Every Harvard Business Review article worth it’s salt boils some complex problem down to a two by two grid. Usually something like awesomeness and profitability:
Being non-profitable and not awesome is no fun. Awesomeness without profitability might work for some organizations. Being profitable but not awesome for others. But the place to be is awesome and profitable!
With this bracing insight the authors will cherry pick some companies that match the upper-right hand quadrant and tediously stretch their turpid insight out to book length.
In reality this is a false dilemma (or technically a false tetralemma, but that’s an awkward phrase so I prefer the HBR fallacy instead).
My favorite example is Pascal’s Wager. This is a typical HBR two by two grid based on belief in God and the existence of God.
- Don’t believe / No God, you’re fine (meh).
- Don’t believe / God, go to Hell (infinite punishment).
- Believe / No God, you’re fine (meh).
- Believe / God, go to Heaven (infinite reward).
You only have one rational choice here says Pascal.
There is a lot wrong with this argument, but the wrongest thing is the HBR fallacy. There are infinitely many possible Gods with infinitely many good and bad outcomes. You might be living in a universe where the only God is the God of the Thargoids. The one real God might send you to Heaven only if you kill a gopher every Wednesday.
Nobody is going to open any doors and show you any goats.
Add your comment...
You Might Also Like
(All Etc Posts)
(Published to the Fediverse as:
The Harvard Business Review Fallacy #etc #hbr #pascal #thargoids What do Pascal's Wager and the typical Harvard Business Review article have in common? And where do Thargoids and goats come into it?