There is much that can be written in defence of complacency. Those who wish to challenge complacency need to make a strong case for doing so. Just claiming that ‘things could be better’ is very general.
There has to be a willingness to challenge complacency. Such willingness arises from a consideration of the benefits of the challenge.
One benefit is that thinking about alternative approaches may actually confirm that the current approach is the best one. Such confirmation could be very valuable.
Another benefit is that concepts, factors and values that arise in the course of thinking about alternatives can be useful in future thinking about the matter.
There is always a fear that someone whose thinking is challenging the current situation will be less enthusiastic and competent in running that system. This is a reasonable assumption and is probably the reason why executives do not want to challenge complacency. To admit that there might be a better way which has not yet been found has to reduce the conviction that the present way is the best possible way.
Everyone working in an organisation absorbs the culture, idioms, values and methods of that organisation. All this makes for effective ‘main track thinking’. This is necessary and effective. At the same time it becomes difficult to move away from the main track and to challenge the complacency which needs and uses this main track.
Even if there is the individual motivation to challenge complacency, this is difficult because of the silent absorption of the concepts and values of the organisation. So there is sometimes a need for an outside thinker to see things differently and to challenge complacency.
In exploring any new idea, there are always the twin aspects of risk and value. Will the new idea work? Is the new idea feasible? What will it cost? What is the disruption effect? At the end of the day, what really matters is the value that might be delivered by the new idea. What sort of value is this? Is it a matter of cost-saving or simplicity? Is it customer value or perceived value? Who benefits? Is it a durable value or just a brief novelty value?
If the new idea can be tried alongside the existing idea without disruption, then that is useful. If the new idea demands a complete switch from the old idea, then that can only be perceived as high risk.
To think you know in advance that there cannot be a better way is just an extension of complacency. To try to find a better way and fail to find one emphasises the value of the current idea - until another attempt is made later.
So in all cases there is a need to challenge complacency - not through dissatisfaction with the current idea and not because there are high hopes for a better idea. If for no other reason, we should challenge complacency because failure to find a better idea reinforces our belief in the current system. Complacency is only justified when we have made an effort to challenge it and have failed.
Discuss and share this with comments below or on Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn.
