If your ears are in decline you can buy hearing aids. Poor vision? Depending on the cause you can be fitted with glasses or contact lenses, or get cataract surgery or cornea transplants.

Can’t smell well? Mostly, you’re out of luck.

Being insensitive to aromas can be debilitating, as when I briefly tried to become a wine snob. I had to give it up after drinking a glass that supposedly “… opens to reveal lifted fruit aromas of bright strawberry and jammy fruit, mocha, and vanilla, along with toasty oak notes. Expressive boysenberry, blackberry, dark cherry, juicy strawberry, and toasty mocha flavors lend complexity and depth on the palate.”

The gentleman running the wine tasting provided this account (well, it was sorta like that recitation; my memory isn’t good enough to provide the verbatim version) shortly after I was asked to provide my assessment. “Well,” I suggested, “It’s a dry wine, and I’m pretty sure the recipe included grapes of some kind.”

Actual anosmia and hyposmia, while rarely tragic, are still worth curing when a cure is possible. And yet we, as a nation, invest little in developing better treatments, as evidenced by the National Institutes of Health, which includes the National Eye Institute and National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, but no National Institute of Schnoz Syndromes.

Canines live in a different umwelt (perceptual universe) than human beings. If they ran the country, olfactory impairment would be a much higher priority, smell being a dog’s most important sense.

They don’t, and there’s a parallel in the business world (of course there is!).

If you’re among KJR’s IT readership, the situation is familiar to the point of distraction: Something in the IT architecture needs to be fixed because in its current state it’s debilitating with respect to IT’s ability to do what its business partners want it to do, or it’s well beyond its end of life, likely to fail unpredictably, or otherwise in an unacceptable state for highly technical reasons that are very real but quite difficult to explain to a non-technical audience.

That is, you’re the dog. You and the rest of your pack can try to explain just how bad it smells to the humans who decide priorities, but their umwelt limits their ability to truly(oh, what the heck, as long as we’re shoveling obscure terms around) grok the situation.

Reverse roles: If you’re among the humans who are listening to the dogs barking about the need to invest more heavily in the IT infrastructure, your eyes will start to glaze. They more or less have to as the primary arguments are aromatic, not visual, and there’s no way to add fragrances to a PowerPoint deck.

And … trust me on this … if your IT dogs are barking about infrastructure risks you aren’t going to placate them by scratching behind their ears while saying, “Who’s a good sysadmin? You’re a good sysadmin! Yes you are!”

It’s become commonplace to gripe about the extent to which humans base their (not our!) decisions on emotion rather than logic. I’ve made this point myself (for example, here). Mr. Spock notwithstanding, the criticism, while not wrong, is often a misdiagnosis of why people find even the most compelling evidence and logic unconvincing.

More often than not the problem is as much a matter of conflicting umwelts as of emotion overpowering logic.

In most companies, engineers, including IT professionals, live in a different perceptual and cognitive universe than business management. Fail to bridge the gap and tragedy ensues, as it did with the Challenger disaster, and again more recently with Boeing’s 737 Max.

The deep-root-cause isn’t emotion-based decision-making, or corporate greed, or some other personal characteristic.

It isn’t, that is, personal so much as it’s interpersonal. People have trouble spanning the gap that separates different umwelts. In my experience, at least, what more often needs to be fixed is a lack of sufficient empathy on both sides of a conversation.

When I can’t see the world through your eyes … or, more significantly, when I see the world through my eyes and your understanding of the world is based on your nose … all the evidence and logic in the world aren’t going to paint a picture I can properly understand.

So if you want to become more persuasive, don’t start with evidence, logic, or emotion.

Start by understanding how the other person experiences the world.

Warning: If you’re planning to watch any Marvel Universe movies but somehow just haven’t gotten around to it, plot spoilers follow. But then, on the other hand, if you haven’t already watched any of these movies you probably never will, which will make what follows just a bit less compelling. Such are the hazards of building an intellectual edifice on a pop culture foundation.

I have a weakness for superhero movies. I also have a weakness for chewing on Hey, Waitasec! questions that don’t occur to me until a few days later.

That’s questions like why, in the first Avengers movie, during the whole battle for New York City, the entire U.S. Airforce never bothered to show up.

But never mind that. We can chalk it up to dramatic license, because had a squadron or two of advanced jet fighters equipped with heat seeking missiles joined in, this would have just cramped our superheroes’ style(s).

Black Panther doesn’t get off so easily.

Oh, don’t be like that. My gripe: The entire plot centers on the most technologically advanced country on the planet, Wakanda, relying on a governance model built on an inherited monarchy complemented with trial by combat.

What could possibly go wrong?

Plenty could, and in the movie it does. What fixes it? If you’re thinking it’s everyone in Wakanda saying, “Hey, waitasec! Shouldn’t we be convening a constitutional convention?” you’d be wrong. It ends up getting fixed by a second trial by combat, with everyone in Wakanda perfectly willing to follow the lead of a bullying psychopath should he win round two as well.

He doesn’t — the good guy wins this one, luckily enough — but really, this is a terrible way for a nation to decide on who is going to lead it.

What does this have to do with you and your leadership responsibilities?

Well, maybe it’s a stretch, but some executives do seem to admire the trial-by-combat approach to choosing who gets to decide what, and how. They encourage inter-manager rivalries on the grounds that this leads to more energy and initiative.

Which it does. That the energy and initiative are largely wasted doesn’t seem to matter very much.

Less of a stretch is something fundamental in any organization, from the board of directors on down: Figuring out how to choose the right person to put in charge of each area of responsibility.

The lesson from Black Panther? Strip away the plot and specific characters and you come to this: The tests through which Wakanda chooses its leader have nothing at all to do with the tests its leader has to deal with when holding its leadership office.

Well, in the movie it sorta does because in it the leader doesn’t lead all that much. He acts like those fighting alongside him only better. Yes, he’s inspirational, but no, he doesn’t seem to think in terms of strategy, tactics, and logistics all that much.

Or, more broadly, that leaders of any organization need to think in terms of … well, in terms of the eight tasks of leadership.

Anyway, when choosing the leaders who report to you, don’t make this mistake. Too many times, executives outsmart themselves when choosing managers, when an unstructured conversation built around “These are the challenges you’re going to face if I put you in the job. How would you go about facing them?” would do the job far better, and far more naturally.

But enough carping about Black Panther. Let’s carp about The Avengers: The Age of Ultron instead, and more specifically, how much better things would have turned out had Tony Stark understood a core principle of application development: You always test software. Testing it before you put it in production is better.

I mean seriously: Launching a full-fledged, self-motivated AI into PROD … in this case, a real-world environment in which it had full access to a wide range of destructive weaponry … without first examining its behavior in TEST? Seriously?

Now to be fair, had Tony Stark followed standard testing protocols followed by ITIL-style change management, the movie would have been horrifically dull.

But since there was a movie, and in it you can see what happens with insufficient testing protocols, maybe this would be a good time to review your own testing methods … not only when you deploy software, but also when you deploy new processes and practices that affect how Real Paying Customers do business with your business.

I’m on vacation this week, so I’ll leave you to finish it. Your homework assignment: In the Comments, post your Hey, Waitasec! analysis of Captain America: Civil War.

And yes, plot spoilers are encouraged.