| If the various advocates of the conflicting options
are all smart, experienced, and well-informed, why do they disagree so
completely? Wouldn't they all have thought the issue through carefully and come
to approximately the same "best" conclusion? The answer to that crucial question lies in the structure of the human brain and the way it processes information. Most human beings actually decide before they think. When any human being —executive, specialized expert, or person in the street — encounters a complex issue and forms an opinion, often within a matter of seconds, how thoroughly has he or she explored the implications of the various courses of action? Answer: not very thoroughly. Very few people, no matter how intelligent or experienced, can take inventory of the many branching possibilities, possible outcomes, side effects, and undesired consequences of a policy or a course of action in a matter of seconds. Yet, those who pride themselves on being decisive often try to do just that. And once their brains lock onto an opinion, most of their thinking thereafter consists of finding support for it. A very serious side effect of argumentative decision making can be a lack of support for the chosen course of action on the part of the "losing" faction. When one faction wins the meeting and the others see themselves as losing, the battle often doesn't end when the meeting ends. Anger, resentment, and jealousy may lead them to sabotage the decision later, or to reopen the debate at later meetings. There is a better way. As philosopher Aldous Huxley said, "It isn't who is right, but what is right, that counts. " The structured-inquiry method offers a better alternative to argumentative decision making by debate. With the help of the Internet and wireless computer technology, the gap between experts and executives is now being dramatically closed. By actually putting the brakes on the thinking process, slowing it down, and organizing the flow of logic, it's possible to create a level of clarity that sheer argumentation can never match. The structured-inquiry process introduces a level of conceptual clarity by organizing the contributions of the experts, then brings the experts and the decision makers closer together. Although it isn't possible or necessary for a president or prime minister to listen in on every intelligence analysis meeting, it's possible to organize the experts' information to give the decision maker much greater insight as to its meaning. This process may somewhat resemble a marketing focus group; it's a simple, remarkably clever way to bring decision makers closer to the source of the expert information and opinions on which they must base their decisions. |