I came across
this interesting post on the Harvard Business Review Blog Network. Stephen Wunker discusses why Peter Drucker distrusted facts. He pulls in this interesting quote from Drucker's book
Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices
"Most books on decision-making tell the reader: First find the facts.
But executives who make effective decisions know that one does not start
with facts. One starts with opinions...The understanding that
underlies the right decision grows out of the clash and conflict of
divergent opinions and out of serious consideration of competing
alternatives. To get the facts first is impossible. There are no facts
unless one has a criterion of relevance."
Wunker goes on to highlight five theses that support this claim:
- If we do not make opinions clear, we will simply find confirmatory
facts. "No one has ever failed to find the facts they are looking for."
- An opinion provides an untested hypothesis. Once we have clarified
the hypothesis, we can test it rather than argue it. "The effective
person...insists that people who voice an opinion also take
responsibility for defining what factual findings can be expected and
should be looked for."
- Decisions are judgments, not a choice between right and
wrong. Oftentimes they are "a choice between two courses of action
neither of which is probably more right than the other." So we must
understand the alternatives fully.
- Big decisions may require new criteria. "Whenever one
analyzes the way a truly great, a truly right, decision has been
reached, one finds that a great deal of work and thought went into
finding the appropriate measurement. The effective decision-maker
assumes that the traditional measurement is not the right
measurement...The traditional measurement reflects yesterday's decision.
That there is a need for a new one normally indicates that the measure
is no longer relevant."
- Ironically, opinions break executives free of
pre-conceptions and poor imagination. Disagreement is a safeguard
against being a prisoner of the organization and seeing an issue just as
underlings want. Drucker quotes the famed General Motors boss Alfred P. Sloan,
who after hearing executives unanimously support a decision reportedly
said, "I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our
next meeting to give us time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain
some understanding of what the decision is all about."
I find the Sloan quote very interesting; where he implies that a decision is not considered effective unless dissent is present, and if there is no dissent then go out and find some!
Do you seek dissenting opinions when you make a decision?