In our quest to understand the world’s complexities, we often rely on our areas of expertise. However, this specialized knowledge can sometimes hinder our ability to see beyond our tools and perspectives. This phenomenon, known as déformation professionnelle, limits our problem-solving capabilities and prevents us from embracing a broader understanding of the world. In this article, we explore the implications of déformation professionnelle across various professions and highlight the importance of adopting a multidisciplinary approach for more effective decision-making.
Déformation Professionnelle: The Danger of Narrowing Perspectives
At its core, déformation professionnelle refers to the way our professional expertise shapes how we perceive and solve problems, often in a way that limits our ability to see alternative solutions. This psychological tendency manifests when people with specialized knowledge or skills approach problems from a singular perspective, applying the tools, techniques, or frameworks from their field without considering whether these approaches best fit the situation at hand. The tragedy of the man who takes out a loan starts a business, and goes bankrupt may seem like a straightforward story of failure. Still, the déformation professionnelle at play shows how different professionals interpret the same event in vastly different ways.
The business analyst would likely be the first to delve into the company’s strategy, looking for critical errors in leadership, market assumptions, or operational execution. He would focus on dissecting the business model and determining whether the failure was due to poor leadership, flawed market research, or the wrong strategy. In the business world, these are tangible elements, and his analysis toolkit would allow him to examine the variables in play, from consumer demand to competitive forces.
On the other hand, a marketer would view the failure through the lens of the company’s ability to connect with its audience. Were the campaigns misaligned with customer expectations? Was the value proposition unclear? Did the brand fail to resonate? The marketer would naturally look for flaws in communication and positioning, thinking about the customer journey and how the brand’s messaging could have been optimized to reach the right audience.
From the standpoint of a financial expert, the focus would shift to the loan itself. Was it a good financial instrument for the company? Could the loan terms have been more favorable or better suited to the company’s growth stage? The financial expert would scrutinize the debt structure, examining the interest rates and repayment schedule and whether the loan was the right tool to support the business model in the first place. He may even explore whether the man’s financial choices reflected an underestimation of risk.
For the journalist, tragedy becomes a potential story, emphasizing the human elements over the business factors. The tragic loss of life, combined with the man’s entrepreneurial failure, would make for a gripping narrative. In this context, the journalist sees opportunity where others see only loss—an angle that others may miss entirely. This is where déformation professionnelle can become a useful skill. Still, it can also become dangerous when it leads to oversensationalizing or reducing complex issues to simple narratives that lack nuance.
These professionals bring their toolbox to the situation, but none see the whole picture. This narrow view is the danger of déformation professionnelle—it limits our understanding and constrains our ability to think beyond the specialized confines of our field. While their insights are valuable, they each only partially answer a much more complex question.
Déformation Professionnelle in Action: Real-World Examples
In real-world scenarios, déformation professionnelle is evident across industries, influencing how individuals perceive problems, make decisions, and approach challenges. This tendency isn’t confined to any profession; it permeates almost every field. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that your way of seeing the world is the best, but in doing so, we often fail to recognize the value of other perspectives.
Surgeons provide one of the most straightforward examples of déformation professionnelle. Their training emphasizes the importance of precision, intervention, and solving problems through surgical procedures. When a patient walks into a hospital with pain, it is almost instinctive for a surgeon to consider surgery as the potential solution. However, the issue may be one that could be more effectively addressed through non-invasive means, such as physical therapy, medication, or lifestyle changes. However, because surgeons are so deeply ingrained in the idea of cutting as the primary solution to health problems, they may overlook these alternatives, which might be more appropriate and less harmful. This bias toward surgery is a product of their specialized expertise and is a perfect example of how déformation professionals can lead to oversights.
Similarly, military members often think of battle tactics and strategic force. When faced with a difficult situation, they first think of military action. This can manifest in various ways, from deploying troops to escalating conflicts. While these actions might be appropriate in some cases, the military mindset can hinder the search for other solutions, such as diplomatic negotiations or economic pressure. In situations where the use of force is not the most effective strategy, a military leader’s first instinct may be to take military action, which could escalate the situation unnecessarily.
Engineers, too, frequently fall into the trap of viewing problems strictly through a technical lens. When a system fails, its instinct is to fix it with new components or structural changes rather than exploring the possibility that the root of the problem lies elsewhere. For instance, a malfunctioning machine may result from poor user training, inefficient processes, or a breakdown in communication rather than a hardware failure. However, an engineer may focus solely on the technical elements, missing the larger context that could have led to a more effective solution.
In trend analysis, the obsession with spotting patterns can sometimes result in misleading conclusions. Trend analysts are constantly searching for the next big movement or cultural shift. Though useful in certain contexts, this mindset can distort their ability to objectively assess situations. They might begin to see trends in places where none exist, mistaking a short-lived or isolated incident for a broader societal shift. By applying the mindset of a trend analyst to everything, they risk misinterpreting events and drawing conclusions based on faulty premises. This tendency is a clear example of déformation professionnelle in action, where a professional’s expertise blinds them to other, more plausible explanations.
The Excel Trap: A Modern-Day Example
One of the most telling examples of déformation professionnelle in the modern world is the overuse of Excel spreadsheets. Initially designed to organize numbers and run calculations, Excel has become an indispensable tool in business, education, and personal life. But its ease of use and versatility have led to its overextension into areas where it doesn’t belong.
Take, for example, Excel to compare potential romantic partners. While Excel is ideal for managing data, relationships’ personal, emotional nature does not lend itself to a straightforward numerical analysis. Using Excel to create a “scorecard” of attributes for prospective partners might seem rational, but it ignores the deeply subjective and intuitive aspects of human connection. The overuse of Excel in this context is an example of déformation professionnelle—applying a tool designed for a specific function (data management) to a problem that requires empathy, emotional intelligence, and personal judgment.
Another common misuse of Excel is in financial forecasting, particularly among startup entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs must generate detailed ten-year financial projections to impress investors or plan their business strategy. However, creating highly detailed financial models for a startup—often based on very little data—can lead to false confidence. Startups are inherently volatile, and trying to predict the future with spreadsheets that don’t account for all the variables can result in misguided expectations and poor decision-making. The reliance on Excel in this way demonstrates how a tool designed for precision and organization can be misapplied, leading to decisions based on flawed assumptions.
In both cases, Excel enforces structure and predictability in scenarios that demand more flexibility and a broader understanding of the variables at play. Like many others, the overuse of this tool manifests déformation professionnelle, where people lean on their professional expertise (in this case, data analysis and financial modeling) even when it isn’t the most effective solution for the problem at hand.
The Limits of Specialization: Why It’s Dangerous to Rely on One Framework
The core issue with déformation professionals is that it can lead to tunnel vision. While specialization is valuable in deepening one’s expertise, it also narrows the scope of thinking and limits one’s ability to approach problems creatively or interdisciplinary. Specialists may fail to recognize when their specific expertise is not the right tool for the job, relying on familiar frameworks even when ill-suited.
For example, a business strategist may rely heavily on tried-and-tested models that focus on profitability, efficiency, and competition. However, when faced with a problem involving individual, cultural dynamics, or ethical considerations, the strategist may struggle to address the situation effectively because their expertise doesn’t extend to those areas. Failure perspectives from psychology, sociology, or ethics can result in short-sighted decisions that ignore the impact on stakeholders, employees, or society.
Similarly, law, education, or healthcare professionals often rely on frameworks and methodologies specific to their discipline. While these tools are highly effective in their respective areas, they can be inadequate or counterproductive when applied outside their intended context. For instance, a lawyer’s legal framework may miss the emotional, social, or psychological dimensions of a conflict. At the same time, an educator’s pedagogical approach may not be effective in addressing complex societal issues. Without an interdisciplinary mindset, professionals risk becoming too rigid in their thinking unable to recognize the broader forces at play.
Charlie Munger’s advocacy for multiple mental models is rooted in the understanding that no single discipline holds all the answers. The world is too complex for any one framework to provide a comprehensive solution. By relying exclusively on one area of expertise, we risk missing important insights and making incomplete, misguided, or inadequate decisions. Expanding one’s mental toolkit to include perspectives from various fields is essential for navigating the complexities of modern life.
Building a More Versatile Mental Toolkit
To overcome déformation professionnelle’s limitations, we must actively seek knowledge and perspectives from disciplines outside our expertise. This involves consciously expanding our mental toolkit by learning about other fields, engaging with new ideas, and applying models from various disciplines to our problems.
For example, a business leader might explore psychology to better understand consumer behavior or delve into biology to gain insights into complex systems and decision-making processes. By incorporating these models into their thinking, they can approach challenges from a more well-rounded perspective. Similarly, professionals in fields like education, healthcare, and engineering can benefit from exploring disciplines such as philosophy, anthropology, or literature. These disciplines can offer fresh insights into the human condition and help them see problems from different angles.
Building a more versatile mental toolkit takes time and deliberate effort. It’s not enough to simply consume knowledge—it’s important to internalize it and apply it to real-world situations. Studies suggest that developing a solid understanding of a new field can take a year, but the effort is well worth it. By broadening our intellectual horizons, we gain new problem-solving tools and can approach challenges with greater creativity, insight, and effectiveness.
This effort results in a more flexible, adaptable mind—one that can approach problems from multiple angles and find solutions informed by a wide range of perspectives. This mental versatility doesn’t just help us make better decisions in our professional lives; it enhances our ability to navigate the complexities of life itself, offering new ways to understand the world and our place in it.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the solution to the déformation professionnelle is not to abandon specialization but to complement it with a broader range of perspectives. Just as the brain is not a central computer but a Swiss Army knife with multiple specialized tools, we must work to expand our mental pocketknives. By embracing a variety of disciplines, we equip ourselves to see the world in all its complexity and solve problems in more creative, effective ways.
As we do so, we can be sure that our understanding of the world will deepen, our ability to navigate challenges will improve, and our approach to life will become more well-rounded and effective. The more tools we add, the better equipped we are to tackle the diverse challenges that come our way.
This article is part of The Art of Thinking Clearly Series based on Rolf Dobelli’s book.