LESSONS FROM MUNCHAUSEN: STRATEGIC THINKING, NUMBERS, AND SYNDROME

Conference ?SIGNALS 2019”: https://bit.ly/2RrjuhK 

IQ Magazine: https://bit.ly/2NBMEtB

Alfa.lt : https://bit.ly/38baqo2

Photo: Olga Posa?kova

Illustration: Gustave Dore (August Burger "Baronas Miunhauzenas", Jotema, 2018)

“LITHUANIA IS A COUNTRY WITH A CREATIVELY EMPOWERED POPULATION, and its progress is in the hands of responsible, creative, and open-minded people”. “Imagination, creativity, and critical thinking are seen as important national resources and are developed from childhood throughout life”. “Lithuania needs creative citizens who are not afraid to make mistakes and assume responsibility for them”. These are not my words; they are taken from Lithuania’s Progress Strategy “Lithuania 2030” and are aimed at both the public sector and business — at all of us. Recently I have been rereading the stories of Baron Munchausen, made famous in retellings by Rudolf Erich Raspe and Gottfried August Bürger. Less well-known than the fictional character is the real historical figure of Hieronymus Karl Friedrich von Münchhausen (1720–1797). This article will not focus on the fascinating  characters, but rather on the lessons we can learn from Baron Munchausen, which formed the basis of my presentation during the conference “Signals 2019” organised by the NAO of Lithuania. What can Munchausen tell us about the link between creativity and strategic thinking? Are we sure that our strategies are not filled with Munchausen numbers? Is our strategic thinking free of symptoms characteristic of Munchausen syndrome? I explored these issues in my presentation and will outline my thoughts below.

What is thinking? It may seem clear that it is a process of mental activity common to everyone. BUT WHAT IS STRATEGIC THINKING? The term “strategy” came into use in the 4th century C.E. in East Roman terminology, where it denoted the art or science of being a general able to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty — it included tactics, siege craft, logistics, and other strategic matters. The strategy was necessary due to the limited resources available to achieve the goals. In Ancient Greece, this concept included the main elements of a strategic plan: planning and decision-making. Strategic thinking goes hand in hand with creative thinking. The best example is chess, where a chess player is at the same time both a player and creator, and each chess game is a laboratory of creative thinking.   

In the context of an organisation, strategic thinking is, in a way, the algorithm and mind map of its leader, combining the organisation’s objectives, goals, plans, policies, and environmental factors into an integrated whole, thereby contributing to the implementation of change. In a rapidly changing environment, strategic thinking, as opposed to thinking in general, becomes a core competence of a modern leader. When reforms and changes get stuck or become bogged down in the swamp of systemic problems, the devil of doubt sitting on one’s shoulder often whispers: “It is not worthwhile struggling for the whole, save yourself, trust me, nobody has ever been able to pull out both themselves and the entire system out of a swamp”. In such cases, it is only strategic thinking that helps to find a solution and overcome the fear of change. Thinking has always been, and continues to be, the biggest bugbear of every autocratic regime; therefore, both those who think strategically and those who think differently need to be destroyed.

HAVE WE NOT RETURNED TO Munchausen’s times? Charles Darwin, a British naturalist, is the author of one of the most famous statements in the history of humanity: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one most adaptable to change.” Fear has a tendency to explode. The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt noted: “Courage is the first of human qualities. It is the quality which guarantees all others. If a person lacks courage, all other qualities lose any sense”. The German poet Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock wrote that we, humans, tend to think highly superficially, and it is more convenient for us to hover around the rim and analyse “a drop on the bucket’s edge” than to examine the real contents of the bucket. In countries gripped by fear, Chernobyls explode one day. In such countries, it becomes the norm in all areas of life to discuss just one drop on the bucket’s edge, cowardly leaving a full bucket of problems to future generations or... such characters as Munchausen.

You probably understand that while referring to this hero, I actually had in mind the word “courage”. Will we find the courage within ourselves to discuss the relevant issues in the bucket? Or will we leave it to Munchausen to talk about the real situation in education, healthcare, and in our public investment programme? We should also raise the question as to what our Lithuanian strategic thinking has failed to learn from Munchausen’s creativity. It is crucial to find this answer as Munchausen is above all a man of rich imagination, endless creativity, and outstanding inventiveness. After all, it is precisely such qualities that we demand from managers whom we call leaders or visionaries in the 21st century. There are no impossible things in the world. Let’s recall that in the year when women in Switzerland gained the right to vote for the first time, NASA had already landed on the Moon; and when public executions were still carried out in London squares, they could already be accessed by the Underground.   

Through the eyes of an adult, it is clear that “Baron Munchausen” by the German literary master Gottfried August Bürger is nevertheless a prophetic book that many years ago predicted our patterns of thinking and the working methods of politicians and leaders. Munchausen taunts both scientists and philosophers, whose theories frequently get blown up after reality checks: “It is rightly said that a stone, cast aptly a posteriori, especially if it has stuck with the one thrown a priori, has vented into the air a number of malicious scientists or professors”. Our hero uses the Latin philosophical terms a priori (“independent of experience”) and a posteriori (“dependent on experience”) with a hint of mischief as he takes the literal meaning of words, i.e., a priori “from the front”, a posteriori – “from the rear”.    

Munchausen does not shy away from boldly testing his ideas in practice; our hero never relies on success or just a lucky star — he is confident in himself and trusts his common sense and willpower. Almost all of his stories end with achievement or victory amidst the turmoil of events or in the battlefield, rather than sitting in the tents of the kings. Munchausen said: “Modesty forbids individuals to arrogate to themselves great successes or victories, the glory of which is generally engrossed by the commander — nay, which is rather awkward, by kings and queens who never smelt gunpowder but at the field — days and reviews of their troops; never saw a field of battle, or an enemy in battle array”. He even renounces higher military ranks, saying that the simple gratitude of people is more important than gifts from the world’s mighty. Baron’s hero, although being in the world of fantasies and ideas, does not pursue his goals in an illegal way; he rather employs his creativity to bend the limits of the then prevailing rigid social norms. 

Is there a lack of leaders in the 21st century who think strategically? Is our society not once again lacking the Enlightenment ideals as it did in the 18th century? Are we not also confronted with the problem of education? What lessons can we learn today from Munchausen’s stories and the mistakes of our hero? Let us now analyse Munchausen’s adventures and substantiate his statements with audit evidence from today’s life. I would like to remind you of some of Munchausen’s stories and share insights on what we can and, in my opinion, should learn from them. 

ON THE GAPS IN OUR STRATEGIC THINKING. Let’s start with Munchausen’s journey to St. Petersburg in the midst of winter. He went on horseback through Poland, and on reaching Klaip?da area, night and darkness overtook him. No village was to be seen. The country was covered with snow, and he was unacquainted with the road. Tired, he fastened his horse to a pointed stump of a tree, which appeared above the snow. He lay down on the snow and slept so soundly that he did not open his eyes until morning had fully broken. He was most astonished to find himself in the midst of a village, lying in a churchyard; his horse was nowhere to be seen! Soon after, he heard him neigh on the top of the church tower. On looking upwards, he saw him hanging by his bridle to the weather-cock of the steeple.

What does this hanging horse remind you of? It reminds me of Lithuania’s strategies that are pending and still awaiting implementation; in fact, there is a whole range of them — as many as 80 that have not yet been implemented yet. Experts from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) pointed out back in 2015 that Lithuania lacks a strategic approach to building a modern, open, effective, data-driven public sector. For almost every audit topic, auditors have to collect their own information on how much money we spend, as well as how we distribute and use it. This means that institutions lack the necessary data for their daily operations but also for developing their strategies. Like Baron Munchausen, who was but lightly clothed while advancing to the north-east, we have developed our strategies without the necessary reliable data to make informed strategic management decisions. However, persistently and without any further thinking, we continue to collect a plethora of different data that is not actually needed by anyone. This is why we are in the same position as Baron Munchausen with a similar view — “The country was covered with snow, and he was unacquainted with the road”. 

Lithuania has vigorously approved its long-term progress strategy up to 2030. Has it then stopped to rest on the abundant snow? As in the story above, everything is changing in the modern world, and it is therefore crucial to continuously measure the achievement of the objectives that are set out in the strategies. For example, the strategy “Lithuania 2030” has the objective of promoting open and empowering governance. Lithuania declared its ambition to open public sector data in 2011. In the course of 8 years, the responsible authorities have failed to carry out more than half of the planned work, with only 3 per cent of public sector bodies having opened up the available data. The open data available in Lithuania, if used actively, could generate benefits close to 2 per cent of GDP, or EUR 780 million. Yet, we still continue to design measures that lack content or are based on distorted content in order to try and implement our strategic goals. This situation perfectly illustrates the gaps in our strategic thinking: some of the strategies are difficult to implement or so overly ambitious that there are no public finances available to implement them. Strategies that are not resource-based are simply tied to the nearest “pointed stump of a tree, which appeared above the snow”. This is why we still have pending strategies. 

ON POOR QUALITY LEGISLATION. Another Baron Munchausen story is a pertinent illustration of the Lithuanian legislative system, where the speed of adoption of draft laws is symbolised by a cannonball flying at speed. A Field Marshal urgently needed to gain intelligence on what was happening inside the city fortress. As Munchausen himself puts it, he was standing next to the great cannon and was so inspired by his “acute professional zealousness” that he jumped on a cannonball and rode towards the fortress. However, midway he started to think about his further plan of action and the ensuing consequences. After weighing all of this up in his head, even though he had not accomplished the goal, he decided to jump over onto the cannonball flying in the opposite direction. It is equally difficult to assess the necessity, sufficiency, and effectiveness of existing legislation, and to carry out systematic monitoring and evaluation, as well as to identify the need to amend or abandon laws. 

GRECO, the group of states against corruption working under the auspices of the Council of Europe, pointed out in their assessment of the transparency of the Lithuanian legislative process that the excessive use of urgency procedures could undermine the process of publicising the stages related to the procedure of the adoption of draft laws, thereby reducing the transparency of the whole process. At first sight, with the best of intentions, in our country alone, approximately 700 draft laws a year are presented to the Parliament, which is several times more than the number of draft laws presented to Parliaments of our neighbouring countries. In Lithuania, around 50 per cent of our laws are adopted under the urgency and extreme urgency procedure, which means that there is less time for discussing, let alone scrutinising, the law. In many European countries (for example, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Poland) fewer than 5 per cent of laws are adopted under this procedure, while the figure is around 10 per cent in Estonia — our fellow Baltic State. Such urgency is reminiscent of the speed of a flying cannonball. How is it possible when flying at such a speed to ensure the obligation laid down in the Law on Legislative Framework to consult with the public at all stages of the legislative process? Although a legislative information system has been put in place in Lithuania since 2013, only 2 per cent of legislative initiatives are publicly announced there. Put bluntly, this means that 98 per cent of initiatives are not published. The question is whether we should consult society or just use it as a guinea pig on which to carry out tests?

We will not have responsible and high-quality legislation in place until a systematic impact assessment of draft legislation is carried out. In Lithuania, such an assessment has been foreseen since 2003, however, the evaluation processes are not documented, the assessments are not substantiated or reasoned. In our country, only 0.06 per cent of the legislation in force is assessed for regulatory fitness, and even this is not linked to the country’s priorities or strategic objectives. Out of the 110 institutions obliged to do so, only 10 per cent have tried to analyse whether they have overregulation or regulation that could be amended. No municipality has done this either. This is despite the fact that such a responsibility was included back in 2018 in the job descriptions of approximately 2000 civil servants in ministries alone.

There are around 84,000 laws in force in Lithuania. Laws are like children; it is not possible just to show initiative and enjoy the process of creation — it is essential to carry out legislative and regulatory monitoring. Lithuania adopts the greatest number of laws in the EU, but the least number of original ones. To illustrate, between 2012 and 2016, 78 revised laws were adopted, of which as many as two-thirds had already been amended by the end of 2017. We have amended half of them between 3 and 8 times! We should strive for efficiency rather than intensity in law-making. Low-quality legislative initiatives often overstretch the parliamentary agenda, sometimes even with drafts not aligned with the Government programme. The average number of laws adopted at one sitting has increased from two and a half in 1992 to seven in 2016. Moreover, not all drafts reach the national Parliament. On average, around 1,000 draft laws are prepared annually in all institutions, and some 10,000 decrees and resolutions are drafted at the level of the executive. Let us not forget that legislation requires resources for both designing laws as well as for regulating and monitoring them.

Poor quality legislation increases the administrative burden for both business and society. Unfortunately, it has become a habit in our country to measure legislative processes with quantitative rather than qualitative indicators. We encourage parliamentarians to act quickly by counting how many times they have activated their microphones, but we are losing sight of other more important matters. We should learn from Munchausen’s mistakes. The time to begin thinking is not when we have already covered half of the road with an unfinished law as in the case with the cannonball, nor when we are trying to amend poor legislation by spontaneously jumping from one cannonball to another. The lesson from Munchausen is not that he has happily returned to his dear friends alive and well, but that he has the courage to acknowledge his mistake: “I have returned without having accomplished the goal”.

ON PULLING ONESELF OUT OF A SWAMP. The last story, to my mind, is one of the best known for many of us. It was even analysed by the renowned philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Every detail is important in the story about the swamp, so let’s hear it from the lips of Munchausen himself: “Another time, I wanted to jump over a bog that hadn’t seemed too wide at first. I was already floating in the air, when I decided to turn around to where I came from, for I needed a bigger run-up. Nonetheless, I jumped too short the second time. Not far from the other side, I fell into the bog. Here I would have undoubtedly died, if not the strength of my own arm, grabbing my own hair, pulling me, including my horse — which I squeezed tightly between my legs — out of it”.

In my opinion, we can boldly call the Lithuanian Public Investment Programme a swamp. We allocate around EUR 1 billion of public funds annually to the programme and have already spent around EUR 11 billion over the last decade on implementing it. A further EUR 4 billion is needed to complete all ongoing projects, so we cannot include anything new in the programme within the upcoming four years. This is not an exact figure as there are still a significant number of investment projects hidden within one line of the budget — the true scale of these projects is even greater. This programme includes projects whose implementation has been ongoing for 20 years or more. For instance, the implementation of a project to adapt a university building for academic activities has been underway since 1999 and should be completed by 2022. Does this mean that the building has been unsuitable for academic activities for the last 23 years?

Over the last decade, we have suspended or discontinued the funding for almost 900 projects. The only comfort is the tendency that the value of suspended projects was earlier calculated in hundreds of millions of euros, whereas most recently we started to calculate it in “only” tens of millions of euros. As a third of all projects have been bogged down in a swamp for an average of about 10 years, and at some point their funding continues, at some other point the “pulling out of a swamp” actions are again put to an end, we can only provisionally estimate what amounts of public investment have been thrown down “to the swamp”. And what is the result that has been achieved with these investments?

Projects with inconsistent and incomplete funding have a tendency to become up to four times more expensive. Apparently, nobody wants to hear an honest answer. We probably hope that it is not us but the swamp that will change its strategic thinking and priorities over time. Or maybe for some, work in a viscous swamp has become the norm — how else can we view the fact that we are able to allocate hundreds of millions of euros each year to project funding on the basis of 141 different procedures.

“You cannot step into the same river twice”, but you might fall into the same wetland for the second time. Once Munchausen fell into wetland without his trusty horse. As he was walking through a boggy forest, he let his mind wander and started dreaming about birds’ eggs. This lapse in concentration meant he had not evaluated the risks and he began to sink into the bog. He couldn’t move his feet or arms. He was completely surrounded by the stagnant bog. A pretty hopeless situation, isn’t it? But our hero reminds us: if you are in a deep wetland and your head is still pointing out, do not forget that it can be used not only for breathing, but for thinking as well. With your hat off, your hair will be tousled by the wind, and your head will become a bush where the birds will start making their nests and laying eggs. And somebody will definitely come looking for eggs. They will find you and pull you out.

Thus, with this level of problem there is no need to undertake spontaneous or desperate action or stir up trouble, it is better to simply not prevent others from making nests, laying eggs, i.e., in case of getting ourselves into a quagmire of problems, let’s not prevent others from doing good deeds. People should change their attitude to change. The swamp or the wetland are not going to change their attitudes. They always lie quietly in full agreement with everything, absorb everything without leaving any signs, then stop and continue to lie quietly. It looks as if our State gets into the same budget governance swamp every year, ignoring the actual figures. According to Munchausen, “from time to time, a thinking person must simply pull himself our of a swamp by his hair”.

LESSONS FROM Munchausen. If we would exchange places with Munchausen today, would he trust in our figures and arguments? I believe that Munchausen’s stories have left us with a couple of lessons.

LESSON ONE – Let’s design strategies supported by resources and reliable data. No numbers will pull us out from the swamp. In 2009, the Dutch mathematician Daan van Berkel coined the term Munchausen number to describe the digits that like Munchausen pull out themselves from a swamp. Let’s imagine a situation in which authorities are shaping a policy without the necessary reliable data to adopt informed strategic management decisions, are accumulating data that are not necessary for decision making or implementing reforms that do not create significant changes. In such a case, we will certainly not succeed in pulling us out like Munchausen, as the performance-oriented budget itself is discredited when data providers see that their efforts were aimless because this data is not used for decision-making.

LESSON TWO – Let’s not simulate strategies, but let’s really change our attitude towards the public sector. As already mentioned, we must realign our thinking to view funding the public sector as an investment rather than expenditure. Those who want to learn to think strategically should analyse Munchausen’s stories as allegories, not being afraid of their creativity and new insights. In 1951, the British doctor Richard Asher was the first in the medical world to introduce and explain the new term “Munchausen syndrome”. Now we use this term to describe the case in which a person has, for a long time, simulated by stories or actions any illnesses in order to gain attention, sympathy, additional action from the service staff or the surrounding people in general. Subsequently, doctors started to single out situations in which a person seeking attention simulates the problems of another person under their care. This gave rise to the term “Munchausen syndrome by proxy”. In both cases, the aim of such behaviour is to extend the duration of stay at medical institution, or in the event of failure, to contact another institution and new professionals.

How can we recognise Munchausen syndrome? The identification of such conditions is complicated by the fact that, as a rule, people affected by this syndrome possess extremely deep and detailed knowledge of the medical profession, use various inventive methods to imitate illness, and the imitation of illness becomes the central axis of their lives. This helps them to create very convincing and dramatic stories or to influence their health symptoms or those of a person under their care through their actions. Physicians and the environment are under psychological pressure because of the argumentation and hiding behind the struggle for the life of a person under care. Doctors are misled and there is often a surplus of various tests and procedures that further confuse the situation with their side effects. Incorrect and untimely administered doses of medications result in complications that start to cause real adverse effects.

The reasons for such simulated behaviour are not yet fully clarified and practice is even surprising. It has been observed that those affected by the Munchausen syndrome, who had hitherto been extremely friendly and helpful with their abundant advice, subsequently become intolerant and deny their behaviour even when they are provided with factual evidence of simulation. In such cases, attempts are made to seek comfort in other medical institutions by presenting themselves as wrongly accused victim. A new cycle begins, as even such a conflict situation is delivering results, i.e., reaching the goal of getting special attention from others.

The growing influence of the internet and social networks on people’s lives has enabled them to simulate their problems also in virtual life, to spread and promote their stories and get sympathy or condolences from different online communities before turning to doctors. In 2000, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Marc Feldman called this “Munchausen by internet”. In all these cases, the only effective measure for treatment and change is conversation therapy, which helps to change their life expectations, thoughts and emotions.

Is our strategic thinking without the symptoms of Munchausen syndrome? Are we not turning our investment projects from a healthy idea into a real patient when instead of completing an investment project, we allocate only partial injections to it just to put it on life support for a decade? Why do we simulate investments with basic expenditure? For example, we organise a celebration of the 80th anniversary of a zoo or publish school books with visual information on climate change and say that this will contribute to the slowing down of climate change. We produce table calendars with waste disposal schedules, believing that this will help to protect the environment in municipalities. Is it not a Munchausen epic?

Yes, creativity is an important pre-requisite for strategic thinking, but it is utterly indecent to resort to using it to simulate investment. Can it be that unnecessary, inefficient expenditure injections are used to deliberately create systemic imperfections? An opportunity is then created to show concern for such areas and gain the attention of the people concerned. As long as the objectives of the National Progress Strategy are hanging high tied to the weather-cock, the money for polished pavements with benches and luxurious lanterns leading up to the cemetery continues to be spent. For the way will be well-lit and comfortable for everyone. For all those who deserve pity and are cared for. Simulation of change is not a sign of strategic thinking.

Munchausen IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF STRATEGIC THINKING EITHER. How did he succeed in pulling himself out of the swamp? At the end, let’s take the liberty to smile. Part of his success is likely to lie in the origin of his horse. Baron Munchausen visited Count Przobossky in Lithuania and received a Lithuanian horse as a gift. Munchausen was very proud of it, comparing it even with Bucephalus, the legendary horse of Alexander the Great: “I remember my superb Lithuanian horse, which no money could have bought”. Although once, as our hero remembers: “My spirited Lithuanian had almost brought me into a scrape”. The Lithuanian horse could fly with his head down, which prevented our hero from thinking, but he says he was aware of the part of the horse’s body (although he doesn't mention it) to be scratched for the horse to come back to his feet. He was therefore the only real and truthful witness of the Baron’s marches. His Lithuanian origin is repeatedly highlighted in the Baron’s stories and, if this were not important, it would certainly not have been mentioned by the Baron.

I would like to point out that Munchausen’s Lithuanian horse who contributed to his worldwide fame has been also featured by a French artist Gustave Doré (1832-1883). If we think better, this should make us proud! As a symbol of fight against the evil, Munchausen continued the tradition of chivalry, but did not continue Don Quixote’s tradition of “fighting windmills”. If Don Quixote had had a Lithuanian horse, maybe his stories could have come to a different end? Unlike the hero of the writer Miguel de Cervantes, Munchausen did not have a gun carrier nor a lady-love, but he had inexhaustible optimism, which we are severely lacking today; furthermore, he did not leave every day just for work, but for a heroic deed…riding a Lithuanian horse!

I would like to say good bye to my patient reader with Munchausen’s own words: “Please understand, Baron Munchausen is not famous for flying or not flying, but for not lying. I understand what your trouble is: you're too serious! An intelligent face is not a sign of intelligence, gentlemen. All the asininity on earth is made by people wearing this expression. Smile, gentlemen! Smile!”