Tag: Decision-making

Categories
34. Emotion and Decision-making

Emotion and Decision-making

This article is a summary of a series of articles published in 2022, the first of which can be found at https://rational-understanding.com/2022/01/12/emotions/

The variables involved in the decisions of an individual person comprise:

  • The satisfiers and contra-satisfiers that an act is likely to cause.
  • The change in status of those satisfiers and contra-satisfiers between absent, latent, precarious, and entrenched.
  • The probability of those satisfiers and contra-satisfiers occurring as a result of the act.
  • The needs affected by those satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. Most affect several needs.
  • The current state of those needs, i.e., wholly satisfied, partly satisfied, and so on.
  • The change in the level of satisfaction of those needs.
  • The holon affected by the satisfier or contra-satisfier.

These variables are too many for rational and objective analysis, even if we had the time. So instead, we use emotion as follows.

  • Positive and negative emotions attach to needs. Typical positive emotions are happiness, joy, and exhilaration. Typical negative ones are fear, disgust, and anxiety.
  • If needs are fully satisfied, then our emotions are neutral. If they are not, then our emotions are negative.
  • A satisfier will alter the status of a need by increasing its level of satisfaction. The greater the increase, the greater the reduction in negative emotion.
  • For a short time, we will also experience a positive emotion. Positive emotions are, however, transient. This is because we must continuously act to survive, and positive emotions reduce our motivation to do so. So, they merely act as a short-term reward for successful acts.
  • A contra-satisfier reduces the level of satisfaction of our needs, and so, increases our negative emotional state.

A decision to act is made by totalling the effects of all satisfiers and contra-satisfiers associated with it, to assess the overall change in our emotional state. The process involved is akin to that of an analogue computer.

  • The lower a need in the ERG (existence, relatedness, growth) hierarchy, the greater the weight, or relative importance, we give to it. Greatest weight is normally given to existence needs.
  • The less satisfied a need, the greater the weight we give to it.
  • The closer the beneficiary of a satisfier or the victim of a contra-satisfier is to us, the greater the weight we give to their needs. Greatest weight is given to our own needs.
  • The resulting change in emotional state is associated with the relevant satisfier or contra-satisfier, and we remember these associations for use as future shortcuts.
  • The greater the probability that the act will deliver a satisfier or contra-satisfier, the greater the weight we give to the latter. Greatest weight is given to satisfiers or contra-satisfiers that are certain to occur.
  • We then aggregate the weighted changes in negative emotion attached to the relevant satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. If the result is an overall reduction in negative emotions, then we will act. If it is an increase, then we will not.
  • If the overall change is greater than a certain threshold, then this can trigger a biochemical reaction, such as the fight or flight syndrome.

This process, including any cognitive elements, is biological in nature and has almost certainly evolved in animals over time. Simpler versions of the process are likely to exist in non-human animals and are also likely to have existed in our ancestor species.

The emotional associations, weights and thresholds are established by a combination of genetics, socialisation, and experience. So, the process can be carried out relatively quickly and subconsciously. For example, it takes relatively little time to know whether we are happy or unhappy with a proposed course of action.

There is, however, considerable variation between individuals. For example, empaths will give a higher weight than average to the effect of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers on others; psychopaths will give the same effects a lower weight than average; and narcissists will give a higher weight than average to the need for positive regard.

Culture also has an effect. For example, values and norms create what we refer to as conscience. Acting contrary to conscience generates the negative emotion of guilt.

Socialisation affects the emotional value that we attach to satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. For example, continued exposure to advertising can create a belief that products and services will reduce negative emotions, and thus, lead us to indulge in “retail therapy”. Socialisation can also affect how we vote in elections.

Fortunately, if we have the time, and particularly if the decision that we need to make is a novel one, we can consciously verify our decisions before acting. The process involved is described at https://rational-understanding.com/2021/10/22/consciousness/ .

Decisions made by holons comprising more than one person can differ in several respects. A decision is more likely to be based on research and consciously reasoned argument. There may be formal established processes. Debate and consultation may be involved, bringing with them the perspectives and interaction styles of several individuals. Nevertheless, every holon is ultimately led by an individual person and they are subject to the emotional processes described above. As a minimum, this can influence the decision. A recent example is the disastrous economic decisions made, against all advice, in 2022, by the UK’s 50-day Prime Minister.

Categories
06. Quality of Decision-making and Command (Part 2)

Quality of Decision-making and Command (Part 2)

For a command to be issued, opportunities and threats which provide motivators to the command component or the organisation and its stakeholders must exist.  Normally, there are several at any one time and the command component will grasp the opportunity or avoid the threat which yields greatest emotional benefit, leaving others for later. However, what is regarded as the highest priority opportunity or threat depends upon the command components traits as described in the previous article. For example, a self-serving attitude will favour personal opportunities and threats over organisational ones.

A potential solution is then identified, and the resources required for its implementation are compared with those available. As explained in a previous article, the use of resources has a negative emotional impact. However, the greater their availability, the less this impact.

The potential solution is also compared for compliance with the command component’s understanding of the culture in which the organisation operates, i.e., social values, norms, and beliefs. Understanding of this culture can vary from a full understanding to none at all, or it can be misinterpreted. Normally, the less compliant the proposed solution, the greater the disbenefits of acting on it. However, self-serving command components can have no cultural schema, a distorted one, or may simply ignore it.

The trustworthiness of the subordinate components or followers selected to implement the command is a risk that is also assessed. This will normally be based on feedback on their past performance and a perception of whether they share mutual interests with the command component or the organisation and its stakeholders. The more trustworthy the subordinates, the greater the benefits of implementing the proposed solution.

Other risks are also considered, for example, the failure of the proposed solution to deliver the benefits anticipated, or the use of greater resources than anticipated.

A risk/benefit/cost analysis is then carried out. If carried out by an individual, it is usually based entirely on emotional impacts. However, in larger organisations it can be a more formal process. Ultimately, however, even the most thorough formal analysis is founded on emotional impacts. The analysis yields an overall emotional benefit or disbenefit by adding together the positive emotional value of the benefits sought, the negative emotional value of the resources used, and the negative emotional value of any cultural non-compliance. The trustworthiness of the followers chosen to implement the solution and any other risk factors increase or decrease these individual values.

Based on this analysis, a decision is then taken on whether to implement the proposed solution. If the analysis shows a positive overall emotional benefit, then it will normally be implemented, and the command component will then consider the next highest priority opportunity or threat. However, if it has an overall emotional disbenefit, it will not. An alternative solution will be proposed, and the process will repeat until a satisfactory solution is found, or it is concluded that there is none. Thus, one of two feedback loops will occur, depending on this decision.

If it has been decided to proceed with a solution, then a command will normally be issued. Motivators, i.e., satisfiers, may also be offered to encourage the follower to implement the command. The resources required for these motivators will have been taken into account during the risk/benefit/cost analysis. However, if the follower has previously proven unwilling or if the use of resources can be reduced, then a coercive approach involving contra-satisfiers may be threatened.

Finally, if it has been decided to implement a course of action which does not comply with cultural values and norms, e.g., if the command component’s motives are entirely self-serving, then mitigation will be necessary. In the case of an individual leader, this can take the form of false displays of culturally acceptable motivation, explanations, rationales, distractions, etc. In the case of a business organisation, mitigation services are provided by public relations consultants, advertising consultants and business psychologists. As also stated by H.G. Wells, “Advertising is legitimised lying”. In the case of a political organisation, advice can be provided by spin doctors. In the extreme it can become propaganda and the silencing of dissenting voices. Again, the resources needed for this will have been taken into account in the risk/benefit/cost analysis. It is interesting to note that a surfeit of self-serving leaders leads to a surfeit of mitigation. This, in turn, leads to much social confusion regarding the truth, and thus, to mental ill health. Positive psychology and mindfulness merely treat the symptoms and not the cause. Furthermore, they distract us from dealing with the cause.

Categories
05. Quality of Decision-making and Command (Part 1)

Quality of Decision-making and Command (Part 1)

Command is a generic term and can mean instructions, requests, or implied wishes.

Quality of decision-making and command determines whether decisions yield maximum utility for the stakeholders of an organisation, fail in this, or provide utility only for its leaders. A stakeholder is not merely a person or organisation with a financial interest, but one who is affected by it, directly or indirectly, in any way.

Individuals or organisations can either seek or seek to avoid command roles. Whether an individual seeks a command role depends on his genetic inheritance, upbringing, education, and experience, but the relative influence of each is not known. Ultimately, every organisation from a small club to a group of nations is commanded by a single individual. Thus, the factors which influence an individual’s attitude also affect any organisation he or she commands. There are many examples of a leader of one nation wishing to extend its influence over others.

The command component/ subordinate component relationship is known as the leader/ follower relationship when applied to individuals. Because each organisation and component organisation is led by an individual, the relationship is normally negotiated between individuals and provides emotional benefits to both. An individual’s needs are for survival/procreation, relatedness, and growth and it is the satisfaction of these needs which is the subject of negotiation. The needs of larger organisations are similar, i.e., they wish to survive, have a positive relationship with the society in which they operate, and grow. These organisational needs are interpreted by individuals when negotiations between organisations, from individual to international level, take place. However, the priorities we give to both individual and organisational needs change with time, and so too do the priorities we give to their satisfiers. Relationships can therefore alter. They can be newly established, adapt, become more or less satisfactory, or fail.

Any organisation or individual that seeks a command or leadership role will, either honestly or dishonestly, display an ability to supply motivators to potential subordinate organisations or followers. These motivators may be rewards or satisfiers of their followers’ needs. Thus, a potential individual leader will make displays of wealth, for example an expensive lifestyle, or of influence, for example name dropping. A larger potential command component will also make displays of wealth and influence. Alternatively, motivators may comprise contra-satisfiers or punishments, i.e., those things we are motivated to avoid. In this case, a potential individual leader will display power through physical strength, bullying, size of following, control over the satisfiers of potential followers, etc. A larger organisation may threaten legal action and a nation may threaten war.

The quality of any command depends on the following traits of the command component. In the case of individuals, each trait is caused by a combination of genetic inheritance, upbringing, education, and experience, but the relative influence of each is unknown. Again, because organisations are ultimately led by an individual, these traits will affect any larger decision-making body.

  1. The competence of the command component to make decisions, e.g., whether they have experience and understanding of the relevant field, and whether they have the cognitive skills to make appropriate decisions. Their focus is frequently relatively narrow. In practice, an understanding of human society is beyond our individual cognitive ability, and so we often simplify, focusing only on the particular organisation commanded and its immediate stakeholders. The more extensive the impact of the organisation, the more problematic this becomes. Thus for example, governing a nation needs to be supported by complex systems modelling of the type described at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/systems-thinking-for-civil-servants
  2. Whether the command component has a self-serving attitude or a collectivist one, i.e., a concern for themselves alone or for the organisation and its stakeholders as a whole. As explained in previous articles, we are social animals, and our individual interest strongly derives from that of our community. Usually, therefore, leaders will balance short term personal interests with longer term collectivist ones. However, this is not always the case, and some individuals will focus solely, or to a very large extent on immediate personal interest. Due to leader/ follower negotiations, this attitude can cascade down through an organisation and even affect whole nations. Ways of avoiding this will be discussed in a subsequent article.
  3. Whether the command component tends to centralise decision making upon itself or is willing to delegate it to subordinates. If the attitude is a self-serving one, then decisions will, of course, be centralised to ensure that they are in the interest of the decision-makers. If it is collectivist, then more delegation will take place. However, the more a decision is centralised, the more overloaded decision-makers will become. On the other hand, the more it can be in the interest of all stakeholders. The more it is delegated, the less likely it will be that decision makers become overloaded. On the other hand, the more likely it is to be in the interest of the sub-ordinates to whom it is delegated. Neither extreme is satisfactory. A balance needs to be struck, therefore, with monitoring and policing of decisions by both parties.
  4. Whether the command style is authoritarian or consultative. A consultative style requires time for consultation. Overloaded decision makers will, therefore, become more authoritarian, and less likely to fully acquaint themselves with the circumstances surrounding the decision. Due to this lack of information and criticism from more knowledgeable subordinates, authoritarian decisions are likely to be of lower utility than consultative ones. Self-serving decisions require mitigations such as justifying rationales. This also requires time and effort. Self-serving decision-makers will, therefore, also become more authoritarian. Those with more time or the interests of the organisation and its stakeholders at heart are more likely to be consultative.
  5. Whether the command component is informed or uninformed about the relevant issue. This includes the quality of information received from sub-ordinate components and from the environment. High quality information enables good decisions but requires resources to gather, verify and police.

Any one of these traits is sufficient to affect the quality of decision making. However, several can combine either to have a greater effect or to cancel one another out. The traits are also inter-related with one being sufficient but not necessary to cause the other. For example, a self-serving attitude leads to a tendency to centralise decision making. This in turn can lead to overload. Due to a lack of time to persuade, overload can lead to an authoritarian attitude. This, in turn, due to a lack of consultation, can lead to uninformed decisions. All these factors lead to poor decision making. Furthermore, because there is a causal time lag, their impact steadily degrades the quality of decision making over time. Thus, a self-serving attitude is a highly significant factor in poor decision making, whose effect grows with time. This causal cascade means that leaders, who may initially have only a slightly self-interested attitude, can over time slide down a slippery slope into despotism. A partial solution may be to place a time limit on any command role, as in a true electoral democracy. However, more is required to ensure that we are not ruled by the excessively self-serving.