An Invisible Man

Note the reference to cause and effect.  The “effect” represented in the statement: “Our aim is to manifest the fundamental innate mind of clear light, the most subtle level of consciousness, and to remain within that level of mind without regressing to grosser levels.” On the “causes”:  the practice of the Great Completeness style of meditation.

Dalai Lama Quote of the Week

Two years ago a Tibetan yogi who practiced the Great Completeness style of meditation in the Nyingma tradition achieved a state of the complete disappearance of his gross physical body, which we call "achieving a rainbow body." His name was Achok, and he was from Nyarong. He studied philosophy from time to time at a Geluk monastic university near Lhasa called Sera, and he also received teachings from my junior tutor Trijang Rinpochay, but his main teacher was the Nyingma lama, Dujom Rinpochay. Although he practiced Tantra according to both the old and new schools of Tibetan Buddhism, his main practice was the recitation of "om mani padme hum" and its accompanying meditation.

Until about three years ago, he frequently said he hoped to have the opportunity of meeting the Dalai Lama in this lifetime. Then, one day he called on his followers to perform offerings for the sake of the Dalai Lama’s life. After they made offerings, he surprised them by announcing that he would leave. He put on his saffron monastic robe and told them to seal him inside his room for a week. His disciples followed his request and after a week opened the room to find that he had completely disappeared except for his robe. One of his disciples and a fellow practitioner came to Dharmsala, where they related the story to me and gave me a piece of his robe.

Since he usually remained in retreat as a very simple monk with no pretensions, unlike some lamas, he proved that he was a good practitioner and finally this occurred. You can see the connection between cause and effect. There are others about whom miracles are claimed, but without the proper causes.

In Highest Yoga Tantra, the potencies–that in ordinary life produce impure environments and beings by way of the very subtle wind and mind–are purified through ppractice of the spiritual path, whereby they are transformed into the pure, altruistic mind, speech, and body of a Buddha. Our aim is to manifest the fundamental innate mind of clear light, the most subtle level of consciousness, and to remain within that level of mind without regressing to grosser levels. However, this purified state is not just mental; it involves body, but a body fashioned from wind, the wind that is the mount of the mind of clear light. The ultimate purpose of these manifestations is to assist others in achieving the same freedom from suffering and limitation.

The center of this process of purification is realization of the luminous and knowing nature of mind–understanding that afflictive emotions such as lust, hatred, enmity, jealousy, and belligerence do not reside in the very essence of mind but are peripheral to it. When the mind knows its own nature and when this knowledge is teamed with powerful concentration, it gradually becomes possible to reduce and finally to overcome the afflictive states that drive the process of repeated suffering. This is the Tibetan view of the intimate relationship between mind and matter, and how they work in the process of altruistically directed purification.

–from Mind of Clear Light: Advice on Living Well and Dying Consciously by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, translated and edited by Jeffrey Hopkins, Ph.D.

Natl Defense Strategy: Balance

Note that Secretary of Defense Gates is referencing “Defense” strategy – a balanced concept is also needed for the National Security Strategy that would more effectively integrate the “whole-of-government” approach.

ESSAY: A Balanced Strategy, Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age, Robert M. Gates From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009

The defining principle of the Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy is balance. The United States cannot expect to eliminate national security risks through higher defense budgets, to do everything and buy everything. The Department of Defense must set priorities and consider inescapable tradeoffs and opportunity costs.

The strategy strives for balance in three areas:

— between trying to prevail in current conflicts and preparing for other contingencies,

—  between institutionalizing capabilities such as counterinsurgency and foreign military assistance and maintaining the United States’ existing conventional and strategic technological edge against other military forces, and

— between retaining those cultural traits that have made the U.S. armed forces successful and shedding those that hamper their ability to do what needs to

What is dubbed the war on terror is, in grim reality, a prolonged, worldwide irregular campaign — a struggle between the forces of violent extremism and those of moderation.

Foundation Principles for Leaders: Application of "Smart" Power

The Armed Services provide one of the better examples of a learning organization which is demonstrated by the current debate in Parameters, on the concept of Effect-based Operations (EBO) to include my response via a  letter to the editor. 

Many of the modern day quality improvement methods were pioneered by the War Department during WWII and evolved into programs/initiatives that have included zero-defects/six sigma, just-in-time/lean, quality circles, Total Quality Management, Capability Maturity Model Integration, Business Process Reengineering and now Continuous Process Improvement. 

Smart Power would include the application of the foundation principles for leaders to optimize all the elements and instruments of national power (also referred to as the “whole-of-government” approach) to help prevent/deter conflict and if deterrence fails, to resolve the conflict quickly and decisively with a minimum amount of resources.

The application of this technology is supported throughout the world by the American Society for Quality.

Acronyms: EBO – Effect based Operations;  ONA – Operational Net Assessment; SoSA – System of System Analysis, CPI – Continuous Process Improvement.

ARTICLESParameters, US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 2008 

Effects-based Operations: More Important Than Ever, by Tomislav Z. Ruby

USJFCOM Commander’s Guidance for Effects-based Operations” by James N. Mattis.  

To the Editor,

The Autumn 2008 issue of Parameters included two excellent articles on the Future of Effects-based Operations that illustrate a “clash of paradigms.” I agree with both authors on the points that “EBO is more important than ever” and that “underlying principles associated with EBO, ONA and SoSA are fundamentally flawed.”

In May 2008, the scope of DoD’s guidance on Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) was appropriately expanded to include combat organizations and will inevitably be applied to combat operations. The CPI concept also provides proven and complementary approaches to improve effectiveness as well as efficiency.

The way ahead is neither to abandon the EBO concept, nor to consider CPI as irrelevant nor to rely solely on traditional approaches, but rather to recognize and build upon foundational principles that effective leaders have intuitively applied when developing optimal strategies that synchronize a systems-of-systems approach with the more traditional and “time-honored principles and terminology.” Stakeholders, systems, variability, knowledge, planned change and people (1)  are the key components that provide the underlying principles for both traditional methods as well as emerging methods such as CPI, EBO, ONA, and SoSA. In a non-military application, the framework is applied to improve capabilities and in a military context, they are applied to reduce an adversary’s capabilities. Of the six principles, the concept of variability is the “what’s new?“ and most critical.

Variation is a law of nature that states that no two people or things will ever be exactly alike. Everyone and everything varies. In the 1920’s, Walter Shewhart developed the new but still relatively unknown paradigm for managing variation that has typically been defined using a scientific or statistical frame of reference.

In March of 2006, the American Society for Quality embraced a broader description of the concept to support more universal awareness and application. To summarize, variation represents the difference between the ideal situation and actual. An ideal represents a standard of perfection uniquely defined by the stakeholders that one can strive for but never achieve; a fact that makes continual improvement possible. Improving efficiency and/or effectiveness has always been achieved by reducing variation.

Ideal or perfect outcomes are defined as those benefiting everyone (win/win). Non ideal outcomes are those that result in zero-sum, somebody wins/somebody loses. Preventing war requires the most optimal (win/win) of approaches; war-fighting is all about optimizing the suboptimal.

Shewhart concluded that although everything varies and individual things are unpredictable, groups of things from a constant system of causes tends to be predictable within a range In other words, if you always do what you always did, on average, you will usually get what you always got. The variation principle is at the heart of military art and science that must address both chaos and order; chaos defined as order without predictability.

The application context for the foundation principles includes the strategic, operational and tactical levels. The distinctions between levels include scope, position of the primary stakeholders, required leadership competencies, degree of influence-direct vs. indirect, and time expected for achieving expected results—long-term, mid-term, short-term.

1. Stakeholders include individuals and groups that are affected by the respective situation in the short, mid and long term. Stakeholders, to include allies, adversaries or competitors, have needs, desires/wants and expectations that are met, or not met, by products/services that in military terms include the full spectrum of military operations. Stakeholder categories would include Political, Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure, and Information (PMESII).

2. Systems transform inputs into outputs (products/services) to achieve the outcomes expected by stakeholders. Outputs and Outcomes are results that are produced through action. Actions or tasks (collective and individual) are accomplished through processes. A process is a series of actions taken to achieve a result. A system is a collection of processes with a common aim or purpose.

The term process and system are often and correctly used interchangeability depending upon the context. Systems determine 85-98% of the result. Consequently, a “systems-of-systems approach” to build or reduce capability has always been the required strategy for achieving the best results.

3. Variation is inherent in every system and an assessment of variation is how stakeholders keep score, e.g., determine if things got better or worse. Shewart identified two causes of variation (common and special) and two types of systems/processes (stable and unstable).

Common cause is variation that can be expected and predicted within a range. Special cause is unusual or unexpected. Systems/processes consisting of all common causes are considered stable or more predictable; systems/processes containing both common and special are more unstable or unpredictable.

Given the variation principle, a problem is never solved because variation is never eliminated (and gets worse if improvement is not continual). A solved problem represents an acceptable degree of variation; a problem is an unacceptable degree of variation. Stakeholders take action based on their assessments as to the “acceptability” of the variation.

4. Knowledge of variability leads to better results. Feedback to include the qualitative, quantitative, statistical, notional and intuitive leads to information, information to potential knowledge and knowledge to potential wisdom. Knowledge and wisdom are gained through action and assessment to include after action reviews, lessons learned and captured in doctrine, and identification of the right way (s) forward.

5. Planned Change requires the application of problem solving and decision processes that are applied simultaneously at the three levels of warfare (strategic, operational, tactical) and tailored to three general categories: Maintain/sustain the situation, incremental improvement and/or radical improvement. The appropriate  level strategic plan provides the context needed to balance and align ends, ways, and means. 

6. The People principle includes learning and applying a basic knowledge of the behavior of individuals and groups to include their respective cultures and capabilities.

The foundation principles for leaders provide underlying principles that effective leaders have always intuitively applied to improve upon traditional methods as well as assessing the quality of what may perceived as new methods. New methods in this case being CPI applied to combat operations, the EBO concept, ONA, and SoSA. A more conscious awareness and understanding of the variation principle may help resolve the “clash of paradigms” with the effect being obtaining better results with fewer resources. 

 (1) Principles derived from Foundation for Leaders, PQ Systems, Dayton, OH. The term Stakeholder substituted for the term Customer.

Battlefield Robots, Ethical Decision Making, Science Fiction

A Soldier, Taking Orders From Its Ethical Judgment Center, (New York Times)…Cornelia Dean

In the heat of battle, their minds clouded by fear, anger or vengefulness, even the best-trained soldiers can act in ways that violate the Geneva Conventions or battlefield rules of engagement. Now some researchers suggest that robots could do better.

He said South Korea and Israel were among countries already deploying armed robot border guards. In an interview, he said there was “a headlong rush” to develop battlefield robots that make their own decisions about when to attack.

“It is not my belief that an unmanned system will be able to be perfectly ethical in the battlefield,” Dr. Arkin wrote in his report (PDF), “but I am convinced that they can perform more ethically than human soldiers are capable of.”

The Three Laws of Robotics

In science fiction, the Three Laws of Robotics are a set of three rules written by Isaac Asimov, which almost all positronic robots appearing in his fiction must obey. Introduced in his 1942 short story “Runaround“, although foreshadowed in a few earlier stories, the Laws state the following:

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Bureaucratic Reform Unlikely, Unless …

Couple of articles below from Paul Light on the need for bureaucratic reform. Could not agree more with the statement attributed to Al Gore that “federal employees are not the problem in poor performance. It is the bureaucracy in which they are trapped.”

In my federal career, I’ve been involved in numerous change management initiative undertaken by new administrations and have yet to see any significant sustained and systemic improvement regarding reforms within the bureaucracy.  It’s not that we don’t have the solutions, its that we lack the leadership within the bureaucracy with support by Congress and the American People to lead the needed change. For example, the Baldrige criteria for performance excellence is a proven approach that provides a systemic method for continually improving and assessing performance. Results in applying the criteria is assessed on a scale from zero to 1,000 points.  I would estimate that a typical bureaucratic system would be consistently assessed every year in the 250-300 point range which may equate to a cost of poor quality at approximately 20% of budget.  Delegating authority to Senior Executive Service (SeS) employees to apply the Baldrige framework as the method for continually improving performance should be part of any major change instigative.

A bureaucracy is a system, the system determines the majority (94-98%) of the results, management owns the system.  Successfully changing a system requires a basic knowledge on the interrelationships  between all the stakeholders, systems, variability and knowledge. These components are an integral part of the Baldrige criteria.  Variability, e.g., knowing the distinction between common and special cause variation, stable and unstable systems, and the two types of mistakes, is the most critical of the components. 

W. Edwards Deming, whose work with the Japanese was considered one  the best calls in business history by Fortune magazine, remarked that if he was to reduce his message to management to just a few words, it all had to do with reducing variation. Unfortunately, this simple but powerful concept is relatively unknown in the U.S. culture as is evidenced by the troubles of the Detroit Big 3.

I’m always optimistic when a new administration takes over but the odds are usually with the status quo. If you always do what you always did, on average, you will usually get what you always got.  Let’s hope this time is different.

Fast Track to Efficiency, New York Times, By Paul C. Light, November 11, 2008

BARACK OBAMA is about to inherit a deeply dysfunctional government: the appointment process is nasty, brutish and not at all short; departments are clogged with red tape and reporting chains to nowhere; the civil service system fails at nearly every task it undertakes; and contractors roam freely under the loosest oversight. To carry out the large-scale bureaucratic reform that is badly needed, Mr. Obama should revitalize the president’s fast-track authority to get reorganization plans through Congress.

Obama Has A Chance To Reverse Long Erosion Of The Federal Service, (Washington Post)…Paul C. Light, Nov 19, 2008. …The past eight years have been a horror to many federal employees. The Bush administration has rarely missed an opportunity to criticize, cut and meddle, and it dismissed the notion that federal employees need more freedom to innovate and learn.

As former vice president Al Gore rightly argued, federal employees are not the problem in poor performance. It is the bureaucracy in which they are trapped.

The Bush administration, however, decided that the best way to reform government was to outsource it. From 2001 to 2005, civilian employment remained at 1.8 million, more or less, while the estimated number of contractor jobs surged from 4.4 million to 7.6 million.

Paul C. Light is a professor at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service and author of “A Government Ill Executed.” He is writing an occasional column on the transition for The Washington Post.

Play the News: Games and Prediction Markets

Interactive games and prediction markets have the potential to get people more involved in events with the potential for positively influencing decision makers.

What is “Play the News”?

An engaging, community driven experience – imagine fantasy sports meets the evening news. Play the News is a web-based platform that brings interactive gaming elements to the online ‘news media’ industry changing the paradigm of news consumption from passive reading to active engagement. The experience is made up of the “game” component, or news games, and the community of participation around them such as commenting, rankings, and many features to come. The profile allows you to build a snapshot of your socio-political profile over time on a range of issues.

StrategyPage’s Prediction Market —  Correct 89.51% of the Time (as of 4 Nov 08. The StrategyPage.com Prediction Market is a game where you get to predict when events will happen and score points for predicting correctly.

DoD CPI, Smart Power, Playing Together

In a previous posting, Afghanistan: “Test on the grandest scale”  Secretary of Defense Gates reinforced the need for a new approach for leveraging power.  

A Solution:  Reengineering DoD’s strategy on Continuous Process Improvement to support Secretary Gates concept for application of Smart Power through application the Quality Leadership Paradigm and Framework.

First StepsDoD’s directive on CPI May 15, 2008 expands application to combat and combat support units.  DoD’s initial Guidance on Continuous Process Improvement (CPI), May 2006  needs to be updated to include the expanded description from the American Society for Quality (ASQ) on the variation principle as well as incorporate the Quality Leadership Paradigm and Framework.

W. Edwards Deming’s work with the Japanese in implementing a system of continuous process improvement was identified by the editors of Fortune magazine as one of the “20 best calls in business history.” Deming remarked that if he had to reduce his message to management to just a few words, it all had to do with reducing variation.

Second Step. Apply the technology in support of the War in Afghanistan.

Third Step. Leverage success; continue to expand until the paradigm is accepted as common practice — estimated end date 2036.

Quality Leadership and Strategic Thinking

POST: Taking Stock. Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett on July 16, 2008

This posting from Tom Barnett, is one of the many reasons I admire him and his work.  He shares his personal and professional experiences that provide a  “360 view” from an individual perspective.  The personal insight may get us all thinking on the need and challenges involved with balancing our personal, spiritual  and professional lives.

Tom Barnett is also a great example of what I refer to as a Quality Leader that has an intuitive awareness and understanding of the variation principle.  My thesis is that a conscious awareness and understanding of variation will develop more great leaders.

If you notice on most of my posts, I typically capture themes by categories and I sometimes add comments.  It’s kind of an R&D process at this point that I hope will lead to helping me separate the proverbial signals from the noises.  The Top 10 category I am using to capture key concepts. The Taking Stock posting from Tom helps bring out what  I hope is some clarity on strategy and leadership.

Regarding comments in the  posting, on the professional side and from a system and strategy perspective, I think the boundary of any rut for a strategist would be defined by the timeframe of the strategy. The long-term view from a strategic perspective would cover the time humans have been on the planet. Religious leaders typically represent this perspective, e.g., the Episcopalian priest option.

I think the ultimate “living” system/strategic thinker is the Dalai Lama. He thinks in terms of hundred/thousands of years. But he has the advantage in that he recalls past lifetimes so he can build on lessons learned. Interesting to follow his strategy for obtaining autonomy for Tibet. One of China’s counter strategies was to pass a law that attempts to prevent living Buddha’s from reincarnating without permission.

I think the foundation for strategy is represented by the win/lose paradigm. Win/Win being the ideal, e.g, positive thoughts, words, and actions, that benefit everyone. Love captures the concept.  Mother Teresa one of the better examples. Dalai Lama falls into this category as well. The win/lose paradigm is the most prevalent. The lose/lose option represents the ultimate in negative action. Diplomacy/Politics represents the most common example of the win/lose mind-set.

The U.S. Founding fathers captured the ideal/non-ideal concept in the design of our system of government: Ideals of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness combined with a system of checks and balances on power that was designed to be continually improved. On the emergence of our two-part system, the value added by the parties is identifying the polarity on respective issues; the downside is not working together in making progress towards our ideals. American Transformation to Quality Government.

Tom Barnett is a great examples of what I refer to as Quality Leader with an intuitive awareness and understanding of the variation principle.  Quality Leadership is “a” way ahead for developing more great leaders.¼/p>