In case you don't know, ignorance is the new knowledge
It is not often that reading the Harvard Business Review makes you feel better about yourself. But in the November issue there is an article that makes me sense my time has come at last.
Ignorance, it tells us, is the new knowledge. This is exciting news for people like me, who despite a lot of formal education and two decades' work experience, still know nothing at all. The scale of my ignorance was rammed down my throat a couple of weeks ago at a starry media quiz night when I was unable to answer a single question, save supplying the botanical name for a potato.
Now my self-hatred can stop. According to the HBR, ignorance is a precious resource that organisations should cherish. For the past 10 years companies have worshipped at the temple of knowledge: they have told us we are all "knowledge workers" and have devised knowledge management programmes run by chief knowledge officers. They should all be fired and replaced with chief ignorance officers.
The brain behind this theory is David Gray, director of Boston Consulting Group's Strategy Gallery. I can now come right out and admit I have never heard of his outfit. Saatchi Gallery, yes. Strategy Gallery, no.
Why Mr Gray is such a fan of ignorance is that he thinks knowledge encourages everyone to think in well worn ways. Ignorance allows us to be creative and to question things. His argument goes like this. Knowledge is everywhere; ignorance is a scarce resource. It is a one-shot thing: once ignorance has been displaced with knowledge it is hard to get it back.
As I said, ignorance is something I know a lot about, enough to confirm that it is something Mr Gray knows nothing about at all. Ignorance is not a scarce resource. It is as plentiful as air - it is in my own head, on the street, on the TV, at home, in the office. Neither is it precious. It is stupid. It is not a one-shot thing - ignorance gets displaced by knowledge and then comes back effortlessly. I find I learn something and then forget it again. The waters of ignorance close over only too quickly.
The author is aware that ignorance has some unfortunate connotations. So he has discovered the word "nescience" (never heard of that, either), which means the same but is without the negative brand values. He then provides a four-step guide to managing nescience. The principles are: Deferment, Prematurity, Irrelevance and Waste. I'll keep you in ignorance on exactly how these work. It would be better for you not to know.
If Mr Gray is anywhere near right in his general theory, it is very, very bad news for his employer, Boston Consulting Group, and all management consultants. The only excuse for employing consultants is that they have seen it all before and may know something about best practice. In this new ignorance-is-bliss world there is no place for consultants at all.
Hiding under all the nonsense about nescience is one - fairly obvious - truth. Managers should not get so hung up on knowledge that they think they know everything. They should recognise that the past may not be a guide to the future.
But this should come as no surprise - surely anyone with any knowledge knows all this already.
Mr Gray may be right that ignorance at work should be rehabilitated, but for quite different reasons. The problem with ignorance is how paranoid we all feel about letting ours show. We strive to look knowledgeable and are terrified that the scale of our ignorance will one day be found out and massive humiliation will follow. This fear is worse than the ignorance itself and leads to some pretty sick behaviour.
Instead of admitting when we do not know something, we bluff and bluster. Think of all those meetings you have sat through, in which everyone was interested only in demonstrating how much they knew. I remember going to grand boardroom lunches with colleagues at the FT when a chief executive of a large company would be invited. Instead of trying to get our guest to talk, my colleagues and I would show off to each other and to our editor by trying to ask the most arcane questions. The result was that no one ended up finding out anything.
By contrast, an admission of ignorance is almost always disarming. It is easier to bring this off if you are young, bright and dashing. I once went to a training day for financial journalists held at the Bank of England. We sat through several hours of detail on the ins and outs of banking supervision (not a word of which I remember, by the way). At the end of the session one of the journalists put up his hand and asked in a loud voice: "What is a bond?" He went on to be very successful. I admired him for ever.
The problem arises if you are neither intelligent, knowledgeable nor young and if, for example, you are president of the US. Then ignorance can be a problem. When George W. Bush says "increasingly our imports are from abroad" he looks an idiot. But for him to admit his ignorance, and ask what imports are, would not do either.
In the end the HBR article does impart some knowledge. It tells us where we have got to in the cycle of management thought. What happens is that the pendulum hovers over glaringly obvious fads for a bit (knowledge is good) and, when everyone is tired of banality, it swings to the opposite extreme. I have more evidence that this is what is happening now. In the same post as the HBR came Strategy and Business, the rival heavy mag from Booz Allen Hamilton. Its cover story: What Sartre Can Teach Business Strategists.
You may not be surprised to know I am fairly ignorant about Sartre. But in my ignorance I can confidently tell you that Sartre can't teach business strategists anything at all. 就怕你不知道，无知是种新知识
通过阅读《哈佛商业评论》而产生良好的自我感觉，这一情形并不常见。但是读了《哈佛商业评论》今年第十一期上的一篇文章，我突然有这样的感觉了。
这篇文章说，无知是一种新的知识。对像我这样的人而言，这自然是大好消息。在下受过不少正式教育，还有二十年工作经验，但对很多事情仍然一无所知。就在几个星期前，我还咽下过无知的苦果。那天晚上我去参加某媒体举办的抢答竞赛，现场群星荟萃，我居然一个问题也没有答上来，像土豆的学名这种问题更是不消说了。
现在好了，我不用自怨自艾了。照《哈佛商业评论》的说法，无知是一种宝贵资源，企业应该对此珍惜。过去十年间，企业总是在知识的庙宇里顶礼膜拜：企业告诉我们,咱们都是"知识工人"；企业的那些首席知识官设计着各种各样的知识管理项目。现在就该把这些首席知识官全炒了，换上首席无知官。
想出无知论的人是大卫o格雷（David Gray）。此君是波士顿咨询集团战略工作室的主任。我现在能大言不惭地站出来，说自己从来没有听说过他高就的地方。你要说盛世广告公司（Saatchi）工作室我是知道的。战略工作室？对不起，没听说过。
格雷先生为什么成了无知迷？其原因是他觉得知识让人的思维墨守成规。无知让我们能够创新，能够对现状提出质疑。他的论点是：知识无所不在，无知却是稀缺资源。无知就如开弓之箭，一去不复返：一旦无知被知识所取代，那么就很难回到无知的初始状态了。
我刚才说过，无知这东西我是很熟悉的，敢肯定的是，连格雷先生也不知道我对无知有多熟悉。无知不是什么稀缺资源。无知多得就像空气，我的大脑里、大街上、电视上、家里、办公室里，可不都是有无知吗？无知也不是什么宝贝。无知就是愚蠢。无知也不是什么一朝失去，万载不复的东西。无知被知识所取代，然后很快地，我们又进入新的无知，丝毫不费吹灰之力。我学点东西，总是很快又忘掉。无知的潮水涨得很快。
文章的作者也知道"无知"这个词语所含的贬义，所以他造了个新词，叫"新态"（nescience,这也是我闻所未闻的），其意思和"无知"一样，但是没有负载它的贬义特征。他还提出了一个管理"新态"的四步法。其中的主要原则是：迁延（Deferment）、早熟（Prematurity）、无关（Irrelevance）和浪费（Waste）。至于这些原则具体怎么个用法，我还得让你"无知"下去。你不知道更好。
格雷先生的总体理论哪怕有一丝一毫的道理，对他的雇主波士顿咨询集团以及管理咨询业内的所有人士都不是什么好消息。聘请这班咨询顾问的唯一原因就是指望他们见识广博，熟悉典范做法。在"无知者无忧"的世界，这些顾问们是没有什么容身之地的。
但是关于所谓"新态"的所有废话的背后，倒也藏着个相当明显的实话。经理人不要固执地认为自己什么都知道。他们应该认识到，过去的经验不足以指示未来的工作。
但这算不上什么新鲜说法，稍有知识的人对此都应了然于胸。
格雷先生说，工作中需要给无知重新定位，这结论或许正确，但真正的原因却与他所想的完全不同。无知有个大问题，那就是我们看到别人显摆的时候，自己心里就闹得慌。我们总是装出知识渊博的样子，非常担心我们的无知有朝一日大白于天下，为我们带来奇耻大辱。这种恐惧比无知本身还要可怕，而且它会引发一些相当恶心的行为。
我们总不愿意承认我们的无知，而是能吹则吹，能唬则唬。大家不妨回想自己参加过的会议吧，与会的人哪个不想显示自己的知识？我记得我和《金融时报》的同事们参加过一次盛大的会议午宴，午宴还邀请了一家大公司的首席执行官。我和我的同事没有想着怎么让客人发言，而是争着提出稀奇古怪的问题，一来是彼此买弄，二来也是在编辑大人面前卖乖。结果，大家谁也没有了解到什么情况。
相反，承认无知反而能让对方放弃警惕。如果你年轻、聪明、活跃，摆出无知姿态就更容易了。我曾经参加过在英格兰银行（Bank of England）举办的一次金融记者培训。这次培训长达好几个小时，听足了关于银行监管的细枝末节（顺便说一句，我现在一个字也记不得了）。培训结束的时候，一位记者举起手大声问："什么是债券？"此人以后的事业非常成功。我对他一直很佩服。
如果你既不聪明，又不渊博，也不年轻，那可就不妙了，要是你同时还是美国总统，那情况就更糟了。这些情况下，无知会成为问题。乔治oWo布什说，"我们的进口产品越来越多地来自国外，"说这话时他显得很白痴。但是要他承认无知，并询问进口到底是什么，也无济于事。
那篇《哈佛商业评论》文章的结尾却传播了一点知识。它让我们看到，在管理思潮的周期中，我们已经到了什么位置。钟摆总是在显而易见的思潮（知识至上）上停一会儿，等这些思潮被人用滥了，让人厌烦了，钟摆就会摆到另外一个极端。我觉得当下的情形就是这么一回事，我甚至有更进一步的证据来说明这一点。这期《哈佛商业评论》发行时，与之齐名的博思管理咨询公司(Booz Allen Hamilton)期刊《战略和商业》本月的封面文章为：商业战略家可以从萨特那里学到什么？
说起来你可能会吃惊，我对萨特相当无知。但是无知归无知，我仍旧可以信心十足地告诉你，商业战略家从萨特那里什么也学不到。
文字
