Principle 4

Some people embrace unfamiliar, unusual, and even uncomfortable activities and settings.  When they hear someone propose an argument that diverges from their opinions, they may consider the possible merits of this position rather than discount the person instantly.  When granted the opportunity, they may be willing to participate in cultural rituals or events they have never witnessed before. In contrast, many people are often wary of unfamiliar activities, unpredictable people, or uncomfortable circumstances—sometimes called a need for closure.

Importantly, when people override this inclination to be wary—and instead choose to embrace the unknown and to appreciate diverse people and perspectives—they generally enjoy a range of benefits.  For example

• if people embrace the unfamiliar, the unpredictable, and the uncomfortable, they are more likely to experience unanticipated benefits—perhaps a sense of pride or fascination, for example,
• indeed, unanticipated benefits are more likely than anticipated benefits to boost levels of dopamine in the brain—specifically, in the mesolimbic pathway—experienced as powerful feelings of reward and pleasure. 

Yet, when embrace the unfamiliar, the unpredictable, and the uncomfortable, they do not experience only pleasant emotions.  They tend to experience a blend of pleasant emotions as well as some unpleasant emotions, such as apprehension or uncertainty.  This blend of pleasant feelings and unpleasant feelings, called ambivalent emotions, are especially beneficial.  To illustrate,

• ambivalent emotions have been shown to improve mental health and even physical health,
• ambivalent emotions also enhance the capacity of individuals to solve problems creatively,
• likewise, when people are exposed to unfamiliar cultures and perspectives, they learn insights they had not considered before, also enhancing their creativity,
• these findings could explain the observation that, after regions attract more diverse people, productivity and thus average wages tend to increase significantly.

Many problems in society can be ascribed to the disinclination of people to appreciate the benefits and opportunities in the unfamiliar, the unpredictable, and the uncomfortable.  For example, when the American Defense Forces, together with the International Coalition, arrived in Afghanistan in 2001, military personnel, with noble intentions, attempted to impose their values onto Afghan society. However,

• in general, these personnel were not especially curious about the culture,
• that is, they did not often want to learn about the cultural nuances and practices that people in Afghanistan cherished,
• consequently, locals often perceived American military personnel as aggressive and antagonistic, a perception that evoked some resistance and impeded the goals of these forces.

Fortunately, you do not have to visit war zones to expose themselves to unfamiliar activities, unpredictable people, or uncomfortable circumstances.  Even virtual reality, such as flights over the Alps while using Oculus Go VR headsets, can transform the lives of individuals.  When people are exposed to unfamiliar or remarkable settings while using virtual reality, they are more likely to experience a sense of awe and wonder—a sense that often translates to humility and respect (Edwards et al., 2024; Stellar et al., 2018).  Or, if you do not want to purchase VR headsets, you could

• utilise AI to identify which videos or movies were described by viewers as humbling,
• watch these videos or movies, because these experiences also likely to promote awe, humility, insight, and innovation,
• when meeting people who you perceive as very different to you, attempt to identify the values or beliefs you share,
• when meeting people who you perceive as very similar to you, attempt to identify and to contemplate the values or beliefs that you do not share.

The concern

In Australia, federal and state governments appoint many individuals to various organisations, such as

• government business enterprises—that is, organisations that operate in the private sector but are controlled by governments, such as Australia Post, NBN, and Sydney Water,
• economic agencies, such as the RBA, Productivity Commission, and Commonwealth Grants Commission,
• tribunals and regulatory agencies, such as ACCC, APRA, and ASIC, and
• media outlets, such as ABC and SBS.

Unfortunately, governments often appoint individuals who had previously been politicians, candidates, advisors, or official of their political party.  To illustrate,

• when the federal government appoints individuals to public roles, 7% of the appointments are political affiliates, but 21% of the appointment to the most coveted senior roles, such as chairs, are political affiliates,
• 22% of board members of government business enterprises are political affiliates, 87% of whom were affiliated with the political party in power when appointed (Wood et al., 2022a),
• 22% of members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—a body that enables the public to review government decisions—are political affiliates, 91% of whom were affiliated with the political party in power when appointed (Wood et al., 2022a),
• these figures are conservative, excluding donors, supporters, family members, union members, and other individuals who do not directly work for the political party.

According to some politicians and commentators, these appointments of political affiliates are reasonable and inevitable.  The experiences and networks of these political affiliates may even be valuable in these public roles.  However, this perspective overlooks several telling problems.  For example

• if governments were genuinely attempting to choose the most suitable person, they would not select mainly affiliates of their own party,
• studies, in Australia and elsewhere, indicate that political affiliates do not, on average perform as well in these roles as other individuals (e.g., Gallo & Lewis, 2012)—so this favouritism compromises productivity,
• when political affiliates are selected, the public tends to perceive these independent organisations, such as the Productivity Commission, as biased and untrustworthy, compromising trust in these bodies,
• when these appointments are biased, individuals who would like to secure these roles in the future are reluctant to question the government (Daley, 2021)—and hence governments do not receive the feedback they need to operate effectively.

In general, past attempts to curb these political appointments have been unsuccessful.  To illustrate

• the Merit and Transparency policy, partly designed to limit these political appointments, are not adequate, partly because ministers can utilise a range of exemptions to disregard these principles,
• besides a few exceptions, such as the ABC and SBS, governments seldom utilise independent panels to shortlist candidates.

Partial solutions

According to the Grattan Institute (Wood et al., 2022a), to address these concerns

• all appointments to public boards, tribunals, and statutory bodies, together with the key selection criteria, should be advertised widely,
• to oversee these appointments, the government should appoint a Public Appointments Commissioner who the opposition party approves,
• an independent panel—usually comprising the relevant departmental secretary, the Public Appointments Commissioner, and diverse representatives, as chosen by this commissioner—should apply the key selection criteria to identify a shortlist of candidates,
• the minister can choose only applicants who appear on this shortlist,
• the relevant legislation and policies, including the Merit and Transparency, should be revised to accommodate these changes,
• only specific deviations should be permitted; for example, if a role needs to be fulfilled immediately, the minister could select an interim candidate.

For two reasons, this initiative conforms to the principle that individuals and organisations should appreciate the benefits and opportunities in the unfamiliar and the uncomfortable.  First, this initiative should increase the diversity of members on the selection panel. Second, this initiative should increase the diversity of individuals who are appointed to these roles.   

The challenge

Like most other nations, Australia has introduced an array of initiatives, such as the Future Made in Australia Act, to increase productivity, especially in manufacturing.  If successful, this increase in productivity would significantly improve the living standards of Australians.  To achieve this goal, organisations would need to embrace digital advances, such as a strategic combination of artificial intelligence, additive manufacturing, robotics, augmented reality, and autonomous vehicles.  Unfortunately, in contrast to large organisations, fewer small and medium enterprises utilise these digital advances.  To illustrate,

• fewer than 2% of these small and medium enterprises have embedded AI, virtual reality, or blockchain into their operations,
• many barriers, such as inadequate access to credit, few economies of scale, and limited confidence of managers, have impeded this digitalisation.   

Somehow, in Australia and in many other nations, governments need to inspire more small and medium enterprises to embrace digital advances that may seem unfamiliar to managers.  The question, then, becomes how can Australia inspire managers to embrace unfamiliar technologies?  

The solution

Fortunately, according to Nakandala (2024), in a report entitled “Recharging SME manufacturing in NSW”, governments can introduce a coordinated series of practices that encourage these managers to support unfamiliar practices.  These practices revolve around the notion of a technology centre.  Technology centres are bodies, co-created with small and medium enterprises, that coordinate the activities that manufacturing enterprises need to undertake to implement digital advances (for precedents, see the Mittelstand 4.0 Centres of Excellence in Germany).  To illustrate,

• these centres could deploy independent advisors, from higher education institutions or other associations, to offer unbiased advice on which technologies a small or medium enterprise should consider and how these enterprises could implement these technologies efficiently,
• for example, these advisors might suggest that collaborative robots, or cobots, might be more suitable to small or medium enterprise than are robots, demanding less space, safety infrastructure, and other resources,
• these centres could second technology specialists from large firms to small or medium enterprises, primarily to help these enterprises both implement digital advances as well as become more embedded in supply chains,
• these centres could manage a lease program, in which small or medium enterprises can initially lease specific technologies to trial these platforms, so they do not need to invest heavily before they commit to a specific course of action,
• similarly, these centres could develop an online platform in which small or medium enterprises can access specific technologies, perhaps at no cost,
• finally, these centres would manage the funding to support this initiative—such as funding from government or investment from financial organisations. 

This coordinated set of initiatives would, as Nakandala (2024) underscored, offer the support that managers of small or medium enterprises often need to embrace unfamiliar digital advances and to overcome any existing doubts or scepticism. ersity of individuals who are appointed to these roles.