By DSFP Fellow Bill Ang

Welcome to Podcasts with the Ancients - my (imaginary) show where I drag history’s greatest minds into the present and ask them to help us with problems we pretend are new.

It rarely goes well for us.

---

Socrates on Why Your Organisation Has Stopped Thinking

Guest Bio
Socrates. Athens, 470–399 BC.
No books. No published frameworks. No personal brand.

Walked around asking people what they meant by words like justice, wisdom, and courage - until they realised they couldn’t explain them.
Was eventually executed for it. Which, depending on how you run your organisation, may feel… familiar.

Intro
I’ve spent most of my career in rooms where thinking is the product. Brand strategy sessions.
Leadership off-sites. Innovation workshops.

We say we want fresh thinking. We say we value challenge. We say we reward honesty. And yet - hand on heart - when was the last time someone in your organisation said something that made the room genuinely uncomfortable?

Not performatively provocative. Not cleverly phrased. But uncomfortablein a way that made people shift in their seats.

When did someone follow a difficult question all the way to an answer that no one wanted? So I called Socrates.

The Interview

BILL:Socrates, thank you for being here. I have to start with the obvious - you never wrote anything down. No books, no system, nothing scalable. By modern standards, you’d be impossible to monetise. How did you manage to have that level of influence?
SOCRATES: You assume influence was the objective.
BILL: Wasn’t it?
SOCRATES: No. The objective was not to let a claim pass without examination. Influence was a side effect of persistence. Let me ask you - why do you publish ideas before you have finished thinking them through?

Wow, that landed more directly than I expected.

BILL: In my world, speed matters. You don’t always have the luxury of prolonged reflection.
SOCRATES: Then you should be careful what you are confident about.
BILL: That’s easy to say. Organisations need decisions.
SOCRATES: Of course. I am not arguing against decisions. I am observing something else. Your people are rewarded for appearing certain, not for revealing confusion. So they learn to hide the very thing that would make the organisation wiser.

BILL: That sounds right. But it’s structural. You can’t run a company on endless questioning.
SOCRATES: You misunderstand me. I am not asking you to question everything. I am asking whether there exists anywhere in your organisation where a question can be followed to its honest conclusion. Without interruption. Without defensiveness. Without career consequences.

I’ve been in enough rooms to know the answer.

BILL: Some companies try. Culture values stuff. Feedback channels. Anonymous surveys.
SOCRATES: And when those reveal something inconvenient - what happens?
BILL: It depends.
SOCRATES: On what?
BILL: On what the issue is and erm, who is being challenged.

He smiles. Not unkindly.

SOCRATES: Then your organisation does not have a thinking problem. It has a courage problem. You build mechanisms for truth, and then you decide - behind the scenes - how much of it you are willing to hear.
BILL: That’s a difficult thing to admit.
SOCRATES: Most true things are.

BILL: You were executed for asking questions. That suggests there’s a limit - that some systems simply cannot tolerate real inquiry.
SOCRATES: Yes. And I think you already know this, but prefer not to say it plainly. Some questions threaten the identity of those in power. Not because those people are foolish - but because they have come to confuse their role with their worth. To question their decision feels, to them, like questioning their value as a person. This is a very human confusion. And it does not disappear because you have declared your organisation ‘open’.

That one stays with me.

BILL: So what does a healthy organisation actually look like, then?
SOCRATES: A simple measure:
What questions can it survive?
A healthy one can withstand being wrong.
A fragile one must protect the appearance of being right.

BILL: Last question. If you were running a team today - thirty people, quarterly targets, all of it - what would you actually do differently?
SOCRATES: I would begin with something very simple. I would ask each person, privately, to describe what they believe we are here to do. Not the mission statement. Their understanding. And I would listen. Not for alignment - but for divergence.
Because if thirty people give you thirty different answers, you are not leading one organisation. You are leading thirty interpretations of it.

BILL: And then?
SOCRATES: Then I would decide whether I want the truth, or the comfort of believing we are aligned. Most leaders choose the second. They just prefer not to say so.

---

Editorial Note
What strikes me about Socrates isn’t that he has better answers. It’s that he refuses to let you hide behind the ones you already have.

I’ve sat in rooms where we said we wanted challenge. What we meant was: challenge that doesn’t destabilise the status quo, or the person in charge.

We build feedback systems. We create safe spaces. We run workshops about openness. And then - very subtly - we draw a line around what is safe to say.

Not out of malice. Out of the very human instinct to protect the story we are telling about ourselves.

An organisation’s intelligence is not measured by the answers it produces - but by the questions it is willing to tolerate.

---

The Takeaway
Try something simple this week. In your next team meeting, ask everyone to write down - privately - what they believe is the single biggest risk to your current plan.

Collect the answers anonymously.
Read them out.
Don’t explain them.
Don’t defend them.
Just listen.
You may discover that the thinking you’re looking for... has been in the room all along.

Socrates didn’t give me a framework.
Just a question I’m not entirely comfortable holding.
I suspect that was the point.

This article was first published on Bill’s LinkedIn. Follow him to read subsequent episodes of the Podcasts with the Ancients series.