{"id":5362,"date":"2013-03-12T09:00:27","date_gmt":"2013-03-12T09:00:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/meeseeks:5080\/blog\/?p=5362"},"modified":"2013-03-12T09:00:27","modified_gmt":"2013-03-12T09:00:27","slug":"let-me-count-the-ways","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vukutu.com\/blog\/2013\/03\/let-me-count-the-ways\/","title":{"rendered":"Let me count the ways"},"content":{"rendered":"

A cartoon I once saw had a manager asking his subordinate to list all the action-options available for some decision, then to list the pros and cons of each action-option and then to count them, pros and cons combined, and to choose the option with the highest combined total.\u00a0 Thus, if one option A had 2 pros and 1 con, and another option B had 1 pro and 5 cons, the latter would be selected.\u00a0\u00a0 You might call this the Pointy-Haired Boss model of decision-making.
\nIt is interesting to ask exactly why is this NOT a sensible way of deciding what to do in some situation.\u00a0\u00a0 Most of us would say that firstly, this method ignores the direction of the arguments for and against doing something – it flattens out the positive and negative nature of (respectively) the pros and the cons.\u00a0\u00a0 Even inserting positive and negative signs to the numbers of supporting arguments would be better:\u00a0 Thus, option A would have +2 and -1, giving a net value of +1, while option B would have +1 and -5, giving a net value of -4; choosing option A over B on this basis would feel better, since we taking into account the direction of support or attack.
\nBut even this additive approach ignores the strength of the support of each pro argument, and the strength of the attack of each con argument.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In other words, even the additive approach still flattens something – in this case, the importance of each pro or con.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We might then consider inserting some measure of value or importance to the arguments.\u00a0 If they involve any uncertainty, then we might also add some measure of that in some form or other, whether quantitative (eg, probabilities) or qualitative (eg, linguistic labels).
\nBut let us stay with the pointy-haired boss for a moment.\u00a0\u00a0 We have 3 arguments (2 pro, 1 con) under A, and 6 arguments (1 pro, 5 con) under B. \u00a0 Why do we have more arguments for some options than for others?\u00a0 It could be because we have thought about some options more than we have others, or because, through our own direct experience or observation of the experiences of others, we know more about the likely upsides and downsides of some options.\u00a0\u00a0 The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, for example, because we’ve not yet been over that side of the fence to see the mud there.\u00a0\u00a0 On our side, we can clearly see all the downsides as well as the ups.\u00a0 Human decision biases may also lead us to emphasize the negative sides of more familiar situations, while emphasizing the positives of less familiar situations.
\nA model of decision-making I have proposed before – retroflexive decision-making<\/a> – understands that real managers in real organizations making important decisions don’t generally have only the one pass at deciding the possible decision-options and articulating the pros and cons of each.\u00a0 Rather, managers work iteratively and collectively, sharing their knowledge and experiences, drawing on wide sources, and usually seeking to build a consensus view. \u00a0 In addition, they almost never work in a vacuum – rather, they work within a context of legacy policies and systems, with particular corporate strengths, experiences, skills, expertise, technologies, business partners, trading relationships, regulatory environments, and even personalities, and within overall intended future corporate directions. \u00a0 All this context means that some decision-options will already be favoured and others disfavoured. \u00a0 That much is human – and corporate – nature. \u00a0 Consequently, decision-makers will naturally seek to strengthen the pros and the positive consequences of some options (including, but usually not only, the favoured ones), while weakening or mitigating their cons and negative consequences of those options.
\nNone of this is wrong – in fact, it is good management.\u00a0\u00a0 Every<\/em> decision-option in any even moderately complex domain will have both pros and cons.\u00a0 Making work whichever option is selected will be a matter of finding ways to eliminate or mitigate the negative consequences, while at the same time seeking to strengthen the positive consequences. \u00a0 Those options where we know more about the pros and cons are also likely to be the options where we have the greatest leverage from experience, knowledge, and expertise to accentuate the pros and to mitigate the cons.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To that extent, the Pointy-Haired Boss model is not necessarily as stupid as it may seem.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A cartoon I once saw had a manager asking his subordinate to list all the action-options available for some decision, then to list the pros and cons of each action-option and then to count them, pros and cons combined, and to choose the option with the highest combined total.\u00a0 Thus, if one option A had […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5362","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-decision-theory","p1","y2013","m03","d12","h09"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vukutu.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5362","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vukutu.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vukutu.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vukutu.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vukutu.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5362"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vukutu.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5362\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vukutu.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vukutu.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vukutu.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}