This is a continuation of decision-making, but the thought process originated when I was working in the government. Hence, many of these examples might have flavours of macro-level themes of policy and governance - perhaps some of the tougher environments to make decisions.
Linearity and Complexity
When it comes to forming a view on whats right or wrong, which ultimately affect one’s actions, appreciating how things are interconnected is the first step. For example, economic and climate policy are linked.
Its easy to understand direct causation - that one action leads to one outcome. But in complex areas, I believe it just as possible that the outcome can have numerous unintended side effects, potentially leading to a Net-negative to the decision-maker in the first place.
In principle, its not far from the ‘butterfly effect’ - that one small change in state has a huge impact on the systen.
But the more complex the problem is, the more hidden its side effects, and more obscure its its impact.
From a governmental point of view, a reductive example can be seen in the trump era (yes…this thinking was developed quite a few years ago): Let us say the following:
- Industry in the rust belt has been hollowing out.
- US consumers enjoy comparatively cheap Chinese made goods.
In the shoes of a policy maker, both statements can be true, both have winners and losers, and both are a consequence of (American) corporate decisions to make money, and to deliver benefits to the customer.
It’s a textbook globalisation (increasing relative efficiencies, ala Ricardo) done right, but at what is less understood is how its done at what cost and more importantly to whom does the cost and benefits get too tilted?
Between the two true opposites, the issue at heart when applying these to the world is trade-offs. And in this case, trade offs may not be made on rational judgement, but rather intuition, beliefs, values and culture.
I ultimately feel, that the reason for tension is attributable to:
- People who do not see or understand the opposite trade off (whether by lack of exposure, open mindedness or peer pressure) and;
- People who would make a different trade off due to a different set of conditions and priorities.
Deeply complex and unique, and I proffer no silver bullet for this
Sunk Cost Fallacies
It is human nature to carry a whole baggage of stuff with us. Biases, opinions, developed from years of experience and observations both rational and irrational. Importantly, major baggage can also affect the decisions we make. Why build something from scratch when there is a less-ideal, but currently available infrastructure for this new fangled idea?
Such thinking is not wrong by any means (and often, a complex problem), but I think being cognisant of the various biases, and baggage holding us back from making a clear decisions.
Trade Offs, as applied to Governance
All countries have a limited pool of resources, be it administrative, labour, financial, etc.. Policy changes take time, and I’m of the view that complaints or recommendation never should be taken as a knee jerk reaction.
As more baggage accumulatse we start to see interconnected issues between something new to gain, and the possibility of a lot more to lose.
An anecdotal (and very much my personal feelings) was around government encouragement of cryptocurrency - and economic opportunity for sure, but equally a devilish fiend that can attract the wrong kind of people (get rich quick con men), into society.
Does a society centred on get rich quick schemes sound good? Is the pursuit of novelty, money a worthy risk to take for the sacrifice of a hard working society?
Good governance, in my view, keeps itself honest, and acts as a buffer between knee jerk reactions which can have immensely poor unintended consequences. Just like a mom telling a child to eat their greens, it is a system or structure that pushes against immediate satisfaction.
Unfortunately, policy is dictated by political pressures, which are difficult to fend off in times of crisis if the population themselves hold a very strong short term view. It is a difficult problem for a nation to accurately scale for both Good administration, and Good leadership.
There is a tension to stay ahead, take risks, and sacrifice ourselves at its peak, but at the same time, ensure counries don’t languish in stagnancy and decision paralysis.
There are difficult problems when all forces seems against a decision-maker (like Energy), but ultimately, someone brave needs to develop a posture at the right place, at the right time. or be stuck in an endless circle of reporting, wrting and intellectual masturbation (oops)
The lowest common denominator
Bureaucracy is often one of the most frustrating things in the world, and represents the ultimate trade off between Efficiency and Control.
Smart people have to do dumb shit because there are situations where policies NEED to cater to the lowest common denominator. That MUST be accepted by everyone.
Filling up forms on paper? Thats for the lowest common denominator.
Wasting plastic for ART tests so that everyone can self administor it? Thats for the lowest common denominator.
Again - requires empathising with beauracrats as well as those less-able. And we don’t always get what we want.
Conclusion
Relentlessly knowing trade offs is key to building holistic understanding before becoming a criticising asshole. Makes for a more peaceful mindset anyways.
And so I often carry a mindset that makes me deeply consider, what are the second, or third order implications of my actions?
Of course, such a mindset is only used when addressing complex situations. It doesn’t affect my ordering of Coffee, for instance.