Unintended Consequences

In their 2009 New York Times bestselling book “Super Freakonomics”, authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner introduce data that verifies the potency of what they call the “law of unintended consequences.” Many of their examples involve government intrusion into the socio-economic system.

They cite the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which was intended to protect disabled Americans from discrimination but instead resulted in fewer jobs because employers worried they wouldn’t be able to discipline or fire bad workers with a disability so they avoided hiring them at all. Or the garbage tax that was expected to deter people from producing so much waste but instead prompted consumers to dump trash in the woods or down their toilets creating even more environmental issues. You could probably offer numerous other examples of well-intentioned policies run amok in the public and private sectors.   

These days I am more intrigued by the possibility that “low-cost or no-cost” solutions might hold the key to addressing some of our society’s most pressing problems. Much of this thinking is also detailed in the book, like the impact of cheap but effective ammonium nitrate as a crop fertilizer or the inexpensive seat belt as a lifesaving device in automobiles. But there is more to be done.

Recently I have been learning about a unique method of addressing vexing community issues called Results-Based Accountability™. Developed by Mark Friedman this approach offers a simple, common sense process that effectively delivers better outcomes when applied to problems. It relies heavily on the notion that many of the solutions we seek can be inexpensive.

As I immerse myself in this new way of thinking, I am also wondering why businesses and organizations are so reluctant to pursue non-traditional models in their efforts to improve productivity or provide better customer service. Are leaders threatened by the level of collaboration that might be necessary for some of these initiatives to bear fruit? Do we still favor logic-driven research that often ignores the intuitive nature of breakthrough thinking?

Regardless of the rationale, leaders must be willing to consider new approaches to traditional problems. We can’t afford to throw more money at community issues like poverty, homelessness, and hunger. Now more than ever, we need to harness the collaborative energy of government, nonprofit agencies, business leaders, educators, healthcare workers, and the faith community. Wouldn’t it be amazing if the unintended consequence of this approach was lasting change?