Iain Montgomery’s Post

View profile for Iain Montgomery, graphic

design for the outliers, get the average for free

When I worked at Deloitte I'd often end up interviewing people who wanted to join as a Partner. Which was weird because I wasn't a Partner. I'd then ask how many people they'd met before me and usually the number was in the double digits. I did wonder why these people still wanted to work for Deloitte because if they couldn't get an answer after maybe 3 or 4 rounds of conversation then maybe they'd want to work somewhere more decisive. I think most, if not all, of these people then saw sense and went to work elsewhere. Though I doubt it was KPMG either. I see it as a salesperson of my own wares. You have a good meeting and they say "well you need to speak to so and so" before you get either ghosted or the intern tells you they've chosen someone else or decided to scrap the project entirely. It's why I'm quite looking forward to reading this book called The Unaccountability Machine to see if I can get my head around it better. Usually by meeting 3 I ask if they really want to do this or not, and unless the answer is a definitive yes then I walk away. Treating them a bit mean sometimes does keep them keen, better in business than in dating at least. At least it seems it's not just me that finds this behaviour to be common, maddening and ultimately downright destructive. I wonder when the behaviour changes and we see the idea of people not taking accountability as a weakness rather than a risk aversion strategy. "By contrast, when people have to make a decision in a collective setting, their first instinct may not be to choose well, but to avoid blame. It is dangerous to assume that the more people who are involved in a decision, the better the outcome will be. This is true only under certain conditions, when the process of decision-making is very well designed, otherwise a kind of collective insanity can arise. I recently met someone involved in selling an innovation to the NHS. Any purchase had to be approved by 11 separate people in sequence, any one of whom could veto it. I’d be willing to guess that only one or two of those 11 had any medical knowledge." https://lnkd.in/gzx_feNV

The myth of collective wisdom

The myth of collective wisdom

spectator.co.uk

The myth of collective thinking is most people are not designed for it . Neo liberalism has bred competitive, rivalrous games & fragmentation in order to extract narrow gains for private benefit while outsourcing the consequences to the public. Collective wisdom only really works when u have atleast one soul who understands the New Science of holism & gestalt thinking; The sum of the parts creates emergent properties which manifest into the whole. The human body is more than the sum of its body parts & whilst understanding its parts is helpful, understanding the interrelationships is more important. I don’t know where that fits with a Partners mindset. Because the duty of care is likely to optimise for the parts, the commercial benefit of the business & delivery of the client commercial demands within this fragmented world view. If all the departments are thinking linear & acting as rivalrous archipelagos it’s true, it doesn’t work. It needs a bigger commitment to collectively align to a common goal that is informed as living systems, where the impact of changing the parts should not ignore the impact it has on the whole or the existing network of value exchange.

  • No alternative text description for this image
Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics