Discussion: View Thread

It has taken me a while to understand what Erwin is asking. Now that I do, I appreciate his effort even more (not to say that I am accurately characterizing his proposition).



Paraphrasing Erwin's request:

If you agree that leaders and managers have the following 8 areas of responsibility then it follows that the best way to proceed with decision taking is to ensure that all 8 areas are honored by each decision process. The way to do that is to use the 8 statements to trigger questions about the forthcoming decision. The questions may not be identical for each decision situation but the ability to generate the questions from the responsibility seeds will be universal. Further, with enough practice, the questions will be generated in a matter of seconds.



Erwin's eight statements, called "responsibility groups" are;

1. Leading toward determining desirable outcome conditions and setting appropriate goals

2. Practicing appropriate participation

3. Ensuring appropriate communications in all relevant direction, by all who have something that should be communicated

4. Ensuring that the needed competence is available

5. Guiding toward a satisfying climate

6. Ensuring coordination and stimulating cooperation

7. Leading toward appropriate norms

8. Ensuring appropriate follow-up



Makes sense so far but begs the question of whether these 8 are the most salient 8. Let's leave that for later.



Two observations are pertinent:



Obs. A) a concept map regarding the topic might look like this:

Decision taking

1) Parallels Sense Making,

2) Can be seen as Path Making Note) [this label levels the field of discourse with respect to the Rational Man mavens].

3) Includes

3.1) Reasoning (logic, rational), and

3.2) Cognitive (pattern matching, intuition).

4) Has phases;

4.1) Priming or Provisioning (Ready, Aim),

4.2) Performing (Fire),

4.3) Implementing (check the target for score),

Note: [The phases distinction is important. Often when the decision taking process starts it cannot be guided, throttled or stopped. Thus making sure we are ready to start the process is key.].

5) Can be;

5.1 Mass customized' for each situation,

5.2) By method of generating questions

5.2.1) seeded from the responsibility areas and

5.2.2) are appropriate to the situation.

6) Is a;

6.1) critical capability of any self-respecting manager or leader,

6.2) source of significant loss if not practiced diligently

6.3) natural capability at a basic level but can be learned for 10X to 100X better performance by; 6.3.1) learning the Prime, Perform and Implement,

6.3.2) practicing/competing,

6.3.3) journaling,

6.4) distinguishing characteristic of practitioners such as lawyers, doctors, pilots, executives, etc., 6.5) capability measured by

6.5.1) self and

6.5.2) others, in terms of

6.6) appreciation, span of competency, and level of proficiency.





Obs. B) Most any set of questions regarding decision taking can be mapped into Erwin's 8. There may be some that cannot. However, even if all can be mapped residual argument can sustain about whether "my question" is a subset of Erwin's or vice versa.



In my re-reading of the several posts subsequent to Erwin's originating one, it appears that most of the responders missed the point of Priming the decision and rushed on to recipes for taking the decision. Erwin's triggered questions are about he decision makers whereas Gary's Tough Questions are about the decision. It seems to me that Erwin is counseling, 'look before you leap --- but be quick about it' and is suggesting a recipe to ensure that the 'look' is thorough and fast. Festina Lente, make haste slowly, is the complement. His practice of triggering questions is an act of prevention that quality guru Phil Crosby would applaud. "Better to stay out of the quicksand than get a good deal on a towing contract" was the way he put it. Erwin's method is prevention.



Back to the viability of the 8. As I read them they are all on the same plane of awareness. As Einstein warned, to solve our problems we will have to operate at a higher level of awareness than we were at when we caused them. This prompts me to ask where the question, "What have we overlooked" would be triggered. This question is important because of the pernicious and persistent Law of Unintended Consequences that must be avoided in all decision taking. This, in turn, points up the limitation of Fred Nickol's one question, "How will things be different if you succeed?" because it does not inquire into "How will things be the same?" One could argue that the first question, if answered exhaustively, covers the second. But then why do we ask for the oath, 'to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."



It seems to me that Gary Lundquist may have the cart before the horse, or worse, the horse up in the cart. Erwin's groups of consideration are not a subset of one of Gary's questions. Further, Gary's insistence on Decision being a choice of one option from a suite of options may work for him but is much narrower than Erwin's use of 'decision' which includes the intuitive or cognitive method as well. Intuition is often cast as 'feelings' as if this were some inferior way of making a path. Intuitive certainly involved feeling and emotions but can produce higher quality decisions, faster than can Reasoning. Think of the millions of advancements that have been made by people who later said, "We simply did not know it couldn't be done." Further, although making great use of 'options' in his model of decision, Gary never tells us where 'options' come from or how they arrive. Generation of options is key to Path Making.



It is surprising that the phenomenon of implementation was surprising. All Path Making considers the dual of the best thing to do and the feasible thing to accomplish. Simply arriving at the former without considering the latter is management malpractice.



Gary says, "I tend to see leaders and managers as answering different questions. Does that impact Erwin's desire for a model for both leaders and managers?" To which I respond, if leaders and managers deal with different decisions then it is all the more important in the interest of organizational coherency that the priming questions be triggered from the single set of responsibilities. Else one gets the greedy subsystem or tragedy of the commons syndrome.



Erwin invites help in figuring out how the idea (that a universal set of questions can be generated from the 8 that will have the effect of vetting all decisions with respect to management and leader responsibilities) can be advocated and promoted so it might be implemented in educational and professional development programs.



A fine topic for the next thread.



I wish to emphasize that the many excellent ideas put forth by Gary, Fred, Deborah, etc, are not being criticized, here. It I just that they seem to start alternative threads and I am simply trying to address Erwin's questions.



Did I?

Jack Ring wrote a long message reflecting his understanding of Erwin's
eight areas of consideration and I found it very helpful. I'll wait to see
if Erwin confirms Jack's interpretation before getting too
congratulatory. I did want to respond to one thing Jack said at the end of
his message:

>I wish to emphasize that the many excellent ideas put forth by Gary, Fred,
>Deborah, etc, are not being criticized, here. It I just that they seem to
>start alternative threads and I am simply trying to address Erwin's questions.

My main concern was getting Erwin to give us some examples of the kinds of
questions he saw as fitting each of the eight categories, not starting an
alternative thread. I have yet to see any except the one I proposed (which
fits the first category).


Regards,

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

Colleagues,

Jack Ring has made some great contributions. In particular, I like
His statement of Erwin's goals
The concept of phases in decision making
The concept of vetting decisions

I fully agree that Erwin's 8 consideration groups focus on priming and that
priming is key to the success of decision making.
I only offered my Tough Questions at Deborah Nixon's request for a
simple guideline.

RE: Phases
We do need to be careful here. Each of Jack's phases (Priming,
Performing, Implementing) requires making and implementing decisions.
Priming: Making and implementing decisions to create a viable
environment and culture for decision making. (circular)
Performing: Choosing decision processes and personnel, then making
decisions. (circular)
Implementing: Choosing methods and personnel to follow-through on
decisions by making and implementing further decisions compatible with the
primary decision. (circular)

Every decision depends on prior decisions.
Every decision forces the making of future decisions.
The full complexity of any significant decision space cannot be fully
understood.

That leaves the question of the phases of just one decision. Circularity
still haunts this list, yet it seems to come closer.
Questions: Reasons for seeking decisions

Answers: Options resulting from due diligence

Choice: Selection of the preferred option

Vetting: Confirmation of the choice

Application: Use of the choice to initiate the next decision process



The "vetting" step gets back to Deborah's concern about politics.

Who has the power to initiate a decision process?

Who has the power to make the final choice?

Who can block implementation of a choice?

How do we prevent stonewalling of implementation?

Presenting a tentative decision for approval is a marketing problem that
typically requires answers to the Tough Questions.



Jack asked about generation of options. An earlier version of this
"intrinsics" description has already been posted. All of these criteria
apply to all three of Jack's phases.



Intrinsics of Decision Making

Process - Methods and resources for decision making

Strategies, tactics, communications. Climate, behavioral norms, team
building. Decision tools - thought processes designed for specific
decisions or types of decisions. Management, coordination, facilitation,
planning, delegation, monitoring. Databases, knowledge bases, knowledge
mining tools, artificial intelligence. Due diligence processes: Research,
economic, accounting, legal, regulatory, environmental, technical,
sociological, political, policy.

Competence - Intellectual capacity for decision making

Expertise, experience, knowledge, access to information. Intuition,
instinct, "feel". 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. Bias, prejudice, turf protection, greed, politics.

Focus - Leadership into and through decision making

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



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.