Keep It Sustainable, Stupid
The writer H.L. Mencken once said, “For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple…and wrong.”
And with this idea in mind, one could argue that the KISS principle—which commands us to “keep it simple, stupid”—may not be enough to provide truly sustainable solutions to the many complex problems facing our planet and its 8 billion inhabitants.
And when it comes to leading teams, families, and businesses, it’s unlikely that merely embracing simplicity is going to yield the sustainable success that you and your stakeholders desire.
So, in this episode of The Energy Detox, we propose a slight tweak to the KISS principle that encourages you to “keep it sustainable, stupid” so that you can discover how to avoid wasting precious time and money on unnecessary complications that make achieving lasting success far more challenging.
SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS:
TRANSCRIPT:
00:00
Thanks to the coronavirus, the customary kiss on the cheek used to greet others in some cultures has been replaced with more physically distant greetings that conform to present pandemic protocols.
And today we're going to discuss a different kind of "kiss" that is still safe to use, but could benefit from some minor tweaks.
And that "kiss" has nothing to do with your lips or your cheeks or your pathogen-carrying saliva, as this "kiss" we're focusing on today is an acronym standing for "Keep It Simple, Stupid”: K-I-S-S.
00:33
And this "simple" principle—whether directed at you or someone else—is applicable to business strategies, to software development, and to our personal lives, where precious time and money and energy can easily be wasted on extraneous and unnecessary complications that make achieving lasting success far more challenging than it needs to be.
00:54
But while simplicity should be praised and sought after, the reality is that well-intentioned leaders who over-simplify challenges and decisions and strategies can find themselves and their stakeholders on an un-sustainable trajectory. Because while simplicity is extremely valuable, simplicity should never be treated as an end in and of itself.
01:16
And leaders should never risk being seen as simple-minded—or just plain stupid—because they unwittingly ignored threats and opportunities that were deemed too complex...which is why today we're going to propose a variation on the KISS acronym that focuses not on simplicity, but on sustainability.
01:34
And whether you're seeking success for your business, your team, your family, or Mother Nature, we assert that you will generate far more impactful results by regularly reminding yourself to "keep it sustainable, stupid."
[Intro Music]
02:03
Hello and welcome to The Energy Detox, a petroleum-based blend of leadership conversations guaranteed to boost your professional and personal output by flushing away the hidden—and often toxic—barriers to peak performance.
02:18
I'm your host, Joe Sinnott, a chemical engineer, executive coach, and 15 year energy industry veteran helping you tap into the same resources fueling today's most successful and sustainable leaders.
02:30
And today we're going to examine how those men and women avoid over-complicating challenges without over-simplifying their leadership responsibilities...and how you, too, can maintain a mindset that will help you stay relatively balanced as you navigate the ever-steepening peaks and valleys of the world around you.
02:47
And to accomplish this goal, we'll break this discussion into two simple parts:
In Part 1, I will give simplicity all of the praise and honor it deserves, while discussing the origins and benefits of the "Keep it simple, stupid" (KISS) acronym, which you've likely heard, repeated, and perhaps applied in some manner throughout your life.
And in Part 2, I'll tell you why merely keeping things "simple" is an inadequate approach for most leaders today...and why keeping things "sustainable" can provide the same benefits of simplicity without ignoring the long-term success that should be a priority for you and the majority of your stakeholders.
And along the way, we'll remain particularly focused on the oil and gas industry, where sustaining positive momentum in the face of unrelenting financial, social, and environmental challenges is anything but simple.
03:31
So let's jump into Part 1 by drilling into the history of the "Keep it simple, stupid" principle, which is attributed to a man named Kelly Johnson, an engineer for Lockheed Corporation in the 1960s, decades before a merger formed the company known today as Lockheed Martin.
And according to the widely-accepted story, Kelly asserted that whatever Lockheed was designing for the United States military needed to be simple enough to be repaired by someone with basic tools and a basic understanding of mechanics while operating under the pressures and demands of war. Because—at least in Kelly's view—complexity wasn't exactly compatible with combat conditions.
04:05
And so this KISS principle was ultimately adopted by Kelly's team and, in turn, plenty of other organizations and industries and individuals who recognize that "keeping things simple" has value in nearly every facet of life—not just in the middle of a war.
04:19
And it's also worth noting that the original "keep it simple, stupid" saying did not have a comma after the word "simple." So Mr. Johnson was not nearly addressing himself or others as "stupid," but rather emphasizing that solutions would ideally be "stupid simple," if you will.
04:34
Nevertheless, for all of us who are guilty of over-complicating things, the comma that's usually embedded in the phrase serves as a friendly reminder that we have the power to simplify things and we are responsible when we introduce extra junk that can quickly rob us of energy and momentum.
04:49
And it's also worth noting that just as the "cheek kiss" mentioned in the opening of this episode has different variations—including the double cheek kiss in much of Europe and even the triple cheek kiss in some countries—the KISS acronym also has some variations, including "keep it short and simple" or "keep it simple and straightforward" or "keep it small and simple."
And whatever variant one goes with, the implication is the same: simplicity is often more advantageous than complexity.
05:14
And I could spend hours stepping through the countless applications of the KISS principle from a number of different industries, including the airline industry, where Southwest has become the go-to case study for simplifying its maintenance program by typically using only one type of plane: the Boeing 737…
Or the software industry, where simpler codes often means simpler updates and faster performance; and simpler user interfaces generally mean happier customers...
Or the fast food industry, where Chick-fil-A dominates with its relatively simple menu and its simple focus on customer service...
05:44
Or the oil and gas industry where a simple development approach—at least in resource plays that have been the focus of many companies over the last 15 years—means you can repeat the same general process over and over again, increasing efficiency, improving logistics, and enhancing the performance of a given asset.
06:01
And as hypocritical as it may sound coming from an engineer who has wasted plenty of time down in the weeds of projects over the years (and who has been known to take a relatively basic leadership topic and turn it into a 30 or 40 minute rambling podcast episode), I am actually a huge fan of simplicity and essentialism and cutting out unnecessary complexity in all areas of life.
06:21
For example, when it comes to cleaning up around the house, I fully espouse the "when in doubt, throw it out" mantra—with the understanding that "throw it out" often means donate, sell, recycle, or whatever environmentally friendly approach we can employ to rid ourselves of the stuff we don't need.
And when it came to high school reading assignments, I unabashedly made use of CliffsNotes as a much simpler and more efficient way of gaining an understanding of the material versus actually reading the entire book as I should have.
And when it comes to some unsolved mystery, I typically embrace Occam's razor, which states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
06:55
And when it comes to minimizing the stress that can come from managing a business and a family, I often turn to the lessons of Greg McKeown's book Essentialism to keep our calendars free of commitments that really aren't necessary, something that, of course, has been far easier over the last six months of limited social activity.
07:11
And my embrace of simplicity isn't merely the product of reading a book (or the CliffsNotes version of a book) on the topic of simplicity. And I don't yearn for simplicity because I've been scared of becoming one of those people surrounded by piles of crap on the reality show Hoarders. Rather, my appreciation for simplicity comes from the countless times during my professional career where I felt "stupid" for not simplifying some existing and bloated process that I'd either inherited or created myself...
Or for not simplifying the expectations I had for my employees...or for not taking the time to clarify and simplify the expectations that others had of me.
07:48
And whether on the receiving end or the sending end of mis-communication, it's safe to say that I've had far too many points get lost or mangled because extraneous or unnecessary or redundant or tangential or ancillary or needless or superfluous or redundant words were introduced into what could have been—and should have been—a much simpler message.
08:07
And now as a coach, I help leaders realize when their over-complicated messages or questions or requests are missing the mark—or worse, when such communications are unwittingly causing stakeholders to hear the opposite of what those leaders intend.
08:20
And as we'll discuss in a moment, this is especially true when it comes to messaging around the "energy transition" and ESG initiatives, when flowery prose and buzzwords often muddy what should be straightforward and simple messages for audiences who are already dealing with enough uncertainty and anxiety and confusion given the current state of the oil and gas industry.
08:39
So with all that being said, hopefully the point I was trying to make in this first part of the episode hasn't ironically been lost. And hopefully I've made it clear that "simplicity" is a great default approach to life, to communication, and to leadership. But to live a GREAT life and produce GREAT communications and be a GREAT leader often requires us to go beyond default approaches.
08:58
Which brings us to Part 2 of this conversation, where I'm going to insist that sustainability is a far better goal than simplicity.
And why would I make such an assertion? Why would I create some unnecessary tension between simplicity and sustainability when they're both valuable and fully capable of living in harmony? Well, it's because too many leaders latch on to simple answers and simple approaches and treat simplicity as some kind of end goal without realizing that simplicity should never be cheered as if it's some final product.
09:27
Simplicity is instead a means of fueling consistency and clarity and sustainability. And sometimes simplicity and sustainability are basically one in the same, so reminding yourself or others to "keep it sustainable, stupid" may very well mean that you arrive at the exact same solution in the exact same amount of time as if you kept your focus on simplicity.
However, defaulting to keeping things simple may indeed be a stupid—or at least short-sighted—approach if it causes you to unwittingly ignore glaring concerns that are dismissed in the interest of simplicity.
10:02
And another reason for embracing sustainability over simplicity is that "simple" is too often equated with "easy." And if you consciously or unconsciously are using those two terms interchangeably, you could quickly find yourself in trouble.
10:15
And a good example of this is if you're writing computer code; as mentioned in the first part, simplicity in software development is valuable. But simplicity doesn't necessarily mean that what's being developed isn't complex; heck, it can be some incredibly complex code, but if it's laid out in a clean and simple manner, then it can more easily be improved upon later or debugged...and it won't leave future developers tempted to start from scratch because they don't even know where to start.
10:39
So being afraid of complexity isn't going to help you; and understanding that the long-term sustainability of whatever you're writing is far more important, especially if you can blend simplicity and complexity in a way that is sustainable.
10:53
And even if you go back to the originator of the KISS principle, it's worth noting that Kelly Johnson and his team at Lockheed weren't undertaking easy tasks. No, they were designing complicated spy planes and other advanced technologies that were anything but simple. In fact, for many years, Kelly led Lockheed famed Skunk Works, a term which is now used generically by lots of different companies to describe internal teams that epitomize innovation and creativity and overcoming complex problems.
11:20
So the work Kelly's team was doing to develop new technologies and the work of those in the military who would ultimately be flying and maintaining the aircraft was far from easy, of course. And what Kelly was really after was a repeatable process, a consistent mindset, a focused workforce, and reliable progress towards some end result.
11:38
Stated another way, what he was ultimately seeking was not just simplicity, but sustainability.
And—who knows?—if Kelly were around today, he'd probably tell me to quit trying to overcomplicate and improve upon his KISS principle. But in my defense, the words "sustainable" and "sustainability" barely even showed up in the English language until the 1970s—years after Kelly introduced his "keep it simple, stupid" principle.
12:01
So I would hope that the late Mr. Johnson would understand and forgive my apparent attempts to hop on today's "sustainability bandwagon" that has been growing more visible and traveling faster and faster over the last two decades. And of course, right now, you'd be hard pressed to find many public companies who aren't fully on this sustainability bandwagon.
And you probably can't scroll through your LinkedIn feed for more than a minute without some direct mention of sustainability.
12:26
But if you ask 100 people to define “sustainability” these days, you may very well get a dozen or so different answers. And if you're asked those same hundred people which current buzzword annoyed them the most, I'd imagine "sustainability" could certainly be in the running for top answer.
12:40
And all that being said, when I ask myself what the most sustainable approach to my day looks like...or what the most sustainable choice is when I'm faced with some binary decision...or what the most sustainable way to get from point A to point B is, I find that a "sustainability mindset" helps me focus more on my long-term objectives than if I'd merely focused on simplicity or essentialism or efficiency...
Because simplicity is often biased towards the shorter term...and essentialism can sometimes cause you to demonize priorities that fall just short of being labeled essential...and efficiency doesn't always imply longevity or repeatability.
13:17
So while all three of those principles are good, and while all of those don't induce nearly the amount of eye rolling that the word sustainability does, I would argue that whatever definition you have for "sustainability" is far more comprehensive than "simplicity," "essentialism," and "efficiency."
13:31
And in my opinion, the all-encompassing nature of the word "sustainability"—which few people had even heard of half a century ago—is part of the reason for its popularity...and its overuse. And it's part of the reason that organizations have invested tons of time and energy and money into producing beautiful corporate sustainability reports while doing what they can to increase their sustainability scores and rankings.
13:53
But even though the word might be losing a bit of its punch as people become de-sensitized to the term, I think—if used properly—the concept of sustainability truly honors the complexity that leaders are facing; and that's why I'm encouraging it's use today.
14:06
But that encouragement comes with a warning; because if used improperly, it can ironically lead to LESS sustainable solutions. If sustainability is tied to a single and simple solution or explanation without room for debate and other ideas, it's highly unlikely that such solutions will be sustainable. And if the definition of sustainability is reduced to one simple intermediate goal—like achieving carbon neutrality or a switch to 100% renewable energy or phasing out the internal combustion engine—then the odds of people eventually grown skeptical about your efforts are sky high.
14:40
Whereas if individuals and organizations peg their sustainability initiatives on bigger goals—like a reduction in energy poverty around the world or elimination of hunger around the world or increased access to clean water for developing countries—and then work backwards towards solutions, the organizations and those who support them will be far more resilient and adaptable as technologies inevitably change and evolve.
15:02
And hopefully none of this sounds like a knock against the shift towards alternative energy sources—because it's not. It is, however, a warning to anyone who oversimplifies the energy transition by stating that we must merely "shift to solar and wind as soon as possible and decrease our reliance on fossil fuels." Because such over-simplification risks shifting attention away from what the ultimate purpose should be and risks having the message—the ultimate message and the ultimate objective—get lost in arguments over the net social, environmental, and economic impacts of solar panels and windmills, which are simple elements of a much bigger picture.
15:37
And when the strongest advocates of renewables have to spend more time defending the merits of solar and wind than talking about all the ways to sustainably provide people around the world with energy, food, and water, then it's inevitable that the ultimate purpose of improving the human condition—which, again, is what I think should be the ultimate purpose—is going to get lost.
15:57
Put another way, if you're putting all your eggs in the "stabilizing the Earth's temperature" basket, if you will, then at some point your stakeholders will realize that while fighting against Earth's ever-changing climate may be a worthwhile intermediate goal, it's NOT the ultimate purpose. And I would HOPE that the goal is to improve the lives of people, not just lower the temperature—or sustain the temperature—of the earth.
16:21
But when the vast majority of public discussions around sustainability are merely focused on atmospheric carbon and rising global temperatures—with the occasional talking points about the impacts of wildfire-inducing droughts and rising sea levels and severe weather events—at some point people start to realize that while trying to keep the planet from warming is a simple concept, it can seem removed from the idea of sustaining and improving humanity.
16:47
Because if the end goal is not just improving the planet, but improving the lives of people around the world—especially in the developing world—then a one-sided view of sustainability that leans almost exclusively on wind and solar energy is going to quickly leave out the billions of people on planet earth who would do almost anything to have access to the the reliable and plentiful energy made possible by oil and gas that is enabling innovators to come up with solutions to the challenges that Mother Nature has posed to humans since we started walking the earth long, long ago.
17:18
And in the interest of simplicity, if companies and government entities put all their eggs in only one or two technologies like wind and solar without exploring other high-potential green solutions like geothermal energy or nuclear energy, then are such entities really on a sustainable path? Or are they merely on a simple path that could easily lead them to a dead end as circumstances invariably change over time?
17:43
And assuming such entities do balance the ramp up of solar and wind with investments and diverse solutions and some more advanced technologies, is their ultimate goal simply to reduce carbon emissions? Or is their ultimate goal to help human beings thrive on planet Earth, no matter what Mother Nature throws at them?
17:59
Because if it's the latter—as it should be—then the next question is how much energy and money is being spent to directly tackle the impacts of fires and hurricanes and droughts and rising sea levels and everything that is being blamed on rising temperatures? And a related question is whether it's more sustainable for humans to get behind innovative solutions to adapt to Mother Nature—which is something our species has been doing forever—or is it more sustainable to try and convince Mother Nature to not get any warmer and hope that she stops lighting fires and melting icecaps and producing extreme weather events?
18:30
And as someone who spends a lot of time helping people avoid false choices in their lives, I acknowledge that it's possible to BOTH strive for lower temperatures and generate ways to adapt and adjust to whatever the earth throws at us. But when the vast majority of the sustainability movement or sustainability conversations seem to be focused on carbon emissions and not on solutions that can much more directly help people most impacted by Earth's ever-changing climate, it's at least worth asking why all the attention seems to be heavily weighted towards solutions that force people who are currently in need of help to wait for long-term changes in the temperature curve...that might never come...and that might not even make that much of a difference if and when they do.
19:14
Might it be more sustainable for corporations and governments preaching "sustainability" to focus their energy on using proven resources to help the people they claim to want to help? And again, that doesn't mean they can't do both. But the reality is that people's attention and energy is not infinite. And the goal of The Energy Detox is to help you use your energy in the most productive way possible.
19:36
And if the messages you ingest or you tell yourself about sustainability are over-simplified and over-sanitized, you might unwittingly be heading down the wrong path despite having the very best of intentions. And in my attempts to fuel conscious leaders, I have a responsibility to make sure you're never keeping it "simple" when "simple" doesn't cut it.
19:55
And the notion that we're dealing with a much more complex problem than the media might portray is not a new concept, of course. And the idea that we should be placing a far greater emphasis on—and hope in—the power of human innovation to adapt to Mother Nature is something that Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, regularly speaks about.
20:10
And if you've been exposed to Alex's writing or speaking, you know that one of his biggest criticisms of those who take an overly-simplistic approach to climate change is that their dire projections often ignore humanity's long history of innovation as if people will just sit around and get battered by hurricanes and wildfires and rising sea levels while waiting around for the earth to calm down a bit.
20:33
And again, there are plenty of experts who are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that questions around climate are not as black and white as they are portrayed sometimes. And similarly, in the quest to lift people out of poverty and to help developing nations access the same resources that allowed countries like the United States to flourish over the last century and a half, the most sustainable approach might not be the simplest approach.
20:55
And if simple talking points about global warming and CO2 emissions are all that people hear, they are almost guaranteed to miss the fact that fighting climate change isn't the end goal; preserving humanity's ability to thrive on this planet is the goal.
21:09
And again, there's obviously no simple solution to that lofty objective. So, as companies and countries decide where to invest trillions of dollars over the next decade, do you want them to adhere to the simple idea that the most important fight of our lives is climate change? Or do you want them instead to latch on to a more sustainable idea that the most important thing we can do is promote human flourishing and provide access to food, water, and energy for the billions of people who live on this planet?
21:35
And might investing trillions of dollars in solutions that directly help them do this—including cheap, portable, and reliable energy made possible by fossil fuels—allow them to adapt to their surroundings and raise their standard of living instead of merely using all of their limited energy that they have right now merely trying to survive?
21:52
And might it be a good thing that all of these people are lifted out of energy poverty sooner rather than later so that they, too, can choose to engage in climate activism...or choose to enjoy consuming goods that will improve their health and well-being...or choose to do whatever they wish with the freedom that comes from having access to reliable energy?
22:11
And I know this very long tangent is starting to teeter on some utopian vision where the billions of people living in energy poverty have access to even a fraction of the things that I enjoy living here in the United States. And I know that the path to such a vision is far from simple—I fully acknowledge that. But as with most complex problems, it reasons that the solutions may require a bit more complexity than is often conveyed in the greenwashed messages of corporations trying to "out-sustain" their competition.
22:37
And part of the complexity is that fossil fuels have been the absolute biggest driver of human progress over the last century and will logically continue to be a part of such progress. And even if one concedes that the quicker the world adopts renewables, the better the earth will be and the healthier the earth will be, it's also worth noting how critical fossil fuels are to drive the transition to renewables.
22:59
And while there are fortunately, many intellectually honest people who work in renewables—and who work to erase energy poverty and improve the human condition—who are quick to point out that renewables in many ways are dependent on fossil fuels, there are sadly many others who oversimplify their message and omit the facts about what petroleum has done and continues to do to improve the lives of people who have access to it.
23:22
And whether those omissions are intentional or not, one could conclude that they're assuming the audience is either too stupid to understand anything other than a simple message...or that those doing the omitting simply don't have the intellectual honesty or intellectual humility to concede that they don't have all the answers and that things might be a bit more complex than they make them out to be.
23:40
And I know I'm probably taking an unnecessarily deep dive into an emotionally charged topic. And I want to emphasize again that I think most of the challenges of renewables related to reliability and portability and batteries and a dependence on rare earth minerals can and will be overcome. But true sustainability isn't about solving only the current problems that skeptics of renewables are quick to point out, but ensuring that we can react and solve future problems.
24:03
And for all the ills of the oil and natural gas industry that people can use to justify turning their backs on fossil fuels right now, I'd argue that the simple approach of hopping on the green energy bandwagon is the easiest approach right now, given its trendiness and the fairly universal momentum it has. But as easy and simple as it can be right now to run away from oil and gas and to starve the industry of investment and attention, I'd argue that ignoring an industry that has been incredibly innovative and adaptable for the last 160 years is far less sustainable than leveraging the talent and technical prowess that the people of the petroleum industry have demonstrated, especially at a time when hundreds of thousands of those people are in a state of career uncertainty.
24:43
And while I could talk for an hour about the positive contributions of oil and gas in the world, I want to be absolutely clear for anyone who instinctively and blindly defends the oilfield at all costs that using one-sided and simple responses when attacked by those who view you as an enemy are unfortunately not a good use of your energy in most cases.
25:02
And, yes, it's easy and factually correct to point out the countless ways petroleum has improved the human condition. And it's something I do all the time. And similarly, I'm also armed and often tempted to attack the inferiority of renewables in their current state.
25:16
But obviously, those arguments and talking points are not sustainable, because resting on accomplishments is silly in a fast-moving world that craves innovation and change...and because—as I just said—the current limitations of renewables will almost certainly be overcome with time.
25:29
So in order to ensure oil and natural gas continues to play its proper role in the world, a more sustainable argument than some of the standard talking points is to emphasize the innovation and adaptability and reliability that this industry has proven time and time again...and to emphasize the technical prowess and unmatched hard work of the men and women in this industry.
25:51
That—at least in my opinion—is a sustainable argument that will make sure humanity continues to benefit from affordable and reliable energy and from petroleum-based goods, no matter how demonized the industry may be and regardless of how much investors run away from oil and gas and run towards anything with even the faintest shade of green.
26:10
So all that being said, the simple point I'm trying to make with this rather impassioned and manifesto-like plea is to move beyond mere talking points and to acknowledge that the most sustainable argument will eventually win out...even if by the time it wins out, we're all dead and the Earth's temperature has finally dropped by half a degree.
26:32
But in all seriousness—and speaking of people dying—another good example of what can happen when we oversimplify solutions and messaging involves everyone's favorite topic: the world's fight against the coronavirus.
26:45
Because if the ultimate goal of government leaders is to have a sustainable solution that will minimize the impact of the virus in the lives of people, then I think that's a pretty decent—albeit vague—mission that everyone would generally agree with.
And early on, when the stated plan was to “flatten the curve” so that hospitals weren't overwhelmed, that was a tangible and understandable goal that most people could get behind. But when the curve was eventually flattened, to many folks it seemed like leaders had drawn up a new mission, which was to prevent anyone from getting COVID-19 at all.
27:16
Obviously, this was never stated directly. And the notion of preventing anyone from getting sick—or even the notion of preventing anyone at all from dying—is, of course, not realistic. But the simpler the message became from government authorities, the simpler people's responses became.
27:30
And those simple responses were typically A) to comply or B) to question the sustainability of complete lockdowns of society and to question what were viewed as overly simplistic guidelines.
27:41
And while I'm not opining on the validity of the decisions being made by government officials, I will say that locking everyone up is an easy and effective and simple way to prevent the spread of the virus. But it's far from sustainable because of human nature; because of the unintended consequences of such an approach; and because completely stopping the spread of a highly contagious virus was never a sustainable goal absent a vaccine.
28:05
But stopping higher risk populations from getting COVID is certainly a reasonable goal.
Preventing hospitals from being overrun with patients is a reasonable goal.
And working on a vaccine so that the high risk patients could eventually re-enter society is, again, a good goal.
And all of those are very sustainable goals that could have led to some very sustainable solutions; but the oversimplified goals of preventing anyone from getting COVID and preventing anyone from dying led—not surprisingly—to oversimplified solutions like shutting everything down for varying periods of time.
28:38
And such shutdowns often proved to be unsustainable. And they were unsustainable because, in some cases, the consequences of those solutions were causing more harm to people than good.
28:47
And in fairness, opening everything back up 100% as if there were no pandemic could be a simple way to mitigate the catastrophic impacts to people's mental health and the economy. But again, it's obviously not sustainable either, because we're dealing with a complex problem that calls for complex solutions. And if leaders feel forced to oversimplify the responses to such problems, then the end result will not be sustainable.
29:09
And with mask wearing widely accepted, with many businesses starting to open up, and with remote work and school a reasonable solution for many—but certainly not all—people, one could argue that much of the United States is perhaps starting down a more sustainable path...excluding businesses that had unfortunately had to permanently close; and excluding situations where remote or hybrid schooling is not a viable option for parents or children.
29:31
And again, the point of introducing the coronavirus as an example is to show what can happen when too simple of a message and too simple of a solution are conveyed without maintaining a clear and visible focus on what should be the long term sustainability of all stakeholders.
Now most of you listening are not in a position to dictate the coronavirus response of your local or state government or craft the sustainability strategy of a multinational energy company, as discussed earlier. But the same themes apply to the decisions you do have to make on a day-to-day basis.
And one of the best examples right now is for people who are in a state of career transition. And if you happen to be one of those people—and let's say you've been working in oil and gas for some number of years—you might be tempted to "keep it simple" and boil your decision down to some simple choices between holding out for a job in the oilfield or heading to another industry.
30:23
Or perhaps the simple choices between A) taking the first job that comes along or B) waiting for something that best aligns with your passions might seem productive. And perhaps boiling things down to intermediate choices like those might make sense. But the reality is that those simple decisions are not sustainable decisions unless they tie back to some deeper purpose, which needs to remain front and center.
30:45
Because none of those questions matter if you don't know what you're ultimately trying to sustain. Are you trying to sustain your connection to an industry you're already in that you have some affinity for? Are you trying to sustain a level of income that lets you keep your boat or sports car or whatever toys you enjoy? Are you trying to sustain some geographic stability?
31:04
And while answers to questions like those can help determine what you want out of your next job, what are you really trying to sustain? What are you really after? Is it the freedom to go to sleep each night without worrying about paying the bills? Is it the comfort of knowing that your family has access to food and shelter? Is it the purpose that makes you want to go to work each day because you know you're making a difference in the world?
31:27
I'd argue that those last three items are probably more important than the industry you're, in the exact amount of your paycheck, or where you happen to be living at any given point in time. And keeping your focus on those items will lead to far more sustainable results than leaning on the simpler questions about what industry you're in, the location you're at, or the ability to buy nice toys.
31:46
And the beauty of focusing on sustainability is that it opens your eyes to innovation. Whereas keeping it simple can prevent you from exploring hybrid paths like the ones I've decided to go down in my own career where I'm very much in the oil and gas industry, while at the same time growing something that's applicable in any industry.
32:03
And as with much of my career, I need to acknowledge how lucky I've been to get to this point. But I also need to recognize that it partially stems from asking how I could build a more sustainable life and not just focusing on simply paying the bills or replicating some of the simpler and easier options that may have been available to me over the years.
32:20
And as you scroll through LinkedIn, and as you're bombarded by catchy phrases and mantras and tips and tricks, you probably find that the posts that resonate the most—and that seem like they can have the most impact on your life at any given time—are often the simplest and shortest ones, right?
32:36
It's the 30 second motivational video that really gets your attention. It's the quote from some famous person that has you nodding your head and telling yourself how you're going to immediately apply his or her thoughts to your life. But how sustainable are those simple mantras and quotes and tips? How sustainable are one or two items that happened to catch your eye if you have to go back to your newsfeed each day and find new ones to get you excited?
32:59
The answer, of course, is that they're not sustainable. And if you're always searching for them, and if you're always finding them each and every day, well, again, they're probably not sustainable. And your approach is not sustainable. Because those are largely tips and tricks that might only impact your short-term actions. And, in most cases, you may not have even been looking for them—they just popped up because some algorithm thought you'd enjoy them.
33:20
But if you know what you're looking for, and if you keep that in mind as you go about your day or as you scroll through social media, you're going to start to filter out the "simple feel good stuff"—valuable as it might have seemed—and hone in on the sustainable things that will truly fuel your success.
33:37
And going back to a job hunt...if you feel like you're always picking up little tips to tweak your headline or your skill section or add some color to a cover letter, well, that's great! But are you going in with the higher level goal of "building a sustainable career" and not just "landing a good job?" Slight differences in words between "building a sustainable career" and "landing a good job," but a huge difference in meaning.
34:02
Landing a job is a simple goal. It might not be easy during times like these, but the goal is simple. And there are some simple ways to increase your odds of getting a job.
34:11
But I would argue that building a career is a sustainable goal and requires a sustainable mindset to make that happen. Yes, there are simple steps—like landing a job—that are necessary to build that career, but the more you can keep your mind focused on the sustainable objective and not the intermediate steps—and the more that sustainability comes across in the words your use and the interactions you have—the better off you'll be.
34:35
And—in addition to that—the more you focus on sustainable goals and not simple steps, the more likely it is that you'll discover or generate innovative solutions to your higher level problems.
34:46
And this is no different from my argument that leaders of corporations need to be careful not to over-focus on intermediate steps like embracing renewable energy or slowing the warming of the earth, but instead focus on the ultimate objective of improving the lives of humankind...while still figuring out a way to generate profits and maintain a viable business, of course.
35:06
And there are very real and tangible benefits for leaders who don't oversimplify their message. And the biggest of those is that it shows trust in your audience. And the more you trust your stakeholders—especially those emerging leaders who, if they're in a middle manager position, are tasked with translating your message to the rest of the organization—the more they and their teams will come up with better and more sustainable solutions.
35:30
And really, what I'm arguing is not just that oversimplifying and under-communicating problems and potential solutions can stifle innovation and generate unsustainable results. Rather, I'm arguing that when leaders are speaking to their stakeholders—and when you're speaking with yourself—if you are focused on a goal that is incomplete or intermediate, and that focus prevents you or others from remembering the ultimate objective, you have greatly reduced the odds of achieving sustainable success.
36:00
So with that in mind, today's final question to ask yourself is:
"How often am I operating with an oversimplified definition of ‘sustainability’ that causes me to focus on intermediate objectives while ignoring the potentially complex demands of my ultimate mission?"
36:18
And as you ponder that, please allow me, your grateful host Joe Sinnott, to thank you for taking the time to listen to today’s episode, especially those of you who are truly working to create a more sustainable world.
And for more information about today’s topic, or to learn about the work I do to help “fuel sustainable leaders,” simply visit theenergydetox.com.
And, until next time, please remember the words of the writer H.L. Mencken who said, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple…and wrong.”
Thanks again.