It appears that the case nowadays is for most anyone to take initiative or action they need to be under cover of a perceived ‘problem’. A problem that is probably what Horst Rittel called a ‘tame’ problem. Rittel called situations that were not amenable to being solved, in a straightforward way that tame problems were, ‘wicked’ problems. But when faced with wicked problems, the response is to try to transform wicked problems into tame problems — problem solved.
The default to ‘reaction’ instead of ‘proaction’ may be a modernized habit of thought, distinct from historical approaches, but in any case, it is the dominant approach nowadays. I have often asked people to consider refraining from using the term ‘problem’ for a day or so. Turns out it is nearly impossible. Try it.
There is no denying that there are problematic situations. Things can be broken, malfunctioning, unknown, threatening, undesirable, or a host of other attributes—all called problems. For some, it is clear what needs to be done. For others, it is not clear at all. Determining a strategy to move towards something rather than away from something is hidden as a strategic possibility when in a problem stance.
People are structurally adapted to backing away from undesirable states of affairs rather than turning and moving towards more desirable states of affairs. I have theories about why this is the case however an interesting set of alternative ideas has been offered by David Brooks on why this may be so although he doesn’t frame it so simply as action or reaction. Still, there seem to be some interesting points to be considered in his thinking:
https://lnkd.in/g4jH_jJq
Comments
Post a Comment