Rowan's Future of Choice

Knowing how to know

Knowledge is an important component of decision-making. A decision is a commitment to change. The wrong change could have dire consequences. The right change could be wonderful and enriching. The more we know the better, right?

Exactly what is knowledge? According to the classical definition attributed to Plato, "knowledge is what is both true and believed, though not all that is both true and believed counts as knowledge."

This is a simple and familiar way of looking at things; after all, it has been the foundation of our educational system for 200 years. Educated people are those who have 'acquired' knowledge and mastered fundamental truths. We grant educated people diplomas, better-paying jobs, and a higher stature in our society.

Highly educated people store and manage their knowledge--they often have large libraries and write about what they know. They can also be coaxed into dispensing what they know for a price, or for the good of some cause. This is the purpose of study groups, advisory panels, and special assistants: the metered dispensation of acquired knowledge, often in the guise of that even more precious resource, wisdom.

The concept of knowledge as a thing to acquire and possess--as an asset to measure and manage, is obsolete. Truths are transitory; beliefs are subjective. This is becoming more so as we learn more about the physical and spiritual world. For example, Thomas Jefferson never really took literally his words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident." He was establishing the basis of a momentary argument to dissolve the political connection with Great Britain. He knew that after the revolution a torrent of not-so-evident truths would flourish in the new free society.

I believe that the key to better decision making is not about getting more or better knowledge. It is about "knowing how to know." It is about learning how to find and use new truths and different  beliefs, while discarding or re-using others. It is about turning knowledge from a thing into a process.

Knowledge is how we decide to change, and the small steps we take along the way.

___
Definition of knowledge from Wiki

Keep saying you don't know until you do

"Great decisions begin with really great people and a simple statement: I don't know. The research evidence on that is very clear—that the leaders who ended up setting things in place that produced extraordinary results over time, and a series of great decisions over time, really were very comfortable saying "I don't know" until they knew.

And really, they were just being honest. I mean, which is best? Lying—meaning saying you don't know when you've already made up your mind? Or presuming to know when you don't and therefore lying to yourself? Or speaking the truth? Which is, 'I don't yet know, but I know we have to get it right.'"

Source: Jim Collins, in Fortune magazine, at this link. Pie chart

Down to ten thousand questions

You may not be familiar with the designer of this typeface, Matthew Carter. Finding that traditional type used in books and print did not work well on computer screens, Microsoft asked Carter in 1993 to create a new design, called Verdana. He also happens to know a lot about making decisions. Carter is “…very fond of saying that designing type involves a billion possibilities. Once you make your first decision—serif or sans, say—half a billion decisions remain. And when you make your second—the thickness of each character, perhaps—a quarter billion remain, and so on. Old style or new, you’re finally down to ten thousand questions. Designers often get caught between two decisions, and those decisions occur somewhere just before you draw the first ‘A’.”

We seek that perfect storm in an ocean of possibilities: when there are two discrete options, a short list of pros and cons, and a gut sense to guide us. Life rarely presents such circumstances. Complexity, time, conflicting demands, and shifting information—all cloud our decision making with too few, or too many, options. We can neither ensure a good outcome, nor sense “what our heart tells us.”

Quote is from the New Yorker magazine story by Alec Wilkinson, December 5, 2005.

More about Carter here.

 

Evolution of The Game of Life

Milton Bradley, a lithographer and printer who was born in 1836 in Vienna, Maine, got into board games when Abraham Lincoln grew the beard that made Bradley's prints obsolete. Bradley choose an ancient and proven game format: the spiral or point-to-point journey. His first game, Checkered Game of Life, was a Civil War era blockbuster that gave players the chance to spin and decide their way to a finish called 'Happy Old Age.'

Now owned by Hasbro, the upcoming 2007 version of the Life game has no goals or big decisions whatsoever. Players wander multiple paths that snake through four basic squares: Learn It, Live It, Love It, and Earn It. There is no cash or bankruptcy, only Visa credit cards. There are several places to start, few decisions to make, no real finish, and no ticking clock.

Like its newest game players, I can only imagine where Hasbro's next Game of Life may lead.

I have mapped out a brief history of the game and its goals. (Click on the picture to enlarge.)

      

Jill Lepore wrote a great story on Bradley in the May 21st New Yorker Magazine, abstract. (The full version is not yet available on the web. Email me if you want a hard copy; I will send you one.). MindManager is a powerful decision mapping software tool I use often. It is made by MindJet.

Ways to improve business decision-making

In talking with some of my consulting clients and readers of this blog, it hit me that I should be a little more specific about ways to improve decision-making, especially in the areas of business and technology change. (I would also be delighted to talk with you more privately; contact info is to the right). This is my first attempt writing this here, so please bear with me.

I have found the key is to look at decisions from a new mindset.

To start off, what exactly are ‘decisions’? Especially, 'strategic decisions', which are those meant to have a significant impact.

We tend to describe decisions as discrete events or moments in time. These events may occur at any time or place: during meetings, playing golf, or driving home. They may be recorded and circulated as contracts, memos of understanding, or budget approval forms. They may be ‘sealed’ with handshakes or speeches, but not necessarily. Decision events are meant to set the stage for future action, and spending time and money. Most of us can’t recall many strategic decisions, as we tend to remember only the ones that worked out really well.

I do not believe this is an accurate or useful definition. It is better to think of decisions, not as events, but as ‘strings’ of ideas, goals, perceptions, and expectations; they look more like processes than discrete events. Decision processes may occur over a few hours or several years; others just seem to happen. Their beginning and end is often nebulous, but there are always markers along the way to use as measures and guideposts. 'Made' decisions cannot be assessed until there is feedback on their implementation. (Reminds me of the famous slogan of the state of Missouri: "show me”.)

Most decisions are really intentions. To use a personal example, "I told everyone last night that I have decided to quit smoking," is not a decision. It is a statement of intent. "I have put down a deposit on a quit-smoking program" shows a more serious intention, but it is still not a decision (as I define it).

The problem-solving team that met at work to identify root causes, prioritize alternatives, and assign actions did not make any decisions, although this is how their work is represented to their bosses and fellow employees. They developed a shared understanding of the current situation and a set of well-meaning intentions about an unknowable future. No more, no less. Intentions are weak proxies for decisions because they are grounded in human hopes and desires, and fade or change easily.

In reality, our decision process begins long before any decision-making meeting or stated intentions. The process is strongly influenced by implicit or sub-conscious factors, both in the mind of the decider and in his or her environment. The explicit understanding of key factors, such as stereotypes, has a huge payoff for more productive decision-making.

More to come... Let me know what you think so far. Thanks.

Undocumented tribal knowledge

"You always said things would be different when you were in charge. Now you are. As your business grows, new situations arise that require new decisions. Early on, there's no real time to develop a formal process -- just handle it and go. Over time those situational decisions become the undocumented tribal knowledge that is how your company operates."

-- Rebecca A. Morgan, in a her column at Inc.com

Photo

Keeping a journal can help you make a difficult decision

A clinical psychologist in Waco, Texas suggests a daily journal may help with a big life decision. Or maybe it won't. Link

Pay it forward, again

I was stunned when I posted this originally in 2005. I am even more stunned now. We don't always consider the impact of our decisions on our own generation.
___

"Before the traditional Iroquois convened their consul meetings, they invoked this declaration:

In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."

Source: Jim Nollman, Interspecies Newsletter. Link
Photo: Portland State University

 

The fallacy of modern planning

Decision-making is as much about what we leave out of the process, as what we bring to it. We try to decide in a simultaneous state of forgetting and remembering--which is not an ideal condition.

For example, we let ourselves forget the unimportant, painful, and embarrassing things like old phone numbers or youthful indiscretions. (We hope these things are lost in time and space, or at least piling up in some distant, high security junkyard.)

We make ourselves remember the practical, the pleasant, and the rewarding, such as our salary or the high points of our childhood. While most of us have no problem reciting our own social security number, we often forget anniversaries and birthdays. We reinforce our strongest memories by remembering and re-telling them, until they become almost alive.

Planning--the psychological act of deciding on goals and organizing future steps to achieve them--as practiced is a process of filtering out the stuff to forget, and arranging the good stuff that remains.

It is no wonder that plans are so often full of promise and potential. We think, "This time, we will do more, in less time and with less money." The forces that impeded us then are vanquished now. We have only to try harder and work smarter to meet or surpass our goals.

Modern planners employ 'fudge factors' or 'pad' the estimates to reflect the reality of not plan-able delays and barriers; but they are only fooling themselves. Planning boards and approval managers will never accept truly realistic plans; they will only approve overtly optimistic ones. We have institutionalized our tendency to forget what we know, and ignore what we have learned. (A strong change control process helps make up for this.)

Like Sisyphus, the mythical Greek king trapped by a boulder on a mountainside, we are stuck repeating the same biased decisions, over and over again.
___

Drawing; the myth of Sisyphus

Getting up the nerve to change

"NASA will send a space shuttle and seven astronauts to repair and upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope... overturning an earlier [2004] decision that the complex mission posed too much risk." --Washington Post, 11-1-2006

I am excited about this news. But it made me think: What changed between today's decision and the 2004 decision?

The 15-year-old Hubble Space Telescope is an amazing human achievement. It is arguably the most important scientific tool ever invented. Its ability to see into the past 13 billion years, nearly to the beginning of the universe, is our opportunity to imagine a future that far exceeds our current event horizon of climate change, flu epidemics, and whatever Madonna is up to. I believe our ability to imagine our role in a distant future is key to addressing today's problems.

The newly repaired telescope will allow us to see back an additional 300 million years. Hubble is credited with 40% of NASA's scientific discoveries over the last year and 1000 new jobs in the state of Maryland.

So what has changed in the past two years?

• We know more about diagnosing and repairing shuttle craft.
• We have found a little more money to pay for back-up equipment.
• The universe is two years older, which is hardly worth mentioning.
• Next generation space programs are that much closer.
• We have gained the confidence that a mission that was too unsafe two years ago is now safe.

I argue that neither the actual risk of the mission nor our mission capabilities has changed significantly between the first and second decisions. What has changed is NASA's willingness to more openly acknowledge what each of us knows in our heart: the world is imperfect and occasionally dangerous. NASA has gotten nerve.

Nerve is important to every organization, but seldom acknowledged and never designed-in. Nerve is an edgy kind of courage that means taking a chance that the future can be better instead of hoping it will be no worse. It means living with, and acting on, the understanding that everything in our expanding universe is temporary on some scale: our planet, our nation, our jobs, our homes, our selves. Nerve means deciding to live in the moments of transition between one change and the next.
___

Washington Post article; photo; Hubble Project Office