Valid Diagnoses and Good Decisions

Fast and Slow

One assumption repeatedly creeps into the study of sensemaking: we sit on the sofa and calmly reflect on a situation. In reality, however, it often looks different: we are stressed, we have too many parallel demands, and too many sensory perceptions competing for our attention.

It is worth reflecting on how we structure and prioritize our perception. It turns out that only a small part of the raw data actually makes it into our conscious perception. This part receives disproportionately more attention when we perceive our situation and when we try to understand what is going on in our environment.

Let’s dive into this world and look at examples that illustrate our perception’s limits.

The invisible gorilla

A well-known video has gone viral as an example of the phenomenon of selective attention, often referred to as the “Invisible Gorilla” experiment. In the video, viewers are asked to count the number of passes thrown between players on a basketball team. While the players pass the ball back and forth, a person in a gorilla costume slowly walks through the scene, stops in the middle, drums his chest, and then leaves the picture.

Although the gorilla is visible, many viewers do not notice him. Their attention is entirely absorbed by the counting of basketball passes. People tend to overlook unexpected objects in their field of vision when their attention is focused on a demanding task.

Expectations often lead us to overlook surprises. However, if we cultivate the habit of exploring alternatives and variations before making a decision, we can avoid many potential detours, empowering ourselves with a broader perspective.

This example encourages us to switch hats multiple times during an analysis, like we introduced in the four OODA hats. This leads to more thorough thinking and well-founded decisions.

Who clicks the fastest

Web designers complain that website visitors do not read through, understand, and evaluate the text. Instead, they often select the first element that looks clickable, even if this is consent to a newsletter or subscription.

This may be a controversial example, but the real crux is the observation that people are often too quick to jump into actions where a more detailed analysis of the situation would be beneficial.

Try not to jump to conclusions. This is harder than it sounds, but it’s a habit worth striving for. Making mindful decisions based on understanding the consequences of actions can lead to better outcomes and a more fulfilling experience. This is a theme of Endsley’s model of situation awareness.

On the difficulty of assessing the situation

As we see, it is not easy to plan good diagnoses and valid and well-founded ways of improvement. It is worth considering how analysis, decision-making, and implementation are approached.

This includes some insights on how people observe situations and gain insights from them. Kahneman’s “Thinking fast and slow” provides valuable insights to the mechanisms behind our sensemaking and decisions.

System 1: Fast Thinking

Elizabeth Bennet quickly forms a negative opinion of Mr. Darcy based on her first impression and his proud demeanor. She judges intuitively and emotionally, without more profound reflection. This is an example of fast, automatic thinking characterized by prejudices and heuristics.

System 1 is used when we have to react quickly, for example, when we are suddenly confronted with a jaguar or when a child runs out in front of us. It is, however, prone to cognitive distortions and careless mistakes.

System 1 is:

Fast: It operates quickly and automatically
Effortless: Requires little to no mental effort
Unconscious: Functions below the level of conscious awareness
Intuitive: Based on instinct and gut feelings
Emotional: Often influenced by emotions and feelings

It handles routine tasks and familiar situations, Relies on heuristics (mental shortcuts) and past experiences and is responsible for involuntary actions and quick judgments.

It operates continuously in the background

System 2: Slow Thinking

During the story, Elizabeth questions her initial judgment of Mr. Darcy. She reads his letter, reflects on his actions, and considers the situation differently. Through this conscious and strenuous thought process, she recognizes her error and gradually develops feelings for him. This illustrates slow, rational thinking based on logic and analysis.

System 2 questions the decisions of system 1; it is a kind of control instance. It uses deeper reflection but is slower and more energy-intensive. It is, therefore, not always triggered automatically.

System 2 is characterized by:

Deliberation: Involves careful consideration and analysis
Effort: Requires conscious mental exertion
Logical: Based on reason and rational thought
Controlled: Involves intentional focus and attention
Analytical: Capable of complex problem-solving

System 2 engages in demanding cognitive tasks, processes information sequentially and is capable of following rules and making comparisons.

It is responsible for self-control and conscious decision-making and is activated when facing unfamiliar or complex situations occur.

Interaction Between Systems

Kahneman emphasizes that these systems are not entirely separate but interact constantly:

System 1 generates impressions, intuitions, and feelings
System 2 monitors System 1’s output and can override it when necessary
System 2 is often “lazy” and tends to accept System 1’s suggestions unless prompted to engage more deeply

Not all decisions need speed

An interesting reflection is the consideration of the consequences for decision-making processes.

Quick decisions do not lead to faster implementation. How decisions are prepared determines their quality, resistance to implementation, and sustainability. Every decision is part of an iterative, empirical, goal-oriented process.

If you look at Toyota, we expect fast changes and adaptability. However, when we observe the decision-making processes, we find that Toyota’s decision-making processes are very different from those of many other companies. But they are not necessarily faster. Instead, thorough consideration and investment in sound decisions are intended to achieve high-quality results. According to the Toyota philosophy, this is more important than speed. Characteristic features of this approach are:

Genchi Genbutsu: “Go to the site and check for yourself” encourages decision-makers to assess the situation at the site.
Consensus building (Nemawashi): – before a formal decision is made, decision-makers hold numerous discussions with all parties involved.
Long-term perspective: long-term stability and sustainable success are prioritized.
Continuous improvement (Kaizen): Decisions are part of an ongoing improvement an