The Bear Trap That Looks Like a Cookie: The Seduction of Goal Setting Part 2 - The Several Faces of Motivation

I am listening to the rock group, Journey and the song What it Takes To Win, from the album Revelation. This song is best played loud and with lots of bass. Daniel and I enjoy this song. Daniel and Ian and I have spent much time over the years in the mountains and deserts of Utah and Idaho hiking, rock climbing, mountaineering and camping. This song reminds me of how we approached some of the trails we hiked together. Some trails were vicious, hiking at altitude or in  the oven of Utah deserts. We did it to see unimaginable vistas. Deserts that are brutally beautiful. And to prove to ourselves and each other that we could do it.

             The song reminds me of some of the goal setting sessions I have been involved in over the years. If you get the chance, listen to it and see if it reminds you of some of your experiences, either in the outdoors or the office. Sometimes the goals and goal setting process we experience and endure in our employment may seem like the hiking experiences with my boys or like parts of this song. The song should be played loud to feel the rhythm and beat which complements the majesty around you (mountain or manager). If you are picturing a work situation, the song and lyrics can also block out voices of reason and moderation, especially when played loud. Picture in your mind a strong drum beat with bass guitar in the background playing strong, straight cords. The lead guitar plays a straightforward cord repetition supported by the base drum on the down beat. The lead vocalist sings with a strong voice and supporting vocals add depth on the chorus.  “Will you look in their eyes. They want you gone, they want the prize. When day is done, risk it all. One will stand, and one will fall “. Is your manager one of those that treats everything like a game, competition or battle, “With a hunger that never ends. When you want to prove. You are the best that’s ever been”. Your performance is based on your ability to make the goal. “ Seal the Deal. Get it done. Earn the right to say you have won.” The goal is the thing, it is bigger than you, than anything else. You are there to make the goal. “Stand your ground. Stay in the zone, now do not back down. More than pride. Your depend. Fighting hard ‘til the very end”. At the end of the day the numbers are the measure of success. Either you stand proud in the sunshine on the summit of success or wallow in the shadows of the valley of failure. Does this describe your goals and goal setting experience? This method and message occasionally works, such as on the sports field.

             The process of goal setting is fraught with potential bear traps. Goals can be too specific. One type of too specific goal is the narrow focus goal. People tend to concentrate on the thing which is emphasized and too narrow a focus leads to problems. The siren song is that narrow focus goals are easier to measure and establish, which is usually correct. The problems compound when the narrow focus goal limits important interactions outside the goal’s parameters. People tend not to look beyond the goal especially when it is being heavy emphasized (think the drum beat). Goals will naturally limit view and vision in an organization. The larger or bigger picture can be easily lost or subverted by narrow focus goals. Even worse, wrong, poorly thought out or poorly monitored goals can cause considerable damage and lead to poor results or unethical behavior through the process of omission.

             An additional problem of too specific a goal is when many specific goals are used to define the overall aim of the company or department. The goals may be related to each other or they may not. It is tough to multi-task or monitor many goals, specific or otherwise. Quality will be sacrificed as individuals try to cover all the goals or conversely people will emphasize one or two perceived higher value goals and ignore or apply minimal efforts to the rest. Individuals may assign a high priority to goals that, from the company standpoint, are not considered such. The individual will try to maximize their reward be it money, time or prestige.  Additionally, it is easier to measure quantity then quality. Quantity goals will likely get more attention then quality goals.

             Tied up in all this is the problem of what is known as inappropriate time horizons for goals. Short term goals generate returns and recognition to the individual sooner than long term goals. Immediate performance rewards focus efforts in the here and now to the detriment of the long run. Goals may be perceived as ceilings (maximum effort needed) rather than floors (minimum effort required). People may want to take a break, relax, rest or pause at completion of a goal. There may have been substantial energy, overtime or sacrifice involved in reaching a goal. Or as in the example of the sales person who reaches his sales goal earlier in the month, takes a couple of days off to play golf before he has to get started on the next month’s goal.

             Too many goals which may contain long and short term and quantity and quality requirements will tend to lead to the short term, quantity goals being completed. This will likely lead to results different than envisioned by the goal setting person. The manager may have been trying to generate a well rounded effort which will not be reached. This is very visible in public companies which have to juggle increasing short term shareholder growth as shown by quarterly profits (short term quantity goals) and  increasing the company net worth (long term quality goals).

             Goals can harm motivation. They can become a means unto themselves or their own reward. Managers generally overvalue and overuse goals, especially when goals are used as strictly a motivational tool (as opposed to team building, for example). Simple or poorly conceived goals can become a cop-out for managers who are not willing to properly construct and monitor goals. An extreme situation might be where a manager gives the challenging goal to increase the district’s revenue by 15% this quarter. Further, he tells you he is giving you a “free reign” to reach the goal. He wants you to use your initiative and solve his problem. It is one thing to consult employees in goal setting but quite another to require the employee to create the goal. Having employees set non-supervised goals may lead to goals that are in their best interest, not the company. Without some goal setting training the process of goal setting is a sham. Poor managers blame the employees when they themselves are to blame.

             In conclusion, it is easier to create problems than solve problems through goals and goal setting. Too narrow a focus goals, quantity vs. quality goals, inappropriate time horizons all lead to poor or destructive goals. The question becomes, is a particular goal really helping or hurting, reaching the desired outcome or missing the target. It is neither an easy nor straightforward process to create well crafted goals regardless of what you hear or are told.

 

 

The Bear Trap That Looks Like a Cookie: The Seduction of Goal Setting - Introduction (Part 1)

At the beginning of this new year I want to review the idea of goal setting. I am familiar with personal goals and the need to establish things to do and ways to try and improve. However, I will sound the call to watch and be mindful of goal setting. This is particularly true in business and employment settings.

            One of the problems of any business is how to motivate employees. The possible solutions can be land mines or cornucopias. Over the next few weeks I will briefly explore the nature of goal setting, one of the main methods of inspiring or damaging employees and the business itself. This blog will explore the problems of goal setting that I believe are not properly considered when goals are established to motivate and direct employee efforts. I am using as the basis for and drawing heavily on in this and subsequent blogs personal experiences, current news articles, and the article, Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Prescribing Goal Setting by Lisa D. Ordonez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D. Galinsky and Max H. Baxerman. Originally available from the Harvard Business School as Working Paper 09-083. (HBS paper) I recommend that anyone interested in beginning to understand the problems of goal setting read the entire article, it is not particularly long.

           Goal setting is used extensively in business to motivate and inspire employees to increase their contributions to a business or business unit. The idea is to give employees something to work toward, shoot for, strive to reach or expand their ability to generate some predetermined results for the company. The manager or HR group setting the goals may expect the goals to create better or improved results for the company or improve the individual but that is not a guaranteed outcome of the goals or may not even be a reasonable outcome depending on the type of goals. The authors of the above listed paper make a very strong case that one can not assume positive results from goal setting. In fact, they suggest it may be quite difficult to get really positive results without significant effort and considerable monitoring of the goal setting process and constant review. I wish to suggest it may be easier to get negative results than good solid returns. The authors suggestion is goal setting be used sparingly.

           The authors suggest that goals can negatively impact the company in one or more of five areas. Goal setting can create a narrow focus that harmfully impacts non-goal areas. Goal setting can create an environment that fosters unethical behavior; involving the individual, the company and the goals themselves. Depending on how goals are structured, they can lead to distorted risk preferences. Goals can create situations that cause employees to take harmful risks to the company. Goals can also undermine an organization’s culture by causing employees to ignore or circumvent company mission statements and underlying values. And finally, poorly thought out (or even well thought out and poorly executed) goals can reduce natural motivation. Goals do not need to be poorly constructed, ambiguous or incomplete to cause problems. Well structured and well thought out goals can cause unintended consequences. The interaction of individual initiative, team objectives or personal goals can impact company goals and create unexpected situations. Goals and goal setting is a complicated process that is fraught with pits and traps for the unwary manager and should not be treated lightly or without considerable thought. Adding to the problem is many managers or team leaders who are required to create or set goals for individuals, teams, divisions or even company wide have not received any type of training that would help them create good goals or avoid the pitfalls inherent in goal setting. Managers or upper management that require others to create and set goals without training, instruction and guidelines are creating a serious problem. The manager who says you or your team needs to increase revenue by 50% without additional guidance, direction, instruction and assistance is setting you up to fail, trying to protect themselves with vague or unrealistic expectations, dislikes you and wants to get rid of you, doesn’t understand his job (or yours) is just plain not very bright, is creating a cop-out for himself or all of the above. It shows poorly on the manager and the organization.

           There are some organizations and subsets of organizations that are very successful with goal setting. Yet we see many team leaders, managers and companies set goals that create significant problems and who knows how may goals are just ineffective or wasteful and some are very destructive. I am referring to Wells Fargo and their recent debacle involving fraudulently opened banking accounts and signing customers up for unrequested services. (See The New York Times news article; Wells Fargo Fined $185 Million for Fraudulently Opening Accounts, September 8, 2016 by Michael Corkery). Wells Fargo Bank’s problems can be traced back to goals and goal setting problems. I don’t believe the problems are yet over for the bank. It has cost John Stumpf his job and many feel that there should be additional and stronger penalties against not only Stumpf but the bank and other management members too. Wells Fargo disclosed in its standard regulatory filings that the SEC was investigating its sales practices. It also stated that there were “formal and informal inquires, investigations and examinations” being conducted by U.S. Department of Justice, congressional committees, the SEC (as stated above), California state prosecutors and attorneys general. Banks do not want attention from regulatory agencies and like very quiet, low profiles. Wells Fargo is anything but quiet or low key at this time.

           Subsequent posts will go into some specific aspects of goal setting and the problems that can be generated. I will also give some personal experiences and examples.

 

Don’t Ignore the Economy or Politics

             I just loaded one of my playlists to my computer’s music player. I have the following songs among many I am listening to as I write tonight including Roll with the Changes by REO Speedwagon, Jukebox Hero by Foreigner, Bang a Drum by Bon Jovi, Heartbeat City by The Cars, Bad is Bad by Huey Lewis & the News, What it Takes to Win by Journey, Speed Turtle by Brian Wilson, Baby Come Back to Me by Manhattan Transfer, Brand New Day by Sting, and Africana by Kurt Bestor. The selections are a bit eclectic but a good mix for me. I realize it is loaded with what many would consider some older period works (1970’s – 80’s). I have very vivid memories of listening to groups like Three Dog Night  and Journey in the Utah State University Spectrum (basketball stadium) with more than 7,000 screaming fans (all considered close friends by the end of the evening). The stage was raised about 6 feet off the floor with four 20 foot high sound columns on the sides of the stage, a wall of speakers behind the band that stood 8 feet high and ran the entire width of the stage. I am convinced that when they powered up the sound and light systems in the Spectrum the lights dimmed in the rest of Logan. The band would start with something like Line of Fire (by Journey) and it would just get better and better. This is not the same experience you get by plugging in your ear buds and cranking up the volume on your IPod. Ear buds may be able to deliver a similar decibel level as music measured in a concert hall but that is where the similarities end. I remember the feel of the sound waves slamming into me. It was very much a physical thing. One could feel the bass notes through the floor, your shoes and into your bones. There is something very real about the feel of that kind of music in that setting.

             The best writers, like the best musicians help us experience stories through our senses. Somehow the reader has to be able to feel, to see, to hear, to touch,  to smell the story. All designed to create emotion and a sense of connection. We need an investment in the story. I read one of David Weber’s Honor Harrington series of books about a naval officer and her exploits. Weber is particularly good at describing naval battles. The stories are very much science fiction but  the terms, the tactics and the weapons are all well detailed and dovetail together. I remember reading an engagement in which the good guys did what is called a rearguard holding action. The action is designed to allow a group to escape but depending on the strengths of the opposing force, it may bode ill for the defending group. Here it allowed a group of under armed transports to escape a devastating ambush. I felt heartache for the dying rearguard force as the transports watched the destruction of this cover fleet but which destruction allowed the transports to escape. In real life those purchasing the time usually do not survive and know they are not likely to. One doesn’t have to have actual experience in death and destruction to feel the loss however, as Weber evokes emotions through descriptions and feelings by the characters who survive and those who know they are going to die. A good writer creates a mental image that one can immerse themselves in to generate and drive complex emotions, some very intense ones.

             L.E. Modesitt Jr. in his writing has the ability to lay out very complex economic, political and ecological concepts in such a manner as to make good story telling. Granted, one does not usually experience death from economic conflicts but it can be the catalyst that leads to death and destruction. However, with the proper use of such conflicts a much richer story is delivered. These principles and concepts add spice, flavors, colors, sounds, sights, if you will. It is important not to neglect the use of the soft sciences in story telling. These can be part of the back story or of the world building. They can also add dimensions and layers to main and secondary characters and create well rounded  plots and story arcs. Consider just a few of Modesitt’s books for particular situations. Parafaith Wars and The Ethos Effect show religious expansionism  vs. eco-technology and what can happen. The books are stand alone volumes but written in the same universe, centuries apart yet linked. A portion of the Recluse series involves the main character named Lerris who is an order mage but has to earn his living as a woodworker (a craftsman). He has to practice his trade to get enough money to travel. Yet because of his trade there are many great story arcs. The first 3 books of the Imager series involves the main character as a portraiturist and then as a magic user. The painting stays in the character’s background and colors the story. The entire economic and political setting is consistent with this aspect. In the Ghost series (a three book series) the main characters are university professors. The setting is such that it reminds me of class and all the situations one gets in that setting. Again Modesitt weaves the occupations into the story which adds story arcs and gives interesting flavors to the setting and characters. One of my favorite science fiction books by Modesitt is The One-Eyed Man. Here a society and social order is build around a planet that is influenced by a unique lifeform hidden yet in plain sight. The hero is commissioned to do an ecological survey to see if the settlements are interfering with the planetary systems. No one wants to upset the balance but things look poised to do just that.

             So, don’t neglect the full body effect of economic and political settings, ecologic and environmental aspects and certainly give characters jobs and lives. All will help generate deeper and more intense situations and many more story arcs, plots and subplot opportunities. Remember, politics can kill us. Just look at the French revolution.

LTUE 2016 & persentation

We have just finished up with LTUE 2016. It was a busy 2 days for me. EA (Emily) Younker and I were able to give our presentation; Faith, Followers and Fanatics: The Devine in Fantasy and Science Fiction. I would like to thank those who participated in the presentation. Some asked if they could get a copy of the paper. I will gladly send a copy, just drop me a short line at my email address; bhallredgen@gmail.com . Thanks again for coming to our presentation and watch here over the coming weeks for new posts on economic and financial concepts and thoughts.

The Colonial System and Its Impact – Part 3

The discovery of America and that of a passage to the East Indies ... are the two greatest and most important events recorded in the history of Mankind. (Wealth of Nations, Bk IV, chapter 7, paragraph 166)

 

             I have been discussing the impact of colonization on the home country and on the colonies themselves. In Part 1 of this series we looked at why nations establish colonies. Colonial expansion traditionally had three benefits to offer. First, raw land and its vegetable production. Second, animal production which is different yet linked to the first benefit. And third, mineral production which in the time of Smith and the colonization of South America by the Spanish and Portuguese was specifically for silver and other precious metals. Mother nations kept a tight rein on colonies to protect their markets and so tended to develop monopolies in trade and goods.

             In Part 2 we looked further at trade and monopolies particularly as they related to Great Britain and saw the other costs and expenses associated with colonies. The British people were bearing a tremendous cost to keep the colonies (America) in line and producing for the home markets as well as selling finished goods to them from the English side of the pond. It was costing England a very pretty penny to have a captive source of raw materials and a captive market for finished goods.

             So, if all this colonization was such a good thing why were so many, especially those ungrateful American colonies so unhappy? The idea of a fair deal and the ability to make a pound sterling at a reasonable expenditure of labor and materials was making many colonists very unhappy as they felt they were not getting what they wanted or deserved. This is where taxation comes to the forefront. As we saw in Part 2, Britain needed to be compensated for its costs of providing government including a stable courts system and for its protection against other nations (standing army and navy). Additionally, the colonies were expected t0 pay something towards the total cost of being a great nation since the colonies received the benefits of this umbrella coverage. However, as Smith points out, “colony assemblies... [will not] levy upon their constituents a public revenue sufficient not only to maintain... their own civil and military establishments, but to pay their proper portion of the expense of the general government of the British Empire seems not very probable.” (Wealth of Nations, Bk IV, ch. 7, para 155) Britain felt it had every right to establish the taxes necessary to cover the costs. How were the colonies who did not see or know the big picture going to have any idea what were necessary expenses for the defense and support of the whole empire. Smith assumes that Britain would be fair and reasonable because it is in the best interest of the Empire. Something that may or may not have been believed by the colonists. And the colonies had a firsthand example of Britain’s assumed  altruistic nature in the monopoly powers granted to various British trades and industries. Such monopoly powers were not fair and definitely not reasonable in the colonists eyes.

             What then could be done. The colonies were up in arms over taxes which were a symptom of the bigger problem that they felt they couldn’t get a fair deal (think monopolies). There needed to be another way of allocating costs of government. Smith suggests that there could be an assembly comprised of representatives from every part of the Empire. Such representation could be based on some measure of involvement in the Empire. He suggests the allocation of representatives could be based on the proportion of the produce of taxation. Where more taxes are generated, more representation is given. Produce or finished goods would be taxed consistently throughout the Empire so the area that is more efficient or larger for that matter, all other things being equal, has better representation. Let me let Smith summarize the possible outcome. Remember this is in the 1770’s. “Such has hitherto been the rapid progress of that county [America] in wealth, population and improvement, that in the course of little more than a century, perhaps, the produce of America might exceed that of British taxation.” “ The seat of government would naturally remove itself to that part of the empire which contributed most to the general defense and support of the whole.” (Wealth of Nations, Bk. IV, ch.. 7, para. 165)

             If the revolutionary war hadn’t happened, would we be speaking British English and governing the British Empire from somewhere along the East Coast of America? Who knows.

Reference:

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

Adam Smith (1723-1790)

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html

Over Scheduled, Some Quick Wisdom and A Story

I have spent the last several months trying to survive my own mire. It was one of those situations that I just kept saying yes to projects and people. I have most of the brightly burning fires put out and actually have just a couple of major on-going projects.

 I need to write the final part (part 3) on the Colonial System and Its Impact and I have some new, what I think are exciting, ideas to discuss. I believe they will be helpful and interesting.

 For today’s economic thought I want to quote from Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, which he gave in a speech in 1999. “About every ten years, we have the biggest crisis in 50 years.” That statement needs to be plastered on every wall around your desk. Just a gentle reminder that every crisis is not new or earth shattering in spite of what the financial news or talking heads may insist.

 To get into the proper spirit of things I want to tell a story which happened to me at one of the activities I was involved in this past month. Wood Badge. For those unfamiliar with it, this is adult leadership training for the Boy Scouts of America. Very good training not only for scouting but also for corporate, non-profit or other organization assignments. Among other things it teaches principles of working with small and medium sized groups. All around good stuff.

 My story relates to something that happened during the second half of the course. For this story I will tell you that there are actually a couple of true facts, one  of which is that I damaged my little toe. It was black and blue and I think I probably broke it, the toe, and definitely broke a blood vessel in my foot. I had a bruise that spread across all my toes and a little bit up the inside of my foot. It hurt like all get out and is still a bit sore and swollen some 2½ weeks later. My wife asks me every so often if I am going to get it looked at by competent professionals (i.e. a doctor) or not. I am still deciding.

 So, I heard a commotion outside my tent one evening a couple of weeks ago. I was attending Wood Badge with several others and was in my tent in the staff area of camp. Now I know you will tell me that what I did was really dumb but I stepped out of my tent in my bare feet. I know, I know, really dumb but there you have it. Well, I stepped out and looked left across a small creek into a stand of quaking aspen, beautiful trees, just in full leaf. Our camp was up pretty high in the Uintah Mountains just south of the Utah border on the Wyoming side. We had received 5 inches of snow earlier in the week. Anyway, as I looked into the trees I was a bit surprised but not alarmed to see my friend KC coming toward our camp pretty fast and being tailed by a bear. Now you may find it a bit hard to swallow that KC was being chased by a bear but the bear wasn’t some ol’ grizzly, only a black bear, I would guess about 2 or 3 years old and if worse came to worse I figured the bear wasn't that much heavier than KC and KC knows how to fight dirty. I wasn’t too concerned for KC at first but became more concerned as I watched. The problem, the bear seemed to be gaining on KC. Now it wasn’t gaining real fast but appeared to definitely be gaining and KC was looking a bit worn. As KC was headed my direction I figured I should try to help a bit. So as KC and the bear came by I decided to reach out with my foot... Ah now, I see that you caught the implication of my act immediately. Bare foot, bear. Anyway, I reached out without fully thinking things through and with my foot roundhouse kicked the bear in the backside. Wouldn’t you know it, my little toe got caught in the bear's hide and it separated itself from its fellow toes like one of Spock’s Vulcan greetings. It really hurt and I went limping off as fast as I could in the opposite direction from KC. The bear was so startled that it stopped dead in its tracks and turned toward me. This gave KC enough time to get around a large tree and I hobbled to another one. The bear was so disgusted with the two of us he huffed and shambled off in another direction. I am afraid you won’t be able to collaborate this story with KC, however. If you ask KC about it he will tell you that the story isn’t true. He will tell you that the bear was not gaining on him but that he was running so as to keep the bear just behind him. Yes, he admits he was looking worn but it was a ruse to fool the bear into thinking he, KC, was getting tired. He says he was wearing it down and would have had it, the bear, all tired out in another 20 or 30 minutes and so didn’t need my help. In fact he accused me of cruelty to animals and thought about reporting me to the proper authorities. He decided in the end not to report me because he said he thought it would be hard to convince the bear to be a material witness. Well, that’s the story and I am sticking by it.

 Anyway, don’t believe everything you hear, either from me and not from the Federal Reserve or from economists. The sky may be falling or not but the news isn’t likely to know one way or the other regardless of what they say. Plus, always remember, bankers (investment or commercial) are always friendly but seldom are they your friends (in a professional capacity).

 

And that’s the rest of the story.

The Colonial System and Its Impact – Part 2 (Giving It All Up)

            In part 1 we began the discussion of colonies and the destructive nature of monopoly powers as discussed in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Smith is adamant that trade monopoly especially  relating to colonies is destructive. “All the original sources of revenue, the wages of labour, the rent of land, and the profits of stock, the monopoly renders much less abundant than they otherwise would be. To promote the little interest of one little order of men in one country, it hurts the interest of all other orders of men in that county, and of all men in all other countries.” (Wealth of Nations, book IV, chapter 7, paragraph 146) His sentiments are fairly plain even if the sentence structure is a bit mixed. Remember he was writing in the 1770’s.

             Smith finds great potential in colonies and colonial wealth generation possibilities. He suggests there are three things that greatly help a colony to properly prosper by their commerce. One, there needs to be a “general liberty of trade” as Smith describes it. The producers of goods need to have access to markets and the knowledge that those markets will treat them fairly and promptly. They need to be paid for their produce or goods in a consistent, reasonable and as timely a manner as possible. Two, the less interference, constraint or cost of moving goods and produce the better. Profits can quickly be lost with high or frequent duties or tariffs on transportation. Further, limits on exporting will greatly affect the ability to move goods and receive the best price. In France during and just prior to the time of Smith, farmers were barred or greatly hindered from moving grains from one district to another thereby forcing artificial prices and production based on district, not on best production practices. Smith was very aware of the need to move produce and goods easily without hindrance by laws or officials and with a minimum of costs (other than transportation expenses).

Third, and this is the most important, Smith suggests that there must be equal and impartial administration of justice. There needs to be an equality under the law regarding land, land use, selling and producing goods. He suggests that these are the most important things for allowing improvement and prosperity.  The laws must be administered in a fair, reasonable and consistent manner.

             So we return to the initial statement by Smith in Part 1 – “Great Britain derives nothing but loss from the dominion which she assumes over her colonies”. He has a novel solution. He suggests that Great Britain voluntarily give up authority over her colonies. Let them elect their own legislatures and establish their own laws. They can make war or peace as they see fit and trade with whomever they desire on whatever terms they can establish. Let them charge whatever prices for their goods and produce markets will bear. He suggests four advantages to Great Britain. First, she immediately is freed from the cost of providing a standing army and naval support. If the colonies want protection they can contract to provide such at some agreed on payment thus providing a revenue source for Great Britain’s military operations. Second, as a recognized government the colonies could enter into commerce treaties that would be of greater benefit to the majority of Great Britain at the expense of the current monopoly powers. The merchants with monopolies would lose their lucrative contracts but the general populous would benefit from cheaper goods and produce. Third, Great Britain would generate a great deal of good will with the colonists and her own citizens. The prospect of self-government is a potent medicine for the colonists and better and cheaper goods and produce a strong inducement for the citizens of Great Britain. Fourth, the colonies may in fact favor and even support Great Britain in war. Smith suggests that instead of the colonists being “turbulent and factious subjects” they would become “our most faithful, affectionate, and generous allies”. Here then is Smith’s answer to the problem of the colonies, however he suggests that most if not all great powers will not establish colonies just to let them become independent because it goes against the very nature and pride of a nation. He also suggests that the act of freeing a colony is “contrary to the private interest of the governing part of it”. He suggests that those who govern want to control, if only for the chance to build wealth or distinction for themselves or other personal interests. He suggests that keen self-interest is stronger than altruistic nation motives. So, regardless of the potential upside benefit the current status quo no matter how costly will likely prevail.

             Next paper, Part 3. If Great Britain won’t give the colonies their independence how do they get paid for their expenses and costs and just what that might lead to.