原文: Why we need more doubt and less conformity

Loyalists, whether to people or ideas, do themselves and their idols few favors. More non-conformists would help.

We all need doubt. It’s the driving force behind change, creativity, and independence of thought of every kind. Authoritarians and conformists — no surprises here — much prefer faith in fixed dogmas, including those of management: all the “truths” taught in MBA programs and hallowed by years of mindless repetition. As circumstances become more complex and challenging, the temptation is to fall back on supposed certainties. Yet that is exactly the time greater doubt becomes most essential.

Political mythology of all kinds tends to distort reality. The same is true of many of today’s management myths. The worst of these is the assumption that, when it comes to running successful businesses, our leaders pretty much know all the answers. All we need to do is to apply their ideas with determination and unwavering focus on “the basics.” Life — including business life — is simple. Complications arise only when people start thinking for themselves too much.

You can understand the urge politicians feel to claim that all problems are due to “nothing more than” the mistakes of the other party, or the incompetence of those currently in power. By over-simplifying and ignoring anything that doesn’t support their cause, they hope to keep attention on what suits them — and obscure the likelihood that their own solutions will almost certainly contain as many problems — albeit different ones — as the ones currently being used.

Producing a cult of personality around any leader is also a constant temptation. How much simpler it would be if there were someone who knew all the answers; who could tell us what to do for the best with unerring accuracy. We could relax and stop worrying, secure in the belief that someone knew the answers to at least the majority of life’s troubling questions.

Sadly, it just ain’t so.

Clinging to a belief in known, simple answers is naive at best

Many of today’s conventional management styles suffer from the belief in simplistic answers to complex problems. Macho, Hamburger Management tries to claim that sticking to whatever is quickest, cheapest, simplest, and most likely to turn a quick profit, regardless of whether it is any good in the longer term, is the only practical response to global competition. Authoritarian executives — who are still in the majority — constantly stress loyalty and conformity. They need people around them who assume that doing what the boss says is going to be better than thinking for themselves.

Ideas also develop authoritarian ways. Heresy — individual questioning of established dogma — is sometimes punished as ruthlessly as disloyalty to the most demanding dictatorship. The notion is spread that ordinary people should not presume to question what “experts” say; that they are too stupid, too poorly qualified, too amateur in their understanding, or too gullible to think for themselves. Like children, they need to be protected from their inexperience and lead by the hand in whatever direction their “betters” have chosen.

This is such an obviously convenient idea for all established leaders that I am amazed so few others seem to question it. Is it really true that people are generally too lazy to form their own opinions; that they need to be told what to do because they won’t take the trouble to work it out for themselves? That you couldn’t trust them to come up with anything sensible if they did?

Lack of trust is the root cause of authoritarianism

It is a basic belief of Slow Leadership that most people truly want to do good work. Sure, there are some lazy bums, but they are far from being that common. Good work is satisfying, interesting, and makes you feel happy when you have finished it. That’s why being forced into cutting corners and skimping on quality demeans everyone involved.

Over time, organizations build up “scar tissue” from botched attempts to deal with mistakes and problems. As a result, there are so many rules and procedures around from all these past hurts that the organization becomes stiff and rigid. So sweep all the unnecessary rules away! Easier said than done, because there are two powerful — and linked — groups of people in nearly all corporations who work hard to retain them: conformists and authoritarians.

Conformists feel safe being told what to do. Authoritarians feel big when they can do the telling. Niether can bring themselves to trust anyone else.

Is your organization suffering from hardening of its arteries? Is the life blood of open communication and personal freedom to do one’s job unmolested becoming clotted and clogged as it tries to move through the veins of the business? Don’t just blame the authoritarians in positions of power. Blame those below them who accept the constant imposition of petty rules, and substitute compliance for true performance. The problem is lack of trust. The bosses don’t trust those lower down — so impose more and mroe rules on them. The conformists accept the situation because they’ve been taught not to trust their own minds.

What’s the answer?

Firstly doubt, in all its forms, should be fostered and nurtured wherever it can be found. Secondly, it should be understood that the worst place to look for creativity and new ideas is at the top of the organization.

Those who have made it that far typically have no doubt about the value of preserving current system. After all, it brought them to the top, didn’t it? It must be good. The best place to look for creativity is in the usually despised and neglected ranks of middle managers.

These good people are not yet heavily invested in any system. They are much closer to the real needs of the organization. They haven’t given up their doubts about what is done today (nor about the supposed infallible wisdom of their bosses’ ways of doing things). Best of all, they have enough experience to see what needs to be done and direct their creativity to the right spots.

We are suffering from an epidemic of leadership that focuses on simplistic answers: what is cheap, quick, and generates most short-term profit is always best; following established ideas will give all the answers; questioning is simple disloyalty. The result is shoddy business, shoddy goods and services, and shoddy conditions for those who must work in these businesses.

Because of the emphasis on doing things quickly — and never sparing the time to doubt or think things through properly — such organizations suffer from hardening of their arteries and a build up of ill-thought-out, hastily-imposed solutions dreamed up in a hurry when things go wrong. Their management ranks become dominated by authoritarians and conformists, each group needing the other to operate.

We need to encourage more doubt and creative doubters. In many ways, these are the true loyalists, helping those in power to keep checking that they are still on track. The guys at the top can be just as lazy — mentally and intellectually — as the lowliest, least educated employee. They are not exempt from choosing the simplest answer just because it causes them least trouble to think about and implement.

The true signs of a vibrant, healthy organization are the constant questioning of the status quo and frequent production of fresh, creative ideas; the same signs that point to a healthy democracy. Let’s hope it’s not too late in either case.

译文: 为什么我们需要怀疑多一点，肯定少一点

      我们都需要怀疑的精神。它是改革、创造、以及任何独立思想的驱动力。很自然，权威主义者和肯定论者更喜欢忠于教条，包括很多年以来在MBA课程中传教的、被奉为神圣的“真理”。随着情况变得更复杂更有挑战性，那些诱惑就变为假定的确定因素。但是这就是更大的怀疑变得更重要的时刻。

 

      所有的政治迷惑都是对现实的歪曲。同样的道理也适应于当今的许多管理观点。最坏的夺取就是当交易成功的时候，我们的领导知道所有的答案。我们需要做的所有的事情就是把他们的观点应用到决心中去，并且毫不动摇的集中到基本事宜中来。生活，包括商业生活，是很简单的。只有当人们开始为自己想得太多的时候复杂才产生了。

      你能明白政治家们迫不及待的宣称问题是仅仅是因为对方党派的失误，或者是由于对方党派在权力上的无能。通过过分的简化和忽略所有不支持他们理由的事情，这些党派希望将注意力集中到有利于他们的那些事情上，并且将他们那些正在实施的可能有很多不同问题的方案模糊化。

      在任何一个领导者里形成自己的个性也是一个持久的诱惑。要是有人知道所有的答案那问题会是多么简单啊；有谁能告诉我们怎样正确无误的做事！我们应该放松并且停止担心，坚信至少有人知道如何解决生活中大部分的问题。

      不幸的是，事情往往不是这样的。

      思想也要以权威的方式来发展。也就是说，对根深蒂固的教条的质疑通常要受到不忠于独裁一样残酷的处罚。有种观点很流行：普通人不应该擅自质疑专家所说；普通人太傻、太没水平、太不专业、太容易受骗以至于他们只会为自己着想。就像是孩子，这些普通人没有经验应该受到保护，不管他们有什么更好的选择，都应该手把手的领着他们。

      这一观点对那些巨头领导是相当便利的，以至于我很吃惊会有什么人来怀疑它。人们真的懒得有自己的思想么？真的因为不能自己解决问题而需要被告知怎么去做么？真的不相信如果做的话，他们会想出一些合适的方案么？

      信任缺乏是权威主义论的根源

      缓慢领导的基本信念是大部分人真的是想干的出色。当然，也有一些懒汉，但是他们远不能代表一般情况。出色的工作会让人满意，使人感到有趣，并且在完工后使你感到幸福。这就是为什么偷工减料的人遭到低贬的原因。

      随着时间的推移，通过拙劣的尝试，各组织建立了“疤痕组织”来解决各种失误核问题。结果，在以前的痛楚中有那么多的规则和步骤使得组织变得严肃苛刻。所以把所有没必要的规则扫地出门吧！说总比做简单，因为几乎在所有的公司中都有两个相关连的有力群体：遵从者和权威者，他们努力的保持着这些信念。

      遵从者感觉被告知做什么很安全，权威者感觉按照告知的去做很伟大。这两种情况没有一种能使他们相信其他人。

      你的组织正忍受着动脉硬化么？公开交流和自由做自己工作的生命之血流通在业务之血管的时候受到阻碍了么？不要羞辱身为权威人士的权威主义者，羞辱那些他们之下的人们吧，他们接受没尽头的苛捐杂税，没有实际行动却只有满腹牢骚抱怨。问题就在于缺乏信任。老板们不信任他们手下的人，所以给他们规定越来越多的规则。遵从主义者接受所有的情况，因为他们被告知不能相信自己的思想。