Improving Team Decision Making
Improving Team Decision Making Ben Thompson
Why decision making?
2
3
Avoid Epic Failure
4
Failures from Recent Past
5
6
7
Types of Decisions Habitual
Planning
Recipe
8
Thinking about thinking
9
10
Cognitive Biases
Repeating misstep in thinking, assessing, or recollecting
Lead to:
11
Inaccurate judgement Illogical interpretation Irrationality
Four Basic Cognitive Biases
Confirmation
Introspection
Information
Effort Justification
Confirmation Bias “What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact.” Warren Buffet
13
The Moral Narratives of Economists
14
Confronting Confirmation Bias
15
16
Steps to Mitigate Confirmation Bias
Think it possible you may be mistaken – Quaker proverb
Devil’s advocate - Constructive intellectual antagonism
Red team
Role Playing
17
Introspection Illusion
18
Any of these sound familiar?
That person does not know what they are talking about
That person is stupid
Assumption of ignorance
Assumption of idiocy
That person is evil/biased/just saying that because they have to
19
Assumption of malice
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. -Upton Sinclair
20
Information Bias
Belief that continuing to accumulate information will improve decision-making
Need to recognize diminishing marginal utility associated with continuing data collection
21
Effort Justification (Animal House Effect)
Value = Effort
22
Biases Summary
Recognize repeated mistakes and tendencies
Understand that more time and data might not make a better decision
Focus on the result not the effort
Subject yourself to the same scrutiny as your auditee
Be your own worst critic 23
http://www.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-that-affect-decisions-2015-8
Errors Groups Make
25
Advantages of Group Decision Making
Collective memory
More information
More thorough discussion, convergent/divergent thinking is possible
Members are committed to the decision as they have jointly produced it, implementation is better
26
Disadvantages of Group Decision Making
Groups do not perform well when tasks are very difficult, complex, unfamiliar, or uninteresting to members.
Social loafing
Amplification
Cascade Effect
Group Polarization
Planning Fallacy
False Consensus (Going to Abilene) 27
Amplification
28
Cascade Effect
29
Loudest or first answer dominates Make sure everyone has opportunity Make decisions or gather opinion outside of meeting
Group Polarization
30
Planning Fallacy
31
Worse in groups Ask “Why are we different” What could go wrong? How likely? What impact?
Abilene Paradox
32
How Not to Go To Abilene
Be troubled by lack of dissenting views
Don’t self-censor
Create avenues for people to disagree outside of a meeting or in person
Careful about requiring consensus
Avoid language like “Is anyone vehemently opposed to this” or “So we all agree, right?”
33
34
Take-Aways
Value dissent i.e. Constructive intellectual antagonism Create alternative avenues for disagreement Role play Be self critical Think about opportunity cost Question assumptions Actively solicit everyone’s opinion Leaders keep quiet What if analysis and worst case scenarios Create formal structures/gates that force group to step back 35
Lit Review
Jan. 2015 Harvard Business Review “Making Dumb Groups Smarter” 36
Ben Thompson 206-477-1035 [email protected]
37
38
Why decision making?
2
3
Avoid Epic Failure
4
Failures from Recent Past
5
6
7
Types of Decisions Habitual
Planning
Recipe
8
Thinking about thinking
9
10
Cognitive Biases
Repeating misstep in thinking, assessing, or recollecting
Lead to:
11
Inaccurate judgement Illogical interpretation Irrationality
Four Basic Cognitive Biases
Confirmation
Introspection
Information
Effort Justification
Confirmation Bias “What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact.” Warren Buffet
13
The Moral Narratives of Economists
14
Confronting Confirmation Bias
15
16
Steps to Mitigate Confirmation Bias
Think it possible you may be mistaken – Quaker proverb
Devil’s advocate - Constructive intellectual antagonism
Red team
Role Playing
17
Introspection Illusion
18
Any of these sound familiar?
That person does not know what they are talking about
That person is stupid
Assumption of ignorance
Assumption of idiocy
That person is evil/biased/just saying that because they have to
19
Assumption of malice
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. -Upton Sinclair
20
Information Bias
Belief that continuing to accumulate information will improve decision-making
Need to recognize diminishing marginal utility associated with continuing data collection
21
Effort Justification (Animal House Effect)
Value = Effort
22
Biases Summary
Recognize repeated mistakes and tendencies
Understand that more time and data might not make a better decision
Focus on the result not the effort
Subject yourself to the same scrutiny as your auditee
Be your own worst critic 23
http://www.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-that-affect-decisions-2015-8
Errors Groups Make
25
Advantages of Group Decision Making
Collective memory
More information
More thorough discussion, convergent/divergent thinking is possible
Members are committed to the decision as they have jointly produced it, implementation is better
26
Disadvantages of Group Decision Making
Groups do not perform well when tasks are very difficult, complex, unfamiliar, or uninteresting to members.
Social loafing
Amplification
Cascade Effect
Group Polarization
Planning Fallacy
False Consensus (Going to Abilene) 27
Amplification
28
Cascade Effect
29
Loudest or first answer dominates Make sure everyone has opportunity Make decisions or gather opinion outside of meeting
Group Polarization
30
Planning Fallacy
31
Worse in groups Ask “Why are we different” What could go wrong? How likely? What impact?
Abilene Paradox
32
How Not to Go To Abilene
Be troubled by lack of dissenting views
Don’t self-censor
Create avenues for people to disagree outside of a meeting or in person
Careful about requiring consensus
Avoid language like “Is anyone vehemently opposed to this” or “So we all agree, right?”
33
34
Take-Aways
Value dissent i.e. Constructive intellectual antagonism Create alternative avenues for disagreement Role play Be self critical Think about opportunity cost Question assumptions Actively solicit everyone’s opinion Leaders keep quiet What if analysis and worst case scenarios Create formal structures/gates that force group to step back 35
Lit Review
Jan. 2015 Harvard Business Review “Making Dumb Groups Smarter” 36
Ben Thompson 206-477-1035 [email protected]
37
38
