Alex Madison and Lisa Harmon from Email Insider have written two articles (one and two) on the shift from valuing left-brain attributes to valuing right-brain attributes. The pieces were inspired by the new Daniel H. Pink book, A Whole New Mind: Why Right Brainers Will Rule The Future.

Say Madison and Harmon, ‘In his innovative book… Daniel H. Pink argues that our world has shifted from “left brain” dominance to the reign of right-brain thinkers: designers, inventors, teachers and storytellers. He deems this era “The Conceptual Age.”‘

Bravo. I’m delighted that empathy, play and meaning are coming into their own. Likewise, it’s about time businesses recognized the importance of design, story and symphony. Bring on the right brain!

At the same time, I find it interesting that the book is (probably intentionally) titled, ‘A Whole New Mind’. I haven’t read the book, so I’m not presuming to rebut its contents; instead, I’d like to explore a bit our human tendency to polarize.

When we polarize, we seek an extreme. We reduce the world to distinct categories, and then we elect from those categories: left or right, male or female, conventional or organic. We succumb to the ‘tyranny of the OR’ described by Collins and Porras in Built to Last.

The world we live in provides ample fuel for this tendency. It obligingly splits itself up into night and day, north and south, up and down. It practically begs us to choose sides.

If we pay close attention, though, we start to notice what philosophers and poets and gurus have observed throughout the millenia: that no thing exists without its opposite. Without night, day is meaningless; without north, south is meaningless; without up, down is meaningless. Yin contains yang and yang contains yin. Our world is the wholeness that contains all of our extremes.

The left brain — that logical, rational, emotionless creature — is what gives us the power to analyze, to reason, to plan, to calculate. It allows us to pay our bills, buy our houses, send our kids to college. None of these things are bad things.

The right brain — that creative, playful, feeling creature — is what gives us the power to explore, to dream, to invent, to transform. It allows us to find meaning, intuit connections, appreciate beauty. None of these things are bad things.

I prefer to live a life in which I can appreciate beauty AND pay the bills. I prefer to live a life in which I can plan ahead AND experience spontaneous joy. I don’t believe these things are mutually exclusive.

The research done by VortexDNA, whose technology powers the Web Genome Project, shows that companies that pay equal attention to all their stakeholders — customers, staff, shareholders, community and society — consistently outperformed companies that had a disproportionate focus on any subset. I would argue that the same need for equal attention exists for individuals, and that we use our brains to greatest effect when we use them whole-mindedly.

It’s wrong to say that the right brain is more important or the left brain is more important. The only ‘right’ brain is the whole brain.

Do you use your whole brain?

I’ve got to share with you a presentation from the CEO of VortexDNA, Branton Kenton-Dau. He made the presentation at a neat NZ conference called The Big Think: 7 people, 7 ideas, 7 minutes each. Here’s Branton’s:

Every good presentation has at least one ‘moment’: the audience draws in its collective breath, the crowd is in alignment, a million hairs on a hundred necks stand up. It seems pretty clear that the ‘moment’ in Branton’s presentation comes when he proposes that New Zealand, as a nation, become 100% organic.

Why such a reaction? Two reasons:

1. The totality of the idea is clearly conveyed in only two words: “100% organic”.
2. The idea taps into everything New Zealanders already hold dear: nuclear-free and GE-free. Cheeky upstarts and fearless innovators. Clean and green. Who better to be the first organic country?

So hats off to you, Branton. And a challenge to all of you out there: what grand vision are you contributing to? What grand vision are you inspiring? How are you helping create the world of your dreams?

This morning, as I was walking to work, I bumped into Brendon Burns, our local MP. We walked and talked for a bit; our conversation turned to labor laws and employee rights. New Zealand as a country has historically been a champion of employee rights, at times (I feel) at the expense of employers, particularly employers at small companies.

Our discussion led us to an agreement: every employment law is aiming for the same thing. Essentially, they all want employers and employees to behave with a fair heart and with goodwill.

The problem, of course, is that there’s no way to legislate heart. What you legislate is specific behavior. No matter how good your laws, there will always be unethical and unscrupulous employers, and there will always be unethical and unscrupulous employees. So Brendon and I turned the problem around: how can we encourage people to behave with a fair heart and with goodwill?

(Brendon also pointed out, wisely, that every employer believes him- or her-self to be fair and reasonable, and there’s about as much chance that being true as there is of all of us being above average. But that’s a discussion for another day.)

Meanwhile, back at the VortexDNA blog, Nick Givotovsky was making some superb points about our responsibilities as consumers:

The fact that we ‘could’ get it more cheaply, or more rapidly don’t themselves alter the inherent quality of the product itself, in particular once the other costs involved in making something available cheaply and quickly are factored in. These hidden costs, including substandard labor practices, environmental footprint, resource wastefulness, animal cruelty, etc. contribute to the actual cost of a purchase (each purchase tacitly endorsing the practices that made that purchase possible). Some reasonable percentage of additional cost to support local business and avoid unnecessary hidden costs, or avoid tacit endorsement of objectionable practices, makes sense, ethically and otherwise.

But what about that last one; ‘better’? Taking away the convenience and economy benefits of fast and cheap, and getting to the higher actual quality of something that could be found elsewhere is where local loyalty I believe can, and should, fray depending on the amount and kind of ‘better’ involved, and the reasons for the ‘better’ in question.

…In the meantime, I would like to see a great deal more of the kind of transparency which you suggest could alone change the fast food chicken business.

If we knew what it took to make it, we wouldn’t want it or we wouldn’t care, depending on the particular product in question, and our own value system. If we were in a marketplace wherein the provenance goods and services and the practice of their purveyors were far more directly evident and actionable than they are at present, the choices we make as consumers could be more reflective of the values we hold as citizens.

So we’re back to the first question: how can we encourage employers, employees, consumers, citizens to think holistically, to appreciate that your cheap chicken must of necessity come from a battery farm, that your two-dollar toy must of necessity employ labor that may make no more than a dollar a day? To make matters even more complicated, how can we get people to consider that a dollar a day isn’t inherently bad, and may be a fundamental transitory stage of a developing economy? In short, how can we promote conscious consumption?

Here’s one place we can start: did you know that companies that give equal weight to shareholders, employees, customers, community and society consistently outperform companies that have a disproportionate focus on any one of those stakeholder groups?

I discussed this in the presentation I gave at WORLDCOMP’08 in Las Vegas. The bottom line is that, in addition to feeling good about doing the right thing, behaving holistically will actually improve your bottom line.

So, if that’s the case for companies, wouldn’t the same hold true for individuals? Maybe the success metric for individuals isn’t our ROI; maybe it’s a fulfilling life. Doesn’t it stand to reason that individuals who consider our own happiness, the happiness of others, and our contributions to society at large will have more fulfilling lives than individuals who only consider our own happiness?

What do you think about the way we live?

Times are tough (as if you didn’t know)

• Google Makes More Cuts; Keyword Prices Decline
• Microsoft Blows Q2, Firing 5,000
• Intel to cut up to 6,000 jobs in factory shakeup

Let’s face it. There’s a lot of gloomy news out there at present. The auto industry stinks. The financial sector is even worse. And don’t even get me started on global turmoil or the environment.

So it’s understandable that some people are feeling a little, shall we say… pessimistic these days. It’s understandable that we ask each other how well we’re bearing up under the recession, or whether we’ve been hit hard by these tough economic times. It’s understandable that we tighten our belts and cut our costs and batten down the hatches and prepare to ride out the storm.

And it’s prudent to consider the global context in your actions — in fact, it would be foolish not to. So what’s this post about?

Look at the trail, not at the obstacle

I do a fair bit of mountain biking, and there’s one rule for being a successful mountain biker: look at the trail, not at the obstacle. I learned that lesson the hard way early on, when my cousin and I took the ski lift to the top of Winter Park and headed down on our Cannondales. About halfway down, the trail we were on jogged around a tree. Being pretty novice and pretty nervous, I looked at that tree and thought, “Gee, I hope I don’t hit it.”

Actually, it was more like a giant blinking neon billboard of a thought: “GEE, I REALLY DON’T WANT TO HIT THAT TREE! THAT ONE, RIGHT THERE! THE ONE I’M LOOKING AT! I’D BETTER DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO NOT HIT THAT TREE RIGHT TH–”

The thought was interrupted, of course, by me diving headfirst into the tree and crumpling to the ground. Thank Heaven for helmets.

There’s no gory ending to this story — I got up and got back on the bike, a little shaken but otherwise unhurt — and I’ve repeated the mistake on my mountain bike more than once. As soon as I notice myself focusing on the obstacle, though, I’ve learned to switch my attention: “Okay, so I don’t want to hit the tree. Where do I want to go?”

Choose your focus

I don’t ignore obstacles when I ride; like the many challenges facing our world, it would be foolish to pretend they don’t exist. But I know that if I want my rides to be successful, my attention has to be firmly and proactively anchored to the path I want to take, rather than to the one I want to avoid.

I started this piece with some pretty grim headlines from major corporations. But there are positive headlines out there as well, also from major corporations: headlines like Google beats estimates despite profit slide or Apple’s Impressive Quarterly Numbers. In his Belated Predictions for 2009, Dave Morgan at the Online Spin says:

…3) At least two new digital companies will launch this year that will eventually have an impact on the market at the scale of eBay, Amazon and perhaps even Google. (Yes, even a Google — maybe.) Tough times are great times to start revolutionary companies.

…6) TV will prosper. Not only will better and cheaper TVs, and more video gaming, help drive more viewing, but users playing Internet content on TV, with more people staying home in the evening, will give a big, big boost to television usage.

7) Optimism will rule. Times will be tough, but a new president, continued adoption of powerful and exciting new technologies, and a willingness to push forward for new solutions will win in the end. We will emerge better and won’t give up. es are great times to start revolutionary companies.

So now I’m going to put it out to you: what do you think we should be focusing on these days? What does your forward planning look like, and how are those monthly strategy sessions going?

There’s a new Thai restaurant down the corner from my office. It’s truly lovely — beautiful handmade tables and fabulous oversized wicker chairs like giant thrones. It’s got yummy food. And it’s got personality. The first time I went there they weren’t fully up and running yet, and their furnishings were still en route from Thailand. The owner — who is just about the most earnest person I’ve ever met — used his iPhone to show me pictures of everything in the container.

I want them to succeed, I truly do. But based on my wholly unscientific analysis, Christchurch has the highest rate of Thai restaurants per capita of anywhere in the world, including Thailand itself. I think we’ve got three Thai restaurants for every man, woman and child. I simply cannot understand how someone would look at this market and say to himself, “What they need here is another Thai restaurant.”

This particular restaurant is three doors down (literally) from another Thai restaurant I’ve been frequenting, which also has great food and great service. So here’s my problem:

I want to see both restaurants succeed.

But my meager Thai food expenditure is unlikely to keep any restaurant in business, and will have even less impact if I divide it among two businesses, so I’m torn.

There are plenty of parallels between this scenario and, for example, the question of whether the U.S. auto industry should be bailed out or whether companies who send jobs offshore are evil. Basically, they boil down to a Darwinian question: what is our responsibility as consumers?

Should we give our local businesses our business to support our local community? What if we can get it faster, cheaper, better elsewhere?

What about newspapers? Yes, we all lament the decline of the newspaper industry, but how many of you subscribe to the paper version just to show your support? Why would you, when you can get it faster, cheaper, better online?

What about jobs? What is our responsibility as employers? Imagine you’re in a competitive market where everyone else is going offshore. Your choice is to contribute to your community by providing a few local jobs (and a lot of overseas ones), or to go out of business and offer no jobs at all, because you can’t compete otherwise. What do you do?

These are important questions, especially if we want to be conscious consumers in a flat world.

Like my Search Insider colleague Gord Hotchkiss, I am a bit of a Darwinist, but perhaps unlike him I believe Darwinism must be tempered.

Take, for example, the consumption of chicken. Any of you watch Jamie Oliver’s Fowl Dinners? He took the stance that everyone currently buys cheap chicken because they’re not aware of what has to happen in order for the chicken to be that cheap.

I believe that companies have to be outstanding in order to earn our business. At the same time, I believe we as consumers need to apply — to a reasonable extent — that ‘Jamie Oliver treatment’ to the stuff we consume. What has to happen in order for us to consume this stuff? What is our tradeoff? What kind of society are we creating?

In other words, we need to consider Darwinism at the societal level, not just at the individual level.

If I get all my news via Internet, I have to accept that I’m contributing to the demise of the newspaper industry. By the way, I do accept this — in this era of unrepentant environmentalism, I can’t stomach a dead tree wrapped in non-biodegradable plastic being delivered to my door every morning. But it’s a conscious decision.

If I buy all my books via Amazon, I have to accept that local bookshops may go out of business. Yes, I know I’m not keeping either the bookshops or the aforementioned Thai restaurants afloat singlehandedly, but that’s the nature of a community: we all do our bit. And this one’s a bit harder for me. I love Amazon, and I love local bookshops. So I spend money at both, which is great for Amazon but probably not so great for the locals, who need all of my book-purchasing budget if they want to have a prayer at surviving.

Is it your responsibility to buy American made cars, just so that millions of Americans can keep their jobs? What if the cars are rubbish? What if you work at an auto company and need to feed your family?

In an interconnected world, what is our consumer responsibility? I welcome your thoughts.

Okay, I know I’m two weeks late. But it’s taken me a while to ramp back up, and I’m finally ready to put my blogging hat back on. It’s good to be back in touch!

So first things first: how did you spend your holidays? Please feel free to share in the comments. I went to Argentina — my old stomping grounds — and spent a magical time with family and old friends. I also managed to make a few quite special new friends. Read more about it in my Search Insider column.

Second things second: has anything changed? I don’t mean since three weeks ago; I mean in the existence of humanity. Please bear with me for a moment while I explain.

A post I wrote back in November, called Stupidity versus shortcuts: how being lazy is a good thing, has provoked what I think is an interesting conversation about progress.

If we no longer have to work as hard to figure something out, is that progress? Or is it only progress if we use that newly freed-up time to tackle some as-yet-unsolved problem? Is it laziness to always want to make things easier, or is it a desire for progress? Or both?

Just to keep you from being bored, I’ll throw a new possibility into the mix: we progress because we hate being bored. As far as I can tell, humans find repetition boring, which is why so few of us are willing to put in the mind-numbing effort to become Olympic athletes or professional pianists. Just imagine poor Phelps, staring at the bottom of a pool for 8 hours a day, every day of the year. And you thought you had it bad in your cubicle.

Generally, if we repeat a task often enough, we begin to look for a better way; that’s just how we’re programmed. What’s more, we’ll probably find a better way: a faster, cheaper, more efficient way. But what has changed?

Every now and then I wonder what my life would look like to an alien, or watched with the years condensed to minutes via stop-motion video. I’m generally dismayed to remember that I sit at my desk, move papers from one side to the other, look at the monitor, and type at the keyboard. You’d be hard-pressed to find an alien impressed by this behavior.

Perhaps we call what we do ‘progress’ in order to feel good about it, but really it doesn’t much matter whether it’s progress, laziness, fear of boredom, or evolutionary imperative. At the end of the day, we’ll be doing the same thing: seeking stimulation and avoiding pain, seeking meaning and avoiding indifference.

I know this was a bit of a ramble… What are your thoughts?