I don’t disagree with your view of historical inequities and unequal power sharing. I just think you’ve hijacked a different topic for an agenda you care about. I sincerely doubt that the Abundance authors would say “The Abundance Idea and no more” will solve our problems. They’re simply saying that we need to focus on outcomes more than process while embracing a clear vision that we can measure our progress towards. It’s fair if you were to say that their POV is not sufficient to tackle the social issues you care about. I would agree. But I believe that an abundance POV will help get us out of a zero sum game mindset and is one enabler of a better society I can get behind.
Thanks for this thoughtful perspective. I appreciate your point—and you’re right that the authors probably don’t believe Abundance and no more is the full solution. I’ve not heard much in their many interviews that suggests their stance on this point. My intent wasn’t to mischaracterize their argument, but to call attention to what their framing leaves structurally intact.
I agree that shifting out of a zero-sum mindset is powerful. But I worry that focusing on “outcomes over process,” without reckoning with who controls those outcomes—or how they’ve historically been distributed—risks reinforcing the very inequities that abundance seeks to overcome. If we don’t talk about power, then we risk producing more—but not necessarily sharing more, or healing more.
So I’m not against the abundance POV. I’m asking: for whom? And on whose terms? To me, that’s not hijacking the conversation—it’s trying to widen it.
I agree there is good reason to worry! :). The abuse of accountability without controls is a good chunk of what led the shift to process geekdom (starting in the 19th century). P.J. O’Rourke covered this brilliantly in The Death of Common Sense (one of the few things I agree with him about, other than his humor). However …
I’m not a government expert but come from a business and NGO background. In both, things get done by focusing on goals/outcomes and holding people accountable. That accountability includes transparency on the tradeoffs that are often made or risks taken to accomplish the goals. What leadership does NOT focus on is process/how the objectives are to be met. That’s called micromanagement and universally understood as designed to stop work in its tracks. I don’t think that there should be zero process control in Gov, but agree with The Abundance sense that we’ve gone WAY TOO FAR down that path.
For your worries about social justice or other indirect goals of a government initiative, I’d argue that the focus should be on making sure that the goals are clear, that the broad based guidelines on rules of the road including are explicit, that transparency is excellent, and that accountability is well understood.
I don’t disagree with your view of historical inequities and unequal power sharing. I just think you’ve hijacked a different topic for an agenda you care about. I sincerely doubt that the Abundance authors would say “The Abundance Idea and no more” will solve our problems. They’re simply saying that we need to focus on outcomes more than process while embracing a clear vision that we can measure our progress towards. It’s fair if you were to say that their POV is not sufficient to tackle the social issues you care about. I would agree. But I believe that an abundance POV will help get us out of a zero sum game mindset and is one enabler of a better society I can get behind.
Thanks for this thoughtful perspective. I appreciate your point—and you’re right that the authors probably don’t believe Abundance and no more is the full solution. I’ve not heard much in their many interviews that suggests their stance on this point. My intent wasn’t to mischaracterize their argument, but to call attention to what their framing leaves structurally intact.
I agree that shifting out of a zero-sum mindset is powerful. But I worry that focusing on “outcomes over process,” without reckoning with who controls those outcomes—or how they’ve historically been distributed—risks reinforcing the very inequities that abundance seeks to overcome. If we don’t talk about power, then we risk producing more—but not necessarily sharing more, or healing more.
So I’m not against the abundance POV. I’m asking: for whom? And on whose terms? To me, that’s not hijacking the conversation—it’s trying to widen it.
I agree there is good reason to worry! :). The abuse of accountability without controls is a good chunk of what led the shift to process geekdom (starting in the 19th century). P.J. O’Rourke covered this brilliantly in The Death of Common Sense (one of the few things I agree with him about, other than his humor). However …
I’m not a government expert but come from a business and NGO background. In both, things get done by focusing on goals/outcomes and holding people accountable. That accountability includes transparency on the tradeoffs that are often made or risks taken to accomplish the goals. What leadership does NOT focus on is process/how the objectives are to be met. That’s called micromanagement and universally understood as designed to stop work in its tracks. I don’t think that there should be zero process control in Gov, but agree with The Abundance sense that we’ve gone WAY TOO FAR down that path.
For your worries about social justice or other indirect goals of a government initiative, I’d argue that the focus should be on making sure that the goals are clear, that the broad based guidelines on rules of the road including are explicit, that transparency is excellent, and that accountability is well understood.