Decision Making: It's Not What You Think

In their article “Decision Making: It’s Not What You Think” Mintzberg and Westley discuss the most logical procedure for making decisions and how many individuals do not follow it. They discuss how many individuals do not follow a rational approach to making decisions even though they believe that they should. The three types of approaches to decision making as described in the article are “thinking first,” “seeing first,” and “doing first.” The authors suggest that although the “thinking first” model seems to be ideal to most people, people do not seem to actually use it most of the time when making real world decisions.
The authors discuss how the formal decision making process is seemingly straightforward and easy to implement. However, in reality implementing it is more complicated. New information often arises, and new perceptions are often formed. This forces decision makers to reevaluate their decisions. The process can become very time consuming, and sometimes urgency requires the decision makers to break the process and make a decision, even if the decision is not the optimal one. The authors give an example of chess master Alexander Kotov, who describes how he often tries to plan his moves carefully, but after being concerned about running out of time he ends up making more impulsive decisions.
The article provides two theories as to why the formal decision making process does not seem to be commonly used in real world situations. The author references research conducted by A. Langley and her colleagues that describe how decision makers often begin theorizing about possible solutions before someone in the group says something that makes the answer obvious. At this point, they simply make the first decision that seems to make the most sense. Another theory is that decision making can be considered “organized anarchy.” This theory is based on research conducted by James March and some of his colleagues.
The article discusses why the “seeing first” approach tends to have more credibility. The authors discuss how individuals often make observations which inspire thought or make the thinking process more productive. An example used in the article is that the biologist Alexander Fleming observed that mold in his laboratory was killing bacteria, which gave him the idea to develop penicillin. Also, in the case of Archimedes, an observation is often an important event that must take place in order for a problem to be solved. The authors go on to say that for this process to work they need to be able to see what others cannot.
The “doing first” approach is sometimes necessary when there is not enough information to make a competent decision. Sometimes their only option is to experiment their available options to determine which of them works the best. The authors discuss how doing can stimulate thinking just as easily as thinking can lead to doing. Doing is essential to the learning process, which has been acknowledged by the most successful companies.
The authors describe several experiments that they have conducted to determine which approaches people tend to use, and how the approaches tend to be structured. According to their research, the thinking first approach seems to have complications and limitations that we would not initially expect. One problem is that the quality and thoroughness of analysis come at the expense of efficiency. Also, most decision makers don’t seem to use the discipline necessary to make detailed decisions and their decisions tend to be too theoretical because they do not acknowledge many real world limitations that would keep their decision from working effectively.
The experiment suggested that “seeing first” approach had several advantages over the thinking first approach. Many subjects in the experiment said that they felt more involved in the decision making when they could see the actual circumstances they were dealing with rather than thinking about it in a hypothetical sense. Evidence also suggests that the “seeing first” experiments tend to involve more creativity than the “thinking first” experiments. These factors seem to make the “seeing first” process more memorable in the minds of the participants. The “doing first” approach also had some unique advantages. The primary advantage was that participants seemed to fight many of the effects of groupthink as they seem to feel more comfortable stating their opinions and concerns. It also helps them alleviate some of the pressures they have in making hasty decisions since they do not waste time doing unnecessary analysis.
The authors of the article emphasize that while thinking is certainly important as a part of the decision-making process, it is not as useful when it is a process that is isolated from seeing and doing. The “thinking first” approach may work well when the problem is well understood. However, the “seeing first” approach may be needed when the problem is relatively complex. Finally, the “doing first” approach may be the only option when decision makers do not initially have enough information to make a decision. Therefore, the traditional model for solving problems in a way that emphasizes cognitive processes seems to be overused. Instead, decision makers should try to make decisions in a way that combines thinking, seeing and doing.