The Stupidity Paradox: The Power and Pitfalls of Functional Stupidity at Work

by Mats Alvesson, André Spicer

Functional stupidity can be catastrophic. It can cause organisational collapse, financial meltdown and technical disaster. And there are countless, more everyday examples of organisations accepting the dubious, the absurd and the downright idiotic, from unsustainable management fads to the cult of leadership or an over-reliance on brand and image. And yet a dose of stupidity can be useful and produce good, short-term results: it can nurture harmony, encourage people to get on with the job and drive success. This is the stupidity paradox.

The Stupidity Paradox tackles head-on the pros and cons of functional stupidity. You'll discover what makes a workplace mindless, why being stupid might be a good thing in the short term but a disaster in the longer term, and how to make your workplace a little less stupid by challenging thoughtless conformity. It shows how harmony and action in the workplace can be balanced with a culture of questioning and challenge.

The book is a wake-up call for smart organisations and smarter people. It encourages us to use our intelligence fully for the sake of personal satisfaction, organisational success and the flourishing of society as a whole.

Genres: Business, Nonfiction, Psychology, Science, Self Help, Leadership, Economics

Unknown Binding

First published June 2, 2016

About the author

Mats Alvesson är professor vid Lunds universitet och arbetar även vid University of Queensland, Australien, och City University, London. Han forskar och skriver om bland annat organisationskultur, ledarskap, identitet i organisationer och kvalitativ forskning och intresserar sig för fenomenet funktionell dumhet.

Reviews

[Maru Kun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite often at work I've pretended to be more stupid than I am. I don't like to do this as it's intellectually dishonest, but from time to time the alternative - looking clever - was clearly the worse choice.

The most obvious reason for pretending to be stupid at work is to make the boss look good and I'm sure anyone who has been in a job for more than a few months has done this.

A less obvious but almost equally common reason for strategic stupidity is to keep a low profile. Some people, early in their career, naively believe that looking clever and being competent will get them promoted. Very often it will do no more than get them riffed in the next round of layoffs, as what boss wants a smart young rival at his heels?

(If your mind is unpolluted by corporate jargon, being riffed means being fired, coming from the Human Resources Dictionary of Platitudes - “Reduction In Force" - your friends who aren't there one morning so we can build a bright future together).

Another reason for not wanting to look as clever as you are is that you will be given more work for no additional reward. You are so clever you will be the one in the office until midnight while everyone else has gone home. That's how clever you are. After a few years of this you will be promoted and get paid more, but then you'll be riffed as being more expensive than anyone else.

At first glance the modern workplace looks a complicated place. Look too clever, get riffed for embarrassing the boss. Act too clever, get riffed for being a smartass. Use your intelligence and competence to advance up the career ladder, get riffed as being too expensive or too old. Don't be clever at all, get riffed for being stupid.

But is it really complicated? Not if you use this simple recipe for career success which I have seen adopted by many top executives. This mnemonic is all you need to know. Corporate success needs BALLS: Bullshit. Arselick. Lie effectively. Lay the blame. Sod off home early.

I haven't read this book as I don't have to. I've lived it for years.



PS:

The article on the above book which I have linked here - "Stupefied: How organisations enshrine collective stupidity and employees are rewarded for checking their brains at the office door" - is undoubtedly the most truthful article on the modern business organisation I have ever read.

[Peter Geyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not a big fan of books on organisations, and there are several reasons for this. Perhaps the most pertinent is that I'd been in workplaces and/or organisations for nearly 20 years before I read one and a number of thoise years were spent wandering in and out of them as a customs officer where I observed a fair amount of incompetence, hubris and success, sometimes all three in the same visit. So when I studied (and later taught) organisations, my experience (as well as other studies) made me more critical than what I might otherwise have been of the field itself. There were books and ideas of great interest, but the dross extended to some (still) famous names and there were many half-baked ideas taken from other disciplines, including religions.

As an internal organisation consultant, I worked to an agreeable, intelligent boss who devoured books on management and I wondered why he did so because there were other topics much more interesting, and better written; later, as a person teaching a method of self-understanding to individuals, groups and organisations, I found myself caught up in some things and dismissive of others, perhaps even bewildered at the views some people held, or accepted as fact. These days, I'm an unwilling client of a couple of organisations that don't work that well, and of course an observer of public and private managers and institutions in the context of the social polity, if I may call it that.

It's in this context that I came across Mats Alvesson, referenced in an online article I was reading, although not this book, but another one which lies within reach waiting for my attention. If you've had my experience, particularly my most recent experience, a book about stupidity at work has immense appeal, partly because of the pleasure gathered from discovering someone else, or at least Alvesson and his co-author Andre Spicer has also noticed this phenomenon and has written about it. Not being au fait with current trends in thi field, I was surprised to find that Alvesson is quite well known and respected. If you read this book, you'll find out why. There's plenty of thought, experience and research by the authors and others is mentioned that covers Europe, the UK and the USA in particular, to bolster their proposition

The paradox of stupidity is that it has good and bad points. Ignoring the obvious or not reflecting on what happened, or doing what everyone else is doing or has done are examples of organisational stupidity, but they can be good or bad. Critiquing things can make you unpopular, not identified as a team players and so on, particularly if a new strategy is introduced.

Knowing too much can also be a dangerous thing. The authors cast their sights on the idea of the "knowledge worker" and critique the associated jargon, pointing out that whilst a highly educated workforce is claimed as desirable, that many organisation processes are designed to simplify every task, with check-lists to tick and other oversight activities, so that the work available is less than challenging.

Educated people may also be narrowly so and the example is given of the financial crisis of the mid 2000s being precipitated by economic and financial models developed by bright people somewhat distanced from other knowledge or reality. These people were never questioned about what they were doing and they never questioned themselves.

Some curious ideas about developing creativity and a swingeing critique of thought about leadership are included. The latter topic is of interest to me because I've always seen it as somewhat nebulous and poorly identified, even presumed. The open contempt which people in organisations respond to new fads and fancies, particularly in this area and in teamwork is something I've observed , sometimes as a trainer presenting relevant personality ideas. I don't have a problem with that, actually, as it tells you something.

Other topics here are suggestions that bureaucracy hasn't gone away, no matter what some people say; it just looks different. It's an unfairly pejorative term, actually, because it's not a bad idea to be organised; micro-management is another issue, however. One of the examples provided here is that of tertiary education, where administrators outnumber teaching staff and seek to control what is taught. Alvesson and Spicer add that education is now an image industry, with advertising and marketing that makes a school or university look good, partly by making improbable statements about the quality of what will occur there and the success that will inevitably follow, as opposed to unemployment and working as a sales clerk, or barista, or not working at all.

The discussion of image continues on to consulting firms and how they operate, which brought back memories 25 years or so ago about a McKinsey intervention in my workplace, and in others, conducted by young, bright people and supported by senior management who didn't know how to evaluate such programs, but did it, like benchmarking I suppose, another target here, because everyone else was doing it. Brands, inevitably, also come in for a serve.

Something that continually came to mind when reading this book was consciousness, or the lack of it, however defined, even the desire to not deal with things that were brought to conscious attention. The cost of standing out by disagreeing, to paraphrase Bruno Latour, may be too high; after all, you want to have a job, or get a promotion.

There are all sorts of things in this book that are of worth. It's an easy read, sometimes quite amusing, astute and well thought through. I would call it a healthy, informed skepticism, which is something I really enjoy. If you work in organisations, or with people who do, this is an essential book. A subtext is the emptiness of work, which is the topic of the other, earlier, book ("The Triumph of Emptiness: consumption, higher education and work organisation") which got me to this one.

A note to the people who are following me and have asked to be friends; thank you, I'm honoured you are doing so. I'm not inclined to open my number of friends at this point. Feel free to email me if you like.

Regards

Peter

[InvestingByTheBooks.com · Rating 4 out of 5]

How is it possible that organizations filled with the best and brightest so often end up doing stupid things? Professors and organizational theorists Mats Alvesson’s and André Spicer’s explanation is that there are actually short-term benefits to stupidity both to organizations and to employees – although in the longer term the folly will often prove to be detrimental. Absolutely everyone that has been engaged in the inner life of large organizations will – with a sardonic smile – recognize numerous of situations from this book.

The key concept presented by the authors is what they call functional stupidity, by which they refer to the inability and unwillingness of organizations to let the staff utilize their cognitive and reflective capacity, apart from in relation to very narrow, technical and often repetitive tasks. But it also refers to the, presumably smart, employees’ willingness to self-stupidify. This results in a lack of reflection on the assumptions behind what is being done, in not asking why things are done to start with and not seeing the wider consequences of actions.

It might sound inconceivable that this inanity would be tolerated yet alone often encouraged by companies and public organizations and likewise sought after by the employees. Still, organizations benefit from employees’ stupidity since constant questioning creates doubt, uncertainty and conflict and by this is in the way of productivity. The authors even launch the concept of stupidity management as an organizational process of managing the balance between questioning and efficiency. In my meaning the expression probably gives an illusion of an explicit managerial control that doesn’t really exist. The employees benefit from their stupidity as they by not challenging social norms free up time and energy, they show loyalty and fit in. So stupidity comes with pros and cons. Still over time the process creates alienated and cynical staff with numbed cognitive abilities, it creates loads of non-productive work and worst case sets the company up for disaster.

The book has some structural issues. Although functional stupidity is described as also having positive aspects there is an apparent underlying axiom throughout the book that organizations that utilize the cognitive abilities of their staff will yield superior results. Still, with some exception it isn’t until the last chapter this is explicitly stated. The folly has gone too far and has to be combated! I think it would have been better to come clean with this up front. Similarly, the most comprehensive definition of the concept functional stupidity comes in the conclusion of the last chapter.

The start of the book is quite repetitive as the authors introduce the key thoughts in the preface, repeat them in the introduction and then again with a few examples throughout part one. Part two of the book, covering different types of stupidities, is more varied but also contains a fairly odd chapter on consumerism. The authors are clearly entitled to their opinions but the subject belongs to a different book and Naomi Klein has already written it. All in all there are 8,5 chapters of description and only 0,5 chapter of prescription – some more practical advice on what to do about the problem wouldn’t have hurt.

These issues are however easily forgiven. The authors are in my opinion dead right in their key insights and it isn’t often you bump in to new concepts that frames and explains a lot of what you intuitively know but additionally stimulates and provokes new thoughts. The book also has the extra attraction of making the reader feeling smart, of being one of those select few that have seen through the charade. Not least an intellectual snob like myself is easily seduced by this angle – I did buy the book. There are many texts on the biases of individuals or the madness of crowds in manias but fewer that explain the more mundane day-to-day irrationality of organizational processes.

This is an important and thought provoking book that deserves a wide audience among corporate managers and knowledge-workers alike.

[Akad Hanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Det centrala begreppet som flyter med längs hela boken är funktionell dumhet. Definitionen lyder ”... en oförmåga och/eller ovilja att använda kognitiva och reflexiva kapaciteter annat än på begränsade och försiktiga sätt [...] Funktionell dumhet innebär att tänka innanför boxen: överanpassning till fastlagda tankesätt och handlingar.”.

Vidare kan man säga att det handlar om när personerna på en arbetsplats ägnar sig åt ”frekvent självfördummande” genom att undvika att tänka efter, ifrågasätta, överväga, eller se det större syftet med sina handlingar.

Inriktningen ligger på större arbetsgrupper och organisationer, och det finns såklart även fördelar med funktionell dumhet. Det hjälper individer att känna sig bekväma och tillfreds trots att det på insidan finns många brister. Hellre framstå som glada, positiva och energiska än att ifrågasätta status quo och riskera dispyter med kollegorna eller cheferna. Det minskar friktionen på arbetsplatsen och är som ett sorts ”socialt smörjmedel”.

I slutändan är dock funktionell dumhet extremt destruktiv då det kan leda till att folk som verkar i en organisation blir helt blinda inför problem, vilket i sin tur kan leda till storskaliga katastrofer.

Majoriteten av boken består av fem kapitel som är uppdelade i fem olika typer av dumhet:
- ledarskapsgenererad dumhet
- Strukturgenererad dumhet
- Imitationsgenererad dumhet
- Varumärkesgenererad dumhet
- Kulturgenererad dumhet
Alla bidrar på ett eller annat sätt negativt till effektiviteten på en arbetsplats, och göder den funktionella dumheten på sitt eget sätt. Tänker att mycket kan spåras tillbaka till gruppfenomenet ”groupthink”, när en grupp blir såpass sammansvetsade att inga fel inom gruppen kan ses och alla utomstående är antingen sämre eller fiender.

Sista kapitlet i boken ger lite tips till hur man ska motverka funktionell dumhet. Dock tycker jag att det blir lite paradoxalt här. Tipsen och verktygen som ges handlar helt enkelt om att man ska ”tänka efter” ”vara kritisk” osv. Samtidigt klagas det ständigt på hur funktionell dumhet ofta bygger på tomma ord, managementutbildningar utan syfte, och snygga PowerPoint-presentationer.

Men men, tror ändå den här boken har något. Allt bör ses ur en kritisk synvinkel och det finns nog mycket en arbetsplats eller organisation kan lära sig från innehållet i boken. Tror dessutom funktionell dumhet finns överallt, såväl som på individuell nivå som samhällsnivå. Och målet är nog inte att det utrotas helt, men att man inte ska låta det ta över allt för mycket.

[N. N. Santiago · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though the title implies that there are both benefits and drawbacks to Functional Stupidity (otherwise known as doing what someone tells you to, or obviously wants from you), the book deals almost exclusively with the latter, enumerating the many aggravating, depressing forms of kool-aid foisting and drinking occasioned by a world of interacting with other people, mostly at work.

If you are someone for whom swallowing guff about 'core values' or whatever the current passive-aggressive management fad happens to be - "I don't think that behaviour embodies our core values, do you?" - feels like an affront to your intellectual dignity, the really depressing thing is the implication of that positive descriptor in the title.

Functional stupidity can have benefits. It can facilitate decision-making, create a good workplace climate, safeguard people's sense of self, and offer a sense of direction. But too much functional stupidity may have drawbacks. It can obstruct clever decision-making and problem-solving, build a conformist workplace, undermine identities, and desensitize people to problems.

Organisations cannot function with a bunch of hyper-critical know-it-alls (ie. you and me). A little bit of functional stupidity is necessary to be able to get anything done in a group.

Alvesson and Spicer spend too much time on an understandable cri de coeur of the exasperating side (for an underling) of functional stupidity, which means that when they come around to reminding you at the end of its positives, it undermines the direction the book has been taking so far. Going by the title, the book should cover more of how and where the line between too-much and too-little functional stupidity can be drawn, and the implications for, and impact on, the lives of the impotent and inconsequential majority of working minions.

[Richard Schwindt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every now and again a book comes along that makes you sit up and say: “This explains a lot.” As one of the few people to serve on the management team of a Children’s Aid Society, public hospital and a Children’s Mental Health Centre, I feel that way about the Stupidity Paradox. So much in this book rang true. Alvesson and Spicer bring a rare glee and accessible prose to their discussion of how functional stupidity pervades our public and private sector organizations. They note how organizations promote the idea of knowledge workers, hire the best and the brightest – then shut down criticism and original thinking. They note how branding and rigid group norms can stifle discussion of problems that put profits or safety at risk. They also skewer trend followers and management gurus. As much fun as this is book is for anyone who has winced through an organizational failure, the authors also note occasions where functional stupidity is necessary. Employees need to bond, projects must be executed, and working as a unit may be necessary to ensure a company goes forward rather than being immobilized by self-examination. In the end companies may need to achieve both things – functional stupidity and a capacity for critical self-examination. If nothing else this should give pause to any reader who works for an organization that stifles dissent, critical discussion or diversity at the expense of the larger mission. As a writer on emotional recovery from workplace mobbing, and an EAFP counsellor, I couldn’t help wonder about when the control of diversity of thought and manner becomes workplace mobbing; the price employees paid outside of the workplace for functional stupidity inside; and how people trained to functional stupidity behaved in the political arena (that question may have been answered this week.) This is an important book for managers and employers; CEO’s and stockholders who want to look deeper into the secrets of organizational success and failure.

[Kristian Norling · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good book, it also aligns well with my grumpy side. I recognise and have experienced a lot of the functional stupidity explained in this book. My favourite quote from the book:

"When specialism rules, we get the problem of people who only have a hammer in their toolbox, and as a result are inclined to treat everything as if it were a nail.

As a consequence, organisations are full of specialists who work on problems as they know them. However, most problems are not isolated. Having many experts each working away on their own little aspect of a wider problem can create many unforeseen problems. For instance, organisations can find themselves expanding because there are more experts employed. Inevitably these experts will start to develop plans, procedures, rules, routines and activities and demand compliance from everybody else. The result is often to multiply bureaucracy, with an organisations core work suffering as people are forced to spend time responding to the experts' demands. As well as being costly in itself, the division of labour and the inclinations of all these people not just to be supportive but also to demand responses to all their initiatives and requests can be very resource-intensive.

With specialisation and division of labour we get a lot of boxed-in thinking. Few people have a comprehensive understanding of the situation. They do not make connections. Different groups specialise. Top management seldom has a full overview and doesn't understand what units and people are doing. This is often a breeding ground for functional stupidity."

[Niklas Laninge · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ett par intressanta teser. Känns som obligatorisk läsning för ledare med förkärlek till managementlitteratur.

[kk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Don’t mind its populist and “attention seeker” title, It is a solid and clever book, dedicated for a good cause (which is progression for masses and shaming the mediocrity), decently structured and offering its own solutions in the end against the case that it’s written for.

Had troubling time -failing to concentrate- during reading process, facing and reminding in each different paragraph all the stupidity experiences I had during my own career; which proved me that it’s a well written one as well. I’ll seriously try to hand one to my current and all future CEOs knowing that the title would risk me difficult time.

The build-up is made over the “present time” and the rest is full of serious and consecutive argumentation against its powerful vicious circle (at work, at school, at politics etc.) and how to break it:
“…
As well as being optimistic, many organizations have a strong emphasis on the present. The present (and the near future) counts more than the past. Managers think in the short term because they are evaluated by their superiors and colleagues on their short-term results. Some managers say that ‘Our horizon is today’s lunch’ and like to make quips like ‘I know what you did for me yesterday, but what have you done for me lately?’
…”

Only wish to see some real-life cases where such solutions been applied and shown the expected results.

[Alexander Tarlinder · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bittre Mats Alvesson slår till igen :) Skämt åsido. Den här boken är en riktig ögonöppnare. Den förklarar begreppet funktionell dumhet, som är ganska komplext. Det är inte bara ren dumhet, utan begränsad användning av kognitiva och reflexiva färdigheter på ett sätt som faktiskt ofta smörjer tillvaron i arbetslivet. Företagskultur, organisationsscheman och ledarskap kan alla generera en bra dos funktionell dumhet, men det behöver inte vara jättedåligt.
Slutet på boken är kanske mest användbart, eftersom det är där förtattaren rekommenderar hur man angriper funktionell dumhet, men hela boken är väldigt smärtsam att läsa och igenkänningsfaktorn är hög.

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before I’d finished this book, I’d already recommended it to four friends. This is such a good book. Better than I could possibly have hoped.

The basic idea is that we think we live in a knowledge economy, where intelligence is core to our work lives and where we are expected to do life-long-learning because the intellectual demands of work are growing all of the time. But the fact is that this is not really backed up by the evidence. Rather, the point of capitalism is to simplify work since this process of simplification makes what capitalism produces increasingly cheaper. The division of labour is designed to make work processes ever simpler and to therefore deskill the people doing this work. Economists have known this forever. Marx referred to it as the ‘alienation of labour’ – that is, work was made so mindless, boring and repetitive that it was impossible to have any ‘pride’ in your work. Adam Smith referred to the same thing by saying factory work – the extreme example of this hyper-application of the division of labour in his day – made people as stupid as it was possible to make them.

So, it might seem a little strange that today we think the exact opposite is occurring. That we now live in a knowledge economy where to function at all you need to have high stores of human capital – advanced degrees and clearly articulated and defined skill sets – if you are to be able to meet the demands of the economy. The authors here show that this is hardly the case. Rather they show that the majority of the jobs the economy is now producing barely require a high school education. However, other factors are driving the remarkable increase in credentials we are witnessing.

The say that to overcome the dissatisfaction that might otherwise come from being massively overqualified for work, companies have deployed a number of strategies that make their organisations ‘functionally stupid’. You need to remember that these strategies are only applied sparingly across the economy – for most people work really is as mindless and horrible as Marx and Smith said it would be. For these people the stupidity of work is hardly something they would be expected to question. They are required to do what they are told – and they get paid so incredibly poorly for what they do that expecting to go ‘over and beyond’ is, frankly, insulting. But for others their qualifications imply that they might amount to more. Except, the work itself really doesn’t require them to do much more than follow routines. This means the organisations often address this mismatch by giving employees high-sounding job titles, or in making their employees ‘experts’ in very, very narrow activities.

And these ‘solutions’ can have unanticipated consequences. If you believe you are an expert, you might not be particularly open to taking on advice or questioning your own assumptions. You might, that is, believe your own bullshit. Which is fine, as long as the process you are engaged in works – but when it stops working or needs to change, are you likely to notice? Especially since now your own self-esteem has become tied to you being the expert on whatever narrow field of activity it is you have made your own.

This book does not only discuss stupid people doing stupid things – that really would be too easy, and all of us who have worked anywhere for any length of time would have noticed exactly this time and time again. Rather, they are particularly interested in more general stupidity – brought about by the culture of organisations, or by the structures they operate, or the dogmatic belief in ‘leadership’.

Oh, let’s do that. I spent 20 years of my life working in one form or another for a union. For 12 of those years I was employed in an organisation in various roles, but was also involved in the union workplace committee. We had quite a good relationship with management and they would set up subcommittees that would involve us as union representatives to provide input into various change processes the organisation was implementing. To be honest, I got along very well with many of the HR and other managers I worked with. The problem was that the change processes often made virtually no sense at all. In one organisation I represented as an industrial officer for the union a manager told his staff that it made no sense for them to get upset about a restructure he was imposing upon them – since all leaders now were ‘change leaders’ and so whatever restructure he implemented would only last a year or so before someone else started another change management process. Hardly surprisingly, this did nothing to dispel the anxiety staff were feeling about how the change being proposed was going to impact their jobs and their lives.

Leadership was always presented as some intangible quality that needed to be honoured. I’ve had lots of great managers, but I don’t really believe in leaders – if they exist, I’m yet to have met one. But then, I’m only 60, so I guess there is still time. As this book makes clear, it isn’t entirely clear what a leader would actually do. And yet, the world is coming down with leadership courses. I think my current boss is one of my favourite ‘leaders’ – although, I’m not sure she would even call herself that. Mostly, she leaves people to their own devices. Sometimes I think she trusts us too much. She certainly doesn’t micromanage us. But she does talk to us about our work and offer suggestions and changes – it’s just that most of the people who work for her have PhDs, so, if we can’t be trusted to get on with it, who can?

I hadn’t realised that the Dunning Kruger effect was first discussed when someone rubbed lemon juice on their face because they thought it would make them invisible – like with invisible ink, I guess. But our capacity to exaggerate our abilities and how unaware we are of the limits to those abilities is a constant theme throughout this book. Although, as I said before, this book stresses the stupidity of experts more than of ‘fools’. A large part of the problem is group-think, where cultures reward conformity and punish ‘negativity’. In fact, the book ends with an extended praise to Keats and his negative capability. There is also a lovely bit in this that I will quote at length:

“While diversity was often presented using images of harmony, participants were aware that this did not always fit the facts. After participation in one such programme, a manager said: ‘It really is a feel-good exercise. You know, we can all feel good that we are this happy multi-colored family – that’s going to bring in all this money for the firm. The truth is quite another matter. If people are really different, they don’t get along that easily, they want to do things differently, and they get upset about how they are told to do work.’”

The idea that organisations say they want diversity, but actually want uniformity, isn’t a million miles away from nations like Australia saying they want multiculturalism, while so much of what we do shows what we really want is assimilation. The benefits of diversity are remarkable, but conformity is much easier to manage.

I’ve barely scratched the surface of this quite short book – I’ve read it in a day – but it is overflowing with ideas. It made me catch my breath a dozen times throughout. Often about things I thought I knew well, only for them to put another twist on it. Look, you need to read this book. From its discussion on corporate speak to branding (just two of the other things I haven’t even mentioned in this review) this book should be compulsory reading.

[Josep · Rating 2 out of 5]

I will start recommending it as a good book to start a debate about good and not so good company practices. It has value for been able to create debate, as it has some really interesting insights. "One of us studied manager who claimed to do leadership. They said that having coffee with their subordinates, listening to them or engaging them in small talk had a significant impact on them. They saw this as an exercise of leadership. If another person - say their secretary - had done the small talking, no one would have called it leadership, but the managers followed the scripts of leadership and saw trivial acts as full of impressive influencing activity." is one of the many interesting reflections. But with a style that mixes touches of academic book with that of a cynical blog post it loses appeal. The last part of the book, dedicated to how to improve this situation, falls almost as comical as it lists well intended receipts to be followed by that same leaders that the book was mocking some pages before. Is this humorous ending on purpose or just a failed shot to return to a more academical style? It is hard to tell.

[Allys Dierker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Liked the analyses of why “functional stupidity” works and thrives in some cases. Alvesson and Spicer do a good job articulating some issues I’ve had a hard time articulating: higher-Education inflation, why “knowledge-intensive” firms are often a confidence game, why economies of persuasion feel so empty, why transformational leadership is often neither. They identify some “tricks of the trade” in “stupidity management” and also some suggestions for resisting stupidification. Wisely, though, they also caution people that sometimes functional stupidity can be employed to good results (to smooth friction among a group of otherwise very intelligent workers, to help build morale, to increase efficiency) and more importantly, that sometimes it’s not pragmatic or wise to battle functional stupidity.

Any adult with a soupçon of smarts and a longer-than-2-year tenure in any single working environment won’t be blown away by any argument Alvesson and Spicer make, but i appreciate their clear argument (and have a few more books on order to read, from their end notes).

[Sam Ladner · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm an old fann of Mats Alvesson, so I was excited to read this book. As usual, he did not disappoint. This book tells you why there's such a thing as corporate stupidity, even though corporations consistently hire people with advanced degrees and high IQs. How and in what ways does this happen? Alvesson describes the social processes whereby we end up making the same mistakes over and over again. It's well read alongside anything by Chris Argyris, who also provides insight into how individuals make these mistakes. Alvesson's work is more sociological in nature, and shows how group dynamics develop, grow, and perpetuate collective stupidity. Sad read, but worth it. The only complaint I had was the "what to do about it" section. Alvesson, like a lot of academics, doesn't know much about the corporate timescape. Yes, absolutely have post-mortems, but in today's 24/7 world, who has time? He should identify time as one of the real enemies (he doesn't seem to know that it is).

[Srikanth · Rating 2 out of 5]

Loved the title of the book, more importantly the contents of the book. The moment is started reading it, felt like it was a ghost written auto-biography of my work life. The best part is, i could see the same pattern being followed in both military as well as civilian organizations that i have worked in. I felt, that these guys heard us and were talking to me. Started the book with lot of happiness at being felt empathetic. Then it ended from the second chapter. What started off as beautiful stories that everyone of us could relate to ended up being a business book that is boring and typical.
I would highlight the issues with the book as follows

A. The authors touched upon an important topic and made it boring.
B. Once past the initial chapters, it gets repetitive and boring with dull pace
C. It doesn't have any solutions (not that anyone can) but some form of closure would have really helped. You can avoid the book if you can.

[Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is not going to give you solutions to your functional stupidity. They show you all the ways in which we actively participate in the stupidity and then they're asking you to think and reflect upon it. Sometimes the stupidity is necessary, but often, it is not. It's up to you to decide in your own unique situation what is appropriate.
I loved it because I'm self proclaimed cynic/realist and I was still buying into stupidity. This book really caused me to think hard about so many things that I celebrate and do and it was a somber experience. But I don't mind it when a book cuts me down a peg or two. Often the best criticism is deep self reflection.
But that's just like, my opinion.

[Helen (Helena/Nell) · Rating 4 out of 5]

For me as reader, this book was preaching to the converted. I haven't worked for a huge number of organisations, but I've never worked for one that I didn't see as stupid in all sorts of ways. It's been my lot in life to be labelled as either a cynic or a negative person, depending on what was going on. I'm the one who asks awkward questions at meetings. Sometimes this can be useful, where there's a bit of insurrection going on. More often it made me unpopular because the meeting went on longer than it might have. I have been begged, more than once, not to ask any questions because everybody wanted to get home early.

So the book confirmed a great deal that I felt I already knew, but this time backed up with case studies and research. It showed me that I hadn't just been unlucky in working for stupid organisations. Almost all organisations are stupid a lot of the time because -- I have now been persuaded -- stupidity is essential for survival. Near the end of the volume, one of the conclusions is: "We [ ... ] need to be hesitant in assuming that stupidities are always bad. [ ... ] there are many positive things about stupidity in organisations."

What could possibly be positive about stupidity in a work organisation? Good question. Well:

"Organisations often want fervent acceptance of things that could be challenged: visions, strategies, fashionable ideas, change initiatives, structures and human resource management procedures, to name a few. Challenging all these things could lead to pluralism, conflict, confusion, endless debate and ultimately, indecision. To deal with these threats, stupidity management is sometimes necessary."

Sometimes necessary. Not always. Not always. A glimmer of light on the horizon.

I could see that the analysis of stupidity management (i.e. stupidity nurturing) was leading towards some alternative suggestions. I sped up towards the end because I was anticipating a pay-off. I wanted to know how else things could be done. How organisations could actually cultivate reflective thinking without "pluralism, conflict, confusion, endless debate and indecision".

A rather small part of the book makes such suggestions, and it is very near the end. I liked the ideas, of course -- they are my sort of ideas. For example, three techniques for "dispelling stupidity" are:

1. Deliberately incorporating reflective routines. "you could run 'what the hell' sessions where people are asked to bring along one example of strongly questionable corporate practices they have come across recently."

2. Appointing a kind of "professional critic -- otherwise known as a Devil's Advocate (DA) [ ... ] a person whose job is to challenge what is going on, to question, to pose counter-arguments and so on."

3. Holding a 'pre-mortem at the start of a project. This involves a fairly simple routine of saying to the team: 'Imagine you are two years down the line and this project has been a disaster. What do you think went wrong?' "

I love these ideas. But I don't think they're new. I've long been an advocate of Edward de Bono's thinking techniques, many of which have been used in management training, and all of which are the opposite of stupid. The three techniques above reminded me of de Bono's Six Thinking Hats. The DA is like permanently wearing the black hat. But when you have six hats, you have balance. People can choose to put on the blue hat, or the green hat or, importantly, the red one. It's a way of making sure real thinking happens, and all of the time, not just some of the time.

But my point really is that De Bono's methods, incorporated into everyday speech as methods of "lateral thinking" (a term he himself first used in 1967) preceded this book by nearly half a century. Did they make organisations more intelligent? Did they allow managers to work in new and intelligent ways with their staff? They could have. But have you even heard of them now?

So the value of this book, to me, is that it demonstrates neatly how and why organisations continue to operate stupidly. I found it satisfying, and sometimes entertaining, having two writers demonstrate this in some detail (if you want to cut to the chase, read the conclusions to each chapter).

But the handful of thinking method suggestions at the end are absolutely not enough. Why on earth can a group of intelligent creatures not get together and think critically about what they are doing and why? Why on earth can we not get together and think critically about what we are doing to the planet? Why can we not stop developing and selling weapons to kill each other? Why can we come up with "vision" and "mission statements" and "brands" but not work out how to stop wars? How can it possibly be in our long-term interests not to think critically?

Why do work managers close down "critical cognition"? And why do workers allow that to happen? The book explains it all: "Sidestepping troublesome questions enables [managers] to give their staff a sense of order, trust and predictability." Religious leaders have been attracted to similar methods, probably since members of our species started communicating with each other.

This book points out that in the short term (whatever is meant by 'short') curtailed thinking may improve "functionality". In the long term, it can be dangerous.

Not just dangerous. It's far more likely to be lethal.

[Ramesh Naidu · Rating 5 out of 5]

A deeply disturbing book. Easily the hardest and one of the most interesting book read this year , need to re read every couple of years

[Jonatan Almfjord · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ibland gillar jag att dela in böcker i två kategorier: böcker som gör världen till en bättre plats, och böcker som inte uppfyller det kriteriet. Dumhetsparadoxen faller i den senare kategorin, och det är inte för att jag ogillar den. Jag ska förklara varför.

Det är riktigt intressant att läsa om hur fördummande företagskultur och "så har vi alltid haft det"-normer kan leda till dumhet (om än funktionell sådan). Men boken är omkring 250 sidor lång, varav 225 ägnas åt att lägga fram problem, som de stackars 25 återstående sidorna får väldigt svårt att hinna skaffa fram lösningar på. Givetvis kan det finnas poäng med att peka på problem även om man inte har en direkt lösning (just det ämnet diskuteras faktiskt i boken), men eftersom en så stor del av boken ägnas åt just problemidentifiering så blir det man tar med sig ifrån boken i princip att företag är dumma. Chefer är dumma. Personalen är dum. Och detta är svårt att ändra. Detta är inte nödvändigtvis det som författarna vill förmedla med boken, men det blir oundvikligen det jag tar med mig efter att ha läst den.

Lär man sig något av att läsa Dumhetsparadoxen? Jovisst gör man det. Om inte annat så hör man åtminstone en massa underhållande exempel på riktigt dumma idéer* som man hoppas man slipper uppleva själv. Det är dessa roliga historier som gör att jag inte har hjärta att ge boken ett lägre betyg än tre av fem. Läs om det låter intressant! Annars, läs inte.

(*Vad sägs till exempel om myndigheten som bestämde sig för att lansera en ny logga, la massor av pengar på att måla på den nya på allt från fordon till kaffemuggar, bara för att sedan totalvända när det visade sig att personalen föredrog den gamla - och fick lägga förmodligen lika mycket pengar på att återställa allt. Helt underbar historia.)

[Bela Pitria Hakim Nugraha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Buku ini bahas sesuatu yang ironically semua orang pernah lihat, tapi jarang ada yang mau ngomong blak-blakan: functional stupidity. Kedengarannya kasar, tapi sebenernya ini istilah akademik buat ngejelasin fenomena di mana orang-orang pintar, berpendidikan, dan “profesional” justru milih berhenti mikir kritis demi bikin sistem tetap jalan.

Alvesson & Spicer kasih contoh yang relatable banget: perusahaan yang penuh jargon, meeting yang isinya muter-muter, keputusan yang absurd tapi semua orang mengangguk. Kenapa? Karena terlalu banyak mikir atau bertanya bisa dianggap mengganggu harmoni, bahkan bikin karier lo mandek. Dengan kata lain: lebih aman jadi bodoh yang fungsional ketimbang pintar yang merepotkan.

Yang gue suka dari buku ini adalah gimana penulisnya nge-balance antara riset akademik sama humor. Jadi bukan cuma teori kosong, tapi juga nyentil realita sehari-hari.

Tapi, buku ini juga ngasih solusi: kebodohan fungsional itu ada gunanya, tapi bahaya kalau kebablasan. Lo harus tahu kapan pura-pura “ikut arus” dan kapan waktunya pake otak kritis. Play the power in good timing, jangan salah sasaran.

Kalau lo kerja di organisasi besar, baca ini bisa bikin lo ngakak, miris, atau ngerasa ketampar. Buat gue pribadi, buku ini reminder bahwa jadi cerdas itu bukan cuma soal punya ide brilian, tapi juga tahu kapan harus “menyimpannya” demi survive.

Highly recommended buat yang pengen ngerti kenapa dunia kerja (dan organisasi pada umumnya) sering kelihatan konyol tapi tetep bisa berjalan.

[Mikael · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of those books you wished you read when you left university but didn't. You then realize that you probably wouldn't have got the message anyway and made all those mistakes that formed you as a manager, leader and human. Now when reading it is painful to watch all that stupidity in retrospective.

I'm grateful for all my experience in all my areas of expertise but I'm also sad that we have created a society that is so stupid that we hinder our internal drive for excellence due to our instinct to not let anyone lead too far ahead in our groups. This is what makes us stupid and lazy!

I would say this is a book for every part of society but most for the people that lead and foster the next generation of thinkers, movers and shakers. The stupidity that makes us weaker and more prone to group thinking needs to be restrained and instead let us be those free spirits that actually looks at the stars and set bold goals, for ourselves and for us all as a species.

This is a painful reading experience, not because of the authors, who are excellent and well versed in this field, but the subject is so excruciatingly painful. I have seen every single one of the examples in the book up front and never done anything to fight them.

I urge you to read this book and see to that you don't make the same mistakes that I have, but make new bold ones instead! Change the world!

[Javier HG · Rating 1 out of 5]

Este libro ha sido una decepción, sobre todo porque empieza muy bien. Su temática es preguntarse ¿por qué hay empresas que contratan gente inteligente y la ponen a hacer cosas estúpidas? Los autores diseccionan las diferentes razones por las que, en lugar de "smart jobs" acabamos teniendo "bullshit jobs", trabajos estúpidos y que no suponen ningún tipo de reto intelectual.

Pero el problema es que llega un punto en el que el libro cansa. Vale, ya me has puesto innumerables ejemplos de comportamientos estúpidos y poco productivos, pero no acabas de darme alternativas. Ejemplo del problema: el libro describe compañías con una alta cohesión cultural o un liderazgo fuerte, pero que eso puede llevar a no aceptar ideas de fuera o seguir al líder de manera ciega. Bueno, tampoco es eso tan malo. Peor son las compañías sin una cultura cohesionada ni un liderazgo claro.

No se trata de criticarlo todo, si no también de proponer alternativas viables. No se puede estar cuestionando todo en un entorno laboral, al final del día we have to get the job done.

[Malin]

I Dumhetsparadoxen beskriver Mats Alvesson och André Spicer hur företag och ledare ofta fastnar i ineffektiva och dumma beteenden trots att de består av intelligenta och kompetenta individer. Boken går igenom en mängd exempel på organisatorisk dumhet, som överdriven formalitet, onödig komplexitet och en kultur där ingen vågar ifrågasätta beslut. Kapitlet om åtgärder för att motverka dessa mönster är tyvärr mycket kort och lämnar läsaren utan konkreta strategier för att bryta dumhetens cykel.

Min åsikt: Jag blev nästan provocerad av bokens detaljrika och upprepande exempel på hur företag och ledare agerar dumt. Även om många av exemplen är träffande, kändes det ibland överväldigande och repetitivt. Däremot var det korta kapitlet om lösningar det mest intressanta – men också frustrerande, eftersom det inte gav tillräckligt med praktiska verktyg. Jag hade gärna sett en mer balanserad struktur med större fokus på konkreta åtgärder.

[Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

The authors make many excellent points about how rules and routines, following the lead of other companies, adopting programs without considering fit or customization, branding where nuances just aren’t—and more—lead to individual and organizational stupidity. There are advantages—fast decisions, uniform cultures, and so on. But without critical thinking, problems will arise...

But the authors also frequently write in terms of either/or rather than both/and when discussing certain issues. I may be a bit sensitive as I deliver what I think are well—facilitated and helpful workshops on communication, collaboration, coaching, conflict resolution...and I’ve certainly seen the kinds of damaging initiatives they were talking about, but the authors showed a few biases as well...all in all though, a worthwhile read.

[Henrik Warne · Rating 4 out of 5]

A sceptical look at how modern organizations work. Some of the points I liked the most:

- a lot of what is called knowledge work isn't in fact very complicated or knowledge-intensive
- fancy titles can make boring jobs bearable
- documenting what you do has become more important than the actual doing and the results
- having a "positive mindset" can mean that problems are ignored
- not questioning what you do, or why, at work can make you feel good about work, and make things run more smoothly (even if what you do is stupid).

Although a bit repetitive, I liked how the others question a lot of established practices in organizations. There are also 285 references to studies illustrating their points.

[Roger Magnusson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Detta var Storytel Brief, en sammanfattad version.

Han talar om 5 organisatoriska kulturer, 4 chefsstrategier som, trots att vi lever i en kultur som på ytan värderar kunskapsarbete, skapar arbetare som inte har möjlighet att använda hjärnan i sitt arbete. Att det tvärtom ofta är en VINNANDE strategi att vara en själlös drönare, att arbetare blir belönade för att tänka och göra som de blir tillsagda snarare än vad som är praktiskt, prisvärt och effektivt.

Hög igenkänningsfaktor. Också bra konversationsstartare. Och dessa konverstaioner har defenitivt fått mig att tänka i banor av vad jag kan göra för att förbättra min egen upplevelse.

Den japanska filosofin Ikigai tänkte jag utforska mer.

[Dustin Dye · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alvesson and Spicer do an amazing job expounding on all the ways stupidity is enabled and flourishes in the working world. They articulate well why stupid people get ahead, and critical thinkers are frustrated. A smart person might read this and do well to learn to pick their battles and go with the flow to avoid shooting themselves in the foot career-wise, while stupid people--let's face it, those mostly in middle and upper-management--should learn to allow thoughtful people to express their impressions (and give them promotions!) to avoid the inevitable crash that comes once the correction for stupidity has been delayed too long.

[Parvu Andreea · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book about paradoxes in organisations. Well documented, great examples from companies but also excellent references to various domains. It changed my perspective on how things happen inside organisations and not always taking “everything” for granted. Question, interpret, reflect and only after start solving the situations. Apparently smart people’s tendency is to jump to conclusions too fast. More than this being used with how things are done, you might just go with the flow, which on the short term makes you achieving your tasks and objectives but on the long run, it might have some negative impact. I recommend it if you want to go out of your comfort zone.

[Chuming Ye · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book started off boring and repetitive because the author emphasized on the same points over an over again. However, as I progressed along the pages, the author starts to share fresh perspectives. This book is overall an interesting read. The author challenges the norm and argued his points on why leadership, corporate culture etc is harmful to individuals as well as the organisation as a whole.

[Petter Wolff · Rating 4 out of 5]

While quite rant-y, this book still provides a good guide on how to "learn to see" functional stupidity, and thereby becoming able to decide on to which degree it's actually functional or not. And, I agree with the authors, it is way more prevalent in today's organizations than it should be (the degree to which people report themselves 'actively disconnected' from their work is a solid indicator).
So, I'm going to keep fighting against it, and this book will be part of my field guide library.