More recently, I was discussing the issue with a colleague who introduced me to the idea of moral heuristics: shortcuts we take in our values in order to make difficult decisions a little easier to bear.

As an example of this case was offered as follows:

A funeral arrived at the crematorium and there were procedural irregularities that ‘should’ have prevented the cremation taking place. The family were obviously distressed. It was impossible to satisfy all points of view, and the manager had to make a decision. Because there was no right answer, the manager chose to make the decision on the basis of what he felt was ‘the right thing to do’ in that situation. He waived the procedures and the cremation went ahead. Audit’s view is that the ‘right thing to do’ is to follow procedure and censured the manager.

To me this is a typical case of process driven inflexibility that throws morality out the window and yet in the strict sense of the word… is rational

The next condition that has to be fullfilled is that concerned with the rationality of the decision. It is more or less agreed that the fundamental condition required for a decision to be considered rational is that we have problem and a way of developing and evaluating the possible solutions before we choose the option that will bring us closer to solving the problem.

The deeper you look into the process, you’ll be able to identify the different parts of the process. In other words, when presented with  a problematic situation we analyse it, we then establish our objectives (at the most basic levels of complexity there is a single objective – there’s a bad odour in the kitchen. Objective: Improve hygiene by removing source of bad odour); we then set out to develop and assess the possible options that can help us achieve that objective (clean fridge, empty bins, all of them). We then choose based on the consequences of each alternative and our own preferences (if both the fridge and the bins smell, which of the two options gives me more brownie points with my wife? My preference is for the fridge, therefore that is my decision). Finally, we act on our decision otherwise it’s all good intentions and we’ve all heard about the material paving the road to hell.

As you can see, my preference of brownie points over hygiene sets the criteria I use to decide and it makes perfect sense to me that is, it is rational to me. Other people may decide hygiene is their number one priority… and are single.

However, this isn’t the case the managerial world where decisions are based on the merits of the outcome regardless of the process leading up to it. In other words the success of a decision – and by extension, of the decision maker – depends on two factors: execution and luck.

Business managers will often play the role of both decision makers and implementation managers leaving the execution part of the equation within their control. In order to guarantee succesful implementation, the course of action must be clearly communicated and understood by all those involved in the task.

As for the “luck factor” many would argue that there’s no such thing as luck but good planning. I disagree.

A group of my students in the Masters in Emergency Management presented today an interesting twist on a bog standard topic albeit a central one in any decision making course; Rational choice. The question they posed was: Is an act of terrorism less rational just because we consider it to be unethical or inmoral? Or perhaps because such an act hasn’t been embedded in our set of values and beliefs?

It may be useful at this point to take a step back and consider what terrorism and terroristsare. If we were able to detach ourselves from political, religious and even geographical allegiances for a moment that is, if we could become truly objective, most people would agree that terrorism is what the enemy does. Who the enemy is depends on our particular political, religious and even geographical situation. Those  in power view it as an instrument of destabilisation of the institutions of a country, while those trying to seize power claim governement actions are acts of terrorism against the will and freedom of the people.

Going back to my opening quote,  Simon claims that rational action only comes as a result of measuring the consequences of this action against a set of values and finding it is acceptable. This means that, as long as an individual goes through this process and finds the outcome satisfactory; then, despite of the loss of lives, the chaos and the feelings of sadness, anger and desire for revenge, the process can be considered rational. Or can it?

It’s been a few years and plenty of grey hairs since I stood in front of my examiners defending the idea that good quality decisions could only be achieved through the methodological understanding of the universe around the problem or opportunity. We had to gather and harness as much information as possible; quantify the measurables; rate and scale the intangibles, discard the outliers that skewed our data and so on.

In the years that have gone by, I’ve learned that my approach was doomed from the beginning. I was trying to insert a round peg into a square hole, trying to apply static theory to a dynamic world where uncertainty goes beyond the maddest laws of probability. Above all, I was ignoring the fact that every decision includes a dose of human randomness that is hardly ever consistent with previous behaviours, that is likely to change in the middle of the decision process and that sometimes presents symptoms of clear irrationality.

This blog is about my thoughts, epiphanies and curiousities in decision making and related beasts. Be welcome.