January 7, 2008
The Curse of Knowledge
By Tom Ryan
The more knowledge and expertise you gain, the less you remain open to new ideas. That’s the premise of the “curse of knowledge,” a phrase used in a 1989 paper in The Journal of Political Economy yet also a problem that continues to stifle creativity and innovation in the business world.
“Your conversations with others in the field are peppered with catch phrases and jargon that are foreign to the uninitiated,” tech-writer Janet Rae-Dupree wrote recently in an article in The New York Times. “When it’s time to accomplish a task – open a store, build a house, buy new cash registers, sell insurance – those in the know get it done the way it has always been done, stifling innovation as they barrel along the well-worn path.”
Chip Heath, a co-author of the book Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, claims that’s why engineers design products ultimately useful only to other engineers. It’s also why managers have trouble convincing underlings to adopt new processes, and ad execs struggle to convey nifty commercial messages to consumers.
“I have a DVD remote control with 52 buttons on it, and every one of them is there because some engineer along the line knew how to use that button and believed I would want to use it, too,” Mr. Heath told The Times. “People who design products are experts cursed by their knowledge, and they can’t imagine what it’s like to be as ignorant as the rest of us.”
To innovate, Mr. Heath says, you have to bring together people with a variety of skills. If they can’t communicate clearly with one another, innovation gets bogged down in the abstract language of specialization and expertise. “It’s kind of like the ugly American tourist trying to get across an idea in another country by speaking English slowly and more loudly,” he says. “You’ve got to find the common connections.”
In her 2006 book, Innovation Killer: How What We Know Limits What We Can Imagine – and What Smart Companies Are Doing About It, Cynthia Barton Rabe encourages companies to bring in outsiders called “zero-gravity thinkers” to keep creativity and innovation on track.
When experts slow down and go back to basics to bring an outsider up to speed, she told The Times, “it forces them to look at their world differently and, as a result, they come up with new solutions to old problems.”
Discussion Question: How common is the ‘curse of knowledge” phenomena in business organizations? Have you encountered it in your professional career? What specific steps do you take to avoid falling back on conventional solutions to problems and getting to true outside-the-box thinking? Do you think there is a need to bring in outside, so-called “zero-gravity thinkers” to stimulate outside-the-box thinking?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
A Zen teacher once said, “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, in the expert’s mind there are few.”
From a category management perspective, the “curse of knowledge” definitely exists. An organization may have a category management department that is loaded with knowledge and expertise. But look outside that one team, and there may be limited knowledge of category management. This limits the capabilities of the entire organization–particularly for departments that are recipients of the category management department’s output. They are expected to know & understand the project and insights and acronyms, sometimes with very limited understanding of category management.So the “curse of knowledge” in this situation is that the “organization” supposedly has the knowledge, but really, it ends up being one department that has the knowledge.
So what should be done? 1) Provide ongoing & sustainable training, to ensure that everyone has a base understanding on category management. There are video based training modules and a certification program in category management that create that foundational training without huge investment. 2) Encourage people to ask questions – give them an opportunity to say that they don’t understand. These opportunities should exist in all meetings where new knowledge is being rolled out. 3) Consider the audience when completing complex analysis – tailor the presentation & results to meet their needs. Even if the analysis is extremely complex, you can simplify the front end materials.
This is very common. People dislike change and are more comfortable with the old “we’ve always done it that way” concept.
As an executive of a software company, I found that this was very common. One way that we were able to combat it was to have “out of the box” think tanks. No wrong suggestions, no bad ideas…all were accepted and respected. This is imperative today in business, especially with the diversity of race and age. Many executives are making the decisions that are old school but the decisions are about millenials that don’t think the way executives think in many cases.
If you think your company is stagnant or if you want fresh ideas, always bring in an outside consultant. They can add great value. Explore your options and bring in a consultant with new ideas and a strong voice.
It isn’t the “curse of knowledge.” It’s the curse of being solely inwardly focused. Steve Jobs isn’t an outsider. But his products, services, and software are based on what would please customers. Every business needs to balance the inward focus and the outward vision. Toyota is relentlessly focused inward, gaining reliability and efficiency. But if they made unattractive cars, no one would care about the reliability and reasonable prices.
The challenge of management is often to optimize among competing interests, not just optimize one variable (Not simply the lowest cost OR the best design OR the fastest response OR the widest selection…but a combination.) Maybe it’s really the “curse of inadequate management.”
It’s interesting; many articles I have read say that genuine creativity can only be achieved by immersing oneself into a problem completely…that until you have fully understood all the issues and are fully cognizant of the various objectives, you cannot make the tradeoffs that are necessary to reach the best solution. (And the same solution is not the “best” for another group of stakeholders.)
I think the best way to manage change (an appropriate discussion in today’s political environment) may be the way it occurs in democratic nations. Perpetual change can lead to chaos and running in circles. Periodic change (such as occurs during elections) can be beneficial as it allows a new perspective on the problems to be solved. So whether it is a nation, a business, or a software application, you establish a “release schedule” and seek out the innovators who can contribute to those updates. And yes, it is beneficial to bring in outsiders but use them as catalysts and keep the steering wheel in the hands of the organization.
The “curse of knowledge” problem has crippled entire industries–just take a look at the U.S. auto industry’s approach to options versus that of the Japanese car makers and about 97% of the retail food industry.
As somebody who makes his living being one of those “zero gravity thinkers” let me sadly say that bringing one of us in isn’t an answer in and of itself. Too often companies bring in the “futurist,” the “innovator,” the “creative thinker,” or some other label for the out of the box person so they can check off another box on their modern manager list. They dutifully listen to the man or woman they’ve brought in, often pay them well and then proceed to ignore almost all of what they’ve heard.
The problem isn’t a lack of innovation inside companies, it’s breaking down the internal barriers that keep innovation from happening. Most people are creative and most companies punish them for it. The curse of knowledge isn’t the real issue, it’s the lack of institutional perspective. It’s not the engineer’s fault the DVD has 52 buttons–it’s a failure of the company as a whole to harness what he or she knows about designing DVDs with what somebody else knows about human beings. Corporate culture is the problem–not smart engineers.
What I tell my clients to be aware of is ‘complacent thinking’. Associates and managers are trained to do a job and some excel at what they do but a routine mentality builds and then fresh ideas are not explored. Retail, like most things, is never static and we always need to be a few steps ahead of the competition.
A really good way to counter ‘complacent thinking’ is to have short (5 or 10 minutes max) brainstorming meetings with managers twice a day. Not only does it allow managers to explore their own ideas, it also indicates the pulse of the store which is valuable to any manager or supervisor.
The “curse of knowledge” issue is very real and very common, and as the comments show often misunderstood. For example, it is negative and positive–what has failed before may never be attempted again because it is sure to fail a second time.
Having knowledge helps us become more efficient. Most tasks would not get done if we started from scratch each time. Leaders need to develop ways to turn off the knowledge barrier when innovation is required, and make use of it when necessary. Developing a culture of innovation ultimately will be more helpful than using the one-time facilitator (think 3M, W.L. Gore). Those companies that can reinvent themselves without losing the ability to execute will achieve the “blessing of innovation.”
In our consulting work we see the “Curse of Knowledge” frequently in “that is the way we have always done it.” This also makes change difficult if not impossible with some retailers. Most retailers spend too much time looking inside and not enough time looking outside their company. This is why the benchmarking approach worked so well.
We also see the old industry ratios and matrices being used. These have not be updated in years, but management is making decisions using them.
How common is the “curse of knowledge” phenomena in business organizations? Very. It still surprises me, though, because really intelligent people realize the more they know, the more they don’t know. (People made fun of Secretary Rumsfeld when he talked about “known unknowns, unknown unknowns” and the like, but he was right.)
Have I encountered the curse of knowledge in my professional career? More often than not. (But then, there’s also the opposite problem: analysis paralysis.)
What specific steps to take to avoid falling back on conventional solutions? I recommend performing a “trend audit” to see if the organization is aligning with where consumers, markets, employees, technology, etc. are going.
Is there is a need to bring in outside “zero-gravity thinkers” to stimulate outside-the-box thinking? Yes. As described in the article, we get our clients to question their basic assumptions, always a useful exercise (even if they’re confirmed!).
The “curse of knowledge” happens when information and process conspire together to institutionalize decision making. We see this all the time in retailing. A newly hired executive comes to work with a pre-conceived notion of how to distill performance information down to a few Monday Morning metrics. Next, the IT department is on overdrive trying to come up with the report format that the exec is accustomed to. When the report comes into being, the buyers and planners overact to the insights that can be gained from its limited view of business. Before long, it’s institutionalized.
The best way to counterbalance this tendency is to reward people for developing new, insightful ways of looking at the business. Most retailers have reduced their operational playbook to two or three plays: Markdowns, Orders, and Sales Promotions. There are dozens of plays that can be developed through thoughtful re-engineering of information flows.
Do you want the “curse of knowledge” or do you want to know more about your business than your competitor knows about theirs?
In today’s business world, where everyone is running at 1000 miles per hour, it’s hard to find the time to see the forest for the trees. Instant success is demanded from Wall Street. Managers trying to truly take a long term view are not considered to be aggressive enough to lead. It’s too easy to fall back on the same way of doing things.
Outsiders, be they consultants or new hires, can bring a much needed fresh perspective to the same way of doing things. As Ryan says, however, the advice is often applauded and then swiftly swept under the rug.
It takes strong, self-secure management to invite change. Only when an organization has a clearly defined story and is priority driven to find consumer-friendly solutions, will it grow and succeed.
This is a fallacious statement, with no true basis in fact. Even a haphazard review of the growth of innovation mirrors the growth of knowledge. Otherwise, the USA wouldn’t be the leading innovator in the world.
The same holds true for companies which increase their “knowledge” through better human resource access. These companies become better, their employees perform better (and strive for a higher level of knowledge and performance) and ultimately, their business becomes better. Infusions of new technologies, systems, processes and controls in companies all reflect the same increased productivity, performance and human resource growth. These organizations move forward, not back….
The “Curse of Knowledge” brings with it another curse inhibiting innovation and growth even more; overconfidence. Classic studies in behavioral finance document a very human tendency associated with increased knowledge–overconfident increases as we approach the boundaries of our knowledge. The more knowledgeable one is in a specific area, or the more experience one accumulates in a specific field, the more overconfident one becomes when making decisions outside core expertise. This becomes a challenge when senior executives are the ones making decisions, especially in today’s world dominated by technology based innovations where few executives have expertise. To protect against the natural tendency of overconfidence, decision makers might consider surrounding themselves with diversity in age and background–something the Supermarket industry could really benefit from.
Continuing progress on the corporate island requires partaking nutrients from both sides of a fast-paced river that flows past the corporate island.
In one stream is a school of animated fish called “outside stimulation,” the other is full of “cursed with knowledge” fish. You analyze the nutritional value of the fish in both streams against today’s competitive standards. For a balanced diet necessary to compete successfully–as well as acquiring awareness of new emerging paradigms–you taste the products in both streams rather than curse the good fish that got away.
I don’t believe that knowledge can ever be bad. What is bad, or stifle creativity, is when schools of thought influence people and organizations. The only school of thought that ultimately matters is that of the consumer you are trying to capture. Sure, a company can create a remote control with tons of features and buttons that is far “superior” to another, competitor’s remote, but if the consumer’s school of thought is that it’s too complicated or advanced for what they want, then they won’t want it.
I’m not much for fish, but it is easy to tell from the comments above that this issue plagues us all. This has been a bane of the Grocery industry for many years since the advent of Category Management. Immersed in mounds and mounds of data telling us what to put on the shelves, we have forgotten the basic principle of why we are here in the first place–to please the consumer. We failed them over the years by not asking them what it is that THEY want.
The same goes for many of our research techniques. We use elaborate formulas and predictors to get the answers to burning questions never taking a step back and asking “does this make sense in the real world?” “Can we actually implement the program?”
Having knowledge about an industry or company is always a good thing, but not being able to take a step back and look at the world outside our own intellectual endeavors is the mind-gap.
Like Roger Selbert, the first thing that came to mind when I read this discussion was former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s infamous quote. But it is true that the hardest thing to account for in management is the fact that we “don’t know what we don’t know.” As is often the case when we discuss issues more fundamental and philosophical such as this one, my own guiding light comes from my grandfather. He challenged us to “learn one thing from every person you meet.” It is a formidable challenge, forcing you to maintain a receptive mind and be an active listener — not the strong suits of the average American manager.
We could also call this the “curse of comfort”. Once a process or approach is comfortable, people don’t like to go outside of their “zone” and take the risks to try and do new things. Further, very few of them are rewarded to do so by their leaders.
I think you DO need zero gravity thinkers…but, as Stephen and Ryan point out, you must pair them with open, accountable minds that will actually DO something with the thinking. If the outcome is then rewarded by the company leaders, we have progress. If not, it all falls apart.
In today’s ever-changing consumer climate, there really is no such thing as a comfort zone anymore and there is no such thing as “what works”. There is only a continual evolution of what works. The sooner folks embrace this–and act accordingly–the sooner we will reap the rewards of real innovation.
There’s that story about Marketing asking Product Development for a Horse and Product Development coming up with a Zebra because it is built exactly like a horse but is prettier.
In my experience, the “Curse of Knowledge” does exist but in most well-run businesses it is controlled by mechanisms like test markets (for consumer products) and ‘user acceptance testing’ UAT (for technology products) so that product designers’ tendency to get carried away by the ‘curse’ is tempered by the rationality of end-user acceptance. Apparently not enough though, as suggested by the ubiquitous 52-button remote.
I agree with Ryan Matthews in that the problem isn’t necessarily a lack of innovative people within companies, rather that internal barriers separate innovative ideas from integration.
It is my observation that the more flat an organization is, the more likely that it is able to innovate and incorporate new ideas. In companies with entrenched levels of management it is often difficult for innovation to effervesce from the ranks to the decision makers. Over time these barriers can reinforce the status quo and result in serious competitive disadvantages for mature businesses.
A good example of such innovation stifling may be found in a classic book written by John DeLorean/Patrick Wright entitled “On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors.” The book chronicled the entrenched and siloed organizational structure of GM which effectively kept product innovation at bay and opened the door to companies like Toyota creating product that people wanted to buy. They are still doing it today.
So while I agree with the premise of the argument for the “Curse of Knowledge,” I believe that it is only a part of the problem; other contributors include organizational hierarchies and cultural perspectives can combine to stifle innovation without intending to.
I think it is less the “curse of knowledge” and more the “curse of success.” We take some marketing action, it appears to work well, and we become locked into that format. A lot of times we don’t actually have knowledge, rather, we have folklore. I’ve had a number of occasions where someone has stated, “consumers behave like ‘X’.” It doesn’t resonate, so I ask them to show me the data that indicates that behavior. It often turns out that they don’t actually have this information–the folklore takes over for knowledge.
That said, it’s not that you need outsiders or zero-gravity thinkers to spur innovation. You need people with an open mind who constantly question their own assumptions.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
A Zen teacher once said, “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, in the expert’s mind there are few.”
From a category management perspective, the “curse of knowledge” definitely exists. An organization may have a category management department that is loaded with knowledge and expertise. But look outside that one team, and there may be limited knowledge of category management. This limits the capabilities of the entire organization–particularly for departments that are recipients of the category management department’s output. They are expected to know & understand the project and insights and acronyms, sometimes with very limited understanding of category management.So the “curse of knowledge” in this situation is that the “organization” supposedly has the knowledge, but really, it ends up being one department that has the knowledge.
So what should be done? 1) Provide ongoing & sustainable training, to ensure that everyone has a base understanding on category management. There are video based training modules and a certification program in category management that create that foundational training without huge investment. 2) Encourage people to ask questions – give them an opportunity to say that they don’t understand. These opportunities should exist in all meetings where new knowledge is being rolled out. 3) Consider the audience when completing complex analysis – tailor the presentation & results to meet their needs. Even if the analysis is extremely complex, you can simplify the front end materials.
This is very common. People dislike change and are more comfortable with the old “we’ve always done it that way” concept.
As an executive of a software company, I found that this was very common. One way that we were able to combat it was to have “out of the box” think tanks. No wrong suggestions, no bad ideas…all were accepted and respected. This is imperative today in business, especially with the diversity of race and age. Many executives are making the decisions that are old school but the decisions are about millenials that don’t think the way executives think in many cases.
If you think your company is stagnant or if you want fresh ideas, always bring in an outside consultant. They can add great value. Explore your options and bring in a consultant with new ideas and a strong voice.
It isn’t the “curse of knowledge.” It’s the curse of being solely inwardly focused. Steve Jobs isn’t an outsider. But his products, services, and software are based on what would please customers. Every business needs to balance the inward focus and the outward vision. Toyota is relentlessly focused inward, gaining reliability and efficiency. But if they made unattractive cars, no one would care about the reliability and reasonable prices.
The challenge of management is often to optimize among competing interests, not just optimize one variable (Not simply the lowest cost OR the best design OR the fastest response OR the widest selection…but a combination.) Maybe it’s really the “curse of inadequate management.”
It’s interesting; many articles I have read say that genuine creativity can only be achieved by immersing oneself into a problem completely…that until you have fully understood all the issues and are fully cognizant of the various objectives, you cannot make the tradeoffs that are necessary to reach the best solution. (And the same solution is not the “best” for another group of stakeholders.)
I think the best way to manage change (an appropriate discussion in today’s political environment) may be the way it occurs in democratic nations. Perpetual change can lead to chaos and running in circles. Periodic change (such as occurs during elections) can be beneficial as it allows a new perspective on the problems to be solved. So whether it is a nation, a business, or a software application, you establish a “release schedule” and seek out the innovators who can contribute to those updates. And yes, it is beneficial to bring in outsiders but use them as catalysts and keep the steering wheel in the hands of the organization.
The “curse of knowledge” problem has crippled entire industries–just take a look at the U.S. auto industry’s approach to options versus that of the Japanese car makers and about 97% of the retail food industry.
As somebody who makes his living being one of those “zero gravity thinkers” let me sadly say that bringing one of us in isn’t an answer in and of itself. Too often companies bring in the “futurist,” the “innovator,” the “creative thinker,” or some other label for the out of the box person so they can check off another box on their modern manager list. They dutifully listen to the man or woman they’ve brought in, often pay them well and then proceed to ignore almost all of what they’ve heard.
The problem isn’t a lack of innovation inside companies, it’s breaking down the internal barriers that keep innovation from happening. Most people are creative and most companies punish them for it. The curse of knowledge isn’t the real issue, it’s the lack of institutional perspective. It’s not the engineer’s fault the DVD has 52 buttons–it’s a failure of the company as a whole to harness what he or she knows about designing DVDs with what somebody else knows about human beings. Corporate culture is the problem–not smart engineers.
What I tell my clients to be aware of is ‘complacent thinking’. Associates and managers are trained to do a job and some excel at what they do but a routine mentality builds and then fresh ideas are not explored. Retail, like most things, is never static and we always need to be a few steps ahead of the competition.
A really good way to counter ‘complacent thinking’ is to have short (5 or 10 minutes max) brainstorming meetings with managers twice a day. Not only does it allow managers to explore their own ideas, it also indicates the pulse of the store which is valuable to any manager or supervisor.
The “curse of knowledge” issue is very real and very common, and as the comments show often misunderstood. For example, it is negative and positive–what has failed before may never be attempted again because it is sure to fail a second time.
Having knowledge helps us become more efficient. Most tasks would not get done if we started from scratch each time. Leaders need to develop ways to turn off the knowledge barrier when innovation is required, and make use of it when necessary. Developing a culture of innovation ultimately will be more helpful than using the one-time facilitator (think 3M, W.L. Gore). Those companies that can reinvent themselves without losing the ability to execute will achieve the “blessing of innovation.”
In our consulting work we see the “Curse of Knowledge” frequently in “that is the way we have always done it.” This also makes change difficult if not impossible with some retailers. Most retailers spend too much time looking inside and not enough time looking outside their company. This is why the benchmarking approach worked so well.
We also see the old industry ratios and matrices being used. These have not be updated in years, but management is making decisions using them.
How common is the “curse of knowledge” phenomena in business organizations? Very. It still surprises me, though, because really intelligent people realize the more they know, the more they don’t know. (People made fun of Secretary Rumsfeld when he talked about “known unknowns, unknown unknowns” and the like, but he was right.)
Have I encountered the curse of knowledge in my professional career? More often than not. (But then, there’s also the opposite problem: analysis paralysis.)
What specific steps to take to avoid falling back on conventional solutions? I recommend performing a “trend audit” to see if the organization is aligning with where consumers, markets, employees, technology, etc. are going.
Is there is a need to bring in outside “zero-gravity thinkers” to stimulate outside-the-box thinking? Yes. As described in the article, we get our clients to question their basic assumptions, always a useful exercise (even if they’re confirmed!).
The “curse of knowledge” happens when information and process conspire together to institutionalize decision making. We see this all the time in retailing. A newly hired executive comes to work with a pre-conceived notion of how to distill performance information down to a few Monday Morning metrics. Next, the IT department is on overdrive trying to come up with the report format that the exec is accustomed to. When the report comes into being, the buyers and planners overact to the insights that can be gained from its limited view of business. Before long, it’s institutionalized.
The best way to counterbalance this tendency is to reward people for developing new, insightful ways of looking at the business. Most retailers have reduced their operational playbook to two or three plays: Markdowns, Orders, and Sales Promotions. There are dozens of plays that can be developed through thoughtful re-engineering of information flows.
Do you want the “curse of knowledge” or do you want to know more about your business than your competitor knows about theirs?
In today’s business world, where everyone is running at 1000 miles per hour, it’s hard to find the time to see the forest for the trees. Instant success is demanded from Wall Street. Managers trying to truly take a long term view are not considered to be aggressive enough to lead. It’s too easy to fall back on the same way of doing things.
Outsiders, be they consultants or new hires, can bring a much needed fresh perspective to the same way of doing things. As Ryan says, however, the advice is often applauded and then swiftly swept under the rug.
It takes strong, self-secure management to invite change. Only when an organization has a clearly defined story and is priority driven to find consumer-friendly solutions, will it grow and succeed.
This is a fallacious statement, with no true basis in fact. Even a haphazard review of the growth of innovation mirrors the growth of knowledge. Otherwise, the USA wouldn’t be the leading innovator in the world.
The same holds true for companies which increase their “knowledge” through better human resource access. These companies become better, their employees perform better (and strive for a higher level of knowledge and performance) and ultimately, their business becomes better. Infusions of new technologies, systems, processes and controls in companies all reflect the same increased productivity, performance and human resource growth. These organizations move forward, not back….
The “Curse of Knowledge” brings with it another curse inhibiting innovation and growth even more; overconfidence. Classic studies in behavioral finance document a very human tendency associated with increased knowledge–overconfident increases as we approach the boundaries of our knowledge. The more knowledgeable one is in a specific area, or the more experience one accumulates in a specific field, the more overconfident one becomes when making decisions outside core expertise. This becomes a challenge when senior executives are the ones making decisions, especially in today’s world dominated by technology based innovations where few executives have expertise. To protect against the natural tendency of overconfidence, decision makers might consider surrounding themselves with diversity in age and background–something the Supermarket industry could really benefit from.
Continuing progress on the corporate island requires partaking nutrients from both sides of a fast-paced river that flows past the corporate island.
In one stream is a school of animated fish called “outside stimulation,” the other is full of “cursed with knowledge” fish. You analyze the nutritional value of the fish in both streams against today’s competitive standards. For a balanced diet necessary to compete successfully–as well as acquiring awareness of new emerging paradigms–you taste the products in both streams rather than curse the good fish that got away.
I don’t believe that knowledge can ever be bad. What is bad, or stifle creativity, is when schools of thought influence people and organizations. The only school of thought that ultimately matters is that of the consumer you are trying to capture. Sure, a company can create a remote control with tons of features and buttons that is far “superior” to another, competitor’s remote, but if the consumer’s school of thought is that it’s too complicated or advanced for what they want, then they won’t want it.
I’m not much for fish, but it is easy to tell from the comments above that this issue plagues us all. This has been a bane of the Grocery industry for many years since the advent of Category Management. Immersed in mounds and mounds of data telling us what to put on the shelves, we have forgotten the basic principle of why we are here in the first place–to please the consumer. We failed them over the years by not asking them what it is that THEY want.
The same goes for many of our research techniques. We use elaborate formulas and predictors to get the answers to burning questions never taking a step back and asking “does this make sense in the real world?” “Can we actually implement the program?”
Having knowledge about an industry or company is always a good thing, but not being able to take a step back and look at the world outside our own intellectual endeavors is the mind-gap.
Like Roger Selbert, the first thing that came to mind when I read this discussion was former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s infamous quote. But it is true that the hardest thing to account for in management is the fact that we “don’t know what we don’t know.” As is often the case when we discuss issues more fundamental and philosophical such as this one, my own guiding light comes from my grandfather. He challenged us to “learn one thing from every person you meet.” It is a formidable challenge, forcing you to maintain a receptive mind and be an active listener — not the strong suits of the average American manager.
We could also call this the “curse of comfort”. Once a process or approach is comfortable, people don’t like to go outside of their “zone” and take the risks to try and do new things. Further, very few of them are rewarded to do so by their leaders.
I think you DO need zero gravity thinkers…but, as Stephen and Ryan point out, you must pair them with open, accountable minds that will actually DO something with the thinking. If the outcome is then rewarded by the company leaders, we have progress. If not, it all falls apart.
In today’s ever-changing consumer climate, there really is no such thing as a comfort zone anymore and there is no such thing as “what works”. There is only a continual evolution of what works. The sooner folks embrace this–and act accordingly–the sooner we will reap the rewards of real innovation.
There’s that story about Marketing asking Product Development for a Horse and Product Development coming up with a Zebra because it is built exactly like a horse but is prettier.
In my experience, the “Curse of Knowledge” does exist but in most well-run businesses it is controlled by mechanisms like test markets (for consumer products) and ‘user acceptance testing’ UAT (for technology products) so that product designers’ tendency to get carried away by the ‘curse’ is tempered by the rationality of end-user acceptance. Apparently not enough though, as suggested by the ubiquitous 52-button remote.
I agree with Ryan Matthews in that the problem isn’t necessarily a lack of innovative people within companies, rather that internal barriers separate innovative ideas from integration.
It is my observation that the more flat an organization is, the more likely that it is able to innovate and incorporate new ideas. In companies with entrenched levels of management it is often difficult for innovation to effervesce from the ranks to the decision makers. Over time these barriers can reinforce the status quo and result in serious competitive disadvantages for mature businesses.
A good example of such innovation stifling may be found in a classic book written by John DeLorean/Patrick Wright entitled “On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors.” The book chronicled the entrenched and siloed organizational structure of GM which effectively kept product innovation at bay and opened the door to companies like Toyota creating product that people wanted to buy. They are still doing it today.
So while I agree with the premise of the argument for the “Curse of Knowledge,” I believe that it is only a part of the problem; other contributors include organizational hierarchies and cultural perspectives can combine to stifle innovation without intending to.
I think it is less the “curse of knowledge” and more the “curse of success.” We take some marketing action, it appears to work well, and we become locked into that format. A lot of times we don’t actually have knowledge, rather, we have folklore. I’ve had a number of occasions where someone has stated, “consumers behave like ‘X’.” It doesn’t resonate, so I ask them to show me the data that indicates that behavior. It often turns out that they don’t actually have this information–the folklore takes over for knowledge.
That said, it’s not that you need outsiders or zero-gravity thinkers to spur innovation. You need people with an open mind who constantly question their own assumptions.