Fat Sheep In England, Digital Traffic Signs On Highways, And Hundreds of Forests In The 1800s: Why Positive Outcomes Don't Always Follow Good Decisions
The 3-Word Quote: “Decisions Determine Direction”
Originally published April 3rd.
1.
After a successful advertising career, Stanley decided to retire.
He had dreamed of moving to the countryside in Kent to become a gentleman farmer.
The advertising executive longed to escape the hustle and crowds of London. He desired the lush greenery and open fields in Southeast England.
Stanley had excelled in advertising, leading several successful companies.
He was skilled in his field and well-respected by his coworkers.
But he wanted to become a farmer and leave the ad life behind.
So he purchased a beautiful farm.
He bought new farm equipment.
And he bought some farm animals, of course.
Mainly sheep.
He was living out his dream.
But after a few months, he noticed something slightly concerning with his sheep.
They were getting too fat.
He was a new farmer and realized he was overfeeding them.
So he cut their food back a little.
Some weeks later, Stanley determined he had miscalculated.
The sheep were getting even fatter, so he decreased their rations more.
But that didn't solve the problem, and Stanley was worried.
The sheep continued to grow.
So he cut back their food again.
A few days later, the farmer went to feed his flock and found them lying in a field.
They were all dead.
2.
If you have taken any road trips lately or your commute takes you on the highway, you pass under the electronic highway signs.
These large signs perch on steel structures above the roads.
But unlike billboards on the side of the roads, these signs aren't selling products.
They aim to alert drivers to traffic problems, lane closures, or other helpful information to commuters.
They also display reminders to drivers, such as 'Buckle up' or 'Don't text and Drive.'
Signs in some states even display the number of traffic deaths on the state's highways.
You've passed scores of these signs while driving.
They're familiar and helpful -encouraging drivers to travel safely.
However, researchers recently discovered one problem with these signs.
It turns out these safety signs might actually be killing people.
3.
Two hundred years ago, several countries were in crisis.
These countries had a problem and were desperate to find a solution.
Different countries, same problem.
And the problem involved something unusual.
Forests.
That's right. Countries became worried about forests - or lack of them.
So, these nations scrambled to create more of them.
Sweden led the charge, planting 300,000 trees.
England tried to establish more forests just a few years before Sweden.
The United States had some forest land, so the government purchased it to own the trees.
France followed suit, too.
So did Denmark.
Other countries scrambled to do the same.
So why did so many countries simultaneously become infatuated with nature and forests?
The reason was slightly sinister.
The Takeaway:
So what do obese sheep in England, digital highway safety signs, and the sudden planting of forests in the 1800s all have in common?
They are all examples of poor results from positive decision-making.
They are all examples of how relying on the seemingly logical solution doesn't always yield logical results.
Most people who make decisions analyze the situation, measure the results, and proceed with action.
Like the majority, they make choices based on the current information available.
Logical.
The advertising man turned farmer made logical decisions.
But his sheep were dead.
He made hundreds of important decisions in advertising, led teams, and managed people and accounts.
He was skilled in advertising.
But he wasn't a knowledgeable farmer.
He didn't mean to kill his sheep, but he did.
They died because he did what the majority do - see a problem, offer an analysis, and then take action.
His sheep kept getting fatter, so he kept decreasing their food.
An obvious problem and an obvious solution.
It made perfect sense.
But the farmer was solving the wrong problem.
You see, the sheep were not getting fatter.
Their wool had been growing. To Stanley's eyes, the sheep were growing larger.
But the sheep were not getting fatter.
So, he kept decreasing the amount of food the sheep received.
Until he ultimately starved them to death.
Any neighboring farmer could have helped him with the fat sheep problem.
However, when one is an expert in one field, they often bring confidence into another field. However, what they don't always bring to the new field is knowledge.
Unfortunately, an expert ad man doesn't make a competent farmer.
***
You've driven under the digital highway signs.
They offer warnings and cautions to keep drivers safe.
And some states display the number of traffic deaths yearly, hoping to ensure drivers pay extra attention to the road.
But one recent study says signs displaying death totals lead to more crashes and more deaths than roads that do not display the number of deaths.
It was typical for Texas highways to post fatalities for one week prior to the monthly Department of Transportation meeting.
Because the fatalities were posted only for one week, researchers could measure the number of crashes while the fatality numbers were posted and compare them to the number of crashes when the sign didn't post fatalities.
The results?
The study states, 'displaying road deaths information increased crashes by 4.5 percent…and caused an extra 2600 crashes a year in Texas since the practice began in 2012.'
So, the safety warnings caused 2600 more crashes.
They were unintended consequences.
But those who posted the warnings weren't like the new farmer.
The Texas officials had data and were experts.
And yet, despite having what they felt was the needed information, their decision to post deaths turned out to be wrong - and dangerous.
Good intentions don't always result in successful outcomes.
***
Many countries were rapidly planting forests in the early 1800s.
Like the farmer and the Texas Transportation Department, the countries had a problem and made simple decisions.
They understood the problem. The solution was to plant thousands of trees.
But what was the problem that caused a planting panic?
What caused the sudden need for all the trees?
Planting these trees wasn't to help the planet or a love of nature.
The reason was war.
In the years leading up to the 1800s, wars were primarily fought at sea.
The wars required a navy.
And the navy required ships - many ships.
In the early 1800s, these warships were made of wood, mostly oak.
The wood from oak trees is incredibly dense and very strong.
Their strength 'made the wood ideal for the hulls of ships, especially warships.'
Around 1830, many countries were worried because they needed more warships - and, therefore, a lot more oak.
So, oak trees were planted at a furious rate.
In 1807, the British navy seized all the Danish navy ships.
It's estimated that the ships from the Danish navy consisted of 90,000 mature oak trees.
Without a navy, Crown Prince Frederick VI had to decide how to replace those lost ships.
He had a problem, and the problem had a simple solution - planting more oak trees.
Sweden needed more ships, too. They planted 300,000 oak trees.
The leaders of France and The United States attacked the the same problem in the same way: by planting more oak trees.
All the countries needed ships and oak wood to build them.
But all this planting didn't solve these countries' problems.
You see, it can take 200 years for an oak tree to mature and be ready for shipbuilding.
200 years.
That means planted trees would take 73,000 days to mature fully.
This was long-term planning at its best.
The leaders figured things would always be how they've always been.
Wars would be fought at sea, and a navy would be needed.
And lots of oaks would always be required to make those warships.
But what the leaders couldn't have predicted is that in future decades, the mighty oak would be quickly replaced.
With steel and iron.
These new metals became the new standard shipbuilding material.
So dozens of forests and millions of trees were never used for their intended purpose—to make more warships.
Decision makers try to make the best choice based on the information they have:
The farmer's (wrong) information told him the sheep were gaining weight, so he decreased the food.
The Texas Department of Transportation's information told them there were too many road deaths, so they made drivers aware by posting on their sign boards.
The countries' information told them they needed more warships, so they planted more oak trees to help build them.
All three decisions were made with information available then, but none of the outcomes were unsuccessful.
We look back at these decisions and wonder how they couldn't have made better choices. They should have known these choices were bound to fail. We wonder how they did not see other options.
It's easy to evaluate past decisions based on present conditions.
As Todd Henry said, 'You cannot evaluate forward-looking decisions using backward-looking metrics.'
Progress cannot always be predicted, and luck cannot always be counted on.
Decisions must be made using the best information currently available.
Most of the time, it's the best we can do—even if the outcome isn't what we intended.
Please share with 3 friends
3 things before you go:
listen: a good song to listen to after a bad decision or outcome
listen more: written by Springsteen, preformed by The Band
And one more: who doesn’t need a catchy 2 minute song preformed in a diner?
Back on the 3rd. Thanks for reading.
-Jeff