Shock and surprise

Can we solve complex problems with simple solutions?

The horrifying news of 19 primary school children shot in Texas this week left Americans saddened, and Australians (and others) incredulous. I put to an international community of consultants (largely US-based), this simple question: “What should we do about this?”

Two simple solutions emerged rapidly:

1. Ban automatic weapons.
2. Do better background checks on buyers of guns.

The solutions aren’t hard to find. They’re affordable. They’re implementable. What’s the sticking point?

Collective will.

The problem is that the issue is politicised. There are few differences between people’s attitudes age-wise, or by gender, or by location even. But there are sharp differences between Republican and Democrat voters.

Both agree that people with mental illnesses shouldn’t buy guns (R = 85%; D = 90%) but they disagree sharply on:

• Banning automatic weapons (R = 37%; D = 83%)
• Creating a national database of gun sales (R = 43%; D = 86%)
• Permission to carry concealed weapons in public (R= 72%; D = 20%)

The way I’ve presented the views here suggest they’re more binary than they perhaps really are. If we dig deeper, I suggest we’d find Republicans who hold a more nuanced view (“Well, you know, I’d be OK with a database, as long as it wasn’t used against us” or “We could ban those assault weapons with magazines of more than 10 rounds”).

And, my point is this: Changing the collective will depends on shifting views of people who hold borderline opinions.

I notice this works superbly in my strategy work with groups. I don’t look for the people who hold opinions at poles. They’re often entrenched. The trick is to find people whose opinions are changeable, subject to intelligent debate based on thoughtful reflection.

In the US media this week, what I see is impotent outrage and blunt demands, instead of what we really need: a nuanced, non-blaming and thoughtful debate. That would stand a chance of moving the needle in the direction we need, where a strong major view — across partisan boundaries —- might just emerge.

Question: On what polarising issues can you draw out reasoned debate amongst those willing to change their minds?

Land of the free

While we’re talking democractic process, it would be remiss if I didn’t comment on our change of government here in Australia over the weekend.

I’m tremendously proud of our democracy for two things.

But first, for those watching from afar, our (centre-right) Liberal-National (LNP) coalition government of 9 years was ousted dramatically, replaced by a centre-left Labor (ALP) government. I say dramatically, because as of writing this, the LNP has lost close to 20 seats (out of its prior 76) and the vote counting hasn’t yet created a clear majority of seats for Labor (they’re one short, at 75).

But, that’s enough to have a calm and orderly transfer of power. (Now former) PM Morrison graciously conceded defeat early in the evening as counting made it obvious his party was being obliterated and Labor leader Anthony Albanese was sworn in as Prime Minister on Monday morning.

That’s the first thing I’m proud of - nobody questioned the process. It just works.

Albanese will now have to work with a cross-bench of Greens (at least 3) to get legislation passed and, more intriguingly, with a large group of independents (at least 10). Many of these became known as ‘teal’ independents, as many of them blatantly took heartland blue-chip Liberal seats. It’s no surprise to me that all are women, all are intelligent and nuanced in their views, and all stood on platforms with climate stability central.

And, that’s the second thing I’m proud of. We’re moving slowly away from entrenched partisanship, and large numbers of people are changing their minds about who they’re voting for.

That sort of large-scale behavioural flexibility, combined with stable transfers of power, bodes very well for our future.

Question: What do people in your organisation need to be able to change their minds about?

Holding onto the past

I had a final election surprise. This one was a double-edged sword.

I tested COVID positive two nights before the election. This meant (a) I had to isolate and couldn’t vote in person; and (b) I was too late to lodge a postal vote.

Instead, the Electoral Commission arranged for me (well, not just me) to phone my vote in. I had to register online, prove I was COVID-isolating, and get an 8-digit code (so that I’d remain anonymous to the person who took my phone vote). Then, I phoned a number, gave my code and password, and a pleasant sounding woman took me through the process. That was the positive side.

The negative?

As we finished, it occurred to me to ask her, “How exactly are you doing this? What system are you using to lodge my vote?” You see, in Australia, we don’t have electronic or online voting.

Her answer surprised me.

“I’m doing it physically, just as if you were. I’m filling in your ballots in pencil, folding them and sealing them in envelopes. Then I lodge them in a ballot box, just as you’d do if you were in a polling station”.

It reminded me of ‘mechanical turks’, the fake chess playing automatons of the 18th century. Napoleon and Benjamin Franklin were both fooled into believing they were playing a machine but, in reality, there was an actual grandmaster hidden in a box beneath, manipulating the moves.

In my case, there was a polite lady with a pencil and paper on the end of a phone line, using the height of 1920s technology.

Question: What outdated technologies should your organisation give up on, once and for all?

If you’ve enjoyed these, please do me a favour and click the ‘like’ below — the algorithms like it, and if I’m truthful, I do too.

I’ll be back next week with another three strategic mind-expanders to reflect on yourself, or share with others.

See you next Friday,

Andrew