19,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Ratgeber
- Sprache: Englisch
Revitalize your team's creativity and overcome negativity with this inspiring guide to building unstoppable momentum for your transformative ideas
In today's high-stakes world of R&D and innovation, the difference between a groundbreaking idea and a stagnant project often rests on your team's approach to criticism and opposition. John Wolpert, a seasoned tech innovator, brings you The Two But Rule: Turn Negative Thinking Into Positive Solutions, a revolutionary guide to turning skepticism into a powerful catalyst for innovation.
In The Two But Rule veteran tech innovator John Wolpert delivers an exciting, hands-on guide to using the principles of Momentum Thinking to get you—and your organization—unstuck. You'll learn how to build unstoppable velocity for your big idea, product, or strategy as you blast through the endless objections and counterarguments that bedevil every innovator and changemaker. Momentum Thinking offers a lifeline for leaders whose teams are trapped in counterproductive criticism cycles, offering a refreshing, easy-to-understand, and engaging alternative to the toxic positivity that plagues so many organizations.
You'll discover how to address criticisms like "But that’s too expensive" or "But that won’t work" and use them to refine your idea and polish it into a gem worthy of attention and implementation. In the book, you'll also find:
- Innovative Problem-Solving Strategies: Learn how to convert team criticism into innovative solutions and opportunities.
- Tips for Countering Toxic Positivity: Navigate beyond blind optimism to embrace diverse perspectives, enhancing problem-solving.
- Engaging and Practical Advice: Implement the intoxicatingly fun "Two But Rule" for immediate positive impact on your team dynamics.
- Ways to Encourage Innovation at Any Level: Foster a culture of positive contribution and creative momentum whether you're managing a small team or leading a large organization.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 285
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Introduction
PART 1: Momentum Thinking Essentials
CHAPTER 1: Embracing Your But
Our Broken Buts
Two But Basics
Stating the 1But
Stating the Because
Stating the 2But
Elon Musk's Fuzzy But
CHAPTER 2: No Buts Allowed
The Tragic Buts of Facebook and Lehman Brothers
The No-Buts Policy Makes Dumb Ideas Stupid: Ask Coke
Spanx, Adobe, and the 1But Winner
We Need Bolder Buts
Building Braver Buts
The Science of Buts
Waiting for the Quantum But
Saving But-Head
Rescuing 1But-Guy
CHAPTER 3: This Book Saved My But
CHAPTER 4: Getting Your But in Shape
The Pain in Your But
What's Behind Your But
Best Buy's Big Buts
Uber's Bigger Buts
CHAPTER 5: Advanced Butology
Gnarly Buts
Chain of Buts
Rediscovering Your But
Proteins Got a Brand New But
Hidden Buts
CHAPTER 6: Bad Buts
Lewis and Clark's Historic Buts
Cheating Buts
Volkswagen's Gassy But
Don't Be a Lazy But
Don't Argue with Your But
PART 2: The Two But Rule in Practice
CHAPTER 7: The Social Life of Buts
Drunken Buts
The Gaps in Your But
Exposing Your But
CHAPTER 8: Playing with Your But
Timing Your But
Butting In
The Odious But
The Empathetic But
The But of an Ass
CHAPTER 9: Old Buts and New Buts
Airbnb and Paul Graham's Old But Breakthrough
Runaway Buts
The End of Buts
CHAPTER 10: Putting Your But to Work
Leaning Into Your But
Five Buts
The Two But Retrospective
CHAPTER 11: Managing Your But
2But Tools
Two But Notation
Artificial Buts
Two-But Buddy
Protecting Your Buts
Teaching AI to Embrace Its But
PART 3: Life's Big Buts
CHAPTER 12: You and Your But
Everyday Buts
Fixing the Fan
Surviving Parenting Purgatory
Changing Careers
CHAPTER 13: Business Buts
Running a Small Business Is a Pain in the But
Calendly and the Many Buts of Starting a Business
Where to Sit Your Buts
CHAPTER 14: Product and Technology Buts
The 2B Product Review
Who Owns Your But Online?
Product Feature Creep
Regulating AI
CHAPTER 15: Buts in Conflict
Solon, Father of Buts
Big Government's Budget Buts
CHAPTER 16: Saving the World…with Your But
Windy Buts
Plastic Buts
CHAPTER 17: The Rear End
The Buts We Leave Behind
Embrace Yourself
All Your Wonderful Buts
Acknowledgments
About the Author
Index
Copyright
Dedication
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Introduction
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Acknowledgments
About the Author
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
iii
xi
xii
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
197
198
199
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
iv
v
208
The Two But Rule
Turn Negative Thinking Into Positive Solutions
John Wolpert
Introduction
We're in trouble. The world feels like it's coming apart. And every solution, every innovation, seems to deliver a truckload of new problems. We're in fight-or-flight mode all the time, driven by fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of seemingly insurmountable problems, and fear of each other. Some of us respond to this by clinging to blind optimism, some wallow in obstinate negativity, and some offer half-baked ideas and censor those who question them.
This book offers an alternative, a way out of endless, circular arguments. It offers a path to solving impossible problems and capturing opportunities beyond our wildest dreams. To do that, we must rediscover an asset that most of us have been sitting on our whole lives.
This is your guide to discovering the positive power of negative thinking. We're going to dive headfirst into the benefits of contrarian perspectives and challenge the way we react to them. We'll traverse the spectrum from blind optimism to obstinate negativity and find the sensible middle, where innovation and practicality don't have to be at odds. We won't be wallowing in negativity. Instead, we'll harness it and turn it into an engine that drives us toward better solutions and better understanding of the problems themselves.
This is the practice of Momentum Thinking, or, as I like to call it, The Two But Rule. Momentum Thinking is a way to tackle complex problems and opportunities without slowing down or ignoring issues. It's not a miracle cure or an overnight transformation but a useful habit of balanced, nuanced, and innovative thinking.
Part 1 of this book covers the essentials of Momentum Thinking, guided by vivid examples, engaging stories, and some admittedly adolescent humor. We'll review catastrophes caused by failures to apply the Two But Rule and successes of those who, consciously or unconsciously, applied it well.
Part 2 shows how to put the Two But Rule into practice on teams and how to turn Momentum Thinking into Momentum Doing. Then we'll explore important techniques and tools (including the use of artificial intelligence) to help remove some of the frictions that can hinder the practice.
Part 3 puts it all to the test on life's toughest problems, from the personal to the professional to some of the biggest challenges facing humanity.
Why is all this crucial for you? Because the world isn't getting less complex or uncertain. You're going to need a way to find clarity amid chaos, see opportunities where others see dead ends, and make connections in a world that seems more divided than ever. This isn't just about problem-solving. It's about harnessing the potential within you and the people around you to create lasting, positive change.
So, if you're ready to grow your capacity to see problems clearly and to solve them creatively, it's time to unleash the power of the Two But Rule—not just for you but for a world that needs a new burst of momentum.
Be sure to join in our community of innovators and problem solvers at 2buts.com. And for more support and tools for applying Momentum Thinking to your life and work, visit TheTwoButRule.com.
PART 1Momentum Thinking Essentials
CHAPTER 1Embracing Your But
Something's on your mind. You've got things to do and problems to solve. We're not talking about the simple stuff like deciding to take a break from social media. We're talking about the complex, high-stakes stuff like starting a company when you're broke, studying for exams while working two jobs, or re-creating Grandma's famous holiday stuffing without the recipe. Whatever it is, you're stuck, and you're searching for a way to figure it out.
In that search, you're going to come up with a lot of dumb ideas. If you don't, you're not doing it right. That idea you had in the shower this morning? Yeah, not good. Don't feel bad. It's just not good yet.
You're not alone: YouTube started as a video dating site. PayPal started as a way to beam money between Palm Pilots. (Remember Palm Pilots?) Sparkling Champagne began as a fermentation accident that caused bottles to explode. And my first attempt at re-creating Grandma's stuffing involved dousing it in vodka. (After I worked my way through the liquor cabinet, bourbon was the answer.) These are just a few of the countless cases of getting smart by starting dumb.
Overcoming seemingly impossible problems and creating truly innovative things depends a lot on how much momentum you can muster when turning bad ideas into good ones.
But standing between you and the promised land of solved problems and glorious achievements are a bunch of meddlesome other people—and one particularly meddlesome person inside your own head—who are going to slow you down, trip you up, and send you crashing into a dead end. And they'll use one powerful, much maligned word to do it: but.
“But that won't work.” “But it's too expensive.” “But we have better things to do.” But, but, but.
You probably don't like the buts. But, you should. In fact, if you want to have the best chance of success in whatever you do, you need to embrace a lot of buts. And that's the funny thing about them: even though a single one will stop you in your tracks, buts can really generate momentum when they come in pairs.
Momentum Thinking That’s what the Two But Rule is about. It's about turning the world's biggest idea killer—and arguably the world's biggest relationship killer—into a powerful tool for getting unstuck, building velocity, staying nimble, and even repairing relationships. It's a tool that's always with you, though you rarely look at it, and you have to be mindful about how you display it in public. Yep…it's your but.
You might believe that you know your but, but you don't. There's a lot more there than you think. Throughout this book, we'll explore many useful kinds of buts, how to get them into shape, when to reveal them, and why it's essential that all buts come in pairs.
This is the basis of the Two But Rule: following “But that won't work” with “BUT it would if…” will lead reliably to more positive outcomes for you, your ideas, and the people in your life. Like a Shakespearean comedy, applying the Two But Rule starts out negative but turns positive in the end.
If you're a leader, a scientist, a general pain in the but, or just a regular person facing tough choices and hard problems, the Two But Rule is for you. If you're none of these, it should also be a mildly amusing digest of “but jokes” for adolescents of all ages.
There's a lot more to executing the Two But Rule than its simplicity suggests. Keep reading. You might discover some surprising things about buts and how to handle them.
Our Broken Buts
NASA Flight Director Gene Kranz never said, “Failure is not an option.” That was a line delivered by Ed Harris in the 1995 movie Apollo 13. In fact, during the tense days in April 1970—when an oxygen tank exploded in the service module taking astronauts Jim Lovell, Jack Swigert, and Fred Haise to the moon—failure wasn't just an option. It was a likelihood.
What Kranz did say was this: “Let's solve the problem, people. But let's not make it any worse by guessing.”
Solve the problem. Don't make it worse. It's a different way of looking at things than we've seen lately in technology, government, and society. Gig economy startups bulldoze whole service sectors while losing vast amounts of money simply papering over the same old problems with new buzzwords. Rash and reactionary government policies sacrifice human decency and common sense to satisfy the demands of an angry political base. Social networks and decentralized financial platforms claim to be about community and inclusion but instead deliver devastating blows to social norms and further concentrate wealth in the hands of elites.
These are the products of a no-buts-allowed culture, where the powerful, perhaps frustrated with the general pace of change and seemingly intractable problems, plow ahead with half-baked plans. They believe it's too hard and time-consuming to understand context, learn how the status quo came to be, or consider the consequences of their actions. All this underscores a deep misunderstanding we've developed about innovation and momentum.
“Move fast and break things,” Facebook's motto until 2014, set the tone for this approach to “disruptive innovation” that persists to this day. It suggests that deploying new ideas fast without taking constraints into account is better than sitting on your but pondering what to do. And at a high level, that sounds reasonable. But the things we're breaking these days are becoming hard to fix. We need a better way.
It's worth noting that the Apollo 13 team had no time to spare in saving the crew, and yet they didn't just move fast and break things. They moved even faster to identify problems, offer ideas, consider new problems presented by those ideas, and manage a complex array of constraints until they had plans that worked. They were engineers and scientists, with plenty of skeptics who didn't hesitate to point out the flaws in a plan. But they also had the mental fortitude and camaraderie as a team to say, over and over, “But that won't work, BUT it would if….” This is the Two But Rule.
For example, when the damaged Apollo 13 command module ran out of life support, the three crew members moved into the two-person lunar module, but the CO2 scrubbers were inadequate for the increased load. Left unfixed, the crew would have died of carbon dioxide poisoning. The command module's scrubbers could handle the job, but they needed to be fitted to the lunar module's round ports…and they were square. So the ground crew figured out how to fashion a makeshift connector from duct tape, plastic bags, and parts from a spacesuit.
They applied the same approach when they discovered a problem with navigation, a serious problem with the power supply, and issues with restarting the dead command module when it was time to re-enter Earth's atmosphere.
In more than one case, a contrarian viewpoint averted further disaster. An initial plan to use the main engine for a direct return to Earth was scrapped in case it had been damaged in the explosion. Later, when they ejected the service module and observed the actual damage, it was clear they had made the right choice.
In another case, flight controller John Aaron directed the team's attention from other problems to the spacecraft's dwindling power supply, convincing them to cut power in time to have enough battery reserves for re-entry. And later, he threw out the standard playbook and ordered an unorthodox power-up sequence. If he hadn't, the ship would have run out of its remaining battery power before reaching home.
Every time they found something in a procedure that wouldn't work, they found a way to make it work or to approach the problem in a new way. Fortunately for the crew, what they didn't do was ignore the skeptics—or let skepticism bring them to a halt. For every “But that won't work” (1But), they found a “BUT it would work if…” (2But) and then repeated the cycle, always matching a 1But with a 2But, a 3But with a 4But, and so on. Failure, it turns out, is only an option when you stop on an odd-numbered but.
Two But Basics
We've been moving fast and breaking things for a long time. And now, we're faced with problems so big, complex, and immediate—from climate change and social unrest to the rise of our AI overlords—that our only option is this: Solve problems. Don't make things worse. And somehow move faster than ever. This is what Momentum Thinking is all about. So let's get into some details.
Momentum Thinking starts when someone presents a problem to solve or offers an opportunity to capture. In either case, someone is forming an intention.
For Apollo 13, the intention was clear: bring the crew home safely. The priority was unambiguous: scrap the moon landing and bring the crew home safely. And the immediate nature of the emergency focused the minds of everyone involved: bring them home safely before they run out of life support.
These three factors made it more likely that the team could overcome the fact that they had no idea, at first, how to pull it off. It's not always that straightforward. Intentions, especially early intentions, are as delicate as they are packed with potential energy. They can be tricky, and we'll talk a lot more about them later.
The Two But Rule is all about how we keep momentum flowing without ignoring problems with those early intentions. It starts simply enough. Whether in a meeting, a formal brainstorm, or just sitting with yourself thinking through a problem, you allow the phrase “But that won't work” (a 1But) to be said in a thoughtful manner after an intention has presented itself. But, only on the condition that it is immediately followed by the phrase “BUT it would work if…” (a 2But).
There are variations of this:
“But I don't like that, BUT I would if….”
“But we can't afford that, BUT we could if….”
“But you're a big dumb poopy-head, BUT you wouldn't be if….”
Stating the 1But
Here's an uncomfortable exercise, if you're up to the challenge. Keep track of how many times you say the word but over the course of one whole day. If you're an overachiever, note what you were reacting to, how you were feeling at the time, what argument you were presenting, and whether in retrospect your assertion was objectively true, based purely on belief, or completely full of sh*t. Oh, and mark whether, after presenting your but (your 1But), you followed up with any second buts (2Buts).
Given that but is one of the top 100 most frequently used words in the English language, you'd be doing well if your count were less than 50. And you might start to notice some things about what motivated you to use the word and where the conversation went after you did.
Ideally, we present our buts as a way to show contrast, consider exceptions, and identify constraints. Assuming your motivation is to seek truth and achieve a productive outcome, it's useful to consider whether your but is refuting an assertion or trying to refine it. Regardless, it's critical to be clear-eyed about whether your but is expressing an observable truth, an unprovable belief, a sense of skepticism that can be tested, or just a contrarian habit. (If the latter, keep reading. You still have a chance to be the hero of the story.)
Here are a few more variations of 1Buts:
But I just don't know.
But I don't believe it.
But that violates my beliefs.
But I want something else.
But I don't like/trust/know you.
But that won't work technically.
But that won't work practically.
Some 1Buts are pretty easy to handle. For example, “But I'm not sure I understand what you meant” can be followed with “BUT let's try again.” Likewise, if there's a clear problem with an idea that can be solved in a way that doesn't involve unacceptable trade-offs, then you can say, “But that material won't work, BUT we could use this other material instead.”
On the other hand, assertions based on beliefs can be the hardest buts of all, and we'll dig into them after we've mastered the art of the Two But Rule. There really is a way to achieve Momentum Thinking and find solutions that work better for everyone, even when conflicting beliefs seem intractable.
Another difficult 1But makes assertions that can be proven, but the time and effort required to find the truth exceed the willingness of anyone to spend it. Sometimes a little consideration is enough to find sufficient evidence or logic for both sides to agree on the point. But if the original idea (or your 1But) isn't worth testing to establish a reasonable sense of truth, you have to consider whether it's worth the effort of “butting in.”
Finally, there are 1Buts that you may just want to avoid. Chief among these is the dreaded “But what about?” A close cousin is the “But that won't completely solve the problem.” If you identify a problem to solve and the argument to not tackle the problem is based on a claim that it will still be a problem in other contexts, then you have hit a 1But wall and may simply need to find someone else to problem-solve with.
That said, when you've mastered Momentum Thinking, you can sometimes find powerful clues into real problems and solutions hiding in someone's “What about….” They might really be saying, “But I don't want to” or “But I don't feel like it.” They might not want to admit, even to themselves, why they don't like your idea, and that itself is interesting and potentially useful. They might really be saying, “But if you solve that problem, my profits will go down…but I can't say those words even to myself, so I'm going to find some other reason to oppose the idea that sounds better to my ego.” All of these are clues to find better solutions.
Stating the Because
Figuring out whether you're starting with an easy but, a hard but, or a but full of hot air starts with one word: because. If you're presenting your 1But, be sure to add it. And if someone is baring their 1But to you, be sure to ask for it. It's simple:
“But I don't like that idea, because….”
“But I don't believe you, because….”
“But you're a big dumb poopy-head, because….”
You have to admit that, even in the last case, the because can really help with presenting the argument thoughtfully.
The because is also helpful for finding an interesting 2But. For example, you might say, “But I don't want to spend money and time on a book that boils down to a two-line aphorism and some potty humor, because I'm busy working at a job that doesn't pay me enough.” And then you might say, “BUT maybe I could read this book, become a Two But guru, build a following of loyal but-heads, and launch a successful consulting career.”
Did this thought just change your life? Yeah, perhaps not. But finding a second but, even a silly one, can provide a real jolt of mental momentum. And that's what we're looking for.
Stating the 2But
There are perhaps as many variations of 2Buts as there are combinations of intentions and 1Buts:
There's
The Lay-up
: “But I don't understand how this will work, BUT let's figure it out.”
The Punt
: “But we just don't want to do something new right now, BUT we could do it later.”
The Jab
: “But you're wrong, BUT you wouldn't be if….”
The Mentor
: “But we tried that in the '90s, and it didn't work, BUT here's what went wrong so you can avoid this mistake when you try it again.”
The Scientist
: “But your conclusions are flawed, because your data are inaccurate, BUT we can still explore your hypothesis if we construct a better experiment.”
The Engineer
: “But that idea won't work the way you think, because you're not considering the weight load these cables can bear, BUT we could use a higher tensile strength cable instead.”
The Accountant
: “But this is going to cost too much, BUT we could eliminate your salary to cover it.”
Endless variations.
At this point, you might be saying, “I get the idea, but there are plenty of times when I simply can't think of a good second but.” You're in luck! There's a 2But even to this but: BUT you don't have to provide a particularly good second but.
In Chapters 5 and 6, we'll get into some of the finer points of producing a well-formed 2But, including how to look for hidden buts, avoiding bad buts, and managing long chains of buts. For now, let's talk about my favorite: the silly but and its variants, the crazy but and the fuzzy but.
For example, a team of newly hired MBAs and engineers at IBM were brainstorming ways to approach a new project. One of the MBAs proposed a plan. An engineer curtly said, “But that won't work.” When asked to add a second but, the engineer said with a grumble, “Well, it would work if gravity worked differently.” A classic silly—maybe in this case, snarky—2But.
Not five seconds later, another engineer jumped out of their seat and said, “Wait a minute!” They then proceeded to lay out an idea that didn't alter gravity but did lead to a patent filing and a project that would later garner the attention of the company's CEO.
Sometimes the crazier the 2But is, the better. It doesn't have to solve the problem. It just has to maintain momentum. Introducing the notion of gravity to the conversation, something completely outside the context of the initial idea, gave the second engineer an unexpected insight.
Elon Musk's Fuzzy But
Crazy buts, silly buts…and now let's look closely at the all-important fuzzy but. Elon Musk's company SpaceX started as an idea to land a miniature greenhouse on Mars with the ultimate goal of growing plants there. That idea had problems. In 2001, the cost of building and launching rockets was too high, making the Mars mission unattainable for a private company. Musk went looking for breakthroughs in rocket technology.
He observed that the spot prices of a rocket's raw materials were about 2–3 percent of the total manufacturing cost at the time. That gave him the seed of an idea: design manufacturing to optimize turning raw materials into a rocket. That came with an obvious 1But: But all known methods for this process, refined over decades by some of the best engineers in the world, were still too expensive.
A technique to keep things flowing on a hard problem is to blur the lines of the initial idea when formulating the 2But, making the idea “fuzzy” and breaking it down into first principles. First principles is a way of thinking recently popularized by Musk but originally formulated by Aristotle. It says that the nature of a thing comes from the nature of its building blocks and how they interact.
So, using the first principles approach, Musk observed that materials are just collections of atoms. That led to an important 2But: SpaceX could cut costs dramatically if they had a magic wand for turning atoms into rockets. Crazy but? Check. Fuzzy but? Check.
It turns out that Musk did indeed have a magic wand. Three of them. The first wand was access to enough private capital to vertically integrate materials supply and production. The second wand was a new modular manufacturing approach based on the principles of Musk's prior experience in object-oriented software. The third wand was the emerging field of additive manufacturing (aka 3D printing), literally a magic wand for rearranging atoms and turning them into rocket engines.
On September 28, 2008, SpaceX launched the first privately developed liquid-fueled spacecraft into orbit, proving that a good set of crazy, fuzzy buts can launch you on a journey to outer space.
Elon Musk, and people like him, have a relentless and seemingly inexhaustible capacity for gnawing on a problem like a dog with a bone. But they also have a knack for maintaining momentum. That's the difference between dwelling on a problem and iterating through it. They bring the second but, no matter how crazy or fuzzy it is.
Applying the Two But Rule can feel like going over a psychological roller coaster. There's a moment of fear that no 2But will present itself. And then the thrill, as the mind latches onto something and gets pulled along, often on an unexpected journey. Yours might not be to Mars, but you're going somewhere.
Like all journeys, the trip can be fraught with dangers. For starters, in today's world, all buts are under attack.
CHAPTER 2No Buts Allowed
Have you ever found yourself in the shoes of Cassandra, the priestess of Apollo gifted with foresight but cursed so that all her prophecies fell on deaf ears? Or have you ever found yourself in a company full of would-be Cassandras, always predicting disaster? Neither situation is much fun.
It's true that cultures dominated by negativity tend to be stagnant cesspools of inaction. And habitually saying “But that won't work” will get you nowhere (and earn you a reputation as an obstructionist to be ignored), but there's another momentum killer that's even more insidious. And it's on the rise.
We live in a culture of correctness, toxic positivity, and general avoidance that leaves us utterly bereft of our buts, incapable of pointing out problems or even fully realizing there are any problems to solve. In such an environment, nobody wants to hear about your but, even if you come with two buts in hand. Call it the no-buts policy.
Admittedly, the proximate cause of a no-buts policy is usually a long-standing culture of negative 1Butism that long ago eroded the organization's ability to innovate. Unfortunately, if 1Butism is a momentum killer, a no-buts policy is worse.
The Tragic Buts of Facebook and Lehman Brothers
Sandy Parakilas was a Facebook platform operations manager responsible for protecting the personal information of the social network's users. His special focus was third-party developers that provided a variety of services—from games like Farmville to popular surveys like This Is Your Digital Life. To do this, these services accessed data from Facebook's internal systems.
For example, This Is Your Digital Life, created by Cambridge University researcher Aleksandr Kogan, collected data about both Facebook users and their networks of friends to generate personality insights.
Parakilas grew worried about these apps in 2011, later telling The Guardian, “My concerns were that all of the data that left Facebook servers to developers could not be monitored by Facebook, so we had no idea what developers were doing with the data.”
He raised these concerns to management, but he says they were not heeded. He left the company in 2012.
Soon after that, Aleksandr Kogan shared the data he had collected about Facebook users with political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. The scandal that resulted was legendary. The Guardian and The New York Times reported in 2018 that profiles of millions of people had been created by Cambridge Analytica from Facebook's data and used in a variety of political campaigns.
The fallout resulted in Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg being called before Congress, where they vigorously paddled his but. The Federal Trade Commission launched a probe into Facebook that led to a $5 billion fine. And eventually several executives found themselves out on their buts, including the CEO of Cambridge Analytica.
In the end, the whole affair led to reported changes in how Facebook and other platforms handle user data, but not before the scandal caused a general erosion in the public's trust in social media, which persists today.
In another notable case, Joe Gregory, president of financial juggernaut Lehman Brothers, famously asked, “Why bother worrying about dizzying levels of debt and exposure to potential defaults—when all good things come to those who are optimistic enough to expect them?” Lehman collapsed in 2008 and triggered the Great Recession.
Like a Shakespearean tragedy, the no-buts policy starts in a state of positivity and ends in carnage after the main characters ignore all the signs of impending doom.
The No-Buts Policy Makes Dumb Ideas Stupid: Ask Coke
Clearly the no-buts policy has a terrible effect on identifying and solving problems. And it's not just about making it unsafe to speak truth to power or raise red flags. It's often about allowing obviously dumb ideas to persist and percolate without challenge, where they eventually take root in the DNA of the organization without having been transformed into good ideas along the way.
It's especially easy for a dumb idea to stay dumb when it comes wrapped in statistics from flawed studies. A good example of this was Coca-Cola's decision to reformulate its flagship Coke product in the mid-1980s. The decision was prompted by taste tests that showed people preferring sweeter drinks. This allowed proponents to push aside resistance to the reformulation project.
