(This blog is somewhat UK centric – sorry).
I love watching sports. Yet my loyalty gets really tested at times. In the last week we have had to endure the Pakistani cricket scandal and the ramifications of Rugby Union’s bloodgate. And the premiership has returned – with its usual vicious circle of terrible decisions and cacophony of disrespect for referees.
Sometimes I really wonder about how deep the cheating and chucking of games goes. Allegedly Harlequins were far from the only blood cheats. Cricket has for years had a series of allegations and eye-poppingly unlikely results. The Italian soccer scandal, not long ago, was shocking – and the money sloshing around the premiership these days combined with the blatant lack of integrity of key actors makes me think a similar thing in the UK will only be a matter of time. Oh, and recall two or three current managers have been accused of accepting backhanders. Cycling has been totally shot for years. In athletics, we are supposed to credit that all the world’s best sprinters come from one club on a small island. A top snooker star was recently arrested. Rumours abound over chucked tennis matches. Did I mention darts? Boxing is rife with rumour as well. Formula One is pure business, barely sport at all.
And consider what might lie beneath the iceberg. In two major sports the UK suddenly spurted in multiple gold medal winners in the last Olympics from a poor legacy. The string of scores thrown up by one premiership team so far this season at home and in Europe could raise an eyebrow. And these are just the bigger things. What about small fry like county cricket, league two soccer, and the micro stuff of spot bets?
Exactly what are we watching here? Are we seeing fair contests, rigged entertainment or simply televised criminality? When I tune in to watch a sport, does it matter if it feels as staged as the X factor? What are the consequences? And what can be done?
Some things in life matter more of course (the cricket crisis is hardly the worst challenge for Pakistan just now, though the media coverage might lead us to think differently). The worst human consequences come from the after effects of drug use or sports with rules that are plain dumb – remember Mohammed Ali? Apart from that, I suppose there are more exploitative greedy options traders out there than corrupt sports officials, and they cost us more money. Yet the shambles that goes on in many sports is still a wasted opportunity, and we should stay aware that sports influence morals and behaviours, most strongly of our next generation of potential criminals, boys in their teens.
And, serious or not, sports are sorts of brands and in the end there is only so much the customers will take. Some of the above mentioned sports I simply don’t watch any more. Viewing figures, for example for athletics and cycling, show I am not alone. I’ll still watch cricket after this week, but it won’t take many more screw ups to change my mind. At least they’ve innovated smartly, with twenty-20.
I must offer a word in praise of Golf. It would be one of the easiest sports to manipulate. Imagine a player betting on his own score for a round. Assuming the score was a modest one, it would be possible to hit the jackpot pretty well each time. Perhaps this happens, but somehow I doubt it. The locker room controls its own players. And this is a sport where just this year a player self-declared a penalty which cost him a title, in a situation with zero risk of detection. Impressive.
So what can be done? Start by ignoring most of what is written in the media. This tends to be either short term over-reaction, or wishing us back to days which cannot return, or reactionary snobbery (whether against lower class oiks that play soccer or foreigners playing cricket), or plain unachievable (we are supposed to try to ban spot betting in India…while actually ALL betting in most of India is illegal already!).
The first focus for any sport is to gain control of its brand, globally if at all possible. This has to be pretty ruthless. US Football (as so often) sets the blueprint. There is tough central control, with franchises and buyers forced into a set of rules with no opt outs or tolerance for deviation. The rules are set down with the long term interest of the sport in mind, especially its customers (that’s us, the fans). FIFA has the control, but not the management quality. The IOC has the control in theory, but is a club of self serving folk rather than a meritocracy. The ICC has next to no control. I recognise this is not easy in international political environments, but it must be non negotiable.
Second focus is to embrace technology to stay ahead. Too often sports resist technology in the lazy cause of tradition. Hawkeye for instant replays. Many referees with communication for rapid decisions. Retroactive punishment for offences caught on camera. Wire taps of premises and phones. Investment in technology to beat drugs cheats and betting cheats. And be ready to change the rules and the practice of the sport to take advantage, if that is what it takes.
Third, apply the rules with zero tolerance. Now we are using technology we can trust our own rules more, and now we have strong governance and control we can apply them. So employ more sin bins. Emphasise well-trained, well-paid, protected, referees. Apply financial and other penalties for infractions commensurate with the ability to pay (please, please do this before the worst-offending premiership manager finally retires). Ban the cheats, but ban their masters too (an 18-year-old Pakistani lad is hardly a ringleader). Stay the course amid the early ill-effects and whining from vested interests. Finally, try to use the locker room, just like golf does, to impose good norms on all players.
A caveat is to respect the law. I seem to be advocating a series of self-governed police states here, but this has to take place within the boundaries agreed in society. Think of the Catholic Church…and do the opposite.
I hope I can still enjoy sport in twenty years time as much as I do today. I believe it is most likely to happen if sports are able to follow my three point plan. Sadly, I have my doubts that many sports can pull this off.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
In Praise of Great Journalistic Writing
I subscribe to The Guardian Weekly. It is a weekly digest, 48 pages long, of articles from The Guardian from the previous week, printed on ultra-thin paper to save costs and delivered to your door. Some articles are taken from the sister publication of The Observer, while there are also pieces from Le Monde and The Washington Post.
I recommend it, and I read at least 80% of its articles each week. I have some quibbles. There is not enough sport for my taste. The editorial line is left of centre and that makes it a great balancer for The Economist, but I do wish it shared its ruthless logic, as too often articles bemoan the state of our capitalist world without offering coherent alternatives. Perhaps that will prove to be the modern curse of all liberal dreams, though I’m not ready to accept that it is yet. One consequence is that the paper often overall makes me feel gloomy, whereas The Economist always seems to succeed in being optimistic. In that sense, reading The Guardian Weekly can remind me of listening to an ageing priest’s homily finding fault with all modernity some way of other. My last whinge is the supply chain. Why does it take until Saturday to receive 48 pages of material with a last copy day of the previous Monday, while The Economist can produce 140 pages with a copy day of Thursday to my door, more reliably, on the same day?
The great strengths of The Guardian Weekly, in my opinion, are its truly global focus, the surprising stories in its Review section, and the general quality of writing. The Economist is sharp, precise and accurate, but rarely beautiful (though nerds like me sometimes find their charts beautiful). The Guardian Weekly always produces some articles to make me purr with their use of language alone.
The week before last included a contribution from octogenarian Katherine Whitehorn. She was a regular contributor in the 1980’s to the women’s pages (cruelly dubbed wimmin’s pages by Private Eye and others), alongside the cartoons of Posy Simmons. While I never fully understood some of the more strident women’s themes, The Guardian certainly challenged society in necessary directions in those days.
Whitehorn is always imaginative, human, lucid, but above all she is funny. Judging by this recent article, arguing that we now live so long that the three ages of man ought to be replaced with four, she has lost none of her skill. I liked the idea – that sometime between 45 and 55 we can enter a slower phase of second career, less fuelled by ambition and need for money and more attuned to our true passions, before succumbing to true decline in our 70’s or 80’s. Of course I liked the idea, I am a pioneer for it! But, as always with Whitehorn, it is less about the idea itself than the language she uses to espouse it. Timeless class at work.
You may have to subscribe to find her article, but here are some famous quotes from Whitehorn. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/k/katherine_whitehorn.html
I especially like the observations about taxis, teaching children about money, born again people and recycling laundry.
While I am praising great journalism, here are some other names. Nancy Banks Smith is from the same generation as Whitehorn and has similar brilliant observations of life through her TV review, still going strong in The Guardian (and its Weekly). This year saw the passing of political writer Alan Watkins. One of his mentees was Robert Harris, who moved from commentator to novelist. And when I first used to read the Guardian it was a venerable James Cameron who set the standard.
Recalling these journalists evokes sharp memories in me. Just like a place has a smell, an era in ones life has certain themes, and what one habitually read can be one of them. Events can do the same (where were you when the wall came down or Diana died?), but not too much else can make such an instant connection. With novels and films, I find the exact time blurs in the memory.
And with the many transitions in journalism taking place now, what will be the equivalent for the next generation? I sense there are viewer iconic newspaper writers now, and certainly fewer readers. TV programmes and events will still play a role for sure (The Morecambe and Wise Christmas shows define my early teens as sharply as anything). But what else?
I recommend it, and I read at least 80% of its articles each week. I have some quibbles. There is not enough sport for my taste. The editorial line is left of centre and that makes it a great balancer for The Economist, but I do wish it shared its ruthless logic, as too often articles bemoan the state of our capitalist world without offering coherent alternatives. Perhaps that will prove to be the modern curse of all liberal dreams, though I’m not ready to accept that it is yet. One consequence is that the paper often overall makes me feel gloomy, whereas The Economist always seems to succeed in being optimistic. In that sense, reading The Guardian Weekly can remind me of listening to an ageing priest’s homily finding fault with all modernity some way of other. My last whinge is the supply chain. Why does it take until Saturday to receive 48 pages of material with a last copy day of the previous Monday, while The Economist can produce 140 pages with a copy day of Thursday to my door, more reliably, on the same day?
The great strengths of The Guardian Weekly, in my opinion, are its truly global focus, the surprising stories in its Review section, and the general quality of writing. The Economist is sharp, precise and accurate, but rarely beautiful (though nerds like me sometimes find their charts beautiful). The Guardian Weekly always produces some articles to make me purr with their use of language alone.
The week before last included a contribution from octogenarian Katherine Whitehorn. She was a regular contributor in the 1980’s to the women’s pages (cruelly dubbed wimmin’s pages by Private Eye and others), alongside the cartoons of Posy Simmons. While I never fully understood some of the more strident women’s themes, The Guardian certainly challenged society in necessary directions in those days.
Whitehorn is always imaginative, human, lucid, but above all she is funny. Judging by this recent article, arguing that we now live so long that the three ages of man ought to be replaced with four, she has lost none of her skill. I liked the idea – that sometime between 45 and 55 we can enter a slower phase of second career, less fuelled by ambition and need for money and more attuned to our true passions, before succumbing to true decline in our 70’s or 80’s. Of course I liked the idea, I am a pioneer for it! But, as always with Whitehorn, it is less about the idea itself than the language she uses to espouse it. Timeless class at work.
You may have to subscribe to find her article, but here are some famous quotes from Whitehorn. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/k/katherine_whitehorn.html
I especially like the observations about taxis, teaching children about money, born again people and recycling laundry.
While I am praising great journalism, here are some other names. Nancy Banks Smith is from the same generation as Whitehorn and has similar brilliant observations of life through her TV review, still going strong in The Guardian (and its Weekly). This year saw the passing of political writer Alan Watkins. One of his mentees was Robert Harris, who moved from commentator to novelist. And when I first used to read the Guardian it was a venerable James Cameron who set the standard.
Recalling these journalists evokes sharp memories in me. Just like a place has a smell, an era in ones life has certain themes, and what one habitually read can be one of them. Events can do the same (where were you when the wall came down or Diana died?), but not too much else can make such an instant connection. With novels and films, I find the exact time blurs in the memory.
And with the many transitions in journalism taking place now, what will be the equivalent for the next generation? I sense there are viewer iconic newspaper writers now, and certainly fewer readers. TV programmes and events will still play a role for sure (The Morecambe and Wise Christmas shows define my early teens as sharply as anything). But what else?
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Goals and Plans - Help or Hindrance?
Last week I was enjoying a coffee with my landlady when she asked me a question that set me thinking. My landlady doesn’t fit the role stereotype, being almost twenty years my junior and great fun, without a hair curler in sight. She was sharing how she is trying to plot her future career and life goals, especially a dream she has of spending some years in Latin America. Knowing I’d lived in many places, she asked me what my strategy had been in such matters.
I couldn’t find a good answer. When I thought it through, I’ve never really had much of a strategy. Up to age 22 my dreams were really those of my parents. I just drifted into Shell, and more or less let things happen on instinct. Arguably that included marriage, and even separation. A big part of my plan for the next few years is to have no plan, but to live very much in the present. Anchored only by a solid commitment to a relationship, I’m ready to see where that leads and what might come along as far as activities are concerned.
Does that make me weak? Would I have achieved more or been happier if I’d had solid goals all the way through? My inclination is to say no. I’ve always had a decent compass, some self knowledge, a degree of openness, quite clear values, a fuzzy idea of what options would fit and what would not and a means of evaluating them as they arose, some concept of good outcomes, and a willingness to be surprised. The more I thought about Pamela’s question, the more I thought I might have stumbled on a winning formula.
We’ve all met examples of the opposite type of strategy, and conventional wisdom leads us to admire these characters. The precocious child of six who announces their future profession. The fellow undergraduate signalling their date of marriage and birth of all offspring. The subordinate who presents a plan for their whole life at an appraisal. The retiree who gives the impression that everything was pretty much pre-planned.
Goals and plans clearly have a role. All the above individuals have a clear sense of direction and can make clear decisions. They also can attract followers, and offer them clear signals. A business will struggle to survive long without goals and plans, as investors demand signals, and staff need mechanisms to allocate resources and to keep score. Armies need this even more, though sometimes we don’t seem remember that when we commit to military adventures.
Even in complex businesses, I sense an obsession with goals and plans going so far as to be counter-productive. Plans always have to make an assumption about context – be it markets, regulations, competitors. And such assumptions are always wrong. The best companies are those who can react intelligently to opportunities as they arise, and that is not usually those with rigid goals and plans. Agility and humility are great attributes. I am surprised that rolling planning has not been adopted more quickly across industry, and suggest it could be a source of strength for those willing to cast aside years of finance department attitudes and give it a try.
In politics at election time, journalists focus on policies. These have a role, yet how often has the world changed so much by the time the election is over that those policies get overtaken by events? It probably makes much more sense to judge based on values and on competence – and happily in most countries the public do just that.
Many sports and games illustrate the same point. Counter-attacking and flexible teams win soccer championships more often than conventional analysis would suggest. Martial arts are all about using the energy and commitment of an opponent to one’s own advantage. As a child I remember a wonderful game called L’Attaque. The title was a brilliant trick, as I learned that the way to win was to let the other side attack you. This usually works in Chess too.
Going back to the individual, I believe the arguments for a responsive strategy are even stronger, since the main advantage of a plan based approach, that of marshalling a team, are less relevant (though life partners always need to plan together). The second advantage of a clear plan is as a hedge against apathy, with plans acting as a spur, a personal sergeant major in one’s ear.
But it is easy to list many disadvantages to running your life by rigid goals and plans. Context changes so fast. We have no idea what opportunities lie ahead of us, not just when we are six but when we are sixty as well. While we are focussed in one direction, we easily miss what is going on at the periphery. Psychologically, a goal can become an expectation, and that sets it up as a preordained disappointment. The most bitter people often had the clearest goals.
I’m certainly not advocating fatalism. We are not without influence on what happens to us, and we should use that influence. Values and attitude matter, as do criteria to judge and take opportunities. And we can take many actions to bring more opportunities towards us. That is not fatalism, but a strategy of active readiness, which I believe is supported by most interpretations of beliefs about Higher Powers.
I suppose just now I’m testing out the limits of my own theory, deliberately minimising goals and plans. Perhaps I’ll slide into apathy, or fall into some other pitfall I haven’t foreseen, or simply not be able to resist slipping into some former corporate habits. On the other hand, perhaps I’ve stumbled upon an attitude that can be part of a key to serenity.
I couldn’t find a good answer. When I thought it through, I’ve never really had much of a strategy. Up to age 22 my dreams were really those of my parents. I just drifted into Shell, and more or less let things happen on instinct. Arguably that included marriage, and even separation. A big part of my plan for the next few years is to have no plan, but to live very much in the present. Anchored only by a solid commitment to a relationship, I’m ready to see where that leads and what might come along as far as activities are concerned.
Does that make me weak? Would I have achieved more or been happier if I’d had solid goals all the way through? My inclination is to say no. I’ve always had a decent compass, some self knowledge, a degree of openness, quite clear values, a fuzzy idea of what options would fit and what would not and a means of evaluating them as they arose, some concept of good outcomes, and a willingness to be surprised. The more I thought about Pamela’s question, the more I thought I might have stumbled on a winning formula.
We’ve all met examples of the opposite type of strategy, and conventional wisdom leads us to admire these characters. The precocious child of six who announces their future profession. The fellow undergraduate signalling their date of marriage and birth of all offspring. The subordinate who presents a plan for their whole life at an appraisal. The retiree who gives the impression that everything was pretty much pre-planned.
Goals and plans clearly have a role. All the above individuals have a clear sense of direction and can make clear decisions. They also can attract followers, and offer them clear signals. A business will struggle to survive long without goals and plans, as investors demand signals, and staff need mechanisms to allocate resources and to keep score. Armies need this even more, though sometimes we don’t seem remember that when we commit to military adventures.
Even in complex businesses, I sense an obsession with goals and plans going so far as to be counter-productive. Plans always have to make an assumption about context – be it markets, regulations, competitors. And such assumptions are always wrong. The best companies are those who can react intelligently to opportunities as they arise, and that is not usually those with rigid goals and plans. Agility and humility are great attributes. I am surprised that rolling planning has not been adopted more quickly across industry, and suggest it could be a source of strength for those willing to cast aside years of finance department attitudes and give it a try.
In politics at election time, journalists focus on policies. These have a role, yet how often has the world changed so much by the time the election is over that those policies get overtaken by events? It probably makes much more sense to judge based on values and on competence – and happily in most countries the public do just that.
Many sports and games illustrate the same point. Counter-attacking and flexible teams win soccer championships more often than conventional analysis would suggest. Martial arts are all about using the energy and commitment of an opponent to one’s own advantage. As a child I remember a wonderful game called L’Attaque. The title was a brilliant trick, as I learned that the way to win was to let the other side attack you. This usually works in Chess too.
Going back to the individual, I believe the arguments for a responsive strategy are even stronger, since the main advantage of a plan based approach, that of marshalling a team, are less relevant (though life partners always need to plan together). The second advantage of a clear plan is as a hedge against apathy, with plans acting as a spur, a personal sergeant major in one’s ear.
But it is easy to list many disadvantages to running your life by rigid goals and plans. Context changes so fast. We have no idea what opportunities lie ahead of us, not just when we are six but when we are sixty as well. While we are focussed in one direction, we easily miss what is going on at the periphery. Psychologically, a goal can become an expectation, and that sets it up as a preordained disappointment. The most bitter people often had the clearest goals.
I’m certainly not advocating fatalism. We are not without influence on what happens to us, and we should use that influence. Values and attitude matter, as do criteria to judge and take opportunities. And we can take many actions to bring more opportunities towards us. That is not fatalism, but a strategy of active readiness, which I believe is supported by most interpretations of beliefs about Higher Powers.
I suppose just now I’m testing out the limits of my own theory, deliberately minimising goals and plans. Perhaps I’ll slide into apathy, or fall into some other pitfall I haven’t foreseen, or simply not be able to resist slipping into some former corporate habits. On the other hand, perhaps I’ve stumbled upon an attitude that can be part of a key to serenity.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
More on Challenging Assumptions
Last week I asked us all to challenge all our assumptions as often as possible. While we can’t live without assumptions, letting them go unchallenged is the route to staleness.
I offered some assumptions worthy of challenge at a macro level, and then some for individuals. Of course we are all different, and our assumptions differ too. I chose questions that I have found useful for myself, and where I’ve seen friends and colleagues falter in the past.
There is a third level where I’d like to suggest some questions, in between the other two. That is the level of the company or at least of the teams or operating units that make up companies. There is a great deal of dogma flying around in companies, and it is understandable why. CEO’s and brand departments have to seek ways to simplify their environments and find messages to motivate staff wherever they are. Smart team leaders and employees should learn to quietly challenge these assertions, to avoid the risk that they might actually believe they all apply universally as axioms and come unstuck as a result.
Here are some questions for you as corporate citizen, team leader or boss.
We have very good people.
The only way is up – once our strategies have time to work things will improve
The competition is less ethical than we are
If we could only communicate better, customers would see the superiority of our products
Lower cost competitors are fighting in a different market to us
More budget, more investment, acquisitions can do only good if they can be funded
If we were larger we would be stronger
The bosses three levels up can see things we can’t and have more power
The finance department are just bean counters, a necessary evil
HR are clueless
Our costs are under control but there is waste everywhere else
Customers either buy on price or quality
Many of our customers are loyal
Each of these can do with a healthy challenge inside many companies. Some statements may survive the challenge – I’m not saying all assumptions are wrong.
So, we are supposed to challenge all of these assumptions. How, exactly?
This is difficult, as we are somehow self-programmed to avoid too much challenge. Challenge is destabilising. We are in denial about our false assumptions a lot of the time, as a coping strategy to avoid our lives collapsing into ambiguity and confusion.
That is the first lesson for how to challenge. Be very suspicious of yourself. You think you are challenging when you are not really, you are more likely just reinforcing or making some excuse.
Next lesson is to be on the lookout for unusual data points. Sometimes these will arise in crises or unusual situations. Someone you don’t know all that well might say something that takes you aback. These opportunities are golden, since they shake off the denial and reinforcement. The trick is really to use them. When such an event happens, consider it deeply for what it might mean.
An example is the wisdom shown by the woman I would normally have disregarded. Luckily the situation allowed me not just to take in what she had to say, but also to avoid the easy conclusion that she was some sort of outlier, an unusual woman of her background with wisdom. That way the assumption would have been reinforced and an opportunity for real growth lost.
Next, go deep as a project on one or two assumptions at a time. For these assumptions, try for a period to assume its exact opposite. Then look for evidence and consequence of that opposite. Some statements have multiple opposites, so play with the permutations. Stick at this for a few days or weeks.
Finally, ask for help. Perhaps “I ask for help readily” is itself an assumption ripe for challenge. That would not be unusual. Assumptions are great places to seek deep, honest feedback. As with all tougher feedback, it is important to create a good atmosphere and choose the right people, then to keep persisting until the true message emerges. This is sometimes embarrassing or painful (for both parties) and we all tend to give up too quickly.
History is full of examples where false assumptions held sway far longer than they should have. Think of Gallileo debunking the flat world. Think of the recent financial crisis. I was brought up to believe that all Russians were somehow evil. One of my favourites is about the British sense of fair play. Come again? There is a lot of this type of assumption about, and much value in challenging.
I offered some assumptions worthy of challenge at a macro level, and then some for individuals. Of course we are all different, and our assumptions differ too. I chose questions that I have found useful for myself, and where I’ve seen friends and colleagues falter in the past.
There is a third level where I’d like to suggest some questions, in between the other two. That is the level of the company or at least of the teams or operating units that make up companies. There is a great deal of dogma flying around in companies, and it is understandable why. CEO’s and brand departments have to seek ways to simplify their environments and find messages to motivate staff wherever they are. Smart team leaders and employees should learn to quietly challenge these assertions, to avoid the risk that they might actually believe they all apply universally as axioms and come unstuck as a result.
Here are some questions for you as corporate citizen, team leader or boss.
We have very good people.
The only way is up – once our strategies have time to work things will improve
The competition is less ethical than we are
If we could only communicate better, customers would see the superiority of our products
Lower cost competitors are fighting in a different market to us
More budget, more investment, acquisitions can do only good if they can be funded
If we were larger we would be stronger
The bosses three levels up can see things we can’t and have more power
The finance department are just bean counters, a necessary evil
HR are clueless
Our costs are under control but there is waste everywhere else
Customers either buy on price or quality
Many of our customers are loyal
Each of these can do with a healthy challenge inside many companies. Some statements may survive the challenge – I’m not saying all assumptions are wrong.
So, we are supposed to challenge all of these assumptions. How, exactly?
This is difficult, as we are somehow self-programmed to avoid too much challenge. Challenge is destabilising. We are in denial about our false assumptions a lot of the time, as a coping strategy to avoid our lives collapsing into ambiguity and confusion.
That is the first lesson for how to challenge. Be very suspicious of yourself. You think you are challenging when you are not really, you are more likely just reinforcing or making some excuse.
Next lesson is to be on the lookout for unusual data points. Sometimes these will arise in crises or unusual situations. Someone you don’t know all that well might say something that takes you aback. These opportunities are golden, since they shake off the denial and reinforcement. The trick is really to use them. When such an event happens, consider it deeply for what it might mean.
An example is the wisdom shown by the woman I would normally have disregarded. Luckily the situation allowed me not just to take in what she had to say, but also to avoid the easy conclusion that she was some sort of outlier, an unusual woman of her background with wisdom. That way the assumption would have been reinforced and an opportunity for real growth lost.
Next, go deep as a project on one or two assumptions at a time. For these assumptions, try for a period to assume its exact opposite. Then look for evidence and consequence of that opposite. Some statements have multiple opposites, so play with the permutations. Stick at this for a few days or weeks.
Finally, ask for help. Perhaps “I ask for help readily” is itself an assumption ripe for challenge. That would not be unusual. Assumptions are great places to seek deep, honest feedback. As with all tougher feedback, it is important to create a good atmosphere and choose the right people, then to keep persisting until the true message emerges. This is sometimes embarrassing or painful (for both parties) and we all tend to give up too quickly.
History is full of examples where false assumptions held sway far longer than they should have. Think of Gallileo debunking the flat world. Think of the recent financial crisis. I was brought up to believe that all Russians were somehow evil. One of my favourites is about the British sense of fair play. Come again? There is a lot of this type of assumption about, and much value in challenging.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Challenge your assumptions - then challenge them again
We can’t achieve much without making assumptions. We do it all the time, without realising it. Examples are assuming that someone coming at us along the street won’t shoot us, that the traffic light will turn green sometime, or that it will grow dark this evening. Good assumptions, based on practical experience, make live simple enough to live.
Progress also starts with assumption. A scientist will make a hypothesis, and run a series of experiments to try to prove or disprove it. A hypothesis is basically a fancy word for a working assumption.
So assumptions are necessary good. But fixed ideas are, I contend, the opposite, the things that stifle growth, individually or at any grander scale.
We all do it. Our assumptions go far wider than traffic lights. Over the years we slip into lazy thinking, disguised as coping strategies. Often it is extreme – think of all the games people play while dating, built around their own assumptions about expectations or fear or superstition. We do it at work too. It simplifies our life and makes us feel better in the same way as a comfort blanket does for a child. But how it blocks our growth.
Society is also built on lazy assumption. And whereas in science it is possible to construct experiments, in economics and social matters that is much harder, because human behaviours are complicated and good controls hard to find. Often, people can “prove” pretty well any assumption they care to make, whether motivated by political belief or selfishness or just misguided goodwill. The assumption becomes the problem.
I very much enjoyed “Super Freakonomics”, a book I read on holiday by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. You can read their blog on http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/author/steven-d-levitt/. The style and viewpoint can be annoyingly American, but you can’t argue that the content isn’t excellent. The approach is to try to turn popular orthodoxy on its head by applying rigorous science, and it works. Of course the limitation is which particular popular orthodoxy comes under challenge.
Back to us as individuals, and I suspect many of us feel we are already quite good about challenging our assumptions. We grew out of comfort blankets ages ago! My plea is that you challenge that very assumption!
I won’t claim to be especially good at this myself, but I do know I have improved, and I also can quote some examples where I’ve learned the hard way how assumptions have got in my way.
A good example is my approach to diversity at work. I always believed in its power, and strove to get a diverse team. But without realising it, I did it from my own limited context. I was using the diversity to validate or repudiate or fine tune my assumptions and my ways of working. Then I had some luck, probably supported by my own laziness in letting my team self-manage more. I came to realise that the biggest value of diverse backgrounds came not at the stage of validating hypotheses but in creating them. Almost by accident, the value multiplied. I’m sure I still have a long way to go, but I know that I was deluding myself before, and suspect many of you will be suffering the same delusive assumption now.
Other examples are in openness and judging. I always believed I was quite open, but a life crisis two years ago led me to greatly expand the group of people I chose to be open with and the subject matter permitted. The result was a step change in my own self awareness and (I believe) effectiveness and happiness too. Can you make that change without a crisis?
On judging, I’ve always been aware of being a bit of an intellectual snob, but found ways to justify it. Again a crisis intervened, and I found myself sitting in the same room as a rotund, modestly dressed, seemingly under-educated, middle aged woman under conditions where I was forced to listen to what she was saying, really listen. And wow, what she said was powerful. And why not? Wisdom is not wholly correlated with education. How much useful wisdom I have wilfully discarded over 50 years of that misguided belief! What about you? And the business you work in?
So my advice is to work on the assumption that you are inhibited by many assumptions, and challenge them with courage and humility. Here are some statements you might make to yourself occasionally.
I am a good listener.
I am an accessible leader.
I value diversity and don’t judge or exercise snobbery.
I hate politics, and am not good at it. Others succeed because they are politicians.
I welcome change.
I take safety in work seriously.
My company has a debt to me for my years of service.
I value peace and humanity above ego and ambition.
In a more social context, you can try some more.
I am not good in large parties (believe me, nor is anyone else!).
The “right” men (or women) don’t find me attractive.
He (she) will leave me unless I keep an eye on him (her).
I am a good lover and considerate partner.
Religion is plainly flawed so cannot offer me anything useful.
At a societal level, progress comes when we finally challenge our assumptions, or dogmas. It is an argument against conservative politics, though so called liberals are usually just as guilty of dogma, just different dogma. It is wonderful how in the last 100 years we have made such progress on female emancipation, sexual acceptance, health, and other areas. In each case, progress has been slowed by dogmatic assumption.
What assumptions might come under scrutiny in coming years? Here are some modest ideas.
Our pay should continue to rise through our career.
We need countries, and countries need armies, and some wars can’t be avoided.
GDP per capita is the least bad measure of progress.
Alcohol is not like smoking or drugs.
Western medical methods are the only way to improve health.
Greedy bosses are an inevitable by product of capitalism.
Democracy as practiced in the West is the least bad system of government. (Or an alternative: what happens in the West is accurately described as Democracy)
All of these will come under challenge as a natural process of responding to crisis (for example I believe the first statement is the key to unlocking the global pensions dilemma). Yet I’m sure we can progress faster and further by challenging earlier and more bravely. Sadly, I’m not holding my breath.
But at a personal level, nothing stops us but ourselves. So start challenging. And challenge me too, please.
Progress also starts with assumption. A scientist will make a hypothesis, and run a series of experiments to try to prove or disprove it. A hypothesis is basically a fancy word for a working assumption.
So assumptions are necessary good. But fixed ideas are, I contend, the opposite, the things that stifle growth, individually or at any grander scale.
We all do it. Our assumptions go far wider than traffic lights. Over the years we slip into lazy thinking, disguised as coping strategies. Often it is extreme – think of all the games people play while dating, built around their own assumptions about expectations or fear or superstition. We do it at work too. It simplifies our life and makes us feel better in the same way as a comfort blanket does for a child. But how it blocks our growth.
Society is also built on lazy assumption. And whereas in science it is possible to construct experiments, in economics and social matters that is much harder, because human behaviours are complicated and good controls hard to find. Often, people can “prove” pretty well any assumption they care to make, whether motivated by political belief or selfishness or just misguided goodwill. The assumption becomes the problem.
I very much enjoyed “Super Freakonomics”, a book I read on holiday by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. You can read their blog on http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/author/steven-d-levitt/. The style and viewpoint can be annoyingly American, but you can’t argue that the content isn’t excellent. The approach is to try to turn popular orthodoxy on its head by applying rigorous science, and it works. Of course the limitation is which particular popular orthodoxy comes under challenge.
Back to us as individuals, and I suspect many of us feel we are already quite good about challenging our assumptions. We grew out of comfort blankets ages ago! My plea is that you challenge that very assumption!
I won’t claim to be especially good at this myself, but I do know I have improved, and I also can quote some examples where I’ve learned the hard way how assumptions have got in my way.
A good example is my approach to diversity at work. I always believed in its power, and strove to get a diverse team. But without realising it, I did it from my own limited context. I was using the diversity to validate or repudiate or fine tune my assumptions and my ways of working. Then I had some luck, probably supported by my own laziness in letting my team self-manage more. I came to realise that the biggest value of diverse backgrounds came not at the stage of validating hypotheses but in creating them. Almost by accident, the value multiplied. I’m sure I still have a long way to go, but I know that I was deluding myself before, and suspect many of you will be suffering the same delusive assumption now.
Other examples are in openness and judging. I always believed I was quite open, but a life crisis two years ago led me to greatly expand the group of people I chose to be open with and the subject matter permitted. The result was a step change in my own self awareness and (I believe) effectiveness and happiness too. Can you make that change without a crisis?
On judging, I’ve always been aware of being a bit of an intellectual snob, but found ways to justify it. Again a crisis intervened, and I found myself sitting in the same room as a rotund, modestly dressed, seemingly under-educated, middle aged woman under conditions where I was forced to listen to what she was saying, really listen. And wow, what she said was powerful. And why not? Wisdom is not wholly correlated with education. How much useful wisdom I have wilfully discarded over 50 years of that misguided belief! What about you? And the business you work in?
So my advice is to work on the assumption that you are inhibited by many assumptions, and challenge them with courage and humility. Here are some statements you might make to yourself occasionally.
I am a good listener.
I am an accessible leader.
I value diversity and don’t judge or exercise snobbery.
I hate politics, and am not good at it. Others succeed because they are politicians.
I welcome change.
I take safety in work seriously.
My company has a debt to me for my years of service.
I value peace and humanity above ego and ambition.
In a more social context, you can try some more.
I am not good in large parties (believe me, nor is anyone else!).
The “right” men (or women) don’t find me attractive.
He (she) will leave me unless I keep an eye on him (her).
I am a good lover and considerate partner.
Religion is plainly flawed so cannot offer me anything useful.
At a societal level, progress comes when we finally challenge our assumptions, or dogmas. It is an argument against conservative politics, though so called liberals are usually just as guilty of dogma, just different dogma. It is wonderful how in the last 100 years we have made such progress on female emancipation, sexual acceptance, health, and other areas. In each case, progress has been slowed by dogmatic assumption.
What assumptions might come under scrutiny in coming years? Here are some modest ideas.
Our pay should continue to rise through our career.
We need countries, and countries need armies, and some wars can’t be avoided.
GDP per capita is the least bad measure of progress.
Alcohol is not like smoking or drugs.
Western medical methods are the only way to improve health.
Greedy bosses are an inevitable by product of capitalism.
Democracy as practiced in the West is the least bad system of government. (Or an alternative: what happens in the West is accurately described as Democracy)
All of these will come under challenge as a natural process of responding to crisis (for example I believe the first statement is the key to unlocking the global pensions dilemma). Yet I’m sure we can progress faster and further by challenging earlier and more bravely. Sadly, I’m not holding my breath.
But at a personal level, nothing stops us but ourselves. So start challenging. And challenge me too, please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)