A few conversations this week got me thinking about the way we look at, present, promote and even argue our ideas and solutions our work roles... and the kind of outcomes and efficiencies that results
Mike McGee, Chief Product Officer at Booodl said something very poignant to the other day.
"[At Booodl] we want people to argue like scientists, not lawyers."
Scientist: implies solid research, evidence & result based thinking & decision making, willingness to change position when presented with new evidence.
Lawyer: implies fervantly arguing a position irregardless if its right or wrong, irregardless of consequences/outcomes... all that matters is being right and winning the argument. Adversarial - always a winner and a looser.
I'd add a third class to that;
Evangelist: implies religiocity, blind faith, fundamentalism, closed mindedness, devotion/adherence despite suffering/inappropriatness... even deception/criminality to maintain a facade/system/position.
Which best describes the way you advocate in the workplace; Scientist, Evangelist or Lawyer?
Which type of professional would you rather employ/commission to do work for you?
Which type of 'public servant' would you rather have spending your tax dollars?