A Simple Guide To Decision Making And Problem Solving

The ability to make sound, timely decisions during an emergency event is critical. Good problem solving and decision making can avert tragedy and help the community recover from the event more quickly. Conversely, poor decision making⎯ or the absence of decisions⎯ potentially can result in injury or death to victims or responders.
Good decision-making skills are one of your most critical assets as a management professional and as an Administrator.

PROBLEM SOLVING VS. DECISION MAKING
- Problem solving is a set of activities designed to analyze a situation systematically and generate, implement, and evaluate solutions.
- Decision making is a mechanism for making choices at each step of the problem- solving process.

Decision making is part of problem solving, and decision making occurs at every step of the problem-solving process.

PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL
There are many different decision-making/problem-solving models that you can use. The five-step model shown below has proven effective in emergency situations. When using this model, each step may be completed quickly, but every step must be considered. It is not necessary to document each step, but it is important to think through every step.

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM
Problem identification is undoubtedly the most important ⎯and the most difficult ⎯step in the process. All subsequent steps will be based on how you define and assess the problem at hand.

What is a “Problem”?
A problem is a situation or condition of people or the organization that will exist in the future, and that is considered undesirable by members of the organization.
Problem or Solution?

In carrying out Step 1, you must distinguish between a problem and its solution. The most common error in problem solving is defining problems in terms of their solutions.
Sometimes people think that they are articulating problems when actually they are stating a potential solution.

Delineating the Problem Parameters: Identifying the problem also involves analyzing the situation to determine the extent of the problem. Problem parameters include:
- What is happening (and is not happening)?
- Who is involved?
- What the stakes are?

Questions for Identifying, Defining, and Analyzing Problems

1. Is this a new problem?

2. Is the problem clearly and precisely stated?

3. What assumptions am I making about the problem? Are they true?

4. What would happen if nothing were done about this problem?

5. Can the problem be restated in other terms? If yes, how?

6. What data are known that bear on the problem?

7. Is the information accurate?

8. Are there any precedents or rules about other procedures that apply to the problem? If so, what precedents or rules apply?

9. What additional facts are needed to analyze the problem? (List)

10. Is it possible to interpret the facts differently? How would that affect the problem’s solution?

11. Do I have to make this decision, or does someone else? If this decision is someone else’s to make, whose is it?

STEP 2: EXPLORE ALTERNATIVES
The second step in the decision-making process is to explore alternative solutions to the problem identified in Step 1. This step really consists of two parts:
- Generating alternatives
- Evaluating alternatives

TECHNIQUES FOR GENERATING ALTERNATIVES
So, what process did you use to generate the alternatives for the case study? There are three ways to generate alternatives.
- Brainstorming can be done individually or in a group. Brainstorming requires an environment in which the participants (individuals or group members) are free to “think out loud.” Participants blurt out as many ideas as possible within a specified time period. No evaluation of ideas is permitted so as to encourage the free flow of creative ideas. These ideas are recorded. When the specified time period ends, then evaluation of the ideas begins.
- Surveys economically tap the ideas of a large group of respondents. Surveys present respondents with the problem and a series of alternative solutions.
- Discussion groups should consist of those who are directly involved in decision making. In generating alternatives, the group members should: o Be comprehensive. o Avoid initial judgments (as in brainstorming). o Focus on the problem, not on the personalities of the people involved in the decision-making process. (But be sensitive to the impact of personalities on the process.)

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES
After you have generated alternative solutions, you must have some means of evaluating them. Below are some Criteria for evaluating alternatives.
Another part of evaluation is identifying contingencies—what could go wrong. Think in terms of Murphy’s Law (“If anything can go wrong, it will.”) and identify what could get in the way of solving the problem you are facing.

Questions to Ask

1. Identify Constraints
Do any of the following factors serve as a limitation on this solution?
- Technical (limited equipment or technology)
- Political (legal restrictions or ordinances)
- Economic (cost or capital restrictions)
- Social (restrictions imposed by organized groups with special interests)
- Human resources (limited ability of relevant people to understand or initiate certain actions)
- Time (requirements that a solution be found within a prescribed time period, thereby eliminating consideration of long-range solutions)
2. Determine Appropriateness
Does this solution fit the circumstances?
3. Verify Adequacy
Will this option make enough of a difference to be worth doing?
4. Evaluate Effectiveness
Will this option meet the objective?
5. Evaluate Efficiency
What is the cost/benefit ratio of this option?
6. Determine Side Effects
What are the ramifications of this option?

STEP 3: SELECT AN ALTERNATIVE
The third step in the problem-solving model is to select one of the alternatives explored in Step 2 for implementation. After you have evaluated each alternative, one should stand out as coming closest to solving the problem with the most advantages and fewest disadvantages.

Implementing the solution may not be easy, however. There may be repercussions, and you should complete a “reality check” to identify and evaluate the possible consequences of implementing the solution. Carefully consider how the solution will be implemented before selecting an alternative.
When selecting an alternative, you will encounter factors that affect your decision making.

These factors may include:
- Political factors.
- Safety factors.
- Financial factors.
- Environmental considerations.
- Ethical factors.

Not all of these factors may be readily recognizable. As you examine the situation and apply the problem-solving model, be alert for these potential limits on the solutions that you can implement.

STEP 4: IMPLEMENT THE SOLUTION
The fourth step involves five subparts.
- Develop an action plan. Implementation requires a series of steps to: o Articulate who has to do what, with what resources, by what time, and toward what goal. o Identify who must know about the decision.
- Determine objectives. Objectives are measurable targets that are: o Used to monitor progress and establish priorities. o Based on analysis of the situation and contingencies.
- Identify needed resources. Resources include people, information (data), and things.

Ask yourself:  What resources do I need?  Where will I get them? o How long will it take? What can others offer?  Are there any special requirements?
- Build a plan. Your plan should state: Who …  Will do what (and with whom) …  By when - Where  - How
- Implement the plan. Use the action plan to put the decision in place.

Remember: Communicate the plan to all parties involved!
Use the following questions to help you develop any details needed to plan for implementation of the decision.

1. Will the decision be implemented as it stands or will it have to be modified?

2. Does the decision fit the problem and conditions specified earlier?

3. Is this still the best option?

4. What are the side effects of this decision?

5. Who is responsible for taking action?

6. Are the specific targets to be accomplished and the techniques for accomplishing them defined?

7. What specific activities must take place to implement this decision? In what sequence?

8. What resources will be needed to implement this decision?

9. What is the schedule or timetable for implementation of each step in the action plan?

STEP 5: EVALUATE THE SITUATION
Evaluation involves two parts:
- Monitoring progress. : The following questions needs to be asked; o Has the situation changed? o Are more (or fewer) resources required?
 o Is a different alternative solution required?

Monitoring the success and results of a decision is an ongoing process that is critical to fine tuning a course of action.
- Evaluating the results. Use the following checklist to help you evaluate the decision.

Questions for Evaluating the Results

1. How will you know if the proposed decision has worked? Is it measurable? If yes, how?

2. Does the decision and action plan make use of existing channels of communication to generate feedback?

3. Will the feedback test the effectiveness of the decision?

4. Will the feedback be sufficient to reflect changing circumstances and conditions that might occasion the need to modify the plan?

5. Is the solution achieving its purpose?

6. Is timely information generated so that it can be supplied to operational, administrative, and policy units in the jurisdiction?
A key to good decision making is that it uses both sensing and intuition to gather all the pertinent information, and both thinking and feeling to weigh all the factors involved.
When we rely only on our dominant function, we tend to miss things and make poorer decisions.

STYLES OF DECISION MAKING
There are also four styles of decision making based on who makes the decision. As you read through the four styles, note that the amount of control that the leader has over the decision drops from total to almost none. Yet, the leader retains ultimate responsibility.

INDIVIDUAL DECISION MAKING: In individual decision making, the leader must make the decision alone, and input from others is limited to collecting relevant information.
DECISION MAKING THROUGH CONSULTATION: In consultation, the leader shares the issue with one or more people—seeking ideas, opinions, and suggestions—and then makes a decision. The leader considers the input of others, but the final decision may or may not be influenced by it.

GROUP DECISION MAKING: In this case, the leader and others work together until they reach a consensus decision. Each group member’s opinion and point of view is considered. As a result of helping to make the decision, group members buy into the final decision and commit to supporting its implementation.

DELEGATING THE DECISION
When delegating a decision, the leader sets the parameters, then allows one or more others to make the final decision. Although the leader does not make the decision, he or she supports it.

SELECTING A DECISION-MAKING APPROACH
Use the questions below as a guide to developing a decision-making approach. Answer each of the questions below.
- If the response to question 1 is “No,” it may be preferable to make the decision individually or in consultation with key players.
- If the response to question 2 is “No,” it may be preferable to make the decision through consultation, with a group, or by delegation.
- If the majority of your responses are “Yes,” group decision making may be preferable.
- If the majority of your responses are “No,” individual decision making may be preferable.

Questions:

1. Do you have a reasonable amount of time to make the decision?

2. Does the leader have enough expertise to make a good decision?

3. Do the potential group members have enough expertise to make a good decision?

4. Do the others involved share the organizational goals to be attained by solving the problem?

5. Is the decision complex with many possible solutions?

6. Is commitment to the decision by other people critical?

7. Is the decision likely to cause serious conflict among the people affected by it?

8. Will the decision directly impact many agencies, individuals, or community members?

9. Will the decision directly impact only a select few?

SUCCESSFUL GROUP DECISION MAKING
Group decision making requires good leadership to be successful. There are special conditions necessary for group decision making, such as adequate time. There are also particular pitfalls unique to group decision making, such as “groupthink” and “Decision
Traps” (Discussed Later)

AVOIDING “GROUPTHINK”
“Groupthink” is a phenomenon that occurs in a cohesive group when members let their need to agree with each other interfere with their ability to think about the decision critically.

Three conditions may lead to “groupthink”:

1. Overestimation of the group’s ability and power:
- Allows members to ignore warning signals.
- Allows members to feel complacent.
- Could result from an overreaction to low self-esteem resulting from recent failures or a difficult task.

2. A “we” vs. “they” attitude:
- Leads to stereotypes of outsiders.
- Encourages rationalization of decisions.

3. Pressure toward conformity:
- Could result from direct pressure applied by the group to members who try to disagree.
- Does result in members censoring themselves to maintain their membership in the group.

The key to avoiding or mitigating groupthink lies in the behavior of the group leader. If you are the leader of a group with the potential to exhibit groupthink behavior, you may want to take one or more of the following preventive actions:
- Encourage everyone to air objections and doubts and to accept criticism.
- Describe the problem without revealing your preferred solution.
- Assign the group into subgroups and ask each to evaluate the problem.
- Invite outside experts to challenge the group’s decision.
- Ask members to take turns playing “devil’s advocate.”

Groupthink is more likely to occur in an emergency situation for two reasons:
- Time pressure creates a need for quick decisions.
- Personnel responding to disasters typically have a high degree of cohesion.

To minimize groupthink:
- Encourage dissenting opinions consistently.
- Discuss the need to remain open to possibilities with responding personnel before an emergency.
- Examine patterns of decision making during previous emergencies and analyze them to take corrective measures.
When leaders can influence their groups to avoid groupthink, decision making becomes possible based on a healthy consensus. Consensus is not the same as 100-percent agreement. In consensus, group members determine that they actively support the decision of the group, even though it might not be their personal choice.

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU’VE REACHED CONSENSUS?
You’ve reached consensus when each member can say:
- “My personal views and ideas have been really listened to and considered.”
- “I have openly listened to and considered the ideas and views of every other group member.”
- “I can support this decision and work toward its implementation, even if it was not my choice.”

Tips for reaching consensus
- Don’t employ win/lose techniques, such as voting or negotiating favors back and forth.
- Look for alternatives that are next most acceptable as ways to break a stalemate.
- Don’t encourage members to give in to keep harmony.

WHO IS AN EFFECTIVE DECISION MAKER?
Think of someone you know who seems to be a born decision maker. What makes him or her effective? Most likely:
- He or she makes decisions with competence and confidence.
- Most of his or her decisions work out right.
But what is underlying that decision-making skill? Research has shown that effective decision makers share several attributes.

ATTRIBUTES OF AN EFFECTIVE DECISION MAKER
Effective decision makers tend to have the following attributes:
- Knowledge. The most important requirement for making sound decisions is a deep understanding of all factors. The soundness of the decision depends on how informed the decision maker is.
- Initiative. Effective decision makers assume responsibility for beginning the decision- making process and seeing it through. They take an active part in making things better.
- Advice-seeking. Good decision makers know that they need help from others. They identify people who can make specific contributions to the decision-making process and ask them for their advice and counsel.
- Selectivity. Effective decision makers seek pertinent data. They avoid getting bogged down by extraneous facts and figures.
- Comprehensiveness. On the other hand, they look at all available options and consider every possible alternative so as to make the best choice.
- Currency. Good decision makers consider current conditions and take advantage of opportunities that exist at the time.
- Flexibility. Effective decision makers remain open-minded about new concepts and ideas. They are willing to change course or try a different approach if better results seem likely.
- Good judgment. Sound decisions will not always result from merely following procedures. Decision makers must exercise their best judgment in considering factors particular to the situation.
- Calculated risk-taking. The risks and results of various alternatives must be weighed and the consequences accepted, whether positive or negative.
- Self-knowledge. Good decision makers know their own abilities, biases, and limitations.
In addition, smart decision makers will begin with a review of the information at hand (e.g., the EOP, SOPs, etc.) because, if the planning process is complete, many common situations will have been anticipated, and procedures for what to do in those situations will be in place.

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

WHAT IS ETHICS? 
As a professional, you represent your organization and your profession. Your actions must instill trust and confidence in those with whom you work and in those who depend on you for assistance. In an emergency, victims and coworkers must be able to count on you to carry out your responsibilities in a professional and fair manner.

WHAT’S AT ISSUE?
What is at issue in ethical situations arising from emergencies is your personal reputation, your agency’s reputation, and ultimately, the public’s trust in local government’s ability to do the right thing. Also, it is not enough to do the right thing. Public officials must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

DEFINITION OF ETHICS
Ethics is a set of standards that guides our behavior, both as individuals and as members of organizations. The ethical principles for this discussion are simple standards of right and wrong that we learn as children, such as being honest and fair and treating others with respect.

ETHICAL DON’TS
The following “don’ts” address specific ethical challenges in a crisis or emergency situation.
- Don’t exceed your authority or make promises.
- Don’t use your position to seek personal gain. Examples of seeking personal gain would include: o Soliciting gifts. o Making official decisions that benefit you financially. o Using inside information gained through your position to benefit you and/or your family. o Using agency time or property (e.g., a phone or car) for personal reasons. o Using your official position or accepting compensation to endorse a product.
Avoid even the appearance of ethical violations. Take the extra step of making sure that your actions (even if they are above-board) could not be seen as unethical. Think about how your actions would read on the front page of the newspaper.

ETHICAL DO’S
Keep these “do’s” in mind:
- Place the law and ethical principles above private gain.
- Act impartially. Do not show favoritism to one group (e.g., victims or contractors) over another. Two aids in acting impartially include making sure that all affected parties have full disclosure, and seeking prior authorization before taking action.
- Protect and conserve agency property. This standard applies both to your actions and to the actions that you should take if you observe fraud, waste, or abuse.
- Put forth an honest effort in everything even remotely connected to your official position.

ETHICAL ISSUES AND EMERGENCIES
Decisions that seem simple or routine in a day-to-day context may become difficult and have serious ethical implications during an emergency. Furthermore, a poor decision with ethical implications can escalate an emergency into an unmanageable situation as the emergency response progresses, as the following scenarios illustrate.

COMPONENTS OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING
Ethical decision making requires being aware of your own and your agency’s ethical values and applying them whenever necessary. It involves being sensitive to the impact of your decisions and being able to evaluate complex, ambiguous, and/or incomplete facts. Three components of ethical decision making are:
- Commitment
- Consciousness
- Competency

ETHICAL COMMITMENT
Ethical commitment (or motivation) involves demonstrating a strong desire to act ethically and to do the right thing, especially when ethics imposes financial, social, or psychological costs. A crisis or emergency confronts us with many situations that test ethical commitment.
Thus, you need to be very clear about your own ethical values and have a strong understanding of ethical standards of conduct.

ETHICAL CONSCIOUSNESS
Ethical consciousness (or awareness) involves seeing and understanding the ethical implications of our behavior and applying our ethical values to our daily lives. Understand that people’s perceptions are their reality—and so what we understand to be perfectly legal conduct may be perceived by taxpayers as improper or inappropriate.

ETHICAL COMPETENCY
Ethical competency (or skill) involves being competent in ethical decision making skills, which include:
- Evaluation. The ability to collect and evaluate relevant facts, and knowing when to stop collecting facts and to make prudent decisions based on incomplete and ambiguous facts.
- Creativity. The capacity to develop resourceful means of accomplishing goals in ways that avoid or minimize ethical problems.
- Prediction. The ability to foresee the potential consequences of conduct and assess the likelihood or risk that person will be helped or harmed by an act.

APPLYING THE PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL TO ETHICAL ISSUES
Think for a moment about the problem-solving model discussed in Unit 2 and reexamine it in light of what you’ve just learned about ethics. During Step 3, when selecting an alternative, you should eliminate any alternatives that are unethical—or even give the appearance of being unethical.

DECISION MAKING AND STRESS
Decisions can be as simple as delegating a routine task or as complex as responding to a major crisis. Decision making in a crisis is made more difficult because of stress.

Impediments to making good decisions under stress include:
- Perceived or real time pressure.
- Possible political pressures.
- High- or low-blood sugar levels as a result of erratic eating patterns.
- Caffeine.
- Sleep deprivation and resulting fatigue.
- Lack of information.
- Conflicting information.
- Uncertainty.

Under stress, decision makers are more likely to:
- Experience conflict with other key players.
- Perceive selectively because of sensory overload, and thus perhaps miss important information.
- Experience perception distortion and poor judgment.

Decision makers under stress also tend to:
- Be less tolerant of ambiguity and thus perhaps make premature decisions.
- Experience a decreased ability to handle difficult tasks and work productively.
- Experience a greater tendency toward aggression and escape behaviors.

They may also:
- Consider only immediate survival goals, sacrificing long-range considerations.
- Choose a risky alternative.
- Get tunnel vision.
- Succumb to “groupthink.” A. important key to effective decision making in a crisis is being systematic. A good way to be systematic is to use the problem-solving model.

THE HIDDEN TRAPS IN DECISION MAKING
For executives, whose success hinges on the many day-to-day decisions they make or approve, the psychological traps are especially dangerous. They can undermine everything from new-product development to acquisition and divestiture strategy to succession planning.

THE ANCHORING TRAP
When considering a decision, the mind gives disproportionate weight to the first information it receives. Initial impressions, estimates, or data anchor subsequent thoughts and judgments.
Anchors take many guises. They can be as simple and seemingly innocuous as a comment offered by a colleague or a statistic appearing in the morning newspaper. They can be as insidious as a stereotype about a person’s skin color, accent, or dress. In business, one of the most common types of anchors is a past event or trend.
This approach, while it may lead to a reasonably accurate estimate, tends to give too much weight to past events and not enough weight to other factors. In situations characterized by rapid changes in the marketplace, historical anchors can lead to poor forecasts and, in turn, misguided choices. Because anchors can establish the terms on which a decision will be made, they are often used as a bargaining tactic by savvy negotiators.

WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT?
No one can avoid their influence; they’re just too widespread. But managers who are aware of the dangers of anchors can reduce their impact by using the following techniques:
- Always view a problem from different perspectives. Try using alternative starting points and approaches rather than sticking with the first line of thought that occurs to you.
- Think about the problem on your own before consulting others in order to avoid becoming anchored by their ideas.
- Be open minded. Seek information and opinions from a variety of people to widen your frame of reference and to push your mind in fresh directions.
- Be careful to avoid anchoring your advisers, consultants, and others from whom you solicit information and counsel. Tell them as little as possible about your own ideas, estimates, and tentative decisions. If you reveal too much, your own preconceptions may simply come back to you.
- Be particularly wary of anchors in negotiations. Think through your position before any negotiation begins in order to avoid being anchored by the other party’s initial proposal. At the same time, look for opportunities to use anchors to your own advantage—if you’re the seller, for example, suggest a high, but defensible, price as an opening gambit.

THE STATUS-QUO TRAP
We all like to believe that we make decisions rationally and objectively. But the fact is, we all carry biases, and those biases influence the choices we make. Decision makers display, for example, a strong bias toward alternatives that perpetuate the status quo. On a broad scale, we can see this tendency whenever a radically new product is introduced.
They find the status quo comfortable, and they avoid taking action that would upset it.
“Maybe I’ll rethink it later,” they say. But “later” is usually never.
The source of the status-quo trap lies deep within our psyches, in our desire to protect our egos from damage. Breaking from the status quo means taking action, and when we take action, we take responsibility, thus opening ourselves to criticism and to regret.
Other experiments have shown that the more choices you are given, the more pull the status quo has. More people will, for instance, choose the status quo when there are two alternatives to it rather than one: A and B instead of just A. Why? Choosing between A and B requires additional effort; selecting the status quo avoids that effort.

WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT?
First of all, remember that in any given decision, maintaining the status quo may indeed be the best choice, but you don’t want to choose it just because it is comfortable. Once you become aware of the status-quo trap, you can use these techniques to lessen its pull:
- Always remind yourself of your objectives and examine how they would be served by the status quo. You may find that elements of the current situation act as barriers to your goals.
- Never think of the status quo as your only alternative. Identify other options and use them as counterbalances, carefully evaluating all the pluses and minuses.
- Ask yourself whether you would choose the status-quo alternative if, in fact, it weren’t the status quo.
- Avoid exaggerating the effort or cost involved in switching from the status quo.
- Remember that the desirability of the status quo will change over time. When comparing alternatives, always evaluate them in terms of the future as well as the present.
- If you have several alternatives that are superior to the status quo, don’t default to the status quo just because you’re having a hard time picking the best alternative. Force yourself to choose.

THE SUNK-COST TRAP
Another of our deep-seated biases is to make choices in a way that justifies past choices, even when the past choices no longer seem valid. Most of us have fallen into this trap.
Our past decisions become what economists term sunk costs—old investments of time or money that are now irrecoverable.
A bad decision is often a very public matter, inviting critical comments from colleagues or bosses. If you fire a poor performer whom you hired, you’re making a public admission of poor judgment. It seems psychologically safer to let him or her stay on, even though that choice only compounds the error.

For all decisions with a history, you will need to make a conscious effort to set aside any sunk costs—whether psychological or economic— that will muddy your thinking about the choice at hand. Try these techniques:
- Seek out and listen carefully to the views of people who were uninvolved with the earlier decisions and who are hence unlikely to be committed to them.
- Examine why admitting to an earlier mistake distresses you. If the problem lies in your own wounded self-esteem, deal with it head-on. Remind yourself that even smart choices can have bad consequences, through no fault of the original decision maker, and that even the best and most experienced managers are not immune to errors in judgment.
- Be on the lookout for the influence of sunk-cost biases in the decisions and recommendations made by your subordinates. Reassign responsibilities when necessary.
- Don’t cultivate a failure-fearing culture that leads employees to perpetuate their mistakes.
This bias leads us to seek out information that supports our existing instinct or point of view while avoiding information that contradicts it.

THE CONFIRMING EVIDENCE TRAP
The confirming evidence bias not only affects where we go to collect evidence but also how we interpret the evidence we do receive, leading us to give too much weight to supporting information and too little to conflicting information.
There are two fundamental psychological forces at work here. The first is our tendency to subconsciously decide what we want to do before we figure out why we want to do it. The second is our inclination to be more engaged by things we like than by things we dislike—a tendency well documented even in babies. Naturally, then, we are drawn to information that supports our subconscious leanings.

It’s not that you shouldn’t make the choice you’re subconsciously drawn to. It’s just that you want to be sure it’s the smart choice. You need to put it to the test. Here’s how:
- Always check to see whether you are examining all the evidence with equal rigor.
Avoid the tendency to accept confirming evidence without question.
- Get someone you respect to play devil’s advocate, to argue against the decision you’re contemplating. Better yet, build the counterarguments yourself. What’s the strongest reason to do something else? The second strongest reason? The third?
Consider the position with an open mind.
- Be honest with yourself about your motives. Are you really gathering information to help you make a smart choice, or are you just looking for evidence confirming what you think you’d like to do?
- In seeking the advice of others, don’t ask leading questions that invite confirming evidence. And if you find that an adviser always seems to support your point of view, find a new adviser. Don’t surround yourself with yes men.

THE FRAMING TRAP
The first step in making a decision is to frame the question. It’s also one of the most dangerous steps. The way a problem is framed can profoundly influence the choices you make.

A poorly framed problem can undermine even the best-considered decision. But any adverse effect of framing can be limited by taking the following precautions:
- Don’t automatically accept the initial frame, whether it was formulated by you or by someone else. Always try to reframe the problem in various ways. Look for distortions caused by the frames.
- Try posing problems in a neutral, redundant way that combines gains and losses or embraces different reference points.
- Think hard throughout your decision making process about the framing of the problem. At points throughout the process, particularly near the end, ask yourself how your thinking might change if the framing changed.
- When others recommend decisions, examine the way they framed the problem.
Challenge them with different frames.

ESTIMATING AND FORECASTING TRAPS
Most of us are adept at making estimates about time, distance, weight, and volume. That’s because we’re constantly making judgments about these variables and getting quick feedback about the accuracy of those judgments. Through daily practice, our minds become finely calibrated. Making estimates or forecasts about uncertain events, however, is a different matter.

THE OVERCONFIDENCE TRAP
Even though most of us are not very good at making estimates or forecasts, we actually tend to be overconfident about our accuracy. That can lead to errors in judgment and, in turn, bad decisions. If managers underestimate the high end or overestimate the low end of a crucial variable, they may miss attractive opportunities or expose themselves to far greater risk than they realize.

THE PRUDENCE TRAP
Another trap for forecasters takes the form of over cautiousness, or prudence. When faced with high-stakes decisions, we tend to adjust our estimates or forecasts “just to be on the safe side.”

THE RECALLABILITY TRAP
Even if we are neither overly confident nor unduly prudent, we can still fall into a trap when making estimates or forecasts. Because we frequently base our predictions about future events on our memory of past events, we can be overly influenced by dramatic events— those that leave a strong impression on our memory. We all, for example, exaggerate the probability of rare but catastrophic occurrences such as plane crashes because they get disproportionate attention in the media. A dramatic or traumatic event in your own life can also distort your thinking. In fact, anything that distorts your ability to recall events in a balanced way will distort your probability assessments.

WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT?
The best way to avoid the estimating and forecasting traps is to take a very disciplined approach to making forecasts and judging probabilities. For each of the three traps, some additional precautions can be taken:
- To reduce the effects of overconfidence in making estimates, always start by considering the extremes, the low and high ends of the possible range of values. This will help you avoid being anchored by an initial estimate. Then challenge your estimates of the extremes. Try to imagine circumstances where the actual figure would fall below your low or above your high, and adjust your range accordingly.
Challenge the estimates of your subordinates and advisers in a similar fashion.
They’re also susceptible to overconfidence.
- To avoid the prudence trap, always state your estimates honestly and explain to anyone who will be using them that they have not been adjusted. Emphasize the need for honest input to anyone who will be supplying you with estimates. Test estimates over a reasonable range to assess their impact. Take a second look at the more sensitive estimates.
- To minimize the distortion caused by variations in recall ability, carefully examine all your assumptions to ensure they’re not unduly influenced by your memory. Get actual statistics whenever possible. Try not to be guided by impressions.