Veröffentlichung
Siebert, Johannes U.; Keeney, Ralph L. “Creating More and Better Alternatives for Decisions Using Objectives”, Operations Research, September/Oktober 2015, 63(5), 1144-1158, dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.2015.1411
„There is no alternative!“, so begründete die britische Premierministerin Margaret Thatcher Ende der 1970er Jahre ihr wirtschafts- und sozialpolitisches Reformprogramm. Alsbald wurde dieser Slogan in den Medien als „TINA“-Prinzip karikiert. Aber gibt es überhaupt Entscheidungen ohne Alternativen? Und was besagt ihre vermeintliche Alternativlosigkeit über ihre Qualität? Aktuelle Studien, die aus einer engen Zusammenarbeit des Bayreuther Ökonomen Dr. Johannes Siebert und des U.S.-amerikanischen Entscheidungstheoretikers Prof. Dr. Ralph L. Keeney hervorgegangen sind, zeigen: Gerade dann, wenn Menschen kreativ und zielorientiert nach verschiedenen Handlungsoptionen Ausschau halten, steigt die Qualität ihrer Entscheidungen. In der renommierten Fachzeitschrift „Operations Research“ stellen die beiden Wissenschaftler ihre Ergebnisse vor.
Narrowed view of alternatives blinds us to the best options
People who have to make a decision are often unable to identify all the alternatives relevant to them. Without support, they often only identify less than half of the possible courses of action that they believe should be considered as soon as they are explicitly asked about them. This was the finding of an experiment involving around 200 bachelor’s and master’s students in business or business-related programs. In the run-up to deciding on an internship, they identified on their own only 37 percent of those possible courses of action that they later rated as relevant when presented with a comprehensive ‘master list’ of options.
The narrowed view of the wide field of possible alternatives also has considerable consequences for the quality of decisions. For as Keeney and Siebert were able to demonstrate in the same study, people in decision-making situations are often blind to options that they subsequently evaluate as particularly advantageous. Before students were presented with a ‘master list’ of possible alternatives, only 44 percent of them considered the option they subsequently rated best; and only 10 percent of them recognized their top three favorites in advance. But if particularly advantageous courses of action are not considered at all, they cannot be chosen; for it is clear that a decision is always a choice of an option that has been identified in advance.
Siebert explains this ‘blindness’ to a beneficial, even the best, decision with an example from the study: Halfway through his internship, a student has the desire to work full-time for the company after graduation. What should he do to achieve this objective? Most of the students surveyed mention options such as “work longer,” “try harder,” or “take on responsibility,” but by far the most promising option does not occur to them: namely, that the student should ask his boss what he needs to do in the second half of his internship to increase his chances of getting a full-time position. As long as the boss does not know about the intern’s interest, the other options mentioned prove to be less effective. However, most of the interviewees only realize this after the fact.
“The better the alternatives considered before a decision is made, the better, as a rule, the option ultimately chosen,” explains the Bayreuth economist. “Many individuals and organizations focus on discussing and evaluating individual alternatives. However, it turns out to be much more effective to invest more effort in developing alternatives.”
Identifying objectives – a key to discovering beneficial opportunities for action.
But what can people do in the run-up to a decision so that they have a wider range of possible alternatives in front of them – especially those possible courses of action that are in their well-understood interests? It is of crucial importance to be aware of one’s own objectives. “Following up on previous scientific literature, Professor Ralph Keeney and I took an approach that is already obvious based on general life experience,” Siebert reports. “We investigated whether the recognition of advantageous courses of action is stimulated and expanded when people first account for what objectives they actually want to achieve before making decisions. Such a positive effect can indeed be demonstrated. The results of our studies are unanimous on this point.
Because in further tests with around 400 students, it turned out: If they had their own objectives clearly in mind, they were able to identify more and better possible courses of action in the run-up to a decision than if it was not clear to them which objectives should be taken into account in their decision. Students who were ‘goal conscious’ were able to discover twice as many possible courses of action with the help of creative considerations than students who had not previously thought about their own objectives. And what is even more significant: In 58 percent of these cases, the range of possible actions identified in a goal-conscious manner was subsequently rated higher.
In light of these findings, Siebert and Keeney tested different procedures to encourage creative searches for promising courses of action. A comprehensive ‘master list’ of objectives combined with guidance on how to use these objectives to conduct such a search proved particularly effective. In this way, the number of alternatives considered in the run-up to a decision was increased by 53 percent.
Time is no substitute for purposeful decision making
Could such an effect also be achieved by simply giving people more time to prepare a decision? Is the visualization of objectives possibly a time-consuming detour that could be avoided if more time were available for a less goal-oriented search for alternatives? This is clearly denied by the two scientists. Their research shows that a systematic visualization of objectives is indispensable if one wants to encourage people in difficult decision-making situations to consider many meaningful alternatives.
From scientific studies to practice: recommendations for action
At the end of their contribution to “Operations Research,” Siebert and Keeney, who conducts research at the renowned Duke University in the U.S., develop a series of recommendations on how the research results obtained can be used to optimize decision-making processes – whether in politics, in companies, social organizations or individual life planning. It benefits the quality of decisions, he said, when multiple people are involved in identifying and weighing objectives and meaningful alternatives for action: i.e., not only those responsible for ultimately making the decision, but also analysts and other stakeholders. “Loneliness and time pressure, combined with unclear objectives and a limited view of possible alternatives, are poor prerequisites for good decisions,” says Dr. Johannes Siebert, who intends to expand on the studies now published in further research.
Source: Universität Bayreuth, Pressemitteilung Nr. 168/2015 vom 11. September 2015
