What Are the Net, Net Consequences?
33
emotional reactions, I suggest that you try using a simple
decision tree.
24
It looks like a technique, but it’s really a way
of thinking. It won’t give you answers, but it can give you a
much clearer sense of the consequences of your options.
Managers facing gray areas can create simple decision
trees by taking two steps. The first is developing a list of all
your options for dealing with the problem. That is, you don’t
start by thinking about what you should do, which is where
Feuerstein seems to have begun. Instead, be open-minded and
creative and focus on all the things you could do.
25
Second,
work hard to flesh out the possible outcomes of each option
and the odds these consequences might occur.
That description is abstract, so let’s look at what it meant in
the Malden Mills case. When Aaron Feuerstein decided, on
the night of the fire, to rebuild everything with the latest tech-
nology, he was assuming, in effect, that he had a very pecu-
liar decision tree. This tree had just one branch: rebuild it
all. This branch, he seemed to believe, would lead to a single
outcome, a successful recovery and a thriving company, and
he seemed to think the odds of this outcome were very high.
Unfortunately, the branch he chose had other possible out-
comes. One was a long, profitless struggle to recover. Another
was the disaster that actually occurred. Any careful analy-
sis of the textile industry in America would have indicated
that both of these outcomes had significant probabilities of
occurring, because so many US textile firms had met these
fates. These possibilities dramatically reduced the likely value
of the “rebuild everything” option. That option, properly
understood, was the weighted value of three possibilities: a
big success; a long, unrewarding struggle; and utter failure.
Chapter_02.indd 33 10/06/16 11:01 PM
Managing in the Gray
34
Even worse, Feuerstein didn’t seem to realize his decision
tree had other branches. Each was some combination of clos-
ing businesses that were failing, investing heavily in R&D
for promising new products, outsourcing some production,
selective rebuilding, and generous severance and retraining
support for laid-off workers. Would some of these combina-
tions have worked? No one knows. But Feuerstein and his
senior managers could have worked intensely to assess these
options and their odds of success—before making final deci-
sions. This would have given them a basic decision tree. They
would have seen what their options were and the possible
consequences of each of them.
By doing this, they might have found branches on their
decision tree that could have kept Malden Mills in business,
avoided bankruptcy, and provided jobs for many workers and
retraining for others. The company ultimately received about
$300 million in insurance payments and $100 million from
banks. These funds, spent prudently and strategically, might
have enabled Feuerstein to accomplish a good deal—though
not all—of what he really cared about. And, most important,
if he had used some version of a decision tree to make sure
he was thinking broadly and deeply, Feuerstein might have
produced much better net, net consequences for everyone.
When you face a gray area problem, you don’t have to cre-
ate complex, precisely crafted decision trees, and you usually
can’t. But you can spend time and work with others to think
carefully about the full range of options, outcomes, and prob-
abilities. You can also update your assessment of the possible
outcomes as you get new information. But what really mat-
ters is the mental process of looking broadly, considering the
Chapter_02.indd 34 10/06/16 11:01 PM
What Are the Net, Net Consequences?
35
full range of possible outcomes, and thinking hard—with
imagination and empathy—about each outcome and making
your best judgment about the odds each outcome might occur.
Simple decision trees have many advantages, and one is
encouraging you to confront ugly possibilities—something
most of us are reluctant to do. One of the reasons computers
beat outstanding human chess players is that they analyze
every option with utterly emotionless clarity. In contrast,
human beings behave like proper Victorians and avert their
gaze from the consequences and scenarios that look compli-
cated, discouraging, or harsh.
26
In the case of Malden Mills, the ugly possibility was a
prospect that an entrepreneur like Aaron Feuerstein, who
had overcome grim industry trends with the brilliant intro-
duction of Polartec, could fail badly and destroy his own
company. Another ugly possibility, which Aaron Feuerstein
seems to have pushed aside, was the prospect of going bank-
rupt, laying off his entire workforce, and devastating their
community in the event his bold commitment failed.
The first great humanist question asks you to look directly
at the ugly consequences. In particular, you have to look at
outcomes that impose hardship and serious risk on innocent
people, especially the ones who may be almost invisible to you
when you are making a gray area decision. Your focus then is
usually the decision itself and all its complexities and uncer-
tainties. Often, you are under time pressure to get the prob-
lem solved. All this makes it less likely you will really look
broadly and deeply. To see the risks, hazards, and damage
you may be imposing on vulnerable, yet invisible people, you
have to look beyond the boundaries of your organization
Chapter_02.indd 35 10/06/16 11:01 PM
Managing in the Gray
36
and beyond your economic and legal obligations. This can
be uncomfortable and make your decision even more com-
plicated, but it is what Bentham, Mill, Mozi, Christ, and so
many other wise and insightful minds believed was right.
Orchestrate Pushback
If you want to see the full, possible consequences of a decision,
you have to do more than bring the right people together and
get the analysis structured in the right way. Two factors can
subvert any sound process you create. These are groupthink
and bossthink. The first leads us to stifle our concerns and go
along with the sentiments of a group. The second leads us to
go on autopilot and agree with our bosses. To get the process
right and get the consequences clear, you have to fight both of
these common tendencies.
Aaron Feuerstein may have made a decisive error along
these lines. A well-respected senior executive at Malden Mills
strongly opposed his plan to rebuild. As a result, she was
fired. Decisions like this send messages that reverberate, like
strong aftershocks, throughout an organization. One mes-
sage is: the boss’s instincts matter more than your analysis.
Another is: disagreeing with the boss, even on a complex,
gray area decision, puts your job at risk. Another is: you can
find safety by not diverging from whatever a group or your
boss seems to be thinking.
Because groupthink and bossthink are serious problems,
good managers fight them head-on. One tactic is dividing
a working group into small teams and having them work
separately on analysis and action plans, to encourage inde-
pendent thinking. Another is asking advocates of a particular
Chapter_02.indd 36 10/06/16 11:01 PM
What Are the Net, Net Consequences?
37
viewpoint to state the strongest reasons for disagreeing with
their position. This is a way of seeing how thoroughly they
have analyzed the problem.
Another tactic is appointing one or two individuals in
a group to act as devil’s advocate. Everyone knows what a
devil’s advocate is, but the familiarity of the term conceals
how important this approach is for resolving hard problems.
A dialectical search for truth—based on opposition and
contradiction—appears in every major philosophical tra-
dition. And the devil’s advocate tactic itself is centuries old.
The Catholic Church developed it during the Middle Ages to
vet candidates for sainthood: a devil’s advocate was formally
appointed to argue against God’s advocate, who supported
sainthood.
27
When you face a gray area problem, the job of the dev-
il’s advocate is to present the strongest possible arguments
against views or conclusions that a group is about to agree on.
For this approach to work, devil’s advocates need the orga-
nizational equivalent of immunity from prosecution. This
means believing that thoughtful disagreement, even with the
boss, will win points rather than lose them.
The devil’s advocate tactic is a highly versatile way to create
pushback. For example, some military forces use “red team-
blue team” exercises. These test the readiness of a group by
dividing it in two and having one part attack the other—to
reveal strengths and vulnerabilities.
28
President Lincoln’s cab-
inet included several powerful political adversaries. Historian
Doris Kearns Goodwin called this a “team of rivals” and
concluded that it helped Lincoln make much better decisions
during a crucial era in American history.
29
Chapter_02.indd 37 10/06/16 11:01 PM
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.