We have looked at the significance of language several times in this blog. We get used to ‘good’ words and phrases. Others we are conditioned to see in a perjorative sense. There are two excellent examples in Decision Making: “Sitting on the Fence” and “Making a U-Turn”. 

Everything I have learned about Decision Making tells me that making better decisions requires a positive approach (the ‘good’ word is “decisive”). But to make decisions better you have to plan meticulously and execute brilliantly. Part of the planning and analysis stage involves setting goals, developing options, and appraising them very carefully.

Executing a decision always requires flexibility. Look at just four obvious examples: 

• Police work
• Military campaigns
• Sport
• Medicine 

In all cases, carrying out a decision is an iterative process. 

I have warned earlier (16^th May) about the early decision trap – confusing making policy and making a decision. I also emphasised on 26^th May how important it is to carve thinking time out of a busy diary. Sceptics and gung ho merchants can criticise this strategic and painstaking approach, and say that the decision maker is sitting on the fence. My contention is that sitting on the fence is perfectly acceptable if it buys you time to get the decision right. 

Which brings me to a topical issue. The Coalition Government are under pressure from their political opponents for “making u-turns” on both NHS reform and Ken Clarke’s sentencing Green Paper. 

Whether or not you are an enthusiast for what seems to be consistent behaviour by this Government and its Labour predecessor in terms of rushing out policy and then testing public opinion, it appears to be the default setting. In those circumstances not to make a u-turn in the face of strong public disapproval would be perverse. People were clearly unhappy about GPs being effectively in charge of the NHS, and also about halving sentences for defendants making an early not guilty plea. The Government has in both cases changed its decision (or what we should probably call its ‘initial decision’), and for my money, should be praised for its pragmatism.

In 1999 a business psychologist called Steve Kneeland wrote a slim and straightforward book called “Effective Problem-Solving.
How to Understand the Process and Practice It Successfully” 

It is sad that so few people appear to have read the book, or made much of it. Why? Because I believe Kneeland crystallised one of the major issues in decision science: where problem-solving ends and decision making begins. Interpreting Kneeland, it goes like this: 

Problem solving…

• Is bridging the gap between the way things are and the way they ought to be
• It is focused on the past
  • Usually analytical
  • Operational
  • Done at lower levels
• Four questions to be asked about any problem:
  • What exactly is the problem?
  • How urgent is it?
  • How important is it?
  • Whose responsibility is it? 

Decision making…

• Is a broader concept
• It is the act of making a choice between two or more options
• It is focused on the future
  • Often creative
  • Directional
  • Done at senior levels
• Kneeland counsels not to ignore the ‘do nothing’ option, but warns that deciding not to decide has the full force of a decision
• He also is wary about the ‘early decision’ – making a decision before it’s needed
• He wisely wrote that it is never too late to change a decision. Changing your mind is not necessarily a sign of weakness 

Simple stuff, yes. But faced with endless problems, as we are, it is helpful to have some clear mantras to approach the grown up task of making decisions. Thank you, Steve.