The Ability to Question and the Freedom to Think

The Neglected Factor in Decision Making
Air University Review
March-April 1978

Over 32 years ago
Colonel Edsel R. Field (Author) wrote this excellent article highlighting the importance of dissent [re: objection/opposite view/disagreement] and its impact on decisioning. Except for the weighty influence of technology, little has changed.

When it’s Time to Challenge
How many times have you nodded assent during a meeting or as you coordinated on a paper, even when you did not totally agree? At the same time you may have recognized that implementation of the decision in its present form would not be feasible, and if put into action would lead to adverse and far reaching consequences.

Little has Changed
Much has been written concerning the importance of systematic approaches to executive decision-making. We have been taught, using various steps and terms, that we should identify the problem, consider alternatives, choose the best alternative, and implement the decision. Analytical and behavioral decision techniques continue to be advanced in various publications and courses. Are we, as a result, becoming increasingly successful leaders and managers? Is our greater knowledge of the decision process producing better results? I doubt it. George Odiorne supports this in his examination of the "activity trap," when he asks why things are going awry. New ideas should be improving the system, but their unintended side effects are killing us.

Find and Fix Quickly
Typically, we Americans are anxious to find the trouble and fix it as quickly as we can. We learn early that successful leaders should attack problems quickly and decisively, that decisiveness and confidence are desirable traits-key indicators of the effective leader. This is especially true in the military, where "battle-field" decisions are considered the ultimate test.

However, we seem to do a poorer job of anticipating change than of reacting to it. We spend relatively little time considering the consequences of our solutions. The consequences are often worse than the original problem. This is where our decision process seems to be the weakest…in failing to evaluate the consequences of important decisions prior to implementation. In short, it is not enough to be change-oriented; we must be consequence-oriented as well.

It is believed that the time is better spent in questioning debating, and dissenting before making a decision rather than trying to salvage flu results of a bad decision at a later date. To adopt such a methodology means that one must consider change on a wider scale than just problem solving. If executives are to be effective in the long run, they must evaluate alternatives not only in terms of the solution of an immediate problem but also in terms of the long-run implications of that solution.

Peter Drucker Pointed Out
Effective executives do not make a volume of decisions. They concentrate on the important ones. They try to think through what is strategic and generic, rather than "solve problems." They try to make the few important decisions on the highest level of conceptual understanding. They are not overly impressed by speed in decision making; instead, they know what the decision is all about, or what the underlying realities are which the decision has to satisfy. They want impact rather than technique; they want to be sound rather than clever.

A competitive and changing environment fosters a certain degree of risk and uncertainty for all leaders; decision makers are essentially risk takers. It is seldom possible to gather all the information concerning a problem. Not only is it prohibitive from a time or cost standpoint but sometimes misleading. Facts are concerned with what has already happened; decisions are concerned with the future.

Further
The easiest way to avoid risk and uncertainty is to deal with the present rather than the future, to concentrate on immediate problems rather than far-reaching strategies. No wonder so many organizations consist of people who are continually putting out fires, staying busy (but comfortable) in their "activity trap.” Today’s decision methodology actually encourages such activity.

These same principles can be applied to other decisions. The complete consequences of a decision must be forced into the open. Future benefits and total costs must be realistically weighed and debated. If the decision can profit from a trial test (such as with flights of the Concorde aircraft into certain airports), it makes sense to do so. If a test is not feasible, wide-ranging viewpoints must be solicited. The more critical the decision is, the greater the number of views should be sought. Dissenting or diverse viewpoints ultimately strengthen the final decision.

In Summary
Decision-making in an ivory tower immediately surrounded by harmony and conformity is relatively easy. Conversely, it takes strong, self confident and farsighted leaders to encourage questioning and dissent during their deliberations, along with intelligent and sober thinking subordinates to make such dissent effective. Are you, as a commander, capable, or even ready, to meet the challenge? Or is that warm glow that comes from putting out burning fires too comfortable? Think about it as you nod assent or coordinate on that next important decision. It may well be that our ability to question and the freedom to think and act may be our single most important advantage in any future conflict with our potential adversaries.

For full article and credits:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1978/mar-apr/field.html

ZDT Author Comments:
A keeper...excellent.