It could be argued that by doing so, you merely serve to reinforce another bias though - the bias of a doctor. It must be ok, because I wouldn't have noticed it either? Air crash investigations may seek to understand why a mistake was made via that route, but doesn't dismiss it.
-
-
And how ‘right’ usually happens (more often than ‘wrong’), including all the adjustments, connections, adaptations that people make with moment-moment variation to keep in the right direction towards success
-
We could get lost down the rabbit hole of all that makes up what's 'right'. Key thing is to model the behaviour of the most effective staff. By external observers. Often the best people are unconscious competents. Meaning they don't always know why they're as good as they are.
-
But we don’t explore that well, we don’t spend any energy trying to understand that, or actively promote that. We don’t invest in time, energy, resource to understand the subtleties of ‘good’, we just assume it’s there and look at the ‘bad’, with angry hearts and blinkered eyes
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Exactly, but the Taylorist approaches of Scientific Management have become so entrenched in industries and society that overly focus on what goes (occasionally) wrong, and assume what goes (most often) right will just continue.
-
We spend far too little time exploring WHY things go right, what keeps on track to get good outcomes because far harder to measure that the smaller numbers that go wrong
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.