the unaccountability machine

The Unaccountability Man

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

So lately for many reasons I’ve been thinking about how supposedly Great Men fail and let us down. We’ve all been disappointed, and as a person working in technology, I’ve had so many supposed luminaries disappoint me. I’ve been contemplating this for awhile, and I found something that helps understand it and makes clear how really bad it is to Hero Worship someone into deciding your life.

(And notice how we always talk Great Men? More on that later . . .)

Now as any regular reader knows, The Unaccountability Machine was a book that changed how I see the world, and I haven’t yet shut up about it. As I continue to not shut up about it, let me sum it up quickly: the book’s thesis ends up being organizations go insane because they follow limited measures as goals (like stock market value). These organizations may persist – they may be quite good at it when they go mad – but their decisions will cause problems.

Those problems, by the way, are sort of the last twenty-thirty years.

Now the idea of some Great Awesome Business Leader is a form of madness no different than deciding stock value is the only thing to pursue. You have decided to focus only on one thing, and that thing is “whatever this dude says.” That is insane it’s just one we allow because some people believe in the Great Super Savior who will save us.

(Also, ever notice how this one Dude also is good for stock prices? Hmmm . . . )

Anyway this problem has a few facets.

First, as cynical as I am about some Great Dude Saving us, let’s say you find an actual Great Dude. Fine, maybe they’re worth following but for how long? They may navigate issues today but not tomorrow after the world changes. They may age out of understanding things or just age. They might drop a bunch of very expensive hallcinogens on some New Age trip and fry their brains. Someone truly awesome isn’t forever and is still only human.

And that’s assuming that the hero-worship, the money, doesn’t go to their head. How many people who actually had at least some good ideas got so insulated from reality they lost any actual skill they had? How would we know when we’re so busy still telling how awesome they are.

Second, there’s what ed Zitron called the Business Idiot. People who know how to play the various stock market and business games but don’t really know anything else. They’re good, perhaps every good at fundraising and upping the stock price and getting venture capital – but that’s all they’re good at. They’v learned how to work the system, and in doing so give an illusion of a deliverable.

Follow those people – who are great at selling themselves – as you have the madness of following a so-called Great Man, but also of following a shyster.

Third, there’s people who fit the Great Man who are similar, fitting what I call The Narrative. Some guy shows up who says the right thing and does the right thing that fits people – and the press’ – narratives and wham they’re rich and famous. You can make a lot of money and get power jut by checking off the right boxes at the right time. This I think explains a lot of people.

This is where the term Great Man reveals the sexism in the discussions. Which tells you how much The Narrative controls our thoughts.

Fourth, of course, the Great Man idea just leads to grifters coming in, lying, and ripping people off. And we keep falling for it.

Looking for some hero to save the day, for someone to be the next Fill In The Blank, is a fools game. That person probably isn’t out there, possibly is coning you, and even if they are out there, they won’t last, they will get out of touch or want to retire or just pass away. It’s madness to rely on one person, no different than running a company just to get the stock price to go up.

Even if you benefit, what you leave in your wake will be harmful.

Steven Savage

The Morals of Madness

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

I’m fascinated by cult dynamics, because they tell us about people, inform us of dangers, and tell us about ourselves. Trust me, if you think you can’t fall into a cult you can, and are probably in more danger if you think you can’t. Understanding cults is self-defense in many ways.

On the subject of the internet age, I was listening to the famous Behind the Bastards podcast go over the Zizian “rationalist” cult. One of the fascinating things about various “rationalist” movements is how absolutely confidently irrational they are, and how they touch on things that are very mainstream. In this case the Zizians intersected with some of the extreme Effective Altruists, which seemed to start by asking “how do I help people effectively” but in the minds of some prominent people became “it’s rational for me to become a billionaire so I can make an AI to save humanity.”

If you think I’m joking, I invite you to poke around a bit or just listen to Behind the Bastards. But quite seriously you will find arguments that it’s fine to make a ton of money in an exploitative system backed by greedy VC because you’ll become rich and save the world with AI. Some Effective Altruism goes all our into arguing that this is good because you save more future people than you hurt present people. Think about that – if you’ll do more good in the future you can just screw over people now and become rich and it’s perfectly moral.

If this sounds like extreme anti-choice arguments, yep, it’s the same – imagined or potential people matter more than people who are very assuredly people now.

But as I listened to the Behind the Bastards hosts slowly try not to loose their mind while discussing those that had, something seemed familiar. People whose moral analysis had sent them around the bend into rampant amorality and immorality? An utter madness created by a simplistic measure? Yep, I heard echos of The Unaccountability Machine, which if you’ve paid attention you know influenced me enough that you are fully justified in questioning me about that.

But let’s assume I’m NOT gong to end up on a Behind the Bastards podcast about a guy obsessed with a book on Business Cybernetics, and repeat one point from that book – obsessive organizations kill off the ability to course correct.

The Unaccountability Machine author Dan Davies notes some organizations are like lab animals who were studied after removing certain brain areas. The animals could function but not adapt to change at all. Organizations that go mad, focusing on a single metric or two (like stock price), will deliberately destroy their own ability to adapt, and thus only barrel forward and/or die. They cannot adjust without major intervention, and some have enough money to at least temporarily avoid that.

The outlandish “future people matter, current do not, so make me rich” people have performed a kind of moral severance on themselves. They have found a philosophy that lets them completely ignore actual people and situations for something going on in their heads (and their bank accounts). Having found a measure they like (money!) they then find a way to cut themselves off from actual social and ethical repercussions.

If you live in the imaginary future and have money, you can avoid the real, gritty present. A lot of very angry people may not agree, but at that point you’re so morally severed you can’t understand why. Or think they’re enemies or not human or something.

Seeing this cultish behavior in context of The Unaccountability Machine helped me understand a lot of outrageous leadership issues we see from supposed “tech geniuses.” Well, people who can get VC funding, which is what passes for such genius. Anyway, too many of these people and their hangers-on go in circles until they hone the right knife to cut away their morality. Worst, they then loose the instinct to really know what they did to themselves.

Immorality and a form of madness that can’t course-correct is not a recipe for long-term success or current morality. Looking at this from both cultish dynamics and The Unaccountability Machine helps me understand how far gone some of our culture is. But at least that gives some hope to bring it back – or at least not fall into it.

And man I do gotta stop referencing that book or I’m gonna seem like I’m in a cult . . .

Steven Savage

The Responsibility Machine

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

I’ve been preaching the virtues of the book The Unaccountability Machine to the point I bought copies to give people for Christmas. You, my regular readers, shall be spared anything but a reminder – it’s about how organizations go insane following simplistic ideas and shield leadership from accountability. I mean I’m still going to talk about it, but I’ll be taking a new tact and pushing it less.

The thing is someone has to take responsibility in governments, companies, etc.. If everyone goes hands off, everyone dodges responsibility, the organization will continue to fall into insanity. Backside-covering does a lot to keep an organization going, but the insanity will predominate. The organization might fall apart, get bought out, get sold, become completely financialized, etc.

I’d wager we’re going to see a lot of that in the next decade or two. We’ve already seen it from the Tories in the UK to Sears.

But anyway someone has to take responsibility. That means, ironically, the more Unaccountability in a system, the more there has to be some responsibility. The Unaccountability Machine is also a Responsibility Machine. People need to step in to do the right thing, even as others don’t.

You’ve probably been there. You might be the person who is the Responsible one – come to think of it, if you’re one of my subscribers, you probably are.

This Taking of Responsibility can happen for a number of reasons. Some people just can’t stand to see things done wrong. Others like a challenge. Others really care about the system. People have a certain responsible streak in them, if only out of sheer irritation of seeing something done wrong.

This urge to take Responsibility isn’t necessarily benevolent either. A chance to take Responsibility can be a chance to advance in one’s career – to where one can finally enjoy the benefits of Unaccountability. Responsibility can be a way to angle for a raise or bonuses. It can be a way to show off or put someone in their place. Don’t assume everyone rushing to prop up the various bad decisions in an organization is motivated by principle.

But the key thing is there’s only so many heroes and opportunists at any organization. It also means that unless the payoff they want – from seeing something work to a fat raise – needs to be coming. If it doesn’t come, there’s going to be less and less people taking Responsibility and more giving up or even seeking areas of Unaccountability

And no one can cause more damage or grift the system better than someone that actually knows how stuff works – and gave up. They’re also the ones that warn others to not fall into the Responsibility trap or to not even get hired or join up. Even the more evil of the once-Responsible types don’t want any competition.

However the people enjoying Unaccountability can coast on those taking Responsibility long enough to get a payout and leave.

So if we wonder how organizations persist when they’ve gone insane with Unaccountability (beyond money and influence), look for the people who are being Responsible. If you can’t find any then you may want to stop looking and get away.

Take a look at the world now and think that over.

Steven Savage