Frank Voehl suggests "conflicting practices" as an improvement over "misguided practices."  That's better, but I don't think it escapes Ken's criticism. 

A solution came to me overnight: "At-Risk Practices."  This has both analytic and rhetorical advantages. 

The echo of "at-risk youth" is apt.  If you live in the wrong environment without the right guidance, you have a propensity to get yourself and everybody else in trouble.  It doesn't say that the practices are wrong, bad, don't work, or are unrealistic on a day to day basis, only that they are insufficiently sensitive to, prepared for, and active in dealing with the risks in our turbulent environment.    

 

Input 1: I will throw the following example into the Business Application bin.  Story line: a sober but ultimately risky practice runs aground.  A complex practice -- viewed as unorthodox ( "unprincipled" to some,  "technically deficient" to others) -- is ultimately more successful in the tubulent environment:

Alan Greenspan says that for forty years he operated on the principle that the market always adjusts, and that it is best to let it settle by itself.  He says that he was shaken to realize that this principle was wrong, and that he is unable to explain current events.  (I'll get the exact words.  They are not very quotable.) 

George Soros, on the other hand, has read the environment accurately as turbulent.  He has drawn implications that qualify him as a master of complex practice.  He finds no self-correction. Instead, there is a marked tendency to overshoot, but also to surprise.  He has been able to manage his hedge fund more successfully, over a longer period, and more safely, than his competitors.  His technical-rational quant competitors, such as Long Term Capital Mangement, fail spectacularly by adhering to Nobel prize-winning theory.

Soros's behavior probably exacerbates turbulence, such as by wrecking UK currency, but he says he is just doing what the rules allow.  He recommends better rules that would reduce his opportunities.  His purpose is not simply to exploit the system, but to make enough money so that he can be influential in improving global governance.

 

Input 2: Thanks to Frank Voehl for the following materials that will fit nicely in the Civil Society chapter:

"Attached is a pdf copy of a book that I did for ASQ on the subject of Community Improvement. <CQC_Ops_Manual.pdf>   It is part of the Recovering Prosperity through Quality Series and the target was thousands of Community Councils that have sprung up throughout the world. My role as National Chair was to bring the subject of community improvement forward in a manner that was consistent with our theme of The Connected Community. Role definition and systems models for Goal Setting  are essential to the creating sustainable communities of the future.  Perhaps it will help clarify some of the areas where a proper focus can be applied in a productive way."

 

(Note: Sorry for the redundant posting last night.  Yahoo accepts brief postings instantly, but when the posting is longer, it may not be processed for hours, and there is no way to confirm that they received it.  I lost patience after a few hours and reposted.)