Quotes About Decision-making

There is no more miserable human being than one in whom nothing is habitual but indecision.

Our former selves are never dead. We speak to them, arguing against decisions we know will bring only unhappiness, offering consolation and hope, even though they cannot hear.

The researchers have found, in essence, that our advice to others tends to hinge on the single most important factor, while our own thinking flits among many variables. When we think of our friends, we see the forest. When we think of ourselves, we get stuck in the trees.§

If the Rider isn't sure exactly what direction to go, he tends to lead the Elephant in circles. And as we'll see, that tendency explains the third and final surprise about change: What looks like resistance is often a lack of clarity.

More options, even good ones, can freeze us and make us retreat to the default plan

The psychologists Amos Tversky and Eldar Shafir offered college students a five-dollar reward for filling out a survey. When given a five-day deadline, 66% of the students completed the survey and claimed their rewards. When given no deadline, only 25% ever collected their money.

In the identity model3 of decision making, we essentially ask ourselves three questions when we have a decision to make: Who am I? What kind of situation is this? What would someone like me do in this situation?

A 1993 study by Nutt, which analyzed 168 decisions in this laborious way, came to a stunning conclusion: Of the teams he studied, only 29% considered more than one alternative.† By way of comparison, 30% of the teens in the Fischhoff study considered more than one alternative.

When the researchers compared whether process or analysis was more important in producing good decisions—those that increased revenues, profits, and market share—they found that "process mattered more than analysis—by a factor of six." Often a good process led to better analysis—for instance, by ferreting out faulty logic.

When the researchers compared whether process or analysis was more important in producing good decisions—those that increased revenues, profits, and market share—they found that "process mattered more than analysis—by a factor of six." Often a good process led to better analysis—for instance, by ferreting out faulty logic. But the reverse was not true: "Superb analysis is useless unless the decision process gives it a fair hearing." To

created this framework to be useful for people who don't have scads of authority or resources. Some people can get their way by fiat. CEOs, for instance, can

You encounter a choice. But narrow framing makes you miss options. • You analyze your options. But the confirmation bias leads you to gather self-serving information. • You make a choice. But short-term emotion will often tempt you to make the wrong one. • Then you live with it. But you'll often be overconfident about how the future will unfold.

The pros-and-cons approach is familiar. It is commonsensical. And it is also profoundly flawed.

You cannot choose any of the current options you're considering. What else could you

Smart enough to get into Yale. Economists studied students who had been admitted to two schools of higher and lower prestige but decided to attend the school with lower prestige. Estimated sacrifice in lifetime earnings from attending the less prestigious school: none.

decision paralysis. More options, even good ones, can freeze us and make us retreat to the default plan

As a result, choosing between Plan A and Plan B is not a close call. Here's the astonishing finding from the Forrester data: If you Elevate the Positives (Plan B), you'll earn about 9 times more revenue than if you Eliminate the Negatives (Plan A). (8.8 times, to be precise.) Yet most executives are pursuing Plan A. (See the footnote for more on the methodology and an anticipated quibble.)II

When it comes to statistics, our best advice is to use them as input, not output. Use them to make up your mind on an issue. Don't make up your mind and then go looking for the numbers to support yourself—that's asking for temptation and trouble. But if we use statistics to help us make up our minds, we'll be in a great position to share the pivotal numbers with others

What if we started every decision by asking some simple questions: What are we giving up by making this choice? What else could we do with the same time and money?

action triggers have unexpected value. Gollwitzer says that when people predecide, they "pass the control of their behavior on to the environment." Gollwitzer says that action triggers "protect goals from tempting distractions, bad habits, or competing goals.

Seeking out one more option. Finding someone else who's solved our problem. Asking, "What would have to be true for you to be right?" Ooching as a way to dampen politics. Making big decisions based on core priorities. Running premortems and preparades. Laying down tripwires. Using these techniques will improve the results of your group decisions.

When the researchers compared whether process or analysis was more important in producing good decisions—those that increased revenues, profits, and market share—they found that "process mattered more than analysis—by a factor of six." Often a good process led to better analysis—for instance, by ferreting out faulty logic. But the reverse was not true: "Superb analysis is useless unless the decision process gives it a fair hearing.

Establishing your core priorities is, unfortunately, not the same as binding yourself to them.

You encounter a choice. But narrow framing makes you miss options.     ââ'¬Â¢ You analyze your options. But the confirmation bias leads you to gather self-serving information.     ââ'¬Â¢ You make a choice. But short-term emotion will often tempt you to make the wrong one.     ââ'¬Â¢ Then you live with it. But you'll often be overconfident about how the future will unfold.