#ThinkfullyHabit: Challenge the pecking order
When was the last time you questioned an expert’s view or opinion? The status that comes with being perceived as ‘an expert’ can lead to expertise never being questioned and blindly followed, even when it leads to life and death outcomes.
Unfortunately being an expert doesn’t protect you against the thinking traps of cognitive bias and misjudgement. What does offer protection is listening to dissenting views and challenges as a way to reveal what ideas need revisiting, what flaws need correcting and what dangers may need mitigating for.
“Each person does see the world in a different way. There is not a single, unifying, objective truth. We’re all limited by our perspective. ”
WHY?
Take the fatal Everest incident on May 10th 1996. 23 people arrived at the summit, but only 18 came back. A catalogue of errors and failures occurred that day, including the unwillingness of the climbers to question the decisions made by the two experts leading the expedition, both before and during the climb.
Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were two of the most experienced high altitude climbers. First-hand survivor accounts reveal how people in the group did not feel able to challenge the procedures in place or put forward any dissenting views. Before the climb, whilst still at Base Camp, one of the expert leaders declared, “If you don’t like a particular decision I make, I’d be happy to discuss it with you afterwards, not while we’re on the hill.” While this is understandable to prevent any arguments and distractions on the mountain, it likely discouraged any voicing of valid concerns or challenges to critical decisions.
Two guides in particular had concerns that were left unvoiced. The first was Neil Beidleman who had deep reservations because most climbers had not reached the Summit by 2pm that day. When climbing Everest there’s a “Two o’clock rule”, which means that if you don’t reach the Summit by 2pm, you should turn back, otherwise it means descending in the darkness of night, without enough oxygen. Beidleman kept quiet because he didn’t feel he could raise it with the team leaders when they were more experienced than him. Another experienced guide Anatoli Boukreev believed that the plans didn’t allow climbers to adequately acclimatise to lower oxygen levels at high altitudes. He also kept quiet, despite many climbers going on to struggle with altitude sickness during the climb.
It doesn’t require an extreme scenario to bring about these silences. It does take a conscious effort on behalf of the experts and leaders to seek the views of others. The pathway for expressing views, raising questions and airing challenges needs establishing way before a critical situation. Even in an extreme scenario people need to be able to voice in-the-moment critical, potentially life saving dissent. In non-life-threatening scenarios, space needs to be created to encourage people to speak up, not despite having the expertise, but because you have the expertise. It's the mechanism that safeguards you from oversight and expert blindness.
Here's two simple rules:
- Invite people to speak up when you are the expert in something.
- Ask critical questions and test assumptions when you are not.
REFERENCES