In The Studipity Paradox, Andre Spicer and Mats Alvesson explore how knowledge intensive organizations employ smart people and encourage them to do stupid things. Functional stupidity can be catastrophic, however a dose of stupidity can be useful. The book advises how to counter stupidity or reduce…
In The Studipity Paradox, Andre Spicer and Mats Alvesson explore how knowledge intensive organizations employ smart people and encourage them to do stupid things. Functional stupidity can be catastrophic, however a dose of stupidity can be useful. The book advises how to counter stupidity or reduce the consequences, how to exploit it, and how to benefit from it.
InfoQ readers can download a sample of The Stupidity Paradox
InfoQ interviewed Andre Spicer and Mats Alvesson about what «functional stupidity» is and what its main causes are, the possible negative and positive outcomes of functional stupidity, what they learned from investigating leadership, how culture induces stupidity and what can be done to limit the damage, and what can be done to counter stupidity management or dispel stupidity.
InfoQ: What made you decide to write this book?
Andre Spicer: We had spent over a decade studying knowledge workers in knowledge intensive firms. But when you asked them what they seriously thought about their jobs, they would often admit “it’s actually pretty stupid”. For a while we thought they were just trying to be humble. But eventually we started to take them seriously. So instead of going looking for knowledge and smartness in firms, we started looking for stupidity. This lead us to a goldmine.
Mats Alvesson: We have observed that it is common to emphasize knowledge, rationality, talent, and learning. But in reality many organizations cultivate compliance, obedience, naivety, conformism and positivity. Low levels of critical thinking and reflection seemed common in many workplaces. We realised this makes organizations functioning smoothly and people avoid anxieties associated with broader responsibility outside following the flow. Initially we published these observations in a scientific paper.
We thought it would only be read by other specialists. But the message seemed to have a much wider resonance. This lead us to publish a book which described what we had found to a wider audience.
InfoQ: For whom is this book intended?
Alvesson: Any person who is eager to be self-reflective about why stupid things happen in their workplace. We think the book is particular for people who want to have a framework for understanding some of the perversions of contemporary organizations and working life.
Spicer: We think jilted knowledge workers will find this book interesting. These are people who spent years studying then more decades honing their expertise only to find thinking and knowledge are disregarded in most big organisations. These smart people are then asked to do stupid things in these organisation. They are frustrated. Our message is that they are not alone. Their experience is widely shared, and there is something which you can do about it.
InfoQ: What do you mean by «functional stupidity»?
Spicer: Intelligent people with excellent qualification not thinking in a broader way. As a result, things go well in the short term — they often get promoted and the organisation as a whole functions well. But in the long term it creates disaster.
You know if you have functional stupidity on your hands when: People don’t ask for or give justifications of a course of action. They say things like “screw it, let’s do it”. People don’t reflect on the assumptions they are making. People don’t think about the long term implications of their actions.
Alvesson: Narrow, technical thinking within a given box or framework (vision, job description, success recipe) without broader reflection or questioning of purpose or context. You competently do what you are told (or how others do things) without thinking if this is meaningful or leads to good outcomes. For instance, in large banks employees often focus on ticking the regulatory boxes and do not think about the wider question of whether the financial products they are creating are any good.
InfoQ: What are the main causes that lead to functional stupidity?
Spicer: In the book we identify five common drivers of functional stupidity. The first is a misplaced obsession with leadership. Many organisations encourage people to think of themselves as inspirational leaders. But this often alienates their followers and means they ignore the nuts and bolts of getting a task done. The second is an attachment to branding. We witnessed military organisations which were more keen on running rebranding exercises than running military exercises. The third driver of functional stupidity is mindless imitation. Often large organisations copy others for no better reason than they want to up with the latest fashion. This leads firms to implement new initiatives which are inappropriate for them. The fourth is pointless policies and procedures which are thoughtlessly followed. Many professionals spend more time ticking off boxes than actually doing their job. Finally, some organisations encourage a culture of up-beat positive cultures which encourages employees only to look at the bright side and overlook any problems.
InfoQ: What are the possible negative outcomes from stupidity at work?
Alvesson: An enormous waste of time and energy in organizations spent on window-dressing activities and meaningless meeting rituals or tick-box activities. Many organizations make little or no contribution to society. As a result employees feeling cynical and disappointed.
For instance, teachers spend increasing proportions of their time complying with various auditing exercises. As a result, they spend more of their time doing administrative duties than actually teaching their pupils. This has a knock on effect of making teachers feel like they are not doing their job properly — they become alienated and many are now leaving the profession. This also has a wider social impact — leading to under educated kids.
Spicer: It is interesting to note that countries like Finland which tend to give their teachers lots of professional autonomy and don’ t overburden them with administrative demands tend to have the best educational outcomes for kids.
InfoQ: What positive outcomes can it bring?
Alvesson: People are focused, they feel comfortable, they are not overburdened with doubt and reflection. It can also create a positive work cultures without critique or difficult questions being asked. But it’s a double edged sword. Each of these short term benefits can become long term problems.
Spicer: For instance, in one consultancy firm we studied, we noticed that many of the young employees were unusually upbeat about everything. These were smart people who had spent years being trained how to think. But as soon as they entered the firm, many stopped using these thinking skills. As a result, they could get on with the task and do things which seemed irrational but made the client happy in the short term. As a result, these people were promoted and there was also less conflict in the organisation. But it often gave rise to longer term problems.
InfoQ: You investigated leadership in your book. What have you learned?
Alvesson: Much of the talk and many of the hopes we have about leadership is just fantasy. Often, in knowledge intensive firms, leaders just get in the way. If organisations actually wanted to be successful, what is needed is less leadership. After-all, few managers have much leadership. 95% of their time is spent doing boring administration. When they try to do leadership, they are often far from what management bestsellers preach and promise. For instance, in one tech firm we studied, we saw managers who were brought in to manage a group of engineers. The engineers were pretty self directed. The manager had no idea about what they were actually doing. So he had to resort to generic leadership tactics — trying to inspire people, holding meetings, organising away days.
