Memorial Fountain

This weekend

Marilyn and I spent Saturday in Huntington, West Virginia attending the Marshall University/Memphis game. Marshall may not be the biggest University or most successful football program but it is very special to us. It was a rewarding and renewing experience.

Why do leaders fail to act?

Why leaders fail to act on the basis of clear and convincing evidence. . .

Unwillingness to re-appraise core values and beliefs - Sometimes leaders are unwilling to re-appraise their core values and beliefs. Conditions change and the reasons we have been successful in the past may not be the formula to success in the future. Excessive commitment to old ideals can lead to disaster.

Conflict of Interest - In other instances a leader may understand the nature of a problem and have a reasonable understanding of the actions required. Unfortunately the required actions may conflict with their perceived self interest.

No consequences for poor decision making - In still other situations, decision makers are able to insulate themselves from the consequences of poor decision making. Poor leadership results when there are no appreciable consequences for incompetence and malfeasance.

Orthodoxy

Critical thinking consists of discernment, analysis and evaluation. It allows us to form judgments that reconcile scientific evidence with common sense.

Lateral thinking is about reasoning that is not immediately obvious and ideas that may not be obtainable using traditional logic.

So why are critical and lateral thinking in such short supply? Orthodoxy (adherence to conventional beliefs) may be the great enemy of both. Once we are emotionally vested in a belief we become resistant to changing or letting it go. Orthodoxy therefore requires us to suspend critical examination of that belief. If we are not open to examining our beliefs then we are unable to discern problems which might require lateral solutions.

Orthodoxy, however, does play an important role in the management of our increasingly complex society. Once we have found a solution that works, faithful adherence to that solution allows us to focus our time and resources on other challenges. Problems arise when conditions change that render the original solution obsolete.

Adherents to orthodoxy invariably conclude that lack of fidelity to long standing conventions are the underlying cause of our problems. Heretics on the other hand believe that commitment to outdated solutions are the cause.

My questions is, how can we discern what is real without a thoughtful examination of the orthodox?

Literal or Lateral Leadership?

I have many friends who are very literal in their approach to defining problems and identifying solutions. Can literal thinkers be effective problem solvers? Perhaps, but some thorny problems may require a less literal perspective. . .

Edward de Bono says lateral thinking is the generation of new solutions for unresolved problems.

De Bono identifies four stages of lateral thinking:

(1) recognize dominant ideas that polarize perception of a problem,

(2) search for different ways of looking at things,

(3) relax rigid control of thinking, and

(4) use chance to encourage other ideas. This last stage has to do with the fact that lateral thinking involves low-probability ideas which are unlikely to occur in the normal course of events. So what do you think, are we ready for a leader who thinks laterally?

Thanks Greg Kearsley for your excellent summary of de Bono's important work.

Here of late I have been reflecting on evolutionary science, paleontology, history and how these disciplines may hold clues for our future.

Humanity has pretty much had it's way over the past several millenia. We have wiped out our competition, profoundly altered our environment and our numbers are increasing at an unsustainable rate. Can our successes continue or are we headed toward some currently unforeseen catastrophe? Jared Diamond is one smart guy, I wonder what he thinks?

The Nature of Quality

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig asserts that quality is undefinable, a position he later recants in Lila. Pirsig is an icon but here's my stab at defining a thing of quality.

1. A thing of quality must have purpose

2. A thing of quality must meet its purpose

3. A thing of quality must be reliable (reduce or eliminate random failure), and

4. A thing of quality must sustain its sense of purpose, effectiveness and reliability.