Jumping to conclusions and moving on quickly can leave you badly exposed to unforced errors

Who�€™s the hero in most organizations? The person noted for quick decisions and the ability to �€œthink on her feet?�€� Or the one who takes time to consider the options and weight the alternatives, even if the answer appears clear? No contest, right? But is quick thinking all it’s claimed to be?

Are snap judgments always right? Surely not. Are considered ones always better? No, they aren�€™t. Speed neither guarantees being right, nor always prevents it. To spend time on minuscule details is often wasteful. To ponder the nature of intervention when the person at the next table is choking is idiotic.

That�€™s the problem with the fashion for black and white thinking. Answers must be right or wrong, where reality is messy and inconclusive. Fast decisions are sometimes essential, sometimes not. It all depends on the circumstances. But because marketers credit the average person with an attention span of a few seconds, they shun products or ideas whose message cannot be compressed into a 30-second sound bite. Oddly, many managers believe the same is true of their bosses.

Speed isn�€™t everything. Sometimes, it isn�€™t anything useful. Today�€™s pressure to do everything quickly forces people into making decisions and choices quickly, rather than well. That�€™s why so many people stick with what they�€™ve done before, or what they�€™ve been told is �€œstandard�€� and safe. They don�€™t feel they can take the time to think carefully enough to follow their real inclinations. If you jump to a choice and it�€™s wrong, you�€™re neck is on the block. If you jump to doing the conventional thing and it�€™s wrong, you can justify what you did on the grounds that it�€™s what anyone else would have done.

Gut reactions can make you feel sick later

In his book “Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking”,” Malcolm Gladwell makes the case for snap judgments of all kinds. Yet even he includes caveats about leaping to conclusions: marketers can manipulate our first impressions, high arousal moments make us “mind blind,” focusing on the wrong cue leaves us vulnerable to “the Warren Harding Effect” (i.e., voting for a handsome but hapless president).

When a situation looks like one you�€™ve met before—or your instant reaction is to say �€œyes�€� or �€œno�€� without further thought—can you be sure you�€™re right? Might things look the same, yet be quite different on closer inspection?

A friend of mine tells the story of doing business with a supplier in the Far East for many years. Each transaction was the same. An order was placed, the goods were made, and then despatched, together with an invoice. When they arrived and were seen to be satisfactory, the invoice was paid.

A new boss judged this process was unnecessary. Despite the misgivings of those who had dealt with that supplier for years, he immediately directed that payment (a very large one) should be sent with the order. It was a snap decision, made without any exploration or consideration of alternatives. That was simply the way he wanted it.

You can guess what happened. The payment was accepted, the containers arrived full of old lumber, and the person at the supplier who handled the money could no longer be located.

Some thinking time now can pay big dividends later

People easily fall into the trap of believing they act with proper thought, when their thoughts are either instant, gut reactions or simple repetitions of what has gone before. By thinking fast �€” taking your intuitive reaction as correct �€” you greatly increase the chances of being blinded to important changes in circumstance. Second thoughts arrive too late.

In “Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind: How Intelligence Increases When You Think Less,” Guy Claxton describes a simple experiment that proved rapid thinking prevented people reaching the correct conclusions. Even when forced to wait before giving an answer, those who still got it wrong were found to have used the extra time thinking about completely unrelated matters. They relied on their immediate conclusion and saw no need to waste more time questioning it. Those who used to time to realize the correct answer, didn�€™t spend more effort on the problem itself either. But by thinking about the nature of the problem and what its purpose was, they realized they had underestimated its complexity and so moved to reevaluate their answer.

How you think may produce different answers to the same question. You can�€™t be certain in advance an instant answer is right or wrong, but taking time to produce an alternative may well tell you which it is. Our minds are easily fooled by appearances and far too easily attracted to past answers.

In our thoughtless worship of speed, we forget how poorly it copes with ambiguity, change, or novelty. These situations require both time to explore and understand and time to consider options and answers. Merely repeating what has been done previously, or selecting a standard response, is extremely risky. Why take the risk if it isn’t necessary?

Speed easily becomes addictive. After a while, it becomes a habit. All choices are made as quickly as possible, often on intuition or first impressions. But thinking on your feet can quickly lead to falling flat on your face.

I�€™d rather have people who took time whenever they could to get it right, than those who are so keen to appear decisive that they jump to an answer, even when there is no particular urgency to do so. Wouldn�€™t you?

[ratings]

Technorati Tags: