C 2005) Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, February 2005 ( DOI: 10.1007/s11213-005-2460-x
Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures Cathal M. Brugha1,3 and Ken Bowen2 Received August 5, 2004; revised October 30, 2004 This paper describes a form of management epistemology, and suggests that it be called Decision Research, since it is primarily based on what can be learned from how managers make decisions in practice. The paper proposes that Decision Research be founded on generic cognitive structures that show a high degree of stability from east to west, old to new. These are described by Nomology, the science of the laws of the mind, and so have a positivist flavor. The paper develops, through an understanding of settled practice, how these structures are used in different cultures and fields of management. The richness of diversity it reveals encourages an interpretivist approach. Its value to Systemic Practice comes from the way that it provides frameworks and maps to elucidate issues and resolve situations in management. KEY WORDS: systems methodology; Nomology; decision science; philosophy.
1. INTRODUCTION TO DECISION RESEARCH This paper seeks to combine two strands of thinking about structured frameworks that have appeared in Systemic Practice and Action Research (SPAR). One is by Bowen (1998) on their use to provide guidelines for assisting people with the messes they face. The other by Brugha used Nomology, the science of the laws of the mind, as an intercultural systems bridge between China and the West to elucidate issues of management practice (Brugha, 2001a). Nomology (Brugha, 1998a,b,c) is a generic decision-making metamodel that supersedes differences between cultures and fields of management. With Nomology, all qualitative decision-making structures can be grouped into three independent kinds that act as dimensions that integrate in a variety of deep ways the decision processes of the mind. These are Adjusting, which is objective, and Committing and Convincing, which are subjective. Every individual decision can be shown to fit into 1 Quinn
School of Business, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 OEX, England. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Quinn School of Business, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland; e-mail:
[email protected]. 2 Royal
67 C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 1094-429X/05/0200-0067/0
68
Brugha and Bowen
one of these categories. This paper uses adjusting processes to illustrate how an understanding of cognitive structures can help decision-making. We start at a metalevel by contending that decision research fits neither into the natural science nor the social studies traditions of research in management. Good research must convince. Nomology shows that convincing is a process that has three stages or levels (Brugha, 1998c). These start with technical or selforiented issues, then relate to the context of the problem as indicated by the perceptions of other people, and finally make a conclusive judgement that takes account of the (frequently business) situations involved in order to achieve the goals of the person or organization. The natural science tradition is essentially technical and positivist; it supports simple rules and models, such as Brugha’s nomological contention that there are a limited number of generic qualitative structures. The social studies tradition is essentially contextual and interpretivist; it supports multiple and varied viewpoints. We will show below that nomological structures support multiple and changing views; these can be reflected through different constructs, processes, weights, and scores. The structure of convincing includes a third branch that focuses on goals and situations. This points to the need for a formal theoretical base for management theory that is neither positivist nor interpretivist, but that relates to situations that arise in management practice. We propose that this third theory be called Decision Research, because it is founded on research into how management actually make decisions in practice. In line with the dialectical language of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis this third approach can be described as synthesist, in that it contains aspects of positivism and of interpretivism, and more. Confining one’s justifications either to a technical-positivist or a contextual-interpretivist approach is not enough. Management is more than the proving of a case to oneself, or of getting others to see the decisions made as acceptable to them. It also requires a synthesis that leads to the achievement of goals in the light of the situations faced. The aim of Decision Research is to make decisions convincing, both in the light of natural science and social science theory and of theory based on practice. In this paper, we apply the decision research approach to just one kind of decision, namely adjustment decision-making in management. We first review the technical cognitive structures that underpin such decisions. Then we describe how they appear in different contexts. Finally we apply them to assist in elucidating the empirical findings in a particular application. 2. THE COGNITIVE STRUCTURE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION-MAKING The structure of adjustment decision-making in management arises from dichotomous answers to simple questions: what should be done? where? by whom? using which focus? and whether by increasing or controlling power in the situation?
Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures
69
These lead to the creation of four general kinds of activity (Brugha, 1998a), eight particular activities, and 16 different processes (Brugha, 1998b). There are many examples of systems in management practice that are based on this dynamic. Management surveys based on open-ended qualitative research questions of the form “what should be done to solve the problems of our company?” lead to answers that fit the same structure (Brugha, 2000). This reflects an approach to problem solving that applies at various levels of abstraction. Analysis of many such surveys and management systems indicates clearly that decision-makers use this structure to shape their responses to questions about how to address many different problems. The first question they appear to ask, albeit subconsciously, is “what kind of problem was it?”; has it more to do with uncertainty and consequently planning, or is it more about putting plans into effect? At the next level down, the second question is “where is the focus of the problem?”; is it more with the people involved or more with the “place” associated with the problem, i.e. the systems, structures, management, etc.? These two sets of dichotomies give rise to four general kinds of activities and a dynamic flow between them. Thus if someone is faced with a problem they start first in a planning mode. Within planning they generally first propose something that fits their own place or system. After that, they move into planning amongst people, i.e. they develop a perception about it. They then move into a more certain frame of mind and emphasize putting ideas and plans into effect. Initially they work more with people, pulling them to go along with what they think is right, and finally they return to the place of the organization to push new systems and structures into effect. The dynamic flow between them means that proposing, perceiving, pulling, and pushing act as phases. The “what” question provides the first level of the structure; the “where” question provides the second level (Fig. 1). Generic names and descriptions were developed to help understand these patterns in any particular case. Names starting with the letter “p” were used as generic labels of clusters, and should not be interpreted using a dictionary. For example, the difference between “planning” and “putting” depends purely on whether the activity is more or less uncertain. Planning is not seen as cerebral and inactive. Putting does not require a readymade plan. The labelling is a device aimed at helping the decision-advisor to understand and interpret the decision processes in the minds of decision-makers: in any application a decision-advisor should use the language of the decisionmakers about the particular case rather than expose them to these nomologically technical terms. See Brugha for a detailed discussion and illustrations of systems that have these four general activities or phases (Brugha, 1998a). The third question asks by whom is the decision made. If it is the “owner” of the decision then the third “pull” phase collapses and the decision becomes “subjective.” The alternative is “objective” decisions, which have an external owner, such as the company for which the decision-maker works or the community
70
Brugha and Bowen
Fig. 1. Eastern adjustment activities and faces of research.
that he or she serves. With objective decision the adjusting dynamic continues to deeper levels. The four general activities break down into eight principal activities on the basis of a further question, “which way should something be used?” (Fig. 1). Each activity can be done in either of two ways. One is to use one’s position (i.e. the control one has over resources, people, or influence); the other is to focus on the person and inter-personal activity. A proposition activity that is done using one’s position is described as pounce, a sudden shift in direction of resources or emphasis that has not been widely discussed or agreed. If a pounce solution is inadequate then go “in person” to those who are in place in the organization and see how the problem affects the work that they do. So, a personal type of proposition activity aims at improving the procedure used to solve the problem. There should be a procedure for handling every eventuality and, where a new or different type of situation arises, setting up a new procedure should be considered.
Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures
71
Frequently, working with the procedures for sorting out new problems fails to deal with a situation, presumably because it is bigger, or newer or more complex than can be handled by proposing some solution. If so, it will be necessary to develop a better perception of what is going on. Developing a perception from the point of view of one’s own position corresponds to making an evaluation of the situation, which is frequently in a market context or some competition for resources. In an adjustment context this kind of evaluation corresponds to determining the price that people are willing to pay. “Price” is used here in a very general way, and can mean many different ways that people might put a value on something. The other extreme within the perception activity is to focus on interpersonal abilities, through some group process, to formulate a combined view or policy. The formation of policy is the summit of the planning activities. Once the policy for dealing with the problem has been decided upon then the balance moves from favoring planning to favoring putting. This is the point that is furthest away from the center of control within the organization. Here the location of activity is amongst people and the approach used is based on the person. The next step brings in the first of the putting activities. As with policy this is also based on people and the focus is also on the person, so the demands of the change are not excessive. Having developed the policy and got it agreed, now it is necessary to pull the people into line. Initially the focus is on the person instead of on one’s position. It is about motivation, leadership, and persuading people to implement the policy. Each person needs to be persuaded individually, or as part of a team, to focus on a target. Thus, a pull activity that emphasizes primarily the involvement of each individual person corresponds to promotion. As promotion is the first step of the putting activities, all issues to do with it should be raised and discussed amongst the people. If the benefits of using promotion are beginning to diminish it is necessary to go to the other extreme on the issue of how to carry out the pull activity, i.e. on the dimension between people versus position. The focus changes to using a position-based measure of the contribution to the agreed goal. The emphasis becomes a competition for resources to best achieve the goal, and is described as the productivity of the people or departments in the organization. In the diagram (Fig. 1) of the activities, using the planning/putting axis, just as promotion is a mirror image of policy, so is productivity a mirror image of price. When no more benefit can be achieved through focus on a pull activity the emphasis changes from people to place, which means onto a push activity. It starts with a person-based approach, examining each relationship within the organization to define a better structure and practice in the organization that reflects the new directions and targets. The ability to impose or push through any changes is dependent on the pliability of the organization and its structures. A lack of pliability, which is often typical of state structures, of large organizations, and of institutions with a long tradition, can be a significant stumbling block to
72
Brugha and Bowen
progress in an organization. Fitting the structures to the current needs leads to greater focus and a clarification of any difficulties with putting plans into effect. Once the structures are in place it is important to not continue adapting them. At the other extreme on the position/person axis, the combination of a push activity that is done using one’s position is described as practice, the ongoing administration of the work of the organization in a regular way. The emphasis is on using one’s position to put solutions in place. In contrast to pounce, those who have control over resources will try the most appropriate solution that experience and the regulations indicate and which does not involve too many other people, and this should usually succeed in solving the problem. This completes a cycle of activities; just as policy represented the summit of planning, practice represents it for the putting side. Planning starts in the place of the organization with various propositions and moves to the people looking for perceptions of what to do. Putting starts with the people by trying to pull them together and toward some goal and finishes back in place trying to push through the various plans. If the practitioners fail to achieve the objective the cycle starts again. In an adjustment decision cycle, the decision-maker will, typically, use each of the eight principal activities initially in its pure form and focus on increasing the energy devoted to that activity. The decision-maker then has to judge when the benefits of using an activity are beginning to drop. This is a pragmatic decision and is taken in the context of the possible benefits that can come from other activities, particularly the next one in the cycle. The importance of power is central to the system. The energy or power within an adjustment system comes from a tension between opposites arising from the many dichotomies that can occur within this system. The coexistence of opposite energies is a healthy indicator of a powerful system. An imbalance, i.e. the disregard for one side of a pair seems to be a cause of a leakage or dissipation of power. This dichotomy is based on a tension between punch, the need to have sufficient support for some activity, and prevention, the need to ensure that no activity is used excessively. Punch and prevention are two alternative processes that are available to management to use when dealing with any situation. As the cycle through the eight principal activities progresses, the tendency at first is to give each activity sufficient punch for it to have effect. This corresponds to the decision-maker favoring this activity in its pure form. As the benefits from using this activity wear out the prevention energy grows leading to a move onto the next activity in the cycle. This is a pragmatic decision and is taken in the context of the possible benefits that can come from other activities, particularly the next one in the cycle. Thus, the purist likes to see a particular activity done properly and thoroughly, and so motivates the punch energy. By contrast, the pragmatist is more concerned with moving on, with trying other approaches, with preventing excessive use of any one energy. The question of whether to use a power increasing process (punch/purist) or a power controlling
Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures
73
process (prevention/pragmatic) arises within each of the eight principal activities and generates 16 different processes from which a manager could choose when faced with any problem. This completes the technical description of the adjustment system. See Brugha for a detailed discussion and illustrations of systems that have these eight stages and 16 processes (Brugha, 1998b). Typical examples from management include Peters and Waterman’s (Peters and Waterman, 1982) eight criteria of excellent companies, from which McKinsey’s Seven S’s (Pascale and Athos, 1981; Waterman, 1982) was developed. We next show how this system functions in different contexts. 3. ADJUSTMENT IN DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT CONTEXTS The adjusting structures described above were discovered in the context of solving business strategy problems. The aim of this paper is to explore broader interpretations of and uses for these structures. A central nomological claim is that these structures are generic and extensively applicable (Brugha, 1998a). Nomological Principle 1 states that “Decision making processes, in general, are invariant and more likely to be simple than complex.” The idea is that these ideas apply to how people think in general. The empirical justification for this assertion comes from how the structure appears in so many different and unconnected branches of management. Part of the research into Nomology has been to test them more conclusively by seeing how the ideas apply to similar systems that have arisen in totally different and unrelated contexts. This led to considering how adjusting structures and constructs occur in the context of Oriental culture. A major question is do they occur in a settled and meaningful way? Nomological Principle 2 (Brugha, 1998a) states that “In any culture, there should be a natural language that incorporates the concepts of a nomological system (i.e. based on the science of the laws of the mind).” If this were not the case, then one could argue that the adjusting constructs in Section 2 are not natural to Chinese thinking, i.e. that they are western structures, or business structures, etc. and consequently not generic. 3.1. Oriental Decision Structures The start of a nomological test is to compare the individual constructs of the systems under review with those of the generic system. Adjustment decisionmaking is based on three dichotomies. This suggests parallels with the Yin-Yang (either-or) system in oriental culture, and with the eight Trigrams or archetypes of the I Ching system of Ancient China (Secter, 1993). In Oriental thinking these dichotomies correspond to Yin, which is more open, soft, and uncertain, and Yang, which is more closed, hard, and certain. The first nomological dichotomy, more planning or putting has this soft versus hard characteristic. The same goes for the
74
Brugha and Bowen
second people versus place dichotomy, and the third personal versus positional dichotomy. Brugha (2001b) has shown that the descriptions of the eight activities (in Section 2) correspond to those of the eight Trigrams. This correspondence arises because of the conjunction of three Yin-Yang dimensions. They are called trigrams because they are based on three 0–1 choices. Yin, which reflects openness or softness, is represented by a broken line; an unbroken line corresponds to Yang. Trigrams are read upwards so that the first dichotomy corresponds with the lowest line. In Fig. 1 a broken bottom line corresponds to planning, a broken top line corresponds to people, and a broken middle line corresponds to a personal approach. The trigrams reflect degrees of openness from the most open or “Yin” activity, corresponding to policy (three broken lines), to the most closed or “Yang” activity, corresponding to practice (three unbroken lines). In the past they were used commonly to suggest a behavior that might be appropriate for some situations. They are archetypes of kinds of behavior and types of people. The first dichotomy was to differentiate planners from those who like to get things done. The middle one distinguishes those who favor using an interpersonal approach to making decisions from those who prefer to rely more on the position they hold to make decisions. Finally there are those who like to relate more to people, and those who do not. This reflects a change in the order of the second and third dimensions. The emphasis, in this case, is on the person’s decision style. The new order of questions is first “What type of decision behavior?,” second “Which Way to use?,” and third “Where to focus on?” Adjustment decision-making puts it on process: “What sort of problem is it?,” “Where to focus on?,” and “Which Way to use?.” The effect of interchanging the second and third questions can be seen in the sequence of the trigrams in Fig. 1. These exchange the locations of the Procedure and Price activities on the Planning side, and the Productivity and Pliability activities on the Putting side. This leads to slightly different groupings of the activities. This paper is particularly interested in exploring settled practice with regard to sequences amongst adjustment activities. Most references to the I Ching do not emphasize the order between them. An exception is the He Tu—Former (Early) Heaven Diagram of the I Ching. (Matthews, 1998) It is presented as following a linear sequence from very Yin to very Yang. The order of activities starts at the bottom right hand side of Fig. 1 with Policy, and moves up to Pounce. Then it starts again at the bottom left hand side with Promotion, and finishes with Practice. The logic of this ordering is to start first with the most open (most “Yin”) combination of planning in a personal way, directed at people. One then changes each of these incrementally, starting with the most embedded one and working out, until one reaches the most closed combination (most “Yang”). This means that the focus changes first from being directed at people to being more directed at place.
Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures
75
Changing the order in which these “where?” and “which way?” questions are taken appears to be an important variation. Nomological Principle 1 implies that decision structures are generic. Consequently, such fundamental variations in the adjusting structure should appear elsewhere, both East and West. A second Chinese example that also has this different ordering is the “Noble Eight Fold Path,” (Santina, 2001), shown in the third ring from the outside in Fig. 1. Attributed to the Buddha, the only way to Nirvana consists of the following eight factors: 1 Right Understanding, 2 Right Thought, 3 Right Speech, 4 Right Action, 5 Right Livelihood, 6 Right Effort, 7 Right Mindfulness, and 8 Right Concentration. When one fits these to their closest corresponding adjusting activities one sees the same interchange between activities two with three, and six with seven. Adjustment problem solving, as described above, follows a process cycle that works clockwise in a sequence from pounce to procedure and so on until arriving at practice again (Fig. 1). Each activity is used in turn, first in its pure form and then is terminated “pragmatically” if it fails to completely resolve the problem. The process could be completed at any point, even at the first pounce step where executive action might be enough to complete the process. Principle 1 also implies that there should be evidence of this process approach in Chinese culture, even if the archetypes approach of the I Ching appears to have been more prevalent. A Chinese example of the process approach occurs in the “Eight Wires” or “Way” of “Great Learning,” shown in the second ring from the outside in Fig. 1. This follows the same clocklike adjusting process as in Fig. 1. It presents it slightly differently, working from the eight activities back to the first as a sequence of preparatory stages: The ancients who wanted to manifest their bright virtue to all the world first governed well their own states. Wanting to govern well their own states, they first harmonised their own clans. Wanting to harmonise their own clan, they first cultivated themselves. Wanting to cultivate themselves, they first corrected their minds. Wanting to correct their minds, they first made their wills sincere. Wanting to make their wills sincere, they first extended their knowledge. Extension of knowledge consists in the investigation of things.
(This is traditionally ascribed to Confucius’ grandson, Tseng Tzu, who is believed to have acted as Confucius’ scribe Tzu, 1995). The usage of these Chinese systems over many centuries is evidence that there are clear parallels between the sets of constructs with the western systems. They could not have been derived one from the other; they have a commonality that meets at the level of the real underlying structures. 3.2. Western Decision Archetypes Principle 1 implies that there should be evidence of adjustment decision archetypes in the West also. Following Eilon (1974), Bowen (1990) considered
76
Brugha and Bowen
the differences between different kinds of operational researcher. Over a period these have reflected styles of game playing, research, solving problems, and, later, styles of management. They should be regarded as different possible behaviours, or modes of analysis, that researchers can follow, in step with the chosen phase of the adjustment cycle on which a manager is currently concentrating. These research archetypes are presented in the outer circle of Fig. 1. Table I gives their definitions as well as an alternate set of construct names that reflect earlier developments. Bowen’s research archetypes clearly are consistent with being forms of adjustment. Firstly, their language and tone is objective. For instance, the chronicler checks research practice to ensure that good standards are kept, the puzzle solver tries to discover the key to the correct direction for the research, the empiricist accumulates feedback from internal and external sources to see if the system is on the right path, etc. The research archetypes are also presented as linked to dichotomies. These were developed independently from Brugha’s dichotomies, and are presented, somewhat differently, in terms of a strong desire (+1) or not (−1) to make certain statements (Bowen, 1990). Bowen’s A, B, and C ordering is the same as the order of Chinese archetypes. Dichotomy A is based on the “desire to make statements about the adequacy of ‘the system’ (as it is theoretically assumed for some purpose).” A suggestion that the system is not adequate (A = 1) corresponds to planning in Nomology: there is uncertainty about what the system should be and, consequently, new approaches should be explored. Dichotomy C is based on the “desire to make statements about the adequacy of the beliefs of a ‘decision-maker’ as to what the system is and can do (doubting the ‘theory’ and the basis for particular decisions)” (Bowen, 1990). Questioning the decision-maker’s beliefs (C = 1) corresponds to a focus on people-related issues in Nomology. Dichotomy B is based on to the “desire to make statements about the adequacy of behavior that controls the system (the same theoretical system, for the same purpose)” (Bowen, 1990). The third dimension in adjustment decisionmaking in Nomology stemmed from the question as to whether to use a more personal or more positional approach to carry out some activity. The suggestion that the behavior that controls the system needs investigation (B = 1) corresponds to the more personal approach. It is clear that the two sets of dichotomies match. The emergence of Bowen’s set can be explained in terms of one of the dichotomies. The earliest version, a two by two classification of types of games (Bowen, 1978), corresponds to B = −1. These were Fun (later to become Playing Around, Bowen, 1986), Learning, Teaching, and Research. A subsequent version, with its greater focus on management has B = +1. In Nomology the management aspect corresponds to a more personal approach. Later Bowen (1999) developed these into a Game Matrix in the real world of management; this included Inquiring, Experiencing, Managing, and Understanding (Table I).
Change agent/experiencing (perceptions of reality) Iconoclast/managing
Classifier/teaching
Decision theorist/understanding (developing theory) Chronicler/research
Policy
Promotion
Productivity
Pliability
1
1
−1
1
−1
1
−1 −1 −1 −1
−1
−1
1
1
1
1
−1
1
1
−1
−1 −1
C
B
1
1
A
The perfect chronicler has no aim other than to describe what is: he passes no judgements (in his role as chronicler.
The perfect iconoclast has B and C. He will challenge beliefs and behavior, accepting, for the time being, that the system is as it is (or as it is proposed). The perfect classifier has only C. He tries to organize the information, and to influence the ideas, as to what the system is and can, or will, do under certain circumstances. The perfect decision theorist has only B. He is solely concerned with whether behavior (decision) is matched to what the system should do.
The perfect puzzle solver has only A. He accepts the “theoretical” problem as stated by the decision-maker. The perfect empiricist has A and B. He will observe the effect of changes to the system and of changes in the decision-maker’s behavior, and will suggest, implicitly, improvements to both. The perfect dialectician has A and C. He doubts data about the adequacy of the system because these are colored by the decision-maker’s beliefs. The decision-maker will have to change the system or his beliefs, or, most probably, both if he is to meet the Dialectician’s argument. The perfect change agent has A, B, and C. He will look at the whole and make appropriate comments. He is the Ackoffian OR man, seeking to redesign the future.
Descriptions of eight faces of research
Note. A = 1 corresponds “planning” or the “system not adequate.” B = 1 corresponds to a “personal approach” or “the desire to make statements about behavior.” C = 1 corresponds to “people” or “questioning beliefs.”
Practice
Dialectician/learning
Puzzle solver/playing around Empiricist/inquiring creatively
Research/management activities
Price
Procedure
Pounce
Generic activity
Table I. Eight Faces of Research, Management Activities, and Researchers’ Descriptions
Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures 77
78
Brugha and Bowen
4. DECISION RESEARCH IN PRACTICE The main point of this paper so far has been to show how structured cognitive processes are central to research into decision-making. In this section we show some of the benefits and uses of cognitive structures. 4.1. Use of the Structures to Interpret Qualitative Research A weakness of the traditional positivist approach to research has been its excessive determinism, trying to prove hypotheses rather than exploring decisions. A weakness of the traditional interpretivist approach to research has been its lack of structure, failing to make use of certain “givens” in management and, consequently, often trying to make too much out of data gathered using a grounded approach. Empirical research using cognitive structures tries to synthesize openness to data with an understanding of generic stable structures. Brugha (2000) has shown that answers to the simple management question “what should we do?” fall into two, four, eight, and, occasionally, 16 categories based on these dichotomies. The adjustment challenge is how to redress imbalances associated with each dichotomy. Synthesizing answers to open questions leads to a pointing toward a priority for action from amongst several alternatives that emerge from the responses. Asking the obvious question directly is a natural and holistic approach to discovering what a company should do. It is easy to ask such a question of several decision-makers. If they are interested in the issue, their answers are likely to be detailed and rich. Also, if they do not have to fit their answers into some predefined model, they are more able to focus on their own thoughts and judgements (Bowen, 2001). The adjusting diagram in Fig. 1 is used to analyze empirical data from the Priority Pointing Procedure (PPP) (Brugha, 2000). Imbalances in the numbers of answers in the different categories help to indicate the sources of imbalances. They can also be related to the higher level clusters and to the underlying dimensions. The diagram is also useful as a communication tool for making managers aware of imbalances in the decision patterns of their company. Experience with PPP indicates that company strategic problems often arise due to a failure to adjust that has been preventing the cyclical process from proceeding. In such cases the remedy is to deal with the lack of energy or the blockage in the system. 4.2. Management Research The Decision Research approach has been successfully adopted in a study to investigate the organizational challenges of collaboration in global development teams (Stanton, 2001). The researcher Stanton wanted to understand the behavioral
Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures
79
and project management challenges of global collaboration on product development. The Decision Research approach, with its emphasis on the structures of decisions made in management and on the constructs that managers’ use, enabled him swiftly to identify the key issues. Data were collected through interviews and observations with three different organizations, two of which were development centers based in Ireland and affiliated to large US organizations in the software industry. The third, based in Tokyo, was the Asian development center of a large US automotive components group. The data were then analyzed and clustered using the principal adjustment activities of Nomology. This indicated that the priority to help make virtual teams work better was to focus on planning them, to emphasize “place” or systems issues, and to do this using an interpersonal approach. Together this meant (Fig. 1) that the priority for developing global collaboration within new product virtual teams is to evolve new procedures that would assist in the creation of organizational structures and an environment that focuses on teamwork and cooperation. 4.3. Prediction Action Modelling (PAM) In the 1990s, Edward Toomer,4 working with Ken Bowen at Royal Holloway, developed empirically a process that, using what indicators (clues) were available, attempted to predict the decision, or the nature of the decision process, that a decision-maker might adopt. His data included a wide range of recorded military and financial activities, his own experiences in small business practice and consultancy, and forecasts of the outcomes of current events, both personal and media reported. He called it Prediction Action Modelling (PAM). Toomer encountered difficulties with setting a theoretical rationale for the structures he had devised. Although it seemed that Brugha’s work had some relevance, it was not then fully developed (only University College Dublin internal research papers were available). Toomer under pressure from his growing business involvement, decided to leave his academic work unfinished. Recently, however we have revisited that work using Brugha’s adjustment wheel to guide a revaluation of Toomer’s framework. Toomer specified four Roots from which the decision would grow. Roots are the fundamentals found in all decision-making. They are: Control, Culture, Pschyandric (Mental Constructs), and Rules. (Toomer’s work can be best understood with reference to (Fig. 2) where it has been incorporated into Brugha’s adjustment wheel.) We noted that, for the purpose of looking at individual decisions, “Culture” could be adequately replaced by “World Views” (Checkland, 1981) and that attributes affecting the Management of People were the essential mental constructs that would govern management action as far as the organization 4 Edward N. Toomer, Four County Inns Ltd., Avon Brook house, Lower Bristol Road, Bath, BA2 3BW.
80
Brugha and Bowen
Fig. 2. Prediction action modeling (PAM) as adjustment.
was concerned. With these changes the Roots correspond to the four adjustment phases of proposition, perception, pull, and push. The word “Root” brings out the sense that these phases are deeply embedded within the decision-makers’ subconscious. Toomer had eight Effectors, which were related to the Roots, and described how these Roots would be perceived and implemented. Within these were a further 16 terms, the Drivers that would take the Effectors in particular directions, and 32 Cues. These last were observations of behavior that would have implications for predictions of drivers; we have taken a broader view of clues, as discussed later. Effectors are the influences on the decision process whilst Drivers are specific forces that direct the decision maker. We examined those that Toomer had selected to see if the words that he had (or could have had) in his listings could provide a match with Brugha’s eight adjustment activities. Encouragingly, despite some
Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures
81
discrepancies, the initial fit was not bad, and, with a judicious cancelling and replacing, a very good agreement was reached (Fig. 2). The Drivers are now the pure and pragmatic variants of the Effectors. It is worth noting that Toomer had considerable problems with choosing and allocating the labels, whereas the use of structure in the adjusting wheel enabled quick choices to be made that appear quite reasonable. Further, Toomer had not explicitly aimed at a dichotomous classification although, in his attempts to reduce the potentially very large number of potential descriptors, his taxonomy came close to being one. The following describes the links between the Effectors and Drivers, as we have developed them. We use the language of the adjustment process, following Toomer’s ideas as closely as possible. Each stage of the process, i.e. each Effector, has a pure and pragmatic Driver. The purist approach emphasizes using any potential driver that could help to put the process into effect, regardless of any constraints such as time etc. The “pragmatic” approach acknowledges that such constraints exist and drives the search for solutions that reside within the current bounds of practice. The process appears to start with the most open discussion within the organization to discover their Worldviews. Policy: This is the formulation of agreed goals through a group process. It involves exploring the personal constructs of all those involved in planning. The purist approach seeks to reach a consensus about the policy. The pragmatic approach is happy to accept a cooperative compromise, in which different members form agreement about a common position rather than simply make concessions. Price: Price is the value placed on the resources (both material and people) devoted to an enterprise, i.e. the group value systems held by the organization. Articulating a group value statement can, most purely, be done through negotiation. Pragmatically the decision-maker may simply listen, and then incorporate or reject the views of those involved. A major factor that makes an organization into a company is the Control that management must introduce. Having formulated the Worldviews of the organization, the next step is to move the focus from the people more to the “place” of the company: its systems, management, structures, etc. This transition from people to place issues is made first “internally” by putting constraints on the goals of the members of the organization, then more “externally” on the company’s plans and normal activities. Control ensures stability and predictability. Initially it is more flexible as the organization explores the scope for its Worldviews within the “Place” in which it operates: its market and company environment. The “Place” aspect reflects constraints on its action, and requirements for achieving targets and satisfying shareholders that do not emerge directly from the “People” of the organization. Procedure: Procedure focuses on continuing evaluation by the organization to achieve Control by producing internal constraints on its actions. The pure
82
Brugha and Bowen
approach emphasizes doing so in the light of the desired goals, those that satisfy all the requirements of participants. The pragmatic focus is on safe goals, ones that pose no major dangers or threats to the process and afford security. Pounce: A pounce is a sudden application of responses to external constraints by management. The decision-maker reacts to any unexpected scenario purely with contingency plans that anticipate a variety of conditions and plan for uncertainty. The pragmatic approach is to fall back on norms that rely on well-established routines, and use regular and established courses of action. Having achieved Control, the next phase is to institute a set of Rules that bring stability and bind the employees in the organization. Practice: Practice is the ongoing administration of the Natural Rules of the organization, with the decision-maker monitoring operations. The pure approach is to seek optimization, the most favorable compromise between opposing tendencies that maximizes performance. Pragmatically he will seek survival, to ensure that the enterprise remains in existence. Pliability: Pliability is the process of reformulating the system, and the ability to do so. Here Rules are applied more flexibly as Codes of Practice rather than as rigid systems. The pure approach strives to achieve conformity within the organization to established patterns. Pragmatically the decision-maker may need to establish rewards/penalties as incentives to ensure adherence. The final phase involves the Management of People that “pulls” the members of the organization together to achieve their goals. Part of this is their sense of Affiliation to the group. Later this develops into a group Ideology. Productivity: The Affiliation between the decision-maker and those concerned with operations influences its productivity. On the pure side the decision-maker guides by bonding, seeking acceptance in a consensual way. Pragmatically this may depend on the decision-maker using authority, and the right to enforce derived from his or her position. Promotion: Promotion is about motivation, leadership, and persuading people to commit to what broadly might be described as an Ideology. In its pure form the decision-maker, as leader, tries to bring about a shared vision that incorporates creativity in step with the wisdom of experience of the process. Pragmatically a more limited but acceptable expansion of horizons may be the most that is achievable; this is a broadening of the current perspective, while remaining within the current paradigm as opposed to shifting to a new one. We have not listed “clues” as Toomer did, since anything known may be a clue related to some part of the structure. We believe that the reverse process will operate, namely that the structure will be used to seek and interpret clues. Further research and practice with PAM is required, before it could be a generally useful tool. Experience during the collaboration between Toomer and Bowen showed that
Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures
83
it had the potential to aid discussion and to lead to useful insights into people’s actions, so that such further inquiry would seem well worthwhile. The Effectors of Prediction Action Modelling follow an anticlockwise sequence. This is the reverse of the pattern used for problem solving. It starts with policy-formation and appears to reveal, and thus attempt to predict, the kinds of action that an individual or an organization might want or be able to promote. In increasingly varied decision environments traditional assumptions of behavior no longer hold. This motivated Toomer, in his research, to better understand the styles of work colleagues, starting with their Worldviews. Such understanding can help to predict how others will behave in different situations, and ways to deal with them that might lead to successful management relationships. 5. SEQUENCE IN DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES The research reported here has revealed a variety of sequences amongst adjustment constructs that have occurred in settled practice in both East and West, and also have emerged in long-term studies such as PAM. This provides a new axiom in Nomology. (For easy reference by the reader the axioms in the articles developing Nomology have been numbered as a totality and not per article. Hence this one is Axiom 30. For the main axioms see Brugha (1998a,b,c).) Axiom 30. Adjusting can involve a variety of sequences amongst its constructs, depending on its application. One sequence variant is changing the order of questions two and three that form the constructs in the case of archetype applications. We have shown evidence of eight principal adjusting archetypes being used in practice, both East and West. Normally such clusters emerge from higher clusters. An interesting footnote is that there does not seem to be any evidence of names for what should then be the four main archetypes. These should correspond to those who like to plan using their position as against those who prefer to plan using a personal approach, and those who prefer “putting” either using their position or personally. Does this suggest that the reversal in the order the questions two and three is a post hoc clustering convenience, and that the archetypes are truly representations of “process” activity, that are being used in a slightly different way? Another variant is replacing the normal clockwise problem-solving adjusting sequence by an anticlockwise sequence. A question that arises here is what name should this sequence have. In an empirical study of the dynamics of information technology-enabled strategic change Hsiao and Ormerod (1998) found evidence of both sequences. They called the normal adjusting sequence “emergent.” This fits its use in Nomology where each step is tried (Brugha, 1998b) and, afterwards and only if necessary, the next step in the clockwise sequence is used. They called the
84
Brugha and Bowen
reverse sequence “planned.” This makes sense in that prior consideration is given to all the ramifications when using this mode. Otherwise the word “planned” is out of place here. Nomology suggests that there should be an appropriate word for this concept because of the following principles (Brugha, 1998a) about language: “Natural Language” Principle: In any culture, there should be a natural language that incorporates the concepts of a nomological system (i.e. based on the science of the laws of the mind), and “Similar Words, Specific Differences” Principle: Different aspects of a particular dynamic will be described by words that are similar to each other, with the differences in the words specific to the differences in the concept. The word “adjust” comes from the Latin adjuxtare “to bring near,” which is from “ad” meaning “to” and “juxta” meaning “next.” A word that incorporates a sense of the need for care about other implications in the context of adjusting is adapting. It comes from the Latin adaptare to “adjust,” which is from “ad” meaning “to” and aptare to “join,” which comes from aptus meaning “fitted.” We use it here to reflect that a previous stage in the cycle influences each adjusting activity. For example, in the Toomer case (Fig. 2), adjustments to how people are managed should take account of the rules of the organization, these depend on the nature of control that is appropriate, and this is influenced by the world-views of the people being managed. Adapting, as defined above, appears to be an accepted and acceptable pattern. Axiom 31. Adapting uses an adjusting process but in reverse order to the normal problem-solving sequence. Here we broaden the implications of this result. One of the claims about Nomology is that there are only three kinds of process: adjusting, convincing, and committing. Although not formulated as a principle, there is implied in Nomology the idea that the same dynamics should apply to all three processes, although in different ways. In a study about contra-flows in convincing processes Brugha (2004) introduced evincing, which “uses a convincing process but in reverse order, through situational, contextual, and then technical levels” (Axiom 29). Evincing is similar to adapting because it seeks to draw out from the evidence conclusions that fit what is happening. Although this paper is about adjusting, it is appropriate to consider here what might be the corresponding “reverse” process for committing. The committing process (Brugha, 1998a) moves through three levels from getting/having what one needs, through doing what one likes/feels, and finally bringing into being what one values. The word to commit comes from the Latin committere “to bring together,” which comes from “com” meaning “together” and mittere meaning “to put or send.” It contains the idea of building on levels, starting with one’s needs and working upwards.
Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures
85
A corresponding “reverse” form of the committing process is to use a visualization of the final outcome of a project “in being” to help draw the project forward and shape what one should do, and even what is needed for success. An example of bringing an outcome into being is one’s own “self-actualization” (Brugha, 1998c; Maslow, 1987). A word that fits this concept is to adduce, from the Latin adducere for to “lead to or bring to” which comes from “ad” meaning “to” and “ducere” meaning “to lead” (Oxford English Dictionary OED Online). This suggests the following axiom for a “reverse” form of the committing process: Axiom 32. Adducing a development uses a committing process but in reverse order, first visualizing what it will be, next what to do, and then what it needs. Prototyping is an example of adducing used in the development of computer systems. Experience with the prototype can help to understand its usefulness and realize its potential, which can then influence its design. Adducing and committing are complementary and should be used together. Here we are proposing to broaden the meaning of “adducing,” which previously has been used to describe bringing forward evidence, arguments, and reasons that lead to justifying some position to which people were already committed. 6. GENERAL COMMENTS Over the last 25 years, what has been termed “soft OR” has developed significantly. It has stemmed from a variety of theoretical and experiential backgrounds; creating processes that aid decision-making in contradistinction to earlier attention to theories of decision that purported to say what decisions should be made. Cognitive structures play a large part. Various forms of maps and frameworks provide a vehicle for discussion and understanding of the underlying issues: analysts and their clients work as a team, the clients being those who own or are affected by the problems discussed. Bowen (2001) has looked at one such framework, including an easily transferable process of interviewing in order to develop a map of how people view a problem and their place within it. Elsewhere Bowen (1998) has briefly discussed the issue of the similarities and differences between different processes (methodologies). In general, the way in which a decision is regarded is the same as that in this paper: indeed what has been learnt through” soft OR” has assisted in the development of many of our ideas. Many methodologies have recursive properties such that the process may be used to look at parts of the process or even the development of the process itself. This later test can be applied to a recent development by van de Reit (2003). This is an inquiry into policy studies, but can equally be seen as an OR metaprocess applied to complex policy issues. A 2 × 3 matrix (with multiple entities) is developed: it can be used to judge the “completeness” of the inquiry that led to it, by looking at this as a policy for studying policy issues. Bowen (2001) looks
86
Brugha and Bowen
similarly at the formation of the problem of problem formulation. Other examples of recursion are discussed in Bowen (1998). More generally, methodologies aim at creating a rich picture of all phases from problem definition to commitment packages for action. Within the processes, aided by structured development of concepts, there must be room for discussion of and negotiation on all issues. This would include the development of weighting and scoring systems (preferably simple) in order to aid debate, not in order to determine an absolute outcome. It is useful to call the structures that are used maps, since they guide our journey. One starts with maps which are metamethodologies, such as that by van de Reit (2003), to ensure that all broad factors are being examined in a balanced manner, and moves to a more detailed maps created by whatever process, e.g. cognitive maps in SODA (Eden, 1989) or AIDA in Strategic Choice (Friend and Hickling, 1987). These latter maps are of course not generic, but are related to the situation of concern, although there will be important structural features based on the particular techniques used in the process. 6.1. The Adjustment Structure as a Map “In the jigsaws that are methodologies, the pieces are, I believe, much the same, but the pictures produced are individual creations.” (Bowen, 1998). The structure used in this paper (Figs. 1 and 2) provides a framework for weights, scores, opinions, and a map for use in discussion and negotiation. It also can be used for recursion (Bowen, 1998). For example, the adjusting structure could support several different kinds of triple-loop learning (Flood and Romm, 1996) as follows. As indicated above, the practice activity challenges none of the three dimensions, the system, behavior, or beliefs. No learning at all could be described as staying within the practice activity. Single loop would correspond to a questioning of behavior and include both pliability and practice, i.e. the push sector. Then double-loop learning would involve questioning both behavior and beliefs, and include both pull and push sectors. Finally, triple-loop learning would involve all of the adjusting activities and correspond to questioning in all three: the system, behavior and beliefs. A second form of triple-loop learning is as follows. Brugha (1998b) has shown how Honey and Mumford’s (Honey and Mumford, 1986) learning styles: the activist, the pragmatist, the reflector, and the theorist correspond to the pure and pragmatic pounce and procedural activities (Fig. 2). Within this framework, therefore, learning is equivalent to proposing or considering new ideas and theories. Double-loop learning would involve both proposition and perception activities, i.e. the planning side of the adjustment wheel. And triple loop learning would involve the full adjustment process.
Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures
87
The main point of this paper is that real or generic structures can support many different actual applications, and different forms of learning cycles or recursion. No prescribed version fits every situation. What is appropriate at any point for any particular case is a matter for empirical research. However, when one does such research with an eye to the underlying cognitive structures, one can get a very clear insight into the dynamics that are operating in any situation. This can help to clarify both analysts’ and decision-makers’ understanding of the decision processes, shape the language that will carry these ideas into subsequent analysis, and consequently help future decision-making.
REFERENCES Bowen, K. (1978). Research Games: An Approach to the Study of Decision Processes. ORASA Text No.3, Taylor & Francis, London. Bowen, K. (1986). Games in Research. In Conference on Games, Spel som Method, Swedish OR Society and FOA, Stockholm. Bowen, K. (1990). An eighth face of research. Omega 18(2), 215–216. Bowen, K. (1998). Some thoughts on multimethodology. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 11(2), 169–177. Bowen, K. (1999). On Games and Management (An unpublished note following the Decision Modelling & Management Philosophy Conference, Dublin, January 1999). Bowen, K. (2001). The process of problem formulation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 128, 258–265. Brugha, C. (1998a). The structure of qualitative decision making. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 104(1), 46–62. Brugha, C. (1998b). The structure of adjustment decision making. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 104(1), 63–76. Brugha, C. (1998c). The structure of development decision making. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 104(1), 77–92. Brugha, C. (2000). An introduction to the priority-pointing procedure. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 9, 227–242. Brugha, C. (2001a). Systemic thinking in China: A meta-decision-making bridge to Western concepts. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 14(3), 339–360. Brugha, C. (2001b), A decision-science based discussion of the systems development life cycle in information systems. In Information Systems Frontiers, Special Issue on Philosophical Reasoning in Information Systems Research, Vol. 3.1, pp. 91–105. Brugha, C. (2004). Structure of multiple criteria decision-making. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 55, 1156–1168. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester, UK. Eden, C. (1989). Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis. In Rosenhead, J. (ed.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problems Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty, and Conflict, Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 21–42. Eilon, S. (1974). Seven faces of research. Omega 2(1), 1–9. Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Plurality revisited: Diversity management and triple loop learning. Syst. Pract. 9(6), 587–603. Friend, J. K., and Hickling, A. (1987). Planning Under Pressure: The Strategic Choice Approach, Pergamon, Oxford, UK. Honey, P., and Mumford, A. (1986). Using Your Learning Styles, Honey, Maidenhead, Berks, UK. Hsiao, R. L., and Ormerod, R. J. (1998). A new perspective on the dynamics of information technologyenabled strategic change. Inf. Syst. J. 8, 21–52. Maslow, A. (1987). Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York. Matthews, J. (1998). The World Atlas of Divination, Tiger Books International, United Kingdom, p. 138.
88
Brugha and Bowen
Oxford English Dictionary OED Online, http://dictionary.oed.com/ Pascale, R. T., and Athos, A. G. (1981). The Art of Japanese Management, Simon and Schuster, New York. Peters, T., and Waterman, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, New York. Santina, P. (2001). Fundamentals of Buddhism, Institute for Advanced Studies of World Religions, Carmel, New York. Secter, M. (1993). I Ching Clarified: A Practical Guide, Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc., Boston. Stanton, S. (2001). Global Product Development and Virtual Collaboration, Department of Management Information Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Tzu, T. (1995). The Great Learning, Prof. Charles Muller, Gakuen University, http://www.hm.tyg.jp/ ∼acmuller/contao/greatlearning.htm. van de Reit, O. A. W. P. (2003). Policy Analysis in Multi-Actor Settings: Navigating Between Negotiated Nonsense and Superfluous Knowledge, Eburon, Delft, The Netherlands. Waterman, R. (1982). The seven elements of strategic fit. J. Bus. Strateg. 2(3), 333–339.
