Confluence Use Case: The Thought Partner
Using a large language model as a colleague in back-and-forth exchange is an excellent use case for the technology.
We are always on the hunt for distinctive and valuable use cases for generative AI within corporate communication. When we find one worth sharing, we will do so via a “Use Case” issue like this one, so please consider this the first in an occasional series.
We often discover valuable use cases through trial and error or examples, rather than deliberately designing them. In this case, the example comes from a client. We’re calling it “The Thought Partner,” and you can review the full body of the example below (which we are using with permission, and which has been edited to protect confidentiality). User prompts are in bold, GPT-4 responses are in italics.
The idea is to treat the generative AI as a colleague in thinking through a problem and designing a solution. Instead of merely assigning a task to the AI, the approach involves a back-and-forth exchange and iterative process. To take advantage of this use case yourself, treat the AI as a credible expert and engage in a conversation with them, asking them for additional detail, context, and embellishment as you go … treating them as a thought partner in the process.
Also note how our client asks the AI to critique some of its own output, which is an interesting way of ensuring one gets an alternative perspective from the one it has offered. (Also note that this whole exchange seems like a good example of the “Cyborg” use of generative AI that Ethan Mollick describes here, and which seems an effective approach to getting value from the technology.) The only thing we would add beyond the example itself is that it can be helpful to be specific about the role you and the AI will play in an exchange like this, as context and constraints tend to help generative AI generate better outcomes. For example, “In this chat you are an expert in X, and I am Y solving for Z …”, and you can see our client do some of this in their first prompt.
Finally, thanks to the client who allowed us to share this example. Here it is in full.
I am reading Norman Dixon's book called "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence." I am looking for themes that I can apply into my work setting - an investment firm that works in complicated, unpredictable markets, with a strong organizational structure. My corporate environment is obviously not as existential as military war zones. But I was told that this book contains some wisdom on rigidity vs adaptability. Can you please summarize the main takeaways of the book? Describe some themes and examples that I could cite in attempting to apply its lessons to my work.
ChatGPT:
Certainly! "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" by Norman Dixon is a deep dive into the psychological roots of military failures. While the context is military, many of its lessons can be applied to other organizations, including those in the financial sector.
Main Takeaways and Themes:
Authoritarianism: One of the core ideas of Dixon's work is the role of authoritarian personalities in leading to incompetence. Such personalities value hierarchy and obedience over innovation and flexibility. They're likely to suppress dissenting views or novel strategies.
Application: In a financial firm, an overly authoritarian manager may stifle innovative strategies or ignore market indicators that don't align with their preconceived notions.
Rigidity vs. Adaptability: Military failures often occur when leaders are unable to adapt to changing circumstances, sticking to a predetermined plan even when it's clear that it isn't working.
Application: Financial markets are dynamic and unpredictable. Rigid adherence to a particular investment strategy, without adjusting to market realities, can lead to substantial losses.
Poor Communication: Many military blunders happened because of communication breakdowns – either the failure to pass along crucial information or the distortion of the message.
Application: Effective communication is key in a financial firm. Misunderstandings or misinterpretations can lead to bad investment decisions.
Denial of Reality: There are instances in military history where leaders have ignored blatant facts in favor of more comforting, but inaccurate, narratives.
Application: It's vital for financial professionals to objectively evaluate market conditions and the performance of their investments. Ignoring negative indicators or rationalizing poor decisions can exacerbate financial losses.
Training and Experience: Military incompetence often stems from leaders who are either inadequately trained or whose experience doesn't match the challenges they face.
Application: In the financial world, it's crucial to have well-trained personnel who understand the complexities of the markets they're operating in. Continuous learning and adaptation to new market realities are essential.
Groupthink: This occurs when a group's desire for harmony and conformity results in an irrational decision-making outcome. Groupthink discourages creativity and individual responsibility.
Application: In an investment setting, it's essential to encourage diverse opinions and healthy debate. Homogeneous thinking can lead to missed opportunities or collective blind spots.
Examples:
The Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War is an example of both poor communication and rigid obedience to orders, leading to a disastrous cavalry charge.
The British command's reluctance to adapt to the realities of trench warfare during World War I led to the slaughter at the Battle of the Somme.
The decision of military leaders to underestimate the strength and tactics of the Zulu at the Battle of Isandlwana resulted from overconfidence and a denial of reality.
Applying to Work:
Encourage a culture of open communication where team members feel comfortable sharing diverse views.
Promote continuous learning and ensure that employees are trained to handle the complexities of the financial markets.
Regularly reevaluate strategies and adapt to changing market conditions.
Avoid the pitfalls of groupthink by fostering a diverse team and encouraging individual responsibility and critical thinking.
Cultivate leaders who value adaptability over rigid hierarchy and who can respond flexibly to challenges.
The book serves as a reminder that no matter how sophisticated an organization, human factors like psychology, communication, and leadership play a pivotal role in determining success or failure.
Who was Norman Dixon? What else can you tell me about this book? The context for its writing and release, its reception, its impact? I am interviewing a colleague for an internal interview for the rest of my firm. A program where we attempt to draw insights from colleagues for us all to improve our work. Can you please suggest a few questions, drawing upon this book, that I could ask in this session that might generate interesting responses?
ChatGPT:
Norman Dixon: Norman Dixon was a British psychologist who specialized in the study of human factors and ergonomics. He spent many years in the British Army and, after leaving, he pursued an academic career, eventually becoming a professor at University College London. His military experience combined with his academic expertise positioned him uniquely to analyze the psychological roots of military failures, leading to his writing of "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence."
Context for Its Writing and Release: The book was released in 1976, a time when the memories of the World Wars, Vietnam War, and other conflicts were still fresh in the public's mind. Dixon's analysis of these and earlier military debacles sought to go beyond the standard historical or strategic reasons for failure, diving instead into the deeper psychological factors that contributed.
Reception and Impact: "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" received widespread acclaim for its deep and thorough analysis. The book wasn’t just a critique of military leadership but also served as an exploration of organizational failure in broader contexts. While it was not without its critics, many felt that Dixon's blend of historical analysis with psychological insight provided a fresh perspective on well-known military disasters. Over the years, its lessons have been applied not just to military organizations but also to other fields, including business and finance.
Questions for Your Interview Drawing from the Book:
On Adaptability: "In Dixon's study of military failures, a recurring theme is the inability of leaders to adapt to changing circumstances. Can you recall a situation in our firm where adaptability (or the lack of it) made a significant difference in the outcome of a project or investment?"
On Communication: "Poor communication is often cited as a root cause of many military blunders. How do you view the role of communication within our teams? Are there areas where you think we could improve?"
On Groupthink: "One of the pitfalls Dixon highlights is 'groupthink,' where teams value conformity over critical thinking. Have you ever felt this dynamic at play in our meetings or strategy sessions? How can we counteract it?"
On Training: "Dixon points out that inappropriate training or a mismatch between a leader's experience and the challenges they face can lead to failure. How do you think our current training and development programs align with the challenges of our industry?"
On Authoritarianism: "Authoritarian personalities, according to Dixon, can stifle innovation and flexibility. Do you feel our corporate culture leans towards encouraging innovative thinking, or do we sometimes fall into the trap of rigid hierarchies? How can we strike a balance?"
On Reality Denial: "One of the insights from the book is how leaders sometimes deny the reality in favor of a more comforting narrative. Have we ever faced situations where we might have been blind to market realities? How can we ensure we remain objective?"
These questions are designed to spark introspective and constructive discussions about the organizational culture, communication dynamics, and decision-making processes at your firm.
What were some of the biggest critiques to Dixon's book? What sort of controversies did it set off? Who were its main antagonists? What are the strongest arguments against Dixon's main ideas?
ChatGPT:
Norman Dixon's "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" was groundbreaking in its approach, and while it garnered much acclaim, it was also met with criticism and controversy. Here are some critiques and reactions to the book:
Overemphasis on Psychological Factors: Some critics felt that Dixon put too much emphasis on psychological explanations at the expense of other factors. Military failures can result from a myriad of reasons – geopolitical constraints, logistics, technology, and more. By focusing primarily on psychological factors, some believed Dixon oversimplified complex events.
Generalizations and Selection Bias: Critics pointed out that Dixon chose specific instances of military incompetence to support his arguments, potentially ignoring cases that did not fit his narrative. This could lead to overgeneralization based on selected examples.
Authoritarian Personality Theory: Dixon's reliance on the authoritarian personality as a central theme in explaining military incompetence was contentious. The concept itself, developed by Theodor Adorno and colleagues in the mid-20th century, has been debated among psychologists. Some believe that Dixon's use of it might have been overly deterministic, suggesting that certain personality types are doomed to fail in military leadership roles.
Potential Misinterpretation of Historical Events: Some historians took issue with Dixon's analysis of certain military events, suggesting that he might have either misunderstood or oversimplified the historical context in which they occurred.
Defensiveness from Military Circles: Given the nature of the book, it's not surprising that some from the military establishment were defensive. They felt that Dixon, despite his own military experience, might have been too harsh or one-sided in his assessments, not fully accounting for the pressures and complexities of military leadership.
Nature vs. Nurture: By pointing out the psychological backgrounds and early life experiences of various military leaders, Dixon seemed to suggest that early life traumas or upbringings led to certain leadership flaws. Critics argued this could be an oversimplification and that many leaders with similar backgrounds had been very successful.
Strongest Arguments Against Dixon's Ideas:
Multifaceted Causes: Military decisions, especially those that lead to significant failures, are the result of a myriad of factors. By focusing primarily on psychological factors, one might miss the broader picture.
Variability of Success and Failure: Leadership is context-dependent. A leader who fails in one scenario due to certain psychological traits might succeed in another.
Relevance of Authoritarianism: While authoritarianism might lead to rigidity, it's also possible that in certain military scenarios, a strong authoritative stance is necessary for discipline and order, especially in crises.
In essence, while Dixon's work is influential and offers valuable insights into the psychological factors behind military failures, it's essential to approach it as one lens among many when analyzing complex historical events.
If I end of using this book to set up questions to my colleague, can you please provide a brief set-up I could use to introduce the book? I don't want to go too long in the context. Something pithy and punchy. Can you provide several potential scripts for me to consider?
ChatGPT:
Absolutely! Here are a few concise introductions for you to consider:
Script 1: "You know, I recently delved into a captivating book titled 'On the Psychology of Military Incompetence' by Norman Dixon. While its primary context is the battlefield, its exploration of how and why smart organizations make poor decisions resonated with me deeply, especially in relation to our world of finance. I thought it'd be interesting to frame our conversation around some of its themes. Ready to dive in?"
Script 2: "I've been engrossed in Norman Dixon's 'On the Psychology of Military Incompetence' lately. It's a unique dissection of military failures through a psychological lens. The parallels to the corporate world are uncanny! Let's use its insights as a backdrop for our chat. Sound good?"
Script 3: "Imagine trying to find reasons for blunders on the battlefield and stumbling upon universal truths about organizational missteps. That's precisely what Norman Dixon's book does. Let's explore some of its themes in the context of our work."
Script 4: "Before we dive in, I wanted to share a recent read of mine – 'On the Psychology of Military Incompetence.' Dixon uses military history to dissect why organizations, even brilliant ones, sometimes falter. I think it offers us a mirror to reflect on our practices. Curious to hear your thoughts as we discuss!"
Script 5: "I've been drawing inspiration from an unexpected source: a book on military failures. Dixon's analysis on why smart systems sometimes act dumb feels so relatable to the corporate maze. Let's navigate some of its lessons together in our conversation."
Feel free to choose the one that resonates most with you or tailor them to better fit your style.
Reword and rework. The colleague I am interviewing is the one who recommended the book. I have not finished reading the book, but I'm attempting to do so. So please revise with more humility about my understanding of the book. I'm instead trying to draw more insight from my colleague, asking him to make the connection to our work. In this set-up text, can you offer a bit more detail and framing of the book itself?
ChatGPT:
Certainly, given the context, here's a revised set of introductions:
Script 1: "First off, thanks for recommending Norman Dixon's 'On the Psychology of Military Incompetence.' I've started it, and it's compelling to think about military blunders from a psychological perspective. While I'm still wrapping my head around its depth, I was hoping you might help draw some parallels between Dixon's insights and our world of finance. How do you see its lessons being applied here?"
Script 2: "I've been diving into that book you mentioned – 'On the Psychology of Military Incompetence.' It's fascinating how Dixon delves into the psyche behind some historic military oversights. I haven't finished it yet, but I'm eager to know: how do you think these tales of the battlefield can shed light on our practices and strategies in finance?"
Script 3: "I took up your recommendation on Dixon's book, and it's been a thought-provoking journey so far. The exploration of military failures through psychological lenses is not something I'd considered before. While I'm still processing it, I'm curious about your take. How do you connect its themes to our work environment?"
Script 4: "Your book recommendation, 'On the Psychology of Military Incompetence,' has been an intriguing read. Dixon's examination of why seemingly robust military structures falter has got me thinking. I'm not through it yet, but I wanted to pick your brain. How do you see its lessons being mirrored in our corporate dynamics?"
Script 5: "I've begun reading the Dixon book you mentioned, and it's proving to be an enlightening exploration into the psychological underpinnings of military failures. I must admit, I'm still connecting the dots. Perhaps you can shed more light on this: how do you relate its key themes to the challenges and intricacies of our financial world?"
These scripts incorporate your position as someone still exploring the book, while also setting the stage for your colleague to share his insights and make the connection to your work.
Detail several more examples of how war/battlefields echo finance/markets, and how military hierarchies echo corporate workplace settings. Taking the tone and perspective of Norman Dixon, how might the author make the link between his book and my company?
ChatGPT:
Drawing parallels between military operations and the corporate world is not new, but it becomes especially insightful when approached with a psychological perspective like that of Norman Dixon. Here's how Dixon might link themes from his book to the realms of finance and corporate settings:
Strategy and Forecasting: Just as military generals need to predict enemy movements, anticipate challenges, and strategize accordingly, financial experts must forecast market trends and strategize their investments. In both realms, a failure to accurately interpret available data or a rigid adherence to outdated strategies can result in dire consequences.
Operational Intelligence: In battle, missing a small piece of crucial intel can lead to a devastating ambush. Similarly, in finance, overlooking a subtle market indicator can result in significant financial losses. In both cases, the system's success depends on the meticulous gathering, analysis, and application of intelligence.
Communication Chains: The military has a strict hierarchy and chain of command that ensures orders flow seamlessly. However, Dixon points out that sometimes this can stifle ground-level intelligence from reaching the top. Similarly, in corporations, valuable insights from ground-level employees might get lost or diluted as they move up the hierarchical ladder.
Risk Management: Military leaders always weigh the risks and rewards of any operation. Similarly, financial decisions, especially in unpredictable markets, involve assessing potential risks and rewards. In both settings, an aversion to risk or, conversely, a reckless disregard for it can be disastrous.
Groupthink: Dixon often highlighted the danger of 'groupthink' in military decisions, where conformity trumps critical analysis. In corporate boardrooms, the same can happen, leading to unanimous but ill-advised decisions. An environment that encourages diverse opinions and critical discussions is essential in both settings.
Adapting to Change: Military operations need to be flexible to adapt to changing ground realities, like enemy movements or weather conditions. Similarly, financial strategies need constant tweaks based on market fluctuations. An inability to pivot, stemming from rigidity or denial, can spell downfall.
Leadership Dynamics: A leader's personality, as Dixon argues, can influence their decision-making processes and the overall morale of their troops. In the corporate world, the leadership style of CEOs and managers can influence team dynamics, productivity, and the overall health of the organization.
Training and Development: Just as military incompetence can arise from ill-prepared troops or leaders not adequately trained for their roles, corporate inefficiencies can stem from employees not adequately trained or familiarized with their roles, tools, or the market landscape.
If Dixon were to directly comment on your company, he might say:
"Much like how the vast theater of war presents unpredictable challenges and requires nimble strategies, the financial markets your company navigates are equally, if not more, volatile. The psychological pitfalls that lead to military blunders – such as denial, authoritarianism, and groupthink – can very much manifest in a corporate setting. Understanding and mitigating these is as crucial in your boardrooms as it is on the battlefield. Your hierarchical structures, while essential for order, must be flexible enough to allow the flow of ground-level intelligence. Just as generals need to be in touch with the realities of their troops on the ground, your top-tier management should be attuned to insights from all levels of your organization."
By drawing such parallels, Dixon would emphasize that the lessons from military failures are not confined to the battlefield but echo in the challenges faced by corporations and financial institutions.
What ended up happening to Norman Dixon?
ChatGPT:
Norman Dixon was a British psychologist and academic, best known for his work "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence". As of my last training data in September 2021, Dixon had passed away in 1994. Apart from his famous book, he had a long and illustrious academic career, teaching as a professor at University College London. His research and academic contributions were in various areas of psychology, but he became particularly notable for his insights into military history through a psychological lens. His work remains influential and is still cited in discussions about organizational behavior, leadership, and of course, military history.
This use case demonstrates the wide range to which a tool like GPT-4 can be put to use on a single topic: book and idea summarization, interview question ideas and conversation guidance, and cross-domain comparison, to highlight just a few. The exchange took less than 15 minutes. It’s worth noting, however, that Norman Dixon passed away in 2013, not in 1994 as GPT-4 says. It’s a helpful reminder that while these tools are incredibly powerful, their output should still be subject to human review.
AI Disclosure: We used generative AI in creating imagery for this post. We also use it selectively as a summarizer of content and as an editor and proofreader.