Who to vote for

[Dr. Zaus]

Studying the recent literature about those in charge of making strategic decisions:

Rational and political process decision making has a much greater effect on executive level effectiveness than intuition does

-Child: Influences on Strategic Decision Effectiveness

Both breath and depth of experience are useful, though depth is much more limited in use than breadth.

Having analogous situations to draw on is useful only when you aren't entirely orthodox about following said analogy, being overly orthodox is dysfunctional when you do not have a perfect analog

Comprehensive planning is associated with positive outcomes in environments where there is a lot of potential and things are changing rapidly

-Goll: Rational Decision-Making

Cognitive disagreement is directly related to positive outcomes and learning while emotional conflict has a negative correlation between positive outcomes and learning

-Amason: Distinguishing the Effects of the Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making

Fast decision makers use more, not less, information than do slow decision makers. The former also develop more, not fewer, alternatives. This is directly related to positive outcomes in quickly changing environments

-Eisenhardt: "Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments"
IE:

scientific studies show that the most effective and best leaders are those who are rational and thoughtful rather than intuitive.

Also, having a wide breadth of experience rather than a depth in one experience.

In addition fast decision makers use more information available, develop more alternatives, and make better decisions.

I think that this information makes very very clear who it is that should be elected president.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm not sure I buy the theory that you can craft the psychological profile of the perfect executive, if only because of the spectacular failure of virtually every "system" about the topic. Really good executives don't come out of a 1 week seminar, which sounds exactly like where these nuggets of information came from.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat
Studying the recent literature about those in charge of making strategic decisions:

Rational and political process decision making has a much greater effect on executive level effectiveness than intuition does

-CHILD: INFLUENCES ON STRATEGIC DECISION EFFECTIVENESS: DEVELOPMENT AND TEST OF AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL

Both breath and depth of experience are useful, though depth is much more limited in use than breadth.

Having analogous situations to draw on is useful only when you aren't entirely orthodox about following said analogy, being overly orthodox is dysfunctional when you do not have a perfect analog

Comprehensive planning is associated with positive outcomes in environments where there is a lot of potential and things are changing rapidly

Goll: RATIONAL DECISION-MAKIN

Cognitive disagreement is directly related to positive outcomes and learning while emotional conflict has a negative correlation between positive outcomes and learning

Amason: DISTINGUISHING THE EFFECTS OF FUNCTIONAL AND DYSFUNCTIONAL CONFLICT ON STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING

Fast decision makers use more, not less, information than do slow decision makers. The former also develop more, not fewer, alternatives. This is directly related to positive outcomes in quickly changing environments

EISENHARDT: "MAKING FAST STRATEGIC DECISIONS IN HIGH-VELOCITY ENVIRONMENTS"

I think that this information makes very very clear who it is that should be elected president.

Are you a dixy lee ray fan or something?
I remember her, she was the moving force behind the WPPSS (Whoops) fiasco.
Had people tell me they only voted for her because they thought she was a man...lol..not nice but true.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure I buy the theory that you can craft the psychological profile of the perfect executive, if only because of the spectacular failure of virtually every "system" about the topic. Really good executives don't come out of a 1 week seminar, which sounds exactly like where these nuggets of information came from.

I have no doubt that 'forging' these people is an entirely different subject. The question is which one of the leaders before you seems to meet the criteria that science has shown to be associated with good leaders during times of upheaval. The answer is obvious.

As for a "one week seminar" the papers in question total over a decade of scientific inquiry and a totality of the analytical theory building that's brought humanity to this very point in time.

Also you're right. It is what i learned this week in PhD land. Condensing the points and telling others helps me remember this stuff.

 

[fskimospy]

Like when McCain made a fast decision to go suspend his campaign and go back to Washington, you see... that was a better move because he processed more information.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Like when McCain made a fast decision to go suspend his campaign and go back to Washington, you see... that was a better move because he processed more information.

What's better, to make a bad move and then retract it quickly, or to wait a long time, make a bad move, and then never retract it?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Are you a dixy lee ray fan or something?
I remember her, she was the moving force behind the WPPSS (Whoops) fiasco.
Had people tell me they only voted for her because they thought she was a man...lol..not nice but true.

Sometimes it's the person who is most willing to buck the system that is also most useful and most despised.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure I buy the theory that you can craft the psychological profile of the perfect executive, if only because of the spectacular failure of virtually every "system" about the topic. Really good executives don't come out of a 1 week seminar, which sounds exactly like where these nuggets of information came from.

I have no doubt that 'forging' these people is an entirely different subject. The question is which one of the leaders before you seems to meet the criteria that science has shown to be associated with good leaders during times of upheaval. The answer is obvious.

As for a "one week seminar" the papers in question total over a decade of scientific inquiry and a totality of the analytical theory building that's brought humanity to this very point in time.

Also you're right. It is what i learned this week in PhD land. Condensing the points and telling others helps me remember this stuff.

I agree that trying to TEACH leadership is different than being able to identify good leaders, but my basic problem with both concepts is the same. It's interesting to look at the traits good leaders have had over time, but I'm not sure you can come up with a template telling you who to vote for in an election...or for that matter, who you should hire as CEO of your company.

For one thing, the science seems too broad to really filter out any but the worst types of leaders. Making decisions with "more information", for example, might be a good trait for a leader to have...but it's also pretty obvious, do you really think either Obama or McCain doesn't try to surround himself with as much information about a problem as possible?

That said, I'm not an expert in the field, and I tend to be more dismissive of "soft science" areas of study than I probably should be. Still, when it comes to being President of the United States, the job would seem to be so unique, and so extraordinary that analysis of what makes a good President just FEELS like it would be too difficult. I am also curious, you say that the answer to who best fits this profile is "obvious", but I have to admit that I'm not sure to whom you are referring...which leads me to believe it might not be as obvious as you thin.

 

[Jhhnn]

You've been made, dixycrat-

http://episteme.arstechnica.co...8609695/m/432000425931

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You've been made, dixycrat-

http://episteme.arstechnica.co...8609695/m/432000425931

Dixycrat..........

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You've been made, dixycrat-

http://episteme.arstechnica.co...8609695/m/432000425931

Dixycrat..........

You're right, Not explaining what I'm trying to say so that people can understand it does = Fail.

So let's try to fix that as there has been research into who will be a better leader.

do you really think either Obama or McCain doesn't try to surround himself with as much information about a problem as possible?

I think that one of them has a lot of depth of experence and the other one has a broad-base of experience. I think that one of them seems to make intuitive decisions and the other tries to thoughtfully consider both sides of an issue.

I tend to be more dismissive of "soft science" areas of study than I probably should be. Still, when it comes to being President of the United States, the job would seem to be so unique, and so extraordinary that analysis of what makes a good President just FEELS like it would be too difficult.

I know what you mean, but the idea that we can study enough presidents to get a good sample is silly and trying to base future presidents on the case-studies of other presidents is something that will tend to lend us to bad decision making.

That we can figure out some things that are directly linked to good performance should help guide our rational decision making. Taking a step back from "intell v amd" and considering what you've read in the reviews is always a good idea.