Discussion: View Thread

From: Erwin Rausch DidacticRa@aol.com

Hi, list members

For the past umpteen years I have tried to gain wider awareness of a number
of thoughts that, to me, seems  compelling.  Despite two books, many
management
seminars, and presentations at academic conventions,  including an attempted

'debate', I have not been able to generate a critical analysis.   This is
despite that fact that, so far, not one serious objection has been raised
(other
than that there is no empirical validation), nor has any internal
inconsistency
or conflict been uncovered.

I was wondering whether, possibly, there are members of this list who would
be interested or willing to  engage in a discussion of the thoughts
described
below, including the two near the end that may be perceived either as an
overly
harsh and at least partially unjustified critique of current educational 
practice, or as a challenge to be debated (hopefully as the latter).  I
would
greatly welcome that.

Cheers,

Erwin (Rausch)  didacticra@aol.com and erausch@kean.edu
***************
Here, as brief as I am capable of stating them, are the thoughts:

1.  Decisions are the foundation of all actions - including behaviors

2.  Better decisions will usually bring more effective actions

3.  Decisions that consider all issues that can impact on the decision
outcomes are more likely to be better decisions than those that have less
thorough
foundation

4.  It is often not possible to consider all issues that can impact on
decision outcomes but if the effort is made to do so, the decision is likely
to be
better than if the effort is not made.

5.  A group of comprehensive, integrated questions that can remind of all or

most of the issues that deserve consideration in a decision, can help to
ensure that relevant issues are not likely to be ignored.

6.  The more aware a decision maker is of the theoretical and practical
foundations for answering the questions, the more likely it will be that the

questions will have full meaning in terms of the issues that could be
considered in
shaping and evaluating the decision alternatives

7.  There is little in the field of management and leadership education, and

development, that directly addresses this need for learners to acquire
greater
competence in decision making.  Victor Vroom's work on participation and
Herbert Simon's emphasis on decisions rather than actions, are two
outstanding
exceptions.  However, the focus of education in Organizational Behavior
aspects
of management is primarily on theories and descriptive examples of the
application of theories to specific situations, rather than on helping
learners
develop the critical thinking and analysis skills that lead to consistently
better
decisions in all situations.

8.  Better balance between the descriptive and prescriptive (as is done in
the scientific and functional disciplines) would likely bring graduates of
educational and developmental programs who will make better comprehensive
management and leadership decisions and thus probably bring more effective
organizations.

9. The thoughts discussed above apply not only at work but also in private
life.

Dear Erwin: I wouldn't disagree with anything you say below. Regarding
your point 7. I have been often very frustrated in my observation that
most of my undergrad business students have little capacity to think
critically or analytically. Although I attempt to explain and
demonstrate what this means, they seem to be unable to grasp it. They
see critical thinking as an exercise in criticism and are able to do
that. But they don't understand how to approach all of what they do
with a critical thinking perspective and rely on a list of criticisms on
the issue at hand without the accompanying depth of analysis- another
concept which is foreign to them.

I'm not sure how you teach this. I suspect they should have been taught
this in the primary grades. For example, my son is in Grade 2 and the
teacher is engaging them in critical thinking exercises. But this
school's curriculum is not typical and I note that most of my students
never received this.

And yes, most of OB is theory and practical examples. In fact, they are
not supposed to criticize the theories- which I try to do with them. I
ask them to put the theory development in the context of the time in
which the theorist was working so that they can gain an understanding of
what was behind the theory. Most, however, simply get confused when I
do that and would rather just memorize the theory and its application.
But then, this is what our system rewards them on.

Cheers

Deborah Nixon
University of Toronto
704 Windermere Ave
Toronto Ontario M6S 3M1
Ph: 416-763-6985
Fax: 416-763-3361

-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Wankel
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:31 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Some lateral thinking

From: Erwin Rausch DidacticRa@aol.com

Hi, list members

For the past umpteen years I have tried to gain wider awareness of a
number
of thoughts that, to me, seems  compelling.  Despite two books, many
management
seminars, and presentations at academic conventions,  including an
attempted

'debate', I have not been able to generate a critical analysis.   This
is
despite that fact that, so far, not one serious objection has been
raised
(other
than that there is no empirical validation), nor has any internal
inconsistency
or conflict been uncovered.

I was wondering whether, possibly, there are members of this list who
would
be interested or willing to  engage in a discussion of the thoughts
described
below, including the two near the end that may be perceived either as an
overly
harsh and at least partially unjustified critique of current
educational 
practice, or as a challenge to be debated (hopefully as the latter).  I
would
greatly welcome that.

Cheers,

Erwin (Rausch)  didacticra@aol.com and erausch@kean.edu
***************
Here, as brief as I am capable of stating them, are the thoughts:

1.  Decisions are the foundation of all actions - including behaviors

2.  Better decisions will usually bring more effective actions

3.  Decisions that consider all issues that can impact on the decision
outcomes are more likely to be better decisions than those that have
less
thorough
foundation

4.  It is often not possible to consider all issues that can impact on
decision outcomes but if the effort is made to do so, the decision is
likely
to be
better than if the effort is not made.

5.  A group of comprehensive, integrated questions that can remind of
all or

most of the issues that deserve consideration in a decision, can help to

ensure that relevant issues are not likely to be ignored.

6.  The more aware a decision maker is of the theoretical and practical
foundations for answering the questions, the more likely it will be that
the

questions will have full meaning in terms of the issues that could be
considered in
shaping and evaluating the decision alternatives

7.  There is little in the field of management and leadership education,
and

development, that directly addresses this need for learners to acquire
greater
competence in decision making.  Victor Vroom's work on participation and

Herbert Simon's emphasis on decisions rather than actions, are two
outstanding
exceptions.  However, the focus of education in Organizational Behavior
aspects
of management is primarily on theories and descriptive examples of the
application of theories to specific situations, rather than on helping
learners
develop the critical thinking and analysis skills that lead to
consistently
better
decisions in all situations.

8.  Better balance between the descriptive and prescriptive (as is done
in
the scientific and functional disciplines) would likely bring graduates
of
educational and developmental programs who will make better
comprehensive
management and leadership decisions and thus probably bring more
effective
organizations.

9. The thoughts discussed above apply not only at work but also in
private
life.

Hi Erwin,

Good to hear from - looks like some creative management is nedded here. As
a teacher my concern is with the curriculum levels in any management course:

1. Specified ----by govt. intervention, perception of the market place or,
indeed institutional influence
2. Enacted -------what the individual teacher conveys, etc.
3. Experienced ----- by the student.

Unfortunately a fourth and more worrying apsect is becoming more prevalent

4. Hidden curriculum ---- the student attitude of, "what do I need to know
to get through".

I feel that this last aspect is a worrying trend and as such students tend
not to engage with the literature. I tried an experiment in marketing
decison making using a case study I developed some ten years ago. The
original students performed really well and demonstrated decision making
(and taking) skills. They cleary showed recall, comprehension and
appliaction. Recent undergraduates could not actually get to grips with the
issues and did not progress beyond recall- and that at quite a basic level.

As T. S. Elliot said, "Between the thought and the action lies the shadow".

Thank you for sucha stimulating topic and I hope others with contribute - I
certainly will.

Best wishes,
John


----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wankel" <wankelc@optonline.net>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 1:30 AM
Subject: Some lateral thinking


From: Erwin Rausch DidacticRa@aol.com

Hi, list members

For the past umpteen years I have tried to gain wider awareness of a number
of thoughts that, to me, seems compelling. Despite two books, many
management
seminars, and presentations at academic conventions, including an attempted

'debate', I have not been able to generate a critical analysis. This is
despite that fact that, so far, not one serious objection has been raised
(other
than that there is no empirical validation), nor has any internal
inconsistency
or conflict been uncovered.

I was wondering whether, possibly, there are members of this list who would
be interested or willing to engage in a discussion of the thoughts
described
below, including the two near the end that may be perceived either as an
overly
harsh and at least partially unjustified critique of current educational
practice, or as a challenge to be debated (hopefully as the latter). I
would
greatly welcome that.

Cheers,

Erwin (Rausch) didacticra@aol.com and erausch@kean.edu
***************
Here, as brief as I am capable of stating them, are the thoughts:

1. Decisions are the foundation of all actions - including behaviors

2. Better decisions will usually bring more effective actions

3. Decisions that consider all issues that can impact on the decision
outcomes are more likely to be better decisions than those that have less
thorough
foundation

4. It is often not possible to consider all issues that can impact on
decision outcomes but if the effort is made to do so, the decision is likely
to be
better than if the effort is not made.

5. A group of comprehensive, integrated questions that can remind of all or

most of the issues that deserve consideration in a decision, can help to
ensure that relevant issues are not likely to be ignored.

6. The more aware a decision maker is of the theoretical and practical
foundations for answering the questions, the more likely it will be that the

questions will have full meaning in terms of the issues that could be
considered in
shaping and evaluating the decision alternatives

7. There is little in the field of management and leadership education, and

development, that directly addresses this need for learners to acquire
greater
competence in decision making. Victor Vroom's work on participation and
Herbert Simon's emphasis on decisions rather than actions, are two
outstanding
exceptions. However, the focus of education in Organizational Behavior
aspects
of management is primarily on theories and descriptive examples of the
application of theories to specific situations, rather than on helping
learners
develop the critical thinking and analysis skills that lead to consistently
better
decisions in all situations.

8. Better balance between the descriptive and prescriptive (as is done in
the scientific and functional disciplines) would likely bring graduates of
educational and developmental programs who will make better comprehensive
management and leadership decisions and thus probably bring more effective
organizations.

9. The thoughts discussed above apply not only at work but also in private
life.

It seems to be something related to meta-cognition!
May be there is something of this issue related to cultural bias: for
example, europian approach to theorical thought, and the italian one in
particular, is generally speaking considered more "critical oriented" than
us one (even though things are changing even in my country). And may be the
business approach to theory and practise is less "critical" than that, for
example, of letterature or space sciences...any way, i agree with you,
critical thinking and meta cognition are fundamental for taking every kind
of decisions, and i found also our time is affected by a dramatical lack of
critical thinking.

If i may apply a bit of critical thinking to your model, i would add a bit
of emotions and intuition ( also the supposed supremacy of rational thinking
seems to me something related to - western - cultural bias). And would
spend some words for the role played by organizational factors (culture,
organizational climate, emotional climate, etc.). May be critical thinking
approach should also provide future managers more awareness on social and
psychosocial organizational variables that influence their thinking and
behavior.

Best regards

Fabrizio Maimone




----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wankel" <wankelc@optonline.net>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:30 AM
Subject: Some lateral thinking


From: Erwin Rausch DidacticRa@aol.com

Hi, list members

For the past umpteen years I have tried to gain wider awareness of a number
of thoughts that, to me, seems compelling. Despite two books, many
management
seminars, and presentations at academic conventions, including an attempted

'debate', I have not been able to generate a critical analysis. This is
despite that fact that, so far, not one serious objection has been raised
(other
than that there is no empirical validation), nor has any internal
inconsistency
or conflict been uncovered.

I was wondering whether, possibly, there are members of this list who would
be interested or willing to engage in a discussion of the thoughts
described
below, including the two near the end that may be perceived either as an
overly
harsh and at least partially unjustified critique of current educational
practice, or as a challenge to be debated (hopefully as the latter). I
would
greatly welcome that.

Cheers,

Erwin (Rausch) didacticra@aol.com and erausch@kean.edu
***************
Here, as brief as I am capable of stating them, are the thoughts:

1. Decisions are the foundation of all actions - including behaviors

2. Better decisions will usually bring more effective actions

3. Decisions that consider all issues that can impact on the decision
outcomes are more likely to be better decisions than those that have less
thorough
foundation

4. It is often not possible to consider all issues that can impact on
decision outcomes but if the effort is made to do so, the decision is likely
to be
better than if the effort is not made.

5. A group of comprehensive, integrated questions that can remind of all or

most of the issues that deserve consideration in a decision, can help to
ensure that relevant issues are not likely to be ignored.

6. The more aware a decision maker is of the theoretical and practical
foundations for answering the questions, the more likely it will be that the

questions will have full meaning in terms of the issues that could be
considered in
shaping and evaluating the decision alternatives

7. There is little in the field of management and leadership education, and

development, that directly addresses this need for learners to acquire
greater
competence in decision making. Victor Vroom's work on participation and
Herbert Simon's emphasis on decisions rather than actions, are two
outstanding
exceptions. However, the focus of education in Organizational Behavior
aspects
of management is primarily on theories and descriptive examples of the
application of theories to specific situations, rather than on helping
learners
develop the critical thinking and analysis skills that lead to consistently
better
decisions in all situations.

8. Better balance between the descriptive and prescriptive (as is done in
the scientific and functional disciplines) would likely bring graduates of
educational and developmental programs who will make better comprehensive
management and leadership decisions and thus probably bring more effective
organizations.

9. The thoughts discussed above apply not only at work but also in private
life.

As an academic and practitioner, one quickly realizes that critical
thinking of the sort we are referring to is not encouraged in most
organizations. In fact, there are many overt, and more covert, signals
that relay the message that critical thinking is a career limiter. One
may critique in order to improve what is. One, however, cannot challenge
what is. I note many colleagues who work on what they call
organizational transformation and while the processes look sophisticated
accompanied by their seemingly complex charts and graphs, they are
essentially moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. Commentary on that
fact is met with great hostility and with the view that I probably just
don't get it.

So, it's no wonder that our management students can't get beyond this.
There is absolutely nothing out there that supports this position.



Deborah Nixon
University of Toronto
704 Windermere Ave
Toronto Ontario


-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Fabrizio Maimone
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 3:16 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Some lateral thinking


It seems to be something related to meta-cognition!
May be there is something of this issue related to cultural bias: for
example, europian approach to theorical thought, and the italian one in
particular, is generally speaking considered more "critical oriented"
than us one (even though things are changing even in my country). And
may be the business approach to theory and practise is less "critical"
than that, for example, of letterature or space sciences...any way, i
agree with you, critical thinking and meta cognition are fundamental for
taking every kind of decisions, and i found also our time is affected by
a dramatical lack of critical thinking.

If i may apply a bit of critical thinking to your model, i would add a
bit of emotions and intuition ( also the supposed supremacy of rational
thinking seems to me something related to - western - cultural bias).
And would spend some words for the role played by organizational factors
(culture, organizational climate, emotional climate, etc.). May be
critical thinking approach should also provide future managers more
awareness on social and psychosocial organizational variables that
influence their thinking and behavior.

Best regards

Fabrizio Maimone




----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wankel" <wankelc@optonline.net>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:30 AM
Subject: Some lateral thinking


From: Erwin Rausch DidacticRa@aol.com

Hi, list members

For the past umpteen years I have tried to gain wider awareness of a
number of thoughts that, to me, seems compelling. Despite two books,
many management seminars, and presentations at academic conventions,
including an attempted

'debate', I have not been able to generate a critical analysis. This is
despite that fact that, so far, not one serious objection has been
raised (other than that there is no empirical validation), nor has any
internal inconsistency or conflict been uncovered.

I was wondering whether, possibly, there are members of this list who
would be interested or willing to engage in a discussion of the thoughts
described below, including the two near the end that may be perceived
either as an overly harsh and at least partially unjustified critique of
current educational practice, or as a challenge to be debated (hopefully
as the latter). I would greatly welcome that.

Cheers,

Erwin (Rausch) didacticra@aol.com and erausch@kean.edu
***************
Here, as brief as I am capable of stating them, are the thoughts:

1. Decisions are the foundation of all actions - including behaviors

2. Better decisions will usually bring more effective actions

3. Decisions that consider all issues that can impact on the decision
outcomes are more likely to be better decisions than those that have
less thorough foundation

4. It is often not possible to consider all issues that can impact on
decision outcomes but if the effort is made to do so, the decision is
likely to be better than if the effort is not made.

5. A group of comprehensive, integrated questions that can remind of all
or

most of the issues that deserve consideration in a decision, can help to
ensure that relevant issues are not likely to be ignored.

6. The more aware a decision maker is of the theoretical and practical
foundations for answering the questions, the more likely it will be that
the

questions will have full meaning in terms of the issues that could be
considered in shaping and evaluating the decision alternatives

7. There is little in the field of management and leadership education,
and

development, that directly addresses this need for learners to acquire
greater competence in decision making. Victor Vroom's work on
participation and Herbert Simon's emphasis on decisions rather than
actions, are two outstanding exceptions. However, the focus of education
in Organizational Behavior aspects of management is primarily on
theories and descriptive examples of the application of theories to
specific situations, rather than on helping learners develop the
critical thinking and analysis skills that lead to consistently better
decisions in all situations.

8. Better balance between the descriptive and prescriptive (as is done
in the scientific and functional disciplines) would likely bring
graduates of educational and developmental programs who will make better
comprehensive management and leadership decisions and thus probably
bring more effective organizations.

9. The thoughts discussed above apply not only at work but also in
private life.

Deborah Nixon writes:

>As an academic and practitioner, one quickly realizes that critical
>thinking of the sort we are referring to is not encouraged in most
>organizations.

I'd clarify this a bit based on my experience. I haven't seen anything but
encouragement of critical thinking. What often happens is that the fruits
of critical thinking are subsequently presented in a very unpalatable and
impolitic manner, drawing fire from those in positions of power. The
imprudent, the impolitic and those unskilled in the arts of presentation
and persuasion then blame their own failure on an environment that is
inhospitable to critical thinking. Plainly put, criticism, constructive or
otherwise, is rarely well received. Penetrating questions and other more
roundabout approaches frequently succeed and their users frequently find favor.

>In fact, there are many overt, and more covert, signals
>that relay the message that critical thinking is a career limiter. One
>may critique in order to improve what is. One, however, cannot challenge
>what is. I note many colleagues who work on what they call
>organizational transformation and while the processes look sophisticated
>accompanied by their seemingly complex charts and graphs, they are
>essentially moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. Commentary on that
>fact is met with great hostility and with the view that I probably just
>don't get it.

True enough in some cases, perhaps many, but not all. Critical thinking,
whatever is meant by it, is probably mainly covert in nature. Expressing
the fruits of one's critical thinking is decidedly overt in nature. Still,
Deborah draws attention to a fact of life in many organizations; namely,
that at least some initiatives, programs, etc are primarily for show and
any of kind of critical analysis of them puts the analyst(s) at risk.

>So, it's no wonder that our management students can't get beyond this.
>There is absolutely nothing out there that supports this position.

Again, I think it's pretty much situation and organization specific, not a
blanket truth.


Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
"Assistance at A Distance"
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

Erwin,
The subject is important and your rationale looks great --- not much to
debate.
Suggest you consider three facets.
+ Although #5 is appropriate I think 'students' will learn more if a group
of comprehensive, integrated assertions are offered and they are required to
articulate the relationship, if any, between the each and the decision
situation.
+ Secondly, it will be useful to add Gary Klein (c.f. "Intuition at Work")
to your list of key influencers because the non-analytic way is how most
humans formulate an action.
+ Third, as long as the prevailing belief holds that managers and leaders
must be right far more than in 51% of the instances (like minimum 98%) all
of them secretly know that being an overt choice maker can be career
limiting, so why learn.
+ Fourth, and debatable, is that pre-college training in 'decision making'
and 'critical thinking' (situation ethics in sheep's clothing) dumbs them
down to the level that you encounter but they think they are already
critical thinkers.
Onward,

I must first agree with Deborah Nelson that much of what happens in
organizational transformation is like moving chairs on the deck of the
Titanic. I don't think management education is always much better. I believe
that part of the problem lies with a reliance on classical reductionist
models that attempt to resolve every problem by breaking it down into its
parts. By implication, the better we can use critical thinking to isolate
and understand the parts, the better the subsequent decisions. In the
process, we fail to consider the complexity that is inherent to most
organizations. The ability to open the perspective and consider the big
picture may in the end be as, if not more important, than breaking down
problems into their parts.

Some comments on Erwin's statements.

1. Not necessarily. A great deal of behavior is related to instinct or
habit. While it could be argued that habit is really the result of good
decisions (or at least those that have proven satisfactory often enough to
be considered reliable) that have been internalized through repeated use, I
don't include them into conscious decision making. For one thing, the intent
of the decision on which the habit was first developed may have been lost or
distorted, or else there may be a tendency to over-rely on habits at the
expense of understanding the problem. Behavior is multi-faceted and I remain
uncomfortable with statements that seem to link it all to one thing.

2. That depends on how we define better decision and the context
considered.

3. I agree that foundation is essential. I'm not sure, however, about
the first part of the statement that better decisions likely result from
considering all issues. In many cases, there is neither enough time nor
information to consider all issues. Heuristics, intuition and projection
then become far more effective tools for decision making.

4. Yes, but not necessarily by trying to break down or dissect issues
into parts. Often, what is needed is to broaden the focus to gain a more
holistic perspective.

8. Management education should include much greater exposure to the
fluidity and complexity of organizations. Formulas in economy or principles
of management must be seen as tools, not failsafe solutions.

Jean-Marc Guillemette
Ph.D. Candidate, Ed. Tech. (interests in learning and complex organizations)


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Wankel [mailto:wankelc@optonline.net]
Sent: November 09, 2003 20:31 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: [MG-ED-DV] Some lateral thinking


From: Erwin Rausch DidacticRa@aol.com

Hi, list members

For the past umpteen years I have tried to gain wider awareness of a number
of thoughts that, to me, seems  compelling.  Despite two books, many
management
seminars, and presentations at academic conventions,  including an attempted

'debate', I have not been able to generate a critical analysis.   This is
despite that fact that, so far, not one serious objection has been raised
(other
than that there is no empirical validation), nor has any internal
inconsistency
or conflict been uncovered.

I was wondering whether, possibly, there are members of this list who would
be interested or willing to  engage in a discussion of the thoughts
described
below, including the two near the end that may be perceived either as an
overly
harsh and at least partially unjustified critique of current educational 
practice, or as a challenge to be debated (hopefully as the latter).  I
would
greatly welcome that.

Cheers,

Erwin (Rausch)  didacticra@aol.com and erausch@kean.edu
***************
Here, as brief as I am capable of stating them, are the thoughts:

1.  Decisions are the foundation of all actions - including behaviors

2.  Better decisions will usually bring more effective actions

3.  Decisions that consider all issues that can impact on the decision
outcomes are more likely to be better decisions than those that have less
thorough
foundation

4.  It is often not possible to consider all issues that can impact on
decision outcomes but if the effort is made to do so, the decision is likely
to be
better than if the effort is not made.

5.  A group of comprehensive, integrated questions that can remind of all or

most of the issues that deserve consideration in a decision, can help to
ensure that relevant issues are not likely to be ignored.

6.  The more aware a decision maker is of the theoretical and practical
foundations for answering the questions, the more likely it will be that the

questions will have full meaning in terms of the issues that could be
considered in
shaping and evaluating the decision alternatives

7.  There is little in the field of management and leadership education, and

development, that directly addresses this need for learners to acquire
greater
competence in decision making.  Victor Vroom's work on participation and
Herbert Simon's emphasis on decisions rather than actions, are two
outstanding
exceptions.  However, the focus of education in Organizational Behavior
aspects
of management is primarily on theories and descriptive examples of the
application of theories to specific situations, rather than on helping
learners
develop the critical thinking and analysis skills that lead to consistently
better
decisions in all situations.

8.  Better balance between the descriptive and prescriptive (as is done in
the scientific and functional disciplines) would likely bring graduates of
educational and developmental programs who will make better comprehensive
management and leadership decisions and thus probably bring more effective
organizations.

9. The thoughts discussed above apply not only at work but also in private
life.

Colleagues,

As usual, I take a different approach. I've recently consulted with a new
company offering decision support software. As much as I like what they do,
they must assume that their customers know what decisions to make and what
characterizes a good decision.

To me, the core issue is questions.
Focusing on questions moves issues of intuition, culture, and habit to
another dimension. Indeed, cultures have tremendous impact on what
questions we ask.
On the other hand, it is often much safer in restrictive cultures to ask
questions than to present answers.
I've developed strategic decision processes entirely out of questions.
I cannot tell my clients what to do. I can ask questions and work with them
to develop powerful answers. With buy-in to those answers, decisions are
possible that otherwise would never be considered.

Erwin connects deciding to acting. Acting requires other decisions.
We choose a strategy, yet that choice does not implement.
To implement, we must make more decisions.
Thus I've added a point. In systems theory, every effect is the cause of
the next effect. Life is not cause and effect, but
cause-effect-cause-effect... forever.

Here is my alternative to Erwin's philosophy. You might note that I've
purposefully omitted equivocation to get to the core of ideas.

1. Questions are the reasons for all significant decisions.

2. Better formed questions enable better decisions.

3. Questions that reflect the complexity of decision space result in better
decisions than those with a less thorough foundation.

4. It is never possible to reflect the full complexity of a significant
decision space. Efforts made to deal with complexity tend to result in
better decisions, though often at the cost of delays.

5. Significant decisions always depend on answers to a range of questions.
Abilities to recognize and emphasize the most significant questions, then
integrate those answers, enable high quality, timely decisions.

6. No decision stands alone. Every decision is part of a complex web of
decisions. The full impact of any significant decision cannot be fully
understood.

7. Each question asked implies a knowledge space of theory and practice
needed to make productive decisions. Better knowledge leads to better
answers leads to better decisions.

8. Education has focused on answering (telling) more than on questioning
(how to ask). To improve decisions, education must teach how to choose
questions to ask and how to formulate questions to enable meaningful
answers.

Critical thinking is questioning thinking. Analytic thinking is
comparison of possible answers. Deciding is choosing from options. The
issue for education is not teaching decision making so much as teaching how
to ask powerful questions and develop complete sets of options.

9. Leadership and management make different decisions. In effect,
leadership asks, "Why?". Management asks, "How?". To build leaders,
education must teach abilities to challenge. To build managers, education
must teach abilities to collaborate.

10. Questioning is core to a conscious life.



Best to all,



Gary



----------------------------
Innovation and Branding - done Strategically

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Making and keeping satisfied customers,
at a profit, over time,
in a competitive environment.

From: Fred Nickols nickols@worldnet.att.net

I've been following this thread but haven't chimed in. I'll do that
now. I'll start by responding to Erwin's original post and then pick up on
related postings in subsequent postings of my own.

To refresh everyone's thinking, including my own, here's Erwin Rausch's
original posting:

>For the past umpteen years I have tried to gain wider awareness of a number
>of thoughts that, to me, seems compelling. Despite two books, many
>management
>seminars, and presentations at academic conventions, including an
attempted
>
>'debate', I have not been able to generate a critical analysis.

A critical analysis of what, Erwin?

>This is
>despite that fact that, so far, not one serious objection has been raised
>(other
>than that there is no empirical validation), nor has any internal
>inconsistency
>or conflict been uncovered.

No empirical validation or internal inconsistency or conflict of/in what,
Erwin?

>I was wondering whether, possibly, there are members of this list who would
>be interested or willing to engage in a discussion of the thoughts
>described
>below, including the two near the end that may be perceived either as an
>overly
>harsh and at least partially unjustified critique of current educational
>practice, or as a challenge to be debated (hopefully as the latter). I
>would
>greatly welcome that.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Erwin (Rausch) didacticra@aol.com and erausch@kean.edu
>***************
>Here, as brief as I am capable of stating them, are the thoughts:
>
>1. Decisions are the foundation of all actions - including behaviors

I think this is true some of the time but is confined to situations in
which action (or behavior) has been consciously, deliberately planned and
is being carried out so as to achieve some goal or objective. The rest of
the time, or so I believe, we behave or act in accordance with
internally-held standards and we act or behave in ways that serve to keep
our perceptions of things about us aligned with our standards.

>2. Better decisions will usually bring more effective actions

I'll have to give this one some more thought but my immediate reaction is
again one of not necessarily or in all cases.

>3. Decisions that consider all issues that can impact on the decision
>outcomes are more likely to be better decisions than those that have less
>thorough
>foundation

I think I agree with No 3.

>4. It is often not possible to consider all issues that can impact on
>decision outcomes but if the effort is made to do so, the decision is
likely
>to be
>better than if the effort is not made.

Again, I have a not necessarily reaction. If the effort is made and if
some of the critical factors are considered, I think I agree. However, if
an effort is made but it touches on ancillary issues only then I'm not sure
that the decision will be enough better to warrant the effort.

>5. A group of comprehensive, integrated questions that can remind of all
or
>
>most of the issues that deserve consideration in a decision, can help to
>ensure that relevant issues are not likely to be ignored.

Agreed, but could you please say some more about how those questions are
produced?

>6. The more aware a decision maker is of the theoretical and practical
>foundations for answering the questions, the more likely it will be that
the
>
>questions will have full meaning in terms of the issues that could be
>considered in
>shaping and evaluating the decision alternatives

I think the use of "aware" in No 6 leaves out what is probably the major
basis for action: tacit knowledge. I think a lot of decisions are made on
what many would call an intuitive basis. From my perspective, relevant
knowledge does indeed come into play but those applying it are mostly
unaware of the knowledge they are applying.

>7. There is little in the field of management and leadership education,
and
>
>development, that directly addresses this need for learners to acquire
>greater
>competence in decision making. Victor Vroom's work on participation and
>Herbert Simon's emphasis on decisions rather than actions, are two
>outstanding
>exceptions. However, the focus of education in Organizational Behavior
>aspects
>of management is primarily on theories and descriptive examples of the
>application of theories to specific situations, rather than on helping
>learners
>develop the critical thinking and analysis skills that lead to consistently
>better
>decisions in all situations.

I can't comment on what goes on in colleges and universities but decision
making has always been front and center in most management development
programs I've encountered. What makes you say there is little in that
regard?

>8. Better balance between the descriptive and prescriptive (as is done in
>the scientific and functional disciplines) would likely bring graduates of
>educational and developmental programs who will make better comprehensive
>management and leadership decisions and thus probably bring more effective
>organizations.

I think No 8 assumes an appropriate set of goals and objectives on the part
of the decision maker. As stated, No 8 could lead to a situation where the
crooked and the corrupt make better decisions as well.

>9. The thoughts discussed above apply not only at work but also in private
>life.

Agreed.


Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
"Assistance at A Distance"
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

Colleagues,

Erwin refocused us, writing: "If we can define such a list of questions and then concentrate on helping learners develop the habit to use them regularly, we will probably make management education and development significantly more effective. We might wind up writing a book together."

I've made a living for the last 15 years on just that notion.
I call it "strategic pre-planning".
Planning requires making of a range of decisions. Pre-planning sets up formal decision processes to complete those decisions, thus simplifying and accelerating planning and subsequent performance.
Experience in pre-planning ensures that all essential decisions are made. We don't operate from limited viewpoints.
The process involves facilitated brainstorming by an empowered team. A suite of tools focuses ideation, builds larger decisions from smaller ones, ranks lists of ideas, and integrates a range of decisions into integrated identities and integrated strategies.

The process comes from an engineering mindset. Engineers don't start projects by ordering materials. They stop to ask and answer questions. They model results. They develop a complete, durable, tested, marketable vision that can be presented to stakeholders.
If you want to see decision making taught in academia, go talk to your engineering schools.

The key to pre-planning is, of course, choosing the questions.
It takes two steps. Dimensions of questions, then specific highly relevant questions.

Dimensions: How many dimensions does it take to describe the shape of a box?
3. Right? X, Y, Z. We can describe the shape of the box and anything inside or outside of the box with just 3 dimensions.
Now. How many dimensions does it take to describe a box?
No. That isn't the same question. Now we must consider materials, strength, color, how it opens, will it hold liquids, and on and on.
So... how many dimensions does it take to describe a product? A customer? A market?

Through lots of testing and trials, I've found that it takes 8 dimensions to describe a product. The processes have been applied to products, services, tangibles, intangibles, hardware, software, teams, projects, facilities, technologies, and formative ideas.

Businesses are more complex. They need the first 8 dimensions plus about 8 more dimensions to develop visions of operations and culture. This corporate visioning has been applied to start-ups, elements of Fortune 50, departments (e.g., marketing, R&D), events, and projects. The processes have worked both in industry and federal research laboratories.

Decisions within dimensions: Decision tools work here. Certain classes of decisions can be made by asking standard types of questions. At it's simplest, brainstorm a list and rank it for importance.
Others require special tools. Needs/benefits analysis is core to both innovation and brand definition. Goal setting is remarkably easy... if you use the right tools.
Most dimensions of decision (in these processes) involve answering more than one question.

Integration: Back to engineering again. Pre-planning of individual components won't do. We need to pre-plan the whole engineered result.
The same truth applies to products, projects, and businesses. We need a fully integrated vision, as early in development as possible.
It is easy to envision five, say, marketing strategies. Website, trade show, press conference, brochure, sales calls. Done independently, they would likely confuse the market. They need to be integrated, with common messages, common branding, common style, and even common fonts.

You can access information on strategic pre-planning on my website, or I'll send articles on product visioning and corporate visioning as Word attachments on request offline to my e-mail address below.

Best,

Gary


----------------------------
Innovation and Branding - done Strategically

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
Market Engineering International
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Making and keeping satisfied customers,
at a profit, over time,
in a competitive environment.

Hell to all: Gary proposes one model of decision making which has what I
call a rational approach to it. I teach change management to these types
of students- those with a right brain orientation. They are both IT and
engineering students and these are the students with the most difficulty
with conceptual thinking that doesn't fit within a prescribed framework
of decision-making. I'm not sure what type of decision making Edwin is
referring to and this discussion is very helpful as people weigh in with
their definitions and assumptions that we are all talking about the same
thing.

What Gary describes I have often encountered in both my academic and
consulting practice. I also encountered it when I was a manager and
director in major corporations. There is a method that people follow to
reach the best decision. It is one approach that can facilitate the
process. But the problem I found is that it reinforces the one best way
approach which we then become very committed to and then have trouble
with if someone rejects the approach. Then we don't know what to do
with their contribution because we have to place to put it. So, we try
to adapt it so it fits rather than look at the constraints of the method
approach.

This is what business school students want- tell me how to think, give
me a method and I can follow it. They want me to tellthem precisely how
to do their assignment, how many pages to write, what format, what sorts
of questions they should answer. They become unglued if I tell them
write what it takes and make sure you've covered the key points. Much
too ambiguous for them- they want frameworks. I don't give them that
and they really struggle. Are we reinforcing all of this by then
designing decision making systems that give them a blueprint rather than
let them live within the uncertainty and discomfort as they search for a
solution that may not be obvious or evident.

Deborah Nixon
University of Toronto
704 Windermere Ave
Toronto Ont M6S 3M1
Ph: 416-763-6985
Fax: 416-763-3361



-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Lundquist
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:54 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Some lateral thinking


Colleagues,

Erwin refocused us, writing: "If we can define such a list of questions
and then concentrate on helping learners develop the habit to use them
regularly, we will probably make management education and development
significantly more effective. We might wind up writing a book
together."

I've made a living for the last 15 years on just that notion.
I call it "strategic pre-planning".
Planning requires making of a range of decisions. Pre-planning sets
up formal decision processes to complete those decisions, thus
simplifying and accelerating planning and subsequent performance.
Experience in pre-planning ensures that all essential decisions are
made. We don't operate from limited viewpoints.
The process involves facilitated brainstorming by an empowered team.
A suite of tools focuses ideation, builds larger decisions from smaller
ones, ranks lists of ideas, and integrates a range of decisions into
integrated identities and integrated strategies.

The process comes from an engineering mindset. Engineers don't start
projects by ordering materials. They stop to ask and answer questions.
They model results. They develop a complete, durable, tested,
marketable vision that can be presented to stakeholders.
If you want to see decision making taught in academia, go talk to
your engineering schools.

The key to pre-planning is, of course, choosing the questions.
It takes two steps. Dimensions of questions, then specific highly
relevant questions.

Dimensions: How many dimensions does it take to describe the shape of a
box?
3. Right? X, Y, Z. We can describe the shape of the box and
anything inside or outside of the box with just 3 dimensions.
Now. How many dimensions does it take to describe a box?
No. That isn't the same question. Now we must consider materials,
strength, color, how it opens, will it hold liquids, and on and on.
So... how many dimensions does it take to describe a product? A
customer? A market?

Through lots of testing and trials, I've found that it takes 8
dimensions to describe a product. The processes have been applied to
products, services, tangibles, intangibles, hardware, software, teams,
projects, facilities, technologies, and formative ideas.

Businesses are more complex. They need the first 8 dimensions plus
about 8 more dimensions to develop visions of operations and culture.
This corporate visioning has been applied to start-ups, elements of
Fortune 50, departments (e.g., marketing, R&D), events, and projects.
The processes have worked both in industry and federal research
laboratories.

Decisions within dimensions: Decision tools work here. Certain classes
of decisions can be made by asking standard types of questions. At it's
simplest, brainstorm a list and rank it for importance.
Others require special tools. Needs/benefits analysis is core to
both innovation and brand definition. Goal setting is remarkably
easy... if you use the right tools.
Most dimensions of decision (in these processes) involve answering
more than one question.

Integration: Back to engineering again. Pre-planning of individual
components won't do. We need to pre-plan the whole engineered result.
The same truth applies to products, projects, and businesses. We
need a fully integrated vision, as early in development as possible.
It is easy to envision five, say, marketing strategies. Website,
trade show, press conference, brochure, sales calls. Done
independently, they would likely confuse the market. They need to be
integrated, with common messages, common branding, common style, and
even common fonts.

You can access information on strategic pre-planning on my website, or
I'll send articles on product visioning and corporate visioning as Word
attachments on request offline to my e-mail address below.

Best,

Gary


----------------------------
Innovation and Branding - done Strategically

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
Market Engineering International
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Making and keeping satisfied customers,
at a profit, over time,
in a competitive environment.

I very much agree with Deborah's comment that we may be reinforcing a
reliance on models and strict ways of thinking that don't deal with
uncertainty, and therefore much of the real world. It's very much the same
problem in education where various models have been developed over time to
guide decision making in instructional design, etc. In some cases, models
have become so entrenched that's it's nearly sacrilege to even suggest they
aren't perfect. I believe models are an important part of learning about
decision making by helping create an initial framework. They aren't however,
the end point. Students must learn eventually (and the sooner the better) to
step outside the model and accept the discomfort of not knowing exactly what
comes next. That's an essential part of learning to learn and continually
improve one's own models. This being said, I also agree that it's an uphill
battle with many students.

Jean-Marc

(J-M. Guillemette, Ph.D. Candidate, Ed. Tech., Concordia U., Montreal - long
time trainer and educator).

-----Original Message-----
From: deborah nixon [mailto:deborahnixon@sympatico.ca]
Sent: November 13, 2003 14:39 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Some lateral thinking


Hell to all: Gary proposes one model of decision making which has what I
call a rational approach to it. I teach change management to these types
of students- those with a right brain orientation. They are both IT and
engineering students and these are the students with the most difficulty
with conceptual thinking that doesn't fit within a prescribed framework
of decision-making. I'm not sure what type of decision making Edwin is
referring to and this discussion is very helpful as people weigh in with
their definitions and assumptions that we are all talking about the same
thing.

What Gary describes I have often encountered in both my academic and
consulting practice. I also encountered it when I was a manager and
director in major corporations. There is a method that people follow to
reach the best decision. It is one approach that can facilitate the
process. But the problem I found is that it reinforces the one best way
approach which we then become very committed to and then have trouble
with if someone rejects the approach. Then we don't know what to do
with their contribution because we have to place to put it. So, we try
to adapt it so it fits rather than look at the constraints of the method
approach.

This is what business school students want- tell me how to think, give
me a method and I can follow it. They want me to tellthem precisely how
to do their assignment, how many pages to write, what format, what sorts
of questions they should answer. They become unglued if I tell them
write what it takes and make sure you've covered the key points. Much
too ambiguous for them- they want frameworks. I don't give them that
and they really struggle. Are we reinforcing all of this by then
designing decision making systems that give them a blueprint rather than
let them live within the uncertainty and discomfort as they search for a
solution that may not be obvious or evident.

Deborah Nixon
University of Toronto
704 Windermere Ave
Toronto Ont M6S 3M1
Ph: 416-763-6985
Fax: 416-763-3361



-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Lundquist
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:54 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Some lateral thinking


Colleagues,

Erwin refocused us, writing: "If we can define such a list of questions
and then concentrate on helping learners develop the habit to use them
regularly, we will probably make management education and development
significantly more effective. We might wind up writing a book
together."

I've made a living for the last 15 years on just that notion.
I call it "strategic pre-planning".
Planning requires making of a range of decisions. Pre-planning sets
up formal decision processes to complete those decisions, thus
simplifying and accelerating planning and subsequent performance.
Experience in pre-planning ensures that all essential decisions are
made. We don't operate from limited viewpoints.
The process involves facilitated brainstorming by an empowered team.
A suite of tools focuses ideation, builds larger decisions from smaller
ones, ranks lists of ideas, and integrates a range of decisions into
integrated identities and integrated strategies.

The process comes from an engineering mindset. Engineers don't start
projects by ordering materials. They stop to ask and answer questions.
They model results. They develop a complete, durable, tested,
marketable vision that can be presented to stakeholders.
If you want to see decision making taught in academia, go talk to
your engineering schools.

The key to pre-planning is, of course, choosing the questions.
It takes two steps. Dimensions of questions, then specific highly
relevant questions.

Dimensions: How many dimensions does it take to describe the shape of a
box?
3. Right? X, Y, Z. We can describe the shape of the box and
anything inside or outside of the box with just 3 dimensions.
Now. How many dimensions does it take to describe a box?
No. That isn't the same question. Now we must consider materials,
strength, color, how it opens, will it hold liquids, and on and on.
So... how many dimensions does it take to describe a product? A
customer? A market?

Through lots of testing and trials, I've found that it takes 8
dimensions to describe a product. The processes have been applied to
products, services, tangibles, intangibles, hardware, software, teams,
projects, facilities, technologies, and formative ideas.

Businesses are more complex. They need the first 8 dimensions plus
about 8 more dimensions to develop visions of operations and culture.
This corporate visioning has been applied to start-ups, elements of
Fortune 50, departments (e.g., marketing, R&D), events, and projects.
The processes have worked both in industry and federal research
laboratories.

Decisions within dimensions: Decision tools work here. Certain classes
of decisions can be made by asking standard types of questions. At it's
simplest, brainstorm a list and rank it for importance.
Others require special tools. Needs/benefits analysis is core to
both innovation and brand definition. Goal setting is remarkably
easy... if you use the right tools.
Most dimensions of decision (in these processes) involve answering
more than one question.

Integration: Back to engineering again. Pre-planning of individual
components won't do. We need to pre-plan the whole engineered result.
The same truth applies to products, projects, and businesses. We
need a fully integrated vision, as early in development as possible.
It is easy to envision five, say, marketing strategies. Website,
trade show, press conference, brochure, sales calls. Done
independently, they would likely confuse the market. They need to be
integrated, with common messages, common branding, common style, and
even common fonts.

You can access information on strategic pre-planning on my website, or
I'll send articles on product visioning and corporate visioning as Word
attachments on request offline to my e-mail address below.

Best,

Gary


----------------------------
Innovation and Branding - done Strategically

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
Market Engineering International
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Making and keeping satisfied customers,
at a profit, over time,
in a competitive environment.

Colleagues,

Deborah Nixon wrote: "Are we reinforcing all of this by then designing decision making systems that give them a blueprint rather than
let them live within the uncertainty and discomfort as they search for a solution that may not be obvious or evident?"

I am a Ph.D. scientist by education, yet it feels as though I've done another Ph.D. in strategic marketing. I started with literature, pulled pieces together into a model, tested the model in practice, improved the model, have taught it, and written about it at length exceeding that of a thesis.

The teachable process I recommend is not my specific sets of questions, though those do prove to be very interesting to businesses.

Instead:
1. Define dimensions of information needed for the decisions you target.
2. Define questions within each dimension that, when answered, will contribute to quality and positive impact of the primary decision.
3. Develop methods for answering those questions. Seek methods that deliver powerful answers. Develop elegant methods that involve and attract participation by those with answers. Find methods that achieve some level of result very quickly.
4. Learn how to integrate answers from the various dimensions into a larger, more effective primary decision.
5. Test in the real world.

In the process:
1. Define your terms. Make and keep a dictionary that holds a consistent set of language.
2. Establish core truths. These will underlie the theory in your decision space.
3. Establish decision principles. Identify qualities of useful decisions, then use to test your results.
4. Create theory. Go beyond dogma. Find new characteristics of the topics you investigate. Find new relationships between the concepts in each dimension. See the systems in your decision space and learn how to leverage them.
5. Test in the real world.

This isn't a blueprint.
(My formal pre-planning processes are blueprints... in detail.
They are proven, transferable tools. They've been designed that way.)

The underlying decision process, however, is a model. A way of thinking.
This particular model applies to major decisions made repeatedly.
I wouldn't (don't) implement it fully for very many decisions. Still, the discipline now impacts the way I approach many aspects of life.

The model goes back to my revision of Erwin's original statements.
Every major decision depends on the answers to several or many questions.
Choice of questions to answer determines the quality of the decision.

Best to all,

Gary

----------------------------
Innovation and Branding - done Strategically

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
Market Engineering International
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Making and keeping satisfied customers,
at a profit, over time,
in a competitive environment.

Gary,
Would you care to explain a bit more what you mean by the attached,
especially your mention of "model":

Bramson and Harrison (http://www.inq-hpa.com/index.htm) developed a
thinking styles inventory which seems to go along very well with what
you are saying. Elsewhere, their instrument is compared to Peter
Senge's mental models in his Fifth Discipline work.

Another aspect of this discussion: We are using the term "lateral
thinking". I believe the term was coined by Edward deBono. Are you
familiar with his work, especially his "Six Thinking Hats"?
(http://www.ofspirit.com/tw-sixthinkinghats.htm) In this, he details a
process for sorting out various types of information and how Western
thought patterns have been heavily influenced by "argument", and the
need to recognize the complexity of thinking involved in most
situations.

****************************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Lundquist [mailto:garyl@market-engineering.com]

<snip>

This isn't a blueprint.
(My formal pre-planning processes are blueprints... in detail.
They are proven, transferable tools. They've been designed that
way.)

The underlying decision process, however, is a model. A way of
thinking.
This particular model applies to major decisions made repeatedly.
I wouldn't (don't) implement it fully for very many decisions.
Still, the discipline now impacts the way I approach many aspects of
life.

The model goes back to my revision of Erwin's original statements.
Every major decision depends on the answers to several or many
questions.
Choice of questions to answer determines the quality of the
decision.

Gary
*******************************************************************

Colleagues,

First, thanks to Deborah and Jean Marc. My Culture Rich Visioning tool is not as well developed as the others. I will incorporate your perspectives as I work.

Second, Bob Carr introduces some truly key concepts in decision making.

Thinking Styles: Whether as describe by Bramlett and Harrison or others, styles impact decision making.
I've implemented facilitated decision making to account for, to some extent, different thinking styles. It is always a challenge.
Perspectives: Argumentative and parallel approaches to the same decisions will generate distinctly different results.
My approach is distinctly parallel, cooperative, and collaborative.
The key is that using results implies change. Overcoming resistance can become divisive if not handled carefully.

Bob also asks me to explain my model a bit more. I started a response, but it became a ramble.
Indeed, I've not articulated my processes from this viewpoint before.

Bob, it would help me if you asked more specific questions.

Best to all,

Gary
----------------------------
Innovation and Branding - done Strategically

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
Market Engineering International
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Making and keeping satisfied customers,
at a profit, over time,
in a competitive environment.

Gary,

With respect to styles, I would strongly recommend Royce and Powell's
"Theories of Personality and Individual Differences". They offer one of the
most comprehensive description of what are styles, how they develop and
their influence on different aspects of our lives. This isn't bed side
reading but very much worth the effort.

Cheers,

Jean-Marc

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Lundquist [mailto:garyl@market-engineering.com]
Sent: November 18, 2003 10:22 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Some lateral thinking


Colleagues,

First, thanks to Deborah and Jean Marc. My Culture Rich Visioning tool is
not as well developed as the others. I will incorporate your perspectives
as I work.

Second, Bob Carr introduces some truly key concepts in decision making.

Thinking Styles: Whether as describe by Bramlett and Harrison or others,
styles impact decision making.
I've implemented facilitated decision making to account for, to some
extent, different thinking styles. It is always a challenge.
Perspectives: Argumentative and parallel approaches to the same decisions
will generate distinctly different results.
My approach is distinctly parallel, cooperative, and collaborative.
The key is that using results implies change. Overcoming resistance can
become divisive if not handled carefully.

Bob also asks me to explain my model a bit more. I started a response, but
it became a ramble.
Indeed, I've not articulated my processes from this viewpoint before.

Bob, it would help me if you asked more specific questions.

Best to all,

Gary
----------------------------
Innovation and Branding - done Strategically

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
Market Engineering International
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Making and keeping satisfied customers,
at a profit, over time,
in a competitive environment.

Hi,

I'd love to be able to respond in detail to the posts by Jean-Marc, Gary, and
Fred but just do not have the time (though 'retired' for a long time,
deadline demons still assail and keep me on a leash that's short...).

However we do not seem to be converging on the topic which made me start this
thread. So far no one has suggested a short, universally applicable,
comprehensive and actionable list of questions, supported by the research on
leadership and motivation, that can be used to enhance every significant (and most
lesser) decisions.

Instead we seem to diverge in a number of different directions and, maybe I
am overly sensitive, but I seem to hear a little sarcasm such as:

"In any event, it seems to me that a universal set of questions for use in
making decisions and that improve the decisions made would have to be few in
number and simple in nature.  In that regard, I have one nominee: How will
things be different if you succeed?"

That question, to me is a fine question - in fact it is part of the first one
in my list. Fred is also right, in my opinion, with pointing to the need for
a short list of questions. But that short list could be short-hand for a
much longer list - learners would start by learning the short list and that would
lead to the longer lists from which the relevant ones could be reviewed
extremely rapidly once the habit has been developed - I refer again to the decision
making speed of chess masters.

I again urge those listers who are serious about wanting to improve the
existing approach to management and leadership programs (and yes, even if you
define them as different, an analysis shows many similar responsibilities and hence
decisions) to join me in focusing on something that has the characteristics I
mentioned above - short, based on the reported research, universally
applicable, comprehensive and actionable - yes universal, and most importantly,
actionable.

I have offered such as list for critique and improvement and am willing to do
so again if I see some glimmer of sincere interest to use it as a starting
point from which something better will emerge - and I will be delighted with
that, even if my entire list goes out the window and is replaced with a better
one, that meets the four criteria I have spelled out twice above.

Cheers,

Erwin (Rausch) didacticra@aol.com  and erausch@kean.edu

Erwin writes:

>I'd love to be able to respond in detail to the posts by Jean-Marc, Gary, and
>Fred but just do not have the time (though 'retired' for a long time,
>deadline demons still assail and keep me on a leash that's short...).

That's really puzzling, Erwin. It reads as though you expect responses in
detail from us but you will provide none in return. Sounds a one-way
street to me.

>However we do not seem to be converging on the topic which made me start this
>thread. So far no one has suggested a short, universally applicable,
>comprehensive and actionable list of questions, supported by the research on
>leadership and motivation, that can be used to enhance every significant
>(and most
>lesser) decisions.

That's why I provided the ones I did; I thought you had called for some
questions but weren't getting any.

>Instead we seem to diverge in a number of different directions and, maybe I
>am overly sensitive, but I seem to hear a little sarcasm such as:
>
>"In any event, it seems to me that a universal set of questions for use in
>making decisions and that improve the decisions made would have to be few in
>number and simple in nature. In that regard, I have one nominee: How will
>things be different if you succeed?"

No sarcasm intended, Erwin, just an observation based on my experience;
namely, that lots and lots of questions are situational, that is, they are
NOT universally applicable. My one nominee is, or so I think, close to
being universally applicable.

>That question, to me is a fine question - in fact it is part of the first one
>in my list. Fred is also right, in my opinion, with pointing to the need for
>a short list of questions. But that short list could be short-hand for a
>much longer list - learners would start by learning the short list and
>that would
>lead to the longer lists from which the relevant ones could be reviewed
>extremely rapidly once the habit has been developed - I refer again to the
>decision
>making speed of chess masters.
>
>I again urge those listers who are serious about wanting to improve the
>existing approach to management and leadership programs (and yes, even if you
>define them as different, an analysis shows many similar responsibilities
>and hence
>decisions) to join me in focusing on something that has the characteristics I
>mentioned above - short, based on the reported research, universally
>applicable, comprehensive and actionable - yes universal, and most
>importantly,
>actionable.

Well, I've got some reservations about the "reported research" so I wonder
if your list will wind up absent some candidate questions that competent
practitioners use but aren't backed by any "reported research"?

>I have offered such as list for critique and improvement and am willing to do
>so again if I see some glimmer of sincere interest to use it as a starting
>point from which something better will emerge - and I will be delighted with
>that, even if my entire list goes out the window and is replaced with a
>better
>one, that meets the four criteria I have spelled out twice above.

Hmm. I don't recall seeing any such list from you, Erwin. If I missed it,
forgive me and point me to it. If you didn't post it, how about doing so
so the rest of us can see some examples and exemplars of what you have in mind.


Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
"Assistance at A Distance"
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

Colleagues,

I appreciate Erwin's consideration categories. Were we to define questions
to implement each category, we would indeed have thought through many if not
most of the essentials of decision making.

To his categories, I would add:
Developing powerful questions.
Seeing decisions in a "systems context."

I've used a four-category method for 15 years. I'd just lost my software
company because of poor marketing. After a bit of reading, I realized that
we'd missed the point. Features are just one way of looking at a product.

I call my approach the Theory of Intrinsics. I've used it over and over to
help myself discover the full complexity of a thing or process.

Each intrinsics description begins by finding four categories of
characteristic. Categories range from the obvious to the intangible, from
what can be touched and seen about a product to mental perceptions of a
product. My intrinsic categories for products are:

Features: The most tangible - what a product is or does

Capabilities: Still visible - what one can do with the product

Benefits: Less obvious - the results of using the product to meet needs

Intangibles: Harder yet to recognize - the image and loyalty stored in the
minds of customers and others in the marketplace

In the process of thinking at four levels, we develop a much more
comprehensive description of change, yet we aren't done yet. Each category
contains many items. Products have many features and enable many
capabilities. To build the intrinsics description, I populate the category
with characteristics that are intrinsic to what is being described.
(Features, for instance, include size, color, price, reliability,
accuracy, .) Characteristics extend the category name, providing detail to
the description. I use nouns to name the characteristics so that I imply no
value judgment.

To fully characterize a specific product, I apply adjectives to the
intrinsics. The adjectives are value judgments: small size, bland color,
low price, very reliable, modest accuracy. Having categories and
characteristics enables evaluation of any product. Indeed, it has forced me
to develop analysis tools to define characteristics.

I've drafted an intrisics description of "decision making". I haven't had
time to let it mellow; it will probably change.

Decision Making

Process - Methods and resources for decision making

Strategies, tactics, toolkits, communications. Climate, behavioral norms,
team building. Management, coordination, facilitation, planning,
delegation, monitoring. Databases, knowledge bases, knowledge mining tools.
Due diligence processes: : Research, accounting, economic, legal,
regulatory, environmental, technical, sociological, political.

Competence - Intellectual capacity for decision making

Expertise, experience, knowledge, access to information. Skills in:
Questioning, answering, thinking, learning, creativity. Skills in:
Cooperating, collaborating, communicating, relating, teaming. Skills in:
Brainstorming, synthesizing, options development, prioritizing,
wordsmithing, documenting, presenting.

Motivation - Incentives to participate in decision making

Positive visibility, potential for impact, input to decisions, some control
over decisions, team membership, sense of efficacy, management praise,
bonuses.

Focus - Leadership into and through decision making

Vision, goals, objectives, strategic direction. Inspiration, guidance.
Choice of questions, order of questions, timing, choreography.


Again, the categories are consciously chosen to go from most tangible to
least tangible. Lists of characteristics can be used as options when
developing a decision-making system. I'm sure you can think up
characteristics I've not mentioned.

This is a nouns-based description. It doesn't say anything about a
particular decision system until we've applied adjectives to the nouns. In
that sense, this is a design tool.

This is not intended to compete with Erwin's 8 consideration groups, yet it
does include the core ideas of all eight.
My intrinsics might enrich the questions behind each of Erwin's
considerations.
I'm sure knowing his questions would enrich this intrinsics description.

Combining definitions, principles (Erwin's initial e-mail), and intrinsics
begins development of a philosophy of decision making.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Gary
----------------------------
Innovation and Branding - done Strategically

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
Market Engineering International
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Making and keeping satisfied customers,
at a profit, over time,
in a competitive environment.

I appreciate all the posts and they have me thinking about this a lot.
One thing that I find boggles my little brain, though, is how complex
this is becoming. Not being a quantitative sort and preferring things
that are less structured and more of the moment, I find much of this
hard to follow. I wonder if there is a way to de-complexify (there is
an invented word!) this whole thing. If I had to run a session with a
client around decision-making I would be hard-pressed to operationalize
a lot of this.

Effective decision-making needs to be simple, clear, direct and
sensible. Not that any of these methods aren't- but I find them hard to
follow. Seems the more I engage with all of you, the less I seem to
know! What a challenge it all is.

Deborah Nixon
University of Toronto
704 Windermere Ave
Toronto Ont M6S 3M1
Ph: 416-763-6985
Fax: 416-763-3361



-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Lundquist
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:27 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Some lateral thinking


Colleagues,

I appreciate Erwin's consideration categories. Were we to define
questions to implement each category, we would indeed have thought
through many if not most of the essentials of decision making.

To his categories, I would add:
Developing powerful questions.
Seeing decisions in a "systems context."

I've used a four-category method for 15 years. I'd just lost my
software company because of poor marketing. After a bit of reading, I
realized that we'd missed the point. Features are just one way of
looking at a product.

I call my approach the Theory of Intrinsics. I've used it over and over
to help myself discover the full complexity of a thing or process.

Each intrinsics description begins by finding four categories of
characteristic. Categories range from the obvious to the intangible,
from what can be touched and seen about a product to mental perceptions
of a product. My intrinsic categories for products are:

Features: The most tangible - what a product is or does

Capabilities: Still visible - what one can do with the product

Benefits: Less obvious - the results of using the product to meet needs

Intangibles: Harder yet to recognize - the image and loyalty stored in
the minds of customers and others in the marketplace

In the process of thinking at four levels, we develop a much more
comprehensive description of change, yet we aren't done yet. Each
category contains many items. Products have many features and enable
many capabilities. To build the intrinsics description, I populate the
category with characteristics that are intrinsic to what is being
described. (Features, for instance, include size, color, price,
reliability, accuracy, .) Characteristics extend the category name,
providing detail to the description. I use nouns to name the
characteristics so that I imply no value judgment.

To fully characterize a specific product, I apply adjectives to the
intrinsics. The adjectives are value judgments: small size, bland
color, low price, very reliable, modest accuracy. Having categories and
characteristics enables evaluation of any product. Indeed, it has
forced me to develop analysis tools to define characteristics.

I've drafted an intrisics description of "decision making". I haven't
had time to let it mellow; it will probably change.

Decision Making

Process - Methods and resources for decision making

Strategies, tactics, toolkits, communications. Climate, behavioral
norms, team building. Management, coordination, facilitation, planning,
delegation, monitoring. Databases, knowledge bases, knowledge mining
tools. Due diligence processes: : Research, accounting, economic,
legal, regulatory, environmental, technical, sociological, political.

Competence - Intellectual capacity for decision making

Expertise, experience, knowledge, access to information. Skills in:
Questioning, answering, thinking, learning, creativity. Skills in:
Cooperating, collaborating, communicating, relating, teaming. Skills
in: Brainstorming, synthesizing, options development, prioritizing,
wordsmithing, documenting, presenting.

Motivation - Incentives to participate in decision making

Positive visibility, potential for impact, input to decisions, some
control over decisions, team membership, sense of efficacy, management
praise, bonuses.

Focus - Leadership into and through decision making

Vision, goals, objectives, strategic direction. Inspiration, guidance.
Choice of questions, order of questions, timing, choreography.


Again, the categories are consciously chosen to go from most tangible to
least tangible. Lists of characteristics can be used as options when
developing a decision-making system. I'm sure you can think up
characteristics I've not mentioned.

This is a nouns-based description. It doesn't say anything about a
particular decision system until we've applied adjectives to the nouns.
In that sense, this is a design tool.

This is not intended to compete with Erwin's 8 consideration groups, yet
it does include the core ideas of all eight.
My intrinsics might enrich the questions behind each of Erwin's
considerations.
I'm sure knowing his questions would enrich this intrinsics
description.

Combining definitions, principles (Erwin's initial e-mail), and
intrinsics begins development of a philosophy of decision making.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Gary
----------------------------
Innovation and Branding - done Strategically

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
Market Engineering International
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Making and keeping satisfied customers,
at a profit, over time,
in a competitive environment.

Colleagues,

Deborah Nixon wrote, "I wonder if there is a way to de-complexify this whole
thing. If I had to run a session with a
client around decision-making I would be hard-pressed to operationalize a
lot of this.
Effective decision-making needs to be simple, clear, direct and
sensible."

I agree with the concept. I asked this listserv about leadership, and the
flow of varied concepts was so overwhelming that I never could assimilate
it.
What I've synthesized around decision making may be the way to pull
together a coherent philosophy of leadership.

Simplicity often arrives with deep understanding of complexity.
Simple tools can speed and improve quality of decision making.
The problem, however, is knowing what questions to ask.

My growing philosophy of decision making has these components:
Principles: Modeled after Erwin's initial post
Definitions: So I know what I mean.
Intrinsics: I've shared my draft four-level description of "decision
making." I find it much harder to do for "decision" or "question". To me,
that means I don't yet understand concepts basics to my philosophy.
Guidelines: An approach to developing a decision-making process for
complex, multi-faceted decisions. Processes I've developed to date share
some "simple" decision tools, yet each requires unique efforts.

Erwin would, I think, argue for one suite of considerations that will
improve any decision.
That could be a fifth component of my philosophy.

I will offer my "Tough Questions". Should you wish to use these, please
reference:
Lundquist, Gary, Marketing For Survival, The Market Engineering Press,
2000.

The Tough Questions apply to any exchange relationship. Deals won't be done
if the answer to any is "No." or "I don't know."
Why do we need it?
Why do we need it now?
How do we know it works?
Is this the best way?
Is this the most cost-effective way?

Don't be fooled by their simplicity. These touch on need, urgency,
credibility, uniqueness, and cost/benefit ratio. Answering them takes the
whole science of marketing. As design tools, they influence all of product
development and business development.

Best,

Gary

----------------------------
Innovation and Branding - done Strategically

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
Market Engineering International
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Making and keeping satisfied customers,
at a profit, over time,
in a competitive environment.

Thank you Gary. These are very good questions- and definitely inspire
some deep thinking and reflection. May I add this (there are many
add-ons depending on the context). In the strategic work I do, I'm not
dealing with marketing issues but program and budget issues. One
question I ask, which most people like to pretend never factors in but
is a huge issue, is the political one. In other words, who are we
serving? Is there a political master who has subtlely ordered this to
happen? Is there someone in the system who wields extraordinary power
and for whom this program or project is deemed high priority? So, the
unspoken political realities need to be factored in.

Cheers

Deborah

Deborah Nixon
University of Toronto
704 Windermere Ave
Toronto Ont M6S 3M1
Ph: 416-763-6985
Fax: 416-763-3361



-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Lundquist
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:34 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Some lateral thinking


Colleagues,

Deborah Nixon wrote, "I wonder if there is a way to de-complexify this
whole thing. If I had to run a session with a client around
decision-making I would be hard-pressed to operationalize a lot of
this.
Effective decision-making needs to be simple, clear, direct and
sensible."

I agree with the concept. I asked this listserv about leadership, and
the flow of varied concepts was so overwhelming that I never could
assimilate it.
What I've synthesized around decision making may be the way to pull
together a coherent philosophy of leadership.

Simplicity often arrives with deep understanding of complexity
Simple tools can speed and improve quality of decision making.
The problem, however, is knowing what questions to ask.

My growing philosophy of decision making has these components:
Principles: Modeled after Erwin's initial post
Definitions: So I know what I mean.
Intrinsics: I've shared my draft four-level description of
"decision making." I find it much harder to do for "decision" or
"question". To me, that means I don't yet understand concepts basics to
my philosophy.
Guidelines: An approach to developing a decision-making process for
complex, multi-faceted decisions. Processes I've developed to date
share some "simple" decision tools, yet each requires unique efforts.

Erwin would, I think, argue for one suite of considerations that will
improve any decision.
That could be a fifth component of my philosophy.

I will offer my "Tough Questions". Should you wish to use these, please
reference:
Lundquist, Gary, Marketing For Survival, The Market Engineering
Press, 2000.

The Tough Questions apply to any exchange relationship. Deals won't be
done if the answer to any is "No." or "I don't know."
Why do we need it?
Why do we need it now?
How do we know it works?
Is this the best way?
Is this the most cost-effective way?

Don't be fooled by their simplicity. These touch on need, urgency,
credibility, uniqueness, and cost/benefit ratio. Answering them takes
the whole science of marketing. As design tools, they influence all of
product development and business development.

Best,

Gary

----------------------------
Innovation and Branding - done Strategically

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
Market Engineering International
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Making and keeping satisfied customers,
at a profit, over time,
in a competitive environment.