to permeate every management discussion I have or article I read these days, 'what do we need to do differently to attract and retain top talent?' Rather, it begs the question **what do we need to do differently to engage and get the most out of the talent we have attracted and retained**. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Mental Health As A Strategic Issue URL: https://robert.winter.ink/mental-health-as-a-strategic-issue/ Last updated: 2026-05-02T11:33:11.000Z This article is part of my [Strategic Outlook](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/strategic-outlook/?ref=robert.winter.ink) series. Right off the bat, I need to make one thing clear—I am a philosopher, **not** a psychologist. If you are after a clinician's view, please engage my wife [Halaina Winter](https://www.linkedin.com/in/halainawinter/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Thus, what I am embarking on in this article is to speak to the issues that face all managers, how they can be approached from a non-clinical position, and how your approach to mental health can benefit or hinder your organisational strategy. I should also add that while '[R U OK](https://www.ruok.org.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink)' days are wonderful and it is vital you check in with your team and colleagues, please ensure you engage the right people rather than trying to deal with employee mental health issues yourself. *Caveats* out of the way, everywhere you look well-being and mental health dominate the modern workplace. Depending on which data you read, anywhere from between a quarter and 60% of people in the workforce suffer from or have experienced a mental health challenge in their career. With such large numbers of people affected, it is without hyperbole to say that in one way or another all employees are impacted by mental health. It also means that managers are failing their staff if they imagine that well-being can be quarantined from, or is only a bolt on to, day to day operations. While the overall numbers of people affected by mental health issues is a cause for concern, perhaps as alarming are the number of firms or individual managers who engage in well-being washing: > The research, conducted by Claro Wellbeing, found seven in 10 (71 per cent) workplaces celebrated mental health awareness days, but only a third (36 per cent) of organisations’ mental health support was deemed good or outstanding by their employees. > > The survey of 1,000 employees, found that more than a third (35 per cent) of businesses recognised mental health on social media and through events, but just 30 per cent saw their employer as “considerate” of their mental health. > > [Cholteeva (2022)](https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1803077/third-businesses-wellbeing-washing-study-shows?ref=robert.winter.ink) To be fair, managers I speak with are not consciously trying to 'spin' the situation. That is, look like they are attending to their employees well-being while actually not caring. As evidence, managers will point to the numerous initiatives they have undertaken from '[R U OK](https://www.ruok.org.au/?ref=robert.winter.ink)' days (replete with food carts and yoga classes), to workshops on mindfulness, gym memberships, and paid mental health days. Yet whether it is deliberate well-being washing or simply well meaning managers who are missing the mark, the result is that employees continue to feel overwhelmed by life. Talking with clinicians, it seems this is because while many people have good intentions, many wellness programs are treating the superficial or symptomatic elements of mental health, not the underlying causes. As with all areas of life, there is meaningful action and then there is merely paying lip service. For organisations the need is clear, invest in clinically proven interventions or expect more of the same. The money, for the purely fiscally minded, is well spent. Knowing that a team member is resistant to returning to the office because of agoraphobia or illness anxiety disorder that has crept in during the COVID lockdowns, and not because of laziness, can make the difference between a successful transformation strategy or a failed one. ## Net Present Wellness (NPW) Given it is beyond any one article to provide a comprehensive set of treatment solutions for mental health challenges, not to mention that it is not my field, for those seeking a five word of less solution the answer is 'see a clinical psychologist'. For those who are engaging clinicians, where does your role as a manger fit in to the overall treatment plan? _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Be Bold With Efficiency Aspirations URL: https://robert.winter.ink/be-bold-with-efficiency-aspirations/ Last updated: 2026-05-02T11:32:39.000Z This article is part of my [Strategic Outlook](https://dr-robert-n-winter.ghost.io/strategic-outlook/?ref=robert.winter.ink) series. Ever since business became an academic study, and MBAs a thing, talk about efficiency has been on the up and up. Yet for all the talk, I never cease to find it surprising how something can be constantly on people's lips yet rarely discussed. The challenge for organisations is recognising when people are merely mentioning efficiency and when they are actually achieving it. Achieving meaningful change in the efficiency space is going to be very hard for most organisations. This is because a little under half of CEO direct reports **do not** have responsibility for P&L. Perhaps even more alarmingly, in the efficiency space, middle managers and key employees who are the engine room of an organisation can be separated from the CEO by up to 12 layers of management. Meaning that unless a CEO 'walks the floor' and finds ways to connect with front line workers, they will end up an archetypal boss in an ivory tower, perplexed as to why the senior leadership is unable to achieve meaningful efficiencies despite a sound organisational strategy. But the depressing news does not stop there. COVID, while ushering in a new age of working from home, has also caused bloat in organisations with tremendous growth experienced in Teams/Slack messages, emails, unending Zoom meetings, and utterly futile interactions. The result is that organisations, particularly in the technology sector, who have swelled their ranks over the last few years, are punching below their weight due to the inefficiencies introduced by the new ways of working. A situation that is compounded by the concurrent unlocking of latent [GenMe attitudes](https://robert.winter.ink/category/social-comment/generations/) in a wider section of the workforce than was originally believed in the popular approach of 'blame it on the Millennials'. ## Efficiency At All Levels The trap for managers in getting the most out of the efficiency lifecycle is that over the years, efficiency has gotten a bad rap—particularly among front line workers. This is because when the average employee hears 'we're focussing on efficiency', it usually translates to more work with fewer resources. Picking up the responsibilities that were previously done by a colleague who was just let go or finding that the supplies in the kitchenette have vanished and been replaced with the opportunity to 'bring things from home'. And we wonder why our teams are cynical when we start talking efficiency. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Anchoring Teams Through Transformation URL: https://robert.winter.ink/anchoring-teams-through-transformation/ Last updated: 2026-01-20T11:03:31.000Z Following last week's article on [Sustaining Value in the Transformation Life Cycle](https://robert.winter.ink/sustaining-value-in-the-transformation-life-cycle/), a colleague, [Shamik Ghosh](https://www.linkedin.com/in/shamik-ghosh-4024586/?ref=robert.winter.ink), asked if I think 'OKRs help in anchoring teams through transformation'. The short answer is yes, the long answer is also yes — but OKRs (short for Objective and Key Results) are devilishly difficult to implement, often leaving a lot of unrealised value on the table. The good news, as it would not be much of an article without some form of a solution, is that there are methodologies that will help to solve for the inherent difficulties. But first, a brief history of OKRs so we can see how we got here. ## Behind the Acronym Those familiar with the history of OKRs will likely cite Andy Grave working at Intel back in the 1960s and move on to name check Google, Adobe, or the Gates Foundation as other notable examples of how OKR can benefit the practice of management. While this is true, the term 'practice of management' should conjure up the even earlier work of Peter Drucker and his book by the same name from 1954 in which he developed the process of [management by objective and self-control (MBO)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management%5Fby%5Fobjectives?ref=robert.winter.ink). Drucker's central thesis, [as those familiar with this blog may recall](https://robert.winter.ink/five-stages-of-autonomy/), was that a manager reviews organisational goals, sets worker objectives, monitors progress, evaluates performance and gives rewards. In other words, they set the organisational objective and then let their team get on with implementing it (this is the self-control or autonomous work component). OKRs are ostensibly a derivation of Drucker's MBO approach and were designed to help teams: - Identify objectives. - Establish SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-Bound) results. - Ensure that outcomes relate to broader business goals. So effective can the OKR process be, when properly implemented, that Larry Page credited much of Google’s growth to OKRs: > OKRs have helped lead us to 10x growth, many times over. They've helped make our crazily bold mission of 'organizing the world's information' perhaps even achievable. They've kept me and the rest of the company on time and on track when it mattered the most. > > Doerr (2018), p. 31. A great plug for the potential outcomes of OKRs, but limited in terms of providing insights into what an OKR is. So what, I hear you ask does an OKR look like and how, when I write my own, will I know if it is fabulous or flawed? Let us begin with an example of an OKR, for which I will pluck from the book of Google: > Example Objective1: Design products and services for circularity and reuse materials at their highest environmental and social value. > Example Key Result: 100% of Made by Google products launching in 2022 and every year after will include recycled materials, with a drive to maximize recycled content wherever possible. Seems simple, on the face of it. But dig a little deeper and common problems start to emerge — even in this textbook example. ### Managing the Objective Turning first to the writing of objectives, problems or mistakes can take the form of: 1. **Vague, woolly, or [weasel words](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel%5Fword?ref=robert.winter.ink)**. While these may sound mellifluous to some ears or 'strike the right chord' with stakeholders, they fail to clearly define what it is we are seeking to improve. 2. **An objective is not an objective.** An example of this may be 'launch our new branding'. While this is an activity or milestone, as an objective it begs the question, what is the launch trying to achieve? Is it to improve the organisation's reputation? Or to increase business revenue? If any of these, then that is what the objective should be — a declaration of the outcome or expression of the problem for which we are trying to solve. An objective is not the place we outline the methods employed or name the solution to the problem. 3. **Too many objectives.** This is generally apparent when you start to see prepositions and conjunctions (words such as 'and', 'for', 'or', 'while'), or commas. Keep an objective to one, clearly obtainable thing. Two effective methods that can be used to avoid the above pitfalls are: 1. Verb + adjective phrase + noun + adverb phrase. For example: “Grow high quality leads for Product X,” “Acquire new customers at no expense,” or “Boost daily watch time.” 2. Sometimes Objectives can be more powerful when they start with a noun. When starting with writing Objectives, it can be easier to think about the subject of the goal first. Measurement expert [Stacey Barr](http://www.staceybarr.com/measureup/how-to-make-okrs-measurable/?ref=robert.winter.ink) has a different recipe for formulating a measurable goal: Noun + linking verb + adjective phrase or adverb phrase. For example, “Retail customers promise eternal loyalty,” “Leads are doubled for product X,” or “Daily watch time grows exponential.”Haak (2021), p. 74. When effectively deployed, this will lead to objectives that are - Significant; - Measurable; - Attainable; - Controllable (by your team, department, or organisation); - Written (amazing how many teams fail to put pen to paper); - Specific; - Inspirational (motivates the team member). This last aspect, often overlooked because OKRs are **not** intended to establish a team or organisational vision, is nonetheless vital. Because without a motivational, aspirational, or visionary element, OKRs may be enacted but will either fail to achieve transformation or leave much of the latent value on the table because individuals or teams are playing it safe. ### Managing the Key Result Key results (KR) benefit from being specific. To the extent, that if you want to see something measurably achieved, name it in the KR. For example, if you want to see your revenue grow by $20k per month, your KR may take the shape of 'grow our revenue by $20k per month'. There is, as always, a 'however' to this rule. Which is that if alignment with other teams or departments is required, then more detail will be needed for the KR to be impactful. For example, simply stating 'grow our revenue by $20k per month' may beg questions such as does this mean all revenue or a revenue segment? Or by when do you aim to achieve this? In short, because we need alignment and cooperation from other teams, it is important to give them context to the result. For these reasons, the original KR of 'grow our revenue by $20k per month' can be improved by reframing it: 'Grow our revenue from bequests by $20k per month from University alumni by September 2024'. Yet we can improve upon this further. This is done by employing milestones or making the KR progress based. An approach with creates nice synergies with [The Effective WIP](https://robert.winter.ink/the-effective-wip/) as it gives managers and employees something practical to talk about, creates accountability, and goes some way to resolving a persistent misgiving senior leaders often have about OKRs — how they can monitor and control the process. Some exponents of OKRs love KR granularity and like to push it to an extreme. Often seeking weekly or even daily updates on progress. Depending on the type of objective this may be appropriate, for example if a team member is responsible for the objective of migrating all customer contacts to the new database by next Wednesday. In such a context, daily reports on velocity and progress are needed for assurance the objective is on track. But if the objective is to be carbon neutral within ten years, a daily check in on how this is going is unlikely to show much progress. Instead, longer term milestones will be more appropriate. The final KR element I will touch upon is confidence scores as these can either telegraph if a team thinks it unlikely the result will be achieved and in turn the likelihood the objective remains feasible, or lead managers and boards into a false sense of security. This latter outcome often occurs when confidence scores are treated as hard data rather than a quantifiable approach to stakeholder sentiment. Because confidence scores will change, often on a daily basis, as additional information becomes available, we may begin an objective with a high confidence score (90%) because we have achieved a similar objective in another setting or with another organisation, but as time progresses, we learn that certain assumptions made about processes or systems are false. It may be that team members lack the necessary skills to solve for the problems and new hires are required. Perhaps the 'we know our customers' claims by key managers are misguided, and they do not know their customers at all. Any of which invalidates our ability to reliably express confidence about achieving the objective set. This means the value of a confidence score is not in the score itself, but in the process the team or organisation goes through to set and reset the score over time. When transparent and honest processes are engaged, we unlock latent value — which can be the difference between failed commitments and adjusting expectations to ensure growth is delivered and transformation achieved. There is one final 'gotcha' to the confidence score process, and that is ensuring we preference honesty over convenience in the process. Given [responsibility, ownership, and accountability](https://robert.winter.ink/responsibility-ownership-accountability/) are often challenging concepts to invoke, a degree of scepticism from managers is needed in the OKR process. This ensures that teams are not demoralised by being given impossible objectives or results, but also in ensuring objectives are so certain to be attained that they do not stretch individuals, teams or organisations. For this, a fine line needs to be walked in ensuring accountability is taken by all participants in the process. Even if it means restructuring the organisation to attain these goals. Opinions differ as to the types of KRs that abound. For example, Ben Lamorte and Paul Niven argue for a tripartite categorisation of Baseline, Metric (expressed as positive or negative), and Milestone, while [Felipe Castro](https://felipecastro.com/en/okr/success-criteria-types-key-results/?ref=robert.winter.ink) argues for only two categories of activity-based and value-based KRs. Yet most practitioners are consistent in advocating for the increase/decrease of a measure from a baseline to a target by a specific date. Returning to our earlier, 'Grow our monthly revenue from bequests by $20k per month from University alumni by September 2024'. This could be further improved and shortened while adding a baseline: > Grow our alumni bequest revenue from $200k to $220k per month by September 2024. When effectively deployed, this will lead to results that are focussed on outcomes that are: - Few in number (maximum of four results per objective); - Controllable (avoid results you cannot influence); - Aligned (if they rely on other teams); - Owned (by a named resource); - Aspirational (something to reach for or a stretch goal). As with the inspirational aspect of objectives, the aspirational element of a result is key because it is human nature to play it safe and minimise the possibility of failure. But to do this is also to fail to reach for the stars — which my father always counselled me to do even if I only hit the chimney tops. ## Conclusion The above only scratches the surface on effective OKRs, but I hope begins to unlock some of the latent potential in the approach and has strengthened the case for the superiority of OKRs over KPIs in organisational or team planning. I also hope that the essential element of not only OKRs, but any organisational artefact has been made clear; it is always about the process. The OKR, Strategic Roadmap, WIP document, OCM Plan, or another artefact is not the outcome. These are only the tools and techniques in the process used to achieve the outcome — [Sustaining Value in the Transformation Life Cycle](https://robert.winter.ink/sustaining-value-in-the-transformation-life-cycle/). By adopting this approach, we will not only end up writing good, albeit not perfect, OKRs, but also take that vital step in the practice of management; taking individuals or teams outside their zone of comfort to learn, improve, and explore — ultimately achieving meaningful transformation that unlocks value for the organisation. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [James Qualtrough](https://unsplash.com/@jamesq?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/fXzcEptNAmQ?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). --- ## Further Reading Doerr, John E. *Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation Rock the World with OKRs* (New York: Penguin Random House, 2018). Drucker, Peter F. *The Practice of Management* (New York: Routledge, 1954). Haak, Bart den. *Moving the Needle with Lean OKRs: Setting Objectives and Key Results to Reach Your Most Ambitious Goal* Portfolio and Project Management Collection (New York: Business Expert Press, 2021). Niven, Paul R., and Ben Lamorte. *Objectives and Key Results: Driving Focus, Alignment, and Engagement with OKRs* (Wiley, 2016). Steiber, Annika, and Sverker Alänge. “A Corporate System for Continuous Innovation: The Case of Google Inc.”*European Journal of Innovation Management* 16, no. 2 (2013): 243–264. ### Sustaining Value in the Transformation Life Cycle URL: https://robert.winter.ink/sustaining-value-in-the-transformation-life-cycle/ Last updated: 2026-01-20T11:20:56.000Z If you work in an organisation, chances are you are undergoing some form of transformation. This is in part the inevitable result of management, the restless sense that if we just do our job, it may look suspiciously like doing nothing. But if we are engaging in 'transformation', then even failure can seem like progress. This leads to each transformation offering either value or the appearance of value. Which of these outcomes you, your team, and your organisation gets is very much the result of the process — rather than the goals set or resources thrown at the transformation. Because of this, the planning and processes used either unlock value or keep resources in circulation but ultimately fail to achieve the intended outcomes. Examples of this are found in organisational surveys which indicate that only a third of participants think that organisational transformation is successful. For the third that thought 'success' was achieved, on average they only unlocked about thirty three percent of the anticipated financial benefit. Fortunately for leaders, there are some essential actions which can be taken to improve the value yield and increase the odds that transformation success becomes the norm rather than the exception. The first of which is to apprehend that almost half of all value lost during organisational transformation projects occurs early on, during the planning and goal setting phase of the process. ## Setting Up For Transformation The first step is a frank assessment of what value is involved in the transformation. The reason for this is that a manager will often overstate the upside of a transformation opportunity, either because the senior leadership or the board have expectations that are disproportionate, or because they have limited knowledge of the field and the manager advocating transformation is trying to strengthen their position in the organisation by making the opportunity a strategic centre piece. In such a landscape, due diligence is vital for all transformation opportunities and that business cases are built on a foundation of verifiable data to assess if the assertions about the transformation value — revenue growth, talent acquisition, market share growth, organisation health — are more than merely plausible, they are likely. The second element is setting ambitious targets for the growth. A [McKinsey](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/rts/our-insights/setting-aspirational-targets?ref=robert.winter.ink#/download/%2F~%2Fmedia%2Fmckinsey%2Fbusiness%20functions%2Ftransformation%20and%20restructuring%2Four%20insights%2Fsetting%20aspirational%20targets%2Fsetting-aspirational-targets.pdf) survey found, on average, that successful transformation programs delivered 2.7 times more value than anticipated at the start of the project. In setting ambitious goals, a heightened sense of accountability is created and, if properly managed, will also take teams outside their comfort zone in a way that increases long term organisational trust. This last point is crucial as teams will often run for comfort when increased accountability is felt — better to stick with what works when your reputation or career are on the line. Yet such timidity is unlikely to achieve the maximal value out of the transformation. Meaning that senior leaders need to make it clear that departure from the *status quo* **is the ball game**. Third, ensure the transformation involves SMART goals. As [Peter Drucker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5FDrucker?ref=robert.winter.ink) observed, 'what gets measured gets managed.' This is because essentially abstract targets, increasing annual revenue by $100 million, are hard to envisage as an employee goes about their daily tasks. To bridge the gap between expectation, the transformation goal realised, and what teams and individuals need to do to help the organisation succeed, it is important to set smaller and more tangible goals. A process that needs an effective communication plan that is tailored to each stakeholder cohort. The final and most important element to remember is that there are no shortcuts to success. Misunderstanding point number two — setting strong targets for the growth — by thinking it is about giving teams less time than is practically needed because 'speed to market' is everything, only sets back an organisation's ability to achieve true transformation; let alone capturing the maximal value that was possible. ## Delivering Value [It has been observed](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/successful-transformations?ref=robert.winter.ink#/download/%2F~%2Fmedia%2Fmckinsey%2Fbusiness%20functions%2Fpeople%20and%20organizational%20performance%2Four%20insights%2Fsuccessful%20transformations%2Fdecember%202021%20losing%20from%20day%20one%2Flosing-from-day-one-why-even-successful-transformations-fall-short-final.pdf) that less than a third of people involved in transformation projects think they were successful. Either in the short term or in achieving sustainable value over the long term. A confidence level that has remained largely unchanged from a decade ago, despite the ink spilled over the topic. Yet analysis of successful transformations, while reinforcing my last point that there are no shortcuts to success, also highlights the difference maker between the winners and losers in the transformation game — effort. As a McKinsey survey which asked executives about 24 practical actions that can enable successful transformation ([see below for the list](#24-actions)), organisations that adopt a considered approach, grounded in rigorous processes and procedures, are more than twice as likely to deliver high value transformations. For organisations who claim success in their drive for transformation, their executives still think the success is only partial. On average garnering around 70 percent of the predicted full value of the transformation. Crucially for businesses seeking to emulate the success, top performing firms manage this in less time than organisations that are not as successful. This makes time the first observable characteristic in the success paradigm. Businesses that can move quickly, achieve some quick wins, capitalise on the outcomes of a transformation program, and generate more positive returns. Returns that can be measured in financial outcomes but also, crucially, returns that can be measured in staff motivation. As the old adage goes, success breeds success, and a virtuous circle can be created when transformation improvements can be achieved in the first six months, rather than waiting eighteen months to see improvements. The second element of importance is to mobilise leaders. By this I do not mean managers, though they can be leaders, I mean people who stakeholders look to for guidance, motivation, and solutions. Often these people will be attached to projects as Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), a position that should emerge from a person's talent rather than being a 'role' that is imposed by an eager manager who knows SMEs are needed and thinks this is just a matter of appointing one of their team. As already outlined in the section above about providing tangible goals for teams, successful transformation requires people and processes to translate the vision into actionable tasks. Without the natural leaders initiating micro improvements in their area, providing feedback to senior leaders, and partnering with managers who may have control over resources but with limited capability to know how to most effectively harness the resources to achieve the goals set, organisations are unlikely to move quickly and capitalise on quick win success. This is because time will be wasted as teams flail around, generating a lot of work but very few meaningful outcomes. Third, beware of quantity over quality. Once the natural leaders or SMEs have been identified, it is crucial that managers and executives do not burn them out or push so many tasks in their direction they lack the time to consider any of them in depth. Instead, take the boulder, rock, pebble approach. Have thought leaders tackle the largest initiatives that constitute the key areas in which transformation is sought. As they crack these boulders, the rocks and pebbles that result can be fed into wider organisational processes. ## Making Transformation Sustainable Although I have stressed the importance of going all in on the transformation process and the value that is unlocked through quick wins, long term success is measured in the sustainability of the transformation. We have all seen organisations blighted by managers who arrive, jump straight into rapid transformation that is ignorant of organisational or industry history, and then bounce to their next gig before the train wreck that is their approach gets found out. Those of us left cleaning up from such pestilence, can attest that far from driving value, such managers set organisations back years. With that in mind, senior leaders or boards, in the case of appointing a transformational CEO, need to be awake and aware to the sustainability of the transformation. And in keeping with the 'always three' approach I have taken in this article, there are three principles that can be employed to improve the likelihood that transformation value is retained by organisations. First, never stop iterating. Even if your firm does not employ the Agile Framework, transformation is a way of business, not a one-time task for an organisation to complete and then get back to business as usual (BAU). When transformation is seen as a side hustle, it is unlikely that appropriate resources will be made available for the work involved. Perhaps most importantly, the resources that are unlocked for the process will likely dry up the moment the transformation is 'done', leaving the new process or initiative to wither and die on the vine. This means that eternal vigilance is not only the price of liberty, but also the price of successful transformation. The metrics established for the SMART goals in setting up for transformation need to be enshrined in BAU operational practice and continually updated as time passes. Second, enshrine the right incentives. A challenge with sales managers is that bonuses tend to flow from quarterly revenue increases rather than cumulative organisational benefit. This is usually because it is easy to work out if revenue has gone up, but to determine if the increased revenue has come at the expense of a higher cost of doing business which actually reduces the profit margin, is a harder proposition to consider. This example is writ large in the transformation space. Is a team rewarded simply for implementing something the organisation has not done before (**transformational mirage**) or is it being rewarded for establishing new ways of working (**transformational oasis**). To apprehend the difference, we need to ensure that team mindsets have changed. This can be measured by the questions your team ask about the transformation: - How does my changed role support broader organisational objectives? - How do I support my colleagues with their transformation obligations? - How can I take on a leadership role in iterating our new BAU processes? The third and final element in this 'always three' approach is an outcome of the first two principles — iterate and incentivise — and can be termed embed discipline. Leading teams beyond BAU processes takes discipline because it is easy to do what we know and what we always have done. Being uncomfortable can be an invaluable guide to see if change is happening. Such discomfort often sees employees retreat to old ways of working, unravelling the post transformational value that has been unlocked. To assess if this is happening, look at your ceremony cadences and the inputs and outputs of those ceremonies. Post transformation: - Does it take more or less time to achieve the value proposition? - Does the new reporting process provide better or worse insights? - Has the new application opened up better pathways for process management? The above is only the tip of the transformation iceberg. No fixed set of actions can define, measure, or achieve success. Thus, trying to make transformation a tick box affair is to setup an organisation for failure. This is because successful transformation is as much about the process as it is about the outcome. Increasing revenue is of little benefit if it only lasts a quarter — process 'improvements' are only as good as they are sustainable. Only once it is apprehended that transformation is a human encounter grounded on SMART goals and that it is through a process of team mobilisation and iteration that organisations can achieve their goals, can leaders have the best possible chance of unlocking the maximal potential of organisational transformation. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Chris Lawton](https://unsplash.com/@chrislawton?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/images/feelings/transformation?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) --- ### The 24 Actions of Transformation > In a [survey](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/successful-transformations?ref=robert.winter.ink), McKinsey asked executives about 24 practical actions that, in their experience, support the successful implementation of a transformation. Below are the specific actions in order of their impact (from greatest to least) on the likelihood of a transformation’s success, according to the results. - Senior managers communicated openly across the organization about the transformation’s progress and success - Everyone can see how his or her work relates to organization’s vision - Leaders role-modeled the behavior changes they were asking employees to make - All personnel adapt their day-to-day capacity to changes in customer demand - Senior managers communicated openly across the organization about the transformation’s implications for individuals’ day-to-day work - Everyone is actively engaged in identifying errors before they reach customers - Best practices are systematically identified, shared, and improved upon - The organization develops its people so that they can surpass expectations for performance - Managers know that their primary role is to lead and develop their teams - Performance evaluations held initiative leaders accountable for their transformation contributions - Leaders used a consistent change story to align organization around the transformation’s goals - Roles and responsibilities in the transformation were clearly defined - All personnel are fully engaged in meeting their individual goals and targets - Sufficient personnel were allocated to support initiative implementation - Expectations for new behaviors were incorporated directly into annual performance reviews - At every level of the organization, key roles for the transformation were held by employees who actively supported it - Transformation goals were adapted for relevant employees at all levels of the organization - Initiatives were led by line managers as part of their day-to-day responsibilities - The organization assigned high-potential individuals to lead the transformation (e.g., giving them direct responsibility for initiatives) - A capability-building program was designed to enable employees to meet transformation goals - Teams start each day with a formal discussion about the previous day’s results and current day’s work - A diagnostic tool helped quantify goals (e.g., for new mind-sets and behaviors, cultural changes, organizational agility) for the transformation’s long-term sustainability - Leaders of initiatives received change-leadership training during the transformation - A dedicated organizing team (e.g., a project management or transformation office) centrally coordinated the transformation ### Enabling Managers in a GenMe Landscape URL: https://robert.winter.ink/enabling-managers-in-a-genme-landscape/ Last updated: 2025-11-08T23:49:09.000Z An observable characteristic of GenMe is the paradoxical relationship they have with authority figures. In that GenMe individuals are more prone to challenge or even reject authority figures while simultaneously needing rewards and praise from those same figures. This creates complex relationships in the space of [responsibility, ownership, and accountability](https://robert.winter.ink/responsibility-ownership-accountability/) — which for ease of reference I will group together here under the catch all of accountability. The first challenge of which is the relationship GenMe perceive between accountability and reward. ## Accountability and Reward As noted in the two previous articles — [Leading GenMe](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-genme/) and [Challenges for Leadership when Managing GenMe](https://robert.winter.ink/challenges-for-leadership-when-managing-genme/) — employees with high entitlement and a strong need for extrinsic rewards, often experience frustration when pay rises and promotions are not regularly flowing in their direction. This psychological mindset has the tendency to erode the efficacy of performance based rewards. Even more challenging for managers, this process affects the role accountability plays in organisational behaviour. Far from being a responsibility, it becomes an opportunity for GenMe employees who see accountability only as a mechanism to enable their reward expectations and to receive positive evaluations of their work. Worse yet, as tenure with an organisation increases, and it becomes apparent that accountability is not a purely one way street which leads to pay, promotion, and praise, employees can come to see accountability as a stress situation. One that hinders their coping abilities and can even threaten their career advancement. Meaning that managers face a multipolar landscape when thinking about accountability, one which involves 'formal and informal systems, objective and subjective evaluations and rewards, and internal and external audiences'. With GenMe individuals taking a largely subjective view of accountability, managers need to be awake and aware that a heightened sense of entitlement can carry with it the perception that their team thinks they need neither leadership or direction from 'the boss', while simultaneously requiring praise and positive feedback from the very boss from whom they think leadership is not needed. This can be, to say the least, a very confusing situation for managers. One example of how this confusion can manifest is when an entitled employee expects all of the benefits that accrue from a long established professional relationship — such as trust, job satisfaction, positive appraisal, higher pay — but without the long term dedication to achieve these ends. Another example is that members of the GenMe cohort are less willing to be subordinate to traditional signals of organisational leadership, such as policies and role titles. The result is that managers who are seeking to bring about ethical change in an organisation's culture are likely to encounter resistance from individuals who are high in entitlement if they see the future direction of the organisation as an implicit criticism of their beliefs or choices. There is a silver lining to this seemingly dark cloud, in that opportunities lie in wait for managers who are able to align the personal goals that matter for employees with organisational objectives. This can be achieved by leveraging short term rewards — such as a day off for achieving the quarterly goals, or public praise for a well delivered project — to create a feeling of lively expectation when organisational needs are delivered. In time, these rewards can be increased as the timeframe lengthens. Consistent, high quality delivery over the course of a year will yield a pay rise. The same quality and consistency over a two year period will result in a promotion, even if only in job title. For senior leaders, the extrinsic rewards at their disposal offer tantalising opportunities to build team cohesion and motivate employees of a GenMe mindset. However, this is a double edged sword in the organisational behaviour space as it elevates innate GenMe characteristics, such as perceiving managers as being more 'leader like' if they control resource allocation or have the power to grant pay and promotions, while devaluing arguably critical leadership abilities such as reasoned deliberation, industry or institutional knowledge, and likeability (not being an ass). The problem here is that in organisational settings, there are far more leaders without organisational power than there are with. To check which boat you are in, do you have the power to grant a pay rise, or do you need your boss to sign it off? In some cases, there will also be opportunities for managers to explore replacing extrinsic rewards with intrinsic ones, such as fostering the innate sense of being satisfied with a job well done. When intrinsic rewards can be interwoven with extrinsic rewards such as public affirmation or a pay rise, a phenomenological perspective can be established in which an employee will adapt their subjective experience of work to apprehend personal value even if objective (e.g., a pay rise) benefits are not realised from each accountability interaction. To be sure, this is a long term endeavour as such philosophical shifts are not easily achieved. Meaning that managers who seek organisational change will need to be in it for the long haul, often not having a positive report to deliver for the quarter, and having to deal with regressions when team member entitlement is activated. ## Communicating with Teams The ubiquitous use of technology in business has radically changed organisational communication, a process that has only been accelerated by [Covid](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/covid/), with employees increasingly using text or computer-mediated methods of communication. Asking people to keep their camera on during remote meetings helps but is still a far cry from the rich interpersonal interactions that occur when physically face-to-face. Yet given that it is highly unlikely this trend will ever reverse, there are still ways in which managers can leverage the 'new normal' to their advantage. Taking as a 'given' that GenMe individuals have a lower tendency to form deep-rooted relationships with colleagues, they also tend to form more expansive networks of shallow connections. Networking of this type will struggle to achieve leverage in a major negotiation, but does open up possibilities in the spaces of marketing, sales, resource acquisition and even inter-organisational partnerships. Communication also plays a pivotal role in helping to shape employee expectations. A process that is critically important when managing GenMe as their high levels of entitlement are usually partnered with high personal regard. In that they will tend to perceive of themselves as high-performers and thus part of the 'in-group' or high quality team members discussed in last week's article which dealt with [Leader-Member Exchange](https://robert.winter.ink/challenges-for-leadership-when-managing-genme/). Unless clarity is achieved regarding personal performance, it will be hard to motivate change in an individual who already sees themselves as a top performer. But as also discussed last week, too much reality is unlikely to stimulate positive results from GenMe, rather it will further weaken an already tenuous organisational bond and result in greater staff turn-over. For managers with little to no organisational power, in that they are simply responsible for passing on the negative news to 'their' team regarding the pay review decision of the Executive Leadership Team, there are still opportunities to lead GenMe — particularly in the field of ethics. *Prima facie* this may seem doubtful, given the amount of verbiage I have expended on detailing the entitled and extrinsic characteristics of GenMe and the way in which these characteristics can lead to unethical behaviour if the rewards outweigh doing the 'right' thing. Yet there is a case to be made that in most circumstances, where employees are not in the position of a [Holmes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth%5FHolmes?ref=robert.winter.ink) or [Balwani](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny%5FBalwani?ref=robert.winter.ink) in which the upside of allegedly unethical behaviour can be measured in the billions, managers can lead change by establishing metrics for ethical behaviour alongside their other OKRs. When managers twin this approach with the modelling of ethical conduct, a psychological association is generally made by the employee between extrinsic success and ethical behaviour. An approach which may be initially driven by nothing more than a GenMe need for recognition and achievement, but which can lead to longer term organisational behavioural change. ## It Begins With Onboarding While I have focussed on the role managers play in leading GenMe, I will finish where a [recent article began](https://robert.winter.ink/great-managers-free-up-their-time/) — Human Resources. Be it recruitment and onboarding, probation reviews, advice on [how to conduct an effective WIP](https://robert.winter.ink/the-effective-wip/), career pathways, leading organisational change, or exit interviews, HR practices can make or break the ability of a manger to engage employees in a successful leader-follower relationship. Particularly with regard to GenMe. Examples of this are manifest in the recruitment phase, during which HR have considerable sway in: 1. Helping managers to go beyond the usual CV check list if the candidate has X years' experience in the role for which they are recruiting, or their salary expectations are 'within our remuneration band'. 2. Engaging managers and candidates in expectation lowering processes. Something which initially seems deeply counterintuitive in an age where managers are encouraged to 'sell the role' to prospective candidates, yet will actively aid in retention as employees are not caught up in false flag recruitment. 3. Facilitating realistic job previews (RJP). This may take the form of secondment or shadowing when an internal hire, or that an interview goes beyond a handful of questions and instead involves scenarios to help the candidate feel out the role. 4. Ensure candidates have clarity regarding pay and progression within the organisation. E.g., are they being hired into a role or organisation where there are genuine career progression pathways or only hired to perform a specific job with little time or chance given to advancement. While such an approach will likely shed GenMe candidates from the recruitment process, it will mean that those who accept the role will start with a far higher level of organisational alignment than might otherwise be the case. A result which will save tens of thousands of dollars on the average hire where candidates are let go during probation or worse, end up burning management and team time now they are an FTE on trying to create engagement with an employee who is fundamentally not aligned with the hiring manager and organisation. Post hiring, HR can assist uncertain managers in the socialisation process by helping them to articulate to employees the way in which individuals, teams, and departments with which they interact are interrelated and either dependent or interdependent on each other. This process can help to overcome the more pronounced individualistic tendencies of GenMe so that they see the benefit in coordinating their work with colleagues or so that they go beyond the base manager-employee interaction of performance and reward and instead begin to see their manager as an organisational leader. A shift in perception which will help managers go from boss to mentor, enabling them to form autonomous workgroups from their previously disparate employees. A final area in which HR can assist in the management process is by helping managers to acclimatise to the reality of leading a GenMe employee or team composed predominantly of a GenMe mindset. This is done by helping them to understand that team members who prioritise their personal life over work commitments are not intrinsically lazy or unambitious. Often quite the contrary, they may simply not see the potential for return in their particular work setting and are biding their time in search of more optimal conditions. Examples of this are employees who apprehend that exceeding expectations will have no impact on an impending salary review or because their only career path is their manager's role and that isn't coming up any time in the next decade. Once managers more fully apprehend the individual motivations and values of their team, they can provide leadership rather than mere task management. The sooner this happens, the sooner teams will become high performing and enablers of strategic goals. ## Conclusion Perhaps the great irony is that people with high individualism tend to fear authoritarian regimes. Yet by rejecting notions of a common goal, unless that goal directly benefits them, pushes managers ever further down the road of authoritarian leadership. The reason is that instead of being able to employ vision, goal setting, and effort and reward paradigms to bring teams together, managers are forced into the position of ' do it because I am the boss'. GenMe attitudes are unlikely to ever vanish from the organisational landscape, much though many managers may wish it so, and job hopping will remain an ever present challenge for organisations — particularly with inflation eroding wages. This means that only by understanding GenMe attitudes and motivations can managers hope to mitigate the worst of the effects on organisational behaviour and develop high performing teams. While much of the organisational literature, either academic or in the popular press, will advocate solutions such as boundaryless careers, increased work from home opportunities, the four day week, or open-ended employment relationships, the very same literature yields one central finding: that ambiguous situations create increased stress, lower organisational trust, and engender a greater tendency to switch organisations when things get tough. Findings that create something of a paradox. In such a landscape, providing more structure, not less, in both the daily tasks of employees and their perceptions about career pathways, offers the strongest viable path to improved staff retention and higher team performance. A process that is even more crucial in organisations where GenMe do not just make up a majority of employees, but a majority of the senior leadership team. Leadership teams which will have hyperinflated views of their ability to lead the organisation through difficult times and which will inevitably result in more scandals such as [the recent one at PwC](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/17/pwc-internal-review-of-tax-leak-continues-the-cover-up-australian-senator-says?ref=robert.winter.ink). On that note… Good night, and good luck. --- [*Roman de la Rose*](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roman%5Fde%5Fla%5FRose%5Ff.%5F11v%5F%28Narcissus%5Fgazes%5Fat%5Fthe%5Fspring%29.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [CC0 1.0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ## Further Reading Caspi, Avshalom. “Personality Development Across the Life Course.” In *Handbook of Child Psychology*, edited by K. Ann Renninger and Irving E. Sigel, Vol. 3 (New York: Wiley, 1998). French, J. R. P, and B Raven. “The Bases of Social Power.” In *Studies in Social Power*, edited by Dorwin Cartwright (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), 150–167. Frink, Dwight D, and Richard J Klimoski. “Advancing Accountability Theory and Practice: Introduction to the Human Resource Management Review Special Edition.”*Human Resource Management Review* 14, no. 1 (2004): 1–17. Laird, Mary Dana, Paul Harvey, and Jami Lancaster. “Accountability, Entitlement, Tenure, and Satisfaction in Generation Y.”*Journal of Managerial Psychology* 30, no. 1 (2015): 87–100. Winter, Richard P., and Brent A. Jackson. “Expanding the Younger Worker Employment Relationship: Insights From Values-Based Organizations: Younger Worker Employment Relationship.”*Human Resource Management* 53, no. 2 (2014): 311–328. ### Challenges for Leadership when Managing GenMe URL: https://robert.winter.ink/challenges-for-leadership-when-managing-genme/ Last updated: 2025-11-08T23:46:51.000Z In this article, which continues from the piece [Leading GenMe](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-genme/), I outline a series of challenges for managers and their leadership styles who are faced with a workforce composed predominantly of a [GenMe mindset](https://robert.winter.ink/leading-genme/). To accomplish this, I will be tackling five categories of leadership theory: 1. Transformational Leadership 2. Information Processing 3. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) 4. Authentic Leadership 5. Ethical Leadership ## Transformational Leadership Transformational Leadership is the process by which a manager seeks to help a team see beyond their immediate self-interest. It attempts to do this by creating a vision, which is used to achieve change through what are known as the 'Four I's': 1. Inspirational Motivation 2. Idealized Influence 3. Intellectual Stimulation 4. Individualized Consideration While Transformational Leadership is often considered highly effectual, it can be challenged by teams of a GenMe mindset. This is because one of the standout propositions about GenMe is that they are higher in individualism than GenWe. On the surface, this would seem to create opportunities in management that transformational leadership is primed to solve. Yet dig a little deeper and we find several faults. First, due to the greater individualism of GenMe, employees tend to focus on achieving their own goals, with the needs of the organisation being a by-product of their efforts. This creates a challenge for leaders because, contrary to the [Steven Covey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5F7%5FHabits%5Fof%5FHighly%5FEffective%5FPeople?ref=robert.winter.ink#Habit%5F4:%5F%22Think%5Fwin%E2%80%93win%22) approach, a 'win-win' is not always possible in the workplace. A highly topical example is employees demanding a 7% or greater pay increase in an operating environment which prompts organisations to think it more fiscally prudent to offer 4% or less. Because transformational leadership starts with the premise that leaders can create a vision of the future to which employees will subscribe, if the vision is sufficiently motivating, it is assumed the only challenge is to find the 'win-win'. However, among those of a GenMe mindset work is less central to their lives and therefore appeals by transformational leaders are going to be less influential. The upshot is that managers who adopt a transformational approach will often be met with disinterest, cynicism, and apathy. Second, given the greater emphasis on extrinsic rewards by GenMe, leaders will get less traction with emotional or intrinsic appeals because employees will gravitate toward outcomes that provide the highest personal utility or benefit. Although over a decade old, the data from an extensive survey by Ng et al. in 2010, *New Generation, Great Expectations: A Field Study of the Millennial Generation*, showed that in a 'national survey of millennial undergraduate university students from across Canada (N = 23,413)': > Millennials also appear to have high expectations when it comes to promotions and pay raises. They have been reported to wonder why they were not getting pay raises and promotions after six months on the job. For example, a recent university graduate working at an investment bank in downtown Toronto reported that he will learn as much as he can and then move on for something bigger and better, because he couldn’t wait two years to get promoted. > > Eddy Ng et al, New Generation, Great Expectations While this study focussed on Millennials and confines its conclusions to more traditional notions of generational divide, the results are nonetheless important for managers who encounter the same traits, but in an older cohort of employees. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Leading GenMe URL: https://robert.winter.ink/leading-genme/ Last updated: 2025-11-08T23:40:47.000Z My late father use to observe, 'you know you are getting old when the police start to look young.' I have not got to an age, yet, where the police are looking young, but as each year passes they are looking increasingly youthful. The same goes for people I manage and work with more broadly. Never mind Millennials, increasingly I am getting resumes from Zoomers (those born after 1997). One recent hire, rather imprudently, asked of a colleague 'how old are you?' I retorted, 'let me put it this way, his career began last century.' Queue look of amazement from the dimple cheeked employee. One does not have to be cantankerous and old to have an anecdote or two similar to the above in your repertoire. Nor to experience a knowing smile when you read in the popular press that younger generations tend toward increased levels of narcissism, greater entitlement, and a reduced work ethic. Little wonder given they are often referred to as the 'selfie' generation. As one pundit put it, 'it is a generation who only cares about work so long as they can post about it online'. Yet in the same breath, you will also hear younger generations described as more creative, as having greater concern for social values, as being more inclusive, and as having more advanced technical abilities than their predecessors. Certainly, we live in an increasingly technical world. Gone are the days when being able to 'work a computer' was a skill set to be listed on a CV. Nowadays you will invariably see a slew of technologies or programming languages listed among the accomplishments of the newest entrants to the workforce. However, while advanced technical abilities tend to tilt more heavily in favour of the young, the other aspects – creativity, social values, inclusivity – are not as generational as the young or even the popular press would have us believe. Nor, seeing how committed and hard working many young people are, are the journals of record correct in typifying Millennials or Zoomers as entitled and narcissistic. Because of this, I think it prudent to not talk about generations, in the sense of when someone was born. Few will rival [Noam Chomsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam%5FChomsky?ref=robert.winter.ink) for his commitment to radical and revolutionary change in the social justice space, and he is 94\. Thus, when talking about conflicting viewpoints between generations, we are on better ground when talking about generations as an attitude rather than a birth date. Full disclosure, there is some special pleading of this case on my part, given it is not uncommon for people to observe I should have been born in the nineteenth century. But I digress. Conceptualising the generational divide as attitudinal is arguably contrary to what one might ordinarily expect from an article, for it complicates an already complicated landscape and far from offering neat five words or less answers requires deep engagement with topic. But it is a process which repays the effort as it enables managers to better understand, and by virtue of this lead, their teams who may be of diverse age groups yet also display very uniform values and attitudes to work. A *status quo* which is a direct outcome of recent shifts in the employment landscape as a result of Covid. Much as politics is becoming increasingly bipolar, loosing much of its former nuance, so to are workforce attitudes which can loosely be divided into ‘GenMe’ and ‘GenWe’. Examples of these changes come in the shape of a demand for greater 'work-life balance'—shorthand for work needs to fit around lifestyle choices. A strong demand for individualism—which should be read as ‘corporate dress’ and ‘corporate conduct’ are out as people increasingly wish to make whatever sartorial choice they like, say what they like, and demand respect for any viewpoint they hold. And an ever growing insistence on support from managers—an expectation that if a person cannot cope in their role, it is their managers job to ensure they can. This latter issue is, I would argue, the inevitable by product of an educational system in which the notion of students failing courses has become almost anathema in most institutions. The insistence being that professors **MUST** act as enablers so that students can gracefully progress from enrolment to graduation. How the theory of management must evolve to accommodate these tectonic shifts in organisational behaviour is not new. Go back twenty years and you can see studies (e.g., Harvey & Buckley, 2002) which have argued that paradigm shifts necessitate the continual evaluation of management practice. So much so academic, but for daily exponents of the practice of management this means that notions of having ‘line employees’ or that as a manager you exercise a ‘span-of-control’ is now obsolete at least, anathema more generally. This is not to say that some servant-leadership revolution has happened with managers the world over relinquishing their former authority and instead acting as servants to their employees—though this does go on in some places. Indeed, there are many signs the pendulum has swung far too far for many, and not just managers with a self-interest in the *status quo ante*. Listen to the water cooler crowd – for those who still frequent the office – and conversations are abuzz with talk of a counter movement in which managers are the prime movers of organisational outcomes. Even for those of a less reactionary nature, that managers have a major impact on team performance, employee motivation, and job satisfaction is a seldom contested reality of organisational life. For those interested in the literature, academic studies have shown causal links between higher employee retention rates, organisational trust, and the manager-employee relationship (for example Han and Jekel, 2011). ## GenMe and GenWe While much of the literature, and anecdotal evidence, has historically pointed to some kind of Millennial / Boomer divide, my thesis here is that this divide is better personified as between GenerationMe and GenerationWe. This is because traits, such as high or low diligence, are a result of individual differences rather than group identity. A conceptualisation that repositions notions of group identity, making them a result of individual actions rather than the misconception that individual actions are the result of group identity. In its most basic form, these ‘generations’ can be defined in the following ways: ### GenMe: - More likely to value managers they like. - More likely to quit in difficult circumstances. - More likely to see a disproportionate relationship between effort and reward (i.e. be paid highly and receive rapid promotions). - Prefer extrinsic to intrinsic rewards. - Preference leisure activities over work obligations. - More likely to challenge authority figures while simultaneously needing rewards and praise from those same figures. ### GenWe - More likely to value managers with ability, even if they do not find them personable. - More likely to persist in adverse work environments. - See reward as the result of effort, not as an entitlement. - Prefer intrinsic to extrinsic rewards. - See the working week as the responsibility for a wage. - More likely to follow leaders because of their authoritativeness rather than because they dole out praise and rewards. Given the obvious dichotomy in this approach to work generations, the practical implications for management are that the leadership theories many have encountered—e.g., transformational, authentic, ethical, leader-member exchange (LMX)—will struggle to provide solutions when it comes to developing effective teams. Unfortunately, I do not have any easy answers to this problem, but I do have a series of propositions or challenges which can be used as a lens through which to view organisational behaviour. These will be explored in the next article—[*Challenges for Leadership when Managing GenMe*](https://robert.winter.ink/challenges-for-leadership-when-managing-genme/)—and can help managers to deal with the excessive individualism of GenMe, strengthen team cohesion, and develop greater employee trust in organisations. Good night, and good luck. --- Image: [By Cmglee](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=91612069&ref=robert.winter.ink) \- Own work, [CC BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Great Managers Free Up Their Time URL: https://robert.winter.ink/great-managers-free-up-their-time/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T09:30:07.000Z My mother spent the latter part of her career in HR. Of course at the time, the 1980s and 1990s, it was still called Human Resources—a term that has largely gone out of vogue as it is considered uncaring to think of humans as resources, or because it is thought that HR provides a [façade for totalitarian dynamics](https://browzine.com/libraries/590/journals/6392/issues/7690777?ref=robert.winter.ink). Instead, it is *de rigueur* to call such teams 'People and Culture' or some other such guff. But if we step back from the emotion, and seemingly endless recourse to some distorted post-modern [Foucauldian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel%5FFoucault?ref=robert.winter.ink#Power) philosophy of power, and allow ourselves a moment of logical reasoning, people are a resource of an organisation—arguably its most important resource. Though there is a case to be made that [time is even more valuable](https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/0743253418?ref%5F=cm%5Fsw%5Fr%5Fcp%5Fud%5Fdp%5FKCD5J3HND40QENEK8F3K&ref=robert.winter.ink), because people are invariably available and frequently come and go from organisations, particularly in these unmannerly times of low employee loyalty and high opportunity to move. This makes the case for time remaining the scarcest resource available to organisations. But I digress. Drawing on her long experience of the workplace, my mother would remark 'if you cannot be replaced, you cannot be promoted'. By this, she meant that while being of value is important, if you are irreplaceable, you can easily end up mired in a role because the organisation cannot move you—even if your capability merits promotion. It is a position I have found myself in from time to time. So much so that when I have left some companies the role I formerly occupied was never able to be replaced; responsibilities that once fell to me parcelled out to multiple people around the organisation—much to the chagrin of those who remained. To ensure I do not become stuck again, I try and follow my mother's guidance and always work to ensure that I can be replaced. Often working to delegate or automate my duties so that I can move on to the next great adventure. However, while this advice was sage, it has become distorted with the retelling. To the extent that it is now quite common for people to claim [*Great Managers Make Themselves Redundant*](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/great-managers-make-themselves-redundant-paula-o-toole-gaicd/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Yet this is to misunderstand the original intent of the guidance and the meaning of redundancy. In many ways, it is another example of a [category error](https://robert.winter.ink/moxie-and-the-server/). ## Being Redundant Redundancy in the modern workplace has become polarised into boons and curses. It is a boon for anyone, weary of their role and the organisation, who receives a large payout as they bid a less than fond farewell to the business. A curse for those who still want or need their job and suddenly find themselves victim of the dreaded organisational restructure. A process that is variously used to improve team performance, remove social loafers, or even provide the necessary scapegoat for a failed project. Though you are unlikely to ever get a manager to admit the latter. In a time of economic uncertainty, in which organisations struggle for their financial footing and the future looks bleak, mass job cuts stalk the employment landscape. Most prominent, only because it was in the news only the other day, is [Star Entertainment cutting 500 jobs](https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/star-entertainment-to-cut-500-jobs-following-rapid-deterioration-20230419-p5d1kk.html?ref=robert.winter.ink). Negative connotations to the phrase aside, the notion that a manager makes 'themselves' or their job **redundant** is highly problematic because it essentially means the work is no longer necessary. While this can, and should, happen as some roles are truly a waste of organisational resources, it ought not be the case when a manager is performing a necessary role and creating value in the organisation. Once we have placed the concept in its proper place in the library of organisational thought, we see that it is a misnomer to say great managers make themselves redundant. Instead, we are on better philosophical ground to say great managers free up their time. A process which is rooted in that mantra of organisational behaviour—trust. ## Organisational Trust Relationships Throw the query into your [search engine of choice](https://search.brave.com/search?q=Organisational+Trust+Relationships&ref=robert.winter.ink), and thousands of results will be returned. On this blog, I have frequently written about different types of trust relationships—be they [technical](https://robert.winter.ink/life-is-long-access-is-short/), [evidential](https://robert.winter.ink/supporting-evidence/) or [organisational](https://robert.winter.ink/the-effective-wip/). Perhaps most challenge in the discussion of a trust relationships is that when they are of real substance they buck a common fallacy. Namely, that **every** viewpoint or perspective is valued and should be respected. While all people should be respected, even if they hold dubious viewpoints, opinions or beliefs themselves are not necessarily worthy of being valued or respected. Doing so can even be corrosive to organisational cohesion and growth. While it is arguably easy to build affiliation by valuing everything, because it makes everyone feel to be 'inside' the tent, long term efficacy is eroded as teams and organisations have to make hard choices which either reject or even invalidate an individual's point of view. When this happens, the worst kind of failure in a trust relationship happens—the breaking of trust. I say worst, only because if someone never trusts me then it is logically impossible for me to break their trust. But if I establish false trust, better named affiliation, by making all the right noises and consistently telling someone they are right and that their viewpoint is valid, when I inevitably have to make a call that goes against their position, they will feel betrayed. In the realm of organisational behaviour, it is better to have indifference or apathy from a colleague than a sense of betrayal. Indifference can readily be moved in one direction or another, betrayal can take years to mend, if indeed it can ever be healed, and is unlikely to be forgotten. The challenge for all managers, and employees, in establishing trust is in making hard choices early. If someone has an invalid point of view, failing to challenge it early will only lead to more difficult conversations down the road as you end up having to deal not only with the individual or idea, but the inertia that now exists around a bad idea once it has got traction in people's minds. It is important to pause here and observe that invalid does **not** mean false or wrong. This distinction is often hard to convey in societies that tend toward [Manichaeism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism?ref=robert.winter.ink) as people are most comfortable with things that are clear or, to use that popular phrase, **obvious**. The challenge comes, in an age of [scientism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism?ref=robert.winter.ink), that employees can easily feel marginalised or out of step with a manager or organisation if their take is not endorsed or seen as the prevailing view. An outcome that can lead to cliques within teams and, in more extreme cases, be a cause of bullying as team members who feel to be 'right' about their view or approach undermine other team members in an effort to strengthen their own position. Often no malice is intended, at least not initially. Merely a case of people being neurotic about their own position or knowledge and seeking to be seen as being 'right'—a position they feel can only strengthen their value to the organisation. Such approaches militate against the very nature of an organisation, which at its simplest is defined as groups of people who work interdependently toward a shared purpose. Not to say anything of the duty of care all managers have in ensuring that no employee is bullied at work. Once the interdependent nature of work and shared purpose or goal is apprehended, we can readily see that an employee may be 'right', either in the logic or moral outcomes of their view, but still hold an 'invalid' view in the broader context of achieving an organisational goal. To return to the example above of organisations making staff redundant in periods of economic downturn. While it is preferable to retain staff, if a manager is faced with the potential of total organisational failure and **everyone** being out of work or letting **some** people go in the short term, then an employee may be 'right' to think all staff should be kept on because they do good work, but their view is invalid in the prevailing business context. How a leader maintains team trust when navigating such highly charged conditions can either make or break an organisation. A process that is seldom helped by adopting the popular trope that what everyone thinks is true and thus of value and respect. In my experience people who are thinkers rather than ideologues are highly adept at seeing the logic of a situation when all the relevant information is presented, and a decision closely argued. We can find a choice distasteful, yet also acknowledge it is the optimal path to take. Generally only authoritarians bitterly object to opposing views, abjuring reasoned deliberation because their opinion or viewpoint is 'obvious', and therefore must be accepted, valued, and respected as valid. Individuals of entrenched ideology will always be some form of a risk to an organisation, even if only as a flight risk, and reaching for the affiliation lever seldom achieves the long term results desired. Worse, it can see good people leave because partisan politics has taken over the organisation. A manager can burn inordinate amounts of their and the wider team's time managing around such turbulence. Only by getting to the heart of the problem and addressing the invalid perspectives, though I must stress in a sensitive way, can managers ensure effective interdependence within and between teams, and set the organisation up for successful attainment of the stated objectives. ## Time to Focus Returning to the start of this piece and recalling the difference between replaceable and redundant, we can start to see why the nuance matters. For a truly redundant manager has not only done themselves out of a job and income but failed to provide development opportunities for their team—after all, the role is now redundant and therefore while the boss may be gone, the organisation has no need to elevate one of the team to that much sought after promotion. A manager who makes themselves redundant, I would argue, also fails to account for organisational continuity as they are militating against one of the essential elements of all organisations—the [division of labour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division%5Fof%5Flabour?ref=robert.winter.ink). The role of a manager **should** be vital in the planning and organisation of work. If they build autonomous teams they will still have ongoing work in refining the objectives and continuing to develop the autonomy necessary in team members for effective interdependent work. Managers can discover this the hard way, and either find themselves redundant or worse—getting in the way of team development and the achievement of organisational goals. I am sad to say I have worked with too many managers who are very busy and terribly important, but who consistently failed to build autonomous teams. Instead keeping themselves in a job to solve for problems which should have long since been put behind the organisation. Instead, if leaders approach their role with the goals of enabling teams, developing autonomy, calling out invalid thinking and approaches to work, and ensuring they can be 'replaced' in the day to day of task management, then managers are freeing up their time to work on strategic planning. A process which will yield real organisation change, develop strong trust between employees, and ensure that less time is wasted repeating the mistakes of the past and more time invested building a better future. Good night, and good luck. --- [*Visiting a Nail Factory*](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Defrance,%5FVisiting%5Fa%5Fnail%5Ffactory%5F%2818th%5Fc%29.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Léonard Defrance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9onard%5FDefrance?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1735–1805) is is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Thunderous Ambivalence URL: https://robert.winter.ink/thunderous-ambivalence/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T09:48:15.000Z I recently wrote about [proposed changes to the Australian Privacy Act](https://robert.winter.ink/acting-for-privacy-an-australian-story/), an article that was well received but which provoked what is an all too common response from some when writing about online privacy or security. Given the [Snowden Revelations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward%5FSnowden?ref=robert.winter.ink#Surveillance%5Fdisclosures), public knowledge of [PRISM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM?ref=robert.winter.ink), the [Cambridge Analytica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge%5FAnalytica?ref=robert.winter.ink) Scandal, [Australia's Medibank data breach](https://www.reuters.com/technology/australias-medibank-served-with-class-action-lawsuit-2023-03-29/?ref=robert.winter.ink), the [OPTUS data breach](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-63056838?ref=robert.winter.ink), and the [list goes on and on](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List%5Fof%5Fdata%5Fbreaches?ref=robert.winter.ink), it is a surprising stance—yet one that persists. The responses generally take the form of 'I don't mind if people want to read the joke I sent to my friend', 'I haven't done anything wrong, so I've got nothing to hide', 'I'm not interesting enough for anyone to care about'. While it is irrefutably true that if you are a Head of State, business magnate, celebrity, or other high profile person, then you are likely to be targeted while the rest of us who live in comparative anonymity are generally left alone, this does not mean that privacy or security do not matter nor that your life cannot be turned upside down if someone steals your online identity. ## Nothing to Hide While issues of online security and privacy are a very recent phenomenon, the concept of having something to hide is about as old as society itself and stems from the notion that everyone is guilty of something. Even if that something is as innocuous as taking a cookie from the jar. The Russian writer and [Soviet dissident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%5Fdissident?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr%5FSolzhenitsyn?ref=robert.winter.ink), observed: > Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it is. [Cardinal Richelieu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal%5FRichelieu?ref=robert.winter.ink) held an even more sinister opinion on the matter in asserting: > If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. Though, it is disputed if the Cardinal ever said this. Apocryphal or not, both men were prescient in noting the challenges even the meanest individual faces when confronted by despotism. A challenge that diminishes but which does not entirely vanish in even the most enlightened and free societies. This is because while a person may not think they have anything to hide, there are nonetheless things we prefer to protect. A reality that is often made manifest by asking people of the 'nothing to hide' ilk for their pin number or log in to their email. As the Canadian privacy expert David Flaherty argued: > There is no sentient human being in the Western world who has little or no regard for his or her personal privacy; those who would attempt such claims cannot withstand even a few minutes' questioning about intimate aspects of their lives without capitulating to the intrusiveness of certain subject matters. However, many, if not most, arguments break down when taken to *extremis*. What about if we keep well within the bounds of the mundane? Even here, when we are not talking most intimate knowledge but the general minutiae that is gathered by companies and governments by the exabyte each day, 'nothing to hide' fails due to it being based upon incorrect assumptions about the value of individual privacy. Assumptions that result from trying to conceptualise privacy as a **thing**, reifying what is a continual state of being so as to place it as a physical object or static moment in time. Perhaps the most readily identifiable example of this is when we are being watched by other people. The person may not discover, much less disclose, any **secrets** about us. They may not be granted a view of ourselves we reserve only for a special few, much less gain a window into our soul. But they do, even for the socially ignorant and indifferent, give us a sense of someone being in our space. The harm, if I can use such a term, caused by being watched is that our personal space or privacy is being invaded by their gaze. Imagined thus, the act of privacy is not so much about hiding as it is about protecting. Making the concept of 'nothing to hide' a [category error](https://robert.winter.ink/moxie-and-the-server/) as it would be better asserted as 'I have nothing to protect'. Which is a statement so unlikely as to be implausible. I wrote about this notion in [The Subjective Nature of Nothing to Hide](https://robert.winter.ink/the-subjective-nature-of-nothing-to-hide/), and will not rehash the arguments here, only to observe that once we have unpacked the box of 'nothing to hide' and found it to be an empty argument, we can apprehend that we still have something to protect even if we have nothing to hide. This is not just because privacy, like any right, must be protected lest it be lost, but because whether or not we think we are being watched can fundamentally alter our choices and by extension our free will. This notion was unpacked by [Glenn Greenwald](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn%5FGreenwald?ref=robert.winter.ink) in his [TedTalk](https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn%5Fgreenwald%5Fwhy%5Fprivacy%5Fmatters?ref=robert.winter.ink), which repays the watching, as he argues that privacy underpins voting due to the way in which people may alter their public comments and voting choices if they think they are being observed. ## Needle in a Haystack The other common assertion is the needle in a haystack fallacy. It is based on the idea that my life or my data is so insignificant in the galaxy of lives and data that swirls around this planet it will go unnoticed. This is exposed as a fallacy on two levels, the first is 'wrong place wrong time' and the second is the nature of big data. Wrong place, wrong time is the notion that being a victim can happen to anyone. The average person, on their way home, faces a mugger on the street. There is often nothing special about them, no gold Rolex dangling from the wrist or some other marker that makes them a target. They just happened to walk down *that* alley. The same is true of online privacy and security. There need be nothing stand out about my data such as [Kompromat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat?ref=robert.winter.ink) about someone important or business intelligence that is valuable to a competitor. In other words, nothing that would make me a worthy target. It can simply be that my account was randomly targeted and was easy to compromise. Moving on to the nature of big data and we see that it does not require people to read each page or carry dozens of physical files out of a building. As such, governments, businesses, activists, and criminals can process exabytes of data on people and companies—trawling via algorithm. This means there is no data set so large that you can remain anonymous in a crowd. It also means that while you may have nothing to hide and thus think that no one will take an interest in you, your data may be [scooped up with millions of others](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM?ref=robert.winter.ink) to be processed and stored. Data which if not held secure, even if you are happy with the government or business which holds it having access, may be stolen and accessed by those less trustworthy. A data breach which, even if anonymised by the original holder, can be used to identify individuals for future attacks. As [MIT researchers discovered](https://news.mit.edu/2015/identify-from-credit-card-metadata-0129?ref=robert.winter.ink): > just four fairly vague pieces of information—the dates and locations of four purchases—are enough to identify 90 percent of the people in a data set recording three months of credit-card transactions by 1.1 million users. ## This is How Privacy Dies Because being 'off the grid' is now next to impossible in many societies, and knowing that one or two more privacy respecting apps in our life won't stem the tide, it is tempting to give up and either proclaim 'I have nothing to hide' or that 'I am too insignificant to be noticed'. But as we have seen, neither of these philosophical refuges afford any meaningful protection. While absolute security and absolute privacy is well-nigh impossible, it still makes as little sense to not care and fail to do what little we may in the same way it makes little sense to not bother to learn about a subject because we cannot know everything. Life is seldom a [zero-sum game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum%5Fgame?ref=robert.winter.ink). Rather, it is a game in which we do best when we do what little we can. For companies and governments, this means working on the imperfect privacy acts and, step by step, strengthening them and uplifting their efforts at safeguarding user data. For individuals, it means taking our online privacy and security seriously. Enabling two-factor-authentication, limiting what we choose to share, and migrating to [services](https://proton.me/?ref=robert.winter.ink) which, though far from perfect, make significant effort to safeguard our privacy. By re-framing the conversation thus, there is hope we can stem the massive social experiment emanating from the big tech firms, and those who seek to imitate their profits. In doing so, find meaningful solutions to safeguard our [ambient privacy](https://idlewords.com/2019/06/the%5Fnew%5Fwilderness.htm?ref=robert.winter.ink). Failing this, we face a bleak digital future. One which reminds me of a moment of Lucas brilliance. It is an ominous statement by his fictional character Padmé Amidala: > So this is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause. Perhaps in the case of our privacy, it ought to be rephrased: 'So this is how privacy dies… with thunderous ambivalence.' Good night, and good luck. ### Defund the Police, Yet Again URL: https://robert.winter.ink/defund-the-police-yet-again/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T09:50:03.000Z During my attempt at the [100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/100-days-of-muse-reason/) challenge, I penned an article, and then thought better of posting it. Instead choosing to write about discretion being *[The Better Part of Valour](https://robert.winter.ink/the-better-part-of-valour/).* In hindsight I wonder if it would have created the backlash I perceived. But on reflection, they were extraordinary days with mass looting, the burning of shops and cars, and general destruction of anything that represented a mindset that had not drunk the [Kool-Aid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking%5Fthe%5FKool-Aid?ref=robert.winter.ink) and embraced the *zeitgeist*. But with time comes perspective. Though I should stress, not always wisdom—quite the contrary in many cases. The perspective of presentism that is often brought to events of the past sees commentators regularly do harm to the historic record by trying to rewrite our understanding to condemn what they revile. Displaying little care for veracity regarding the accuracy of their claims, so long as everyone joins with them in moral condemnation of events—usually for current political gain. Such efforts are little better than the [airbrushing of memory](https://robert.winter.ink/airbrushing-memory/). [Donald Trump](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/donald-trump/) is infamous for his use of the term 'fake news' and is leveraging all the weight of his social media presence to bring pressure to bear on what is clearly a politically motivated case. No, this is by no means a defence of his egregious tactics, much less his Presidency—such individuals only weaken one of the great institutions of the West. It is only to observe that because an individual is a disgrace it does not mean that **any and all** tactics should be brought to bear. For we become less human when we adopt the tactics of our enemies. However, his recent arrangement has resurfaced calls to defund the police—yet again. In the case of Trump, his [ire is directed at the FBI](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/senate-majority-leader-rejects-trumps-call-defund-fbi-justice-2023-04-11/?ref=robert.winter.ink). In this context, it is worth revisiting the phenomenon of defunding law enforcement though the vehicle of a brief history of policing and why we embark upon a dangerous road when we seek to tear up the laws, or the institutions which enforce them, simply because we perceive an injustice. In short—removal of the enforcement mechanism of justice is no remedy for a failure of justice. If I have observed one thing in recent times, it is the general sense that there has been a failure of policing. Activists protesting **insert name of atrocity** seem united in their condemnation of the police and their tactics. Opponents of the activists are equally vociferous in their lambasting of the police for failing to control 'the mob'. No matter which way you look at it, police popularity seems to be at something of a low ebb with even the usually excoriated politicians enjoying something of a bump in the polls when compared to the men and women in blue. Historically, the purpose of a police force was to punish criminals. An example of this can be seen in ancient Babylon where officers known as *paqūdus* were appointed to investigate, after a crime had taken place, and to arrest those responsible. In Sub-Saharan Africa, during the [Songhai Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songhai%5FEmpire?ref=robert.winter.ink), officials known as *assara-munidios* \[enforcers\] were appointed to act as police. Again, with the purpose of prosecuting or punishing crimes after the event. This is a trend which has continued, on and off, throughout the history of policing and is arguably at the root of the present discontents. Officer is appointed to prosecute a criminal, in time, said office shifts from prosecuting to persecuting. Atrocity occurs, society demands action to redress the failing. As an alternative approach to pure detection, the notion of a preventative system gained momentum in the late eighteenth century and could be summarised by the words of [John Fielding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FFielding?ref=robert.winter.ink): 'it is much better to prevent even one man from being a rogue than apprehending and bringing forty to justice.' A clarion call which was later promoted by the utilitarian philosopher [Jeremy Bentham](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy%5FBentham?ref=robert.winter.ink): > It is better to prevent crimes than to punish them. This is the chief aim of every good system of legislation, which is the art of leading men to the greatest possible happiness or to the least possible misery, according to calculation of all the goods and evils of life. Sadly, for the modern force, methodology today arguably owes more to [Weber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max%5FWeber?ref=robert.winter.ink) than Bentham and as a result could be said to have as its core purpose: > \[to ensure a\] monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force \[*das Monopol legitimen physischen Zwanges*\] in the enforcement of its order. A loose reading of Marxist theory doubles down on this concept but adds the twist that in addition to punishing crime, the police are there to subjugate the working class. Looking at rows of tenement housing, soaring crime rates wherever poverty abounds, and the tendency of modern police forces to travel armed (often appearing as heavily as soldiers), and it is little wonder the hyper-negative views of the police get traction and calls to [defund the police](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/31/the-answer-to-police-violence-is-not-reform-its-defunding-heres-why?ref=robert.winter.ink) rise to a loud chorus in the popular press. The solution is to heed the calls. Defund the police and engage in a massive and dangerous social experiment. Or rather, that is the silver bullet solution. Would that we lived in a [Voltaire play](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide?ref=robert.winter.ink) and it was the best of all possible worlds. Unfortunately, reality is less prosaic and instead we get to choose between stuffed—steadily working on reforming a broken system—and really stuffed—tearing up the laws, scrapping the institutions and starting again from day zero. As an historian, I am unable to find an example in human history where that achieved the much desired utopia. But the long litany of dystopias which have arisen should make us think more than twice before embarking on yet another 'peoples revolution.' As Robert Bolt put it in his 1960 screenplay *[A Man for All Seasons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%5FMan%5Ffor%5FAll%5FSeasons%5F%281966%5Ffilm%29?ref=robert.winter.ink)*: > Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law? > > More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? > > Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that! > > More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Matt Popovich](https://unsplash.com/@mattpopovich?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/7mqsZsE6FaU?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### Epochs Within Epochs URL: https://robert.winter.ink/epochs-within-epochs/ Last updated: 2025-11-04T01:26:31.000Z I am old enough to remember the teaching of history in [epochs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch?ref=robert.winter.ink). Though much frowned on these days, as the fine disciplines of history, philosophy, and art, are jammed into the abomination that is 'social studies' — or worse social science — but epochs are effective in conveying the notion that periods in history can and do have themes and motifs. Examples of this are echoed in the notions of Ancient Greece and Rome, the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, the Age of Reason, the Age of Revolution, the Age of Capital, the Age of Empire, the Age of Extremes. These latter 'ages' were the titles used for [Eric Hobsbawm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric%5FHobsbawm?ref=robert.winter.ink) magisterial tetralogy on the [long nineteenth century](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long%5Fnineteenth%5Fcentury?ref=robert.winter.ink). This may come as a deep shock to the 'woke' types you find on campus these days who think **they** have discovered that labels are often inaccurate, but even when the 'ages' approach was fashionable, anyone of even mean literacy was aware these terms are flawed. The [Dark Ages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark%5FAges%5F%28historiography%29?ref=robert.winter.ink), the preferred term now is Early Middle Ages, were in fact a period of burgeoning intellectual, artistic, and cultural life as nascent European nations sought to fill the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Age of Reason was frequently anything but reasonable. The Age of Democracy saw totalitarian regimes of the left and right abound. While these flaws are readily pointed out on social media as pedants, invariably of a [revisionist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical%5Frevisionism?ref=robert.winter.ink) or [negationist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical%5Fnegationism?ref=robert.winter.ink) ilk, trip over themselves to criticise all who use such terms, there are many benefits to taking a sweeping approach to the teaching and understanding of history. This is because while it is seldom, if ever, the case that the lights are turned out on one age as another dawns, the way in which the New Year begins with the stroke of midnight, there are social events which ripple through time and broadly define a period. This approach often bears the ripest fruit when engaged with in the context of '[doom scrolling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomscrolling?ref=robert.winter.ink)' on social media. History, when viewed at a distance, feels certain. Unless you are in academic circles or part of a dedicated historical society, one can readily make and seldom be rebuked for an historical view when in conversation. Migrate that view to social media, particularly if it is a hot topic, and flame wars will quickly ensue. Take the less 'confrontational' approach and instead of expressing a view simply sit back and scroll, and the timeline is the intellectual equivalent of a dumpster fire. An autocrat in the Kremlin bent on the resurrection of [Greater Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%5Firredentism?ref=robert.winter.ink). In China, an emperor clothed in the wonders of the digital age is attempting through the enforcement of tight social controls to stave off the [chaos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundun?ref=robert.winter.ink) which always threatens life. Europeans watch as the French set fire to everything representative of an increased retirement age. While in the US partisan politics plumbs new depths as a septuagenarian brawls with an octogenarian over America's future. And this isn't even scratching the surface. Given it is Easter, a time in which Christians celebrate resurrection and life eternal, it is worth musing on an alternative reading of history which may not be to everyone's taste, but which offers a tantalising alternative to a more temporal reading of world events. The alternative reading in the Christian faith is often referred to as [salvation history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation%5Fhistory?ref=robert.winter.ink). The purpose of which is to try and effect eternal salvation offered by understanding the personal or everyday redemptive activity which goes on **within** human history. In Salvation History we see the notion of 'Ages' or periods, as we did with the temporal Ages of Reason and Age of Revolution, but these spiritual epochs are expressed in the notions of: - [Creation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis%5Fcreation%5Fnarrative?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Fall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall%5Fof%5Fman?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Covenant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant%5F%28biblical%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Prophecy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible%5Fprophecy?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Incarnation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation%5F%28Christianity%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Salvation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation%5Fin%5FChristianity?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Sanctification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctification?ref=robert.winter.ink) - [Kingdom of God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingship%5Fand%5Fkingdom%5Fof%5FGod?ref=robert.winter.ink) Vexingly, Salvation History — although somewhat linear — does not overlay alongside world history. Rather, it is a reading of the historical record that happens **inside** the events and timelines of the world. A religious or, as we shall come to in a moment, a moral narrative for the inner workings of the events which represent an additional dimension in which humanity is engaged. If we can but see it. Though it varies between traditions — [Anglican](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Lutheran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Methodist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Moravian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian%5FChurch?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Reformed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed%5Ftradition?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Roman Catholic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman%5FCatholic?ref=robert.winter.ink) — the [Easter Triduum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal%5FTriduum?ref=robert.winter.ink) or 'Three Days' (Latin: *Triduum Paschale*) takes believers from [Maundy Thursday](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maundy%5FThursday?ref=robert.winter.ink), through [Good Friday](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good%5FFriday?ref=robert.winter.ink), and culminates in the proclamation of the [Lord's Resurrection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection%5Fof%5FJesus?ref=robert.winter.ink). A procession of events which illuminates what Christian's believe is the definitive revelation of history. In this way, Easter is more than a celebration, it is a proclamation that what is recorded in the pages of history is but a part of what is really there. Within each page of our story, there is a sub-text or inner working — an [esoteric](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western%5Fesotericism?ref=robert.winter.ink) meaning — of what God had intended for His creation since the beginning of time. Often referred to as the [Logos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos%5F%28Christianity%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) or Word, it represents that through which all things came into being. A Word which became flesh, preached, suffered, and was [resurrected](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection%5Fof%5FJesus?ref=robert.winter.ink) to grant life everlasting. For Christians, Easter represents an addition to the scientific or purely historical understanding of time. One in which there is more than the inevitability of our sun becoming a [red giant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red%5Fgiant?ref=robert.winter.ink) in the future, and instead reveals a [Lamb of God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb%5Fof%5FGod?ref=robert.winter.ink) who takes away the sins of the world. One does not need to be Christian to share in this message because it is a message of hope for humanity. Something more than eternal nothingness and in which our choices can reveal or obscure, can create or destroy, can save or condemn, can sanctify or defile. In short, can offer hope for a better tomorrow or lead to a nihilistic dystopia. While our own short lives may lack the eternality of the [Holy Spirit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy%5FSpirit?ref=robert.winter.ink) — a concept shared by many faiths — we can transcend events by our choices. Choices which, religious or not, have deep and long lasting moral implications. My choices aim for renewal, growth, and hopefully salvation. What are yours? Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Lucas Santos](https://unsplash.com/@%5Fstaticvoid?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/bPYptt85ELU?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### The Effective WIP URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-effective-wip/ Last updated: 2025-11-20T10:36:28.000Z Work in Progress (WIP) meetings are—problematic. Being either a vital tool in the management and development of an organisation or a complete waste of time. The former, a vital tool, sees effective management of the WIP process driving value for the organisation, improving team cohesion, and enhancing levels of employee trust. The latter, a waste of time, bears witness to managers and teams playing another round of capture the flag, in the game of being busy but not productive. WIPs can create resentment in teams—an inevitable result of organisations loading employees with ever more work and then blocking them from doing said work by ensuring days are meeting heavy. WIPs can be seen as selfish—a manager asking, ‘what have you done for me?’, seldom querying ‘what can I do for you?’ WIPs can even be outright awkward—as social conventions clash and two or more people stumble around and pray for the meeting to end **soon**. A situation that is unlikely to improve the relationship between manager and employee. The good news is we can successfully navigate this minefield by following a few simple practices. ## Establishment of Trust The first step, and this cuts both ways for manager and employee, is to create an environment of trust. For the manager, this involves ensuring the WIP does not seem like a process for checking up or micro-managing. For an employee, it is an opportunity to show your boss you are a ‘safe pair of hands’ and that they can leave objectives with you—confident the desired results will be achieved. It is usually most efficacious when the trust relationship is initiated by the manager. This is done via the approach to process, layout of the WIP template, and the guidance on what the WIP is trying to achieve. As an employee, if your manager has not seized the initiative, you can always use that time honoured tradition of managing up. There is, I should hasten to add, a line between successful managing up and trying to tell your boss how to do their job and run the team yourself. The former, will generally result in a benign smile, as you are taking on responsibility and making their day easier. The latter, ‘telling your boss’, is pretty much guaranteed to get your name on a watch list. Marked as someone who is not a ‘team player’. Lack of promotion and a PIP (Personal Improvement Plan) often follows closely. If you have avoided being ‘that guy’, who seems to be telling everyone what to do despite not being CEO, then you have the chance to shape not only your own WIP, but the experience of your colleagues. Because with any luck—read competence—your boss will roll out your initiative across the team. Something which will mark you as someone with leadership potential and generally improve your standing in the organisation. It also, on a purely selfish front, means you spend less time dealing with ‘bullshit managers’ and more time getting on with delivering value to the business. Enabling you to get out of the team, or perhaps take over the team, and let your abilities echo benefit around the organisation. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Acting for Privacy - An Australian Story URL: https://robert.winter.ink/acting-for-privacy-an-australian-story/ Last updated: 2025-11-20T10:06:04.000Z Depending on your lens, Australia either has a particularly good or a very bad reputation for privacy. Very good in that, contrary to the ravings of those who see fascists and despots everywhere they turn, you will not find the Federal Police knocking on your door in the middle of the night because you have posted a disparaging comment about the Prime Minister. Though, [free speech does have its limits](https://robert.winter.ink/the-new-cathedral-door/). Very bad, because it participates in the Five, Nine and Fourteen Eyes intelligence-sharing agreements. Bad, only because while most SIGINT (signals intelligence) bodies — for example [NSA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National%5FSecurity%5FAgency?ref=robert.winter.ink), [GCHQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCHQ?ref=robert.winter.ink), [ASD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian%5FSignals%5FDirectorate?ref=robert.winter.ink) — are not permitted to spy on their own citizens, they are permitted to spy on foreign nationals and then share that information. The result of this work, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation asserts, is to take advantage of “[the lowest common privacy denominator](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/five-eyes-unlimited?ref=robert.winter.ink).” Into this febrile landscape the Department of the Attorney General has released (16 February 2023) proposals of the [Privacy Act Review](https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/consultations/review-privacy-act-1988?ref=robert.winter.ink) (**the Review**) which proposes changes to Privacy Act 1988 (**the Act**) with respect to [Australian Privacy Principles](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00139?ref=robert.winter.ink) (APPs) — think companies and government agencies. While nigh impossible to effectively summarise a 320 page review in a short article, there are three key recommendations that are deserving of mention, and which I think convey the general timbre of the overall report. ## 1\. Small Business Exemption > Subject to a number of exceptions, the Act does not apply to businesses with an annual turnover of $3 million or less. The Issues Paper sought feedback on whether the current scope of the Act strikes the right balance between protecting the privacy rights of individuals and imposing unnecessary regulation on small businesses. The Discussion Paper canvassed options to address this increased privacy risk, but did not put forward any specific proposals. There was a high level of interest in the exemption from submitters who generally took the view that advances in technology have shifted the way small businesses operate and increased the privacy risks they pose. The majority of submitters that addressed the small business exemption recommended the exemption should be removed. Some small business representatives acknowledged the importance of small businesses protecting individuals’ privacy but were opposed to the exemption being removed. > > — [Review of the Privacy Act 1988](https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/consultations/review-privacy-act-1988?ref=robert.winter.ink) Having worked in small business for a number of years, and continuing to consult to their boards, I can apprehend the concern that accompanies additional regulation. This is felt particularly acutely by boards who have not even heard of a Cyber-Security Plan, let alone contemplated the implications of one for their organisation. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Tempus Fugit URL: https://robert.winter.ink/tempus-fugit/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T09:53:32.000Z I try and steer clear of big tech, as far as is rational. My [threat model](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/threat-modeling/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is very low risk, because I am neither famous enough to attract the attention of stalkers nor interesting enough to invite the gaze of state actors bent on silencing my dissident behaviour. Thus, I walk a line between the purist utopia of Linux running only FOSS applications and a dystopia of surveillance powered services that provide a near unlimited tool set. In my day job, there is no line walking as my stipend comes from a typical organisation that is enthralled to big tech, and thus provides work systems that are replete with the usual surveillance suspects of Microsoft and Zoom. While I may revile the choices, it is interesting to see the latest in what this sort of tech can offer. Though nothing of the scale or sophistication of [ChatGPT](https://robert.winter.ink/our-mind-is-a-blurry-image-of-life/), the 'auto-complete' functionality built into Outlook and Teams is fun to play with—if I am on a call and bored. Try only using the suggested reply function to respond to pings in Teams. Conversations can take some bizarre paths. But ultimately it is disappointing, even eviscerating, as a shorthand way of acknowledging colleagues. I encountered this only the other day, when a colleague observed that it felt like the day had just started, yet it was already 5pm. For my classical mind, which I should hasten to add knows little Latin and less Greek, the most suitable *bon mot* was *tempus fugit*. Yet, and despite having had several years of my esoteric responses to analyse for options, the best Teams could offer was 'Happens to the best of us'. It is moments like this I go from delight in the money thrown into big tech and the ease of use it invariably brings, to abject disillusionment as I wonder why I have abandoned my principles of purism in tech. Better to have a clean system and simply rely on my mind for retorts and content, than mortgage my data to the capricious and acquisitive gods of Silicon Valley. As the cliche goes, it is darkness that allows us to appreciate the light. Or in this case, if I may be permitted a moment of melodrama, by sitting in the valley of tech disappointment I can better see the sunlit uplands of possibility. I am musing next steps. My **first way** choice of FOSS collapses quickly once I need to engage with proprietary tools. The **second way** choice of Windows has not done itself any favours of late, as Windows 11 only seems to double down on the telemetry problems that plagued Windows 10\. Even my **third way** of Apple has begun to pall. Their new Silicon processors are truly game changing, and their OS offers a middle ground that enables the tools that are needed from time to time while making a better fist, albeit a far from perfect one, of maintaining my privacy. Yet as Apple's privacy respecting posture gives way to the pull of marketing dollars through making user data the product, their third way begins to fall short. It is a shame as their tech is great, and the family sharing functionality is wonderful. They just need to firewall my family's data from the world by ensuring everything we capture on our devices—images, text, video—is end-to-end encrypted and unable to be accessed by marketers or anyone else. Solutions like [Proton](https://proton.me/?ref=robert.winter.ink) provide some of the answers, but ultimately without securing the hardware and base operating system, one remains prey to big tech telemetry and data invasion. And on that disappointment, I end here, with no **fourth way** to offer—yet. I would be interested to hear about your technology journey. Are you encountering similar challenges? Have you solved for them? Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Jiyeon Park](https://unsplash.com/@greenpjy123?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/OshG1lLSNa4?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### On Replies and 'Reply Guys' URL: https://robert.winter.ink/on-replies-and-reply-guys/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T09:56:37.000Z Lately, I’m seeing a consistent and persistent narrative on social media against people who are termed ‘reply guys’. In case you are unfamiliar with the term, it describes people who comment on a post by way of negation. An example might be if I were to create a post about the evils of colonialism and someone where to reply, ‘but colonialism made the modern world’. Another example might be if I were to post a survey about surveillance capitalism and someone were to comment ‘that I am using Google forms, a company synonymous with surveillance capitalism’. Those who are offering guides to ‘reply guys’, usually take this sort of approach: > Guidelines for Replying > Do you need to post THIS? > Do YOU need to post this? Which is a roundabout way of saying ‘do not comment unless you are in support of my post’ or 'do not comment unless you are part of an approved group'. To be fair, I think most people who post about 'reply guys' do not think this, or rather they do not think they think this. They simply want constructive, although not exclusively positive, comments. To an extent I agree. I post very little on social media because I am fed up to the back teeth of offering a historical account only to have some moronic and illiterate individual bellow ‘oppression, oppression, oppression’ because they have read a heavily edited and deeply ahistorical account of the sources which supports their ideological view of the world. The other one I have encountered is discrimination because of 'group identity', in that someone is of the wrong skin colour, sex, cultural background, wealth, or other perceived privilege or injustice to have their comment heard. In our modern 'caring society', it seems discrimination is not discrimination so long the characteristic is deemed worthy of discrimination. If history teaches us one thing, it is that history does not have a **right side**, nor does it have a wrong side. History is just—history. You can admire or resent the events, but they do not bend in an inevitable direction like gravity. If philosophy teaches us one thing, it is that individual differences matter infinitely more than perceived group characteristics. Surely people should be judged by the content of their character. Yes, I am sure I read that [somewhere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%5FHave%5Fa%5FDream?ref=robert.winter.ink#Speech). The same can be said for any concept or event we encounter in the **now**. The notion that because Democrats or Republicans in America win a particular election, or because the Liberals are trounced by Labour in Australia, or because a local vending machine has started accepting crypto is not, I repeat **NOT**, a sign that history is doing what it **should**. Much less that a particular ideology is correct and that by definition a perceived opposing 'group' is wrong. It is nothing more, nor less, than in the daily struggle over what matters to us we can notch up a small win or loss in the column of our preference. Perhaps this is what lies at the heart of the anti-reply guys' posts. The realisation that despite our best efforts, some jerk has not been convinced. It reminds me a little of the cartoon: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/c7148-img_1981-jpeg.jpg) Of course, the reality is that someone on the internet will always be wrong. If this is too much to bear, then we do better to **not** be on the internet ourselves rather than attempting to kick / ban that which is wrong. This may be hard, but it is an essential part of public discourse. For take the 'reply guy' offline and you get any half-decent town square. A space in which one cannot stand on a soapbox and sound off without a passer by—replying. The online world is no different. As Epictetus observed: > Philosophy does not promise to secure anything external for man, otherwise it would be admitting something that lies beyond its proper subject-matter. For as the material of the carpenter is wood, and that of statuary bronze, so the subject-matter of the art of living is each person's own life. > — Epictetus, Discourses 1.15.2 Social posts are, grandiloquent though it may sound, the subject-matter of the art of living. Thus, to hear each person's own life is to hear their philosophy. This is not to say we should indiscriminately read and digest every reply. A degree of prejudice, in the sense of pre-judgement, is not only permissible but thoroughly appropriate. While a physical public square tends to never offer such cotton wooled comfort, social media comes with an array of filters so we can avoid replies we deem unwanted. Thus, if we do not like to have 'reply guys' in our feed, we should use the available filters and create a bubble devoid of discord. Yet we should be cautious to **not** use filters so much that we live a life sans any opposing views. Better by far, asserted Burke, for us to question our absolute convictions and spend a long time 'lost in Doubts and uncertainties' than settle for a life deaf to speculative opportunities in which we question little and know little else. Much as we do well to live and let live, we also do well to post and let post. Devote what limited energy with which we are gifted to thought and the formulation of our views, and let the reply guys reply. They are, generally, all sound and fury signifying nothing. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Tanisha Ngo](https://unsplash.com/@hikarilc?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/oWE6qi%5F8c4Q?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### Our Mind is a Blurry Image of Life URL: https://robert.winter.ink/our-mind-is-a-blurry-image-of-life/ Last updated: 2025-11-21T12:51:25.000Z My old professor was a committed [nominalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism?ref=robert.winter.ink). He abhorred reification, making what is abstract something concrete, and mining this rich vein of thought he would discourse on the notion that we do not have a mind. Ergo, there is no such thing as mental illness. As you might imagine, in the age of the psychologist, he came under a lot of fire as a reactionary 'denier'. Of course, such responses to his reasoning merely unmasked the bias of his interlocutor — the unwillingness to contemplate anything that runs counter to their perceived understanding. This professor spent a career as a working psychologist, including in institutions with societies most troubled, he was all too aware of the joy and torment that goes on in our heads. Thus, his objections were not to deny, rather to challenge how people use language to talk about the acts of thinking, feeling, knowing, understanding. Language which he thought, if misused, only compounded the suffering of his clients. Hearing his and others reasoning on the subject and augmenting it with what is now enough personal experience to bore people at dinner parties, I cannot help but return to Wittgenstein's notion that 'the limits of my language are the limits of my world'. When we appropriate words, when we conflate distinct concepts, when we seek to change the world by changing the meaning of words, we may win the moment but we mortgage the future. This is because in redefining words to limit or prevent any possibility of counter-debate, we cut ourselves off from imagining things that are undreamt of in our philosophy. In a recent article on ChatGPT for [*The New Yorker*](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Ted Chiang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted%5FChiang?ref=robert.winter.ink) explored the notion of not viewing the service as AI—[a view I share](https://robert.winter.ink/ghost-writers-rise-of-the-machines/)—but instead to: > Think of ChatGPT as a blurry jpeg of all the text on the Web. It retains much of the information on the Web, in the same way that a jpeg retains much of the information of a higher-resolution image, but, if you're looking for an exact sequence of bits, you won't find it; all you will ever get is an approximation. > > [Ted Chiang](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web?ref=robert.winter.ink) To counter this gap in language, and because the chatbot cannot think, ChatGPT leverages it's modelling to fill in the gaps in an attempt to sharpen the image. This leads to an output which is plausible enough to seem true to the untrained mind, but that in reality requires checking and correcting against third party data. What I find particularly interesting about this is the speed with which people are willing to devalue the output of ChatGPT because of the same process that happens in us. Our memory is, to use Chiang's analogy, a blurry image that our present self then interpolates to form a coherent vision of topic. Returning briefly to my old professor, he would expound on this conceptualisation to the seminar, only to face howls of derision from the cohort. Living in Sydney, he would invite everyone to engage in a small experiment — close their eyes and count the verticals of the [Harbour Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney%5FHarbour%5FBridge?ref=robert.winter.ink). If our memory is truly lossless, we could simply retrieve the image of the bridge and then count off the verticals. But instead, our memory of the bridge is one part retrieval and one part 'hallucination'. The greater our familiarity with topic, the more detailed or 'lossless' our memory. At least in theory. As with the experiment of the bridge, Chiang observed another factor in play with respect to ChatGPT. The notion of repeatedly 'saving' information: > Repeatedly resaving a jpeg creates more compression artifacts, because more information is lost every time. It's the digital equivalent of repeatedly making photocopies of photocopies in the old days. The image quality only gets worse. > > [Ted Chiang](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web?ref=robert.winter.ink) Though he used this analogy in the context of a newer iteration of a Chatbot learning from an earlier bot's output, it is apt in conceptualising the trap into which we can easily fall when thinking about a topic. If we meditate on subject matter with ill understood or reimagined definitions of words, we are the equivalent of resaving a jpeg — the quality of our thinking only deteriorating the more time we spend reflecting on the topic. This behaviour is writ large on social media, where people pickup on a redefinition of language they already know, feel heartened because it confirms their bias — I am not alone or wrong to think this — and then the algorithm provides dopamine hits in the form of an endless stream of 'likeminded' people. All of which permits us to form a view of the world that reinforces our ideology but may be devoid of truth—unless everyone else adopts our outlook in a [Jonestown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown?ref=robert.winter.ink) approach to reality. With nothing but arbitrary re-definitions of words to fall back on, and Thought Police to brainwash and torture dissidents, it is striking that the most bile invariably comes from those who favour concepts such as 'Love Wins', 'Peace Rules', and 'Be Kind'. In the face of such ferocity, coming from a self-asserted place of love, many fear to protest lest their objection be seen as confirmation of the very prejudice the ideologues seek to expose. As one commentator recently put it, 'only a witch would deny the existence of witchcraft'. Yet it is a witchcraft that comes not just from the appropriation of words, but also from their absence. To return to the sphere of technology again, one of the challenges of data storage systems is space. All devices are limited, to solve for this problem computer scientists often turn to compression as a way to store more in less space. But compression does more than just save disk space. It also, according to researchers like [Marcus Hutter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus%5FHutter?ref=robert.winter.ink), offers parts of the solution to achieving true AI. As Chiang observed: > If a compression program knows that force equals mass times acceleration, it can discard a lot of words when compressing the pages about physics because it will be able to reconstruct them. Likewise, the more the program knows about supply and demand, the more words it can discard when compressing the pages about economics, and so forth. > > [Ted Chiang](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web?ref=robert.winter.ink) This process is what happens when we hear an individual speak and compress their speech to 'free trade' or 'protectionist', 'climate change' or 'climate denier'. While there are considerable benefits to this in terms of functionality, there are also considerable drawbacks. The millennia of evolution that has brought us to the present day has favoured survival. This means we are more likely to perceive a threat, in something we cannot see or understand, than we are to perceive a benefit. While this was of great value when we roamed the savanna, and there was a potential predator lurking in the nearest bush, it is of quite the opposite value in the life of the mind where exposure to 'risk', in the sense of hearing something that contradicts our world view, is vital to gain an accurate understanding of the world. This is where the sources come in. When I think about a topic, I recall theories and interactions, form analogies, and start throwing words on the page. But I always dive into my redoubtable zettelkasten for a higher level of resolution than I can recall. When my zettelkasten does not yield sufficient results, particularly counter arguments, it is a case of 'to the library!' Here I can sip from the cup of more than 2 million publications. While not an exhaustive catalogue of the world's knowledge, there is enough range to form something approaching an authoritative argument on the topic. The difficulty is the argument that emerges from a close reading of the sources can be—problematic. It can contradict our original thinking. It can take us down a line of thought we fear or may even hate. All of this can be triggering. But because this can be too much for some, much easier to continue to resample the image. To continue to redefine the language, reframe the argument, and reassert our outlook until the result is more harmonious to how we would like the world to be. This edited memory, the lossy jpeg to return to our earlier metaphor, is then resaved for future retrieval. Though flawed, this nonetheless conforms to Foucault's assertion that 'the only valid tribute to thought… is precisely to use it, to deform it, to make it groan and protest.' Unfortunately, this is to protest in the original sense of the word—not to speak against, but to speak for. As in '[the lady doth protest too much, methinks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5Flady%5Fdoth%5Fprotest%5Ftoo%5Fmuch,%5Fmethinks?ref=robert.winter.ink).' A process that attempts to assert something as true when the undeformed sources do not support this reading. Where this leaves us in apprehending how much a topic matters to an individual. If they care little about the topic, they may retort when pressed for details 'I don't know, you'll need to ask someone else'. But if the topic matters greatly, if they have a strong motive for you to accept their detail of the topic, then they will increasingly fill in the memory gaps with that which asserts their truth. Painting a picture for you, an impression of the world which may be a very long way from its reality. If you make a decision based on this picture, then your judgement will be flawed. But take a critical approach, reject the premise, and test the picture against a wider data set and different ideological biases, and you start to form a more accurate view of the topic. At this point, I suspect you are thinking 'what hope for the morrow?' The hope is much, for having gotten this far is to be forewarned and thus forearmed. In that we do well to employ scepticism when listening to a human interlocutor. Because even the best of us are filling in the blanks in our memory. Scepticism also means that instead of buying into the hallucination that is purely 'lived experience', we can check the people we interact with against third party sense data, against the physical libraries of other peoples' thoughts and experiences. If their memory validates against objective truth, we can celebrate. If it is falsified, we are in a position to call the hallucination for what it is—[Pseudo-Profound Bullshit](https://robert.winter.ink/pseudo-profound-bullshit/). Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Gabe](https://unsplash.com/@whileimout?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/backgrounds/art/blur?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### Ghost Writers: Rise of the Machines URL: https://robert.winter.ink/ghost-writers-rise-of-the-machines/ Last updated: 2025-11-21T12:52:53.000Z > Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. > > Hamlet, *Act-I, Scene-IV* This *non sequitur*, put into the mouth of Marcellus by the ['the Bard'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William%5FShakespeare?ref=robert.winter.ink), goes beyond the mere observation that something is not right. It is a literary device, spoken by a run of the mill guard, alluding to the notion that even those who are not part of the ruling elite are still acutely aware of the problems and corruption which abounds in the upper echelons of society. A similar state of affairs has long stalked academia and is evident in conversations with those who are not closely involved, some of whom have never attended a university, yet are nonetheless aware that not all is well on campus. I have mused on this topic before in [Journey's End](https://robert.winter.ink/at-a-journeys-end/) and [Reading More Efficiently And Effectively](https://robert.winter.ink/reading-more-efficiently-and-effectively/) and will not rehash these elements of the argument here — though will return to them again one day. Rather it is to surface the landscape with which I am regularly faced when contemplating AI — most famously at present the impact of chat bots such as ChatGPT. First up, it is perhaps worth examining what ChatGPT is and what it is not. While many are classifying it as AI, it is after all built by [OpenAI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI?ref=robert.winter.ink), it is not artificial intelligence. This is because ChatGPT is not able to reason. No need to take this assertion from me, if you place your faith in technology, you can have the answer right from the Chatbot: > ChatGPT is a machine learning model that has been trained on a large dataset of text. It can generate human-like responses to text input, but it does not have consciousness or self-awareness like true artificial intelligence. It is a sophisticated tool that can perform certain AI-like tasks, but it is not truly AI in the sense that it is not capable of truly understanding or experiencing the world. > > ChatGPT Response This is a critical piece of the puzzle to grasp before we go down the rabbit hole, particularly in the space of academia and exams. For the ends of learning are not to see how much we have remembered, much less to discipline the appetites. Rather, as [Evelyn Waugh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn%5FWaugh?ref=robert.winter.ink) would have it, 'the purpose of education is to train the moral perceptions'. Yet all too often, students grasp for that which gets them through the course — and only that. Given engaged students only retain about 20% of the material they study, unless we can lift expectations of our students above exam results, we are not educating humans but, in a sense, building chat bots. This feeds in to why **ChatGPT is not true AI**, because while it can use statistical and language models to generate text based on patterns it has learned, it is not able to understand what it generates, much less apprehend the implications of its responses. The sad correlation is that institutions, rather than turning out intelligent graduates capable of truly understanding their subject matter, are increasingly training people who have some recall of information and who use statistical and language models to generate responses based on patterns learned. Ultimately, with little understanding of what they generate. What makes a human **intelligent** is not that we are able to learn the language pattern 'fire, fire!', but that we are also able to comprehend what the implications are of us shouting fire in a crowded cinema — when there is no fire danger. This enables us to articulate language from which we can [draw moral conclusions](https://robert.winter.ink/the-new-cathedral-door/) and to make value judgements about future behaviour. These two drawbacks, that ChatGPT cannot reason, nor can it draw inferences from the answers it generates, should be enough to dispel the near hysteria that is growing about the platform. Yet, that so many student essays display, at best, poor reasoning, and when [cold called](https://robert.winter.ink/cold-calling-students/), students often have an inability to draw value judgements on the topic in *quo*, explains why some are lamenting that [The College Essay Is Dead](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/chatgpt-ai-writing-college-student-essays/672371/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This is because declining standards cause some professors to deem the output of Chatbots to be graduate-level, or at least akin to what their students produce, and thus creates an environment of fear that: > A student can generate an entire essay in seconds, at a cost of around 50 US cents. Equally worrying, would-be academic researchers can call on these systems to generate articles for submission to conferences and journals. > > Sharples, 2022, p. 1120 I have shortened the output considerably, lest your soul ebb away in the face of inane prose, but to give a flavour of what ChatGPT is able to generate when asked to write an essay: > The construct of “learning styles” is problematic because it fails to account for the processes through which learning styles are shaped. Some students might develop a particular learning style because they have had particular experiences. Others might develop a particular learning style by trying to accommodate to a learning environment that was not well suited to their learning needs. Ultimately, we need to understand the interactions among learning styles and environmental and personal factors, and how these shape how we learn and the kinds of learning we experience. Learning Styles and Learning Modes In the 1970s, learning styles became an important feature of educational practice. In the 1990s, “learning modalities” became a major focus of learning style research. This is the idea that we process information in different ways... > > In a review of this research, Dunn and Dunn (1997) found that the evidence does not support the idea that people have a particular learning mode that is dominant or that they process information in a particular way. > > Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1997). Learning styles: Research and practice. Journal of Research in Education, 7(2), 139–151. Yet dig below the journalistic clickbait and the researchers and professors examining the first rumblings of the AI Essay phenomenon acknowledge: > But look more closely and the paper falls apart. It references “Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1997). Learning styles: Research and practice. Journal of Research in Education, 7(2), 139–151.” There is a journal named Research in Education, but no issue 7(2) in 1997\. Dunn & Dunn did publish research on learning styles, but not in that journal. GPT-3 has fashioned a plausible-looking but fake reference. The program also appears to have invented the research study it cites. We can find no research study by Dunn and Dunn which claims that learning styles are flexible, not fixed. > > Sharples, 2022, p. 1122 And that is to say nothing about the appalling — I shudder to dignify the passage with the word argumentation. However, when a qualified academic spends more time on the ChatGPT output, a much better 'fake' of an 'academic paper' [can be achieved](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MOQiw2DLesHnwzo1YXWshythbyvAxFxp/view?ref=robert.winter.ink). If you did not read the link above to the better 'fake', I can vouch that the more time the operator spends honing the ChatGPT output, the closer they can get it to the sort of turgid output that bodies forth from so many academic journals. Yet for all the bad prose, there is one critical element needed in this faux-literary process: a person to refine the AI output. Without this, without an understanding of what can and cannot fool an editorial panel, the whole endeavour would fail at the first editor's review. In time, of course, the process will improve to the point at which people who are functionally illiterate will be able to produce academic papers, but what of it? Most output sinks without trace, and that which is dug up in the future and cited is not true or false because of the authorship — at least it should not be. A universal truth is a universal truth, whether rendered on tablets of stone by the hand of God or vomited out by an amoeba. However, such speculation is unlikely to still the fluttering pay cheques of the academic *Cosa Nostra* who eat or starve by the **quantity** of their output. A more 'progressive' argument that has been put forth for the benefit of chat bot generated essays is that they could democratise cheating. Given 15.7% of students admit to paying to have their assignments written, ChatGPT represents the opportunity to level the field for those who cannot afford to support the $100 million dollar a year industry that is contract cheating. I find that a nihilistically 'levelling' view which, like most outlooks prizing equality of outcome, benefits few and ends up failing everyone else. Hopefully, and more optimistically, there will be the unintended consequence of forcing professors to rethink how they assess students. It might even, hold on to your seats, result in more student engagement because instead of set and forget essay topics, increasingly imaginative ways to gauge student capabilities will be needed. Spoken examinations, or *viva voce*, could be more than the preserve of PhD candidates, and used to demand a level of rigour that would benefit society inestimably by turning out graduates who can actually contribute. Something that would be in stark contrast to the growing crop of employables who merely sit, collect a paycheque, and hope no one sends a question or anything approaching real work in their direction. A sentiment which most hiring managers I speak with hold even more intemperately. Power Exchange also, in these [Foucauldian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucauldian%5Fdiscourse%5Fanalysis?ref=robert.winter.ink) times, surfaces much agitation. Bringing to the fore ways in which it is feared AI will reinforce power imbalances: > When the field of AI believes it is neutral, it both fails to notice biased data and builds systems that sanctify the status quo and advance the interests of the powerful. What is needed is a field that exposes and critiques systems that concentrate power, while co-creating new systems with impacted communities: AI by and for the people. > > Kalluri, 2020, p. 169 I will skip over the moronic notion that those who are powerful are somehow not part of the 'the people', and instead observe the canard that bias only exists when power is concentrated or when X group is not in power. The reality is that truly equal systems, or systems that provide no bias or benefit to specific groups or individuals, will ALWAYS benefit the powerful. This is because of the [Matthew Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew%5Feffect?ref=robert.winter.ink), in that if you line up 10 people and Usain Bolt in his prime, and give them an equal opportunity to run a 100 meter race, Bolt wins every time. This is not because the race is biased, it is because in any given endeavour there will always be people who are better equipped to succeed. In these endeavours, running, writing, climbing, making money — pick any field you like— those with the requisite skill sets will tend to succeed more often than those without. The only way to shift the 'power imbalance' is to handicap the powerful. In other words, to build that which people seem to be campaigning against — a system that is biased. But one which is biased against anyone who would, unchecked, pull ahead of the crowd. Only in this way can equality of outcome be achieved. While this is often considered optimal when those handicapped are deemed 'undesirables' — billionaires, white colonialists, etc. — the problem with 'others' is the revolution soon runs out of **them** and turns to **us**, 'the people'. Don't believe me? Please see pretty much any revolution in history — [French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French%5FRevolution?ref=robert.winter.ink#Reign%5Fof%5FTerror), [Russian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow%5Ftrials?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Chinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great%5FLeap%5FForward?ref=robert.winter.ink), Hitler's [*Nacht der langen Messer*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night%5Fof%5Fthe%5FLong%5FKnives?ref=robert.winter.ink). The reason I cite these examples is because we do better in our thinking about AI once we acknowledge that it, like all the other technologies in history, is unlikely, no matter how much thought and care is put into its development, to redress the millennia old problem of haves and have nots. We are on a better path to look at the real underlying societal problem. A problem that already has and, as more people jump on to the AI driven writing bandwagon, will more pressingly emerge — poor literacy. It is ironic that world literacy is at the highest level in human history, yet this literacy is at best functional and thus something that is primed to be replaced by AI. Simply speak into your device, assuming you are privileged enough to have one, and the crude output of the current crop of chatbots will already exceed what passes for bog standard student essays these days. My old professor, who began lecturing more than half a century ago, spent a career monitoring the literacy levels of post-graduate students. The results, which are almost impossible to get published in an age that prefers to celebrate progress — so long as it is progress for **approved in-groups** — showed a steady decline in linguistic capability among post-graduate cohorts since the 1970s. It is no coincidence that this is also the period which has seen the rise of the machines and development of word processors that do to words, to quote Stephen Fry, 'what the KRAFT company does to cheese.' Other relatively marginalised studies which [examine contract cheating](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2018.00067/full?ref=robert.winter.ink), show that in almost lock step with the general decline in literacy is an uptick in the 'Essay Mill' industry. This is alarming not because students are gaining qualifications with only the most rudimentary understanding of the course material, but because students are not achieving that which is the purpose of the course — experience of subject. As Burke observed: 'to learn for show is like painting for complexion, it looks tawdry, lasts not long, and is no better than a Cheat'. Ultimately, I do not think the problem is that we are building machines so 'smart' that their output is indistinguishable from human compositions. The problem is that we are educating humans whose output is so illiterate, and devoid of experience, it is indistinguishable from computer generated text. In such a context we seem to be failing our race by educating generations of people who are, to quote the failing that ChatGPT observes about itself, 'not capable of truly understanding or experiencing the world'. Pablo Picasso noted: 'The trouble with computers is that all they give you is answers.' I for one hope the fear about AI taking over our jobs, and the world at large, will prompt the realisation that the purpose of language is not to give answers, but to convey ideas, glean experience, and make value judgements. A process that enables us to experience the world as never before, because we go beyond experiencing as individuals and instead experience as a society. For it is not our answers that make us human, it is our collective experiences. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Patrick Fore](https://unsplash.com/@patrickian4?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/0gkw%5F9fy0eQ?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### An Opportunity Afforded URL: https://robert.winter.ink/an-opportunity-afforded/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T10:00:48.000Z My wife and I are travelling for the festive season, and it has provided the ideal opportunity for pondering [affordance theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance?ref=robert.winter.ink). No, it is not as dry as it may seem. In *The Times* this week, the science team riffed on the theme to try and explain [*Why men ignore dirty dishes with a clean conscience*](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c4862984-82fe-11ed-ab78-11b70ed96428?ref=robert.winter.ink). But the opportunities for the application of the theory are much broader than the age old *Battle of the Sexes*. But to begin at the beginning. Affordance, in a nutshell, is defined as what an environment or object offers an individual. For example, if I go to an ice cream parlour, the environment *affords* me the opportunity to eat ice cream. The term, as a philosophical theory, was coined in the 1960s by American psychologist [James J. Gibson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%5FJ.%5FGibson?ref=robert.winter.ink). But it was not until his 1979 book *The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception* that the most well known definition emerged: > The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. The verb to afford is found in the dictionary, the noun affordance is not. I have made it up. I mean by it something that refers to both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment. In this passage, apart from the obvious [ecological niche](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological%5Fniche?ref=robert.winter.ink), is the crucial notion of complementarity. In that not all environments or objects afford the same opportunity, as opportunity is the symbiotic interaction between the person—or animal, to use Gibson's term. In this interaction, the capabilities of the individual reign supreme. An example is the different affordance of opportunity a fully stocked kitchen provides an adult who can cook and a toddler who cannot. The adult is afforded the opportunity to prepare a meal, while for the toddler, all that is afforded is a series of doors which cannot be opened and bench tops which cannot be reached. This contrast of affordance is important because it calls out the respective enjoyment or absence of privilege—that much opined but much misunderstood term that is bandied about constantly these days. But before we gallop off on the hobbyhorse of privilege and opportunity, we also need to apprehend that affordance also involves intent or need. This is particularly close to my heart this festive season. I am fortunate to be presented with mountains of food, thus a kitchen, as per the example above, affords me with little as I have no intent or need to eat any more than is being routinely trotted out at mealtime for my delectation. Yet water, in a space of heated rooms and excessive food, is still an ever present need. In this context, affordance comprises an essential or initial opportunity based on my capability or privilege, and an adaptable or changeable opportunity based on my current need. In that as a moderately capable adult, I have the capacity to capitalise on the environment *as is*, and to modify or augment the environment to provide what I need. In this way, affordance moves beyond the **value-neutral** language of physics and introduces the notion of a **value-rich** conceptualisation of our surroundings. But here, value-rich must be understood as having both positive and negative connotations—with the potential for benefit or injury to the individual. With this, comes the notion of affordance for the self and affordance for another. The beauty of this, if we step away from the progressive obsession with privilege and injury, is it grants us an understanding of objects and environments as forming part of the 'shared practices of society'. This evolving understanding of affordance comes naturally to children, when learning how to use an object or interact with an environment, because they apprehend not only the conventional meaning or use, but also develop an *innovative* alternative. They learn a knife can be dangerous, that it can cut the self and cause harm, but they also learn it can be used to chop and prepare food—a process which nourishes and improves the self. Through this process of learning and adaption, they become a member of the social unit in which they live. And through their use, or abuse, of the objects and spaces, can either contribute or detract from their immediate society. By the time we reach adulthood, the objects, and spaces with which we have interacted begin to do more than offer affordance, they also prime our thinking. This is why some people will look at a library and see a wealth of opportunity, while others will see the same space and same books and apprehend only barriers to entry or exclusion from a world in which they think they have no part to play. In this way, our perception of the affordance offered by an object or environment strongly determines our political and societal preferences. For example, whether we see government as inherently oppressive and prefer an anarchic state or if we see it as providing a bulwark against nihilism and the dystopia of lawlessness. This reveals the world around us as a rich tapestry of affordance, if we take the time to recognise it. But as above, in noting that affordance can be both positive and negative, it can also be false, hidden, or perceptible. A conceptualisation that was developed by [William Gaver](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill%5FGaver?ref=robert.winter.ink) in the 1990s and is important because it adds a key framework of understanding regarding when and if affordance is present: ![Figure depicting a yes / no axis of affordance and perceptual information](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/72c27-gaver_affordance_fig2-w-1024-h-659.jpg) Figure 2. > Distinguishing affordances from perceptual information about them is useful in understanding ease of use. Common examples of affordances refer to perceptible affordances, in which there is perceptual information available for an existing affordance (Figure 2). If there is no information available for an existing affordance, it is hidden and must be inferred from other evidence. If information suggests a nonexistent affordance, a false affordance exists upon which people may mistakenly try to act. Finally, people will usually not think of a given action when there is no affordance for it nor any perceptual information suggesting it. > > [Gaver, Technology Affordances](https://dlnext.acm.org/doi/10.1145/108844.108856?ref=robert.winter.ink) It is misguided to say that monarchy, or religion, or government, or the society in which we live is oppressive. Rather, it is how we have learned, or failed to learn, to enhance our capabilities and in consequence the affordance we perceive in the world around us. Seeking the revolutionary *year zero* is not and never will be the panacea we think. Because day one of this brave new world will only see us rinse and repeat the past. The reason for this is that resetting still leaves us with the primary, though I fully accept not only, problem we faced with the old world—our own capabilities. Unless we improve our capability to find benefit from the object or environment, we will only end up in the same circumstances as before. Better we take a beat, think about alternative ways in which objects or environments can afford us benefit, enhance our capabilities, and derive benefit not just for ourselves, but for our family and neighbours. Only in this way can we leverage the resources at our fingertips to build a better world, rather than making a future which is nothing more than a revised ordering of the follies of the past. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Towfiqu barbhuiya](https://unsplash.com/@towfiqu999999?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/Jxi526YIQgA?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### As 'An' Historian URL: https://robert.winter.ink/as-an-historian/ Last updated: 2025-11-04T03:54:22.000Z From time to time I observe 'as an historian'. For some, it sounds right, for others who know the rule 'an' before words that begin with a vowel and 'a' before words that begin with a consonant, it seems misplaced because historian begins with a consonant. This brings us to one of the things I love about the English language, its nuance. Yes, 'h' is a consonant, but in words like 'habitual', 'heredity', 'historian', 'historical', and 'hysterical', it is not esoterical to make it less pronounced—or aspirated to use the technical term—than in words such as 'hateful', 'hear', 'holiday', 'how', and 'hurt'. As the grammarian's grammarian, the esteemed [Henry Fowler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.%5FW.%5FFowler?ref=robert.winter.ink), noted: > … an was formerly used before an unaccented syllable beginning with h and is still often seen and heard (an historian, an hotel, an hysterical scene, an hereditary title, an habitual offender). While modernists may disagree and prefer to aspirate the h and thus favour 'a historian', if challenged by these dangerous revolutionaries, refer them to the above and the glorious roots of our language. Hold to traditions, abjure profane and unnecessary modernisms, and avoid aspirating the h when it should not be so pronounced. 'An historian' I was trained and 'an historian' I shall remain. Good night, and good luck. --- [History](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6733119&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Frederick Dielman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick%5FDielman?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Autodeleting the Public Record URL: https://robert.winter.ink/autodeleting-the-public-record/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T10:03:00.000Z As an historian my work usually begins, and invariably ends, in the archives. Without this redoubtable cache of diaries, letters, and other eyewitness accounts, no historian could reliably or ethically write their analysis. This is because instead of writing history, we would be writing opinion and conjecture. This raises interesting questions in the digital age, where permanence is often not intended nor desired. I have mused on adjacent themes before when I wrote about my own efforts to establish a public Memex in [Intellectual Warehouse](https://robert.winter.ink/intellectual-warehouse/), or when I bemoaned the subscription culture of the press in [My Copy of The Times](https://robert.winter.ink/my-copy-of-the-times/). But a recent post on the Fediverse surfaced a key issue, the challenge of using [primary sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary%5Fsource?ref=robert.winter.ink) when the author expects their output to be transient or insists on a blanket refusal of consent to using comments they have made in a public space. The context for this musing is that the rampant Musk on Twitter is causing some people to look for an alternative social media service. Many have lighted on the Fediverse, most particularly instances powered by Mastodon. Into this landscape, the [Internet Archive](https://archive.org/) has landed and provoked not inconsiderable fear that their work in archiving the internet will extend to the Fediverse and hoover up posts that the authors would rather not persist for posterity. Something that perhaps William Shatner may have wished for his performance of [*Rocket Man*](https://archive.org/details/william-shatner-rocket-man). This challenge is particularly acute when people post publicly to make their voice heard so it can shape the debate regarding what is and is NOT appropriate behaviour within a community. Yet many of these authors simultaneously demand a voice **and** insist that their thinking not be referenced. Some go so far as to invite debate and then ban certain types of people—usually based on birth characteristic such as race or sex—from posting in the threads they have started. To say the least, this stifles debate—in that it seeks to have debate, but only so long as approved opinions are included in the conversation. This is by no means a call for absolutist free speech. I believe in healthy debate, but there are some voices from which I have little to no interest in hearing. Rather, it is to acknowledge one cannot have one's cake and eat it too. Either you have a debate, in which all the data is on the table, or you have a show trial and then you can pick and choose what data is convenient for your argument.. If the latter route is taken, it is illegitimate to talk about consensus. I would also argue that it is problematic to read comments such as 'we on the Fediverse', as though there is a widely understood consensus. Particularly if large swathes of people on the Fediverse are banned from taking part in achieving the 'consensus'. As I argued in [A Warning From Content](https://robert.winter.ink/a-warning-from-content/), the consensus that apparently exists on the Fediverse is not as consensual as some would have you believe. True, there are instances that take an awfully hard line and proscribe certain types of expression, but for each of those instances, you can find an almost equal number who take a far more libertarian approach. Given the dramatic uptick in new accounts as the Twitter exodus continues, numbering in the millions since the end of October, it is becoming ever harder to talk about a **consensus** on the Fediverse. It also seems to be incompatible with the founding principles of the Fediverse— which were to provide a space free of a controlling central authority. But taking a step back from whether there is anything approaching a consensus and there is a bigger issue—the notion of a purely transient society. The nature of tradition focuses on societies preserving and passing down mores and morals from one generation to the next. It is only by knowing what IBM, Microsoft, the [Free Software Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free%5FSoftware%5FFoundation?ref=robert.winter.ink), and the myriad individuals who contributed to the founding of the modern internet, said, did, and thought, that we can understand the roots of our digital past, and make a rational judgement about where we are headed. Without this, we live, as Cicero wrote, in the most illusionary tense of all, the present; like small children not knowing from whence we came nor wither we go. It was impossible to predict at the time the importance of [Tim Berners-Lee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim%5FBerners-Lee?ref=robert.winter.ink) taking the hypertext idea and connecting it to the TCP and DNS idea. To lose the information, transactions and interactions of his early work would be to lessen our understanding of its legacy. True the 'caturday' posts which abound may be questionable additions to the sum of human knowledge, but only by reflecting on them from the position of the future can we understand their value. Love them or hate them, those cat posts are an important part of sociological study of the early twenty-first century and worthy of preservation. ## Collapsing Context > There has been a longstanding community prohibition against taking Mastodon posts out of context. First, the notion of taking posts, or any material for that matter, out of context has little to do with an individual’s preferences nor even those of a fictional 'Fediverse community'. It is a case of ethical or unethical research because ANY researcher—irrespective of their subject or subject matter—is irresponsible and lacks an ethical approach if they take research out of context. This point was writ large in Sir Richard J. Evans's book [*Telling Lies About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial*](https://www.richardjevans.com/publications/telling-lies-hitler/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Second, the notion of a 'community prohibition' in the Fediverse is a highly problematic concept. I see this category error made repeatedly by journalists who have just discovered the Fediverse and still conceptualise of it like Twitter or Facebook where one can speak about a 'Twitter prohibition' because it is centralised and like it or loath it, a standard can be set. The Fediverse by contrast is a loose federation of instances and any notion of 'community' only applies so far as it does to the statement 'community of nations' when talking about the UN. But the likelihood of Russia and America agreeing about the Ukraine is as improbable as all instances in the Fediverse agreeing about the use and abuse of content. In this context, moral norms tend to be applied at the individual, or at best instance level. Given the tiny size of the average instance, even when several likeminded instances band together, their input is like taking any minority group, here I use minority in the sense of a small number, and insisting they speak for most of the population. This does not mean their views do not matter, much less that they should be marginalised—only that they do not speak for everyone. Third, while it is unquestionable that working groups from committees like the AoIR (Association of Internet Researchers) have [guidelines on ethical research](https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink), they also acknowledge that consent is 'manifestly impracticable in the case of Big Data projects'. Being such a short point, this concept is easily missed and bears repeating: seeking consent is 'manifestly impracticable in the case of Big Data projects'. This does not mean that personally identifiable information can be used however the researcher wishes, only that it is impracticable to seek consent from every individual who is part of the data set. Fourth, and this is one of the highly problematic elements of Fediverse discourse, is that individuals and comparatively small groups are seeking to assert their version of moral norms on everyone who interacts with them. Whether it is long term Fediverse users who do not like any changes to their preferred norms, or new people joining existing communities and seeking to force adoption of their moral norms. This is all done as though their preferences and their experience trumps whoever they meet. While at an individual level this may seem desirable, it deprives the person of an opportunity for self-growth. Because let us face it, on some topics we are just plain wrong and deserve to be called out. I know I am often wrong, and it is only by having to make my case, argue the facts, and prove my theory beyond reasonable doubt, can I know if I have arrived at something which happens to work for me or something which comes close to a universal truth. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the critical role that public memory serves in the process of establishing collective truth. Carolina Botero wrote compellingly about this in the context of Columbia and the struggle with the [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary%5FArmed%5FForces%5Fof%5FColombia?ref=robert.winter.ink) in her article [Public Memory and the Digital Black Hole](https://openfuture.eu/paradox-of-open-responses/public-memory-challenges-in-the-public-digital-space/?ref=robert.winter.ink). In it, she cites the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which defines memory as: > … the ways in which people and peoples build meaning and relate the past to the present in the act of remembering serious violations of human rights and/or the actions of victims and civil society in defense and promotion of human rights and democratic values in such contexts; > > IACHR This is particularly important in cases of conflict or atrocities. A Botero goes on to argue: > without public memory, the pieces that allow collective mourning and the construction of a shared memory remain incomplete and become insurmountable barriers to the collective healing process. > > Carolina Botero Given the above, we have one of the inevitable paradoxes that arises when diverse groups of individuals interact: 1. We need to enable an individual to set their own rules 2. We need to preserve the historical record for the continuance of public memory—whether the individual wishes it to be preserved or not It may be preferable to write my own history, but we enter a genuinely dystopian world indeed when we engage in [Airbrushing Memory](https://robert.winter.ink/airbrushing-memory/). Thus, when trying to square the circle of hyper-individualism with notions of societal norms, someone will always be unhappy with the result. The gathering of social media data will remain a contentious topic and our posts will be harvested and stored in databases—even when we opt out. Rage against this if you will and burn endless screen time in activist forums trying to change reality if you like—for myself, I simply accept if I want my thoughts to be personal and private then I ought not post them online. Once I do, I no longer 'control' the information as it has become part of the public record. To be used, abused, held against me out of context, and generally distorted to help an individual or group prove the relevance of their opinion. The solace I take is that by adopting a [POSSE](https://indieweb.org/POSSE?ref=robert.winter.ink) approach, I am at least able to refresh my memory regarding when and why I made the comment, and when held against me in the court of public opinion, have the facts at my disposal to prepare my mitigation. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Harald Arlander](https://unsplash.com/@arlandscape?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/archives?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### Review: Doom, The Politics of Catastrophe URL: https://robert.winter.ink/review-doom-the-politics-of-catastrophe/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T10:06:47.000Z If you are anything like me, you worry about the future. You worry about your family, your friends, that lovely OAP (old aged pensioner) down the road who looks both so happy and yet so sad, sitting alone in their front room looking out the window. You worry about yourself, your career, your finances, your future. Perhaps it is this proclivity for worry that so often yields to a certain [Schadenfreude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude?ref=robert.winter.ink) we feel, yes, I am roping you in here, to love a good disaster. Modern sensitivities, not to mention fear of the local woke brigade knocking on the door, sees us adopt a posture of antic recoil if caught looking at the disaster. Yet if our gaze wonders in the direction of harm's way too long, salvation is at hand so long as we express a suitable level of public moral outrage. But in the privacy of our self-reflection, we can give our tortured public persona a rest and settle down to contemplate humanity's doom. [Niall Ferguson's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall%5FFerguson?ref=robert.winter.ink) latest book, *Doom*, is the perfect companion to do just that and muses on the way 'the end of the world… has been a remarkably recurrent feature of recorded history.' There is nothing particularly Judeo-Christian about this, though [eschatological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology?ref=robert.winter.ink) thinking is particularly strong among the [Abrahamic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic%5Freligions?ref=robert.winter.ink) faiths, as the end times are contemplated Hinduism, Buddhism, and secular religions such as Marxism. Yet as if mirroring [FDR's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin%5FD.%5FRoosevelt?ref=robert.winter.ink) notion that we have 'nothing to fear but fear itself', humanity's proclivity to expect disaster has a more to do with imagined fears than statistical reality. It cannot be doubted, from an astronomical point of view, that we are running out of time. In about seven billion years from now our sun will have consumed all its hydrogen fuel core and will then turn into a white dwarf. Slowly cooling to the background temperature of the universe. At this point the earth will be too cold to sustain life. But given that is eons away, our tendency to dwell on disaster is more a result of how briefly we have been here. The mere blink of an eye in geological terms. Ferguson provides an engaging and accessible approach to analysing doom and leverages the typologies of: 1. [Michele Wucker's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele%5FWucker?ref=robert.winter.ink) '[grey rhinos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele%5FWucker?ref=robert.winter.ink)': highly probable, high impact yet neglected threats 2. [Nassim Nicholas Taleb's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim%5FNicholas%5FTaleb?ref=robert.winter.ink) '[black swans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%5Fswan%5Ftheory?ref=robert.winter.ink)': unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence 3. [Didier Sornette's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier%5FSornette?ref=robert.winter.ink)'[dragon kings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%5Fking%5Ftheory?ref=robert.winter.ink)': born of unique origins (a 'dragon') and extremely large in size or impact (a 'king') Clearly taking aim at the pundits who abound on the cable networks, and who Ferguson castigates for their 'increasing absurdity' when talking about V-shaped, W-shaped or 'Nike swoosh-shaped' recoveries, and instead posits the slow recovery from the catastrophic events which will inevitably befall us as shaped 'more like a giant tortoise'. In a sense, Ferguson is engaging in the same sort of punditry as those he is taking aim at. Yet there is something endearing, rather than facile, about his approach. As with his other books, the prose leaps from the page with an energy and vibrancy that keeps the pages turning. As the marketing teams of publishers are often given to say, the book is unputdownable. This is in no small part due to the dizzying array of facts, which are presented as such easy *bon mots* as to resonate naturally with the reader rather than having to be laboriously remembered. Examples in this genre are that life expectancy among British administrators in the glory days of Empire who worked overseas was considerably lower than for those who remained in the home isles; or that in England, the average man consumed 73 gallons of beer each year. For all his erudition, Ferguson mixes the popular with the elitist and is as comfortable rattling off references to *Dad's Army* and science fiction as he is citing Wagner or Anabaptism in the sixteenth century. He writes at a pace that challenges readers, he expects us to keep up, but presents his case so that we can. This is always the test of a great thinker, that they can convey what ordinarily requires genius level intellect to understand in a way lay readers can comprehend. A word of warning for those who are the natural audience for *The Guardian* or fans of Greta Thunberg, who he decries as the 'child saint of the 21st-century millennialist movement'. Ferguson has not only got to a level of fame and stability in his professional life that he is unwilling to bend to the *zeitgeist*, but he sees it as a sort of mission against barbarism to use his platform to settle scores. This combativeness could be described by some as 'distracting', a label I am familiar with as it was applied to some early edits of my PhD thesis, but which is also highly entertaining—if you do not take yourself or your causes too seriously. When we can no longer poke fun at something it is likely we are also unlikely to question it. Once we stop doing that, we find ourselves in a [Jorge Luis Borges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge%5FLuis%5FBorges?ref=robert.winter.ink) novel in which some schools of thought are cast as 'analogous to a god'—next stop, [Newspeak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak?ref=robert.winter.ink). In this environment, we need thinkers like Niall Ferguson to not just speak truth to power, but to speak truth to populism. The latter is, ironically, much harder in an environment so obsessed with 'punching down', that it has all but extinguished the ability to critique ideologies so long as the adherents can cast themselves as a minority or as oppressed. At this point, it is easy to send his book cartwheeling across the room and accuse him of bad taste or poor aim. Yet this would be to miss the point of his work. Which is to be the pebble in the shoe, the assumption challenged, the thought unspoken. A process that makes for uncomfortable reading for anyone living in a liberal bubble and who is used to blaming the noise on right-wing nuts or illiterate Trump supporters. When the sound comes from an erudite academic in the form of a closely argued book, it can be distressing indeed. A sensation I think many felt keenly when the Russian threat, which Obama had consistently dismissed and even mocked, surfaced again this year with the invasion of the Ukraine. The assurances we had been given and had desperately believed proved to be false, as the grey rhino of Russian Imperialism reemerged from the undergrowth. Ferguson draws parallels between the US Government's approach to Aids in the 1980s, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the COVID pandemic in 2020\. All of which are typified as being failures of leadership as bureaucratic and ideological infighting allowed suffering to unfold on a far greater scale than would have happened with more sober and less partisan management of the disasters. With a media cycle that seems to feed on the deep divides in politics, the book strikes a depressing note; we are seeing the lessons of history but failing to learn from them. The cause, so Ferguson's hypothesis goes, is that blind faith in what are often deeply flawed systems, combined with a large serve of general incompetence, is the root cause of most of humanities ills. This even goes for what are termed natural disasters. True, Ferguson admits, there is little humans can do about earthquakes and the like, but the persistent determination to build and rebuild on fault lines or flood plains result in repetitions of disasters and death tolls that rival some wars. A process which globalisation only seems to have accelerated: > Globalisation has brought us closer together, thus making us all more vulnerable to the spread of disease—it’s one damned microbe after another. For this reason, it is no coincidence that the subtitle of *Doom* is 'The Politics of Catastrophe'. If there is one key takeaway from the myriad examples Ferguson gives, it is that it is our own misunderstanding, and the misunderstanding of leaders and managers in their daily decision making, is the real villain of the piece. Yet those who claim to be prophets of impending doom are as much to blame, in Ferguson's view, as those who push ahead with a Pollyanna world view. He is incredulous that the Cuban Missile Crisis only occasioned the [Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin%5Fof%5Fthe%5FAtomic%5FScientists?ref=robert.winter.ink) to move the [Doomsday Clock](https://robert.winter.ink/doomsday-clock/) to seven minutes to midnight, and yet today they view a reading of 11:58 as appropriate because: > humanity continues to face two simultaneous existential dangers—nuclear war and climate change. The risk he sees in this thinking is that people are falling for confirmation bias. Seeing patterns, they desperately want to believe rather than perceiving the real risks which lie in wait. Just such faulty logic happened in the wake of the [September 11 attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September%5F11%5Fattacks?ref=robert.winter.ink) when road mortality rates shot up because people were afraid to fly. As one might expect, it is impossible to offer easy solutions to the litany of disasters and tragedies Ferguson recounts. Yet in closing there is a ray of hope, in the shape of humanity's general resilience, and that so long as we keep our heads while all around are losing theirs, never dwelling too long on the exaggerated threats but instead focussing on risks which are real and likely, we are able to muddle through. A point which echoes the thinking of [Adam Smith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%5FSmith?ref=robert.winter.ink) some two centuries earlier: > Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connection with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befall himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own. To prevent, therefore, this paltry misfortune to himself, would a man of humanity be willing to sacrifice the lives of a hundred millions of his brethren, provided he had never seen them? Human nature startles with horror at the thought, and the world, in its greatest depravity and corruption, never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it. But what makes this difference? When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble? When we are always so much more deeply affected by whatever concerns ourselves, than by whatever concerns other men; what is it which prompts the generous, upon all occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the greater interests of others? It is not the soft power of humanity, it is not that feeble spark of benevolence which Nature has lighted up in the human heart, that is thus capable of counteracting the strongest impulses of self-love. It is a stronger power, a more forcible motive, which exerts itself upon such occasions. It is reason, principle, conscience, the inhabitant of the breast, the man within, the great judge and arbiter of our conduct. > > Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments Good night, and good luck. --- [Hindenburg Disaster](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19329337&ref=robert.winter.ink) by Sam Shere (1905–1982) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### A Warning From Content URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-warning-from-content/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T10:10:51.000Z > 'I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn’t know.' > > Mark Twain Content warnings (CW for short) on the [Fediverse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse?ref=robert.winter.ink) are—confusing. There really is no other word for it. I have been thinking on this for some time now, more so since the recent surge in Fediverse accounts as people despair at the rampant Musk and look in droves for Twitter alternatives. If you are not already on the Fediverse, then I encourage you to go to [Join Mastodon](https://joinmastodon.org/servers?ref=robert.winter.ink), pick a server, create an account, and then come back here. Fear not, I'll be waiting. Hesitant because you do not know anyone there? Then feel free to follow me on [@robert@social.winter.ink](https://social.winter.ink/web/@robert?ref=robert.winter.ink). All done now? Right, let's continue then. > One feature that Mastodon provides that you may not have seen on other social networks is the option to attach a content warning to your posts. When a content warning is included, the status content will be collapsed by default, and only the CW will be shown, similarly to an email subject line or a “read more” break. This can be used to add a summary or subject for your post, to collapse long posts, or to otherwise provide context or setup for the body of the post. > > When media is attached, a checkbox appears to allow you to “mark media as sensitive”. This hides the full media behind a blurred thumbnail by default. Adding a CW to a post automatically marks the media as sensitive as well. Content warnings look something like this: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/cb690-status-cw.jpg) A status with a CW that is marked as sensitive content. From what I can tell, most of the confusion is an inevitable result of decentralisation. No, this is by no means a criticism—I for one adore having [A Mastodon To Call My Own](https://robert.winter.ink/a-mastodon-to-call-my-own/). It is wonderful to be lord of all I survey at [social.winter.ink](https://social.winter.ink/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Rather, it is an observation of social dynamics. For those unfamiliar with the Fediverse and who did not click through to the Wikipedia link at the top of the page, social media solutions like Mastodon differ from Twitter in that they are decentralised. That is, instead of a single company managing the solution and setting the terms of use, there are thousands of individuals and groups who run their own 'instances'. All of these connect to create the Fediverse, and all these individual instances have their own set of rules for how to behave. At the instance level, the answer of whether to CW or not to CW is easy. The administrator(s) sets the rules, and you follow them or leave. So far so clear, or draconian, as we will come to later. But once we depart the localtime line and start to graze on the posts from other instances, things begin to get a bit murky. On the face of it, it should be very easy to know when something should have a sensitive content warning. You have likely encountered this on newsstands where a selection of magazines come in a wrapper which hides the content. But whether a publication should come in a wrapper is very much a moral, or social construct. Thus, in the society in which you live, there are accepted norms regarding speech and, like them or not, it is relatively well known where the boundaries are. The Fediverse is very much the same. On an instance of likeminded people, you will have a pretty good idea of what is likely to cause offence. And just like in the myriad societies that make up our world, each with their own moral norms, the myriad instances that make up the Fediverse all have their own moral norms. It is what attracts so many people to the Fediverse, they can create their preferences, and enforce them. Clashes online, like in the physical world, occur when different and divergent communities interact. Diversity is a wonderful thing, but it inevitably leads to differences of opinion regarding what is acceptable and what should be circumscribed. As has been noted before, one person's casual observation is another person's hate speech. As a result, what we post can sometimes cause people to feel considerable hurt. This much has been expressed by people who I follow, respect, and admire in the Fediverse. They have posted their own guides for what you should hide behind a CW. The list usually includes topics like: - Eye contact - Food—I particularly support this one - Politics A nice short list, should be easy to accommodate if you are an accommodating sort of person. Then the rabbit hole opens. I learn that 'the CW norm does feel like cop shit'. Which carries with it implicit tones of authoritarianism, colonialism, white male dominance, and imperialism. I thought perhaps I was reading too much into this but then found post after post which took the general line that the people who are most vocal about content warnings are generally white people, which for some feels like a red flag. While for others, having to apply a CW to their experience only propagates colonial stereotypes and that people should sit with the discomfort felt rather than having it hidden behind a CW. Now it seems that NOT using a CW is hurtful, but also that using CWs, more specifically trying to get other people to use CWs, is oppressive, even racist. But this brings us full circle. Regardless of your race, colour, or creed, CWs seem to come down to whether you think a content warning is a respectful way to avoid hurting others or whether you think they represent the yoke of oppression, a curtailment of freedom, and that people should sit with the discomfort. To some extent, the latter argument is the line taken by 'Just Stop Oil' protestors. As Bob Geldof observed: > The climate activists are 1,000 per cent right. And 1,000 per cent I support them. It’s offensive to destroy Van Gogh’s genius. That achieves nothing. But it was clever to throw it \[red paint\] on the glass knowing it wouldn’t be destroyed. That’s just annoying. And annoying is quite good. One of the joys of the Fediverse, if people want something behind a CW, they can have it. The latest version of Mastodon allows people to add content warnings to what is posted even if the author does not apply a CW. Of course, arguably a better solution is to just not follow or block the account entirely. That way a person never needs be burdened by—well, whatever it is they think is so offensive. The Fediverse also means whatever your belief, you can find your own corner, settle down and enjoy meaningful conversations with like minds—with or without CWs—because as you will have gathered by now, the consensus is not as consensual as it seems. This is important to remember next time someone tries to tone police you with the sentiment 'that is not how we do things on the Fediverse'. Because all they can really mean is that is not how they do things on the instance they chose. At a stretch, that is not how they do things on the instances with whom they choose to federate. One of the realities of the Fediverse is that many who love the freedom running their own instance brings, only love it so far as people go along with **their** rules. Instances who do not fall into line are often blocked. Naturally, people are free to do this, it is one of the true strengths of the Fediverse. But it also means people cannot truly speak about Fediverse norms as though there is genuine consensus, much less that their views represent a Platonic universal ethic. To do this is no better than when people use the moronic phrase 'we are on the right side of history'. This of course all remains firmly within the realm of philosophical speculation. But as has already happened with Fosstodon who were [contacted by Microsoft lawyers](https://hub.fosstodon.org/fosstodon-vs-twitter-round-2/?ref=robert.winter.ink) to remove an account, the legal aspect of content is yet to fully hit much of the Fediverse. Because regardless of a particular instance's moral norms, acts such as *Australia’s Online Safety Act*, and similar legislation in the United States and the United Kingdom, requires social networks to find and filter content that is 'very high in impact that falls outside the generally accepted community standards.' In which context, even if there was a Fediverse standard, it will be affected by wider community standards and the government legislation under which individual instances operate. I may be as confused now as I was when I first started thinking about content warnings, but the joy for me is **you** get to choose the **right** answer. You can join me in camp confusion and adopt a posture of curious interest, or post using or not using CWs with a certainty that would make a prophet blush. You can join a large instance and follow their moral norms or create your own instance and set your own rules. Because **no central authority controls your space or sets the moral norms for you**. Though as already noted, this moral norm does not absolve individuals or instances from broader societal and legal responsibilities. Good night, and good luck. ### Twas Gunpowder Treason Day URL: https://robert.winter.ink/twas-gunpowder-treason-day/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T10:12:00.000Z Don't you Remember, The Fifth of November, 'Twas Gunpowder Treason Day, I let off my gun, And made'em all run. And Stole all their Bonfire away. (1742) Although the ditty 'remember, remember, the 5th of November' did not enter the popular imagination until nearly one hundred and fifty years after the failed Gunpowder plot of 1605, the event and the rhyme has always exerted a strong pull over my imagination. Perhaps this is because the [de Passe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van%5Fde%5FPasse%5Ffamily?ref=robert.winter.ink) engraving, at the top of this article, lists a Robert Winter among the thirteen conspirators. Perhaps it is because my parents had a love of history and Guy Fawkes Night was to be commemorated—much like the Queen's Birthday or Christmas Day. Markers of the societal year and remembrances of our heritage. But what was this event that has accrued so much national attention? To say that the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were a time of tremendous social and religious upheaval in Europe in general, and the British Isles in particular, would be an understatement. [The Reformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation?ref=robert.winter.ink) was far more costly in the loss of human life in percentage terms than either of the World Wars. In Germany alone, the [Thirty Years War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation?ref=robert.winter.ink#Thirty%5FYears'%5FWar:%5F1618%E2%80%931648)—just one of the many European Wars of Religion—is estimated to have resulted in the death of between 25% and 40% of the entire population (compare that with \~7% of the German population who died in WWII). In such a backdrop of death, what value the lives of a monarch and His Government? Particularly a monarch whose predecessors had earned nicknames such as '[Bloody Mary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%5FI%5Fof%5FEngland?ref=robert.winter.ink)'. The first Elizabethan era is rightly remembered as a time of increasing stability in England, with [Elizabeth I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth%5FI?ref=robert.winter.ink) striking an uneasy balance at home between Protestants and Catholics, while strengthening England's position abroad through a combination of military victory and intelligence gathering. Yet for all her political triumph, she suffered one key defeat, and in this failure to produce an heir, England gained in [James VI and I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%5FVI%5Fand%5FI?ref=robert.winter.ink) a successor who would issue a series of tough laws designed to crack down on his perceived threat of Catholic terrorism. Public sentiment was the dry grass, and dissidents such as [Robert Catesby](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FCatesby?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Guy Fawkes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy%5FFawkes?ref=robert.winter.ink), and [Robert and Thomas Winter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5Fand%5FThomas%5FWintour?ref=robert.winter.ink)—considered by some to be the finest swordsmen in England—were matches willing to start the fire of rebellion. The plot was a simple one, stock the basement of parliament with enough gunpowder to blow the place sky high then install the King's daughter, Elizabeth, who it was felt had been strongly influenced by her Danish Catholic mother, thereby restoring England as a Catholic nation. After Fawkes had obtained gunpowder on the black market, the plot was set in motion with surprising ease. Even when one of the letters documenting the attempt was shown to the King, and a search of parliament made, Guy Fawkes managed to explain away his presence next to a large pile of kindling by saying he was looking after the wood for his master Lord Percy. Despite such lapses in security, the palace guards eventually stopped the plot when a second search was made around midnight. This time, Fawkes' dissimulation was unable to explain why he was setting touchwood and matches to barrels of gunpowder situated under the kindling—it seems 'I'm just looking after it' did not work twice. Hauled away to the Tower of London, for what today would be described as 'enhanced interrogation', he revealed the entirety of the plot. All the conspirators would eventually be rounded up and executed in the January of the following year. James I's rule abided and England has remained a firmly protestant nation ever since. To the extent that as late as 2015, members of the Royal Family who married Catholics were removed from the line of succession, and although Prime Ministers would admit to all kinds of scandalous behaviour, their Catholicism was never disclosed while in office. As was the case with [Tony Blair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony%5FBlair?ref=robert.winter.ink) who left office in 2007. Good night, and good luck. --- [Gunpowder Plot Conspirators](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gunpowder%5FPlot%5Fconspirators.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Crispijn van de Passe the Elder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispijn%5Fvan%5Fde%5FPasse?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Questions for a Future Employer URL: https://robert.winter.ink/questions-for-a-future-employer/ Last updated: 2025-11-07T10:26:02.000Z ## TL;DR: Questions to Ask - How would your team describe your leadership style? - What is the main challenge you face in delivering your key objectives? - Could you describe the characteristics of employees in your team who excel? - I am interested in the values of the company, could you speak to this organisation's philosophy? - What is your preferred way to provide feedback? - How do you like to communicate? - Thinking back on your career, what are some of the moments when you have supported your employees' career development? When going into a interview, it is easy to focus on what will be asked of us at the expense of what we should be asking a prospective employer. This is a folly, because an interview is a crossroad, one at which you are making a choice between merely seeking a job and wage or using the opportunity to develop a career. If you take the latter road, a road I would argue that is less travelled, you should go to the interview as well prepared with what you are going to ask as with what you are anticipating you will need to answer. Below, I take a run at some example questions you might be wise to ask in these categories. But before I do, a note on **good** and **problematic** keywords. These are provided as a guide and as ever, context is everything. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Response: We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives URL: https://robert.winter.ink/response-we-need-to-stop-calling-ourselves-conservatives/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T10:13:39.000Z Speaking about his 1992 book [*The End of History and the Last Man*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FEnd%5Fof%5FHistory%5Fand%5Fthe%5FLast%5FMan?ref=robert.winter.ink), the American political scientist, [Francis Fukuyama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis%5FFukuyama?ref=robert.winter.ink), observed: > *The End of History* was never linked to a specifically American model of social or political organization. Following [Alexandre Kojève](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre%5FKoj%C3%A8ve?ref=robert.winter.ink), the Russian-French philosopher who inspired my original argument, I believe that the [European Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European%5FUnion?ref=robert.winter.ink) more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The EU's attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational [rule of law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule%5Fof%5Flaw?ref=robert.winter.ink) is much more in line with a "post-historical" world than the Americans' continuing belief in [God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God?ref=robert.winter.ink), [national sovereignty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National%5Fsovereignty?ref=robert.winter.ink), and their military. > > Francis Fukuyama In other words, history is an evolutionary process, and its **end** comes in the shape of the emergence of liberal democracy, which Fukuyama thought was the final form of government. Note: I use the past tense **thought** as [Fukuyama's thinking](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/francis-fukuyama-still-end-history/671761/?ref=robert.winter.ink) has continued to evolve over the last thirty years. His theory was problematic, not least because liberal democracy is an extremely new phenomena in world history. Thus, making generalisations about its strengths, for example [democratic peace theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic%5Fpeace%5Ftheory?ref=robert.winter.ink), are fraught with objections because we lack a sufficient range of scenarios to be confident in the hypothesis. There was also the glaring reality that while 1992 represented the first flush of the Post-Cold War period, the collapse of the Soviet Union was no more proof positive that Communism was dead than the demise of any political institution means the death of the underlying ideology of which it is the temporal representative. This is an important point we will revisit later as the Soviet Union represented not just a political ideology, but an economic system, both of which partnered to bring social change. Never one to sit when the [The Internationale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FInternationale?ref=robert.winter.ink) is best sung standing on two feet, the French philosopher [Jacques Derrida](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques%5FDerrida?ref=robert.winter.ink) got up on his hind legs, took a deep breath and intoned: > For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelize in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realized itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus [economic oppression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation%5Fof%5Flabour?ref=robert.winter.ink) affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the [capitalist market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist%5Fmode%5Fof%5Fproduction%5F%28Marxist%5Ftheory%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the 'end of ideologies' and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious, macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable, singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth. > > Jacques Derrida While there is much to disagree with in the pantheon of Derrida's work—most notably his conceptualisation of the 'referential illusion' that argued context, history, and tradition cannot be objectively determined—he was on to something in rejecting Fukuyama's assertion about the death of history. The reasons are twofold: 1. There is a tendency in many Western movements to think in [Christian eschatological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian%5Feschatology?ref=robert.winter.ink) terms and to conceive of everything in the context of end times. Yet even if a particular person, process, or even way of life does come to an end, it does not axiomatically follow we have reached the end times. 2. Even if we accept the assertion that ideas or ideologies have a life span and are thus capable of death, this only ushers in [Hauntology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauntology?ref=robert.winter.ink) and an equal and opposing belief that these ideas or ideologies can return as ghosts or spectres which continue to haunt the body politic. In reading three thought provoking articles by [Jon Askonas](https://twitter.com/JonAskonas?ref=robert.winter.ink) ([*Why Conservatism Failed*](https://compactmag.com/article/why-conservatism-failed?ref=robert.winter.ink)), [Rod Dreher](https://twitter.com/roddreher?ref=robert.winter.ink) ([*The End Of Conservatism? Or Birth Of A New Right?*](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-end-of-conservatism-or-birth-of-a-new-right/?ref=robert.winter.ink)), and [John Daniel Davidson](https://thefederalist.com/author/jddavidson/?ref=robert.winter.ink) ([*We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives*](https://thefederalist.com/2022/10/20/we-need-to-stop-calling-ourselves-conservatives/?ref=robert.winter.ink)), I felt a similar inner tension to what I felt when reading Fukuyama's work. This is evident in the very headline of Davidson's article: > The conservative project has failed, and conservatives need to forge a new political identity that reflects our revolutionary moment. Yet to argue for a 'revolutionary moment' is problematic—to say the least. One is either a conservative or a revolutionary, it is illogical to assert one is a conservative embarking upon a revolution. This is because conservatism comes to us, in its most simplistic rendition, as an ideology that rest firmly on tradition, and tradition is best served via reform not radical change. Remove tradition or force through change by fiat, and whatever is left many be many things, but it is not conservatism. Davidson continues this inner tension in arguing: > Calling oneself a conservative in today's political climate would be like saying one is a conservative because one wants to preserve the medieval European traditions of arranged marriage and trial by combat. Whatever the merits of those practices, you cannot preserve or defend something that is dead. Perhaps you can retain a memory of it or knowledge of it. But that is not what conservatism was purportedly about. It was about maintaining traditions and preserving Western civilization as a living and vibrant thing. > > Well, too late. Western civilization is dying. The traditions and practices that conservatives champion are, at best, being preserved only in an ever-shrinking private sphere. At worst, they are being trampled to dust. They certainly do not form the basis of our common culture or civic life, as they did for most of our nation's history. Davidson is certainly right, Western civilisation is under attack. But as an historian that is one of those 'so what?' statements with which history is replete. Western civilisation has been under attack ever since its earliest inception and will likely continue to be so until it vanishes from history—be that in the next decade or at the end of time itself. [Ed West](https://twitter.com/edwest?ref=robert.winter.ink) recently wrote on [just such an instance](https://edwest.substack.com/p/the-day-the-worlds-fate-was-played), yet Western tradition not only survived but thrived in the centuries following. This eternal struggle of Western civilisation against not just opposing cultures, but against the very notion of [entropy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy?ref=robert.winter.ink) itself, means that we need not only resist what opposes us but also resist our internal demons. Our tendency to think in terms of end times. Our tendency to assume unless we triumph in this very moment, all will be swept away on the tide of history. Arguably this latter threat is the greater because where the West is in its greatest peril is when it pulls itself apart from within. From this stand point, it is critical to go back to basics and recall that conservatism suffers whenever it pushes for a society that is ossified and unreformed. Yet worse, when people abandon conservative principles and seek revolutionary change to return to a bygone age. To better understand this, let us pull a brief primer from the shelf on the difference between change and reform. The former, change, is a process that is generally ill-conceived and frequently seeks little more than to fundamentally alter an institution, often for no other reason than it has existed 'time out of mind'—to take a phrase from [Burke](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/edmund-burke/). The latter, reform, is about preservation and alteration by 'insensible degrees', again plucking from Burke's prose, so that the vitality and, to Burke's thinking, the authority of the institution, office or title remains. This constant state of evolution is critical to the conservative project, and to see conservatism, or even tradition, as a process or magic incantation that can halt or roll back time is to misconstrue its purpose and its wonder. > How weak an argument prescription \[tradition\] is… \[when it precludes\] every improvement… in the constitution. > > Edmund Burke Yet is is easy to see why many conservatives are lunging for the lever of revolution because what is increasingly passed off as 'our new tradition' is something worthy only to be rejected. Furthermore, many 'new traditions' are in reality not even the palest imitation of tradition. They are twenty-first century equivalents of the [French Republican calendar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French%5FRepublican%5Fcalendar?ref=robert.winter.ink), and never likely to take root. It is why their advocates are utterly determined to cancel anyone who dares to not embrace their relativist's dream of a 'post-truth' world where people are seized, as [Jorge Luis Borges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge%5FLuis%5FBorges?ref=robert.winter.ink) would have it, by a 'hygienic, ascetic rage' which casts some schools of thought as 'analogous to a god,' with acolytes prostrating themselves before approved 'books and like savages kiss\[ing\] their pages, though they cannot read a letter.' Other texts or outlooks fall victim to 'epidemics, heretical discords' or 'pilgrimages that inevitably degenerate into brigandage;' ultimately extinguishing the fire of any meaningful agonism. In the face of such developments, conservatives need to be wary of throwing out the core of what makes the conservative project so important to society in an effort to save the movement. Where Davidson is on firmer terrain is in drawing on an article by [Jon Askonas](https://twitter.com/JonAskonas?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Why Conservatism Failed](https://compactmag.com/article/why-conservatism-failed?ref=robert.winter.ink): > The modern conservative project failed because it didn't take into account the revolutionary principle of technology, and its intrinsic connection to the telos of sheer profit. Decrying left-wing revolutionary politics and postmodern anarchy, conservatives missed that the real moral relativism was to believe that one could change the material form of society without directly affecting its substance or its ends. > > Jon Askonas The thesis both Davisdon and Askonas seem to be asserting is that the digital revolution has wrought change faster than tradition, or the conservative project, could manage to digest it. The result is that many conservatives have acquiesced and 'focused instead on narrower issues.' There is much truth to this. Conservatives, particularly in America, have often taken a very narrow view of the issues that define conservatism. This has, for several decades now, been the Achilles' heel of the conservative project and opened it to unending ridicule from the radical left. A ridicule that makes younger conservatives ashamed or embarrassed about being seen as fellow travellers and has cast older conservatives as reactionaries who hate modernity. The result is a schism in conservatism, one that is hard to see at present and likely will only be **obvious** several generations hence. To put this probability into perspective, let us look at another movement which has undergone its own internal divisions—liberalism. For this, I will draw on the late great [Roger Scruton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger%5FScruton?ref=robert.winter.ink): > the term 'liberal' is now used in two conflicting ways, on the one hand to denote the politics and philosophy of individual liberty, as advocated by [Locke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FLocke?ref=robert.winter.ink) and his followers, on the other hand to denote the 'progressive' ideas and policies that have emerged in the wake of modern socialism. In effect, the two ideas belong to two contrasting narratives of emancipation. Classical liberalism tells of the growth of individual liberty against the power of the sovereign. Socialism tells of the steadily increasing equality brought about by the state at the expense of the entrenched hierarchies of social power. The French revolutionaries went into battle with a slogan that promised liberty and equality together. Subsequent history might be taken to suggest that the goals are, in practice, incompatible, or at least in radical tension with each other. > > Roger Scruton This incompatibility or radical tension can be seen at work in modern conservatism precisely because its luminaries and leaders, instead of thinking about how to reform the latest societal change, adopt ever more restorationist or counterrevolutionary stances: > They might, looking to American history for inspiration, conjure up the image of the Pilgrims—those iron-willed and audacious Christians who refused to accept the terms set by the mainstream of their time and set out to build something entirely new, to hew it out of the wilderness of the New World, even at great personal cost. > > Or they might claim the mantle of revolutionaries, invoking the Founding Fathers' view (or, at least, Thomas Jefferson's) that periodic revolution to preserve liberty and civil society has always been and always will be necessary. > > John Daniel Davidson While this represents a wonderful clarion call, socialism must be destroyed, it is a process that is likely to achieve precisely the opposite of its intended goal. We know these truths to be self-evident because conservatives in every generation have faced similar challenges, and only when they have focused on reforming the latest revolutionary change—rather than reacting in ossified, iron-willed refusal to reform, or lunged toward their own revolutionary change—has the conservative project been a success. > In all those ways modern conservatism arose as a defence of the individual against potential oppressors, and an endorsement of popular sovereignty. However. it opposed the view that political order is founded on a contract, as well as the parallel suggestion that the individual enjoys freedom, sovereignty and rights in a state of nature, and can throw off the burden of social and political membership, and start again from a condition of absolute freedom. For the conservative, human beings come into this world burdened by obligations, and subject to institutions and traditions that contain within them a precious inheritance of wisdom, without which the exercise of freedom is as likely to destroy human rights and entitlements as to enhance them. > > Roger Scruton In this sense the exercise of conservatism, and the preservation of tradition, is not about preventing a law from changing, securing tax cuts for big business, or ensuring government remains small. Rather, it is about the inheritance of wisdom, the reform of social institutions, and the passing of knowledge from one generation to the next. > In Burke's understanding, therefore, tradition is a form of knowledge. Not theoretical knowledge, of course, concerning facts and truths; and not ordinary know-how either. There is another kind of knowledge, which is neither knowledge that nor knowledge how, which involves the mastery of situations—knowing what to do, in order to accomplish a task successfully, where success is not measured in any exact or fore-envisaged goal, but in the harmony of the result with our human needs and interests. Good manners illustrate what Burke had in mind. Knowing what to do in company, what to say, what to feel—these are things we acquire by immersion in society. They cannot be taught by spelling them out but only by osmosis, yet the person who has not acquired these things is rightly described as ignorant. > > Roger Scruton Thus imagined, the failure or success of conservatism is not dependent on how fast societal, or even technological, change is happening, rather, it is the ability of tradition to absorb, evolve and embrace the change. Given this, Askonas is wrong to argue 'A technological society can have no traditions.' Quite the opposite is true. For what enabled the rise and dominance of the West is precisely its technological innovation. What Niall Ferguson termed the 6 Killer Apps in his book [*Civilization: The West and the Rest*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall%5FFerguson?ref=robert.winter.ink#Civilization). Everywhere tradition abounds, if we take the time to look, and while the bygone eras of trial by combat, or methods of farming in the American MidWest may have faded, this does not mean we are now in a traditionless society in which conservatives must build from scratch, as revolutionaries seek to do. It is about ensuring the conservative tradition keeps moving and evolving, that the revolutionary **change** in society is checked, in the sense of fact checked, against the pool of received wisdom and embraced or rejected on its merits, not on whether the change conforms to an ossified understanding of **tradition**. This process may, as it does at present, seem to momentarily overwhelm the conservative project, but in the long run the indigestion will subside and the society that remains will not be traditionless nor even absent of conservatism. Rather, it will be the latest incarnation of that which went before—something which is the very definition of a conservative future. In this context, we do not need to stop calling ourselves conservatives, rather we need to start. We also need to acknowledge that conservatism is measured in epochs, not decades, and that much as Fukuyama was wrong to predict the end of history, so too are we wrong to predict the end of conservatism. Good night, and good luck. --- *Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene IV* by [Henry Fuseli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%5FFuseli?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ## References Borges, Jorge Luis. 'The Library of Babel.' Translated by Andrew Hurley. In *Collected Fictions*, 112- 18\. New York: Penguin, 1998. Burke, Edmund. *The Speeches of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke in the House of Commons and in Westminster-Hall*. Vol. I. IV vols. (London, 1816). Derrida, Jacques. *Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International* (New York: Routledge, 1994). Fukuyama, Francis. *The End of History and The Last Man* (New York: The Free Press, 1992). Scruton, Roger. *Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition* (United Kingdom: All Points Books, 2018). ### Reading More Efficiently And Effectively URL: https://robert.winter.ink/reading-more-efficiently-and-effectively/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T10:16:06.000Z > … books always speak of other books, and every story tells a story that has already been told > > Umberto Eco During the [#100daystooffload](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/100daystooffload/) challenge, I wrote a quick primer on the basics of [*Finding Flow*](https://robert.winter.ink/finding-flow/) and how these steps help me in the writing process; for a process writing surely is. One of the key steps was to 'read, tag, and retrieve'. The notion being that without reading widely, one is at a disadvantage. To read without *tagging* or note taking, is to rely on the fallibility of the human mind. To read, to tag, but not retrieve—is just lazy. Thinking on the ways in which I try to redress the fallibility of my mind, and incorrigibly lazy spirit, brought me to reason more systematically about a process that now feels innate, but has taken a lifetime to develop and hone. I hope this provides a little context to the art of reading more efficiently and effectively. [Umberto Eco](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto%5FEco?ref=robert.winter.ink), one of the foremost [semioticians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics?ref=robert.winter.ink), observed that we are wrong to think authors are the sole creators of their work. Rather, the speech and writing of an individual is analogous with a book in global library–but a book that listens and speaks to all the other works around it. Knowledge is thus the result of not only a timeless, but also a perpetual, process. A point that [Wittgenstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig%5FWittgenstein?ref=robert.winter.ink) had observed several decades earlier: > Some of the greatest achievements in philosophy could only be compared with taking up some books which seemed to belong together, and putting them on different shelves; nothing more being final about their positions than that they no longer lie side by side. The onlooker who doesn’t know the difficulty of the task might well think in such a case that nothing at all had been achieved–the difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know. E.g. to see that when we have put two books together in their right order we have not thereby put them in their final places. > > Ludwig Wittgenstein With written works forming part of a great, interconnected library of human thought, we are in something of a conundrum as to where to start. In other words, when you find something that piques your interest or want to know more about a topic, or seek to feel something new, it is important to not waste time on trash. ## Sup From Great Literature Some writers, even though they have something important to say, are, to put it mildly, rubbish writers. While others, have the gift of [Clio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clio?ref=robert.winter.ink), yet have nothing to say. Worse yet, some are cursed with neither poetry, nor prose, nor ideas. This is what makes the classics such a rich hunting ground for things to read. As a rule of thumb, that which has survived the test of time and has been read closely by generation after generation is often a reliable source of truth and literary quality. No, this does not mean that new books are junk or that old books are inherently truthful, but it does mean that the works of [Homer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Marcus Aurelius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus%5FAurelius?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Dante](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante%5FAlighieri?ref=robert.winter.ink), and [Kant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel%5FKant?ref=robert.winter.ink), have not survived to the present day by mere accident, but by being an endless treasure trove for the mind. This is particularly the case, special pleading on my part no doubt, if the work is **not** philosophical in nature. That is, it yields training, skill development, or technical information. Materials of this type are often best found online as they can be more readily updated with the latest information as technology and professional practice change. True, many will tell you, more recent research often refutes assertions made in the past. Which brings us to the next challenge, knowing when something has been shown to be false and when it has been *falsified* by the latest ideologically approved agenda. A reality which buttresses the notion of reading widely from literature of the past because if it is false, chances are more recent scholarship has not only highlighted its inaccuracies, but an even more recent scholar has raked over the coals of the most recent scholarship. In other words, the critics have been critiqued. This is particularly the case of many revisionist histories that are being churned out at present as they are not correcting an inaccurate understanding of the historical record, rather, they are descending into [negationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical%5Fnegationism?ref=robert.winter.ink) by drawing false conclusions from a cherry picking of genuine historical data. A process which not only is a waste of time to read, but one that actively erodes trust in the historical record, distorting the moral meaning that can be gleaned from the past. Reading the classics also has the double benefit of teaching one to read with discernment. Simply because it is printed in a book does not make it true. But only by reading materials can one make a judgement call, rather than running pell-mell after a misguided trendy belief. I came across just such an example a little while ago in conversation with a colleague. She was quite distraught about her teenage daughter. When I asked as to the cause—drugs, teen pregnancy, alcoholism–was surprised to hear the fear she was going off the rails was that she had started reading Nietzsche. Amused by such an unusual fear from a parent for the soul of their child, I asked why she thought it was so problematic. "Because" came the response, "Nietzsche was a nihilist!" Err, no he was not. A fact that could have been readily ascertained by picking up one of his tracts at random, rather than being sucked into the junk knee-jerk philosophical activism that is rife on the modern university campus. But how to read with discernment? ## Modes of Reading [Mortimer J. Adler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer%5FJ.%5FAdler?ref=robert.winter.ink) was a most remarkable man. Educator, encyclopedist, and philosopher, who was as at home writing dense scholastic tracts as he was penning a popular work for the mass market. One of his more important mass market books was the 1940s 'modern classic' [*How to Read a Book*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How%5Fto%5FRead%5Fa%5FBook?ref=robert.winter.ink). In it, he observed there are four types of reading: 1. Elementary Reading–or what we are taught in elementary school when we first learn to read. It is uncritical, and concerned with understanding the basic meaning of the words and puzzling out the sentence, rather than testing the argument being put forward. 2. Inspectional Reading–takes elementary reading a step further and enables the reader to understanding the gist of what was written and take it away for later use. Inspectional reading is a valuable method when one is coming to grips with a topic, as it enables the systematic skimming of a text for later analysis. 3. Analytical Reading–involves a 'close' reading of the material. Classifying the key arguments, understanding the book well enough to articulate its general meaning to someone new to the subject matter, and being able to define the problem the author was trying to solve and having a clear idea if they were successful. 4. Syntopical Reading–involves not only an analytical reading of the book in question, but also many other books and articles on the same subject matter. This form of reading, sometimes called comparative reading, transcends learning, and shifts into modes of critical thought and understanding a complex problem at a metaphysical level. Perhaps the most important aspect of the modes of reading, as outlined by Adler, is that they are not a progression in which one starts at elementary and then progresses to Syntopical, never to *fall back* to a 'lower' level. It is for this reason I prefer to think of the approaches as modes rather than levels–as the latter concept carries with it notions of being *better*. Instead, reading well is the result of matching the reading mode to the desired outcome. Wanting to read instructions for a new recipe, or grasp the meaning of a meme, elementary will likely get the job done with minimal cognitive load. Needing to crest the waves of a broad and difficult subject matter, a systematic skim of several books and articles leveraging Inspectional reading will serve you best. Stepping up to master a subject, analytical reading will be needed to get the job done. Wanting to assess an author on the veracity of their output, anything short of Syntopical reading is unlikely to enable you to do that. ## It Is Not A Competition Never be ashamed if you are a slow reader. For what little it is worth, I am a positively ponderous reader—when I find something worth reading. Diving into other books, reference materials, defining the words used, fact checking each assertion; I can spend forty minutes or more reading a single paragraph as onlookers adopt bemused smiles as the page never seems to turn. Thus, never be shamed by others who may tease you for being slow to read. It is seldom how quickly we finish that matters in this life, rather it is **how** we finish and where we finish that counts. Take your time, enjoy the journey. Learn what there is to be learned and move on when you are ready. This approach is not only productive, but far more enjoyable than rushing along and not stopping to ponder the prose. ## From Little Things, Big Things Grow Another important lesson about reading, particularly if you have never been an avid reader, is to do a little bit each day. Just ten pages from a book of choice and you will steadily make your way through. But always setting aside the task for when you have the time for a good long session, and chances are the world will keep on turning while your book's pages remain unturned. Reading is also like exercise. Stamina needs to be built and the minds ability to process and read for extended periods honed. So start small, read in short stints and steadily build up to hour and then day long sessions—if you are fortunate enough to have the time. ## Cartwheeling Across The Room The late [Christopher Hitchens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher%5FHitchens?ref=robert.winter.ink) was reviewing a book for a magazine. During the course of the exercise, he became so frustrated with the work that he sent it cartwheeling across the room. I can well picture 'Hitch', cigarette languidly hanging from the corner of his mouth, hand clasped around a whisky glass, tossing the book toward the wastepaper bin, and then leaning back in his chair. Content in the knowledge he had repaid the reading in the only way fit. It is apt for dispatching any work you read which would be felled by the blade of [Hitchens's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s%5Frazor?ref=robert.winter.ink): 'what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.' So never feel bad about quitting a poorly written book. Life is too short and you can never get the hour back you wasted ploughing through a piece which will yield neither entertainment nor truth. ## Closer Reading At the outset, I observed Umberto Eco's notion that no one writes in a vacuum. Sacrilegious though some may think it, ideas are seldom, if ever, channelled directly from God. Rather, they are supped from the global library of life. In this context it would be usual for an author to offer a list of further reading. Instead, I will offer the advice to read closer rather than further. 1. Resist the tendency to follow clickbait. It is a time suck which could be better spent on good literature. 2. Find a more meaningful way to consume news. The 24-hour news cycle regurgitates more often than it recapitulates. In that column inches and airtime must be filled, and audiences must be kept tuned in for the next commercial. Try the newswires instead, glean the key facts and resist mass churn articles by people who are not subject matter experts. Research the journalists, are they consistently producing quality work in their chosen subject space, or merely producing copy across anything and everything. 3. When selecting a new piece to read, think about the compounding effect of consistent progress in a subject area and how compounding is amplified by a great author. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Thomas Kelley](https://unsplash.com/es/@thkelley?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/books?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### CR III Royal Cypher URL: https://robert.winter.ink/cr-iii-royal-cypher/ Last updated: 2025-11-04T03:43:37.000Z Royal Cypher of King Charles III reads 'C III R' for 'Carolus III Rex', which means King Charles III in Latin. Heraldry, [for those who like that sort of thing](https://robert.winter.ink/pro-monarchy/), is a fabulous study. It is one side of a pentagonal subject matter, along with: [vexillology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexillology?ref=robert.winter.ink), [ceremony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremony?ref=robert.winter.ink), [rank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial,%5Froyal%5Fand%5Fnoble%5Franks?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [pedigree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy?ref=robert.winter.ink). Arthur Fox-Davies, in [*A Complete Guide to Heraldry*](https://archive.org/details/completeguidetoh00foxdrich/page/n5/mode/2up), described heraldry as 'the shorthand of history'. In that sentiment, I think he is on to something. This is because heraldry goes well beyond notions of [blue blood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility?ref=robert.winter.ink#Other%5Fterms), monarchy, or bygone ages, as it also speaks to modern individuals, organisations, towns, cities, and regions. ![The side of the Narmer Palette with the two serpopards](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/102c6-narmer_palette_serpopard_side-w-203-h-300.jpg) The side of the Narmer Palette depicts four men bearing standards. The precursors of modern heraldry date back thousands of years. An example of which can be seen in the top row of the [Narmer Palette](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmer%5FPalette?ref=robert.winter.ink) (*circa* 3100 BC) which depicts four men bearing standards — above which is a [serekh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serekh?ref=robert.winter.ink) denoting pharaoh's name: [Narmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmer?ref=robert.winter.ink). Similar use of heraldic symbols is featured in art from ancient [Mesopotamia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia?ref=robert.winter.ink); including some of the first recorded images of [griffins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffin?ref=robert.winter.ink) — magical beasts that would prove a recurrent theme in later ages. Though truly ancient in origin, heraldry, as we understand it today, dates more properly from *anno Domini* than before Christ. Maddeningly, for an author who is quite keen about [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) events, there is no clear date on which the ancient transitions to the modern when it comes to heraldic forms. Taking some key objects from the Middle-Ages, for example the [Bayeux Tapestry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayeux%5FTapestry?ref=robert.winter.ink), which illustrates the [Norman invasion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman%5Fconquest%5Fof%5FEngland?ref=robert.winter.ink) of England that occurred in 1066, there are depictions of shields, sails, and pennants, some of which are emblazoned with typical heraldic symbols — such as crosses and dragons. Yet tantalisingly, none of this imagery recurs with the same individual, leading to the conclusion they are more decorative than sigils of peoples' houses. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Response: Why PI Planning is like a wolf in sheep’s clothing URL: https://robert.winter.ink/response-why-pi-planning-is-like-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T10:38:35.000Z A colleague shared a [thought provoking article](https://medium.com/serious-scrum/why-pi-planning-is-like-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-580adf9c1134?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Todd Lankford](https://coachlankford.com/about/?ref=robert.winter.ink) about Program Increment (PI) Planning and why he, Lankford, cringes whenever he hears the phrase. While I agree at a high level with Lankford's arguments regarding the need for teams to engage in continuous planning and the importance of breaking dependencies, as well as sharing the cringe factor felt when people clam to be [Agile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile%5Fsoftware%5Fdevelopment?ref=robert.winter.ink), I break with his thinking in the detail when it comes to PI Planning. The reason is that the article creates too many [strawmen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw%5Fman?ref=robert.winter.ink), an example of which is served up at the outset with an invented quote from a 'Manager in Agile Transformation': > “We are Agile! We have a backlog, and we host awesome PI Planning events.” Lankford is correct in principle, that having a backlog, running PI Planning events, or name checking some Agile ceremonies does not an Agile organisation make. However, an argument is always in trouble when it relies on strawmen or worse, makes category errors to sustain its critique. The original example of a category error, or category-mistake, was given by Gilbert Ryle in his book [The Concept of Mind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FConcept%5Fof%5FMind?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1949), in which a visitor to Oxford University is said to have asked, upon viewing the colleges and library: “But where is the university?” The error by the visitor was to assume that a university is part of the category 'units of physical infrastructure' rather than 'institutions'. Category errors abound in Lankford's article, as the heart of his argument against PI Planning seems to centre on creating an Agile mindset, helping teams to embrace change, and avoiding the arduous work needed to create an Agile organisation. As Lankford observes: > Program Increment (PI) Planning from the [Scaled Agile Framework](https://www.scaledagileframework.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) (SAFe) does not support an Agile mindset. All my experience with it tells me this is true. I have never seen PI Planning help a team embrace change. > > Yet, SAFe is the default for those seeking Agile without having to endure a difficult change to their status quo. And SAFe sells itself as an Agile panacea. As an historian I always advise; beware of generalisation. As a philosopher; beware sophistry (misrepresentation). The former, generalisation, is evident in the assertion that PI Planning is a framework used by organisations who want the baby without the labour pains. The latter, misrepresentation, occurs in pushing the notion that PI Planning is about creating a culture that embraces change. Thus, to quote Lankford's words back at him: 'Right there, the illusion begins.' _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Responsibility, Ownership, Accountability URL: https://robert.winter.ink/responsibility-ownership-accountability/ Last updated: 2026-01-26T10:19:32.000Z The triumvirate of responsibility, ownership, and accountability is the holy grail of organisational discourse—lauded in every boardroom and celebrated in every employee handbook. Yet, beneath their gloss lies a fog of ambiguity. These terms are often used interchangeably or wielded as rhetorical cudgels to assess employee performance, but seldom are they dissected with precision. What does it mean to 'take ownership'? How does one 'be accountable' without merely taking the fall? And where does 'responsibility' fit into this triad? It's time to go beyond the buzzwords and unravel their true meanings. In the following exploration, I'll demystify these concepts, not with lofty abstractions but through clear, actionable insights. Let me begin by defining responsibility as the foundational building block—an individual's role-based output. Ownership follows as the personal commitment to extend beyond the bare minimum. Finally, accountability, often misunderstood, emerges as the connective tissue that transforms individual contributions into collective success. Each is essential, but their interplay is where the magic—or dysfunction—of workplace dynamics truly resides. ## Responsibility This concept generally sees the biggest overlap between what it means and how it can be observed in an organisation. A composite of surveys about what responsibility means to professionals found: > Responsibility is when I deliver on my promises, on time, on spec and with the highest level of quality possible in the amount of time given. > > [Forbes Survey 2021](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2021/09/08/responsibility-ownership-and-accountability-at-work/?sh=4e2d3fe5a1ff&ref=robert.winter.ink) This situates responsibility as a very individualistic attribute and is often the result of a manager outlining a job description and the tasks to be carried out by that role based on a person's competencies. A useful analogy for responsibility is the 'to' and 'cc' fields on an email. People in the 'to' field are responsible for any actions arising from the email. Those in the 'cc' field are merely being informed about what is happening. ⭐ Golden sentence: Responsibility can be seen when role-based output is delivered by an individual. When responsibility is discharged, we can assess the ownership a person has taken. ## Ownership Ownership is often defined by its absence. 'Anne takes on too much ownership because John does not take on enough.' An example of this is if a Business Analyst writes a single user story when asked but does not write additional stories that are natural additions. Technically they have discharged their responsibility by writing the story requested. But by not being active in thinking about additional requirements or stories their initial work creates, they are failing to take ownership of their responsibility. ⭐ Golden sentence: Ownership is the extent to which a person follows up, or 'owns', the responsibility discharged. After the responsibility has been discharged, and ownership has been taken, we can assess accountability. ## Accountability Due to its outcome-based nature, accountability is often confused or conflated with responsibility and ownership. However, accountability goes beyond ownership by taking on not just the proximate, but the long-term consequences of an action. In the context of a negative project outcome, an individual displays accountability by accepting the liability for the failure to meet expectations, rather than seeking to shift accountability to other people or processes. ⭐ Golden sentence: Accountability takes responsibility and ownership from 'me' to 'we'. What are your thoughts on responsibility, ownership, and accountability? Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Adeolu Eletu](https://unsplash.com/@adeolueletu?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/responsibility?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### The Sources of Soviet Conduct URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-sources-of-soviet-conduct/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T10:00:22.000Z [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) in 1946, [Clark Clifford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark%5FClifford?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [George Elsey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FElsey?ref=robert.winter.ink) delivered the Clifford-Elsey Report to [President Truman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry%5FS.%5FTruman?ref=robert.winter.ink). Although written to comply with the President's 'directive to prepare a summary of American relations with the Soviet Union', the report was only one of several key documents written at this time which would fundamentally re-frame US-Soviet relations. The report cites several U.S. Government heavy weights 'the Secretary of State ([James F. Byrnes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%5FF.%5FByrnes?ref=robert.winter.ink)), the Secretary of War ([Robert P. Patterson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FP.%5FPatterson?ref=robert.winter.ink)), the Attorney General ([Tom C. Clark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%5FC.%5FClark?ref=robert.winter.ink)), the Secretary of the Navy ([James Forrestal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%5FForrestal?ref=robert.winter.ink)), [Fleet Admiral Leahy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William%5FD.%5FLeahy?ref=robert.winter.ink), the Joint Chiefs of Staff ([General of the Army George C. Marshall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FC.%5FMarshall?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest%5FJ.%5FKing?ref=robert.winter.ink), [General of the Army Henry H. 'Hap' Arnold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%5FH.%5FArnold?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Ambassador Pauley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin%5FW.%5FPauley?ref=robert.winter.ink), the Director of Central intelligence ([Hoyt Vandenberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyt%5FVandenberg?ref=robert.winter.ink))'. But, is perhaps most notable for its name check of 'other persons who have special knowledge in this field.' The most seminal of whom was arguably [George F. Kennan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FF.%5FKennan?ref=robert.winter.ink). The cause of Kennan's notoriety was a result of what became informally dubbed the '[long telegram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X%5FArticle?ref=robert.winter.ink#The%5F%22long%5Ftelegram%22)', due to it being 'at a little over 5,000 words… the longest telegram sent in the history of the State Department.' The missive had been sent earlier in 1946, on February 22nd, and was stimulated by the public response to a speech given by [Stalin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph%5FStalin?ref=robert.winter.ink), who spoke at the [Bolshoi Theatre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshoi%5FTheatre?ref=robert.winter.ink) on February 9, 1946; the night before the symbolic [1946 Supreme Soviet election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946%5FSoviet%5FUnion%5Flegislative%5Felection?ref=robert.winter.ink). ![Stalin makes a speech on Feb 09 1946](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/21791-stalin_speech_feb_09_1946.jpg) Joseph Stalin speaking at the Bolshoi Theatre, February 9, 1946\. Kennan's long telegram began as an analysis of the speech. The speech was, if anything, routine and of similar timbre and content to Stalin's previous statements for public consumption. However, then as now, there was a media cycle and an enterprising journalist picked up the transcript and before long it was being touted in [*Time*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%5F%28magazine%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) magazine as 'the most warlike pronouncement uttered by any top-rank statesman since [V-J Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory%5Fover%5FJapan%5FDay?ref=robert.winter.ink).' To be fair to the [press corp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News%5Fmedia?ref=robert.winter.ink), they were not alone in experiencing shock and alarm at Stalin's pronouncement, given the context of the speech — Soviet rejection of [Bretton Woods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton%5FWoods%5Fsystem?ref=robert.winter.ink), the climate of [atomic espionage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic%5Fspies?ref=robert.winter.ink), and the constant flip-flop between Soviet self-restraint and belligerence. Interviewed many years later, [Elbridge Durbrow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbridge%5FDurbrow?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Chief of the US Mission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief%5Fof%5FMission?ref=robert.winter.ink) in Moscow, summed up the [BosWash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BosWash?ref=robert.winter.ink) view that held: Stalin's speech had said 'to hell with the rest of the world.' Then as now, when faced with adversity and an uncertain environment, senior leaders try and find their bearings by issuing a series of **please explains** to their subordinates and people on the spot. In 1946, this took the form of a cable from Elbridge Durbrow and ['Doc' Matthews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.%5FFreeman%5FMatthews?ref=robert.winter.ink), who could not understand the lack of communication from their man on the spot, Keenan, and demanded updates to explain this hitherto unfelt public reaction to Stalin's speech: > We should welcome receiving from you an interpretive analysis of what we may expect in the way of future implementation of these announced policies. > > — Gaddis 2011, p. 217. Kennan, following an apology 'for this burdening of telegraphic channel', gave a comprehensive response. In this author's view it is a mix between a polite "com'on guys, I cannot believe I'm explaining this which is why I had not cabled earlier" and scholarly excitement in actually being asked one's opinion on a topic by senior leadership. What followed, and this is important to keep in mind as we shall return to it later, was a potted history of the Russian psyche. One which argued that not matter the ruler, Tsar or Dictator, religious or secular, Imperial, or socialist, it was a country always to be governed by a particular kind of leadership: > It was no coincidence that Marxism, which had smoldered ineffectively for half a century in Western Europe, caught hold and blazed for first time in Russia. Only in this land which had never known a friendly neighbor or indeed any tolerant equilibrium of separate powers, either internal or international, could a doctrine thrive which viewed economic conflicts of society as insoluble by peaceful means. After establishment of Bolshevist regime, Marxist dogma, rendered even more truculent and intolerant by Lenin’s interpretation, became a perfect vehicle for sense of insecurity with which Bolsheviks, even more than previous Russian rulers, were afflicted. In this dogma, with its basic altruism of purpose, they found justification for their instinctive fear of outside world, for the dictatorship without which they did not know how to rule, for cruelties they did not dare not to inflict, for sacrifice they felt bound to demand. In the name of Marxism they sacrificed every single ethical value in their methods and tactics. Today they cannot dispense with it. It is fig leaf of their moral and intellectual respectability. Without it they would stand before history, at best, as only the last of that long succession of cruel and wasteful Russian rulers who have relentlessly forced country on to ever new heights of military power in order to guarantee external security of their internally weak regimes. > > — George F. Kennan, the "long telegram" The cause and consequence of this fear of external threat, and need to provide security for internally weak regimes, is: > \[a\] neurotic view of world affairs \[that is a result of the\] traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it. > > — George F. Kennan, the "long telegram" Kennan went on to argue, picking up on Soviet involvement in the [Bretton Woods Conference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton%5FWoods%5FConference?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1944) and their subsequent refusal to join the [International Monetary Fund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International%5FMonetary%5FFund?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [World Bank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%5FBank?ref=robert.winter.ink), a series of events that elicited an 'anguished cry of bewilderment' from the [Treasury Department](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United%5FStates%5FDepartment%5Fof%5Fthe%5FTreasury?ref=robert.winter.ink): > In international economic matters, Soviet policy will really be dominated by pursuit of [autarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky?ref=robert.winter.ink) for Soviet Union and Soviet-dominated adjacent areas taken together. That, however, will be underlying policy. As far as official line is concerned, position is not yet clear. Soviet Government has shown strange reticence since termination hostilities on subject foreign trade. If large scale long term credits should be forthcoming, I believe Soviet Government may eventually again do lip service, as it did in 1930’s to desirability of building up international economic exchanges in general. Otherwise I think it possible Soviet foreign trade may be restricted largely to Soviet’s own security sphere, including occupied areas in Germany, and that a cold official shoulder may be turned to principle of general economic collaboration among nations. > > — George F. Kennan, the "long telegram" This need to dominate not only internal, but adjacent areas and project the autocratic spirit, created a state within a state — or as Keenan put it, 'on two planes': > Soviet policy, as Department implies in its query under reference, is conducted on two planes: (1) official plane represented by actions undertaken officially in name of Soviet Government; and (2) subterranean plane of actions undertaken by agencies for which Soviet Government does not admit responsibility. > > — George F. Kennan, the "long telegram" This 'subterranean plane of action' engages in everything the 'official plane' refuses to acknowledge is really happening. These ghost agencies are single-minded in their efforts to: > To undermine general political and strategic potential of major western powers. Efforts will be made in such countries to disrupt national self confidence, to hamstring measures of national defense, to increase social and industrial unrest, to stimulate all forms of disunity. All persons with grievances, whether economic or racial, will be urged to spelt redress not in mediation and compromise, but in defiant violent struggle for destruction of other elements of society. Here poor will be set against rich, black against white, young against old, newcomers against established residents, etc. > > — George F. Kennan, the "long telegram" Perhaps most alarmingly, Keenan observes, is that direct opposition is not the only path that leads to conflict with the Soviet Union. Conflict, or Soviet efforts to undermine, also occurs when countries: > seal their territories off against Communist penetration (Switzerland, Portugal), or where they compete too strongly, like Labor Government in England, for moral domination among elements which it is important for Communists to dominate. > > — George F. Kennan, the "long telegram" The tendency to only conceive of the world as a zero-sum-game essentially guarantees a perpetual state of conflict, because there is no path to peace other than through complete submission. As a result, whether in a state of war, cold-war, or peace, relations with Russia, Keenan argued, 'should be approached with same thoroughness and care as solution of major strategic problem in war, and if necessary, with no smaller outlay in planning effort.' Although the contents of the *Long Telegram* were classified at the time, it circulated widely and, inevitably, leaked via Soviet Intelligence. It was read by Stalin who commissioned a similar telegram to be sent from Washington to Moscow. In the Russian retort to Keenan, it stated: > The foreign policy of the United States, which reflects the imperialist tendencies of American monopolistic capital, is characterized in the postwar period by a striving **for world supremacy**. This is the real meaning of the many statements by President Truman and other representatives of American ruling circles; that the United States has the right to lead the world. All the forces of American diplomacy — the army, the air force, the navy, industry, and science — are enlisted in the service of this foreign policy. For this purpose broad plans for expansion have been developed and are being implemented through diplomacy and the establishment of a system of naval and air bases stretching far beyond the boundaries of the United States, through the arms race, and through the creation of ever newer types of weapons. > > — Novikov Telegram Fast forward to 2022, and it can be said that history does not repeat, but it does rhyme. In Vladimir Putin's recent statement on the situation in the Ukraine, we see the familiar rhyme of Russian fears of Western imperialist tendencies striving for world supremacy. A zero-sum game in which the 'official plane' and 'subterranean plane' of the Russian state are mobilised in what they deem to be the defence of their country. But in reality, today's Russia is pursuing the same aims as in 1946: autarchy for Russia and Russian-dominated adjacent areas by a leader, under pressure from nationalistic backers, who has miscalculated the situation. The surge in people trying to leave the country in the face of the partial mobilisation is an extraordinary outpouring of public sentiment in a country that is quick to crush dissent. As an historian, I have long since learnt the first rule of analysing the past is **not** to make predictions about the future. Thus I will leave the final words to a predictive voice from the past, one that may have taken a little over forty years to come to fruition, but was proven right in the end with the collapse of the Soviet Union: > Thus the future of Soviet power may not be by any means as secure as Russian capacity for self-delusion would make it appear to the men of the Kremlin. That they can quietly and easily turn it over to others remains to be proved. Meanwhile, the hardships of their rule and the vicissitudes of international life have taken a heavy toll of the strength and hopes of the great people on whom their power rests. It is curious to note that the ideological power of Soviet authority is strongest today in areas beyond the frontiers of Russia, beyond the reach of its police power. This phenomenon brings to mind a comparison used by Thomas Mann in his great novel Buddenbrooks. Observing that human institutions often show the greatest outward brilliance at a moment when inner decay is in reality farthest advanced, he compared one of those stars whose light shines most brightly on this world when in reality it has long since ceased to exist. And who can say with assurance that the strong light still cast by the Kremlin on the dissatisfied peoples of the western world is not the powerful afterglow of a constellation which is in actuality on the wane? This cannot be proved. And it cannot be disproved. But the possibility remains (and in the opinion of this writer it is a strong one) that Soviet power, like the capitalist world of its conception, bears within it the seeds of its own decay, and that the sprouting of these seeds is well advanced. > > — George F. Kennan, The Sources of Soviet Conduct Good night, and good luck. --- *Lenin, Trotsky and Kamenev celebrating the second anniversary of the October Revolution* by L.Y. Leonidov is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ## References ### Primary Sources [Report, "American Relations With The Soviet Union" by Clark Clifford \["Clifford-Elsey Report"\], September 24, 1946.](https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/research-files/report-american-relations-soviet-union-clark-clifford-clifford-elsey-report?documentid=NA&pagenumber=1&ref=robert.winter.ink) [The Long Telegram by George Kennan](https://robert.winter.ink/kennan-the-long-telegram/) [The Sources of Soviet Conduct by George Kennan](https://robert.winter.ink/the-sources-of-soviet-conduct-by-george-kennan/) Kennan, George F. [*Memoirs: 1925–1950*](https://archive.org/details/memoirsgeorgefke00kenn) (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967). The Novikov Telegram Washington, September 27, 1946\. Diplomatic History, 15: 527-538 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.1991.tb00146.x ### Secondary Sources Gaddis, John Lewis. [*George F. Kennan: An American Life*](https://archive.org/details/georgefkennaname0000gadd%5Fl5o4) (New York: Penguin Books, 2011). Leffler, Melvyn P.. [*For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War*](https://books.google.com/books?id=KW0u816iR5wC&ref=robert.winter.ink) (New York: Hill and Wang, 2007). ### Twenty Years of Firefox URL: https://robert.winter.ink/twenty-years-of-firefox/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T10:08:59.000Z It has been twenty years since the [Mozilla Organisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla%5FFoundation?ref=robert.winter.ink), a spin off from [Netscape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape?ref=robert.winter.ink), launched the first public release of the now legendary browser Firefox. This version, Phoenix 0.1, and launched [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/), was to prove a prophetic name — given it was destined to arise like a [phoenix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix%5F%28mythology%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) from the ashes of Netscape which went defunct the following year in 2003. The driver behind this project was not merely to create an escape pod of independence from Netscape or to provide an alternative to the crushing influence of Microsoft Internet Explorer in the '[First Browser War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First%5FBrowser%5FWar?ref=robert.winter.ink)'. It was a project that was also aimed at resisting the [software bloat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software%5Fbloat?ref=robert.winter.ink) that seems to plague all software development, and was prevalent in [Mozilla Suite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla%5FApplication%5FSuite?ref=robert.winter.ink). ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2026/01/Browser_Wars_en.svg) Market share for several browsers between 1996 and 2009. 💡 The First Browser War, for Star Wars fans, not only has something of a [Clone Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clone%5FWars%5F%28Star%5FWars%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) feel to it, but is apposite because of the imagery of an 'Evil Empire', in the shape of Microsoft, crushing all resistance. Much in the same way the Empire ostensibly crushed the [Galactic Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic%5FRepublic?ref=robert.winter.ink) save for a band of intrepid rebels. Rebels who, in the First Browser War, are represented by [Dave Hyatt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave%5FHyatt?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Joe Hewitt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe%5FHewitt%5F%28programmer%29?ref=robert.winter.ink), and [Blake Ross](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake%5FRoss?ref=robert.winter.ink)—the creators of Firefox. However, Firefox was also unique in that it was an early player in the space of browser security. Functionality such as [pop-up blocking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-up%5Fblocker?ref=robert.winter.ink), avoiding the potentially dangerous [ActiveX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActiveX?ref=robert.winter.ink) component, and being hardened against vulnerability to spyware and malware installation, cemented its reputation among the security conscious as a better alternative to [Internet Explorer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet%5FExplorer?ref=robert.winter.ink). My own journey, as is not uncommon among people of my age, weight, and early adopter inclinations, began with the public launch of Phoenix. Little did I know how consistently Firefox would be my window to the [World Wide Web](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%5FWide%5FWeb?ref=robert.winter.ink), nor how its security, and in time privacy focus, would shape my understanding of what it means to be online. While Mozilla has seen many zeniths and nadirs over the last two decades — being at times pariah or saint depending on its current stance on the privacy and security topics *de jure* — its stability and framework remains rock solid and this is why it was chosen as the base software of the only truly secure browser, [Tor](https://www.torproject.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink). For those of us with a [threat model](https://www.privacyguides.org/basics/threat-modeling/?ref=robert.winter.ink) that does not require anonymity along with security and privacy, Firefox is a stand out browser solution in a digital landscape that seeks to harvest our data and monetise our every online interaction. Good night, and good luck. --- [MPL 1.1](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phoenix%5F0.1.png?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Fsf02](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hatas?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Mozilla Public License Version 1.1](https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/?ref=robert.winter.ink). [Browser Wars](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Browser%5FWars%5F%28en%29.svg?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Wereon](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Wereon?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under the [Creative Commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Creative%5FCommons?ref=robert.winter.ink) [Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### On Fairy-Stories and the Art of Fantasy URL: https://robert.winter.ink/on-fairy-stories-and-the-art-of-fantasy/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:42:48.000Z [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) in 1937, and 'to wide critical acclaim', *The Hobbit* was published. It is a rare treat to be able to use the words 'wide critical acclaim' in a context that is not redolent with marketing hype. For *The Hobbit* was a book that not only stood alone as a master piece of fantasy literature, but is also a work that spawned a world and is a foundational book in an entire literary genre. Although often considered a children's book, its author, [J. R. R. Tolkien](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.%5FR.%5FR.%5FTolkien?ref=robert.winter.ink), was firm in his determination to evince the notion that fantasy is for children. So much so, that his lectures on the topic were eventually adapted into an essay that is included in [*Tales from the Perilous Realm*](https://www.worldcat.org/title/tales-from-the-perilous-realm/oclc/243480382&referer=brief%5Fresults?ref=robert.winter.ink). In it, he argued: > It is usually assumed that children are the natural or the specially appropriate audience for fairy-stories. In describing a fairy-story which they think adults might possibly read for their own entertainment, reviewers frequently indulge in such waggeries as: “this book is for children from the ages of six to sixty.” But I have never yet seen the puff of a new motor-model that began thus: “this toy will amuse infants from seventeen to seventy”; though that to my mind would be much more appropriate. Is there any essential connexion between children and fairy-stories? Is there any call for comment, if an adult reads them for himself? Reads them as tales, that is, not studies them as curios. Adults are allowed to collect and study anything, even old theatre programmes or paper bags. > > \[…\] > > Among those who still have enough wisdom not to think fairy-stories pernicious, the common opinion seems to be that there is a natural connexion between the minds of children and fairy-stories, of the same order as the connexion between children’s bodies and milk. I think this is an error; at best an error of false sentiment, and one that is therefore most often made by those who, for whatever private reason (such as childlessness), tend to think of children as a special kind of creature, almost a different race, rather than as normal, if immature, members of a particular family, and of the human family at large. But for fantasy writing to be set free from attempts to confine it to the realm of childhood or day-dreamer adults, requires exploding some myths about imagination: > The mental power of image-making is one thing, or aspect; and it should appropriately be called Imagination. The perception of the image, the grasp of its implications, and the control, which are necessary to a successful expression, may vary in vividness and strength: but this is a difference of degree in Imagination, not a difference in kind. The achievement of the expression, which gives (or seems to give) “the inner consistency of reality,” is indeed another thing, or aspect, needing another name: Art, the operative link between Imagination and the final result, Sub-creation. For my present purpose I require a word which shall embrace both the Sub-creative Art in itself and a quality of strangeness and wonder in the Expression, derived from the Image: a quality essential to fairy-story. I propose, therefore, to arrogate to myself the powers of Humpty-Dumpty, and to use Fantasy for this purpose: in a sense, that is, which combines with its older and higher use as an equivalent of Imagination the derived notions of “unreality” (that is, of unlikeness to the Primary World), of freedom from the domination of observed “fact,” in short of the fantastic. I am thus not only aware but glad of the etymological and semantic connexions of fantasy with fantastic: with images of things that are not only “not actually present,” but which are indeed not to be found in our primary world at all, or are generally believed not to be found there. But while admitting that, I do not assent to the depreciative tone. That the images are of things not in the primary world (if that indeed is possible) is a virtue, not a vice. Fantasy (in this sense) is, I think, not a lower but a higher form of Art, indeed the most nearly pure form, and so (when achieved) the most potent. Thus far from being the domain of simpler minds, fantasy is one of the most challenging art forms because it cannot rest on the crutch of reality: > Fantasy … is difficult to achieve. Fantasy may be, as I think, not less but more sub-creative; but at any rate it is found in practice that “the inner consistency of reality” is more difficult to produce, the more unlike are the images and the rearrangements of primary material to the actual arrangements of the Primary World. It is easier to produce this kind of “reality” with more “sober” material. Fantasy thus, too often, remains undeveloped; it is and has been used frivolously, or only half-seriously, or merely for decoration: it remains merely “fanciful.” Anyone inheriting the fantastic device of human language can say the green sun. Many can then imagine or picture it. But that is not enough — though it may already be a more potent thing than many a “thumbnail sketch” or “transcript of life” that receives literary praise. > > To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably require labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, a kind of elvish craft. Few attempt such difficult tasks. But when they are attempted and in any degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art: indeed narrative art, story-making in its primary and most potent mode. Almost two decades after the publication of *The Hobbit*, on a summer's evening in Worcestershire, Tolkien was staying with his friend [George Sayer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FSayer?ref=robert.winter.ink). Spying a tape recorder, Tolkien joked that he “ought to cast out any devil that might be in it”. What follows is the output of that evening, in which Tolkien reads from *The Hobbit*. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [conner bowe](https://unsplash.com/@connerbowe?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/hobbit?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### With a Quiet Heart URL: https://robert.winter.ink/with-a-quiet-heart/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T10:12:27.000Z Leaders, as a rule, want to make their mark. Queen Elizabeth II, by contrast, seemed to want to preserve the marks made by others — society, tradition, the passage of time. Her Majesty was a true conservative, in the sense of wanting to preserve that which has endured while also seeking to change that which society has outgrown. For the late Queen, her role was to serve — not to be loved. Yet in serving as she did, rather than following the trend of modern celebrity which seeks to be loved, she ended up being loved by millions with an ardour that escapes most leaders. Queen Elizabeth II died on 8 September 2022, and the outpouring of grief and love that followed was perhaps not best measured by taking the temperature in Royal circles, but in republican. I was struck by how many people interviewed started statements with 'I'm not a fan of the Royal family, but —'. That an individual can give pause or qualification in the sentiment of opponents speaks to a leader who has transcended the political divide that so bitterly divides society and peoples. It was perhaps fitting that the Queen died at her beloved Balmoral estate. For not only was she a countrywoman in her heart of hearts, but the remoteness of the castle is a parable for her life. As a sovereign, surprisingly down to earth, yet head of the United Kingdom's most anachronistic institution. As a person, ceaselessly on walkabout, yet by constitutional position and political necessity, removed from our daily lives by great distance. From her earliest broadcasts she belied her years, and in principle and practice was a living rebuke to the Churchillian refrain 'she is only a child'. > If we all go forward together with an unwavering faith, a high courage, and a quiet heart, we shall be able to make of this ancient commonwealth, which we all love so dearly, an even grander thing - more free, more prosperous, more happy and a more powerful influence for good in the world - than it has been in the greatest days of our forefathers. > > — [A speech by the Queen on her 21st Birthday, 1947](https://www.royal.uk/21st-birthday-speech-21-april-1947?ref=robert.winter.ink) Yet for the countless recorded statements made during her life, we all, even the Prime Ministers who met with her weekly, pause to wonder: 'what did she really think?' This wondering about her views is as much a result of her firm adherence to constitution responsibilities as it was a lifelong echo of her birthday broadcast in 1947 — her determination to go forward with a quiet heart. Her passing has reminded me of the smallness of the politicians of our age, who’s coming and going seems barely more than a ripple on the waters of the affairs of state. The passing and funereal journey of the Queen, has swept the British Nation and the world like the breaking of a dam — a wave of loss, admiration, longing, and even fear. That she must die was inevitable, but for those of us who have only ever known the certainty of one monarch, her passing is akin to the loss of a parent. A break with the past, with the certainty that things will happen as they should, and everything is in its rightful place. Britain, long since fallen from its position as the greatest empire under the sun, seems to be an ever-shrinking place. Its institutions seem increasingly in the grip of woke philosophy, while populist leaders stalk the media landscape. Perhaps it is fitting, in this nadir of national pride as statues are pulling down and revisionists are madly seeking to rewrite history in their own image, that the second great Elizabethan age has come to an end. Lest I end on a note of gloom, let us not forget that at the start of her reign, the grandeur of Empire was in its first death throws and a sense of hopelessness pervaded much of the nation. Yet the inimitable C. S. Lewis penned these thoughts on the future: > You know, over here people did not get that fairy-tale feeling about the coronation. What impressed most who saw it was the fact that the Queen herself appeared to be quite overwhelmed by the sacramental side of it. Hence, in the spectators, a feeling of (one hardly knows how to describe it) — awe — pity — pathos — mystery. The pressing of that huge, heavy crown on that small, young head becomes a sort of symbol of the situation of humanity itself: humanity called by God to be his vice-regent and high priest on earth, yet feeling so inadequate. As if he said, “In my inexorable love I shall lay upon the dust that you are glories and dangers and responsibilities beyond your understanding.” Do you see what I mean? One has missed the whole point unless one feels that we have all been crowned and that coronation is somehow, if splendid, a tragic splendour. > > — C. S. Lewis (Letters, 3:343): 1953 Perhaps her reign was a tragic splendour, but if so, may we see many more centuries of just such a tragedy. She lived with a sense of unwavering faith, a high courage, and a quiet heart. For that I can but say: ### Thank you Ma'am, for everything. ### The Subjective Nature of 'Nothing to Hide' URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-subjective-nature-of-nothing-to-hide/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T10:15:37.000Z I read a marvellous article by [Dan Arel](https://www.danarel.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) titled [*Hide Nothing*](https://www.privacyguides.org/blog/2022/06/09/hide-nothing/?ref=robert.winter.ink). I usually find myself aligned with Dan's columns on privacy, as he takes a very practical approach. Not everyone has the same [threat profile](https://www.privacyguides.org/basics/threat-modeling/?ref=robert.winter.ink) and thus not everyone needs to live their life as though they are [Edward Snowden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward%5FSnowden?ref=robert.winter.ink). However, one underpinning aspect of the article struck a discordant note: > … his \[Jeffrey Burrill\] personal life was not harming others and was just that, his personal life. The challenge with this statement is that it runs the risk of a [category error](https://robert.winter.ink/moxie-and-the-server/), in first asserting that someone is not causing harm, and then observing that in any event, one's personal life should be off limits to public scrutiny. As Daniel Conway correctly notes: > healthy' self-creation is never strictly private… \[because it involves\] a Dionysian element of excess or superfluity which cannot be contained to a private sphere. > > Daniel W. Conway, *Nietzsche & the Political* (New York; London: Routledge, 1997), p. 129. Strip aside esoteric concepts like 'Dionysian' and what Conway is arguing is that what I do in my private life — the beliefs I hold, the actions I take, the decisions I make — will always seep into my public or communal behaviour. To take a banal example, if I am a committed and inveterate eater of asparagus in my private life, my public political views will inevitably be coloured in that I am unlikely to vote for any political party that seeks to ban the eating of asparagus. In this sense, my purely personal life of eating asparagus, that I do not share with other people either physically or by posting about it online, motivates my communal decisions and actions. Moving beyond motivations, there is then the separate issue of harm. At face value, we all know harm when we see it and are likely clear on what constitutes harm. But just like a personal life, definitions of harm are more correctly **moral** than they are **ethical**. That is, **morality** as a general system of thinking bound to a specific society, and **ethics** as as a supra-societal system. In this context, what causes harm is highly correlated to the society in which you live. One person’s support is another person’s harm. An example of this is currently playing out in the ongoing Roe v Wade battles in the United States, with both sides trying to take the moral high ground, labelling **the other** as causing harm. Thus I think a better route to argue against the erosion of privacy than to assert **no harm** or that actions revealed are purely **personal**, is to look at things from the lens of 'in the public interest' and 'of interest to the public'. Whether I am gay or straight, black or white, conservative or liberal, might be of considerable interest to the public. But revelation of these things is not in the public interest unless it has a direct bearing on my communal actions. This will likely send a shiver down many people's spines because it seems to suggest that if something has public consequences, then suddenly that which was purely personal ought to become a matter of public record and debate. But that is the nature of community; the personal is seldom ever strictly personal, with private and public sharing a symbiotic relationship. In this context, privacy matters — and one does well to use services that are privacy respecting. But the overall nature of the society in which you live is a bigger driver of your right to privacy and personal liberty than whether what you deem to be purely personal can be kept secret from the public gaze. After all, whether you have something to hide has far more to do with **who** is looking than **what** they can see. Good night, and good luck. ### Marginalia: Anatomy of a Search Engine URL: https://robert.winter.ink/marginalia-anatomy-of-a-search-engine/ Last updated: 2025-11-16T23:00:40.000Z I wonder if there is an alternative reading in which they did not make a conscious decision to be 'evil'? _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### 5 reasons I will be celebrating the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee URL: https://robert.winter.ink/pro-monarchy/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T10:21:26.000Z I cannot believe I have to write this in 2022, but I **will** be celebrating the country I was born in having the same monarch for 70 years. On reflection, I suppose my disbelief should be easily suspended. Life is short, and cultural memory is usually shorter. Thus, the century and a half of political and cultural Marxism easily trumps over a millennium of monarchy for many. But I am glad to say, not for all. Republicans will dispute that claim and observe: > Monarchy is no longer what a great majority of people want. There is a significant medium-term trend downwards in popularity of the royal family, as shown by the graph below taken from [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism%5Fin%5Fthe%5FUnited%5FKingdom?ref=robert.winter.ink). > > — Dr Doug Belshaw ![The chart shows opinion polls conducted about whether the United Kingdom should become a republic. The trend lines are local regressions (LOESS). ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/5af24-opinion_polling_on_whether_the_united_kingdom_should_become_a_republic.png) However, even with a 60% approval rating, the lowest point in the statistical data, it is still a majority. History also shows, in 2005 approval for a monarchy stood at 65%, that downward trends also have a habit of reversing, such as in 2012 when approval for a monarchy stood at 80%. Thus, the balanced view of the data is not to infer that monarchy is no longer what a great majority want. Rather, as the [source Wikipedia page observes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism%5Fin%5Fthe%5FUnited%5FKingdom?ref=robert.winter.ink), with support for a republic accounting for 'around one fifth of the population, this figure… has consistently remained a significantly less popular position than maintaining the monarchy.' I have a lot of time for Dr Belshaw, and that we are often on opposite sides in a debate acts as a marvellous foil against which to duel. Building on his article [5 reasons I won’t be celebrating the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee](https://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2022/05/30/anti-monarchy/?ref=robert.winter.ink), I present my 5 reasons, among others, why I **will** be celebrating the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. **1). I am a believer in democracy.** I have seen first-hand, and through my work in the archives, the havoc that can be wrought upon a nation when it is bent to the will of a tyrant. The difficulty with an elected head of state, is they are frequently self-made people who believe in their creator. When one thinks of the horrific dictators of the twentieth century — Hitler (let us not forget he enjoyed a sizeable democratic vote before declaring a one-party state), Stalin, Mao, et al — they all came to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of monarchy. Closer to our own time, the venal self-serving sycophancy of a Trump or Biden does nothing to increase my ardour for an elected President. **2). A constitutional monarch is accountable.** Which is more than can be said for many presidents, who are elected by the power of a lobby group: by definition elitist, undemocratic and unfair. Instead, love it or hate it, a constitutional monarch is compelled to support the government of the day. A government that draws its mandate from regular and free elections. Royal prerogative also enables an elected government to better resist the popularism that to which all Presidents are prey. **3). The royal family are net contributors to the UK treasury.** In 2011, the cost to maintain the monarchy was \~£40 million a year. But the rent from Crown lands, that the government pockets, is \~£200 million a year. But you may think, why not boot out the royals and keep 100% of that cash? I'll let the fabulous CP Grey explain it better than I can: **4). Our national anthem is representative.** In that there is no national anthem, only a royal anthem which is sung as a matter of **tradition** and not because it is authorised. The importance of this is hard to overstate because tradition, as Edmund Burke observed: 'It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue; and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.' With tradition transcending ourselves and our time, it is the surest way to safeguard a society from the fads and presumptions of any one generation who assumes it knows best. **5). Having a state religion is reactionary.** Reactionary, as any good Marxist will tell you, is simply that which is opposed to revolution. The trouble with revolution, as the note above on tradition implied, is that a clique of individuals seeks to uproot what countless generations have steadily built up, with no resort to asking 'the people' what they want, only to foist upon them what they **need**; or would need if they did but know it. Thus far from bolstering extremists, it is one of the surest antidotes to extremism. This is because the purpose of the Monarch, the church, and the state, is to act in unison to adopt gradual reform. A process more likely to safeguard the national interest than the sudden ripping up of social norms and replacing them with the latest beliefs. So, I encourage you, as we come towards the end of the reign of one monarch, to **support the idea of ensuring we witness the peaceful transition to the next monarch**. A process that is more than a millennia old, and which history teaches us provides greater prosperity for the many than when revolution and political violence stalk the land. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Annie Spratt](https://unsplash.com/@anniespratt?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/monarchy?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### Pseudo-Profound Bullshit URL: https://robert.winter.ink/pseudo-profound-bullshit/ Last updated: 2025-11-06T10:55:42.000Z > It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. > > — Harry Frankfurt, *On Bullshit* (2005) When I was in prep school, yes, I went to one of those schools, my history teacher introduced us to the notion of fakes. Statements or artefacts which purport to be the real thing but are in fact counterfeit. The example given was of a trip he made to Rome some years earlier. During it, a merchant outside the Coliseum tried to sell him a *genuine* ancient Roman coin. At first blush, it looked plausible. The metal seemed old, and the markings faded. There was a passable bust of an Emperor on one side and the depiction of two soldiers on the other. The *tell*, or what give it away, was that along with a Latin inscription, there was a date. 35 B.C. If true, the coin would have been quite miraculous, as it prefigured the birth of Christ. Through a simple mix of historical knowledge and elementary deduction, a process which is often neglected, my history master was able to apprehend a fake. Other examples of this are the way [statements pertaining to revolution are perceived differently](https://www-tandfonline-com.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?ref=robert.winter.ink) if reputed to be by Lenin, as in Vladimir, or Jefferson, as in Thomas; how the [quality of the same wine is rated](https://doi-org.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/10.1073/pnas.0706929105?ref=robert.winter.ink) when different price tags are attached; or the preference of [violinists for new model violins](https://doi-org.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/10.1073/pnas.1114999109?ref=robert.winter.ink) over the famed Stradivarius when no makers mark is provided. But perhaps the most challenging genre is that of pseudo-profound bullshit. Interestingly, though perhaps unsurprisingly, academic circles have differentiated this type of bullshit from the [run-of-the-mill](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/run-of-the-mill?ref=robert.winter.ink) kind. There is a tendency in modern academia to imagine that when something is ‘not a new phenomenon,’ that its beginnings are to be found in the oldest journal article a search will return — usually something from the 1970s or 1980s. But those awake and aware to the history of language and philosophy will apprehend that under the name obscurantism, pseudo-profound bullshit has a pedigree far older than the twentieth century. A pedigree as old as language itself. I’ll save the long and illustrious history of obscurantism for another time because what animated this muse was an article I came across in [The Times](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-intellectuals-get-away-with-talking-nonsense-and-can-you-spot-it-k28gztjzp?ref=robert.winter.ink), giving a précis of a recent study that concluded: ‘when it comes to sorting the pretentious from the profound it’s not what is said but who is saying it that counts.’ As in the above examples of quotations, wine and violins, there is much truth to the power of provenance. But the article misses a trick in that it doesn’t account for context. The OED has it wrong in defining *bullshit* as ‘stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.’ This is because a better definition would be from American English of the early twentieth century in which bullshit is defined as ‘eloquent and *insincere* rhetoric’ (my emphasis). A concept that likely derives from the Middle English ‘bull’ meaning ‘false talk, fraud’: > Sais christ to ypocrites ... yee ar ... al ful wit wickednes, tresun, and bull. > > — “Cursor Mundi”, Northumbrian, early 14c. Philosophers have devoted numerous tracts to trying to expose or understand the bullshitter, but my interest here lies in the realm of the bulshitee — the people who are taken in. A musing redolent with meaning given my social media feed is saturated with people agonising about the ‘algorithm’ and lamenting how many people are taken in by system. My thesis here is that it isn’t the algorithm — though that doesn’t help — rather it is the bulshitee’s innate tendency to believe the lie. While the causes and antecedents may be multifarious, there seem to be two latent causes or conditions that contribute to a person’s tendency to accept what is told. The first condition follows Spinoza,[\[1\]](#%5Fftn1) who argued that to understand an argument or proposition, a person must first accept it. Only later, can a person see the conflict or error in the assertion and take against the position. A notion William James would later describe as: ‘All propositions, whether attributive or existential, are believed through the very fact of being conceived.’[\[2\]](#%5Fftn2) This is not to misrepresent Spinoza, or James, and imagine they thought everyone believes everything they hear. It is merely to acknowledge the thinking that the act of disbelief or falsification of an idea is a secondary psychological position that follows the hearing. Or at least it does in people not of a gullible disposition. The second factor is closely related to the first, in that it is the tendency to confuse what is incomprehensible or vague and indistinct with what is profound. As Dan Sperber put it: ’All too often, what readers do is judge profound what they have failed to grasp”.[\[3\]](#%5Fftn3) In such instances, the receiver of the bullshit has not engaged their capacity for discernment, and thus doesn’t see that the statement or assertion should prompt conflicting responses to the data. In other words, the individual fails to perceive the need for scepticism. The antidote to being a bulshitee is both simple and hard — read widely and think deeply. Be sure to engage both stages of comprehension: the capacity to accept and sit with an idea — so one truly understands it; and engaging the secondary psychological mechanism of disbelief when the views of the speaker don’t accord with third party verifiable data. To these two aspects I would add a caution. Engaging scepticism may prevent you from being a bullshitee, but it can harden your capacity to accept a greater truth. One that may not accord with your world view, but is true, nonetheless. In this context, we do well to reject the bullshitters of this world, but we do our understanding a disservice if we are sceptical to a fault. Goodnight and good luck. --- Photo by [Javier Balseiro](https://unsplash.com/@javier%5Fbalseiro?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/wine-cellar?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) ### At A Journey's End URL: https://robert.winter.ink/at-a-journeys-end/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:24:41.000Z On a day such as this, it is hard to know where to begin. I should be jumping with joy, an ecstatic elation elicited by effortlessly emerging from an extracurricular educative endeavour. And yet the knowledge that it will have taken almost five years to be awarded a degree for a thesis which took less than two years to write, doesn’t seem like something to rejoice. Rather, one should lament the turgid effect of [managerialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerialism?ref=robert.winter.ink) on the scholastic process and the delay of three years in administrative red tape and needless side roads. But first, the good news! I can finally style myself a Doctor of Philosophy. From my earliest recollections, I longed to follow my childhood hero Dr Jones, as in Indiana, and answer to the appellation Dr Winter. Such distant memories rekindle a boyish joy that is mixed with the knowledge that if my parents were still alive, they would have thoroughly enjoyed toasting my success. But they would also have lamented the egregious process that is the modern degree. In my mind’s eye I can see my mother, a most formidable woman, tearing strips off the Dean about the hoop jumping that doctoral candidates are now forced to endure. But to begin at the beginning. ## That’s How the Trouble All Began I think the first error, was in naively thinking that my research journey would follow the sort of majestic course overseen by my supervisor for nearly 50 years before I darkened his door. Although an historian by disposition and training, and despite being given a warm welcome by the history faculty at the universities of both Sydney and Macquarie, I choose to apply for my stipend from a Business School. The reasons were threefold: 1. I had a fabulous relationship with my preferred supervisor, [Professor Spillane](http://robertspillane.info/?ref=robert.winter.ink), with whom I had struck up a collegiate friendship during my MBA. 2. The style at the time in business schools gave candidates much greater control in their research process. Instead of being pressed into, as one academic put it, ‘laying back and letting the process happen’, a candidate was largely free to research whatever they wished and find their own path. 3. Being a business school, the faculty and administrative staff were awake and aware to the notion that I was not a student who chose to work, I was a working professional who chose to study. In the deluded belief that by offering a mid-year intake option on the application the university would intake students mid-year, I duly submitted my application and started trawling the archives. The rot started shortly after I submitted my application, in 2017, as I was put off and put off until the mid-year intake had elapsed. When my application was finally reviewed, I was sent a provisional offer on condition I successfully completed a Master of Research (MRes) first. It turned out the real reason for the abandonment of the mid-year intake was because they wanted to ensure I could start with the MRes cohort in the new year (2018). For those who live in the civilised world, where an honours or master’s degree are sufficient entry criteria for a PhD, an MRes program is designed to prepare a student to complete a PhD in three years. Which the marketing material notes is ‘well short of the national average.’ ⚠️ Perhaps the greatest irony is that the MRes degree and overall administrative process for the PhD, meant that the two years it took me to write my thesis was augmented by three years of additional degree and administrative red tape. If changes to faculty management are intended to improve national averages regarding total time taken by a PhD candidate, they are failing. By my own experience, five years elapsed from initial application to PhD completion letter. Having spent enough time in academia, I can attest and affirm that there are some exceptionally fine individuals who, following the tried and tested methods of sitting closed book examination, writing short research essays, and being failed if they do not pass muster, are well equipped to complete a PhD in three years or less. Instead, student literacy is declining as universities increasingly become factories in which money is exchanged for student visas and degrees (read work credentials). Too often, a modern education accords with Edmund Burke's view of debased scholarly endeavour, in which: > to learn for show is like painting for complexion, it looks tawdry, lasts not long, and is no better than a Cheat. The motivation behind these trends, it is claimed, is to ensure a modern university is ‘sustainable’ and that ‘no student is left behind’. But the result of this process is quite the opposite. Students are left behind, if they did but know it, through a combination of multiple-choice quizzes, pre-recorded lectures, online comment pages instead of tutorial groups, and open book exams. More than one student I met on the MRes had come through their undergraduate degree without once having to go to the library or produce a coherent piece of long form research. This is the true definition of being left behind, as a student may get to add some letters to their name, but without the capabilities that should flow from learning, they are behind the 8-ball and will struggle to understand why their degree is not opening doors in the commercial world. Perhaps what is worse, for those who have learnt how to conduct research and are high academic achieves, the MRes degree is a complete waste of time and money—I cannot stress this enough. For the love of all things scholarly, spare those who have learnt how to write a literature review, form an argument, and discovered that a university has a library, from the unnecessary delay to their progress. Although the MRes proved to be a wholly futile endeavour, I should be thankful that my academic record allowed me to skip the first part of the degree, meaning it was only a one and not two year delay to my PhD journey. ## Restricting the Structure Not only did the MRes delay my progress by 18 months, the business school in which I had enrolled was deemed too successful and professionally run to remain outside the managerialism of the main campus. Thus the Macquarie Graduate School of Management's (MGSM) research students and staff were transferred to the suffocating embrace of the main university. My supervisor and I exchanged a spacious, corner office overlooking the lake, in which we could argue the finer points of Edmund Burke’s writings and speeches, for a cramped cupboard in a tower block that makes soviet era architecture look positively baroque. But that was not the worst of it. The freedoms previous enjoyed by supervisors and candidates were replaced by committees, protocols and endless reviews. I would not be surprised if future candidates find themselves attending weekly work in progress meetings so their endeavours can be more completely micromanaged to ensure that the process is as mollycoddled and wrapped in cotton wool as possible: **disgraceful**. ## Thank Heavens for Tenure But there was a silver lining – that tenure isn’t entirely dead. This enabled my esteemed supervisor to ignore the bulk of the hoop jumping demands and steer me through the woods. This, for the most part, threw me into the fire of genuinely independent research. These were the best days of the degree—alone in the archives, with my nascent arguments being challenged at intervals by the coruscating reviews of my supervisor: **bliss**. ## A Final Slip Twixt Cup and Lip Although my road had been a much longer one than anticipated, my research progressed at the pace I had hoped—yes, it is possible to survive and thrive in a full-time management role **and** write an \~80,000-word PhD thesis. Thus it was with delight that I hit my goal and completed the first draft of my thesis in two years. It was joyous to think I could submit for examination with still a year to run, and make up some of the time lost to the MRes. It was then that the axe fell on my supervisor. He was a thorn in the side of the managerialists in the department, but what did for him was reaching half a century of teaching at the university. Thus, before I could submit, I lost my mentor and friend to forced retirement. Time gained was subsequently lost, as the faculty sought a replacement. To my unending gratitude, Professor Michelson stepped into the breech. We had a great working relationship, his views on the necessity of independent research at the PhD level accorded largely with Professor Spillane’s and mine, and his final edits got me to the submission process. ## With Gratitude and Thanks Although the finished thesis is about my arguments and how I see the writings and speeches of Edmund Burke as contributing to the study of leadership, throughout the work, any mention of ‘I’ is a reference to a personal eye and should be read in the context of the constant indebtedness I owe to the great thinkers who have made this humble thesis possible. Far be it for me to make a pronouncement on the state of leadership, authority, tradition or the myriad other conceptualisations and philosophies described, discussed, defended and defamed in this thesis. Instead, it is a group effort. As Isaac Newton had it in a letter to Robert Hooke: ‘If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants’. To Edward Wray-Bliss, I am indebted for his counsel during the early phases of research. Praise and gratitude is due to my esteemed initial Principal Supervisor, [Robert Spillane](http://robertspillane.info/?ref=robert.winter.ink), who supported the spark of research aspirations during my MBA, consistently challenging my thinking, until a roaring blaze bodied forth during my PhD. To Grant Michelson, who stepped into the breach, first as associate supervisor and eventually as my principal supervisor after the myriad round of musical restructures at the University saw my initial supervisory team disbanded; thanks is due for getting me to the finish line. While their guidance helped lift this thesis up, any faults that remain are my own. A word must also be given over, though not in praise but in sombre acknowledgement of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. As of 20 May 2022, there have been 521,920,560 confirmed cases and 6,274,323 deaths deaths. Global numbers which underestimated as in some cases—most notably Iran, Russia, China—national statistics can’t be wholly trusted. In such an environment, the bet between Harvard Professor Stephen Pinker and the British Astronomer Royal Lord Rees has been won by the noble lord: ‘A bioterror or bioerror will lead to one million casualties in a single event within a six month period starting no later than Dec 31 2020’. To have undertaken my research during this time has been both a testing and a hardening experience. A period made all the more traumatic by my father’s passing as the pandemic broke, and nursing my mother-in-law, Narelle Hills, as she succumbed to cancer at home because palliative staff were not able to attend due to COVID restrictions. Gratitude and love are due to both my parents. My father, Robert Winter, lived to see my PhD journey begin and was proud beyond reckoning at my achievements and writing. My mother passed before I reached this ultimate stage of my student life. Valerie Winter was a true beacon of enlightenment in my childhood. An indomitable woman who blazed trails in the practise of leadership, at a time in Australian corporate history when companies often didn’t even have a women’s loo, let alone a female manager. She was also an early exponent of leadership philosophy in bridging the practical and theoretical gap in her studies at the University of New South Wales. But out of tragedy comes triumph. A thesis of which I am proud, and a marriage to my beautiful wife Halaina—who has been a constant source of love, joy, and support as I laboured night and day in the archives. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Tim Alex](https://unsplash.com/es/@thelondoner?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/phd?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### They Are Teachable URL: https://robert.winter.ink/they-are-teachable/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T10:31:07.000Z In a reflection on Whoopi Goldberg’s recent comments about the [Holocaust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FHolocaust?ref=robert.winter.ink) on *The View*, a comment in support of her noted: > Yup it was inarticulate and she will make a retraction tomorrow. She is teachable and she will respond with grace. It is an interesting turn of phrase — ‘is teachable’ — because it carries the implicit notion that if some people are teachable, then there are also people who are unteachable. True, the person who posted the comment didn't explicitly say that some groups or individuals are not teachable. In that context, we could be charitable and say they are part of the long tradition of harmony that explicitly rejects the thinking of [Plautus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plautus?ref=robert.winter.ink) or a [Hobbes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%5FHobbes?ref=robert.winter.ink), for whom *Homo homini lupus est* \[man is a wolf to man\] was the order of the day. Yet this is perhaps being a little too generous as our modern age, more often than not, invokes the revolutionary spirit that spawned social justice and flows from thinkers such as [Rousseau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques%5FRousseau?ref=robert.winter.ink): > If… you could bring your pupil healthy and robust to the age of twelve without his knowing how to distinguish his right hand from his left, at your first lessons the eyes of his understanding would open up to reason. Without prejudice, without habit, he would have nothing in him which could hinder the effect of your care. Soon he would become in your hands the wisest of men; and in beginning by doing nothing, you would have worked an educational marvel. > > Jean-Jacques Rousseau, *Emile* In other words, if a person is taken in their state of nature, and imbued with an education as envisaged in the idealised society of Rousseau's [Social Contract](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FSocial%5FContract?ref=robert.winter.ink), a truly moral human being will be the result. Yet for all his rejection of the *status quo*, Rousseau neither opposed or sought to eradicate tradition *per se*, he merely wished to do so for tradition he didn't like. In its place should be a new tradition — one that will allow people to see the world as they would in their uncorrupted state of nature. The problem, or dog-whistle in modern parlance, is that such a philosophy deepens the partisan divide by reinforcing the social construct of an insoluble **them** and **us**. Insoluble in the sense that we can't divest ourselves of our original sin: be that the colour of our skin, beliefs of our groups creed or content of our own heart. We are forever outcast, placed in a perpetual state of needing to atone for our transgressions. A seemingly odd trajectory for philosophical movements which were spawned by *la révolution française* whose guiding light was as much rejection of Church as it was destruction of the *Ancien Régime*. Yet that is often the way of brigandage, it longs for what it has destroyed. In this context, the forgiveness of sins or the need for scapegoats to exculpate sin when it is deemed unforgivable. The fear I have when such ghosts of history loom out from popular culture, is that history teaches. And it's lesson is that once a group is deemed **unteachable** — or in more Orwellean language, incapable of re-education — they will be placed in the category of an ever present threat to the preferred social order. Move a degree or two from that belief and we have groups who, because of the social threat they pose, should be cast out. Next stop on this radicalised journey — holocaust: from the Latin *holocaustum* \[a thing wholly burnt\]. Laud Whoophi's comments as a necessary part of free speech, or condemn her thinking as vile and unfit for a public forum. But whatever you do, be cautious when you hear the words 'is teachable'. For in them is not so much the salvation of an individual, but a spell to make swathes of people anathema. Good night, and good luck. --- Feature image by Jason M Ramos - Auschwitz, CC BY 2.0, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=94717603](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=94717603&ref=robert.winter.ink) ### Hugo: Or, There and Back Again URL: https://robert.winter.ink/hugo-or-there-and-back-again/ Last updated: 2026-01-18T11:34:21.000Z There has been quite a lot of reaction to [Web 3.0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3?ref=robert.winter.ink) of late. For those who don't keep up with the tech that underpins the systems and services they use, Web 3.0 can loosely be described as a new iteration of the [World Wide Web](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%5FWide%5FWeb?ref=robert.winter.ink) based on [blockchain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain?ref=robert.winter.ink). If that seems as unintelligible as me simply saying Web 3.0, that is probably because it is. But allow me to try and unfold the scene a little by beginning at the beginning. Back at the dawn of the World Wide Web, or [Web 1.0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web%5F2.0?ref=robert.winter.ink#Web%5F1.0) as it has since been named, sites were static. That is to say someone would write a bit of code, host it on a server and the user's web browser would display the page content once called. Interaction — either between users or systems — was largely unknown thus the term 'static', because the page would remain unchanged until the content creator updated the code. Content was served from a [filesystem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%5Fsystem?ref=robert.winter.ink) rather than a relational database management system ([RDBMS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDBMS?ref=robert.winter.ink)), the infamous [](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink%5Felement?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquee%5Ftag?ref=robert.winter.ink) tags abounded, and interaction between users consisted mainly of [mailto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mailto?ref=robert.winter.ink) forms — where a user would need to open their email client to message the content creator. The notion of communication with other visitors to the site was ostensibly unknown. But what Web 1.0 lacked in interaction and media complexity, it more than made up for in elegant minimalism. A trait which is important to remember as we will revisit it in a few paragraphs. Web 2.0 changed all of this. As [Darcy DiNucci](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcy%5FDiNucci?ref=robert.winter.ink), an [information architecture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information%5Farchitecture?ref=robert.winter.ink) consultant, observed in her January 1999 article [*Fragmented Future*](https://web.archive.org/web/20111110143942/http://darcyd.com/fragmented%5Ffuture.pdf): > The Web we know now, which loads into a [browser window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web%5Fbrowser?ref=robert.winter.ink) in essentially static screenfuls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. Web 2.0 brought greater opportunities for interaction through the dynamic serving of content. This enabled the rise of social media sites, [wikis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki?ref=robert.winter.ink), video and image sharing services, for blog functionality to go beyond the guest book or mailto link and deliver truly interactive experiences that responded to visitor interactions. While this undeniably introduced bloat to sites — creators packing pages with dynamic content because they could, not because they should — it also introduced the notion of centralising content onto platforms, away from self-managed servers. A situation which leaves even the largest services open to being [completely offline](https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/4/22709260/what-is-bgp-border-gateway-protocol-explainer-internet-facebook-outage?ref=robert.winter.ink). It also raised the issue of gate-keepers, because whoever controls the service can determine [who will and who won't have a voice](https://robert.winter.ink/parliamentary-privilege/). This in turn has surfaced ever more urgent calls for making internet services and sites truly decentralised. ## Forward To The Past While the blockchain offers new opportunities to reset the centralising tendency of Web 2.0, a growing band of intrepid content creators believe the approach of back to the past, and the glory days of static sites, offers a far better path to online nirvana than the much touted blockchain. I won't go into the interminable details of Web 3.0, that is [being unpicked](https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) by greater tech luminaries than me. I only raise it by way of local colour for the case already surfaced during Web 2.0 — that a better way to serve site content needs to be found. With some [technologists ditching CMS](https://kevq.uk/goodbye-wordpress-switched-to-jekyll/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for the world of static site generators, I have noticed an ever growing chorus of people extolling their move away from a CMS like WordPress or underlining long standing credentials in their choice of a static site. My [source code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source%5Fcode?ref=robert.winter.ink) awake and aware readers will have noticed that I too walked the static past over the Christmas break. In between gorging myself on turkey, port, and truffle chocolates, I found occasion to spin up a GitHub account and learnt how to deploy [Hugo](https://gohugo.io/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Once my inevitable rage about how technology is documented had abated — why is it that every user guide requires a swathe of assumed knowledge — and my long suffering wife had wondered why I take on projects like this every holiday, I had migrated [robert.winter.ink](https://robert.winter.ink/home-v2-0/) to its new [Netlify](https://www.netlify.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) home. There was much I loved about being on Hugo. The nostalgia involved in meticulously agonising over every html tag and css class, the simplicity and intelligibility of the source code, the joy of [writing in markdown](https://robert.winter.ink/zettelkasten-method/) and having my [Git workflow](https://robert.winter.ink/zettelkasten-method/) push this straight to my site. But for all the joy, there was an underlying tension: that I was back in the loop of spending more time maintaining code than producing content. Plus there were bugs. I like to call them bugs, because a technologist of my unimpeachable genius couldn't possibly make a mistake with my code. Thus it must be a bug, or perhaps new 'feature', in the solution. What also troubled me about the experience was the unshakeable feeling that I was being sucked into a game of [Top Trumps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top%5FTrumps?ref=robert.winter.ink), where site operators compete with each other to determine who has the [least bytes](https://512kb.club/?ref=robert.winter.ink), who has a perfect [GTmetrix](https://gtmetrix.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) score, or who can live [A Reality Where CSS and JavaScript Don't Exist](https://tdarb.org/css-js-mistake/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Perhaps what was most bizarre, though I was certainly a victim of this, was the focus — nay obsession — with which static site generator compiles a site fastest. > For those unfamiliar with the static site process, to publish your content you need to **build** your site before deploying it to a server. This differs from a CMS like WordPress where your site is always **deployed** and you add content to the extant deployment as you go. Given builds take a matter of seconds, and given few visitors have any clue you had a **build** process to go through for them to see your content, this is perhaps one of the more bizarre Top Trumps moments in the static site world. For those for whom any of the last few paragraphs made any sense, and thus who likely care, my Hugo site stats were: \-------------------+------ Pages | 653 Paginator pages | 58 Non-page files | 111 Static files | 0 Processed images | 0 Aliases | 250 Sitemaps | 1 Cleaned | 0 Built in 735 ms I should declare an interest, or provide an *aide-mémoire* for those who already knew, that this quest for minimalism and speed isn't something to which I am opposed. I have mused on the benefits of a [site with less byte](https://robert.winter.ink/site-with-less-byte/) and continue to support a [cleaner web](https://robert.winter.ink/sustainable-web-bibliography/). But I'm not running a site which lives or dies by its speed. As the preceding 1,105 words have alluded, I am a writer who prefers long form to five words or less click-bait. Thus the readership I enjoy is going to be attracted or repelled by the content, not because I have a low LCP (largest content element). For those who have made it this far and are actually wondering about my LCP, since moving back to WordPress on **shared hosting** my LCP is now 2.9s — up from 556ms on a Netlify powered Hugo site. Yes, the pragmatists among you will have observed: "blink, and you'll miss the site load time difference." > For those contemplating their own publishing platform, this shouldn't be seen as a sign that WordPress is inherently unable to be light and responsive. [Susty WP](https://sustywp.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is a legend in the community delivering a site in under 7KB with an LCP of 852ms. Holiday over and time once again being at a premium, I mused on my latest quest for minimalism. In doing so I realised that I was creating as many problems as I was solving. A classic in this genre of new problems was the endless hoops I had to jump through to solve for an RSS feed and to get feature images displaying on social media — I never solved the latter problem. To that end, I have bounced off the nadir of Soviet era minimalism and returned to the zenith of decadent baroque extravagance. That is to say, I'm back on WordPress. I have been through this exploration of platform before, tinkering with [write.as](https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-publish-2-0/) and [Ghost](https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-publish-3-0/) before returning to my [old faithful](https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-publish-4-0/). This is an important part of the scientific process, testing and retesting. It is also an inevitable side effect of being a [platform junkie](https://robert.winter.ink/confessions-of-a-platform-junkie/) and from adopting the Churchillian adage: > To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often. > > [Winston S. Churchill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston%5FChurchill?ref=robert.winter.ink) This is why I will go on one of these little escapades again, in between continuing to hone my WordPress installation. Good night, and good luck. ### Response: Sitting with Ambiguity URL: https://robert.winter.ink/response-sitting-with-ambiguity/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T10:31:40.000Z I was tagged by my fediverse friend [Dr Doug Belshaw](https://dougbelshaw.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) on Mastodon requesting a review of an article. Never one to be backward in coming forward with an opinion, particularly when asked, I sat down to write a response. But my Mastodon instance's 500 character cap militated against a post there. Disdaining social media's enthralment with 'threads', here is my longer form response. --- In a recent article on [ambiguiti.es](https://ambiguiti.es/sitting-with-ambiguity/?ref=robert.winter.ink), Doug Belshaw mused on *Sitting with ambiguity for innovation projects (or life in general!)*. The article struck me, as most of Belshaw's work does, as being equal parts philosophical and deeply practical. As Burke (1957) would have it: > The End of learning is not knowledge but virtue; as the End of all speculation should be practice of one sort or another… \[for\] Knowledge is the Culture of the mind; and he who rested there, would be just as wise as he who should plough his field without any intention of sowing or reaping. Belshaw sets the scene with a brief look at what [Agile Software Development](http://agilemanifesto.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) sought to address. That: > Instead of having to know everything up front and then embark on a [small matter of programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small%5Fmatter%5Fof%5Fprogramming?ref=robert.winter.ink), there is the recognition that meaning can accrete over time as systems develop. But what is seldom discussed is why meaning, or knowledge for that matter, accretes. Often it is a result of the maturation process, whereby a business embarks on a new initiative and steadily learns what is needed—either though market feedback (knowledge creation) or simply because stakeholders gain an understanding of how the process works in other settings (knowledge accumulation). This is write large in organisations that are in the launch or growth phases of the classic business life cycle and results from interactions in a two-sided business model (Muzellec & Lambkin 2015). But this is also the result of stakeholder turnover in a long running project. An example of is when an agile project begins with one business owner, who subsequently leaves the organisation and is replaced by someone who sees the business process flow in a fundamentally different way. A side effect of many a new manager's need to show they are a new broom capable of a clean sweep. In such situations, the development team now have two, often competing, sets of business requirements and a need to harmonise the architecture and build to accommodate the new management direction for the project—without starting development from scratch. Another observation by Belshaw's is: > A tendency that I see with many innovation projects with which I’ve been involved is a **lack of tolerance for ambiguity**. Citing [Benson](https://busterbenson.com/piles/cognitive-biases/?ref=robert.winter.ink), Belshaw argues that a cause of this intolerance for ambiguity stems from the reality that because: > we never have enough time, *“we jump to conclusions with what we have and move ahead”*. In addition, because the world is a confusing place (especially when we’re doing new things!) *“we filter lots of things out”* and *“create stories to make sense out of everything”*. But I would contend this is only to surface the business or innovation side of the equation. To expand on Muzellec & Lambkin's (2015) two-sided model and turn it into a tripod of interaction—between the business, the customer and the development team—is to apprehend what, in my experience, brings even more pressure to bear on leaders who seek to embrace ambiguity. Engineers are, as a general rule, very concrete thinkers. They require highly specific acceptance criteria (AC) for a build, and will test based on a largely inflexible understanding of this criteria. By way of example, in a project on which I am working at present, a tester flagged a 'bug' because in the AC the business analyst (BA) had written 'enquiry' in the body text of an automated notification, but in one instance of the supplied text had spelt the word as 'inquiry.' The developer had unexpectedly embraced ambiguity and inferred a consistency the BA had intended, coding 'enquiry' in all instances. The tester however, unable to embrace ambiguity, rigidly saw this as a deviation from the AC. A process that is doubled down on as testers increasingly use automation to test what are ambiguous business processes, in that they are still evolving. This small vignette is to some extent inevitable in roles where nailed down accuracy is everything. As my statistics professor, [John Croucher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FCroucher?ref=robert.winter.ink), would frequently opine: the difference between 0.1 and 0.01 is an order of magnitude and may result in a bridge sustaining traffic or collapsing into the sea. The result is that in business, roles are largely bifurcated into those that have decision making authority and those that don't. In some cases, this bifurcation is augmented by employees who abjure ownership of a problem. As a former colleague was fond of saying: "I take all care and **no** responsibility". As a product owner I am a decision maker in the process, empowered by my positional authority to speak on behalf of the business. While I may rail against some of the seemingly asinine questions I get during my working week, I need to check my frustration and remember that while I am paid to embrace ambiguity and lead a product's direction, other members of staff are required by the business to follow that direction. In summation, Belshaw doesn't offer a conclusion, but an exhortation: > **sit with ambiguity!** And while you’re sitting with it as a team, talk about it and resist the temptation to bring in dead metaphors. Instead of conceptualising the conversations you have about the project as “going round in circles” consider instead that it’s more likely that you are spiralling round an idea in an attempt to better understand and define it. I will follow suit and also conclude with an exhortation: for leaders to embrace their positional purpose—to take stakeholders on a journey. Sit with ambiguity, but be aware of when a seemingly circular conversation is enhancing a definitional understanding and when it is just a group of individuals unable to comprehend ambiguity hoping that a drawn out conversation will nail down the problem. A conundrum writ large when process owners don't fully understand what they are trying to achieve and are, to use a colloquialism, 'making it up as they go'. Which is not the same thing as innovation. The former, making it up, is the result of a lack of knowledge and grasping for any rope that may be available—even if that rope is a noose. The latter, innovation, is when knowledge is augmented with creativity, and represents the zenith of great business processes. Once this nuance is grasped, an organisation is better placed to embrace ambiguity while providing the necessary clarity to advance the development process. Good night, and good luck. --- ## References Belshaw, D. (2022, February 11). *Sitting with ambiguity for innovation projects (or life in general!) – ambiguiti.es*. [https://ambiguiti.es/sitting-with-ambiguity/](https://ambiguiti.es/sitting-with-ambiguity/?ref=robert.winter.ink) Burke, E. (1957). *A Note-Book of Edmund Burke*. Cambridge University Press. Muzellec, L., Ronteau, S., & Lambkin, M. (2015). Two-sided Internet platforms: A business model lifecycle perspective. *Industrial Marketing Management*, *45*, 139–150\. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.012?ref=robert.winter.ink) ### How I Write—Long Form Research URL: https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-write-long-form/ Last updated: 2025-11-04T03:14:21.000Z ****Updated October 2024:** while the following article remains an accurate depiction of my writing environment—markdown file format for drafting, [Zotero](https://www.zotero.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for references, export via [Pandoc](https://pandoc.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink)—I now use [Obsidian](https://obsidian.md/?ref=robert.winter.ink) instead of [Zettlr](https://zettlr.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) as my markdown editor. The driver for this change is that Obsidian is highly hackable. With its broader out-of-the-box features, community plugins, and use of DQL, I have been able to configure a writing tool that delivers a more powerful workflow. A case of tools adapting to me rather than me having to adapt to my tools. From time to time, I contemplate how I publish. This is in part because I am something of a platform junkie, but also because I like 'the elegance of a refined workflow'. A euphemism which should be read as: corporate IT is bloating applications and driving development in the direction of a subscription-based, privacy nightmare. This has seen me ponder things such as: - why are MS Word documents so large? - Why do I spend so much time formatting documents in the draft phase? Why do I keep task switching when I should be writing? - Why do some applications use proprietary formats? - Why does adding a reference to a large document take so long? Many of these questions have been answered by a look at the tools I use, and brings me to the focus of today's musing: the technology and process of how I write. For regular readers of this blog, you may think I've written about this [before](https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-write-technology/). But that article was focused on physical elements of the writing process. A good desk and chair, decent monitor, and quality keyboard. These physical elements matter. I recall an interview with the late, great Peter Ustinov in which he talked about character acting. The interviewer asked why he manifested mannerisms, such as stooping or holding his arm in a particular way, when he was only mimicking a voice. His answer was that to get the vocal reproduction just right, he needed to physically reshape his mouth. Thus other physical elements—such as how he stood—impacted this process. While on a less impressive scale, my writing process is similar. Having a mechanical keyboard on which to type, comfortable sitting position, large screen and app windows in their preferred place, all affects my writing process. This relentless determination to refine how I write has seen me recently look at changing my workflow. ## From Word to Writer My first step was to migrate from MS Word to Libre Writer. This immediately yielded results as the application felt that bit less bloated. For those of a [tin foil hat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin%5Ffoil%5Fhat?ref=robert.winter.ink) disposition there is also the knowledge that Microsoft can potential scoop up every word you type and check them against a central database. Returning from that excursion, Libre Writer also sports an interface which, and you may scoff at this, made the words on the screen seem clearer and ideas flow more easily. The migration from [EndNote](https://endnote.com/product-details?ref=robert.winter.ink) to [Zotero](https://www.zotero.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) also helped as EndNote's proprietary software and subscription model was locking my future production into their ecosystem. I had tried Mendeley, but the way the app 'vanishes' every time I add a reference was distracting. Particularly if I need to double check a reference, as I am locked out of the Mendeley interface until I close the add reference dialogue. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Teflon Leadership URL: https://robert.winter.ink/teflon-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T10:33:48.000Z In a recent article in [*The Times*](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fe930972-756b-11ec-886c-723ddd37efb5?shareToken=c3ac8944e8d23c4c5c19cea66ca31135&ref=robert.winter.ink), the political scientist [Dr Brian Klass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian%5FKlaas?ref=robert.winter.ink) is spruiking his recent book: [*Corruptible: Who Gets the Power and How It Changes Us*](https://brianpklaas.com/corruptible?ref=robert.winter.ink). A thought provoking author, Dr Klass offers a three stage thesis for why we end up with bad leaders: > First, power is magnetic to corruptible people. Just about everywhere you look, the worst kind of people are drawn to gaining authority over others. That’s especially true for people with a particularly destructive psychological cocktail known as the dark triad: Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy. > > Second, Lord Acton was right: power does tend to corrupt. There’s plenty of research showing that decent, well-intentioned people frequently succumb to the corrosive effects of power. > > Third, we give power to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Power is relational: you can’t be a leader without followers. As anyone who has spent much time looking into leadership will likely attest, it is hard to disagree with this thesis. Power often attracts corrupt people; even if they don't start corrupt leaders will inevitably become corrupt; we are as culpable as our leaders because we follow the wrong people. The difficulty is that while I think this is largely true, I don't think it is why we end up with corrupt leaders — at least not in established democracies. There is also a certain inevitability of solution if we use these three **realities** as our starting point. Namely, that no matter how impeccable the individual, how meticulously developed the system, **everyone** will inevitably become corrupted if they have power. Call me Pollyanna, but that is a little bleak for my taste. For those of a more pessimistic disposition, one can understand why so many people reach for the lever of **no power for anyone** or seek to re-imagine power as not being '–over' people but as only being power '–to' do something. A process that leads inexorably to the conclusion: if power needs to be bestowed, we ought to ensure the individual is booted out after a short interval or so constrained by system that their inevitably nefarious actions are neutered. Begging the question, is power even being exercised? It also carries with it the trouble that we end up firing or neutering the good leaders along with the bad ones. A process which inexorably leads what we have: a race to the top of mount hubris. Take America as an example, we will likely have a 2024 Presidential election between 'a gaffe-prone 81-year-old and … Donald Trump.' A more fruitful line of argument is developed by Dr Klass when observing our tendency to give power to the wrong people and the magnetic effect power has on corruptible people: > When you listen to a train-crash interview with a cabinet minister fumbling over answers to basic questions, remember that. Like it or not, we put them there … > > Corruptible people are disproportionately drawn to power, disproportionately good at wriggling their way into it and **disproportionately likely to cling to it once they’ve got it** \[my emphasis\]. In the face of this, I would argue, **we** probably didn't put them there. In Australia at least, voting is mandatory. This means I have to vote in a Federal election whether I believe in the candidates or not. I also can't choose anyone I like. I can only select someone on the voting paper. But even in the event the candidate is someone I want to hold elected office, there is no follow-up election to decide who will hold a cabinet post. In this sense, when I see a train-crash interview, **we** didn't exactly put them in charge of that portfolio. Rather, we had to choose a candidate put forward by a party and if that party achieves a mandate to rule, the party's leader then picks the lacklustre minister. Not exactly the direct result of our choice it at first seems. I also break with Dr Klass in that I don't think people are drawn to positions of power because they are 'people with a particularly destructive psychological cocktail known as the dark triad: Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy.' Rather, I think it more the nature of the system. A system which is disproportionately more likely to surface Teflon leaders than people of strong moral fibre. To put it plainly, all leadership candidates will have skeletons in their closet — racism, sexism, greed etc. This is not because people are inherently evil, but because one persons terrorist is another persons patriot. The upshot is that those who rise to the top jobs, do so **not** because they are better leaders or have fewer blots on their copybook — it is because they are better able to shrug off criticism and weather the blistering attacks that are directed at all holders of public office. Turning to solutions to these seemingly insoluble problems, Dr Klass' research suggests: > If there is to be a leadership challenge, perhaps we should engineer systems that produce saviours instead of hoping that one will simply emerge. To some extent, this isn't a new remedy. Rather an all too common solution looking for a problem. When scenarios emerge which **need** a leader-saviour — one example is Lincoln during the American Civil War — then both great and self-sacrificing leadership can be the result. But what happens when there is a 'saviour' with no scenario in which people need saving? The result is much that we see on the present political landscape: a perpetual state of emergency in which every leader seeks to be our saviour. US identity politics and the rise of Trump is a classic in this genre. A system which requires a **them**, an **us**, and a saviour to lead people to the promised land. Or in the language of the Trump campaign: to make America great again. If you haven't seen [*Don't Look Up*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't%5FLook%5FUp?ref=robert.winter.ink), I can highly recommend the film as it is a marvellous parody of this phenomenon. Yet progressives fair little better. In attempts to expunge leadership of a predominant 'male, pale and stale' majority, it becomes necessary to ensure that leaders are selected to represent societal demographics. Are 50% of people women? Then 50% of the leadership must be female. 23% black? Then we must see similar proportions among our leaders. Thus progressive leaders are constantly jockeying to save us from inequality of outcome. For this reason, some seek to redress the current inequality though **anonymisation** in an attempt to bring about 'a more meritocratic system'. The difficulty is that campaigning for office doesn't naturally lend itself to anonymity. This is because voters want to see, hear and know their leaders so they can self-select, rather than have an unpalatable candidate accidentally foist upon them though an anonymous process. Unless the process can also self-select for the correct sex, ethnicity and outlook. ## Silver Bullets Dr Klass is right, 'there’s no silver bullet. Bad, power-hungry people will end up in charge.' But methods such as 'sortition — random selection of citizens for leadership, a bit like jury duty for politics — to create better oversight' are only silver bullets masquerading as viable solutions. We already have enough problems with the people who actively develop their capacities to be fit for office without stacking the system with those who have no experience in a leadership role. Plus, if we accept Lord Acton's original warning and all power does corrupt, we are only going to corrupt our randomly selected leaders. But if you have made it this far you are likely wondering what is my 'silver bullet'. It comes in the form of civility. Yep, its that simple — though perhaps I should call it that naive. The creation of **a public discourse which isn't about sides**, much less about 'cancelling' your opponent. Until we have achieved this systemic — and seismic — shift, we are unlikely to attract people to positions of public leadership who are relatively immune to the corrupting influence of power or who are not a 'destructive psychological cocktail' of traits. This is because as the system currently stands, it is not talent, soaring oratory or capability which gets people into the most senior public office. Rather, it is a leaders capacity to not be driven out by their missteps. The ability to be deaf to all criticism — a Teflon exterior resistant to the bonfire of the trolls. Such leaders are resistant to everything, except the corrupting influence of power. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [History in HD](https://unsplash.com/@historyhd?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/corrupt?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) ### Moxie and the Server URL: https://robert.winter.ink/moxie-and-the-server/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T10:44:02.000Z In two relatively well known books, *A Treatise of Human Nature* (1739) and *An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* (1748), David Hume explored the grounds upon which we make statements about unobserved phenomena. There are many examples in the schools of philosophy about Hume's speculations, the colour of Swans or the life sustaining qualities of bread. But whatever the example, everything boils down to one question: can we make a truth bearing observation about something that we have not observed? A recent comment by the founder of Signal messenger is interesting because it offers an opportunity to put Hume's theory into practise and see if we can determine if the view is truth bearing: > People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will. > — [Moxie Marlinspike](https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) What struck me most about the statement has been the many, though not very varied, reactions. Those who agree seem to be letting it go largely un-commented. Those who disagree are seeking to cast it into the pot of rubbish predictions which have emanated from technology leaders over the generations by comparing it with other cherry picked examples. Notable in this genre of memorable quotes doing the rounds: > I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. > > — Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943 > There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home. > > — Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977 > I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse. > > — Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995 While this trip down memory lane is enjoyable, it is also problematic. The reason is that this kind of criticism is falling foul of what is termed a category error. The original example of a category error, or category-mistake, was given by Gilbert Ryle in his book [*The Concept of Mind*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FConcept%5Fof%5FMind?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1949), in which a visitor to Oxford University is said to have asked, upon viewing the colleges and library: "But where is the university?" The error by the visitor was to assume that a university is part of the category 'units of physical infrastructure' rather than 'institutions'. Taking the example quotes above about computers and the internet, the categories are 'projected use' — in the case of anticipated world market and why someone would want a computer in their home — and 'lifespan' — in the case of the internet going supernova and collapsing. Categories into which Moxie's assertion doesn't fit. But I will come to that in a moment. For now, the reason the category in question is important to apprehend is because unless we do so, we can't accurately judge the veracity of a statement. A failure which may score politics points, but will likely result in a judgement based on faulty logic and personal bias rather than Hume's concept of inductive reasoning. A form of reasoning that allows us to speculate about something which hasn't been, or can't be, observed. ## What People Want — By The Numbers Stating what people want is to set oneself up for failure. To say that people want to stop climate change is only to surface people who deny climate change is real. To say that biological sex is a thing is only to surface people who deny a binary view of the biological world. In the case of this article, to say people don't want to run their own servers is only to surface the \~1% of people who do. In what started as a well considered and important rebuttal of Moxie's position, [André Staltz](https://staltz.com/some-people-want-to-run-their-own-servers.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) observed: > This \[Moxie's statement\] cannot be factually true, *some people want to run their own servers*. What is the [thriving self-hosted open source community](https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted?ref=robert.winter.ink) doing, other than running their own servers? Are the people running [Mastodon instances](https://instances.social/?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Yunohost apps](https://github.com/YunoHost/yunohost?ref=robert.winter.ink) etc not people? While on firm ground in preferring to use 'percentages at scale' and acknowledging that blanket statements are always problematic because 'there is always *someone* interested in the weirdest and most niche topic', the article isn't the defence of a love of self-hosting it at first seems. To give a personal example. I ran my own server for many months. In this context, I was a self-hosting statistic. But I didn't do this because I want to run my own server. Rather, I did it because I want to be admin of my own instance and run it using my own domain. This distinction between action and intent is important because to say 'N people run their own server' only demonstrates what people do. It does **not** account for a person's preference. A point clearly demonstrated in my own case when I switched to [Masto.host](https://masto.host/?ref=robert.winter.ink). I now have a way to run my own Mastodon instance without having to run my own server. An example of someone who shows up in the statistics of Mastodon instances, but who doesn't run their own server. A classic in the genre of a false positive in the percentages at scale data. To return to the more fruitful ground of criticism; that Moxie's statement can't be factually true because 'people' **must** include all people and that it only takes one person who wants to run their own server to falsify the assertion. The critics of Moxie's belief should take heart as there are even more problematic elements in the statement 'People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will' than have been surfaced thus far. ## Sui Generis At the heart of this article is a statement about what hasn't been observed and, even more problematically, a statement that **can't** be observed. Namely, to check with everyone currently living and ask if they want to run their own servers **and** to ask everyone yet to be born if they want to run their own servers when the time comes. In other words, self-hosting statistics don't help as there could be entire groups of people who **do** want to run their own server, they just don't, much as someone in the future could decide self-hosting is the only way forward. But to determine if Moxie's statement is 'true', we don't need to poll everyone alive or work out how to ask people yet to be born what are their future intentions. Instead, we simply need to understand the category of the statement and from that work out the balance of probability. To take a non-server example, do people want to cook their own food? Certainly there are some people who love to cook and would do so, and in my experience do do so, even when they have a chef to prepare their perfect meal. Then there are people who, for security reasons, prefer to prepare their own food because they fear being poisoned. Then there are people who cook not because they want to, but because they need to eat and no one else is going to make their dinner. But in what category does cooking fall? If it is the category of 'to prepare a meal', and if we assume that because they **do** prepare a meal then they **want** to prepare a meal, the statement 'no one wants to cook' is false. But if cooking is in the category of a 'medium', the process by which people receive a meal, then the case that no one wants to cook could be made. While this can always be statistically **falsified** in a specific instance, simply find someone who does want to cook their own food, it is still a statement which may be **true as such** because when given the option of having someone else prepare a beautifully cooked and perfectly safe meal, it isn't unreasonable to assert that most people would take the personal chef instead of slaving over a hot stove. And this is the heart of the conversation: not a statistical attempt to prove a zero adoption or interest rate, but to speak to the balance of probability when it comes to what people want. And for a tech leader, where future efforts should be made. I would argue that servers in Moxie's statement fall into the category of an object, a physical box in a rack. Once correctly categorised, there is no inference in Moxie's statement that the world only needs a tiny number of servers, that there is no reason for an individual to want their own server, that servers will go boom and no one will use them, or that no one wants to control their own **service**. Nor does it mean that the statement carries with it the idea that people don't care about their security or privacy or that people aren't interested in content creation or running a service. Rather, it is to say people want a more sustainable way to manage their services than having to always be able to connect to the internet in case their box goes down; having to dial in at 2 am or by the side of the road because a service has gone offline; trying to figure out how to remotely manage a server from their phone in case of an outage. For those who want to believe that self-hosting is the way of the future. In all likelihood there will always be the \~1% who will want to run their own server and will happily rummage through their draw for parts to come up with a MacGyver solution to an outage. But this doesn't falsify the statement 'People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will.' This is because the statement isn't about a statistical number and thus **wrong** so long as a small number of self-hosting enthusiasts remain. Rather, it is a political statement. That instead of investing more and more resources into solving for the problems of self-hosting, efforts should turn to solutions where the weakest link isn't 'do you have physical access to a box?' In this context, self-hosting too often runs foul of elitism. The presumption that the only effective method of a safe, private and decentralised internet is for everyone to spin up a Raspberry Pi at home or turn their smartphone into a server. I do not knock, much less mock such efforts. In the face of them, I only recall the sage counsel of Thomas Sowell: > Freedom is not simply the right of intellectuals to circulate their merchandise. It is, above all, the right of ordinary people to find elbow room for themselves and a refuge from the rampaging presumptions of their "betters". In this context, freedom is not the right of those of financial or computing privilege to circulate their self-hosting, but the right of ordinary people to find refuge from the rampaging presumptions of their technocratic 'betters' and enjoy privacy and security without having to run their own server. Good night, and good luck. --- [*Return to the Abbey*](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eduardo%5FZamacois%5Fy%5FZabala%5F-%5FRegreso%5Fal%5Fconvento.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Eduardo Zamacois y Zabala](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo%5FZamacois%5Fy%5FZabala?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1841–1871) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Linux Paradigm URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-linux-paradigm/ Last updated: 2025-11-20T10:32:24.000Z Everywhere I look at present, people seem to be waving the '[white flag in a temporary truce](https://obsolete29.com/posts/2021/11/23/ok-i-give-up-im-back-on-my-iphone/?ref=robert.winter.ink).' What is more, it is understandable. I have used Linux on and, mostly, off for many years. The main reason for my installation of Linux is privacy and open source. The main reason I switch back — usability. I know, this will likely provoke howls of terminal outrage (pun intended) from those who have long walked the kernel path. But the issue was most poignantly pointed out by my boss during a recent work call. I noted that I was dialling in from my personal laptop, on which I had just installed Linux — Fedora to be precise. His only response: why would you bother? The question initially caught me a little raw. Stung by what seemed a reproach, also in having my dream of a truly free and open operating system dismissed. But once the smart of his words had faded, I could see the question for what it was. Not a reproach, but a genuine query. Why would a person bother to uninstall a serviceable OS like Windows or Mac and switch? Given we both work in product development, the question was one of professional curiosity. What is the value proposition? How does it solve for problems in a way that is different to its competition? Is it as user friendly as competing systems? Can it really be a daily driver? With some of my [Fediverse heroes](https://kevq.uk/a-sombre-goodbye-to-linux/?ref=robert.winter.ink) [ditching Linux](https://chriswiegman.com/2021/10/back-to-mac/?ref=robert.winter.ink), albeit until they may return one day, the short answers to the above seem not to favour dressing one's desktop in a penguin suit. As [Danielle Foré](https://mastodon.social/@danrabbit?ref=robert.winter.ink) put it recently: > If your goal is convert people from another product to your product, it’s not enough to be just as good as the thing they already have. You have to be significantly better such that they’re interested in switching and also such that it’s worth the pain of switching. Or as [Mike Stone](https://fosstodon.org/@mike?ref=robert.winter.ink) asked: > \[Linux is\] more than capable, but at this point is it even possible as a desktop OS to provide that extra bit that would get average people to switch? What is it people actually NEED from a desktop OS? ## An Alternative Narrative If there is one public figure whose loss I lament, it is [Christopher Hitchens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher%5FHitchens?ref=robert.winter.ink). As one of the great contrarians of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, he was a constant in an ever-changing world of allegiances. Constant in that he could always be counted upon to be a pebble in the shoe of complacency. An abrasion to the status quo. A man never to be cowered into compliance. It was listening to his impassioned rage against the system, that honed my own contrarian instincts. Perhaps it is this which has seen me swing against the recent Fediverse trend and launch back into the world of Linux. In some ways, the quality of life improvements by various distributions have made my dream of a truly private OS realisable. Improvements such as the increasing use of [Flatpak](https://flatpak.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) — giving a more uniform way of installing apps rather than leaving it to users to work out how to get the apps they need. Driver support which usually exceeds Windows. More and more vendors shifting their solutions to the cloud; meaning many proprietary tools I needed can now be accessed via a browser. And the ever stronger voices of developers who realise an OS or app *can* be both [beautiful and functional](https://blog.elementary.io/linux-experiment-interview-cassidy-james-blaede-gnome-themes-libadwaita/?ref=robert.winter.ink) are bringing a level of professional polish to Linux that matches or exceeds anything Apple or Microsoft have ever produced. However, my changing workflow has perhaps been the biggest driver of my ability to live the dream. I do very little photography work these days. A field in which Lightroom and Photoshop dominate for good reason (I can't stress enough that Gimp is in no way comparable). My two-decade long enthralment to [word processors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word%5Fprocessor?ref=robert.winter.ink) is yielding to a more nuanced understanding of the power of markup. A discovery which has surfaced [Zettlr](https://www.zettlr.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) as my writing app of choice. All of which provides a compelling counter narrative to the often prevailing notion of Linux as having to be compiled from source. That it requires a dizzying array of app installation methods (terminal, AppImage, RPM, etc.). That a user must master the command line. That the UI is clunky and lacking polish. Or that it always requires a compromise to use. ## A Daily Driver Unfortunately, while the counter narrative gets stronger year on year, Linux is not yet there as a daily driver for the average desktop user. The reasons for this go some way to answering Mike's question: 'What is it people actually NEED from a desktop OS?' - To know someone, who doesn't have a masters in CS, that uses it. - That there is a software store for ease of search and one click download. - That they can use MS Office on it. - That proprietary tools they either need or like will work (without complex workarounds). - That there is a help line they can call ([Stackoverflow](https://stackoverflow.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) doesn't count). As Mike noted, Linux is more than capable and, in what may seem a contradiction, I take heart from the recent exodus. The reason is that the process is widening the debate about what holds Linux back from becoming a contender for the average desktop user. For too long has the *power user* narrative been so hard line that it ends up repelling more people than it attracts. Intellectual freedom is one of the most critical freedoms in society. A slave in shackles can still dream of a better world; but remove the freedom to think and hope cannot exist because we are without the capacity to imagine a different tomorrow. Such an environment enters the nightmare world of dystopian novels in which we are slaves to an absolutely totalitarian system. It is important that modes and technical mechanisms of thought can and are used to enable intellectual freedom. Examples are the invention of the printing press, the shift from Latin to texts written in the common tongue, universal education, and freedom of speech (specifically the freedom to dissent). In computing, it was things like the invention of the GUI, cross-platform app support, and universal file formats. All of which increases freedom of choice and enables freedom of expression, but which can become neutered when technical hurdles prevent us from choosing our OS — locking us in or out of a specific platform. Returning to Mike Stone's question 'What is it people actually NEED from a desktop OS?' I conceive of the answer by drawing analogies from the invention of the printing press or availability of the books in the common tongue. People shouldn’t have to enjoy extreme wealth to have access to knowledge and a means of knowledge production. Nor should they need to learn a foreign language to read and write. ## A Personal Workflow In science, a paradigm is a model or pattern — a typical instance or exemplar. But in rhetoric, my chosen field, it is an example or guide as to how one should behave. One of the most ancient examples of this is to be found in Homer's *Iliad*. In a moving passage, the bard contrasts Priam's sorrow at the loss of his son and subsequent self-imposed starvation with Niobe — who lost six daughters and six sons yet still found the courage to sustain herself. In this context, the purpose of the illustration is not to prescribe a conclusion for the audience, but to take them on a journey and guide them to a better conclusion. In many ways Linux is not a kernel, much less a distribution. Rather, it is a paradigm. A way of seeing productivity differently and finding a better conclusion for our computing journey. I like to choose, not have a predetermined choice foist upon me. To be able to switch if I like and not be locked into a walled garden. Linux helps me to choose. But it also requires of me that I think. Rather than accepting the chosen adventure of commercial software, it offers the ability to choose *my* own adventure. Not only to adapt a workflow to my needs, but also to shape my understanding of needs and lean new ways to see my workflow. An example of this is my recent switch to Git to manage my research workflow. Instead of a dizzying array of documents representing each stage in the development of my argument, I now have the more compact and clear system of Git commits. Keep an eye out for an upcoming article on my process. When I read some articles responding to the mass of publicity generated by the recent [Switching to Linux Challenge!](https://yewtu.be/playlist?list=PL8mG-RkN2uTyhe6fxWpnsHv53Y1I-K3yu&ref=robert.winter.ink) by Linus Tech Tips, I muse that to some extent they are missing the core wonder of Linux. That new users don't have to challenge themselves to do things the way *power users* do. Conceiving of the challenges for new users in that way is to continue with the battle lines between *old* and *new* Linux users. Simply asking *new* users to do things the way *old* users do, is to keep a process locked in time honoured tradition. As a man who loves tradition, one would imagine I’d be first to the barricades in support of this. But tradition maintained at the expense of reform is moribund. Rather, *new* users can use Linux much as they used Windows or Mac OS — if they like. Alternatively, they can use switching to Linux as a path to re-imagine their workflow. Be it learning, working, researching, creating, or developing. It is for these reasons that I choose to switch to Linux. Good night, and good luck. ### Power and Control: Tech Billionaires in Politics URL: https://robert.winter.ink/power-and-control-tech-billionaires-in-politics/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T10:48:18.000Z In literary fiction, the notion of a 'conceit' refers to a solution which is imaginary, or rarely occurs, to ensure the plot can progress unimpeded by the realities of the real world. An example of this is warp speed in Star Trek. But conceit also has another meaning which carries both positive and negative connotations. The former occurs when a writer helps the reader to discover a more nuanced understanding of a situation or object. The latter manifests in a flawed idea. An example of this is tech billionaires running for government office. Don't get me wrong. This isn't to opine a plutocracy, I think there are many benefits to such a system. Thus, my objection to tech billionaires running for government office does see me declare my colours as a Marxist, communist, anti-capitalist or even a fellow traveller. Rather, it is to acknowledge the underlying problem inherent in people with such unique resources seeking popular election. The driver behind this reticence, is the changing nature of the town square. While politicians are still required to [press the flesh](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/press-the-flesh?ref=robert.winter.ink), politicians in developed countries find the public space in which they move owing more to the digital than the analogue. Thus who can shape, or perhaps control, this digital space has an unprecedented capacity to manipulate public opinion. This is why totalitarian states are keen to not only have a [monopoly on the use of violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly%5Fon%5Fviolence?ref=robert.winter.ink), but also a monopoly on the flow of information. In this context we are in error to *only* focus on a tech billionaire's rapacious chase for monetary profit. If anything, greed is a lesser sin. The greater sin is the ability to change what it means to be free. Free of continuous surveillance. Free of psychological manipulation. Free of being co-opted into their vision of the world. Free of their determination of what it means to be a community. Free to retain some measure of our [ambient privacy](https://robert.winter.ink/so-this-is-how-privacy-dies/). ## Down the Rabbit Hole In a sense, the rise of Trump, the Brexit outcome, and co-opting of social media by *bad* actors has been a critical watershed in the rise of public awareness when it comes to the problems of algorithm. Until relatively recent events, the problem was still there, but because the platforms were predominantly being used to press a progressive agenda, many only saw technology's capacity for a '[Great Awokening](https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18259865/great-awokening-white-liberals-race-polling-trump-2020?ref=robert.winter.ink)'. By the time realisation dawned that a weapon has no moral compass and can be used for any political agenda, the path down the rabbit hole the tech billionaires had led us couldn't be easily retraced. Although I feel poor, given the society in which I live, in world terms I am rich. Both financially, in that I can afford subscriptions and services may people can't. But also intellectually, in that I know enough about the digital world to setup my own platform: a blog, [social media](https://social.winter.ink/@robert?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [video service](https://video.winter.ink/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This means that at an individual level I have more capacity than it first seems to manage both my privacy and the ability of an algorithm to manipulate my political choices. This however, does not remove the capacity for tech companies to build a psychological profile from my digital wanderings. The capacity to profile is crucial in the contest for the public square because that which is false does not, by definition, need to correspond to any set of facts, it merely needs to be believed to gain credence. Thus knowing what people are likely to believe is a powerful tool. ## Contempt for Reality [Edmund Burke](http://%5BEdmund%20Burke%20-%20Wikipedia%5D%28https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund%5FBurke%29) opined this perversity of discourse when he observed: > it is far more easy to maintain a wrong cause, and to support paradoxical opinions to the satisfaction of a common auditory, than to establish a doubtful truth by solid and conclusive arguments. What a close reading of thinkers such as Burke reveals, is how the disinterest, even contempt for objective reality, is not so much the construct of a particular leader or even leadership style, rather it is a product of the society in which these traits flourish. Yet Burke, crucially, went one step further in observing that emotion and personal belief is in time replaced by reason. A process which seeks to affirm society’s new truth by a series of proofs that can have the result of moving acceptance of a particular world view from a state of pure belief to an embrace of *the facts*. But this can only work if dominion is held over those who form and direct public opinion: leaders, clerics, journalists, scholars and, in the modern age, celebrities and influencers. In other words: society’s complex interactions throw up a set of beliefs, which are then installed as reality by those who are thought to be the initiators, but who in fact have only conferred the status of *truth* on what was already believed by a population. Once dominion over belief is achieved, activists for causes are raised to the level of demagogues, who in Burke’s day mounted their attacks on religion and all emblems of the state with ‘unremitting industry to blacken and discredit in every way, and by every means, all those who did not hold their faction.’ Then, the ‘literary cabal’ was animated against the Church and the [*Ancien Régime*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancien%5FR%C3%A9gime?ref=robert.winter.ink), today, ire is directed at scholars, politicians and other public figures who fail to uphold activist directives regarding what is acceptable speech; with journal articles, lectures, speeches and post policed for signs of transgression. Where acquiescence can not be secured, their ‘followers’ become the focus of pogroms. In academia, examples of this are the withdraw of ‘[all discretionary work and goodwill collaborations](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57422751?ref=robert.winter.ink),’ effectively punishing students for the sins of their faculty. In such a context leaders of change are not striking a match, they are merely stoking a fire already kindled in the breast of potential followers. ## Power and Control Such conceptualisations reveal a profoundly asymmetrical aspect of leadership and begins to unpack why so many followers are only too willing to believe the lie. In this sense it is to misconstrue the situation to imagine that only leaders do the lying. Rather, followers lie to themselves, ignoring or outright rejecting objective reality, and gravitating to leaders who confirm or unlock their pre-existing biases. Trump realised as much, and while it may feel comforting to ridicule and despise his brand of politics, it is folly to lull oneself into a false sense of security and imagine that millions of people don't share his view. Or rather, they held this view before Trump entered the fray as their champion. Yet even when in Power, with access to the CIA, FBI and NSA, Trump had only of a fraction of the computing power and *consumer insights* that are at the disposal of tech billionaires. Perhaps more to the point, he lacked the ability to maintain his conduit to the people once access to the dominant platforms had been [withdrawn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter%5Fsuspensions?ref=robert.winter.ink#Donald%5FTrump). As [Niall Ferguson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall%5FFerguson?ref=robert.winter.ink) rightly warned at the outset of the Trump presidency. Don't worry about the populist, worry about what comes after them. And what is coming seems clear: Billionaires of the [2.0 revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web%5F2.0?ref=robert.winter.ink). Perhaps it is fitting I close with [Glenn Greenwald's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn%5FGreenwald?ref=robert.winter.ink) [warning](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b51d11ba-3e76-11ec-a9ce-48a11f44f00d?ref=robert.winter.ink): > It is simply unavoidable — inevitable — that the ideology, views and political agenda of a billionaire funder will end up contaminating and dominating any project for which they are the exclusive or primary funder... No matter how benevolent and well-intentioned they may be, the power and control they will inevitably wield, even if they try not to, will be limitless. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Niv Singer](https://unsplash.com/@niv?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### Santa Fe Emergent Engineering 2021: Niall Ferguson URL: https://robert.winter.ink/santa-fe-emergent-engineering-2021-niall-ferguson/ Last updated: 2026-01-28T10:48:43.000Z This year the Santa Fe Institute held its [Annual ACtioN & Board of Trustees Symposium: Emergent Engineering](https://santafe.edu/events/annual-action-board-trustees-symposium-emergent-en?ref=robert.winter.ink) during which [Niall Ferguson](https://www.niallferguson.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) spoke about Emergently Engineering the Past. Some highlights from his presentation: > Most of what we call #history is the close study of tail events that *really* are interesting because of the scale of mortality, the spectacular nature of the failure, the nature that disasters are not evenly distributed. > The idea that manmade and natural disasters are the same is brilliantly presented in this cartoon in the North Carolina Health Bulletin in 1919...if it's death tolls you're interested in, there's a lot to be said for this point. > The bureaucratic control mechanisms of the 20th Century turn out to be a disaster multiplier...the US #bureaucracy of today is a bewildering pyramidal structures that I suspect would appal the Founding Fathers if they could see it. > I think if you ask who did best through the #pandemic last year, the answer would be #Taiwan — who used the crisis as an opportunity to build up tech infrastructure to improve the #antifragility of their governance and emergency response. ### Polywork, A New Professional Network URL: https://robert.winter.ink/polywork-a-new-professional-network/ Last updated: 2026-02-19T10:48:55.000Z In a recent ambling along the [Fediverse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse?ref=robert.winter.ink) road, I discovered a new professional networking initiative called [Polywork](https://www.polywork.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). The premise of its creators is fairly simple: > We just thought it was high time a professional network existed that let you represent all the wonderful things you actually do as a professional…we want to build a network that empowers you and gives you control over your identity and your future opportunities. LinkedIn has become a social media mess. If you are not being marketed to, it is usually because you are merely a data pawn in someone else's marketing plan. And this is before we get into the raft of automated messages, manipulative algorithms, spam from sales people and a UI which seems to have been built by planning a game of pin a tail on the donkey. I may be a fine figure of a man, but I don't need to see my profile picture four times on the one interface. Add to this the troubling sense that the site hasn't made up its mind what it wants to be: job board, learning hub, microblog, industry news site, community forum. In trying to be all things to all people, it seems to be nothing to anyone. Except that its active user base, much like the book of face (recently rebranded as '[Meta](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/28/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-meta-metaverse?ref=robert.winter.ink)'), means people feel a compulsion to be on there. All of this is a far cry from the promise of its vision and mission: > Vision > > Create economic opportunity for every member of the global workforce. > > Mission > > The mission of LinkedIn is simple: connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful. For those who have apprehended their pay cheque arrives whether they are on LinkedIn or not, the alternatives are problematic. First up, we have portfolio sites like [GitHub](https://github.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Great if you are a programmer and want a space to host your project. But less useful if you don't have a portfolio of code or have a series of projects but also want to showcase your passion for photography, horse riding or incipient efforts at being a DJ. For those wanting more, a personal website tends to surface as the best option. But while flexible, this path comes with a high toll in terms of management complexity (hosting, ongoing site maintenance and poor exposure). The latter is, in a world of turnkey CMS, the bigger problem as one has to resort to Mastodon, Twitter, FB et al, or the black arts of SEO, to promote one's work. A road which brings a person back full circle to finding an organic exposure site. This is where Polywork comes in as it aims to be different. Something more akin to a changelog of your professional interests and pursuits than mere online CV or employment website. I have often thought that an individual is far more than their job title or pay scale. Which means that even in a professional networking context, your portfolio of experience should also include your experiences. An old school HR Manager will be dismissive of this, but thankfully they are a dying breed as people become aware we are the sum of our parts not our paid roles. The downside is the site still has, as at the time of writing, a restricted sign up process. Meaning you need to join a waitlist or know someone who can share a VIP code to get a login. But it's worth the wait as it gives an online space to answer that perennial question one gets at parties: 'what do you do?' A question which, if you are a storyteller, problem solver, mentor, advisor and rabbit hole voyager all at the same time, is not a question which can be answered with a job title alone. Good night, and good luck. --- [A farmer telling his family, a doctor, a vicar and a lawyer](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A%5Ffarmer%5Ftelling%5Fhis%5Ffamily,%5Fa%5Fdoctor,%5Fa%5Fvicar%5Fand%5Fa%5Flawyer%5FWellcome%5FV0011022.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink) by H.W. Bunbury is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Fourth Way - Living in Harmony with our Online Presence URL: https://robert.winter.ink/fourth-way-living-in-harmony-with-our-online-presence/ Last updated: 2026-02-19T10:51:50.000Z [Camille Flammarion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille%5FFlammarion?ref=robert.winter.ink)'s 1888 book, *L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire* \[The Atmosphere: Popular Meteorology\], contains a striking wood engraving that depicts a missionary of the Middle Ages who tells that he had 'found the point where the sky and the Earth touch.' At this intersection, where heaven and earth meet, the missionary is able to pass his head through the sky and glimpse the realm which lies beyond the heavens. Flammarion makes clear the purpose of his imagery: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/11ca1-flammarion_1200.jpg) The Flammarion engraving is a wood engraving by an unknown artist that first appeared in Camille Flammarion's L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire (1888) > Whether the sky be clear or cloudy, it always seems to us to have the shape of an elliptic arch; far from having the form of a circular arch, it always seems flattened and depressed above our heads, and gradually to become farther removed toward the horizon. Our ancestors imagined that this blue vault was really what the eye would lead them to believe it to be; but, as [Voltaire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire?ref=robert.winter.ink) remarks, this is about as reasonable as if a silk-worm took his web for the limits of the universe. The Greek astronomers represented it as formed of a solid crystal substance; and so recently as [Copernicus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus?ref=robert.winter.ink), a large number of astronomers thought it was as solid as plate-glass. The Latin poets placed the divinities of [Olympus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount%5FOlympus?ref=robert.winter.ink) and the stately mythological court upon this vault, above the planets and the fixed stars. Previous to the knowledge that the earth was moving in space, and that space is everywhere, theologians had installed the Trinity in the [empyrean](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyrean?ref=robert.winter.ink), the glorified body of Jesus, that of the Virgin Mary, the [angelic hierarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian%5Fangelic%5Fhierarchy?ref=robert.winter.ink), the saints, and all the heavenly host…. A naïve missionary of the Middle Ages even tells us that, in one of his voyages in search of the [terrestrial paradise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden%5Fof%5FEden?ref=robert.winter.ink), he reached the horizon where the earth and the heavens met, and that he discovered a certain point where they were not joined together, and where, by stooping his shoulders, he passed under the roof of the heavens… As a vision of how we view this thing called life, it is striking for its ability to provide a vivid conceptualisation that accounts for the idea that what we see is not all there is. Yet in apprehending there is more to life, is to also acknowledge that we may not be able to glimpse the more, let alone touch it, because we are not able to fine the point where heaven meets the earth. This idea got me to thinking about a much neglected thinker, [Pyotr Demianovich Ouspenskii](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.%5FD.%5FOuspensky?ref=robert.winter.ink#Fourth%5FWay). More commonly known as P.D. Ouspensky. Much of Ouspensky's work revolved around [George Gurdjieff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FGurdjieff?ref=robert.winter.ink)'s philosophy of the [Fourth Way](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth%5FWay?ref=robert.winter.ink) and was elucidated in a series of talks given between 1921 and 1946\. Ouspensky's students published his thinking in a book, [*The Fourth Way*](https://robert.winter.ink/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/The-Fourth-Way-by-Ouspensky.pdf), which repays the reading because it searches for an alternative to the more traditional schools of monks, yogis and fakirs that all require practitioners to cloister themselves away from the world: - The Way of the [***Monk***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk?ref=robert.winter.ink) The Monk works to obtain mastery of the attention (self-mastery) through struggles with \[controlling\] the affections, in the domain, as we say, of the heart, which has been emphasized in the west, and come to be known as the way of faith due to its practice particularly in Catholicism. - The Way of the [***Yogi***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi?ref=robert.winter.ink) The Yogi works to obtain the same mastery of the attention (as before: 'self mastery') through struggles with \[controlling\] mental habits and capabilities. - The Way of the [***Fakir***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fakir?ref=robert.winter.ink) The Fakir works to obtain the same mastery of the attention (self-mastery) through struggles with \[controlling\] the physical body involving difficult physical exercises and postures. Instead of these three paths, the Fourth Way seeks to provide an alternative in which a student can seek to find a sense of mastery while still living their everyday life. Remaining in and of the world instead of apart from it. The Fourth Way is also unique in that it stresses the importance of self-verification. In so far as while a student of the Fourth Way may have a teacher, there is no emphasis on acceptance of the teacher's practices. Instead, a student is encouraged to verify ideas for themselves and only practice that which they understand. In an increasingly connected world, there are tantalising parallels between these ancient practices and the stress and strain that results from a life in which we are always *on*. We can pursue the way of the monk and ameliorate our ad strewn and often 'triggered' online existence by seeking safe spaces and corners of the web where we feel emotional fulfilment through doctrinal confirmation. We can pursue the way of the Yogi and seek mastery of our digital lives through filters to control our mental habits by invoking improved algorithms and more personalised recommendations that enforce our preferred mental habits. We can pursue the way of the Fakir and seek escape through going offline and testing our physical abilities so that we are cleansed of digital contamination. Or we can pursue a Fourth Way and manage communication via pull rather than push, so that content is served when we seek rather than when we are found. By preferring systems that liberate rather than lock in, by choosing substance over form and by understanding, as Ouspensky observed, that 'it is impossible to recognize a wrong way without knowing the right way. This means that it is no use troubling oneself how to recognize a wrong way. One must think of how to find the right way.' Good night, and good luck. --- [Flammarion Engraving](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion%5Fengraving?ref=robert.winter.ink) by Anonymous and coloured by [Heikenwaelder Hugo](https://heikenwaelder.at/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [CC BY-SA 2.5](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### My Copy of The Times URL: https://robert.winter.ink/my-copy-of-the-times/ Last updated: 2026-02-20T10:41:53.000Z In days or yore, I would have spoken of ‘my copy of The Times.’ After all, it is a hard copy, I paid for it and I can port it around. It is, for all intents and purposes, **mine**. But in the digital age it isn’t ‘my copy,’ rather it is my temporary access so long as the subscription lasts. Of course, in the era of ‘my copy’ there was no assertion to a copy(right), much less copy(left), over the printed work. Just the joy that it was mine to possess for as long the ink remained indelible. To wit, used here in the sense of knowledge and stemming from the Latin *videre* (to see) by way of the Old English witan, my mind has begun rotating further on the notion of creating [a personal archive](https://robert.winter.ink/intellectual-warehouse/) of articles so as to preserve a modern equivalent of ‘my copy of The Times’ for posterity. Mike Stone put me, [or did I put him?](https://mikestone.me/new-features-for-vivaldi-notes/?ref=robert.winter.ink), onto the notion of using [Zotero](https://www.zotero.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for note taking. The snapshot feature is invaluable for grabbing and cataloguing articles from the web, creating a local copy for an ongoing reference long after the site has been taken offline or a subscription has expired. That the clippings are offline, in the sense of private, also saves the legal challenges associated in this day and age with creating a [Memex](https://robert.winter.ink/intellectual-warehouse/) online. As I discovered recently when I received a [DMCA removal request](https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/What-is-a-DMCA-Takedown?ref=robert.winter.ink) following an [article I wrote](https://robert.winter.ink/bitcoins-dirty-little-secrets-environmental/) based on a BoFA report on Bitcoin. Although the original research material was posted publicly, it seems Bank of America changed their mind, pulled the report and had my re-publishing of it flagged as infringing. Thankfully I have worked extensively in the copyright industry and after a brief email exchange, had my site whitelisted. So no harm done, but it was a reminder that while I may wish to preserve things for posterity, not everyone shares my archivist beliefs. Causing me to turn increasingly to offline, or at the least encrypted online systems for the storage of materials I wish to preserve. To some extent this is a shame as while a Memex can be, and often is, a very private resource, it is important to remember that thought and scholarship is always a group effort. As Isaac Newton had it in a letter to Robert Hooke: ‘If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.’ When we cut each other off from access to knowledge, we may preserve our copyright, but we run the risk of endangering our copy's posterity. Good night, and good luck. --- [The front page of the London Times for December 4, 1788](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Times%5F1788.12.04.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Life is Long, Access is Short URL: https://robert.winter.ink/life-is-long-access-is-short/ Last updated: 2026-02-20T10:43:21.000Z In a recent [exchange](https://social.winter.ink/@robert/106638336980088975?ref=robert.winter.ink) on the Fediverse, I was put in mind of trust relationships. Do you trust your government? In these unmannerly times, do you even acknowledge that the government of your country *is* your government? Do you trust your doctor? Do you trust your police force? Do you trust your digital service provider? The last enquiry is my muse this day. An enquiry which is redolent with both aspects of trust: the ethical and the technical. After all, I may trust someone absolutely, from an ethical standpoint, in that they have my best interests at heart. But it doesn't mean they would be someone I'd trust to carry out major surgery if I were in an accident. ## Technical Trust The analogy above of the operation is apt when examining our digital services. For those concerned with security, privacy, and particularly anonymity, trust is a phrase that crops up often. The certificate which signs the SSL connection to this webpage is one example of a technical trust relationship. If you use a VPN to connect to this website, perhaps you trust your provider not to keep logs. If anonymity is your bag, do you trust your Tor entry node? For many, the prime focus of trust resides in not having their information passed to an unintended third party. Thus data loss, perhaps even catastrophic data loss is preferable to their data falling into the *wrong* hands. Yet for those of us who are not [Edward Snowden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward%5FSnowden?ref=robert.winter.ink), the threat posed from loss of data outweighs the threat posed from that data falling into the wrong hands. That is why so many people choose Google services. Abhor their data mining and third party selling of precious bits and bytes one may, but even their most trenchant critics would be unlikely to stretch a point and say you can't trust Google not to loose your information. [Though they are not without their outages](https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-down-gmail-docs-youtube-users-hit-by-outage/?ref=robert.winter.ink)... The recent CTemplar [data loss incident](https://cyber-privacy.net/ctemplar-catastrophic-incident-with-complete-data-loss-july-2021/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is a classic in the genre of a company who enjoys a high level of trust when it comes to access security, but which has clearly fallen short when it comes to data security; as in the preservation of. But even if data is not accidentally lost, your data can vanish in other ways, such as if the community project shutters because there is a dissolution of the collective, a company goes under, or the subset of services you use are axed. This makes the question ''do you trust your service provider to still operate or offer the service in N years'' a seminal one. As is the question: will the domain which enables connection to your services remain operable? One of my favourite sources for privacy and security information, Privacy Tools, is experiencing just [this sort of challenge](https://blog.privacytools.io/the-future-of-privacytools/?ref=robert.winter.ink) as the existing domain name seems to be no longer under their control. Ongoing content access is another aspect of the digital dilemma when it comes to trust relationships and impacts projects both large and small. Recall [Microsoft's decision to end MSN music](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/04/drm-sucks-redux-microsoft-to-nuke-msn-music-drm-keys/?ref=robert.winter.ink) or Major League Baseball's [termination of support](https://joyofsox.blogspot.com/2007/11/mlb-game-downloads-still-inaccessible.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) for their video DRM solution. The vignettes above, though far from comprehensive, serve as a reminder that life is long, but access to many digital services is short. ## Trust Thy Self Even if, like me, you don't have a [passion for archiving](https://robert.winter.ink/intellectual-warehouse/), and prefer the ephemeral nature of digital services, chances are you still want an anchor point online and the future ability to receive future content. And with so many services, from banking to social security all hinging on an email address or instant messenger ID, loss of it is akin to loss of the ability to verify who you are. Having spent most of my professional life in Operations and IT related roles, not only having a backup routine, but knowing I can restore from it is a daily mantra. I preference Signal (only because I could get more friends on it), but for my key contacts have Threema and Matrix setup as a failsafe in the event of an [outage to the Signal network](https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/17/22235707/signal-back-app-privacy-encrypted-outage?ref=robert.winter.ink). I use Protonmail, but for key services that rely on email use a customer domain. Thus, in the event ProtonMail [suspend](https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/l1ep9i/protonmail%5Fdisabled%5Fmy%5Faccount%5Fdue%5Fto%5Fillegal/?ref=robert.winter.ink) my account due to a misunderstanding, I can redirect my domain to an alternate email service and I'm back online in the time it takes to say [TTL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%5Fto%5Flive?ref=robert.winter.ink). I use [Tresorit](https://tresorit.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for cloud storage, but keep rolling backups of key files in another secure service. I also keep physical copies of important legal documents in a Document Safe Custody System. My name is Robert, and I have a redundancy problem... Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Brett Jordan](https://unsplash.com/@brett%5Fjordan?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/trust?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) ### A Peer's Tube URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-peers-tube/ Last updated: 2026-02-21T10:33:21.000Z ⚠️ Due to the escalating complexity, and cost, of managing a PeerTube instance, I have closed [Winter Ink PeerTube](https://video.winter.ink/?ref=robert.winter.ink). In a recent article, I waxed lyrical about expanding my self-hosted services into the realm of the media social with a [Mastodon A Mastodon To Call My Own to call my own](https://robert.winter.ink/a-mastodon-to-call-my-own/). The driver is not that I abhor commerce, that would be biting the hand that feeds me after all. Nor that my world view is so fragile it can't abide contradiction, far from it. The cut and thrust of debate is largely what gets me up in the morning. I don't go so far as to court debate as a contrarian of the ilk of a [Hitchens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher%5FHitchens?ref=robert.winter.ink) might, but I do like to know not what is true for me, but what is true as such. A process which requires the constant testing of assumptions. The difficulty, in an online world that is highly centralised, is that the testing or extolling of belief is often challenged by what can, without too much hyperbole, be dubbed an [Index Librorum Prohibitorum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index%5FLibrorum%5FProhibitorum?ref=robert.winter.ink) v 2.0\. In so far as platforms increasingly mandate community standards and then enforce them by the removal of all speech which contravenes, perhaps contradicts would be more appropriate, the orthodox view. Ordinarily this is actually something I would endorse because I am a firm believer in society, community and the establishing or moral norms suitable for the people of the community. Thus when the orthodox view is supported by the evidence and reasoned deliberation and seeks to proscribes that which is dangerous and false, so much the better. But when it seeks to abolish that which is [dangerous and true](https://robert.winter.ink/the-new-cathedral-door/), so much the worse. The threat is that unlike the communities of old, islands in a sea of humanity, the *new* community is increasingly online and on platforms which no longer police in the hundreds, but which do so in the billions. In other words, while a group of my friends and peers may be fine with my behaviour and in days gone by we could establish our own community with minimal impact on others, if we are on a platform such as the book of face or the tube of you, we are bound by the homogenising effects of an algorithm that flags, removes and even bans that which it deems unacceptable. An example of this can be seen in FaceBook's latest efforts to police online speech in an attempt to prevent what it calls 'punching down.' > Stakeholders noted that humor and satire are highly subjective across people and cultures, underscoring the importance of human review by individuals with cultural context. Stakeholders also told us that “intent is key,” though it can be tough to assess. Further, true satire does not “punch down”: the target of humorous or satirical content is often an indicator of intent. And if content is simply derogatory, not layered, complex, or subversive, it is not satire. Indeed, humor can be an effective mode of communicating hateful ideas. > > [FaceBook Oversight Board](https://transparency.fb.com/oversight/oversight-board-cases/comment-related-to-armenian-people-and-the-armenian-genocide/?ref=robert.winter.ink) On the face of it, there is much to agree with and even commend in the Board's assertions. Truly, 'if content is simply derogatory, not layered, complex, or subversive, it is not satire.' As a lover of nuance and layered complexity in my art and literature, I revile much which dresses up pure offence in the guise of 'social comment,' satire, or, heaven preserve us, art. But for all that, I may hate everything a person says, but I will still defend their right to say it. Particularly if what they say is layered, complex and subversive. ## A Peer's Tube In my researches into the history and philosophy of our world, it is an ever present joy that what I read and see is often layered and complex. At times, even delightfully subversive. The trouble I am increasingly facing is important content is being removed because of what could be classified as the trouble with algorithms. In 2019, Mozilla embarked upon a research project: > \[to collect stories\] from people whose lives were impacted by YouTube’s recommendation algorithm. People had been exposed to misinformation, developed unhealthy body images, and became trapped in bizarre rabbit holes. > > [Mozilla Foundation](https://foundation.mozilla.org/campaigns/youtube-regrets/?ref=robert.winter.ink) When YouTube was confronted with the complaints, their response took the form of [deny and deflect](https://foundation.mozilla.org/blog/congratulations-youtube-now-show-your-work/?ref=robert.winter.ink). In response, Mozilla have created an app so that users can more easily document the number of times they are offended by a recommended video by YouTube. While I am first to the barricades when it comes to any campaign to combat the veritable barrage of rubbish that gets uploaded to YouTube each minute, between Mozilla and the myriad of other pressure groups I think that cause is well covered. But there is one cause which, in part as a result of the emphasis on what causes hurt and offense, gets all too often woefully neglected: the preservation of the historical record. This may seem to be an odd hill on which to die, in a world where the digital realm seems to offer the limitless potential to [save and surface](https://robert.winter.ink/intellectual-warehouse/). Yet if Hegel is to be believed and 'World history is a tribunal that judges the World' \[*Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht*\], we have a problem. Particularly in a society becoming ever more enthralled to [Foucault](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel%5FFoucault?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Derrida](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques%5FDerrida?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [deconstructionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction?ref=robert.winter.ink) more generally. The reason for this is the fundamental mythconception that objectivity is neutral, when in fact it is anything but. With notions of *reality* becoming increasingly hard, nay impossible, to express in today’s political and scholarly milieu without being charged with intellectual arrogance, dogmatism or prejudice, it is nonetheless critical to continue to do so because, I reiterate again, objectivity is not neutral. Not in the sense deconstructionists understand it, transcendental narcissism or the manipulative use of evidence, but in the sense that being objective means drawing a conclusion not because of our beliefs but in spite of our prejudice, bias and personal preference. The result is a methodology that separates scholarly enquiry from propaganda and: > requires of its practitioners that vital minimum of ascetic self-discipline that enables a person to do such things as abandon wishful thinking, assimilate bad news, discard pleasing interpretations that cannot pass elementary tests of evidence and logic, and, most important of all, suspend or bracket one's own perceptions long enough to enter sympathetically into the alien and possibly repugnant perspectives of rival thinkers. > > [Thomas Haskell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%5FHaskell%5F%28historian%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) With the edit wars on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) and other sources of knowledge becoming ever more contested in the name of *truth*, it is becoming increasingly clear that the [airbrushing of memory](https://robert.winter.ink/airbrushing-memory/) is as much a problem today as it has been in the heady iconoclastic days of yore. This led me to think I not only need to write about our world and its past, but take increasing steps to preserve the archives so that when people engage in the wholesale [denial of history](https://www.richardjevans.com/publications/telling-lies-hitler/?ref=robert.winter.ink), there are bastions of inconvenience which can preserve that which is being systematically removed from public view. A self-hosted [PeerTube](https://joinpeertube.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is one such small step in this broader process. Much as [Winter Ink Mastodon](https://social.winter.ink/?ref=robert.winter.ink) provides a social platform for microblogging and [Muse & Reason](https://robert.winter.ink/home-v2-0/) for longer form writing, [Winter Ink PeerTube](https://video.winter.ink/?ref=robert.winter.ink) will allow for the documenting and preservation of videos to which I can link in my ongoing speculations about life and art. Links, and the content they reference, which are [permanent](https://indieweb.org/permalinks?ref=robert.winter.ink) and will always work. A necessity to promote the adoption of individually-owned and controlled sovereign spaces which enable an open and healthy web. Good night, and good luck. ### Intellectual Warehouse URL: https://robert.winter.ink/intellectual-warehouse/ Last updated: 2025-11-06T10:45:29.000Z In a recent article, [The Memex Method](https://doctorow.medium.com/the-memex-method-238c71f2fb46?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Cory Doctorow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory%5FDoctorow?ref=robert.winter.ink) unpacked the notion of making a public database of your commonplace book. The idea is based on [Vannevar Bush’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar%5FBush?ref=robert.winter.ink) 1945 '[As We May Think](https://www.w3.org/History/1945/vbush/?ref=robert.winter.ink),' in which Dr. Bush posited the idea of a memory expander: > Consider a future device for individual use, which is a sort of mechanized private file and library. It needs a name, and to coin one at random, “memex” will do. A memex is a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory. As a thought experiment, the [Memex ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex?ref=robert.winter.ink)was ground breaking, prefiguring modern computing technology such as tag-based indexing and full text search. It was motivated by the daily challenges Dr. Bush, and other researchers, faced in needing to search the 'findings and conclusions of thousands of other works.' > Professionally our methods of transmitting and reviewing the results of research are generations old and by now are totally inadequate for their purpose. If the aggregate time spent in writing scholarly works and in reading them could be evaluated, the ratio between these amounts of time might well be startling. Those who conscientiously attempt to keep abreast of current thought, even in restricted fields, by close and continuous reading might well shy away from an examination calculated to show how much of the previous month’s efforts could be produced on call. And Dr. Bush knew a thing or three about the proliferation of scientific research and the double edged necessity / curse of increasing specialization. His day job was as head of the U.S. [Office of Scientific Research and Development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office%5Fof%5FScientific%5FResearch%5Fand%5FDevelopment?ref=robert.winter.ink) (OSRD), which had responsibility for military R&D during World War II. Yes, the branch of government that initiated the [Manhattan Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan%5FProject?ref=robert.winter.ink), ushering in the nuclear age. To some extent, the modern blogs which took Dr. Bush's Memex for inspiration - Dori Smith's “[backup brain](https://web.archive.org/web/20020120231027/http://www.backupbrain.com/)”, John Naughton's “[Memex 1.1](https://memex.naughtons.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink)”, or Cory Doctorow's “[outboard brain](https://craphound.com/articles/2002/05/07/my-blog-my-outboard-brain/?ref=robert.winter.ink)” of 2002 - remain truer to the original intent than some may think. For what most vexed Dr. Bush was how 'truly significant attainments become lost in the mass of the inconsequential,' and the modern blog and accompanying web based search allows the easy surfacing of ideas with an ease that would likely have enthralled the great man. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### The New Cathedral Door URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-new-cathedral-door/ Last updated: 2026-02-21T10:40:39.000Z In taking up the keyboard again, since I finished [100DaysToOffload](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink#hof) last year, I have been digging through my thoughts folder, if you will permit a reification, and came across some musings from last year when I was listening to the [Big Brother Watch](https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/?ref=robert.winter.ink) podcasts. One episode in particular, *Social Media Censorship and the Impact on Free Speech*, presented some chilling changes which happened when we began our first spate of lockdowns as the Covid [epidemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemic?ref=robert.winter.ink) grew into a global [pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic?ref=robert.winter.ink). On April 22, 2020, Twitter announced it was [broadening it's guidance on unverified claims about Covid-19](https://blog.twitter.com/en%5Fus/topics/company/2020/covid-19.html?ref=robert.winter.ink#unverifiedclaims). They defended their decision with some very plausible examples of why their policy has been expanded. For example: > The National Guard just announced that no more shipments of food will be arriving for two months — run to the grocery store ASAP and buy everything or > 5G causes coronavirus — go destroy the cell towers in your neighborhood! ## Dangerous and True However, to this writer these examples are analogous to [Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver%5FWendell%5FHolmes%5FJr.?ref=robert.winter.ink) opinion in the United States Supreme Court case [Schenck v. United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47?ref=robert.winter.ink). In his opinion he held that: > The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. The Supreme Court Justice was seeking to draw a line between speech which is dangerous *and* false and speech which is dangerous and true. The notion being that even if dangerous, speech should be protected if true, but that speech which is false should not be protected by the right to free speech. While this would seem to support Twitter, and other's, censorship choices it differs in one important way. In a formal court ruling, the ancient concept of *auctoritas patrum* \[authority of the fathers\] is in play. A notion which carries with it something that falls short of a command but is much more than mere advice: advice which shouldn’t be ignored due to its authoritative nature. This goes to the heart of online censorship and raises two critical questions: 1. Is it censoring that which is dangerous *and* false or that which is dangerous *and* true? 2. Is the censorship decision following a deliberative process and arriving at an authoritative decision? At the time of the Twitter policy change, several commentators raised concerns about both the [transparency of the censorship processes](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/28/new%5Ftwitter%5Fcensorship%5Frules%5Fraise%5Ftransparency%5Fquestions%5F143049.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) by big tech and the arbitrary way in which they can enforce their rules. As judge, jury and executioners on their platforms, with little or no authoritative or transparent grounding to their rulings, and certainly no recourse of appeal to a higher and independent court, the process is more akin to authoritarian decision than democratic deliberation. ## Minding the Door Fast-forward ten months and the after tremors of allowing a company to determine what is and is *not* true should create a sense of unease no matter which side of the debate you are on. This is because of what the internet *is* rather than what it seems. It seems to be a near unlimited tangle of free speech in which people say what they want, when they want and how they want. The reality, even in 'free' and easy going western democracies, is the net has come increasingly under the control of a very small number of providers. Even those with the technical knowledge and budget to live the [POSSE](https://indieweb.org/POSSE?ref=robert.winter.ink) dream, most are in one way or another bound to services such as AWS, Azure and app stores such as Google Play. Unelected and absolute arbitrators of who will be heard and who will have their service terminated. While many will have cheered the [blackout of Parler](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/technology/apple-google-parler.html?ref=robert.winter.ink), many of those same voices have flocked to services such as [Element](https://element.io/?ref=robert.winter.ink) in an attempt to keep their conversations in their control, safe from data-mining and ads. Yet for all its noble ideals, Element too found itself on the receiving end of an arbitrary decision to [ban their Android client from the Play Store](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/google-play-bans-open-source-matrix-client-element-citing-abusive-content/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Although the Element ban was swiftly reversed, it highlighted the fundamental problem: that the modern day cathedral door remains as tightly controlled by a minority as it was in [1517](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five%5FTheses?ref=robert.winter.ink). French Finance Minister [Bruno Le Maire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno%5FLe%5FMaire?ref=robert.winter.ink) put it well when observing: > What shocks me is that Twitter is the one to close his \[Donald Trump's\] account. The regulation of the digital world cannot be done by the digital oligarchy. > > [Source: France Inter](https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l-invite-de-8h20-le-grand-entretien/l-invite-de-8h20-le-grand-entretien-11-janvier-2021?ref=robert.winter.ink) [Cédric O](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9dric%5FO?ref=robert.winter.ink) drew a similar conclusion: > La fermeture du compte de Donald Trump par [@Twitter](https://twitter.com/twitter?ref%5Fsrc=twsrc%5Etfw&ref=robert.winter.ink), si elle peut se justifier par une forme de prophylaxie d’urgence, n’en pose pas moins des questions fondamentales. La régulation du débat public par les principaux réseaux sociaux au regard de leurs seuls CGU... > > — Cédric O (@cedric\_o) [January 9, 2021](https://twitter.com/cedric%5Fo/status/1347841112300519425?ref%5Fsrc=twsrc%5Etfw&ref=robert.winter.ink) I am certainly not the first to recognize this growing problem, as the quotes above show. Nor am I immediately offering solutions. [A recent article by ](https://protonmail.com/blog/big-tech-deplatform-antitrust/?ref=robert.winter.ink)[ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/blog/big-tech-deplatform-antitrust/?ref=robert.winter.ink), which re-stimulated my long dormant thinking on this from a year ago, offered the following solutions: > 1). While it is not perfect, we support the European Union’s proposal, the [Digital Markets Act](https://protonmail.com/blog/digital-markets-act-explained/?ref=robert.winter.ink). If vigorously and swiftly enforced, it could effectively curb Google’s and the other monopolists’ anticompetitive behavior. **If you live in Europe,** [**write or call your MEP**](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/home?ref=robert.winter.ink) **and tell them you are in favor of a strong DMA.** > 2). And we are encouraged by the dozens of US state attorneys general who have [filed suit against Google](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-hit-antitrust-lawsuit-38-state-attorneys-general/story?id=74780182&ref=robert.winter.ink), [Facebook](https://www.reuters.com/article/tech-antitrust-facebook-states/u-s-states-to-sue-facebook-for-antitrust-violations-on-wednesday-sources-say-idUSKBN28J1XM?ref=robert.winter.ink), and other Big Tech companies for antitrust violations. **If you live in the United States,** [**write or call your elected representatives**](https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials?ref=robert.winter.ink) **and tell them you are in favor of strong antitrust investigations into Big Tech.** > 3). Finally, you can choose to do business with companies and organizations that respect your privacy and freedom. > > [Sour](https://protonmail.com/blog/big-tech-deplatform-antitrust/?ref=robert.winter.ink)[c](https://protonmail.com/blog/big-tech-deplatform-antitrust/?ref=robert.winter.ink)[e: ProtonMail Blog](https://protonmail.com/blog/big-tech-deplatform-antitrust/?ref=robert.winter.ink) ## Safeguarding the Dangerous While I would certainly advocate the third solution, the first two bring us full circle to the line between speech which is dangerous *and* false and speech which is dangerous and true. More specifically, who *makes* the judgement call and what process is used to arrive at that decision. To replace a Facebook, Twitter or Amazon with another entity, is but to change the flag while maintaining the same living conditions within the country; to use a geo-political metaphor. However, while the democratic process may be an imperfect one, particularly in the age of [cancel culture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel%5Fculture?ref=robert.winter.ink) where vocal minorities (I am using this term in the sense of a small number) frequently seek to ban speech contrary to their beliefs, it is preferable to the arbitrary rule of a corporation. Yet to latch on to legislation and the breaking up of monopolistic activity as the best solution, will fall short of the desired outcome in the long term. History teaches as much if we look at the breakup of past monopolies, such as the case of [Standard Oil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard%5FOil?ref=robert.winter.ink#Monopoly%5Fcharges%5Fand%5Fantitrust%5Flegislation). One hundred years on, and one would be hard pressed to make the case that control of the energy supply has been liberated from minority control or the arbitrary will of corporations. Yet hope is not lost. Light can always be found, even in the darkest times. If one only remembers to turn on the light. Thus it is seldom about who controls, how few control or even if the process is legislated. Rather, it is about the first principles on which our software and hardware infrastructure is managed. Does it truly safeguard that which is dangerous and true while restricting that which is dangerous *and* false, and does it arrive at this determination through a process of deliberation; or, does it merely replace one arbitrary determination for another about that which is *dangerous*. Good night, and good luck. --- [*Hercules' fight with the Nemean lion*](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pieter%5Fpaul%5Frubens,%5Fercole%5Fe%5Fi%5Fleone%5Fnemeo,%5F02.JPG?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Peter Paul Rubens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5FPaul%5FRubens?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1577-1640) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Marginalia: Protect Duty URL: https://robert.winter.ink/marginalia-protect-duty/ Last updated: 2025-11-16T23:03:38.000Z ## Lightbulb Moment > The Government is committed to improving the safety and security of public venues, as outlined in its 2019 manifesto. This consultation considers how we can work together to develop proportionate security measures to improve public security. It also considers how those responsible for publicly accessible locations are ready and prepared to take appropriate action, were a terrorist attack to happen. > [](https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1393823534393151494?s=21&ref=robert.winter.ink) ## Analysis As a historian I am deeply conscious of the inertia that government has exerted over the past half millennia. A centralising tendency which has gone well beyond a Hobbsean utopia, or dystopia depending on your preference, and created a near universal sentiment of 'what is the government doing about this?' What this is varies, but today *this* is anti-terrorism initiatives. While I am not keen on the idea of self-policing, lest we go the way of some American states, I do wonder if society may not be better able to protect its citizens if its citizens were more involved in that self-same protection. Be it physical, intellectual or cyber. If society, in reaction to recent calls to 'defund the police,' does take such bold and original action, something will, unless you are a committed anarchist, need to be put in its place. Perhaps the *Protect Duty* initiative might stimulate some solutions. If not, then maybe it will be able to add some responsibilities to match the rights many of us demand in a democracy. 💡 Lightbulb Articles [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/protect-duty](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/protect-duty?ref=robert.winter.ink) --- Photo by [Nik Shuliahin](https://unsplash.com/@tjump?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/protect?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) ### Scribble, Scribble, Scribble URL: https://robert.winter.ink/scribble-scribble-scribble/ Last updated: 2026-02-21T10:46:36.000Z I think it was the [George III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FIII?ref=robert.winter.ink) who is reputed to have said to the great historian [Edward Gibbon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward%5FGibbon?ref=robert.winter.ink): “Another damned, thick, square book! Always scribble, scribble, scribble! Eh! Mr. Gibbon?” Apocryphal or not, the sentiment is the apologetic title of another great historian's book: [*Scribble, Scribble, Scribble: Writings on Ice Cream, Obama, Churchill & My Mother*](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL22407685W/Scribble%5Fscribble%5Fscribble?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Simon Schama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%5FSchama?ref=robert.winter.ink). It is a glorious read that, like all of his work, lives up to John Clive's assertion: 'historical wisdom only deserve\[s\] to endure if it ha\[s\] a proper quotient of wit, force and literary power.' No matter your predilections, there is something in *Scribble, Scribble, Scribble* for everyone. Be it political commentary, travel and food essays, musings on history and passages of prose about the [power of art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%5FSchama%27s%5FPower%5Fof%5FArt?ref=robert.winter.ink). But today is not a day for book reviews. Instead, as is my common theme, scribbling about my blogging platform. I have long mused on the idea of adding a notes section to my blog. I have seen it used to good effect by many denizens of the world wide web and my mind has turned on how I may implement. Or rather what I would upload to the implementation. The *what* came to me as I was sitting in the bath, like [Archimedes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes?ref=robert.winter.ink#Archimedes'%5Fprinciple). I have a steadily growing folder of 'thoughts' from which I pluck the nascent ideas that eventually become [articles](https://robert.winter.ink/articles/) or my longer form [essays](https://robert.winter.ink/essays/). But I have noticed that often something will catch my eye, be jotted down, but then never see the light of screen. Mostly because to unpack the thought would either fall foul of brevity, if it sallied forth in article length format, or consume more research time than I wish to devote if I write it up in an essay. My solution: [Jottings](https://robert.winter.ink/jottings/). The format I am adopting is to first surface the lightbulb moment, extol why this tapped me on the mental shoulder, then close with a link to the main article and any additional links which may aid in illuminating the jotting. An example of this format can be seen in [my jotting](https://robert.winter.ink/jotting-who/) about a recent change by the [WHO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%5FHealth%5FOrganization?ref=robert.winter.ink). I think this may help with my output which, since I [completed #100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/100-days-of-muse-reason/), has rather declined. Mostly because it is easy to bookmark an interesting article or scribble a note on my [private pad](https://robert.winter.ink/take-notes-no-one-is-watching/), but the added effort of providing some context in a vaguely legible public format focusses the mind and summons up the blood. A process which will lead to more articles and essays. Though, perhaps the bigger blocker is trying to complete my PhD. For anyone else who has attempted higher degree research, you will know that after a while the process becomes more a question of will power than mental acuity. I am definitely into the will power section of the thesis and am looking forward to closing the door on that project and opening up another to my next great literary adventure. In the interim, I have my jottings. Good night, and good luck. --- [Pushkin Doodle](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pushkin%5Fdoodle.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Alexander Pushkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander%5FPushkin?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Marginalia: WHO URL: https://robert.winter.ink/marginalia-who/ Last updated: 2025-11-16T23:07:32.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Hail, Lobster! URL: https://robert.winter.ink/hail-lobster/ Last updated: 2025-11-04T03:49:16.000Z Burried as I am in books and journal articles, and abjuring the more mass apeal social networks [as I do](https://social.winter.ink/about?ref=robert.winter.ink), much in popular culture passes me by. I don't confess this with any sorrow, nor even much pride, it is just the case, to adopt that hideous phrase: 'it is what it is.' As a rule, I find that which is menaingul tends to endure, and generally adopt a wait and see attitude to modern culture. Generally preferring to look forward to hearing the *latest* music and reading the *trendy* books in about fifty years once [Clio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clio%2C%5FMuse%5Fof%5FHistory%5F%28Pisa%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) has cast her inevitable judgement. But one piece of the popular and on trend loomed into my consciousness from the [vernacular](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernacular?ref=robert.winter.ink): a Canadian Academic is providing inspiration for a supervillain in the [Captain America comic series](https://spectator.com.au/2021/04/captain-america-versus-jordan-peterson/?ref=robert.winter.ink). _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Bitcoin’s Dirty Little Secrets - Political URL: https://robert.winter.ink/bitcoins-dirty-little-secrets-political/ Last updated: 2026-02-21T10:49:57.000Z Continuing from my recent essay, [Bitcoin’s Dirty Little Secrets – Environmental](https://robert.winter.ink/bitcoins-dirty-little-secrets-environmental/), I thought I should give some space to the political dimenion of [Bitcoins dirty little secrets](https://robert.winter.ink/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/03/bofa-bitcoin-031721.pdf). Since the [white paper was first published under the name Satoshi Nakamoto](https://robert.winter.ink/content/files/2025/11/02c89-nakamoto-2008-bitcoin.pdf), the central premise (pun intended) of Bitcoin has been that: > A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Yet for all the promise of an alternative to the centralised monetary systems in use by high street banks and backed by government regulators, Bitcoin is a surprisingly centralised system with \~95% of Bitcoin is controlled by \~2.4% of the accounts in the network. When this knowledge is combined with the relatively small number of exchanges and general lack of regulatory oversight, it raises serious questions regarding the decentralised and democratic claims about Bitcoin. ## Exchange Cash for Unregulation With the majority of Bitcoin mining being done by a small number of mining pools, most people who wish to hold and spend Bitcoin are forced to turn to an exchange. Whether they are exchanging dollars, Euros, Francs or another cryptocurrency, it is the crypto exchanges that are providing both the liquidity and the price discovery. The same way traditional exchanges do for government backed currencies. So much for decentralisation. All this is done with minimal or no regulation. While this is a major attraction for people tired of big finance failures and government bailouts, government regulation - at least in democratic countries - brings a modicum of oversight and transparency. Something which is non-existent in the raft of unregulated exchanges through which vast amounts of Bitcoin flow. So much for democracy. There are however use cases in which the potential anonymity of Bitcoin (potential because some wallets log user transactions), can be a boon for people living under corrupt and or totalitarian regimes. However, this benefit has to be offset against the risks involved in Bitcoin *vanishing*. Either through hacks, theft, fraud, misappropriation or people just loosing their access token. For relatively affluent people in Western democracies who loose a few thousand in such incidents, alternative sources of wealth such as loans and government backed savings can likely keep their head above water. For those living under corrupt regimes, such incidents may result in bankruptcy and starvation. While to simply turn to regulation seems to be flying in the face of what Bitcoin is suppose to achieve, a decentralised currency, there does seem to be a use case for a 'United Currencies' exchange to which people can turn to find both freedom from the corruption of the regimes under which they live and security of what wealth they possess. ## Worse-Is-Better As [Richard P. Gabriel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard%5FP.%5FGabriel?ref=robert.winter.ink) noted in his essay [Lisp: Good News, Bad News, How to Win Big](https://dreamsongs.com/WIB.html?ref=robert.winter.ink), 'worse-is-better.' An assertion that ultimately unpacks to acknowledge that programmers are, by and large, 'conditioned to sacrifice some safety, convenience, and hassle to get good performance and modest resource use.' This is why *perfect* systems may exist in the lab, but it is the dirty hack that is more likely to go viral. In [praxis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis%5F%28process%29?ref=robert.winter.ink), the result for Bitcoin is that the ideological claims for a decentralised, government free, anonymous currency has given way to the 'worse-is-better' ideology of why most people seem to be dumping cash into crypto: to get rich and live the capitalist high life. In closing, I can't go past a quote from Nakamoto's white paper: > As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. 'As long as' statements fall into the same [epistemological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology?ref=robert.winter.ink) category as 'if only,' a subset of testimony. In philosophy, testimony is simply the passing of a proposition from one entity to another. [While it has been argued](https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9213.00154?ref=robert.winter.ink) that testimony requires plausibility, credibility and concomitant experience and competence on the part of the testifier, the reality is that testimony has a *very* subjective base. This is because if a listener *wishes* to believe what is said, then they will because the individual testifying is plausible. But plausibility and truth are not the same thing. It is plausible for a zoologist to say, after only ever observing white swans, that all swans are white. The truth is there are black swans, which is but a simple classroom example of how a statement can be both plausible and false. Returning to 'as long as' and the plausibility of Bitcoin. 'As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network,' all is well. But consolidation of CPU power in the Bitcoin space is following the [Matthew effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew%5Feffect?ref=robert.winter.ink), and \~72% of that mining is happening in China; a country not exactly renowned as a bastion of democracy. This is a trend with geopolitical and financial implications, and presents a future where ever more trust is being placed in an ever more centralising system. The very evils from which Bitcoin is purported to free us. Good night, and good luck. --- [Government](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52468529&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Elihu Vedder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elihu%5FVedder?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Tool Time URL: https://robert.winter.ink/tool-time/ Last updated: 2026-02-21T10:51:30.000Z I like to tinker. Perhaps it is a suppressed longing to be a UI developer, perhaps it is because my father wouldn't let me play with Lego as a child (n.b.: this is only a rhetorical device. My father not only let me play with Lego but spent hours helping me to build and learn). Whatever the cause, when I need to decompress after a long day, I like tweaking elements of my site and generally faffing with technology. Yet for all my ardent love of tinkering, I do like it when things just work. Banging my head against a wall of code only to find that hours of toil have produced nothing more then 'Hello, World!' ceased to be a joy at the end of the last century when I built my first website. Today, I want to invest my energies changing the drapes, not in getting the frame of the house built. This saw me switch back to [WordPress](https://wordpress.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) last year after much platform hopping. It is also why, when I see [commentators leaving the IndieWeb project](https://lipu.dgold.eu/praxis-indieweb.html?ref=robert.winter.ink), I am not overly surprised as too many 'how to' articles begin with 'setup is simple' and then proceed with several pages of command line instructions which invariably assume a level of knowledge more appropriate for a server admin than keen end user. And while 'learn to code' may be a satisfying riposte for irritable programmers, it is not a response that endears laypeople struggling to engage to take up the cause of the IndieWeb, FOSS or other community driven projects. This is what sees so many people abjure privacy friendly, and arguably more sustainable solutions, for services like Gmail and Facebook because they require negligible setup time and only ask for unfettered access to your digital life. A seemingly small price to pay for many who just want to get up and running in a few clicks and then on with their online life. Yet there are a growing number of privacy friendly options that are providing 'one click' solutions and personalized services. As I have listed several in a number previous articles, and with [PrivacyTools](https://privacytools.io/?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Restore Privacy](https://restoreprivacy.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) offering a fabulous array of reviews and recommendations, I won't rehash the list here. Instead I will close with a philosophical *cri du coeur*. If pouring your heart and soul into a project, particularly if you are the lead engineer or perhaps sole developer, consider the usability case for people whose idea of a 'complex setup' is entering their details into a wizard. Consider that a UI should assume the user doesn't have a high level of software experience, nor is willing to learn how to use the command line to undertake some level of personalisation. Assume your user was born after, or at least started using computers after, the invention of GUIs and would like to *click* to navigate; if your solution can only work through terminal commands and needs pages of configuration instructions to use, you've lost the bulk of the computer using population. Ultimately, keep at the forefront of your mind why people use products or services: because they remove a pain point. Electric ovens took off because they are so much easier to use than a wood fired stove. They enable people to spend more time cooking and less time stoking the source of heat. The same goes for digital services. Once the ratio of time to maintain exceeds time to use, people will likely drop it for a less time intensive service. And if time / effort to install is greater than a competing product, chances are people will vote with their digital feet and walk on by. Good night, and good luck. --- [The Infant Hercules and the Standard Oil Serpents](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5330666&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Frank Arthur Nankivell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Frank%5FA.%5FNankivell?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1869–1959) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Bitcoin’s Dirty Little Secrets - Environmental URL: https://robert.winter.ink/bitcoins-dirty-little-secrets-environmental/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:15:40.000Z It is with no small degree of interest that I have been watching [Doug Belshaw's](https://dougbelshaw.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) latest side project unfold, [extinction.fyi](https://extinction.fyi/?ref=robert.winter.ink). I have long been concerned with the negative human impact on our environment and while I am some way off from thinking the world is on fire, it is clear that business as usual is going to leave a decidedly lessened planet for our children. For our children's children, we may even bequeath an uninhabitable planet. Thus my spotlight on the ecological effects of our choices is slowly widening and most recently has taken in cryptocurrency. In part thanks to [Tesla](https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/tsla?ref=robert.winter.ink) investing an [aggregate $1.5 billion in bitcoin](https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459021004599/tsla-10k%5F20201231.htm&ref=robert.winter.ink), short sellers and '[people who refuse to buy into the Elon Musk hype](https://www.businessinsider.com.au/elon-musk-haters-2018-3?ref=robert.winter.ink)' more broadly have gone into overdrive. First surfacing the myriad financial issues, now ecowarriors are piling in to use the high profile platform as an opportunity to callout the environmental harm of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency generally. ### Howling in an Echo Chamber I can't fault the process. Anyone who posts hopes that their thoughts will begin trending and, like all those people who [poured their life savings](https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/11/investing/bitcoin-crash-victim/index.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) into crypto, they are now jumping on the latest Musk inspired trending hashtag. As a researcher, my default stance to such activity is quiet reserve and a high level of caution when commenting. This is because, unlike the activists who bellow 'white privilege' or 'unconscious bias' at me every time I raise inconvenient truths that contradict their world view, I am aware that surging in to trending topics is seldom a formula for success. If an opportunity to push a desired belief into the realm of 'truth' seems to good to be true, then it probably is. Added to which, the hothouse that is [algorithm based search](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo%5Fchamber%5F%28media%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) is not conducive to exploring complex ideas. This process is particularly pronounced in a world in which engines like Google are more likely to return what you want to believe instead of a well balanced and closely argued article that may contradict your beliefs. I'll leave a discussion of [digital tribalism](https://www.jstor.org/stable/26494368?seq=1&ref=robert.winter.ink) for another time, for now it is enough to say the source material of an article is perhaps more important than the articles conclusions. For without extensive research, conclusions fall short of reasoned deliberation and become mere personal opinions. ## BofA Securities Report Thus it was with interest I read Bank of America's recent report on Bitcoin. The TL;DR is that Bitcoin represents a chronic [ESG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,%5Fsocial%5Fand%5Fcorporate%5Fgovernance?ref=robert.winter.ink) failure. Today I dig into the environmental aspects of the report. ### Environment The key problem for the currency, from an environmental standpoint, is that '**Bitcoin prices are directly correlated to its energy consumption**.' The reason for the correlation is that the higher the price, the more complex the network becomes. This is measured in hash rate as miners try and capture a share of the growing value. The result is that over the past two years, energy consumption by the Bitcoin network is estimated to have grown by more than 200%. But perhaps the biggest threat to the environmental outlook comes from the financial side of the coin. Specifically, Bitcoin is highly sensitive to capital inflow. A mere $93 million dollar inflow would push the USD value of the currency up \~1%. To move the price of gold by that much, it would take a dollar capital inflow of nearer $2 billion. Roughly twenty times the amount. Given the close to linear relationship between the price of Bitcoin and its environmental impact, it takes comparatively small capital inflow to have a disproportionately negative environmental impact. What does all this mean for the earth? The environmental flaw at the heart of the Bitcoin ecosystem is that the rising complexity the system is engineered to produce as value grows to prevent a hack, also requires ever more computing power, and emissions, to mine coins. ![Bitcoin purchases CO2 equivalency](https://robert.winter.ink/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/03/Bitcoin-purchases-CO2-equivalency.png) Over the last two years, the skyrocketing price (\~$6,800 on 30 March 2018 to \~$56,100 on 28 March 2020) has seen CO2 emissions from Bitcoin rise by 40 million tons. The equivalent of adding 8.9 million cars to the road. With one third of hash power coming from China, geo-location data mining suggests, and with \~60% of Chinese electricity coming from coal fired power plants, it is clear the future of Bitcoin looks polluted unless the world can solve its clean energy problems. And in case you are thinking Bitcoin is an outlier due to its popularity and other cryptocurrencies are better... Yes, in terms of total emissions, but they are still heavy emitters. As an example, Ethereum's energy footprint is equivalent to that of Cuba. ![Ethereum energy consumption compared to select countries](https://robert.winter.ink/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/03/Ethereum-energy-consumption.png) On that sobering environmental outlook... Good night, and good luck. --- [AIRS Carbon Dioxide](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52468529&ref=robert.winter.ink) by Giorgiogp2 is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). ### A Mastodon To Call My Own URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-mastodon-to-call-my-own/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:16:34.000Z For a while now, I've been thinking about my online services. It started, as so many of my recent online adventures have, with a post from [Kev Quirk](https://kevq.uk/?ref=robert.winter.ink) alerting me to his latest initiative: the [512k club](https://512kb.club/?ref=robert.winter.ink). I have been interested in a greener and lighter world wide web for sometime, and have written about my attempts to [improve the weight of this site](https://robert.winter.ink/site-with-less-byte/). This initiative was right up my alley. But it also got me thinking about my online identities and where my services are hosted. ## A Green Host I have been using [Infomaniak](http://infomaniak.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for several years and recently started using their [Jelastic](https://jelastic.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) offering. It provides me near endless scalability while also ensuring I only pay for the processing power I use. [In a recent article](https://news.infomaniak.com/en/datacenters-independence/?ref=robert.winter.ink), Infomaniak outlined one of their key value propositions: > independent by developing \[our\] own data centres in Switzerland. This know-how, which is closely linked to our commitment to ecology and confidentiality, allows us to guarantee data sovereignty and to control the security of our solutions from start to finish. Musing on data sovereignty led my mind, as it is want to do, to reason that one of the key offerings of my social media platform of preference was sovereignty. Namely, [Mastodon allows you to run your own server](https://docs.joinmastodon.org/user/run-your-own/?ref=robert.winter.ink) which means you have "absolute control over your own voice on the web, not subject to anyone else's rules or whims. Your server is your property, with your rules. It will exist as long as you want it to exist." This is an issue close to the heart of my digital philosophy as life on Mastodon started in a less than enjoyable way. ## O Instance, Where Art Thou? Like so many before me, when I first stumbled upon Mastodon I was confused by the notion of federation. Surely you need to be on the platform with the most people if you want a reasonable follower-ship. However, once I had been inducted into the ways of the Fediverse, it became clear server choice should be governed by interests not by user statistics. To that end, I made my first hop from [mastodon.social](https://mastodon.social/about?ref=robert.winter.ink) to [scholar.social](https://scholar.social/about?ref=robert.winter.ink). This was where I first learned about content warnings. I grew up in a family that stressed the importance of courtesy and politeness, and I ran a number of forums back in the naughties. I thought I knew a thing or three about social interaction and *reasonable* speech. In which context, it was rather disconcerting to be told in no uncertain terms that many of my posts were causing offence and that I should put certain types of posts behind content warnings. If I had been posting pornography, violent imagery or other content which would not be fit for air until after the [watershed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed%5F%28broadcasting%29?ref=robert.winter.ink), then I could have understood. At which point the issue dawned. My views on what is deserving of a content warning is driven by the society in which I live. But for some, my musings on life, art, philosophy and politics were considered trigger worthy and thus warranted a [CW](https://mastodon.help/?ref=robert.winter.ink#ContentWarning). ## A Voice Without Warning While I like to try and make everyone with whom I interact feel at home, there are limits. If most of what I write has to be hidden from view, I'd rather find a community who are more open to the stone in the shoe that philosophy generally aspires to be. This led me to [Qoto](https://qoto.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink). It was certainly refreshing to find that instead of warnings about my content, I found a steadily growing following. But I remained restless as while the increased character count in posts was a welcome upgrade for someone of my verbose tendencies, I was finding most people I followed where posting from the FOSS community. So I slung my hook again and trudged off to [Fosstodon](https://fosstodon.org/about?ref=robert.winter.ink). While never asked to hide my musings behind a content warning, I felt an odd sense of imposition. For while I have a love of FOSS and post on technology from time to time, my primary interests are philosophical and it just didn't seem like the right fit. Though, if this latest experiment falls through, I hope they'll have me back. There was also the additional pressure of being surrounded by highly talented developers and technologists, which made me think I should bite the bullet and leverage Mastodon's great promise: absolute control over my voice on the web. After no small degree of fettling - a story for another time - I am proud to announce [social.winter.ink](https://social.winter.ink/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Good night, and good luck. ### How I Publish — Version 4.0 URL: https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-publish-4-0/ Last updated: 2025-11-23T00:17:35.000Z ⚠️ This article has been superseded by [Version 5.0](https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-publish-version-5-0/) which discusses my return to Ghost, an independent publishing platform. In [How I Publish – Version 3.0](https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-publish-3-0/), I gave a short sketch of my online publishing efforts. In a nutshell, I started my blogging life on WordPress. When I embarked on the [100daystooffload](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) challenge I used [WriteAs](https://write.as/?ref=robert.winter.ink). When seeking a more feature rich platform I tried [GhostPro](https://ghost.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink). But today is back to the future as I return to [WordPress](https://wordpress.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ## Why The Platform Hopping? Part of the reason, as I outlined in [Confessions of a Platform Junkie](https://robert.winter.ink/confessions-of-a-platform-junkie/) is that I love technology. 'New,' be it a return to something I have used or trying something I haven't, exerts a consistent pull. But the grass is not always greener. Something which can lead to disappointment. Not because the platforms I try are rubbish, but because their marketing promise exceeds their tech delivery. Examples of this are platforms who say there is no need for plugins, everything is baked in. Only to find that 'everything' needs manual coding or a third party subscription to make the 'baked in' functionality work. Call me pedantic, but if you sell software with a comments system or paid subscriptions it should come with it. If it doesn't, then its 'point of difference' over other platforms becomes mere marketing hype. But there is more to it than that. There is also the issue of administration. Not in a '[red tape is fun](https://robert.winter.ink/red-tape-is-fun/)' sense, but in a maintenance of a growing archive sense. I am old fashioned, preferring code I can see and files I can organise. I also have a citation and cross reference fetish. An uploaded image should be available from a central archive for multiple articles. Logical layout of code, which is fully annotated, is a must. FTP access is preferred. I enjoy a service which runs out of the box on any hosting option. Be it a dedicated root access server or cheap shared hosting. I don't like software which needs specialist hosting and a highly trained systems admin just to spin up the service. In short, I like DIY which is genuinely plug-and-play. Not just for the initial install but also for ongoing customization. ## Version 4.0 The latest iteration of how I publish has gone back to the future. In part motivated by Kev Quirk who made [*The Case For WordPress*](https://kevq.uk/the-case-for-wordpress/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Marko Saric's [*How to speed up WordPress for a faster, greener and eco-friendly site*](https://markosaric.com/speed-up-wordpress/?ref=robert.winter.ink) added the notion of site sustainability. Something which I had not considered before when thinking about my websites. This notion of sustainability led me to the work of [Jack Lenox](https://jacklenox.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), the [Planet Friendly Web Guide](http://Planet Friendly Web Guide) and [Tim Frick](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920043904.do?ref=robert.winter.ink), to [name a few](https://blog.winter.ink/sustainable-web-bibliography/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Work which brought into focus the importance of a green web host and an optimized site. I have used Infomaniak for several years and their [Environmental Commitments](https://www.infomaniak.com/en/green-hosting/ecological-charter?ref=robert.winter.ink) are very much in tune with notions of sustainable hosting. On top of this base, I have installed the [Susty theme](https://sustywp.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) ([Github](https://github.com/jacklenox/susty?ref=robert.winter.ink) as modified by Kev Quirk ([Github](https://github.com/kevquirk/quirk-wordpress-theme?ref=robert.winter.ink)). Rounding out the look is the [Nord Theme](https://www.nordtheme.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) colour palette. While I have made a number of my own tweaks, I am conscious the site would not be possible without the work of others. To them I am indebted and extend my thanks. ## Continuous Evolution > To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often. > > Winston S. Churchill In the spirit of change, I suspect this won't be the last time I write about how I publish. And though I will continue to tinker, being back on WordPress has a homely feeling. Which means in the immediate future I can spend less time obsessing over technical details and more time on my research. Good night, and good luck. --- [*William Caxton showing specimens of his printing to King Edward IV and his Queen*](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4829359&ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### 100 Days of Muse & Reason URL: https://robert.winter.ink/100-days-of-muse-reason/ Last updated: 2025-11-08T23:22:04.000Z Well, I have reached the end of the [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) challenge and the numbers are as follows: - 100 posts in 100 Days - 44,752 words - 15 Major Topics - Most prolific topics were: - Technology (22 posts) - Social Comment (22 posts) - History (19 posts) - Publishing (19 posts) - Philosophy (14 posts) - Most popular post ([So this is how privacy dies…](https://robert.winter.ink/so-this-is-how-privacy-dies/), 2,241 views) I began the challenge hoping it would improve my journaling habits and ability to write short form pieces. Sprint research as I like to call it. If my critics' reviews are anything to go by, my short and crunchy prose is all the better for the process. I also found it a cathartic experience in a the age of Covid. My very own [Pensieve](https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/pensieve?ref=robert.winter.ink): > One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one’s mind, pours them into the basin, and examines them at one’s leisure. It becomes easier to spot patterns and links, you understand, when they are in this form. > > Albus Dumbledore My thanks go out: To [Kev Quirk](https://fosstodon.org/@kev?ref=robert.winter.ink) for initiating the idea. To all the other participants who have, and still are, taking part. To the people who have read my articles and taken the time to provide feedback. But the most important thanks goes to my wonderful, beautiful and amazing fiancée. Her talent and ability never ceases to leave me in awe and I am grateful for her editorship during this process. Without which, my output would have been far less coherent and contained many more errors. Like all writers, I would be lost without my editorial support. Good night, and good luck. --- [Goethe in the Roman Campagna](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=29098753&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann%5FHeinrich%5FWilhelm%5FTischbein?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 100 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Contribution Manifesto URL: https://robert.winter.ink/contributino-manifesto/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:17:23.000Z Second last day for the [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) challenge and I continue to contemplate 'what's next.' Which is both technical and philosophical. Time for a contribution manifesto, me thinks. I don't currently support 'comments' on my blog. I have long been in two minds about the whole process. Not least because I have seen avid bloggers both enable, disable and re-enable comments. I have read their reasoning and share much of it. Particularly regarding interaction volume. I have also worked in the publishing industry long enough to hear and feel the concerns of authors. For no matter how keen marketing is on the whole 'engage with your readers' piece, authors know the implication. To paraphrase William Lamb: the possession of a large follower-ship implies many responses to interactions. In such a flurry of social media, an ever growing portion of one's day can be taken up simply answering correspondence. At least in a bygone age, when writing meant ink, pen, paper and a stamp, there was a barrier to entry. But today, not only does one contend with querulous readers, but bots trolling your posts with adverts. However, setting such fears aside, I think there is a case to be made. But one I seek to make for contributing rather than commenting. ## The Philosophy of Contributing In a world of armchair generals, it is easy to comment on everything. It requires little engagement or understanding of the content. What ensues, is often a waste of everyone’s time. In extremis, commenting can descend into flame wars with respondents biting back against others biting back. Each response is analysed for transgression as each side scours the landscape for weakness. It is a new Cold War but, being social media, temperatures run high leaving a very hot environment — no thank you! Instead, I hope to shift the emphasis from commenting to contributing. In doing so, I am seeking to create a space for a meaningful conversation about the life of the mind. My purpose for creating a contribution space on this site is to provide the opportunity for me to learn from you. To hear your experiences and in turn become a better writer and contributor myself. In that context the first, perhaps the only, rule of contributing is: be civil and be informed. ## Benign Dictatorship For those seeking a space for unrestricted free speech, the contributions section of my site will not be that space. As such, contributions will be held for moderation. ### No Spam While I will encourage people to write long form responses to articles, contribution moderation will be intolerant of spam. More specifically, shameless self-promotion. Which includes, but not limited to: - Shopping websites - Websites which have no relevance for the topic in question - Websites which are pornographic in nature - Websites which support bigoted or intolerant views (as defined by me - remember, this is a dictatorship) ### Offensive Contributions The notion of offence is moral, not ethical. That is, ‘morality’ is a general system of thinking bound to a specific society, while 'ethics' is as a supra-societal system. In this context, what offends is highly correlated to the society in which you live. One person’s praise is another person’s hatred. ### Quality Contributions In the spirit of a benign dictatorship, my determination of quality contributions will be both objective and subjective. No offence is intended, but as offence is a social construct, taking it is at your discretion. If you run a website, I encourage you to respond with an article by way of contribution. I hope to leverage the IndieWeb with a ‘ping me!’ section under the regular contributions section. If technology doesn't serve me with a dog turd, simply enter the URL of your article and ‘ping me!’. Your contribution will then appear under my article, after moderation. If you don’t have an online writing presence but would like one, now is a great time to start and [WriteAs](https://write.as/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is an excellent entry point to the world of online writing. ### Contribution Privacy Privacy matters, and I go to great lengths to ensure this site respects your data privacy. My plan is for contributions to be the same. I hope to host all contributions on my server, not including those by way of articles on your own website. If you want your contributions removed from the system, I will have them deleted. ### Putting It Into Practice Well, that is the theory out of the way. A little more tinkering to go and it will be time to put it into practice. If you have any thoughts on the above, I would love to read them. But for now, this will need to be done on a [Mastodon](https://qoto.org/@rw?ref=robert.winter.ink) or [Twitter](https://twitter.com/robert%5Fwinter?ref=robert.winter.ink) page near you. Good night, and good luck. --- [The Conversation](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Arnold Lakhovsky](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink) (1880–1937) Blue licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 099 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Copying Old Masters URL: https://robert.winter.ink/copying-old-masters/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:00.000Z For the better part of 400 years, the production of art in France was largely controlled by [artistic academies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French%5Fart%5Fsalons%5Fand%5Facademies?ref=robert.winter.ink). With the first official academy being the [Académie Française](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie%5FFran%C3%A7aise?ref=robert.winter.ink) ("French Academy"), founded in 1634 by [Cardinal Richelieu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal%5FRichelieu?ref=robert.winter.ink). A key element of academy life was the copying of old masters. That is, an aspiring artist would learn the forms by copying works which were considered fine examples of the discipline. A similar method can be invaluable when seeking to improve one's writing, though with a key difference. ### Private Collection The accurate copying of a painting or sculpture requires considerable skill. In which context, the mere repetition of copying helps to improve an existing ability. But in the digital age, to copy another person's writing is as simple as copy and paste. Obviously this digital version of copying old masters would add nothing but more plagiarism to the world wide web. Thus in the written context, the process involves typing out and 'editing' great works. Not to post, but for private edification. Looking for ways in which greater clarity could be achieved. Or simply to get the fingers following the keys in a good and regular [metre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre%5F%28poetry%29?ref=robert.winter.ink). We tend to write what we read. thus by taking this a step further and not only reading but learning to emulate great writing, we can step up our written game to a more refined level. ### In the Style of and Old Master The final stage in the copying of old masters process is to produce a work 'in the style of.' By that I mean, take a writer you greatly admire. Then try and write a piece about a completely different topic but in the style of their verse. An example of this would be something like the following: > He would have used his arms and his hands to push himself up; but instead of them he only had all those little legs continuously moving in different directions, and which he was moreover unable to control. If he wanted to bend one of them, then that was the first one that would stretch itself out; and if he finally managed to do what he wanted with that leg, all the others seemed to be set free and would move about painfully. “This is something that can’t be done in bed,” Gregor said to himself, “so don’t keep trying to do it.” > > – [Franz Kafka,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz%5FKafka?ref=robert.winter.ink) *The Metamorphosis* Taking on a Kafkaesque style: > I decided to leave the party and tried to walk straight to the door; but instead of this simple process, it took me three glasses of whisky to make it out of the room. If I wanted to turn left, a friend would grab my right arm and steer me toward the bar. If I wanted to walk forward, a companion would pull me back, pressing another glass of the amber liquid into my hand. Finally, I managed to do what I wanted and, listing gently from side to side, stumbled out of the room. > > – Robert Winter, *The Transition* Good night, and good luck. --- [Metamorphosis](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9872205&ref=robert.winter.ink) by is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 098 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Virus From Below URL: https://robert.winter.ink/virus-from-below/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:04.000Z The history of the world, for a long time, was the history of great people. Mostly great men. It focused on singular individuals and seldom mentioned common people. Preferring to recount historical events from the perspective of leaders. Arguably, the First World War was the catalyst for change. Monuments sprung up to memorialise the dead, be they the lowliest soldier or greatest general. In other words, common people became more than just a statistic. Fast forward 100 years and it feels as thought we have taken a step backward. To the extent that 'common people' don't even seem to make it into the statistics. It is with alarm, but not much surprise, that I see India surging up the Covid league table. 56,000 new cases per day for the last seven days. Total cases now top 1.9 million. What is even more alarming, is that when Mumbai authorities took blood tests from 7,000 randomly selected individuals, they found 57% of slum dwellers had coronavirus antibodies in their systems. If those numbers hold for the total population of the city, it could mean 4.56 million people have the virus in one city alone. In Delhi, a sample of 20,000 people found 23.4% had contracted Covid. If those results are indicative of the total population, that would equate to 6.8 million infections in the city. Extrapolate those figures across the entire Indian population, and there is a an undocumented humanitarian disaster happening. When Lucien Febvre first used the phrase 'history seen from below and not from above' (*histoire vue d'en bas et non d'en haut*) he was extolling the need to write the history of the masses. I hope for the history of Covid, my reasoning on the potential of untold numbers is very, very wrong. Good night, and good luck. --- [Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=92612457&ref=robert.winter.ink) by NIAID is licensed under [CC BY 2.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 097 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### I Saw The World End URL: https://robert.winter.ink/i-saw-the-world-end/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:06.000Z > I went up to the hillside and took a panorama view of the city and found the whole city on fire. - Kiyoshi Tanimoto, Japanese Methodist minister. The devastation that unfolded in the seconds following the [explosion in Beirut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%5FBeirut%5Fexplosions?ref=robert.winter.ink) has been likened to an atomic bomb. The timing of the analogy is striking as [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) in 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The Imperial War Museum commissioned a piece to commemorate the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: '[I Saw The World End](https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/i-saw-the-world-end?ref=robert.winter.ink).' A work which is as poignant as it is groundbreaking. Expressing humanities capacity for division: the splitting of the atom, division of humanity and the planet, division of fact and fiction, division of races. In the face of such raw power, I find myself lost for words. So I commend you to the piece and wish you good night, and good luck. --- [Hiroshima Aftermath](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=29188992&ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 096 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Serialisation URL: https://robert.winter.ink/serialisation/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:08.000Z It's the final count down. Five days to go and I will have completed the [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) challenge in 100 days. I'll save the wrap up for day 100, but today I thought I would ruminate on 'what's next?' ### Ending At The Beginning At the outset of the challenge, I observed that my research work had honed my long form writing, but my ability to write snappier short pieces was lacking. Perhaps the biggest challenge of the challenge has been the daily requirement to post. Because this doesn't always facilitate the time to cover topics which require extensive rumination. The upside is this has prompted an ideas file. A file now burgeoning with some 39 topics and drafts for articles. Something which leads me back to longer form writing to do the topics justice. Not long form (think 5,000 words or more), but longer than the short articles which made up 100 days. Enter serialisation. ### Serialisation Some of my favourite fiction comes from the tales of Sherlock Holmes. Some of the canon are short stories, but others - such as *[The Hound of the Baskervilles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FHound%5Fof%5Fthe%5FBaskervilles?ref=robert.winter.ink)* \- were [serialised](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial%5F%28literature%29?ref=robert.winter.ink). In literature, this is the process of splitting a single larger work into a series of shorter articles. In the online world, this has many benefits as I am finding that shorter pieces lend themselves better to the medium. This is because people are often snatching moments in their busy day to reason this or muse that. In such cases, three or five minute reads are more appropriate than half hour reads. It can also facilitate thinking out loud. A process that is seeing something of a resurgence in public life with thinkers knotting out issues in podcasts and on stage rather than coming with a pre-prepared script. But whether pre-prepared or thought out during serialisation, it provides for short or medium length format which addresses a long form topic. I am looking forward to exploring this next chapter, pun intended, once the 100 days challenge is over. Good night, and good luck. --- *[Advertisement for Great Expectations in All the Year Round](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20466715&ref=robert.winter.ink)*is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 095 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Ability To Ignore URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-ability-to-ignore/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:11.000Z I read [Doug Belshaw's](https://dougbelshaw.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) article today on *[Lies and misinformation](https://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2020/08/03/lies-misinformation/?ref=robert.winter.ink)* and it got me to musing on what could be termed the 'necessary groundwork' for people to fall prey to lies and misinformation. Namely, the ability to ignore. In a sense, the issue is hard wired into us. Since the earliest days of our evolution on the savanna, our visual and aural senses have been attuned to ignore content. Sights and sounds which don't represent a clear and present danger to our life can be ignored, to leave space to process that which might kill us. In our slightly more civilised twenty-first century, this capacity to ignore has been refined to an art which is rigorously inculcated into us from birth. From our earliest days, we are taught the importance of belief. Be it the belief that we can eat the food our parents give us without being poisoned. The belief that if an adult tells us something it is most likely true. The belief that if it is printed in a book it is true. There are some benefits to ignorance. On the savanna, simplification of focus, or the ability to ignore, allowed our genes to survive another day. In the modern age, our ability to ignore saves us reading a slew of articles which will provide no value. Or ignoring a host of pedestrians and cars allows us to focus on the pedestrians and vehicles to which we need to pay attention. ### Ignorance in Belief The challenge comes because in being wired and trained to ignore, we can end up missing that which is crucial. Something which happens when we get into the realm of belief. This is because a belief system seeks to streamline our philosophical version of the world while purporting to retain everything necessary for optimal utility. In a sense, a system of belief is a filter, sifting incoming data for hits and discarding everything else. ### Ignorance in Ideology The twin of belief is ideology. Often, ideology is seen as synonymous with belief, or as some kind of subset. But it is better to think of it as a distinct system. A belief system seeks to sample across 'reality' and filter for hits or confirmations. An ideology by contrast seeks error, rather than confirmation, and then takes the additional step of attempting to destroy what has been filtered out as anomalous. In an increasingly scientific world, dominated more and more by bits and bytes, this distinction presents something of a problem. For society raises the solving of problems to pride of place. We have a goal, we have problems which prevent us from reaching that goal, it is logical to solve for those problems and achieve the goal. However, when belief descends to ideology and solving a problem shifts to destroying a problem, we have a crisis of system. At this point life tumbles down the helter-skelter as everyone races to exterminate the blockage. ### Capacity for Philology Nietzsche had prefigured the dystopia of ideology by observing humanities general ‘incapacity for philology.’ In this context, philology is to be understood in a very wide sense as the art of reading well. As Nietzsche put it, the ability to: > read off a fact without falsifying it by interpretation, without losing caution, patience, subtlety in the desire for understanding. Philology as ephexis \[undecisiveness\] in interpretation: whether it be a question of books, newspaper reports, fate or the weather. > > Nietzsche, *The Antichrist* The path out of this mire is to learn to avoid falsifying a fact by interpretation. At the risk of special pleading, it is something the humanities often does a better job of than other disciplines. For when taught well, humanities focus on challenging the received data, not on accepting face-value claims. The challenge facing our age, is that in spite of the ability of the humanities to help buttress people against dangerous ideology, there is a veritable [war against humanities](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/29/war-against-humanities-at-britains-universities?ref=robert.winter.ink). Perhaps this shouldn't come as surprise. After all, the ideologues will never totally destroy what is anomalous to them unless they can first destroy the capacity for critical thinking. To that end, read. Read widely and deeply; classical texts and modern thinkers; thinkers from the left and thinkers from the right. Most importantly, read contrasting views. For every article or book you read which supports your beliefs, read something which challenges them. Only then can you be sure you are holding beliefs and haven't ended up with a blind ideology. Good night, and good luck. --- *[The Death of Socrates](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28552&ref=robert.winter.ink)* by [Jacques-Louis David](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-Louis%5FDavid?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 094 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Late Abroad Again URL: https://robert.winter.ink/late-abroad-again/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:13.000Z > August 16th 1665 > It was dark before I could get home; and so land at church-yard stairs, where to my great trouble I met a dead Corps, of the plague, in the narrow ally, just bringing down a little pair of stairs - but I thank God I was not much disturbed at it. However, I shall beware of being late abroad again. > > Samuel Pepys (1633 – 1703) And 'late abroad again' it seems the people of Melbourne can't be for some time. The [Premier of Victoria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier%5Fof%5FVictoria?ref=robert.winter.ink) introduced stage four lock-down restrictions last night. Residents will be subject to a curfew for the next six weeks. Banned from travelling more than 5km (3 miles) from their home. > We can no longer have people simply out and about for no good reason whatsoever. It is not an easy decision to make but it is necessary and that’s why I’ve made it and that’s why police will be out in force and you will be stopped and you will be asked and need to demonstrate that you are lawfully out and you are not breaching that curfew. > > [Daniel Andrews, Victorian Premier](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/02/victoria-premier-daniel-andrews-stage-four-coronavirus-lockdown-restrictions-melbourne-covid-19?ref=robert.winter.ink) When the plague ravaged Pepys' native London in 1665, fatalities ran at around 20% of the population. The eventual tally for Covid is impossible to assess, until we can observe current events from their yet-to-be-determined place in history. While I hope they will fall far short of the percentages of Pepys' day, we can still learn much from his experiences. ### Comparing 1665 to 2020 When the plague hit London, Pepys was largely unconcerned, taking more interest in the war with the Dutch and never ceasing from dining out in the evening. In a sad manifestation of Santayana’s prophetic phrase, history seems to be repeating this time around. The latest Covid resurgence coming from patrons frequenting bars and restaurants. Like some organisations today, Pepys maintained a BAU (business as usual) approach. Even though burials in London were exceeding 6,000 a week. Today, non-essential services remain open as there are fears for the economy if the shops shut. As the contagion bit hard, Pepys chronicled the flight from the city, mostly of doctors, lawyers and merchants. Then as now, only those with the financial means to do so can seek refuge in seclusion. Perhaps the key point of difference is the modern capacity to manage the primary health and secondary economic / social impact of a pandemic. In Pepys' day, it was a brutal existence for people shut in their homes, begging or stealing food in a desperate effort to survive. There was no [JobKeeper Payment](https://www.ato.gov.au/general/JobKeeper-Payment/?=Redirected%5FURL&ref=robert.winter.ink) system to help people keep their head above the waterline nor online services to deliver supplies. Thus while life may still be short, it is arguably less nasty and brutish than in 1665. ### Stoic Resolve Yet for all the fear and contagion which springs from the pages of Pepys's Diary, so too does a resounding [stoic resolve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism?ref=robert.winter.ink) in the face of adversity. We cannot know now where this pandemic will end, but we can know how it will be faced. Down one road is panic and selfish alarm. People segregating and selfishly thinking only on what they have or can get. Down another road is calm resolve and community action. People thinking of their impact on others, maintaining the known health authority guidance and looking out for others as they look out for themselves. The former road leads to a society which may survive, but will be greatly diminished for the experience. The latter path, opens opportunities to heal not just the physical, but also the psychological divisions which exist. To build a better community than we had yesterday. One in which we can be late abroad again in safety. Good night, and good luck. --- [Pepys Letter to John Evelyn](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5941187&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Guy de la Bédoyère](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy%5Fde%5Fla%5FB%C3%A9doy%C3%A8re?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 093 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Art as Background URL: https://robert.winter.ink/art-as-background/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:42:54.000Z [J. M. W. Turner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.%5FM.%5FW.%5FTurner?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1775-1851) was growing up, and remains to this day, one of my favourite artists. He painted, printed and drew prodigiously, leaving to posterity a collection of more than 550 oil paintings, 2,000 watercolours and 30,000 works on paper. Part of my fascination with Turner stems from my god-father, who wrote the book *[Angel in the Sun](https://www.mqup.ca/angel-in-the-sun-products-9780773517479.php?ref=robert.winter.ink)*, about Turner's vision of history. He sent me a copy in the late 1990s when I was in my first flush of university study, an impressionable age, and my interest in Turner's work has blossomed ever since. Given my fondness and personal connection to the old master, I am uncertain what to make of the National Gallery digitising his work and releasing it for use as a [backdrop for video calls](https://my-masterpiece.nationalgallery.co.uk/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Not just Turner's work, but a host of other luminaries from the art world. If a single work doesn't tickle your fancy, then you can opt to use an image from one of their galleries, giving the impression you are streaming live from the National Gallery's hallowed halls. In a sense there is much to commend the program. As security experts make clear, it is generally easier to hack people than systems. Meaning a video call from your home can reveal a raft of information which would make it that bit easier for a criminal to hack your life. To that end, replacing images of your home with a more generic image has security and privacy benefits. Given Turner was something of the privacy advocate in his own day, going to the effort during the 1841 census of rowing a boat into the Thames so he could not be counted as being present at any property, it is perhaps fitting his work is used for the furtherance of online privacy. Good night, and good luck. --- [The Fighting Temeraire](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37144597&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [J. M. W. Turner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.%5FM.%5FW.%5FTurner?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 092 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Self-Gaze URL: https://robert.winter.ink/self-gaze/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:18.000Z ``` le regard [the gaze] in the philosophical sense is an individual's awareness of 'the other.' By 'the other' a myriad of concepts can be meant. It might be one's awareness of other people, other things, even awareness of oneself. ``` ### The Look [Jean-Paul Sartre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul%5FSartre?ref=robert.winter.ink), in *[Being and Nothingness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being%5Fand%5FNothingness?ref=robert.winter.ink)* (*L'Être et le néant*, 1943), devoted much space to what he termed 'the look' and the way in which being in the gaze of someone else affects us. He gave by way of example the transformation which occurs when we see a mannequin which we briefly mistake for another person: > While they believe it is a person, their world is transformed. Objects now partly escape them; they have aspects that belong to the other person, and that are thus unknowable to them. During this time one can no longer have a total subjectivity. The world is now the other person's world, a foreign world that no longer comes from the self, but from the other. The other person is a "threat to the order and arrangement of your whole world…Your world is suddenly haunted by the Other's values, over which you have no control." > > When they realise it is a mannequin, and is not subjective, the world seems to transfer back, and they are again in the center of a universe. This is back to the pre-reflective mode of being, it is "the eye of the camera that is always present but is never seen." The person is occupied and too busy for self-reflection. This process is continual, unavoidable, and ineluctable. > > Jean-Paul Sartre – *Being and Nothingness* This transformation we experience, when under anther's gaze, is crucial in the forming of relationships. For often our attraction to another person does not emanate from an intrinsic part of their self (long hair, blue eyes etc.), but from how we feel about ourselves when under their gaze. This is a state in which we suspend our subjectivity of self, and instead come to identify with 'the look' another person holds for us. ### Writing for the Gaze In writing, this manifests as how we feel about our verse when under the gaze, or in social media terms, the like of another. If well liked, we come to identify what we wrote with being good. This has the effect of narrowing our gaze onto the elements of our writing which find flavor in another. In its most extreme conceptualisation, it results in a loss of autonomy as we become aware of ourselves as a visible object and ends by writing to avoid our neurosis: fear of rejection. While there is much benefit to be accrued in writing effectively for your audience, it does come with some drawbacks when this descends into a lack of autonomy. Most notably, that it can reduce our subjective and objective capacities to judge our writing. In time, we become locked into a style and this can ultimately lead to both burn out and learned helplessness. In that we cease to innovate and produce new and crunchy verse, always falling back on tropes which worked in the past. ### Self-Gaze Ultimately, to survive and flourish as a writer of distinction, it is critical to evolve and develop the capacity for 'self-gaze.' By that I mean that I need to ensure I can assess the quality of my work, *sans* the likes of others. Not indifferent to them, you understand, but so as to find both a subjectivity and objectivity of self. In this condition, it is possible to find a subjectivity and objectivity of the written word and know I am on the right track, even if my work is temporarily out of fashion. Good night, and good luck. --- [The Conjurer](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=148032&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Hieronymus Bosch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus%5FBosch?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 091 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Wedding Feast URL: https://robert.winter.ink/wedding-feast/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:20.000Z Tonight I contemplate marriage. Or rather, I am contemplating what I will eat after I am married: the wedding feast. For this evening sees a sampling of what could be on offer for my intended's and my special day. Traditionally, what is served at a wedding feast is determined by both the time of day and local customs. Controversially, in these revolutionary times, my wedding will not differ from this historic model. With dishes coming from a largely Anglo-Aussie tradition and be suitable for an evening event. For me, after a lifetime of weddings which have ranged from simple affairs to events which were positively baroque, it will be a delight to not worry if I get the chicken or the fish. Instead, my dish can be overflowing with my favourite foods. ### Planning From Dessert In a time honoured tradition of my family, and the civilised everywhere, I will be planning the meal starting with dessert. Then working back through the main (which will in all likelihood be a beef dish) to the entrée. Why so many people insist on planning their meals from the entrée I have never understood. That is all I have for today as the way to my writing is through my stomach, and right now it is too empty to type more. P.S. I drafted this blog post before dinner, and had anticipated I would end up with a beef dish for the main. Which was indeed what I ordered this evening. But one of my dining companions had the lamb. Never a more succulent morsel of that fine creature have I supped. It was so tasty, I had to rework this article before publication and think the unthinkable. NOT requesting the beef as my preferred main at the wedding! Good night, and good luck. --- [Flemish Wedding 17th century](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10365979&ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 090 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Finding Confidence URL: https://robert.winter.ink/finding-confidence/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:22.000Z I was in conversation the other day about starting a blog and finding confidence to write. To offload or not to offload, that was the question. The heart of the conversation, confidence. Finding voice as a writer is very difficult. At least I would argue it is usually difficult for able authors. The talentless generally snatch the first opportunity to spout their guff. In fact it is only by keeping constantly on the move and moving fast that you can avoid having to listen to some people. Those whose from whom you would like to hear, are frequently silent as the grave. While the fool is wise who opens not his mouth, the quiescence of the thoughtful is a loss for society. This is particularly the case when it comes to social media and blogging. ### It's been said This is one of the bigger blockers to putting pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard. As a researcher, it is an ever ringing refrain: what is the gap in the literature and why is your contribution important? Thankfully, online you generally don't have professional academics pulling apart your thoughts. Simply share and often it is more about the how rather than the why or what. As a rule, much of what a person may write about has already been covered. Don't believe me, just throw 'Finding Confidence,' the title of this blog, into a search engine of your choice. Mine returned about 680 million results. Adding another article isn't just about the need for each generation to wrestle with the problems of the past. but it is because your experience provides something unique. All great ideas have seldom been the first thought on the topic. Often only after decades or centuries of people trying to solve for an issue does the eureka moment come. What is more, this bit of brilliance, if it does come, is never the first thing thought by the individual. It is usually the result of a long process of trial and error. This makes the process of writing crucial to both the trial and error process and finding your voice. ### A Step Ahead As the axiom goes, you don't need to be an expert to be a teacher. You only have to know more than the person to whom you are talking. True, if you don't know very much about a topic, you are unlikely to end up on a Ted talk or invited to an international symposium. But you may still gain a readership. And in having to write about a topic, some form of research is almost inevitable, which will enhance your knowledge, which will make you a more informed writer which will encourage you to do more research. A virtuous circle of development. The only word of caution I would add here is that for work to be sustainable, it needs to be more than just opinion. You can write a piece or two off the top of your head, but as a rule, [research your topic.](https://robert.winter.ink/supporting-evidence/) and [beware generalisation](https://robert.winter.ink/beware-generalisation/). ### Controversial Views Simply put, beware controversy when finding confidence. By that I mean if you are seeing a flash point on social media. Perhaps the death of someone in custody, a political convention, denial or defence of a view which is considered 'controversial.' Whatever it may be, feeling strongly about something is to steer into dangerous waters. Particularly if you DO NOT write under a pseudonym. The sad reality of modern cancel culture is much like the thought police of an Orwellean novel. Advocates troll for evidence of 'wrong doing' and have been known to hound people out of their jobs in pursuit of vengeance for their cause. This is not a recommendation to be mute on important topics. If history has taught me one thing, it is that evil tends to prevail only when good people remain silent. Rather, it is to be aware of what your words may mean. Where they will be displayed and how this may impact on your future. Something which may get our blood up today, isn't something for which we are willing to die tomorrow. Thus, write with care. ### Post. And Post Often. Finally, adopt the old adage of fake it till you make it. If you don't feel confident in your writing, NOT writing won't improve the situation. In fact, a small saving grace of starting to blog is that, likely, no one is reading what you post. This may depress some people, but the silver lining is, if you are not wild about your product, you aren't being judged by millions. This gives you the space to post, find your voice and hopefully in time make a meaningful contribution to the world of letters as your readership grows. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Steve Halama](https://unsplash.com/@steve3p%5F0?ref=robert.winter.ink) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/license?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 088 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Armada URL: https://robert.winter.ink/spanish-armada/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:24.000Z At midnight [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) in 1588, the English ignited eight fire ships and cast them into the Spanish fleet which was menacing [Blighty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blighty?ref=robert.winter.ink). Though the Spanish misjudged the situation, fearing the vessels were [hellburners](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellburners?ref=robert.winter.ink), the effect was to break the crescent formation of the Spanish ships which had hampered English attempts to engage with the fleet. Though folklore, and blockbuster movies, make much of the battle that ensued, history tells a different story. That only five Spanish ships were sunk. The heavier losses, one third of the Armada, was wrecked on the coasts of Scotland and Ireland as the fleet attempted to return to Spain. This sanguinary tale is no mere patriotic reminiscing of the 'glory days of England,' rather, it is a reminder that we often engage in battle and come out of it little the worse for wear. The real damage is done after, as we scramble for safety. Be it in our professional or private lives, I think the history of the Spanish Armada is a clarion call to take care on our journey home. That although we may feel mauled by the day, we can salvage most of what we have. But only, to take a line from [Kipling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudyard%5FKipling?ref=robert.winter.ink), if we keep our head when all around us are loosing theirs. Stay safe in this time of pandemic. Good night, and good luck. --- [Spanish Armada](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=133036&ref=robert.winter.ink) by Philip James de Loutherbourg is liscensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 088 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Finding Time URL: https://robert.winter.ink/finding-time/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:27.000Z I am asked on occasion, how do I go about finding time to write. Sometimes this is in the context of my research. Given how much reading goes on, making the time to actually write a meaningful contribution can be challenging. But more recently, it is in the context of the #100DaysToOffload challenge. How do I find the time to post everyday. Sadly for the time starved, there is no silver bullet. In fact, perhaps the most irritating, though true, response I can give is habit. ### **Habit** One of the better, though perhaps too lengthy for the time starved, articles on the subject is *[Habits - A Repeat Performance](https://www-jstor-org.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/stable/20183111?ref=robert.winter.ink)*. The TLDR is that 'approximately 45% of everyday behaviours tended to be repeated in the same location almost every day.' In other words, habit accounts for almost half of everything we do. I find this to be liberating and have actively worked to increase the number of things I do out of habit. The reason is it saves on mental energy, energy which can be better employed thinking about writing and ultimately the act of writing itself. This is particularly important if you are trying to write every day or do anything, for that matter, consistently. Having to rely on sheer will power to overcome the centrifugal forces of life which try and pull you away from your project means you will likely burn out. Thus to engage in a long term lifestyle of writing, training, playing an instrument, it needs to move from the willed to the habitual if the endeavour is to survive. ### **Time of Day** A common technique for finding time I have come across is to 'do it early.' While this has some benefits, don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today, it can be impractical. While it would be nice to roll out of bed and guide my slippers studyward, I have commitments. Not the least of which is earning the money to funding my writing lifestyle. To that end, other priorities crowd the day and if getting it done first thing is my only method, then I will more likely fail than succeed in my quest to write regularly. It also has the secondary problem of turning a pleasure into a chore. Perhaps it is just me, but doing my maths homework was never top of my priorities as a child. My teacher said I should do my maths first, and save history as a treat for when my numbers work was done. All this did was create an enduring loathing of the subject, and it has only been in later life as I have discovered the beauty of numbers that my numeracy skills have flourished. To that end, I find it better to pick a focused time of day than an early time. In other words, leverage the power of habit to be your guide to success. ### **Manchurian Candidate** The final tip is, you guessed it, also linked to habit. This is about creating a trigger to set yourself up for success. *[The Manchurian Candidate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FManchurian%5FCandidate?ref=robert.winter.ink)* is a fascinating novel by [Richard Condon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard%5FCondon?ref=robert.winter.ink) and revolves around the premise of a posthypnotic trigger to activate the book's protagonist to carry out his mission. A far less conspiratorial version of it can help with the writing process. For some, it is making a coffee or, after the sun is over the yardarm, pouring a glass of the Macallan. For others, it is taking a hot bath to find focus - a method my fiancée swears by as she ploughs through her thesis. Whatever it may be, find a trigger which consistently helps you to get in the frame of mind for writing, leverage the power of habit and set your inner candidate to the task of finding time to write. Good night, and good luck. --- [Pocket watch](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=144336&ref=robert.winter.ink) by Isabelle Grosjean is liscensed under [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 087 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Case for Listenership URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-case-for-listenership/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:29.000Z Social networks generally have you ‘friend’ or ‘follow’ an entity (be it a person, group or organisation). To 'friend' implies friendship. But with all due respect to some of the people I 'friend,' it is usually more to do with a desire to hear more than one side of an argument than anything which would constitute friendship. While keep my friends close and my enemies closer may create a loophole for 'friending' people who are not friends, following someone is, arguably, more problematic. Being a follower involves a tripartite relationship between the follower, the leader and the situation. This is a complex interrelationship which doesn't easily lend itself to an ever increasingly fractured social media landscape. Some might argue I am following the conversation, but again, social media isn’t usually a conversation but a disconnected series of posts, often about unrelated topics. In another feat of philosophical gymnastics, it could be argued that 'following' someone is more akin to 'watching,' in the sense that an undercover officer may 'follow' a suspect. But this seems to add a dark connotation to the process which also isn't entirely accurate. At least not for me, as I don't subscribe to the trend of watching people on social media, poised to pounce at the slightest sign of nonconformity to the prevailing *zeitgeist*. ### **Listenership** Enter my 3am idea of listenership. It struck me that a more appropriate term would be 'listen.' For there are many voices on the internet to whom I want to listen, even if for no other reason than to build a comprehensive rebuttal to their drivel. People who I would never call a leader, there for I do not follow them, nor would I call a friend. Some rank so low in my esteem I wouldn't even put them on my enemies list, making 'friending' them even less appropriate. There is also the intriguing other use of the term listener. This is a prisoner in a UK jail specially trained by Samaritans to provide emotional support to other prisoners. In some senses this is very apt, as on social media we are too often prisoners in a system providing emotional support to other prisoners. Well, that was the hard bit, coming up with the idea. Now for the easy bit, convincing the multifarious warring tribes of the fediverse and a few billion dollar companies to change their nomenclature. Good night, and good luck. --- Pink headphones on a pastel background by [Icons8 Team](https://photos.icons8.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is liscensed under [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/license?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 086 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Beware Generalisation URL: https://robert.winter.ink/beware-generalisation/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:31.000Z Continuing from my musing yesterday about [supporting evidence](https://robert.winter.ink/supporting-evidence/), I started thinking about another potential trap when writing: generalisation. Having done your due diligence, gone to the primary sources and been sceptical in your reading, two key issues still remain. ### **Applying the Particular to the General** Data from studies generally only covers a very small sub-set of a population. For example, it is well near impossible to survey all the inhabitants of a country (though census data tries to come close). Thus surveys which claim X per cent of people in Australia think this or Y percent of people in America do that, is generally an extrapolation of data based on a sub-set of the whole population. Perhaps a sample of 1,000 people was used, from which a data model was built to make a broad claim about the population as a whole. While this is reasonable, it does mean a writer can fall into the trap of imagining because 67% of respondents to a survey support X, there is genuinely wide spread support for the proposition. When in reality, the people chosen and the methodology of the questions asked has in fact skewed the sample. ### **Skewed Samples** A wonderful example skewing a sample though leading questions comes from Yes Prime Minister. In a memorable scene, Sir Humphrey demonstrates to Bernard how leading questions can sway a respondent to be both for and against National Service: > Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?Bernard Woolley: YesSir Humphrey Appleby: Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?Bernard Woolley: Yes.Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline in our Comprehensive Schools?Bernard Woolley: Yes.Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?Bernard Woolley: Yes.Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think they respond to a challenge?Bernard Woolley: Yes.Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?Bernard Woolley: Oh, well I suppose I might.Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?Bernard Woolley: Yes.Sir Humphrey: Of course you would, Bernard. After all, you told you you can’t say no to that. So they don’t mention the first five questions and they publish the last one. Conversely, the wily civil servant shows his junior how the opposite response can be achieved: > Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?Bernard Woolley: Yes.Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you worried about the growth of armaments?Bernard Woolley: Yes.Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?Bernard Woolley: Yes.Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?Bernard Woolley: Yes.Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?Bernard Woolley: Yes.Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, you see, Bernard. The perfect balanced sample. With that example of wisdom... Good night, and good luck. --- Image by [Sydney Rae](http://sydneyrbailey.weebly.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is liscensed under [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/license?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 085 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Supporting Evidence URL: https://robert.winter.ink/supporting-evidence/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:33.000Z My weekends are usually spent cloistered away in my study, working on one project or another. My fiancée laments I spend too much time tinkering with my blog, time that could be better spent ploughing through more of my PhD or even writing a cogent article for here (*Muse & Reason*). I remain defiant, contending that tweaking each element of this site, tweaks which will probably go unnoticed, is a productive use of time. My argument loosely follows [Antoine de Saint-Exupéry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine%5Fde%5FSaint-Exup%C3%A9ry?ref=robert.winter.ink): > Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. > > *Airman's Odyssey* Thus my quest for minimalism in my publishing platform continues. But this contretemps put me in mind of an important rule when writing: ### **If you can't support your case, drop it** That is not to say abandon it. As a child I thought many things I couldn't support in the face of vehement adult objections. Not until decades later, when I had a thick dossier of supporting evidence, did I return to those thoughts and press them with a new found certainty. A certainty that was based on more than my gut instinct or a 'wouldn't it be nice' philosophy. I am wholeheartedly glad I didn't abandon those lines of reasoning, but it was prudent to drop them at the time. Particularly when faced with the withering gaze of the headmaster. But to return to the point at hand, it is prudent to drop a concept or an assertion from your writing when there is a dearth of supporting evidence. This is particularly the case when straying on to technical topics, which in this age of scientism seems to be just about everything. The paradoxical twin of this maxim of prudence, is to always be sceptical. A paradox, because scepticism is necessary when the evidence supports your thesis. This is an ever present issue in the age of the search engine, where a couple of key strokes puts a library of information on people's screens. In such a soup of 'source material,' it is hard to find a topic for which there ISN'T a supporting post or website. Thus, always go to the primary sources. By that I mean primary sources written by people with a modicum of *bona fides*. Check who wrote the article or who is the controlling publisher. Everyone has their biases, and these pervade the work produced. Even for those who are ever watchful and, as [Edmund Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund%5FBurke?ref=robert.winter.ink) counselled: question their absolute convictions and spend a long time ‘lost in Doubts and uncertainties.’ Finally, having marshalled your evidence and checked your sources, provide this to your readers. Add names of authors, titles of books or links to websites. This will not only allow your readers to check your facts, but it should also build confidence in the work you produce. That it is work, though pervaded by biases, which seeks to establish a verifiable truth claim. The more you can build this trust relationship, the more people will come back to your articles and value your judgement. Good night, and good luck. --- Image by [Markus Winkler](https://markuswinkler.de/?ref=robert.winter.ink) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/license?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 084 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Tranquility Reflected URL: https://robert.winter.ink/tranquility-reflected/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:38.000Z Day 83 of the 100 day challenge and I have drawn a total blank. I have faced writers block before, but often this has been a catalyst to a post as it has caused me to muse on [mental indigestion](https://robert.winter.ink/mental-indigestion/), [the void](https://robert.winter.ink/the-problem-of-over-correction-2/) and how these help me to overcome [the struggle with topic](https://robert.winter.ink/the-struggle-is-topic/). Today is different, in that I normally feel a restlessness with not being able to conjure a topic. This inner struggle is the catalyst for the creative juices. Today, I feel the most wonderful tranquillity. Without meaningful agonism, a topic isn't emerging from the primal soup of my mind. Thus dear reader, till next we meet when I trust I shall have richer literary pickings for your delectation. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Nils Leonhardt](https://unsplash.com/@ambasteir?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/tranquility?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 083 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Nibbled By System URL: https://robert.winter.ink/nibbled-by-system/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:40.000Z I am a simple man who fears being nibbled by system. I like things I can see and touch. In the technological realm, I like things I can see and organise. This is perhaps why I am happier with knobs, levers and buttons than I am with touchscreens and complex scripts I can’t understand. To take a line from the book of Potter: > Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain. > > *J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets* There was a time when this held true for computer systems. Spools of tape, piles of diskettes or banks of hard disks. Today, cloud computing, intricate code with hooks of hooks of hooks, and systems where even the devs aren't quite sure how everything fits together, presents an alarming landscape. One of the more deadly examples of flaws in the complexity was in the [fatal crashes of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in 2019](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing%5F737%5FMAX%5Fgroundings?ref=robert.winter.ink#Accident%5Finvestigations). In consequence, airlines are now advised to: > Turn the plane off and on again every 51 days, to stop its computers displaying false data in mid-flight. A similar problem found in 2017 in some aeroplanes made by Airbus, Boeing’s European rival, prompted the European Union Aviation Safety Agency to require that such aircraft be rebooted at least every 149 hours. > > *[The Economist](https://www.economist.com/business/2020/07/18/why-companies-struggle-with-recalcitrant-it?ref=robert.winter.ink)* Perhaps the irony is that the solution may eventually come from the ever growing complexity. As [Adam Barr](https://mitpress.mit.edu/contributors/adam-barr?ref=robert.winter.ink) observed in his book, *[The Problem with Software: Why Smart Engineers Write Bad Code](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/problem-software?ref=robert.winter.ink)*, as software increasingly shifts from being a product to a service, the companies and people who produce it will have ever more incentive to code it well, rather than 'good enough to ship.' Only this way will we no longer be nibbled by system. Good night, and good luck. --- [By Bug de l'an 2000](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14719963&ref=robert.winter.ink) is liscensed under [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 082 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Easy To Use URL: https://robert.winter.ink/easy-to-use/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:42.000Z I learn today that [Jules-Albert de Dion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules-Albert%5Fde%5FDion?ref=robert.winter.ink) took the chequed flag in the world's first motor race, the Paris–Rouen in 1894\. Sadly for Jules-Albert, he was not declared the winner as his steam-powered car was against the rules (that a car should be 'easy to use'). This was because his vehicle required a [stoker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireman%5F%28steam%5Fengine%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) to keep it going. Given the race was run to promote the motor car as a vehicle that was 'easy to use,' it is little surprise a stoker was considered one complication too many. The award of the 5,000 franc prize, for the car which was closest to the ideal of a vehicle which was easy to use, went to *Panhard et Levassor* and *Les fils de Peugeot frères* (The sons of Peugeot brothers). The [Peugeot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot?ref=robert.winter.ink) company we know today was formed two years later. Though a seemingly random musing of the day, it stood out because it is so closely allied to my current quest: a publishing platform which is 'easy to use,' is privacy respecting, sustainable and scaleable. Today I moved a step further by settling on a host who embraces [sustainable and responsible growth](https://www.infomaniak.com/en/green-hosting?ref=robert.winter.ink). Now it is just a case of standing the beta site up. Looking forward to the journey. Good night, and good luck. --- [Count Albert de Dion Driving](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5761328&ref=robert.winter.ink) by "La France Automobile" is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 081 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Emotional Contagion URL: https://robert.winter.ink/emotional-contagion/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:43:27.000Z [Emotional Contagion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional%5Fcontagion?ref=robert.winter.ink) is the phenomenon of feeling what it appears someone else is experiencing. Art abounds with examples of this, where a painting, sculpture or film elicits a sensation in us of what we imagine the character we are viewing is feeling. Emotional contagion is at work in 'Marsyas' by the Salzburg artist [Balthasar Permoser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balthasar%5FPermoser?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1651–1732). The story of [Marsyas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsyas?ref=robert.winter.ink) is one of the great parables of hubris in Greek literature. Permoser’s sculpture, with its open mouth and bitten tongue, twisted neck and writhing face, strikingly conveys the satyr’s pain as he is flayed alive. The red flecking of the mottled marble base is reminiscent of spattered blood, a gruesome reminder of mortality. > Apollo also slew Marsyas, the son of Olympus. For Marsyas, having found the pipes which Athena had thrown away because they disfigured her face, engaged in a musical contest with Apollo. They agreed that the victor should work his will on the vanquished, and when the trial took place Apollo turned his lyre upside down in the competition and bade Marsyas do the same. But Marsyas could not, so Apollo was judged the victor and despatched Marsyas by hanging him on a tall pine tree and stripping off his skin. > > Apollodorus. 1.4 And on that grusome note... Good night, and good luck. --- Marsyas by [Balthasar Permoser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balthasar%5FPermoser?ref=robert.winter.ink) from the [Met Museum](https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/211486?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 080 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Giant's Causeway URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-giants-causeway/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:47.000Z [James Boswell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%5FBoswell?ref=robert.winter.ink), 9th Laird of Auchinleck, lived in an age in which titles were grand and letters and diaries were even grander. In a time of conspicuous literary splendour, Boswell wrote perhaps the greatest biography in the English language of one of the English language's greatest biographers: [Dr Johnson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel%5FJohnson?ref=robert.winter.ink). Yet for all its soaring verse, *The Life of Samuel Johnson* can have a most sanguine effect on a humble author who, at the end of a frustrating day, feels drained of simile. Thus today's offload puts me in mind of the following anecdote: > BOSWELL: “Is not the Giant’s-causeway worth seeing?” > > JOHNSON: “Worth seeing? Yes; but not worth going to see.” I trust tomorrow's offload will be more edifying, but for today... it is worth seeing, but not worth going to see. Good night, and good luck. [*A View of the Giant's Causeway*](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1785355&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Susanna Drury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susanna%5FDrury?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under Public Domain. This post is day 079 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### To CDN Or Not To CDN URL: https://robert.winter.ink/to-cdn-or-not-to-cdn/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:49.000Z As the [great bard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William%5FShakespeare?ref=robert.winter.ink) made a Prince of Denmark once say: > To be, or not to be, that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,And by opposing end them Or in the case of my journey to an more optimised site would have it: to CDN or not to CDN, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to let your webhost suffer the traffic and attacks of an outraged internet, or to use a CDN in a web of trouble, and in load balancing end them. For the uninitiated in the ways of networking, a camp into which I firmly put myself, a CDN ([Content Delivery Network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content%5Fdelivery%5Fnetwork?ref=robert.winter.ink)) is a method of distributing a service, for example a website, over a wider range of servers. For example, if you use a web host based in Switzerland, your website would likely reside on a server buried somewhere under a mountain in the country of chocolate, fine watches and very private banking. If the people who access your site live in a neighbouring [canton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons%5Fof%5FSwitzerland?ref=robert.winter.ink), they will probably experience a fast connection to your site. But what if someone lives on the other side of the world? Your site will likely be slower to access. This is where a CDN comes in, because your site is disttributed to a number of proxy servers based all around the globe. In technical terms, this shortens the bit of string between them and you as your visitors can access a server nearer to their location. CDNs are also very useful to protect your site in the event of a sudden surge in popularity, or [DoS attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service%5Fattack?ref=robert.winter.ink), as there are more servers processing the requests, which lessens the likelihood your site will fall over following a surge of access requests. Unfortunately, there is a flaw in this seemingly simple solution to speed and access requests. If the CDN network goes down, then access to your truly prolific collection of cat photos may be 'disrupted.' As happened in the recent upheaval, or should that be silence, following a [Cloudflare outage](https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-outage-on-july-17-2020/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Though perhaps a dearth of cat photos is a boon for civilisation generally, it is of concern to the tech minded and those seeking uninterrupted access to their content outpouring. The upshot is some people are [sort-of dropping Cloudflare](https://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2020/07/18/sort-of-breaking-up-with-cloudflare/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for their sites. I am in two minds, while I would be unlikely to use Cloudflare for [tinfoil hat reasons](https://dt.gl/cloudflare-why-the-fuss?ref=robert.winter.ink), I am inclined to use a CDN for [site speed improvement reasons](https://markosaric.com/speed-up-wordpress/?ref=robert.winter.ink#use-a-cdn). At this stage I am not certain which of the myriad I will use, but given the [recommendations I have read](https://kevq.uk/how-i-optimise-my-website-performance/?ref=robert.winter.ink), am leaning toward [BunnyCDN](https://bunnycdn.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Good night, and good luck. --- [NCDN - CDN](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7868809&ref=robert.winter.ink) by Kanoha is licensed under [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 078 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### And I’m Feeling Good URL: https://robert.winter.ink/and-im-feeling-good/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:35:55.000Z Today was a day of relaxing. Well, it started in mild dismay looking at the stock markets, descended into a frustrating morning fighting the dragon of a [site with less byte](https://robert.winter.ink/site-with-less-byte/), and resolved into a walk through the local markets. Whlie out, the most delectable pizza was consumed to the tunes of a live singer belting out a [Nina Simone](https://www.ninasimone.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) classic: > It's a new dawn > It's a new day > It's a new life for me, yeah > It's a new dawn > It's a new day > It's a new life for me, ooh > And I'm feeling good https://open.spotify.com/track/6Rqn2GFlmvmV4w9Ala0I1e?si=a5d49a36722a4f27 By that point... I was feeling good. From there, things went from good to great as resumed my battle with the beast of optimisation, until at last: > I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place and broke the mountainside where he smote it in his ruin. - *Gandalf* Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Aziz Acharki](https://unsplash.com/@acharki95?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/feeling?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 077 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Site With Less Byte URL: https://robert.winter.ink/site-with-less-byte/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:01.000Z I have been musing on 'how I publish' a lot of late. This is in part because I am now blogging every day, but also because I am reading more of other people's blogs than I have for some time. Some of the blogs are specifically about blogging. Two of the finer examples of this genre are from [Kev Quirk](https://kevq.uk/?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Marko Saric](https://markosaric.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), the latter of whom is part of the brain trust behind the excellent analytics software [Plausible](https://plausible.io/?ref=robert.winter.ink). In other cases, the bloggers may have a tech focus, but it is more how they have implemented their own publishing platforms. [Ru Singh's](https://rusingh.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) site is one of the more beautiful and minimalist examples of the genre. [Doug Belshaw](https://dougbelshaw.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) also has some wonderfully inventive approaches to his site design. But I am getting ahead of myself, or rather, I am looking at the surface elements. Dig deeper, and there is another crucial element to a site: weight. Or rather, its bandwidth consumption. This moves thinking into a very rarefied atmosphere as the 'modern' web is all about features, with a general acceptance of the bloat that comes with them. A notable exception to this rule comes in the shape of [Susty](https://sustywp.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), which delivers WordPress in less than 7kb. Yet the reason for this act of extreme minimalism is more than geeky pleasure, as Jake Lenox explains in his [blog](https://blog.jacklenox.com/2018/06/04/delivering-wordpress-in-7kb/?ref=robert.winter.ink): > I learnt of the colossal energy demand of the Internet. That this demand makes it the largest coal-fired machine on Earth, meaning that [its CO₂ emissions are probably at least equivalent to global air travel](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/25/server-data-centre-emissions-air-travel-web-google-facebook-greenhouse-gas?ref=robert.winter.ink). More and more people are coming online, but this coupled with the rise of [ever more obese websites](https://www.keycdn.com/support/the-growth-of-web-page-size/?ref=robert.winter.ink) means that the Internet’s energy demands are growing exponentially. Every additional byte transferred means more energy, which in most countries means more CO₂. > It is widely accepted that we should avoid printing emails to save trees, but this leads to a false assumption that the web is a green medium. I’m afraid to say, it is not. This has started me on my own quest for a lighter footprint in my publishing platform, while acknowledging that minimalism can be taken a step too far. For example, when it militates against the provision of an engaging experience or prevents a writer from delivering content. To that end, there is much tinkering to do. Till the next instalment. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Markus Spiske](https://unsplash.com/@markusspiske?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/byte?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 076 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Shape Of Things That Are URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-shape-of-things-that-are/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:24:45.000Z Reading the popular press these days, I thought I had long gone past the point at which an article would surprise me. In an age in which *E=mc*2 has been argued to be a sexed equation because 'it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us,' no gymnastics should seem out of place. Yet today, an article in *The New York Times* managed the seemingly unmanageable. In [*How a Famous Harvard Professor Became a Target Over His Tweets*](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/us/steven-pinker-harvard.html?ref=robert.winter.ink), the renowned cognitive psychologist comes under fire for some of his tweets and the findings of his book, [*The Better Angels of Our Nature*](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL16239379W/The%5Fbetter%5Fangels%5Fof%5Four%5Fnature?ref=robert.winter.ink). Though I am far from in agreement with many of Professor Pinker's arguments, particularly those in his recent book [*Enlightenment Now*](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL17848539W/Enlightenment%5Fnow?ref=robert.winter.ink), it seems people have toppled off the edge of the planet when an academic such as Professor Pinker is painted as an 'undercover monster.' In some senses, it shouldn't seem a stretch as there is an ever growing push to set certain subjects as off limits for discussion. Being an enquiring thinker whose work is driven by the data, Pinker does wade into difficult waters. As is evident from one of his tweets from 2015 in which he looked at the data for police shootings: > ***Data: Police don't shoot blacks disproportionately. Problem: Not race, but too many police shootings.*** [http://t.co/HDoLJ3hT3p](http://t.co/HDoLJ3hT3p?ref=robert.winter.ink) ***via*** [@UpshotNYT](https://twitter.com/UpshotNYT?ref%5Fsrc=twsrc%5Etfw&ref=robert.winter.ink) > > Steven Pinker (@sapinker) [October 17, 2015](https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/655389531429064704?ref%5Fsrc=twsrc%5Etfw&ref=robert.winter.ink) Yet this is far from the first time in history free thinking has been the subject of pogroms. In 1758, [Claude Adrien Helvétius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude%5FAdrien%5FHelv%C3%A9tius?ref=robert.winter.ink) published a controversial work titled *De l’esprit* (On the Mind). The book was condemned by the [College of Sorbonne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College%5Fof%5FSorbonne?ref=robert.winter.ink) and the [Parl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament%5Fof%5FParis?ref=robert.winter.ink)[i](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament%5Fof%5FParis?ref=robert.winter.ink)[ament of Paris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament%5Fof%5FParis?ref=robert.winter.ink), but François-Marie Arouet - better known as [Voltaire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire?ref=robert.winter.ink) \- took exception to the attacks. Though he was reputedly unimpressed with *De l’esprit*, and vehemently disagreed with much of Helvétius' thinking, the famous philosopher is credited with saying: > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Though the quote is apocryphal, the sentiment is very Voltaire and I think apposite in the current climate. Though the conclusions drawn from the data may be offensive, we should be slow to take offence at the underlying data. Even if it contradicts to our deeply held beliefs. No one has a monopoly on truth, and only by perusing the data and the inexorable conclusions to the bitter end, can we hope to edge that bit closer to true understanding. Good night, and good luck. --- Image credit: Kayana Szymczak for The New York Times --- This post is day 075 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Shape of Things to Come URL: https://robert.winter.ink/shape-of-things-to-come/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:06.000Z [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) in 1799, the Rosetta Stone was discovered by French soldier [Pierre-François Xavier Bouchard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Fran%C3%A7ois%5FBouchard?ref=robert.winter.ink) during the Napoleonic campaign in Egypt. It is one of the most important artefacts pertaining to ancient Egypt as it was the key to deciphering hieroglyphs, which has helped humanity unlock lost ancient knowledge. The stone was created in 196 B.C.E. and has three inscriptions of the same decree, which affirmed the royal cult of the 13-year-old king [Ptolemy V](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy%5FV%5FEpiphanes?ref=robert.winter.ink) on the first anniversary of his coronation. The first inscription is in hieroglyphs (the formal script for priestly decrees), the second is in Demotic (the native script used for daily life) and the third is in Greek (the language of administration). Yet Rosetta has come to symbolise the original [stele](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stele?ref=robert.winter.ink). It has become an idiom for the notion of a keystone to hidden knowledge. [H. G. Wells](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.%5FG.%5FWells?ref=robert.winter.ink) encapsulated much of this genre in his 1933 novel [The Shape of Things to Come](https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7359938M/The%5FShape%5Fof%5FThings%5Fto%5FCome%5F%28Penguin%5FClassics%29?ref=robert.winter.ink). > This material was just for his own use. It is a mixture of very cursive (and inaccurate) shorthand, and for proper names and so forth, longhand. Punctuation is indicated by gaps, and often a single word stands for a whole sentence and even a paragraph. About a third of the shorthand stuff was already represented by longhand or typescript copy in the folders. That was my Rosetta Stone. If it were not for the indications conveyed by that I do not think it would have been possible to decipher any of the remainder. As it is, I found it impossible to make a flowing narrative, altogether of a piece with the opening and closing parts of this history. Yet the more striking feature of Wells' book is the prescient way in which he prefigured 'cancel culture,' putting its core philosophy into the mouth of his fictional social scientist Gustave De Windt: > It is no good asking people what they want... That is the error of democracy. You have first to think out what they ought to want if society is to be saved. Then you have to tell them what they want and see that they get it...About most affairs there can be no two respectable and antagonistic opinions... It is nonsense to pretend there can be. There is one sole right way and there are endless wrong ways of doing things. A government is trying to go the right way or it is criminal. Yet as [J. K. Rowling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.%5FK.%5FRowling?ref=robert.winter.ink) observed through her own fictional character, [Albus Dumbledore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albus%5FDumbledore?ref=robert.winter.ink), in the [Prisoner of Azkaban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry%5FPotter%5Fand%5Fthe%5FPrisoner%5Fof%5FAzkaban?ref=robert.winter.ink): > Happiness can be found, even in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light. Good night, and good luck. --- [Rosetta Stone](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3153928&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Hans Hillewaert](https://www.flickr.com/photos/81858878@N00/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [CC BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink) --- This post is day 074 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Fête Nationale URL: https://robert.winter.ink/fete-nationale/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:08.000Z I could not let July 14 pass without a nod to that most French of occasions: Bastille Day. A celebration which marks both the anniversary of the [Storming of the Bastille](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming%5Fof%5Fthe%5FBastille?ref=robert.winter.ink) on 14 July 1789 and the [*Fête de la Fédération*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%AAte%5Fde%5Fla%5FF%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration?ref=robert.winter.ink) of 14 July 1790. Being the unregenerate Anglo-Saxon I am, it is the storming of a nearly empty building housing only seven prisoners which takes the lions share of the point of the celebration. But committed Gallophiles are quick to remind me that it is more properly the *Fête de la Fédération* which is the true focus of Bastille Day: a celebration of not just the Revolution itself, but of National Unity. Following the divisive events of 1789 and 1790, the Festival of Federation sought to salve old wounds and even, surprising though it may seem at this remove, find a place for [King Louis XVI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis%5FXVI%5Fof%5FFrance?ref=robert.winter.ink) that would not only respect, but maintain his royal status in a constitutional monarchy. As the oath sworn to the coming constitution made clear: > We swear to be forever faithful to the Nation, to the Law and to the King, to uphold with all our might the Constitution as decided by the National Assembly and accepted by the King, and to remain united with all French people by the indissoluble bonds of brotherhood. The King, for his part, made a similar counter promise: > I, King of the French, swear to use the power given to me by the constitutional act of the State, to maintain the Constitution as decreed by the National Assembly and accepted by myself. In a show of solidarity from the fledgling United States of America, [Thomas Paine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%5FPaine?ref=robert.winter.ink), [John Paul Jones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FPaul%5FJones?ref=robert.winter.ink) and other Americans unfurled their [Stars and Stripes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag%5Fof%5Fthe%5FUnited%5FStates?ref=robert.winter.ink). The first known instance of the American flag being flown outside the United States. Yet amongst the tumult and celebration of *[liberté, égalité, fraternité](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9%2C%5F%C3%A9galit%C3%A9%2C%5Ffraternit%C3%A9?ref=robert.winter.ink)*, not all onlookers were so jubilant or hopeful. [Edmund Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund%5FBurke?ref=robert.winter.ink) saw storm clouds overhead which the revellers seem largely to have missed: > the true moral equality of mankind \[exists\] not in that monstrous fiction which, by inspiring false ideas and vain expectations into men destined to travel in the obscure walk of laborious life, serves only to aggravate and embitter that real inequality which it never can remove, and which the order of civil life establishes as much for the benefit of those whom it must leave in an humble state as those whom it is able to exalt to a condition more splendid, but not more happy. On this Bastille Day, I raise a glass to *la Révolution Française*, but with sober mind keep a wary eye on its modern incarnations. Every age has them, revolutions that is. Some for better, some for worse, but none without their blood letting: be it figurative or literal. My hope for humanity is we can navigate the current tumult without the [Reign of Terror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French%5FRevolution?ref=robert.winter.ink#Reign%5Fof%5FTerror) which followed the Revolution of 1789. Good night, and good luck. --- [Fête de la Fédération 1790](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64767751&ref=robert.winter.ink) is liscensed under [CC BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 073 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Five Stages of Autonomy URL: https://robert.winter.ink/five-stages-of-autonomy/ Last updated: 2025-11-06T10:36:28.000Z I came across an article by [Matt Mullenweg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt%5FMullenweg?ref=robert.winter.ink) about what he calls the [Five Levels of Autonomy](https://ma.tt/2020/04/five-levels-of-autonomy/?ref=robert.winter.ink). It is an interesting article which is worth reading at length, but in brief the five levels are: - Level Zero autonomy is a job which cannot be done unless you’re physically there - Level One autonomy where the work isn't remote-friendly - Level Two where work is enabled remotely, for a while, but not intended as a long term solution. - Level Three sees increased benefit from a remote work scenario and accrued social benefits kick in for a worker (e.g. doing homework with the kids because you aren't in the office) - Level Four is where work output is judged on what is produced, not hours in the office and real-time meetings are treated with increased respect - Level Five is Nirvana: when work is performed at a higher level than it ever could be in an office Apart from observing the obvious, that there are six levels in a five level model, it seems a classic example of a man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail. In this case, a man with an online business sees every problem as having a virtual solution. It is also arguably a result of a misunderstanding of the notion of an autonomous workplace, which is a philosophical rather than technical solution. A fact that is self-evident to the privacy focused as the monitoring tools available in platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams etc. mean a manager can more closely monitor employees in the virtual realm than they could in a traditional office. Making remote working a very poor advertisement for workplace autonomy. Studies indicate that some 75% of employees want increased autonomy in their jobs. An equal number are concerned their talents and abilities are not effectively utilised at work. Given these numbers, too many managers militate against autonomy in their employees. Not because of the lax IT implementation of remote working solutions, but because of the authority gap. This is when a manager withholds an unreasonable amount of authority from a given employee when said authority is needed to complete the task. This withholding of authority caps the autonomy of an employee and hinders their ability to perform their role or achieve their goal. [B. F. Skinner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.%5FF.%5FSkinner?ref=robert.winter.ink) established that changes in behaviour are far more effectively achieved when positive reinforcement is used, as opposed to negative reinforcement or punishment. Armed with such knowledge, the solution to managerial sand bagging of an organisation is to shift from an environment of coercion and fear to positively recognising individuals for their work. This in turn increases sensations of freedom and by extension creates autonomy. Armed with such knowledge, it is possible to advance an actual five stage solution to autonomy in the workplace. One that can achieve it rather than merely indicating when it is happening: ## 1\. No Person is an Island Create an environment in which an employee is willing to learn from coaching. This is critical for autonomy as no person is an island, entire of themselves. Thus the foundation of an autonomous workplace is for employees to seek out coaching and mentoring from their colleagues and managers. If the proper climate is established, rich interactions are the result and will result in feelings of openness. ## 2\. Independent Function Sometimes an employee will be overly loyal to their manager or their business. To the extent that they become a liability because they are so dependent on the person or the institution that they fail to act with a necessary level of independence. Organisations need to reflect on the level of independence their employees exhibit (this goes for managers as much as it goes for entry level operatives). Only by allowing individuals to make their own decisions, can an organisation rise above the competition. As such, when an obstacle is met, let your employees bear the initial responsibility for determining next steps and for generating solutions. ## 3\. Purpose of Autonomy The purpose of autonomy isn't so anyone can do as they please, such beliefs are a classic example of taking a literal meaning of autonomy and then misunderstanding and misapplying it in an organisational setting. Rather, the purpose of autonomy is to engender an enhanced working environment. To ensure that when people are brought in to perform a role, the organisation is getting the most out of them. Something which can only happen when employees freely (autonomously) engage in the task at hand and bring their experience and abilities to bear on the project. Put another way, hire competent people and get out of their way and let them do their job. ## 4\. Minimise the Negative Argument, in the sense of discussion of opposing views, is a critical element in decision making and problem solving. Phalanxes of 'yes men' are useless if a problem simply needs one person to ask 'why is it so?' But for arguments to be productive, strength of character, knowledge of subject and acceptance of having a view changed is required in individuals. Only through the rinse and repeat of this process can employees achieve self-realisation. ## 5\. Management by Objective and Self-Control [Peter Drucker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5FDrucker?ref=robert.winter.ink), invented the process of [management by objective and self-control (MBO)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management%5Fby%5Fobjectives?ref=robert.winter.ink). The concept is simple, a manager reviews organisational goals, sets worker objectives, monitors progress, evaluates performance and gives rewards. In other words, they set the organisational objective and then let their team get on with implementing it (self-control). At this stage, employees, whether working remotely or in a traditional office, enjoy true autonomy. The Nirvana Mullenweg and Co. are in search of for their businesses. Good night, and good luck. --- Cover image credit: DarwinPeacock, Maklaan, CC BY 3.0. This post is day 072 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Gothic Reprieve URL: https://robert.winter.ink/gothic-reprieve/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:43:56.000Z Today I passed a building. In a suburban environment this shouldn't even rank as noticeable, let alone the start of an article. But what struck me was how dull and quotidian it was. As though it had been stuck onto the landscape by a draftsman in need of a decent ruler. Walking on, I recalled the words of Coleridge: > The principle of the Gothic architecture is infinity made imaginable. > > Samuel Taylor Coleridge Musing on how the building I passed was the very antithesis of the Gothic, I found myself recalling some of the majestic architecture of the past: a Gothic Reprieve from the mundane of the modern. ### A potted history The term 'gothic' was originally a term of disdain. As ever, all that is now 'old' once was a new invention. [The style](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List%5Fof%5Farchitectural%5Fstyles?ref=robert.winter.ink#Gothic) developed and flourished between about 1140 and 1520 and was, at the time, considered the antithesis of everything for which the Renaissance stood. Contemporaries decried the Gothic as superstitious, violent, disordered. The very symbol of what was misnamed the 'dark ages.' Though unconnected to the peoples from the benighted north, who [sacked Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack%5Fof%5FRome%5F%28410%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) in 410 AD, the allusion to barbarianism stuck. Perhaps the most interesting element about Gothic architecture is the prolific way in which its makers and innovators spawned new modes. To sample but a handful, there was early, flamboyant, geometric and perpendicular. Some of the finer examples of which are to be found in Paris, Salamanca, Lincoln and Gloucestershire: ![Early Gothic Soissons Grandmont](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/964f2-early_gothic_soissons_grandmont-1.jpg) Early Gothic Soissons Grandmont ![Flamboyant Gothic Salamanca](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/74a3a-flamboyant_gothic_salamanca_xiquinhosilva-1.jpg) Flamboyant Gothic Salamanca ![Geometric Gothic at Lincoln Cathedral](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/2080b-geometric_gothic_lincoln_tilman-1.jpg) Geometric Gothic at Lincoln Cathedral ![Perpendicular Gothic Gloucestershire](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/f1702-perpendicular_gothic_gloucestershire_-_diliff-1-1.jpg) Perpendicular Gothic Gloucestershire Looking at the images above, it requires little imagination to apprehend why Coleridge saw infinity in the architecture. But behind the infinite is the notion of the sacred eternal. Perhaps this is because few examples of Gothic architecture have survived which are not churches. An example of use conferring meaning. Perhaps it is because the nineteenth-century religious revival was closely allied to the accompanying Gothic revival, in which the unconsecrated (town halls, hospitals and railway stations) were made to feel like sacred structures. In the industrial age, God was seen to be in the products of industrialism: enlightened technology. This is a notion our age has been equally quick to adopt, as the digital realm has become the new temple for many. Perhaps you have noticed a Gothic revival of our times in digital form - the infinity of the world wide web, the sacred eternal of digital rights and the enlightened technology which facilitates this sacred infinite. Good night, and good luck. --- Cover image credit: 'The cloisters at Gloucester Cathedral' by Christopher JT Cherrington - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=72728269](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=72728269&ref=robert.winter.ink) Early Gothic as Soissons Cathedral, France by Jean-Pol Grandmont - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28626796](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28626796&ref=robert.winter.ink) Geometric Gothic at Lincoln Cathedral, England by Tilman2007 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=35516448](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=35516448&ref=robert.winter.ink) Flamboyant Gothic at Salamanca Cathedral, Spain by xiquinhosilva from Cacau - 68532-Salamanca, CC BY 2.0, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=84175525](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=84175525&ref=robert.winter.ink) Perpendicular Gothic at Gloucester, England by Diliff - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=34005236](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=34005236&ref=robert.winter.ink) This post is day 071 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Spot the Gorilla URL: https://robert.winter.ink/spot-the-gorilla/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:18.000Z There is an experiment, well known to psychologists and anyone with an MBA, called a 'selective attention test.' The basics of the test, originally run by [Daniel Simons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel%5FSimons?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [Christopher Chabris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher%5FChabris?ref=robert.winter.ink), are that you watch a video clip of some people passing a basketball and you have to count how many times the players wearing white pass the basketball. [During the test](https://invidio.us/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo&ref=robert.winter.ink), a person dressed in a gorilla suit makes an appearance, walking directly across the frame, beats their chest and then exits the scene. Approximately half the people who watch this video fail to spot the gorilla the first time. In a sense, this experiment is emblematic of how we often go through life, failing to spot the gorilla because we are so busy trying to count the passes. Moving beyond the lab, it is too easy to focus on the negatives with which news channels bombard our senses on a daily basis. For me, this can become frankly as depressing as, to quote [Blackadder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackadder?ref=robert.winter.ink): > getting an arrow through the neck and discovering there's a gas bill tied to it. So on this day, I take a moment to dwell on some of the better things to be happening in this thing we call life. [The Mars 2020 rover will join the Curiosity rover on the Red Planet](https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8567/two-rovers-to-roll-on-mars-again-curiosity-and-mars-2020/?ref=robert.winter.ink). [Gary Larson, Beloved Cartoonist of ‘The Far Side’ Publishes First New Comics in 25 Years](https://www.thefarside.com/new-stuff?ref=robert.winter.ink). [Researchers from the UK and Switzerland have discovered a mathematical model to prevent AI from making unethical decisions](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.200462?ref=robert.winter.ink). Possibly preventing the rise of [SkyNET](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet%5F%28Terminator%29?ref=robert.winter.ink). Not that this necessarily balances out all the harm and doom that is going on in the world, but it is important to celebrate the wins as well as commiserating the losses. What wins are you celebrating today? Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Amy Reed](https://unsplash.com/@amybethreed?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/gorilla?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 070 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Skepticism and Wonder URL: https://robert.winter.ink/skepticism-and-wonder/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:20.000Z I saw an excellent vlog from [Ayishat Akanbi](https://ayishatakanbi.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for [Double Down News](https://www.doubledown.news/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Ayishat's message is clear, that 'We’re living in a culture of fear and as a result freedom of speech is under threat:' This video reminded me of the late great [Carl Sagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl%5FSagan?ref=robert.winter.ink), who was prescient in understanding the need to deal with people who disagree, even attack, us for our beliefs. Though his writing focused on superstitions and pseudosciences, his thinking is largely applicable to all forms of bigotry and ignorance in pursuit of a cause. Crucially, he examined how an individual or community can remain rooted in reason and truth when trying to combat ideologies which seek to destroy them. This is done by beginning from a place of compassionate understanding of the fears which motivate such irrational and dangerous beliefs. Yet, such high philosophy and noble sentiment is challenging, even impossible. As Sagan notes: > When we are asked to swear in American courts of law — that we will tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” — we are being asked the impossible. It is simply beyond our powers. Our memories are fallible; even scientific truth is merely an approximation; and we are ignorant about nearly all of the Universe… In shining a light of awareness on our fallibility and ignorance, Sagan apprehended we are not only deeply enamoured to our beliefs, but are all too often defined by them. A reality which binds both us and those who are implacably opposed to our thinking. Yet, even in this impossible task, Sagan observes there is a way to balance our innate feelings of self-righteousness with our need to remain rational creatures: > In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. Yet in arguing for kindness, Sagan doesn't mean unconditional acceptance, because 'every silent assent will encourage \[the individual\] next time, and every vigorous dissent will cause him next time to think twice.' This is particularly necessary when that which opposes us is little short of hate speech, even if it dresses itself in righteousness. In such instances, we need to muster the courage to critique, analyse and ultimately confront beliefs which are, at root, nihilistic. > If we offer too much silent assent about \[ignorance\] — even when it seems to be doing a little good — we abet a general climate in which skepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome, and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate. Figuring out a prudent balance takes wisdom. In such instances, Sagan observed: > The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them — the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you’re sensible, you’ll listen to us; and if not, you’re beyond redemption. This is unconstructive… Whereas, a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted. If we understand this, then of course we feel the uncertainty and pain of the abductees, or those who dare not leave home without consulting their horoscopes, or those who pin their hopes on crystals from Atlantis. If we allow fear into our hearts, to still the perturbation it is all too easy to try and ground our fears in ideologies that offer certainty. Sadly, such certainty invariably comes at a price: that of scepticism. Without which, a society will generally lack openness, critical thinking and compassion. In the vast ignorance of a society absent of sceptical enquiry, evil festers and spreads, like the coming of night, and all foul things come forth. But Sagan envisaged an antidote to the evil: > Both skepticism and wonder are skills that need honing and practice. Their harmonious marriage within the mind of every schoolchild ought to be a principal goal of public education. I’d love to see such a domestic felicity portrayed in the media, television especially: a community of people really working the mix — full of wonder, generously open to every notion, dismissing nothing except for good reason, but at the same time, and as second nature, demanding stringent standards of evidence — and these standards applied with at least as much rigor to what they hold dear as to what they are tempted to reject with impunity. Good night, and good luck. --- [Sagan and Viking](https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image%5Ffeature%5F599.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 069 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Doomsday Clock URL: https://robert.winter.ink/doomsday-clock/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:24.000Z [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) in 1955, the [Russell–Einstein Manifesto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%E2%80%93Einstein%5FManifesto?ref=robert.winter.ink) was issued in London. The document sought to highlight the dangers of nuclear proliferation and entreated world leaders to search for peaceful resolutions to conflict. Ten years earlier, on the same day an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, the philosopher [Bertrand Russell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%5FRussell?ref=robert.winter.ink) began composing his first comments on '[the bomb](https://robert.winter.ink/the-bomb-and-civilisation/).' > It is impossible to imagine a more dramatic and horrifying combination of scientific triumph with political and moral failure than has been shown to the world in the destruction of [Hiroshima](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic%5Fbombings%5Fof%5FHiroshima%5Fand%5FNagasaki?ref=robert.winter.ink#Hiroshima). This vignette from history put me in mind of the [Doomsday Clock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday%5FClock?ref=robert.winter.ink) which is maintained by the members of the *[Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin%5Fof%5Fthe%5FAtomic%5FScientists?ref=robert.winter.ink)*. It strikes me that in this day and age, when the threat of nuclear war seems far less likely than it did in the dark days during the height of the Cold War, that we are [closer to midnight](https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/past-statements/?ref=robert.winter.ink) (the point at which disaster strikes) than ever before. To be exact, we are only 100 seconds from the metaphorical midnight, yet shortly before the [Cuban Missile Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%5FMissile%5FCrisis?ref=robert.winter.ink), the clock was as far as 7 minutes out. The cause is that in our age, humanity is more aware of the climatic as well as the military threats to existence. The fear of a 'nuclear blunder' remains ever present, but is now exacerbated by the threat of climate change or technological disaster. The concept of a clock was chosen because it implies that unless we stop the seconds from ticking down, the hands will inevitably reach midnight. Picking upon this interventionist theme, Russell observed: > The prospect for the human race is sombre beyond all precedent. Mankind are faced with a clear-cut alternative: either we shall all perish, or we shall have to acquire some slight degree of common sense. A great deal of new political thinking will be necessary if utter disaster is to be averted. A sombre thought of the day, but one which gives me surprising hope. In our interconnected age, we have more opportunities to take part and stave off disaster than ever before. So long as we keep the focus on truly existential threats and don't allow ourselves to be distracted by pop-issues or vogue movements which may seem life or death to the activists involved, but that are not moving the hands of the Doomsday Clock - be it forward or back. In short, if civilised thinking prevails, there will always be the possibility of ordered progress. Good night, and good luck. --- Graph showing the changes in the time of the [Doomsday Clock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday%5FClock?ref=robert.winter.ink) of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by [malarz pl](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Malarz%5Fpl?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 068 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### To Federate, But How? URL: https://robert.winter.ink/to-federate-but-how/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:28.000Z Thanks to all those who provided feedback on [yesterday's musing](https://robert.winter.ink/loosing-readers/). The general consensus is that the 'drop' in readership is a result of my posts no longer being syndicated on [read write.as](https://read.write.as/?ref=robert.winter.ink). As a short term fix, I have linked my Ghost blog with Write.as to see if the reading statistics tick up again. If so, the experiment will have proved the hypothesis. Or more properly, it will not disprove the hypothesis. Assuming I have a working assumption, next step is how best to manage this long term. Does it mean using write.as for my article creation platform and leaving it to cross post to Ghost? It also raises questions about cross posting to other platforms such as Medium, Wordpress.com and other communities which are the natural hunting ground of avid readers. Perhaps the solution is to find a way to cross post to a number of key environments? But it would be best to do this automatically as the idea of manually posting to a series of platforms seems unnecessary in this age of automation. Clearly some research is needed for the most efficient way to manage the process. Have you found a solution to this conundrum? Any suggested reading material or implementations would be appreciated. Good night, and good luck. --- [Map of unitary and federal states](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2744912&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Lokal\_Profil](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lokal%5FProfil?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [CC BY-SA 2.5](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 067 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Losing Readers? URL: https://robert.winter.ink/losing-readers/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:30.000Z It's been 6 days since I switched from [Write.as](https://write.as/?ref=robert.winter.ink) to [Ghost](https://ghost.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) and I have noticed something odd. The analytics of my blog are showing far fewer readers. About a 90% drop. While I am not a popularity junkie, it is more gratifying to know one is writing for a large than a small audience as I write to try and assist others. If there are no 'others,' then there is limited scope for impact. I wonder if this is a general reaction to my shift in platform. Could it be people are voting on my platform change with their clicks and abandoning Muse & Reason or, as I think it is perhaps more likely, that the analytics I am seeing are a little skewed? I know that [Plausible](https://plausible.io/?ref=robert.winter.ink) honours 'do not track' requests - tested it myself, clicks and all. When combined with a high proportion of privacy concerned individuals in my readership, this might be denting the numbers when in fact the reader base remains the same. Federation might also be an issue as my Ghost platform isn't federated. True, I still post links to my articles on Mastodon and Twitter, but my material no longer appears read.write.as feed. A natural hunting ground for blog readers. Well, time will tell as over the period of the 100 days challenge I have seen a slow but steady rise in readers. If the numbers remain constant, then I'll shift strategy and look to trying to federate my blog again and see if that helps. What are your thoughts? Dislike the new platform, think it could just be an analytic anomaly or that I should re-federate the blog? Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Thomas Kelley](https://unsplash.com/es/@thkelley?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/books?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). This post is day 066 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystoffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Cartographic Escapism URL: https://robert.winter.ink/cartographic-escapism/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:33.000Z Ever since I discovered the first Harry Potter story, I have known one thing for certain, Harry Potter was a wizard. But one who had to be trained up. For lovers of the Potter tales, Hogwarts was not only the best but, if you didn't read the text carefully and skipped whole sections of Goblet of Fire, the only wizarding school. For those who are more deeply steeped in Potter lore, then the knowledge that there are “eleven long-established and prestigious wizarding schools worldwide” comes as no surprise. For those unaware of the existence of other schools of witchcraft and wizardry, it should be known that although four of the schools are of unknown location (the most famous of the quadrumvirate being [Koldovstoretz](http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Koldovstoretz?ref=robert.winter.ink) located somewhere in Russia), the remaining seven are to be found on this fabulous map from the Pottermore website: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/b32e5-wizarding_schools_map_lr.jpg) Map Created by Pottermore The schools shown are: 1. [Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry](http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Hogwarts%5FSchool%5Fof%5FWitchcraft%5Fand%5FWizardry?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Scotland) 2. [Beauxbatons Academy of Magic](http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Beauxbatons%5FAcademy%5Fof%5FMagic?ref=robert.winter.ink) (France) 3. [Castelobruxo](http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Castelobruxo?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Central Brazil) 4. [Durmstrang Institute](http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Durmstrang%5FInstitute?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Northern Europe) 5. [Ilvermorny](http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Ilvermorny?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Eastern North America) 6. [Mahoutokoro School of Magic](http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Mahoutokoro?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Japan) 7. [Uagadou School of Magic](http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Uagadou%5FSchool%5Fof%5FMagic?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Uganda) Maps have long held a fascination for me, and be they cartography of the world in which I live, or the world of the imagination of my favourite authors, I spend many an hour scouring their surface for details. What are some of the maps of myth and legend which fascinate you? Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Andrew Neel](https://unsplash.com/@andrewtneel?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/maps?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 065 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### A Change Management Primer URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-change-management-primer/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:35.000Z Jack Welch was a believer in the importance of a company’s ability to change. To the extent he asserted that when the rate of change inside a company is slower than the rate of change outside it, the end is in sight. Conditions before, during and after change are best illustrated in Lewin’s Force Field Analysis Model. On one side is the driving forces and on the other are restraining forces. Only if the driving force can be increased to overpower, or the restraining force reduced allow, is change able to be brought about. Perhaps the most crucial element in understanding this process is to apprehend why people are resistant to change. Case studies of organisational resistance to management change abound, with some surveys reporting over 40% of management in the United States find resistance to change as the main barrier to improved workplace productivity. This resistance can take many forms from direct stoppages, such as strikes, to more subtle resistance techniques of continuing to use old work practices. Of these methods to change resistance, I think the most difficult to combat, and as a result destructive to the change process, are those which involve the more subtle forms of resistance as they invariably don’t directly block, but create enough drag on the process to ensure nothing is really getting done. ### Resistance to Change There are several reasons for resistance to change which range from direct costs, where employees think the pains hardly outweigh the gains, to the need to protect organisational integrity. The latter has added complications as employees can sometimes think a new process is a slap in the face to their professionalism, because if it isn’t broken why change it? Alternatively, if it is thought the process is broken then clearly ‘they’ are not doing a good job. Fear of the unknown can also cause resistance to change as employees can dread redundancy if they can’t adapt to the new environment. Finally, breaking a routine can create resistance to change as employees may get into a comfortable rut: it isn’t great but it also doesn’t make taxing demands on their work day allowing them to clock on, clock off and not endure too much stress in-between. In the 1970s, [John Kotter and Leonard Schlesinger](https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/sdpfellowship/files/day3%5F2%5Fchoosing%5Fstrategies%5Ffor%5Fchange.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink) identified six keys to minimising resistance to change. These were communication, learning, employee involvement, stress management, negotiation and coercion. While each brings levers to the process for a manager to implement change, they each suffer from one key failing: they are all time consuming. Coercion could be argued to be the most direct, and therefore time efficient, but coercion tends to lead to an increase in the subtle forms of resistance which create the already mentioned drag on change management and, in the long run, can take even more time than the other five strategies. In this context, the most assured method for surmounting resistance and achieving meaningful and long term change is to create urgency. ### The Burning Platform An example of change management through urgency is the ‘burning platform’ method. But such an approach carries risks. Employees may see the strategy as manipulative – ultimately leading to the boy who cried wolf syndrome, which undermines a managers ability to lead. Yet if implemented well, the ‘burning platform’ technique can be used to great effect as it can create buy in from employees who become autonomous in their attempts to bring about change, doing a managers job for them. This is because employees come to see the post-change environment as preferable to their current situation. Yet even in the case of a successful ‘burning platform’ scenario, change management can become mired by cultural issues. Business thinkers often see cultural differences as an east / west divide, or perhaps an east / west / US divide. But the nature of globalisation, the notion that thinking is not constrained by national borders, or even national boarders, brings some very interesting and challenging problems to the table. In Buddhism there exists Bhavacakra, more commonly known in the west as the ‘wheel of life.’ In corporate circles this concept of continual rebirth on the wheel which is ever turning has morphed, in the minds of more cynical employees, into the wheel of management. In this sense all notions of deep spirituality are stripped away and replaced with an almost game show style idea of new manager, new idea, tried it before, didn’t work, but let’s go through the motions again. In this scenario, change isn’t met with conflict, but rather passive acquiescence. In some ways this can be as destructive, given the all important buy in from employees isn’t gained. Instead a highly mechanical reaction of going through the motions until something fails sets in, in the hope this will confound management, with the sure knowledge things will then return to the status quo. However, in certain circumstances urgency itself can be a problem. Jack Welch observed this when he noted that corporations experience problems when the rate of change is too slow or when change management begins too late. In other words, when change management falls into the ‘have to’ scenario. ### So, How Do Organisations Successfully Change? At the risk of ending with a trite truism, organisational change is a complicated process, best accomplished from the bottom up and the inside out. Successful change management is hard because it requires time, an understanding of human psychology, social and industrial awareness and business practise. But knowing this only shifts the problem from 'how' to 'when'. Or in other words, at what speed should the change management take place? In the organisational behaviour debate the jury still seems to be out on this big question, but in fifty-two words I will attempt my solution: Pull the bandage off fast enough to avoid unnecessary pain, but not so quickly that it risks reopening the old wound. Only the patient, in this case the organisation and its stakeholders, can know what this golden mean rate is, and they will only know after change is done and new practices are fully bedded down. Or perhaps even this is too complex, and the solution can be boiled down to a Nike slogan: ‘Just Do It.’ What have been your experiences with organisational change management? Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Brett Jordan](https://unsplash.com/ja/@brett%5Fjordan?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/change?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 064 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### A Land of Chilly Riverways URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-land-of-chilly-riverways/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:37.000Z If you live anywhere in the world other than Australia, and you have never visited this land, your impressions will in all probability be something akin to a [Mackellar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea%5FMackellar?ref=robert.winter.ink) poem: > ... a sunburnt country A land of sweeping plains Of ragged mountain ranges, Of droughts and flooding rains. Her language is beautiful and the poem in full, unlike Tourism Australia adverts, is poignant in its honesty. Extolling the glory, while not shying away from the trials of this great land ('flood and fire and famine'). Yet for all her soaring verse, I think a trick was missed: the freezing cold. True, to those who endure minus temperatures descending to double digits, Australia won't seem cold. But to a man who was weened on 'beautiful one day, perfect the next' descriptions of his adoptive land, it still comes as a shock when out and about, in the few minutes remaining before the red sun sinks and the pale moon rises, to find it so chilly a dull earache begins. This evening was one such time that I found myself desirous of another stanza in the Mackellar classic. Dropping a friend off at a pier, the boat ride back tested even the 850 loft down of my jacket. Hands numb, it was with much gladness I clambered back on-board the mother ship and into the warmth of the saloon. The unsung reality of an Australian winter. What weather in your local area bucks the widely received assumptions? Good night, and good luck. --- Image Credit: [Halaina Winter](https://www.instagram.com/halaina.winter/?ref=robert.winter.ink) \- Own work. This post is day 062 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Ode to a Yoghurt Pot URL: https://robert.winter.ink/ode-to-a-yoghurt-pot/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:39.000Z This is going to seem a little bit like an infomercial, but it isn't. Simply a musing prompted by a label. The label in question was for [Danone yoghurt](https://www.danone.com/brands/dairy-plant-based-products/danone.html?ref=robert.winter.ink). Not a brand I consume on a regular basis, but one which was thrust into my hand by way of a free giveaway at the local supermarket. I was in a meeting at the time, and my colleagues were discussing business reputation and how to build a sustainable company. It was fitting I was holding the yoghurt as on the lid was printed 'MASTER YOGHURT MAKERS SINCE 1919.' What struck me was that a business had managed to get off the ground, barely months after the [Great War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%5FWar%5FI?ref=robert.winter.ink) had ended and at a time when the world was gripped in the clutches of the [Spanish flu pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%5Fflu?ref=robert.winter.ink). As I revolved on this idea, I thought back to my short [article on four different types of leadership](https://blog.winter.ink/leading-from-the-front/?ref=robert.winter.ink) and I wondered how each type tends to ebb and flow in all organisations that stand the test of time and adversity. This is because there is no 'one style to rule them all.' A concept good managers embrace for they realise that while leadership involves a certain amount of imposition on followers, top down approach, it also requires flexibility; that bellowing preconceived ideas with ever increasing volume is seldom a path to organisational success and Vedic happiness; and that only by employing contingency leadership can a manager provide the insight and flexibility needed to ensure their business continues to adapt to adversity rather than being crushed by its forces. Contingency seemingly was on show today and showed itself as a capability as relevant in 1919 as it is one hundred years later. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Vije Vijendranath](https://unsplash.com/@vijev?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/yoghurt?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 062 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Lacklustre URL: https://robert.winter.ink/lacklustre/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:42.000Z Today... what can I say about today... it was nothing out of the ordinary, very lacklustre indeed. Neither terrifying nor exhilarating, sad nor happy, downcast nor uplifting. It was one of those nondescript days which always give me pause, simply because they don't offer the contrast I need to stimulate my creative flow. Even my beloved red tape was no salvation as there was none to do. Rather, it was a day which required creativity and there was none to be seen. Thus, to offload today is to hope for more inspiration tomorrow. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Anne Nygård](https://unsplash.com/@polarmermaid?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/dull?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 061 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### How I Publish — Version 3.0 URL: https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-publish-3-0/ Last updated: 2025-11-07T05:36:00.000Z ⚠️ This article has been superseded by Version 5.0 which discusses my return to the WordPress publishing platform. By the time you read this, those who've had their coffee will have noticed something a little different about my blog. For those who are not caffeinated and staring at their screen through consequently bleery eyes, the migration of robert.winter.ink is complete and the experience is now being powered by [Ghost(Pro)](https://ghost.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Avid readers of my writing, and those who accidentally stumble across it in search of something else, will have seen my deliberations on whether or not to switch platforms. After a few weeks of not so secret testing at site Y, it became clear that the functionality would be of benefit in my attempts to transition from Operation's lackey to writer in residence. Part of the reason for this optimism is that extended functionality is baked into the platform. To explain, and to unpack the title of this article, is to note this is the third (3.0) version of my blog. ### Version 1.0 My personal blogging life began back in 2009 when, after using [Wordpress](https://wordpress.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) for many years in the business world, I decided to launch my own Muse & Reason onto an unsuspecting public. The site was serviceable and as a platform continues to power many of the world's biggest websites (37% if their marketing bumf is to be believed). In many ways it is a robust choice (and very nearly saw a 'back to the future moment' for my latest blog iteration), but something just didn't sit right. ### Version 2.0 Powered by the veritable [Write.as](https://write.as/?ref=robert.winter.ink) platform, my blog’s second life manifestation was an exercise in pure minimalism. Out was the bloat of plug-in riddled platforms, in was a truly focused placed to write. But if I had found such a wonderful expression in the art of minimalism, why make the move? Because my publishing platform is much like my writing platform. If I am looking for a daily jotting tool, then a [Moleskine](https://us.moleskine.com/en/?ref=robert.winter.ink) or [LEUCHTTURM1917](https://www.leuchtturm1917.us/?ref=robert.winter.ink) notebook, or [Standard Notes](https://standardnotes.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) if I want a digital solution, is the way to go. But if I am engaging in a more complex research project, then I need a [LibreOffice](https://www.libreoffice.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) / [Zotero](https://www.zotero.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink) combination to get the job done. ### Version 3.0 This is where Ghost came in (synchronicity would have it the Ghost platform is also on iteration 3.x). It provides me with the focused writing experience I need, but couples this with the heavy lifting tools required to provide site search, social media integration, feature rich membership and member newsletter integration and eventually, the ability to allow for donations. It even provides me with tools to give users the choice between a light or dark mode so readers can pick their preferred experience (just click on the theme text at the very bottom of this page to toggle between options). To that end I give you robert.winter.ink v3.0\. May the old gods and the new bless the endeavour. Good night, and good luck. --- [*William Caxton showing specimens of his printing to King Edward IV and his Queen*](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4829359&ref=robert.winter.ink) is is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 060 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Finding Flow - Basics URL: https://robert.winter.ink/finding-flow/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:51.000Z I am asked from time to time where I get my ideas. It is a VERY broad question and one which is a life long answer. But to narrow the scope a little, to something like 'from whence do your blog ideas arise,' and it is a more readily answerable question. It is also a rhetorical question when asked by a person sitting down to writing a blog article. Musing the topic, three ideas immediately spring to mind, which is a suitable number for the 100 Days challenge. Keeping it short and sweet also gives me a base on which to forge a more in-depth 'how to' guide in the future. ## 1\. Build on the current literature I once came across a statistic, that more data is produced in a single year, e.g. 2019, than was produced in the 5,000 years which preceded it. While I find this a little hard to believe, it also has a ring of truth about it. As such, there is, no matter what you are interested in writing about, a massive body of existing literature from which to draw and to which you can add your voice. In a sense this is a problem in and of itself, because with so much content how can you add something original? The key is to read widely and not assume you are the first person to spot the trend or ponder the pondering. This will not only give you an idea of what is out there and enhance your knowledge, it should also present some gaps in the literature. For example, yesterday I wrote an article about the [Westinghouse Electiric time capsule](https://robert.winter.ink/time-capsule-i). The article was prompted by a piece from the prolific [Maria Popova](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria%5FPopova?ref=robert.winter.ink) who wrote about [Einstein's contribution to the capsule](https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/03/14/einstein-worlds-fair-time-capsule/?ref=robert.winter.ink) on her treasure trove of a blog in 2016. Though Maria had eloquently dealt with Einestein's contribution, I thought there was a gap in the literature in providing a little context to Albert's words by comparing and contrasting his message with the two other contributors to the capsule. A bit of reading, a few key strokes later and another article was in the archive. ## 2\. Identify the trend, and then buck it! Too often articles on how to come up with ideas will tell you to identify the trends and then write about what interests people. This is certainly one approach, but unless you have a unique insight to share. For example, travelled with the 1990's Chicago Bulls team and have some memories to share which were missed by '[The Last Dance](https://www.netflix.com/au/title/80203144?ref=robert.winter.ink)' documentary taking Netflix screens by storm. If not, likely your work will become more grist for the mill. In other words, simply writing to the trends is likely doing more to buff someone else's social media traction or build their blog's following than helping you along the road to developing a readership base of your own. But to take the road less travelled, you create an opportunity to provide your readers with something new in their media soaked lives. This provides a point of difference and provides value to your readers, who are likely suffering from [mental indigestion](https://robert.winter.ink/mental-indigestion). ## 3\. Read it, tag it, retrieve it As a researcher, I very much live or fail by my ability to retrieve my sources. To write is to cite. To write and neglect to cite, is to plagiarise. After more than a decade in the publishing industry, this notion was rammed home further, because to fail to cite in the world of professional publishing is often to be in breach of copyright. For which there can be serious legal and financial repercussions. But all is not doom and gloom. In fact, it can be the salvation of the content starved. A paper based approach is a winner for many and, if not use to data management, can be a far less daunting start. However, as time goes by, unless you are conscientious enough to build your own Dewey classification system, it is a method sure to see many things lost or forgotten. Instead, leverage computers for what they do best, the mass storing, cataloguing and retrieval of data. A good note taking app will allow you to tag content for categorisation as you go and ease later retrieval. Though the privacy conscious will recommend against it, [Evernote](https://evernote.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is a great choice as it is exceptionally feature rich, comes with convenient web-clipper functionality and can help those new to filing their notes to quickly master the art. For those looking for a more secure option, then I can recommend [Standard Notes](https://robert.winter.ink/take-notes-no-one-is-watching). But for all its privacy, it lacks much of Evernote's functionality. If you don't have any sensitive projects you need to keep securely under wraps until publication day, you might find Evernote a more user-friendly option. But to really take indexing to the next level, there is [Zotero](https://www.zotero.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink). I use it for all my major research projects. In addition, it comes with a handy add-on that automatically senses research on the internet and allows you to capture and tag the pages in your catalogue for later reference. But whatever tools you use, the main points to keep in mind are: 1. Have a method to capture things you find most interesting in the articles and books your read. 2. Be able to retrieve these thought bubbles later when you are ready to write your next article. 3. As your research methodology improves, you will find your writing flow will also step up a gear. One of those wonderful positive spirals in this life. Good night, and good luck. --- [Writing in Russian cyrillic script with a fountain pen](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fountain%5Fpen%5Fwriting%5F%28literacy%29.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Petar Milošević](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:PetarM?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [CC BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 058 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100DaysToOffload) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Time Capsule I URL: https://robert.winter.ink/time-capsule-i/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:53.000Z In 1939, [Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse%5FElectric%5F%281886%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) sealed their 'Time Capsule I' and buried it 50 feet below Flushing Meadows–Corona Park, the site of that year's world's fair. The capsule is intended to be opened in the year 6939, five thousand years after the capsule was commended to the ground. In addition to an assortment of contemporary items - copies of *[Life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life%5F%28magazine%29?ref=robert.winter.ink)* magazine, a [kewpie doll](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kewpie%5Fdoll?ref=robert.winter.ink), a pack of [Camel cigarettes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%5Fcigarettes?ref=robert.winter.ink) \- three of the most important thinkers of the age contributed messages. The first was from [Albert Einstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert%5FEinstein?ref=robert.winter.ink). In it, the great physicist mused on his thoughts for the future. Part aspiration and part lament, it was penned only a few months before the outbreak of the Second World War. > Our time is rich in inventive minds, the inventions of which could facilitate our lives considerably. We are crossing the seas by power and utilise power also in order to relieve humanity from all tiring muscular work. We have learned to fly and we are able to send messages and news without any difficulty over the entire world through electric waves. However, the production and distribution of commodities is entirely unorganised so that everybody must live in fear of being eliminated from the economic cycle, in this way suffering for the want of everything. Further more, people living in different countries kill each other at irregular time intervals, so that also for this reason any one who thinks about the future must live in fear and terror. This is due to the fact that the intelligence and character of the masses are incomparably lower than the intelligence and character of the few who produce some thing valuable for the community. I trust that posterity will read these statements with a feeling of proud and justified superiority. The second thinker to contribute was [Robert Andrews Millikan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FAndrews%5FMillikan?ref=robert.winter.ink). Like Einstein, he too harboured fears the forces of despotism would come to dominate the earth and continue to repeat the 'sad story of war and oppression' which has afflicted humanity for generations: > At this moment, August 22, 1938, the principles of representative ballot government, such as are represented by the governments of the Anglo-Saxon, French, and Scandinavian countries, are in deadly conflict with the principles of despotism, which up to two centuries ago had controlled the destiny of man throughout practically the whole of recorded history. If the rational, scientific, progressive principles win out in this struggle there is a possibility of a warless, golden age ahead for mankind. If the reactionary principles of despotism triumph now and in the future, the future history of mankind will repeat the sad story of war and oppression as in the past. The third individual to offer comment on the age and hopes for the future was [Thomas Mann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%5FMann?ref=robert.winter.ink). Unlike the two scientists, this novelist perhaps saw more clearly the differences between fact and fiction. That the notions of a 'better world' in the future is a fallacy, inaugurated by the doctrine of progress. Yet this is not to say there is no hope for a better tomorrow, quite the contrary. It is to acknowledge how like the people of the past, those of the future are. To imagine ‘our time’ is more awake and aware is to recycle the myth of the revolution which states: now, with this generation, we have recognised the injustices and our ‘new’ formulations will address them. Mann was alive to this fallacy, and in rejecting it, opens the opportunity for genuine progress, instead of mere window dressing. > We know now that the idea of the future as a "better world" was a fallacy of the doctrine of progress. The hopes we center on you, citizens of the future, are in no way exaggerated. In broad outline, you will actually resemble us very much as we resemble those who lived a thousand, or five thousand, years ago. Among you too the spirit will fare badly. It should never fare too well on this earth, otherwise men would need it no longer. That optimistic conception of the future is a projection into time of an endeavor which does not belong to the temporal world, the endeavor on the part of man to approximate to his idea of himself, the humanization of man. What we, in this year of Our Lord 1938, understand by the term "culture" a notion held in small esteem today by certain nations of the western world is simply this endeavor. What we call the spirit is identical with it, too. Brothers of the future, united with us in the spirit and in this endeavor, we send our greetings. Eighty-one years on, how do you see our 'modern' age? Able to read these sentiments with proud and justified superiority? That we have recognised the injustices and our 'new' formulations have addressed them? Or perhaps that we still closely resemble those who lived before us? Good night, and good luck. --- [Time capsule internment plan](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8787893&ref=robert.winter.ink) from the Frederic W. Goudy Collection (Library of Congress) DLC is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 058 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Down the Rabbit Hole URL: https://robert.winter.ink/down-the-rabbit-hole/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:56.000Z It is a truism of learning, that a new path, initially so clear and straight, very soon twists, turns and before the traveller knows it, has become the proverbial rabbit hole. But not a nice, cosy little hole, you understand. Rather a long and seemingly unending one. After you've fallen down it, you never know where or when you will come out. So was the course of my day. It began simply enough, as it so often does, with a question: should I add a comments section to my blog? But this led to another question: what 'login to comment' method should be used, site managed or third party (e.g. Fediverse, Twitter)? If site managed, should I also invite users to take part in an email newsletter? For developers who do this for a living, or those persistent enough to muddle through on their own personal site, the answers will likely seem so glaringly obvious as to obviate the need to ask them. But to a man standing at the top of the rabbit hole, it was not so clear. A quick search for a solution returned, as it is want to do, a dizzying array of options. Most of which extolled the virtues of paid memberships and promised me millions a year in revenue. To take but one example from the genre: > Modern news publishers like [The Information](https://www.theinformation.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [De Correspondent](https://thecorrespondent.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) both earn **$millions** in revenue each year directly from their members, who pay for real news that they can’t get elsewhere. Having a day job to pay for my writing habits, it does sound wonderful to hear I can make a serious income from my scribbling and live a life travelling the world and writing articles. But having spent a fair bit of my life around a number of incredibly lucrative professions, I am keenly aware in every instance it is a [Pareto distribution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto%5Fdistribution?ref=robert.winter.ink), in which a tiny number of operators accrue the bulk of the revenue. Still, millions I might not make, but the dream of growing a readership of 500 members at $10 a month for 60k annual revenue is a tempting proposition to pay for servers, applications and some research expeditions to produce new content. While such calculations may seem deeply egregious to those of a [FOSS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free%5Fand%5Fopen-source%5Fsoftware?ref=robert.winter.ink) mindset, a closer look at the model indicates money has to flow from somewhere. Be it memberships, donations or the charity of a kind benefactor who's day job underwrites their hobby. In either case, it is better for direct payment than selling customer data in the ever popular ad funded models. That way people are still in control and can choose who should receive their support. Be it boosts, re-posts, crypto or fiat. It will take some more research before I can climb back out of this rabbit hole, but I'd appreciate any advice on solutions other's have implemented. Or, if you subscribe to your favourite sites, what is your preferred method of login? Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Benoit Beaumatin](https://unsplash.com/@birdiemcfly?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/rabbit-hole?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 057 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Leading From The Front URL: https://robert.winter.ink/leading-from-the-front/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:36:58.000Z [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) in 1743, [George II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FII%5Fof%5FGreat%5FBritain?ref=robert.winter.ink) led his troops into battle and defeated the French army at [Dettingen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle%5Fof%5FDettingen?ref=robert.winter.ink), Bavaria. It is a singular event in that it was the last time an English monarch led soldiers into battle. This got me to thinking about leadership and how it is a word which means different things in different settings and to different audiences. Leadership may be shared to bolster employee engagement. Leadership may also be solitary, with an individual taking responsibility for a situation or group. In either case, leadership may be manifest in one of four key perspectives: competency, contingency, transformational, implicit. Countless bottles of ink, or bytes of data in the computer age, have been spilled over these perspectives and there is neither time in the day nor space in this blog to definitively cover them all. But I will give a general *pracie* which may help to provide a little clarity. ## **Competency** Perhaps the most well known and oft written is the competency perspective. This stems from the seemingly innate human interest in what personal characteristics distinguish a great leader from the 'ordinary' person in the street. Over the last two decades, several leadership researchers and consultants have examined what are the defining traits of leaders and they have come up with an interesting list: personality, self-concept, drive, integrity, leadership motivation (will to power), knowledge of the business, IQ, practical intelligence and EQ. The last of these traits is coming to the fore as leaders are increasingly expected to connect with people and issues, rather than merely take them into consideration. In some senses this is Corporate Social Leadership, or the ability to understand and empathise with shared values of stakeholders so they can be more effectively integrated into the business. ## **Contingency** The ability to grasp the situation and mould a leadership style to fit the here and now works hand in glove with the contingency perspective of leadership. Effective leaders must be both insightful and flexible. However there is a trap in this type of leadership perspective, unless a person has a very chameleon like nature, or is a very good actor, adopting a style which doesn’t come naturally can leave them open to perceptions of not being authentic. Perhaps the most damming post-modern critique of a personality or style. Though largely consigned to history, it is important to mention one of the earliest contingency models, that of Fred Fiedler. His model looks at a leader’s natural style and analyses if this fits the situation. In terms of recruiting this may, with modifications, have some benefit as leaders could be selected to ensure best organisational fit (here it should be noted Fiedler’s original model was highly simplistic and only contained two leadership styles, to make it more relevant for recruiting a wider scope of the different leadership styles would need to be taken into account). But this also has a dark side, namely, if a leader whose natural style does not fit the organisation, the leader may, albeit subconsciously, try and force changes to ensure the situation now fits their natural style. ## **Transformational** The Transformational Leadership Perspective looks at people who are gifted communicators, able to meaningfully convey an appealing vision of their mission. Leaders such as Richard Branson are archetypes of this perspective. While at face value the most effective style, engendering as it does a higher level of employee commitment, it has faced criticism for being susceptible to circular logic. The leader is successful, successful people inspire followers, inspired followers breed enthusiasm for the leader, a leader with enthusiastic followers is successful. Another concern with this perspective stems from the assertion that inspirational leaders may be very situational; in times of flux their vision acts as a guiding light, in times of stability employees have less need to be shown the path. ## **Implicit** The final perspective I will deal with is Implicit Leadership. This relates to the perceptions followers hold about the characteristics and influence of their leaders. In terms of developing leadership ability, the implicit perspective is arguably highly important as it addresses the preconceived beliefs followers may hold about their ideal leader. An example of this is the German tendency to prefer imposing leaders, a classic example of which was the former Chancellor Helmut Kohl; who had a tendency to address other world leaders much like a juggernaut talking to a gathering of hedgehogs. ## **Nexus** It is here, at the nexus of the four perspectives that we find the true leader. A person whose authentic character, created from the delicate interplay of the competencies of effective leaders, capitalises on the situation at hand to act in a transformational capacity, lifting a person’s performance to higher standards. But it is also here that we need to pause and remember that while a leader may lift a person’s vision and even raise their performance, it is folly to adopt the 'great man' reading of events. Perhaps Tolstoy went a little far in asserting leaders were merely slaves realising the decree of Providence, but he was right in seeing the importance of the situation. Modern leadership theories all encompass this notion, in one form or another, and it is why discussion of more than one is crucial for our understanding of how leadership can be a transformative force. But what sort of a transformation will be wrought? Plato, in The Republic, wrote of cardinal virtues and their importance in the character of a good city. It is tempting to pick up this theme in regards to leadership and argue that there are four virtues for a good leader: prudence, courage, temperance, justice. Armed with these, a leader can go beyond being merely transactional, building personalities around them beyond their normal limitations, capable of crossing organisational divides to address notions of shared corporate social values and responsibilities. Good night, and good luck. --- [King George II at the Battle of Dettingen](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3019575&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [John Wootton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FWootton?ref=robert.winter.ink) is liscensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 056 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Red Tape Is Fun URL: https://robert.winter.ink/red-tape-is-fun/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:00.000Z > When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. > > *1 Corrinthians 13:11-12* For my part, as a child, I loathed administration. I don't know why that was so. Perhaps fear of the unknown or fear of failure. Certainly it is common, even among the most educated of people, to detest filling out forms because when faced with paperwork in triplicate, even remembering one's name becomes a challenge. To the young child that I was, this sense of being tested vexed me much. This persisted into early adulthood, as I steadfastly continued to avoid administration. But as I cut my way through the undergrowth of the corporate jungle, it became clear there was not only knowledge, considerable profit and even power in mastering that which others avoided. For those rewards, I set myself to learn. Slowly but surely, I masted the form of forms. In time came to love that which once I loathed. I went so far in the process of administration that I returned to university and read for a Master of Business Administration. Many years on and I find both tranquillity and solace in the process of administration. The tidying up of loose ends, finding a place for everything and getting everything in its place. In this sense, preparing my blog for migration has proved a perversely invigorating experience. After a long day at work, I was both irritated and irritating. While I could have sought refuge in drink, I instead set myself to migrating some posts and setting up their metadata. A monotonous process to be sure and one which could have been largely automated. After all, that is what computers do best. Shift data from one place to another with a high level of accuracy. But to take on the role of processor saw the rough seas of my thought calmed. And now, I have the mental space to write these scribbles. One of the other antidotes to [mental indigestion](https://robert.winter.ink/mental-indigestion). It is said that many a true word is said in jest. If so, I can do no better than close with the words of [Bernard Woolley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard%5FWoolley?ref=robert.winter.ink): > Administration saves the nation! Red tape is fun! Good night, and good luck. --- [Sir Bernard Woolley](http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsF/tve20053-19860116-1894.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink) by [unknown ](http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsF/tve20053-19860116-1894.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink)is licensed under fair use. Rationale for fair use for Bernard Woolley image: 1. The image's inclusion in this article is important because it illustrates the content discussed in the article. 2. The image is being used for information purposes only. 3. There is no possibility of any public domain images for the subject since it is from a copyrighted television show. 4. The image is of low resolution. This post is day 055 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### A Novel Approach to Music URL: https://robert.winter.ink/novel-approach-to-music/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:02.000Z I learn today of an interesting collaboration between Polly Samson and her husband, David Gilmour a former member of [Pink Floyd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink%5FFloyd?ref=robert.winter.ink), on an audiobook version of her novel *A Theatre For Dreamers*. Given Gilmour was part of the band who produced albums such as *The Dark Side of the Moon* (1973), *Wish You Were Here* (1975) and *The Wall* (1979), I am anticipating both a memorable and imaginative co-production. I also share Gilmour's puzzlement that more authors don't team up with musicians to add another dimension to their audiobooks. After all, as Gilmour said, who: > wouldn’t want to add a little bit of atmosphere of one sort or another to enhance the experience.We hear radio plays and they have different sound effects going on. And I moved on to thinking that slightly Greek or Leonard-influenced music might be a fun thing to do. You can listen to a recent webcast, [link to Gilmour's official YouTube channel](https://youtu.be/yO4iHTcJipw?ref=robert.winter.ink) in which songs are played to promote the novel. In my years in publishing, I heard several examples of music being 'dumped' into audiobooks. With rare exception it was jarring and felt contrived. But I am excited at the possibilities of musicians teaming up with authors for bespoke productions. Certainly a case of watch the audiobook space for more. Good night, and good luck. --- This post is day 054 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Base Camp of Everest URL: https://robert.winter.ink/base-camp-of-everest/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:04.000Z It has been an incredibly frustrating few days. This is the result of pursuing my dream to have a beautifully coded, bespoke, lean, privacy respecting website which can be a fully featured platform for for my scribblings and also a digital home for my online life. Ooh... and did I mention I am trying to achieve this on a shoestring budget, am not a professional programmer nor inclined to spend the weeks, months or perhaps years needed to learn the various programming languages to accomplish the task. This means I have to stand on the shoulders of giants or, more specifically, tinker with the work of others to accomplish the end result desired. So far, as my opening sentenced perhaps indicated, with little success. But all is not doom and gloom. I have learned an enormous amount about the Ghost platform and am slowly making progress toward my nirvana. This should not suggest to others who are also not developers, and thinking about starting a blog on [Ghost](https://ghost.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink), that it is an Everestine mountain. Quite the contrary. With the exception of [Write.as](https://write.as/?ref=robert.winter.ink), I have never used a publishing platform that is easier to boot up. So long as you are happy to use the default theme (or one of the many from the theme market) and stick with the basics of the platform. But I yearn for more than an entry level site. To that end, the work continues. But in the short term my writing output will suffer a little as all spare mental energy I have in my day is currently being devoted to the next instalment of robert.winter.ink. Of course, if I can't master the rigours of the platform I may have to call it quits, take a leaf from book of [Quirk](https://kevq.uk/?ref=robert.winter.ink), and re-read his fabulous 'how to' articles and migrate to Wordpress. Till tomorrow... good night, and good luck. --- [North Face of Everest](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17249505&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Ggia](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ggia?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 053 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Circular Conversations URL: https://robert.winter.ink/circular-conversations/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:06.000Z Where have all the good conversations gone? Perhaps it is mere delusion, but I seem to recall a time when life was filled with good conversation. The kind of talks in which minutes melted into hours and each comment brought forth an unending flow of interesting ideas. Now, I mostly can't wait for the talking to end and for the echo of the words to melt into silence. For a time I thought it was the dizzying pace of social commentary. Logout for 5 minutes and a notification panel becomes choked with notices. But I discarded that notion as at other times the wires and channels were abuzz with topics of interest. Rather, the reality is dawning that the problem is the circular nature of so much dialogue these days. A topic is aired, given a good walk, taken around the block again for good measure and then harnessed to a treadmill for another thirty days. Little wonder it becomes tired, hackneyed and in need of rest. To that end, I am devoting the balance of these 100 days to pastures new. To take a fresh idea for a walk each day, one which is found on the road less travelled. It will prove very frustrating for my daily interlocutors who may bridle at my moving on from that which isn't yet talked out. But I think it will both help the quality of my writing, my conversation and the little bit of this globe I call home. Good night, and good luck. --- [*The Conversation* ](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink)by [Arnold Lakhovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold%5FLakhovsky?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1880–1937) Blue licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public%5Fdomain?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 052 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Labours of Love URL: https://robert.winter.ink/labours-of-love/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:08.000Z Today has been a day of little musing and much coding. I began with a new site build for a work project and this evening I have been feverishly working under the hood of my trial service on the Ghost platform. It has all been very enjoyable, but also slow going. I find the initial steps of a new build are always like this. As the saying goes, 'God is in the detail' and only by finessing the little things does the overall project take on a majestic form. An example was highlighted by Kev Quirk in his post about [adding scroll to top functionality](https://kevq.uk/adding-a-scroll-to-top-button-without-javascript/?ref=robert.winter.ink) in which he noted the benefit of adding `scroll-behavior: smooth;` to the html tag, which avoids the unnecessarily harsh 'jump' which ordinarily happens with a link to take users back to the top of the page. When a mass of small details like this are amalgamated, they form a unified and enjoyable UX. I am very much looking forward to unveiling the re-vamped robert.winter.ink 2.0\. But there will be several more cups of coffee, 2 am ideas, much gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair before it is ready. Though for all my complaining, it is the sort of process which makes life so much more enjoyable. As Albert Camus observed: > As The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Museums Victoria](https://unsplash.com/@museumsvictoria?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/labour?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 051 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Point Of No Return URL: https://robert.winter.ink/point-of-no-return/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:12.000Z In 1927, [Charles Lindbergh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles%5FLindbergh?ref=robert.winter.ink) climbed into his plane, The Spirit of St. Louis, and accelerated down a 5,000 foot mud soaked runway. The plane was fully loaded with aviation fuel and there was some concern he might not get it airborne. His plane reached [V1 speed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%5Fspeeds?ref=robert.winter.ink#V1), when takeoff could no longer be aborted, it was the point of no return. Fortunately for Lindbergh, he got airborne and lived to tell the tale. It was some fifty days ago that I learnt about #100DaysToOffload. Brainchild of [Kev Quirk](https://fosstodon.org/@kev?ref=robert.winter.ink) and for which I both thank and curse him in equal measure. Today I reach the metaphorical point of no return, and it feels good. Not only has it got me back into the habit of a daily journal, it has, [as I originally suspected](https://robert.winter.ink/one-hundred-days), acted as my very own [Pensieve](https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/pensieve?ref=robert.winter.ink): > One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one's mind, pours them into the basin, and examines them at one's leisure. It becomes easier to spot patterns and links, you understand, when they are in this form. - Albus Dumbledore Ever a man to love a bit of tinkering, the blogging process has also proved to be as much a technical as a mental exercise. I began with [write.as](https://write.as/?ref=robert.winter.ink) and am in the process of learning [Node.js](https://nodejs.org/en/?ref=robert.winter.ink) as I look to migrate my blog to [Ghost](https://ghost.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink); to gain ever more control over the customisation of the publishing and reading experience. On this day, I raise a glass as the good ship blog travels past the point of no return. I toast my fellow writers who are taking part in the 100 Days challenge and look forward to sharing more adventures in philosophy and technology over the next 50 days... and beyond! P.S. a glass also needs raising to my editor and wife-to-be who has proofed my musings each night. Without her humanising my work it would be far less readable. At this stage, surprising given how much more swearing I have done since starting the challenge, she wants to do her own 100 Days. Likely not until after her thesis is finished, but I might join her in a 100 Days 2.0 when she does. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Nick Fewings](https://unsplash.com/@jannerboy62?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/take-off?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 050 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Confessions of a Platform Junkie URL: https://robert.winter.ink/confessions-of-a-platform-junkie/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:16.000Z Hello, my name is Robert and I am a platform hopper. I know, I know, not the sort of thing most people confess to in polite society, but this is a circle of safety and it is time I confess to you all. In the not so distant past, I have run Windows, Mac OS, Linux (Ubuntu, Debian, Kali, Mint, OpenSEUSE and currently Pop! OS). I have hand-held iOS, then Android, back to iOS, back to Android and now back to iOS again. I've been pro-Google, anti-Google, de-Googled, re-Googled and lately back to de-Googling again. My software has been FOSS, proprietary and back to FOSS (with a sprinkling of proprietary tools). For websites, I have been lean and minimal, bloated and loaded with ads and trackers, then back to privacy respecting. I've prostrated myself to the book of face, fallen in love with Google +, tweeted and most recently tooted. Perhaps the sole, and soul, area of constancy has been in messaging. Though my understanding of what is 'really' secure is an ever evolving feast (for example, Keybase was secure then Zoom bought it and now many are running for the exits shouting "fly! fly!"), I have long been aware and used platforms I 'understood' to be end-to-end encrypted. Change has only come when it became clear I had misread the product disclosure statement or that it turned out things were not as secure as the label on the tin led everyone to believe. Moral of this story: if it isn't open to external audits I would take any claims of security with a mountain of salt. Given this litany of u-turns on tech, it should not come as a surprise that I am also rethinking [How I Publish](https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-publish). This is not to say I am unhappy with Write.as. It is a marvellous platform and everything I originally thought. While this is a good thing, it is also a problem as I originally thought it would be - a platform I would outgrow if my blog needed to extend beyond the basics and embrace feature rich publishing. This leaves me at a cross road. Having perused and discarded a number of options (Medium, Tumblr, Drupal, Joomla, Squarespace and Jekyll), I am now caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Wordpress is a platform with which I am very familiar. I have used it personally and professionally for nearly 16 years, and with familiarity comes comfort. However, I have grown increasingly wary of its bloat. Much of what I need requires a plug-in (not in itself a bad thing as a development team can only do so much and specialisation if a beautiful thing), but because nearly every plug-in seems to require a paid subscription. While I like something which is free as much as the next techno-junkie, I also appreciate developers can not live on praise alone. However, this is more labour of love than paid endeavour and I simply can't afford $10 a month, here, $18 there, etc. etc. This has sent me toward the deep blue sea, namely Ghost. I am currently in the trial phase and it is a steep learning curve. While I am heartened that the likes of [Mozilla](https://blog.mozvr.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink), [Duck Duck Go](https://spreadprivacy.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) and [OpenAI](https://openai.com/blog/?ref=robert.winter.ink) all use Ghost, I am also aware they have teams of professional developers ready, willing and able to extend the basic functionality of the platform to suit their bespoke needs. I, on the other hand need a turnkey solution. In the sense that I turn a key and the engine starts. I don't want to have to connect the spark plugs or replace the hoses before ignition. I'll keep you updated and either you will see me switching platforms and publishing via Ghost or you'll know it proved a coding bridge too far. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Suad Kamardeen](https://unsplash.com/@suadkamardeen?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/platform?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 049 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Problem of Over Correction URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-problem-of-over-correction/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:18.000Z I have been thinking on the myriad problems of several current movements (mostly the failures of logic being used by the adherents). Though it will take more research and thought before I am willing to publish something meaningful, I came across a kernel today which succinctly addresses one of the key problems: > Many years ago I was introduced to one of the most helpful rules of logic: to never say or write anything the opposite of which would only be uttered by a madman. So for instance, if you are an aspiring politician do not say “We must go forwards into a new bright future” because no sane person would publicly declare “We must go backwards into a dark past”. > > [Douglas Murray](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas%5FMurray%5F%28author%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) Part of the benefit of such logic, is it begins to address what has long troubled me: the act of over correction. While many will cheer and even demand over correction, given the 'historical injustice,' many questions remain unanswered. How long should over correction last? Is there a level of over correction which is unacceptable? What happens when the pendulum inevitably swings back? What will the opposing over correction look like? I think only history will be able to answer the last two of these questions. My fear is unless we answer the first two, history will inevitably respond with opposite and exponentially greater over correction. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Markus Winkler](https://unsplash.com/@markuswinkler?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/correction?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 048 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Struggle is Topic URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-struggle-is-topic/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:21.000Z [Yesterday](https://robert.winter.ink/the-void) I wrote about the challenge of mental indigestion, but today I am vexed by that other perennial spectre of blogging everyday: topic. This is not to say there is any dearth of ideas. So far, today alone, I have pondered writing about policing of people, policing of bookcases, freedom of speech, shoulder taps on social media, online censorship, fair market value, Mosasaur eggs and great pizza shops near Vatican City. Each pondered and rejected in turn as the research involved exceeds the allotted time for this daily challenge. On the upside, I have a growing list for my blog long term (if there is any topic on which you would be interested in my writing, please drop me a line). When I have the luxury of spending several hours to research each article, I will start making my way through the list. But until then... I learn today that it is 80 years since Charles de Gaulle's [*Appeal of 18 June*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal%5Fof%5F18%5FJune?ref=robert.winter.ink) in which he spoke to the people of occupied France and declared that the battle for France might be over, but the war for France was about to begin. Good night, and good luck. --- This post is day 047 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Void URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-void/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:24.000Z It's day forty-six of the [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge and a difficulty that has ever stalked me since day one bodies forth: that of mental indigestion. Much akin to stomach indigestion in which you can't face another morsel of food, mental indigestion leaves you unable to face another thought. I find it most acute after long days at work in which everyone wants a piece of my mind. Never left for a moment to ponder my own pondering, I expend all of my thoughts and words on other peoples problems. While at times it is wonderful to be helpful and give back to those who are so often giving to me, at other times it simply sucks all my powers of concentration and leaves me numb to thought. To the extent that it is all I can do to remain conscious as my mind reels from the effort and longs to think nothing. This is the height of mental indigestion. The cure for me is separation. Separation from other people's thoughts and to be left alone long enough to meditate in a self-created void. A space inside my mind palace which is empty of everything. It is like a mental version of an isolation tank, but a place which takes the notion of the tank one stage further. For an iso-tank is pitch-black, light-proof and soundproof, but a mind palace void seeks to also remove the notion of pitch black, to contemplate true nothingness, which by definition can't contain something you can picture as that would still be something, while the void is: nothing. Here, the life age of the earth passes in the blinking of an eye, and the recharge time is mesmerising. At which point, fresh as if from a nights sleep, I am ready to approach my blog, rattle off another day and keep the challenge alive. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Alexis Fauvet](https://unsplash.com/@childeye?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/void?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 046 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Over Consumption of Doubt URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-over-consumption-of-doubt/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:25.000Z Though the works of [René Descartes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9%5FDescartes?ref=robert.winter.ink) are seldom read, his phrase '*cogito, ergo sum*' has entered popular culture to the extent it is known even beyond those with little Latin and less Greek. Part of the reason for this is that Descartes was attuned to the realisation that Latin had a more limited audience than the vernacular and originally published his sentiment in French: '*je pense, donc je suis*.' But be it Latin, French or the current *lingua franca* of English, 'I think, therefore I am' has achieved something akin to universal understanding. [Antoine-Léonard Thomas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine-L%C3%A9onard%5FThomas?ref=robert.winter.ink), in addition to having perhaps the shortest Wikipedia page for a man of such eloquence, expanded aptly on Descartes original to arrive at: '*dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum*' \[I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am\]. In revealing doubt as the central tenet in Descartes thinking, he exposed one of the challenges of modern philosophy. One which fundamentally vexed [Søren Kierkegaard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren%5FKierkegaard?ref=robert.winter.ink) who apprehended that thinkers of his generation doubted, but only in a very superficial way: > Every speculative score-keeper who conscientiously marks up the momentous march of modern philosophy, every lecturer, crammer, student, everyone on the outskirts of philosophy or at its center is unwilling to stop with doubting everything > > Søren Kierkegaard This over consumption of doubt, to coin a phrase, resulted in modern thinkers failing to doubt properly. For the ancient Greeks, indeed for Descartes himself, doubting was a skill which was not easily done. One could spend a lifetime refining the act still to have a long way to travel on the journey. But contemporaries of Kierkegaard seemed to treat doubt as a beginning rather than end of speculation. Kierkegaard went on to observe that doubt was the inverse of faith and that while people were too quick to start with doubt, they were also too quick to move on from faith: 'Today nobody will stop with faith; they all go further.' In reversing the polarity of effort with respect to doubt and faith, modern thinkers were making what should be effortful, cheap. Rather than stopping with faith and spending a lifetime testing it in the fire of doubt, thinkers were quick to doubt and thus reduced faith to a mere conceptual term. For Kierkegaard, this compression of faith into a simple and comprehensible concept meant that people were fundamentally misunderstanding that faith is an act which requires ongoing struggle. Only by embracing the struggle, by returning to a pre-modern conception of doubt and faith - that both are a lifelong struggle and do not permit compression to a meme or tweet - can we hope to effectively wrestle with the ethical problem at hand. But effort is seldom sexy to warriors of change. That is to say, they prefer to compress faith and doubt into a single hashtag in an effort to remake the world in their image overnight. Because change at the rate of a lifetime is too long for the social media cycle. Good night, and good luck. --- [Mr Pipo Think 03](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12214419&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Nevit Dilmen](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nevit?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 045 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Peasants' Revolt URL: https://robert.winter.ink/peasants-revolt/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:27.000Z [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) in 1381, Wat Tyler is beheaded following a skirmish during the Peasants' Revolt. But the tale of the revolt begins some months earlier and ultimately had its roots in the socio-economic dislocation which resulted from the [Black Death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%5FDeath?ref=robert.winter.ink) pandemic some forty years before in the 1340s. Though the proximate causes of the revolt is usually cited as the unpopular poll tax, largely a result of demonstrators co-opting it as an example to hurl at [Margaret Thatcher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret%5FThatcher?ref=robert.winter.ink) in the 1980s when she [introduced similar measures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll%5Ftax%5F%28Great%5FBritain%29?ref=robert.winter.ink), it was a wide spectrum movement which sought an end to [serf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom?ref=robert.winter.ink)[d](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom?ref=robert.winter.ink)[om](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom?ref=robert.winter.ink) and the removal of senior officials at court. Yet perhaps the most surprising feature of the revolt is that in-spite of the modern title, Peasants' Revolt didn't gain usage until the late nineteenth century, the people who animated the movement weren't peasants at all. They were in many respects the village elite. True, they weren't noble magnates, but they were constables, stewards and jurors. In short, people who were on the up and saw an opportunity to press their agenda. Since the official burial of Marxism, though reading the popular press today the Zombie seems determined to walk once more, historians aren't supposed to use the phrase class war. Yet that is essentially what the revolt was: a reaction from village England against what was deemed to be plans to keep them in their former place. Marching on London, the rebels wrung concessions out of a dazed and momentarily wrong footed government. But once the King had regained himself, and a preponderance of military power, he turned on the rebel camp proclaiming: > You wretches, detestable on land and sea, you who seek equality with lords, are unworthy to live. Give this message to your colleagues. Rustics you were and rustics you are still. You will remain in bondage not as before, but incomparably harsher. For as long as we live, we will strive to suppress you and your misery will be an example in the eyes of posterity. In the face of such vehemence, the rebels took the only realistic course. They fell to their knees, leaving the king both literally and figuratively the only one left standing. Yet it would be wrong to describe the revolt as merely a 'passing episode.' For although the rebels didn't achieve the sweeping societal reforms for which they had fought and died, they did nudge the pendulum. In the years following 1381 serfdom went into terminal decline, though it should be noted for economic rather than political reasons, and wages steadily rose. Much the same could be said for the current protests. Eventually the people will leave the streets and things will largely go back to how they were. But the pendulum has been nudged, and while it won't result in the mass bulldozing and cancelling of anyone with even the most dim and distant connection with slavery, it will cause society to reexamine its past and look with fresh eyes to its future. Though I would wager it is one driven by economic rather than political imperatives. Though perhaps the bigger question for history is how far will the pendulum swing in the current direction before moving back the other way? And once it does, how far will it travel? Good night, and good luck. --- *The Death of Wat Tyler* from [Library Royal MS 18.E.i-ii f. 175](http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jhsy/pr.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public%5Fdomain?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 044 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Letterheady URL: https://robert.winter.ink/letterheady/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:44:23.000Z [The other week I marvelled in the joy of the website Letters of Note](https://robert.winter.ink/letters-of-note). Today, I celebrate the stationary on which letters are written. Wonderfully brought to your screen by the site [Letterheady](https://www.letterheady.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). The site is an absolute treasure trove of stationary from some of the world's most famous, and infamous, people. One superb example of the genre is the business letterhead of Nikola Tesla - after whom the car company is named. The letterhead displays some of his Inventions, which are clockwise from top-left: Oscillation Transformer, Telautomaton (wireless, remote-controlled devices; pictured is a remotely-operated boat, showcased in 1898), Steam & Gas Turbine, Induction Motor. Centre: Wardenclyffe Tower (never completed). ![Nikola Tesla Company Letterhead, c.1900](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/3db28-tumblr_kych1sqi7c1qac511o1_r2_1280.jpg) Nikola Tesla Company, c.1900 Edison it seems was less inventive when it came to his stationary: ![The Laboratory of Thomas A. Edison, 1923](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/ee3a3-tumblr_kwv9zqdv3o1qac511o1_500.jpg) The Laboratory of Thomas A. Edison, 1923 In the entertainment industry, image is everything. So it comes as little surprise to see some creative variations on a theme. In 1961 Disney took the [Technicolor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor?ref=robert.winter.ink) approach: ![Walt Disney Letterhead 1961](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/71a1b-tumblr_l03qhqgc1r1qac511o1_500.jpg) Walt Disney’s Wonderful World of Color, 1961 While this is a 1976 rendering of Star Wars before the famous logo was developed: ![The Star Wars Corporation, 1976](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/1b835-tumblr_kw2v42xcfo1qac511o1_500.png) The Star Wars Corporation, 1976 But, perhaps my favourite is from the desk of Harpo Marx, a testament to comedy on the page. ![Harpo Marx Letterhead, c.1930](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/e91bf-tumblr_l5ws3x81rw1qac511o1_500.jpg) Harpo Marx, c.1930 Would that email had as much character. Good night, and good luck. --- This post is day 043 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Power of the Snub URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-power-of-the-snub/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:34.000Z Today was quite the red letter day. For the first time since gyms shut due to the Covid pandemic, my local reopened and I was able to train again. Though vowing to take things easy as I pulled on my sweats, it seems my body has lost what little fitness it had. Consequently, doing nothing more than going through the motions of a workout was enough to provoke bucking hysteria from my muscles. The other thing which took me by surprise, the way in which my local community seems to have completely forgotten about Covid. This got me musing on the power of the snub. If I had been cryogenically frozen prior to Covid becoming a household name and then dropped into my gym today, apart from odd signs on the floor telling me to stay 1.5 meters from my fellow trainers, and that gym staff now seem to be actively engaging in clearing the equipment, I would have been none the wiser. This odd situation, given the positively post-zombie apocalypse attitudes of everyone until this week, was heightened by the surrounding mall being packed by shoppers so desperate to 'grab a bargain' that they were absent mindedly bumping into each other in a race to the checkout. When only the other week the mere thought of entering the 1.5 meter danger zone would provoke the most pained expressions and instant dousing in surgical alcohol. Perhaps this is only natural. After all, the human capacity to dissipate cognitive dissonance knows no bounds. But it did make me wonder what the long term implications for Covid will be. In the 80s and 90s, one could not turn on the TV or walk down the street for being bombarded by HIV-Aids awareness campaigns. Today, hardly a word is spoken of the disease. ## Social Mores What is striking about the Aids pandemic is that behaviour only partly changed. After the initial awareness campaigns sparked rapid and profound changes in behaviour, it quickly became apparent the changes were incomplete and by the late 90s, barely 19% of American adults attested to changes in their sexual conduct. Fast forward 20 years, and declines in sexual activity seem to owe more to '[the introduction of the iPhone in 2007 and the global recession of 2008](https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1525?ref=robert.winter.ink)' than fear of contracting Aids. Given today's encounters at my local mall, it seems Covid is likely to follow the same trend. While the activists campaigning on your local street will violently disagree, social attitudes change far more than many of us think, but credible threats to life are less often the proximate cause than less existential social pressures. In short, the power of the snub retains a capacity to alter social actions and it does so in a more subtle way than the more vitriolic alternatives in use today. Good night, and good luck. --- [Who's your fat friend](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33624271&ref=robert.winter.ink) by James Godwin is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 042 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Competing Thoughts URL: https://robert.winter.ink/competing-thoughts/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:36.000Z Today was a day in which, if you'll forgive this writer a reification, my thoughts have been battling in my mind. The main cause is that while the 100 days challenge is a great way to force a level of writing discipline, it creates challenges when life is provoking thoughts which are deep, need tremendous research to present a nuanced argument and time is short after a long and tiring day. But the labour is not without its rewards, and though I can't post them today, I have the kernel and initial research for two thought provoking blogs which will be coming your way in the not to distant future. In a sense, this is one of the benefits I had hoped the 100 days challenge would accrue: increased speculation which will lead to a steadily growing flow of more closely argued articles. To that end, today's blog may be short and perhaps wholly without merit, but it has helped this writer find his footing in the blogosphere. Good night, and good luck. --- *High Jousting* in Paulus Hector Mair's compendium is licensed under [Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31106282&ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 041 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topid/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Damnatio Memoriae URL: https://robert.winter.ink/damnatio-memoriae/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:39.000Z *Damnatio memoriae* is a Latin phrase which loosely translates as 'condemned to oblivion.' It was, or given the modern cancel culture perhaps I should say it is, the practice of removing a person's name from history. Like many Roman practices, it originated in another culture. One of the earliest examples is to be found in the reign of [Hatshepsut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatshepsut?ref=robert.winter.ink), who reigned as pharaoh of Egypt in the fourteenth century BC. As ever with modernity, it is seldom that modern. The purpose of *damnatio memoriae* was, much like modern cancel movements, to remove every trace of an individual from the record, to make it as though they had never existed. For the Romans, who were by and large obsessed with memory, it was a fate far worse than death. But, in ancient Rome, much like in modern cities, memory is more than the activity of an individual. It is an object in so much as a statue or inscription reminds passers by of a person or event. In this context, to consign a person, thing or event to oblivion involved a physical as well as mental act. An example of attempted *damnatio memoriae* can be seen below, where an inscription featuring the name of the Emperor [Commodus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus?ref=robert.winter.ink) was removed. Only to have the letters 'CO' added back later in paint. ![Damnatio memoriae of 'Commodus' on an inscription in the Museum of Roman History Osterburken](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/65905-romermuseum_osterburken_derhexer_2012-09-30_008.jpg) Damnatio memoriae of 'Commodus' on an inscription in the Museum of Roman History Osterburken. The abbreviation "CO" was later restored with paint. Of course by definition it is hard to know when complete examples of *damnatio memoriae* took place, because for them to have been successful we shouldn't know of the name or event. Thus it is hard for historians and archaeologists to say for certain how often the practice happened. But best guesstimates suggest it was a rare occurrence. This brings us to the present where, in Britain and the US at least, there are moves to obliterate more than a single individual. Rather, the push is to efface hundreds of years and thousands of individuals from the public record. [Olivette Otele](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivette%5FOtele?ref=robert.winter.ink) has offered one of the more cogent responses to the trend: > My initial reaction as a black person would like to see them down but actually I think that this is not a good idea... What we need to do is have a strong dialogue and talk about these things because if we just remove them people will think that this is the end of racism, discrimination and all these things — and all these things will carry on after the statues have been removed. In a sense, to allow a mob to pull down the statues and cancel the past is to engage in just the sort of behaviour which has allowed institutional slavery and systemic racism over the centuries; a minority imposing their will over the majority. The democratic solution is to engage in just the sort of debate for which Professor Otele has called. Though perhaps less appealing than direct action now, it would help to ensure we don't repeat the sins of history. Something which all too easily happens if the past is forgotten once the obvious representations are consigned to oblivion. Good night, and good luck. --- [Portrait of family of Septimius Severus](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=62550709&ref=robert.winter.ink) by José Luiz Bernardes Ribeiro is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). [Römermuseum Osterburken](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21938278&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [DerHexer](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:DerHexer?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [CC-by-sa 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 040 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Media Archipelago URL: https://robert.winter.ink/media-archipelago/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:41.000Z > If \[journalists\] have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? It hardly ever happens because it would damage sales. > > Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn [Solzhenitsyn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr%5FSolzhenitsyn?ref=robert.winter.ink), a long standing critic of he Soviet Union and communism, knew much about the use and abuse of public opinion. After serving in the Soviet Army during World War II, he was sent to a labour camp for eight years after criticising Stalin's policies in a private letter. Having survived the camp system, Solzhenitsyn published a series of important books, which brought a degree of protection through fame, but also the ire of the Soviet leadership. Too well known to kill, he was booked on a long distance flight by Aeroflot as the next best thing. Settling in the United States, he delivered one of the most important [commencement speeches](https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/a-world-split-apart?ref=robert.winter.ink) at Harvard. Prior to his speech, Solzhenitsyn had become very popular in key circles and many anticipated his speech to be positive, perhaps even fawning, of America and its widely touted freedoms. But from his opening words, it was clear unadulterated praise was not to be forthcoming. > Harvard's motto is '*Veritas*' ... truth is seldom pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter. There is some bitterness in my speech today, too. But I want to stress that it comes not from an adversary but from a friend. > > Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn The bitterness was in part a reaction to what he considered a lack of civil courage in the West, particularly in 'the ruling groups and the intellectual elite' which causes the impression of a lack of courage in the whole of society. But his most pronounced bitterness was a reaction to the Western press. As a political dissident in Soviet Russia, Solzhenitsyn understood in a visceral way what it was like to live in a nation without freedom of the press. But in the West, an environment which was scarcely better had arisen, one in which there is scare any accountability for what is produced: > What sort of responsibility does a journalist have to his readers, or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? Worse yet, Solzhenitsyn argued, is that while the press enjoys freedom, there is little for the readership: > Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend. Fast forward forty years, and some progress has been made, thanks in no small part to the advent of the internet which has disrupted the media cycle once dominated by a few major organisations who could determine the public narrative. This has given rise to increased editorial independence, but after the initial proliferation of views, activists have steadily pushed back on unorthodox views, giving rise to '[wrongspeak](https://quillette.com/2018/05/14/wrongspeak/?ref=robert.winter.ink):' 'the things we believe to be true but cannot say.' Even if you disagree with this writers thinking, Solzhenitsyn speech is worth reading in full as his views of the American society to which he bore witness, are prescient in their prefiguring of the social movements which were to follow: > We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. In the East, it is destroyed by the dealings and machinations of the ruling party. In the West, commercial interests tend to suffocate it. This is the real crisis. The split in the world is less terrible than the similarity of the disease plaguing its main sections. Good night, and good luck. --- [Solzhenitsyn with Heinrich Böll](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=65747199&ref=robert.winter.ink) by Bert Verhoeff / Anefo is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 039 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Better Part of Valour URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-better-part-of-valour/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:43.000Z > Obama made sure to bring together the past with the present. Memory stalking the impatiently advancing future. Into the party marched the honour ghosts, the generation of the revolution. A band of colonists rising up against an empire. The generation that had fought world war II. The civil rights generation that had the courage to sit at the lunch counter and brave fire houses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedoms cause. Everything contemporary seemed infused by history to reach out and back to History for a sense of its own future purpose. > > *Simon Schama* I wrote a long blog post today in which the past stalked the future. Though a common occurrence for those who follow this blog, it differed as it strayed firmly into the present. A dangerous endeavour at the best of times, but in the current climate - positively suicidal. Not because of the inevitability of trolls or even the wide-eyed acolytes who, with a frenetic rage, seek to burn anything which doesn't bow to their outlook. But because in times such as this, important discussions become subsumed by an emotion which prevents meaningful agonism. And this is largely why I write, to spark discussion. In a climate which largely prohibits this, it is time for this writer to retire from the field and live to post again another day. In true Hemingway style, today's article remains as a draft, to be reprised when I have the time to more closely argue the case and the prevailing discourse the cool head to meaningfully discuss. And it will surface because it is a case which needs to be argued. Not because the contemporary is infused by history, but because the contemporary has firmly adopted Trump's 'fake news' stance to the historical record. Instead, preferring 'their' understanding and howling sanctimony, sanctimony, at anyone so bigoted as to point to the inaccuracies of their claims. But Cleo, history's muse, is persistent and can't be silenced, no matter how much the mob may wish it so. Thus today is not silence, rather it is discretion. Which the sage knows, is the better part of valour. Good night, and good luck. --- [History](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6733119&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Frederick Dielman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick%5FDielman?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 038 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Cold Calling Students URL: https://robert.winter.ink/cold-calling-students/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:25:49.000Z I learn today that a poll, of over 30,000 students from around the world who are intending to study abroad, has showed 57% are experiencing disruptions to their study plans. This number is up on the 46% returned when [QS](https://www.qs.com/portfolio-items/uk-universities-edition-international-student-survey-2020/?ref=robert.winter.ink) ran a similar survey in April. Given the effect Covid is having on day to day life, the only surprise here is that the number facing disruption isn't higher. Yet what seems to be creating the greatest consternation and alarm in academic circles is not that students are facing disruption, but that 29% of the survey respondents are intending to delay or cancel their future plans for overseas study. The cause? The shift to online learning is falling well short of the standards expected of the world's leading universities. Those most affected by the surge to online teaching are in the post-graduate realm, who overwhelmingly favour face-to-face seminars. This contrasts with undergraduates who are almost evenly split. Thinking back to my own time in undergraduate lectures, about half the room were clearly not present in spirit, though there in person. Thus if anything, I would have expected more to be in favour of online tuition so they can spend their time wrapped in social media's loving embrace rather than being [cold called](https://www.hbs.edu/teaching/case-method/leading-in-the-classroom/Pages/Cold-Calling.aspx?ref=robert.winter.ink) by a lecturer rude enough to rouse them from their post-lunch stupor. In conversation with one distinguished academic, I asked about their current teaching routine, which they confessed to be a surreal experience. Technical hurdles not withstanding, from a didactic standpoint they were not sure what they are accomplishing, but one thing is for certain: they are not teaching. This speaks to perhaps Covid's longest legacy - accelerated intellectual decline. In an age in which literacy, though technically more widespread than ever, is steadily declining, the shift to online learning is only deepening an established trend in the race to the bottom for student outcomes. Out are the days when a student would be failed for poor performance, and in is the insistence on degrees for all so long as the tuition fees are paid. But all is hopefully not lost, for while the line between the Socratic acceptance of the limits of our knowledge and genuine ignorance is being blurred, the financial rapaciousness of the university system knows no bounds. In such an atmosphere, the QS study revealing that 77% of students surveyed would expect a discount for online tuition should hopefully shift universities into action to maintain their P&L. Where declining literacy has failed to stimulate changes in academia, perhaps a global pandemic and loss of revenue may succeed. Good night, and good luck. --- [Universität Bologna Deutsche Nation](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5835700&ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 037 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Modern Pocket Boroughs URL: https://robert.winter.ink/modern-pocket-boroughs/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:47.000Z Writing in 1821, Sydney Smith railed that: > The country belongs to the Duke of Rutland, Lord Lonsdale, the Duke of Newcastle, and about twenty other holders of boroughs. They are our masters! He was writing in protest of a practise, too often forgotten in our age, of the 'pocket borough.' These were areas of England and Wales which returned MPs to parliament who were not freely voted for by the people, but put in office by the pressure of a powerful landowner or rich merchant. 'Pocket,' because the boroughs were said to be in the pocket of their patrons. In his book [*The Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland*](https://archive.org/details/representativeh04oldfgoog), [Thomas Oldfield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%5FOldfield?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1755–1822), an English political reformer, opined that of the 514 members, 340 were selected by their patrons - a mere 180 benefactors. Perhaps one of the great myths of the pocket borough era is that the corruption was all one way. The archetypal 'fat cat' with his fat fingers wrapped around the levers of power. In a number of cases, the electorate resisted domination by a powerful lord only to ensure they received their cut of the action. In the borough of New Shoreham, in 1771, 81 voters - a majority of the electorate - formed themselves into the 'Christian Club.' This was a corrupt organisation who sold the borough to whoever paid the highest price. Yet for all the antics, there was a certain honesty about such naked corruption. Votes were sold and it was clear who was buying them. Fast forward a few hundred years and, in the United Kingdom at least, several reform acts, an expanded franchise and intense media scrutiny has put an end to the naked corruption of the pocket borough, but this has arguably been replaced by minority activist groups ('minority' here should be understood in the literal sense of a small number, not in the sense of an ethnic or religious minority) whose moral pressure and hashtags have replaced the thirty pieces of silver offered in a bygone age. [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) in 1832, the United Kingdom passed the [First Reform Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform%5FAct%5F1832?ref=robert.winter.ink) which sought to put an end to the era of pocket boroughs and expand the franchise. Though beyond the scope of such a short article to advance remedies to the modern pocket borough phenomenon, it is a good space to pause and remember the reforms of the past and contemplate the reforms that are yet to come. Good night, and good luck. --- [Old Sarum](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5989958&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [John Constable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FConstable?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 036 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Into the Jaws of Death URL: https://robert.winter.ink/into-the-jaws-of-death/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:44:54.000Z Though born more than thirty after the end of the Second World War, the global conflagration suffused my childhood. My father served in the War and carried the scars throughout his life. He was one of the lucky ones. As a consequence, every year I take a moment to remember those who put their lives on the line to secure the freedoms I have enjoyed all my life. [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) (6 June) 1944, [Operation Neptune](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation%5FNeptune?ref=robert.winter.ink) began. What is popularly known as D-Day, was both the largest seaborne invasion in history and has come to symbolise the beginning of the end for the [Nazi ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism?ref=robert.winter.ink)domination of Europe. One of the most memorable photographs to capture this event was taken by Chief Photographer's Mate (CPHoM) [Robert F. Sargent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FF.%5FSargent?ref=robert.winter.ink) and aptly titled 'Into the Jaws of Death.' It was taken on 6 June 1944 at 08:30 and depicts a LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel) from the U.S. Coast Guard-manned [USS Samuel Chase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS%5FSamuel%5FChase%5F%28APA-26%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) disembarking troops of Company E, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division (the Big Red One). The soldiers pictured are wading onto the 'Fox Green' section of [Omaha Beach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha%5FBeach?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Calvados, Basse-Normandie, France). During the landing, the American soldiers encountered the newly formed German 352nd Division. Two-thirds of Company E became casualties. [#LestWeForget](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/lestweforget/) Good night, and good luck. --- [Into the Jaws of Death](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17040973&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Robert F. Sargent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FF.%5FSargent?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 035 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Updating My Plank URL: https://robert.winter.ink/updating-my-plank/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:53.000Z As a man who loves his technology, one thing I enjoy reading about is how others use theirs. There is a small degree of voyeurism in this, but mostly it is because the digital world is deep and wide and at times hard to navigate. While there is much merit in [Robert Frost's notion of the road not taken](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44272/the-road-not-taken?ref=robert.winter.ink), at times I love it when things just work. For that, some brave soul needs to have trodden the road first. In [Mike Stone's](https://fosstodon.org/@mike?ref=robert.winter.ink) article, [What's On Your Plank](https://mikestone.me/whats-on-your-plank?ref=robert.winter.ink), he referenced the markdown editor [Typora](https://typora.io/?ref=robert.winter.ink). I had been using [Apostrophe](https://somas.pages.gitlab.gnome.org/apostrophe/?ref=robert.winter.ink) which was a lean and elegant writing environment, but Typora takes things up a notch. The key feature which won me over is the *real* live preview methodology employed for editing and reading. Though the hybrid approach is rather vogue, the Typora **what you see is what you mean** approach has my vote because it gives me all the control I need by using markdown with the ease of proofing in a live view. ### What's on my plank As for what's on my plank? ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/75165-my_plank.jpg) An assortment of browsers: Firefox being my daily driver along, Iridium for when I want a Chromium feel, Brave for work and Tor for when I am in full tinfoil hat mode. Typora my current markdown editor. Standard Notes for... notes. LibreOffice and Zotero for my research projects. What's on your plank? Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Michal Czyz](https://unsplash.com/@digitalmike?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/update?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 034 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Case of the Dangling Toad URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-case-of-the-dangling-toad/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:55.000Z I learn today a manuscript of Isaac Newton's is [being offered by Bonhams.](https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/26489/lot/1/?ref=robert.winter.ink). The two page manuscript is based on *Tumulus Pestis* \[The Tomb of the Plague\] by Jan Baptist van Helmont, a Flemish physician who treated victims during the Antwerp plague of 1605\. Van Helmont's writing on chemistry was not only influential on Newton and [Robert Boyle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FBoyle?ref=robert.winter.ink), but he invented the word 'gas' and demonstrated that other gases exist which are distinct from atmospheric air. Darren Sutherland, a specialist at Bonhams, commented on the manuscript: > Newton here provides his contemporary synopsis of the causes of the plague, its transmission and onset, the visible symptoms of the plague and its potential cures. Newton’s notes are not verbatim transcriptions of Van Helmont’s text, but rather a synthesis of his central ideas and observations through Newton’s eyes. Though van Helmont was a key influence on the young Newton, stressing the necessity of analysing experiment data, the medical speculations of Newton in his manuscript are, to say the least, questionable. Discussing remedies for the plague, Newton thought: > The best is a toad suspended by the legs in a chimney for three days, which at last vomited up earth with various insects in it, on to a dish of yellow wax, and shortly after died... Combining powdered toad with the excretions and serum made into lozenges and worn about the affected area, drove away the contagion and drew out the poison. As the manuscript was likely written on the back of his [*annus mirabilis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus%5Fmirabilis?ref=robert.winter.ink), I for one am willing to forgive his plague remedies. I wonder if anyone has tried them for Covid? Good night, and good luck. --- This post is day 033 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Take Notes, No One Is Watching URL: https://robert.winter.ink/take-notes-no-one-is-watching/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:57.000Z I recently switched my note taking app to [Standard Notes](https://standardnotes.org/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Part of the reason for the shift is technological. The application, both desktop and mobile, is blazingly fast and nurtures my love of minimalist design. No mess, no fuss, just me and my text. The other part of my reasoning is philosophical. [Standard Notes have one of the clearest and appealing manifestos for privacy](https://standardnotes.org/privacy?ref=robert.winter.ink) I have read. They advocate 5 key domains as the bedrock of their platform. The first is **End to End Privacy** and revolves around providing their users with encryption everywhere they '*don't control*.' In the digital age this is perhaps the central promise a platform needs to uphold as the strength of servers and the internet is its decentralisation, the splitting of data across machines and continents. In such a landscape, we likely have far more data on devices we *don't control* than on devices we do. Their second promise speaks to **Secure Connections**. In that whenever they move your data, it is always sent over an encrypted network. Third, they promise **Open-source**. In a proprietary system, it is difficult if not impossible for a user to audit the offering. Open-source means anyone can check the code and affirm if the company's claim is a truth bearing statement. Fourth, Standard Notes promise **No tracking or intrusive advertising**. While there are important use cases for developers to have access to some analytics, they never need to be able to follow me everywhere I travel in the digital landscape. **Respectful analytics** rounds out the manifesto. As at the time of writing, their applications contain no analytics or tracking software. This is one of the critical elements for my composition style in that while I may share much of my writing with the world, until I choose to publish, my content should always remain strictly for my eyes only. Something in the digital world only an open-source, end to end system using secure connections and no analytics can provide. Good night, and good luck. --- This post is day 032 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Letters of Note URL: https://robert.winter.ink/letters-of-note/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:37:59.000Z In the email age, it is easy to bemoan the declining standards in our written communication. Perhaps it is a case of volume. With billions of people deemed 'literate' by [UNESCO](https://en.unesco.org/themes/literacy?ref=robert.winter.ink), does it not stand to reason there will be a greater level of dross obscuring the gold that abounds? Or perhaps it is the case that familiarity breeds contempt, and the easy way in which we can hammer out a missive on a keyboard means less care is taken to the composition? What ever the cause, this writer's querulous views on the prevailing literacy of the modern age are made quiescent by the marvellous offerings to be found in [Letters of Note](https://lettersofnote.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Today I pay homage to one brilliantly penned piece by [WSC](https://lettersofnote.com/2016/07/04/prayers-for-rain/?ref=robert.winter.ink), from an age when they both inked and blotted, which warrants citing in full. Truly marvellous satire of which the world can never be in surfeit. > June 12th, 1919 > > To the Editor of The Times. > > Sir– > > Observing reports in various newspapers that prayers are about to be offered up for rain in order that the present serious drought may be terminated, I venture to suggest that great care should be taken in framing the appeal. On the last occasion when this extreme step was resorted to, the Duke of Rutland took the leading part with so much well-meaning enthusiasm that the resulting downpour was not only sufficient for all immediate needs, but was considerably in excess of what was actually required, with the consequence that the agricultural community had no sooner been delivered from the drought than they were clamouring for a special interposition to relieve them from the deluge. > > Profiting by this experience, we ought surely on this occasion to be extremely careful to state exactly what we want in precise terms, so as to obviate the possibility of any misunderstanding, and to economize so far as possible the need for these special appeals. After so many days of drought, it certainly does not seem unreasonable to ask for a change in the weather, and faith in a favourable response may well be fortified by actuarial probabilities. > > While therefore welcoming the suggestion that His Grace should once again come forward, I cannot help feeling that the Board of Agriculture should first of all be consulted. They should draw up a schedule of the exact amount of rainfall required in the interests of this year’s harvest in different parts of the country. This schedule could be placarded in the various places of worship at the time when the appeal is made. It would no doubt be unnecessary to read out the whole schedule during the service, so long as it was made clear at the time that this is what we have in our minds, and what we actually want at the present serious juncture. > > I feel sure that this would be a much more businesslike manner of dealing with the emergency than mere vague appeals for rain. But after all, even this scheme, though greatly preferable to the haphazard methods previously employed, is in itself only a partial makeshift. What we really require to pray for is the general amelioration of the British climate. > > What is the use of having these piecemeal interpositions—now asking for sunshine, and now for rain? Would it not be far better to ascertain by scientific investigation, conducted under the auspices of a Royal Commission, what is the proportion of sunshine and rain best suited to the ripening of the British crops? It would no doubt be necessary that other interests besides agriculture should be represented, but there must be certain broad general reforms in the British weather upon which an overwhelming consensus of opinion could be found. The proper proportion of rain to sunshine during each period of the year; the relegation of the rain largely to the hours of darkness; the apportionment of rain and sunshine as between different months, with proper reference not only to crops but to holidays; all these could receive due consideration. A really scientific basis of climatic reform would be achieved. > > These reforms, when duly embodied in an official volume, could be made the object of the sustained appeals of the nation over many years, and embodied in general prayers of a permanent and not of an exceptional character. We should not then be forced from time to time to have recourse to such appeals at particular periods, which, since they are unrelated to any general plan, must run the risk of deranging the whole economy of nature, and involve the interruption and deflection of universal processes, causing reactions of the utmost complexity in many directions which it is impossible for us with our limited knowledge to foresee. > > I urge you, Sir, to lend the weight of your powerful organ to the systematization of our appeals for the reform of the British climate. > > Yours very faithfully,‘Scorpio’ Good night, and good luck. --- [War Industry in Britain during the First World War](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:War%5FIndustry%5Fin%5FBritain%5Fduring%5Fthe%5FFirst%5FWorld%5FWar%5FQ84077.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 031 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooff](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink)[load.com.](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) ### Mental Indigestion URL: https://robert.winter.ink/mental-indigestion/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:38:03.000Z As a child, 'on demand' television didn't exist. You either watched it 'live' on air or slammed in a video cassette (oh how I miss the [VHS / Betamax war!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape%5Fformat%5Fwar?ref=robert.winter.ink)). The odd thing about it was, how much better content was when live. I first noticed this when my parents would take me for the weekly jaunt to the local video store. What from the outside was an Aladdin's cave, turned into a veritable nightmare once inside as the sheer volume of content made it impossible to choose a great film. But had any one of those movies been on TV, it would have been a treat to watch. In time I realised the horror of choice, though perhaps malaise would be a better term, was the result of being caught between a known known or a known unknown. Known knowns were instantly screened in my mind's eye the moment I looked at the title, and held little appeal as a result. Known unknowns were a risky choice as if one thing was slowly becoming clear to my young mind, it was that more content didn't equate to better content. Presented with such a panoply of options, I found greater pleasure in choosing from the three options the scheduling gods saw fit to offer than the hundreds on the video store shelves. As an adult, this feeling is all the more acute as the bricks and mortar store, always circumscribed by its physical space, gives way to the near limitless options of streaming content. A feeling which at times challenges my ability to contribute to the 100 Days project. Though the [rules have been updated](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) from 100 articles in 100 days to 100 articles in a year, I am still seeking to keep to the original 100 day pact as it is encouraging a new approach to my content consumption. Much as I wallowed in the majestic minimalism of [how I publish](https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-publish), I now find myself revelling in a new minimalism of how I read. As the staccato of social media yields to the legato of blogs, essays and books, serenity descends and provides a clarity of vision which was not there before. In this trance, a subject forms. And as if by automatic writing, day 30 joins its predecessors in the archive. Good night, and good luck. --- [Phrenology Chart of the Faculties](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6693422&ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 030 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Parliamentary Privilege URL: https://robert.winter.ink/parliamentary-privilege/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:38:05.000Z Scrolling down the home page of one of my newspapers of choice the other day, I could only find one article not about Coronavirus. While one of the greatest challenges facing our world at the present, it is a public disservice to permit a single topic to dominate all media channels unless there is a topical angle. In this climate, it came as something of a welcome change to see the news channels lighting up on a different topic; social media vs The President. I won't rehash the commentary here, only to observe for those unfamiliar with the events that Twitter has hidden a tweet by President Donald Trump because it violated their rules about glorifying violence. Sidestepping Trump's rhetoric and wounded pose for a moment, and Twitter's equally egregious attempts to claim the moral high ground in a game of who best protects freedom of expression, and a very interesting question about politics and speech emerges. In countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system, a common legal immunity is enjoyed by members of the legislature known as parliamentary privilege. In the case of the United Kingdom, this involves protection against criminal or civil liability for statements made, or actions committed, in the course of legislative duties. More crudely put, politicians can essentially say whatever they like and not face the same legal consequences you or I would if we made the same statement. However, there is a caveat to this general rule. The [convention that certain words cannot be used](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary%5Flanguage?ref=robert.winter.ink) nor can a member of the House imply another member is lying. Much though I think it a shame 'guttersnipe' is deemed disorderly in Ireland or that New Zealand saw fit to censure a member for observing of an opponent that 'his brains could revolve inside a peanut shell for a thousand years without touching the sides,' the general premise is sound and both protects freedom of speech while enforcing a reasonable standard of behaviour among politicians. For many, Twitter is simply trying to set a similar standard in the realm of social media. However, where I would argue this is different is that in the saga of 'all the President's tweets' we don't have a legislative body, democratically elected by the people, making the call. We have a private corporation picking and choosing when and where it will exercise its discretion. This is evident in that many tweets by the President in question would arguably fall into the camp of unparliamentary language and yet stand without censure. While opponents of Trump will now likely clap their hands with glee and call for yet more masking of what they deem to be offensive language, any celebration of the noble house of Twitter ought to be halted because the heart of the problem is not the President's tweets but the platform on which his language resides. This is because the social media giants have become *de facto* channels of government communication, and this complicates the conversation and makes it problematic for a company like Twitter to simply shelter under [Section 230](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section%5F230%5Fof%5Fthe%5FCommunications%5FDecency%5FAct?ref=robert.winter.ink) and demand immunity. This is because, in the case of the US, when the Communications Decency Act declared: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. It was 1996 and only a futurist would have predicted the dominance social media would hold over the channels of communication. Furthermore, if politicians are going to post on social media and expect the same rules of parliamentary privilege to apply, then a social media platform ought to be held accountable by more than its arbitrary terms of service. It should be accountable to the elected representatives of the people and follow the rules established by the legislature. For those who hate and fear their politicians in equal measure, this will sound as the death knell of free speech. But I would argue that is one of the benefits of a democratically elected governing body, there is the ability to vote them out of power. The problem with the centralised social media giants is you can't do that, leaving the only solution to decentralise their power and instead vest it in the people. Good night, and good luck. --- [Parliament at Sunset](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5049123&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Mайкл Гиммельфарб (Mike Gimelfarb)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mgimelfarb?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 028 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100days](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink)[t](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink)[ooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Proportionality in Pursuit of Justice URL: https://robert.winter.ink/proportionality-in-pursuit-of-justice/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:38:07.000Z In 1764, [Cesare Beccaria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare%5FBeccaria?ref=robert.winter.ink) wrote a treatise titled *On Crimes and Punishments* (Italian: *Dei delitti e delle pene*). In it he drew on [Mont](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu?ref=robert.winter.ink)[e](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu?ref=robert.winter.ink)[squieu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu?ref=robert.winter.ink), who had argued that 'every punishment which does not arise from absolute necessity is tyrannical.' From this concept, Beccaria concluded: > Crimes of every kind should be less frequent, in proportion to the evil they produce to society... If an equal punishment be ordained for two crimes that injure society in different degrees, there is nothing to deter men from committing the greater as often as it is attended with greater advantage. In modern times, the principles of Beccaria can be seen in the four stages to proportionality test in European Union Law: - there must be a legitimate aim for a measure - the measure must be suitable to achieve the aim (potentially with a requirement of evidence to show it will have that effect) - the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it - the measure must be reasonable, considering the competing interests of different groups at hand While proportionality is most frequently used when talking about how the state treats an individual, though generally when people talk about 'the state' they actually mean a representative of the state such as a police officer, proportionality also applies to the response of a person or group of people toward an individual, community or state authority. More specifically put, proportionality isn't a one way street in which the power of the state is neutered to the benefit of an individual. A symbiotic relationship, or if you will, deal, is struck in which the state agrees not to take disproportionate action against an individual in exchange for that individual not taking disproportionate action against the state. To provide an example, the state won't enact the death penalty for parking in a no stopping zone and an individual won't start shooting representatives of the state because they have received a parking ticket. So long as this bargain holds, the result is a civil society. However, at times this bargain breaks down and a disproportionate response is metered out. In such instances, meeting disproportionality with disproportionality is not the answer. As it is often noted: > An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Protest movements tend to forget this concept because a wave of indignation and self-righteousness consumes the field of view and this is when the looting starts. In such instances the original crime is subsumed by a wave of popular violence. As a result, not only do more innocent victims suffer, but the original injustice persists unto another time. Only by remembering Beccaria's wisdom can we hope to regain the path to justice: > Even a useful injustice can never be allowed by a legislator, who means to guard against watchful tyranny, which, under the, flattering pretext of momentary advantages, would establish permanent principles of destruction, and, to procure the ease of a few... would draw tears from thousands of the poor. Good night, and good luck. --- Detail of the pediment of the courthouse, Rome, Italy by [Jebulon](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jebulon?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [CC0 1.0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 029 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Distributism URL: https://robert.winter.ink/distributism/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:38:09.000Z > Sir Humphrey: East Yemen, isn't that a democracy?Foreign Office Official: Its full name is the People's Democratic Republic of East Yemen.Sir Humphrey: Ah I see, so it's a communist dictatorship.— Yes, Minister When casting around the names of the nations of the world, one is tempted to think Oscar Wilde was onto something when he observed 'Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life,' because countries with 'Democratic' in their name would challenge even [Isocrates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isocrates?ref=robert.winter.ink) to make a concincing argument for their democratic composition. Thus it was with some amusement I learn of [plans to establish a D10 club.](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/downing-street-plans-new-5g-club-of-democracies-bfnd5wj57?ref=robert.winter.ink); democratic partners to build a Huawei free 5G mobile network. For those who fear a Chinese eaves dropper more than someone whose nationality is one of the [Fourteen Eyes](https://www.privacytools.io/providers/?ref=robert.winter.ink#ukusa), such a move makes sense. Perhaps because it is less invasive to have someone spy on you who is of a similar cultural background? For those who don't wear a tinfoil hat, there is a concept that still comes into play when looking at the nexus of where companies and countries meet. The notion of distributism. [Stemming from the teaching of Pope Leo XIII](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum%5Fnovarum?ref=robert.winter.ink), distributism seeks to distance itself from the binary poles of capitalism and socialism and instead favours mutual organisations which are owned by their members. Its popularity is often fueled by the thinking that business owning government or government owning business are not polar opposites, but essentially the same thing. As a result, distributionists advocate for the decentralisation of property ownership to make it as widespread as possible. From that standpoint, to replace a People's Republic network with a Democratic Club network isn't necessarily an improvement - notwithstanding that for many, the flag on the network is as important as the network itself - because in the end it is only preferring one centralised solution over another. In such a scenario, Sir Humphrey's words will come floating back to pronounce a Democratic Club network to be a network dictatorship. Good night, and good luck. --- [William Cobbet](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=986795&ref=robert.winter.ink) by George Cooke is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 027 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The New Commons URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-new-commons/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:38:12.000Z In 1941, during his inaugural address, [President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/third-inaugural-address?ref=robert.winter.ink): > The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history. It is human history. It permeated the ancient life of early peoples. It blazed anew in the Middle Ages. It was written in Magna Charta. Stirring oratory to be sure, but Manga Carta is perhaps better understood, to paraphrase Simon Schama, as the death certificate of despotism rather than the birth certificate of freedom. Yet even if stripped of its mythological status as the beating heart of democracy in the English speaking world, it remains important as it paved the way for the common law of England. Fast forward eight hundred years and we are in as much need of access to the commons as did the peons of old. This is because the notion of a commons forms the most fundamental and ancient elements of a constitutional democracy. In the digital age, [Jon Evans built on this notion when he observed](https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/10/privacy-is-a-commons/?ref=robert.winter.ink): > Privacy is like voting. An individual’s privacy, like an individual’s vote, is usually largely irrelevant to anyone but themselves … but the accumulation of individual privacy or lack thereof, like the accumulation of individual votes, is enormously consequential. In this context, the absence of privacy is like the absence of voting and has a devastating effect on individual thought and the capacity to dissent. Much as our forebears strove for the democratic aspiration to vote, the surveillance state and the mortgaging of our data for access to services require us to strive for the new democratic aspiration: the aspiration to privacy. Good night, and good luck. --- Magna Carta (British Library Cotton MS Augustus II.106) by barons and [King John of England](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/John%5Fof%5FEngland?ref=robert.winter.ink) (uploaded by [Earthsound](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Earthsound?ref=robert.winter.ink)) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 026 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Grey Eminence URL: https://robert.winter.ink/grey-eminence/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:38:14.000Z In France during the first part of the seventeenth century, [Cardinal Armand Jean du Plessis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal%5FRichelieu?ref=robert.winter.ink) \- better known as Cardinal Richelieu - held enormous power as the king's 'Chief Minister.' In addition to his many titles, Richelieu also had the sobriquet 'Red Eminence' \[*Éminence rouge*\]. Though often regarded as the power behind the throne, behind him stood another. A 'Grey Eminence' \[*Éminence grise*\]. François Leclerc du Tremblay was the right-hand man of Cardinal Richelieu and gained his own sobriquet for the beige, termed grey in that period, robes he wore. du Tremblay was styled Eminence, though only a friar, because of the sway he held over Cardinal Richelieu. Every age has had it's grey eminence, and there have always been concerns about the power behind the throne. In democratic times, calls for these individuals to be brought forth into the public gaze are always to be heard. The reason frequently cited is that unless the advice and advisors are known, power cannot be properly held to account. The challenge in the modern media cycle is that it becomes hard to define the notion of 'account.' For proponents of a plan, 'account' is acceptance for the course of action. For opponents, 'account' is when the plan is stopped or, at the least, modified in their favour. What adds a further level of complexity is the court of 'public' opinion has shifted from those with responsibility for public office to mean every man Jack and every woman Jill who has a social media account. A process which seldom makes for relevant, let alone rational discourse. Sadly, for our attempts to hold power to account, the 'what' is lost to the political 'how.' In that whether specific advice or an advisor is known ceases to be at issue, instead, which side wins becomes the benchmark for 'account.' As a result, be it red or grey, the eminence disappears into the shadows to hold sway for another day. Good night, and good luck. --- [Gérôme Eminence grise 1873](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2607652&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Jean-Léon Gérôme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-L%C3%A9on%5FG%C3%A9r%C3%B4me?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 025 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Contemplating Content URL: https://robert.winter.ink/contemplating-content/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:38:17.000Z I once read a statistic, that more content is produced each year than was created in the previous five thousand years. At first blush this seems like an improbable feat, but delving into some of the available statistics about the internet and it doesn't seem impossible. Take YouTube for example, I understand 300 hours of video are uploaded every minute. That is 9,460,800,000 hours of video every year. Content is indeed king, but for all the volume, does quality suffer? The answer to this is to be found in how one defines quality. Certainly the technical quality isn't suffering... much. As hardware and software improves, the capacity to produce content of a high technical quality comes into the grasp of anyone with a device and internet connection. When I first started producing content online, video codecs were problematic - to say the least. Programming had to be done by hand and there were no plug-ins which could enable e-commerce or anything else you could wish for with the click of a button. But for all the gloss, I do wonder about the underlying content. A classic case in point is movie making. Even 'low budget' films today have a technical quality which evaded even the best films in the days or yore. But the ease with which technical quality can be achieved, is creating a certain laziness. Plot needs to do less of the work in captivating an audience as CGI will invariably make up the difference. This is perhaps what draws me more and more to the written word. Though a visual man at heart, I have grown tired of the flickering images of social media where unlimited filters and effects cannot cover the dearth of thought. Some might argue that [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is only adding fuel to this bonfire of quality because ['posting this much content... dilutes the pool of topics and results in slightly lower quality content.'](https://yarmo.eu/notes/ending-100-days-to-offload?ref=robert.winter.ink) As a general rule I would agree because as a researcher I know how many days I can spend in the archives just to yield a single paragraph. In such a context I know the daily automatic writing style of near continuous blogging doesn't permit for such detailed analysis. Yet where I would disagree is because this type of writing seeks to fully engage what Daniel Kahneman termed 'System 1' in his book [Thinking, Fast and Slow](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL15992072W/Thinking%5Ffast%5Fand%5Fslow?ref=robert.winter.ink). A mode of thinking which is 'fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, unconscious.' At its best, a lifetime of experience and thinking is compressed into a seemingly immediate response. In the case of blogging, the decades I have spent in research are pulled together into a moment of ecstasy - or as mystical writers of the seventeenth century would term it: 'a state of rapture that stupefied the body while the soul contemplated divine things.' Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Patrick Tomasso](https://unsplash.com/@impatrickt?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/content?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 024 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### So I Could See Further URL: https://robert.winter.ink/so-i-could-see-further/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:38:19.000Z > If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants. > > [Isaac Newton's letter to Robert Hooke](https://discover.hsp.org/Record/dc-9792/Description?ref=robert.winter.ink#tabnav) Newton knew a thing or two about sight, in his book *Opticks* he was the first to use a diagram of a prism as a beam expander. But for all his original ideas, his letter to Hooke is important as it underscores the reality of creative endeavours and original research: that each new work builds on that which went before. A theme on which the FOSS community relies heavily. Take my operating system of choice, Pop OS. It stands on the shoulders of Ubuntu, Debian and GNU. This is a heritage of which I am proud to take part (view the source code of this page to see the design inspiration). In the main, scholars, developers and researchers cite, and even pay homage to, those who have gone before, without whose work their own product would be much reduced. The late great Stephen Hawking proudly observed as much [when he stated](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/23/stephen-hawking-1966-thesis-cambridge-university-properties-of-expanding-universes?ref=robert.winter.ink): > Each generation stands on the shoulders of those who have gone before them, just as I did as a young PhD student in Cambridge, inspired by the work of Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell and Albert Einstein. Sadly, at times some individuals fail to remember, or perhaps better to say acknowledge, their heritage. At such times, I am reminded of one of the earliest uses of the metaphor. > Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature. > > [John of Salisbury's *Metalogicon*](https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/catalog/fs743fm9703?ref=robert.winter.ink) In this telling, those on the shoulders of giants don't have keener vision just more help. And those who fail to acknowledge this help are people of little intellectual stature for they don't build upon earlier works but instead try and pass off the work as products of their own thinking. Or to put it in plain English, they plagiarise. The speed at which search engines can return results, and the daily need to attract attention, can facilitate a negative feedback loop in which less scrupulous individuals routinely repost the work of others without attribution or further development. Far from standing on the shoulders of giants, such acts are a pretence and undermine discourse, development and research. The very antithesis of great thinking. Good night, and good luck. --- [Newton ](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=198284&ref=robert.winter.ink)by [William Blake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:William%5FBlake?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 023 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### A Day of Rest URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-day-of-rest/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:38:23.000Z It is Sunday and I feel the weight on my shoulders of the week just gone and the week that is to come. Perhaps this sensation is why many cling to the Biblical notion: > Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest. - Exodus 23:12 Whatever the trigger, it is in such moment of struggles that I feel most acutely how laborious it can be to commit to [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/100DaysToOffload). In pondering if I could take a leave pass, it got me to thinking about recent headlines in which I have seen politicians from different areas of the world face a pummelling in the press for taking some 'downtime.' I'll leave any specific examples out of this blog post as I think this would cloud the general wondering: > If I seek a day in which I am not on duty, and politicians are merely flesh and blood, should they too not be allowed a moments reprieve? The immediate answer is no, if for no other reason than politicians, along with lawyers and tax collectors, are among the most excoriated people on the planet. And because the refrain I generally hear when pondering this thought is 'they wanted the job.' In a sense, this idea of it being a politicians job to carry the can for everything that goes wrong, doubly so if they take a moments relaxation, is also something of a Biblical throwback: > And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited. - Leviticus 16:22 Though there is some sense of satisfaction to be gained from the notion of a scapegoat, there are two key problems with it. The first is that while an individual may be responsible for a localised act - I might be responsible for not mowing my lawn - I am yet to find an example where a single individual is solely responsible for a nation wide issue. In that while one person can put their signature on a statute and bear the responsibility, that is a symbolic act as the preparation of the law and its enactment require hundreds, thousands or even millions of people to make it manifest. The second issue, closely tied to the first, is that leveraging a scapegoat runs the risk of allowing us to abrogate the personal responsibility we each have in the making of our society. This is something which [animated Margaret Thatcher](https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689?ref=robert.winter.ink) when she noted: > There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. As I close this post, I am left wondering if this is all each of us can do when shouldering a responsibility: steadily work through the issue and not take our day of rest. Perhaps [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is a solution for more than avid bloggers, for it encourages the discipline of taking part in the living tapestry day on day, regardless of the desire to rest. A contra-policy for politicians who chase the 'need' to unwind during a national crisis. Good night, and good luck. --- [Mozes toont de wetstafelen](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=38437245&ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 022 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Airbrushing Memory URL: https://robert.winter.ink/airbrushing-memory/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:38:27.000Z In his seminal 1920 book [*Liberty and the News*](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL42337W/Liberty%5Fand%5Fthe%5Fnews?ref=robert.winter.ink), Walter Lippmann warned: > \[those\] who have lost their grip upon the relevant facts of their environment are the inevitable victims of agitation and propaganda. The quack, the charlatan, the jingo . . . can flourish only where the audience is deprived of independent access to information. In a sense this is both self-evident and the justification for journalists and whistle-blowers the world over. Though countless bottles of ink, or in the digital age countless bytes, are routinely spilled in support of this notion, it bears revisiting. Not from the standpoint of 'independent access to information' but from the standpoint of the 'quack, the charlatan, the jingo.' The reason is this: history tends to be written by the victors and sometimes the victors are charlatans who seek to re-write history so the facts fit their political objectives. One classic case in point is the work done by [Robert Conquest](https://www.hoover.org/research/inside-stalins-darkroom?ref=robert.winter.ink) who examined the efforts of Soviet media to remove 'undesirables' from the pages of history. A classic of this genre is [NKVD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD?ref=robert.winter.ink) boss Nikolai Yezhov who was photographed strolling along the Moscow-Volga canal with Stalin. In 1939, Yezhov was arrested and executed. After this, Soviet media attempted to airbrush Yezhov from history. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/73fc8-ewgkflt-1.jpg) [I learned today](https://reclaimthenet.org/google-drive-takes-down-user-file-plandemic/?ref=robert.winter.ink) of another attempt to airbrush something from history, in this case it was a copy of Judy Mikovits’ Plandemic. Love or hate Mikovits' work, it forms a part of the discourse about Covid-19 and the milieu surrounding it. If a society is to counter content deemed misinformation, it needs to understand both the content and motivation. Simply removing it will only ensure such ideas persist unto the next crisis. As the tech giants steadily crack down on what they deem to be misinformation, there is a fine line to be walked between taking reasonable action to assist public safety and engaging in active censorship. This is particularly the case when censorship goes beyond a public post or video and involves removing files from an individual's personal storage. This reaches to the heart of freedom of speech, as while there are limits to public speech, private speech and private thought are never able to be fully policed in even the most totalitarian of states. To be able to see into our private digital archives is in many ways to see into our innermost thoughts. And to censor there is to take a truly Orwellian step, which in time will make it impossible to even think a contrary thought. With digital services often serving as our memory, to remove content from personal drives is to airbrush our memory. Good night, and good luck. --- This post is day 021 of my [#100Day](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/)[s](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/)[ToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Please Keep Scrolling URL: https://robert.winter.ink/please-keep-scrolling/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:35:11.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/020-Please-keep-scrolling_thumb.jpeg) 020 Please keep scrolling 0:00 /138.552 1× Sound. It pervades my every waking moment. From the soft patter of the rain as I type, to the grating audio of hideously mixed music and vocals in the latest bit of social media garbage the talentless insist on inflicting upon us in a vain attempt to become 'influencers.' Perhaps my increasingly crabby views on the subject are a result of a growing presbyopia in which a quieter and more nuanced past seems to be yielding to a glitzy and noisy future. Much as I like to think crime is a growing issue as 'in my day' we could leave our homes unlocked without fear of pillage. At times like this, Steven Pinker's monumental book, [*The Better Angels of Our Nature*](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL16239379W/The%5Fbetter%5Fangels%5Fof%5Four%5Fnature?ref=robert.winter.ink), presses in on me to reveal an increasingly non-violent world. While a welcome sanity check in an otherwise partisan and vitriolic news cycle, it is challenging when the data seems to conflict with my senses. Television off, notifications on 'do not disturb' and the rain on my window, revelation strikes as to why Pinker's thesis is factually right but emotionally so wrong. Because as more and more media is generated, the drive for 'views' pushes content producers to find ever more shrill ways to stop me from scrolling. Perhaps this is the benefit of longer form blogging over 'Insta' style posts. As a writer, my goal is always to keep my reader scrolling or turning the page. This is because life is a journey which never stops even when we stand still. In acceptance of this, I find liberation from the temporal and fear not that a reader will move on from this paragraph. But in the world of the infinite scroll, it is all about halting the natural process and keeping the viewer fixed in space. Perhaps in the end this is the heart of my distaste for much social media: it is designed to halt my thinking and focus my attention instead of stimulating my imagination and impelling me to think on. The only antidote is to mute the track, listen to the rain and allow my thoughts to run on as they will. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [reza shayestehpour](https://unsplash.com/@r%5Fshayesrehpour?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/rain?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 020 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### A Marvellous Idea for a Blog URL: https://robert.winter.ink/a-marvellous-idea-for-a-blog/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:33:56.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/019-A-marvellous-idea-for-a-blog_thumb.jpeg) 019 A marvellous idea for a blog 0:00 /86.472 1× > A young poet once said to Mallarmé, "I had the most marvellous idea for a poem this afternoon." "Oh dear," said Mallarmé, "what a pity." "What do you mean?" said the young poet, stung. "Well," said Mallarmé, "poems aren't made of ideas, are they? They're made of words." > > Stephen Fry, *The Hippopotamus* Though an apocryphal tale, it is nonetheless useful in understanding the challenges of blogging, particularly on as regular a basis as [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Today I the most marvellous idea for a blog: 'the importance of historical analogy.' Marvellous because historical analogies are important. Problematic, because the 100 days challenge can fall foul of the writing taking too long, and the labour becoming too much to maintain. In the case of historical analogies, it is hard to keep it short while covering all the constituent points. So this topic will have to wait for another today. As Mark Twain is claimed to have observed: > I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one Or in my case, I didn't have the time to write you a short blog about historical analogies, so I wrote about something else. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Greg Rakozy](https://unsplash.com/@grakozy?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/idea?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 019 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Dead Certainties URL: https://robert.winter.ink/dead-certainties/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:31:45.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/018-Dead-Certainties_thumb.jpeg) 018 Dead Certainties 0:00 /188.352 1× In a New York Times [book review](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html?ref=robert.winter.ink) in 2016, Michiko Kakutani delivered an assessment of Volker Ullrich biography of Hitler which was perceived as [drawing a comparison between Trump and *der Führer*](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/28/this-new-york-times-review-of-a-hitler-book-sure-looked-like-a-thinly-veiled-trump-hitler-comparison/?ref=robert.winter.ink). One does not need to know much about the rise of Hitler and the [NSDAP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi%5FParty?ref=robert.winter.ink) to see that even though Kakutani never mentioned Trump by name, the comparison was so thinly veiled as to be positively naked. While the approach is but one of a long line of 'historical' comparisons which pervades political discourse, what is of particular interest is that while many historical comparisons are used to normalise a present event or set of choices, comparisons involving Trump leverage history to abnormalise him. This brings us to the difficulty in mobilising history to make a case. That while looking at the past can be a useful tool for understanding the present, it can be exceptionally misleading if not done in a balanced way which emphasises similarity as much as it does difference. Taking a 1930s Germany / present day US comparison, the United States of 2016 which elected Trump had not just lost a World War nor was it reeling under massive economics sanctions which had triggered hyper-inflation. This is important to apprehend as unless we do, instead of finding an alternative for the office of President, the result of the next US election will be 'four more years' because the country won't have understood how a politician like Trump was essentially 'made' by the prevailing political and social climate. What is potentially more dangerous than the current environment, is if Trump does not achieve a second term and his opponents then turn to congratulate themselves on stopping a fascist from remaining in power. Why more dangerous? Because such an outcome would suppress our understanding of precisely the socio-political forces which we should fear because they have the ability not only to bring about a second Trumpland, but an actual fascist state. And this is the true historical parallel. For Trump isn't a fascist but a populist. And the lesson of history is that populism is often the precursor to fascism. In other words, it is like the magicians sleight of hand. You are so busy watching the buffoon, you don't see the burglar picking your pocket. I came across a hopeful thought from Neil deGrasse Tyson today: > I dream of a world where truth shapes people's politics, rather \[than\] politics shaping what people think is true. So long as we use historical comparison in a wise manner, there is much hope that a world in which truth shapes people's politics can come to fruition. The key is to avoid reading events falsely, which inevitably leads to politics shaping what we think is true. In short, to avoid seeing events we dislike as dead certainties. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Markus Winkler](https://unsplash.com/@markuswinkler?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/truth?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 018 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Code is Speech? URL: https://robert.winter.ink/code-is-speech/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:30:22.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/017-Code-is-Speech_thumb.jpeg) 017 Code is Speech 0:00 /246.432 1× In the early 1990's, Daniel Bernstein, a Berkeley mathematics PhD student, wanted to publish the source code for an encryption algorithm he had written along with an accompanying mathematics paper. In the age of Github, such an event would go largely noticed. Particularly if the author is a student, who usually struggle to get their professors to read their work, let alone anyone else. But in the 1990's, this was groundbreaking. This is because until what became known as Bernstein v. Department of Justice,' the US government designated encryption as a 'munition,' classifying it along with a range of deadly weapons and thus subject to export restrictions. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) disagreed with this designation and sued the US government on behalf of Bernstein. During the course of the case, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled that: > This court can find no meaningful difference between computer language, particularly high-level languages as defined above, and German or French....Like music and mathematical equations, computer language is just that, language, and it communicates information either to a computer or to those who can read it....Thus, even if Snuffle source code, which is easily compiled into object code for the computer to read and easily used for encryption, is essentially functional, that does not remove it from the realm of speech....For the purposes of First Amendment analysis, this court finds that source code is speech. At a first reading, this is not only an important ruling, but a critical step in the development process of the very algorithms which can keep our data relatively safe and offer us some privacy protection. But on a closer reading, it raises some challenges which need addressing if we are to find meaningful ways to protect our data privacy in the future. As always, I begin this process of understanding by re-framing the question, as failings are seldom the result of giving the wrong answer, but giving the right answer to the wrong question. In this case, do questions about code resolve themselves in the form of 'is it speech?' I would argue such questions are in error. In the first place, to frame it as an issue of freedom of speech is problematic because in many cases, laws which 'protect' freedom of speech don't actually speak to our right to express ourselves, rather they circumscribe other people's, or more usually our government's, right to violate or restrict our freedom. This may seem like semantics, but it is the heart of the issue because it shines a light on the tangibles of what is happening - censorship, prohibition - rather than an abstraction. Is it speech? The other issue with focusing on protecting things by categorising them as speech is that many things which ought not to be protected are a form of speech: sexual harassment, incitement to violence. The crucial element here isn't about levering ever more abstract elements into the notion of speech, but in ensuring freedom of expression and freedom of dissent remains permissible while safeguarding the individual's privacy and security. In this context the right question ought to be if government regulation of code ultimately threatens freedom of expression. For example, restricting the use of algorithms on which services rely: internet banking, messaging apps etc. The benefit for privacy of such an approach is it would move away from the existing model that invariably frees companies from obligations under the spurious argument that to regulate their practice is to curtail freedom of speech. A point to remember when next your private moments are leveraged to improve a marketing algorithm. The unintended consequence of code is speech. Good night, and good luck. --- Photo by [Markus Spiske](https://unsplash.com/@markusspiske?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/code?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 017 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Language Defect: Privacy URL: https://robert.winter.ink/language-defect-privacy/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:29:14.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/016-Language-Defect-Privacy_thumb.jpeg) 016 Language Defect Privacy 0:00 /163.776 1× In around 1140, a Spanish Jewish philosopher and poet, Judah Halevi (יהודה הלוי), wrote perhaps his most famous book. The Kuzari, or to give it its full title *The Book of Proof and Evidence in Support of the Abased Religion*, took the form of a dialogue between a rabbi and a pagan. The central theme of the work was the existence of a 'God of history' rather than an abstract 'God of the philosophers.' The work explicitly rejected the neoplatonism which suffused the milieu in which Judah Halevi lived and advocated for a God of the Jews and a God of Islam. Part of the answer to the problem for which Halevi was trying to solve was a defect in the language used to talk about God. In the modern age, we are also experiencing defects in the language used to talk about privacy. While computing and data gathering devices have progressed at a pace unrivalled in history, the language used to talk about privacy is drawn from a former age. An age in which privacy was denoted by the type of information or the method used to communicate; it: a letter sent between two people. In this context, the letter would be considered 'private' and that for a third party to know the contents of the letter would be a breach of privacy. Thus if the postal system prevents a third party from accessing the letter, they can make a credible claim to be protecting the privacy of the correspondents. Much the same logic is used by companies like Google and Facebook. So long as they keep your data safe from a third party, they are keeping your data private. The only difference between 'then' and 'now,' the postal service didn't learn the contents of your letter as part of their delivery process and then use that information to improve the postal service. Until we can reframe the conversation and move it away from an abstract privacy to a specific privacy, we are asking the wrong question of the custodians of our privacy. The issue is not can they keep my data safe from an unauthorised third party, but can they keep my data safe from their algorithms. I began by opening a small window into the world of Judah Halevi, I will close with one of his riddles. One which I think is apposite in the context of privacy: > What is it that's blind with an eye in its head, But the race of mankind its use can not spare;Spends all its life in clothing the dead, But always itself is naked and bare? Good night, and good luck. --- Illinois Telephone And Telegraph Ad is licensed under [Public Domain.](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink) This post is day 016 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Centralising the Decentralised URL: https://robert.winter.ink/centralising-the-decentralised/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:28:10.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/015-Centralising-the-Decentralised_thumb.jpeg) 015 Centralising the Decentralised 0:00 /264.264 1× A lament I often read in the Fediverse is that too many people flock to a handful of mega instances, a process which steadily centralises a platform designed to be decentralised. Yet for all its noble goals, can the Fediverse break free of becoming yet another example of a Pareto distribution? A phenomenon Robert K. Merton termed the '[Matthew effect](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/159/3810/56?ref=robert.winter.ink)' - [link to PDF of his 1968 article](http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/merton/matthew1.pdf?ref=robert.winter.ink): > For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. > > *Matthew 25:29* This differs greatly from the type of random network proposed in the Erdős–Rényi model, in which each node in the network has roughly the same number of edges, and which seems to most closely represent the Fediverse ideal. In a sense this is understandable, because as a network shifts from completely random to one in which an ever smaller number of notes control access to distant areas of the network, we see a special kind of network evolve: a hierarchy. The very antithesis of why so many prefer a Fediverse over a centralised platforms like Facebook or Twitter. Historically, no hierarchy has come close to having a top node with mathematically ideal betweenness and closeness centrality, though Stalin’s Soviet Union came about the closest. Instead, humanity tends to throw up partial hierarchies because the living nature of a human network means it is not static and has anything but predictable phase transitions. In such an environment, hierarchies can suddenly break down (the fall of the USSR) or seemingly random networks move toward centralisation (the tendency of a handful of instances accounting for the majority of Fediverse accounts). Yet there is another dimension to the centralising tendency of the Fediverse which does not stem from network theory: political admins. Although a raison d’être for moving to a platform like Mastodon is ‘your data is your data’ and because censorship is a very real challenge in a centralised network with arbitrary rules regarding what constitutes permissible speech, highly politicised administrators in the Fediverse inevitably end up enforcing something akin to a police state by issuing arbitrary warnings to users and banning them, or entire instances, which do not conform to their vision of acceptable speech. In time this reduces the edges in the Fediverse and in the long run risks cutting off entire clusters to create Subverses with no means of communication - the very opposite of a distributed and federated network. From these musings, four insights emerge for me. 1. **Radical Alteration**: because networks are not static they experience constant phase transitions. These can radically alter the state of the network invoking sudden fragmentation or steady centralisation. 2. **Virality from network structure**: traditional theories assume the spread of an idea is an inherent result of its content or truth. Instead, we should apprehend that ideas go viral because of the structure of the networks through which they spread. The result, networks without competing ideas create echo chambers in which a limited set of ideas account for the vast majority of content. 3. **The boosted get more boosts**: preferential attachment practically ensures social networks inevitably become profoundly inegalitarian. 4. **Shared interests**: Homophily produces social networks in which like attracts like. The result is that the Fediverse will see another Pareto distribution emerge. The only solution is to discourage the banning of alternative views, instead, press for the use of logic and reason, engagement in rational discourse and constructive agonism. In such a social network abhorrent ideas will wither and instead of a few nodes with a large number of edges, we will see a truly random network emerge which embodies the connectivity ideals of the Fediverse. Image description: sketch of the French author and traveller Alexis de Tocqueville who noted of the French revolution that it began with 'a push towards decentralization...\[but became,\] in the end, an extension of centralization.' Good night, and good luck. --- [Alexis de Tocqueville](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10729876&ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 015 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Marshal Your Argument URL: https://robert.winter.ink/marshal-your-argument/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:26:42.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/014-Marshal-Your-Argument_thumb.jpeg) 014 Marshal Your Argument 0:00 /174.696 1× [Yesterday](https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-write-technology) I took a look at how I write from the technology angle. Today, I want to take a look at language. While I have little English and less of everything else, I trust this will be a piece which should lend itself to other [Indo-European](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European%5Flanguages?ref=robert.winter.ink) languages. In addition to writing, photography is one of my prime passions. Be the medium film or digital, one technical element abides: resolution. Writing is much the same and when approaching a piece (be it a short post or multi-volume book) I always try and imagine it as several different levels of resolution. The first level of resolution, or macro view, is in what context does the work sit. Much like a genre in publishing, a work is going to form part of an existing discourse and this creates certain ground rules for how words will be read and ideas conveyed. The next level of resolution is the idea(s) the writer is seeking to convey. While this is commonly conceived of in books and longer pieces, it also abides in short posts. Particularly when a reply turns into a conversation. Thinking about it in this way can either ensure a writer has fully marshalled their argument before launching into the fray, or whether it is better to avoid battle until a better day. The third level of resolution is the paragraph. It is here that words first come into view and their structuring and juxtaposition is of paramount importance. The golden rule is a paragraph should have one hundred words or ten sentences. While I agree that a paragraph which contains more than one hundred is likely to fall foul of containing too many ideas, or of rambling on and losing the reader, there are many reasons why a paragraph should be shorter. This is evident in the fourth level of resolution, the sentence. Sentences are the connectors that unite individual words into an idea and can either be gathered together to form a paragraph, or can form a paragraph by standing alone. Finally, the fifth level of resolution is the word. Words matters because they can either transport the reader or act as a barrier to understanding. Not so much because a word may not be understood, that can always be overcome by the reader turning to the dictionary, but because a reader may become fixated on a particular word to the exclusion of the overarching idea. This feeds back into the first level of resolution, context. This ordering is the reverse of most of the manuals of style or writing I have read. They instead prefer to begin with the word and build up. While this is the correct order for a reader, who doesn't know the end when they are at the beginning, a writer needs to know where they are going before they can plot a course for their readers in words. Good night, and good luck. --- This post is day 014 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### How I Write - Technology URL: https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-write-technology/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:25:17.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/013-How-I-Write---Technology_thumb.jpeg) 013 How I Write Technology 0:00 /187.032 1× The core of how I write is purpose. I write to organise and formulate a set of ideas. While this is closely allied with why I write, purpose in this sense is more technical than philosophical. Though it ultimately provides the psychological tool set for me to realise my philosophical ends. But to write at all requires technology. Be it pen and paper or computer and keyboard. So today I examine how I write - technology. This is because writing extends my capacity to remember. In that I can juggle more concepts on the page than I can readily hold in a train of thought. Think about it a little like being in a long meeting. An idea occurs to you, but now is not the time to roast that chestnut on the fire. Try and hold the idea in your thinking while actively listening and it slowly fades like smoke. But write it down... and you can return to the notion when the moment is ripe. It also means I can compare several competing ideas and reject the ones which don't stand up to repeated scrutiny. This process of selecting and discarding slowly sharpens my ability to think and leaves me better armed when I engage with new ideas. Much as writing allows me to harness a number of difficult ideas, the technology I use to write is a key part of the process. ## Technology I use a large widescreen monitor to provide the necessary real estate, but two smaller monitors can do just as well. The key is to ensure you can have any articles or other references from which you may be working available at a glance without having to toggle back and forth. Much as if you have your train of thought broken, too much switching has a similar effect on concentration. Mouse and keyboard are also important. They should be an extension of your thinking so that typing or mousing isn't effortful. Learning keyboard shortcuts helps the writing process as it keeps your thinking focused on the text instead of finding the relevant icon to click. For a keyboard, I always prefer a mechanical action and [Cherry MX](https://www.cherrymx.de/en?ref=robert.winter.ink) are my key switches of choice. I currently use the [K70 Low Profile from Corsair](https://www.corsair.com/ww/en/Categories/Products/Gaming-Keyboards/RGB-Mechanical-Gaming-Keyboards/K70-RGB-MK-2-Low-Profile/p/CH-9109018-NA?ref=robert.winter.ink) as it gives me the remeasuring mechanical feel I love, but a low profile which helps my fingers glide across the surface as I type. Desk and chair also matter. More hours than I case to remember are spent at my desk and comfort is a key part of keeping me concentrated. I am fortunate to have an adjustable desk and quality chair. But so long as you can get your setup at a comfortable angle, your productivity will be better than hunched over a screen sitting on the couch. ## Perfect Practice Makes Perfect Finally practice. When I first sit down, my thinking rebels against the act of concentration. A day spent being pulled in a myriad of directions does not for a focused mind make. Removing visual distractions, perhaps some suitable music, and a cleared work space to leave just the text I am writing and any texts I am working from. Then I start putting words on the page, draft quickly and get a flow going. The polish comes later. Tomorrow, I will take a look at language and structuring ideas. Good night, and good luck. --- This post is day 013 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### How I Publish — Version 2.0 URL: https://robert.winter.ink/how-i-publish-2-0/ Last updated: 2025-11-07T05:40:03.000Z ⚠️ This article has been superseded by Version 5.0 which discusses my return to the WordPress publishing platform. ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/012-How-I-Publish_thumb.jpeg) 012 How I Publish 0:00 /98.496 1× In two recent articles, I mused on [Why I Write](https://robert.winter.ink/why-i-write/) and, at present, [for whom I write](https://robert.winter.ink/the-cloud-of-unknowing/). Today I want to explore how I publish. I am old enough to remember when the `` tag was used not as a retro pose, or to be ironic, and when sending a newsletter meant formatting your text in ``. While there are some things about the wild west days of the net I do not miss (no CSS for one), there are others I lament. Such as being able to write without a dizzying array of formatting tools or those bloody 'upgrade to premium' notifications. Just me, my readers and the text. I am also old enough to remember when a dial-up modem meant optimisation often stood between someone accessing your site or giving up, because the 5mb jpg you had mistakenly used was taking minutes to load. Near unlimited fast internet in many areas of the world means fewer today have care or concern about page load times or clean code. I however, do. My quest for a publishing platform which was both elegant, unencumbered by endless plug-ins and which allowed me to be alone with my text, brought me to [write.as](https://write.as/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Not only because it ticked all of my minimalist boxes, but because it's [mission is firmly privacy respecting](https://write.as/principles?ref=robert.winter.ink), has indie web functionality built in and allows for federation. I can even produce an ePub from my blog. All in all a win for a privacy respecting and more nimble publishing platform. Good night, and good luck. --- [*William Caxton showing specimens of his printing to King Edward IV and his Queen*](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4829359&ref=robert.winter.ink) is is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 012 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Cloud of Unknowing URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-cloud-of-unknowing/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:23:50.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/011-The-Cloud-of-Unknowing_thumb.jpeg) 011 The Cloud of Unknowing 0:00 /149.064 1× [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) in 1373, an [anchoress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorite?ref=robert.winter.ink), known as Mother Julian, recovered from an illness during which she experienced sixteen visions of Christ. *Revelations of Divine Love*, which contains her visions, is unique not just because of what it contains but because of what it is. The earliest surviving example of a book written in English by a woman. She was a near contemporary of four other English mystics—Walter Hilton, Richard Rolle, Margery Kempe, and an unknown author who wrote *The Cloud of Unknowing*—who also wrote in the vernacular. The reason for this may have been lack of education (Latin being the language of scholars), but more likely it was a stylistic choice because their writing was attempting to describe the divine in an intensely personal way. Julian wrote for a general readership, while the unknown author of *The Cloud of Unknowing* wrote in a style to be read by a young hermit. The metaphor of a cloud used to represent a barrier between the reader and true knowledge: > you must step above it stoutly but deftly, with a devout and delightful stirring of love, and struggle to pierce that darkness above you; and beat on that thick cloud of unknowing with a sharp dart of longing love, and do not give up, whatever happens. This got me to thinking about readership and the hope an author has for their audience. My usual readership is mostly an academic audience, who seek a very specific structure and I have to hammer my written form into an approximation of the discipline in question. But my blog, for whom is this written? Perhaps ironically for a public piece, the audience is… me. Or rather an idealised version of me who is more literate, nuanced, adroit and astute than my current earthly form. In that light, I write to improve how I write and to be a better writer than I would had I not turned my keyboard blogward. The question today dear reader, for whom do you write? Perhaps it is to improve your own scribblings; perhaps it is to attract a general audience; or perhaps it is for a posterity which may, like Mother Julian, engage with your work some seven hundred years hence. Good night, and good luck. --- [Revelations of Divine Love](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76512541&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Julian of Norwich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian%5Fof%5FNorwich?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 011 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### 'Good night, and good luck.’ URL: https://robert.winter.ink/good-night-and-good-luck/ Last updated: 2026-02-23T10:22:17.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2026/02/010-Good-night-and-good-luck_thumb.jpeg) 010 Good night and good luck 0:00 /111.312 1× Ten days in and I have hit what I feared, a wall of writers block. To be fair, it isn't so much writers block as it is the end of a very long day of work, I am mongrel bitch tired (a phrase I borrow from Ted Wallace) and my fingers won't move over the keys. In such a situation I hope you can forgive a man for not being able to write something which tries to slip loose from the bonds of earth and take wing in the imagination. Yet this is also why I embarked upon the 100 days challenge, because it is when at a low ebb, deadline looming, that a writer needs to dig deep and find a spark which might not illuminate, but will at least catch a readers eye long enough to warrant attention. This causes something of a paradox. I thought I would have to take a 'non-consecutive' leave pass to not write today, yet pondering this has caused me to write today. In [Why I Write](https://robert.winter.ink/why-i-write), I discussed the importance of questions and cited R. G. Collingwood who noted ‘no two propositions... Can contradict one another unless they are answers to the same question.’ But this was not Collingwood's only contribution. Another principle he dealt with was in his *Principles of Art*. In it he observed: > First we “feel” then we try to discern what we feel. > Hence, it's not... "A tiger? ...Argh!" > rather it's... "Argh! ...A tiger!" This example neatly conveys my writing of this missive. That I did not have pre-knowledge of what I feel, only though the production of this work have I been able to tease it out. Simply put, I feel it is time for bed. As Edward R. Murrow would conclude: 'Good night and good luck.' --- [Murrow57](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22014220&ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 010 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### So this is how privacy dies... URL: https://robert.winter.ink/so-this-is-how-privacy-dies/ Last updated: 2025-12-27T10:38:42.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/12/009-How-Does-Privacy-End_thumb.jpeg) 009 How Does Privacy End 0:00 /235.8 1× [Maciej Cegłowski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maciej%5FCeg%C5%82owski?ref=robert.winter.ink) coined a phrase which I think should resonate far beyond the circles in which it currently does. The phrase: ‘[ambient privacy](https://idlewords.com/2019/06/the%5Fnew%5Fwilderness.htm?ref=robert.winter.ink).’ He defined it as: > the understanding that there is value in having our everyday interactions with one another remain outside the reach of monitoring, and that the small details of our daily lives should pass by unremembered. What we do at home, work, church, school, or in our leisure time does not belong in a permanent record. Not every conversation needs to be a deposition. In a sense, it is not surprising the notion should have gone largely unthought. For all of human history, ambient privacy was an inevitable fact of life because it required considerable effort to record something for posterity. Only God was omniscient. This was something which long frustrated those with totalitarian ambitions as even the most diligent intelligence gathering organisations struggled to create enough data points on enough individuals to have meaningful effect. But technological advances are putting more data collection devices in more places than ever. From CCTV cameras to smartwatches, we inhabit a world which is increasingly surveyed. To the extent that even the notorious *Ministerium für Staatssicherheit* (more commonly known as the Stasi) couldn't manage to collect even a fraction of the data citizens now willingly provide though posts, health apps and location tracking. This causes many of us to focus on personal privacy. My friend might be willing to wear a tracking device or upload every moment of their day to a platform whose founder thinks '[privacy is no longer a social norm](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-privacy?ref=robert.winter.ink);' I am not. This is what makes ambient privacy such a problematic concept as while I might take steps to secure my personal spaces, I can't control the public spaces into which I must venture unless I wish to become a hermit on a mountain. But even there, satellites will still likely film my location and movements. This is particularly crucial as hitherto existing privacy legislation tends to focus on the individual and consequently frames protections as an individual right. However, as Cegłowski notes: > If I’m subjected to facial recognition at the airport, or tagged on social media at a little league game, or my public library installs an always-on Alexa microphone, no one is violating my legal rights. But a portion of my life has been brought under the magnifying glass of software. Even if the data harvested from me is anonymized in strict conformity with the most fashionable data protection laws, I’ve lost something by the fact of being monitored. Because being 'off the grid' is now next to impossible in many societies, one or two more privacy respecting apps in our life won't stem the tide. This is not to say personal efforts shouldn't be made or that there is something inevitable about the future state of the world. It is why I choose Linux, privacy respecting open source developers, and e2EE as often as I can. But my need to be a part of a society which predominantly doesn't make these choices means the most meaningful solution is to look at ambient as well as personal privacy. Only by re-framing the conversation thus, can we hope to stem the massive social experiment emanating from the big tech firms, and those who seek to imitate their profits. In writing this, a moment of Lucas brilliance came sharply into view. It is an ominous statement by his fictional character Padmé Amidala: > So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause. Perhaps in the case of our privacy, it ought to be rephrased: 'So this is how privacy dies... with a flurry of likes.' --- [Bill of Rights](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=661347&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [1st United States Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st%5FUnited%5FStates%5FCongress?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licesned under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 009 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Gakyō Rōjin URL: https://robert.winter.ink/gakyo-rojin/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:47:09.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/008-Gakyo-Rojin_thumb.jpeg) Gakyo Rojin 0:00 /179.208 1× > Until the age of 70, nothing I drew was worthy of notice. > > *Katsushika Hokusai* [#OnThisDay](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/onthisday/) in 1849, aged 88, the artist [Katsushika Hokusai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokusai?ref=robert.winter.ink) (葛飾 北斎) died. He was not only one of the most important artists of the Edo period in Japan, but one of the first Japanese artists to achieve fame abroad. It is hard to talk about Hokusai without mentioning his *Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji* series, of which perhaps the most famous are his *Great Wave* and *Fine Wind, Clear Morning* pieces. ![Great Wave off Kanagawa](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/4282a-great_wave_off_kanagawa2.jpg) The Great Wave off Kanagawa (神奈川沖浪裏), by Katsushika Hokusai (Printed from 1731-1734) ![Fine Wind, Clear Morning](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/2a867-katsushika_hokusai_-_fine_wind_clear_morning_gaifu_kaisei_-_google_art_project.jpg) Fine Wind, Clear Morning (1800-1849) ## The Old Man Mad About Art Yet I find his later works, created after he began working under the name Gakyō Rōjin (画狂老人: "The Old Man Mad About Art"), I think the true brilliance and importance of the man is revealed. Hokusai seemed to think as much himself, observing that it was in his later years his true talent bodied forth: > From the age of six, I had a passion for copying the form of things and since the age of fifty I have published many drawings, yet of all I drew by my seventieth year there is nothing worth taking into account. At seventy-three years I partly understood the structure of animals, birds, insects and fishes, and the life of grasses and plants. And so, at eighty-six I shall progress further; at ninety I shall even further penetrate their secret meaning, and by one hundred I shall perhaps truly have reached the level of the marvellous and divine. When I am one hundred and ten, each dot, each line will possess a life of its own. During his old age, he produced his memorable Fuji from Goten-Yama. It is not only one of the most detailed scenes of his entire Fuji series, but a work which speaks to the popularity of the prevailing Fuji cult by depicting the great mountain as a spec in the distance. Both focal point and vanishing point, the composition pulls us into the work with a hypnotic beauty which comes from the confidence of a master artist unafraid to hold the audience in the palm of his hand. ![Fuji From Goten Yama](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/63c1f-katsushika-hokusai-fuji-from-goten-yama.jpg) Fuji From Goten Yama (1831) ## Blooming Late In Life What I find most compelling, is the way in which Hokusai's work burgeoned as his years advanced. Perhaps this is a an unconscious reaction to feeling that I am yet to realise my potential. Perhaps this is a nod to my mother, who on this day I remember as a woman of strength and passion and who also didn't come into her own until later in life. Whatever the cause, I do know that on this mother's day I recall the life of a woman who not only touched my life, but that of countless others through her generosity, calm intellect and capacity to put the cults of her day into their proper perspective. A lesson for us all. Never be afraid of blooming late in life. --- [Hokusai painting the Great Daruma](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59387651&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Katsushika Hokusai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokusai?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). [The Great Wave off Kanagawa](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5576388&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Katsushika Hokusai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokusai?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). [Fine Wind, Clear Morning](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22655682&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Katsushika Hokusai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokusai?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). [Fuji From Goten Yama](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76365117&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Katsushika Hokusai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokusai?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 008 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Endurance Through Renewal URL: https://robert.winter.ink/endurance-through-renewal/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:49:20.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/007-Endurance-Through-Renewal_thumb.jpeg) Endurance Through Renewal 0:00 /145.8 1× Today, while out walking, I came across a stone bench that appeared to be very old. Carved into an ancient looking wall, it was dappled in moss and thick creepers wound their way across its surface. As I walked on, I turned over in my mind the enduring legacy that is stone. From the construction at [Göbekli Tepe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli%5FTepe?ref=robert.winter.ink) in Asia Minor, the oldest religious structure in the world built c. 9500 BC, to the Nile and Indus valleys, the Orkney Isles and the jungles of Yucatán, humanities efforts to outlast time itself are evident. ![Göbekli Tepe](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/87294-gobekli_tepe_urfa.jpg) Göbekli Tepe, Şanlıurfa > Lend me the stone strength of the pastand I will lend youThe wings of the future, for I have them. > > *Robinson Jeffers* Perhaps this attempt to master nature and make it bend to our will is a product of belief in a creator-God? Because for the Japanese, who did not share the West's creation beliefs, another path in architecture was found. Renewal While the Pyramids of Egypt and the spires of Europe sought height, to be the focal zenith of the landscape, temples in Japan reached outward, not upward. ![Itsukushima Shinto Shrine](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/9f97e-itsukushima_shinto_shrine.jpg) Itsukushima Shinto Shrine When rock is used, as in a rock garden, it is by way of contrast to the fragility of growing trees. Not an attempt to defy nature, but another means to acquiesce. An attempt at conquest by surrender. I see a similar contest between centralised and decentralised systems in our digital landscapes. The massive conglomerates seek a maximal user base to establish an enduring legacy. Much like the architects in stone, life might be short but their systems eternal. Decentralised services are not so deceived and walk a different path. While platforms like MySpace may rise and fall in popularity, the notion of the Fediverse transcends any given instance. Individual ones may predominate for a time, but if their servers are spun down, people will still want to connect and will find another node. This realises the prime object of the internet: to be a *network of networks*. The life of an ecosystem is short, but life, and the creators of ecosystems, are eternal: endurance through renewal. --- [Pyramids of the Giza Necropolis](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=40998161&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [KennyOMG](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User%5Ftalk:KennyOMG?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [CC BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). [Göbekli Tepe](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17377542&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Teomancimit](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teomancimit?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). [Itsukushima Shinto Shrine](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4184839&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Bernard Gagnon](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Bgag?ref=robert.winter.ink) is licensed under [CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 007 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Pied Piper of Zoom URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-pied-piper-of-zoom/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:59:24.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/006-The-Pied-Piper-of-Zoom_thumb.jpeg) The Pied Piper of Zoom 0:00 /99.312 1× The Fediverse is abuzz... Keybase has been acquired by Zoom. For some, this is an event akin to opening one of the Seven Seals. > And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. > > Revelation 6:7 For others, it is a logical move for a company mired by privacy and security concerns and an opportunity for Zoom to try and improve their biggest flaw. For me, the move feels like another retelling of an old tale. That of the Pied Piper of Hamlin. In the original tale, set in 1284, a piper dressed in pied (multicoloured) clothing appears to solve the town's vermin problem. The mayor agreed to pay the piper for his work, only to renege on his promise. The piper returns on a saint's day when the adults were in church and, playing his pipe, spirits all but three of the town's children away. In a sense, our online privacy is much like a child, vulnerable to the world and easily spirited away by a platform which offers ease of connection. And much like the mayor of Hamlin's greed and indifference to consequences, our online choices make it possible for our privacy and security to be spirited away. --- [Pied Piper](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7387124&ref=robert.winter.ink) by Kate Greenaway (1846–1901) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 006 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### The Perfect Moment URL: https://robert.winter.ink/the-perfect-moment/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:58:17.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/005-Beauty-is-truth_thumb.jpeg) The Perfect Moment 0:00 /112.056 1× [Yesterday](https://robert.winter.ink/oh-the-humanity) I stood in my kitchen and an archetypal piece of pop culture, a t-shirt print, called forth a voice from the past. In another time and another place, another man stood and mused far more lyrically on a classical piece of culture. Rendering into language the perfect moment. My memory called forth what [Edmund Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund%5FBurke?ref=robert.winter.ink) termed the sublime: a sense of awe mingled with pain. The imagination of [John Keats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FKeats?ref=robert.winter.ink) bodied forth beauty mixed with hope. Yet for all the glory of his poetry, Keats' central message is one of silence. The urn of his imagining can retell a more vivid history than any line of verse. Much like my memory of the Hindenburg film, Keats treats time in a way which is both frozen and animated by our thinking. This is because for those immortalized in art, time does not pass; the figures are immune from old age and in this way are ever new, inviting each generation to imagine their lives and bear witness to their history. ## What Is Not Visible Keats closes his poem with a [chiasmus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus?ref=robert.winter.ink): > Beauty is truth, truth beauty, — that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. Though it is not clear if this is the poet or the urn speaking, what is clear is that the passage seeks to transcend any notion of visual value to show what is not available at first sight. That the lovers on the urn will never embrace. They remain forever locked in that pause before the kiss. This goes to the heart of truth, beauty and ultimately hope. The notion of transcending the temporal and freezing forever the perfect moment. --- [John Keats 1819](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9449863&ref=robert.winter.ink) by Joseph Severn (1793–1879) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 005 of my [#100DaysToO](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/)[ffload](https://robert.winter.ink/subject/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### 'Oh, the humanity!' URL: https://robert.winter.ink/oh-the-humanity/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:56:48.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/004-Oh-the-humanity_thumb.jpeg) Oh the humanity! 0:00 /128.064 1× As I stirred the mince, a t-shirt on the television grabbed my attention. '6 May 1937' was superimposed over an airship. Reflexively I recalled [Herbert Morrison's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert%5FMorrison%5F%28journalist%29?ref=robert.winter.ink) voice crying out with anguish: 'Oh, the humanity!' As my conscious thinking caught up, a newsreel flickered into life in my minds eye and I felt myself transported to an airfield in New Jersey as an airship burned. More often than not, it is a sound or a smell which pulls us from our present to the past. One so consuming, the world as we experience it seems to fade to black. And the past, which comes flooding in, transports us to a moment which is both frozen in time and animated by our thinking. More bizarrely still, a word or a date rekindles the fire of an event we have not witnessed outside our imagination or the footage of a newsreel. ## The Sublime and The Beautiful The two strongest impressions conceived of by the Irish politician and philosopher [Edmund Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund%5FBurke?ref=robert.winter.ink) (1729-1797), were the Sublime and Beautiful. To modern readers this may seem a pleonasm, as the sublime is commonly taken to mean excellence or beauty. But it was not in this sense Burke used the word. Rather, he was following the Western tradition of aesthetic thought, traced through Plato, Aristotle and Longinus, in which the sublime and the beautiful were primary categories. In this context the sublime represents something great or majestic and imbues us with a sense of awe. However, Burke conceived a theory which went beyond the traditional categorisation. He associated sublimity and beauty with notions of pain and pleasure. When we recall a moment such as the [Hindenburg Disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg%5Fdisaster?ref=robert.winter.ink), do we not feel a sense of awe mingled with pain? Do we not feel a sense of humanity? But what, you may ask, of a sense of beauty mixed with hope? On that I will write, next.... --- [Hindenburg Disaster](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19329337&ref=robert.winter.ink) by Sam Shere (1905–1982) is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 004 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### Catharsis URL: https://robert.winter.ink/catharsis/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:55:28.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/003-Catharsis_thumb.jpeg) Catharsis 0:00 /97.416 1× From the Greek κάθαρσις and translated as either cleansing or clarification. Though the meaning has been much argued over, it is nonetheless a powerful action. One which we undergo when seeking to salve our troubled thinking. Part of the reason why I embarked upon [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink) was to achieve some portion of catharsis. Much needed in a year which has had equal measures of sorrow and joy. Yet at times, writing alone is not action enough to free my thinking from its melancholy trends. In such times I seek catharsis from that most lyric of the muses, [Euterpe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euterpe?ref=robert.winter.ink): > because she gives to those who hear her sing delight in the blessings which education bestows. > > *Diod. 4.7.1* Tonight I write to the sounds of Hildegard von Bingen's (1098-1179) music: [O eterne Deus](https://open.spotify.com/track/2bctwauWVdEVl9aBcmyjCV?ref=robert.winter.ink). Which 'bewitches the mind and ensnare the senses.' A moment of rapture to leave the cares of our mortal coil behind. Through this cleansing, a clarification is achieved. In this time of lock-down, a measure of engagement with the moment is enjoyed which our busy lives preclude. Cloistered in our homes, it becomes necessary to think of ways to make the quotidian new. To cherish the brief moments of contact with family and friends who, for the moment, the pandemic has separated from us. --- [Angels ](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8543170&ref=robert.winter.ink)by an unknown author is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). This post is day 003 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### May the Third be with you URL: https://robert.winter.ink/may-the-third-be-with-you/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:54:27.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/002-May-the-Third-be-with-you_thumb.jpeg) May the Third be with you 0:00 /152.448 1× As a boy I clung tight to Wicket the [Ewok](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewok?ref=robert.winter.ink), my childhood companion from the forest moon of [Endor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endor%5F%28Star%5FWars%29?ref=robert.winter.ink). Given my affection for this furry friend, it would be remiss of me to let May 4th pass without making a Star Wars reference: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/822a0-star_wars_day_may_the_fourth.png) [Star Wars Day](https://www.starwars.com/star-wars-day?ref=robert.winter.ink) As an adult, the day which precedes this wonderful interlude of sci-fi reminiscing looms larger: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/16e17-world_press_freedom_day.jpg) [World Press Freedom Day](https://en.unesco.org/commemorations/worldpressfreedomday?ref=robert.winter.ink) In many ways it is fitting these two memorial days are side by side. A central theme in the Star Wars saga was the freedom of peoples to live according to their need, rather than according to the want of an empire. Press freedom speaks to the heart of the Star Wars narrative. As Article 19 of the 1948 [Universal Declaration of Human Rights](https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/?ref=robert.winter.ink) attests: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. ## Informed Opinion I, however, would argue that freedom of opinion counts for little if it is not an informed opinion. For this, we need a point of reference for which journalism frequently is the primary source. But if the reporters are not free to investigate and report as the facts dictate, their articles will only further what António Guterres referred to as a pandemic of misinformation: > As the \[COVID-19\] pandemic spreads, it has also given rise to a second pandemic of misinformation, from harmful health advice to wild conspiracy theories. The press provides the antidote: verified, scientific, fact-based news and analysis. Yet this should not be read as a panegyric to journalists. I often bemoan the quality of their writing, riddled as it so frequently is with factional bias. But I do rejoice when it is freely written with full and frank access to people and events. In such a situation, the competing journals of record provide a good cross section of partisan views. From these myriad faces of truth, a more informed opinion of events can be gleaned. One worthy of the grand idea of right to opinion and expression the Universal Declaration seeks to enshrine. Let us pause on this day and take a moment to remember the brave individuals who work so tirelessly to report on events. May the Fourth be with them. --- [Star Wars Day](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=89213635&ref=robert.winter.ink) by [Lucasfilm LTD](https://www.lucasfilm.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). is licensed under [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Featured image by [charlesdeluvio](https://unsplash.com/@charlesdeluvio?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/diary-date?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This post is day 002 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). ### One Hundred Days... URL: https://robert.winter.ink/one-hundred-days/ Last updated: 2025-11-22T00:51:08.000Z ![audio-thumbnail](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/media/2025/11/001-100-Days-2_thumb.jpeg) 001 100 Days 0:00 /60.936 1× This post is the first of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/tag/100daystooffload/). The concept, kicked off by [Kev Quirk](https://kevq.uk/?ref=robert.winter.ink), is simple: to write on your personal blog every day for 100 days. I am looking forward to the one hundred days challenge, and a challenge it will be, because my most recent writing efforts and current researches are months if not years in the gestation and in consequence I am out of the habit of a daily journal. I hope the process is instructive and gets my creative thoughts flowing again, as well as being a little cathartic. My very own [Pensieve](https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/pensieve?ref=robert.winter.ink): > One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one's mind, pours them into the basin, and examines them at one's leisure. It becomes easier to spot patterns and links, you understand, when they are in this form. > > *Albus Dumbledore* --- This post is day 001 of my [#100DaysToOffload](https://robert.winter.ink/topic/100daystooffload/) challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from [100daystooffload.com](https://100daystooffload.com/?ref=robert.winter.ink). Photo by [Amador Loureiro](https://unsplash.com/@amadorloureiro?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/type?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) ### 'I' and 'Me' URL: https://robert.winter.ink/i-and-me/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:39:47.000Z In ['No one is to blame for misbehaviour'](https://robert.winter.ink/no-one-is-to-blame-for-misbehaviour), I made reference to George Herbert Mead’s 'I' and 'Me.' But what did he mean by them and what are their implications for the practice of management? Writing in 1931, John Dewey observed, when trying to sum up Mead’s influence on his own life and work: > His mind was deeply original- in my contacts and my judgment the most original mind in philosophy in the America of the last generation… I dislike to think what my own thinking might have been were it not for the seminal ideas which I derived from him. For his ideas were always genuinely original; they started one thinking in directions where it had never occurred to one that it was worth while even to look. I think the same would be acknowledged by many managers, if they took the time to read Mead’s work. Of all Mead’s contributions, perhaps the most seminal is his thinking about the social nature of the self. More specifically for this paper, his ideas about the 'I' and 'Me,' which stemmed from his desire to understand 'life as a process and not a series of static physiochemical situations.' Mead disallowed notions of metaphysics, as explanations for life, instead preferring objective presence in the world. To Mead’s way of thinking, the individual is not an isolated being that injects innate qualities into any given social interaction, rather a person is a unique confluence of what Mead termed the 'social act.' More effectively put: 'selves exist only in relation to other selves' and this social act 'enters as a determining factor into the individual’s thinking.' So much so, the community 'other selves' form, which Mead referred to as 'the generalized other,' is the prerequisite for thinking to occur at all. All of this requires an intersubjectivity of the self as formation of the generalized other necessarily precedes development of the self. This requires a bit of unpacking as there is some ambiguity in the literature which needs clarifying, to do so I will examine two key strands of Mead’s thinking: intersubjectivity and temporality. ## Intersubjectivity The first complexity relates to the familiar view of intersubjectivity which asserts it only occurs between independently situated subjects. However, if we take Mead at his word, that the social precedes the individual, this creates a situation in which intersubjectivity also occurs within the self. Mead’s thinking on conversation was no less unique as he viewed it as much more than merely vocal, but included all methods which establish meaning, either interactionally (between separate entities) or transactionally (which can subsume entities into the self). In other words, communication is not so much an expression of what 'is' as much as a litmus test for potential responses. When there is harmony between the projected and received understanding of the gesture, it constitutes what Mead referred to as a 'significant symbol.' Significant symbols don’t just play an external rôle in Mead’s thinking, as he conceives of internal interactions between an objective aspect of the self, a 'me,' which is an empirically accessible notion of the self as it is accessible via third part data, and a subjective aspect of the self, an 'I,' which 'comes in as a historical figure. What you were a second ago, that is the 'I.' This makes the 'I' the critical agent of self-construction as without its reconstructive power, the self would be nothing more than an uncritical accumulation of socially acquired behaviours. > The self is essentially a social process going on with these two distinguishable phases. If it did not have these two phases there could not be conscious responsibility, and there would be nothing novel in experience. This is not to view the twin aspects of the self as some variant of schizophrenia, slipping into an 'I' or a 'Me' persona at whim. Rather, we develop an ability to interpret answers to our conversational gestures, depending on whether we are expressing ourselves or trying to see the situation as our interlocutor does. This allows for both the development of the self and temporary self-adjustment to better fit in with the common collective. Mead demonstrates this theory in practise with an example of buying food, which is an act: > in which a man excites himself to give by making an offer. An offer is what it is because the presentation is a stimulus to give. One cannot exchange otherwise than by putting one’s self in the attitude of the other party to the bargain… Buying and selling are involved in each other. Something that can be exchanged can exist in the experience of the individual only insofar as he has in his own makeup the tendency to sell when he has also the tendency to buy. And he becomes a self in this experience only insofar as one attitude on his own part call out the corresponding attitude in the social undertaking. The ability of man to respond to 'the generalized other' is a critical faculty, without which, Mead asserted, abstract and complex thinking would be impossible. In other words, we would be as animals, capable of mimicry but unable to demonstrate novelty or creation. Instead, we possess the capacity for sociality, which is a 'capacity for being several things at once.' Mead is arguing for an event to be social when it has two different settings of locus, for example speaker and responder in a conversation. ## Temporality Moving to Mead’s notions of temporality, I need to first pause and dispatch the Newtonian understanding of time. According to Sir Isaac, time is a universal property and to understand scientific laws, such as motion, one needs to start from the point of assuming time passes uniformly. That Bertrand Russell was supporting the Newtonian concept some 200 years later is testament to the resilience of the theory at the time Mead was at the height of his powers: > Time is an unimportant and superficial characteristic of reality. Past and future must be acknowledged to be as real as the present, and a certain emancipation from slavery to time is essential to philosophic thought. To capture this notion of time, Henri Bergson employed the metaphor of cinema film in which reality is understood as a series of fixed frame images. While Mead agreed the present can be likened to a 'knife-edge,' he rejected Bergson’s metaphysical infatuation with *élan vital*, which posits time as a force of nature which is independent of human intelligence: > When he \[Bergson\] looks for an instance of what he calls pure 'duration,' as distinct from mere motion in a fixed space, he goes to the inner experience of the individual. If we look inside ourselves, we find a process going on in which there is interpenetration of what takes place at one moment and what takes place at another moment. You cannot cut off your ideas, feelings, sensations, and fix them at a certain point and say that one belongs to this point and another to another point. Your feeling is something that pervades a whole experience. Mead argued for the irreversibility of duration for 'where everything is conceivably reversible nothing can assume a new form.' This made central to Mead’s thinking the notion of viewing time as continuity and change rather than the mere elapse of individual moments, in which the defining characteristic of the present is that it is constantly emerging: 'from every new rise the landscape that stretches behind us becomes a different landscape.' Carried into notions of the future, Mead’s thinking postulates new 'pasts' which open up because of changes in the present, which in turn open up new possibilities for the future, allowing for a continuous interplay between pasts and futures. While other process thinkers, notably Whitehead and Heidegger, have observed the interplay between past, present and future, Mead made a unique contribution in the way in which he linked present events to a past and future continuity during their emergence in time. > A present then, as contrasted with the abstraction of mere passage, is not a piece cut out anywhere from the temporal dimension of uniformly passing reality. Its chief reference is to the emergent event, that is, to the occurrence of something which is more than the processes that have led up to it and which by its change, continuance, or disappearance, adds to later passages a content they would not otherwise have possessed. Another key divergence Mead took, from the Newtonian concept of time, was in how he engaged with simultaneity. Mead was greatly influenced by Einstein’s work and the way in which theories of relativity appreciate time cannot be held distinct from agents and their situation. Mead was enlivened by the way in which the simultaneity of multiple temporalities gives the actor a multitude of choices due to their multifaceted perspective. For Mead, creative potential is unleashed whenever two or more temporalities coincide, for which he coined the term 'sociality' for the past-to-future passage which occurs in an event. > The social character of the universe we find in the situation in which the novel event is in both the old order and the new which its advent heralds. Sociality is the capacity of being several things at once. ## The Practice of Management But how to place Mead’s notions of 'I' and 'Me' into an organisational setting and make useful his thinking on temporality and intersubjectivity? Although Mead was writing for an early twentieth century audience, which generally accepted vitalistic concepts, he is important among his peers in countering such mystical claims. Instead of accepting people were motivated by subjective states, which could be neither proven nor falsified, he chose to focus on only that which could be measured or demonstrated objectively. Mead was also unique in that he didn’t take his thinking to extremes and succumb to the 'scientism' of thinkers to come later in the century, which viewed people and human interaction in a purely mechanistic way. Instead, Mead sought a middle path which advocated the need for independently observable and verifiable sense data, to counter prevailing explanations of behaviour in terms of unconscious traits or hidden elements, while stopping short of viewing the world as a gigantic machine. Mead’s concept of temporality is of importance to managers as it allows a deeper understanding of how to engage with the complexities of perpetually unfolding events and how those events inextricably shape our understanding of the past and choices in the future. In the parlance of a board meeting: be careful with the decisions you make today based on the 'economic argument' as they will shape your understanding of past organisational successes and failures, which will in turn affect your future choices. I have argued the importance of Mead’s much neglected work as the wealth of thinking which abounds in his material provides a better way of informing our understanding of organisational practices. Through Mead’s work managers now have access to notions of the 'generalized other,' the constructed 'me' and the performative 'I.' The notion that the 'significant symbols,' found in the harmony between the projected and received understanding of the gesture which transports meaning between employee and manager, are not fixed, but are subject to continual recreation allowing infinite flexibility when assessing project planning. And 'sociality,' arguably one of Mead’s most important contributions, as it connects intersubjectivity ('I' and 'Me') with the temporal aspects of Mead’s thinking and can help managers better understand that practices within their organisations are more than stayed routines or simply habitual processes. Rather, each discrete action is both a solution to an old problem and the creation of a new future, but only for the attentive observer. For that observer Mead provides reliable tools which, by emphasising empirically accessible and objectively measurable elements of daily actions, sublimate the all too popular, and purely subjective, personal elements which pervade organisational governance and which are many a manager, and organisations, undoing. --- Photo by [Thomas Bormans](https://unsplash.com/@thomasbormans?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/time?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) ### No One Is To Blame For Misbehaviour URL: https://robert.winter.ink/no-one-is-to-blame-for-misbehaviour/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:39:47.000Z In [Michael Crichton's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael%5FCrichton?ref=robert.winter.ink) novel Rising Sun, the character John Connor makes the observation: > The Japanese have a saying: ‘Fix the problem, not the blame.’ Find out what’s *screwed* up and fix it. Nobody gets blamed. We’re always after who *screwed* up. Their way is better. While it is likely this proverb is as much a product of the author's imagination as the fictional Nakamoto Corporation around which the novel pivots, it doesn't detract from it being apposite when looking at how organisations and individuals address agency when something goes wrong. The challenge for leaders, in an Org Behaviour setting, is that the simple mantra of 'fix the problem, not the blame' runs the risk of becoming lost in a world which has become enthralled to the behaviourism of [B. F. Skinner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.%5FF.%5FSkinner?ref=robert.winter.ink) which teaches that because of environmental conditioning, no one is to blame for misbehaviour. But if Skinner is right, how do we develop a sense of personal responsibility? I am tempted to simply quote a passage from [George Herbert Mead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George%5FHerbert%5FMead?ref=robert.winter.ink) by way of response and leave it at that: > The self is essentially a social process going on with these two distinguishable phases (the 'I' and 'Me'). If it did not have these two phases there could not be conscious responsibility, and there would be nothing novel in experience. However, as an exercise I am going try to answer as Skinner, or rather, as a version of Skinner who accepts the notion of personal responsibility. Something which I would argue Skinner could, and should, have done because behaviourism doesn’t necessarily deny personal responsibility. On the contrary, personal responsibility requires a level of predictability, not the opposite which seems to have been Skinner’s understanding. As a result, behaviourism contains all the necessary elements for personal responsibility. > When what a person does is attributed to what is going on inside him, investigation is brought to an end. Why explain the explanation? For twenty-five hundred years people have been preoccupied with feelings and mental life, but only recently has any interest been shown in a more precise analysis of the role of the environment. Ignorance of that role led in the first place to mental fictions, and it has been perpetuated by the explanatory practices to which they gave rise. In this context behaviourism deals with, what [J. M. Ziman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John%5FZiman?ref=robert.winter.ink) called 'third-party-confirmable' or 'public knowledge' concepts. Personal responsibility, often regarded as private and not subject to public knowledge, must be brought into a social or publicly confirmable space before it can be analysed. In this way personal responsibility can often occupy a metaphorical space. Metaphorical in the sense it is generally referring to egotistic, 'I am doing this for me', or altruistic, 'I am doing this for someone else'. Once unpacked, this allows for the possibility that responsibility and determinism are not mutually exclusive but in fact synonymous. To clarify this thinking, I first need to scrape away commonly extant notions of determinism. ## Determinism The traditional argument runs along the lines that an individual’s behaviour is caused by their history and they cannot be entirely accountable for their actions. This casts responsibility for actions outside the locus of personal control and is evident in the mitigation used by defence litigators. One of the more notorious examples of the avoidance of personal responsibility can be seen in the Menendez case in which it was argued the murder of their parents, by the [Menendez brothers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle%5Fand%5FErik%5FMenendez?ref=robert.winter.ink), was the result of a history of child abuse and that the routine beating of a child can excuse murder of the adult. Here I would argue, contrary to Wordsworth, the child is not father to the man. The ramifications of the Menendez case are important as they cast the concept of personal responsibility as some sort of throwback to a less scientific age in which people lacked the knowledge to understand how human actions are motivated, however this atavistic view of responsibility does not withstand scrutiny. Instead, and although I abhor generalities, I would argue we are not much wiser, perhaps even a little less wise, than the ancients when it comes to understanding human behaviour and that advances in psychology are much akin to Penelope’s weaving of [Laertes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laertes?ref=robert.winter.ink)’ funeral shroud, several developments which are then unpicked. The upshot of this tramping of ideas, back and forth along the path between automatism and personal responsibility, is to leave a very muddy track in which the individual isn’t held responsible as they have no free will with which to exercise their responsibility. To understand this thinking it is necessary to assess two divergent meanings of 'free will', which are alternately subjective and objective. The latter is governed by concepts of control and the predictability of choice — in this understanding 'predictable' is used in the sense of a body moving between three linear points. It follows, as an A B C, that the path could not have been other than it was, that it was predictable or, in the parlance of behaviourism, 'determined'. The subjective notion of free will relates to how a person feels or thinks. I think I am free, no matter how predictable my behaviour may be. ``` There is an endless regress within the subjective form of free will as it can be argued we are not aware our awareness is determined making our feeling of freedom invalid. However, to avoid reductio absurdum I am assuming the capacity to be aware when our awareness is determined and when it is free. ``` This is evident in my ability to choose how I will achieve a goal, even if the goal itself is not a free choice. An example is I find it difficult not to like chocolate, but I am free to choose if I will eat Lindt or Cadbury chocolate because while my reinforcers predispose me to choose Lindt, sometimes I will choose Cadbury’s *Old Gold* instead. By contrast, a behaviourist society has no interest in subjective feeling and with it rejects out of hand any notion of free will. As Skinner noted: > In the traditional view, a person is free. He is autonomous in the sense that his behavior is uncaused. He can therefore be held responsible for what he does and justly punished if he offends. That view, together with its associated practices, must be re-examined when a scientific analysis reveals unsuspected controlling relations between behaviour and environment. But if an individual does not have free will and if they, by extension, cannot be held accountable for their actions, how can they develop a sense of responsibility for their actions? ## Sense of Responsibility The answer can be found in Skinners own assertion there are 'unsuspected controlling relations between behaviour and environment'. While this may at first seem a paradox, it becomes less so once it is remembered Skinner’s use of the word 'control' can be misleading as in the common tongue it carries unduly forceful connotations. Rather, it is better to understand the term control in the context that the effects of contingencies are governed by the ability of an individual to adapt to the contingent element of 'control'. If a person cannot adapt to rewards or punishments they would exhibit completely 'uncaused' actions. Such utterly random acts would make a person unaccountable as their responses would be unrelated reinforcement. But this is not the case with the development of human behaviour, as [Daniel Dennett](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel%5FDennett?ref=robert.winter.ink) notes: > The blind trial and error of Darwinian selection creates organisms whose blind trial and error behaviour is subjected to selection by reinforcement, creating 'learned' behaviors that generate a profusion of learning opportunities from which the most telling can be 'blindly' but reliably selected, creating a better-focused capacity to generate further candidates for not-so-blind 'consideration,' and the eventual selection or choice or decision of a course of action 'based on' those considerations. Eventually, the overpowering 'illusion' is created that the system is actually responding directly to meanings. It becomes a more and more reliable mimic of the prefect semantic engine (the entity that hears Reason’s voice directly), because it was designed to be capable of improving itself in this regard; it was designed to be indefinitely ***self-redesigning*** \[my emphasis\]. In this way, it is better to understand 'control' as meaning 'predict', as my predilection for chocolate predicts I will respond favourably if the reward of chocolate is offered, but it does not control, in the sense of removing all responsibility; my decision to accept or reject the offer. This ties any notion of an individual’s capacity to respond appropriately to reward or punishment with responsibility and creates the first bind between the 'control' of behaviour and individual responsibility. This is an important note as there is a tendency, in an age dominated by physics which has brought [Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty%5Fprinciple?ref=robert.winter.ink) into popular discussion, to assume because the idea of perfect predictability is incorrect in physics it is also wrong in the field of human behaviour. ``` It is important to grasp something of a paradox. Due to the variability in people as to their sensitivity to rewards or punishments, there is a variability in the expected behaviour. In this context there is always a degree of unpredictability in behaviour. ``` Having established a *sine qua non*, we are able to examine the social aspects of personal responsibility in the behaviourist framework. ## Behaviourism In 1842, [Daniel M’Naghten](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel%5FM%27Naghten?ref=robert.winter.ink) killed the secretary to [Sir Robert Peel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FPeel?ref=robert.winter.ink) (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 1841–1846), even though Peel had been M’Naghten’s intended victim. In mitigation during the trial, M’Naghten offered his mission was guided by the 'voice of God'. This trial brought into effect the M’Naghten rule which stipulates insanity is proven if the defendant 'was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.' However, to simply establish if the person knows something is wrong, in the case of criminality, is not the whole story *viz* our discussion of individual responsibility. To firmly place responsibility for an action, a social component is needed. Take the example of a dog peeing on the rug. Punishing the animal may, in time, correct the behaviour, but it in no way could be said that to train one dog not to pee on the rug creates a collective understanding in the canine community that to pee on the rug is wrong and that if any other dogs engage in the act of urination, while inside on the rug, they are responsible for their behaviour because of the first dog's learning curve. Contrast this with an adult human being who, through social interaction, can learn murder is wrong and may be deterred from ever committing the act because of the prospect of punishment. In this context, the adult has a personal notion of deterrence, fear of imprisonment, garnered from the societal example of prior murderers being imprisoned. A lunatic or an animal lacks this capacity to learn from the social correction of others and in consequence has no 'personal responsibility' for their actions. A 'functioning' human adult can learn and has both the personal and social aspects of learned behaviour, which leads to personal, as well as societal, notions of responsibility. Throughout this article I have argued the notion of responsibility fits within the behaviouristic framework because actions, which are 'third-party-confirmable', denote responsibility, not thoughts which are only privately knowable, and because an important aspect of responsibility requires some element of determinism; predictable responses to reinforcement contingencies and an ability to learn by instruction and example. The claim behaviourism denies notions of responsibility is false, because although behaviourism affirms the role of environmental conditions, this same process creates the framework of responsibility as an individual responds to rewards and punishments and people around him may learn by social example; through signals such as language and observation. It is at this nexus of the twin elements of conditioning, social (external) and individual (internal), that personal responsibility is to be found. A 'normal' adult possesses a capacity to learn from both external and internal contingencies; many animals or people of diminished responsibility only have an individual capacity to respond; some organisms or disturbed humans lack either ability. --- Photo by [Brett Jordan](https://unsplash.com/ja/@brett%5Fjordan?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/responsibility?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) ### Leadership: A Human Encounter URL: https://robert.winter.ink/leadership-a-human-encounter/ Last updated: 2025-11-15T11:46:25.000Z In the postmodern age, we are surrounded by more heroes than in a Homeric epic, with football players, life guards and even movie stars being thrown into the mix. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Patagonia Traditional CSR, Strategic CSR or CSV URL: https://robert.winter.ink/patagonia-traditional-csr-strategic-csr-or-csv/ Last updated: 2025-11-15T11:47:47.000Z Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, is a self-described 'dirtbag' whose company employs people with a 'love of wild and beautiful places,' a love which 'demands participation in the fight to save them, and to help reverse the steep decline in the overall environmental health of our planet.' This mission stems from a realization by Chouinard that his company was in part responsible for the overconsumption he so reviled. But unlike much hyperbole surrounding businesses with a desire to implement CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), Chouinard’s commitment was make or break: 'They say if you want to be a samurai, you can't be afraid of dying, and as soon as you flinch, you get your head cut off. I'm not afraid of losing this business.' Such fervor has seen Chouinard push Patagonia to choose business partners based on values, not mere commercial efficiency. This was done through careful selection of what goes into every product from using less environmentally harmful dyes through to reducing the amount of packaging used to deliver the end product. Perhaps the best example of this philosophy is not in the detail but in the overarching concept: reduce, repair, reuse, and recycle. These core principles can be seen at work in Patagonia’s recycled products made from Polartec fleece, launched in 2005 and their attempts to reduce landfill waste by creating more durable products with a longer working life. Yet such processes created tension within the company as the need to remain profitable clashed with the far reaching ideals of Patagonia’s mission statement. Despite his earlier claim to not being afraid to lose the business, Chouinard, in a nod to corporate realities, acknowledged the need to turn a profit in his book Let My People Go Surfing: 'It’s okay to be eccentric, as long as you are rich; otherwise you’re just crazy.' Yet for all this dose of realism, Patagonia has proved time and again 'that making decisions in favor of environmental reasons always proved to be a good business in subsequent years.' _This post is for subscribers only._ ### World View - A Graph URL: https://robert.winter.ink/world-view-a-graph/ Last updated: 2025-11-03T06:39:52.000Z As I often get quizzed about different world views, one rainy day I threw this together. While I acknowledge any attempt to encompass the myriad of world views in a single graph is fraught with problems, it is still a useful starting point for those lost in a miasma of thoughts. [![What's Your Worldview](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/293f2-whats-your-worldview_-w-1024.jpg)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/ee/82/ee82b68d-de7a-4a28-ab25-c298a11937ff/content/images/2025/11/293f2-whats-your-worldview%5F-1.jpg?ref=robert.winter.ink) --- What's My Worldview by [Robert Winter](https://blog.winter.ink/about-me/my-online-identities/?ref=robert.winter.ink) is [CC BY-ND 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/?ref=robert.winter.ink).