adaptive decision making

Let’s pick up from where we left on in Part 1 of this series of articles on adaptive decision making, change, and leadership. Be sure to start by reading Part 1 if you haven’t yet done so.

Over the last century, here’s the reason most churches and organizations have been able to scale and support the growth that they’ve experienced.

It’s because of the modern day “scientific management model,” which rests primarily upon two elements:

“Absolutely rigid and inflexible standards throughout your establishment.”
“That each employee of your establishment should receive every day clear-cut, definite instructions as to just what he is to do and how he is to do it, and these instructions should be exactly carried out, whether they are right or wrong.”[1]

I’m not saying that these two elements run the shop in every church and organization today. I’m just saying that they are the foundation that modern day management theory—both inside and outside the church—has been built upon, and it doesn’t work anymore because…

You can’t just set it and forget it
You can’t just keep your head down, do your work, and expect to succeed and hit your goals
Your success isn’t wholly dependent on you
If the only time you talk about development is the annual performance review, you won’t grow
If the only time you connect with your volunteers and leaders are on Sunday or in formal training environments, they won’t feel connected
If the only things you do are the things on your job description, your team won’t win
In fact, if you’re not revisiting your job description multiple times a year, it will become outdated quick
And if the only time you talk with your team members is during official team meetings, your team will move too slow
And if you’re not changing your website every 2-3 years, watch out…irrelevancy is just around the corner

You can’t just set it and forget it anymore.

Click To Tweet

Watch this clip of a traffic intersection.

As you were watching it, what did you think was going to happen?

When I first saw this clip, it reminded me of the T-bone accident I was in as a child. I don’t really remember much around the way it happened, or what I was doing when it happened, but as a child, I flew right into the windshield of our car.

It happened when we were on our way home from the airport after picking up my mom. She had just returned after visiting family in Korea. Someone ran a stop sign and boom. Just like that, my hopes of ever becoming a doctor or rocket scientist flew right out the window…or should I stay straight into the window?

Alright, so back to the traffic intersection.

This is a video from a computer simulation that the Autonomous Intersection Management project at the University of Texas at Austin was conducting. When Peter Stone, the professor heading up this project, discovered that “25 percent of accidents and 33 percent of the thirty-three thousand auto deaths each year in America occur at intersections, and 95 percent are attributable to ‘human error,’” he and his team wanted to do something about it.

But how is this chaos better? Doesn’t this seem like a T-Bone accident just waiting to happen, rather than a way to prevent it from happening?

The interesting thing about this simulation is that every car you see here is being driven autonomously. In other words, they’re all self-driving cars.

This being the case, you can actually plot the trajectories of each car long before they arrive at the intersection, which means there’s no need for the typical breaking, stopping, and accelerating that normally characterizes four way intersections. This also means that you can get rid of traffic lights and stop signs, since every self-driving car would be communicating, sensing, and noticing the other.

To self-driving cars full of sensors and cameras, this simulation makes complete sense. To us, it doesn’t—it seems like utter chaos.

And here’s the reason.