Action-oriented Decision Making: Think to Act, or Act to Think
We make decisions in every minute in our life, from individuals, to organization, to national policy levels. What do we need to do in order to make a right decision? The following article by Henry Mintzberg and Frances Westley (MIT Sloan Management Review, 2001) sheds a brighter light on new approach in decision making processes. The approach rests in interrelationships between act, see, and think.
Actually, we get used to using a “think-first” approach for making a decision, but Mintzberg and Westley (2001) argue that such an approach is not always applicable the quality of decision making can also be complemented by other two approaches namely “seeing first” and “doing first”. To keep an organization healthy, a manager must be capable making an extraordinary use of an ordinary process in making a decision.
If thinking or rationalizing is not good enough for making a decision, what’s wrong with it? The authors bring out a debate between rational decision-making (i.e. well-ordered thinking) and non-rational decision-making (i.e. messy and real-life thinking). If allowed to explain, I would put it in this way. The first refers to the situation we decide based on consciousness and rationality whereas the second refers to a situation in which we made decisions based on something beyond our consciousness, something coming out subconsciously after being stimulated by certain experiences in our real life (Also see organized anarchy by Cohen, etc. 1972).
“Seeing First” approach suggests that we don’t just see things, but also realize what could be done with them. Decisions or actions may be driven as much by what is seen as by what is thought. This approach requires us to be confident and experienced in recognizing the “sudden insight” for what a visual image is. For an instance, Alexander Fleming invited penicillin after seeing that the mold had killed bacteria.
Rational thinking sometimes does not work because we are trapped into the paradox of plenty in having too many rationales in our mind. To deal with this, we have to think about “creative discovery”, a thinking process involving: (1) preparation, (2) incubation, (3) illumination, and (4) verification (G. Wallas cited in Mintzberg and Westley, 2001). “Chance favors only the prepared mind.” Deep knowledge usually developed over years, is followed by incubation, during which the unconscious mind mulls over the issue. Then with luck, there is that flash of illumination. That moment comes after sleep because in sleep, ration thinking is turned off, and the unconscious has greater freedom…” [page 90].
“Doing First” approach involves three processes: (1) enactment, (2) selection, and (3) retention, meaning that doing various things to find what works for successful behaviors. The authors write, “Successful people know that when they are stuck, they must experiment. Thinking may drive doing, but doing just as surly drives thinking. We don’t just think in order to act, we act in order to think.” In fact, there is no clear cut between these three approaches. What the authors want to nudge us is that if rational thinking makes no process to an action or decision making, why don’t we try “doing first” and then create an insight into what could work.
Another interesting remark is that people like to jump into “thinking first” before “seeing first”. In a healthy organization, managers, in order to stimulate ideas for an action, execute an “seeing first” exercise by displaying images, pictures—rather than words or texts, because pictures may be a bit ambiguous but “more involving”. They invite interpretation and stimulate thinking—so using symbols beyond words or numbers would be helpful.
When each decision-making approach works best:
“Thinking First” works best when:
-the issue is clear
-the idea is reliable
-the context is structured
-thoughts can be pinned down, and
-discipline can be applied
as in a established production process.
“Seeing First” works best when”
-many elements have to be combined into creative solutions,
-commitment to those solutions is key, and
-communication across boundaries is essential
as in new-product development.
“Doing First” works best when:
-the situation is novel (never seen before) and confusing
-complicated specifications would get in the way, and
-a few simple relationship rules can help people move forward
for example when companies face a destructive technology.
Reference: Mintzberg, Henry and Westley, Frances. Decision Making: It Is Not What You Think . MIT Sloan Management Review. Spring 2001.
