The author uses the discussion of Rawlsian theory of justice as fairness to set the tone and table for Chapter 3 of f Development as Freedom by Amartya Sen. The theory “describes a society of free citizens holding equal basic rights and cooperating within an egalitarian economic system” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/). When reading an important and complex book such as Development As Freedom you need to do some side research to fill in some knowledge gaps – I had never read Rawls during my days of reading economics. Rawls suggests that fairness and equality enable individuals to pursue and apply their capabilities based on their choices. Sen defines justice as “the ability of individuals to achieve the lives they have reason to value, focusing on their “capabilities” rather than just their resources or outcomes, essentially prioritizing the freedom to choose and act upon one’s life choices.” This is known as the Capability Approach. The combination of Rawls and Sen’s Capability Approach fits nicely with the approach most Enterprise Transformation Coaches adopt (at least in theory).
The downside to Rawls is determining how to evaluate justice and its impact on freedom is difficult. Words like justice, fairness, and freedom are difficult to arrive at a common definition within a country, organization, or team. The difficulty is compounded when looking for a common set of measures. I spent a substantial portion of my career as a measurement specialist in software development. Working with Capers Jones, David Herron, Gail Flaherty, and others we did some phenomenal work. One of the knee-jerk reactions we encountered when commonly defined measures were in short supply was a push to narrow the focus of the evaluation. As Sen points out, focusing on any aspect of freedoms, such as just justice, makes it difficult to have a holistic view. Setting policy based on that evaluation causes distortions. In this case of freedom and its impact on development, the same is true when measuring software development and maintenance. Sen argues that when we should focus on evaluating the capabilities needed to do things that a person has reason to value. Assessing the capabilities that lead to an outcome provides a better tool for understanding freedom, justice, and development. The same is true for productivity, agility, or other complex systems. Measuring the outcome is great but that does not tell you how you got there.
This Chapter was a huge reminder that in any evaluation or measurement problem, deciding which types of data to include and exclude has a HUGE impact on the informational content of the analysis.
Another of the evaluation concepts in the chapter that struck me was the overview of the utilitarian approach to evaluation. This approach has three components. The first is “consequentialism” (Listen to SPaMCAST 847 for a deeper dive into this topic). This means that all choices must be judged by their consequences (the results they generate). The ends are what is important rather than the means. The second is “welfarism.” Welfarism “restricts the judgments of a state to the utilities (think: value) of the state. The evaluation occurs paying no direct attention to such things as the “fulfillment or violation of rights, duties, and so on”. This part of the utilitarian approach judges situations solely based on how much overall happiness or well-being they generate, regardless of whether anyone’s rights are violated or duties neglected. Again the ends justify the means without regard to any “extraneous” consequences that aren’t important to the “end”. The third component is a sum ranking. All the utilities of a group are added together to establish their merit. This is a maximization function, distribution, and individual utilities are ignored. The utilitarian approach attaches no intrinsic importance to claims of rights and freedoms. Evaluating a transformation or process improvement using this approach ignores the people part of agile (recall the first of the Four Agile Values) meaning you are in the dark on which capabilities deliver any outcome. If capabilities are unknown or at best inferred how can you replicate results? This is a common fallacy that consultants and pundits who only see an outcome are prone to evoke.
Because the utilitarian approach attaches no “intrinsic importance to claims of rights and freedoms”, the unintended consequence is that rights and freedoms will be ignored. That might be too tepid of a statement given the visual evidence of early 2023 (we will return to this topic when we drive through Libertarian ideas in a later chapter). In discussing the utilitarian approach with a colleague, they suggested that focusing on an outcome provided a clear goal. Knowing my study of Stoicism, they quoted Seneca, “If a man knows not to which port he sails, no wind is favorable.” Unfortunately, unless you understand that the wind powers the boat no goal matters because you will not know how to navigate. This brings us back to the need to understand capabilities generated by rights and freedoms.
An alternate extrapolation of the idea that the goal is the only thing that matters is that if you control the definition of the goal you can control behavior. Sen suggests, “Our desires and pleasure-taking abilities adjust to circumstances.” Owning the goal allows the owner to sway behavior by using conditioning to change perceptions and attitudes. This is why owning the message is critical when guiding behavior in a transformation process. In the bigger picture, this is why controlling the media is important for demagogues.
Sen’s capability approach can be evaluated by evaluating a person’s capabilities or by understanding the opportunities available (what a person is free to do). The two views differ in approach; the first evaluates what a person does, while the second evaluates what a person is free to do. Evaluations using both approaches have some interesting informational value. While both provide a view of the constraints that generate an outcome, the difference provides a view into an opportunity gap.
At a team or organization level, understanding what is causing the opportunity gap provides data on how to close the gap and therefore change behavior. How people behave is a primary determinant of culture. At a higher level (region, state, or country) evaluation is still important however understanding and change are more difficult owing to several factors. Sen identifies four categories:
1) Personal heterogeneities
2) Environmental diversities
3) Variations in social climate
4) Differences in relational perspectives
When evaluating change within an organization many of these categories show less variability due to the organizational footprint. Exceptions are multinational organizations. The big “however” is that all four categories are in play, and all coaches evaluate previous performance based on each category or risk trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
In a historical summary of why capabilities are important, we can point to a quote from Adam Smith, “the ability to appear in public without shame.” This refers to the capability to participate in public life without feeling humiliated or embarrassed due to their appearance. A capability that does not fit neatly into utilitarian views but supports Sen’s Capability Approach.
Next Poverty as Capability Deprivation
Previous installments of Development as Freedom by Amartya Sen:
Week 1: Context and Logistics
Week 2: Introduction and Preface
Week 3: The Perspective of Freedom
Leave a Comment