Commonsense solutions are undoubtedly common. Some might even make sense. That doesn’t automatically make them persuasive.
You say you were nailed by a ransomware attack. So you fire your head of information security, to demonstrate you hold people accountable. It’s just common sense.
Key members of your board of directors have been reading about the need companies like yours have to articulate an AI strategy. That’s also common sense, isn’t it? Then there’s the head of your architecture team, who beats you up on a monthly basis about the urgent need to rationalize your applications portfolio. That, they explain, is just common sense, too.
The common thread about ‘common sense’
When something is amiss, and those responsible for fixing it aren’t fixing it, we can, with confidence, predict what will happen next: Everyone involved will demand that “they” (a usefully flexible designation for those among whom blame must be apportioned) should undertake “commonsense” measures to fix the problem.
The phrase is annoying enough when you encounter it while reading your daily newspaper’s letters to the editor, as a comment about how to solve one or another of society’s debilitating defects. But the same impulse that drives an aggrieved member of the populace to claim the solution to their grievance is just common sense is also hard at work when you find yourself responding to proposed solutions to IT and related business challenges.
Except that when it’s printed in your newspaper you can toss it in your fireplace or take equivalent steps to ignore it.
In a business setting basic professionalism precludes your succumbing to the temptation to hurl your laptop at the nearest wall after you read someone’s email containing the phrase.
Characterizing a solution as common sense does have an appealing appeal, merrily skipping as it does the expenditure of effort that would be needed to demonstrate the commonsense measure’s inevitable efficacy.
If it weren’t for that pesky First Amendment I’d suggest legislation banning both the adjectival (“commonsense”) and noun (“common sense”) forms of this meaningless but still aggravating term. Instead, I’m limited to coopting this forum for my semantic grievances.
Argument by assertion
Why, you might ask, is castigating promoters of common sense important?
Start here: Calling a solution “commonsense” is supposed to make its value convincing. It’s the opposite — mere argument by assertion.
Beyond that, it’s insulting, which raises barriers to acceptance.
Insulting? Yes, insulting. Those enamored of a solution don’t need convincing in the first place, so there’s no need to bother proclaiming its commonsense-ness to its advocates. They’ve already decided and need no further ammunition. Why would they? It’s just common sense.
That leaves those who dislike the solution — or, in these benighted times of pervasive ad hominemism, those who dislike the solution’s proponents and so, through semantic contagion, will dislike any and all of the opposing tribe’s solutions. This group will find the mere assertion of commonsense-ness of the proposed solution to be offensive, implying as it does that their objections aren’t worth evaluating . It puts them, as the solution’s detractors, in a position perceived as so dense that they’re oblivious to … well, something that’s so obvious it isn’t worth wasting time trying to persuade them.
Building consensus is hard work
But these objections are the social reasons a commonsense solution is likely to fail. There are good and valid reasons to ban the term no matter which tribe you belong to, namely, prescribing a commonsense solution to a thorny problem skips the hard work of:
- Clearly and concisely defining the problem you’re trying to solve
- Building a consensus among those who ought to solve the problem that they agree the problem as you’ve formulated it needs solving
- Building a consensus that those you think ought to help solve it agree that helping solve it is something they want to do
No matter the controversy, we can count on advocates on both sides of an issue to propose a solution without defining the problem, and, worse, explaining why the other side’s proposal won’t solve the problem as they redefine it.
What we can count on is for each side to tie its own solution to something even their opponents couldn’t possibly oppose — so much so that disagreeing with it is unimaginable.
The solution?
Do you want to be persuasive? Start by making sure you and everyone else affected by something are all trying to solve the same problem.
Want a second step? Don’t try to solve the entire problem in one bite. You’re more likely to gain acceptance of steps to improve.
One more? Look out for likely unintended consequences. Especially, look for unintended consequences your opponents try to spotlight. Embrace them — if you give ground first, you’ll create a sense of obligation for the other side to give ground in response.
This isn’t just common sense. It’s better: It’s more likely to result in a useful solution, and one real-world problem-solvers might actually choose to pursue.
See also:
