Obliquity: Why Our Goals Are Best Achieved Indirectly

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.

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.

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'.

Really well written! The author makes the subject easily accessible to a wide range of audience. I think it is an essential read for anyone who works in a corporate environment to understand some of the arguments presented in this book behind some of the established business mindsets and how outdated they can be. Also for those who are interested in agile ways of working, this book complements really well.

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.

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.

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