Decision-Making

 

When it comes to making decisions, people are funny. There is almost a universal instinct to hesitate, to insist on more information, to get a second or third opinion – to delay. People certainly do not want to be held responsible for the decisions that they do make, and so most people, even those in a position of decisiveness… defer.

We can see how these mistakes, these cultural reflexes to delay, can lead to far-reaching, and even catastrophic outcomes. Here is one famous and disastrous example:

The US had the opportunity to kill Osama Bin Laden many times before  9/11.  If any of these had been taken, then the entire invasion of Afghanistan may well have never happened.

Even after 9/11 – in 2007, according to reports, US forces had Bin Laden in the crosshairs of an armed drone, but sought legal approval before taking the shot – by the time that review was conducted (reportedly it took 16 minutes to get approval) the enemy had escaped.

Now obviously in hindsight, these decisions are easy to second-guess. But remember: they were not really decisions, not in the minds of the people making them. They were just being careful, getting second opinions, gathering more data, trying to make sure they have all the facts, trying to make sure the processes were properly followed. In other words, people were afraid to stick their necks out and make a tough call. Our culture, our institutions, our processes, and procedures all lead this way. Especially in bureaucracies.

This characteristic of large bureaucracies has gotten worse, not better, with time. The idea of a “Precautionary Principle” has been applied across our lives, with the idea that until we know for certain what the outcomes of a decision will be, we should defer action. This principle basically brings our world to a screeching halt, because we never have complete and perfect information, and even if we were to have that information, we can never be certain what the outcome of a given decision will be.  If we cannot make a decision, then we slow down and come to a quivering halt.

In normal times, we can get away with being delayed or slow. Additional review cycles don’t seem to matter much in government or massive companies. They can rely on inertia to carry them through. The delays go largely unnoticed when they have no external pressures that endanger them.

But in times of crisis, inertial forces lose. In war, hesitation is deadly. Applying the Precautionary Principle to everything in life means that the approach of “better safe than sorry,” shuts down life as we know it. It is certainly no way to run any organization or country.

Indecision in time of crisis means always – and only – reacting, never leading.  Chronic indecision means losing.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 31 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Manny (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    iWe: Now obviously in hindsight, these decisions are easy to second-guess. But remember: they were not really decisions, not in the minds of the people making them. They were just being careful, getting second opinions, gathering more data, trying to make sure they have all the facts, trying to make sure the processes were properly followed. In other words, people were afraid to stick their necks out and make a tough call.

    Let me dissent. You’re only looking at part of the data. You’re only looking at or considering the times where the delay turned out to be unwarranted. What about decisions where the delay and verification of the facts turned out to be a correct decision. What about time you think you had Osama in the cross hairs but it turned out not to be him and you would have killed an innocent man? Or what about times where the decision could have had too many collateral deaths of innocent individuals? There are complexities that may cause you to reassess the situation.
    I wish Biden had been less impulsive in his plan to leave Afghanistan. What an impulsive decision made in complete haste. Impulsive decisions need to be checked over when life and death are at stake.

    Biden’s decision (if it was truly Biden’s) was not impulsive. It took 7 months. Evacuating Bagram happened months ago if I have that right, And the State Dept. was keeping track of the Taliban advances for months as well.

    Well, if you make a decision and delay and do no reflection or assessment during the delay then you are essentially making sn impulsive decision with a time gap. ;). It wasn’t seven months though. I think the decision was made shortly after the inauguration and then came the planning and execution. I suspect there was little cross examination in that planning and execution, very little reflection. People need to be fired.

    Yeah, I think he was inaugurated nearly 7 months before the troops started leaving. And Bagram was evacuated months before that. It was all planned out alright.

    Yes that may be. I was just using that as an example to explain my point. Bad decisions can be made impulsively or not, especially by dumb people. Perhaps the more dumb people think on a decision, the more likely they will get it wrong…lol.

    :) I can’t argue with this.

    • #31
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.