One of the things I’ve always loved about science is that at its heart, it is about the search for truth. But lately, it has felt like science has become corrupted. From the politicization of global warming to researchers faking data to support their conclusions or theories, I was beginning to wonder if science had become just like so many other fields where success and celebrity were more important than the truth.
This weekend, I found reason to start believing again. Science gave us an example of how it is different from other areas. When CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) announced that they may have discovered a particle that moves faster than light, they did what many people would find unthinkable. They publicly expressed doubts about the accuracy of their results. The CERN physicists didn’t pound their chest and boast that they had discovered something that challenges Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. They didn’t start a movement to have e=mc2 stricken from textbooks around the world. Rather, they encouraged others to shoot holes in their work. They invited peers and competitors “to look at what they’ve done and really scrutinize it in great detail.”
Whether the physicists at CERN are proved right or wrong is not as important as the integrity of the process. Leaders have the opportunity to learn from this event. We often deal with facts that are in dispute. People embroiled in these conflicts will speak passionately about defending the truth. Two people on opposite sides of the same fight may have very differing perceptions of the truth. Both may be speaking the truth while saying contradictory things. We understand that not everything can be proven to be right or wrong. Unlike in science, where empirical data can provide answers, we regularly rely on opinions, assessments, and perceptions to find the truth.
The problem is that the truth can change as our perspective changes. I’ll use a simple example to illustrate this point. Sitting on my desk is a can of Coca-Cola ZeroTM. At one angle, I can clearly read the words Coca-Cola Zero in the distinctive Coca-Cola font. At another angle, it looks like a simple black can with nutritional data and a list of ingredients. At a third, an image of a football is all that is visible to give me an indication of what is inside. If three people saw this can, each from only one of these perspectives, they could draw different conclusions about what the can contained. All three would be basing their “truth” about the contents on empirical evidence, and they could all be right or wrong.
Science encourages the exchange of information which allows for the examination of something from multiple perspectives. In science or at work, when we consider something from many points-of-view, the quality of our analysis and the likelihood of knowing the whole truth increases. The scientific method encourages researchers to seek the whole truth. So does great leadership. Leaders allow for the possibility that no one person may know the whole truth. They encourage parties to exchange information in a spirit of openness and thoughtful deliberation. No, this doesn’t mean we spend hours sharing data to determine the contents of a can, but what about the challenges that truly matter? Leaders understand the importance of reconciling the many perspectives on an issue to help find the whole truth.
