Divergent Thinking Does Not Come Easily

In organizations today, divergent thinking is becoming an imperative to sustainability – rather than an impediment to organizational stability. Disruption has become a competitive advantage, much in the same way market dominance was in the past. Organizations that regularly challenge the status quo in order to create new products and services stand a much better chance of surviving.

Yet those organizations know just how difficult it is to disrupt the existing order. We chastise ourselves for failing to raise our voice in meetings in which yet another ill-conceived project is launched. We shrug in resignation and halfheartedly carry out flawed plans that waste time, money and energy. And we are not alone.

I recently had a chance to see Ira Chaleff, author of Intelligent Disobedience: Doing Right When What You’re Told to Do is Wrong. His work explores the extent to which our socialization has conditioned us to obey. To obey our parents, our teachers, our government officials, our bosses – anyone that we perceive to be in a position of authority.

And for good reason. Stable societies, schools, and families depend on a sense of order. And order requires compliance. And that is just fine as long as the orders come from someone with legitimate authority asking us to do something aligned with the common good.

But Ira explores the question of what happens when we are asked to do something that is wrong. A relevant question as we see evidence daily of complicity in some large organizations – where sexual abuse of children is tolerated, where the economy is brought down by bundled securities that have no value, and where product flaws are willfully hidden and consumers misled. Hopefully few of us will face dilemmas of this magnitude; yet all of us too often see something in a plan or a product that is not “right” or not as good as it should be.

You may be familiar with the Milgram experiment – the 1961 Yale study that probed the question raised by the trial of German war criminal Adolf Eichmann: Was Adolf an accomplice or merely following orders?

Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, “The Perils of Obedience”, writing:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.^[7]

Yet Chaliff’s work shows that speaking truth to power is difficult. He asserts that it is critical for leaders to invite “intelligent disobedience” – which he defines as a space in which there is a high willingness to speak up combined with a high level of support from a leader.

Organizations that are creatively disrupting markets need individuals that are willing to bring forward ideas, to say no to things that are no longer working, and that are willing to challenge the status quo. And they need leaders who seek out diverse perspectives and fresh views. Leaders who welcome challenging the current modus operandi and do not see it as a threat to their position or power.

Ira states: “It’s not just blind people who cannot see.” We all have blind spots – and the higher and broader your leadership roles, the less ability you have to see things from all angles. Effective leaders know this, and invite alternative perspectives. The question they raise is this: “In order for us to achieve XYZ, what might get in the way?”

Smart leaders:

• Pay attention to dissent; especially from trusted sources who are aligned with the purpose of the work.
• Manage their reaction to opposing views by being open to alternative views. This can include inviting opposing ideas, which helps overcome our socialization to obey.
• Consider alternatives, rather than a “my way or the highway” approach.
• Evaluate the risk that is raised and make an appropriate decision based on that.

Some questions to ponder:

• As a leader, what actions do I take to surface divergent views?
• How do I respond to challenges that someone brings forward?
• Do any of my behaviors have a tendency to squash creativity or push back?
• How often am I willing to raise my concerns when I see something I am uncomfortable with to my peers and leaders?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Side Note: Do you have kids? If so Ira has a way that parents can teach their children how to practice intelligent disobedience when they have been given directions that cause harm, using a simple four-step process which is described in this powerful video.

1. BLINK
2. THINK
3. CHOICE
4. VOICE