There is no certainty, no reliability, no unambiguity, and there is no such thing as the “one single truth,” although we all long for it.
I have already talked about this tonality in many of my previously published articles:
- In the context of the pandemic, for example, I observed that we would have liked to have certainty about what would happen next and when the pandemic would finally be over;
- In my newsletter on ‘Decision-making in a complex world’, I gave an outline of how business leaders want to eliminate all risks and uncertainties by preparing decisions to the largest possible extent in advance, thereby striving to control future development;
- In my seminar ‘The flow of change – mastering change’ in April this year, my participants and I came to the conclusion that only few of us welcome change as an integral part of our lives.
Although deep down we suspect or even know that certainty and continuity do not exist, we do long for them. I am wondering why is that the way it is?
I believe I have found the answer to this question: our vision and our unrealistic expectations of life go back to Aristotle, the philosopher. In his attempts to explain the interdependencies existing in our world, he relied on a two-valued logic: true versus false, good versus evil, one and the other, and so on. Although many philosophers and scientists later expressed their doubts as to his teachings, or even refuted them, Aristotelian logic still makes itself felt – at least in our subconsciousness.
Let's start with the truth: we would only have to look at the current situation in society and we see that people establish their own reality or truth. It depends on where I direct my attention, what I want to see, what perspective I want to take, because this is where my own personal truth comes from. Do I also see what is working, what is going well or has already been changed for the better, or do I mainly see what is in disorder, and what is not working? This perspective may be the deciding factor whether we hold on to our democratic system and the rule of law, or whether we turn away from it.
In the case of conflicts and disputes, there is rarely just one single truth. Each party to a conflict has its very own perspective. Conflicts can be resolved to the extent to which the conflicting parties are able to see the truths (i.e. perspectives) of the other party.
Neuroscientists have now shown that our thoughts, feelings and our perception cannot be separated from one another. This shows that our individual truths are not derived solely from numbers, data and facts – well from logical thinking – but also contain some elements of feelings and perceptions.
This in turn clearly shows that at best there are individual truths, but certainly there is no truth that applies universally. If we were to develop this thought further, then we would have to recognize that conflicts are the normal state of affairs in both our private lives and in day-to-day business, and nothing extraordinary.
If there is no one universal truth, then there is also no correct all-encompassing knowledge for certain roles and functions, and therefore neither for the function of a manager. In other words, there is no one right leadership style or one right decision in a particular situation. If we accepted this idea, it would be possible to ease the burden of managers and company leaders to a significant extent.
Unfortunately, our subconscious Aristotelian thinking is very strongly anchored at this point and, despite knowing better, we expect omniscience and the ability to make good and correct decisions from people in higher positions such as managers, parents, teachers, politicians, association boards, etc.
It is human nature to reduce complexity by focusing on certain aspects and by leaving out others. In my view, this approach is legitimate, even necessary, as otherwise we would not be able to act in complex situations. We all act like this – several times a day – and we are not aware of that most of the times. However, it is important to know or recognize that we have already made decisions in this way and that there was not just one possible choice. If we had focused on other things, other possibilities and truths would have become visible. We are therefore surrounded by ambiguities and inconsistencies. Most of the time, we are simply not aware of them.
In a nutshell: In my view, we would benefit greatly from recognizing ambiguity and contradictions as part of our lives. This would increase our chances to
- identify reasons for conflicts,
- resolve conflicts,
- tolerate wrong decisions (also those made by managers),
- allow dissent,
- remain able to act,
- see new possibilities, and
- forgive.
This text first appeared in my newsletter "It's innovation Wednesday". It is published once a month. For subscription click here