Most people would rather be certain they’re miserable, than risk being happy. (R. Anthony)

Certainty is cool.

We love when we can feel confident.

It makes our world emotionaly safer.


Also – we hate it when we have to issue a correction about a statement we made that turned out wrong.


Certainty is a certain form of safety.


Complexity leads to mistakes – which leads to lack of certainty…


If things could be that simple as right or wrong – as black or white – and as straightforward either good or bad – things would be awefully simpler.

But it is not.


Truth is the byproduct of searching for it.

It doesn’t reveal itself entirely and at once.

It will leave you in the dark with your own self doubts.



You will be tempted to settle for less than the truth.

Because it comfortable

Because it is easier.

Because you can.

And who will blame you?



Yet, if you keep digging…

you will get a regularly changing landscape –

it is confusing, but you will get used to it.


Most of the energy is not about how to find out what is right

it is more how not to settle before you get there.


The only strategy I know to stay on this journey is accept you might never know 100% yet agree that what you know today might be wrong tomorrow and the faster you accept it the faster you can adjust for it.


That’s all I know… for now…



Or why “do as you are told” is a bad idea.

In 1964, Stanley Milgram back then a young researcher at Yale University, published the results a famous experiment known to this day as the Milgram Experiment.

The set up is simple:

The subject of the experiment takes part himself in a (staged) experiment supposed to study the impact of pain on memory and learning.

For this, he is asked by the experimenter to administer increasingly strong electric shocks to a test subject for every wrong answer.

Of course, the test subject is an actor part of the experiment.

Milgram experiment reveal that more than 50% of tested subjects will administer shocks until the end of the experiment, up to the point where this would be lethal for the test subject.


A figure of authority can convince a regular person to kill, just because ordered to.



Now before you think this is old shit and that today, people are different:

Here is a video of the Milgram experiment re-enacted, and the results are very consistent with the original study:



A few more points:

  • This experiments has been re-enacted many times. Each time results have been quite consistent with the original experiment.
  • Men and women scored the same in a variation done on gender
  • Authority is important for this experiment to work (uniform, legitimacy, etc.)
  • Symbols of authorities are the result of a culture

A full detailed analysis of the protocol explains the procedure followed by the experiment and all the variations done to test different hypothesis.

For instance, the role of the uniform :

In the original baseline study – the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a kind of uniform). Milgram carried out a variation in which the experimenter was called away because of a phone call right at the start of the procedure.

The role of the experimenter was then taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ ( a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. The obedience level dropped to 20%.

Or, if the participant could delegate his personal responsibility to press the button to somebody else, the obedience would increase.

When participants could instruct an assistant (confederate) to press the switches, 92.5% shocked to the maximum 450 volts. When there is less personal responsibility obedience increases. This relates to Milgram’s Agency Theory.

Which clearly give you a hint about why administrations are built the the way they are : the more level and sublevel of responsibility you have the less likely you will see any kind of resistance from an organisation.


#HR Implications:

Work ethic &  Personal responsibility

Milgram experiment is telling us one thing : when work ethic will be challenged by the management

  • to drive down quality at the expense of quantity
  • to steal, lie, cover things up
  • any kind of  crazy shit

Then, more than 50% of your staff will be statistically prone to comply and go forward even if he/she knows it goes against what should be acceptable in the work place.

When more than half of your organisation cannot prevent bad behaviour to happen, you have a problem.

Side note: As an employee, if you do not want to be a milgram-employee, then just be clear about your own standards and stick to your guns. Also, learn to sell. It helps.

Importance of culture in the company

A work culture where you put all the weight and the responsibility on management will be likely to generate more milgram-employee.

If you care about your organisation, you do not want milgram-people in your org.

If you care about long term, build a culture that will push for higher personal responsibility and work ethic.

One thing you need for that: content which you can use to educate your organisation, on a regular basis and at all levels.

A simple example of workshop you can run

Show your staff the Milgram experiment, then ask them to discuss how do they think they should react when ask to do stuff they don’t agree with even thought the manager tell them it is okay…




Full version of the experiment



I stumbled upon this video the other day.

Some ex navy seal guy, they do army-style training programs for people who like to get their butt kicked.

But also, they happen to have very good content on psychology of motivation (which actually make sense given what they do as a job.)

The following video is about the reasons behind lack of motivation, lazy-style, I’ll do it tomorrow approach.


TL;DW: Lazy is incompetence-driven. You don’t think you can do it, so you try to avoid doing it. And when you do, you figure out you actually suck, then most people just drop out here, and the real deal is to go beyond this feeling.


I find this fascinating on so many levels.


At a personal level, I can totally identify I did that myself so many times, and to really understand the root of the problem is a first step toward solving it.

But, from an HR perspective it just highlights the importance of training to create motivation, and drive mastery within the organisation.

From a marketing perspective, it just remind us that UX is here to make it feel it is easy, because else, it doesn’t happen, users are not thrilled.

Apparently, it happens that we hate to suck at the things we do.