Picking up where we left off yesterday: Are David Maister’s, Bob Sutton’s, and Michael Lovaglia’s views in conflict?
I believe they are different
perspectives of the same situation.
Sutton seems to be describing how he feels decisions SHOULD be made based on evidence. He also admits that they aren’t actually made that way very often.
Law is describing how decisions are actually made. “The more important the outcome of a decision, the
more people will resist using evidence to make it.”
Maister seems to be agreeing with Lovaglia but extending his point. Why aren’t business schools and other curricula teaching us how to be successful in a corporate environment where decisions aren’t made based on evidence? Why didn’t we also learn soft skills instead of learning only to scoff at their value?
"So what!", you say?
This is a classic change management dilemma. There is a “current state”, a “desired state”, and a whole lot of people standing in between the two! What do you do?
(I hope we all picked up some of those "soft skills" we didn't learn in college - we're going to need them!)
As for the “desired state”, both evidence and intuition have a place in decision making. Sutton accurately points out that we don’t base enough on fact. However, I believe we will never (nor should we) base everything on fact alone.
See Seth Godin’s post today. Just to keep it interesting, our customers don’t seem to base their decisions on facts either!