Surfing the brink of chaos
Home > Leadership, Methods, Theory of Knowledge > The Secret of Success?

The Secret of Success?

February 6th, 2010 marc Leave a comment Go to comments

marc_samuraiThis post is a bit rocky and I have vacillated between whether to delete or not-to-delete. Since my blogging policy is to never delete (”The moving hand having writ, moves on..”), I will let it stand but I ask that you please read the comments accompanying this post, which may or may not help matters. If you use my secret of success, be aware  that I make no warranty, express or implied, that your results will be any better than those realized through random chance. Special thanks to John Dowd for thinking on this.

Today I am going to tell you the secret of success. When I say success, I mean the process of acquiring wealth, power, and influence that exceeds by orders of magnitude, that of mere mortals. Successful people are the top dogs that dominate the crowd and, because of their domination, they are often described as “leaders”, though that attribution is debatable. They are the corporate executives, politicians, financiers, gamblers, pundits and preachers who seem to end up running the show wherever the show is being run.

crewOver the course of my 30 year career as a business consultant I have rubbed shoulders with quite a few successful people. For most of that time, my relationship with these individuals was, as they say, strictly business. My knowledge of them was limited to the workplace. Although no one who knows me would ever accuse me of being obsequious, my relation with power tended to be one  in which I tolerated and even cultivated, a foggy subservience to those who retained me and signed my paychecks. To put it quite bluntly, my job was to give advice, but never to the extent that the advice given would  jeopardize my survival. I reasoned, as a favorite professor advised  many years ago, you can’t influence the system if you are cast out from that system. You also can’t pay the rent.

Everything changed in 2004. That was the year that I returned from an momentous six-year sailing hiatus that took me and my family halfway around the world and back again. I returned from my voyage to find my career as a business consultant, kaput. Deming was dead and the world was run amuck in financial wheeling and dealing. The few who had taken an interest in what I had to offer as a “Deming” consultant had evolved with the changing times and the promise of greener, more profitable, pastures.

After a good deal of struggle to resurrect my consultancy, I started up a side business as a sailboat captain. I became in effect, a consultant to those interested in seafaring and among my new sailing clients were a number of very successful people. Interestingly, the advice to be given and the lessons to be learned in the sailing enterprise are remarkably similar to those that apply to business enterprise. The only real difference was that in the high stakes game of offshore sailing, the bottom line is survival rather than profit.

At sea I could no longer restrict my relation with my clients to “the workplace” because at sea, everwhere is the workplace. With lives on the line, the fog of subservience that I embraced as a business consultant was no longer tolerable or possible. As a seafaring consultant, I had to deal with my clients as whole persons and this is how I came face to face with the secret of successful people.

The secret of being successful—in acquiring disproportionate wealth, power, and influence—-is opacity. Opacity is a quality that some people seem to be born with, as in case of Asperger’s syndrome, but far more people actually cultivate through careful study, training, and practice. Depending on how you look at it, opacity is either an ability or disability that effectively masks from others, one’s thoughts and feelings.

In any collaborative enterprise, people’s efforts at moving forward depend on transparent signaling between the members of the group. This transparency is what makes it possible for people to synchronize their actions through shared aims and methods. The role of leadership is to facilitate  the sharing of aims and methods in order to effectively focus the actions of an  enterprising group . The activity of sailing, in which everyone’s life depends on working together as a synchronous whole, provides one of the clearest examples of this phenomenon.

Transparency is at the core of what we think of as being human. It produces a symmetry of information in which people become able to make reasonable and responsibe predictions and decisions and direct their actions in concert with others. In a very real sense, symmetry places everyone on an equal footing. But what happens if a person is opaque? What if we cannot read his or her aims, intentions, and methods? When that happens, there is an asymmetry of information that makes the interaction between those who are transparent and those who are opaque, unpredictable. In other words, if I understand your aims and methods but you are unable to understand my aims and methods, I have an advantage over you. I can predict what you will do but you cannot predict what I will do. I can exploit your lack of knowledge to my advantage and that will allow me to become disproportionately wealthy, powerful, and influential.

masksAt sea, opacity is a recipe for death. When the sh_t hits the fan, and it is always does, the ability of a crew to achieve information symmetry is crucial to survival. In teaching sailing to “successful” people, I consistently observed that they were unable to work toward that symmetry. They always held an ace in the hole. They always tried to retain some asymmetrical advantage as demonstrated in this story.

In retrospect, it has become clear to me that the opacity of successful people I observed in sailing has been true of all my relationships with successful people. I have come to understand that throughout my years of consulting, I embraced a foggy relationship between myself and my clients in tacit complicity with the asymmetry that enabled their advantage. Did the opacity of success serve the enterprise I was hired to help? I think not. The opacity of success contributed little to the success of the enterprise as a whole, though it served the successful individual very well.

Now you may say, “Hey, I know successful people who are not opaque”, to which I will respond that although some few may be successful through pure blind luck, most are indeed, skilled at opacity. Your belief that they are not opaque, is a testament to just how skilled they are at masking their aims and methods. They control the signals they send to such a degree, they you are unable to see in them, the qualities that are common to all. (Or maybe they just have Asperger’s syndrome.)

So, if you want to be successful, as defined above, cultivate opacity with the aim to produce an asymmetry of information between yourself and others. It doesn’t really matter what masks you chose to wear—impassive, genial, sage, clown or tyrant. All that matters is that your aims and intentions be opaque to others. Although intelligence, hard work, and great ideas can produce some modest success relative to others, such meritorious qualities cannot prevail over opacity. Opacity is the way to gain the decisive edge.

Study Questions

1. What are lessons we teach our children at home and school about being opaque?

2. What lessons do our children actually learn about being opaque?

3. What would happen if everyone were to become extremely skilled in opacity?

(Now that you know the secret of success, send some of your newly acquired wealth to me in recognition of my divulging the secret. Make cashier’s check payable to “Three Sigma Systems”.

  1. John Dowd
    February 7th, 2010 at 05:27 | #1

    Enclosed find my check.

    I think you are close with this, but not quite there. I’ll give it some thought. Often, hiding is a manifestation of insecurity or fear (which might also explain risk-averse behavior).

    BTW the idea that if one seems to be not opaque it is becuase they are skilled at being so opaque has a worrisome circularity to it. “You are in Denial.” “No I’m not.” “See??”
    A kind of existential ‘no exit.’

  2. February 7th, 2010 at 17:27 | #2

    John, thanks for the check!

    I agree with you. This post troubled me as I wrote it and even more so in re-reading it. Even though it is against my personal “blogging” policy, I have been very tempted to hit the delete button. Still, as you note, there is something in this post that is “close” and it might at least provide a stepping stone to something better.

    I am trying to get at the idea that to be human involves a process of generating signals that allow others to shape their behavior so that we can work in concert. Deming’s orchestra example comes to mind. The whole of concerted behavior can become greater than the sum of the parts only IF the signaling between the actors tends toward greater congruency. To my mind therefore, greater congruency of signaling is the aim of the system by which we communicate. If we intentionally misdirect OR unintentionally distort the signals we put out, we sub-optimize the performance of the whole and the interaction losses effectiveness. In my mind, this aspect of the post seems to work pretty well.

    Now, I have observed that “successful people”, like poker players, seem to be very adept at managing the signals they send. (This trait may be a function of genetics and/or skill). And I start wondering if my lack of skill in interpreting their signals reflects a deficit in my “signal receiver” or is the signal being intentionally or unintentionally distorted at the transmitter? I know that in the case of various disabilities such as Autism and Schizophrenia, the distortion is at the transmitter, but what about “successful people”?

    Of course, no signaling can be perfect. There is always distortion to a greater or lesser degree, and this really confounds the argument I make in the post. First, we must decide if we agree that the aim of the human system for signaling (communication) is indeed, greater congruency of meaning. Second, we must try to understand to what degree the efficacy of signaling varies within that system. Third, we must try to determine the characteristics of in-system signaling and signaling that represents “special cause” and therefore makes the system less predictable.

    Special cause signaling increases the asymmetry of information in group action, which is counter to the aim of the system that I have put forth. This makes the system of group action less predictable. In other words, the things we set out to do in concerted action (in shared theory and method) become less efficacious. When special cause is injected into the system because the aims of an individual actor in the system are different than the aims of the group, concerted action is undermined even though the aims of the agent of special cause may be served.

    Clearly my thesis in the post has a lot of problems, but the systems view it represents should provide grist for thought.

    Is individual “success” most usefully viewed as a product of the system or as a product of special cause”?
    Does opacity produce “success” or does “success” produce opacity?
    Is opacity best viewed as a key process variable in the system or is it a special cause?
    In what ways can “success” (as defined) be produced under conditions of information symmetry.

    NOTE: These questions also go to the heart of the circularity you mention regarding opacity that is too opaque to be recognized.

  3. February 9th, 2010 at 05:54 | #3

    Hi Marc,
    as you mention in your example of the poker players, opacity is a “rule of the game” in a system where only one party can win at the expense of another. Anyone mastering this rule better than others will be more successful in this system. Recently FT published reports about Wallstreet companies hiring preferably professional poker players with at least 10 years of success.

    The other point here is, that opacity is learned early during socialization and is a habit, a point of distinction between different social strata and of social reproduction, common understanding and style of certain strata as Bourdieu pointed out in “La Distinction”. So it is hard to decipher and to imitate for anyone outside that class.

  4. February 9th, 2010 at 15:07 | #4

    Paul,
    Thanks for giving the post some “legs”! Your mention of class and early socialization resonates powerfully. It makes sense that a European would see this much more clearly than an American. It makes me, an American, think about the process of “professionalization” among medical, legal, and religious elites who are trained in wearing certain kinds of masks. Once again, opacity places the layperson at a disadvantage.

    I think opacity may not be the sole key to “success”, but it is a very important component.

  1. February 8th, 2010 at 21:30 | #1