Pitfalls, Gatekeepers, Conformity, and Dissent: Some Ramblings

Getting overly focused on the last move in a chess game is just one potential pitfall. Our tendency to self-censor, particularly under a certain type of leadership, can lead to another.

Going back to my example (determining how to defend when the enemy could come through a very large pass or a much smaller/narrower pass), if the leader thought they already knew what the enemy was going to do and quelled any 'dissent', they could potentially defend the wrong thing. (Or the right one. That's the trouble here... so long as the person in charge gets it right, nothing appears to be wrong, and everything seems even better than the alternative because you don't have to deal with the frustration of trying to forge a consensus, or that one person who stubbornly disagrees with the plan. But sometimes when you get it wrong, you get it very, very wrong. Instead of hashing out a plan that's more flexible, that may be centered on the main pass but can shift to defending the smaller pass as needed, any attempt to suggest the enemy would take the other pass is squelched. And next thing you know, they're coming down whatever pass you didn't expect, you're defenses are all wrong and you lose. Bigly.)

In that experiment on conformity, it seems that having two or three people agree is enough for everyone else to start self-censoring... which makes this easy enough to prevent (assuming it's not deliberate). Speak up. Let your light shine. If you can provide an alternate opinion early, it generally opens the floor to a true discussion - as opposed to a meeting that rubber stamps someone's predetermined decision. Even if that initial moment has passed, if you have any doubts at all, if you truly question the decision, speak up.

This is not necessarily without consequences. Sometimes people resent you for breaking the perception of a unified consensus. In the case of the Challenger explosion, the one engineer who spoke out about the risk of launching in cold weather had been removed from his job and demoted. People will pressure you for not going along, you may get marginalized, discredited, and ignored. But... would you rather be one of the people who conformed, and went along with a decision that resulted in the explosion of a space shuttle? Or be the person who stood for what you believed in, even if you lost your job? (In case it's not obvious, I'm not trying to tell you the answer. I'm trying to tell you a few things to consider when deciding what you can live with. I want everyone to be able to look at themselves in the mirror with pride, accepting their flaws and faults and being okay with who they are, and any decision that makes that harder is probably something you should think carefully about.)

Knowing this, btw, also means I'm a bit more skeptical whenever I hear someone being marginalized and discredited. Like, it could be a legitimate criticism, or it could also mean that person took a stand and is being penalized for it, and I'd want to see how the person acted for myself before lending any credence to such accusations. If they're discredited for being opinionated, skeptical, and stubborn, well... most of the time I can work with that.

On a related note -

Self-censorship occurs in more situations than just 'we're in a meeting, and two or three people agree already'.

We generally self-censor when we're talking to our boss, which is not exactly a surprise given the power they have over our careers.

This is part of why people in positions of wealth and power, in particular, have to work extra hard on 'getting out of the bubble', or 'developing good lines of communication', or whatever you want to call it. Consider the intel world. Some analyst may write a report taking a strong position on something. They're boss passes it along, but softens it up just a little. They know it's not what they're bosses want to hear, so they try to make it more palatable. The next layer softens it up even more, and so on and so forth, until the intelligence received at the top is a bastardized version of the original assessment. This is a very real risk, and one the intel community tries to mitigate.

People in power generally are too busy to adequately evaluate everything they get. They're deluged in information, e-mails, letters, and the like. That's why they have gatekeepers... but the gatekeepers have to know what to do with the information coming their way. What to pass along, what to handle themselves, what to ignore, and so on and so forth. And even they aren't necessarily getting the straight scoop, since they may have gatekeepers or subordinates of their own.

Getting accurate information means making sure every link in the chain is doing their job correctly. All it takes is one person deciding that "o-rings failing in cold weather is a crock of s***" to keep that risk from reaching the right decision-maker.

You have to have some way of evaluating your gatekeepers, and making sure they're passing along what you need to hear as opposed to what you want to hear.

Meandering Thoughts on Leadership, Command Climate, Social Norms, and Decision-Making

I wanted to carry on from my previous post, but I'm a little uncertain which direction to take this. Especially since I feel like I'd be rehashing topics I've talked about plenty (i.e. groupthink), and sort of want to do something new. If you're not already sold on the dangers of having a group of people come to a decision without properly weighing the pros and cons - and ensuring good decision-making is made throughout the entire process of funneling information to decision makers - then I don't know what I could possibly say to convince you.

Still, perhaps it's worth rehashing old territory in order to flesh things out a bit. *shrugs* I'll just type a bit more and see what comes out.

Right.

So. My previous post talked a bit about traffic rules, leadership, and choosing the world we want to live in. I mentioned that 'leadership' might involve showing people a different way of doing things, but that such leadership may not involve a well-thought out plan to get us somewhere we actually want to be.

"Where we actually want to be" is something I could write pages on, since it's essentially a value judgment... and since people are different, and sometimes have conflicting wants and needs, one person's answer might not be another's. There are some guidelines I think we can use, a way to envision a world where most people would want to be, but I think that'd be too much of a digression for now.

In a similar fashion, there are ways of leading that give better results than others. Again, this is a value judgment, but I think the risks of outright disasters (like the Challenger explosion) outweigh the disadvantages. I want to start out with some fairly uncontroversial, basic things that leaders can do to shape the command climate.

Consider, if you will, a fairly common claim that "there are no stupid questions."

I think most people know that this is a half-truth. There are stupid questions. It's just that when you see a colleague have their head bit off - figuratively - for asking a question, it immediately makes you start self-censoring. People grow afraid that the same thing would happen to them if they're not careful, and they start questioning whether it's worth bothering anybody at all.

Given the conformity experiments, and how many people decided to give the wrong answer rather than go against the rest of the group, this shouldn't exactly be a surprise. I said that social norms and conventions were as binding as tissue paper, but that's not quite true. In one of my undergrad classes, a sociology class, we were given an assignment to break one of those norms. Do something like stand on top of a desk (a classmate had done that once before, she must have taken the same class a semester or two prior to me), or wear a winter coat in summer. In my case, I chose to eat dinner with a couple of friends while sitting on the floor.

What's funny about this assignment was that initially I didn't think much of it. I mean, okay... I sat on the floor. It was weird and awkward. There's a reason we eat at a table, you know? But it's not like anyone was going to arrest me for it. And then I realized that I'd felt compelled to make little jokes. That every time I made eye contact with my friends (sitting properly in their seats at the table, so I had to look up at them) I was reminded of how strange this was, and had to say something to show that I wasn't really a weirdo who wanted to do this. That I was only doing it for a class assignment.

I definitely felt pressure, of a sort. Doing an assignment like that helps you see just how binding social norms and conventions can be... and, at the same time, how easy it can be to break free, depending on your willingness to tolerate feeling awkward. Willingness to tolerate other people thinking you're weird. And your willingness to confront the occasional 'enforcer' who tries to do more than just silently judge you. (I heard whoever wore a winter coat on a bus in spring/summer upset somebody enough that they got yelled at, which seems strange since wearing a coat is a personal choice that doesn't harm anyone else.)

Even more interesting was that after the assignment was handed in, and the professor swore that she had graded them and wasn't going to change them, she asked for a show of hands... asked how many people were truly able to bring themselves to do the assignment.

A LOT of people couldn't bring themselves to break even one of our unwritten rules.

Social norms and conventions are as binding as tissue paper... except they're not. If you're willing to go against the flow, you can easily break them... but other people often find ways of showing their displeasure when you do so.

Something I'd read pointed out that this makes sense. We're social animals, and we instinctively sense the danger in being too isolated. It feels awkward and threatening to go against the group...

Which is why good leaders shape the environment, so that you don't feel you're going against the group when you speak your mind. So you feel rewarded and encouraged to state your opinions, and ask your questions.

It's all too easy for a (bad) leader to take charge and create an environment where everyone feels they  have to agree with them. If they state their opinion forcefully, mock anyone who gives a hint of disagreement, maybe even get one or two of their supporters to immediately chime in with agreement...

Then anyone with even a hint of doubt will probably self-censor it, bury it so they don't look 'stupid', and think that they're the only ones that feel that way.

Telling everyone that 'there are no stupid questions' is sort of like how good investigators are taught not to ask leading questions (since it gives too many hints about what you're looking for, and people respond with what they think you want instead of telling you what they actually saw.)

Sure, dealing with people's 'stupid questions' can be time consuming and exhausting. And although I made a negative comment about blind obedience earlier, it does have it's time and place. (Mostly when you're under fire and don't have time.) But frankly, if you're NOT under fire... or in a situation where you need immediate action... you've got the time to do it right.

You set the tone. You shape the environment. You send clear signals about whether it's okay to 'bother' you with something, or whether you expect everyone to shut up and go along with what you want.

And maybe, most of the time, you've got good judgment. Maybe you can get by without getting everyone's input. But eventually, especially when things grow complicated, no one person can do it all by themselves.

Which is why good leaders also build a great team, one with enough knowledge to fill in for each other's gaps... and an environment where they're able to bring that knowledge to the table.

I have worked places where even if I disagreed with the decision made, I was part of the debate and knew what the issues were. I knew that I prioritized some of those issues differently than others on my team (and ultimately my boss), but I could see the point of their arguments and even though I didn't get what I wanted, I was okay with it. Mostly. (If it happened too often I'd wonder why I'm even there, since my input clearly isn't wanted or needed... but generally I'm not completely shut out.)

And knowing that I pointed something out, knowing that maybe something else was changed because of the concerns I brought up... that's important too. To give a military analogy, imagine you're debating whether the enemy will come through a large mountain pass or a smaller one. The large one is big enough to maneuver through in a timely fashion, but fairly obvious and most of our forces are set to defend it. The smaller pass doesn't have as many defenses, but it's less likely the enemy will come that way anyway.

If everyone just assumed the enemy would come through the main pass, then they'd be royally screwed if the enemy chose to do something different. Unless... unless enough people spoke up about the smaller pass that the possibility got taken into account. Maybe a unit or two was placed where they could support the defense at the main pass, but tasked to watch over the smaller pass and move to defend if needed. To hold off the enemy until the rest of their forces could pivot to the new threat. And maybe a drone or sensor or something was set along the smaller pass to give warning if the enemy chose to come that way.

By having people speak out about other possibilities, a more well-thought out plan was developed. One that could adapt to the possibility that everyone was wrong, and the enemy wasn't going to do what they expected.

To bring this back to the beginning of my post - leaders shape their environment, and there's a bit of a value judgement involved in how they do so. Someone who shows no patience for questions may, for example, be creating an environment where decisions are quickly made and you're not stuck endlessly debating what to do. There's not one pure 'good' and 'bad' way of doing it, and all the stuff I just wrote about has it's downsides in terms of time and effort.

However.

When time is not of the essence (i.e. any decision making that isn't happening in a state of emergency, where you are close enough to take immediate action) the risks of making a poorly thought out decision outweighs the challenges of creating an environment where people are encouraged to speak up. Immho, that is.

Nobody can know everything, nobody can be right all the time. The mark of a great leader is building a team that, collectively, makes wise decisions.

That can require a lot of work up front, especially if the leader has to teach their people what to prioritize... but the ultimate goal should be to create a team that can handle it all without you.

Btw, this may be a bit of a tangent, but it feels like it fits best here...

I have run into people who seem central to an organization. One person that everyone goes to in order to get things done. This is, all too often, a sign of bad leadership. If you make yourself essential, you also make a system that will fail if/when you're not there to manage it. If you move to another company, or retire, or die... the system will fall apart. People all too often seem to think being essential is a sign of talent or something, but it's not.

A good leader will build a team that can continue without them, and doesn't need them. (Hence the difference, imho, between a George Washington and a Joseph Stalin.) This is also why the criticism that Democrats haven't been building their leadership pipeline ring true.

Actually, that's why any criticism about not building a leadership pipeline rings true. If you're not considering how to develop your people, if you're not getting them to the point where they can take over for you, you're not a very good leader. (I'm tempted to say 'idiot', but I've been thinking it's not really the best word for it. I've been making the distinction between intelligence and wisdom, you see... you can be very intelligence and very foolish at the same time. Besides, there are some great people who don't do so well on IQ tests, and it's not something they have control over. 'Wise' and 'foolish' seem to involve our choices more... maybe I should start using 'fool' more often? It doesn't feel right, though.)

Groupthink

I didn't realize how bad it was in congress, it's practically a blueprint for all the worst elements of groupthink.

What a mess.

Sunk Costs and Groupthink

Okay, one more thought for the night.  I'm still reading The Confidence Game, and the author is talking about the disaster at the Teton Dam.  Mostly because the thought processes behind the desire to continue something once it's started are the same, whether you're talking about a con or the unwillingness to hear concerns about building a dam once you've started.  Kind of like the Sunk Costs Fallacy, except you aren't really thinking of it as sunk costs.  Just, in this case, you've already started building the thing.

Since the story of the dam reminded me of research on groupthink, I found myself wondering how closely they tie together.

That is, how much was something like the decision to launch the Challenger (and marginalizing those who disagreed, dismissing reasons to question the decision), comes from the level of investment involved in launching a shuttle. 

Mentoring

https://hbr.org/2017/04/mentor-people-who-arent-like-you?utm_campaign=hbr&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

The Presidential Race Part II - Clinton

The Democratic primaries concern me a bit more than Trump, mostly because Trump probably doesn't have enough support to actually win.  (Seems crazy how, over and over again, the political parties seem to be doing their best to lose the election.  Poll after poll shows Hillary is viewed unfavorably by many people.  Not just 'not liked', but actively disliked.  She could have been easy to beat, if the Republicans had put out a decent candidate.  Instead we get Trump?!?)


Again, full disclosure. I have never been a Hillary fan.  I hadn't rabidly disliked her the way some Republicans do.  It's funny, but when she first ran for President part of me disliked the idea of her candidacy simply because I didn't want to deal with that level of drama again.  She has so many enemies that any action will probably get drowned out in 'scandals'.  I know it's not fair to hold it against her, but if she stays in the political limelight Republicans will continue to look for issues (like Benghazi, or Whitewater, or whatever).  I find it somewhat ironic that I say this, because I find the classified e-mails on her server a real problem.  You can see my previous post if you want more detail. 


So.  I studied political science in college, and one of my classes explored psychology in politics.  The professor felt the easiest way to identify whether personality made a difference was to look at presidential candidates.  When I assess a political candidate, I try to consider the whole person.  It's not enough to know what issues they stand for, I want to know how they make decisions in general.  What their likely reactions are.  After all, politicians regularly deal with the unexpected.  How they will handle a Cuban Missile Crisis matters as much as whether or not they support free trade.  (Besides, the President can't create legislation all on their own.  Whatever agenda they have has to get through Congress first, so in a sense the character and personality of the President matters even more than their political agenda).


So, for example, back in 2000 I vaguely recall reading an article about Gore.  It basically said he was obsessed with reading all the details of every report.  Which sounds kind of impressive, except I imagine the President is so busy that he wouldn't have time for that...I want someone who knows how to build a great team and delegate, not someone who will get bogged down trying to understand everything first. 


George W. Bush had a team.  I don't really want to call it 'great', though I suppose it's very typical of elite opinion.  Probably not enough diversity of thought, and not enough safeguards against groupthink. 


So anyways.  Since I used to have a security clearance and worked in a SCIF I've been following the Hillary e-mail scandal pretty closely.  And part of what disturbs me is a sense that her staff really does feel they are above it all.  The NSA rejected a request for a secure smartphone, so she and her staff just decided to find a way around it to get what they want. 


I feel like she lives in a bubble, her staff supports her in that bubble, and it means that she's probably not in touch enough to make good decisions.  She's got some sort of feedback loop encouraging her to do whatever she wants, and nobody who can put a brake on it and say 'wait a minute, should we really be doing that?" 


I also have the ironic feeling that she really does represent the establishment.  Ironic because (as per my undergraduate political science classes) I remember that Bill Clinton campaigned as a political outsider.  I even remember someone suggesting that this hurt him, in that he probably should have had a little more experience before getting elected President.  Not in the sense of 'he needed more familiarity with legislation'...but in the sense that Washington DC, from what I can tell, runs off relationships.  And an outsider doesn't have those relationships, doesn't know who to talk to in order to get things done.  So Bill, as an outsider, was a little less effective because he didn't know who was who.  (That's what I remember from class, at least.)


Hillary's gone to the extreme other end.  She probably knows who is who for everything.  This is one of their campaign points, basically saying that she'll be able to get things done.  Yet in the process I feel she's lost any objectivity she might have had.  She's an über establishment candidate.  Which wouldn't be so bad if I didn't feel like the establishment had a serious case of groupthink.


They (and Hillary) live in a bubble of their own making, and don't even know it.

Update - Frustration

I feel like I left things hanging a bit.  I had a theme I was posting on, and then stopped.

Reasons?  It's complicated.  Some if it is that I have a full time job (on vacation right now) and I don't always want to devote my leisure to writing here...

But the bulk of it is because some days it doesn't seem to matter what I write, or think, or say. I am not one of our big decision makers.  I am not wealthy, or powerful. Who is going to care if I never complete that series?  And what sort of results would writing it have, anyway?  Someone might read it, if they weren't bored within a couple of sentences, and think about it for a minute or two.  But it probably wouldn't drive any particular changes in behavior.

Some days I go online and all I see are articles saying that this is what you need to do - Wear this. No, you have to wear that.  Do this.  No, do that.  Say things this way.  No, don't do that.

I think 'sure, I can do this.  I just need to X, or Y'.  But the advice can be contradictory, and I don't think these advisors know any better than you do.  Success depends too much on who you're working with and what they're looking for.  Plus I notice that there's still so many good, smart people who still struggle to make it.  A friend of mine did a great post on tumblr the other day.  It's long, but good and captures so much of what I'm wondering/ struggling with. 

I don't want to believe that this is the way it is.  That so much of life, so many people, will struggle and get nowhere.  Especially when you see the people who are succeeding, and realize that many of them haven't actually worked harder than the people you know.  Nor, necessarily, are they smarter.

I like to think I'm a realist. I never expected our system to be perfect.  I thought, however, that we had rules in place that gave us the ability to change our system for the better.  Voting for candidates.  Voting for specific propositions.  Feedback mechanisms to help keep us from going too far astray.

I also thought...well, that the system values dissent.  You need people to go against the grain, because that's what breaks up groupthink and makes sure you're really analyzing a situation.  Yet I've come to feel that I may, perhaps, on occasion, be penalized for being too outspoken.  For not playing along.  (I think I'm ultimately helping the organization.  And I would hope that any boss/supervisor/manager I worked for would appreciate and value that.) Funny, our mythology of success always makes it sound like this is rewarded.  The innovator who stands out from the crowd and succeeds beyond their wildest dreams.  The person who speaks truth to power, and becomes a trusted advisor. 

In reality, I'm beginning to think it's more likely you'll get marginalized just like the engineer who warned of the Challenger disaster.  (What I find even more disturbing is how much business books etc claim they want and need this...and then create systems that seem to penalize the ones that actually provide it.  You see the same sort of dilemma with work - everyone knows you get burnt out and perform less productively if you work too much, but people still feel pressured to work more and compete for least amount of sleep/most hours worked.  Feel that the boss is looking for those peopel who give it their all.  You can't have the former if you create a system rewarding people for the latter.)

 

Thinking Outside the Box

I like to think of myself as an original thinker.  Creative.  Outside the box.  As I dig a bit into economics, I found myself thinking a bit more about that as well.  See, economics is a complicated field.  There's a lot of research going on, and math.  PhD's trying to study issues.  So why add my own thoughts to the mix?

I will say, first off, that creativity sometimes comes from unusual areas.  And, perhaps, the interactions between people as well.  Ideas sparking ideas.  In college my ROTC class suggested we read Gates of Fire, a book about the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae.  One of the things that struck me was a decision they made about which Spartans would go.

Yes, they picked experienced men.  They also picked some newbies.  At first that seemed odd - wouldn't you want the best of the best?  But if you think about human dynamics, it makes sense.  If you're confident everyone around you knows what to do, you can get complacent.  Keeping an eye out for someone inexperienced can also help keep you more alert and aware.  Plus, as they say, you really learn something when you have to teach it to someone else.  The very act of going over the basics, explaining to someone what you've learned over the years...distilling the lessons of your hard won experience into something they can use...all of that helps you as well.

And there's a third element to it.  New people means new ideas.  Different perspectives.  New people don't accept something 'because that's the way it is'.  They may ask 'why' on things everyone else has been taking for granted.

I talk a lot about groupthink, and about why you need diversity of backgrounds as much as anything else.  A meeting of economists who all have a PhD is a meeting of people who were all trained to think the same way, and probably won't even think about asking certain questions.  How often in the last century have our 'best and brightest' wound up making bad decisions?  Maybe we need to mix up our 'best and brightest' with a few people who have different experiences to draw on. This holds true for more than just economics.  When I was in training for the human terrain system, most of our trainees were also militry.  Some were not.  It made me realize how much my military experience shaped my perspective, in the exact same way as so many of my fellow veterans.  There are things we would all see through the lens of our experience.  The same way, regardless of who was white or black, male or female.  And we didn't even think about them, didn't have to think about them, until we had to explain some of those underlying assumptions to the pure civilians that were with us.

Thinking outside the box isn't magic.  Or, well, it sort of is...but you can create the circumstances that make it more likely.  And you can create circumstances that make it LESS likely.

I think part of what is required is sharing ideas, perspectives.  (That's the benefit of a liberal arts education.  You've got a broader spectrum of ideas to draw on.  That's also the real concern about intellectual property rights.  Yes...people should benefit from their ideas.  But if we limit it too much we risk short-circuiting the flow of creativity.)

I also think you need a blend of experiences and backgrounds.  Knowledgable people, yes.  Experts in their fields.  But you also need people who aren't expert at all.

I thought about qualifying that a bit.  I do think critical thinking is important, particularly for those non-experts.  But truthfully you can get the question that sparks an idea from anyone.  Any time.

Footnote: In figuring out what to read on economics, I used my own critical thinking to rule out certain types of books.  The funny thing about the one I'm currently reading - silly as I think the title is, and hokey as the writing style gets - is that the author captured almost perfectly what I was looking for.  The book is called The Undercover Economist Strikes Back.  The author says the book "is not a strident call for action, nor a searing list of people to blame for the crisis. (You can find plent of those elsewhere.) Nor is it the kind of popular economics book that offers practical ideas you can apply in your personal or business life. (You can find plenty of those elsewhere, too - including my previous books.) If it's insights into the workings of life at human scale that you're after, then quantitative easing will prove to be of about as much use to you as quantum physics.
...What I have to offer in the coming pages instead is a determined and practical minded poke-around under the hood of our economic system."

Here's my personal rule of thumb - proposed solutions are good tools to keep in your kitbag.  They were developed for a reason, and in the right circumstances they will work.  The trick is identifying those 'right circumstances', and determining whether the current situation fits that criteria.  In certain circumstances, deregulation works.  Lowering taxes works.  In other circumstances?  Not so much.

I want to know more about what tools are available, and how to know when to apply them.  

Plutocrats, Meritocracy, Etc.

I read this article with interest, and it captures much of what I believe in.  It's just that, since I'm not one of those wealthy 1%, I feel like I'd come across too much as though what I'm trying to say is just sour grapes.

Still, if you look throughout history I think the signs of decline are rather consistent.  A group of elite gain control, and they use that power unwisely...to their own advantage.  They alienate the have nots, who eventually get angry enough to rise up and overthrow the elite.  Rinse, recycle, repeat.

Easy to look at the French aristocrats and see their role in the French Revolution.  Less easy to see it today, in ourselves.  (It doesn't help that a system on the verge of collapse can linger.  How long has North Korea stood?)

Signs of decline?  When talented people are stifled, and have little chance to succeed.  (Supposedly part of why Napoleon won so many battles.  The Revolution allowed talented commoners to advance, where before they were stuck following less talented aristocrats.)  When people start justifying the situation, claiming that they deserve (or are entitled) to being in those top roles.  (i.e. claims that the nobility is naturally better and more deserving.) 

What's funny is that we consider ourselves a meritocracy, at least the ones at the top do.  Probably don't consider any of this as applicable. 

Yet that's what all the stories about the squeezing of the middle class, the growing costs of college, the shifting of college aid to those already wealthy rather than to the smart but needy...all of that sums up to a change.  You can't really claim that the people on top are deserving, when so many people never even got the chance to compete.

For me, personally?  I've known too many extremely smart people who couldn't afford to go to college, too many regular people working extremely hard just to stay afloat, and too many  mediocre people who think they deserve to be in charge, to believe the cream always rises to the top.

Yet in a way, that isn't what bothers me the most.  It seems in any society, some group manages to come out ahead.  What bothers me is tied up with good decision-making, or the lack thereof.

First - my favourite, groupthink.  When too many people come from the same types of backgrounds, they think so much alike that they are more likely to make the same leaps in logic...and convince themselves that they've thought it all out.  We have far too many examples of 'the best and the brightest' coming up with poorly vetted plans and I think part of it is the similar training and backgrounds of all our elites. 

Second - it's too easy to convince themselves that they are somehow wiser, or better.  That they don't have to worry about the appearances of favouritism or bias, because of course they are too smart or wise to be influenced like that.  That nice, cozy, friendly relationship may not seem bad to the ones involved.  Heck, that's part of what everyone looks for in life...and can probably even seem good.

Just - not when it creates a good ol' boys network that marginalizes or neglects others.  Or makes it appear that who you know is more important than what you're capable of.
 

Individualism, Cowboys Saving the Day, and More.

I've heard it said that the East is more community oriented, and that the West is all about individualism.

I'm Western enough that, for the most part, I prefer individualism.  That Eastern orientation sounds a little bit - creepy.  Like the caricature of a 'perfect' woman, the one who is always giving for the sake of the family, and who is doing it by suppressing their own needs and desires.  It makes you wonder when the dam is going to burst, and when they're finally going to crack.  Plus that communal orientation sounds like individuals have a big incentive to stay quiet and support the consensus, even when the consensus is wrong.  That means groupthink would be a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem, since who is going to rock the boat?  After all, sometimes boats need rocked.

Of course, I also know that we all seem to need some sort of community.  Nothing gives a sense of well-being and fulfilment like being part of one.  So many people today seem nostalgic for that small town environment for exactly those reasons.

But I didn't actually want to get into all of that today.

I wanted to talk about some of the flaws, though I love it so, in our individualistic society.

We have these archetype stories.  Like the person who "pulls themselves up by their own bootstrap", a "self-made man" who managed to succeed all by him or herself.  We glorify them, put them on pedestals.  We look at the Bill Gates of the world, or the Steve Jobs.  We lay credit (or blame) on individuals like David Petraeus or George W Bush.  Or Barack Obama.

And, to be fair, sometimes one key individual can make all the difference.  But as Good to Great and other such works show, the individuals who make that difference are rarely the ones who are creating hype about themselves.  The ones that really do lead well, or create a lasting success, are often the ones who work hard to build other people up.  To make the whole stronger than the sum of its parts.

And that's part of what bothers me about 'selling myself' for my career.  It's not all about me.  It's about creating the work environment and giving my people the tools for them to succeed.  I don't want to be judged on my ability to create metrics.  Especially when metrics can be so misleading, and have little or nothing to do with how good of a work environment I create.  (Though there should be SOME correlation.  Good work environments should make more productive employees.  Just saying toxic work environments can appear to have good metrics as well.)

The military teaches this rather well, I think.  It takes a company, a battalion, a brigade...and an army.  If you had an army full of generals, you would probably lose the war.  You still need privates and sergeants, lieutenants and captains.

Yes, a general is important.  And can make a decisive difference.  But so can people at all sorts of levels within the organization.