Decision Making Models

In our previous posts covering Mental Models I introduced the concept of two categories of mental models that are defaults in most people. The first was the Rational model. The rational model thinker is driven by a need to gather as much information as possible to understand their world and to make a decision. Rational thinkers are driven to gain as much information, data, insight and understanding of a situation BEFORE acting. In the most recent post I outlined some of the significant problems we can encounter in a system that is too rooted in the Rational Model. 

The second was what has been called Mixed-scanning. Those who ascribe to a mixed scanning approach willobtain enough information that they think allows them to make a good decision for the next step. They will then move forward and try to gain as much information, data, insight and understanding of a situation AS and AFTER acting. Subsequent decisions will then get made in light of these new conditions. 

In the Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz introduces the concept of two types of decision makers: maximizers and satisficers. Maximizers are rational model types who will agonize over every detail in fear that they will miss some ideal choice. Satisficers will figure out the minimum they feel they need to make a decision. Interestingly Schwartz’s research shows that satisfiers tend to be happier. I will note that there has been some backlash among the intellectual community to some of Schwartz’s findings. Some saying less is more, some saying more is more, some saying it depends. I think the key is in the level of uncertainty that one feels around the choices. If uncertainty of options is very low (e.g. if rational info gathering is “complete”), then the number of options is immaterial. However, if large uncertainty exists around choices, and sufficient information gathering is time consuming, impractical or impossible (or all three!) then the number of choices needs to be small. I contend that this how mixed-scanning works best. Understand enough to move forward with a critical next step (Observe and Orient from our OODA-loop example in Post Number 1), take that step (Decide and Act from OODA-loop) and then check, and redo it moving forward.

So to understand how we make crucial decisions to integrate our life and work, we need to get clear on our comfort zone for making those decisions. Then we need to be clear on the context of the decision, and realize we may need to act in the one that is outside our “normal” comfort zone. Ultimately if we’re going to focus and integrate the “system” of our lives, decision making will need to occur all the time, and at every level. The challenge is on us to decide and move forward. In fact, we may need to only decide on a few key critical next actions and then have the discipline to stop and think about where we go next.

Problems With the Rational Model

In our previous discussion of mental models, we talked about two types of models. In this post I want to divert and discuss some problems and limitations that come from applying the Rational Model approach. Many people, especially those with technical backgrounds, will equate systems thinking with a rational approach. 

In the seminal management book, In Search of Excellence,Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr., found issues with the Rational Model when they studied the excellent companies. This was a particularly interesting part of the book to me (In Search of Excellence, Chapter 2). It was obviously important to them to devote an entire chapter to it’s limitations and fallacies. They uncovered what they summarized were several significant issues, all of which the excellent companies had learn to overcome; 

1. The numerate, analytical component has an in-built conservative bias. Cost reduction becomes priority number one and revenue enhancement takes a back seat.

2. The exclusively analytic approach leads to an abstract, heartless philosophy.

3. To be narrowly rational is often to be negative.

4. Rationality does not value experimentation and abhors mistakes.

5. Anti-experimentation leads inevidently to overcomplexity and inflexibility.

6. The rationalist approach does not celebrate informality.

I believe that there is a prevalence of this mentality afflicting our society today. The reductionist approach of the Rational Model leads to complexity by attempting to continue to break down issues into their constituent parts. This is meant to simplify, yet indeed it tends to introduce complexity. This has been driven in large part by our rapid march toward technological "progress". Our minds tend to want see the world as “fixed”, and want to reject randomness that exists in nature. We automatically want to place data "in it’s place”. Technology only feeds this feeling, or instinct, of a rational fixed pattern or product. As Peters and Waterman rightly observed, this can lead to complexity and inflexibility in our lives. It is also dangerous in that it can cause us to adopt a “heartless philosophy” toward the randomness (read messiness) that is real life. 

Another real danger of this is the loss of beauty. Complexity that is simply described is beauty. The celebration of form over style, function over utility, or more over enough, can lead us to crowd out our appreciation for the simple beauty of our messy world. In 2007, Gene Weingarten published an article in The Washington Postabout an accomplished violinist playing six classical pieces in the L’Enfant Metro station in Washington, DC during rush hour. Approximately 1,097 people passed by Joshua Bell, one of the finest classical musicians in the world while he played some masterpieces that have endured for centuries. This was a free performance of pure art, but very little was noticed or acknowledged by the passing crowd. Weingarten writes, “In the three-quarters of an hour that Joshua Bell played, seven people stopped what they were doing to hang around and take in the performance, at least for a minute. Twenty-seven gave money, most of them on the run -- for a total of $32 and change. That leaves the 1,070 people who hurried by, oblivious, many only three feet away, few even turning to look.” Many, if not most, of those passing by are well-educated, well-paid professionals associated in some way with the Federal Government. Yet, they did not bother to appreciate what they were passing by. Does this mean that beauty is not appreciated? Is it too hard to understand or is not relevant to our busy lives? If so, then indeed our priorities have been flipped on end, and how Rational is that really?

So if we can integrate our priorities around our life and work, we may depart from a Rational model view. A paradox is by being a little “irrational”, we can be whole.

Mental Models

Mental models are the way we see the world. Our brains develop models to make sense of the environment. Our mental models are a compilation of assumptions, our understanding of data and information and a way for us to take action. Mental models literally become neural pathways in our brain that shape how we naturally think, and form the foundation of our habits and actions. Over time, several big-picture concepts of models have been developed.

The first concept is the Rational model. The rational model thinker is driven by a need to gather as much information as possible to understand their world and to make a decision. Rational thinkers are driven to gain as much information, data, insight and understanding of a situation BEFORE acting. 

Some refer to a second model called by various terms such as muddling through or winging it. In my mind these are not really models, but more the absence of a model, or a lack of awareness. I really won't spend anymore time discussing this, as it is really not useful. 

The third way is what has been called Mixed-scanning. Those who ascribe to a mixed scanning approach will obtain enough information, context, advice, etc., that they think allows them to make a good decision for the next step. They will then move forward and try to gain as much information, data, insight and understanding of a situation AS and AFTER acting. Subsequent decisions will then get made in light of new conditions. 

If we want to obtain an integrated life, we need to learn to apply this third way thinking to our system. This model’s beauty and power comes in two forms. First it allows one to plan sufficiently and start taking action sooner. Second it allows us to be simultaneously deliberate and flexible. These are important qualities in making our life and work whole, to really use the Power in One.

Systems Thinking Defined

Systems Thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static “snapshots.” (Peter Senge) it can also be summarized as providing the user a unique perspective on reality. For our use of systems thinking as it applies to our life and work, this is important. It provides us with a fascinating framework to look at all pieces of our life as an interrelated whole. 

Systems Thinking is a new way to look at our life and work. Classic thinking falls into a category known as rational, or reductionist thinking. As knowledge has advanced over the centuries, our ability to deeply understand the basic science that makes up the world around us has increased through the rational model approaches. Under a rational approach, individual complex elements are broken down (or reduced) to their lowest constituencies, so these "simpler" items can be analyzed and understood. This is a excellent methodology for understanding and specialization. However, it present us with two key limitations. First, it tends to ignore essential interactions, and their effects, on the constituent element being analyzed. Second, applying this models assumes that we can have, or obtain, complete knowledge. We all know from the messiness of life that this second element is not possible in real terms. 

By applying systems thinking, we can look at the parts of our life as a whole, and we can accept that we don't know everything we need to know at any off our static snapshots. By accepting these realities we can plan to the best of our abilities (I.e. Not exhaustively), begin to act, and adjust our plan as this messy life happens. This allows us to be BOTH proactive, and reactive. This allows to be effective AND adaptable/flexible. This approach, or model, to planning and decision making requires a key paradigm shift in our approach. This allows us to model our approach around two “truths”; one, we can’t know everything before we start due to lack of time, resources or randomness, and then two, once we start, we’ll know more and can act more effectively in light of new information or understanding. 

In the next several posts we will discuss tools we can apply to execute the second approach. These posts will delve into the areas of our mental models, decision-thinking, and complexity-vs-simplicity. This will require some skeptical application of tools, since many are designed under the guise of the rational model. In other words, tools will only do part of the job. They will help us in four key areas; capture, understanding, planning and context. In the end we have to be aware of limitations and utility to make “the system” work for us.

Introduction

This is my first foray into the blogosphere. I plan to use this space to share writings and links in the general theme of looking at life in a whole or "systems" view. I will explore links, books and articles that help make sense of the "logic" around us and find new ways of applying it. I believe that there are profound principles in the world of "systems management" that can be applied much broader and by non-traditional audiences. My nearly 30 years of engineering and aerospace experience give me a birds-eye view of the traditional application and a heart for the journey of non-traditional applications.

Let me know what you think!