It’s not easy for people to accept that continuous critical evaluation of our ideas is a good thing. During the discussion in the actkm listserv Neil Olonoff responded very strongly to my view that continuous critical evaluation on a level playing field is a good thing. He pointed out that: “Many well-known products and services have been initially deep sixed by the criticism that they were “obviously” deficient in some way, viewed from the present frame of reference.”
I pointed out, in reply, that I didn’t think they were “deep sixed” by criticism, but by the people involved and the wrong kind of criticism. They weren’t subject to criticism using a level playing field, because the kind of critical approach to new ideas we get in our closed hierarchical organizations doesn’t represent a level playing field. Then I pointed out that what I favor is the kind of criticism I give: civil criticism using logic and reason. I don’t favor any kind of criticism. I don’t favor ad hominem criticism, or labeling, or ridicule. There are norms of criticism that need to be followed. I’d like to see norms of fair critical comparison followed. But, at a minimum, the rules discussed in this blog post would allow a more measured consideration of new ideas than we normally see in corporate or other organizational circles.
Neil also said that: “The execs at Xerox Headquarters rejected the ideas of PARC (the LAN, the graphical user interface, most of the ideas that Apple later used for the Mac) because they couldn’t envision executives using something as silly-sounding as a “mouse.”” I replied to this by pointing out people will always make errors in evaluating either new or old ideas. They also make errors in thinking up new ideas. Most of our new ideas, not to put too fine a point on it, are crap. So what do we do? I say we feel free to propose new ideas and also feel free to evaluate, select among them, and keep a record of it all, and give everybody access to the record, so they can always come back to the “mouse idea” later on if they want to change their evaluation of it.
I also think that we really can’t avoid immediate evaluation of our ideas. We are human after all, and because we’re the storytelling animal we also have to be the evaluating animal, because if we weren’t either our stories wouldn’t be any damned good, or our stories would, all too often, fool us into doing things that we shouldn’t. If you try to get people to stop evaluating ideas, they’ll only do it sub rosa anyway, so you might as well have the evaluation out in the open. The resulting criticisms are likely to be more rational that way.
Neil also pointed out that “there are dozens — hundreds — of examples of ideas that were initially poo-poohed (Xerox copiers, Post-It notes, etc.) which survived only through strenuous efforts. Now, it is possible to argue that, since they survived, it is proof that they were deserving of survival despite their initial suppression.”
And I replied by saying that criticism is part of the process of evaluation. It’s not guaranteed to do a good job of selecting the best alternative in every case, or of safeguarding and nurturing new ideas; but, by-and-large, ideas get developed and refined in interaction with criticism. As long as the criticism conforms to the kinds of norms I’ve specified in the blog above, they’re a help to the development of knowledge rather than a hindrance.
Neil also points to “the example of Gore Corp., makers of Goretex, in which only one out of six ideas succeed, but all are encouraged, because one never knows which idea will succeed. Similarly, pharmaceutical companies and research scientists must wander down many blind alleys with an optimistic spirit of exploration. The naysayer who carps “You’ll never find anything that way,” is not helpful.”
My reply to this is that I think it makes the mistake of confusing the presence of criticism with the absence of encouragement, and with some sort of barrier to learning, and I think whether this is the case clearly depends on the kind of criticism that is offered. Again, if criticism is ad hominem, involves labeling, or personal attacks, or is just dismissive, then, of course, that kind of criticism is not the sort one can learn from. But if we learn from error, which I think we do, then it follows that criticism that shows us where we may be in error, is criticism that can help us to learn; and I don’t think we ought to wait for some time for that opportunity to learn, when it can be forthcoming immediately, if only we open ourselves to critical evaluation continuously.
Neil’s final remark used an analogy. “Andre Gide said, “In order to discover new lands, one must be willing to lose sight of the shore for a very long time.” One would hardly set sail without the optimistic attitude that one would find something. In the critical atmosphere proposed above, I doubt that anyone would discover anything. They would simply leave the organization, as Mr. Gore left DuPont, and set out on their own.”
To which I replied: When one sets sail to discover something, doesn’t one need monitoring and evaluation as one goes along? I think one does and that the smart person setting sail is not rudderless and drifting, and uses blind variation, rather than random variation, always with an eye to how one’s actions are fitting one’s environment. I understand the concern that criticism in organizational environments can be stifling, and I agree that this is true in closed organizations where the function of criticism is to ask someone to justify what they’re doing relative to eternal verities, i.e. given knowledge of the conservative organization. However, the critical evaluation I am calling for is in a different context; one where people seek problems with the conventional wisdom, develop new ideas to solve the problems that are found when we question that wisdom, and then critically evaluate those new ideas to find the ones that are strongest and have the most promise for application.
Finally, I think the model we ought to look at here is the model of the Artist or Composer creating a new work. Any new set of brush strokes, or set of musical notes is critically evaluated by the Artist or Composer as the new painting or musical composition is created. The alternation between creation and critical evaluation is continuous and seamless. We should try to achieve a similar relationship in developing new ideas.
