Exercise: 100 people vote on jumping off a cliff. 48 say no; 52 say yes. The majority wins and collective death looks inevitable. Discuss.
Dr Leandro Herrero
Chief Organization Architect & CEO of The Chalfont Project, leading global transformations with Viral Change?. Psychiatrist blending behavioral science with practical leadership and culture change. Author & Speaker.
100 people get together and decide that it would good to jump off a cliff. Some people think it’s crazy. Others that it would be fun and risk taking. Others see it as a ‘Russian roulette’ equivalent. There are arguments about the depth of the water below, or the absence of, or the wisdom of buying some parachutes.
After a few drinks, they decided that a democratic decision via a secret ballot would be pertinent. Some people think this is very silly but, after more drinks, they agree to a secret vote convinced that this would be the end of it, since no idiot would like to jump, deep water or not, parachute or not.
The secret vote takes place. 48 people decide not to jump and 52 to do so. Most people are surprised by the result, to say the least. Some of those who had decided to jump say that they did not mean to vote that way, and they had voted pro-jumping for fun, to see if there would be some others also joining the joke.
With a few more drinks, the leader of the pack say that the majority wins, and that 52 is a bigger number than 48 (by now the only rational bit of reality around), so they all will jump. The question is when, but 'jumping off means jumping off'.
48 protest strongly. The (tiny) majority surely can’t dictate collective suicide on behalf of democracy. The pro-jump people get very angry and accuse the rest of (a) not understanding democracy, (b) being inconsiderate to their colleagues, (c) not respecting diverse views and a few other things. Some of the not-for-jump leaders say that they do understand democracy, indeed, but understand death much better.
The rest of the world sees this 100 as mad, playing games, and with a collective sub-zero credibility. They wait days and weeks hoping that they would say that the whole thing was a joke, out of jolly collective drinking, and that surely, they have understood, 48/52 is not ‘a majority of respectable views’ when it comes to a democratic outcome of collective suicide. But they wait in vain. ‘Jumping off is jumping off’, they keep hearing.
Decision making experts wake up from their hibernation shelters and ask for a time out to reflect on both decision making process and madness. But, 'jumping off is jumping off’. Existentialist professors elaborate that actually death is death, that death has a meaning, and others gems which add a rather ephemeral, if tangential ('the meaning of death') addition to the debate.
The Donald Trump School of Unthinking supports the pro-jump position as the biggest gift to mankind and the most gracious act of bravery. Provided he does not jump.
There are lots of emotions following: desperation, rage, uncontrolled hysterical laughter, well wishes for a successful crash, offers to help in the pushing of people off the cliff, and insults from the pro-jump camp to the others. Jumping off the cliff, the pro-jumpers say, will open fantastic possibilities to all (in heaven, it is assumed) and they, the pro-jumping, will make all ‘Great Again’. ('Hey buddies, that line is mine, I am going to sue you', the Black Swan Trump says).
I wish this was a bad script, a bad joke in itself, an ad for an Australian beer (they make the best ads, not sure about the beer) a theoretical exercise in a Critical Thinking course, or a lousy case study written by a third rate lecturer in Political Sciences exploring 'democracy and its discontents'.
But it's not. Brexit is Brexit.
I learned over the years to always, at least, attempt to decide which emotion I am going to dwell on, because once in, that will dictate all I think and all I do. I am functioning in Perplexity mode since the early hours of the 26th of June 2016. For the time being it is the safest place (for my mental health) I can find. It keeps my further emotional options open and, while in this, I am saving on psychotherapy fees.
Dr Leandro Herrero is the Chief Organization Architect at The Chalfont Project and the Managing Partner of Viral Change Global LLP, both international consulting companies specializing in cutting edge Organizational Strategy and Large Scale Behavioural and Cultural Change. He can be reached via his office at [email protected]
His Daily Thoughts blog is updated every day at 08:00 GMT and can be found at www.leandroherrero.com. Alternatively, you can receive the daily blog posts direct to your inbox by signing-up here: https://leandroherrero.com/subscribe-to-the-blog/
For more information visit:
Of course there were many saying that jumping off a cliff would not mean death at all. That was just the opinion of "experts" who were peddling doom. No, jumping off a cliff would make everythng like it was when the sun never set and everyone respected us - hurrah!
Formerly Non Exec Board Member at Port of Cromarty Firth. Now fully retired
8 年This pseudo thought experiment is amusing enough but surely lacks one vital piece of realpolitik in that the starting conditions failed to describe adequately the "control" conditions pertaining to the group pre-Exercise start. The missing component is 'party power politics'! That state of intra-group think which perpetually wrestles with its own inner power base whilst feigning to (or aspiring to) "lead" the overall group. In this 100-on-a-cliff-edge scenario there should have been a precursor sub scenario to account for the pre-existing general power struggle(s) within sub-elements of the 100. I won't insult anyone's intelligence by spelling them out. You all know what they were ... because actually not a single one of them has gone away! Without an explanation of the state of the many internecine power struggles within the 100 before and after the vote, this analogy - for all its merit - can only appeal to the naive (whichever side of the decision they voted on 23 June!)
Taking complexity seriously. Author of The Wiggly World of Organization and Informal Coalitions.
8 年as
Risk and security, including cyber.
8 年Not sure if this is a spoof, sour grapes or what. But allow me to offer some thoughts: 1. The referendum was well advertised, there was lots of campaigning, a free press, an unusually high turnout, a simple Yes/No question, a one-person-one-vote method, a clear majority outcome and no significant voter fraud reported. In a democracy, if the vote goes against you, you accept it and move on. 2. The issue needed resolving as it has split both major parties for decades. To take your analogy, it was more like teetering one-leggedly on the cliff edge, and was unsustainable in the long term, especially given the one-way ratchet of "ever closer union". 3. The key aspect for many UK voters seems to have been democratic accountability ("if I must obey the laws, I want to be able to vote out the lawmakers"); racist views, and equally mindless assumptions of racist views in others, were just a dismal but inevitable by-product of the campaign. 4. The UK has a different historical perspective from other countries which understandably see EU political union as a way of preventing a repeat of their 20th century dictatorships (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Greece), domination by oppressive neighbours (ex-Eastern Bloc states) or occupation by foreign armies (most member states). The UK has been broadly stable, invasion-free - apart from briefly in the Channel Islands - and a parliamentary democracy for 200 years, so we see things through a different historical lens 5. One person's "jumping off a cliff" is another's "escaping from a straitjacket". Self-determination, for good or ill, is a powerful motivator, and many EU rules make it harder to deal with non-EU countries or expand immigration from them. Right, I'll stop there. Here's hoping I don't get the usual torrent of rather tedious self-serving rants I've seen on other social media - LinkedIn is of course for intelligent sophisticated folk like us, who don't stoop to such things!
Are you still relying on Excel for Budgeting & Forecasting?
8 年This shows the weakness of arguing in analogies - their assumptions and their dynamics are not parallel. Smart management keeps clear of them, focusing instead on the actual issues.