One person wrote:
>I have noticed that its much easier to model after
>asking people how they really make decisions, than it is after simply thinking
>about either how they **ought** to make the decisions or how I **imagine** I
>might make the decision.
And, another replied
>There's at least one more step worth considering. System participants bias
>their descriptions, too. After building a model of what the system
>participant says about decision-making, it's worthwhile to compare model
>output with measured data.
I think it's a well proven fact that people often act at variance with
their stated descriptions of how they act and make decisions.
My work involves system dynamics and organizational learning. Here's a
very short piece I've learned from the org learning side that relates to
this area:
Chris Argyris talks about people's "espoused" theories for how they act
vs. their "theory in use" (how they actually act).
There are often big differences. A manager might say, "I value every
opinion" but then act to shut down others every day. Some of this is
unconscious; most of the time people are not even aware of the
differences... And, often are not even aware of their actions.
The causal chain is Thinking --> Actions --> Results.
There's power in starting with data on results (or actions taken) and
working backwards, asking "What actions led to this result? What thinking
led to this action?" This produces surprises, illuminating actual decision
rationales or "theory in use." A related tool is probing thinking about
thinking (Argyris' well known "Left-hand column" exercise).
Argyris has very effective tools for bringing out the differences and
illuminating the theories in use.
In my work, I am trying not just to make a good model, but to make the
whole things a learning benefit for the decision makers. Putting stated
decision rationales in the model and checking match vs. data is a sound
approach. It should help illuminate the theories in use. For decision
makers to become aware of their theories in use -- this can be a powerful
learning moment.
Thereafter, they can be responsible for their decision making. Without
the ability to see the differences (tools and sensitivity)... They can't
be responsible, even if others try to hold them responsible.
-=- Rick
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | mailto:Richard@Karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Discussion (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://www.learning-org.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>