Hanlon's Razor

Currently, as part of my tertiary education, I am required to read a fantastic book titled: The Practice of Adaptive Leadership by Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow and Marty Linsky. This book is filled with practical models and methods for carrying out acts of adaptive leadership, and discusses interesting concepts such as the use of an artificially created disequilibrium in order to nurture innovative change within a system (Heifetz 2009 p30). From this book, one particular segment jumped out at me: ‘The Illusion of the Broken System’ (Heifetz 2009 p17).

The reason this particular portion caught my attention was initially because I strongly disagreed with the subheading. I wholeheartedly believe that some systems can be broken, but this is not what this subchapter is truly about.

“Any social system is the way it is because those with the most leverage in the system want it that way” (Heifetz 2009 p17). This is the main thought this subchapter explores, and it terrifies me in its obvious simplicity. Famine, war, instability, terrorism, all issues which cannot be solved with resources alone, but require the mobilization of people, may exist solely because there are those among us who want them to exist.

This terrifying idea reminded me of a philosophical razor, often overused in my household:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" - Robert J. Hanlon

Oh I wish I could comfortably live by this law. My mother would often say this to me when I would whine about current affairs. When America's bloody wars in distant lands sparked terrorist action against their citizens. When Australia's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers caused suicide to become a preferable escape route from detention. When planes were shot down over lands occupied by fascist puppets and autocratic rebels. As if it was my duty as a reasonable human being to forgive these people, to dismiss their actions as merely the products of our broken system and their inability to 'think'.

If all these things are not caused by a broken system just as this book suggests, then there are perpetrators of these crimes. Those who strive for progressive change have enemies actively seeking to undermine them.

The enemies of progress, and their loyal army.
Image created by Andrew Jones, http://androidjones.com

Is it safe to assume that our world leaders, those who we entrust with the power to literally wipe out civilisation itself, are "stupid" at times? Or would it be wise to attribute their destructive actions to malice, not stupidity?

This is one terrible dilemma, one terrible challenge, which I believe is faced by all those who wish to change society. Difficult questions need to be asked, and answers need to be found. Are the resisting factors, those who create and extend the problems faced by this world, merely sheep? Or are they shepherds in their own right? How should a leader, one who seeks to improve the situation through transformation and recreation of the system, identify these people? Should they be treated as enemies, their actions attributed to malice alone, or should they be forgiven and dismissed as merely products of the broken systems they so valiantly defend?

If Hanlon's Razor holds true, then this problem is more of an adaptive challenge (Heifetz 2009 p19), one involving the minds of people, steering them onto your path through incentives, persuasion and appealing to their personal desires. If these resisting factors are lost sheep, then all they require is a shepherd to guide them.

If The Practice of Adaptive Leadership holds true, then this problem becomes more technical. These resisting factors are shepherds themselves, they have their own sheep, their own ideology and their own goals. They are an opposing army. Diplomacy becomes ineffective as both forces want to impose their beliefs onto the entire world.

There will be war.

The question remains, who is right? Hanlon or Heifetz? Does the system corrupt the people, or do the people corrupt the system? Or is it some intricate mixture of the two? I may find answers to these questions one day. But for now, I feel it is safest to assume that malice is the driving force of all these problems, that there is no broken system, only those who wish it to remain in the same form forever. But if I assume this, then I must also submit to the idea that there are those amongst us, in powerful positions, who in the name of progress, must be toppled from their high towers. Leaders must rise to the top of those vacant castle spires, and from there, pull the world up to new and amazing heights.

But for now, we must watch and wait.

References:

Heifetz, R Grashow, A Linsky, M 2009, The practice of adaptive leadership: tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world, Harvard business review press, Boston, Massachusetts.