Exploratory behavior

Part of current day problems that I believe I observe both in my professional life in the industry, as well as from the sidelines of looking at the political and social discourse happening in Finland, may stem from a similar source. My pet peeve for a long time has been the overt theoretization of problems, in practice characterized by the old wisdom that boxing is not a purely theoretical exercise. In boxing, one also needs to be prepared to put theory in practice and apply pragmatism and evolve one's thinking as the empirical evidence starts pouring in.

What this means in the context of companies is that especially in turbulent situations where power has become institutionalized into structure and process, a lot of energy and time seems to often be wasted on contemplating things, planning, and strategizing. All of these are good, but at the end of the day one must be prepared to take a step forward, test out the thinking, and adapt as required. However, in very turbulent environments the cycles may get so short that in practice no practical steps are ever taken and the cycles consist of only theoretically pondering over and over again. It sounds like a caricature, but seems to be rather prevalent.

I fear that a similar dynamic may have also found its way to the political landscape of present day Finland, perhaps elsewhere as well. The previous government was a case study of a very broad-based and heterogenous bunch, incapable of getting very many initiatives from the drawing table into execution. This has been clearly called out by very many observers, and the newly elected government has taken clear steps to rectify the rampant indecisiveness of the previous one. Interestingly enough, however, the discussion has again immediately found its way into a mode where all views are heavily polarized and argued from ideological positions without a hint of real, tangible empirical evidence. And more worryingly it seems like not too many are even interested in honest testing of ideas and would much rather sling mud and have rhetorical arguments rather than attempt to solve problems.

In my very limited experience of how the world seems to work, I have tended to take the stance that is roughly in line with empiricism, where possible. This may stem from the mindset of a mere engineer, but I find that at the end of the day I value getting things done more than being right or wrong. Unfortunately it often seems people would rather not do anything than risk being wrong, or even worse, look silly. Hence, I suppose, it is a lot safer to sling rhetorical arguments back and forth without worrying about stepping into the empirical world to test out and adapt accordingly.