For many of us, dealing with stress and
pressure is an integral part of our working
lives. Just ask any fireman, pilot, surgeon
or ambulance driver. How do they ensure
that they are making sound decisions against
the odds?
Now techniques for 'decision-making under
stress’ (DMUS), learned from aviation
and emergency incident management, are being
applied to many contemporary working environments.
DMUS usually features:
- Uncertain, dynamic environments
- Shifting or competing goals
- Time constraints
- High stakes
- Multiple players
- Ill-structured problems
While these factors were always part of
my life in a Tornado cockpit it took time
for me to understand that these characteristics
were a feature of many other occupations.
Military pilot performance is often seen
as dynamic decision-making in its extreme,
but since getting my feet back on the ground
I’ve found that many managers and
leaders are dealing with similar problems.
As organisations face turbulence and change
they become exposed to more of the DMUS
factors. The difference is that it’s
not just for an hour or so at a time, it’s
all day, every day.
Conventionally we think of rational decision-making
in terms of observing the situation, generating
options, choosing the best option, and acting
on our decision before reviewing the results.
So, the moment of choosing the preferred
option would appear to be the point at which
the decision is made.
 However,
for experienced decision-makers, this claim
has limitations. Gary Klein, a US researcher,
claims, ”In most of the domains I
have studied, people rarely conduct evaluations
to compare different options.” Indeed,
experienced decision makers across many
disciplines appear to have little difficulty
in choosing between options; their challenge
is to understand fully the complexities
of the situation.
This is bad news for the conventional approach
of problem solving where the emphasis has
often been placed on generating more options
to choose from.
Klein watched games of chess; “For
experienced chess players the first move
they considered was generally a good one,
and was often the best one they considered.”
Back in aviation, studies have shown that
when pilots considered more than one course
of action, they tended to select the first
one they identified. Moreover, this tendency
was shown to be stronger in more experienced
pilots; they were effectively short-circuiting
conventional decision-making models and
going straight from the 'problem’
to the 'answer’ without making any
conscious choice.
This process is now reflected in the training
provided for practitioners working under
pressure. Pilot training has moved on. We
used to be concerned with manual flying
skills and understanding the technical operation
of the aircraft. However, these days aircraft
accidents are increasingly attributed to
poor decisions and impaired judgement.
Initially, trainers sought to instil better
attitudes and to teach conventional rational
choice methods. Now we are much more concerned
with developing situational awareness, an
accurate mental model of our environment
and our position in it. Good situational
awareness is the key to establishing sound
decisions.
Mica Endsley of SA Technologies says “Most
simply put, situational awareness is knowing
what is going on around you. Prehistoric
man undoubtedly needed to be aware of many
cues in order to hunt successfully.”
He believes that situational awareness breaks
down into three phases:
- Perception – noticing and gathering
relevant data
- Comprehension – generating a
'mental model’ of the situation
- Projection – understanding current
trends and implications
Ironically, in the face of the information
age, many of us are less informed than ever
before. There is so much information to
be sorted and interpreted correctly that
it presents an ongoing problem whether the
job is in a cockpit of behind a desk.
Most situational awareness errors (76%)
occur in the perception phase – important
data gets missed. However, from there on
the picture improves with error rates of
20% in the comprehension and only 4% in
projection. Importantly then, when we understand
our current environment, working out what
might happen next is comparatively straightforward.
I believe that while executive boards generate
increasingly long lists of alternatives
based on various scenarios often the choices
are made on gut feeling and intuition. All
of the complicated options have been forgotten.
Effective change is more likely to come
from accurately understanding where we are,
not from lengthy consideration of what we
might one day decide to do. So, it makes
more sense to devote our attention to generating
a more complete awareness of the business
situation and then doing what seems obvious.
Executives can be effectively supported
in this work by both coaching and consulting
interventions. Challenging mindsets and
developing capabilities to deal with the
ambiguity found in complex organisations
is vital. 'Groupthink’ within the
organisation can effectively filter out
much of the data that might provide a contrary
view. A consultant can help to provide an
external perspective.
It seems to me that even under acute stress,
experienced decision makers are able to
prioritise attention and gather high value
information. However, in the fighter cockpit
I would wonder "Am I interpreting this
data correctly? Is there anything I am missing?".
I was reasonably confident in my decision-making
capability but working with the 'wrong picture’
could be catastrophic.
In corporate life, knowing that team members
are cross-checking and challenging the information
we are working with, while actively looking
for information that might provide an alternative
view, is essential for confidence in our
awareness. In the air we would say "situational
awareness is life". In the modern environment,
the same is true for business success.
Call Steve Marshall on 020 7242 4030
|
