 |
| Click to Enlarge |
This is part of a series examining what I call the vices of foresight: recurring ways leaders and institutions distort, resist, or weaken signals about a changing world. One of the first breaks with reality is often moral.
When Reality Creates an Obligation
A signal appears that threatens a strategy, reputation, investment, promise, or identity. Leaders may understand what it means, but fully acknowledging it would create obligations they would rather postpone. It might require admitting an error, disrupting profitable operations, challenging powerful people, abandoning an investment, or asking others to accept an immediate cost.
So the signal is softened. It becomes preliminary, isolated, manageable, or insufficiently validated. More analysis is requested. Another meeting is scheduled. The organization continues moving by reducing the force of what it has already learned.
Sometimes waiting for better information is exactly what responsible leadership requires. The problem begins when uncertainty becomes a shelter rather than a genuine analytical condition. There is a difference between uncertainty that requires more investigation and uncertainty being used to avoid the consequences of what is already reasonably clear.
Moral misalignment begins when preserving the preferred course becomes more important than accurately naming the conditions. That is why foresight requires leaders to ask not only, “What do we know?” but also, “What would we have to do if we admitted that what we know is true?”
Air Florida Flight 90: When Information Cannot Stop the System
On January 13, 1982, Air Florida Flight 90 attempted to depart Washington National Airport during a severe winter storm. During the takeoff roll, the first officer repeatedly expressed concern about abnormal engine indications, but his language remained indirect and the captain continued the takeoff. The aircraft failed to gain adequate lift, struck the 14th Street Bridge, and crashed into the Potomac River, killing 74 people aboard and four people on the bridge.
The accident ultimately had multiple contributing causes, but it illustrates a powerful leadership problem: relevant information was present, concern was present, and authority was present, but the information did not produce decisive action.
Organizations often fail in similar ways. People notice irregularities but raise them cautiously. Leaders hear warnings about the future, but interpret them as issues that can still be managed within the existing plan and timeline. The problem is not always a lack of information. Sometimes the system lacks the willingness, authority, or structure required to let information stop the system.
When the Model Becomes More Important Than Reality
Leaders can also be completely willing to face reality and still misunderstand what they are seeing. Every organization interprets the world through models, measures, categories, professional knowledge, and past experience. These structures are necessary, but they become dangerous when the model becomes more authoritative than the conditions it was designed to explain.
A declining measure is dismissed as temporary. An emerging competitor is judged using the economics of the established market. A new technology is evaluated by how poorly it performs the old task rather than by the different system it might enable. The evidence may be accurate while its significance is misunderstood.
This is cognitive distortion. It is not simple ignorance. Smart, experienced people can examine real evidence and reach the wrong conclusion because the assumptions through which they interpret that evidence no longer fit.
Transitions make this especially difficult because the old world does not disappear overnight. Old and new systems overlap, and the inherited model may continue to explain part of reality even as it becomes less capable of explaining the whole. Foresight therefore requires more than collecting information. Leaders must recognize when the frame itself has become part of the problem.
Challenger and the Normalization of Deviance
Before the space shuttle Challenger launched on January 28, 1986, concerns had been raised about the solid rocket booster O-ring seals, particularly under cold conditions. Evidence from previous missions showed erosion and blow-by. The risk was not invisible.
What changed was the interpretation of the risk. Previous missions had succeeded despite anomalies, so those anomalies gradually became less alarming. Each successful flight seemed to confirm that the system could tolerate more than originally believed.
This is the normalization of deviance: departures from an intended standard become accepted because they have not yet produced catastrophe. The danger is that survival begins to look like proof of safety.
Challenger broke apart 73 seconds after liftoff, killing all seven crew members. The disaster had technical, organizational, and decision-making causes, but its leadership lesson remains powerful. Institutions can possess relevant information while gradually losing the ability to interpret it with appropriate seriousness.
The organization does not necessarily ignore reality. It constructs a version of reality in which repeated survival becomes evidence that the danger is under control.
When Organizational Stories Become Self-Sealing
Every organization needs a story about itself. That story explains what it does well, why customers trust it, which capabilities matter, and what kind of future it expects. A healthy story creates coherence and helps people make sense of complexity.
A dangerous story becomes self-sealing. Contradictory evidence is continually reclassified so the central narrative never has to change. Weak results are blamed on execution. Departing employees are described as poor fits. Customer resistance becomes a communication problem. New competitors are dismissed as temporary or unsustainable.
The organization can explain every setback without ever questioning whether its story has become inaccurate. More information may actually strengthen the distortion because analysts, dashboards, consultants, and research teams continue producing material that is interpreted inside the protected frame.
An institution can become extremely well informed about a world that is disappearing.
The Leadership Test
This is why foresight is harder than prediction. Leaders must ask what they are already seeing that they do not want to acknowledge, which risks have become normal simply because they have not hurt anyone yet, and which assumptions are shaping how they interpret new evidence.
They must also examine the stories their organizations tell about themselves. Has a once-useful explanation become so important to identity and strategy that almost no evidence can disprove it?
Transitions are difficult precisely because the old story is rarely completely wrong. An organization may still have valuable capabilities, loyal customers, experienced people, and decades of accumulated knowledge. Leaders are not choosing between obvious truth and obvious falsehood. They are deciding when a once-useful understanding of reality has become too narrow for the world now emerging.
That is where serious foresight begins: not simply with seeing farther, but with creating leaders and institutions willing to let uncomfortable information change what they believe and what they do.
No comments:
Post a Comment