The Logic of Failure

Deep Thinker
--> Systems Thinking
--> --> The Logic of Failure
--> --> --> Logic of Failure Compressed Notes

The Logic of Failure

🧠 Free Recall ❓ Quiz 🔍 Cues 🔮 Simulation 🥷 ShadowBox 📐 Encode Cards

Intro

Why is failure common in Human Decision Making?
Human decision making evolved to solve the immediate ad-hoc problems (No food, no water, how to survive)
Failure to look outside of solving immediate problems causes side effects and long-term repercussions not thought of 
This failure is descriptive among even intelligent individuals, as seen in our policymaking 
Failure isn't happenstance, it's a predictable pattern
Complex problems forces us into ineffective ways of thinking that makes the problem grow in complexity as well as making failure more likely
By understanding these predictable thought patterns, we can become better problem solvers and avert failure

decision-making processes can go awry if we do not pay enough attention to possible side effects and long-term repercussions, if we apply corrective measures too aggressively or too timidly, or if we ignore premises we should have considered.

In short, they solved some immediate problems but did not think about the new problems that solving the old ones would create.

The outcome of the Moro planning game illustrates the difficulties even intelligent people have in dealing with complex systems.

The modern world is made up of innumerable interrelated related subsystems, and we need to think in terms of these interrelations.

It appears that, very early on, human beings developed a tendency to deal with problems on an ad hoc basis.

The subject of this book is the nature of our thinking when we deal with complex problems.

Because our thinking, with its subtle interplay of emotion and calculation, culation, conscience and ambition, reflects the richness of the world around us,experiments to determine the characteristics of human planning ning and decision making in complex situations should, ideally, draw on reality.

Failure does not strike like a bolt from the blue; it develops gradually according to its own logic.

As we watch individuals attempt to solve problems, we will see that complicated situations seem to elicit habits of thought that set failure in motion from the beginning. From that point, the continuing complexity of the task and the growing apprehension of failure encourage methods of decision making that make failure even more likely and then inevitable.

Having identified and understood these tendencies in ourselves, we will be much better problem solvers. We will be more able to start wisely, to make corrections in midcourse, and, most important, to learn from failures we did not avert. We need only apply the ample power of our minds to understanding and then breaking the logic of failure.

Chapter 2: The Demands

What elements of a decision introduce the most error?
The Common Elements in Intricate Situations
Complexity
Complexity comes from the outcome of multiple variables being connected to each other either directly or indirectly
The more variables and the greater their interdependence, the greater the system's complexity
Interdependence in variable outcomes means it's unlikely one action will result in change in the system
What is needed is structural knowledge, "If X increases, then y will decrease, and if x decreases then Y will increase"
Intransparence
The inability to see the variables and their outcome that are important in understanding the system
Internal Dynamics
Dynamic Systems move on their own
Some systems create time pressures that force us to make decisions faster
We have to understand the whole system over time
Incomplete or Incorrect Understanding of the system
Complexity is not objective but subjective.
Someone with experience in the dynamics of a system will be able to "chunk" information to simplify it. These are called "supersignals"
Complexity must be understood in terms of an individual and their point of view
The sum of assumptions in a persons mind about a system and how it's different variables connect, is called a "reality model" 
A reality model can be implicit with the person not aware of their reality model (intuition) or explicit with the person being able to communicate it.
A person's reality model can be right, wrong, complete or incomplete. As a rule, it will be incomplete and wrong and it is good idea to keep aware of that

What is the solution to these factors causing error?
Goals --> Models --> Predictions --> Plans --> Decisions --> Actions --> Review
Goals 
Defining goals is the first step in dealing with a complex problem. More often than not, it's not clear what exactly we want to achieve
Stating a goal comparatively ("better, faster, easier") indicates that we don't know precisely what we want
Clear goals are requirement. Before forming judgement and coming to decisions, we need to know what we want.
Clear goals will give us guidelines and criteria for assessing the efficacy of measures we might propose.
Reality Models & Predictions
Creating a model of the situation requires us to gather information, arrange it into a story of what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen
We need a cohesive picture that helps us filter the important from the important. That finds order in chaos
Thinking in time trends will aid in preparing for the future
Plans, Decisions and Action and Review
Once a picture of the situation is available, then we can figure out what we should do, if anything at all
We might also have to decide out of the many things we can do, which single or few things we should do.
Then we must act steadily. 
Review
We can't abandon an action too soon before the effects can take effect on the system. 
At the same time we can't stick stubbornly to a plan that will not work and is doomed to fail
We must be prepared to acknowledge that a solution is not working
Questions to help review include
Were the premises for my actions correct?
Do I have to go back to an earlier phase of the planning process and retool?
Do I have to gather information again because the information I based my actions on appear to be wrong?
Do I have to develop new action plans because the ones I have chosen are not working?
Do I have to revise my whole reality model of the situation?

complicated systems that derive their complexity from the presence of many interrelated variables.

"intransparent": one cannot see everything one would like to see.

all develop independent of external control, according to their own internal dynamic.

The characteristics we find here-complexity, intransparence, internal dynamics, and incomplete or incorrect understanding of the system--are basic to all intricate situations in which individuals are called upon to plan and act carefully, and they place many specific demands on decision makers.

Complexity is the label we will give to the existence of many interdependent variables in a given system.

The more variables and the greater their interdependence, the greater that system's complexity.
 
Great complexity places high demands on a planner's capacities to gather information, integrate findings, and design effective actions.

The links between the variables oblige us to attend tend to a great many features simultaneously, and that, concomitantly, makes it impossible for us to undertake only one action in a complex system.

A system of variables is "interrelated" if an action that affects or is meant to affect one part of the system will also always affect other parts of it.

Interrelatedness guarantees that an action aimed at one variable will have side effects and long-term repercussions.

Complexity is not an objective factor but a subjective one.

Supersignals reduce complexity, collapsing a number of features into one.

Consequently, complexity must be understood in terms of a specific individual and his or her supply of supersignals.

We learn supersignals from experience, and our supply can differ greatly from another other individual's.

Therefore there can be no objective measure of complexity.

dynamic systems. They do not, like a game of chess, simply wait for the players to make moves. They move on their own, whether the players take that movement into account or not.

Reality is not passive but-to some degree-active. This fact creates time pressure. We cannot wait forever before we act, nor can we be perfectionists in our information gathering and in our planning processes. We must often make do with tentative solutions because time pressure forces us to act before we can gather complete information or outline a comprehensive plan.

The dynamics inherent in systems make it important to understand developmental tendencies. We cannot content ourselves with observing and analyzing situations at any single moment but must instead try to determine where the whole system is heading over time. For many people this proves to be an extremely difficult task.

Intransparence

Planners and decision makers may have no direct access, or indeed deed no access at all, to information about the situation they must address. They have to look, as it were, through frosted glass. They must make decisions affecting a system whose momentary features they can see only partially, unclearly, in blurred and shadowy outline-or possibly not at all. Intransparence thus injects another element of uncertainty into planning and decision making.

If we want to operate within a complex and dynamic system, we have to know not only what its current status is but what its status will he or could be in the future, and we have to know how certain actions we take will influence the situation.

For this, we need "structural knowledge," knowledge of how the variables in the system are related and how they influence one another. Ideally, this information would be available in the form of mathematical functions, though we may have to make do with a formulation as vague as the following: "If x increases, then y will decrease, and if x decreases, then y will increase."

The totality of such assumptions in an individual's mind-assumptions about the simple or complex links and the one-way or reciprocal influences between variables-constitute what we call that individual's "reality model." A reality model can be explicit, always available to the individual in a conscious form, or it can be implicit, with the individual himself unaware that he is operating on a certain set of assumptions and unable to articulate what those assumptions are. Implicit knowledge is quite common. We usually call it "intuition," and we say of someone who has it: "He has a feel for these things."

An individual's reality model can be right or wrong, complete or incomplete. complete. As a rule it will be both incomplete and wrong, and one would do well to keep that probability in mind. But this is easier said than done.

the ability to make allowances for incomplete and incorrect rect information and hypotheses is an important requirement for dealing with complex situations.

answer two important questions: What specifically do we have to do to assess a complex problem? What demands does solving such problems place on us?

We know that we must find a way to keep track of complicated interrelations and deduce developmental tendencies, sometimes armed with only sketchy information.

Defining goals is the first step in dealing with a complex problem, for it is not immediately obvious in every situation what it is we really want to achieve.

If our task is to improve prove the quality of life in a suburb, we should first ask what we mean by a "better quality of life." Better transportation links with downtown? Better recreational facilities? Better shopping? ping? Improved schools? More contact tact between residents? The concept of a "better quality of life" could embrace brace all these things and many more. The goals in this situation are therefore fore not obvious. The only point of clarity is that the situation in this suburb is somehow felt to be inadequate. Stating a goal comparatively ("better transportation network" or "more user-friendly") often indicates that we don't know precisely what we want.

We need to have clear goals in mind before we start forming judgments and arriving at decisions, however. Clear goals will give us guidelines lines and criteria for assessing the appropriateness or inappropriateness of measures we might propose.

Developing a model and gathering information follow the statement of goals.

We need, of course, to do more with information than simply gather it. We need to arrange it into an overall picture, a model of the reality we are dealing with.

Formless collections of data about random aspects of a situation merely add to the situation's impenetrability and are no aid to decision making.

We need a cohesive picture that lets us determine mine what is important and what unimportant, what belongs together and what does not-in short, that tells us what our information means. This kind of "structural knowledge" will allow us to find order in apparent parent chaos.

Prognosis and extrapolation is the third step. Once we have acquired enough information about a situation and have formed a model that fits this information together, we should be in a position to assess not only the status quo but also developments likely to follow from the current situation. This is how things look now; what can we expect to happen next? The answer to this question is usually more important for planning  future measures than is the current situation.

Thinking in terms of developmental trends, and understanding such trends, will enable us to prepare for future events.

Once we have a picture of the present situation and ideas about how it will change, our next step is to consider measures to achieve our goals. What should we do? Should we do anything at all?

Decisions follow planning. There are often several alternatives for action, all of which may seem good at first glance. We must decide which are in fact the best. This is rarely an easy task.

Action follows decisions. Plans must he translated into reality. This, too, is a difficult enterprise, one that calls for constant self-observation and critique. Is what I expected to happen actually happening? Were the premises for my actions correct, or do I have go back to an earlier phase of the planning process and retool? Do I have to gather information again because the information I based my actions on appears to he wrong? Do I have to develop new courses of action because the ones I have chosen are ineffective? Do I have to revise my whole model of the situation? We must be prepared to acknowledge that a solution is not working.

It is unwise, however, to abandon an established course of action too soon. Persistence often pays off, and taking the middle path between clinging stubbornly to a doomed plan and giving up a fundamentally good one at the first sign of difficulty is not easy. Finding this path, though, will give us greater chances for success.

Normally we do not just set our goals, gather information, anticipate future effects, plan measures, reach decisions, and, finally, conduct an ongoing assessment of our actions. More often we notice as we are gathering information that our goals are not formulated clearly enough to tell us precisely what kind of information we need. Or we may not notice until we have reached the planning stage that the information we had previously thought adequate for our purposes is not adequate at all. Or a well-planned measure may turn out to be completely impractical when we try to carry it out in the real world.

Chapter 3 Goals

Why system goals are fundamentally important?
It is important to understand the links between goals. We cannot do only one thing
The interrelationship of variables in a system brings with it an interrelationship among goals
Goals can be positively linked, negatively linked, intermediary linked (one goal affecting two variables (A --> B and C), or one goal, affecting another goal, affecting another goal (A --> B --> C)) or not linked at all
Most people only focus on explicit goals, which leads to implicit goals of a system running wild and unmanaged. Solving problem A may create problem B
"People concern themselves with the problems they have not the ones they don't have"
To best solve our problems and avoid problems we should
Prefer positive goals to negative goals
Translate unclear goals to clear ones and expose the multifacetedness of problems
Know when to use specific goals over generic goals  and vice versa
Specific goals are great for clarity
General goals are great for direction without being bogged by analysis paralysis 
State all implicit goals, possible side effects as well
We can't solve all the problems at once, it's best to list and prioritize the problems. We might also find interdependencies that allows us to focus on a central problem where we can invest our efforts in
We might also be able to delegate unrelated goals that are low on the list
When we set out to change things, we need to pay more attention to the things we want to leave at the very least, unchanged. An analysis of all explicit and implicit goals gives us that chance and prevents generating problems like the heads of the Hydra

How do I classify goals to predict their efficacy?
Positive Goals v. Negative Goals
Positive goals act to bring about a certain desired condition or state
Negative goals act to change or avoid a desired condition or state
Negative goals are inherently less defined, since an avoiding of a condition or state can lead you anywhere
Generic Goals v. Specific Goals v. Unclear Goal
A general goal is defined by a single or few criteria
A specific goal is defined by many criteria
An unclear goal are goals that lack a criterion by which we can decide definitively whether or not the goal has been achieved

Goals come in many forms. I have already introduced two different kinds: positive goals and negative goals. Sometimes we act to bring about certain conditions we consider desirable, and sometimes we act to change, abolish, or avoid conditions we consider undesirable.

This distinction between positive and negative goals may sound academic, demic, but it is important. With a positive goal we want to achieve some definite condition. With a negative goal we want some condition not to exist. With a negative goal what it is I actually want is less clearly defined than with a positive goal. Negative goals (intentions to avoid something) are therefore often defined in quite vague, general terms: things have to change "somehow"; the present state of affairs, at any rate, is intolerable.

We can also distinguish between general and specific goals. A general goal is one that is defined by a single criterion or by a few. A specific goal is defined by many criteria;.

We should distinguish between a general goal and an unclear one. Unclear goals are ones that lack a criterion by which we can decide with certainty whether the goal has been achieved.

The comparatives in a goal suggest that the speaker does not know precisely what the desired state of affairs should be. All he knows is that it should be "different" from the present state.

Pursuing multiple goals means that we have to attend to many factors and satisfy several criteria at once when we

In addition, the interrelationship of variables in a system brings with it an interrelationship among goals.

Criteria for our goals can be linked in different ways. They may be positively linked: If A is the case, then B will (usually) be the case too.

They may be negatively atively linked: If A is the case, then B will (usually) not be the case.

And finally, they may not be linked at all; the variables bearing ing on them may be independent of one another.

The interdependence of variables can take different forms too. They may be directly dependent, with one variable influencing another, the other influencing the first, or both influencing each other.

Or both may depend on a third variable and have no direct connection.

If two goal criteria are positively linked, this simplifies things, for if we satisfy one criterion, we will necessarily satisfy the other. This is not the case when two criteria are negatively linked, for then, if we satisfy one criterion, we will necessarily fail to satisfy the other (and vice versa if the dependency is reciprocal).

It is important to understand the links among goal criteria. As we have seen, in complex situations we cannot do only one thing. Similarly, we cannot pursue only one goal. If we try to, we may unintentionally create new problems. We may believe that we have been pursuing a single goal until we reach it and then realize-with amazement, ment, annoyance, and horror-that in ridding ourselves of one plague we have created perhaps two others in different areas. There are, in other words, "implicit" goals that we may not at first take into account at all and may not even know we are pursuing.

This may sound obvious, but as we shall see, the fact that most people's ple's actions are driven by an excessive (or exclusive) preoccupation with explicit goals accounts for a great deal of bad planning and counterproductive terproductive behavior.

People concern themselves with the problems they have, not the ones they don't have (yet).

Consequently, they tend to overlook the possibility that solving a problem in area A may create one in area B.

To summarize, goals may be: •positive or negative •general or specific •clear or unclear •simple or multiple •implicit or explicit

In setting goals, we must understand these characteristics and know how to manage them. We can often replace one type of goal with another other of a different type. For example, an unclear goal can sometimes be clarified into several clear goals.

When possible, we should try to convert negative goals into positive goals. To want to avoid something, to want to make a given situation "different"-these goals lack specificity and are inadequate as guideposts posts for planning and action. By virtue of its origins-a desire not to have something-a negative goal is often too general.

set intermediate goals according to the criterion of maximum "efficiency diversity."' A situation is characterized acterized by high efficiency diversity if it offers many different possibilities ties ("diversity") for actions that have a high probability of success ("efficiency").

If we want to dispel the unclarity inherent in these complex concepts, cepts, we must "deconstruct" them. We have to take them apart and isolate late what we mean in detail when we talk about comfort, favorability to labor, and so forth

That brings clarity. It also brings difficulties, for we will often note after we have analyzed a complex concept this way that it has no single "center" but involves many different things in different places at different times. Only after such an analysis do we see that we are not dealing with one problem at all but with a bundle of problems that may be hopelessly ensnarled, so that solving one problem may well aggravate another.

By labeling a bundle of problems with a single conceptual label, we make dealing with that problem easier-provided we're not interested in solving it. Phrases like "urgently needed measures for combating unemployment" employment" roll easily off the tongue if we don't have to do anything about unemployment

A simple label can't make the complex nature of a problem go away, but it can so obscure complexity that we lose sight of it. And that, of course, we find a great relief.

By translating an unclear goal into a clear one, we often discover a multifaceted problem, one that consists of many partial problems.

There are many ways of tackling multiple problems, but the one thing we usually cannot do is solve all the problems at once. We need to find a way to organize the list of problems.

•We can study the list to determine interdependencies. Sometimes times we will find central problems that bear on a number of peripheral problems.

If we find the central problems in a situation, it is clear where we need to invest our major efforts. We can focus on solving those central problems.

•If we cannot distinguish adequately or if we cannot distinguish at all between central and peripheral problems, we can often rank problems in terms of importance and urgency.

•Finally, we can ease the task of dealing with multiple problems by delegation. But this works only if some of the problems are independent enough of others that they can be handled in isolation lation over a certain period of time.

Ranking problems and delegating tasks are good strategies when we have more than one goal. Nevertheless, they do not address a basic difficulty ficulty of multiple goals.

If the solutions to two problems conflict, there are not many ways out. One is to seek a balance that yields a less-than-ideal solution to each problem. An alternative is to solve only one problem well and to forget about the other entirely.

Goals conflict with one another not by their very nature but because the variables relating to them in the system are negatively linked. Thus, a third possibility for resolving goal conflicts is to reshape the entire system tem in such a way that negative relationships within the system disappear.

When we are working on a given problem, we focus on that problem alone and not on problems that don't exist yet. So the mistake is less not knowing than not wanting to know. And not wanting to know is a result not of ill will or egoism but of thinking that focuses on an immediately acute problem.

keeping in mind, whenever we undertake the solution of a problem, the features of the current situation uation that we want to retain.

advocates of progress often have too low an opinion of what already exists. When we set out to change things, in other words, we don't pay enough attention to what we want to leave unchanged. But an analysis of what should be retained gives us our only opportunity to make implicit goals explicit and to prevent the solution of each problem from generating new problems like heads of the Hydra.

Chapter 6 Planning

In planning we don't do anything; we just consider what we might do. The essence of planning is to think through the consequences sequences of certain actions and see whether those actions will bring us closer to our desired goal. If individual actions will not achieve our purpose, pose, we have to lay out sequences of actions.

Planning consists of examining the consequences of individual actions, tions, then of stringing individual actions together into sequences and examining the possible consequences of these sequences of action.

Plans can branch out in different directions. It may occur to a planner ner that a certain action may lead to not just one result but different results, sults, depending on a priori conditions unknown to him. "And if my opponent doesn't protect her queen with her bishop but instead moves her rook onto A5?... Then I can take her knight with my bishop and then..." This is an example of a plan that can follow different paths depending pending on circumstances.

Planning sequences can also include loops. If, for example, we suspect pect that a certain action may sometimes produce the desired result and sometimes no result at all, we may say to ourselves,

"And if it doesn't work this time, I'll just try it again."

In forward planning, we begin at the beginning; it is, in some sense, the "natural" form for planning to take. We plan the way we will actually act-forward. ward. Reverse planning is thus in this sense "unnatural" because we can't act in reverse.

But even if we can't act in reverse, we can plan in reverse. We can quite easily consider what conditions would have to prevail just prior to the desired goal in order for us to achieve that goal by means of a specific cific action.

For reverse planning it is crucial to have a clear goal in mind. If the goal is foggy and unclear, we have no solid frame of reference for the question "What single action will result in the desired goal?" This is yet another reason we should be rigorous in clarifying our goals.

The fact that goals are often unclear may well explain why people show little spontaneous enthusiasm for reverse planning.

Theoretically, planning is a simple matter. In our minds, we lay out a sequence of actions, combine forward and reverse planning, and eventually tually find our way from the starting point to our goal.

in relatively uninteresting areas can we plan completely.

One common focusing procedure is "hill climbing"-considering ering only those actions that promise a step toward our goal or, in other words, that diminish the difference between what is given and what we want to achieve.

Reverse planning ning works poorly or not at all if our goals are not clear;

only if we are completely uncertain about the structure of the problem sector, and thus about the best path to our goal, should we resort to hill climbing, perhaps interspersed spersed with trial and error to counteract the inflexibility of this approach. proach. We simply need to know when to do what.

Methods for narrowing problem sectors make methods for expanding ing them necessary too. Narrowing a sector lets us operate in a surveyable veyable field, but the possibility exists that we are in the wrong one. If a reasonable period of exploration leads us nowhere, we need, therefore, to consider changing our field, and there are several ways of doing that.

The simplest of these is free experimentation. Trial and error is a means of introducing mutation into a planning process, so that we do not limit ourselves to operations that seem to lead to our goal (hill climbing), that take us to a favorable strategic position,

Instead, we try everything conceivable in the given situation. This method is fairly primitive, and it poses problems because we often do not realize we are captives of our old ideas and are by no means considering all the available possibilities.{

Another way of expanding a problem sector is culling unsuccessful strategies.' In this method, we identify the features that previously unsuccessful successful approaches to a problem have in common, and then we develop velop new approaches that do not have these features. If what we have tried so far has not worked, we need to cull the features of our unsuccessful cessful actions and replace them with new ones.

This procedure is particularly effective in helping us overcome deeply entrenched patterns of thought. Long association of a particular item with a particular function makes it difficult for us to imagine that item's serving any other purpose.

Perhaps the most important method for expanding a problem sector is thinking by analogy.

Culling unsuccessful successful strategies is useful as an analytical method of expanding a problem sector after a long period of unsuccessful effort.

Free experimentation mentation is appropriate when we find ourselves unable to set any more intermediate goals and realize we are thinking in circles, constantly revisiting visiting the same repertoire of ideas. If we have the sense that we have exhausted the possibilities of a problem sector, we should work toward expansion by analogy.

We can think of planning as a process of narrowing our problem sector, tor, searching through that sector intensively for possible ways of solving our problem, expanding the sector if that search proves unsuccessful, limiting the new problem sector, searching through it, and so on.

Limit here, expand there-we must keep in mind that this is the approach proach we should take in theory. Our ability to follow it in practice will always be constrained by both real-world conditions and the demands of particular problems. Time limits may force us to develop only crude plans or may curtail planning altogether.

In very complex and quickly changing situations the most reasonable able strategy is to plan only in rough outline and to delegate as many decisions as possible to subordinates. These subordinates will need considerable siderable independence and a thorough understanding of the overall plan. Such strategies require a "redundancy of potential command," that is, many individuals who are all capable of carrying out leadership tasks within the context of the general directives.'

By identifying situations in which we should plan little, if at all, we have touched upon one extreme of a broader issue. In planning, as in information gathering, we are faced with the problem of scale. We can make plans that are too crude and plans that are too detailed. The trick is to plan with an appropriate degree of detail. But what is appropriate?

Planning, like the gathering ering of information (for planning, too, is a form of information collection), tion), can increase our insecurity rather than reduce it.

Dietrich Dorner. The Logic Of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations (Kindle Locations 1685-1686). Kindle Edition.

Looking closely at a problem often ten increases our insecurity, and a retreat into a minuscule but detailed planning process can help us feel we are applying the full force of our rational powers to the uncertainty of the situation while letting us put off the evil day of action-after all, we have to plan carefully before we act. Thus, our diversionary planning process lets us off the hook for the time being and spares us the possibility of failure.

Dietrich Dorner. The Logic Of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations (Kindle Locations 1696-1699). Kindle Edition.

expecting that something would surely go wrong but that we would find a way to deal with problems as they emerged. If we expect the unexpected, we are better equipped to cope with it than if we lay extensive tensive plans and believe that we have eliminated the unexpected.

Dietrich Dorner. The Logic Of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations (Kindle Locations 1704-1706). Kindle Edition.

The attempt to escape the uncertainty of a complex situation can take the form of flight to the high ground of minute, detailed planning, preferably fortified by mathematical formulas, for what we arrive at b) calculation is bound to be right.

Dietrich Dorner. The Logic Of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations (Kindle Locations 1706-1707). Kindle Edition.

What we do have to avoid, however, is reducing and simplifying plifying reality until we are able to fit it into a predetermined formal pattern; tern; ideas altered in this way no longer reflect the original reality from which they are derived.

Discounting the conditions under which we will carry out our actions tions simplifies planning but not acting. We can describe our plans much more easily-as when a general outlines a campaign as simply a matter of capturing a series of towns-but our description may conceal problems.

"In war everything is simple, but it's the simple things that are difficult." Plans often fail because the planners have not factored in all the irksome some little conditions, or "frictions" as Clausewitz called them, that have to be dealt with if the plan is to succeed. The plan may be simple; carrying it out is the hard part.

It is when we have the big picture firmly in mind that we are most prone to forget about details. Not taking frictions into account is a trap that experts are particularly apt to fall into.

Roth found that the bad problem solvers tended to use unqualified expressions: constantly, every time, all, without exception, absolutely, entirely, tirely, completely, totally, unequivocally, undeniably, without question, certainly, solely, nothing, nothing further, only, neither... nor, must, and have to.

The good problem solvers, on the other hand, tended more toward qualified expressions: now and then, in general, sometimes, ordinarily, often, ten, a bit, in particular, somewhat, specifically, especially, to some degree, perhaps, conceivable, questionable, among other things, on the other hand, also, moreover, may, can, and be in a position to.

It is obvious from these two lists that the good problem solvers favored vored expressions that take circumstances and exceptions into account, that stress main points but don't ignore subordinate ones, and that suggest gest possibilities. By contrast, the bad problem solvers used "absolute" concepts that do not admit of other possibilities or circumstances.

The person whose insecurity motivates him to ignore conditions will probably know or at least suspect it. And he will consequently tend to avoid translating his plans into action because that would make their inadequacies quacies apparent.

Unstarred

Dunk (exclude from study)

What should be the starting point of goal-oriented action?

The starting point of goal-oriented action should be a careful analysis and definition of your goals. However, it's crucial to approach this process with caution and awareness of potential pitfalls. Here's what to focus on and what to avoid:

1. Do: Start by clearly articulating your goals, but be wary of oversimplification. Goals are often interrelated and may conflict with each other.

2. Don't: Rush into setting goals without considering the broader context and potential long-term consequences.

3. Do: Expose implicit goals that may be influencing your thinking. Often, we have underlying motivations that we're not fully aware of.

4. Don't: Assume that all goals are equally important or achievable. Prioritization is key.

5. Do: Consider both positive goals (what you want to achieve) and negative goals (what you want to avoid).

6. Don't: Set goals in isolation. Remember that you're operating within a complex system with many interrelated variables.

7. Do: Be prepared to revise your goals as you gather more information and your understanding of the situation evolves.

8. Don't: Become overly attached to your initial goals. Flexibility is crucial in a dynamic environment.

9. Do: Consider the structural knowledge of how different variables in your situation influence each other. This will help you understand potential ripple effects of pursuing certain goals.

10. Don't: Neglect to consider potential conflicts between goals. Be prepared to make trade-offs.

11. Do: Think qualitatively and conditionally about your goals. Avoid absolute, unqualified statements.

12. Don't: Assume that having clear goals is enough. Remember that this is just the starting point for planning and action.

By carefully considering these points, you can establish a solid foundation for goal-oriented action. Remember, the aim is not to have perfect goals from the outset, but to have a thoughtful starting point that you can refine and adjust as you progress. Your initial goal-setting should provide direction while remaining flexible enough to adapt to the complex, dynamic system you're operating within.

Continue Conversation...

Get Action Items

Why is Risk/Reward is Important to Think About When Making Business Decisions

Considering risk and reward is crucial when making business decisions because it allows you to navigate the complex and dynamic system of the business world more effectively. By analyzing potential risks and rewards, you can create a cohesive model of the situation, enabling you to identify the most important variables and their interrelationships.

When setting business goals, it's essential to consider both the potential rewards and the risks associated with each objective. Are the potential rewards significant enough to justify the risks involved? How might pursuing one goal create conflicts or negative consequences for other aspects of the business?

In planning your strategies, you must anticipate potential frictions and unexpected issues that may arise. While it's important to have a detailed plan, it's equally crucial to remain adaptable and prepared to revise your approach as needed. By considering both the risks and rewards of each action, you can make more informed decisions and avoid strategies that may lead to unforeseen problems.

As you implement your plans, continuously monitor the results and critically review the outcomes. Were your initial assumptions about risks and rewards accurate? If not, what can you learn from this experience to refine your decision-making process in the future?

Remember, the goal is not to eliminate all risks but to manage them effectively while maximizing potential rewards. By striking a balance between solving immediate issues and avoiding the creation of new problems, you can navigate the complexities of the business world more successfully.

In the end, considering risk and reward in your business decisions enables you to create more robust models, set more meaningful goals, develop more effective strategies, and achieve better outcomes in an uncertain and ever-changing environment. It is a fundamental principle that should guide your decision-making process, allowing you to adapt and thrive in the face of challenges.

Continue Conversation...

Get Action Items