How to Avoid Stupid Consequences by Thinking One Step Ahead
Our government is full of morons. I know – and the sun is hot.
But seriously – we can learn a lot from their stupidity and lack of foresight. All too often our “leaders” identify problems they want to rectify. They then create a perfect solution targeted at resolving exactly the issue they identified.
And then stupidity happens. Why? Because the world isn’t static. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction folks (can I get a holla for Sir Isaac and 10th grade physics?).
Guess what? You do stupid stuff too (and so do I). Why? Because we don’t think far enough ahead about what the reactions in our environment might be. Today I’m going to share some of my favorite moronic decisions and their corresponding reactions and I’m also going to give you a great tool for staying out of the lack-of-foresight-stupidity-trap yourself.
To illustrate these points, allow me to share five of the stupidest government decisions I’ve ever seen and their unintended consequences. After doing so, I’ll share the simple question that will prevent you from being equally moronic. So here are the five stupid decisions…
Low Flush Toilets
“We waste a lot of water when we flush the toilet (3.4 gallons). We should reduce the amount of water a toilet flushes and make it a regulation that it can’t flush more than 1.6 gallons per flush. Reducing flush volume to that level will save tons of water and save our environment.” Wrong. I don’t know about you folks but the reduced water volume often necessitates significantly more flushes. Sure, we save some water but not nearly enough to prevent James Cameron from ecologically scolding us via Avatar.
Compact Fluorescent Lights
“Gee, these incandescent bulbs use a lot of energy. We should mandate compact fluorescent bulbs because that’ll save a lot of energy.” Two words: heavy metals (and not Metallica or Megadeth). Someone failed to think through the “what do we do with the bulbs after they burn out” question. Lack of foresight.
Time on Tarmac
“It’s really bad when travelers get caught on a plane on the tarmac for long periods of time. Let’s impose massive fines if the plane sits on the runway for more than two hours.” Duh. The airlines will cancel the entire flight and rebook everyone rather than eat a one trillion dollar fine. How did the government not see that equal and opposite reaction coming? And by the way, the volume of passengers adversely affected from cancellations far outweighs the much smaller number of folks who sit on the tarmac for a while.
Debit Card Fees
“We need to protect consumers from those evil banks so let’s impose a cap on fees banks can charge for people to use their debit cards. People will love us (re-elect us) if we do!” Wrong. Profits are like balloons. Push in one side and it pops out the other. Think it’s a coincidence that free checking is disappearing faster than Herman Cain’s supporters (remember him?)? Again – lack of foresight regarding how banks would react to margin compression on one product line – they’ll simply expand margins on other products to make up the difference.
Yes – our government is full of fools who can’t see one step past the problem in front of them. They end up “solving” one problem only to create others. They solve symptoms – not causes. By taking that approach, they’ll never get ahead because all they’re doing is creating more next-order problems.
So what?
Here’s my pointed question: does your organization think you would be a good fit for an elected position in the government? Do you only solve the first order symptom/problem and then you’re surprised by the unintended consequences?
Here’s the solution – a simple, two word question: “so what?”
When you see a problem, go ahead and generate your first solution. But don’t implement it. Instead, just ask “so what?” Ask it from the frame of “so what happens next if I pursue this solution?” That’s how you’ll uncover the first of several unintended consequences and reactions to your solution. Once you identify that first reaction, come up with a solution to it and again ask “so what?”.
If you pursue this approach a few times, you’ll have a better sense of the unintended consequences of your decisions and you’ll save yourself (and your organization) the headache of cleaning up the new mess you created as you tried to solve the original problem.
Go lead the thinking. Think beyond the initial problem and solution. Try to eliminate those unintended consequences before you put them in motion. If we all try to do that more often, maybe we’ll actually have fewer problems to solve.
– If you’re serious about getting better at leading the thinking, grab yourself a copy of One Piece of Paper: The Simple Approach to Powerful, Personal Leadership. There are plenty of suggestions in there for how you can see beyond the problem immediately in front of your face. CLICK HERE to get your copy.
Oh, Mike, you’ve fallen into the trap of believing what the media tells you. The government has not outlawed incandescent light bulbs nor mandated the use of compact fluorescent bulbs. The government has instituted higher energy efficiency requirements for light bulbs. Companies have develop numerous alternatives to CFLs, including energy-efficient incandescents.
Politifact has the story here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/24/government-banning-incandescent-light-bulbs/
So, in this case, it’s the vaunted free market that showed the lack of foresight by developing the cheapest (relatively) alternative without considering the disposal/heavy metals issue.
Fair point Rory. Allow me to shift the blame to the morons without foresight of the heavy metals issue. Mea culpa. What was I thinking believing the vaunted 4th estate? Sounds like there’s another post in there about the media, eh? Hope you’re doing well. Good to hear from you.
Our government (in the UK) has to be the prime example of not thinking things through. The recent ‘pasty’ (a name of a usually hot, pastry covered savory snack) tax has opened such a can of worms on what is regarded as ‘hot’.
In the UK the temperature varies, right, so a food that is several degrees above ambient is defined as ‘hot’, but in summer our weather can be 30 degrees, so how will ambient work then?
And, if ‘hot’ out of the oven and there’s a queue (or line in ‘across the pond’ parlance), do the first few pay the tax because the food is at the set ‘above ambient’ temperature and the last in the line not do so.
Friggin’ idiots.
Mike, great article. How do you teach people who tend to get into analysis paralysis when they have thought through the consequences enough? I’ve known people who, when they start thinking of consequences, simply end up paralyzed with fear of making a bad decision.
Thanks for doing what you do! I learn a lot from your writing.
Thanks for the kind words Dave. We wrote a post a while back about the concept of “does it change the answer?” In short, will the result of your analysis change the current answer/decision for what you should do? If the answer is “no” then stop doing analysis and make the decision. Here’s the post: https://www.thoughtleadersllc.com/2008/01/getting-to-yes-does-it-change-answer/
I am not going to defend “government” because that term can mean just about anything. I’m glad most of your specific comments went to elected officials and laws they pass. I find that most of my colleagues in government administration or the judiciary spend much of their time trying to implement and interpret the laws passed in a way that causes the least problems and pain. I’ve also spent time in the private sector, and beliieve me, the only reason that the private sector isn’t more of a laughing stock or source of examples of stupid thinking is that we care less whether a given private sector company fails due to stupidity and there are ways to hide dumb decisions (how long did Enron remain the “example” of how to do business before people realized their accounting and promotion systems were whacked?). We only get one government, and everyone has a stake in it. It’s too important to fail totally. But it’s easier to take pot shots at government, since we all created it and deal with it. The citizens are responsible for the elected officials, so you ought to be warning people to think one step ahead of their choice not to vote…or when they do vote, which candidate they choose!