Decision Outcome Chain

Fifty meters. Forty meters. The Peapod skimmed across the water towards the windward mark with a slim lead over its rival, Anemone. "Prepare to tack." Seconds passed like minutes as the crew awaited the next command, ready to rocket into action. The computer which was the skipper's brain, honed by years of experience, monitored wind speed, wind direction and a host of other inputs. "Tack!" The skipper eased the tiller to leeward, the boom swung, the crew sprang into action, and the eager craft leapt to its new course. Despite what appeared to be perfect execution, the skipper remained vigilant. With the craft now just ten meters from the mark, the wind suddenly shifted. Peapod slowed noticeably as the skipper was forced to point dangerously close to the wind to make his objective. Anemone shot past, having anticipated the wind shift.

How Peapod and its crew took on the challenge of rounding the mark can help us understand how decisions produce resultant outcomes. A decision (in this case, to tack and when) is made based on available information. The decision is then implemented (here by the crew working the sailboat's controls). During implementation, external forces (such as the wind) are sure to act. The decision maker may modify his decision (e.g., head up) based on feedback, observing the impact of these forces vis-a-vis the effectiveness of implementation. Finally, an outcome is realized.

While the primary objective of decision-making is to achieve a "good" outcome, good decisions are not synonymous with good outcomes. Good decisions implemented poorly can produce undesirable results. Surprisingly strong external forces (e.g., the economy) can foil even the best of decisions implemented well.

Ironically, such forces can lead to good outcomes even in the absence of good decisions or implementation. Should corporate executives receive a king's ransom in compensation during the best economic times? Should executives receive blame for poor results during economic downturns? I digress.