Decision making - sowing seeds eng - Cloud Object Storage · decision making, and offers some ......

/ Great leadership through learning 1

AcademiWales

Decision MakingDeliberately disciplined leaders make better choices

#PublicServiceWales

sowing seeds

Photo provided by: Debbie Olivari (Whitchurch Camera Club)

Pages

4 Introduction

4 Decision making

5 Thinking, fast and slow

6 Decision derailers

7 Cognitive dissonance – the engine that drives self-justification

9 Destructive cognitive biases

11 Exploring the forces that derail our decisions1. Forces from within2. Forces from relationships3. Forces from outside

15 The role of governance in organisational decision making

16 Conclusion – five actions and four areas of learning for effective practice

18 References

19 Bibliography

Contents

/ Great leadership through learning4

Introduction

I err therefore I am. (Fallor Ergo Sum) Augustine of Hippo 354-430 AD

Public service organisations in Wales are constantly striving to deliver the highest quality services in the most effective ways, focusing on using all resources available in the best ways possible and by using tried and tested methods to make things happen: strategic planning, delivery, streamlining, service design and improvement, systems change and so on.

While all of these ‘hard’ systems support organisational development, there is a growing body of research that suggests a more inside-out approach to improving performance of individuals and organisations. This edition of Sowing Seeds introduces the concept of decision making, and offers some insight into why it is valuable to us as individuals in the workplace and in our everyday lives.

Decision making We all think we make good decisions. Data however suggests otherwise!

We are simply not as good at making decisons as we think we are.

Francesca Gino 2013

For those of us in leadership positions where our decisions impact lives and the success of our organisations, getting better at decision making is a must.

The central message could not be more important, namely, that human reason left to its own devices will engage in a number of false beliefs and systematic errors.

So if we want to make better decisions in our personal and working lives, we ought to be aware of these biases and seek understanding and self awareness, becoming aware of the unconscious thinking errors we are all prone to make.

What follows are a series of theories that support us to make better choices and to help us both notice and eliminate bad habits and pitfalls in our decision making approaches.

Successful leaders lead by choice, they are deliberate in their decision making and disciplined in their action (Gino, 2016).

“

“

”

”


Thinking, fast and slowTo improve the quality of our decisions, we first have to improve the quality of our thinking.

Much of our understanding of the power of framing comes from the 1974 work of the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, a professor at Princeton University, and the late Amos Taversky. Their research focused on how we make decisions and helped us understand that we are not rational beings. This insight allows us to incorporate the evidence on decision making into our own thinking, so that we can tune into the unconscious processes that are at work in our decisions.

Kahneman has more recently helped us to understand that most of our decision making occurs in what he calls ‘System 1 Thinking’ in his 2011 book ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’.

System 1 thinking is fast, intuitive, and emotional. We think fast and we decide fast.

This reflects the fast moving world we live in and echoes the need for speed in most organisations. The problem with this is when we decide fast, we open up more space for our unconscious biases to influence that thinking.

Speed of decision makes us more dynamic and agile but it does not encourage deeper reflection and learning.

System 2 thinking on the other hand is slower, more deliberative and more rational. We can use this to analyse and reason logically.

However, we prefer system 1 to system 2. System 2 thinking requires more effort on our part and we are naturally prone to give up on the effort required.

Kahneman’s work exposes our extraordinary capabilities – our faults and biases – for fast thinking, and reveals the influence of intuitive impressions on our thoughts and behaviour.

Our thinking is liable to be influenced by the impact of overconfidence, the difficulties of predicting what will make us happy in the future and the profound effect of cognitive biases which shape our judgments and decisions.

What this means is that we are not as considered in our decision making as we think we are. We are often prone to thinking errors/biases because system 2 is not activated.

Kahneman also makes another more worrying observation – we do not differentiate between the time we spend on smaller, relatively unimportant decisions and those decisions that have significant consequences.

As public service leaders, Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow should inform the way we think about thinking.


Decision derailers

It infuriates me to be wrong when I know I am right. Moliere 1622-1673

You may not realise it but simple irrelevant factors can have profound consequences on your decisions and behaviour, often diverting you from your original plans and desires.

Gino (2013) describes when a mismatch is most likely to occur between what we want and what we end up doing. What factors can sway our decisions in directions we did not initially consider? And what can we do to correct the influences that derail our decisions?

1. Forces from withinFactors that reside in both our minds and hearts and exist because of our emotional nature. We are wired in such a way that we make systematic errors in our judgement.

2. Forces from relationshipsFactors that characterise our relationships and interactions with others – these can often lead us astray.

3. Forces from outsideFactors that characterise the context in which we operate. Context is powerful in influencing our choices and decisions.

(Gino, 2013)

Understanding these forces, and being able to negotiate them in the real world, will help us to make decisions we’re happier with.

A broader description of these can be found on page 11.

“ ”


“ ”

Cognitive dissonance – the engine that drives self-justification

I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already come.

Lord Molson, 20th century British politician, 1903-1991

The energy that produces the need to justify our actions and decisions – especially the wrong ones – is the uncomfortable feeling that Leon Festinger (1957) called ‘cognitive dissonance’.

Cognitive dissonance theoryThe state of discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, attitudes or opinions at the same time.

We are motivated to reduce this dissonance as well as actively avoid situations and information more likely to increase it and therefore the derailing factors and our biases come into play.

(Festinger ,1957)

Cognitive dissonance theory exploded the self flattering idea that we process information logically. On the contrary – if new information is consonant with our beliefs, we think it is well founded and useful, ‘Just what I always said!’. However, if the new information is dissonant, we consider it biased or foolish, ‘What a stupid argument!’.

The need for consonance is so powerful that when people are forced to look at disconfirming evidence, they will find a way to criticise, distort or dismiss it so that they can maintain or even strengthen their existing belief (Kida, 2006).

Why is it so difficult for scientists and health experts to persuade people who are ideologically or politically committed to a belief – such as ‘climate change is a hoax’ – to change their minds, even when overwhelming evidence dictates that they should?

People who receive disconfirming or otherwise unwelcome information often do not simply resist it, they may come to support their original (wrong) opinion even more strongly.


“”

Case study: Weapons of mass destruction

Examples of this theory can be especially glaring in matters of political observation.

After it became abundantly clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Democrats and Republicans who favoured going to war (before it began) were thrown into dissonance.

The majority of Republicans resolved their dissonance by refusing to accept the evidence – telling a Knowledge Network poll that they believed weapons had been found.

The director of the survey was baffled by this and said:

For some Americans, their desire to support the war may be leading them to screen out information that weapons of mass destruction have not been found. Given the intensive news coverage and high levels of public attention to the topic, this level of misinformation suggests that some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance.

(Kull, 2013)

Knowing how dissonance works won’t make us automatically immune to the allure of self justification. This does not mean however that we are doomed to keep striving to justify our actions after the fact.

A richer understanding of how and why our minds work as they do is the first step toward breaking the self-justification habit. And that requires us to be more mindful of our behaviour and the reasons for our choices – this will take time, self-reflection and willingness (Tavris and Aronson, 2015).

Our efforts at self justification are all designed to serve our need to feel good about what we have done, what we believe, and who we are.



Destructive cognitive biases A cognitive bias refers to the departure from rationality when we make decisions and judgements. We make inferences about other people and situations which can lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgement and decisions, and illogical interpretation.

Cognitve biases can distort a whole range of decisions from the relatively straightforward to the highly complex. The benefit of cognitive bias is that it allows us to make faster decisions when timeliness is more valuable than accuracy (Mintz and Wayne, 2016).

Bias arises from various processes, including:• information-processing shortcuts • ‘noisy’ information processing • the brain’s limited information processing capacity• emotional and moral motivations• social influence

Cognitive bias in actionShooting from the hip – anchoring biasWe make spur of the moment unplanned decisions and have an over reliance on the first piece of information heard.

Locking in (confirmation) biasWe only listen to information that confirms our preconceptions. Focussing on the preferred option while ignoring critical information that contradicts that option.

Wishful thinking biasWe choose something we feel positive about even if it has flaws. We attribute unfounded and un-evidenced positive effects to a particular viewpoint.

Ignoring critical evidence biasWe allow our expectations to influence how we perceive the world. We can ignore evidence if it is contrary to the preferences of the group or leader.

Short termism biasWe judge a decision purely on the outcome rather than how exactly the decision was made. Short term benefits rather than long term costs.

Over confidence/Positive illusion biasWe are inherently overconfident about our abilities and being right. We will assume success even though the data/information does not support such confidence and risks will still occur.


Cognitive dissonance coupled with derailing factors and biases intervenes in our decision making process and gets in the way of us making ‘good decisions’ highlighting our tendencies to seek evidence to confirm a decision we have made or something we believe to be true.

Tendencies to think in certain ways lead to systematic deviations from a standard of rationality and good judgement.



Exploring the forces that derail our decisions This section looks deeper into the forces and biases and provides ideas as to what we can do to overcome them.

1. Forces from withinOver confidenceThis describes a tendency to think of ourselves as better than others and to have dysfunctional over confidence which leads to problems and dysfunctional ways of behaving.

We all know we are right – yes? We can all think of examples when we made a decision and knew we were right and continued to be right even when disconfirming data was forthcoming.

When we stick rigidly to our own ideas even in group situations the following biases are coming into play:

• shooting from the hip bias

• ignoring critical evidence bias

• over confidence/Positive illusion bias

What you can do

Self-awareness is a good first step, ask yourself:

• ‘Am I listening to others?’

• ‘Am I checking the data?’

• ‘Have I considered other perspectives?’

• ‘Have I given my ‘gut instinct’ too much credit?’


Infectious emotionsEmotions get in the way and arise from the situations we are in and they can become more problematic when we move from one situation to another.

By taking your ‘emotional temperature’ before making a decision, you can reflect on the causes of your current feelings and determine whether they were triggered by an event unrelated to the decision at hand. You can also examine whether irrelevant emotions are clouding your judgement.

Take your emotional temperature

• Are you in the correct emotional state to make decisions?

• Ask others what they think about your emotional temperature

Frustration and anger slows thinking in the brain and stops us taking in peripheral information. We focus on one action and in addition the ability to reason is significantly impaired (Garfinkel et al, 2015).

What you can do

There are two types of emotion regulation techniques (Low et al, 2016).

1. Suppressing emotion which reduces cognitive performance

2. Cognitively reappraising the situation – changing the way you think and reinterpreting issues in a different way

People who use emotional suppression are significantly more likely to:

• reduce and impede their problem solving and decision making abilities and their ability to incorporate new information (Bias – Ignoring Critical Evidence)

• lose motivation

• feel less confident about achieving goals

• abandon goals

• feel less satisfied about their performance and achievements

People who use cognitive reappraisal are significantly more likely to:

• not remain in a negative frame of mind for any length of time

• keep going

• become more competent

• make better decisions

• achieve goals


2. Forces from relationships We compare ourselves to others who look and feel similar to us. We frequently make comparisons about performance, income, cars, houses, holidays and so on.

We view others and ask, ‘How do I look compared to them?’

We make social comparisons and then forget our plans and allow ourselves to become derailed. When we add in factors of inequity (fairness) the social comparisons become more problematic and affect our decisions more dramatically.

We are wired this way – we are human and these impulses are ingrained. Emotions take over and irrational behaviour about our relationships will derail us.

Brain scans show that after a fair offer the brain lights up areas concerned with planning. However, after a perceived unfair offer the brain lights up areas linked to conflict and disgust (Gino, 2013).

What you can do• Check your reference points

• Uncover the real motives behind your decisions

• Readjust accordingly and focus on the task or goal



3. Forces from outside Because context is so powerful, it is particularly helpful to understand the mindset we are in and to understand how mindset can affect our decisions (Dweck, 2008).

Dweck’s work examines the mindsets people use to structure the self and guide their behaviour. Her research looks at the origins of these mindsets, their role in motivation and self-regulation and their impact on achievement and interpersonal processes.

Her work takes us on a journey into how our conscious and unconscious thoughts affect us and how something as simple as wording can have a powerful impact on our ability to improve.

Mindset gives us a lens to see information that comes our way differently, to cut through our own biases and design context differently.

What you can do

You can develop a cluster of traits that predict good judgement (Galef, 2016).

• Be curious – intrigued and like new information

• Be open – live your values

• Be grounded – understand your self-worth

You can also think about the language you use.

If you ask: ‘What should I do?’

You start to think in terms of either/or it’s a trade-off and you narrow your thinking.

If you ask: ‘What could I do?’

You become more creative and consider outside options – get into the habit of asking what could I do for myself and others.


The role of governance in organisational decision makingFrom a professional perspective, the importance of good governance as a mechanism to check the unconscious forces in decision making is paramount.

Effective governance in the way boards, sub committees, executive teams and specific groups work is an important counterbalance to unconscious biases.

Checks and balances are needed so that robust challenge and enquiry can occur around key decisions and individuals are not left to pursue their own agendas without accountability.

This means that genuinely independent voices, along with multiple and diverse voices, are important in ensuring any unconscious biases are surfaced and addressed.

(Withers and Withers, 2016)



Conclusion – five actions and four areas of learning for effective practiceDeveloping awareness of unconscious thinking errors and being able to mitigate against them is crucial for sustainable organisations.

As leaders we need to become mindful of the unconscious and reflect on our own thinking errors.

So, what can effective leaders do to create the right environment for decisions and develop a culture of psychological safety and mutual accountability?

Five actions 1. You cast a long shadow as a leader

This is about the impact leaders have on their teams and the wider organisation. The need for leaders to role model behaviours can be seen as a cliché, but it is true, the tone leaders set matters.

2. Have an open door and an open mind

Many leaders pride themselves on having an open door, for team accessibility. Secondly have an open mind, create the right environment for people to think for themselves, asking a question is more powerful than giving an answer.

3. Encourage contribution and diversity of voice

It is really tempting to give the impression as leaders that we have all the answers, it is far better however to accept the limits of our knowledge and welcome the contribution of others.

4. No double binds

As leaders we ask for opinions, let people know where the boundaries are, what can and can’t be influenced. Allow challenge and listen to other viewpoints, build trust and invite contribution and follow through on promises.

5. Hold people accountable for what is theirs

Be clear on where accountability lies, a safe environment means others can have a role in the quality of decisions. There is mutual accountability in bringing information to the table that enables the decision maker or makers to reach the best possible decision.



Four areas of learningHow can we keep learning so that we make timely, agile decisions that have been through due diligence?

1. Self

Be mindful of the decisions you are making. Catch yourself in habits and be courageous enough to consider alternative ways to make sense of what you are presented with. Challenge yourself.

2. With others

Find other people you can reflect and do some sense making with – a coach, mentor, colleague or friend. Reflection with others can help to open up our blind spots.

3. In groups

How as members of a group do we approach a decision? Learn and practice how to create environments where unconscious forces can be surfaced and discussed in a constructive way.

4. Organisationally

Do what you can to create opportunities to discuss, reflect and think with others. Ask questions about why people see things the way they do, observe the way decisions are made and invite conversation. Pay attention to the patterns in everyday decision making and notice your organisational culture, what is this telling you about where to pay attention when making decisions.


If we, as public service leaders, take action and learn in the ways described we can create an environment where we are able to surface and mitigate thinking errors and make more effective decisions and choices.


ReferencesFestinger, L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press

Galef, J (2016) Why you think you’re right – even if you’re wrong, TEDx, Pennsylvania University (PSU), February 2016

Garfinkel, S et al (2015) Why you think you’re right – even if you’re wrong, Journal of Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

Gino, F (2013) Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed, and How We Can Stick to the Plan, Harvard Business Review Press

Gino, F (2016) What We Miss When We Judge A Decision By The Outcome, Harvard Business Review, September 2016

Jones, Dweck, C.S (2008) Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Ballantine Books

Kahneman, D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux US MacMillan

Kida, T (2006) Don’t Believe Everything You Think, Prometheus Press

Kull, S (2003) Director of the Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), University of Maryland, “Many Americans Unaware WMDs Have Not Been Found”

Low, R.S et al (2016) Emotional suppression during personal goal pursuit impedes goal strivings and achievement, Washington DC

Mintz and Wayne (2016) The Polythink Syndrome and Elite Group Decision-Making, Advances in Political Psychology, Vol. 37

Taversky, A and Kahneman, D (1974) Judgement under Uncertainty – Heuristics and Biases, Science 185 no 4 157

Tavris, C and Aronson, E (2015) Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me), Mariner Books

Withers, A and Withers, M (2016) Risky Business – Unlocking Unconscious Biases in Decisions, Libri Publishing


BibliographyBadaracco, J.L (2016) How To Tackle Your Toughest Decisions, Harvard Business Review, September 2016

Finklestein, S, Campbell, A and Whitehead, J (2009) Think Again: Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions & How To Keep It From Happening to You, Harvard Business School Press

Gilbert, D (2005) Why we make bad decisions, Ted Global Oxford England, July 2005

Hallinan, J.T (2009) Why We Make Mistakes, Random House

Harford, T (2011) Adapt: Why Success Always starts with Failure, Hatchette Digital

O’Hara, C (2015) Stop Second-Guessing Your Decisions at Work, Harvard Business Review, November 2015

Schultz, K (2011) Being Wrong – Adventures In The margins of Error, Portobello Books

Schultz, K (2011) On being wrong, Ted Talks California, March 2011

Sowing Seeds: Decision Making

Written by Bethan Johnson, Head of Leadership Development and Change, Academi Wales.

Edited by Sian Fording, Website and Social Media Manager, Academi Wales.

© Crown copyright 2017 WG30907 Digital ISBN 978-1-4734-9043-7 Print ISBN 978-1-4734-9045-1

Mae’r ddogfen yma hefyd ar gael yn Gymraeg.This document is also available in Welsh.

Decision making - sowing seeds eng - Cloud Object Storage · decision making, and offers some ......

Documents

Transcript of Decision making - sowing seeds eng - Cloud Object Storage · decision making, and offers some ......