Ken A. Smith wrote:
> ...hindsight is NOT 20/20. .... Critical hindsight
> may help you achieve a 20/40 vision, which is better than 20/200,
> but it ain't 20/20!
I agree. What is INSIDIOUS about hindsight is that it fosters a
false sense of security. Post-hoc explanations have the luxury of
going untested--at least until the next similar event occurs. In the
mean time, no one can tell if a particular bit of hindsight is 20/40
or 20/200. In the absence of a test, most folks assume the former.
That is what makes hindsight so seductive... and so dangerous.
(Remember, even highly trained professionals fall victim to the
cognitive biases examined by Kahnemann & Tversky and others. It's
just human nature.)
Regarding teaching, this type of discussion is useful for forcing
students to consider WHY they should study quantitative methods
and/or case histories (two methods of generating hindsight).
One could push the notion of path dependence to an extreme position;
every event for a firm is unique because it occurs at a unique point
along that firm's path. So, why bother learning analytic techniques
that rely on data from the past? The firm will never be in that
position again. (This is clearly playing the devil's advocate to
stimulate a debate in class.)
Similarly, case histories are studied on the assumption that the
richness of the context and the uniqueness of the firm make a
difference in strategy. If so, the lessons learned are must be
idiosyncratic to THAT firm in THAT context (again, playing devil's
advocate). So, why bother reading case histories?
Don't get me wrong. Most of my work is rigorous empirical research.
My goal in teaching is to help students put the accumulated body of
empirical findings (hindsight) into perspective. I view analytic
models as metaphors and cases as analogies. They are useful in
communicating ideas and stimulating thinking. To that end, they
definitely are worth learning!!! However, if you push them too far,
they will break down.
Rather than forcing students to memorize models and cases, I try to
get them to challenge the "lessons learned from them." Can they
generate alternative explanations for the same events? Can they
find conditions under which a particular piece of hindsight would NOT
apply. Ironically, they develop more insights into the models by
challenging them rather than by memorizing them as Truths.
I also remind them that the cost of the analyses might exceed the
marginal benefits gained in the decision-making processes.
The expression "Hindsight is 20/20" is used to discredit post-hoc
explanations of events that no one (could have) predicted a priori.
Indeed, if the past teaches us anything, it is that the future is
hard to predict. Thus, management remains an art, even if we study it
scientifically.
Charlie.
********************************************
Charles Carroll, Ph.D.
Universitair Docent (Assist. Prof.)
Faculty of Management and Organization
University of Groningen
Landleven 5
Postbus 800
9700 AV Groningen
The Netherlands
Fax: +31 50 363 2174
tel: +31 50 363 3626 / 3373
prive: +31 50 542 0583
e-mail:
c.carroll@bdk.rug.nl