Functional Stupidity

Examples:

Executives who more interested in impressive power-point shows than systematic analysis.
Companies ran leadership development initiatives which would not be out of place in a new age commune, i.e. cult.
Technology firms that were more interested in keeping a positive tone than addressing real problems.
Schools focused more on developing impressive strategies than educating students.
Marketing executives who were obsessed with branding when all that mattered was the price.
Corporations that would throw millions into ‘change exercises’ and then, when they failed, do exactly the same thing again and again.
Senior defence officials who were more interested in running rebranding operations than military operations. (ever worked for a defense contractor?)

The Path of Least Resistance

We started to ask why such smart firms with intelligent people could do such stupid things. We found that these organizations would often hire intelligent people and then encourage them not to use their intelligence. The smart people would naturally try to think for themselves and ask questions. But this was discouraged in subtle and not so subtle ways. Employees were told things like ‘don’t think about it, just do it’, and ‘don’t bring us problems, just bring us solutions’. The smart workers quickly learned not to ask too many questions or to think too deeply because fully using their intelligence would result in awkward questions that might upset their superiors as well as their co-workers. The easiest course of action was often just to get on with the job.

Evolutionary Incentives

Zooming Out to the Development of Man

Asimov posed the question, “Which is the fitter, a man or an oyster?” If Earth were covered in water, clearly oysters would fair far better than man. And a person of a primitive sea-fairing culture will obviosly do better than a modern metropolitan vegan.

The main point: intelligence is not the only variable. There are many variables including personality traits and interests. We evolved for most of the last hundred-thousand years in groups of twenty to 150 people. A functional tribe would need charismatic leaders, risk-taking hunters and explorers, careful gatherers, and someone willing to spend their days sitting down by the river and knapping flint.

The Modern Tribe - The Organization

One person in the social network has the brains. One person has the balls. There are a few high performers. There is a legion of low performers. The larger the group, the more important unity is. A culture shift, a market shift, or what have you –it’s just one spark away from going up in flames.

…recipe for disaster.

How do you work this out? How do you thwart disaster? It takes a balance. The problem-solvers are good at collaboration within their groups. They aren’t easily offended and value results over methodologies. They are action-oriented and perhaps a bit blunt at times. They value truth above all else. They are not fearful of novelty. They are willing to fail fast and often. They are the innovators and the risk-takers.

That’s my camp –Camp Apple Users. Then there’s the PC. And by PC I mean ‘the Microsoft Camp’. This group is about cohesion, banding together, and getting the job done. They might be working toward an end that is unfruitful, but they’ll all go down together.

My point? As I often have to remind myself, clearly, you need both types. Being a lone wolf is inefficient. The wolf sometimes needs the protection of the group and access to other resources. At the same time, being a blind lemming is highly undersirable as well.

Thanks

If you made it this far through my rant, then you have my deepest sympathies. Don’t be complacent. Don’t let your fire die. Maybe you need to re-evaluate or reprioritize a few things. But don’t let your circumstance get you down.

Take care!

Functional Stupidity is Epidemic