This might sound counterintuitive, but it is not once you have the right frame. Think about it this way - in the world we live in, with so much and growing complexity, how often the problems we face are truly similar to what we had before? Sometimes, surely. But what happens when they are not - and usually that is exactly when things can go wrong.
In my very first post here, I explained why the name of the blog and the influence of the late Clay Christensen, who used to point out that:
Past success and even historical data is only good at predicting the future for as long as conditions are same or sufficiently similar. And that, to deal with uncertainty, leaders need good ‘theories’ which help us to understand ‘how’ and ‘why’.
G.K. Chesterton, British writer and thinker, has a similar idea by saying that whenever we deal with new problems, the unknown, it's not practicality (or the practical person) that is needed, but theory (or the non-practical person, the conceptual). I guess a big element is that knowledge fully from practice only means trial and error - and you might get some hits here and there with that approach only, but effectiveness will be likely lacking.
One needs new connection of dots, and new patterns to emerge, still often with some level of trial and error, but guided by conceptual thinking and theoretical knowledge.
And here is a few additional insights of directly linked or tangent to this overarching theme:
Dave Snowden has founded his approach towards handling complexity in management in the utility of theory based practice.
Evolutionary theory recognizes already for a while the concept of exaptation - which is how we can explain that missing links on evolution traces through years, and the evidence that sometimes that happens with a leap, cannot be fully explained by process of adaptation of the most suited.
Creativity theory seems to recognize that there is a bit of a myth in the so-called "think out of the box" as an idea. And that most of the value of creative thinking comes from connecting known dots and adding, subtracting, dividing or multiplying existing elements so that a new pattern emerges. It's more incremental in nature. A great reference book on that is "Inside The Box" by Boyd & Goldenberg.
Permeating the whole thing is the idea of repurposing, of making something known useful in another context. Or tapping into your own little conceptual toolbox and thinking of how some of what you know might come handy for dealing with something new that popped up.
The sort motto could sound something like:
Expand your repertoire, so that it can guide putting in practice in a bounded applicable way.
Thanks for the comment, comrade. Anything I can try to help with? Just reach out... you know where to find me!
Interesting thoughts. I don't have anything else to add at the moment but I will say it is thought provoking in light of my own issues I've been encountering.