Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Experience is the best teacher, but the teaching needs to be sharpened and accelerated.

DEVELOPING
DECISION MAKERS
By Charles H. Kepner and
Benjamin B. Tregoe
In this article we are going to deseribe a new
and different approach to developing decisionmaking abilities. Tbis approach has been practiced and refined in a wide variety of companies.
If you could sit in on one of the training sessions, you would not at first notice exeeutives
and managers doing anytbing very different from
wbat they usually do on the job. Tbey would
be sitting in tbe same offices and at the same
desks where they usually sit. They would be
getting information over tbe telephone, in the
mail, and in conference. They would be discussing problems with many of the same men
they ordinarily talk with. And, as always, they
would be making decisions.
But after a wbile you would notice that there
are differences. For example, while the particular
problem under consideration would be like tbe
problems managers have every day, it would not
actually have come up in company operations,
having been created for tbe special purpose of
an exereise in decision making. Moreover, after
reaching a decision on it, the managers would
go into special session with a course leader (who
would have been monitoring tbeir conversations)
to review wbat they did and analyze how they
could have done it better. Later on, they would
go on to tackle another problem in very mucb
the same way.
Since this approach is sueh a new one in concept, we shall first examine the need for it.
WTiat is the object of training? What kinds of
experiences make for real learning? Why do not
other methods fill the need, even though they

may help a great deal? After looking at questions like these, we shall then turn to the principles and mechanics of the new approach as it
is being practiced today in a number of firms.

Pressing Need
Wben an executive makes a decision, he commits his organization in some degree to a course
of action. If the decision is a poor one, his eompany will suffer accordingly. All of his art in
working with people to implement his poor decision will only extend and perpetuate the effects of his inadequacy as a manager. Nothing
that he can do will change the situation much
until the decisions themselves are improved.
Can an executive develop his abilities to make
effective management decisions except through
the process of making good ones and bad ones
over a long period of time? Many managers are
empbatic in saying that they doubt it. And they
ean point to good evidence to back them up.
Short cuts and easy ways to executive excellence
in decision making have been notably unsuccessful. Experience still appears to be tbe best teacber of tbis most basic management skill.
Yet companies are expanding, and tbere is a
greater demand for experienced managers tban
ever before. Opportunities are going begging for
want of good management personnel. Where
are such men to come from? On-the-job experience is too slow to meet the demand. And opportunity simply eannot wait for managers to
learn decision making through slow osmosis and
gradual growth.
One of the most crying needs in business today is for some way tbat will allow learning time
115

116

Harvard Business Review

to be compressed. A company should be able to


drop its managers into a capsule business situation where they must face a specific kind of
managerial crisis in much the same way that
a football coach in scrimmage practice can train
his players to meet a particular kind of play that
might be thrown at them in the middle of a tense
fourth quarter. If, for example, the coach feels
that his players are weak in the face of a powerful single wing, he can arrange to have them
receive intensive experience in dealing with just
such a contingency. He does not have to wait
until his men are steamrollered by an opposing team.
Similarly, a company could profit greatly if it
were able to put its executives into managerial
"scrimmage sessions" where they would deal with
particular kinds of crises, make decisions, find
out from the results of their actions how well
or how poorly they did, and change their methods accordingly.
Experience as a Teacher
Most managers agree that they have learned
their most important lessons from experience,
rather than from being told what to do or from
talking or reading about decision making. Why
is experience such an effective teacher?
For one thing, something learned from experience is seldom recalled as an isolated and
unique insight. Because the lesson is learned
from a concrete situation, it is easier to see how
it might apply in similar situations. Also, lessons from experience are incontrovertible: this
event actually took place, this actually was done,
and these were the results. Something else might
have been done but this is what did happen.
But these things are true only of experiences
which have made their point. Not all experiences produce such outstanding effects. If they
did, one week of normal managerial activity
would make a past master out of any man
and, of course, this is definitely not so. Much
experience seems to be Hat and unprofitable.
One thing is remarkable about experience as
a teacher: when it is effective, it is very effective; but when it is not, it is of little or no educational value whatever. What accounts for the
difference? If we are to create experience which
will be really effective, we must isolate and
define those elements which contribute to learning and utilize them as fully as possible.
Look back on your own experiences that were
helpful. Chances are you will find that each of

them involved a decision which had to be made.


You were in a position to take action and you
did. And, most important, you found out the
results of your actions so that you could analyze
and evaluate what you had done, what went
right and what went wrong. You could then
modify your approach to the problem and improve on it. You had evidence on which to base
your assessment of success.
Now look back on your experiences which
did not give you new insight into the decisionmaking process. The trouble may have been that
you were not ready for the experience. You were
caught by surprise. As a result, you were unprepared to bring any new ideas to bear on the
problem but dealt with it just as you had in
the past. Or the situation itself may have been
so confused that you could not take immediate
decisive action. Lines of authority and responsibility were not clear. And even when you did
take action, there was no feedback to tell you
the results of your performance. You did what
you thought appropriate, and it was like dropping a feather down a well in the dark no
splash, no sound, no way of knowing what effect, if any, your best-in ten tioned action might
have produced.
Unfortunately, most real-life decision-making
experiences are of this latter sort. Feedback on
the results of action taken is extremely slow in
coming and never very clear even when available. Moreover, when there is feedback at hand
to tell tis that a decision urns inadequate, it is usually next to impossible to determine the specific
wealiness in procedure that was responsible for
the failure.
Essential Conditions
We might generalize about all this as follows.
Looking at good and poor learning experiences,
and considering any learning situation, there
are three essentials which must be present:
1. New ideas, new skills, or new ways of approaching old ideas and skills.
2. An opportunity to put these innovations into
practical action.
3. Feedback as to (a) the results of the actions
taken and (b) the relationship between what was
done at each step of the way and the end result.
To put it in another way, there can be no
learning if there is nothing new to be learned.
Given new ideas, there can be no learning of
any consequence if there is no opportunity to

put these into practice. And having put them


into practice, there can be no learning about the
appropriateness and utility of the ideas if there
is no feedback as to the results of having used
them. The kind of feedback provided is critical,
for it will determine the kind of learning that
takes place. It is not enough to know that the
end results were poor. The feedback provided
must also enable the learner to see how the
specific procedures and actions contributed to
the final outcome.
Stated positively, the best approacb to learning of any kind will be the one which provides
all three essentials in the greatest degree for the
least expenditure of time, effort, and money.

Common Shortcomings
We can now see why it is that eertain approaches to management training have not been
too satisfactory and wbat needs to be added to
improve their effectiveness. A striking fact is
that most of them have little in common with an
on-the-job learning experience of the kind that
is most valuable to managers. Indeed, most approaches seem to be in search of a substitute for
experience rather than a way of capitalizing on
it. Let us examine some of the best-known
methods:
C Lecture, general discussion, and audio-visual
approaches These methods deal solely with abstract principles and ideas, any application of which
is up to the manager. This can be a source of frustration to him, since application is never as easy as
it sounded back in the conference hall. The problem is like learning to ride a bieycle from a description of the process. Description carries only so
far and then there is no substitute for getting
on the bicycle and riding. The same can be said
of decision making.
The concepts of decision making, such as getting
all the facts and defining the problem, can be eolorfully displayed on a Hannel board. But what the
manager needs to know is how to translate them
into action. What procedures will help him, for
instance, in gathering and evaluating the pertinent
data? He must know the roadblocks that stand in
his way and how to get around them. Above all he
must be clear as to what data he has and what
he needs if he is to have all the relevant information. And even when these concepts are applied
on the job, there is no assurance the manager will
get the feedback necessary for effective learning.
tl Case method Good case studies, conducted
by experienced leaders, provide something more

Decision Makers
117
tangible for the manager. Here the emphasis is
both on ideas and on how they can be applied in
real situations. The manager gains vicarious experience in seeing how ideas have worked out and
might work for someone else. The more active his
imagination and the more expert the discussion
leader in making him feel involved in the case,
the more gain can be expected.
Learning to make decisions from a case study is
like learning to ride a bicycle by watching others
fall off or avoid falling off. Glaring errors can be
duly noted and avoided when the time comes to
put theory into action; helpful ideas ean be analyzed. But the application of new knowledge is
still left up to the manager to arrange as best he
can. And, once again, the best of case studies
cannot assure the manager of the feedback he needs
once the application is made.
e Workshops and role playing These techniques of decision-making training are almost completely limited to showing how interpersonal relationships and feelings enter into the process. This
is of real value, but it eannot show the manager
how to use information to reach the best possible
decision. The feedback is extremely one-sided and
speeific.
Bole playing appeals to many as a participative
approach; the manager is doing something during
the training session. This does not necessarily
mean that he is learning anything, however. There
is often more concern with the technique itself,
e.g., the dramatic niceties of role playing, than
with the learning purpose for which the technique
is employed.
The result, it seems to us, is that the manager
has a rousing, partieipative time but often is not
sure what he was supposed to get from it. Ideas in
preparation for the experience are seldom elearly
formulated. Full participation is looked upon as
the end to be achieved, as if partieipation were a
guarantee of effective learning. Feedbaek is usually overlooked or is of the my-opinion-against-; ours
type, of questionable value to the manager who
hopes to eome away from the session with something positive and concrete whieh he can apply
in his daily work.
( Coaehing and job rotation These approaches to management development make good use of
experience as a teacher. The manager can be
placed in positions in the company where he will
get experience in making various kinds of decisions.
His coach can help make feedback available to him
from which to assess the adequacy of his actions.
Though these approaches are about as effective as
any that are widely used at the present time, they
have definite limitations as devices for the improvement of decision-making skills:

118

Harvard Business Review

(1) The coach must recognize each of the


elements entering into decision making and be
able to communicate these to the person being
coached. This is not so easy. Ask yourself how
you went about making your most recent decision. What went into it? How did you proceed?
Decision making is a complex process of many
interwoven events. It is very hard to break this
process down into a series of distinct or discrete
elements.
(2) Often the feedback that both coach and
coached need for complete analysis and effective
learning simply is not available. It may be some
time before the results of the decisions become
apparent.

Other games Simulation does not automatically mean that a computer will be used. There
are a number of noncomputer games very similar
in format to the computer games but which can be
played on a board or with paper and pencil. Typically a few umpires armed with a table of random
numbers calculate the success of the moves of each
team in place of the computer. Because these
games are simply imitations of those employing
computers, the same .shortcomings apply.^

Making Experience Work


Something else seems to be needed, therefore,
if we are to make experience a really effective
teacher. We must try to create realistic situations in which the manager can learn nevi^ ideas,
practice putting them to work, and see the results quickly.

Computer games Business gaming has recently become popular as a method of teaching decision making. These games require participants
to make decisions about the allocation of funds in
a simulated company. Several competing teams
decide how they will spend their money among a
limited number of activities, such as marketing,
research and development, and plant expansion.
The computer has built into its program a formula
for the relative merits of the various categories of
expenditure. The nearer the men on one team
come to guessing the computer's philosophy of expenditure, the better their chances of winning the
largest share of the market.
Managers who have participated in a game report tbat they learn something about the interrelationships that exist between the variables they
manipulate. They also report that they can see
the compounding effects over time of the decisions
they make. This is one of the real advantages of
the computer game. It enables participants to play
through the effects of a number of years of business in a matter of hours. The more nearly tbe
formula in the machine represents the true state
of affairs in the participants' own business, tbe
more valuable this learning will be to them when
they return to their day-to-day jobs.
But managers do not learn hou^ to make better
decisions from the computer game. They receive
no feedback as to how they went about the task of
decision making and therefore are in no position
to improve their techniques against the next set of
decisions which they must make. The feedback
received is a simplified version of what would normally be available to the participants in day-to-day
activities except that the computer can compress
time and turn out these data rapidly. In fact, it may
well be a misnomer to call these computer exercises "decision-making games" just because decisions
must be made in playing them.

"Hello, production. This is the general manager. Say, what's the story on those rejects on
line I ?"
"We've had an increase in rejects but not enough
to account for tbe customer complaints which sales
has been on my back about."
"Customer complaints! What complaints? You
mean some of tbe rejects have gotten past quality
control out into tbe field?"
"Sales just called in a panic. He said he just got
word that some of the product is defective in the
California area and sales have fallen off as a result.
Complaints are that the thing is buckling and sagging, and dealers want replacements. It could be

' For a different view, see G. R. Andlinger, "Business


Games Play One!" HBR March-April 1958, p. 115,

and "Looking Around: What Gan Business Games Do?"


HBR July-August 1958, p. 147.

Situations Made to Order


This kind of experience can be made to order.
To illustrate what can be done, here is a telephone conversation between two of four men
who are beginning to deal with a fairly typical
crisis situation defective products in the field.
This situation has been created as the practice
phase of a training program embodying the three
essentials of learning. The four men involved
have taken on the responsibilities of the division
general manager of a company and his heads of
production, of sales, and of purchasing and shipping. Each has a number of intra- and interdepartmental memos, letters, reports, forecasts,
and other data on his desk in his office, such as
he might normally receive. These pose the crisis
which the man must correct. The following exchange takes place between the division chief
and the production head:

Decision Makers
tied in with the reject problem, but we've got that
licked now. Definitely."
"We'll play hell making replacements out of inventory. I got a report from the warehouse. Some
inventory levels are critically low as a result of the
rejects from your production changeover. You better call purchasing and shipping and see how you
can get those inventories up. I'm going to get hold
of sales and get the whole story. On second
thought, maybe the four of us had better get together in my office and nail this thing down so
we can see what has to be done about it."
This is not play-acting, and it is not a game.
The men are working in a real business setting,
on a problem that is just like a real one, and with
information in the same form in which it comes
in real life. The participants must use every bit
of skill and understanding they have to make
the best decisions they can. Each of them is
working under an impelling sense of urgency
which will not let up until the matter has been
settled one way or another.
What is more, they must use the channels of
communication normally open to them interoffice telephone and face-to-face meetings. They
need not guess at a hidden theory of business
but rather must use the information provided
them about a concrete situation concerning specific products and events. Their task is to use
this information as efficiently as possible to analyze the situation and recognize the problems
facing them, to determine what is wrong, and
to resolve the difficulty.
Feedback Sessions
After the crisis is over and they have made
their decisions and set the necessary courses of
action into being, they can examine their perfonnance in a critique session in a way that is
never possible on the job. They can analyze
their decisions and the information and assumptions that went into them in light of all of the
information that was available. This feedback
can be provided by the course leader, who has
monitored their conversations and who knows
all of the information that is available to the
four of them.
The feedback critique session is the heart of
this method for providing controlled experience.
The management situation with which they
have dealt is essentially what might be called a
"closed" system of information about the company and the crisis which has arisen. What has
gone into the situation is known, and also what

119

has come out of it as decisions made and courses of action selected is a matter of record.
It is therefore possible to lay bare what was
done by the managers to arrive at these decisions
and actions. The information used and how it
was used stand in sharp contrast to the total
information available and complete knowledge
of the situation. The decisions made were either
based on an adequate assessment of the situation
and a complete use of the information, or they
were not. Questions like these are discussed in
the critique session:
What were the assumptions that were made
about the situation?
What information was not used and why not?
How efficiently was the available information
communicated ?
How did the general manager go about coordinating the efforts of his people, and what were
the effects of his actions?
What might he have done?
Were procedures for handling the crisis adequately set out, or did things just happen?
Were the consequences of the decisions made
properly considered?
In other words, the experience is systematically turned inside out to provide the managers
with complete feedback on their performance.

Assignments Rotated
In the next session these four men will be
facing other management problems, perhaps an
organizational problem, or one of inventory control, or one involving the choice of a new product line. A top staff function may be represented on the team next time. Each man will
be responsible for operating a different functional area of the business in the next session,
and another one of the four will take over as general manager. By rotating through various functional positions in the company during a series
of controlled experience sessions, each man has
an opportunity to look at typical management
problems and decisions from a number of different points of view which complement his normal
on-the-job responsibilities.

The Apex Company


So much for the broad outlines of the new
approach. Let us look at the mechanics of it in

120

Harvard Business Review

more detail now. What kind of problem situation is most effective? What preparations should
be made by the executives who participate? How
are the feedhack sessions best conducted? To be
as specific as possible, we shall turn at this point
to the program that we have been helping a
number of companies to carry out. Because it
has been tested in such a wide variety of situations, it offers the best opportunity to see tbe
new approach "in action."
Organizational Setup
Two years ago we created the "Apex Company" as a vehicle for the controlled experience
approach to developing decision-making skills.
It is a company of about 400 people. It bas two
divisions, commercial and military products. It
is small enougb to be readily grasped by tbe
managers assigned to it, yet large enough to embody the kinds of business problems faced by
mucb bigger organizations. Its products are
easily visualized. Its plan of organization is
relatively clear-cut and provides botb line and
staff functions.
Our purpose is not to present an organization in complete detail. It is not our aim to
indoctrinate managers in tbe particular metbods and philosophies of the Apex Company as
a model business. Unlike the computer game,
it is not the business itself Avbich is of interest
hut the way in which managers use the information provided them in making their decisions.
Almost any business, conducted according to
almost any set of policies, would serve as tbe
necessary setting within which to solve problems.
Four managers work in the Apex Company at
one time and manage either the commercial
products division or the military products division in the various sessions. Each of the four is
assigned to a different functional position in the
division and is responsible for tbe operation of
that area. Some of the positions to which the
men are assigned are division manager, production manager, sales manager, distrihution manager (a function including purchasing, shipping, and inventory control), finance, and industrial relations. They include both line and
staff. The four positions to be filled in each session are not the same; however, there is always
a general manager.
How Managers Prepare
Each session consists of two groups of four
men. Each group is confronted with the same

information and is working on the same situation hut independently of each other. Each
man receives a chapter of study materials to absorb on his own time before taking part in each
problem session. These materials provide him
with a set of concepts and techniques which he
will use in the experience. Each man also receives in advance background information on
the company, the division which he will be operating, and tbe department he will manage.
The managers are given a short briefing just
prior to the heginning of the problem. Tbe concepts tbat apply to this case are stressed, and
ground rules are gone over in detail. The managers go into the session knowing what they are
expected to learn from it and what they will be
required to do. They are as fully set and prepared to gain from the experience as possible.
The managers then receive the exereise material, which sets out what has happened in Apex
over the last few days. There are memos from
within their own departments, from other departments, or from outside the company. There
are policy directives, requests for information,
financial statements, production and sales records, and other information which would realistically come their way on the job. For example:
The sales manager might have the latest sales
forecasts, a report on last week's finished product
inventory from distrihution, a "wire" from one of
his district managers in the Reid, cost estimates on
a new product line for pricing purposes, and other
relevant information.
The production manager may know nothing
about sales forecasts but would have the latest
quality control reports, manufacturing cost breakdowns, and overtime records.
Of course, some of the information of divisionwide interest would be routed to all the managers. Such data would describe the immediate situation eonfronting each man and pose the
problems to be solved.
Eacb man takes tbis material to bis own or
to an assigned office. He reads through the information, organizes it, takes notes, or does whatever he normally would do in a similar real-life
situation. The men cannot expect to find a slip
of paper neatly labeled, "This is a problem,
solve here." Problems do not appear this way in
real life or in the Apex Company. Most problems appear first as seemingly unrelated bits of
information which take on meaning as these
pieces are put together. And this is the Avay

Decision Makers
they appear to the four members of the Apex
management team.
Going Into Action
As the managers go through the materials,
they begin to see their part in the crisis facing
Apex. They become aware of the actions called
for by them in dealing with the crisis situation.
When they have assimilated the information,
they reaeb for the interoffice telephone and begin tbe task of managing Apex.
They talk over the phone with the other department managers, ask for or give information,
set procedures, coordinate aetivities, give orders,
make decisions, and do anything else they feel
is appropriate to the situation. They may decide
to eall a conference if they wish and use it as
they normally would in the course of day-to-day
operations. Tbey draw on wbatever skill and
understanding of management tbey can muster.
Moreover, because they have only one and a
half hours, they work under a real time pressure and sense of urgency. This means that each
step in dealing with the information must he
carefully approaehed and well thought out.
They must coordinate their actions and communicate efl^ectively. If they have a conference,
they must use it well or valuable time is lost. As
in every crisis situation, they must get tbe most
out of the information they have available within a limited amount of time if they are going to
make the best decisions. (They cannot have access to more information tban is initially provided.) This is never an easy task. It takes tbe
urgency of a crisis to put the spotlight on decision-making deficiencies.
The controlled experience situations are put
together so tbat the cause of tbe major problems
confronting Apex can be determined // the information is used effectively. As in real life, if
the decision is based on an inadequate analysis
of the problem and its cause, the deeision will
be effective only through chance. If it is based
on a good analysis, management has done all
that can be asked of it (even though in actuality
chance may later upset the decision).
This is not to say that there is only one possible decision that is adequate. The situation is
too complex for that. Given a satisfactory determination of the cause of the problem, there
are any number of courses of action available to
the group depending on such factors as longand short-range considerations, or their estimate
of potential consequences. They must use their

121

experience, judgment, and skill in evaluating the


courses of action available to them.
By the time the exercise is terminated, after
about an hour and a half or two hours, the men
have pretty well decided what to do, how to do
it, and what instructions to issue.
Reconstruction & Review
The eight members of the two Apex management teams then return to the conference room
for a critical evaluation of their performance.
In the critique, conducted by the course leader,
the men probe into their own performance and
that of tbeir whole management team also.
They reconstruct the situation and trace out
their decisions step by step. They examine the
assumptions they have made and the ways in
which they interpreted and used the infonnation available to them. They uncover the information they did not use but should have used.
The emphasis is on how good the decisions they
made were in light of the total situation. What
facts might they have seen that were not seen?
What improvements might have been made that
were overlooked?
The course leader can help in this reconstruction and provide feedback on the information
that was available but not used since be knows
all of the facts. He also has the advantage of
having monitored the telephone calls during the
session and having sat in on any meetings that
were called. He is in a good position to spot
that behavior which may have stood in the way
of efl^ectively getting out and using the information in the team's approach to the problem.
When tbe data come out in the critique discussion and the managers see the aetual cause
of the prohlem they were tackling, they have a
yardstick against which to compare their own
use of the information and the approach they
took. They can assess what actually was done
against what might have been and what should
have been done.
New Insigbts for Managers
It often comes as a shock to seasoned managers to realize how unsystematic their approach
has been to a complex managerial problem.
They find, for instance, that they have tended
to jump to conclusions without examining all
of the information available to tbem. They find
that they have tended to move toward setting
corrective action before they are sure exactly
what the problem is with which they should be

122

Harvard Business

Review

concerned. They find that their efforts usually


end in an impasse when their approach to the
information has not been rational.
Robbed of their customary crutch of "experience in the job" and precedent, they see that
perhaps they have been trying to manage without getting all the information out or without
thinking through what the problem is that must
be solved, what is causing the problem, and what
it is they hope to achieve with corrective action.
Indeed, they are likely to find the first exercise
a somewhat shattering experience. From that
point forward they tend to become much more
thoughtful in their approach to the management
of Apex. They become more aware of the assumptions they make, of the procedures they
use in arriving at decisions, and of the consequences which those decisions bring into being.
They begin to look more shrewdly over their
shoulders at their own methods as they go
through the decision-making process, and they
begin to become critically aware of how they are
performing.
It invariably turns out that the two management teams have approached an identical situation in different ways. Different information
has been considered or overlooked and different
assumptions have been made. Very frequently
someone on one of the two teams will ask, "Are
you sure that we were working on the same problem that they were? It can't be, because the outcome looks so diffei'ent!"
It is very revealing to see such a divergence.
Comparing the two approaches helps in getting
a more complete picture of all the information
available. It highlights differences in procedure,
in setting objectives, in the assignment of importance to items of information. It also reveals
interesting differences in the way each general
manager operated in the situation. Did he delegate, coordinate, or take over the solving of the
problem? Just what was his function, and just
what ^vere the responsibilities of his subordinates
to him ?
Feedback in the critique is direct and unequivocal. The managers have done their hest
in a difficult situation. They have drawn on
their full range of skill and ability. If their performance has been anything less than perfect, it
seems clear that they need to improve the %vay
they are managing. By examining how they
arrived at any imperfect decisions they have
made, they can see the kind and amount of
change that is necessary if they are to be more

effective. It is common to hear a participant


wryly say, "Now I know why I have that trouble
on the job," or "This is what I do all the time,
but I never knew it before."
Best results are obtained if the focus can be
changed somewhat from session to session in a
company. In the Apex program, for example,
in one session major stress will be on recognizing
problem situations and getting out the information to specify these problems adequately. In
another the focus will be on the process of determining the problem's cause as a basis for
action. Another one highlights the procedures
for effectively working with complex quantitative
and qualitative data in the weighing and evaluating of alternative courses of action. Still another requires that controls be established for
the successful implementation, the maintenance,
and the potential modification of a decision that
has been made.
Progress on the Job
What difference does the new approach make
in the way a manager carries out his job? Are
the insights he gains at the critique sessions of
such a nature that they can and will be
applied in his later work?
Follow-up evaluations reveal that participants
believe they have practiced what they learned.
They report that they applied the gains at once
in their operations. More specifically:
e Managers report that they have become acutely aware of how they deal with information in solving problems and making deeisions. Habits of dealing with information, built up over many years,
come in for close scrutiny in the review sessions.
The detailed feedback allows the managers to study
implications of their methods of operation for the
first time, and the results are sometimes painfully
dramatic. Here are two reactions from executives:
"I suddenly realized in the session that I was
doing exactly the same thing on the job I
was tending to include an assumption of the
cause of the problem right in the statement
of the problem. I would overlook other possible
causes until too late."
"For years I have been saying, 'We need more
information before we can make that decision.'
And I said the same thing while working through
this Apex problem. But in the feedback session I
discovered that we did have enough information
to make a good decision and we simply hadn't
used it efficiently. I wonder how many times
I've made that same mistake on the job."

C Managers report a greater awareness of their


methods and procedures of approaching decisions
on the job. Here is a typical comment:
"I find myself asking a lot more questions.
Do I really know what the problem is? Do I
have all the information I need, or am I overlooking something?"
Still others mention that they frequently catch
themselves thinking: "Wait a minute. That's just
where I fell on my face in Apex. I'd better make
sure I've really assessed the consequences of this."
fL As a residt of this more critical approach, executives think they now manage with less backtracking and greater efficiency. One general manager reported that when his men who have participated come to him with a matter which calls for
his review, they have all the information ready and
organized in a way they never had before.

Decision Makers 123


veloped in the discussions resulted in a marked
reduction of overhead costs in another instance,
in the designing of some universal tooling device
in another, and in the reduction of a bid by
30% in still another.

Conclusion
To put the new approach in perspective, now
that its content is clear, let us compare it with
some of the other training concepts that have
proved themselves:

H How does it compare ivith the case method?


There are some obvious similarities. For example,
both the new approach and the case method focus
on concrete situations. Also, both stress what the
participant can teach himself from the experience.
But in tbe Apex approach the managers do not
C Because they have a clearer conception of probanalyze
what is going wrong and what sbould be
lem solving and decision making, many managers
done
from
the position of the outsider. They are
mention that they are able to make more efficient
themselves
part
of the case. They are there. What
use of their subordinates. They are in a better pois
more,
the
decisions
tbey make are reviewed, soon
sition to coach their people and to help them imafter
the
making,
against
the decisions that they
prove their procedures on the job. And this makes
could
have
made
if
they
had
had a better grasp of
sense, because it is difficult to point out to a man
the
situation
and
had
fully
used
what was available
how he approaches a problem and decisions if
to
them.
And
the
impact
of
one
decision over the
there is no recognition of what goes into decision
telephone
or
in
conference
can
be
seen on other
making.
decisions and actions leading up to the final disposition of the problem . (How that final decision
A great number of the comments in follow-up
would have affected the company cannot, of course,
evaluations deal with improved communications
be known for sure but the managers can make
and abilities to work with other managers. To
some good guesses in the critique sessions.) This
quote a few comments:
feedback information comes while the live case is
"I have had much better communications
still fresh in the executive's mind, so that there
with [the others who participated in the same
is
the greatest possible opportunity to learn.
training] than I have ever had before. Things
have gone much more smoothly as a result."
C Hoiv does the new approach compare with role
"Rotating through various spots in the Apex
playing? The fact that each participating manager
organization has given me a better feeling for
may be responsible for an area of the business other
the need for information of the guy on the
than his normal one may suggest to some that this
other side of the fence. This has helped me in
is a role-playing session. However, the fact that a
communicating on the job."
man is responsible for a job different from the one
he normally holds does not really make his action
C Many managers, even those in small, closely
role playing any more than job rotation could be
knit organizations, are impressed by how much bet- termed role playing.
ter they get to know the other managers with whom
The major distinction has to do with limits on
they work. They feel that this increased knowledge
the
use of information. In real life and in Apex,
provides the basis for improved working relationa
manager
can only use the information he has
ships on the day-to-day job.
available to him, tbat which he can gain from someone else or wbich he has available from experience.
A number of companies have also credited
He cannot make up information as he goes along.
the intensive Apex experience with leading to
By contrast, in role playing the stage is set for the
improvements in methods and products. A set
participants and they act out the situation, bringof important production controls was developed
ing in as much information as their imaginations
in one firm as a result of rethinking a problem
will allow.
which had been plaguing management for some
This distinction is critical because of its implications for the critique of performance. Since the
time. Conscious application of the methods de-

124

Harvard Business Review

information is generated during the session in role


playing, it is not possible to have a grasp of the
total body of information available and to consider
how efifectively it was used. There is no control
over what goes into the session. It is only possible
to discuss the feelings of the participants. This
limitation does not hold for the Apex approach.
The latter allows analytical discussion of communication and the process of decision making as well
as of the feelings of the participants in the situation.
C What about the "in-hasket" technique? The
information provided here is in the form of the incoming mail which an executive would normally
get on the job, and his assignment is to make decisions based on these memos. He is denied access
to further information. There is no one with whom
he may communicate. This gives him practice in
organizing, interpreting, and evaluating information. Clearly, he can profit greatly from such
training.
Now, he has this same practice in the Apex experience. But, in addition, he must also gather
further information and coordinate his activities
with his associates in managing the firm. Decisions
are never made in isolation. This, it seems to us,
is a unique advantage. It is hard to focus on problem solving and decision making without considering the communication and coordination of information. One of the critical decision-making skills
of the manager is knowing what questions to ask
and of whom.
C Hoiv does the new approach compare with the
so-called incident process? The incident process
focuses on the skills a man needs to determine
what questions to ask and how to ask them. A situation is described to a group of participants, and
they then may question the moderator. In this
way they can get out the relevant information
about the situation described. Although the idea
behind this technique is excellent, it does not stress
the evaluation of information in decision making
and does not bring managers together in problems
of communication and coordination. Also, the
cases used in the incident process deal, for the most

part, with problems of the first-line production


supervisor, rather than with the problems faced by
middle- and upper-level managers.
In sum, all these management development
techniques are designed to give the executive
something he can take back to his work and use.
The critical questions are: What happens back
at his desk? How much does he take back with
him? How usable is it? How long does it last?
Our experience leads us to believe that tbe
executive will carry away permanently useful
and usable knowledge from a management development experience only to the extent that the
experience gives him all three essentials for
learning new ideas and skills, practice in using them, and feedback on the results and how
his specific actions contributed to them.
Fuel for Self-Improvement
The approach described in this article was
designed as a highly efficient way of combining
these three essentials of learning into a controlled experience for the improvement of decision-making abilities. While the combination
seems to be a very effective one, it does not, of
course, constitute a cure-all. There are no panaceas in management development. Old managers do not change into paragons of executive
virtue overnight.
What the Apex series does is provide a set of
situations from which the manager can gain
illuminating insights into decision making and
the quality of bis own performance. Gontinued
development must come through coaching and
on-the-job analysis of his daily performance.
The series of controlled experiences in which he
has taken part does not remove from him the
responsibility for self-evaluation and self-development. But it does provide him with the kind
of information that makes his further progress
more assured.

"Edward is the perfect executive. He's got the imagination and forthrightness of Alfred, the objectivity and steady pace of Benjamin, the
realism and the dispassionate ability to face the facts of Cbarles, the responsibility and the sensitivity of David."
From "Sequel to Wickersbam Mills," see page 160, tbis issue.

Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009


Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for
the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material
in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may
not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any
other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on
learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning
management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content
available through such means. For rates and permission, contact permissions@harvardbusiness.org.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi