a response on details

a reader's reminder

I received a response from one of our loyal readers this afternoon that is worth considering as we enter the year. He was reacting to yesterday’s column on ‘grandiose versus daily’:

“I believe a submarine is the second most complex machine ever created by man topped only by a space shuttle. 

Operating a submarine safely and effectively requires thousands of details done right each day. Success can be achieved but is not guaranteed if each detail is done correctly. Failure is possible and frequently occurs when just one detail goes wrong. 

I always lived as and believed in - 
The devil is in the details. Find the devil. Kill the devil.”

I too believe details are paramount so my next question is why do we spend so much time lauding the innovators who often belittle repeated details? If I had a penny for every time I have heard someone complain about details by promoting only innovation, I would be able to help a bit with the national debt.

Americans love people who break things. One of former president Trump’s greatest attractions for supporters is his determination to avoid details, much less master them. (He is far from unique in that so this is not an attack on him). We can each likely call to mind an innovator, most often leaving others to carry out the minute steps required to generate the promised outcomes regardless of the topic. There is nothing inherently wrong with that approach, except when no steps ensured the follow on steps which invariably make the innovation come to life. That requirement alone can be a killer of many great ideas.

I once worked under a dean renowned for promoting innovative ideas. I soon learned ‘he doesn’t do details’. It wasn’t the easiest deanship I ever witnessed, either, because administration is rarely sweeping policy proclamation while it most definitely is lots of minutiae in personnel decisions, it is tedious discussion of meeting assessment criteria, and it is listening to people who want to be heard rather than an job filled with sweeping academic determinations to change course.

Of course there are times when fresh, vibrant new ideas are necessary but those are repackaging current habits. There is nothing wrong with that but I am not convinced that is really innovation.

If one doesn’t do ‘due diligence’ in many areas of life, one risks failures. I suppose the real applicability surrounds the reader’s statement above “a submarine is the second most complex machine ever created by man” because not everything is a submarine. Most things aren’t that complex, as the author stipulates, but they also may allow more flexibility on adhering to all the details. The challenge becomes knowing when missing or misunderstanding details crosses a critical threshold. Since some positions affect life or death, many people default to taking the most stringent cautions possible in delving into details.

The U.S. military is renowned for ‘worst case thinking’ as to protect the personnel while achieving the mission or guarding against surprise and deceptive, for example. Government bureaucracy reflects the need to be less risk tolerant than private industry because its role is assuring it meets lowest common denominator rather than reaching a tiny number of people or programs. Similarly, no bank teller can be lax about reconciling her books following each day of work anymore than a physician doing cataract surgery.

Innovation and details interact but one simply is impossible to ignore in too many cases. Frustration with details bedevils many people yet ignoring the implications is impossible and downright dangerous in many instances.

But we as humans like change, novelty, and the apparently unexplored so we desire innovation in principle. Is there a danger that our brief attention selectively ignores the reasons for details and the pedantic requirements that bore so many?

How do you view the balance between the two ideas? When we are presented with innovation, why do we so often ignore the requirements to achieve or even to vet it? Do we confuse innovation with mere change? I am genuinely curious about your reactions as sometimes it appears innovators merely need announce their brash ideas without revealing the time and effort it requires to achieve them. We do often prove uninterested in sustaining details in so many ways.

Finally, the concept of innovation is so central to our twenty-first century world yet our reactions don’t always embrace the suggested changes—because the devil is indeed in the details.

Thank you for reading this as we need innovation but it can’t merely be pixie dust. I genuinely welcome you chiming in withreactions, rebuttals, and further discussions.

It was a layered look as the dawn broke this morning in Eastport. Later the sunshine was blinding and beautiful.

I suspect the entire year will have many layers as well.

Be well and be safe. FIN