The Department of Pet Peeves is directed by yours truly – Dave Fiskum. I have appointed myself to the director position.
From time to time in this space, I’ll outline new pet peeves, which is one of the privileges of being the director.
The peeves this time:
- Management by snapshot.
- Judging past decisions through the lens of 20-20 hindsight.
Let’s look briefly at both.
First, taking one snapshot and believe that snapshot represents the full picture. If that is done, the result will almost inevitably be wrong.
Better to take a series of snapshots over time to produce a full panorama and, thus, get the full picture.
Consider this example: The trials and tribulations of Cover Oregon, the State of Oregon’s attempt to produce a health insurance exchange to enroll new persons for health care coverage.
Along the way in the early troubles (which made front page news), if you took a snapshot, you would see a very negative picture, perhaps even the worst health insurance website in the entire country. But take a series of snapshots over the last three or four years and you get a far more positive picture despite all of the problems.
Or, if you have a little faith, take another series of snapshots a year or so from now and the betting here is that you will get a far clearer picture that depicts the worth of health care reform in Oregon.
Consider this additional example, a bit more mundane, though I should not call golf, to which I am addicted, mundane. This deals with a golf pro shop. One of my friends was irritated that, when he/she showed up at the shop, the head pro was not there to provide a welcome and usher the person to the first tee.
Well, the pro might have been there for that duty for the person who arrived 10 minutes earlier or 10 minutes later.
In other words, the snapshot provided an inaccurate view of the head pro’s conduct in carrying out his official duties. When I raised this issue with my friend, he/she said first impressions count. Well, point made.
But, if you are in business of judging management or seeking to improve management, better to take a series of snapshots to end up with a panoramic view.
On to the second peeve – judging decisions through hindsight.
There is no better example than the furor over the question recently posed to Republican presidential Jeb Bush. He was asked, “If you knew what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq, as your brother did?”
Well, clearly the answer to that question could have been – perhaps even should have been — no. Jeb Bush didn’t answer it well and paid a political price over the next weeks.
But, to me, his answer could have been something along the lines of this – “Well, that is a stupid question. As we all face decisions in public or private life, we have to react to the circumstances as they exist, not as we later seem through the lens of hindsight. So, I am not going to answer that stupid question.”
From a political perspective, that might not have worked either, but the point is this: Any past decision can be made look stupid with the benefit of hindsight.
So, I suggest – on to better management than taking snapshots and on to better judging of decisions by avoiding hindsight.
The Department of Pet Peeves is closed for the moment, but, as director, I say there are many other peeves lined up to be reviewed.
Perspective from the 19th Hole 
Right on! Though I may not fully agree regarding Cover Oregon but only time will give the answer on that one. I withhold judgment but am disheartened by the national news when it was reported that Oregon, along with many other states, would be seeing 35 to 45 percent rate increases. The increases were attributed to Obamacare. I doubt that it is the only reason so I am giving it time to more fully realize the impact.
Dear Director Dave:
Thank you for opening this channel for me to add to your list of peevishes. My pet peeve, as you are soon to know, is the phrase “as you know” and its innumerable variations. It’s used as a verbal pause, like an “uh”, either to make sure that the other party is listening or to make sure that he/she realizes how important the speaker or writer thinks he/she is.
Now that you’re in the know, you’ll be amazed at how ubiquitous and annoying the phrase is. And, as you know, I’m not even accusing you of using it, since you didn’t, to my knowledge.
Next up: Why doesn’t my spellchecker know the difference between its its and its it’s?
Stay tuned for gender-based pronouns.
Dave ~ Okay, but the circumstances at the time did not exist. They were made up. Won’t he an other candidates get stupid questions throughout the campaign and during their term in office? I don’t think insulting the questioner is wise.
I love these columns! Bentley
Thanks, Bentley. I know tit turned out that the circumstances at the time did not exist, but my friend George did not know. He acted on the basis of the best intelligence he had and hindsight says it turned out to be wrong — but that’s hindsight. Plus, in his book, Decision Points, Bush admitted many of his mistakes. As for insulting the questioner, sometimes that is the best approach — perhaps not insulting the questioner, but questioning the basis for the question in the first place.