We often overlook the power of questioning the status quo.
There's a concept I've been pondering: Elon's Fence, a counterpoint to the better-known ​Chesterton's Fence​. Elon's Fence is about challenging defaults—the unquestioned 'fences' that shape our lives and work.
To be honest, I'm also one of the people who can find Elon's behaviour irksome at times. But there's a lot we can borrow from his underlying philosophy.
Elon advocates for stripping away assumed necessities until their true value (or lack thereof ) is revealed.
This is his 'algorithm'—the process for running his businesses—which starts with removing steps people assume are needed until something breaks, and then optimising for the steps that remain
It's a process of relentless questioning: why does this step exist? What purpose does it serve? Is it still relevant?
Many steps become obsolete over time but people stick with them because 'that's the way we've always done it'.
What are fences for?
Chesterton's Fence is a razor (mental model) that cautions us against removing something without understanding its purpose. It's a safeguard against reckless change.
"Don't remove a fence until you know why it was put there in the first place." - G.K. Chesterton
However, Elon's Fence encourages a more proactive approach: experimentally removing parts of the 'fence' to see if the wolves come, to discover the true purpose behind what we've always taken for granted. Many 'fences' exist only because the status quo is sticky.
It's the same way a bunch of tech companies started hiring Chief Metaverse Officers with no idea what they were supposed to do, but everyone else was doing it and you didn't want to be caught out.
The tyranny of the inoffensive
I was out for a walk one day and saw a woman coming home.
She was walking at a decent pace. As she arrived at her front gate, instead of fiddling with the latch she stepped over the adjoining wall with a practiced ease.
It was clearly something she did regularly. And there's logic to it. Why faff about with the gate when you could just step over the wall?
But if she was going to avoid the gate every time why not just remove it?
Think about the accumulating discomfort of the gymnastics this woman had to do every time she left the house, to save the discomfort of losing a fence.
We tolerate these sunk costs all the time. It’s particularly nefarious with sunk costs that seem like righteous defaults.
Having a fence outside your house seems very sensible. Most people have one. No one will ever call you silly for having one. But if the way you live makes the fence useless, you end up looking silly by having to climb over it every day.
We accept similar defaults in our life and work. Unobjectionable positions that slowly steal our efficiency. It’s the nine-step sign-off process to make a simple decision on a project. It’s the subscription you pay for on the off chance you might ever want to use it.
Next time you run into a recurring pain, instead of trying to optimise for it, try deleting it entirely.
Too often we plan for an imagined worst-case scenario without ever testing for gaps in our assumptions.
