Faith, Risk and Answers

Thanks to Jeff, Ben Martin, and Scott Briscoe for an interesting blogoclump exchange about an article in Associations Now that talked about risk, faith, and innovation. There was some debate about the role of faith and risk. Here are some points they made:

Scott:
I would argue that short of clairvoyance, every decision is a leap of faith.

Ben:
However, each innovative program that gets introduced must carry a measure of faith. Because humans are terrible about choosing which ideas will fly and which will fail.

Article:
Building an organization that thrives on calculated risks requires a variety of ingredients. Among them are a seasoned and courageous CEO, thorough research and planning of "risky" endeavors, the ability to predict change, a board and staff team that is encouraged to embrace and cultivate innovation, and, perhaps most importantly, a plan for getting from Point A to Point B.

So let me get this straight. We’re trying to build successful organizations, and sometimes organizations need to change course. But we’ve discovered that changing course or moving in a new direction carries with it some risks. So we need to do research and develop plans and actually predict change, so that our risks are less…risky. But in the end, there will still be SOME risk, so we will need faith.

My reaction to all this is: so what?

Why are we talking about the fact that none of us knows what will happen in the future? That’s a given. Why are we looking at risk as if it were optional? Risk is there when we change, and risk is there when we don’t change. What are we really talking about here?

The article seems to be saying that if you have courage, do research, are good at predictions, and have a plan, then you’ll be more able to take risks that work out, like the nice stories in the article where associations tried new programs and they turned out well.

I’m not convinced.

You can have all of those things (research, plans, etc.) and still make a bad decision and start a really horrible new program. On big decisions, there is no way to guarantee you have the right answer. In fact, I think it is our obsession with answers that is part of the problem.

Answers are retrospective. When we look to the past, we can piece together a story of cause and effect that results in the right “answer.” So we try to apply that to the future and choose that one future path with the least risks. But that’s ridiculous, because the past is done and the future is evolving. Yes you should expand your knowledge (research and thinking about both the past and the future is good), but it’s less about answers and more about learning.

Jeff and I talk about building capacity for thinking and conversations, because that’s where the learning is—not in crafting detailed answers. You certainly need to decide on things and do them, but let’s not worry about whether risk is present (it is), and let’s not obsess about predicting the right answer—instead let’s talk about the best ways to build our capacity for learning and growth.

Comments

[Scott Briscoe]

You have the gall to ask "so what?"

Ok, actually that's a good point. I admit there's no small amount of obviousness in the article being blogged about. But it's a good message and one that we will return to yet again in the future: Embrace the risk of taking action (as opposed to inaction, which, as you rightly point out, is also risky and all too easy when big decisions often have to be voted on by a board of directors).

There is something you write that I disagree with. You say "you certainly need to decide on things and do them, but let’s not worry about whether risk is present (it is), and let’s not obsess about predicting the right answer." With apologies to consultants everywhere, that sounds like it comes from a consultant. I don't mean to insult, goodness knows I believe all organizations need good consultants to be provocateurs who engage in conversations and steer leders in directions that they wouldn't otherwise think to go. However, consultants are less involved with deciding and doing, though not absent from that part. Conversations are nice, but deciding and doing are the most important part.

You use the word obsess, an ugly word in this context because an obsession with being right can be very paralyzing. Being right is important. In fact, when I interviewed Jim Collins, he was very clear and emphatic on this point--you have to be right. Almost by definition it's the difference between success and failure (yes, I know sometimes failure is the best thing that could happen, but that's another story). The point is, you don't obsess. You gather data (which includes having those conversations), but then you have to take the leap. I'm no big fan of Bossidy's Execution, but my God, you can't just keep having conversations all the time. You have to act on them. And you have to be right.

[Jamie Notter]

Hey Scott,

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, I really appreciate it. And believe me, we consultants definitely need some ridicule sometimes, so don’t hold back!

As to our “disagreement,” it may be more miscommunication. In looking back at my post, I can see how it could be interpreted as “just have better conversations; action isn’t that important.”

This is not what I meant at all, so I apologize for my lack of clarity. I was not trying to downplay the importance of taking action. I am a fan of Execution. I said that Jeff and I develop capacity for thinking and conversations, but what I didn’t say was that all that is in the service of strategic action. We tend to push people to the action part, in fact. I think strategy is about making CHOICES (and taking risk, of course), and then actually doing things (as opposed to making sixty-eight-page plans). Sorry for not being complete.

I’ll have to think some more about the “being right” thing, though. Something about that bugs me. But I am certainly a fan of high standards in decision making. But I’m also a fan of experimentation and doing things that you don’t necessarily KNOW are right, but can learn from.

[Scott Briscoe]

So I'll prolong this a little bit longer...

When it comes to being right, I was talking about the "big decisions." Yes, experiment around the edges and be wrong a lot of the time. That will help you be right when it comes time for the "big decision."

Again I go back to the Collins interview because he says that exact thing (I swear, I don't agree with him all the time, but on these issues I think he makes a lot of sense.) And something about "being right" didn't set well with me either, that's why I was asking him about it so pointedly.

This is my extrapolating now, but I've come around to where it sets well enough with me. The reason is, if you're wrong on a big decision, it's going to be pretty destructive, and your job might not even survive it. However, whether you survive or not, destruction is probably what was necessary for the organization to grow.