If Stupidity Troubles You

[MediumTex]

You might enjoy the piece linked to below.

Understanding Organizational Stupidity

Is it morning in America again, or is the bubble that is the American economy about to pop (again), this time perhaps tipping it into full-blown collapse in five stages with symphonic accompaniment and fireworks? A country blowing itself up is quite a sight to behold, and it makes us wonder about lots of things. For instance, it makes us wonder whether the people who are doing the blowing up happen to be criminals. (Sure, they may be in a manner of speaking—as a moral judgment passed on the powerful by the powerless—but since none of them are likely to see the inside of a jail cell or even a courtroom any time soon, the point is moot. Let's be sure to hunt them down once they try to run and hide, though.) But at a much more basic and fundamental level, a better question to ask is this one:

“Why are we being so fucking stupid?”?

What do I mean when I use the term “fucking stupid”?? I do not mean it as a term of abuse but as a precise, if unflattering, diagnosis.

***

I never ascended the ranks of middle management, probably due to my tendency to speak out at meetings and throw around terms such as “nonsensical,”? “idiotic,”? “brainless,”? “self-defeating”? and “fucking stupid.”? If shushed up by superiors, I would resort to cracking jokes, which were funny and even harder to ignore. Neither my critical faculties, nor my sense of humor, are easily repressed. I was thrown at a lot of special projects where the upside of being able to think independently was not negated by the downside of being unwilling to follow (stupid) orders. To me hierarchy = stupidity in an apparent, palpable way. But in explaining to others why this must be so, I had so far been unable to go beyond speaking in generalities and telling stories.

And so I was happy when I recently came across an article which goes beyond such “hand-waving analysis”? and answers this question with some precision. Mats Alvesson and André Spicer present “A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations”? in which they define a key term: functional stupidity. It is functional in that it is required in order for hierarchically structured organizations to avoid disintegration or, at the very least, to function without a great deal of internal friction. It is stupid in that it is a form intellectual impairment: “Functional stupidity refers to an absence of reflexivity, a refusal to use intellectual capacities in other than myopic ways, and avoidance of justifications.”? Alvesson and Spicer go on to define the various “...forms of stupidity management that repress or marginalize doubt and block communicative action”? and to diagram the information flows which are instrumental to generating and maintaining sufficient levels stupidity within organizations. What follows is my summary of their theory. Before I start, I would like to mention that although the authors' analysis is limited in scope to corporate entities, I believe that it extends quite naturally to other hierarchically organized bureaucratic systems, such as governments.

Alvesson and Spicer use as their jumping-off point the major leitmotif of contemporary management theory, which is that “smartness,”? variously defined as “knowledge, information, competence, wisdom, resources, capabilities, talent, and learning”? has emerged as the main business asset and the key to competitiveness—a shift seen as inevitable as industrial economies go from being resource-based to being knowledge-based. By the way, this is a questionable assumption; do you know how many millions of tons of hydrocarbons went into making the smartphone? But this leitmotif is pervasive, and exemplified by management guru quips such as “creativity creates its own prerogative.”? The authors point out that there is also a vast body of research on the irrationality of organizations and the limits to organizational intelligence stemming from “unconscious elements, group-think, and rigid adherence to wishful thinking.”? There is also no shortage of research into organizational ignorance which explores the mechanisms behind “bounded-rationality, skilled incompetence, garbage-can decision making, foolishness, mindlessness, and (denied) ignorance.”? But what they are getting at is qualitatively different from such run-of-the-mill stupidity. Functional stupidity is neither delusional nor irrational nor ignorant: organizations restrict smartness in rational and informed ways which serve explicit organizational interests. It is, if you will, a sort of “enlightened stupidity”?:

***
   
The functions of stupidity management are to project an image, to encourage stupidity self-management in defense of that image, and to block communication whenever anyone lapses into reflexivity or substantive reasoning, or demands justification. Communication is blocked through the exercise of managerial power. The authors discuss four major ways in which managers routinely exercise their power in defense of functional stupidity: direct suppression, setting the agenda, ideological manipulation, and fetishizing leadership. Of these, direct suppression is by far the simplest: the manager signals to the subordinate that further discussion will not be appreciated, threatening or carrying out disciplinary action if the signaling doesn't work. Setting the agenda is a more subtle technique; for instance, a typical ploy is to require that all criticisms be accompanied by “constructive suggestions,”? placing beyond the pale all problems that do not have immediate solutions (which are the vast majority). Ideological manipulation is more subtle yet; one common technique is to emphasize action, at the expense of deliberation, as expressed by the corporate cliché “stop thinking about it and start doing it!”? Finally, fetishizing leadership involves splitting each group into leaders and followers, where the leaders seek to make their mark, whatever it takes, and to get promoted quickly. To do so successfully, they must suppress the critical faculties of those around them, compelling them to act as obedient followers.

Functional stupidity is self-reinforcing. Stupidity self-management, reinforced using the four managerial techniques listed above, produces a fragile, blinkered sort of certainty. By refusing to look in certain directions, people are able to pretend that what is there does not exist. But reality tends to intrude on their field of perception sooner or later, and then the reaction is to retreat into functional stupidity even further: those who can ignore reality the longest are rewarded and promoted, setting an example for others.

Link to whole story.

[AdamA]

I think understanding and accepting the idea of "functional stupidity" is key to surviving and succeeding within any organization that consists of more than two people.

[MediumTex]

I think understanding and accepting the idea of "functional stupidity" is key to surviving and succeeding within any organization that consists of more than two people.

It's sort of liberating to realize that this sort of thing happens everywhere, not just where you happen to work.

[murphy_p_t]

interesting...wonder if there's a parallel how nations operate?

[MediumTex]

interesting...wonder if there's a parallel how nations operate?

Absolutely.

All hierarchical structures become unstable because of this problem of functional stupidity.

[rocketdog]

I think understanding and accepting the idea of "functional stupidity" is key to surviving and succeeding within any organization that consists of more than two people.

It's sort of liberating to realize that this sort of thing happens everywhere, not just where you happen to work.

Liberating... or depressing?  I'm sending this article to my wife -- her company is a textbook example of functional stupidity.  The stories she tells me make me wonder how they've managed to stay in business for as long as they have, let alone be successful. 

[rocketdog]

On a semi-related note, this reminds me of when one of my nieces got her drivers license.  I sat her down and gave her this advice: "I know you're young and idealistic, but as you learn to drive you'll slowly come to realize that the vast majority of humankind is composed of absolute idiots."

[MediumTex]

I think understanding and accepting the idea of "functional stupidity" is key to surviving and succeeding within any organization that consists of more than two people.

It's sort of liberating to realize that this sort of thing happens everywhere, not just where you happen to work.

Liberating... or depressing?  I'm sending this article to my wife -- her company is a textbook example of functional stupidity.  The stories she tells me make me wonder how they've managed to stay in business for as long as they have, let alone be successful.

I think that most people individually are not too stupid.  You put most people in a survival situation and they will usually exhibit at least some creativity and ingenuity in their attempt to survive.

Put those same people in a cubicle inside a large bureaucratic hierarchy, however, and you can just watch their critical faculties deteriorate like time lapse decomposition as the functional stupidity imperative slowly hollows them out.

I think that The Matrix films were so popular not because they represent what could happen, but because they represent what has already happened, except what has already happened is too subtle for many people to see in the real world.

They Live also captured this sentiment nicely.



Perhaps someone could make a movie pulling together all of these themes.  It could be called They Live in the Stupid Matrix.

[Libertarian666]

"Idiocracy". It's a "pre-documentary".

[MediumTex]

"Idiocracy". It's a "pre-documentary".

Yes.

I thought of that movie often when Donald Trump was running for President.

[HB Reader]

This discussion of stupidity has to remind anyone who has worked for an extended time in any organization (large or small, however well-intentioned) of the reality of the Peter Principle.  The result is that mankind (or womankind, if you prefer) will ultimately prove too clever for its own good.  I hope it will be a long time from now.

Or to quote Jackson Browne, "All that survives, is the way we live our lives."

[MediumTex]

This discussion of stupidity has to remind anyone who has worked for an extended time in any organization (large or small, however well-intentioned) of the reality of the Peter Principle.

Background:

The Peter Principle is a proposition that states that the members of an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." In more formal parlance, the effect could be stated as: employees tend to be given more authority until they cannot continue to work competently. It was formulated by Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous[1] treatise, which also introduced the "salutary science of hierarchiology".

The principle holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Eventually they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. Peter's Corollary states that "n time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties"[2] and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence." "Managing upward" is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly manipulate his or her superiors in order to prevent them from interfering with the subordinate's productive activity or to generally limit the damage done by the superiors' incompetence.

For myself, I am learning to be able to listen to stupid things with a poker face.  That is a great breakthrough for me.  When I was younger I thought it important to stop stupid things from happening as much as I could.  As I have matured, I realize that my actual job is to stay out of the way of stupid things as much as possible while maintaining my poker face.

Stupid things were present before I got here and will be present after I am gone.  Ridding the world of that which is stupid is ultimately a quixotic endeavor.

If I gave an address to a class of graduating seniors, I would encourage them to follow their dreams and no matter what happened to them I would encourage them to never lose their sense of cynicism about organizations and skepticism about authority.

[rocketdog]

For myself, I am learning to be able to listen to stupid things with a poker face.  That is a great breakthrough for me.  When I was younger I thought it important to stop stupid things from happening as much as I could.  As I have matured, I realize that my actual job is to stay out of the way of stupid things as much as possible while maintaining my poker face.

Or, you can have fun with it and apply the techniques Machiavelli outlines in "The Prince", then sit back and watch the stupid people destroy each other. 

[MediumTex]

For myself, I am learning to be able to listen to stupid things with a poker face.  That is a great breakthrough for me.  When I was younger I thought it important to stop stupid things from happening as much as I could.  As I have matured, I realize that my actual job is to stay out of the way of stupid things as much as possible while maintaining my poker face.

Or, you can have fun with it and apply the techniques Machiavelli outlines in "The Prince", then sit back and watch the stupid people destroy each other. 

Trying to have as much fun as possible in life is a good guiding principle for sure.

A wise person is one who can take stupid and metabolize it into fun.

[Gosso]

Trying to have as much fun as possible in life is a good guiding principle for sure.

A wise person is one who can take stupid and metabolize it into fun.

I have always liked this Joseph Campbell quote:

Joyfully participate in the sorrows of the world.

Or one could also say: "Joyfully participate in the stupidity of the world."

This is something I have been trying to bring into my life, even though a lot of it initially feels stupid and pointless.

[FarmerD]

Regarding organizational stupidity, here's a few quotes to think about:

"The inner spirit of bureaucracy lies in the exciting interplay of nonideas and the effervescent sparking of human personalities engaged in nondirective pursuits." - James Boren
"When a bureaucrat makes a mistake, the mistake usually becomes the new policy."  - James Boren
"In Government and out, there are vast realms of bureaucracy dedicated to seeking more information, in perpetuity if need be, in order to avoid taking action."  - Meg Greenfield
"Bureacrats are best handled by calm, tact, and sudden violence." - Anon

BTW Lawrence Peter's Book "The Peter Pyramid" is a better (and funnier) way of explaining organizational stupidity than "The Peter Principle." Highly recommended. 

[Greg]

I'd certainly agree about that #4 of Functional Stupidity of Leaders and Followers. Working as a civilian for the U.S. Army you certainly can see when people are just trying to lead and advance versus thinking about what the actual best option is. The Army also has that issue of just going with a plan rather than thinking about it first. Wastes a lot of money that way.

[AdamA]

For myself, I am learning to be able to listen to stupid things with a poker face.  That is a great breakthrough for me.  When I was younger I thought it important to stop stupid things from happening as much as I could.  As I have matured, I realize that my actual job is to stay out of the way of stupid things as much as possible while maintaining my poker face.

Stupid things were present before I got here and will be present after I am gone.  Ridding the world of that which is stupid is ultimately a quixotic endeavor.

I agree with this, but sometimes I feel like I listen to too many stupid things in my work place.  I hold a supervisory position, so it's hard just to stay out of the way when people who work for you have silly ideas.  I am a very mild mannered person, so it takes a lot of energy for me to dissuade some these people.

(The fact that I hold a supervisory position is good evidence of the Peter Principle, by the way). 

[MediumTex]

For myself, I am learning to be able to listen to stupid things with a poker face.  That is a great breakthrough for me.  When I was younger I thought it important to stop stupid things from happening as much as I could.  As I have matured, I realize that my actual job is to stay out of the way of stupid things as much as possible while maintaining my poker face.

Stupid things were present before I got here and will be present after I am gone.  Ridding the world of that which is stupid is ultimately a quixotic endeavor.

I agree with this, but sometimes I feel like I listen to too many stupid things in my work place.  I hold a supervisory position, so it's hard just to stay out of the way when people who work for you have silly ideas.  I am a very mild mannered person, so it takes a lot of energy for me to dissuade some these people.

(The fact that I hold a supervisory position is good evidence of the Peter Principle, by the way). 

What sort of silly ideas?  I like to think that an ER is a pretty practical no-nonsense place.  Are people wanting to bring back leeches and bloodlettting?

Or is it that more insidious problem of people imagining they are experts in matters that they don't really know that much about?

[AdamA]

I like to think that an ER is a pretty practical no-nonsense place.

I like to think so too, but I guess all of the lights and sirens attract a weird breed of people. 

A few recent silly ideas:

1.  We need to become a Level I trauma center.  (We don't.  There's a University Hospital right down the road).

2.  Our paramedics need to perform intubations.  (They don't.  A bag valve mask works fine for the very limited of respiratory arrests our EMS service sees).

3.  The triage nurse should be able to page consultants prior to the ED physician evaluating the patient. (He/she should definitely not).

Most of these ideas come from people who want to participate a greater volume perceived heroics than they do presently, instead of doing the more mundane (but important!!!) jobs that they have already been assigned. 

(There are other examples that I think would be more entertaining, but I think it would be frown upon my institution if I posted them online).


 

[MediumTex]

2.  Our paramedics need to perform intubations.  (They don't.  A bag valve mask works fine for the very limited of respiratory arrests our EMS service sees).

Isn't there sort of an art to doing intubations properly that only comes from practicing?

I would think that paramedics wouldn't get enough practice to be able to get good at it.

I remember when my dad was in the hospital he was being intubated by a non-RN in the intensive care unit and my aunt (who is an ER nurse) mentioned that in her hospital only RNs and doctors are allowed to do intubations.

[AdamA]

Isn't there sort of an art to doing intubations properly that only comes from practicing?

I would think that paramedics wouldn't get enough practice to be able to get good at it.

There is a bit of learning curve, although most of the paramedics I know are pretty good at it. 

My beef isn't with their ability to perform the technique, it's with the time it takes to do it. 

In a big city where there are 2-3 hospitals just minutes away from most places, there's no point to this "stay 'n play" mentality. 

A simple bag-valve mask works fine if someone is sick enough to need respiratory support, and it doesn't delay transport.