Rugged individualism is a unique North American characteristic, imbedded into our lore and fundamental definition of being “American.” De Tocqueville even wrote about this way back in 1835 or so. Symbiotic to this characteristic is the thinking that no problem is too tough or can’t be overcome. I believe “systems thinking” was even born in the US to solve the world’s wicked problems. However, problem solving usually requires compromise which crashes head on with our rugged individualism self perception. The idea that the whole is more important than the me just doesn’t square with people today as it did back when this democratic experiment was created.
Interesante definición, este tipo de problemas son los clásicos que todos evitan, problemas cuya supuesta solución pueden llegar a formar las bases de múltiples campañas políticas, apelando al populismo, pero que luego nadie sabe como manejar porque involucran diferentes fuerzas, acuerdos y cohesión de esfuerzos, que no se van a hacer, porque en hoy ya nadie sabe ceder posiciones en aras de la estabilidad o el bien común.
Como le escribí al Sr. Vitko (abajo): En cualquier negociación, nuestro deseo inmediato es ganar. Pero problemas como estos son difíciles porque no hay un marco de tiempo con un final para el "juego". Sin fin a la competencia, no hay forma de ganar. Ganar hoy puede no ser ganar mañana. La ausencia de resoluciones culminantes en la esfera estratégica conduce a declaraciones momentáneas de éxito (o fracaso) que tienen muy poco significado real. Ese es un concepto difícil de aceptar para los fanáticos de los deportes :-)
Desde el punto de vista estratégico, toda victoria es momentánea... Siempre hay mañana...
Courtsey of Google translate for the non-Spanish speakers: "Interesting definition, these types of problems are the classic ones that everyone avoids, problems whose supposed solution can form the basis of multiple political campaigns, appealing to populism, but which then no one knows how to handle because they involve different forces, agreements and cohesion of efforts. , which are not going to be done, because today no one knows how to give up positions for the sake of stability or the common good.
Excellent and needed explanation of wicked problems. Thank you so much. One follow on question. You ask :"are they too hard to solve" and answer "no". You may want to think about and even discuss the concept of solve -- most (all?) of these problems are not solvable. They will evolve, as the rest of your discussion states. Maybe we need alternate terms -- e.g. addressable or ... -- that convey the sense that because their is no perfect solution that doesn't mean that we can't and shouldn't so something about it -- and that because the problem/situation will evolve the way we address it will also evolve.
John, I'm going to lift some verbiage out of a paper that I wrote on strategic thought to comment:
Any negotiation between two or more parties is a competition of ideas. Our immediate inclination in such a competition, "... is to win. However, one of the characteristics of [problems that can only be addressed through strategic thought processes] is that it is almost impossible to define what winning looks like. Further, because the competitors [as with wicked problems] are perpetually engaged, winning today may not be winning tomorrow. The absence of climactic resolutions in the strategic sphere, leads to “snap-shot-in-time” declarations of success or failure that have very little real meaning. [The abortion issue and Roe vs Wade as evidence] This is perhaps the most difficult concept for us (as Americans) to wrap our heads around. We like to win. Winning is how we characterize success. This is perhaps a cultural characteristic which drives us towards short-sighted success at the expense of strategic advances. Ghandi said, “Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it's momentary.” Ghandi was talking about morality, but he was also saying that a tactical win does not equal a strategic victory. I believe that from a strategic point of view, all victory is momentary." There is no single act that can solve a wicked problem. Constant evaluation and negotiation are required, but… they’re solvable if all sides are willing to work in good faith to resolve them and readdress them as the situation changes.
Rugged individualism is a unique North American characteristic, imbedded into our lore and fundamental definition of being “American.” De Tocqueville even wrote about this way back in 1835 or so. Symbiotic to this characteristic is the thinking that no problem is too tough or can’t be overcome. I believe “systems thinking” was even born in the US to solve the world’s wicked problems. However, problem solving usually requires compromise which crashes head on with our rugged individualism self perception. The idea that the whole is more important than the me just doesn’t square with people today as it did back when this democratic experiment was created.
Interesante definición, este tipo de problemas son los clásicos que todos evitan, problemas cuya supuesta solución pueden llegar a formar las bases de múltiples campañas políticas, apelando al populismo, pero que luego nadie sabe como manejar porque involucran diferentes fuerzas, acuerdos y cohesión de esfuerzos, que no se van a hacer, porque en hoy ya nadie sabe ceder posiciones en aras de la estabilidad o el bien común.
Muchas gracias por el comentario.
Como le escribí al Sr. Vitko (abajo): En cualquier negociación, nuestro deseo inmediato es ganar. Pero problemas como estos son difíciles porque no hay un marco de tiempo con un final para el "juego". Sin fin a la competencia, no hay forma de ganar. Ganar hoy puede no ser ganar mañana. La ausencia de resoluciones culminantes en la esfera estratégica conduce a declaraciones momentáneas de éxito (o fracaso) que tienen muy poco significado real. Ese es un concepto difícil de aceptar para los fanáticos de los deportes :-)
Desde el punto de vista estratégico, toda victoria es momentánea... Siempre hay mañana...
Courtsey of Google translate for the non-Spanish speakers: "Interesting definition, these types of problems are the classic ones that everyone avoids, problems whose supposed solution can form the basis of multiple political campaigns, appealing to populism, but which then no one knows how to handle because they involve different forces, agreements and cohesion of efforts. , which are not going to be done, because today no one knows how to give up positions for the sake of stability or the common good.
Excellent and needed explanation of wicked problems. Thank you so much. One follow on question. You ask :"are they too hard to solve" and answer "no". You may want to think about and even discuss the concept of solve -- most (all?) of these problems are not solvable. They will evolve, as the rest of your discussion states. Maybe we need alternate terms -- e.g. addressable or ... -- that convey the sense that because their is no perfect solution that doesn't mean that we can't and shouldn't so something about it -- and that because the problem/situation will evolve the way we address it will also evolve.
John, I'm going to lift some verbiage out of a paper that I wrote on strategic thought to comment:
Any negotiation between two or more parties is a competition of ideas. Our immediate inclination in such a competition, "... is to win. However, one of the characteristics of [problems that can only be addressed through strategic thought processes] is that it is almost impossible to define what winning looks like. Further, because the competitors [as with wicked problems] are perpetually engaged, winning today may not be winning tomorrow. The absence of climactic resolutions in the strategic sphere, leads to “snap-shot-in-time” declarations of success or failure that have very little real meaning. [The abortion issue and Roe vs Wade as evidence] This is perhaps the most difficult concept for us (as Americans) to wrap our heads around. We like to win. Winning is how we characterize success. This is perhaps a cultural characteristic which drives us towards short-sighted success at the expense of strategic advances. Ghandi said, “Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it's momentary.” Ghandi was talking about morality, but he was also saying that a tactical win does not equal a strategic victory. I believe that from a strategic point of view, all victory is momentary." There is no single act that can solve a wicked problem. Constant evaluation and negotiation are required, but… they’re solvable if all sides are willing to work in good faith to resolve them and readdress them as the situation changes.