Stupidity paradox summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Stupidity paradox summary...

Description

TakeAways        

 

Many companies hire smart people who do dumb things. That phenomenon is “the stupidity paradox.” Stupid actions might work out temporarily, but they cause big trouble in the long run. Organizations often discourage clear, careful thinking by employees. They regard it as subversive and believe that it leads to conflict and uncertainty. Many organizations encourage employee stupidity. They rely on “stupidity management” to limit employee thinking. “Functional” or “selective” stupidity differs from plain old, garden-variety stupidity. Functional stupidity actually offers numerous benefits, including elimination of doubt, promotion of harmony, and reduction in internal tensions and friction. Functional stupidity manifests in five different forms. Look out for: “leadership-induced stupidity,” “structure-induced stupidity,” “imitation-induced stupidity,” “branding-induced stupidity” and “culture-induced stupidity.” You can “destupidify” your organization with acute observation, intelligent interpretation and smart questioning. Use reflection and critical thinking to avoid doing dumb things in your organization.

Summar y Ford Pintos You might expect knowledge-intensive organizations and their workers to be smart and to do smart things. However, most organizations and their employees more often do stupid things. Many companies don’t support careful thinking or enlightened actions. These companies encourage stupidity and discourage reflection and analysis. They consider such thinking subversive. “Stupidity managers” – the paladins of “stupidity management” – purposely intervene to limit employees’ thinking. To illustrate how “functional stupidity” works in corporate life, consider Dennis Gioia, who worked in Ford Motor Company’s recall department in 1972. His job was to look for patterns that revealed problems in Ford automobiles that might trigger manufacturer recalls. “Far from being ‘knowledge-intensive,’ many of our most well-known… organizations have become engines of stupidity.” Gioia often visited what Ford employees referred to as “the chamber of horrors,” a warehouse for “burned-out cars” that Ford retrieved from accident scenes. One

destroyed automobile – a Ford Pinto – made a horrific impression on the young engineer. Gioia had to determine if this Pinto represented a one-of-a-kind incident or a potentially dangerous pattern. He told his colleagues about his concerns about the Pinto, but they weren’t perturbed and told him not to worry. They dissuaded him from taking his findings to Ford’s executive committee. “We are supposed to learn from our failures, but we rarely do. One of the big reasons…is that when things go wrong, we look for ways of hiding it.” Gioia did not push his fears concerning the Pinto inside Ford. He didn’t recommend that Ford recall it. This was in 1973. In 1978, after many more people died in exploding Pintos, Ford finally recalled the Pinto. Gioia accepted the social norm at Ford, which was, “Don’t raise problems and don’t tell people bad news they do not want to hear.” Disturbingly, what Gioia did – or didn’t do – is standard operating procedure at many firms today. Company cultures tell people not to think too much. Functional Stupidity In this modern age of knowledge-intensive organizations and smart knowledge workers, why is functional stupidity such a problem? Think of this negative dynamic as “thinking within the box.” It results from employees becoming Fachidioten or “professional idiots.” Being functionally stupid at work often turns out to be a good career move. It protects employees from rocking the boat or from taking actions that provoke others to see them as troublemakers. “Post-industrial society is basically an information society. Exchange of information in various kinds of data processing, record keeping and market research is the foundation for most economic exchange.” Functional stupidity – defined as the “inability and/or unwillingness to use cognitive and reflective capacities in anything other than narrow and circumspect ways” – means never calling attention to poor company policy. Because it proves so useful, functional stupidity prevails at the top of many organizations and at all subsidiary levels. “The financial crisis that began in 2008 is a testament to the stupidity lurking at the heart of knowledge-based societies.” Functional stupidity differs from plain old, garden-variety stupidity, but even regular, standard-issue corporate stupidity can lead to catastrophic consequences. Functional stupidity – also known as “selective stupidity” – can have beneficial results, at least in the short term. This is why many organizations become hotbeds of functional stupidity. It promotes harmony and reduces frictions among workers. Forms of Functional Stupidity Functional stupidity manifests in five different forms:

1. “Leadership-induced stupidity”– Leaders are supposed to be exemplary standard-bearers whom their employees admire. Most are not. Many employees wish their leaders, with all their lofty language, would get out of the way and leave them alone to do their work. One example of functional stupidity is the belief that all leaders have a significant influence on how organizations operate. 2. “Structure-induced stupidity” – Companies require rules and procedures, but many go overboard with regulations. As a result, workers end up ticking boxes that have little to do with real productivity. Businesses make following the rules more important than achieving results. 3. “Imitation-induced stupidity” – At many organizations, what the company does matters less than how the company looks to outsiders. Conforming to expectations becomes the essential consideration. 4. “Branding-induced stupidity” – Many people care more about what brand a product bears than about its features. Branding can give meaning to what many employees would otherwise consider meaningless chores. However, the vapidity of branding also can breed cynicism. 5. “Culture-induced stupidity” – A common characteristic of functional stupidity is that employees unquestioningly maintain mistaken beliefs, even if evidence points to the contrary. Employees rely on these incorrect assumptions and their “culture does the thinking for them.” “Telltale Aspects” Functional stupidity eliminates the doubts that intelligent investigation would provoke and, instead, presents a clear path forward for those who are ready to constrain their thinking. This can enable employees to achieve positive, short-term outcomes, but you can detect the telltale traits of functional stupidity:   





“Absence of reflexivity” – Employees don’t question their basic assumptions. “Not seeking cause or a good reason” – People don’t ask why. They just follow the rules, whatever they may be. “Lack of substantive reasoning” – Workers don’t consider the consequences of their actions. They focus on how to do something, not on whether they should do it. No cognition – Employees don’t evaluate the organization’s business model carefully. With a closed mind-set, they pursue the firm’s objectives as if they’re set in stone. “Motivational defects” – People purposely limit their ambition. This is a signal of a lack of curiosity.





“Lack of emotional reasoning” – Employees fixate on one emotion. For example, they become so excited about a new product that they don’t explore or even consider its attendant defects. Attachment to a particular ethos – This severely restricts people’s thinking. To illustrate, if a company places a high premium on loyalty, employees might do everything possible – regardless of the long-term consequences – to be staunch team players. The Traits of Stupidity Management Similar to the stupidity of unthinking followers, stupidity at the management level has four innate characteristics: 1. “Authority” – The stupidity manager habitually uses “punishments and rewards” to motivate employees. 2. “Seduction” – A lack of substance disappears behind snazzy PowerPoint presentations, ostentatious buzzwords or the jargon of a high-priced consultant. 3. “Naturalization” – Stupidity managers pass off everything they do as the only way people could do it, as if no viable alternatives are possible. 4. “Opportunism” – The stupidity manager organizes incentives so that employees won’t examine management’s actions or ask tough questions. Curing Stupidity Getting organizations to do smart things, and not to pursue stupidity, will always be an uphill battle. “Culture, branding initiatives, referring to industry best practice, organizational structures and systems and leadership” all conspire against operating in a more intelligent way. Challenging these bolted-in-place verities is often a tedious, unrewarding exercise. Many times, efforts to penetrate stupidity will result in “conflict, confusion, endless debate and ultimately, indecision.” “Smart people set about applying their impressive but narrowly focused skills. The glamor of financial engineering created a sense of hope and excitement…investors began to believe in the power of quants to work magic.” Stupidity management keeps everything in happy balance, at least in the short term. It results in “branding baloney, leadership nonsense…and fashionable pseudosolutions.” “Destupidify” Your Organization You can take the right steps to destupidify your company. Start by eschewing “relentless positivity” – the mindless homage to eternal optimism that leads to dangerous delusion. Instead, adopt an attitude of “negative capability.” To launch this change, be open to experience. Become willing to “tolerate anxiety and fear, to

stay in a place of uncertainty and to allow for the emergence of new thoughts or perceptions.” “They stopped asking tough questions and started to just believe. The upshot was a financial system that no one fully understood and no one was willing to question.” Negative capability means thinking carefully and critically. It has three main aspects: 1. “Observe” – To look beyond the obvious, smart observers ask, “What is going on here?” 2. “Interpret” – Once you understand the issues, figure out how other people relate to them. As anthropologists say, “What do the natives think is happening here?” 3. “Question” – Pose further revealing queries, such as: “What are the assumptions we are making here?” “What are the reasons…we are doing this?” “What are the wider outcomes or broader meaning?” Search for “deep meanings,” and do not accept what appears on the surface. “Critical Insights” Operating intelligently calls for developing critical insights about the primary issues your organization confronts. You must exercise “critical thinking and serious reflection” to build these insights. Use these triggers to provoke further thought:    

    

“Reflective routines” – Ask the following questions: “Why?” “Where is the evidence?” “What does this mean?” “Devil’s advocates” – These staffers challenge others’ assumptions and present counter-arguments. “Post-mortems” – Analyze why things turned out as they did. This is particularly valuable when the outcome is not what you wanted. “Pre-mortems” – Don’t make a move until you consider each step carefully in advance. Ask your colleagues to envision what they might do differently in the future. If a project fails, ask the participants, “What do you think went wrong?” Armed with new insights, you may be able to act in advance to avoid problems on the next project. “Newcomers” and “outsiders” – Heed new people who can offer fresh perspectives. “Engage your critics” – Listen to what they have to tell you. “Competitions and games” – Work with your colleagues to detect and avoid clichéd thinking. “Anti-slogans” – Organizations love empty-headed, feel-good language. Create “anti-management-speak.” “Anti-stupidity task force” – Organizations love to focus on new “projects, structures, systems, procedures and activities” by setting up special teams and task

forces. Many times, canceling such initiatives is better than investing in them. Put a team together whose job is to look at new initiatives and decide which ones are worthless. Then, abandon the ones that don’t make sense. Transformation Transforming your firm from stupid to smart won’t be easy. Organizations can be complex and ambiguous. What may seem stupid could actually be smart and what may seem smart can turn out to be stupid. Working against functional stupidity will create a better, more productive, more efficient work environment. Your antifunctional stupidity program should involve: 1. Doing your own personal critical thinking and “anti-stupidity management.” 2. Eliminating your stupidity issues. Focus on “cultural and collective norms.” Make functional stupidity a public issue within your firm; discuss it with colleagues to raise their awareness. 3. Making necessary structural changes.

I nf oQ:Whatmadeyoudeci det owr i t et hi sbook? Andr eSpi cer :Wehadspentoveradecadest udyi ngknowl edgewor k er si n knowl edgei nt ensi v efir ms.Butwheny ouask edt hem whatt heyser i ousl yt hought aboutt hei rj obs,t heywoul dof t enadmi t“ i t ' sact ual l ypr et t yst upi d” .Forawhi l ewe t houghtt heywer ej ustt r y i ngt obehumbl e.Butev ent ual l ywest ar t edt ot aket hem ser i ousl y .Soi nst eadofgoi ngl ooki ngf orknowl edgeandsmar t nessi nfir ms,we st ar t edl ooki ngf orst upi di t y .Thi sl eadust oagol dmi ne. Mat sAl vesson:Wehav eobser v edt hati ti scommont oemphasi z eknowl edge, r at i onal i t y ,t al ent ,andl ear ni ng.Buti nr eal i t ymanyor gani z at i onscul t i v at e compl i ance,obedi ence,nai v et y ,conf or mi sm andposi t i vi t y .Lowl ev el sofcr i t i cal t hi nki ngandr eflect i onseemedcommoni nmanywor kpl aces.Wer eal i sedt hi smakes or gani z at i onsf unct i oni ngsmoot hl yandpeopl eav oi danxi et i esassoci at edwi t h br oaderr esponsi bi l i t yout si def ol l owi ngt heflow.I ni t i al l ywepubl i shedt hese obser v at i onsi nasci ent i ficpaper . Wet houghti twoul donl yber eadbyot herspeci al i st s .Butt hemess ageseemedt o hav eamuchwi derr esonance.Thi sl eadust opubl i shabookwhi chdescr i bedwhat wehadf oundt oawi deraudi ence. I nf oQ:Forwhom i st hi sbooki nt ended? Al vesson:Anyper sonwhoi seagert obesel f r eflect i veaboutwhyst upi dt hi ngs happeni nt hei rwor kpl ace.Wet hi nkt hebooki spar t i cul arf orpeopl ewhowantt o hav eaf r amewor kf orunder s t andi ngsomeoft heper v er si onsofcont empor ar y or gani z at i onsandwor ki ngl i f e. Spi cer :Wet hi nkj i l t edknowl edgewor k er swi l lfindt hi sbooki nt er es t i ng.Thesear e peopl ewhospenty ear sst udyi ngt henmor edecadeshoni ngt hei rexper t i seonl yt o findt hi nki ngandknowl edgear edi sr egar dedi nmostbi gor gani sat i ons.Thesesmar t peopl ear et henaskedt odost upi dt hi ngsi nt heseor gani sat i on.Theyar ef r us t r at ed. Ourmes sagei st hatt heyar enotal one.Thei rexper i encei swi del yshar ed,andt her e i ssomet hi ngwhi chy oucandoabouti t . I nf oQ:Whatdoyoumeanby" f unct i onalst upi di t y" ? Spi cer :I nt el l i gentpeopl ewi t hex cel l entqual i ficat i onnott hi nki ngi nabr oaderway . Asar esul t ,t hi ngsgowel li nt heshor tt er m -t heyof t engetpr omot edandt he or gani sat i onasawhol ef unct i onswel l .Buti nt hel ongt er mi tcr eat esdi sast er . Youknowi fy ouhav ef unct i onalst upi di t yony ourhandswhen: 1. Peopl edon' taskf ororgi v ej ust i ficat i onsofacour seofact i on.Theysayt hi ngs l i ke“ scr ewi t ,l et ' sdoi t ” . 2.

Peopl edon' tr eflectont heas sumpt i onst heyar emaki ng.

3.

Peopl edon' tt hi nkaboutt hel ongt er mi mpl i cat i onsoft hei ract i ons.

Al vesson:Nar r ow,t echni calt hi nki ngwi t hi nagi v enboxorf r amewor k( v i si on,j ob descr i pt i on,successr eci pe)wi t houtbr oaderr eflec t i onorquest i oni ngofpur poseor cont ext .Youcompet ent l ydowhaty ouar et ol d( orhowot her sdot hi ngs)wi t hout t hi nki ngi ft hi si smeani ngf ulorl eadst ogoodout comes.Fori nst ance,i nl ar gebanks

empl oy eesof t enf ocusont i cki ngt her egul at or ybox esanddonott hi nkaboutt he wi derquest i onofwhet hert hefinanci al pr oduct st heyar ecr eat i ngar eanygood. I nf oQ:Whatar et hemai ncausest hatl eadt of unct i onalst upi di t y? Spi cer :I nt hebookwei dent i f yfiv ecommondr i v er soff unct i onalst upi di t y .Thefir s ti s ami spl acedobsessi onwi t hl eader shi p.Manyor gani sat i onsencour agepeopl et o t hi nkoft hemsel v esasi nspi r at i onal l eader s.Butt hi sof t enal i enat est hei rf ol l ower s andmeanst heyi gnor et henut sandbol t sofget t i ngat askdone.Thesecondi san at t achmentt obr andi ng.Wewi t nessedmi l i t ar yor gani sat i onswhi chwer emor ek een onr unni ngr ebr andi ngex er ci sest hanr unni ngmi l i t ar yex er ci ses.Thet hi r ddr i v erof f unct i onal st upi di t yi smi ndl essi mi t at i on.Of t enl ar geor gani sat i onscopyot her sf orno bet t err easont hant heywantt oupwi t ht hel at estf ashi on.Thi sl eadsfir mst o i mpl ementnewi ni t i at i veswhi char ei nappr opr i at ef ort hem.Thef our t hi spoi nt l ess pol i ci esandpr ocedur eswhi char et hought l essl yf ol l owed.Manypr of essi onal sspend mor et i met i cki ngoffbox est hanact ual l ydoi ngt hei rj ob.Fi nal l y ,someor gani sat i ons encour ageacul t ur eofupbeatposi t i v ecul t ur eswhi chencour agesempl oy eesonl y t ol ookatt hebr i ghtsi deandover l ookanypr obl ems. I nf oQ:Whatar et hepossi bl enegat i veout comesf r om st upi di t yatwor k? Al vesson:Anenor mouswast eoft i meandener gyi nor gani z at i onsspenton wi ndowdr es si ngact i vi t i esandmeani ngl essmeet i ngr i t ual sort i ck boxact i vi t i es. Manyor gani z at i onsmak el i t t l eornocont r i but i ont osoc i et y .Asar esul templ oy ees f eel i ngcy ni cal anddi sappoi nt ed. Fori nst ance,t eacher sspendi ncr easi ngpr opor t i onsoft hei rt i mecompl yi ngwi t h v ar i ousaudi t i ngex er ci ses.Asar esul t ,t heyspendmor eoft hei rt i medoi ng admi ni st r at i vedut i est hanact ual l yt eachi ngt hei rpupi l s.Thi shasaknockoneffectof maki ngt eacher sf eell i k et heyar enotdoi ngt hei rj obpr oper l y-t heybecome al i enat edandmanyar enowl eav i ngt hepr of essi on.Thi sal sohasawi dersoc i al i mpact-l eadi ngt oundereducat edki ds. Spi cer :I ti si nt er es t i ngt onot et hatcount r i esl i k eFi nl andwhi cht endt ogi v et hei r t eacher sl ot sofpr of essi onalaut onomyanddon’ tov er bur dent hem wi t h admi ni st r at i vedemandst endt ohav et hebesteducat i onalout comesf orki ds. I nf oQ:Whatposi t i veout comescani tbr i ng? Al vesson:Peopl ear ef ocused,t heyf eel comf or t abl e,t heyar enotov er bur dened wi t hdoubtandr eflect i on.I tcanal socr eat eaposi t i v ewor kcul t ur eswi t houtcr i t i que ordi fficul tquest i onsbei ngask ed.Buti t ’ sadoubl eedgeds wor d.Eachoft heseshor t t er m benefit scanbecomel ongt er m pr obl ems. Spi cer :Fori nst ance,i noneconsul t anc yfir m west udi ed,wenot i cedt hatmanyof t hey oungempl oy eeswer eunusual l yupbeataboutev er yt hi ng.Thesewer esmar t peopl ewhohadspenty ear sbei ngt r ai nedhowt ot hi nk.Butassoonast heyent er ed t hefir m,manys t oppedusi ngt heset hi nki ngski l l s.Asar esul t ,t heycoul dgetonwi t h t het askanddot hi ngswhi chseemedi r r at i onalbutmadet hecl i enthappyi nt heshor t t er m.Asar esul t ,t hesepeopl ewer epr omot edandt her ewasal sol essconfli cti nt he or gani sat i on.Buti tof t engav er i set ol ongert er m pr obl ems. I nf oQ:Youi nvest i gat edl eader shi pi nyourbook.Whathaveyoul ear ned? Al vesson:Muchoft het al kandmanyoft hehopeswehav eaboutl eader shi pi sj ust f ant as y .Of t en,i nknowl edgei nt ensi v efir ms,l eader sj ustgeti nt heway .I f

or gani sat i onsact ual l ywant edt obesuccess f ul ,whati sneededi sl essl eader shi p. Af t er al l ,f ewmanager shav emuchl eader shi p.95% oft hei rt i mei sspentdoi ng bor i ngadmi ni st r at i on.Whent heyt r yt odol eader shi p,t heyar eof t enf arf r om what managementbest sel l er spr eachandpr omi se.Fori nst ance,i nonet echfir m we st udi ed,wesawmanager swhower ebr oughti nt omanageagr oupofengi neer s. Theengi neer swer epr ...