There’s many places you can visit with your limited time on earth — the Turkish rivieria, Finland’s Ice Hotel, Mt Fuji, Wobbie World — but everyone who wants to understand the last century and this one, should see Detroit.

Why? Because Detroit is the first modern urban ruin, the largest city that has simply been allowed to die. From the 1970s onwards, successive state and federal US governments allowed this once incredible city — home to some of the first skyscrapers, to an urban black culture that came north for jobs, of a prosperous working class — to choke and fall over.

Warsaw, Frankfurt, Coventry — cities bombed into non-existence were put back together by their nations, often brick-by-brick. Faced with the far less challenging circumstance of industry moving out, the US turned its back on a city that had been the arsenal of the allied effort in WW2.

It staggered, stumbled, tried to revive itself. Now with the bankruptcy of GM, it’s all over. From an urban population of two million in 1960, Detroit has fallen to around 650,000. With GM about to be consolidated, it will fall further — effectively below a level where it is really serviceable as an urban centre.

Your correspondent was there in 2006, and it was bad enough. In the centre of the city, whole rows of skyscrapers were boarded up — 20, 30 storey buildings, some pre-WW1. Whole blocks were vacant, tumble weeded, because it was cheaper to pull them down and avoid property taxes. Whole suburbs were empty, vines and creepers reclaiming the mansions of old auto execs. Because no one was there to squat them.

Geographers developed a new concept — “urban prairie” — as foxes and weasels not seen in the area for 300 years, reclaimed areas within 15 minutes walk of the city centre — around which you could walk for five minutes without seeing another human being, while the monorail, the “people mover” with perhaps three customers on the entire route, circled uselessly above, like stars round the head of a suddenly whacked cartoon character.

With GM’s bankruptcy arrangement, by dint of the failure of American capitalism, the US has transitioned into actual socialism — though it may be a temporary holding pattern. Ownership of GM and Chrysler is shared between the Federal government and the United Auto Workers Union, and explicitly or otherwise, they are now directing the core industrial enterprises of America, the company whose director once said “what’s good for General Motors is good for America”.

The bitter ironies of this are multiple. In the 1890s, after Marx’s death, Fred Engels pondered the possibility that socialism could occur without violent revolution. At some point he reflected, the contradictions of capitalism would become so great, its failure so obvious, that the capitalist class in sheer exhaustion and despair, would hand over the keys to the castle.

In the 1970s, Sweden developed a variant of this called the Meidner plan. The trade unions and the state would achieve full socialism by using public capital and pension plan money to buy up the shares of heavy industry on the stock market. A variant of the plan was a major part of the Whitlam government’s strategy, advocated most vociferously in minerals and energy by Rex Connor and his amanuensis one P.J. Keating. Wonder what happened to that bloke?

Bizarrely, the US has now implemented a variant of this to save its economy. One of the reasons the auto industry failed was because it was carrying so many social costs — because of the asinine system of employers bearing health care costs. In the fat years, the auto companies cut deals with the UAW guaranteeing health coverage for retired employees to death. When you add that to their hopeless refusal to design smaller, better cars, a disaster was inevitable.

Now here’s the really funny part. There’s one place where an overextended auto maker was allowed to fail, to be subject to market discipline. Which one? Saab. Where? Sweden, the country that Republicans — lining up at the stimulus trough — wave as the dire example of socialist unfreedom.

How did this happen? Though Sweden is not unexposed — especially due to its investments in former Soviet Baltic states — its private sector is leaner and more efficient because its social capital is so high. Poverty is at 4%, health is high, social costs are low. Businesses can operate efficiently because a stable social democratic civic order is in place.

Meanwhile, in the US, the right is spruiking as an alternative to GM etc, the Toyota plants in the south — with unionisation practically illegal, a lack of health and safety protection, and a relatively good wage dependent on a 56-hour overtime week. In five years, when Mexico has stabilised cities like Juarez and Nogales, those plants will disappear across the border in a single week, leaving nothing behind, not even Detroit-style ruins.

So let’s be clear. For decades we’ve been running an experiment — US style capitalism versus social democracy in Europe and Australia. And the experiment’s over. America failed. Social democracy delivers the greatest spread of prosperity, freedom, health, and stability. US capitalism delivers uncertainty, chaos, and collapse — which then has to be mopped up by full socialist measures.

And if you want a demonstration of that, go to Detroit and then its twin city, Windsor in Canada, just across the water — it too was dependent on the auto industry. But decades of government investment in education and new industries have guaranteed it as a viable living city. We should send schoolkids to these two cities to show them what works and what doesn’t. No other argument would be necessary. RIP Detroit and much more.

If you want to know what its all about, presented in a simple to understand and rich format…check out:

The pensions crisis

Global markets have lifted by some 60% since their bottom in march.

Last Week Gillian Tett wrote in her column in the FT that she sees the recovery as “bank” shaped - not V, W, or U shaped, as the analysts would have it. By “bank”-shaped, she means the shape of the word “bank” in the Pitman system of shorthand:

This’ll happen if the survey data is correct - and investors are going to sit on their hands from now on, negating any further rapid gains - but only if there aren’t any further big shocks…

I don’t know about you, but I have been feeling extremely fragmented lately. What with twitter and blogging and work and children and the Four Corners report I missed last night but want to catch up with, the Ricky Gervais interview that I just stumbled upon, the three new business ideas that are nagging at me, and the rest, the constant distraction is driving me to… distraction.

… sorry. Just checked my email. Nothing but spam as usual, but a couple of good jokes on twitter. Where was I…O yes…

I don’t know about you, in particular, but I do know that it is not only me. Just about everyone I talk to reports the same problem, a singular difficulty in actually concentrating on the same thing for more than a few minutes. It is a population-wide pandemic of attention deficit disorder.

And I do think technology is the cause – because technology today is so compelling – there is no urge too base or trivial, no question too difficult, no task too complex that it can’t be addressed immediately by a quick interweb surf. And if you don’t find satisfaction on that particular item, no matter, something just as distracting will come along during your search, and your original concern will get buried under a pile of new, equally trivial, grave or compelling.

Does it matter?

In a new book, Rapt: Attention and the deliberate life, Winifred Gallagher argues that it does matter, not because being distracted is in itself a bad thing, not because of some fogeyish sense of things were better back when, but because being distracted makes for more fragmented being. Gallagher argues that the self is the sum of the things that we focus on. And by focusing on many things but nothing really very much, we become fragmented as people.
The skillful management of attention is the key to a happy life, says Gallagher. She recommends actively taking control by taking one’s mind by the scruff of the neck, as it were, and forcing it away from the destructive or dispiriting and towards what seems meaningful, productive or energising.

Is this the wisdom of the ages? Isn’t this the advice of the meditation teacher at the top of the mount who instructs you to stop the internal chatter, the delirious bounce of thoughts inside your skull, the permanent state of distraction that fragments so much of our day.

Easier said than done, perhaps. For the moment I have to check my email. And put this on my blog. And twitter it. Then get back to work.

*headline with thanks to twitter post from some bar in America from some musician I’ve never heard of.

I have been known to be wrong in the past, and time will tell whether or not I’m wrong again now, but there was method to my madness and I’ll stand by it.

I’ve been in the workforce for two decades – I’m in the middle – not last in, not, hopefully, first out. Although there was a recession when I got my first job, since then, I’ve had little experience of economic downturn. Neither has the 50% or so of the workforce who joined after me.

True, there have been mild cycles: the downturn after 911, for instance, came at a particularly difficult time for me professionally – we had just moved from the UK to Australia and my UK clients were pulling their heads in before I had a base of Australian ones to plug the gaps. But before long things were buzzing again, investors were investing, and the second half of the great millennial boom took off.

The Great recession
This time, we were told, was to be different. In September last year, with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, we were staring into the abyss. The bankers, securitisers, manufacturers of financial products, and financial engineers had created a speculative bubble so large, so unwieldy and complex that it would take years to dismantle. Suddenly the newspapers were full of “trillions” when “billions” had heretofore been generally sufficient.

O-kay. Clearly, with governments around the world throwing money around like confetti, hysterical headlines daily, and literally thousands being laid off as companies adjusted to the new reality, things had changed – and radically – within the course of twelve months.

Still, I felt, and still feel, that there is a physical limit to how long people – and by people I mean the collective of individuals that make up the broader economy – can feel depressed for.

Consider this: there is no fundamental reason why anybody actually has to engage in much of this frantic economic activity we call “work” at all. Our subsistence needs could be fulfilled with much less effort than we put in– so why do we insist on caning it so frenetically anyway? Answer: animal spirits.
John Maynard Keynes couldn’t see any fundamental reason for all this frantic risk taking and entrepreneurial activity. The everyday ambitious but risky decisions we take (such as actually getting up and going to work) can’t be explained through rational economic reasoning, because we really know so little of the future. Instead, they are the result of “animal spirits – of a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction.”

So my call for green shoots about now was less a product of fundamental economic analysis - of the kind I have o so much respect for - and more born of the conviction that there is only so much bad news the human spirit can take, and after a while, the urge to action rather than inaction, to boldness rather than timidity, to venture rather than wallow will inevitably kick in. Lucy Kellaway, the FT’s work columnist, has observed these green shoots of the soul starting to spout thus:

“The new cheer is the latest phase in the emotional cycle of recession. The first phase was denial, which started almost two years ago with Northern Rock and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then, last autumn, denial gave way to shock and fear. We worried that the world would never be the same again and we were deeply afraid. After fear, came rage. It was all the bankers’ fault and we wanted to skin them alive. And after rage came acceptance. We accept that the economy is in recession. But now, hot on the heels of acceptance, comes cheer.”

Sure, the banks are still busy “deleveraging” and the economic indicators remain uniformly down. More will lose their jobs, and as the old saying goes, a recession is when others lose their job, a depression is when I lose mine. But my guess is that people – particularly of my own “instant gratification” generation and those younger, are over it.  Soon the animal spirits will kick in, the next wave of innovation and employment will be unleashed, and all this talk of the end of capitalism will be just that…talk.

Here is what Lucy Kellaway has to say about executive twittering. She thinks it s a bit of a joke, which, I guess is one perspective. But as a senior executive these days, not twittering is as much as statement about your management style as twittering. Problem is that, as with all media, the potential for screw up and embarrassment is high. Not just that, as anyone with any experience of twitter can attest, it can be an unhelpful distraction - in an age when distraction is like a viral disease, causing thought patterns to dissipate, tasks left undone, and the self feeling jittery and unsatisfied.

My suggestion for bosses confused about how to use the new media, or finding it an unhelpful distraction, is to make yourself some rules, and stick by them (modifying them as you go).

Here is a stab at some principles which might or might not be helpful, depending on your management style:

1) Twitter only about work. It is both unhelpful and unedifying for people to learn their bosses have “just had second coffee of the morning, feeling like a rocket ship about to explode”, or “sun shining today, puts song in my heart”. Who cares?

2) Don’t twitter unless you have something to say. Anyone who has read the tweets of our political leaders (Kevin Rudd take note) will realise how stultifyingly dull Twitter posts can be. “Dawn Service in Canberra was very moving this morning.” Kill me now. Refrain from telling people what you are doing right now (even though that’s what the Twitter site tells you to do) just for the sake of telling people. Malcolm Turnbull, take note - I don’t care whih radio station you are being interviewed by today. I care what you are sayig to them about oppostiion policy and why. And I’d like the opportunity to tell you why I think its a good thing or bad.

3) Invite replies, feedback, ideas. Use Twitter as an engagement tool. Bosses should be having ideas all the time, what a great way to get feedback on whether they are good ones or crappy ones that should be dropped forthwith.

4) Let your personality come through, but only a very little bit. Don’t post anything that could be used to pportray yo as a bully, a dork, or delusional. Obviously.

Here are a few further ideas for using Twitter as a communication tool:

Think about the discrete areas of your working life, for instance your industry,  suppliers, competitors and the like, and your professional interests, particular knowledge streams or gadgets and do a Twitter search for feeds that relate. If you are into motivational coaching for instance, there is a whole network of coaches out there twittering away.

Set up twitter groups for each of these, perhaps using Twitter-dedicated software such as Tweetdeck. You could also use Twitter as a communication tool, tweeting regularly to the C-team or other discrete work groups – make sure you think about how widely you want your tweets disseminated, and limit membership by approving all followers.

1.    Failure to behave consistently with the stated values of the organisation:  Whether they realise it or not, everyone in an organisation watches the leaders behaviour as if he or she were under a magnifying glass.  If this behaviour is in any way inconsistent with the stated values of the organisation, people will immediately begin not to trust both the leader and the organisation more broadly.  Without trust, people will simply never take risks, try anything new, or give fully of themselves in their jobs.
2.    Failing to flex their approach to different styles of people:  Many leaders, particularly under stress, tend to operate in the way that they are most comfortable, forgetting that this may not be comfortable for many people around them.  If leadership is about achieving things with and through others, leaders will fail to achieve this without the ability to make these “other people” comfortable, motivated and energised.
3.    Failure to listen effectively:  Many leaders talk a lot and don’t listen very well. The most crucial skill of any leader is communication and communication is 90% about listening and only 10% about talking.  Without this skill, leaders often fail to successfully enlist people in a common vision and direction.  They may also fail to test for an alignment of understanding and expectations among their staff by questioning and listening for this.
4.    Poor time management across three key areas:

• Diary management – back to back meetings with insufficient time to prepare for meetings and to carry out other tasks in the day.  Leaders end up taking work home, working longer hours and in do doing, significantly compromise their personal life and relationships with those around them
• Lack of discipline in managing calls and e mails.  This disrupts the tasks in which the executive is involved with a resultant lack of effectiveness
• Not prioritising tasks and concentrating on those which will have the highest level of impact on the business.  A lack of definition around which are urgent and which are important

5.    An inability to turn strategy into action to ensure the successful delivery of the business outcomes:  In many cases, while leaders may be skilled at identifying the strategic changes needed in their businesses, they often find it difficult to manage their people and business processes required to turn these strategic changes into actions.  They may also fail to take into account the implications of strategic changes on people and systems.
6.    Taking over too many tasks:  During times of heavy workloads or stress the tendency for leaders is to take over the tasks of their direct reports because they believe they can do it quicker and better themselves.  Leaders very often come from roles where they were highly skilled in the technical aspects of their work.  They are often appointed to lead their peers, but with minimal or no training.  The result is that, under stress, they retreat into what they know and do best – doing what their previous role entailed, thus taking on too many day-to-day tasks and decreasing their time on strategic leadership tasks.  This also negatively impacts the level of confidence and competence of team members.
7.    Failure to allow for enough quality one-on-one time with each of their staff:  Many leaders schedule time for one-on-one meetings with their direct reports, but all too often these are postponed or cancelled when something “more important” comes up.  When they do go ahead, these meeting often focus 90%-100% on operational matters and fail to allow any time for open two-way feedback and/or coaching from the leader.
8.    Inability to motivate:  This is particularly relevant during times of stress when leaders tend to find fault and criticise staff but rarely find time to praise or reward staff when they are performing to expectations, which results in a demotivated team and potentially an environment of fear.  In businesses where leaders react with emotional outbursts to situations, team members learn to protect themselves, become more risk averse and may not take bad news to the leader for fear of reprisal
9.    Inability to communicate upwards and influence effectively:  Many leaders fail to prioritise the development of strong alliances with their superiors and peers.  As such, there can often be a lack of alignment with their own leaders and/or peers around critical aspects of the business.  This can often lead to a misalignment of success criteria, inefficient interaction between business units, and failure to realise the full potential of the organisations products or services due to silo’s behaviour.
10.    Inability to lead change as well as the leaders’ own resistance to change: 75% of change initiatives fail to reach their desired objectives because leaders pay insufficient attention to how best to create ownership among those who will be affected by the change.  In addition, many leaders themselves are not comfortable with the degree of change in today’s business environment and are not able to cope with the change themselves let alone lead their team through change.

I have a friend, let’s call him Robin. Immensely talented. He’s one of these people who finds himself in the right place at the right time with all the right contacts. At university he found himself working with leading national expert on climate change, his dissertation used to frame the country’s climate change policy. Went on to work with the world’s top international bodies, UN, International Energy Agency and the like.

When he wanted to come back to Australia for family reasons, he hitched his wagon to a global oil company, lets call it Oilco that had, in the late 1990s, experienced a Damascene conversion to the cause of alternative energy and climate change. It had very publicly committed the (suspiciously round and quite random) sum of “$8 billion” to alternative energy businesses, rebranded itself in green at the cost of $2 million, and declared that its future lay, um, beyond petroleum (got it yet?).

In Australia, Oilco had invested in the country’s most significant alternative energy project, a massive factory producing the country’s only domestic supply of solar panels. Robin was happy there. It wasn’t the global political scene, there were few international conferences or high level policy discussions, but he had a rewarding job that involved putting together complex projects and bringing together a variety of partners including federal and local governments, the manufacturers and others to deliver large solar energy projects to create sustainable municipalities and change the world in other ways.

What’s more, the company treated him like a king. When he got ill and had to take six months off, it was at full pay. He never flew economy. His salary was substantial, and at review time, they always surprised him on the upside. When he decided that he wanted to take the family back to Europe, the company created a job for him in London to which he could commute a couple of days a week from a house in Normandy. Sweet.
Until late last year.

Last year it became clear that the Damascene conversion had been that of the chief executive alone. When said CEO was forced out of the company under a cloud, he was replaced with an oilman. Someone with oil running through his veins. Someone who had little time for the exigencies of climate change or global warming, solar energy, or the new bioethanol plant in China Robin had been setting up. Someone who had to show results immediately by cutting costs and boosting profits, despite the global financial crisis and the halving of the oil price in six months.

One day Robin received a phone call telling him not to come into work on Monday. There was no longer a job for him. The company had decided it was out of the alternative energy business. Just. Like. That.

What angers him the most is not the strategic change of direction: “I understand… When people buy Oilco shares, they are buying an investment in an oil company, not in an energy company. This whole alternative energy thing, it was just a strategic diversion. The mistake was that I didn’t recognise that ten years ago when I signed on to the project.”

What makes him really angry are the lies that he told on behalf of the corporation. “You know, you go into China and engage with an energetic entrepreneurial network of people, people who are skeptical of the motives of the mutinational. You tell them: ‘No, no, this time its different, we’ve committed $x billion to alternative energy, we’re in it for the long term, we are going to build a bright future and we’d like to do it with you.’

“And if you do your job properly, they believe you. They put their skepticism aside and get excited about doing something properly with the full resources of a global company behind them, and they begin to think the world can actually change and that they can have a part in it.”

Then…nothing.

Robin was, understandably, pretty angry. He thought back over the years he had spent representing the company at conferences, when others had said Oilco’s activities were just greenwash, called him a professional bullshit artist, said he was only in it for the money, a toy of the global corporate. He had been sure of himself at the time. He knew that this was different, that Oilco was serious about what it was doing and that the new businesses would eventually be core to the company’s activities and its profitability. The world would change and Oilco would drive that change, and by extension, Robin himself would fulfill his potential.

Turns out he was wrong and the sceptics were right.

Oilco has provided Robin with “outplacement” counseling, firstly to help him through his anger issues, and secondly to help him function outside the confines of a large organisation. He gave himself 3 months to be really angry, and, having done that, is now slowly putting together a life as an independent consultant. He is trying to salvage his Indian project, without the bullshit and bureaucracy of Oilco weighing him down and has a raft of exciting projects sitting tantalizingly on the horizon. He’ll be fine.

But that’s not really the point is it? We all need to be pretty clear eyed about our place in the workplace. Robin subsumed his sense of self to that of the organisation and began to believe the rhetoric – he had to really, in order to do his job well. The company made it easier to do so, showering him with money, privilege and a sense of purpose. How fragile it turned out to be.

Tribes
Seth Godin
Piatkus, 2009, $22.99
One and a half stars

The Leadership Code
Dave Ulrich, Norm Smallwood, Kate Sweetman
Harvard Business Press, 2009
$29.95
One star

Business book publishing is a funny old game. It takes at least six months to write a decent book, and – goodness knows why it takes so long – usually six months or longer to get it from final draft to an actual product that can be shipped in boxes out to bookstores and publicised in magazines.
So the “new releases” table at your local Borders is actually an insightful snapshot into the mindscape of the publishing industry 12-18 months ago. Clearly publishers thought Web 2.0 or social networking was going to be hot.
Despite the onset of the most significant economic downturn in living memory, they may have been righter than they can imagine. If we’re entering a period of massive creative destruction, then perhaps the single most important foundation on which the new world will be built will be the social network, the ties that bind us all together across companies, industries, and geographies.
As Matthew Fraser and Soumitra Dutta write in the garishly titled Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom, sociologists have been aware that “weak ties” – those social connections whom we sort of know, perhaps through others, but have never actually gone drinking with – are perhaps the most important network we have. As the waves of redundancies roll through the global economy over the next twelve months, those who retain their employment can expect ever more “Hi, I’m a friend of Joe” type contacts getting back in touch to see if there just might be some value they can add.
Social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Bebo and specialist networking sites such as LinkedIn, for work networking, aSmallWorld, for the rich and famous, and Reuters social networking site specially for hedge fund managers (membership presumably shrinking) provide incredibly powerful tools for network management.
These tools not only provide a new foundation for what it means to manage ones personal career, but also for developing entirely new forms of organisation. If an organisation is a mechanism for pulling together resources to produce outcomes, using LinkedIn to gather together the best brains for each task from the far reaches of your personal network might just be the new multinational.
Fraser and Dutta delve deep into the social networking phenomenon, showing how the Web 2.0 will inevitably lead to a power shift away from vertical hierarchies to horizontal social networks. The consequences will be real. They also explore the consequences of a world in which your past is indelibly imprinted on a globally accessible database, and workplace conundrums such as what to do if one of your subordinates is tagged in a photo sucking on a bong.
Although Tribes hits all the Web 2.0 social networking buttons, it is perhaps less a reflection of what was in publisher’s minds a year ago than what was in author Seth Godin’s mind for a non-specific nano-second sometime in 2008. Godin is a mega prolific marketing guru whose dozen or so books, including Purple Cow and Permissions Marketing, and are written in the breathless style of the breed. Godin’s mission is to convince you (yes you!) to pick up the mantle of leader of the tribe…and then convince your followers to buy your stuff.
Think of the Grateful Dead. The band had just one top 40 album, but managed to gross over $100 million, not from record sales but from gigs, T-shirts, and skimming (in the hippiest possible way of course) the tribe that followed them around from festival to festival. The internet makes it possible to build tribes in many different ways: bigger tribes across more geographies, smaller tribes of more specialism, tribes you work with, travel with discuss with. Tribes are facilitated by social networking sites – Ning, for instance, makes it easy and instant to set up an entire social networking site for people who like cooking with white chocolate, for instance, or panel beaters in the south east suburbs.
Godin’s call to arms is often motivating, occasionally annoying, and jumps from pillar to post with exhausting speed. Be a heretic! A change agent! Don’t settle! But if you are in an industry that is changing fast or dying faster – think music or (yikes!) the media – there are ideas here, and many of them.
Would it were so in The Leadership Code. Ask yourself: What makes a great leader? Now ask yourself: Is there a question more tired than that?
Publishers know there is always a market for those who want to look deep inside and find the kernel of a great leader. Or even a competent manager. This book attempts to provide it by “capturing the essence of good leadership” in five rules. It asks: “Does an effective leader at Starbucks or Whole Foods in any way resemble an effective leader at ExxonMobil? … Does an effective leader in organised crime in any way resemble an effective leader in organised religion?”
Staunchly ignoring the comedy potential of that last question with a lack of irony that runs throughout, the authors press on through a swamp of tired business clichés to their precise conclusion: the five rules of the “leadership code” represent about 60 to 70 percent of what makes an effective leader.
Even if such a claim sounds preposterous, you can see how any leader who manages to consistently do what the leadership code suggests will meet with success. The five rules are:
•    Shape the future: Make strategy – understand where the organisation is going and how it is going to get there. Communicate this to people and make sure they understand it too. Be a “practical futurist”.
•    Make things happen: Execute. Translate strategy into action.
•    Engage today’s talent: Motivate people to join and build the business now.
•    Build the next generation: Figure out what the organisation’s human capital needs will be tomorrow, and make sure they will be fulfilled. And,
•    Invest in yourself: Don’t lose the plot under the burden of leadership. Make sure you stay grounded, fit and are in a position to handle the inevitable stresses of the job.
The authors recognise that not everyone will be equally good at each of these, but that’s where rule 5 comes in.
The lead author, Dave Ulrich, is something of the HR guru, having helped Jack Welch mould GE. The thesis provides the basis for a model of leadership that is at least easy to understand and intuitive – the kind of thing you could put on your office wall and look at every now and again when things are getting out of control.
Which in the world of Web 2.0 is likely to be more often than not.