by Richard Martin
Readiness depends on gaining and refining as exact a picture of reality as possible. Without a realistic picture, we can’t know if our preparation is-literally-realistic. Our plans and readiness measures may be highly detailed and precise, but we may end up being precisely prepared for the wrong things.
Here are some principles to guide in developing and refining a realistic understanding of conditions:
Multiple Viewpoints: This is analogous to the triangulation technique in orienteering or navigation. You take a bearing on 3 or 4 known landmarks and then plot their reciprocal on a map. (Incidentally, this is how GPS works, but with satellites instead of landmarks.) If the multiple perspectives lead to similar results, that is a strong hint that you’re reading of the situation is realistic.
Converging Evidence: Analyze problems and conditions using different methodologies. Continuing with the analogy from navigation and orienteering, triangulation is one methodology to find your location. Analyzing topography and relating it to a position on a map is a second methodology. Calculating one’s position from dead reckoning-i.e., based on previous distances and orientations-is a third locating methodology. If all three methods converge on the same result, then you can be as close to certain as is reasonable about your actual exact location. If the results of the various methods diverge, this is an indication of a fundamental uncertainty in your assessment of actual conditions.
Independent Analysis: Ask different people or teams to analyze the problem or situation. Keep them separate during the analysis then compare their independent results to see what the commonalities and differences are. This gets around group think and uses the competitive spirit inherent in any cooperative or collaborative endeavour.
Dissenting Opinion: Analyzing dissenting opinions is exactly what Google DIDN’T do with the recent firing of a software engineer who openly questioned the company’s so-called “diversity” policies and practices. Whatever you think of the guy’s opinions, it’s rather ironic that an organization that boasts about its openness and innovativeness felt obliged to quell a clear example of reasoned dissent. You don’t necessarily have to agree with the dissent, but it surely deserves at least to be studied to see if it’s substantive before taking such a radical counter-action.
Skepticism: Skepticism is often equated with systematic disbelief and dissent. In actuality, it is an attitude of questioning inquiry beyond dogma, doctrine, and established truths. Just because you’re skeptical doesn’t mean you must reject accepted beliefs. But nor should you accept them blindly without considering the results of multiple viewpoints, convergence of evidence, independent analysis, and dissenting opinions.
Self-Doubt: This is probably the most important one of all. It’s okay to be confident and to believe in yourself, as long as it’s based on something substantive. The following quote by Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman says it all: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool.”
© 2017 Alcera Consulting Inc. This article may be forwarded and reproduced only for non-commercial use with proper attribution.