Friday, May 14, 2010
The psychology of how people feel after decisions
Well a rather important decision has been made.
And studies of people who have made such decisions (or had it made for them) suggest we are going through a well-known psychological process.
If you have ever had to make choices in your personal life – say about who to marry (or with whom to initiate a parallel emotional arrangement) you may recognise this process. Likewise people who have agonised about what job opportunity to select. Possible members of a controlling Council group may have allied experiences.
When such a decision has been made there is a strong need to assert to oneself (and others) the rightness of the decision, and to downgrade the merits of the past alternatives. This is of great comfort in getting down to living with the results of the decision, but psychological studies suggest that the strength of these feelings is not necessarily proportionate to the merits of the case. It is something that happens more or less regardless.
It might be helpful to think of this at the time of the Special Assembly this weekend, the better to understand what is going on.
For my part I recall the aphorism coined by my old boss in the Open Business School that in life we need to exploit the strengths that come from our weaknesses and guard against the weaknesses that are part and parcel of or strengths.
We were faced with a certain pattern of strengths and weaknesses. This has changed to a different pattern. And we need to think about this soberly. This sobriety should include a recognition that we need to redouble our commitment to ourselves if we are really to bring extra life to the Liberal cause.
In a bad relationship (to return to analogy) each partner is so busy second-guessing the other that they forget to bring themselves to the action. They are reduced and constrained. One sign of a good relationship is that each feels able to assert their own identity and build on that even where disagreements arise.
I think that we need to look at the weaknesses and strengths of our situation to make sure that, over the lifetime of this National Agreement, Liberalism is asserted, developed and popularised. This will help our LibDem representatives in cabinet or associated positions in turn to assert themselves and guard against the development of closed-circle groupthink.
How we foster this constructive assertion is our business from now on.
And studies of people who have made such decisions (or had it made for them) suggest we are going through a well-known psychological process.
If you have ever had to make choices in your personal life – say about who to marry (or with whom to initiate a parallel emotional arrangement) you may recognise this process. Likewise people who have agonised about what job opportunity to select. Possible members of a controlling Council group may have allied experiences.
When such a decision has been made there is a strong need to assert to oneself (and others) the rightness of the decision, and to downgrade the merits of the past alternatives. This is of great comfort in getting down to living with the results of the decision, but psychological studies suggest that the strength of these feelings is not necessarily proportionate to the merits of the case. It is something that happens more or less regardless.
It might be helpful to think of this at the time of the Special Assembly this weekend, the better to understand what is going on.
For my part I recall the aphorism coined by my old boss in the Open Business School that in life we need to exploit the strengths that come from our weaknesses and guard against the weaknesses that are part and parcel of or strengths.
We were faced with a certain pattern of strengths and weaknesses. This has changed to a different pattern. And we need to think about this soberly. This sobriety should include a recognition that we need to redouble our commitment to ourselves if we are really to bring extra life to the Liberal cause.
In a bad relationship (to return to analogy) each partner is so busy second-guessing the other that they forget to bring themselves to the action. They are reduced and constrained. One sign of a good relationship is that each feels able to assert their own identity and build on that even where disagreements arise.
I think that we need to look at the weaknesses and strengths of our situation to make sure that, over the lifetime of this National Agreement, Liberalism is asserted, developed and popularised. This will help our LibDem representatives in cabinet or associated positions in turn to assert themselves and guard against the development of closed-circle groupthink.
How we foster this constructive assertion is our business from now on.
Labels: decision making, psychology
Comments:
Post a Comment
Friday, March 07, 2008
We need Liverpool Nemawashi after Referendum upsets
Being leader will give Nick many opportunities to learn and reflect on exciting situations and work out better ways for comfort zones (including his own) to be challenged.
So after the euro-vote pains let’s hope for some Nemawashi at Liverpool Spring Conference.
As noted before, in terms of Japanese traditions of decision-making, Nemawshi means the process by which everyone affected by a prospective decision works through in advance what the implications are and accepts the necessary consequences for their own actions and behaviour.
I noted before that “One of the disciplines of Nemawashi is knowing that you cannot ever get complete agreement from all participants on the final goal for a serious action. What you can get however is an ‘agreement to proceed’, to move on to new ground and learn from what taking that new ground implies. Building up an ‘agreement to proceed’ gives an organisation great strength and helps establish the possibility of further ‘agreements’.”
I hope Nick and the Parliamentary leadership will be thinking in this manner. It plays right into Liberalisms strengths after all…
On the substance of the Referendum business. One problem with our Referenda policy evolution was (I think) that a quick decision had to be made just before last Autumn conference when the Ming Leadership was on precarious grounds and serious debate would have been seen as preparations for a coup. Then a final decision had to be made before this Spring conference by a new leadership which has not had a chance yet to interact with Conference and concerned party members outside the leadership election tramlines. Minimal Nemawashi in other words. So it goes. But not again please.
(Update: as usual, Alex Wilcock gives thoughtful context in depth to these issues... )
So after the euro-vote pains let’s hope for some Nemawashi at Liverpool Spring Conference.
As noted before, in terms of Japanese traditions of decision-making, Nemawshi means the process by which everyone affected by a prospective decision works through in advance what the implications are and accepts the necessary consequences for their own actions and behaviour.
I noted before that “One of the disciplines of Nemawashi is knowing that you cannot ever get complete agreement from all participants on the final goal for a serious action. What you can get however is an ‘agreement to proceed’, to move on to new ground and learn from what taking that new ground implies. Building up an ‘agreement to proceed’ gives an organisation great strength and helps establish the possibility of further ‘agreements’.”
I hope Nick and the Parliamentary leadership will be thinking in this manner. It plays right into Liberalisms strengths after all…
On the substance of the Referendum business. One problem with our Referenda policy evolution was (I think) that a quick decision had to be made just before last Autumn conference when the Ming Leadership was on precarious grounds and serious debate would have been seen as preparations for a coup. Then a final decision had to be made before this Spring conference by a new leadership which has not had a chance yet to interact with Conference and concerned party members outside the leadership election tramlines. Minimal Nemawashi in other words. So it goes. But not again please.
(Update: as usual, Alex Wilcock gives thoughtful context in depth to these issues... )
Labels: Clegg, decision making, nemawashi, referendum
Comments:
Post a Comment
