Dumb and Dumber

Lloyd Christmas ( Jim Carrey) of Dumb and Dumber fame could clearly be a target in Susan Jacoby’s “The Age of American Unreason.”

Ms. Jacoby, without apology, bemoans the state of American culture, specifically the lack of knowledge and a bias against intellectualism that pervades our society. According to a passage in the International Herald Tribune, she decided to write the book after overhearing two slackers in a Manhattan bar confuse Pearl Harbor with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Her book is primed to set off debate and criticism, but it contains a theme that hits one of our cultural maladies with ICBM-like accuracy.

Her newly published book covers society in general, but many of our workplaces could be her sole target.

Just consider these questions:

• How many times have you heard the statement, “We need to bring this down to their level?”

• How many of your co-workers read more than 3 business related books per year (who are not students)?

• How often do you hear co-workers yelling “eureka!” when selected to attend a 5-day training program?

• How many consultants have been labeled as “too academic,” and passed over in favor of pop psychologists ( “Five and Dime” consultants) adept at entertaining and “talking the talk,” but who tout non-evidence based theories – or describe human behavior in terms that are so fuzzy that they could not repeat their comments if so asked?

• How many employee communications get rewritten to a 5^th grade reading level because they contain too many multi-syllabic words?

What do you think?

Comments

[Chip Overclock]

I'm a product development consultant and technologist. A friend and former co-worker was kind enough to write me a very nice recommendation. He remarked to me privately that he was tempted to characterize me as an "academic", which is exactly how I think of myself (and in fact I used to be in academia before finding success in the corporate world). But he declined to do so because he thought it would be viewed as negative. I'm glad he did. I'm sure he's right. Unfortunately. On the flip side, my analytical attitude and broad interests have been a real competitive advantage for me in a world filled with shallow thinkers who quickly move onto the latest fad. So please, y'all: keep it up. You're the reason I'm making a living.

(Pleased to see you posting again on a regular basis. You've been missed.)

[robert edward cenek]

Chip:

Thanks for the nice comment.

You're right on the money. During the course of my career, I've too often seen those in positions of authority who "do not know that they do not know" as it relates to finding and/or recognizing talent. The bias against those with an academic bent is quite real in many settings (except academia itself).

robert edward cenek

[Paul Hebert]

Boy does this ring true. I am a voracious reader - not to profess the theory du jour but to have a wider context for developing my own thoughts and opinions.

However, I actually have peers within my organization give me crap for reading... and they take pride in the fact that they haven't read anything related to business in 10 years. Boy, I'm feeling real confident in their ability to drive results in an ever changing economy.

It seems to be an extension of high school - where the "brains" or those more interested in biology in the class than biology in back seats of cars - were ostracized and looked down on as not "cool."

It's unfortunate but true in many instances.

I also think there is this opinion that those with good ideas can't execute. Somehow we have to elevate thinking and doing to the same level and put equal value on them.

[Frank Giancola]

Robert,

Thanks for bringing some sanity and clear thinking to the HR blogs. Your comments on the five and dime consults who talk the talk and have little of real value to add are right on the mark.

I also appreciate the buzz word free posts!

Frank Giancola

[Phyllis Roteman]

Robert,

Interesting post and food for thought. I don't know if I fully agree or not...

I do know that I'm guilty of rolling my eyes at consultants and professionals who appear too "academic". However, I don't think being smart and educated - and being able to keep things simple and practical - must be mutually exclusive.

True, there are some people who have less horse (brain) power than others. And we often see them in high positions for some odd reason. There are also some people that don't want to think much or prefer action versus using their brains.

I think the most valuable people at work (and personally the most interesting) are those who are really bright and knowledgable (academic or well-read included), who are able to keep things simple and relate to real-life problems that people and businesses face.

I get frustrated with "academics" when they talk in terms of models, jargon and research studies, without being able give me the "so what". Don't present theories and models as the gospel - and don't reject practical, real world experience. I also think that academics get an unfair shake in the business world because people are busier than ever. Goals are more agressive, change happens more quickly and people are swamped with work. Who has time to sift through jargon, complex models and research. Business leaders want to know, what's the bottom line summary?

That may be where the impatience with analytics and research comes from.

Just my thoughts...

[Robert Cenek]

Phyllis:

Some excellent points. I abbreviated my post, but yes the best consultants are those who are evidence-based (vs. gut feel-based) and are able to translate that research into beefy, pithy actions and activities.

I simply have witnessed too many in the consulting field who frankly make assertions that are flat wrong - or not evidence-based - and the non-discriminating consumers in the audience invariably "get led down the wrong path."

[Bryan Lund]

Hi Robert,

Without naming names, can you provide some examples of "too many in the consulting field who make assertions that are flat wrong - or not evidence based"? I think I have seen this many times as well, but am trying to get a point of reference to draw any conclusions from this post.

[Robert Cenek]

Bryan: I'm not certain that I used the term "flat wrong," but yes I do believe that there are many in the world of consulting who espouse actions that are not research-based. Jeffrey Pfeffer and Bob Sutton have both written extensively on this malady as well. See this piece at the following link: http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Expert-Voices/Robert-I-Sutton-Making-a-Case-for-EvidenceBased-Management

One example that I have seen repeatedly over the past three decades is the assertion by some that training along will produce behavioral and/or cultural change. Unfortunately, many folks in the world of business want to believe that human behavior is that malleable, and that easily changeable. However, as we both know....that is not the case. I would also assert that these individuals would be hard pressed to find a consistent body of research that proves training along produces change.

Hope that helps! Incidentally, keep up the great work with TWI.

Robert Edward Cenek