Optimism - Really?

My last posting on the subject of optimism seemed to generate some interest. I was surprised to find that two potential clients had read it, and felt the need to comment on it. I've also had a couple of emails to go along with the comments on the blog. One of the comments seemed to sum up the general response:

if nobody reads this thing, why bother posting it anyway?

In one sentence the author, about whom I was unable to find any information, managed to convey a lot. He - and I will assume it is a male reader for absolutely no good reason - immediately supposes that no-one reads this blog. What a pessimistic view - but one that I would categorise as typically British (or more typically English). We live in a culture that does not embrace optimism - rather living in a cynical and unemotional world. Fortunately I am blessed with some readers - but, of course, the author himself presumably read the blog before commenting.

He finishes with a "why bother". Well even if I had no readers at all, part of the reason for writing this blog is self-satisfaction - I do it partly for the simple joy of doing it. And why not?

My comment author was not alone, however, in questioning the place of optimism in business. "Business is  a serious endeavour...", I was told on one occasion (by someone working in a not-for-profit organisation too), and he went on to suggest that there was no place for, or need for, optimism in a "grown-up" business.

I disagree. Strongly. All too often, the optimistic response is not considered by mature businesses. I recently set up a "Disaster Response Training Session" for a client. We talked through a scenario of a fire on the floor above my client's offices. The attendees were great  - but did not consider the most optimistic outcome. Happy to consider the total loss of their offices and all their data, they did not, before I prompted them, consider the outcome that had the fire protection working, the data security working and their people doing all the right things. From a risk management point of view, this is not good. From a morale point of view it's not good either.

There is nothing wrong in looking at the optimistic outcome as well as the more pessimistic ones.

The same applies to strategic planning and marketing. Perhaps you already have the competitive advantage; perhaps you already have the competences that are needed to thrive in a market. Perhaps your strategy will work to the point of needing more staff, more offices, more support? These situations must be considered.

Be optimistic - there is nothing wrong with it. You will examine the same options as a pessimistic, but perhaps add a few new ones of your own. Given the choice, optimism is, if nothing else, easier to live with.

Context: Bhopal

I started to write a post about the Royal Bank of Scotland and the prospect of a fight between the Board and the Government with regard to bonus payments. Two things stopped me. The first was that Peninsulawyer had already written a better post that I was going to (here). The second, however, was the anniversary of a man-made disaster - the Union Carbide plant at Bhopal. The BBC have a good summary of the story here - I've used their graphic below.

It's a dreadful story of corporate incompetence and lack of care which led to the deaths of a huge number of innocent locals. The contrast in the numbers associated with this event are staggering. Seven thousand dead; over six hundred thousand affected. What is worse, however, is the number associated with the "pay off" from Union Carbide - $470 million. It sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it. I suspect that's the point. Divide it amongst the families of 7,000 victims and 600,000 other affected people, however, and it is insignificant.

Imagine this disaster happening to a town on the outskirts of London. Firstly, of course, the chances of a rather wild chemical plant being sited near to wealthy people is not high - Union Carbide didn't choose Bhopal because it was handy, after all. Let's get past that point and imagine that a chemical plant near London suffers the same sort of problem - i.e. incompetence, poor management and an almost total disregard for the safety of people living nearby. Can you imagine a payment of only $470 million? No - of course not. Can you imagine  that no-one would ever be prosecuted for the disaster? No - of course not. There would be massive payments, and a fund established for future problems. Western lawyers working for rich insurance companies would not led anyone off with a "full and final" settlement in 1989, when the effects are still being felt in Bhopal. It is a scandal that there are - statements from the Indian Government notwithstanding - still health problems in the area. It is a scandal that there has never been a criminal prosecution.

In this context, the idea that some bankers might be paid a lot of money rather pales into insignificance for me. Perhaps they will read the news and donate half (say) to the families still living in Bhopal? No, probably not...