A FORMER CIA EXECUTIVE'S ADVICE ON HOW TO MAKE HARD DECISIONS
A
FIVE-STEP DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FROM A MAN WHO SPENT 25 YEARS MAKING
LIFE-AND-DEATH DECISIONS.
Each day we make
thousands of decisions. Most are fairly insignificant, such as what to have for
lunch or what to wear. Others carry weight and consequences. Complicating
things is our access to information; a simple Google search produces a million
results in a split second, and that can lead to analysis paralysis.
Philip Mudd is accustomed to making tough decisions. As the former
deputy director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center and FBI’s National
Security Branch, he has gathered information and made recommendations about
some of the world’s biggest threats to national safety. During his 25 years
working for the government, Mudd developed a system for analyzing complex data
and assessing risk. While some of the decisions he made involved life and
death, he contends that all complex decisions—government and civil—are major.
"Whether you're
combating terrorists or managing a pension fund, decisions should be made in
similar ways," he says. "Before you say your decisions aren’t
profound, stop. Is it really soulless if it affects people’s lives?"
In his book The HEAD Game:
High-Efficiency Analytic Decision Making and the Art of Solving Complex
Problems Quickly, Mudd breaks down his
decision-making process into five steps:
People often focus on
the wrong question because they assume questions are self-evident, says Mudd.
Focusing on better questions up front yields better answers later.
"Good questions
are hard to come up with," he says. "We typically overinvest our time
in analyzing problems by jumping right to the data and the conclusions, while
under-investing in thinking about exactly what it is we want to know."
START WITH WHAT YOU’RE
TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AND WORK YOUR WAY BACK, INSTEAD OF MOVING FORWARD AND
MAKING CONCLUSIONS.
The right question
provides a decision advantage to the person at the head of the table. Mudd says
you can find the right question by looking backwards. Start with what you’re
trying to accomplish and work your way back, instead of moving forward and making
conclusions.
Since our minds have a
hard time juggling too much information, break down complex questions into
characteristics or "drivers." This approach gives you a way to manage
data.
When Mudd was working
for the CIA, for example, he would sort data on Al Qaeda into information
baskets that included money, recruits, leadership, communications, training,
and access to weapons. When information flows in, rather than adding it to one
unmanageable pile, sorting through it periodically, and offering a recitation
of what appears to be relevant from the most recent stuff you’ve seen, file
each bit into one of your baskets, says Mudd. He recommends limiting your
drivers to 10 to best control the information.
Once the question and
drivers have been identified, decide what metrics you’ll use to measure how the
problem and solution are evolving over time.
Mudd suggests
comparing your thought process to the training process of an Olympic sprinter
who measures success in hundredths of a second. "If we don’t, the analysis
we provide will suffer the same fate as a sprinter who thinks he’s great but
has never owned a stopwatch: he enters an elite competition, and reality
intervenes," he says.
Metrics provide a
"mind mirror"—a system for judging your decisions. It provides a
foundation for coming back to the table and assessing the process for success.
Once you’ve built the
framework that will help you make the hard decision, it’s time to gather the data.
Overcome data overload by plugging data into their driver categories and
excising anything that doesn't fit, says Mudd.
"Too much data
might provide a false sense of security, and it doesn’t necessarily lead to
clearer analytic decision making," says Mudd.
I HATE INTUITION. IT’S
DANGEROUS AND IT MAKES ME NERVOUS.
Aggressively question
the validity of your data. Once you have your data sorted, give yourself a
grade that represents your confidence in assessing your question.
Complex analysis isn’t
easy, says Mudd; you must assume that the process is flawed and check for gaps
and errors.
He says three common
stumbling blocks are:
1. Availability bias: The instinct to rely on
what you know or what has been most recently in the news.
2. Halo effect: When you write off the negative
characteristics because you’re mesmerized by the positive attributes.
3. Intuitive versus analytic methodologies: when
you go with your gut.
"I hate
intuition," says Mudd. "It’s dangerous and it makes me nervous."
Mudd says making
complex decisions is hard work. "It’s a lot of fun to be an expert who
bases their ideas on history and not a lot of fun to be an analyst who must
always be assessing potential scenarios," he says. "Every time you go
into a problem, and before you rip into data, ask yourself, ‘Am I sure where
I’m heading?’"
BY STEPHANIE VOZZA
http://www.fastcompany.com/3046600/know-it-all/a-former-cia-executives-advice-on-how-to-make-hard-decisions?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fast-company-weekly-newsletter&position=5&partner=newsletter&campaign_date=06052015
No comments:
Post a Comment