Obliquity: Why our goals are best achieved indirectly

Great book. A bit repetitive sometimes but the main points are well worth repeating and are supported by industry examples. The book forces the reader to think as to what is really important for companies and for individuals. This is not a self-help genre book with cheap hard-hitting simplistic advice that no one will follow. Rather, we are in a world, as Kay points out, which is "objectives [are] multidimensional, and in which the evolution of objectives, states and actions [are] mutually supportive" (p. 44). The direct route is simplistic and ignores the complex interactions in the ecosystem of objectives and actions. As such, it is best to go 'obliquely' in pursuit of important goals so the ecosystem is not altered drastically. Btw, 'obliquely' does not 'deviously'.

This is a very fine and elegant book about the limitations of supposedly rational, linear, reductive approaches (to business, markets, investing, architecture, poetry) in situations of complexity, and an argument in favour of sensemaking, reflection, experimentation, and mediation between objectives and possibilities. ‘To fit the world into a single model or narrative fails to acknowledge the universality of uncertainty and complexity.’ Erudite, entertaining, convincing. And beautiful writing.

A brief and affordable essay on how one cauld enter the frame of mind of how many apparently do think; and helpful in understanding how not to move temptingly and instinctively with the herd. Remeber how the vast herds of bison in early America were reduced to hundreds or the headlong migration of the Lemmings to oblivion?For all of us imbued with the daily mountains of conflicting information (often highly partial and at worst misleading) it provides an amusing sideswipe and a jolt to be less emotional and taken in, and indeed be more focussed on what is behind the economic headline. A thoroughly enjoyable read. Take this book up when the next "plebs" episode is twisted into the media and relax with this witty antidote! You will not be dissappointed.

As described. Delivered promptly.

Interesting.

You only need to read half the book as the second half is basically a repetition. However the message is good.

I still haven’t received my kindle book one month after purchase

A summary of the book in the telegraph co uk gives tyou the main points, which are easy to understand. The book is basically milking it, adding a lot of unnecessary fluf. Yet it is a must read for those that insist that SMART goals are the way to go,.

I feel that some times it is a bit dense but talk about things that makes you think at that is awsome, not all books can do that.Talk about different aproaches at different situations based on historical events and present facts. IMHO it gives me some "scientifical" information about thoughts or feeling some time I had about how to attack compley goals.

O livro apresenta vários casos e estudos sobre como resultados podem ser atingidos de maneira indireta em diversos aspectos da vida. O autor sempre embasa seus argumentos com exemplos reais e pesquisas concretas. Nada de autoajuda ou opinião, o livro expõe fatos e traz reflexões sobre o abordagens utilizadas ao buscar atingir uma meta e as consequências causadas pelo processo escolhido podem não ser as desejadas.

How do people reach their objectives? Why are some more successful than others? Is there a secret to making money? To all these questions John Kay would answer in the negative. Those who succeed did not begin their journey to gain fame or money. They began it because they loved what they did. They had a higher purpose. From that purpose they derived direction. The most important element of learning was in the doing and the solutions to their problems were discovered without an initial design, They made it up as they went along. In fact Kay warns us to beware of those who claim to have the solution before they begin to solve the problem. He breaks people into two types, hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs know one thing really well while foxes know many little things. For the purposes of prediction, a hedgehog will have specific answers to complex problems which they will express with confidence. The fox will see more than one side to an issue and will hedge one way and another not inspiring confidence in the listener. Consequently, people are more likely to listen to the hedgehog while the fox is more likely to be right. Our need to know the outcome of out actions before we take them is a false one. We should accept ambiguity in our lives and pursue our goals without knowing the results of what we do because that's the more realistic interpretation of life. Not the other way round.

Merece la pena leer el libro. Contiene una gran cantidad de ejemplos de como un enfoque no directo puede ayudar a resolver los problemas.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. Being a student of complexity, I appreciated John Kay's thought provoking and academic discussion. I think the author strikes a balance between lucidly articulating the oblique approach in this book, as well as acknowledging there are more direct approaches to goal achievement that beome available in contained environments.The author does us a great service by describing the oblique approach well, and reminding us of many of the flaws of the direct approaches. The book is rather well written, succinct and has great ideas in it to consider.

Me encanta, un libro que te ayuda a pensar de una forma estrategica antes los problemas

A completely different approach to decision making and problem solving. Highly relevant to all aspects of life. Wish I had read it earlier.

Highlights totally original ways of thinking and strategizing. Awesome read for the beginners or seasoned CEOs. I offered it to a few friends.

Pocos libros se pueden leer y terminar con la sensación de que no le sobra ni una coma.Simplemente fantástico.

"Read this book." -- Nassim Taleb, author of the Black SwanThat's on the cover, and it's as succinct a review as possible. I would agree with Taleb. I'd have given this book five stars for its content, except that a couple of chapters seemed repetitive and unnecessary.Kay argues that the direct pursuit of a goal is often less likely to achieve its objectives than the indirect pursuit:- An airplane manufacturer seeking to make excellent airplanes is more likely to maximize shareholder value than an airplane manufacturer with "maximize shareholder value" as its driving principle- A pharmaceutical company seeking to serve humanity through its craft is more likely to succeed than one seeking to "maximize profits through drug manufacturing"These examples may seem obvious, and Kay perhaps spends too much time recounting them. The most valuable parts of the book, though, are his observations on the decision-making processes that lead otherwise world-class organizations to fall into these types of traps.His chapters along these lines are in the vein of Kanneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, Gardner and Tetlock's Superforecasting, and Silver's The Signal and the Noise. I would reach back much further and outside the world of business books to compare it to Bradford's A Better Guide than Reason -- one of the early formative books in my intellectual journey.In a nutshell, rationalism, ideology and dogmatism are frequently the enemies of good decision-making. Observation, experience, experimentation, and wisdom often prove much friendlier.Examples abound throughout. Read this book.

Being goal oriented is a popular virtue these days. There are innumerable websites promoting all sorts of methods to increase productivity, wealth, health, happiness, and so much more. The sometimes unstated, but more often over-stated, message of many of these resources is that we need to sit down, clearly define our goal, and march directly towards it.Our failure to achieve these goals is then attributed to our lack of focus, lack of drive, lack of persistence. But, what if our real failure is related to our attempt to achieve our goals directly? What if we shifted our focus away from our ultimate goals? Perhaps we would have better success in achieving them.This seemingly counter-intuitive idea is the subject of John Kay's very interesting book Obliquity. To see what he is getting at let's take a look at some examples of important goals best achieved indirectly.Happiness: Everyone is striving to be happy. But, studies have shown that the happiest people are the ones who are the least focused on this goal. Those who are most happy with their own lives tend to be ones focused on helping others to be happy. Or they are focused on achieving some other goal whether it be performing a task well, completing a project, raising a child, creating a piece of art. By focusing on other things they end up being happy. In fact, they end up happier than they would have been had happiness been their direct goal.Wealth: I have a few students every semester who tell me that their goal is to be wealthy. But, they are often dumbfounded when I point out that most wealthy people do not focus on becoming wealthy. Instead, they focus on doing something well, running a company, making a product, serving other people. They pursue these goals with drive and passion. Often with an obsessive rigor. As a result, they end up wealthy. As Kay points out, the most profitable companies are not profit driven.Social Order: One of the most intriguing passages in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations describes the possibility of arriving at social order by focusing on individual self-interest: "By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Leaders would do well to remember this insight as many of the problems created by leaders of companies and countries are the result of attempting to promote direct solutions to problems which would be better solved by indirect solutions.To understand these examples we have to be willing to recognize the limits of our own knowledge, the biases in our own thinking, and the possibility that these too can be overcome not directly but by being indirectly addressed. Direct solutions work well on straightforward problems where all the information needed is known. But, in a world where individual knowledge is often incomplete and imperfect our best recourse is to oblique solutions.The ultimate example of obliquity is the example of the diversity of life that is all around us and how that diversity arose. In formulating the theory of evolution through natural selection, both Darwin and Wallace recognized the insight that this diversity was driven indirectly. Order could result from disorderly processes working with a healthy dose of randomness. This theory still confounds many today precisely because it is based on the insight that obliquity is a powerful force at work in the world.We need to embrace the insight and the uncertainty that comes with it. If you're concerned about your own happiness, your own wealth, your own success, your own love life, try focusing on something else. Try helping someone else. Try serving others in some useful way. And, without intending it you will achieve your goals. Indirectly with obliquity.

The Dickinson quotation suggests -- as does the subtitle of John Kay's book -- that there are situations in which goals are best achieved indirectly. I agree with him: "If people are predictably irrational, perhaps they are not irrational at all. Perhaps the fault lies not with the world but with our concept of irrationality. Perhaps we should think differently about how we really make decisions and solve problems. Perhaps we should recognize the obliquity, and inevitability, of obliquity." In fact, why be oblique on this point? We SHOULD re-think how we think...we SHOULD recognize what we have previously missed or ignored.This is precisely what Kay has in mind when observing, "An oblique approach recognizes that what we want from a home, or a community, has many elements. We will never succeed in fully specifying what they are, and to the extent that we do, we discover that they are often incompatible and inconsistent." This is one of his most important points: There are specific limits to what a direct approach can resolve; however, if there is a complicated question to answer, a complicated problem to solve, or a complicated task to completed, only an oblique approach can succeed. Moreover, with rare exception, several persons must be involved. The approach must be oblique because the process will be one of continuous discovery and adaptation, application and modification, etc.Consider the great teams in history such as the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, the animators who produced a series of classics such as Snow White and Bambi, and the engineers employed by Lockheed at its Skunk Works. All of the members of a team know more, can do more, and do it better than any one member can. Here's what Kay has to say about all this: "Obliquity is the best approach whenever complex systems evolve in an uncertain environment and whenever the effect of our actions depends on the way in which others respond to them...Directness is only appropriate when the environment is stable, objectives are one-dimensional and transparent and it is possible to determine when and whether goals have been achieved. The word of politics and business today is afflicted by many hedgehogs, men and women who mistakenly believe the world is like that." Oh that it were.Kay clearly explains the "what" of obliquity but devotes most of his attention to WHY and/or HOW. More specifically,In Part One:o How the happiest people do not pursue happinesso The most profitable companies are not the most profit orientedo The wealthiest people are not the most materialistico The means help us to discover the endso Obliquity is relevant to many aspects of our livesIn Part Two:o Oblique approaches succeedo There is usually more than one answer to a problemo The Outcome of what we do depends on how we do ito The world is too complex for directness to be directo We rarely know enough about the nature of our problemso Models are imperfectIn Part Three:o We mistakenly infer design from the outcomeo We have less freedom of choice than we thinko Decision makers recognize the limits of their knowledgeo Adaptation is smarter than we areo We know more than we can tello Complex outcomes are achieved without knowledge of an overall purposeo It is more important to be right than to be consistento Spurious rationality is often confused with good decision makingThe development of the concepts in this book followed an oblique path from drafts that resulted in an article published in the Financial Times (January 17, 2004). The process continued during John Kay's subsequent journey of continuous discovery and adaptation, application and modification, etc. The result is this book, first published in 2010. No brief commentary such as mine can possibly do full justice to the quality of information, insights, and counsel he provides but I hope that I have at least indicated why I think so highly of Obliquity. If you want to put some white caps on your gray matter, look no further.

Powerful and insightful, Kay uses (sometimes repetitive) business examples, but the principle of obliquity applies in almost every aspect of personal and public life. The idea is paradoxical - you find things by looking somewhere else? But it's also true: The companies that succeed and last are not the ones that maximize profit constantly, but rather the ones that constantly improve their products and services, the ones that really care about their customers, that take pride in good work. In the long run (and often in the short run, too), you best achieve the big public goals by tending to the important, private, personal goals. The philosophical style is sometimes tough reading, but by the end, you've been given a new and useful way of looking at every aspect of life.

Obliquity refutes the idea that complex systems can be understood in enough detail to be actively managed no matter what the experts say. John Kay's point concentrates on the folly of control and the hubris of those who believe that they can directly architect, direct and dictate changes to achieve their goals.Obliquity rests on the argument that the world is too complex, dynamic and ever changing to control in the way that most business leaders think. Leaders want direct action - raise profits, or enter new markets - that are often lead to failure for the simple reason that they are too direct. In place of directly pursuing goals, Kay recommends leaders choose to obliquity.Obliquity describes the process of achieving complex objectives indirectly. Things cannot be understood well enough or remain stable long enough for a direct plan to work. The central idea of the book can be summed up"If you are clear about your high-level goals and knowledgeable enough about the systems their achievement depends on, then you can solve problems in a direct way. But goals are often vague, interactions unpredictable, complex extensive, problem descriptions incomplete, the environment uncertain. That is where obliquity comes into play."Kay's book concentrates on discussing the different aspects of an indirect approach and the relative inability of pre-planned and controlled solutions to lead to results. Kay covers different aspects of this issue through a series of focused chapters. The discussion tends toward an academic view. Because of this, I would recommend reading the book a particular way:Chapter 1 -- Obliquity - why are objectives are often best pursued directly.Chapter 18 - Order without designChapter 19 - Very well then, I contradict myselfChapter 20 - Dodgy dossiersThen I would read the book from chapter 2 through chapter 17.The book positions itself as a business book, but it is more of a study and observations concerning the nature of managing in an environment of complex systems. This book is in the vain of Nicholas Taleb's "Black Swan." Business readers will find the material indirect and presented in a way that requires greater reflection before it can be put into practice.Overall this book is recommended for readers who want to study the nature of action, ideas and complex systems. Readers who favor a discussion based and thought-based argument will find this book appealing. Less so for people who are looking for new ideas on how to lead and reach goals in a complex environment.Strengths> Obliquity and the idea that goals in a complex world are best achieved indirectly are interesting and thought provoking. Kay's presentation and argument of these points in straight forward language and examples. He covers a range of topics and angles concerning this central idea.> The connection between the type and level of complexity we face in the modern world and the ways in which we pursue goals was helpful at helping to redefine the fundamentals of leadership and action.> Franklin's Gambit was a plus and gave me a new tool to think about what is going on and why things are shaping up a particular way.> Kay's use of architecture as an example was refreshing. His point is that direct approaches and master planning can lead to cities and buildings that look great on paper, but are basically unlivable. He points to planned cities like Brasilia, but I have experienced the same in Canberra as well as Capitol Hill area in Washington. They look great on paper, but nobody actually `lives' there, rather they live in the near suburbs that emerged rather than being planned.Challenges> Kay's analysis and conclusions are qualitative and self evident in nature. He makes his argument by amassing examples where the `direct' approach has failed and lays them against descriptions where leaders were supposedly indirect. These positive examples are explained soley in the context of obliquity without attributing the leaders behavior to any other idea, motivation or context. An example is his discussion of FDR and the New Deal, which he sees as obliquity. However, looking at the initiatives in the New Deal you find direct goals and objectives. Sure there are multiple initiatives, not all of them worked, but they were hardly indirect.> Kay's argument falls down quite easily with a simple question and idea. The question, posed to one practicing obliquity is "why?" and the idea is that a complex world requires a more complex approach to leadership than simply charging up a hill. The answer to why these goals would elicit a direct response. Such a response turns obliquity from a concept of problem solving and leadership into the observation that complexity requires multi-part goals. Something that is far less revolutionary.> The idea that a complex world requires multiple, flexible and adaptive leadership is not new and by wrapping that simple idea into an academic term - obliquity - he separates some helpful advice from an audience that needs it most.Overall the book's title, term, idea and concepts promise more than they deliver, particularly for readers who are looking for new tools, techniques and ways of thinking about the world and how you lead in it. The observation that complexity and dynamism undermine command and control is important. As is the answer o purusing multiple adaptive plans that require leaders to add and subtract based on experience and progress. Those are helpful, but the book's approach and tone is too academic, too removed from managers to either directly or indirectly deliver on its promise.If you are a student of complexity, if you enjoy a thought provoking and academic discussion, then you will find value in this book and enjoy it. If you are a manager looking to get tools, techniques, approaches you can use, then you will find this book wanting.The author would argue that seeking such direct things as tools is a weak approach that is bound to fail and rather what is required is a new philosophy of problem solving. He would be right, but you cannot address an issue without taking action and this book needed more support for how you act, even indirectly to achieve goals in a complex world.

If you've experienced the bagging feeling often in your life, that a decision or course of action should be right but doesn't feel right, or just doesn't turn out as you expect, Obliquity could be a way to understand big only what happened but why it will happen again and again. This approach fits with other related developments in thinking and deciding e.g. Rita McGrath's work on transient competitive advantage and discovery based learning. It's also an easy quick read to leave you with lots to ponder..