Seeing the Familiar with New Eyes

by James C. Fitchett

James C. Fitchett is chief executive officer of ProVentive Inc. and the co-instructor of MGMT E-143 Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Business Transformation.

James C. Fitchett

Imagine for a moment you’ve just left the school or office after a long day, walking alone in the dark to get to your car. Suddenly you’re aware of footsteps behind you. A memory of a recent crime in the area flashes through your mind, so you start walking faster. But the footsteps of the unknown person behind you also speed up. The person is getting closer. Worried, you walk even faster, spotting a streetlight and a Starbucks on the corner ahead. It’s dark but you don’t think it’s too far to get to safety. You decide to go faster without running, but suddenly a hand touches your shoulder. The hand belongs to a friend who saw you and wanted to catch up. Your view of the situation is instantly and dramatically changed.

What just happened?

In life and in business, we often reach conclusions and make decisions based on very little information. We create a mental model of the situation using our prior experiences and the best available data, and then we take action—or not! Sometimes we develop elaborate theories to explain our observations. We may even make predictions on future events using these theories.

What happens when new information becomes available that is inconsistent with our theories or mental models? Sometimes we are relieved to see a friendly face and our mental model changes. Sometimes we dismiss the data and suffer the consequences—with mixed results. Sometimes we develop new models and create new knowledge, products, services, and processes. Sometimes, like Galileo and Copernicus before him, we are persecuted for going against the established hierarchy and dogma.

Walking in the dark and hearing footsteps, you had a mental model that offered one possible scenario for your situation. That model was based on limited information, but your instinct was to embrace it. The moment you received new information, your perspective changed.

As managers and decision makers—even in our personal lives—we are forced to make decisions all the time with limited information. Our mental models serve as the primary basis for our decisions, supplemented by the information at hand.

The challenge for all of us is to recognize the power and limitations of our mental models, to even be aware of the models that guide our decisions and be prepared to reexamine those models as new information becomes available. Examining the history of model (or paradigm) replacement can prepare us not only to embrace new models but even to stimulate their creation. New business models, products, and even processes can be deliberately created, not simply left to chance or to a few geniuses working in a lonely garage or lab.

A tougher challenge is to process information that is inconsistent with our models. Sometimes we are pleasantly surprised by a friendly face. Often we conveniently embrace a concept that is outdated.

Expert Predictions

Here are a few not-so-prescient quotes from thought leaders with rigid mental models that soon became outdated (from the book The Experts Speak):

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”
—Lord Kelvin, 1895, British mathematician, physicist, and president of the British Royal Society

“I think there is a world market for about five computers.”
—Thomas J. Watson, 1943, chairman of IBM

“There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.”
—Ken Olson, 1977, CEO, Digital Equipment Corp.

And my favorite:

“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
—Western Union internal memo, 1876

As a related example, we’ve all heard “You’re only as old as you think.” Recent rigorous studies show that seeing, or hearing, gloomy descriptions of what it is like to be old can actually cause people to walk more slowly, hear and remember less well, and can even impact their cardiovascular systems. Positive descriptions of aging can have the opposite effects.

The theme here is fairly obvious: how we see the world guides our action. This is absolutely rational behavior. It would be irrational to do anything else. But how we see the world is both protective and limiting because the world is constantly changing. New technologies shift centers of influence and offer new capabilities. New innovations change the playing field and displace prior ideas and leaders.

Prior success from old models can limit our ability to adapt. Albert Einstein told us: “Our theories determine what we measure.” Thomas Kuhn said: “You don’t see something until you have the right metaphor to let you perceive it.”

Kuhn is one of my favorite thought leaders for the powerful thinking he shares in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Published in 1962, this is an academic work, difficult to read, and yet this book has been translated into 16 languages and has sold more than one million copies. It is required reading in fields as diverse as physics, management, philosophy, and political science. Kuhn’s work is most remembered for popularizing the word “paradigm,” but his enduring contribution is in challenging our mental model of intellectual progress.

In a departure from collective wisdom, Kuhn wrote that science is not a logical and linear accumulation of knowledge. Instead, he argued, science is “a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions.” Science holds a generally accepted view or paradigm of nature that, for a time, frames our perspective (and thus our questions). This view is taken for granted until the number of unexplained anomalies mount. When the profession can no longer evade these anomalies, investigations begin that lead to a new set of commitments. These shifts of “knowing what the world is like” are what Kuhn called scientific revolutions. In these revolutions, one mental model is replaced by another.

Imagine, for example, Ptolemy’s paradigm of Earth as the center of the Universe. Research undertaken from this vantage point found anomalies that could not be explained, but they were ignored. Copernicus planted a seed, through his observations and mathematical calculations, that the sun was the center of our solar system. This new paradigm resulted in enormous changes in both science and society over time. More than 100 years later, Galileo was tried for heresy and threatened with imprisonment for offering the same theory, even though he had stronger evidence. Eventually, this new paradigm replaced the old one.

Not only did a new paradigm emerge, but the influence of the Church in society was reduced relative to science (a process that had already begun with the invention of the printing press and direct access to the Bible). The notion of “objective” knowledge suddenly dominated science and society. Society, adopting a scientific method, began to perceive that all truth exists outside the individual. “I’ll believe it when I see it” became an almost universal dictum. Enormous change, much of it unanticipated, often results from a shift in perspective.

Compare the Newtonian model of physics to that of quantum physics:

Newton saw the universe as a large number of discrete objects working like a giant clock.
Einstein and Bohr described the world as nothing but energy.
Newton advised that to understand the whole you must first understand the parts, a focus on basic building blocks.
Einstein taught us to focus on relationships, to understand the system as a system. Relationship is the key determiner of what is observed. Particles come into being and are observed only in relation to something else.
Newton said everything is in a process of entropy or breakdown.
Prigogine showed that the world is in a process of constant creation.
Cognition replaced human senses as the central test of reality.

Similarly, reengineering taught managers to look across functional silos to understand the total process by which value is added to customers.

A key lesson for managers, scientists, and scholars is that leaders of new schools of thought are often fringe players who dabble on the edge and typically do not fully subscribe to the mainstream paradigm. Kuhn taught us that these shifts are led from the fringes of collective wisdom, not from the core. For example, for anybody who ever flunked a math test, something marvelous happened in Stockholm in 2000. As described by T. R. Reid in a December 10, 2000, Washington Post article, a soft-spoken fellow from Kansas—a guy who was turned down by MIT because his math scores were too low, who learned his trade in the Army and never had much formal training in science—received the Nobel Prize in physics. This is especially remarkable because Jack Kilby was not a physicist. Kilby created one of the most valuable inventions of the past century: the microchip, which launched the Information Age.

In the 1950s, circuit designs were growing so complex that they called for miles and miles of wire and millions and millions of soldered connections. All over the world, engineers were searching for a solution. When Jack Kilby addressed the problem, he had one great advantage: he didn't know what everybody else considered impossible, so he didn't rule anything out. Kilby’s answer to the wiring problem: eliminate the wires. It was such a break with the paradigm of electronic circuits that he first thought it couldn't possibly work. But he realized that all the basic elements of a circuit could be made of the same material, silicon. The tiny silicon chip at the heart of all digital devices has become the most important industrial commodity since crude oil. Without it, there could be no personal computer, no mobile phone, no space program, no Internet, no pacemakers or Play Stations.

Then there is Howard Schultz, who entered the coffee shop business at a time when consumption of coffee was falling and nearly all coffee was sold in cans in grocery stores. Competition was based primarily on price. Howard had seen cafes in Italy where fine coffee and conversation could be had nearly any time of day. He saw a new model for selling coffee in the United States that his most trusted advisors said would never catch on. Today, Starbucks cafes number in the thousands, and $4 "venti half-caf double shot nonfat caramel machiatto" has almost become part of the American vernacular.

Information and communication technologies have radically altered the way we connect to people and access or share knowledge. The dot-com era served as a catalyst for approaching processes and even entire industries with new perspectives. Increasing mass production and customization simultaneously had been an impossibility. Mass production meant “any color Ford as long as it’s black” versus custom-designed services or products for the highest prices. Now Amazon, eBay, and even auto manufacturers customize on a mass scale.

We build mental models of how our worlds (business, scientific, personal) operate, and we rely on these models to make decisions and take action. The models become our underlying assumptions and are based on learning and experience. Information informs our decisions, but the models guide them. The “facts” often become secondary to the models (“We met at eight.” “I was on time.” “You were late.” “Ah yes, I remember it well.”) We “adjust” facts to fit our mental models. It is critical, therefore, to recognize the mental models we use, both their strengths and limitations, as well as gain an appreciation for how models change over time.

Evolutionary and Revolutionary Management Principles

The industrial age management paradigm is based primarily on Adam Smith’s “division of labor” (break work into smaller pieces, each one separately manageable), hierarchy (perfected by the church, military, and the railroads), and Frederick Taylor’s “scientific management” (trained industrial engineers can figure out the single best way to do things and workers will follow explicit instructions). As the Information Age replaced the Industrial Age, we are searching for new models to provide a framework for organization and action. What “paradigms” will emerge to guide us into this new era? What principles will emerge to shape our assumptions and actions? The management principles that have served as foundations for the industrial revolution may not all ring true in the age of ubiquitous computing, globalization, outsourcing, and virtual enterprises. Consider, for instance, the traditional paradigm of management focus on land, labor, and capital. These assets are no longer as scarce or (in the case of land) as essential for businesses today. Knowledge has become the new currency that is clearly becoming the critical asset to enable the growth of our enterprises. Can we even begin to manage knowledge? What changes in our mental models are required to do so?

How will the Internet and related innovations offer a new paradigm for management? The traditional five-year strategic plan is now a handicap for agile companies, requiring instead a portfolio approach to investment and experimentation. With so much change, we literally have to place bets and be prepared to fail—but fail quickly and cheaply.

How do we cope with a rapidly changing world? There are no silver bullets, but the following four steps can help:

Recognize the power and limitations of our mental models.
Continuously compare our models with experiences, noting in particular the sheer volume of anomalies—those events that are not explained by our theories.
Pay close attention to the periphery—those people and organizations in adjacent spaces with interesting and new perspectives.
Foster brutal but civil disagreement, welcoming naysayers, dreamers, and operations experts so you can understand both the enemies and champions of change.

As we face new management challenges, we will be well served by remembering from Kuhn that human progress is not linear and rational but depends pivotally upon human ingenuity, debate, politics, and occasionally even extreme disagreement.

The French writer Marcel Proust is quoted as saying “The greatest discovery comes not from seeing new landscapes but in seeing the familiar with new eyes.” My hope is that all of us will strive to obtain new eyes and create the future rather than respond to it.

Management News Home Previous | Contents | Next