Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Moody's - Climate Risk Insurers series
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • March 2017
03

The Stupidity Paradox: The Power and Pitfalls of Functional Stupidity at Work (Book review)

Open-access content Friday 3rd March 2017 — updated 5.50pm, Wednesday 29th April 2020

Anna Lynskey on the pros and cons of functional stupidity

2

Actuaries are generally imagined to be clever, yet I doubt there are any amongst us who have not done something stupid at work. Sending a confidential email to the wrong person; pouring coffee over your keyboard; forgetting to drag your Excel formulae all the way to the bottom of the table and so on. In their new book, however, Mats Alvesson and Andre Spicer suggest that stupidity at work is more than just an occasional aberration.

The Stupidity Paradox describes how the most educated workers are often guilty of a kind of "functional stupidity," defined as "an inability or unwillingness to use reflective/cognitive capacities in the workplace" or "thinking inside the box". Alvesson and Spicer argue that the ways in which businesses typically tackle this - leadership development programmes, cultural change initiatives and the like - are in fact just new ways of encouraging people not to think. So companies that pride themselves on intelligent management may be at the greatest risk of behaving stupidly.

The authors are both professors at Cass Business School and specialists in organisational behaviour. The genesis of this book was a conversation in which they compared instances of stupidity they had seen in many supposedly "knowledge-intensive" organisations such as banks, consultancies and universities. Much of the book is devoted to categorising and describing this behaviour.

One potentially controversial example is what the authors call "leadership-induced stupidity." They say they have observed a "quasi-religious belief in leadership" in many organisations, with bright employees avoiding independent thought in favour of blindly following authority. They are suspicious of the leadership coaching industry, which they describe as a "crew of self-styled experts [who] bombard confused, desperate and bored middle managers with… recipes for success." In support of this they quote a 2014 study by McKinsey that finds no correlation between business success and money spent on leadership development training. 

The book continues to mix anecdote, opinion and research, exploring other types of unthinking management behaviour applicable across industries. Examples include over-reliance on processes and procedures - "structure-induced stupidity" - or an insistence on shared beliefs in the face of evidence - "culture-induced stupidity". Attempts to encourage new ways of thinking, argue the authors, rarely lead to actual change: they just allow managers to feel as though they are doing something by commissioning expensive consultancy reports. 

The main focus is on general management concerns, but the introduction considers functional stupidity in analytical work. 

The writers describe how, in the years leading up to the 2008 market crash, banks hired increasing numbers of brilliant maths and science graduates to develop models that could guide trading and investment decisions. At first this strategy yielded exceptional returns. However, as confidence in the models grew - catastrophe: "the connection between the quants' clean abstract models and the messy realities of markets began to fray." The authors quote as an example of the failure to allow for tranches of sub-prime debt when risk-assessing mortgage-backed securities. 

Insufficient critical reflection meant that clever models built by clever people led to "stupid" and dangerous decisions. The Stupidity Paradox is written for a general audience, so if your work involves modelling you may find the treatment of financial engineering simplistic. Nonetheless, it shines a light on the important question of how to use models intelligently, a problem that actuaries have for some time been seeking to tackle.

In the final chapter of the book, Alvesson and Spicer offer some solutions to the problems they have observed. Firstly, they sensibly acknowledge that there can be benefits to "functional stupidity," noting that when people choose group-think over individual reflection they feel a sense of shared culture and direction which facilitates decision-making. In contrast, an environment with unlimited open discussion, challenge and criticism runs the risk of creating "conflicts and disorder". The writers therefore suggest that companies introduce space for critical reflection and challenge in a structured way. One proposal is the introduction of a "devil's advocate" to challenge and to question, a role which could be rotated amongst team members. Another proposal is "pre-mortems": dedicated sessions at the start of a project where the team identifies likely opportunities for stupidity based on previous experience.

Overall, I enjoyed The Stupidity Paradox. An element of this was undoubtedly schadenfreude - a certain guilty pleasure in reading about mistakes made by clever people. More importantly, the book encouraged me to think about what it means to be intelligent at work.

This article appeared in our March 2017 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in
03

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Risk Actuary - General Insurance

London (Greater)
£60,000 - £85,000
Reference
145934

Project Actuary - Life Insurance

Midlands
£60,000 - £110,000
Reference
145933

Model Validation Actuary

London (Greater)
£60k - £80k
Reference
145932
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2023 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ