Make Up Your Mind

It all started with the Staples "Easy" button that says robotically when pressed, "That was easy!" 

Then came the "B.S." button that yells out, "That was bullsh*t!"

Now we have the decision and indecisional buttons for "Sorry," "Yes," "Maybe," and "No."

Very much like organizational decision-making and politics where either we can't make up our minds, hedge our bets because we simply don't know, or make decisions on imperfect knowledge or with plenty of biases.

It's funny-sad how instead of decisions and progress, some people lie and pretend that what they are saying has any reality or basis to it despite proof to the compelte opposite. 

For example, over and over again, we hear some politicians say there is no military solution in Syria, yet Russia has proved that completely false turning the tides of the war in Assad's favor and driving back the U.S.-backed rebels and recapturing dozens of towns and cities.

You can probably think of plenty more examples as this is the germy spin that we all must swim and navigate in. 

If only, we could just press a "truth" button to get past all the garbage thrown at us then maybe we could get down to business and really get something done. ;-)

(Source Photo: Dannielle Blumenthal)

Make Up Your Mind

Fell, Jumped, Or Pushed

Maybe the jury is still out on whether Humpty Dumpty fell, jumped, or was pushed. 

Of course, it's very easy to say affirmatively any one of these, but that doesn't necessarily make it true (even when there is a children's rhyme or bumper sticker that goes with it). 

I think the point is that this is what investigations, witnesses, evidence, and a trial is for...to figure out the truth. 

He says, she says...or as Judge Judy says, "It's a lot of who shot John!"

It's good not to jump to conclusions, especially when opinions may be subjective, biased, or have hidden agendas. 

Heck, even if Humpty Dumpty was pushed, they still couldn't put him back together again, but at least someone should pay for the bad yoke. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Fell, Jumped, Or Pushed

Risk In The Eye Of The Beholder

Should I do it or is it too risky?

That's a question we ask ourselves many times a day.

- Open our mouths at work or keep a lid on it.

- Run to catch that train or bus or slow down and go more carefully.

- Eat that greasy burger and fries or opt for a salad and smoothie.

- Invest in that highflier stock or put your money in the "G" fund.

The Wall Street Journal presents risk management as both quantifiable and qualitative. 

For example, a MicroMort (1 MM, and sounds like micro fart) is "equal to one-in-a million chance of death."

An average American has a 1.3MMs chance of a "sudden, violent end" on any given day. 

However, climb to the base camp at Mount Everest (at 29K feet), that's over 12,000 MM, base jump at only 430 MMs per jump, parachute 7 MM, and go on a roller coaster at only .0015 MM. 

So there you have it--statistics tell the risk story!

But not so fast, our risk calculations also take into account our qualitative values. For example, we tend to lower the risk in our minds of postpartum depression (10-15% or higher) because we value having a baby. 

Similarly, we tend to think driving (1 MM per 240 miles) is safer than flying (1 MM per 7,500 miles) because we believe we are in control of the automobile, as opposed to a passenger jet flown by a couple of pilots. 

The result, "Scariness of an activity isn't necessarily proportionate to its risk."

That means that you can easily make a mistake and underestimate risk, because of your personality or cultural and social biases. 

Rock climb at your own risk...BUT do you really understand what that risk even is or are you driven to do something overly dangerous and maybe stupid. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Risk In The Eye Of The Beholder

Pain is Relative

I've always found it a little strange when the doctor (or nurse) asks you, "On a scale of 0 to 10, how much pain are you in?"

Why?

Because pain (like many emotions) is relative to our understanding of it. 

To me, when someone says a 10 for pain, I think of someone under the most excruciating pain--like when someone, G-d forbid, is being tortured. 

However, someone else may think of 10 as just being really sick and uncomfortable. 

That's why I like this graphic that is used to level-set what each number in the scale represents. 

Using this simple graphic, our definition of pain is not purely subjective, but rather each person can look at the faces and expressions and see how they relate to them. 

Of course, the goal on the right for zero pain is a great goal, even if not always achievable. 

In a sense this is a very basic personal architecture--where you have your "as-is" on the scale and your "to-be" which is your goal. 

Then the doctor and patient work together to figure out a transition plan on how to get there (medicine, rehabilitation, healthier living, etc.). 

While pain is usually just a symptom, it is a beginning to get at the root cause of what is bothering us and needs to be fixed. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Pain is Relative

Why We Miss the Planning Mark

We’ve all been there asking why we missed the signs while others saw them head-on and benefited in some way. This happens with financial investments (e.g. I should’ve sold before this recent meltdown like my good buddy did), business opportunities (e.g. I should’ve opened up a chain of coffee stores like Starbucks before Howard Shultz got to it), military strategy (e.g. we should’ve seen the attacks on Pearl Harbor and 9-11 coming and been better prepared to try and stop them) and other numerous “should’ve” moments—and no I’m not talking about that” I should’ve had a V8!”

Why do we miss the signs and misread information?

Obviously, these are important questions for IT leaders, enterprise architects and IT governance pros who are often managing or developing plans for large and complex IT budgets. And where the soundness of decisions on IT investments can mean technological superiority, market leadership and profitability or failed IT projects and sinking organizational prospects.

An article in MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter 2009, provides some interesting perspective on this.

“Organizations get blindsided not so much because decision makers aren’t seeing signals, but because they jump to the most convenient or plausible conclusion, rather than fully considering other interpretations.”

Poor decision makers hone in on simple or what seems like obvious answers, because it’s easier in the short-term than perhaps working through all the facts, options, and alternative points of view to reach more precise conclusions.

Additionally, “both individual and organizational biases prevent…signals from getting through” that would aid decision making.

How do these biases happen?

SUBJECTIVITY: We subjectively listen almost exclusively to our own prejudiced selves and distort any conflicting information. The net effect is that we do not fully appreciate other possible perspectives or ways of looking at problems. We do this through:

• Filtering—We selectively perceive what we want to and block out anything that doesn’t fit what we want to or expect to see. For example, we may ignore negative information about an IT investment that we are looking to acquire.
• Distortions—Information that manages to get through our mental and emotional filters, may get rationalized away or otherwise misinterpreted. For example, we might “shift blame for a mistake we made to someone else.”
• Bolstering—Not only do we filter and distort information, but we may actually look for information to support our subjective view. For example, “we might disproportionately talk to people who already agree with us.”

GROUPTHINK: “a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas.” (Wikipedia)

“In principle, groups should be better than individuals at detecting changes and responding to them. But often they are not, especially if the team in not managed well, under pressure, and careful not to rock the boat.”

Interestingly enough, many IT investment review boards, which theoretically should be helping to ensure sound IT investments, end up instead as prime examples of groupthink on steroids.

Concluding thoughts:

If we are going to make better IT decisions in the organization then we need to be honest with ourselves and with others. With ourselves, we need to acknowledge the temptation to take the simple, easy answer that is overwhelmingly directed by personal biases and instead opt for more information from all sources to get a clearer picture of reality.

Secondly, we need to be aware that domineering and politically powerful people in our organizations and on our governance boards may knowingly or inadvertently drown out debate and squash important alternate points of view.

If we do not fairly and adequately vet important decisions, then we will end up costing the enterprise dearly in terms of bad investments, failed IT projects, and talented but underutilized employees leaving for organizations where different perspectives are valued and decisions are honestly and more comprehensively vetted for the betterment of the organization.

If we shut our ears and close our eyes to other people’s important input, then we will miss the planning mark.

Why We Miss the Planning Mark