Ann and I have been nerding out on Thomas Kuhn lately.  Kuhn was a scientific historian who wrote one of “the hundred most influential books since the Second World War” (according to The Times Literary Supplement) and is one of my favorite MBM-related books (according to The Gillette Compendium of Andy’s Opinions).  That book–The Structure of Scientific Revolutions–created a stir in popularizing a view of how scientific discoveries are made, and one that flew in the face of what most people assume about “science.”

[If you're familiar with this book, feel free to skip this paragraph.]  The traditional conception of scientific discovery is basically that scientists dispassionately analyze data and draw incontrovertible conclusions from that data that become scientific fact, following the scientific method.  Kuhn, however, has a different way of looking at the discovery process.  He introduces the concept of the “paradigm,” which is a commonly held set of key assumptions about a topic that shapes what an individual believes about the world–think of it as meta mental models.  For example, whether light travels at a constant speed or not, whether atoms exist, whether the earth or sun is the center of it all, etc.  These beliefs fundamentally influence how a scientists views the data before her, or even what’s considered “data” to begin with.  Far from being objective, scientists are acting on assumptions, biases and preferred subjective beliefs.  Check out the videos below to learn more about his interesting ideas.

Here are a few rough-hewn thoughts on how this esoteric reading has helped me improve my thinking on management–please disagree or offer other interpretations!

• Paradigms as “mental models”–Much like goggles that filter out certain colors, paradigms affect what and how we see (interpret) the world around us.  If my paradigm says that all people will cheat me, I will treat them differently than Ann, who’s paradigm is that all people are trustworthy.  If my paradigm or mental model about my business is that the best way to get ahead is by working alone vs. with a team, I will act accordingly.
• If you look at the “Science of Human Action” chart in The Science of Success (pg. 48-49) “Experimental Discovery” shows up in two places–once in Knowledge Processes and once in Vision.  How does a Vision (or fundamental mental model of the world) affect what knowledge you consider to be important?  How does it help you identify new opportunities, or limit you from seeing others? (ht to Ann)
• Paradigms, Vision, and capabilities–How does your vision of “what we do” affect what you focus efforts on?  If my vision/paradigm about my business is that “We are a ‘train’ company” vs. “We are a ‘transportation’ company,” I will likely constrain my efforts to train-related opportunities as opposed to looking more broadly.  Do I have an “activity” or “capability” view of what makes us successful, and which is better?
• Paradigms inherently constrain scientists to focus on an existing worldview, which blocks them from exploring non-paradigm issues.  This is good when it allows multiple individuals to advance a field in unison; this is bad if it blocks off new and better ideas.  If “MBM” is a paradigm of how to manage things, does this beneficially constrain us to focusing on good things or does it mentally block us off from considering non-MBM ways of acting?  Are we in special danger of form-over-function the more we focus on “MBM” per se?

Kuhn, Mental Models, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, vision