This imposing painting from Goya's Black period is a favorite. Broadly felt pessimistic uncertainty can influence a lot of change in what markets groups produce over time. Opposite comparisons to (TV dog) We-go can't be avoided.
This is a long post that looks at a very broad and trending social theme that will touch all people and every business in years to come. For me, this post highlights the process of social corrections that are important to appreciate, especially if you are a business witnessing your market change in fundamental ways. Large social corrections; start there and work smaller for best results in seeing what really matters to your enterprise. What follows is purely how I see using these ideas, so blame me.
During a large social corrections one group might be heard to say,
There is nothing wrong with the way things are set up. It is working for many people (and has for a long time). Others should try to see it differently because this way is best for us in the long run
An opposing group might respond with something like,
You're crazy. The number of people not able to work easily (or negatively affected) with the existing structure is growing and it is because the ideals are wrong for the larger group
This conversation is echoed in different sizes and places right now, and more will follow.
Here are a few summarizing sound bites up front:
1) what discipline seems to mean (to people, groups, organizations, and government) and what is viewed as acceptable is changing slowly after many decades of opposite momentum.
2) it's not just more discipline that is needed even if it really seems that way. What's needed is to to recognize that our needs are changing because how we value things & ideas is changing.
3) this observation is easy to agree with but harder to apply to specific circumstances & outcomes. The framework for social mood opens a valuable ongoing discussion.
Below, I touch on three emerging issues where the felt need for discipline is slowly being rethought and expressed. Each should be considered separately and each in different a sized context. If you read one or more of Robert Prechter's books then you've already seen this suggestion made both very generally and toward several centrally important matters.
I think this is a worthwhile discussion to refocus on here generally because eventually, a thin coat of these feelings will be spread everywhere. Many enterprises already see these changing shared values emerging from their market but are confused about how or if to react.
The big picture begins far back: The two most most basic social expressions by large organized groups are periods of social expansion (1) and consolidation or correction (2)of that previous expansion. Seeing this helps us to chunk up basic ideas (using broad averages of behavior) to consider the range and speed of the social change that is possible now. This matters somehow in all markets and to all businesses. I guarantee that if you think about this you will see places to apply it even in narrow enterprises. The beauty of this model is in the simple underlying assumptions.
Two Main Themes Driving Us
Very generally, during long social expansions, people in varied social groups reinforce the need to spread out as they explore new ways to create needed "things" of every imaginable kind. Limiting rules are commonly disregarded in the name of discovery, innovation, and progress. As for longer social expansions, I like to picture a hand with five fingers of different lengths and each of those being different broad themes that influence many specific trends. These can be seen to peak at different times but as part of the same expansionary trend before the larger correction is necessary. Many smaller expressions overlap and are interwoven in these broad themes. As we reap the benefits of our collective efforts, conflicts inevitably develop between groups that are later viewed as lapses in discipline that have evolved but mood tells us that this changed perception is based on current developing feelings. It is also helpful when chunking this up to use a generational construct to really appreciate the passage of time with regard to degree of trend issues.
Changing social mood affects our collective perception of what is best and thus, how we create when gathered into groups and markets.
During larger periods of social correction (negative social mood), we consolidate the gains made as a group or society. Spreading out has been stretched too far and problems are apparent. The need to affirm our connecting core values is felt broadly in order to fix things that feel wrong. The desire to discern, "what really matters?" often echoes in our many varied associations. Groups emphasize conformity more and more as part of being a member.
The theme I'm describing is very general but larger examples right now are evident and offer strong directional implications.
Larger socially corrective impulses (like those emerging towards discipline) can be seen (re)connecting diverse endeavors and groups (markets) in ways not emphasized previously. Likewise, when groups consolidate (correct) gains, it makes sense for groups to find commonly held beliefs that bind one group to another. Seen from the proper perspective, this dynamic both creates and (eventually) resolves polarized views when taken far enough. The inevitable question becomes; just how big will any corrective period be? How much will we have to consolidate? This last question spawns an entirely different discussion and is why long term views are how to begin. For now, let's consider a few developing issues:
Emerging social questions, immediately polarized:
1) Is the endless off-shoring of American jobs to countries that use very different labor standards comparable in any way to the economic issue that framed conflict between the states in the 1860's? *** Other countries are sovereign and they are entitled to their own rules, right? And before any part of this sounds righteous, we all better remember the living & lifestyle improvements that were hard fought over many decades and represented by the likes of OSHA and the EPA, right?!(not to mention others) However, what is being asked increasingly....if our best companies profit because they use these much different national labor standards as their own, are they a shinning example of American values or something else? We chose purposefully to trade freely with most nations but the problematic result of this has grown very large. Cost-benefit studies (comparing company interests to a society) clearly detail the pros & cons of these rules. The economics and national policy questions around these issues are tainted by feelings that are changing. If some top American companies only partially represent what really matters to American values, why are they given equal access and protection in our legislative and political process. What Really Matters is changing.
The opposing sides and interests in these (new) broad questions are obvious and each side is gathering voices. Developing negative (corrective) mood will fuel the discussion and even attach it to other issues that seem new but are not. The social feelings that produced the ( last link) NYT headline above are not a passing case of election year politicking though many will shout about how they are. These are fundamental structural questions that have developed and matured as multiple generations collectively expanded and expressed themselves over decades. Is the way forward through these questions or around them right now? The larger trend point here is how very old and seemingly settled social issues are often revisited in order to be more fully corrected resolved. Changing social mood fuels this process.
2) Likewise, the issues surrounding digital privacy are and will be increasingly connected by way of the shared value toward discipline as it applies to how businesses see fit to serve markets of Americans. What does it (currently) mean to express or display discipline as an enterprise committed to serving individual Americans? Increasingly, important issues are re-framed as having a discipline dynamic but what is really changing is our reasoning. Discipline is being elevated and reappraised in the context of our laws and freedoms. The long term view through social mood is how during corrective times, societies forgo previous assumptions about what is acceptable as we reach for answers to big shared problems. Social mood is instructive in this way and suggests many patterns.
A large theme around discipline is manifesting in ways that seem unrelated. For instance: last month's multiple discussions about digital privacy is really a positive reminder for law enforcement to honor core American rights to privacy, and digital social enterprises in Europe are being warned to face and honor their real customers first. The looming problem for some digital enterprises is how moves to check digital privacy practices may strike the core of established ad-based business models. The paternalistic concerns of government will impose on these perceived privacy needs in the opposite direction, so counter (public) expressions toward enterprises are all very likely. That last point is an important recurring reality for businesses. Changing business models will be a very big deal to enterprises that are squeezed. This applies doubly when long settled social contracts are reconsidered because other basic transactional details for content have changed (see last link for context).
The nascent digital privacy issue is an important tangent that touches everyone and begins with questioning whether we've all lacked discipline getting to where we are today. Digital social networking (tools) will endure because of the great utility but, digital business models & policy must be flexible. Digitally connected networks add great value but, real Choice and control eludes the customer so far. Choice, for the consumer in the context of content decisions, matters. As mood declines we will see increased social coordination and rules attached to belonging. Participation matters but the rules of engagement are already changing and business needs to be aware how this will affect their interests. Moreover, the issue is not confined to social media as we all re-consider the value derived from all forms of digitally owned private property. Suddenly, (digital) fences are everywhere and "livestock" is still running around loose for the taking. Who should that be blamed on and who will be made responsible?
Another related question developing now is what is a reasonable expectation of digital privacy? (see Justice Sotomayor's lone opinion near the end) We heard it asked but not answered thoroughly by the Supreme Court recently. Can we really forgo our right to privacy with a click, two, three? What is the individual obligation? Right now, the digital contingency would say I am extreme for mentioning it in this way because the value is obvious but, those values are being checked now by markets to some extent. If mood is indeed correcting a very long expansion, we will naturally reconsider the implications of the information complexity added to our lives in the last decade. Justice Scalia suggests we all can just turn it off anytime we choose but in the new era of digital networks, that may come to be viewed as wishful. Correcting mood is fueling this process.
3) Now, add this other (discipline oriented) social dynamic: we live in an age of "say anything" so statements are often discounted so much that skepticism rules the day in all walks of life. Slick presentation techniques, shock value, and veiled references are more common than direct and thorough discourse on divisive matters. "Positioning" is often misued and consumers expect to have to translate into meaning for their own use. Provocateurs are seeded into our media time and encouraged to yell over each other because it presents two positions in the time of 1 1/2. How do we get to compromise if anyone can imply anything in a sound bite segment and deny it or reposition the idea after an effect has been caused? Politics often makes this point blatant but more cutting is in how so is in how businesses see it as ok to slowly come to acknowledge errors. Social scientists offer how trust and connection in the important groups we belong to is paramount in guiding our loyalties at times of divisive issues but large social corrections in mood can produce important shifts in group membership and the very issues that groups support. This discipline dynamic is highly generalized (for now) and slow moving but is a worthy thread to follow over time (especially in an election year). The best leading indications in this area will always be youthful culture. Movement will foreshadow significant changes elsewhere. In the meantime, the everyday expected tune-out of opposing views is easily blamed on the "other side" and mood is fueling the process.
These noisy discussions are all the shared work of a social correction.
Parts of the American dialogue are changing as demands for discipline grow. Concern about pressing issues has only produced large scale finger wagging, threats, and me-too -isms (that are fairly empty), public hearings in a few isolated cases, and the intense feelings attached to huge current and future financial burdens for us collectively. In the same time frame, loud objections from large enterprises, as well as political groups, warn how we risk spoiling hard fought gains in security, convenience, utility, productivity, and quality should we abandon thinking that supports certain established norms for gov't & businesses. It is less about right and wrong (or right and left) and more about developing perceptions.
Why is this happening? Because, how we value things changes as social mood changes. It is that simple.
Changing social mood adds momentum to groups and markets of organized people. Negative social mood (corrective mood) is pushing our sense of need for greater acts and expressions of discipline. This is part of a larger, long-term trend to consolidate past "progress". There are no easy fixes and will be some tough realizations about how much was actually gained before it is over.
Shared values emphasizing changing perceptions toward discipline will be a common theme of a large set of social expressions necessary to get us (collectively) ready for expansion again later. What discipline means and how we apply it is changing. Businesses should be warned not to impose a self serving sense of discipline during corrections, as that is a mistake that is much harder to unwind when surprising market events occur.
My general understanding of social corrections is that they are a group process to find what will allow us to stand together firmly as a group so that with a basic sense of connection, we feel ok to later head off for more expansion minded endeavors. As you read the polarizing headlines everyday, this is what really matters even if it is a long process and not in sight now. end.
---------------------------------
great read (right and left get mixed up quickly, so you better just follow the money as you consider today) (Forbes on the internet's early guiding principles)
What Would The End of Football Look like?
How many different ways can this coming fight be positioned?
*** I am not being insensitive to the slavery issue as I pose that question. Instead, I am using the argument offered by the (then) aristocracy to perpetuate the practice and try contextualizing it in today's sound bite world. We keep bumping into the issue of different treatment of different classes of people. Right away this position sounds polarizing. Mood begs the question: How can we compete globally with our American ideals in a world that uses many forms of coerced labor, and not be party to it? That's a very tough question and as long as corporations are granted unlimited say in return for unlimited money, we will struggle to have a practical national conversation to resolve it. Increasingly the globalisation theme seems riddled with problems. Correcting social mood is fueling the process.
Comments