Wood, trees & focus

Someone who “can’t see the wood for the trees” is a person who gets too focused on the details of a situation to be aware of the broader picture. To busy counting and identifying trees to take in the scope of wood/forest.

I find it a curious statement. It isn’t immediately obvious what it means (which isn’t helped by the use of the word ‘wood’, ‘forest’ is much better). And what stroke of genius hit the person who coined the phrase? And how on earth did it spread?

When we’re experts in trees, it’s hard to talk about forests. And mostly, it’s because we can’t imagine systems.

If our skill is in counting trees, we’ll struggle with the concept of connected ecosystems. If our skill is in identifying the species of a tree, the idea of seasonal changes isn’t on our radar. And if we’ve simply found our favourite tree in the forest, we can’t imagine that there might be similar, or better, trees elsewhere.

This is a lengthy analogy, but the point is simple: If we get lost in the detail, we’ll end up getting lost in discussions about the bigger system.

Our expertise is a critical part of describing the bigger system, but to integrate it we need to learn the language of the broader conversation.

• A focus on affordable housing isn’t going to solve the life-cycle environmental costs issues.

• A focus on building smaller isn’t going to solve the issue of land prices driven up by speculation.

• A focus on cohousing isn’t going to address the needs of those who have lived along their entire life.

• And a focus on houses isn’t going to connect us with the land.

Looks good, tastes great, but there's more

We recently cleared out some large palm-type big-leaf fern bush things from underneath our lemon tree.

It looks really tidy.

But there's way more green waste to get rid of than our council wheelie bin can handle.

And the newly uncovered ground will no doubt be soon filled with weeds enjoying their new exposure to sunlight.

So was it really worth the two hours of sweat?

Undoubtably, because we can now get to the lemon tree, and have a washing basket full of lemons to eat, share, and turn into lemon curd.

What is the metaphorical ground cover in the property system that's stopping us from getting to fully harvest the good fruit? It's definitely there, because no system is perfect.

It probably looks really good. It's probably really useful in many ways, It probably doesn't require too much effort to keep doing, or to create.

It's probably all these things. And it's is probably overgrown.

Do we need to think about our rush to convert rural/urban fringe land into sprawling subdivisions? Do these commuter villages get in the way of true community grounded in connection between people?

Should we take a step back and get some perspective on continuing to build new homes to (arguably deficient) minimum standards? The building consent numbers look good, the houses look nice, they're simple and profitable to build, but have we limited the industry and scope of what truly good housing means?

The weeds in the system look good. They're even doing a good job! But if they aren't truly good because there's something better, and if they keep us from moving towards a greater future, they need to get cut back and binned.

Money doesn't grow on trees, so someone's got to give

Moving to a more equal system of property ownership is likely to require some financial involvement on a goodwill basis. Setting aside the mystery of why people give their money away to anything, we have to ask...

... is it fair or reasonable to attempt to build an alternative system that requires some form of philanthropy to create?

It's not only fair and reasonable, it's necessary.

We're dealing with fundamentals.

1. There's an issue with the distribution of wealth, especially capital tied up in property.
2. Rebalancing requires shifting the existing wealth.
3. We can't simply create wealth out of nowhere and bring everyone up level. 

If you're not convinced, just take a step back to think about how we got here. In particular, consider the role of property speculation and mortgage interest in shifting the wealth of future and distant people to those with capital.

For an interesting twenty minutes on broken economic systems, watch this video.

The value of feedback

Some of who we are is hidden to us. And some of what is hidden to us, is seen by others.

That's why feedback works. That's why feedback is essential to growth. That's why feedback initiates change.

How many feedback loops are there in your life?

How many feedback loops are there in our building industry?

And is anyone actually listening?

If we're seeking to change the property problem, if we're asking for insight, if we're looking for new and better, we could do worse than starting with feedback.

If the industry has the solution, and knows what the solution, it's either unable or unwilling to deliver. 

Or if the industry has the solution, but doesn't know it, feedback is essential.

Organising for good, better.

There are many ways to work together. McKinsey & Company identified four organisational 'recipes'. Interestingly, their research found that focussing on a single recipe was more likely to be successful than attempting to delivery on multiple fronts.

If we wanted to build a system together that delivered better outcomes for all people through property, which recipe would we pick?

I suspect one of the following two could be a valid approach, and aligns with an emphasis on people working together to solve wicked problems.

The "Leadership Factory".

This approach would rely on developing leaders, entrusting them to do work, and wrapping them in support systems to sustain and grow their leadership and impact. Leadership is necessary when we're trying to move in a new direction, and a coordinated group of embedded, aligned and supported leaders could move us all a long way.

The "Continuous Improvement Engine".

We'd embed and maintain systems that promote continuous learning, knowledge sharing, diverse involvement and high engagement among every person involved. As we're trying to solve and unsolved problem, we know we'll need to learn as we go along. "Build it as we fly it" as the saying goes. And we also know that the more diverse the group of people involved in the learning, sharing and design process, the better the outcomes.

Perhaps, if I may, I'll deviate from McKinsey's conclusion that success requires focus on a single approach and theorise on a hybrid model:

Continually Improving Leaders who Continuously Improve the World

What would happen if we developed leaders who lead in a manner that promotes continuous learning, and who themselves are embedded in a leadership network that encourages knowledge sharing and learning around getting the most from others.

We could solve some wicked problems. Together.