Imagine you’re asked to implement one of two coronavirus policies for your company.
The first was written a month ago by the most brilliant person in the world.
The second was written this morning by three average managers who have been trying to deal with this over the last month.
Here’s the trick: You can’t read either one. You have to pick based on what I’ve told you.
Which do you choose?
Before choosing either, if feasible, I’d bring both parties together immediately to discuss their input and then decide. The interaction might create a synergistic effect that could create a better solution than either of the individual recommendations.
If that wasn’t possible, I’d likely default to the average managers who had been working the issue on a more consistent basis. Typically, those who have direct experience and exposure are better suited to understand the nuances of an issue and develop practical/effective solutions.
Assuming the month old plan had variable responses based on the severity of the illness, (or said another way, it wasn’t an overly specific plan potentially being misapplied to this situation) I think I’d trust the brilliant expert (I assume expertise in the matter is implied). For 2 reasons:
1. It would take emotion and politics out of the equation
2. I’d expect it to be more proactive than reactive
And I say that despite my general distrust of planned economies. 🙂 (Just trying to be honest)
@Ken, I’m not so sure you can say experts are generally devoid of emotion and political persuasion. You’d “hope” that would be the case. Yet, we have examples of conflicting “scientific” studies by experts that are “allegedly” objective. Yet, when you explore deeply into their findings, background, sponsors, etc., you can see there have been other influences that skewed the outcomes. As well, just because they have more “academic” or “research” knowledge doesn’t necessarily mean their insights translate into recommendations that will add value (especially if they don’t have specific knowledge of the context in which their recommendations will be applied). That’s why sometimes “best practices” fail in some organizations. Yes, the “idea” is good but in a certain context or culture, they may not fit…therefore…it limits their effectiveness when applied.
Agreed. Everyone is subject to emotion, particularly in the moment.
But I meant that because they came up with the plan in the abstract before it happened, they’re less likely to be affected by emotional thinking.
@Ken, can’t say I agree because their “starting” position may not have been totally objective. Just because it hadn’t happened doesn’t mean they couldn’t have been biased in one way or another.
Ken, I’ve been dealing with this every day for the last couple weeks, and I don’t think any genius, no matter how expert, could have predicted all the nuances.
I suppose it’s possible that he could have thought out every conceivable path this thing could have taken and written a 300-page “choose your story” approach. But … I think that’s beyond even the brilliant expert.
I’d agree with that. There will be unforseen things (perhaps like panic buying of toilet paper of all things). But watching our leaders fumble through this in real-time isn’t exactly giving a very compelling counter-argument.
And of course, the artificially binary choice the question gives us, forces us to avoid compromise solutions. I’d say the right solution is to combine the two. Get the experts gaming out lots of scenarios with the “right” response and then let the day to day leaders decide what to actually do.
By way of example, one thing that I think would be helpful after this, would be to have a well distributed “quarantine level” that the government could use. Level 0: no restrictions and as you go up the levels, starting with international traveler quarantines, and moving up towards closing schools and businesses and restricting domestic travel. If the experts did the right prep work to both create the right number of levels (granular enough, but not so granular as to be overly confusing) and the right criteria for when each should be implemented, it would both help the public respond appropriately (since it is well known) and help the leaders decide what the right actions would be.
QUOTE: And of course, the artificially binary choice the question gives us, forces us to avoid compromise solutions. I’d say the right solution is to combine the two. Get the experts gaming out lots of scenarios with the “right” response and then let the day to day leaders decide what to actually do.
Ken, I agree and suggested the same in my first post. Having both inputs is ideal but sometimes situations require us to settle for less. At that point, we must choose wisely as to what’s the best recourse given our circumstances.
I may be wrong, but it seems you believe experts have the “right” answer. Experts are good and can add tremendous value (if their knowledge is appropriately applied). Yet, an expert isn’t always needed to solve problems. In some circumstances, those with average intelligence and common sense can develop practical, innovative and effective solutions. In this situation, the average managers could reference the general recommendations of the CDC and/or W.H.O. and customize them to the nuances within their environment. Potentially, with that insight, what they develop could be just as effective as the experts.
Again, having input from both is ideal and should be sought, as feasible. Experts can add great value because of their depth of knowledge. Yet, to default to experts as typically having the “right” or “best” answer isn’t necessarily accurate (particularly when they have no knowledge of the environment in which their insights would be utilized).
No. I put “right” in scare quotes as an admission that experts aren’t always right. 🙂 They definitely have their shortcomings and weaknesses (as we all do). From the way you phrase things, it seems to me we have a similar perspective on what should be done without the way the question forced us to choose. We just seemed to fall on opposite sides of the knife’s edge when forced to pick a side.
QUOTE: I put “right” in scare quotes as an admission that experts aren’t always right. 🙂
Ken, thanks for the clarification. Internet communication is very casual and traditional rules of grammar aren’t always applied. Therefore, I’ve learned to ask, instead of assume the author’s intent when it’s in question. You know they say about “assuming”, right? 🙂
That said, indeed, it seems we agree on a macro level, given our druthers. Yet, when our hands are forced, we’d draw different swords.
Thanks again, always a pleasure having an exchange with you.
Maybe slightly off topic…
Funny how all the conservatives are calling on “socialism” to save the country. (We know it’s not socialism socialism…but the safety net that they always call “socialism” )
One of the funnier things I hear is that some are calling to bail out the cruise lines. The cruise lines who register their ships in other countries so they don’t have to pay US taxes want to benefit now from the US taxpayer. I’ve been on cruises. Enjoy them. Really feel sorry for the people in ports of call for the cruise lines. That is their whole livelihood and they are poor to begin with.
@sm, I’ve had similar observations. Seems government stimulus packages, bail-outs, increasing the national deficient and the like are now in vogue…whereas such things were considered odious not so long ago.
In evaluating left vs. right, I think it’s more helpful to use things like Jonathan Haidt’s “moral foundations” as a guide, rather than the (seemingly) ever-changing positions on policies.
I’d say that it best to use observations of concrete occurrences than untested psychological theories.
@Robin, agreed. What people consistently ‘do’ gives much more insight about who they and what they value than their platitudes and stated ideals.
I am totally a pacifist, except when my life depends on my country going to war.