Lone Wolf Meets Devil's Advocate -- Situational Decision-Making

• What are the obstacles that hamper thriving decision-making?
• What are the downsides of group decision-making?
• How does our supervision style work on the process of decision-making?
• And why is rational thinking overrated?

The following record discusses tools for the supervision of decision-making processes under changing conditions.

Decision-Making with Style

Try to recall an leading decision which you were a part of in the past 6 months. Think of the most necessary selection you had to make in your organization. How was this decision taken? Did the senior manger make the call after consulting with any assistants? Was it a majority rule? Was it a consensus decision? Were objective facts and data the driving force behind it, or intuitions and feelings? How long did it take to make the final decision?

Some of us tend to make our major decisions on our own, while others prefer to do it after hearing the opinions and exploring the options with others. We also differ in the time we take to make a decision, and in our need to base it on factual prognosis or on intuition. In other words, each of us has a characteristic personal decision-making style.

The managerial decision-making style may be mapped using three axes:

• Decision-making speed: on the one end you have the impulsive decision-makers, who do no stop to reconsider the results of their choices, while on the other greatest you'll find those who postpone and avoid production any decision in fear of taking responsibility for it.
• Collection of information: to what extent does the employer base their decisions on an prognosis of data as opposed to intuition and an internal compass.
• Sharing: the extent and manner by which managers involve and consist of others in the collection of data and in the production of the decision itself.

Usually, when we think of the first axis - decision-making speed - the common view about postponing a decision is negative ("How long must we wait for his decision?"). Indeed, some situations call for an early resolution before things get out of hand and a greater question is faced. However, on other situations a hasty decision may very costly. In other cases things may be resolved by themselves (one may say that it is better "to rule not to decide" then).

The second and third axes (collection of data and sharing) Supply a framework for describing five typical managerial decision makers:

• The Lone Wolf: this employer never consults with whatever and decides on everything by himself.
• The Surveyor: this type of employer does not hold a discussion before the decision, but rather samples the views of citizen complicated (in a kind of referendum), and decides according to the majority view.
• The Authoritarian: this employer consults and listens to others to draw ideas and directions, but makes the final decision by himself.
• Semi-Democratic: this employer holds a discussion and strives for a group decision, yet keeps the right of veto on confident decisions.
• Harmonic: this employer consults and reaches a common agreeMent, regularly straight through a consensus (e.g. Where others have the right of veto as well).

Flexible decision-making - according to the situation

In order to improve the ability of decision-making, we should begin by recognizing our typical decision-making style and that of our co-workers. In addition, as managers, we must understand that dissimilar situations call for dissimilar decision-making strategies and techniques. Therefore, we have to procure new mechanisms for production decisions, so that we may choose the way we tackle a situation according to its characteristics.

There are three central questions we need to ask ourselves whenever we are about to make a managerial decision:

• Is it vital to make a decision, and if so - how urgent is it?
• What data is required in order to make a calculated choice, and when is it necessary to go ahead even with partial information?
• Who need to be a part of the decision-making process, and to what extent?

Let us demonstrate the use of the above questions straight through any examples:

Example A: The organization has grown and needs to be moved to a new office building. The Operations employer is required to choose the location for the new building. His decision will probably have a direct work on on all departMents, and it is desirable to make them a part of the process. This will often contribute to the ability of the decision (providing a more holistic view of the implications of the decision), and will also lower levels of resistance once the decision is made (as everyone had a opening to express their concerns and suggestions and where complicated early in the process).

The decision does not seem to be an urgent one, as well. In such a scenario the Operations employer may prepare preliminary data on ready choices, costs, and considerations. Later - others may be made part of the decision buy presenting three or four proper options, to be decided by the majority. The Surveyor style is most appropriate.

Example B: One of your employees was caught stealing company equipment. Your decision will not directly work on other employees (they might learn from the way you deal with the case). The best tactics in this case would be a proper investigation of the facts, and if in fact the laborer has committed the theft, it should be handled without delay and in an authoritarian manner - discharging the employee. It is advisable to consult with the Hr group and the legal department, to make sure the extraction adheres to all legal procedures.

Example C: You come over a necessary company opening for your organization, but a quick response and performance is needed in order to grab it. It is confident that others will be influenced by the decision, and must therefore be a part of it. In order not to lose time you may call an urgent interdisciplinary meeting, collecting vital data from all particiPants before production a common and more balanced decision, taking into notice the discrete risks and benefits. A group decision will also allow other the opening to agree and support the new company direction.

The Age of Rationality and its dangers

If we seek to improve the way we make decisions, insight the situation and adopting the proper decision-making style is hardly enough. The crossroads in which we choose the directions to our hereafter carry with them quite a few traps and obstacles that may fail us. Following is a discussion of some familiar pitfalls of decision-making processes, along with relevant tools and measures to face those dangers.

The modern age has seen the rise of rational thinking to a position of supremacy. This has gone so far as to lead to the illusion that human can and should try to be excellent decision-makers. The unequivocal reliance in the rationality of man is based on the modern view of man, on western religious doctrine and on the rise and achievements of science in the past two centuries. However, there is still a lot of evidence of the limits of human rationality. We know of the petite ability to procure and process decision-related information, the subjective interpretation of facts, and the effects of personality and culture on decisions.

Consider, for instance, a meeting in which the particiPants have to make a confident decision. In most cases, they would voice arguments supporting dissimilar views, using logical explanations to support their point of view. The fundamental meaning of production a decision in such a setting is that one explanation is logically exact while other arguments are logically false. This process fails to face the truth of petite data that particiPants have. It completely ignores the emotions and egos affecting the procedure of discussion.

One of the tools that are used in organizations to broaden the scope of thinking and decision-making is Edward De Bono's method of Six thinking Hats. We used it in numerous organizational settings and training sessions as a tool for an effective and proper discussion of complicated issues. It helps map dissimilar aspects of the branch towards production a decision.

The principle of this method is to direct the thinking and the moot of all group members to six dissimilar thinking directions. Thus, the enTire group moves forward in the same direction, instead of clashing and arguing on the exact way to adDress the issue altogether. For instance, early in the discussion participants should put on their "Red Hat" - encouraging citizen to express feelings, hunches and intuitions - without the need for logical explanations. This minimizes incommunicable work on of negative or confident feelings later in the discussion. Wearing the "White Hat" (focusing on facts, data and missing data) soon afterwards prevents the dangers of ignoring crucial facts and ensures that a decision can be made based on ready information. The use of other thinking hats may Supply an acknowledge to other typical decision-making errors - such as wearing the Black Hat to explore possible problems when the enTire group is enthusiastic about arresting forward with a confident decision.
Overcoming group pressure

Another familiar hazard characteristic of group decision-making is the Groupthink effect, discussed by Janis & Mann (1977). The Abilene Paradox also describes how group decisions can verily be opposite to the views of its members. This phenomena was observed by Jerry B. Harvey and it denotes a process that leads a group to make an irrational decision, mostly because each member tries to adjust his/her opinion to what they reconsider to be the view of other group members.

Numerous studies have shown that this type of failure has lead to crucial decisions - such as the Us misinterpretation of the Japanese maneuvers before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the invasion to the Cuban Bay of Pigs, the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters and lately - the American invasion of Iraq.

Janis lists a estimate of symptoms that help recognize when groupthink occurs - the illusion of unanimity, self censorship, avoidance of criticism, pressure on non-conformists, etc. He then points to the typical characteristics of decisions made under these conditions - insufficient examination of alternatives, partial insight of the purposes of the decision, ignoring of necessary risks involved, lack of vital data and no contingency plans.

We offer two tools for a structured discussion in order to reduce the dangers of groupthink. The first tool is called "Devil's Advocate" and is used to force the participants to observe the arguments against a decision that is about to be made. Before or at the outset of the moot one of the group members is given the role of questioning the fundamental assumptions and major arguments of the team. When man is trusted with this legal role, there are greater chances that they will not fear to express their criticism, opening the way for others to raise doubts and disagreements.

Another tool for overcoming the risks of groupthink is based on the Delphi Technique for situational prognosis and decision-making. The views of each group member are written separately and collected in develop (and in sensitive decision - anonymously). The results are then collected and discussed in the group. Due to this seemingly technical procedure participants don't know the opinions of others when they have to make their own recommendation, and a wider range of views is regularly produced.

We used this technique for an expert committee that discussed and rated product innovation ideas. The meeting is opened with a normal discussion on the criteria that should be considered when rating the ideas. Participants then personally rate dozens of innovation ideas (produced beforehand) on a scale of 1-5. An mean rating for each idea is calculated from these personel judgments and the top ranking ideas are discussed. In such a way, a confident idea may be extremely rated by most members, yet one participant might have noticed a major flaw in the idea, and his reservation is revealed straight through the low rating given to the idea.

The trap of commitment (to preceding decisions)

The last aspect of decision-making we turn our attentiveness to has to do with emotion and ego. Whenever we make a personal decision, or are complicated in a group decision, we come to be emotionally and psychologically committed to the selection we made. As time progresses and we spend more resources in the performance of our chosen path, our personel and organizational tendency to support that direction grows. Even if we are faced with signs that indicate that the customary decision was wrong, we regularly find it hard to admit the mistake, conquer our ego and pride, and convert it. This kind of situation may lead to a magic trap, driving citizen and organizations on a path of deterioration and escalation of a particular mistake, leading to more and more wrong choices (see Drummond, 1994).

An arresting way to expose managers to this type of danger, so that they may learn to avoid it, is by letting them sense it. This may be accomplished, for instance, straight through a decision-making simulation and prognosis straight through board games. Such exercises wish participating managers to make personal, small team and enTire group decisions in a collection of game situations. Most partakers fall into the trap of sticking to an preliminary game plan, and find it hard to exert strategic or tactical flexibility. Following this demonstration straight through play, is an notice and discussion of the emotional and inter-personal causes of this escalation. Finally, work associated examples of similar decision patterns should be discussed and tools are offered for breaking those patterns.

Improving the ability of personal and organizational decision

In this final section, we advise ways to cope with the dangers listed above. The suggested measures may be implemented by the supervision of the organization, and especially the Human resource Department:

1. Raising the awareness of managers and employees to their decision-making styles straight through the use of personal test or surveys, observations, supervision consulting or workshops.
2. A systematic placement of dissimilar types of decision-makers in key positions and in task forces.
3. Encouraging the use of decision-making tools such as Delphi, consensual decision-making, Devil's Advocate and the Six thinking Hats.
4. The prognosis of cases of good and bad decisions in the organization itself - aiming towards studying rather then blaming.

Personally, each one of us may learn to improve our decision by observing the ways other citizen make decisions, asking feedback on the way we make decisions, and intentionally trying out decision-making styles which are dissimilar from our typical style. All of this should ultimately contribute for enhancing the way we make decisions and the ability of the decisions we make. In the long term - this is what every organization and man must do in order to develop in today's arresting world.

References

• Harvey, Jerry B. (1988). The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.
• Janis, I. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision Making: A Psychological prognosis of Conflict, selection and Commitment. New York: The Free Press.
• Drummond, H. (1994), "Escalation in Organizational Decision Making: A Case of Recruiting an Incompetent Employee", Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 43-55.

---

My Links : Weber GasGrill Outdoor