quantmleap

Craig Brown reminded me in a recent post (titled “The costs and risks of decision making“) that there are some hidden aspects related to decision making and that behind the complex process of decision making lie some fundamental behavioral and psychological concepts.

The question raised by Craig was about the differences between operational managers and project managers. The obvious (though simplistic) answer could be that operational managers need to make operational decisions while project managers need to make project related decision.

Another dimension to this question could be, how do people generally make decisions, and how can one aspire or set the scene for making better decisions?

At the outset I should point out the (obvious, I hope) observation that decision making is just another facet of risk management. After all, a decision making is nothing but a commitment to take (or avoid) a particular course of action based on the positive or negative risks associated with the outcome. It is a fairly well understood and generally widely accepted that very few (if any at all) decisions are risk free (as in that case no decision will be required).

So what does science have to say about the process of decision making? There is a vast body of scientific literature dealing with this issue. The outline below is all but a small and brief introduction to this topic and certainly does not cover the topic in its entirety:

To deliberate or not to deliberate?

Scientists are at odds regarding the question of deliberations vs. gut-feel. A study published in the Science Magazine in Feb 2006 (titled “On making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect“) argues that thorough deliberations do not necessarily result in better outcome. The study goes further to suggest that in certain circumstances, when relating to both simple or complex choices, ‘less’ (deliberations) were found to be producing better decision than ‘more’.

The above study was further analyzed in an article published in the Scientific American in Feb 2007 (titled “Big Decision: Head or Gut? Hmm…“). The article makes the observation that, on one hand there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that in many circumstances, ‘snap’ (or what we might call gut-feel) decisions will result it better outcomes than more elaborate ones. This however is contrasted with other evidence that suggests that the above cannot be taken as a blank cheque, and that in some cases, thinking things through results in better outcome over the long run.

It is interesting to note that one of the arguments in support of a consultative and deliberative approach is that people who are involved in a deliberative process will be more likely to abide by its decisions. It doesn’t suggest that the decision will be a better decision but only that once a decision is made (for better or worse) it is more likely that those who were involved in making the decision will follow it up.

And while on this topic, a recent research done by the Maastricht University School of Business and Economics (see in “Making a Decision? Take Your Time” – Scientific American, April 2010), concludes that delaying a choice, in general, can help us make better decisions. The research further makes the observation that delaying a decision allows us to ‘chill out’, the outcome of which is that we are able to make a better choice.

The Executive Function – the law of diminishing returns

The Encyclopaedia of Mental Disorders defines the Executive Function as “a set of cognitive abilities that control and regulate other abilities and behaviors. Executive functions are necessary for goal-directed behavior. They include the ability to initiate and stop actions, to monitor and change behavior as needed, and to plan future behavior when faced with novel tasks and situations. Executive functions allow us to anticipate outcomes and adapt to changing situations. The ability to form concepts and think abstractly are often considered components of executive function.”

What does it all mean?

The human brain has got limited processing capacity that can, under certain conditions, deteriorate due to over use. Decision making requires cognitive resources. These resources, when used in the context of making complex decisions, get increasingly strained to the point that the quality of our decision making gets affected. This is a clear case of the law of diminishing returns in action. An incremental demand for cognitive resources can result in a diminishing return where the quality of the decision made is of a lower quality than the ones achieved previously (see further details in “Though Choices: How Making Decisions Tires Your Brain” – Scientific American, July 2008; and “Mindless Collectives Better at Rational Decision Making Than Brainy Individuals” – Scientific American, July 2009).

Being mindful about the way we make decisions

The human brain is a sophisticated yet unpredictable organ. Using our heuristic thinking capabilities we are able to make wonderful, yet inaccurate and completely disastrous predictions and decisions.

Knowing our ‘built-in’ inefficiencies we are able to fine-tune our decision making process by risk mitigating the potential for the deteriorating quality built into our very consciousness.

Related posts:

1. Rational decision making process? Not really!
2. Project Management Science Corner – Multitasking
3. The Paradox of Choice