The theory of decision-making

Procrastination seems to be rampant in the government today. It was Oscar Wilde who said, “Never put off for tomorrow what you can put off for the day after.”

There are basically two types of decision-making processes. One is known as the ‘Analytical’ method, and the other is the ‘Intuitive’ or ‘Naturalistic’ method. In the Analytical process, there is no time restriction, and one has all the time in the world to consider the ‘pros and cons’ to make a quality decision. In the Intuitive process, time is indeed a factor. One does not have the luxury of time to make a good decision but one could make a satisfactory one. These are acts of commission.

Then there is yet another process where one may decide not to make a decision. Those are commonly called ‘acts of omission’.

If we make a full comparison:

The ANALYTICAL Method is better when

1)   Time is not a factor

2)   Decision-makers lack the experience for sound intuitive judgement

3)   There is a choice among clearly defined and documented options

4)    Looking for optimal or best outcome

5)    It is necessary to justify the decision to others or resolve disagreements

The INTIUITIVE /NATURALISTIC Method is better when

1)   Time is Critical

2)   Decision-makers are experienced in the situation

3)   There is an immediate risk

4)   Looking for a satisfactory outcome

5)   There may be ambiguity or changing circumstances

Airline pilots have been taught these principles for many decades. The other problem is that in a dynamic environment a little decision made early can prevent a major catastrophe later. (A stitch in time remember?) A long time ago I flew with a Scandinavian Captain called Alex Lange, who advised his undecided procrastinating First Officers: “Do something, even if it is wrong.”

That seems to make sense.

Which reminds me of a hierarchical theory that General (later field Marshal) Bernard ‘Monty’ Montgomery of El Alamein is supposed to have propounded. He said that in every organisation the leader must be intelligent and lazy. He/she must use his/her resources in the most effective way, using ‘short cuts’ if necessary. The next tier of middle managers should be intelligent and hardworking, to put their leaders’ ideas into practice. The third level in the organisation should have unintelligent and lazy people who can be controlled with the stick and the carrot. They are supposed to obey orders, just follow written instructions and not think. In ‘Monty’s’ opinion no organisation should tolerate unintelligent, hardworking people who will be a hazard unto themselves and destroy the organisation.

I shall leave it to the better judgement of readers to decide where all the procrastinating ‘President’s Men’ in the present administration fit in.

Capt. G A Fernando MBA

Former Crew Resource Management Facilitator