Yesterday I talked about the virtues of remote work. The point was not to prove remote work is better, but to change the default assumption. The default position in nearly every firm is that workers must work together in an office. The prospect of remote work is treated with special scrutiny, and it must prove especially valuable to be tried. Meanwhile, the default of on-site work is given no scrutiny whatsoever, simply because it is the default. What happens if we change our default to neutral?
Not just in the case of remote vs. on-site work, but in every choice between methods or worldviews there is much to be gained by switching the default away from the status quo and to an open position, ready to compare alternatives side-by-side. One needn’t go out of the way to see the merits in a different point of view so much as back off a little from the currently favored view and see how it stands up to scrutiny.
Probably the most difficult areas to have a neutral default are those involving authority. We tend to assume the best about authority and make it the default position, while we fear the worst about freedom and put it on trial. Consider prevailing views about the state and state provided services. The idea of fully private roads, or protection, or adjudication, or education, or charity are immediately met with skepticism and myriad objections in our minds. They are compared to our idea of how things should be, and almost never to how things actually are under state monopoly.
Our default position is that a single authority is better at most things, but how often do we zoom out and analyze from a neutral default? What happens when you compare government controlled postal delivery with private in a detached way, as if a disinterested observer from another planet? What about other services? The default position deserves analysis equal to that which we give to new ideas.
It’s not only government authority we default to. I’ve found that as a parent, my default position is that raising kids on the power of my authority and say-so is better than giving them free reign and treating them like rational agents. Turns out the default is wrong. No, kids are not fully capable of making sound choices, especially at a very young age, but I’ve been amazed at how well – indeed how much better – they do when I back off and leave more choices in their hands.
The first time I heard radical ideas about unschooling, free schools, unparenting, and other laissez faire methods of interacting with children, I demanded answers to all the hard questions and difficult situations that may arise. I examined every angle and poked holes in weaknesses I saw in each approach. Had I ever been so rigorous in examining the more regimented style of traditional education and child-rearing? Had I put my default assumption, that kids need order imposed by external forces, to any real test, mentally or in practice? I was having a nice romance with the default position and failing to see its weaknesses, to the detriment of myself and my kids.
Sometimes you have a default for well-developed reasons: you have examined multiple options and found one far superior, so until further notice, it will be the default. This makes sense and needn’t be abandoned as an efficient way of giving new ideas the basic smell test. But ask yourself how many of your defaults fit into this category? It’s surprising how many default assumptions we’ve never actually examined. We assume our assumptions exist for good reason, but many do not.
Upon examination and experimentation, we may well arrive at the status quo as best option. But if we never take a close look at our assumptions we do ourselves a great disservice. You needn’t excitedly embrace every new idea or temper your skepticism about it. Simply change the default position to neutral. Be careful; your whole world may change.