Lone Wolf Meets Devil's Advocate -- Situational Decision-Making

What are the obstacles that hamper successfulOne of the tools that are used in organizations to
decision-making?What are the downsides of groupbroaden the scope of thinking and decision-making is
decision-making?How does our management styleEdward De Bono's method of Six Thinking Hats. We
affect the process of decision-making?And why isused it in numerous organizational settings and training
rational thinking overrated?The following articlesessions as a tool for an effective and thorough
discusses tools for the management ofdiscussion of complex issues. It helps map different
decision-making processes under changing conditions.aspects of the subject towards making a decision.
Decision-Making with StyleThe principle of this method is to direct the thinking
Try to recall an important decision which you were aand the debate of all group members to six different
part of in the past 6 months. Think of the mostthinking directions. Thus, the entire group moves
significant choice you had to make in your organization.forward in the same direction, instead of clashing and
How was this decision taken? Did the senior mangerarguing on the correct way to address the issue
make the call after consulting with several assistants?altogether. For instance, early in the discussion
Was it a majority rule? Was it a consensus decision?participants should put on their "Red Hat" - encouraging
Were objective facts and information the driving forcepeople to express feelings, hunches and intuitions -
behind it, or intuitions and feelings? How long did it takewithout the need for logical explanations. This minimizes
to make the final decision?hidden influence of negative or positive feelings later in
the discussion. Wearing the "White Hat" (focusing on
Some of us tend to make our major decisions on ourfacts, information and missing data) soon afterwards
own, while others prefer to do it after hearing theprevents the dangers of ignoring crucial facts and
opinions and exploring the options with others. We alsoensures that a decision can be made based on
differ in the time we take to make a decision, and inavailable information. The use of other thinking hats
our need to base it on factual analysis or on intuition. Inmay provide an answer to other typical
other words, each of us has a characteristic personaldecision-making errors - such as wearing the Black
decision-making style.Hat to investigate potential problems when the entire
group is enthusiastic about moving forward with a
The managerial decision-making style may becertain decision.
mapped using three axes:
Overcoming group pressure
Decision-making speed: on the one end you have the
impulsive decision-makers, who do no stop to considerAnother well-known hazard characteristic of group
the results of their choices, while on the other extremedecision-making is the Groupthink effect, discussed by
you'll find those who postpone and avoid making anyJanis & Mann (1977). The Abilene Paradox also
decision in fear of taking responsibility for it.Collection ofdescribes how group decisions can actually be
information: to what extent does the manager baseopposite to the views of its members. This
their decisions on an analysis of data as opposed tophenomena was observed by Jerry B. Harvey and it
intuition and an internal compass.Sharing: the extentdenotes a process that leads a group to make an
and manner by which managers involve and includeirrational decision, mostly because each member tries
others in the collection of information and in the makingto adjust his/her opinion to what they consider to be
of the decision itself.the view of other group members.
Usually, when we think of the first axis -
decision-making speed - the common view aboutNumerous studies have shown that this type of failure
postponing a decision is negative ("How long must wehas lead to crucial decisions - such as the US
wait for his decision?"). Indeed, some situations call formisinterpretation of the Japanese maneuvers before
an early resolution before things get out of hand and athe attack on Pearl Harbor, the invasion to the Cuban
greater problem is faced. However, on other situationsBay of Pigs, the Challenger and Columbia space
a hasty decision may very costly. In other cases thingsshuttle disasters and lately - the American invasion of
may be resolved by themselves (one may say that itIraq.
is better "to decide not to decide" then).
Janis lists a number of symptoms that help identify
The second and third axes (collection of informationwhen groupthink occurs - the illusion of unanimity, self
and sharing) provide a framework for describing fivecensorship, avoidance of criticism, pressure on
typical managerial decision makers:non-conformists, etc. He then points to the typical
characteristics of decisions made under these
The Lone Wolf: this manager never consults withconditions - insufficient examination of alternatives,
anyone and decides on everything by himself.Thepartial understanding of the purposes of the decision,
Surveyor: this type of manager does not hold aignoring of significant risks involved, lack of vital
discussion before the decision, but rather samples theinformation and no contingency plans.
views of people involved (in a kind of referendum), and
decides according to the majority view.TheWe offer two tools for a structured discussion in
Authoritarian: this manager consults and listens toorder to reduce the dangers of groupthink. The first
others to draw ideas and directions, but makes thetool is called "Devil's Advocate" and is used to force
final decision by himself.Semi-Democratic: this managerthe participants to examine the arguments against a
holds a discussion and strives for a collective decision,decision that is about to be made. Before or at the
yet keeps the right of veto on certainoutset of the debate one of the group members is
decisions.Harmonic: this manager consults and reachesgiven the role of questioning the underlying
a common agreement, usually through a consensusassumptions and major arguments of the team. When
(e.g. where others have the right of veto as well).someone is trusted with this official role, there are
greater chances that they will not fear to express their
criticism, opening the way for others to raise doubts
Flexible decision-making - according to the situationand disagreements.
In order to improve the quality of decision-making, weAnother tool for overcoming the risks of groupthink is
should begin by recognizing our typical decision-makingbased on the Delphi Technique for situational analysis
style and that of our co-workers. In addition, asand decision-making. The views of each group
managers, we must understand that different situationsmember are written separately and collected in
call for different decision-making strategies andadvance (and in sensitive decision - anonymously). The
techniques. Therefore, we have to acquire newresults are then collected and discussed in the group.
mechanisms for making decisions, so that we mayDue to this seemingly technical procedure participants
choose the way we tackle a situation according to itsdon't know the opinions of others when they have to
characteristics.make their own recommendation, and a wider range
of views is usually produced.
There are three central questions we need to ask
ourselves whenever we are about to make aWe used this technique for an expert committee that
managerial decision:discussed and rated product innovation ideas. The
meeting is opened with a general discussion on the
Is it vital to make a decision, and if so - how urgent iscriteria that should be considered when rating the
it?What information is required in order to make aideas. Participants then personally rate dozens of
calculated choice, and when is it necessary to goinnovation ideas (produced beforehand) on a scale of
ahead even with partial information?Who need to be a1-5. An average rating for each idea is calculated from
part of the decision-making process, and to whatthese individual judgments and the highest ranking
extent?Let us demonstrate the use of the aboveideas are discussed. In such a way, a certain idea may
questions through several examples:be highly rated by most members, yet one participant
might have noticed a major flaw in the idea, and his
Example A: The organization has grown and needs toreservation is revealed through the low rating given to
be moved to a new office building. The Operationsthe idea.
Manager is required to choose the location for theThe trap of commitment (to preceding decisions)
new building. His decision will probably have a direct
influence on all departments, and it is desirable to makeThe last aspect of decision-making we turn our
them a part of the process. This will often contribute toattention to has to do with emotion and ego.
the quality of the decision (providing a more holisticWhenever we make a personal decision, or are
view of the implications of the decision), and will alsoinvolved in a group decision, we become emotionally
lower levels of resistance once the decision is madeand psychologically committed to the choice we made.
(as everyone had a chance to express their concernsAs time progresses and we invest more resources in
and suggestions and where involved early in thethe execution of our chosen path, our individual and
process).organizational tendency to support that direction grows.
Even if we are faced with signs that indicate that the
The decision does not seem to be an urgent one, asoriginal decision was wrong, we usually find it hard to
well. In such a scenario the Operations Manager mayadmit the mistake, conquer our ego and pride, and
prepare initial information on available choices, costs,change it. This kind of situation may lead to a magic
and considerations. Later - others may be made parttrap, driving people and organizations on a path of
of the decision buy presenting three or four acceptabledeterioration and escalation of a single mistake, leading
options, to be decided by the majority. The Surveyorto more and more wrong choices (see Drummond,
style is most appropriate.1994).An interesting way to expose managers to this
type of danger, so that they may learn to avoid it, is by
Example B: One of your employees was caughtletting them experience it. This may be accomplished,
stealing company equipment. Your decision will notfor instance, through a decision-making simulation and
directly affect other employees (they might learn fromanalysis through board games. Such exercises require
the way you handle the case). The best tactics in thisparticipating managers to make personal, small team
case would be a thorough investigation of the facts,and entire group decisions in a variety of game
and if in fact the employee has committed the theft, itsituations. Most partakers fall into the trap of sticking to
should be handled without delay and in an authoritarianan initial game plan, and find it hard to exert strategic or
manner - discharging the employee. It is advisable totactical flexibility. Following this demonstration through
consult with the HR department and the legalplay, is an observation and discussion of the emotional
department, to make sure the dismissal adheres to alland inter-personal causes of this escalation. Finally,
legal procedures.work related examples of similar decision patterns
should be discussed and tools are offered for breaking
Example C: You come across a significant businessthose patterns.
opportunity for your organization, but a quick responseImproving the quality of personal and organizational
and action is needed in order to grab it. It is obviousdecision
that others will be influenced by the decision, and must
therefore be a part of it. In order not to lose time youIn this final section, we suggest ways to cope with the
may call an urgent interdisciplinary meeting, collectingdangers listed above. The suggested measures may
vital information from all participants before making abe implemented by the management of the
common and more balanced decision, taking intoorganization, and especially the Human Resource
consideration the various risks and benefits. A groupDepartment:
decision will also allow other the chance to agree and
support the new business direction.The Age ofRaising the awareness of managers and employees
Rationality and its dangersIf we seek to improve theto their decision-making styles through the use of
way we make decisions, understanding the situationpersonal test or surveys, observations, management
and adopting the appropriate decision-making style isconsulting or workshops.A systematic placement of
hardly enough. The crossroads in which we choosedifferent types of decision-makers in key positions and
the directions to our future carry with them quite ain task forces.Encouraging the use of decision-making
few traps and obstacles that may fail us. Following is atools such as Delphi, consensual decision-making,
discussion of some well-known pitfalls ofDevil's Advocate and the Six Thinking Hats.The
decision-making processes, along with relevant toolsanalysis of cases of good and bad decisions in the
and measures to face those dangers.organization itself - aiming towards learning rather then
blaming.Personally, each one of us may learn to
The modern age has seen the rise of rational thinkingimprove our decision by observing the ways other
to a position of supremacy. This has gone so far as topeople make decisions, asking feedback on the way
lead to the illusion that human can and should try to bewe make decisions, and intentionally trying out
perfect decision-makers. The unequivocal belief in thedecision-making styles which are different from our
rationality of man is based on the modern view oftypical style. All of this should eventually contribute for
man, on western philosophy and on the rise andimproving the way we make decisions and the quality
achievements of science in the past two centuries.of the decisions we make. In the long term - this is
However, there is still a lot of evidence of the limits ofwhat every organization and person must do in order
human rationality. We know of the limited ability toto advance in today's challenging world.
collect and process decision-related information, the
subjective interpretation of facts, and the effects ofReferencesHarvey, Jerry B. (1988). The Abilene
personality and culture on decisions.Paradox and Other Meditations on Management.
Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.Janis, I. & Mann, L.
Consider, for instance, a meeting in which the(1977). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of
participants have to make a certain decision. In mostConflict, Choice and Commitment. New York: The Free
cases, they would voice arguments supportingPress.Drummond, H. (1994), "Escalation in Organizational
different views, using logical explanations to supportDecision Making: A Case of Recruiting an Incompetent
their point of view. The underlying meaning of making aEmployee", Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7,
decision in such a setting is that one explanation is43-55.Amir Elion is a management and innovation
logically correct while other arguments are logicallyconsultant and facilitator. He was a part of a group
false. This process fails to face the truth of limitedthat developed a unique method for training diverse
information that participants have. It completely ignoresskills through the use of board games. He has a
the emotions and egos affecting the course ofdegree in Philosophy and General studies and an MA
discussion.in organizational behavior.