Humor in Uniform – “Grand” Ship’s Anniversary Party – “False Consensus” and “Abilene Paradox”

FALSE CONSENSUS – ABILENE PARADOX

Musings of a Navy Veteran

A Spoof

By

VIKRAM KARVE

SHIP’S ANNIVERSARY PARTY – An Apocryphal Story by Vikram Karve

FALSE CONSENSUS

“The Ship’s Anniversary is next month – any ideas how we should celebrate it…?” the newly appointed Captain asked his Heads of Department (HsOD) at the end of his first HsOD Meeting.

The ship was going to be 2 years old – so it was the ship’s second anniversary after commissioning.

The Captain was new – but all the Heads of Department (HsOD) – and all the other officers and sailors – they were all from the commissioning crew.

There was silence – each HOD was waiting for someone else to speak first.

Observing that the HsOD were silent – the Captain asked the Executive Officer (XO): “Okay – ‘Number 1’ – you tell me – how was it celebrated last year…?”

“Sir – last year was the first anniversary – so – we had a Grand Party on board – the C-in-C, Fleet Commander, Admiral Superintendent, all Commanding Officers and XOs, Headquarters’ Staff Officers and Senior Officers of shore establishments – Captains and above – and – various officers connected with the ship were invited…” the XO said.

In his mind – the XO recalled the nightmare getting the ship “shipshape” for the Anniversary Party – the “cleanship” – the painting – the “spit and polish” – the enormous physical effort put in by the sailors just for that one party.

And worse – this time – there was a long sailing – and – the ship would return to harbour just 3 days before the anniversary.

He would have to cancel the “liberty” (shore leave) and get all the sailors working on “cleanship” – the moment they got back to harbour.

The XO was a sensitive officer who cared for his men – and – he felt pity for the plight of his sailors who – despite being tired after a long sailing – instead of going ashore on liberty – would be deployed on the laborious job getting the ship ready for the grand anniversary party.

Postponing an “anniversary” party was out of the question – since – a ship’s anniversary is a sacrosanct day.

As far as the XO was concerned – in his mind – his frank opinion was – that instead of “punishing” the sailors by making them slog for the party immediately after returning from sailing – it would be best to scrap the grand anniversary party.

But – the XO kept his mouth shut – because – he was afraid that if he expressed his opinion about scrapping the anniversary party – he may look like a fool in front of the Captain and his fellow HsOD.

The Captain looked at the XO and said: “So – you feel that we should have a grand anniversary party like last year…?”

The XO nodded – and – he said: “Yes, Sir…”

The Captain looked at the other Heads of Department.

In their mind – the “Technical Heads of Department” felt the same way as the XO – their sailors would be tired after the long sailing – and – they would have to be immediately deployed for getting the ship ready for the party – “illuminate ship” – running of Machinery and Gensets to ensure there was no glitch during the party.

Like the XO – both the Technical HsOD – the Engineer Officer (EO) and Electrical Officer (LO) also felt that it would be best to scrap the grand anniversary party.

They thought about it.

The XO had said that he wanted a grand party – and – it seemed that the Captain too wanted an ostentatious anniversary party – since he was enquiring about the previous year’s party.

The Technical Heads of Department did not want to be seen as “dissenters” – so – they said to the Captain: “Yes, Sir – it would be a good idea to have a grand anniversary party like last year…”

The Captain looked at the Supply Officer (“Supply Officers” were later renamed as “Logistics Officers”).

The Supply Officer (SO) was also the Wardroom PMC (President Mess Committee) by virtue of being the senior-most officer in the Wardroom.

For the “Supply Officer” – it was a “double whammy” – since he was both SO and also the PMC. 

The ship would return to harbour just 3 days before the anniversary party – and – he would have to get the provisions – the food and drink – he would have to plan the menu – and – he would have to motivate the fatigued cooks and stewards who would be weary and exhausted after the long sailing. Being an “ethical officer” – he felt that such “grand parties” were unfair to the ship’s officers who would have to pay huge party shares in their mess bills. Also – one small “faux pas” during the party – and his ACR (Annual Confidential Report) would be on the line. Last year a dumb steward had served a prawns “small eat” to the “pure vegetarian” wife of an Admiral – and all hell broke loose – and – the Supply Officer was sure that the erstwhile Captain had not forgotten this gaffe when writing the Supply Officer’s ACR.

Like the other Heads of Department – in his mind – the Supply Officer was also not too keen on having a grand anniversary party.

(Of course – the Supply Officer did not know what was going in the minds of the others)

He thought about it.

The three other Heads of Department – the XO, EO and LO – all had said they wanted to have a grand anniversary party.

The Captain also seemed in favour of an ostentatious anniversary party.

The Supply Officer did not want to be the “lone dissenter” and appear to be a cynical naysayer “Killjoy”.

So – the Supply Officer said: “Yes, Sir – we should have a grand anniversary party like last year – even more impressive and grandiose than last year’s party.”

The Captain was happy that there was a “consensus” among all the Heads of Department.

(He had spent most of his Navy career in “Staff Jobs” – pushing files in the landlocked “Northern Naval Command” – and – he was a great believer in “participative decision-making”)

And so – a grand anniversary party was planned.

The hapless sailors were deployed on “clean-ship” and “paint-ship” immediately on arrival in harbour.

Of course – there was a symbolic perfunctory “cake cutting ceremony” where the Captain and Youngest Sailor cut the “Anniversary Cake” – but – this was just “tokenism” – and – all efforts were focused on the “Grand Anniversary Party” to be hosted by the Ship’s Officers for the Navy “Big Wigs”. 

With their “liberty” cancelled – the sailors cursed the “Ship’s Anniversary” while they physically slogged getting things “ship-shape” after the grueling sailing which had exhausted them.

While working alongside their demoralized sailors – the Ship’s Officers dreaded the huge “party share” for the anniversary party that would almost wipe out their next month’s earnings.

The Captain may score “Brownie Points” by having a grandiose anniversary party – but it was the ship’s officers who would be footing the bill as the “hosts”.

An occasion like Ship’s Anniversary is supposed to raise morale.

Instead – morale had plummeted.

What an irony…?

And – to make matters worse – the “Grand” Ship’s Anniversary Party was an unmitigated disaster.

Yes – the Ship’s Anniversary Party was a total disaster.

Everything had gone wrong.

There was a “goof up” in protocol due to confusion in the inter-se seniority of two Rear Admirals – and the “senior” of the two – who had a bloated ego – claimed that he had been intentionally accorded “shabby treatment” because he was a Technical Admiral – and – he had privately made it known to the XO that he would take his “revenge” and “fix” the Captain and the XO.

To add the woes – the Electric Power Supply tripped thrice during the Party causing chaos.

As if that was not enough – in a repeat performance from last year’s – the dumb steward served “fish tikka” small eats to a “pure vegetarian” Commodore and his wife – who almost threw up when they realized they were eating fish.

(The steward had told them it was “paneer tikka” – from the outside it looked like paneer tikka – and – it was only when the guests took a bite that they realized they were eating fish).

The Engineer Officer got gloriously drunk – and – he made a spectacle of himself – swaying from side to side and cracking indecent jokes in a loud voice – and then – when restrained by the Doctor – he smashed his fist into the face of the Doctor and knocked him out cold.

A rival Captain from the Fleet – after enjoying the best of Scotch Whisky and stuffing himself with Food – he wondered why this ship was observing the Ship’s Anniversary on such a “grand scale” when “austerity measures” were in place – and – he even “boasted” that – to observe austerity – he had cancelled his ship’s anniversary party and had just a small cake-cutting ceremony.

This rival Captain sarcastically commented that this ship’s Captain who was now celebrating his ship’s anniversary with full gusto in an ostentatious manner on such a grand scale – this same Captain – when in NHQ – had issued a letter advising “austerity” in ceremonials and celebrations – thereby implying that the host Captain was a hypocrite. (Of course – he made these nasty comments in full hearing of the “powers-that-be”).

When things start going wrong – there is a snowballing effect – and – there was a series of blunders and “foul ups” – even the food was terrible – and the dessert turned out to be a disaster.

Not only was the Anniversary Party an unmitigated disaster – but it had caused all-round demoralization and cynicism – a totally wasted effort and counterproductive enterprise.

In a nutshell – to put it euphemistically in “Catch-22 Style” – instead of being a glorious “feather in his cap” – the grand anniversary party had turned out to be a terrible “black eye” for the Captain.

ABILENE PARADOX

Next morning – the Captain held a “post mortem” meeting with his Heads of Department in his cabin.

The Captain said: “It would have been better if we had not had such a grand anniversary party. In fact – it would have been best if we did not have a party at all.”

“Exactly Sir – those were my thoughts too…” the XO said, “but I thought that you very much desired to have a grand extravagant party so – as XO – I did not want to let you down by dissenting with you. But now – I agree with you that it would have been best if we had scrapped the party.”

The EO said: “Yes, Sir – I also was against have a party – I too thought that there was no point wasting so much effort. But I thought that since you and the XO were so enthusiastic to have a grand anniversary party – I didn’t want to be a “killjoy” – so I too went along with you.

The LO said: “Sir, I was apprehensive about the ship’s generators – and – I too did not want to have an anniversary party – but – I did not want appear as a negative “spoilsport” when I saw that all of you were so eager to have a grand party.”  

The SO said: “Sir, I was totally against having a grand party – I was apprehensive that it would turn out to be flop show. But when I saw that everyone was so keen to have a grand party – I did not want to be the sole “naysayer” – so – I too went along with popular opinion.”

All of them – the Captain and the Heads of Department – they were all perplexed.

In their mind – none of them wanted to have a grand anniversary party – but – no one had voiced his frank opinion because each one mistakenly thought that the others wanted to have the grand anniversary party – and each one wanted to “please” the others and did not want to be the “odd man out”.

Thus – they developed a “false consensus”.

The “actual consensus” (in the minds of everyone) was not to have a party.

But – due to the “Abilene Paradox” – a “false consensus” emanated to have a grand anniversary party which – in actual fact – not even a single officer wanted to have.

I saw plenty of examples of the “Abilene Paradox” in the Navy – and – in personal relationships too – where such “false consensus” develops because everyone wants to go along with what they mistakenly believe is “popular opinion” – and – no one wants to “rock the boat” or appear as the “odd man out” by expressing his frank opinion.

How do you steer clear of the “Abilene Paradox” and avoid “False Consensus”…?

It is very simple – and – obvious.

Each one of us must frankly express our opinions – you must speak out what is in your mind – without bothering about what others will think.

Of course – for everyone to be able to express his frank opinion – you must have conducive environment for encouraging free speech – which may not exist in many organizations – especially – in the military – where dissent and contrarian views are frowned upon – and there exists a traditional culture of conformance and “forced unanimity”.

In the Military – individuals are reluctant to publicly say what they privately believe in – especially if the feel that their own views are contrary to the prevailing opinion.

The phenomenon of “False Consensus” thrives in the Military thanks to the “Abilene Paradox”.

Dear Reader – Do you know why this Paradox is called the “Abilene Paradox”…?

I will tell you that and much more about the “Abilene Paradox” in subsequent Blog Posts.

Till then – do think of situations where you observed the “Abilene Paradox”. 

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:

1. This story is a spoof, satire, pure fiction, just for fun and humor, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh.

2. All Stories in this Blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the stories are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:

No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (all rights reserved)

 

This is a revised repost of my story FALSE CONSENSUS – ABILENE PARADOX posted online by me Vikram Karve earlier in my Academic and Creative Writing Journal Blog on June 6. 2016 at url: http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2016/06/false-consensus-abilene-paradox.html

CATWOE Stakeholder Model of Soft Systems Management

THE SOFT SYSTEMS APPROACH
ROOT DEFINITION and CATWOE MODEL
By
VIKRAM KARVE


The first step in Soft Systems Methodology ( SSM ) is to formulate the Root Definition of the System you are studying, analysing, designing, evaluating or even quality assuring, inspecting or certifying.

ROOT DEFINITION

A Root Definition is a structured description of a system. It is a clear statement of activities which take place (or might take place) in the organisation being studied.
 
A properly structured root definition comprises three elements [what, how, why] and is of the form: 

A System to do X, by (means of) Y, in order to achieve Z.

X – What the System does
Y – How it does it
Z – Why it is being done

The 'what' is the immediate aim of the system,
The 'how' is the means of achieving that aim,
The 'why' is the longer term aim of the purposeful activity.

CATWOE analysis helps in proper formulation of a Root Definition.

CATWOE is a mnemonic which helps identify and categorize all stakeholders [people, processes, environment, entities] of the System being analysed for formulating the Root Definition.

CATWOE MODEL 

C = CUSTOMERS OR CLIENTS
A = ACTORS OR AGENTS
T = TRANSFORMATION PROCESS
W =WELTANSCHAUUNG or WORLD VIEW
O = OWNERS
E = ENVIRONMENT

To elaborate a bit:

C: The ‘customers of the system’ , clients or System Beneficiaries. In this context ‘customers’ means those who are on the receiving end of whatever it is that the system does. Is it clear from your definition of “C” as to who are the beneficiaries of the system?

A: The ‘actors’, meaning those who would actually carry out the activities envisaged in the notional system being defined. Actors transform inputs into outputs.

T: The ‘transformation process’. What does the system do to the inputs to convert them into the outputs?

W: Weltanschauung - The ‘world view’ that lies behind the Root Definition; the perspective from which the Root Definition if formulated. Putting the system into its wider context can highlight the consequences of the overall system. For example the system may be in place to assist in making the world environmentally safer, and the consequences of system failure could be significant pollution.

O: The ‘owner(s)’ – The person(s) who has commissioned the system and who has sufficient formal power over the system to stop it existing if they so wished (though they won’t usually want to do this).

E: The ‘environmental constraints’. These include things such as ethical limits, regulations, financial constraints, resource limitations, limits set by terms of reference, and so on.


CATWOE Analysis yields a more elaborate all encompassing Root Definition of the form:

A System owned by O to do W by A by means of T given the constraints of E in order to achieve X for C.

A briefer version of Root Definition is:  a T system in which A do W for C 


Illustrative Example of application of CATWOE Model 


EDUCATION SYSTEM CHARACTERIZATION
 
Here is a CATWOE Model of a hypothetical Higher Education System [a University or College]:

C – Students
A – Teachers
T – School Pass Outs are transformed into Graduates [Degree Holders]
W – Graduation [a Degree] is a means of assurance to potential employers that the Graduate [Degree Holder] possesses a specified standard of proficiency and skills in the domain of qualification.
O – The University or College Governing Body or Top Management
E – The Prescribed Educational, Academic Quality, Assessment and Accreditation Standards and Requirements.

Now this CATWOE Analysis may yield a Root Definition that this particular Higher Education Institution is a university owned system to award degrees to students (X) who successfully qualify assessment (Y) in accordance with prescribed standards in order to certify assurance (Z) to potential employers that the students possess the requisite proficiency, capabilities and skills. 
 
Is this Root Definition okay or is there something amiss...?

Suppose we define Potential Employers [or Industry] as CUSTOMERS [C] and include students as ACTORS [A] along with teachers – won’t we then get a more apt Root Definition and consequently realise a better Educational System in keeping with current needs and ground reality...?

It is vital to accord apt attention to optimizing the System Root Definition for the System under consideration for best results and in this the CATWOE Model is very helpful.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

At a recent alumni meet of a prestigious Engineering College I asked a few recently passed out alumni [who were working for a leading IT company for just over a year] as to how much of what was taught in his four year Engineering Degree Course in his college was useful in his work.

They said: “Less than 5% (five percent)” – which means that his employer had to invest heavily [almost 95%] in his training and the rest he had to learn on the job. 
 
Maybe the educational institution needs to introspect and have a relook at its CATWOE Model and reformulate its ROOT DEFINITION and restructure its curriculum and revitalize its pedagogic methodology to meet the challenges of current needs and envisage seamless integration of fresh BE and B. Tech. Engineering Graduates into the industry.

A Systems Approach to higher education incorporating increased partnership and congruence between the industry and universities is the sine qua non of optimal human resource development in science and technology.


The disconnect between the industry and the educational system must be bridged. The Soft Systems Approach incorporating the CATWOE Model is ideally suited for analysing and optimising education systems since all education systems are Human Activity System (HAS) and not Hard Systems.


THE SOFT SYSTEMS APPROACH
ROOT DEFINITION and CATWOE MODEL 
By 
VIKRAM KARVE

This article written by me in 1991 and posted online by me a number of times including at url: http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2011/08/system-analysis-soft-approach.html

Copyright © Vikram Karve 1991
Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

MANAGEMENT “GYAN” - SHOR MODEL FOR DECISION-MAKING IN UNCERTAINTY

MANAGEMENT “GYAN”

From my Academic Writing Archives:

Here is an article written more than 20 years ago, based on my lectures on Technology Management, on the Topic on SHOR MODEL FOR DECISION MAKING IN UNCERTAINTY

I have published this article in management journals in the 1990's and also posted this article on a number of my blogs from time to time since the year 2004, when I started blogging.

I am posting it once more for you to read:

SHOR MODEL FOR DECISION-MAKING IN UNCERTAINTY

By

VIKRAM KARVE

MAY YOU LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES

The phrase May You Live in Interesting Times while purporting to be a blessing, may actually be a curse, since the couched meaning is perhaps that may you experience much upheaval and trouble in your life, the clear implication being that uninteresting times of peace and tranquility are much better and far more life-enhancing. 

In present day interesting yet uncertain times we need an effective technique for making good decisions in situations of uncertainty. The SHOR paradigm is one such apt model.

Before we discuss the SHOR Model, let me tell you an apocryphal teaching story:

Once Buddha was walking from one town to another town with a few of his followers.

While they were travelling, they happened to pass a lake.

They stopped there and Buddha told one of his disciples, “I am feeling thirsty. Please get me some water from that lake.” 

The disciple walked up to the lake. When he reached it, he noticed that some people were washing clothes in the water, and right at that moment, a bullock cart started crossing through the lake.  As a result, the water became very muddy, very turbid. 

The disciple thought, “How can I give this muddy water to Buddha to drink...?”

So he came back and told Buddha, “The water in there is very muddy. I don’t think it is fit to drink.”   

After about half an hour, again Buddha asked the same disciple to go back to the lake and get him some water to drink.   

The disciple obediently went back to the lake.   

This time he found that the lake had absolutely clear water in it.  The mud had settled down and the water above it looked fit to be consumed.  So he collected some water in a pot and brought it to Buddha.   

Buddha looked at the water, and then he looked up at the disciple and said, “See what you did to make the water clean. You let it be. And the mud settled down on its own – and you got clear water. Your mind is also like that! When it is disturbed, just let it be. Give it a little time. It will settle down on its own. You don’t have to put in any effort to calm it down. It will happen. It is effortless.”

This story from the life of Buddha that highlights the fact that a calm mind leads to better decisions.

But in actual life, is it possible to remain calm when confronted with making decisions? Especially making decisions in situations of uncertainty. 

If a single most important characteristic is crucial to a decision-maker in any field, it is the ability to make optimal decisions in conditions of uncertainty.

A unique ability that sets humans apart from animals is self-awareness and the ability to choose how we respond to any stimulus. Animals do not have this independent will. They respond to a stimulus in a pre-programmed manner. If there is a threat stimulus the response is either fight or flight. We human beings too sometimes instantly follow the stimulus-response model.

It may be apt to remember that whenever we are confronted with any decision making situation, between Stimulus and Response there lies a space, a timeline, and in that space lies our freedom to choose a course of action, and in that choice lies our sagacity.

Hence, when confronted with a stimulus, instead of instantly responding, we must calm our minds, be self-aware, dispassionately analyse and evaluate the situation, draw up options and then choose the most suitable option as the response. 

(Remember the Story narrated above from the Life of Buddha)

When there is peace inside you, that peace permeates to the outside.  

This inner peace soon spreads around you and percolates into the environment and helps you make better decisions. 

Conversely, you could be in very peaceful surroundings, where everything is wonderfully beautiful, but if your inside is disturbed, then that beauty is of no use to you. 

For you to be peaceful, peace has to be generated from deep within you - from your being to the mind, and from the mind to the environment. 

For example, even if you have the best music system, you cannot truly enjoy music if you are mentally disturbed. 

In fact, it is more important to be in a sublime state of inner peace and to be in harmony with oneself in order to relish the finer things of life.

One of the factors that disturb your inner peace is uncertainty – many times uncertainty elicits sub-optimal responses if we use the Stimulus-Response (SR) Paradigm of decision making and hence there is need for a better model like the SHOR Paradigm, which is described below.

TYPES OF UNCERTAINTY

Decision-making is so pervasive that everyone, professionally or personally, is involved with making a variety of decisions. 

In today’s fast-moving world, the timing of a decision is of paramount importance in many decision-making situations.

In real life even the “perfect” decision may not be optimal if it is made too late.  

Information is a vital resource in decision-making.

One of the most important characteristics of successful managers is the ability to make the correct decision when confronted with imperfect or insufficient information (i.e.) Decision-making under conditions of uncertainty.

In the context of decision-processing, two realms or domains of uncertainty are:

1. Information Input Uncertainty which creates the need for hypothesis generation and evaluation.

2. Consequence-of-Action Uncertainty which creates the need for option generation and evaluation.

SHOR PARADIGM

 

Decision Taxonomy: 

The Stimulus – Hypothesis – Option – Response (SHOR) Paradigm decision making model is useful in such decision situations.

The SHOR paradigm represents a qualitative, descriptive, model as distinct from a quantitative, predictive model, and comprises the following primary decision-making task elements:

S: Stimulus Input Data Processing

H: Hypothesis Generation, Hypothesis Evaluation, Information Processing (What is?)

O: Option Generation, Option Evaluation, Decision-Making (What if?)

R: Response Output Action 

The SHOR paradigm is basically an extension of the classical “Stimulus – Response” (SR) Paradigm of behaviorist psychology.

The SHOR paradigm provides explicitly for the necessity to deal with information input uncertainty and consequence-of-action uncertainty, and helps us understand some of the peculiar human factors that affect the quality of the decision-making and answering questions such as:

What makes some decision-makers perform better than others, especially in placing high-value assets at risk, in business?

What are the sources and dimensions of “poor” performance?

HUMAN ERRORS IN DECISION-MAKING

Based on the SHOR Model, human errors in decision-making appear to lie in four domains:

 

(S) Stimulus: “I did not know…”

(H) Hypothesis: “I did not understand…”

(O) Option: “I did not consider…”

(R) Response: “I did not act…”

Stimulus based errors of the type “I did not know…” result from lack or inadequacy of information, the true inability to obtain information.

“I did not understand…” is the fundamental result of information input uncertainty, while “I did not consider…” is the product of consequence-of-action uncertainty. 

It is possible to have accessed all significant information, to have developed the correct hypothesis and to have selected the best option and yet fail to take appropriate action.

The two possible reasons for the “I did not act…” type of response error are:

1. Paralysis: This is a complete failure to act, the pathological ‘observation of an inevitable course’ without intervention. It is caused by an over-riding emotional struggle in which some internal factor is being placed in conflict with the course of action selected by the decision-maker. The final scene in the evergreen classic film The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) exemplifies such a situation.

2. Misjudgement: The decision-maker correctly decides what to do but errs in either or both of the two dimensions – how [the specifics of the action] or when [the timing of the action].

Prediction of the critical consequences of inaction may be of some help in dealing with paralysis whilst the ability to perform sensitivity analyses may assist in alleviating misjudgment.  

Any Decision-Maker (and designers of decision processors and aids) must address the four cardinal types of errors epitomized by the SHOR paradigm: “I did not know…”, “I did not understand…”, “I did not consider…” and “I did not act…”

DECISION-MAKING IN UNCERTAINTY

In the context of decision-making in uncertainty, the conflict theory paradigm developed by Janis and Mann may be apt.

This paradigm postulates five patterns of coping behaviour which tends to occur in such situations:

1. Unconflicted Adherence in which the uncertain, or risk, information is ignored and the decision-maker complacently decides to continue whatever he has been doing.

2. Unconflicted Change to a new course of action, where the decision-maker uncritically adopts whichever new course of action is most salient, obvious or strongly recommended.

3. Defensive Avoidance in which the decision-maker evades conflict by procrastinating, shifting responsibility to someone else, or constructing wishful rationalizations and remaining selectively inattentive to corrective information.

4. Hyper-vigilance wherein the decision-maker searches frantically for a way out of the dilemma and impulsively seizes upon a hastily contrived solution that seems to promise immediate relief, overlooking the full range of consequences of his choice because of emotional excitement, repetitive thinking and cognitive constriction. In its most extreme form hyper-vigilance is referred to as “panic”.

5. Concerned Vigilance in which the decision-maker optimally processes pertinent information and then generates and evaluates hypotheses and options before selecting a response as characterized by the SHOR paradigm.

In many real-life situations a decision-maker cannot always keep waiting until the entire information-input and consequence-of-action conditions are known a priori with certainty.

In most cases there is no such thing as “perfect” certainty.

If a single most important characteristic is crucial to a decision-maker in any field, it is the ability to make optimal decisions in conditions of uncertainty.

Qualitative Descriptive Models like the SHOR Paradigm may prove useful in such situations.

CONCLUSION

As we discussed in the beginning, the phrase May You Live in Interesting Times while purporting to be a blessing, may actually be a curse, since the couched meaning is perhaps that may you experience much upheaval and trouble in your life, the clear implication being that uninteresting times of peace and tranquility are much better and far more life-enhancing. 

In these interesting yet uncertain times, recent events have demonstrated the failure of the Stimulus-Response (SR) Model of decision-making and underlined the need for expertise for making good decisions in situations of uncertainty. 

I am sure that in your life you have witnessed many of the concepts mentioned in the article above. 

First there was Information Input Uncertainty followed by Consequence of Action Uncertainty which caused Human Errors in decision-making and leading to Misjudgment and finally a state of Paralysis in Decision Making.

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:

1. These are my personal views based on my observations and life experiences and the stories and examples quoted may be apocryphal.

2. All stories in this blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the story are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:

No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (All Rights Reserved)

     

© vikram karve., all rights reserved.