Positive Sum Ecosystem = 1. Principles * 2. Proportionality

By Duncan Anderson and Lauren Fisher. To see all blogs click here.

Reading time: 14 mins


Summary: You get exactly the behaviour you allow (downside). You get exactly the behaviour you celebrate (upside). One of the key ways I’ve found to remove downside and add upside in an ongoing fashion (ie build an ever more positive sum ecosystem) is through the creation of principles and the proportional implementation of the principles. 


Positive Sum-ness of an Ecosystem = 1. Principles * 2. Intent * 3. Proportionality 

  • 1. Principle

    • What is the principle?

    • Why is it in someone’s self interest?

    • Why the principle is in the interest of the common good?

  • 2. Intent

    • L-1: Didn’t know it was bad

    • L0: Didn't intend bad and not reasonable for someone to have been able to foresee a bad outcome ensue

    • L1: Didn't intend bad but reasonable to foresee to have been able to foresee a bad outcome ensue

    • L2: Intended bad 1st time

    • L3: Intended bad multiple times

  • 3. Proportionality 

    • What is under?

    • What is proportional?

    • What is over?

  • Comment

    • Ruinous empathy vs Radical Candor as defined by Kim Scott. 

      • Ruinous Empathy is “nice” but ultimately unhelpful or even damaging. The classic story  for ruinous empathy is where someone doesn’t let someone know they are doing something bad (ie no principle stated, ‘under’ for proportional response as not saying anything as it’s easier to avoid) until one day that person gets fired. This I’d argue is a ‘negative sum way’ of addressing something bad. 

      • Radical Candour is where you care personally and say things upfront in a positive sum fashion. An approach I have to be positive sum is to: 1. Articulate the Principles * 2. Figure out Intent * 3. Respond Proportionately… or PIP. 

    • Jingle: If you want to avoid Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs), get good at Principles, Intention and Proportionality (PIPs). 


Examples

  • Example of good thing: doing weekly reading and writing for Edrolo Content Weekly (a type of professional development)

    • Principle

      • What: doing weekly reading and writing for Edrolo Content Weekly. 

      • Why in self interest: growing your mind should mean you add more value and hopefully have increased remuneration

      • Why in interest of common good: the more able each team member is the greater the emergent outcomes of the team. 

    • Intent: not late because of valid extenuating circumstances, just ‘lazy’. AKA Intended bad. 

    • Proportional implementation

      • Downside removal:

        • 1st don’t do it: 

          • Under = do nothing

          • Proportional = explain clearly why this is an expectation and why it’s in the person’s self interest and the common good. 

          • Over = unofficial warning

        • 2nd time don’t do it: 

          • Under = do nothing

          • Proportional = unofficial warning

          • Over = official warning

        • 3rd time don’t do it: 

          • Under = do nothing

          • Proportional = official warning

          • Over = put person on Performance Improvement Plan

        • Etc

      • Adding upside: 

        • People who do the best at writing get more opportunity (aka better job) and more remuneration is a fair and just fashion. 

        • Not people who happen to be ‘best friends’ with the boss. 

  • Example of bad thing: someone being dismissive of another in a meeting

    • Principle: 

      • What: we provide feedback in a positive sum way

      • Why in self interest: if you provide feedback this (negative sum) way the other person is likely to dislike you and not understand what they can do to improve

      • Why in interest of common good: if everyone provides positive sum feedback then we all grow faster and annoy each other less

    • Intent: while they might have been dismissive because they felt someone’s input wasn’t helpful, being dismissive is likely to be received in a negative sum fashion, so this is not ok. 

    • Proportional implementation: 

      • Under = do nothing 

      • Over = talk down to the person being dismissive in the meeting in front of others. 

      • Proportional = have a chat to the person after the meeting and do some ‘post game analysis’. Replay the point where you feel the other was being dismissive and ask them to articulate things from their side, explain you feel that it was reasonable to receive what was said in a dismissive manner. Ask them their thoughts etc etc. Say please be aware of this going forward. If it happens multiple times then ramp up severity. 


Positive Sum Ecosystem Outcome = 1. Number of Positive Sum Principles * 2. Ability to proportionally implement the Principles


Screen Shot 2021-07-18 at 2.55.04 pm.png
  • Comment

  • Where DA was 10 years ago. IE no self built positive sum principles

  • Where I think I am today. ~50 external principles like ‘radical candor’ and ~50 internal principles like ‘professional self development’ and solid ability to implement proportionally. 

  • Where I think Ray Dalio is today = where I hope to be in ~10 years = ~1000 Principles and high ability to implement them proportionally. 

  • A principle from Dalio: "Dreams + Reality + Determination = A Successful Life"

    • Principles * Proportionality = one way to understand reality better

    • Principles * Proportionality = one way to upgrade reality to be more positive sum. 

    • “Be the change you want to see.” Gandhi. 

    • Get great at making principles and implementing them proportionally so that you can create the reality you want there to be!

  • In some respects - Work Maturity = 1. The number of principles you can articulate + 2. How well you can proportionally implement the principles


++++++++++++++

Details


Good ‘laws’ stop the bad and interfere with superordinate outcomes as little as possible. 

  • I’ve called this ‘positive sum principles’ in the past. Basically good laws / principles stop the bad and allow a net increase in what is possible. 

  • As an example, today in Australia we have more laws than ever… but we can do more things than ever before. So on average these laws / principles are ‘positive sum’ AKA stop less than the new they allow.

  • Generations of Laws / Principles: 

    • L0: none, eg dogs with just the ‘laws of nature’. Might is right, etc

    • L1: customs which are optimal solutions for specific circumstances. Eg in some hunter gatherer societies if your tribe was being attacked and as a male you didn’t stand and fight then the tribe would kill you after the attack had finished as ‘people who don’t fight mean the tribe is weaker and maybe “as good as dead” ’. 

    • L2: fixed small number of laws. Eg the 10 commandments.

    • L3: a larger number of laws that can change and increase / decrease but not with fair process. Eg the King sets laws

    • L4: a Constitution that can be updated through some kind of fair process like voting, eg a basic democracy like in ancient Greece. 

    • L5: courts, judges, jail's etc with strong rule of law and optimising for the common good with multiple ways that laws / principles can be updated / added / removed (eg representative democracy, courts, etc). This covers most of the long tail ‘cannot dos’ such as property rights, employment law, etc. I think of this as a broad ‘operating system’, to me it’s more removing downside and allowing upside. But I think much more than allowing upside can be done. 

    • L6: company specific principles and proportional implementation of the principles that build a positive sum ecosystem. 

  • Jingle: The stupid forgive and forget. The bitter never forgive and forget. The wise forgive but do not forget. 

  • What are you going to do about it if you don't want it again? Make a principle and implement it proportionally. 

  • A core strategy I used to be able to forgive but not forget is to make a principle and implement it proportionally. 

Workplace Maturity = Principles + Proportionality

  • One articulation I have for ‘Workplace Maturity’ is the number of positive sum principles one can articulate in eg a blog and how well one can proportionally implement these principles.

    • It’s important to point out that it’s not just about coming up with a bunch of ideas and hoping for the best – they also need to be put into practice, understood/valued by the team, and reflected back/built on over time.

    • They can’t just be something that gets talked about once – they need to be integrated into the culture of the workplace.

      • Some strategies for how to do this below.

  • This is an oversimplification, but people can have ‘soft skills’ (e.g. empathy) and ‘hard skills’ (e.g. technical proficiency with a specific program).

    • I think principles can be used to help create and level up positive sum environments for both soft and hard skills. 

    • I’m going to focus on ‘soft skills’ right now. 

  • Here is a quick MECE of principles that relate to soft skills I try to look for when hiring and to foster internally at Edrolo:

  • What is ‘Principles * Proportionality’?

    • In some respects, every blog I write is a ‘principle’. Eg Defence mode Vs Understanding mode. The links in the soft skill MECE I’d say are ‘principles’. 

    • One approach I have to trying to implement principles proportionally: 

      • I get my core team to read and respond to them as one avenue to implement them proportionally. 

    • So I would hope that the number of positive sum principles I’m able to articulate is 100x what it was 5 years ago (I really only started writing / blogging ~4 years ago). I also believe I’m finding ever improving ways to implement these principles around me (both in my personal and professional lives). 

An external example of ‘Principles & Proportionality’: Ray Dalio and Bridgewater Associates

  • Over the last ~30 years Dalio built the largest hedge fund on earth (Bridgewater Associates) with $150bn in funds under management and his personal fortune according to Bloomberg is $17bn USD. 

  • Over the last ~30 years Dalio also built this list of principles and implemented them at his company Bridgewater. 

  • While I’ve never met Dalio and haven’t worked at Bridgewater, I think a core reason for Dalio and Bridgewater’s success is the development and proportional implementation of principles such as the ones Dalio outlined in this document.

  • I think Dalio’s ‘Work Maturity’ (AKA ability to develop and proportionally implement principles) is extremely high. I like to believe my Work Maturity is leaps and bounds ahead of what it was 5 years ago… and is growing at an exponential rate. More than any other factor, I attribute this to trying to writing blogs like this.  



Principles of Proportionality: Justice needs to be served, justice needs to be seen to be served. 

  • Power rather than law (principles) often rules international relations. Is it the same at companies? It can be, but you get unhappiness if you have injustice. So IMO it’s optimal to have Positive Sum Principles implemented in a fair proportional manner. 

    • You want a just fair society. This is not where the most powerful rules. 

    • No rules = Anarchy = Negative sum environment 

    • Variable rules = Tyranny = Negative sum environment

    • Clear rules that are created and updated as required = Happy = Positive sum environment 

  • Taxonomy of intent

  • The taxonomy: 

    • L-1: Didn’t know it was bad

    • L0: Didn't intend bad and not reasonable for someone to have been able to foresee a bad outcome ensue

    • L1: Didn't intend bad but reasonable to foresee to have been able to foresee a bad outcome ensue

    • L2: Intended bad 1st time

    • L3: Intended bad multiple times

  • Sub Taxonomy: Intended to be bad for (hopefully this is more around school aged children)

    • Just like stirring the pot

    • Wanted to annoy someone because they felt targeted/attacked

    • Having a bad day and frustrated/lashing out

    • Impress others

    • Wanted attention

    • Cry for help

  • Comment

    • If someone didn’t know that what they were doing is wrong then you shouldn’t come down on them like a ton of bricks. You should gently explain why you consider what they have done to be wrong through eg a blog + a chat. 

    • If someone has done the same thing wrong more than once and they know it’s wrong then come down on them like a ton of bricks. 

  • Proportional responses

  • For something bad that happened: 

    • If you do too little: then you are effectively condoning the outcome and should expect more of it. 

    • If you do too much: then you can often have the other party not feel remorseful but aggrieved and then ante up. This can lead to ‘an eye for an eye and the world is blind’ type outcome. 

    • If you do the right amount: justice is served. 

    • An example: speeding while driving in Australia

      • If you are only marginally over the limit then you get a fine and lose some points. 

      • If you do this multiple times you can lose your licence for eg 3 months. 

      • If you keep on speeding and losing your licence then the second time you lose your licence the suspension is longer. 

      • This can go all the way up to permanently losing your licence. 

  • For something good that happened: 

    • If you do too little: then the person can often feel under appreciated / taken advantage of and they don’t want to do more good in the future. 

    • If you do too much: then you can get Campbells Law

      • “Campbell's Law is the observation that once a metric has been identified as a primary indicator for success, its ability to accurately measure success tends to be compromised.”

      • Basically people act not in the common good but in their own narrow self interest. Eg I’m just doing this for the money… and I only do things for money. 

    • If you do just the right amount: people strive to do good for themselves AND the common good. A mutually positive sum outcome or a positive sum ecosystem. 

  • Comment

    •  A framework to try and think about what is proportional = 1. What is under + 2. What is over + 3. Can we think of any longer term negative 2nd order outcomes from pulling someone up / rewarding someone in this way? = Hopefully a proportional response. 

  • When is the best time to respond?

    • Options:

  • At the time

  • After the meeting

  • 24 hours - 7 days later

  • 1-6 months time at formalised 6 monthly feedback

  • Never

  • Comment

    • I find that normally it’s best 24 hours - 7 days later. 

    • You have a ‘moment’ in time where you can respond

    • But it’s almost never best to respond real time.

    • Depending on your intent in delivering the feedback and whether the feedback is positive/constructive, you might choose a different time frame for delivery. 

    • As a general rule, delivering feedback on the spot or soon after can be perceived to be more casual/might be better for minor issues/praise, whereas waiting e.g. a week can make it feel more significant.

      • The receiver might assume that if it’s still on your mind days/weeks/months later then it must have been a big deal – this can be used to positive effect if you think it’s important that they understand the weight (either good/bad) of their actions.


Using Kohlberg’s ethical framework as a way to give feedback to remove downside (bad) and add upside (good) 

  • Example: you might want a child to read for 15 minutes a day 5-6x days a week. 

  • This framework is from Kohlberg who was a harvard professor. 

Screen Shot 2021-07-18 at 2.55.17 pm.png
  • An example of using Kohlberg’s framework

  • Stage 1: Punishment - no iPad at all unless 15 mins of reading is done. 

  • Stage 2: Rewards

    • The number of minutes reading above 15 mins = the number of minutes one can play of their favourite game with you. 

    • Do this for more than 25 days in a month of reading 15 mins a day and get $50 to spend. 

  • Stage 3: Good intentions - mum is very good to you, she would like you to do literacy work. Because mum has asked I should do it. 

  • Stage 4: Obedience to authority (i'm modifying this) - reading will level up your mind so you'll be able to be rich one day. 

  • Stage 5: Difference between moral and legal right - it's ok to have a day off reading if there are extreme extenuating circumstances. 

  • Stage 6: I want to read to have a very capable mind so I can then help others and make the world better. 

  • Comment

    • Try to use all of 6 Kohlberg’s stages in some combination to try and build a positive sum environment when proportionally implementing things! 


"Motivation is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do because they want to do it." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

  • Good Principle = increases positive sum-ness of the ecosystem

  • A well explained Principle = has someone understand why adhering to the Principle is in their self interest AND the common good

    • The best strategy I have to do this is to explain things with all 6 of Kohlberg’s stages. 

  • Motivation Principles & Proportionality is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do is in their self interest and the interest of the common good (aka positive sum) because they want to do it understand why it is in their self interest and in the interest of the common good. 


If you only take away one thing

  • The best avenue I’ve found for building principles is to write each week about something you want to change (either downside you want to remove or upside you want to add). This is one articulation of what the CloudStreaks blogs are. 

  • The best way I’ve found to implement principles is to have people write about them, discuss them and then report back on how they are using them.