A couple years after the world financial system quite predictably melted down, it seems some of the more mainstream journalists are becoming interested in what we call “wildcard scenarios.” Kevin Drum sat down with Reuters’ Felix Salmon and learned:

We should all be more worried about the potential of a mass casualty event — an epidemic, a gigantic earthquake, a massive hurricane, etc. — to annihilate the insurance industry and take out the rest of the financial system as a side effect. The AIDS epidemic nearly did it, Felix says, and missed only because most of its victims weren’t insured. A really big hurricane hitting Long Island could do it, though.

Yes indeed, why don’t we think more about low-probability, high-impact scenarios? It’s not because these are new concepts, oh no. Herman Kahn from RAND Corporation introduced scenario analysis in a modern context to deal with the possibility of nuclear war. He made his entire reputation by bringing leaders unwanted outcomes (notably, destroying the planet) and walking them backward (“backcasting“) toward ways to avoid negative consequences (such as everybody dying). We’ve had fifty years to absorb Kahn’s messages.

Why don’t we think more about wildcard scenarios? It’s not that they haven’t become popular in the business world. Shell’s scenario group supposedly got on the right side of the oil crisis of the 1970s and built the next forty years of success on their understanding of probable outcomes. Those responsible published heavily and built wonderful speaking careers telling others about how to think in terms of scenarios.

Heck, I even wrote a book about how anyone, from a high school kid up to a CEO, can use trend analysis, scenarios and implications for anything. Why didn’t I end up on Oprah’s couch, telling everybody how to save the world with scenario analysis? Now available to the masses in non-jargony language and using the future of beer as a case study! Fun for the whole family!

Let me ask you the reader – how prevalent is scenario thinking in your organization? How many of your senior leaders are willing to entertain the possibility – however slight and “wildcard-y” – that the world may turn out in a way that could make their decisions the wrong thing to do?

And, a better question, what percentage of executives would take such intellectual exploration – hypothetical, mind you! – as a direct challenge to their authority?

How many public relations and communications staffers would find conjecture about potential futures, turning up unfiltered on social media ,as a direct challenge to the message they are trying to craft?

These are the cultural questions of bureaucracy we in the intelligence and strategy world need to deal with before turning out anymore 1500-page analyses of potential world events. We should save the toner cartridges until we deal with how organizations actually work.