Jeffrey Saltzman's Blog

Enhancing Organizational Performance

The Science of Momentary Organizational Intelligence

leave a comment »

[tweetmeme source=”jeffreysaltzman”]

Humans have had an enormous impact on this planet in a very short period of time. In fact humans as a species have come a long way in a relative blink of an eye. Homo sapiens sapiens (humans) first appeared in the fossil record about 200,000 years ago. To put that into perspective if you compact the age of the planet into about a day’s worth of time, 24 hours, humans have been on this planet for only about the last 3.4 seconds of its existence. If you think of the time since we have been organized into societies, some of the first organizations, rather than just in hunter-gatherer mode, that time period ends up being just short of about 2 tenths of a second relative to the day-long age of the earth. The appearance of many modern conveniences, such as electricity, that we now take for granted, would not show up until about .0025 of a second ago. But what an impact we as a species have been able to make in that last fraction of a fraction of a second. While that impact has made many of our lives immeasurably more comfortable, from a planetary perspective, at best, that impact could be described as creating a mixed or perhaps somewhat dismal picture.

There is a concerted effort out there to find life on other planets. So far the search has yielded no signs of intelligent life elsewhere. You have to wonder how difficult that task is likely to be if you question whether we as a species will ever make it to see a full second of existence, relative to the day-long age of the earth. In order to do that we would have to keep going as we are for roughly another 60,000 years or about 6 times the interval since we as a species began to form societies. If other “intelligent” forms of life take the path we have, they too could have enormous impacts on their respective planets in a relative blink of a planetary existence, but from within our own flash of modernity, the last tiniest fraction of a second, where we even have the capabilities to look for other intelligent life, we may be searching for little more than other flashes of momentary intelligence.

Finding the proverbial needle in the haystack is an extremely simple task by comparison. We not only have to be looking at the right place, we have to be looking at the relative right fraction of a fraction of a second if the development paths of other life-forms resemble our own. Remember as we gaze into space we are covering not only distance but time as well, gazing out is looking back. As we examine other planets at varying distances from us we are looking back to different time periods in their evolution. And while all this may sound a bit corny, even with the long-odds, I have to admit I am a big fan of SETI or the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. If we can find other intelligent life-forms, more mature than our own, and of longer duration, that would represent the success of “intelligence”, meaning that intelligent species as they arise are not doomed to extinction as they wantonly exploit the resources of their respective home worlds. Finding other successful life forms might point to a path forward for our own long-term success.  

In the relative fraction of a second since we have emerged as societies we have shaped virtually every aspect of our existence to better suit us. While we may not have tamed nature, we have certainly harnessed it for our benefit. For instance, there is current concern about genetic engineering of plants and animals. As though if we change the makeup of plants and animals, as nature herself has not done, we will expose ourselves to potential future horrors. Well, for a very long time now there has not been a piece of food that you put in your mouth that we as a species have not already genetically engineered. Have you ever seen what the original versions of corn, tomatoes, potatoes, or wheat looked like? By today’s standard they were barely edible. Over time by selecting for traits that made plants and animals more attractive and useful to us, we have genetically morphed virtually all of the ones we exploit today. You want to go back to eating wild onions, perhaps chasing boars through the forest? Did you have a hamburger for dinner last night? That cow that it came from never existed in its current form as a creation of nature. Did you enjoy a crisp apple or some really good sweet corn recently? We created them both by manipulating their genes. Even before we knew about genes we were manipulating them to bring better harvests, more flavor, and better characteristics to our food. The potential to insert genes that add vitamins to common foodstuffs in the developing world represents a potential great leap forward in helping to relieve human suffering and is an opportunity we should not miss. Especially one we should not miss due to ill informed decision making.

Despite all the progress we have made in our tiniest of fractions of a second, we still carry with us a large number of superstitious beliefs and primal fears. Maybe our technology and abilities have surpassed our social structures and thought patterns. One study carried out by the Pew Research Center (Science News, April 10th, 2010) of 895 experts on the impact of the web on our futures, comes to the conclusion that while the general consensus is that the technology will continue to advance, there is a feeling that from a societal standpoint we are not progressing fast enough to deal with the new technology. “At the same time, there is worry that humans and their institutions will not adapt as well as they might under these circumstances. We’re slow to adjust, and the technologies themselves are introducing so many new elements to life that people will potentially have a hard time adjusting to that.” Not only are we slow to adjust from a society perspective we are slow to progress in our decision making methods. Let me share a few examples.

We often bypass evidence based decision-making to hang our fates on folk wisdom, personal conviction, simple belief or to throw our lot in with charlatans selling snake oil. (Sometimes charlatans truly believe what they peddle, and while that may remove the label of charlatan, they are still selling snake oil). Have you heard of cleansing? There is no evidence that cleansing products actually do anything useful or that the body even needs to be cleansed. (I have to laugh out loud when I see the ads on TV about the buildup of material in my digestive track just waiting to be flushed out. Other then my wife telling me I am “full of it” there is no evidence that I actually am.) Quite the contrary to cleansing, there is ample evidence that a diet rich in roughage and fiber allows your digestive organs to perform at their best. What about the notion that your organs would function better if you gave them a rest? Would you give your heart a rest or perhaps your lungs for a week or two? Of course not. In fact a systematic exercise program is one way to achieve a healthier heart and yet it seems that sometimes people decide to rest their brains (also an organ that has been shown to benefit from exercise) as they consider what beliefs they should embrace.

Personal experience also plays a part. But remember personal experience is often anecdotal, gut reaction or based on an n=1 design. Not the way to assure good judgment is utilized in decision making. My gut tells me that there have been an unusually large numbers of earthquakes over the last 6-12 months or so, right? Actually, if you look at the record, there have been exactly the anticipated numbers of earthquakes, at the anticipated magnitudes, as there have been historically. What has happened is that there have been a higher number of earthquakes hitting populated areas which draws more attention, incurs more damage and fatalities and makes it seem like there are more earthquakes. Our thinking tends to look for patterns and we quickly make judgments which we then defend.

One article in the NY Times (May 2, 2010) documented the losing reputational battle that high fructose corn syrup is fighting, with one side claiming it as a natural product, while the other claims that its chemical transformation from corn starch to corn syrup results in unhealthy properties. I stumbled at two points in the article, one when someone from a corn syrup group indicated that they concentrate on consumer preference and not the science behind the syrup and the other when a social media demonizer of corn syrup said that science had simply not yet figured out the experiments to prove his point of view. Both points of view as they are stated are seriously deficient in data, but the current science seems to imply that corn syrup is as bad for you as cane sugar, no worse, no better.

Why are we as consumers not utilizing more science in our decision making on what to do with or put inside of our bodies? It is wonderful to lose yourself in the concepts of the “mysteries” of the natural world, that there are secrets that we don’t know about just waiting to be discovered. One of the reasons Avatar was such a hit movie was because of the wondrous and mysterious natural world that was depicted. There are those who eagerly chase or follow people who state that they have uncovered one of those mysteries that will benefit your life. How many of you who are reading this take any kind of herbal supplement? Many do. And while some herbal supplements contain chemicals that can have significant effects on the body, have you ever looked for real experimental data on whether that herbal supplement actually does you any good?  

Yes, many of our original medicines came from the natural world, aspirin from willow, digitalis from foxglove (which I grow in my garden since I find that the deer leave it alone), and penicillin from mold. Scientific knowledge is a moving target and our knowledge continually improves as our science improves. Consider this treatment for Bronchitis from the 1899 Merck Manual: “Cupping, four to six dry cups over the back often give very great relief, and if pulmonary congestion appears very great, wet cups should be placed instead, and 8 to 10 oz. of blood withdrawn from adult.” That treatment for Bronchitis represented the beliefs of the day, but I wouldn’t let a practitioner of those out-dated beliefs near me with a 10-foot pole. That history of scientific imperfection opens the door to charlatans who claim that science does not have all the answers. And you know what? It doesn’t, at least not yet. But I’ll take the incomplete answers of today’s scientists over the hype of marketers, politicians and those with vested interests any day.    

The business world and more broadly all kinds of organizations which we humans have created have had their fair share of misguided principles, fads, magic bullets as well as worthwhile concepts applied to them. Some are based on scientific principles, others on ideas that are simply thought up as marketing differentiators. And while some are nothing more than a means to sell a few books and consulting services, others contain kernels of worthwhile elements, but are often viewed as the solutions to be applied in all situations, as though the bloodletting treatment for bronchitis should be used whatever the ill. Having a bagful of solutions in search of problems is no way to make organizations or societies truly improve. Remember the saying, if the tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Over the last few decades the concepts tried out in organizations have included leaderless groups, chaos, one-minute manager, management by walking around, informal structures, total quality management, learning organizations, management by objective, matrix management and business process re-engineering. Which are real and useful, which are fads? Which ones should be applied to what kinds of problems?

The answer to those questions are not necessarily straightforward. As organizations feel increasingly greater pressure to compete in a tough environment, to make their quarterly targets they can fall under the sway of the answer of the moment and the resultant behavior is not always positive. It may be time to look at what has really worked longer-term within successful organizations, and to get to the heart of the matter scientifically. Not that we should discard new concepts and methodologies of organizational management that come along, but rather than simply grasping we should employ a moment of organizational intelligence and choose wisely and scientifically among our options.    

© 2010 by Jeffrey M. Saltzman. All rights reserved.

Visit OV:

Written by Jeffrey M. Saltzman

May 2, 2010 at 6:47 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: