Was fascinated by a TV programme the other evening, on the possible reasons behind why we’ve been experiencing some oddly ’stuck’ weather patterns in the last couple of decades. And yes, hooked because we really love to talk about the weather here.
The science people set out rather convincing arguments, and simply enough for me get, that because the temperate gradient between the Equator and Pole in the Northern Hemisphere was falling (flattening the curve), the result of this was a more meandering jet stream.
More meanders means the loops trap one of the four (Artic, Continental, Tropical and Maritime) climate ‘regions’ for longer periods than when the jet stream runs more smoothly (and faster.)
I took this phenomena - of a levelling out of temperature differences - as ‘turbulence traps’ that create more ‘extreme’ (well, in relative British temperate terms) weather.
The thing needed to move the weather along are the differences between regions. If there’s even a slightly steeper gradient, we more speed and less turbulence.
Which makes (in my strange world of contorted logic) for an interesting analogy at ground-level.
That if there’s a less clear ‘boundary’ or ‘difference’ between two positions, could there ironically be more ‘turbulence’ - keeping people stuck on things that take longer to resolve. Stuck in the patterns of the same arguments, violently agreeing, but not really able to move the bigger problems on.
And in fact, the greater the differences between the views (to a point. Clearly extremism has its own issues), the faster everyone will get to recognising what the issues are - and move more quickly. Whether (weather. Lol) that’s to resolve to solve the problem, or stay with it (‘sticking with nurse for fear of worse’.)
If I was running workshops still, I think I’d run this Climatic Experiment.
Four Teams (representing only mildly different views).
Lots of turbulence (business ‘noise’, the usual ‘too busy to think about this stuff’ stuff) to ‘trap’ each of them for a long period (say a year of forecasting {again! With the metrological metaphors}) and see what happens. Then compare the possible situations.
Then start with those future stakes as the debate points. Because that way you’ve raced forward - and speeding up the process sweeps the debate along. More difference, quicker to see the real differences - and then start to make decisions.
I’d call it Nephology (from the Greek ‘cloud’) For Business, to make it all sound like proper science, rather than marketing strategy. Only kidding strategyPeople :)
Next time you’re caught staring out the window?
S’not daydreaming. You’’re working on the company’s hard problems.
