Friends,
I hope that all is well with you and yours.
Before we jump into today’s topic, I thought I would quickly address the criticisms of Byron Sharp’s body of work (and by extension the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute) of last week, if only because I have repeatedly been asked to do so.
For full disclosure, I knew that this was coming; the Oxford professors and I were both invited to the same off-the-record dinner at Cannes. Without going into details about what impressions I left with then, they have remained intact.
But I suspect that my commentary will be equal parts uninteresting and unrewarding. Theoretic views and academic takes are only so interesting; if something consistently delivers a desired result, it becomes irrelevant whether it is supposed to – and I know from practical experience what works and what does not. That armchair experts agree or disagree is neither here nor there.
If there is an issue, it lies not with the critique itself (debate should be welcomed, though it would be refreshing if it held a higher standard), but in the way the subsequent discussion once again has turned into identity politics. Of course, it was entirely predictable (indeed, when I laid out what would happen to a friend, and was subsequently proven right in every detail, he correctly observed that it was “like predicting the sun would rise”), as will be what comes next. We have all been here before and we will all be here soon again, treading the same waters, getting nowhere.
Surely I cannot be the only one bored to tears by the whole ordeal?
Back on topic
Over the last few weeks, we have been discussing insights; what they are, how they come about, and what one might do to improve their prevalence within the organization. Today, we are going to take a look at the various obstacles that stifle insight generation, building further upon the excellent work by Gary Klein.
Admittedly rather broadly speaking, the issues can be split into two main categories: the individual (which we will discuss today) and the organization (which we will discuss next week).
The individual
Many of the reasons why we fail to generate insights lie in the limitations that we place on ourselves, be it consciously or subconsciously. But common among all of them is that they can be overcome, or at least improved, over time as long as we put a consistent effort in.
Klein identifies four reasons why individuals fail to come up with insights.
To start, we may have flawed beliefs. When we are so emotionally and/or intellectually attached to one particular interpretation of reality – one story – we can become oblivious to contrary data, or even outright deny that of which we are made aware. In so doing, we ignore, explain away or distort evidence that could lead to new insights. As I have written time and again, it is as dangerous to uncritically dismiss a piece of evidence on the grounds that it does not fit one’s worldview as it is to uncritically embrace one on the grounds that it does.
Of course, as controversial a statement as it is to some, data can also be flawed or simply insufficient. Although we live in a time in which LaPlace’s demon rears its Mephistophelian head in every walk of life, no amount of data enables perfect predictions in complexity (remember, the adjacent possible is non-algorithmic). Consequently, it is often not what you do not know that turns into the biggest headache, but what you know for certain that turns out not to be so.
Secondly, a lack of experience may lead to failure to spot insights; we have not had time to collect enough tacit knowledge to see patterns and their implications. One might call this the McKinsey problem; without enough hours put into a business, there simply will not have been enough time to obtain the necessary knowledge to become sensitized to crucial cues.
Having said that, experience can also lock us in place. As we hone our skills through repetition, we often end up gravitating towards one particular way of looking at the world, and thus miss that which happens at the periphery. Dark constraints are also increasingly likely to come into play.
To illustrate, take this nine-dot puzzle problem. The task is to connect all nine dots using four lines – but without lifting the pen from the paper (or, I suppose in the present case, the finger from the computer screen):
The correct approach, much like it so often is in strategy, is impossible to spot until one zooms out; we do not have to stay within the borders, nor do we have to change directions on a dot.
The illustration is simplistic but serves a purpose. In real-life, we must identify and exclude the non-dots, refute the anti-dots, and characterize the ambiguous dots, before we are able to see the solution. That ability largely comes with experience. But our presumptions about the constraints of a problem may also increase with time spent dealing with similar issues. A naïve way of looking at things might just identify the novel approaches that turn out to be required.
The third reason why individuals may fail to generate insights is that they take a passive stance, that is to say, they intellectually settle, thinking “that will do” (coincidentally, among my least favorite words in the English language). In a sense, it is the strategic planning approach; taking care of necessary tasks, but not actively scanning for new developments and opportunities.
By comparison, those with an active stance are often skeptical and question the prevailing wisdom. They tolerate failure and persevere. The issue, as we are about to see in seven days’ time, is that although companies claim to want such critical minds (as well they should, their value is immense), they really do not; they may generate more insights, but also increase errors.
But let us not get ahead of ourselves.
The fourth and final reason why individuals may stifle insight generation is that they employ a concrete reasoning style. To quote Klein directly:
“People differ in how well they tolerate contradictions and ambiguity, and this personality style likely affects their success at gaining insights. People also differ in how ready they are to entertain ideas that they don't think are true and in how much they enjoy imagining alternative universes.
Some people become impatient with speculation. They see playful exploration of ideas as a sign of immaturity. They want closure, and they roll their eyes when members of a group starts going off on tangents.”
Tolerance of ambiguity varies from person to person, but also culture to culture. Certain countries have high levels of such tolerance, whereas others have little. The same obviously applies to industries and organizations within them.
The most creative advertising agencies, I would argue, have a playful reasoning style. They can juggle various ideas and imagine hypothetical scenarios. However, their clients are often more limited and concrete (hence they sought creative help in the first place). This can, and far from seldom does, lead to friction in the agency-client relationship and work that ultimately ends up being a lot less than it could have been.
Understanding the organizational constraints and contradictions that stifle insight generation can ease said friction, as well as that which might arise between employee and manager. Next week, we will break down why.
Until then, have the loveliest of weekends.
Onwards and upwards,
JP
This newsletter continues below with an additional market analysis exclusive to premium subscribers. To unlock it, and a number of lovely perks, merely click the button. If you would rather try the free version first, just click here.