I forget how I ran into this excellent essay by Scott Berkun on "Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas" (probably through del.icio.us), but I like it on many levels because it touches on things like business, logic, organizational behavior, and personalities.
I think two of Scott’s sentences capture an angle that I wanted to post about. Scott writes in two places:
- "… How can smart people take up positions that defy any
reasonable logic? …" and - "… I’m
not proud to admit that I have a degree in Logic and Computation from Carnegie Mellon
University …"
Although I’m not for defending stupid ideas unto death, I have to say that there’s a lot of value in my book in being trained to defend stupid ideas unto death. More precisely, I think there’s tremendous value in the business world in being able to take either side of an argument and to defend that position whether you like it or not. In the business world, it’s a courageous/West Point type of training that I’ve always associated with Harvard MBAs (based on those that I used to work with in the field at management consulting firm PRTM).
I’m not prescribing being irrational or two-faced in either business or personal settings. What I am prescribing is to open one’s mind, to be able to develop courage, and to develop a leadership style. By being able to defend and argue two sides of a coin, your creativity stretches and you learn to reveal weak spots in your own reasoning. That latter part may be the most important thing to me as it leads to a path of self-improvement.
I am somewhat envious of Scott’s background in logic and computation. After taking what I consider to be one of the more unusual GMAT tests on critical reasoning many years ago, I developed a deep appreciation for honing skills in weakening and strengthening arguments. Many people visit my blog seeking information out about the value of an MBA. Studying for GMAT, and in particular the critical reasoning section of the test, is unlike studying for any GRE or SAT exam I know of. You can learn a valuable life lesson before your MBA by studying for that section of the GMAT. Stupid is(n’t) as stupid does (always).
I remember in some of my earliest MBA classes being told that every case group should have a devil’s advocate to argue the other side of the group’s analysis. I’ve also instituted that in every MBA class I’ve ever taught – I think there’s no possible way to understand the twists and turns of a business case unless you have been forced to argue against your own solution. In the behavioral sciences realm, we call that looking for disconfirming evidence.
As a side note, I also tell the groups that the role of devil’s advocate within the group must be a rotating role. First, it gives everyone experience in arguing the other side. Second, in a “shoot the messenger” way, the person playing the role can quickly become disliked by the rest of the group. Rotating the role helps avoid that problem.