Ways to increase the creative spectrum in decision making. Ways to Increase the Creative Spectrum in Decision Making Decision Making Method Devil's Advocate

Making decisions is difficult. Making the right decisions is even more difficult. It is impossible to never regret your decisions. Or perhaps? We make choices every day. Simpler: take an umbrella or not, what to eat for lunch. Or vice versa - where to go to work or invest savings. Everyone can change our life. And not the fact that for the better.

Former CIA agent Morgan Jones has put together a collection of 14 powerful tools in his book Solving Problems with Intelligence Methods. Use them to bypass the rake and make the right decisions quickly.

Why are we wrong

Typically, the decision-making process proceeds in four stages. You are faced with the need to choose. You consider options without noticing the pitfalls of thinking. You make a choice. And then you live with it. What to do? Analyze problems. The CIA calls this method structuring.

When applied correctly and creatively, structuring techniques can greatly enhance our ability to analyze, understand, solve problems, - .

Structuring is like a map that you cannot do without while traveling. It shows that the path starts from a specific point. But then the road branches and can lead to different places. And here, which path you will take and where your journey will end, is determined not by a map (think about it, trees and rivers are drawn on it), but by analysis - and the steps that you take after it.

Structuring makes it easier to analyze: it shows what you don’t immediately notice, and helps to understand the problem deeper.

Imagine a person who bought himself a water mattress and went to bed. In the morning he wakes up and sees water on his mattress. Annoyed, he takes the mattress outside and tries to add water to it.

But the mattress inflates so much that it eventually bursts. Then our hero goes to the store and buys a new mattress. And in the morning again finds water on it. Looking closer, he discovers that water is dripping from the neighbors above.

And now it's time to say: "Oops", -

He solved the problem, which he defined as follows: “How to close the leak?”. But in fact the problem is defined incorrectly. He would have to ask a completely different question: "How did the water get on my sleeping place?". It is necessary to separate the actual problem from its manifestations.

Before solving a problem, ask yourself the question: “What is the problem really?”

Instinctive and structured approach

There are two ways to make decisions - instinctive and structured. And more often we go on the first "track". What does it look like?

First, our analysis is focused on a solution that we intuitively prefer. Second, we begin our analysis of the problem by formulating a conclusion. Thirdly, we confuse thinking about the problem and its analysis. Discussing a problem is like pedaling on an exercise bike: you spend a lot of energy, but you won’t budge. Fourth, with this approach, we are highly exposed. That is why we often make mistakes.

But a structured approach will help take control of the tricks of our subconscious.

Scenario Tree

The Scenario Tree is a diagram that shows all the options available for selection. And the consequences of each. Each such chain is a separate scenario. For example, here's what a scenario tree might look like for a woman who decides to go on a date with a stranger:

Try using the script tree to solve your problem.

The script tree literally opens the third eye. We see causal relationships, how it depends on the other, we notice strengths and weaknesses. And most importantly, we can see alternatives that we simply would not have noticed.

If you're too fixated on your opinion, try the Devil's Advocate. It is simple: you must defend the opposite point of view.

This expression was used by the ministers of the Roman Catholic Church to check whether the deceased was worthy of canonization. During the discussion, the churchmen took the "position of the devil" and tried to refute the arguments in favor of classifying the discussed person as a saint.

Turn to your shadow - a part of the personality that you do not accept - to know the truth -

The devil's advocate technique is extremely useful - we stop looking at the problem one-sidedly.

Negative and positive information

Choose positive language. Scientists from Stanford have proven that people need more time to comprehend and process negative information than positive. The participants in the experiment were shown cards like the one shown in the figure, and they had to answer as quickly as possible whether the proposed statement was true. Try it yourself!

Respondents spent more time answering if the statement was false than when it was true.

We spend about 0.5 seconds more on checking an incorrect statement than on a fair statement. It seems that we are so arranged that we tend to respond faster to a fair statement than to one that does not correspond to reality.

Here's what Agent Jones himself says. “I use structuring even when I'm putting together a puzzle. First, I group the pieces by color or texture - let's say, I put all the blue ones representing the sky together. Then I divide these pieces into subgroups, according to the shape. So my mind gets the opportunity to choose the appropriate options, discarding a lot of unnecessary.

If I didn't group the pieces of the puzzle, I would have to constantly look through the whole set of unused elements - in search of those that might fit. And that’s how most of us approach problem solving!”

What else is useful in the book:

• - 14 structuring techniques
• - 7 important features of consciousness, because of which we are mistaken
• - How emotions control and confuse us
• - Steps to take a fresh look at the problem
• - Ways to develop divergent and convergent thinking
• - Four steps to test a hypothesis
• - Create a cause-and-effect diagram
• - Exercises for pumping each type of structuring

…430 pages useful information which will teach you to make important, and most importantly, the right decisions.

As Albert Einstein said: “No problem can be solved at the same level at which it was created.” These tools will teach you how to solve a problem on a different level. And be successful. No misfires. Always.

Several methods have been developed to help managers (primarily for interactive and nominal groups). The role of the doubter in the assumptions and opinions expressed by the members of the group takes on "Devil's Advocate", the main task of which is to encourage its participants to rethink approaches to the problem, to abandon premature consensus or unreasonable assumptions. Legalized devil's advocates force managers and other employees to study and explain the risks associated with each solution 20 .

This approach is similar to another approach called multiplicative protection , when several “lawyers” are involved in making a decision various options. Minority opinions and unpopular points of view should be defended by the most influential employees, who, in fact, speak at group meetings.

Method brainstorming It is used, as a rule, in interactive groups, whose members spontaneously generate ideas aimed at solving problems. The main goal of brainstorming is to create the most favorable environment for creative solutions. Participation in brainstorming encourages employees to express any, the most incredible and obviously impossible solutions. Critical comments about them are not allowed. Managers must speak their minds out loud; The discussion proceeds at a leisurely pace. The newer and more unexpected the idea, the better. The purpose of brainstorming is to increase the freedom and flexibility of thinking. As a rule, the “storm” begins: “warm-up”, when the basic concepts are discussed; then comes the free stage of generating ideas; the process ends with an evaluation of feasible proposals.

The devil's advocate is a method used in the decision-making process when one of the participants in the discussion encourages the others to rethink approaches to the problem, to abandon premature consensus or unreasonable assumptions.

The devil's advocate - a term introduced by British law - is the name of a person who, in a dispute, assumes the obligation to defend a deliberately wrong (from an objective or moral point of view) position so that those present can appreciate all the subtleties of the situation

The devil's advocate (lat. advocatus diaboli) is the unofficial title of the position of the institute of canonization of the Catholic Church. Officially, this position was called the strengthener of faith (lat. promotor fidei). It was introduced in 1587 by Pope Sixtus V and officially abolished in 1983 by John Paul II.

Before canonizing the deceased, the Catholic Church appointed a devil's advocate, who was supposed to present arguments against why this person could not be canonized as a saint.

The function of the devil's advocate was to collect all possible arguments that could interfere with the canonization or beatification of the righteous, which could take place only if the faith strengthener did not find arguments of sufficient importance to cancel the procedure. Prior to 1983, no act of canonization or beatification could be recognized as legal if the act was not attended by the devil's advocate.

"Devil's Advocate". There are many approaches to making decisions in a group in a variety of ways. The first of these, and the most common in Western management practice, is the method of making management decisions called "Devil's Advocate". It should be noted that this method has not been widely used in domestic management practice, despite the fact that it fully meets the specifics of domestic management and can be successfully used in organizations of almost any type.

The role of the doubter in the assumptions and opinions expressed by the members of the group is assumed by the "devil's advocate", whose main task is to encourage its members to rethink approaches to the problem, to abandon premature consensus or unreasonable assumptions. Legalized devil's advocates force managers and other employees to study and explain the risks associated with each solution. This approach is called multiplicative defense, i.e. when several “lawyers” of different options participate in the decision. Minority opinions and unpopular points of view should be defended by the most influential employees, who, in fact, speak at group meetings. It is known that this method was used ex-president US George Bush. Procedure for the adoption in 1999 of a number of protection laws environment, when multi-stage debates were held in the White House to help the President, entered the textbooks. From time to time, when George Bush asked cross-cutting questions to the representatives of the parties, the discussions threatened to turn into hand-to-hand fights. But as a result of the debate, a decision was made based on convincing arguments and awareness of the possible consequences.

Devil's Advocate is a process in which an alternative is studied from two opposite points, one of which positively perceives the option, the second negatively.

Bibliography.

1. O.S. Vikhansky. " Strategic management". Ed. The Economist 2009.
2. V.V. Lukashevich. "Fundamentals of Management in Trade". M., Economics,
2007
3. V.R. Vesnin. "Management for all" M. Lawyer. 2007
4. Robert N. Hoyt. "Fundamentals financial management. M. "Case LTD.,
2005
5. A.Ya.Kibanov, D.K.Zakharov "Organization of personnel management at
enterprise" M., GAU, 2010

When using the "devil's advocate" technique developed by Marvin Goldfried ( Goldfried, Linehan, & Smith, 1978), the therapist presents the patient with an extremely controversial statement, asks him if he believes in this statement; then plays the role of the "devil's advocate", with all his strength resisting the patient's attempts to refute this statement. The therapist presents the thesis in order to get the antithesis from the patient, in the process of discussion they achieve a synthesis. The highly controversial statement presented by the therapist must refer to a dysfunctional view expressed by the patient or problematic rules applied by the patient. This technique is best suited to counteract new contrasting patterns. This strategy resembles the use of a paradox, where the therapist moves to the dysfunctional pole of the continuum, thereby forcing the patient to move to the opposite, functional pole.

The Devil's Advocate technique is always used during the first few sessions to build a patient's commitment to change. The therapist makes arguments against change and adherence to therapy because change is painful and requires a lot of effort; ideally, the patient should take a diametrically opposed position and advocate the need for change and treatment. The use of this strategy is discussed in more detail in Chapter 10.

The discussion approach often used in cognitive restructuring is another example of the devil's advocate strategy under discussion. The thesis can be an irrational belief - for example, proposed by Albert Ellis ( Ellis, 1962): “All people should love me, and if at least one person does not love me, then my life is meaningless,” or: “If for any reason I offend another person, it will be an irreparable disaster.” The therapist defends the misconception while figuring out why the patient disagrees. For example, the therapist might use the last of these statements to tell the patient that they must change their behavior so that it meets the expectations of others and is approved by them, even if the patient's behavior is quite appropriate and justified (for example, the patient refuses to speed while driving, or does not want to participate in fraud). The therapist may counter what the patient is suggesting by exaggerating his own usual position, until the failure of the patient's original beliefs becomes apparent to him.

This technique has certain requirements. First, the therapist must be receptive to the dysfunctional rules and general universal beliefs that are present. Second, the therapist must create a convincing picture of his own directness and rather naive expressive style. Thirdly, somewhat unusual, but quite logical answers to each argument of the patient are very helpful. Fourth, the therapist's position must be justified enough to seem "real" to the patient, yet ostentatious enough to elicit opposition from the patient. An attitude that simultaneously acknowledges the patient's commitment to a particular idea and denies the meaning of that idea would be ideal. It also requires some ease and the ability to unobtrusively change arguments. Finally, the therapist must understand when to be serious and when to turn the argument into a humorous one.

Extension»

"Prolongation" refers to the attitude of the therapist towards the patient, when he takes the patient more seriously than he takes himself. If the patient says something to make a certain impression, or expresses extreme emotion to bring about minor changes in the environment, the therapist takes everything literally. This technique is the emotive equivalent of the devil's advocate strategy described above.

For example, a patient may make a statement about the impact or consequences of a certain event or problem in their life (“If you do not agree to an additional psychotherapy session, I will kill myself”). The therapist first takes the patient's statement about the consequences of the problem literally, then reacts to the severity of these consequences ("I will kill myself"), regardless of the actual relationship of these consequences to the event or problem named by the patient (refusal of the therapist to allow an additional psychotherapeutic session). The therapist says: “We must do something immediately if the situation is so serious and you really can kill yourself. How about hospitalization? You may need inpatient treatment. How can you talk about such trifles as the schedule of psychotherapy sessions when your life is in danger? First you need to eliminate this danger. How are you going to kill yourself?" The therapist's serious attitude to the patient's statement is not at all what the latter seeks. The patient expects from the therapist a serious attitude to the presentation presented to him. problem or event, therefore, often exaggerates their importance. The therapist only takes them seriously consequences and "extends" them by insisting on considering the consequences until a way is found to resolve them.

When used skillfully, this strategy helps the patient to understand that he is exaggerating the severity of the consequences. When this happens (“Well, okay. Maybe I'm exaggerating. I'm not going to commit suicide”), the therapist must definitely move to another position - taking the problem or event seriously. Refusal to exaggerate the emotional consequences of the problem on the part of the patient must be reinforced. If misused, this strategy can become a cover for a therapist who is unable to adequately perceive the patient's really serious problems. Best to use this technique when the patient does not expect the therapist to take himself seriously, or when the escalation of the crisis or emotional consequences is maintained due to their provocative influence on the environment. The use of this technique can be especially effective if the therapist feels manipulated. This technique is characterized by normalizing both the patient's behavior and the therapist's feelings, eliminating the desire to attack the patient. With skillful use, this strategy gives very good results.

The term "extension" to describe this technique is borrowed from aikido, the Japanese martial arts system. The fighter allows the opponent's movement to reach its natural end, then extends the final moment of the movement a little further than usual; in this case, the enemy loses his balance and becomes vulnerable. "Extension" is always preceded by "fusion", which in aikido means the movement of the fighter in the same direction as the energy flow of the opponent ( Saposnek, 1980). For example, the patient says to the therapist: “If you don’t do what I want, therapy will not help me” (opponent strike). The therapist replies, “If therapy cannot help you (fusion), we must do something (natural end of movement). Maybe I'm not the right fit for you and you need a different therapist? This is very serious” (“extension”). All aspects of the Devil's Advocate strategy described above (focusing on exaggerated consequences; feigned naivety; offbeat but logical responses; therapist reactions that look "real" enough but are sharp enough to help the patient understand the inadequacy of their own position; lightness and subtle modification of the therapist's position) are equally important in this situation.