Questioning the Pareto Principle.

Recently we (ministers of the UCA IN SA) have been sent material re strategy, planning, mission focus - usual "stuff". In amongst it was the mention of, and the advocating of the 20/80 way of looking at things, etc. Well I'm no longer convinced by the "Pareto Principle", so I've gathered, and written, some reflections on it.

The Pareto Principle states that 80% of the results from any series of actions are caused by 20% of the actions themselves. In other words, most of the results we get are because of a small minority of our actions. The rest are either wasted or produce little of value. This sounds like a useful observation. However, before you decide the Pareto Principle is true and can be used to guide our actions can 2 important questions be raised?

• Can anyone identify exactly which actions make up the useful 20%? And can anyone do so in advance?
• Does this useful 20% always contain more or less the same actions?

To consider the first question.
It’s easy to feel intuitively that most results arise from a small group of actions. The Pareto Principle feels immediately valid.

It also feels like a practical tool. Identify the “magic 20%” of actions and you can more or less dispense with the other 80% without much impact on your results. What a marvelous saving of time and effort.

Of course, this only works if you can reliably distinguish the 20% of actions (or people, or events) that produce that disproportionate amount of benefits. It also assumes every result comes from a single, identifiable action — or at least a small, obviously linked group of them.

But is this true? Don’t some results rely on the interaction of large numbers of events, choices, actions and decisions? Can we know which count and which don’t? What if we dropped some, only to find later they were essential in some way? Maybe they only produce good results in combination? Cutting out seemingly unnecessary actions because they don’t appear to fit into the “magic 20%” might turn out to be a poor idea.

The second concern is this: is it always the same 20%?

This week in the life of the congregation, 20% of our work produce 80% of our results. (Yes, I know I'd be better using some kind of business sales program, but bear with me!) Pareto rules! Next week we only need to do as much. Will we do the same 20% of "things" and receive the same 80% of results?

Surely that’s unlikely. You can't repeat the same worship songs, or visit the same people, or .. So we'll just need to find another 20%. But how? Everyone else was in the “unproductive” 80% last week? But if Pareto works, at the end of the next week you’ll once again find 80% of responses came from a new 20% of visits, work, etc..

Give it long enough and every one, program, thing, etc. will, sometime, be part of the 20% that alone are worth concentrating on.

What’s going on? My guess is the Pareto Principle distinguishes groups you can only find after the event, once you can see what worked and what didn’t. The membership of the “magic 20%” of people or actions shifts each time. Wait long enough and every one will sometime be part of that 20% group.

If that’s so, the Principle is almost worthless as a guide to future action, which is how it’s most often used.

I’m not saying Pareto is wrong. I don’t know. I’m not sure anyone has ever done the lengthy and extensive research needed to find out. I’m merely suggesting it’s neither the universally applicable principle, nor the simple measure, nor the practical guide to decisions we’ve been asked to believe it is for so long.

I think the Pareto Principle has great intuitive attractiveness — but that says nothing about whether or not it works, nor how it works (if it does). I’m especially concerned that identifying the 20% of situations that matter may only be possible in hindsight.

That leaves these questions unresolved:

• How do you know which 20% is producing the results? Can you even find out at a time when the knowledge might be useful? If, as I suspect, you cannot find a definitive — if there is one — until after the events are passed, that leads me to a second question.
• Is it always the same 20%? If it’s not (and I suspect it isn’t), over time maybe the whole 100% will be in that magic 20% group sometime. And if that’s true, the Principle applies only to a specific occasion (if it applies at all).

Therefore, it seems to me that the whole idea becomes of little worth as a guide to future action or allocating resources (which is how people try to use it).

It worries me when I hear the Pareto Principle being invoked as a simple and obvious answer to complex questions of forecasting and resource allocation at the level of the local congregation and the Presbytery/Synod.

St Andrews Glenelg & tram

img_43804
Originally uploaded by bgrindlay

To practice "Li"

From a "study buddy" in the USA

What is “Li?”

Around 500 BCE, Confucius described Li as a code of conduct that focuses on such things as learning, tea drinking, how to dress, mourning, governance, and interaction with others. The underlying notion of Li is how to be respectful of nature and one another. Translations or meanings for the word “Li” include propriety, reverence, courtesy, ritual, or the ideal standard of conduct.

Li is what the sage uses to find that which is appropriate. It is both the means which sets the example for others, and the end which maximizes understanding, pleasure, and the greater good. Words and behaviors that show respect for another are contained within the framework of Li.

Confucius believed that Li was the source of right action in all behavior — that coming from a place of respect for all others was at the heart of living a harmonious and worthwhile life. As the practice of Li was continued through centuries, one central theme began to stand out — cultivating your natural human tendency to be decent and kind towards your fellows.

Li in the workplace

The practice of Li runs the gamut from smiling at a co-worker to holding a door open for another; from serving others to being self-responsible. It includes questioning practices that are unethical, corrupt, and disrespectful or demeaning of others. It means choosing to behave in ways with a conscious focus and intentionality on supporting the well-being of the workplace and those who work there.

Li, however, does not come to consciousness naturally. It has to be cultivated. You must first learn, then practice, the art of being in integrity; respecting the dignity of every human being. Only then can you become become committed to, and disciplined in, the practice of Li.

The challenge in today’s workplace is to overcome more common modes of behavior, based on phoniness and convenience; approaches in which, more often than not, rudeness and selfishness are the guiding principles.

The opposite of Li is the common focus on “me, me, me.” It’s a way of life given over to rudeness, insensitivity, verbal abuse such as bullying, gossiping, and being disrespectful, and treating others as irrelevant. It’s being ego-driven and not cognizant of others around you: constantly interrupting in meetings, “one-upping” and speaking over others, and hijacking others’ experiences. It’s also revealed in simple, everyday things, like needing to be the first one on and off the elevator, not holding a door for another, not saying “please” and “thank you”, and slyly speaking ill of others.

How to cultivate Li

The way to cultivate and practice Li at work begins with becoming conscious: asking yourself, “How am I behaving right here, right now?” “Am I taking an opportunity to allow my natural tendency to be decent, good and kind to arise?” “How am I showing up?” “Am I being authentic”?

Li is not syrupy stuff. It’s not fluff. It’s not being effusive. It’s not being fake or phony. It’s not being patronizing. Li is being natural, honest, sincere, self-responsible, and relaxed when you interact with another — any other.

And practicing Li does not mean you stop being firm and assertive or stop holding others accountable. Still less does it require you to stop telling the truth or the bad news. Those who practice Li strive to come from a place of internal truth and integrity that supports them to be more forthright and courageous; it requires trusting that they “show up” in a way that is respectful and decent; that they can be who they are right here and right now — without using any “side” to shore themselves up.

Confucius believed that to truly achieve the principles of Li — the character of the true person — you must look within yourself. This is what he means when he says:

We know what is proper (Li), especially in difficult situations, from the wisdom arising out of contemplation.

Li means regularly spending time on self-reflection, inner listening, and sensing your “gut”, to access that inner wisdom that leads right knowing, right understanding, and right action. Li supports us to live life, even life at work, with your eyes wide open; to act decently, even when it might be “inconvenient.”

Each of us is born with Li. Over time, however, we lose our sense of it as we allow life get in the way of being our true and real selves. We take on fake personalities, personas, and masks and become poseurs. In the process, we learn to navigate life, especially life at work, with our “eyes wide closed” — reactive, fearful, resistant, and deficient in basic humanity and decency.

Incarnational Mission

Another piece from Alan Hirsch's blog

Presence: The fact that God was in the Nazarene neighborhood for 30 years and no-one noticed should be profoundly disturbing to our normal ways of engaging mission. Not only does it have implication for our affirmation of normal human living, it says something about the timing as well as the relative anonymity of incarnational ways of engaging in mission. There is a time for ‘in-your-face’ approaches to mission, but there is also a time to simply become part of the very fabric of a community and to engage in the humanity of it all. Furthermore, the idea of presence highlights the role of relationships in mission. If relationship is the key means in the transfer of the Gospel, then it simply means we are going to have to be directly present to the people in our circle. Our very lives are our messages and we cannot take ourselves out of the equation of mission. But one of the profound implications of our presence as representatives of Jesus is that Jesus actually likes to hang out with the people we hang out with. They get the implied message that God actually likes them.

We all need doubt.

We all need doubt. It’s the driving force behind change, creativity, and independence of thought of every kind. Authoritarians and conformists — no surprises here — much prefer faith in fixed dogmas. As circumstances become more complex and challenging, the temptation is to fall back on supposed certainties. Yet that is exactly the time greater doubt becomes most essential.

Contextualisation

Cut this "bit" from a "big bit" from a discussion on modern missionary approaches.

British missiologist Stuart Murray-Williams who suggests some pretty pungent reasons as to why it is so necessary for us to learn the lost arts of contextualization.

• Because there is a general recognition of a yawning cultural chasm between church and contemporary culture that hinders movement in either direction. Church members struggle to bridge the gap at work or relaxing with friends; many know their friends will find church incomprehensible, irrelevant, [or] archaic.
• Because inherited forms of church are attractive only to certain subcultures (especially white, middle-class, educated and middle-aged conformists) and are have proved themselves ineffective in mission beyond these.
• Because of the increasing alarm that we are losing from our churches many former members who are not losing their faith but find church uninspiring, disempowering, crushing and dehumanizing. In post-Christendom, institutional loyalty and inertia no longer prevents this hemorrhage of disillusioned Christians.

walking into the light

walking into the light
Originally uploaded by jonnybaker