Comments on: Reality: The Enemy of Innovation?

By: Ollie Saunders

Ollie Saunders — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:45:35 +0000

Roger, you raise interesting points and I’m with you when it comes to a disdain for “the reality is”. But given my differing viewpoint I thought I’d share some of my ideas with you.

I’m not certain that “the reality is” is necessarily always used in the absolute sense where the speaker is asserting that they don’t believe the universe can be changed in it’s entirety. My belief is that it is used very specifically, most often by a frustrated person engaged in important discussion, in order to give power to their argument whilst instilling a sense of hopelessness in their opponent’s. It’s a fight for control on a very specific point, not so much a philosophical statement.

Despite this the negativity is conveys is considerable and is something I’d happily remove from our language. It’s a step away from “Look, just accept it and agree with me” and only one more to “Shut up, already”. So I can see why it might have motivated you to write about it.

> For example, a badly performing organization can be
> something else-a great organization-if someone figures
> out how it to turn it around. For this entire domain,
> Aristotle explicitly argued that analytics is an
> inappropriate tool.

I find myself disagreeing with Aristotle, if this is indeed what he said. I don’t believe simply by analysing something you are declaring it immutable and I envisage little in support of that argument. Consider all the analysis and postulating necessary to the understanding the human body that we now indulge in modifying, fixing, and maintaining with rampant vigour. In fact, even to put analysis second place to creative thoughts can (although not always) lead you everywhere and subsequently nowhere. Nearly always, in my experience, it is necessary to define and understand the problem or nature of the system before turning to creative solutions else you find yourself solving a different problem, solving nothing, or even making things worse.

By: Fred Collopy

Fred Collopy — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:10:12 +0000

This distinction comes down to us through Herb Simon as the difference between sciences of the natural and sciences of the artificial.

By: Jeffrey Veffer

Jeffrey Veffer — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:44:18 +0000

Roger, I wholeheartedly agree. For years we have argued that perception is reality, but within the business community any sense that there is ambiguity is the kiss of death when trying to convince others of the merits of your position. The assertion of “fact” has substituted for true creative thought and always is a defensive and backward looking action.
If we are truly to embrace the opportunities that present ourselves in the current economic turmoil, we have to move beyond defensive postures and embrace new ways of exploring problems that involve listening and starting new initiatives.

By: Troy Camplin, Ph.D.

Troy Camplin, Ph.D. — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:01:02 +0000

I was told that the only thing I was qualified for was working in a think tank. I was told by the think tanks that they didn’t know what to do with me. I’m setting up an arts and humanities think tank, The Emerson Institute for Freedom and Culture, but it requires donations. A bit of a hard sell right now.

By: Mike L.

Mike L. — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:11:28 +0000

Dear “Overqualified for everything”:
So was I! The employment agencies gave up on me. So I started my own business. Of course there was struggle, but with your credentials you can handle that ….

By: Troy Camplin, Ph.D.

Troy Camplin, Ph.D. — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:23:33 +0000

The reality is that reality is very complex, meaning we too often don’t know what the reality is. We still must obey nature in order to control it — we just have to be careful to understand that nature is not simple. Linear nature is a special case that almost never happens outside the physics lab. When you have a problem, you have to ask yourself if you have taken all the realities into consideration: physical, chemical, biological, psychological, sociological, economic, etc. Will the outcome be beautiful? If not, you’re probably not on the right track. The problem is that I can’t find anyone who is interested in someone who takes such an approach to problem-solving. If you don’t fit into a neat box, they don’t want you. Interdisciplinary? Forget it. Have a Ph.D. in the humanities, a M.A. in English, and a B.A. in recombinant gene technology with a minor in chemistry? Overqualified for everything.

By: Michael Wells

Michael Wells — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:57:17 +0000

Great article, and hard thinking to get away from. The next entry (Grading Obama’s Economic Policy) starts out: “The simple truth is..”

By: Buzzcut

Buzzcut — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:53:07 +0000

I’m still not clear as to what the alternative is? Is it just being “open minded”?

One big problem I see is the complexity of data analysis in many areas. Who has the expertise to, say, review a macroeconomic model to check it for consistancy, errors, etc? Climate models? Financial models?

So many decisions these days are data driven with datasets that are too enourmous to check. How do we know that they are “reality”?

By: Wendy

Wendy — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:09:24 +0000

I like this essay because it points out how important phrasing is when discussing strategy. This could be a good lesson for any organizational or corporate leader looking for creative solutions right now.

Starting with “I think x, because…” leaves open the possibility of being challenged, which could lead to new ideas from new people.

In being taught to make strong arguments, we’re usually taught not to start with “I believe,” “I think” etc. and instead just make a bold statement (“this cannot be done” or “the reality is this cannot be done”).