tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post8757607367297237514..comments2024-03-19T07:27:06.216-04:00Comments on VOTARIES OF HORROR: The Counterintuitive Yet Elegant Philosophy of Non-ActionKatherine Woodburyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14364517253667798449noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-13076986454378241022013-10-10T20:43:29.910-04:002013-10-10T20:43:29.910-04:00I wonder about this myself. In fact, I was about t...I wonder about this myself. In fact, I was about to tweak the post just a bit to clarify that the arguments I've made in various committee meetings throughout the years were not necessarily the right arguments. I might have been wrong. Or right. But I remember them because the consistent reaction has been a kind of gasping, "But surely you don't expect us to remain idle!" with the undercurrent implication of "You're just being obstructive."<br /><br />I think it's that fear of being obstructive and unhelpful that keeps leaders--and employees--moving, rah, rah, rah. Maybe we allow our movie/sports heroes to be cerebral because it's "just" a movie/just a game. But our "real-life" leaders can never ever afford to appear callous or uncaring. I almost always give up when I try to argue non-action, especially in settings that involve "helping" people, because I don't know how to counter responses like "But don't we need to show we care?! Isn't it important that people have this skill or aid or solution? How can we not act? Aren't we trying to make the world a better place? Are you just going to give up? Our recommended solution isn't that big a deal, so why not just do it? Aren't you being a tad . . . lazy?"<br /><br />Uh . . .<br /><br />When I read Lewis's book, my brain went "oh WOW"--it was a sign, like getting a voice from beyond the grave, confirmation that this type of approach CAN work; failure--or perceived failure--is a legitimate way to handle problems. The willingness to allow it--to let the strikes come--is more valuable than a need to react.<br /><br />But I still don't think I could prove non-action (wait for a better pitch) in a meeting--or successfully rebuttal a bunch of ethical and emotional responses.<br /><br />Part of the pressure, for leaders at least, is that humans are capable of grossly unreasonable expectations. Dial-up used to be so slow, and now I complain about DSL. We figure if we can imagine it, it should be true and true *right now.* Those expectations fuel the ethical and emotional responses, making them that much harder to refute.<br /><br />On the other hand, I like to remember Hyneman-Savage from Mythbusters. Apparently, they were (laughingly) proposed as a ticket in the last election. So it was kind of a joke, but I understood the reasoning; there's something so cool and relaxing about the experimental nature of the show, the willingness of both men to say, "Huh, that didn't work. What if we tried it this way?"<br /><br />Wouldn't it be amazing if that was the attitude in Washington? Huh, this isn't working--hey, let's try something different! It may not work either, but how do we know until we try? And if it doesn't work, we'll scrap it too.<br /><br />Yeah, it will never happen, but it's nice to know that there are people out there who wish that it would. Kate Woodburyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06276977170991272672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-44678064993622783552013-10-10T19:51:08.392-04:002013-10-10T19:51:08.392-04:00Kate,
Here is a curious paradox. As you observed...Kate,<br /> <br />Here is a curious paradox. As you observed, popular entertainment celebrates the cerebral protagonist who uses brains to defeat brawn. An example is The Karate Kid where the old man guru uses unconventional techniques to prepare the undersized Daniel to defeat his angry, wild and ferocious bully. There are many more such examples and the American people lap it all up.<br /> <br />But in the real world the American people have no expectation of such behavior in their leaders. There is nothing cerebral in how our politicians act and only rarely is it the case in our managers. Rather, in the real world urgency and intervention is applauded. This is so to the point that we celebrate those who respond to crisis, irrespective of the responsibility such people have had in creating the crisis. As so, why are we surprised that so much of government finds itself in crisis?<br /> <br />Thus the paradox: People embrace the fiction of the unorthodox hero but in real life they invariably resort to orthodoxy, both in accepting it and practicing it themselves. What explains this divide between the type of leadership people hope for and what they actually accept?<br /><br />~ DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com