-
Over the
years when dissent, when teaching decision
-
making processes to students
and executives at MIT and elsewhere,
-
I often set up group exercises
that let students practice
-
this sort of debate
and constructive conflict in teams,
-
and it gives them firsthand experience
on how these
-
processes reliably deliver
higher quality decisions
-
than decisions that didn't have
this kind of design process.
-
And so that's what I've talked about here.
-
I also, in what I teach
students and executives
-
as well, will oftentimes watch
-
a clip of a movie motion
picture called 13 Days,
-
which depicted the decision making process
that President
-
Kennedy used during what was what's now
called the Cuban Missile Crisis.
-
This is probably
one of the most consequential decisions
-
that any president
has ever made in history,
-
because it was the closest time
that the U.S.
-
and Russia came to launching nuclear
-
warheads on one another,
essentially starting World War three.
-
Here are some of my own highlights
that play out in the movie.
-
And as you'll see,
many of these kind of core activities
-
that Kennedy used in making this decision
align with the four principles
-
that I'm suggesting in our program.
-
Number one,
he was very clear about his goal,
-
and his goal was to avoid nuclear war.
-
Now, this is different than what tradition
would have had suggested for a U.S.
-
president. And tradition would say.
-
The the the challenge
-
is to
-
overcome your adversary in the future
adversary order.
-
That's what traditional policy
would have recommended.
-
But he didn't take that
route, the route that he took as he wants
-
to avoid nuclear war.
-
And as as you see in the movie,
he had a lot of pressures
-
to make to follow sort
of a more traditional decision process
-
as commander in chief.
-
So this is my first principle
is to be very clear about the problem
-
or the decision
-
or the goals that you're trying to achieve
with this decision process.
-
The second is that you'll see
-
that he actually owned
the decision process
-
from the very beginning
as commander in chief.
-
Now, he sought out
lots of different perspectives
-
that he knew and his advisers knew were
important to the decision making process.
-
And as you'll see,
he sought perspective from people
-
who dislike him and even distrusted him.
-
But he knew those people had valuable
expertise
-
that could inform
his understanding of the problem.
-
This was my second recommendation
in designing a decision process
-
is to seek out multiple perspectives
to understand the problem that you face.
-
The third thing I want to point out
is he utilized teams of advisors,
-
several sets of advisers
to come up with creative solutions
-
and multiple solutions
to this problem that he was facing.
-
Those alternative
-
solutions that he faced actually led to
some of the decisions
-
that he actually made, the solutions
that he actually put in place.
-
And the solutions creatively
did avoid these
-
two countries
going to nuclear war with one another.
-
So this was my third suggested
principle, is to when you're
-
trying to arrive at decisions,
especially on high stakes decision,
-
generate multiple alternatives
and multiple solutions to consider.
-
And then finally,
-
I want to point out is that President
Kennedy made the tough call.
-
Right.
-
And everybody sort of got behind him
when he made those tough calls.
-
And this is my fourth
-
principle is that, you know,
you make tough calls,
-
make sure that now you're
-
moving from decision making to decision
implementation or decision execution.
-
So it's again,
I think that the movie provides
-
an excellent illustration
of some of the design principles
-
for decision processes
that I'm recommending in this program.
-
One importantly, what I think the Cuban
Missile Crisis shows is that if you have
-
a high quality decision process, you're
going to produce higher quality decisions.
-
Right.
-
So that's the big point of sort of
-
when you think of
of architecting a decision process,
-
you can architect a high quality process
-
and then you'll have higher quality
decisions.
-
Research done by Ohio State
Professor Long that suggests
-
that about 50% managers decisions
-
fail to achieve their intended outcomes.
-
So in general,
I think you can rightly say that
-
status quo decision processes
in organizations earn about an F,
-
okay in terms of rating scale
-
and he one of the big insights said
-
in this research was the actual decisions
and the consequences of those decisions
-
is that managers used
for decision processes
-
and making those decisions
as transformational leaders.
-
I think you want to take
some of the principles
-
and some of the processes
that we're describing here
-
to help you make better decisions
as you're looking at your organization
-
holistically
in terms of change and innovation
-
by having a better decision process,
we hope that you'll have better outcomes
-
and better consequences
in those decisions that you make.
-
Remember that the best decisions can or
-
can become an outcome
of the best quality processes.
-
And now we're going to turn our attention
to sort of continue this logic of design
-
thinking, but applying it specifically
to ways approaches to innovation.
-
And we're going to apply it
to how to design high performing teams.