Leading from the Middle

I will be showing my Democratic Workplace class the NOVA DVD, “Ants - Little Creatures Who Run the World.” The DVD features Dr. Edward O. Wilson’s research and was produced in the mid to late 90s. I’m using it to augment our class’ discussion of complex systems and how leaderless, self-organizing units work together to achieve group results.

Caption: Leaf-cutter ants laden with food for the nest*.
According to Dr. Wilson humans have an inherent weakness: we emphasize the needs of the individual over the needs of society. The final scenes of the DVD show a despoiled earth, all human life extinct. But as the camera zooms in, we see ants zipping around and through the concrete debris and metallic detritus of what used to be civilization. The ants win, continuing their 100 million year run of biological success! Clearly Dr. Wilson (or NOVA) thinks that the ants’ cooperation and seemingly selfless way of life (or, as the script has it anthropomorphically: “selfless devotion”) is vastly superior to mankind’s tendency toward selfish behavior. If we extend to the workplace the viewpoint that individual needs trump those of the group, it suggests that man is largely incapable of cooperating or collaborating. I expect that devout fans of the hierarchy are nodding vigorously in agreement. “I told you so! If humans are to accomplish anything, they need direction, the firmer the better.” (These same advocates for limiting personal freedom, of course, always exempts themselves from the coercive and necessary guidance for the masses.)
Unlike ants, humans are imbued (divinely or over time through evoution) with freedom and the capacity to make choices (bad and good), to decide for themselves. Also, we have the unique attribute of language to argue for and explain our choices.
The critics hold that if we got rid of choice, we could have a cooperative society and be better off. Charles Handy, in writing about the concept of subsidiarity, says this re individual freedom: “Choices, in fact, are our privilege, although they come disguised as problems, and stealing people’s choices is wrong.”**
Actually, humans do cooperate, just not consistently. (Chapter 23, "Sacred Teams", in the book, is especially relevant to humans cooperating. It has my observations about the Semana Santa processions in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala.)
Is this inconsistency in cooperating a fatal weakness for our kind? I’ll ask the class, “Do you agree that this is a weakness? In what ways? Does taking away a worker’s elbow-room for making decisions eliminate democracy in the workplace?

*While hiking in Costa Rica in early November, I observed, close-up, long lines of leaf-cutter ants, burdened with freshly cut leaf segments, hurrying across rocks, rutted earth, fallen tree limbs – nothing could stop their march back to the nest. The DVD confirms that the harvest does not kill the trees. New leaves will soon grow back for another bountiful harvest.

**Handy, Charles. “Subsidiarity Is the Word for It.” Across the Board (magazine); June, 1999, 36: 7-8.

It feels right, a few days after America's Day of Independence, to reflect about democracy both of nations and in workplaces.
Years ago, William Cobbett (1763-1835) ,writing as Peter Porcupine, offered a prescient tribute to the new nation:
This America, this scene of happiness under a free government, is the beam in the eye, the thorn in the side, the worm in the vitals, of every despot upon the face of the earth."
And, I would add, that freedom is anathema to petty workplace tyrants.
My friend Sam (not his real name) is a micromanager. He is a boss and at the top of his field - well regarded by external peers - but I would say Sam's organization is working far below capacity. His inability to trust, his lack of confidence in subordinates creates dysfunction.
One staffer likened Sam's authoritarian style to Kim Jong-Un, the ultimate micromanager.
Over the years, many of Sam's best people have sought refuge elsewhere. Unfazed at the defections, Sam pats himself on the back; his people are in demand because of the high quality experience they have gained by working for him!
Perhaps worse, since everything has to go through Sam, a lot is left undone; new outreach programs, new uses of existing resources, remain in suspense.
I pick up on the notion that since he is convinced he can do everybody's job better, that even competent staff do lackluster work; which of course fulfills Sam's low expectations of his subordinates.
I once asked Sam for the email of one of his subordinates. I wanted to express my thanks for her above the call job she had done for a group of visitors. Sam responded that the staffer was only doing her job. No need to praise her!
Why bother to do your best if whatever you do is ignored or nitpicked to pieces?
I like Sam, he's a good friend, but then I do not work for him.
Some MMs are mean and petty - they enjoy finding fault and taunting; Sam's not one of those.
Were he to ask me for advice about improving his leadership I would start the conversation with a valuable bit of democratic work place philosophy from Charles Handy, that champion of subsidiarity: "Choices, in fact, are our privilege (our right), although they come disguised as problems, and stealing people's choices is wrong."
If Sam mulls that over and wants more, I would recommend Rebecca Knight's article, How to Stop Micromanaging Your Team from the 2015 Harvard Business Review.
Why is micromanaging harmful?
Knight responds: It "displaces the real work of leaders, which is developing and articulating a compelling and strategically relevant vision for your team."
In my experience, leaders who do real work develop highly productive and successful organizations.
Ms. Knight prescribes several ways by which to bring about a change in Sam's jaded view of his colleagues.
She would ask: What can you do to give your people the space they need to succeed and learn?
In brief, a provide a freer hand.
And, for someone reluctant to let go, how do you get comfortable stepping back?
She recommends a cross-evaluation assessment. Have a trusted third party gather confidential data from your reports. Of course, confidentiality has to be guaranteed.
What Sam will hear will be sobering and may trigger a denial. But if he can subjugate his ego, he finally may understand the broader patterns and reactions and the impact his micromanaging has on his organization, and he will seek to make constructive changes.
Looking back on my own career, that cross-evaluation assessment would have benefited me, an extreme macromanager, (sometimes, hands off is worse than hands on!)
And, I could have been a better boss for my direct reports had I asked these questions:
How can I help you best? Are there things I can do differently? Are our overall objectives clear to you and do you feel you have the support and resources to accomplish them?
I always assumed that my high flying objectives were clear to others. Bad assumption.
So, there?s a balance to strive for.
The newbie employee needs direction and supervision, the veteran less so. It comes down to knowing when to let go.
Will Sam ever know? Not long after I wrote about Sam in 2016, he was side-lined with a lateral promotion.
*This is a revised version of my essay from 2016:
Stealing People's Choices Is Wrong.


Summertime Discount of 20%.For insightful (and eternal) workplace fables from all eras and cultures, get this book. Order from BookBaby:



? Copyright John Lubans 2016 and 2024

That’s (“We’ll be fair”) what I heard when I asked a Developmental Disabilities staffer about Oregon’s financial policy on a certain kind of welfare for people with disabilities.
In North Carolina, 3000 miles east, the policy was just the opposite. When I asked legislators from both parties about removing the policy’s punitive aspects, the answer was “It can’t be done”.
How, then, did one state* practice a very fair policy (assuring that a person could retain some assets) while another state practiced fiscal confiscation that led to impoverishment and dependency.
Without going into details, my question is about how the political or other leadership establish the principle of fairness (a corporate value) while another leadership decides on punitive policies for clients.
Now, Oregon has long claimed there is an “Oregon Way” – a philosophy deriving from its earliest settlers, a philosophy of fairness and of helping others.
Another example is Oregon’s “People’s Coast”. Unlike many coastal states, Oregon decided long ago that the ravishingly beautiful coast could not be developed and restricted only for those with the big bucks or other influence.
As a result, Oregon has hundreds of miles of open access beaches and parks.
Is it politics? Some of my East Coast liberal friends assure me that Oregon is on the Left Coast and hence guided by leftist leaning policies.
It may be that way now, but at the time of the beaches and the health care policies, Oregon was conservative, not liberal.
In any case, Oregon’s policy makers were either more intelligent or had a value system that stressed fairness.
When I challenged the unfair policy in North Carolina, I met with legislators of both parties. Regardless of politics, every one of the pols was of the “I feel your pain” persuasion, and would do nothing to reverse the punitive practice.
I recall one bright-eyed legislative assistant explaining to me that any change was fiscally impossible. She was almost gleeful about having a budgetary justification to do nothing. According to her, it would cost millions which the state did not have (of course!).
Her reasoning was that any policy change had to encompass everyone not just the people with disabilities. In other words, the state was fiscally incapable of making one life better without a fiscal obligation to make all lives better.
The former is doable. The latter is impossible. So, “Sorry, but our hands are tied.”
Have you ever used that kind of lame excuse? I have.
Where does leadership enter? The leaders of these two states obviously influenced the legislation and how that legislation would be put into practice.
One state chose fairness, while the other chose unfairness.
What then is the leader’s role in changing bad practices in any organization? Even if the leader (say a state’s governor) would like to make changes, how do they persuade others. If your followers are unpersuaded, you will have an uphill battle.
My two-week lobbying effort with state legislators in person went nowhere. Most figuratively patted me on my head and sent me on my way.
One legislator, probably a Southern conservative, was angered by my pitch. He roared at me that I should be grateful for what the state was doing, and that was that. I remain mystified to this day about what set off the fireworks.
Was it something I said or was it something in this man’s background?
So, there is a culture one has to deal with.
I came to believe that while people with disabilities come in all colors and creeds, the North Carolina legislation may have been racially influenced because of the state’s Southern (slavery) history and significant black population. Yet, I am aware that many northern states (supposedly enlightened) with tiny black populations have policies that emulate the harsh one in North Carolina.
How would you, as a leader, change the unfair to fair? What would it take for your organization to say sincerely to clients, without hesitation, “We’ll be fair”?

*For my Latvian readers, America’s 50 states have much autonomy over how things are done. There’s state law and there’s federal law. For example, in Oregon you cannot pump your own gas. In 48 other states, you can pump it. Some states have sales taxes, a few states have none.
Just about on every issue, states vary and most like it that way.
Of course, those who know best and thrill at telling everyone what to do, prefer a centralized approach, like in Soviet times.
There are strong subsidiarity arguments to let American states have control. However there is constant tension between the states and the federal government, just like with member states of the European Union and the unelected officials in Brussels. Of course, subsidiarity applies to any organization and the decision-making freedom it permits (or not) for local units.

A regular reader? Show your appreciation and buy my latest book of workplace fables

And, don’t forget my book on democratic workplaces, Leading from the Middle

© Copyright text by John Lubans 2021

I have a micromanaging friend; let’s call him Sam. He’s a boss and at the top of his field - well regarded by external peers - but I’d say Sam’s organization is working far below capacity. His inability to trust, his lack of confidence in subordinates is all-pervasive. One staffer likens Sam to Kim Jong-Un – the ultimate micromanager.
Over a period of years, many of this organization’s best people have gone elsewhere. Unfazed, Sam pats himself on the back; his people are in demand because of the high quality experience they have gained by working for him!
Perhaps worse, since everything has to go through Sam, a lot is left undone; new outreach programs, new uses of existing resources, remain in suspense.
I pick up on the notion that since he is not ever satisfied, that even competent staff do lackluster work; which of course fulfils Sam’s expectations. Why bother to do your best if whatever you do is always nitpicked to pieces?
I like Sam, he’s a good friend, but then I do not work for him. (By the way, most micromanagers are not likeable because their mistrust foozles relationships. And, some are mean and petty – they enjoy finding fault and taunting; Sam’s not one of those).
Were he to ask me for advice about improving his leadership I’d start the conversation with a valuable bit of democratic work place philosophy from Charles Handy: “Choices, in fact, are our privilege (our right), although they come disguised as problems, and stealing people’s choices is wrong.”
If Sam mulls that over and wants more, I’d recommend Rebecca Knight’s article from August, 2015, “How to Stop Micromanaging Your Team”.
Why is micromanaging harmful? Knight responds: It “displaces the real work of leaders, which is developing and articulating a compelling and strategically relevant vision for your team.”
In my experience, leaders who did this “real work” developed highly productive and successful organizations.
Ms. Knight prescribes several ways by which to bring about a change in how Sam looks at people and what he expects of them. She would ask: “What can you do to give your people the space they need to succeed and learn? How should you prioritize what matters? And how do you get comfortable stepping back?”
She recommends “undertaking a cross-evaluation assessment.” Gather confidential data from your people—or better yet, have a third party do It with a guarantee of anonymity. What Sam hears may be sobering – remember the Kim Jong-Un comment? - “but it’s critical to understanding the broader patterns and reactions and the impact [your micromanaging has] on your team.”
Looking back on my own career, that cross-evaluation assessment would have benefited me, an extreme macromanager, (sometimes, “hands off” is worse than “hands on”!)
And, I could have been a better boss for my direct reports had I asked each of them these questions:
“How can I help you best? Are there things I can do differently? Are our overall objectives clear to you and do you feel you have the support and resources to accomplish them?”
I always assumed that my highflying objectives were clear to others. Bad assumption.
So, there’s a balance to strive for. Obviously the newbie employee needs direction and supervision, the veteran less so. It comes down to knowing when to let go. I do not know if Sam ever will know? Do you?

© Copyright John Lubans 2016

Caption: The infamous pamper pole

I’ve always been for anything – fads included - to shake up the fuddy-duddy hierarchy with which we are inexorably stuck.
But, the promised outcome has to be a visible and quantifiable improvement.
Those last two qualifications always tempered my zest to try out new ideas. Any idea which ignored results and improvements, was not worth trying.
If a good idea failed to improve our work, it was time to abandon the effort.
Fads are not all the same. Some have substance (like TQM, MBO, Theories X & Y), others lack it and strut around with an enticing, if mystifying name, like “holocracy” or “mindfulness”.
So, one man’s fancy may be another man’s revulsion. If a staff is closed to an idea – regardless of merit – then the idea will falter and shrivel.
Most of the fads I list below I’ve been party to, as they say. If any, with hindsight, look patently foolish, well, count me among the fools.
I will try to highlight the good and the bad of each.
Changing names of departments. For example, HR to Happiness Engineering. There’s zero improvement and may add confusion both inside and outside the organization. More, there’s the time wasted in deciding on that new name.
Re-organizing. Much like strategic planning, re-organizing is a favorite administrative stratagem to camouflage not changing.
Unless the gain is quantifiable, there is usually zero improvement. Perhaps a particularly odious individual is laterally transferred. And, negatives may result from the large investment of time and energy for the re-org instead of dealing directly with the toxic individual.
Other costs include the staff’s cynical realization of administrative cowardice.
Teams. If there are capable team members and leaders, there’s a huge, quantifiable, improvement over top-down leadership, over the hierarchy.
There are other gains, such as the buy-in from participants realizing they are valued, that they indeed matter.
A downside, fake teams. There’s often someone who wants to be the captain (an autocrat) and seeks to dominate. Unless confronted and resolved, the team can quickly become ineffective.
Pronouns. Like the re-org, this is window dressing or as some call it, “virtue signaling”. What’s the virtue?
There’s no gain but for a few, I dare say, who get off on making others comply.
I’d not seen the pronoun fixation until I got an email from a young colleague. He listed, for my edification, all of his preferred pronouns.
His first name was Herman (not Lynn, Gale, Jordan, Taylor or Ashley) so I was never confused about his gender. What motivated the list?
Permissive management. The permissive manager claims he/she is a progressive manager, yet ninety percent of their actions are permissive and merely 10% may be regarded as progressive and focused on improving workplace productivity.
Here’s a recent quote from a permissive manager, now in denial:
“A lot of staff that work for me, they expect the organization to be all the things: a movement, OK, get out the vote, OK, healing, OK, take care of you when you’re sick, OK. It’s all the things,” said one executive director (of an NGO).
“Can you get your love and healing at home, please? But I can’t say that, they would crucify me.”
So mind your Ps and Qs, or else.
Suppressed speech leads to zero improvement and wastes time.
Incidentally, permissiveness suggests a marked lack of urgency.
Diversity. I support diversity of all kinds but I am most for intellectual and cultural diversity, anything to give us different viewpoints from our own.
As mentioned above, I lose interest in something that results in little, if any, gain for how the organization does its work.
One study about effective teams does provide significant insights into work team diversity.
“C”, as in Factor C, is a predictor of group failure or success and includes three elements: participant emotional or social IQ; the number of engaged participants; and, interestingly, the number of women on the team.
Now that’s my kind of diversity, a diversity that gets results.
Inclusion. Like pronouns and other things labeled woke, we sometimes go to extremes to appear inclusive.
It takes me back to the 70s when I was at the University of Colorado in Boulder and someone’s asking the Executive group to rename the end of year Christmas gathering to Holiday party. Supposedly someone – unidentified – had (or potentially might) objected to the Christ designation.
None of my dozen direct reports, of various creeds, ever spoke to me about being offended and/or feeling excluded.
Regardless, the Executive group, anticipating that there might be someone - anyone - offended by the term, and we, then and there, deep-sixed the Christmas designation and vowed, forever more, to call it, Holiday Party.
Who benefited? Why did we waste our time?
Letting go. It’s the centuries old concept of subsidiarity. In my interpretation, subsidiarity is permitting decision making to occur among the people closest to or doing the actual work.
It is a part of being valued as a human being. It eschews central planning.
Never an actual fad and long resisted by many managers, I found my “letting go” among the most effective ways to get intelligent, thinking workers to improve how they did the organization’s work.
Why is this so difficult for many managers? For me it’s a natural.
As a child I had the reputation of resisting anyone’s help. I’d flip them off with, “I’ll do it myself”.
Once a presumed grown up, that sensibility may have carried over into an expectation that a competent staffer is able to figure things out for themselves. The last thing they need is direction from me.
Some of my successes have come on the heels of departing top-down managers who clung to their making all - and I mean all - decisions and refusing or otherwise suppressing staff inspired innovation.
For them, innovation and decision making was management’s exclusive purview.
When I was delegated to take on a major change initiative – in which many previously had failed - I soon realized I did not know much about the work.
I met with the so called “entrenched” staff and asked for help.
They gave me a long list of previously denied changes. I scanned it and said, “Do it!” We moved from last to first among our peers.
Obviously, I trusted the staff.
Of course, letting go is risky. If you do it often enough you are needed less and less (actually, more and more) by an organization, but a threatened boss will see your success as diminishing your value to the organization.
Experiential learning. “A Day in the Woods” was the phrase I used for taking teams out of the office for adventure-based learning. Making these events voluntary resulted in some valuable personal and professional growth.
Yes, there was time taken from the work place but that time was often an investment that paid off. Challenges (risks) confronted and overcome in the woods encouraged - indeed emboldened - participants to apply those learnings to the workplace.
While I value my personal growth from adventure-based learning, I realize that it is not for everyone.
Making an entire department take a leap off the depicted Pamper Pole (named after the diaper) may result in corporate PTSD.
Now, I may see the correlation between leaping into space to catch a trapeze as akin to a leap of faith in my own ability and capacity. But, it can be a traumatizing experience with zero improvement for some, all too similar to scorching one’s footsies doing a corporate Firewalk.

------------------
My book, Fables for Leaders is available. Click on the image and order up!

And, don’t forget Lubans' book on democratic workplaces, Leading from the Middle

© Copyright text by John Lubans 2022

In preparing for another column on “What I Would Do Differently”, I listed out a baker’s dozen of instances in my career where I could have done better. These were conflicts; those times when someone seeks to frustrate something you want to do.
Looking at that sorry list, it dawned on me that while each of those snafus was a personal failure, my saying so and explaining how I would follow up did not address a more important question.
Could any of the dozen been averted?
What in general could I have done differently before the situation became a problem?
All too often, my silence or failure to follow up, may have escalated a small problem into something larger.
Were there not ways to anticipate and nip an incipient problem in the bud?
Was there a lack of clarity in my message, then how could I have changed that?
Did I not listen to my colleagues? How could I change that?
Were my colleagues not interested in or swayed by my intentions?
Did they not understand my purpose in making a change?
When I stated my belief that simplicity was preferable to complexity, did anyone understand what I meant?
I rarely explained; rather I assumed. And, as we know, there’s an adage for that. (When you take away the U and the ME that leaves ASS and a silly one at that).
No, we cannot know all eventualities nor do we need to, but we do want the key points well understood.
You should not leave it up to the staff to figure it out for themselves.
Some were already on my wavelength so they were not confused. Others – too many - tried to understand but, without clarity from the leader, failed to do so.
This latter outcome undercut my belief in and practice of the concept of subsidiarity; that ideas and processes are always best developed and tried out at the local level, not from above.
For that philosophy to succeed the people doing the work had to understand what I was hoping for.
At the start of any new initiative I should have made questions de rigueur, expected and wanted. Not just the abrupt “Any questions?” at the end of a meeting when everyone’s heading out the door.
Since it was not self-evident for everyone, I should have done far more follow up explaining about meanings and what was to be done. .
The Red Team technique would have been one way for those involved to really get at the pros and cons of a new way of doing something.
And, even if you can’t use a Red Team for every idea, you can do something similar, like worst-case scenarios, a plus delta, or a list of plusses and minuses and the major reasons for and against.
Any of these would help avoid the seemingly inevitable misunderstandings; they’d deter that predictable cycle I observed in those dozen miserable instances referred to at the top.
Lest ye misunderstand, I am not talking about the classical business bugbear, Communication about a made decision.
Rather, I speak of my explaining more and better of what I was trying to do and seeking feedback and advice prior to the decision. I would want to engage those working with me, both direct reports and my fellow executive leaders.
Anger was a response I underused.
For example, when one of my staff displayed an uncooperative attitude, I should have been far more explicit in why her response was unacceptable.
Instead, my tacit acceptance – like the dog in the elevator - allowed her to get away with it only to worsen matters between us.
A touch of controlled anger (a remonstrative bark or growl) would have helped get her attention and then I could have explained calmly what it was I was trying to do and what I expected from her.
After all, I was the top dog, was I not?
In another instance, I should have been furious when one of my peers grabbed me by the head, admonishing me to think.
He was offended by something I had said, perhaps jocularly, but he stepped way out of bounds when he touched me.
I ignored it, naturally, but my anger was clearly called for. I should have demanded an apology at the least and then find out what prompted that behavior.
These last few decades have given us a contrast in how leaders respond to criticism and insults. The Presidents Bush and Mr. Trump represent extremes. Mr. Trump, like a pro-wrestler, when slapped, slapped back.
That made for news and probably impeded some policy objectives but his disruptive, abrasive behavior (kick ass) also probably made some good things happen (vaccine development, for example) that never would have happened with a gentle prodding of an elephantine bureaucracy.
The Bushes, father and son, never took umbrage in public at insults hurled - like shoes - their way.
I had a mentor like that. He never sank to a backstabbing level. Indeed, I favored the Bush approach – never acknowledge an insult – over Trump’s never turn the other cheek, but perhaps there is a midpoint between the two?
Anger has its place and it can add clarity. There’s no question in my mind that I could have used it more and to better effect than I did. But, it takes practice and if you never use it, when you finally lose your temper, it won’t play out well.
Seeking clarity around conflict can be more difficult in some environments than others. I found that in ecclesiastical or academic conflict I was dealing with shadows. Innuendo, the perfumed dagger variety of intrigue was the preferred course of action. Unless you were born Byzantine, many pitfalls awaited.
It’s taken many years, but I have come to realize that frankness, sincerity, candor, honesty, all have to be made manifest. These qualities cannot be left to a guessing game. Nor can any be realized in silence.

© Copyright all text John Lubans 2021

Caption: Vengeful chat-bots confront their distraught creator*.

Do you remember Singularity? Not long ago, IT people were reverential about the word, often prefacing it with “The”.
“The singularity refers to the point in time when the development of robotics and intelligent machines will become uncontrollable. In this scenario, artificial intelligence will be able to surpass the brain power of humans and will be able to evolve on its own.”
Parenthetically, IT’s hubris is revealed in its use of a term deliberately aligned with the far more weighty and time-tested terms of subsidiarity and solidarity!
Recently we’ve heard a lot about AI; not only will you lose your job but you may be enslaved or eradicated by the bots.
Karel Capek’s 1921 play, R.U.R (Rossum’s Universal Robots) ends just so, but ironically, with some aspiration among the surviving robots to become more human a la a Garden of Eden re-do.
Most of those making these dire predictions do not see it as exactly imminent; rather the end date is from a few years to a couple of decades off.
But doomsday is nigh, be assured.
Indeed, take a look at the fortune cookie industry. It is now divided between those saying only humans can write fortunes and those who are all on board with chat bots spewing out fortunes like “Beware—the machines are coming for your job.”
Permit me to put on my tinfoil hat.
AI has already begun it’s elimination of humans.
Take a look at recent job layoffs for the IT industry. “More than 140,000 U.S. tech employees were laid off in 2022. As of March 2023, more than 100,000 U.S. tech employees have lost their jobs this year.”
That’s nearly a quarter million people without jobs.
Some will bounce back into lower paying work, others will endure the vicissitudes of unemployment. Some may not.
Were these workers in fact redundant, never needed? Who’s making the decisions and does AI play a role?
I now remove my tinfoil hat.
As early as the mid 1990s I was acutely aware of AI’s insinuation into my field of work, research libraries.
In 2015, I looked back on it in my essay “The World’s Information Desk”.
By that time libraries of all sorts, not just research libraries, had lost to Google well over a quarter to a third of their information desk business.
Back in 2000, Google’s co-founder, Sergy Brin had some lofty aspirations: “In five years I hope (search engines) will be able to return answers, not just documents.” “… Google will be your interface to all the world’s knowledge – not just web pages.”
Looking back, Mr. Brin does appear to have attained much of his target to become the World’s Information Desk.
For many years libraries were the only show in town. Often, we held a region’s unique copy of a book - only accessible through our card catalog - and if you needed help even with simple informational questions you came to or phoned the library.
Librarians were genuine intermediaries or gatekeepers.
With the introduction of e-resources libraries began to lose their monopoly on information.
Preceded by the World Wide Web experimentation of Mosaic, Yahoo and Google soon made information (and sometimes, answers) readily available to anyone with an Internet connection. One student observed back in 1998, “(The Internet’s) moved library resources to my desktop.”
So, how did libraries respond to this erosion of what was clearly the bread and butter of their business?
A colleague told me: “It seems like all we did (at her library) was to re-act to whatever came our way.” My colleague was yearning for action, not reaction.
So, how did leaders respond? Initially there was denial. As I said earlier I was one of a few who observed that the long lines at the reference desk were no more. Even though there had to be fewer questions along with less demand for our services, we continued to staff the desk as if nothing had changed.
When I did a simple calculation showing that the costs in answering those decreasing questions were now increasing, that still did not garner much support.
Or, maybe our denial was attributable to simply not knowing what to do, either at the service level or in the executive suite. In any case, I got the feeling back then that this was a taboo topic, only to be aired at some very real personal risk.
Let’s be clear.
I am not hyperbolizing the Internet’s role in information finding and using. It’s swell, up to a point. But, to test googling’s limits, type in a complex question.
Unless you intend to always keep life simple, you will not get instant answers to your questions. There’s an avuncular bit of advice passed on by bright college seniors to college freshmen: “befriend a librarian.”
That’s still a very good idea whether you are on or off campus. If libraries have lost the bread and butter piece of their business, they still have the main course – the meaty part. That’s the ability to help users navigate and find answers to complex questions.
Such was my thinking in 2015. Now in May of 2023 with predictions of imminent doom and gloom from AI and its chat bots, I am less than sure.
But, I am not hopeless. There is plenty of evidence that chat bots are less than stellar and that, now and then, they fail utterly.
Much of that failure may have something to do with IT people’s attitudes and that there’s some amount of biased data in the metaverse.
Anonymity among many internet users has led to some horribly tainted certainty in their “truth”. That bias and negative attitude is in much of the data in the metaverse.
The bot can’t figure it out – what’s legit, what’s biased, what’s fake, etc. - so will humans have a mediating role?
I hope so.

* Actually this is a still photo from Karel Capek’s R.U.R, 1921 which I referred to my blog in September of 2015, "I wish I was managing robots."

_______________
My book, Fables for Leaders – with more wisdom than in any fortune cookie - is available. Click on the image and order up!

And, for the human worker yet not made redundant by AI, there’s,
Buy here.


© Copyright commentary by John Lubans 2023