GUEST POST from Pete Foley
Our world is changing at an unprecedented rate. We are in an innovation driven economy. AI, genetic manipulation, energy innovation, climate, and virtually anything driving change are all highly technical and complex. And all come with high stakes pros and cons.
Scientists and innovators navigating this requires strategic leadership that understands technical complexity, uncertainty and that collectively has some knowledge of basic science and engineering.
Politics Lacks Scientists: Today, while more than half of US Senators have a law background, only one has a science PhD. I believe this creates a serious gap in fundamental knowledge between our strategic leaders and the innovators that are driving change.
Experts or Oracles? Of course, our leaders have access to ‘experts’ to help them with complex topics. But when the fundamental knowledge gap between leaders and experts becomes too big, experts become oracles. They pronounce rather than persuade. When this happens we risk the determining factor in strategy becoming superior communication skills, instead of knowledge or superior ideas. The ideas (and regulations) that win are not the necessarily best ones, but the ones championed by good communicators, salesmen scientists or smooth talking lobbyists. It’s dangerous to follow the science blindly, and even riskier to regulate what we don’t understand. That invites dangerous unintended consequences. But increasingly, that is the path we are on.
Why We Need More Innovators and Scientists in Leadership Roles
Of course, our leaders don’t need to all be 160 IQ polymaths with PhD’s in quantum mechanics. But to make good decisions they do need to at least be able to understand and apply critical thinking to the inevitably conflicting opinions of experts.
Communicating Science and Technology: Now of course, much of the onus for promoting understanding of complex technology lies with us in the broader innovation and science community. If we cannot communicate knowledge to people who own resources and executive power, then we risk that knowledge becoming redundant.
But communication is always a two way street. Bridging between leaders and experts requires some common ground. It’s really hard to have a useful discussion with someone who does even have a basic vocabulary for a topic. As technology and innovation become increasingly important, without more technically savvy leaders we risk a disconnect between strategy, regulation and knowledge. As our leaders get older, and more disconnected from the science driving change they rely less on quality of ideas, and more on appealing framing of ideas, or perhaps familiarity with equally disconnected experts. That is a dangerous path.
Non Scientific Mindsets Facing Technical Challenges. One key danger is the tendency to view choices as binary, another is sunk cost. Binary choices are superficially easy, but in the real world most innovation is not black and white, but instead involves some form of trade off. Whether it is AI, energy strategy, pharmaceutical development or one of the other ever growing list of emerging technologies, there are benefits, but also costs. With AI for example, the benefits of gaining and holding global leadership of the technology are likely as economically huge as the opportunity cost of not doing so. But with big opportunity also comes big risks, including the environmental costs of data centers, risks to societal structure, and even existential risk to humanity itself. The stakes don’t get much higher.
The Uncertainty Principle: And this is multiplied by the sunk cost fallacy. Over commitment to an incorrect binary choice can be really risky. While we know there are going to be pros and cons to any new technology, we rarely understand them very well in advance. Innovation is by definition a dive into the unknown, and that makes accurately predicting both upsides and downsides really difficult. This requires flexible, agile thinking, openness to new data, and a willingness to adjust mid-flight, skills inherent to science and technology .
But as a society, if anything we seem to be moving away from flexible thinking, and towards more rigid viewpoints that are often heavily pre-primed by affiliations, preconceptions and bizarrely, politics. People are often passionately for or against AI, but all too often without really knowing why. ‘Green’ energy is polarizing, climate change is divisive. But while passion and ownership have their place, often the best answer is not cheerleading for a team. Instead it’s beneficial to find a flexible balance that acknowledges the pros and cons, and that ideally identifies non zero sum answers for those contradictions. But that again typically requires nuance, and some level of technical understanding.
Finding Non Zero Sum Answers: The good news is that once we step away from polarized and binary thinking, non zero sum solutions are sometimes not as hard to find as we think. Just as an example, with AI, there is potential to have our cake and eat it. If we cut out digital slop, it’s conceivable that could we achieve and maintain technology leadership, but with much lower environmental cost. For example, using AI to solve complex medical problems may be a net benefit that is worth some damage to our wilderness, or use of our scarce resources. But action figures, generic illustrations, mediocre music and often pointless copies of master artists not so much! I’m sure all of the latter help advance our knowledge to some degree, and help to justify AI investment, but by being more selective, could we achieve the same or similar ends with a superior benefit/cost ratio?
The Human Advantage: But making smart trade-off decisions like this requires flexible and creative thinking. Ironically that is one of the things humans still do better than AI. We just need to embrace our human strengths, but also make sure our leaders also reflect those strengths.
Innovators in Leadership Roles: This means we need a more balanced and scientific approach to leadership if we are navigate the increasingly technology driven future. Having lawyers making laws is not bad per se, but I passionately believe we need a more diverse set of skills at our upper leadership levels if we are to effectively navigate the coming years. That means the innovation and scientific community needs to step up. We also need to get much better, and mea culpa, at communicating complex issues. It’s critical to be clear and simple but not simplistic.
The Tyranny of Simplicity: Simplistic answers, memes, and binary choices have a great deal of superficial appeal. And politicians and the media exploit this very effectively. In our information overloaded, time constrained world, everybody’s cognitive bandwidth is stretched. We often seek answers rather than understanding because that’s all we have time for. But from a leadership perspective, we need to understand that limited cognitive bandwidth is not the same as limited intelligence. People may grasp for simplistic answers, but because they have no commitment to them based on their own knowledge or critical thinking, that grasp is tenuous. This means that being simplistic can be self defeating in the long run. For example, take the much quoted, ‘globally agreed’ climate target; to not exceed a 1.5 degrees Celsius increase since pre-industrial times. For sure, some people will accept this without question. But other enquiring minds will ask if 1.49C OK? Is this a tipping point? Do we fall of a cliff at 1.51C. Conversely, what happens if we exceed that limit and nothing dramatic happens? Do we discard that boundary, or move it? Then there are obvious questions around how we address that boundary. What will it take to prevent crossing it? What are the trade offs? Who has the sphere of influence to actually make a difference? It’s OK to have a simplistic position, but it needs to be supported by layered reasoning.
Cry Wolf: I’m not suggesting that climate scientists who promote 1.5C don’t grasp this complexity. But somewhere in the path from science to politicians and media the real world complexity it often gets lost in translation. And thats not trivial, as it creates the risk of ‘cry wolf’ effects, and of leaders being perceived as manipulative. If we overstate the importance of 1.5 C, and it proves to be wrong, or at least a softer limit than previously advertised, we risk people perceiving that they have been mislead or manipulated. That then feeds skepticism, and even gives support to some of the wilder ‘conspiracy theories’. Once a source has become discredited on one vector, it is typically discredited on everything.
No easy answers to this. But I believe innovators and scientists really need to take a bigger leadership role in a world where innovation is increasingly the driving force. Politicians generally don’t get elected because they deeply understand complex issues, but because they understand how to motivate, communicate, simplify and manipulate. They often rely on peoples limited cognitive bandwidth, as this helps them to craft simple slogans, concepts, and sometimes trigger fear and division. Remember that we dislike losing something about twice as much as we like gaining it, which makes fear a very powerful manipulative tool. That brings power, but not necessarily wisdom. But limited cognitive bandwidth is not the same as limited intelligence. And simplistic concepts are vulnerable to challenge, or evolving data.
Of course, we don’t want to make every issue a PhD thesis. But we do need to acknowledge increasing complexity and uncertainty, and at the very least develop authentic, layered narratives that acknowledge complexity and the inevitable uncertainty of an innovation driven world. Without that, our strategies become extremely fragile, and easily shattered the first time we are proved wrong. Even if we may start from a position of intense conviction, we must also change paths in the face of compelling evidence. Scientists and innovators tend to be good at this. It’s a skill that maybe needs to be used more broadly
Image credits: Google Gemini
Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.