As an individual, aspiring to project some particular image of yourself which may commonly be recognized as "respectable" or somehow "superior" may be a good thing. More often, however, it sets one up for an embarrassing display of some clumsy, awkward behavior unsuited to your particular personality or the social environment you are finding yourself in — i.e., incongruent with the particular personalities of the observers of the behavior. As awkward as this behavior may seem, we must recognize it as a natural human inclination: Look into human history and you will find "professionals” sporting bushy mustaches and beards, wearing long wigs or silly-looking clothing, projecting "austere" demeanors, and on and on, all in attempt to either "fit in” with what everyone else seemed to be doing at the time or to project some sort of image of "superiority."

...people often distort their thoughts about reality in order to make themselves feel more comfortable or happier. — (Norman) Stuart Sutherland, Irrationality: Why We Don't Think Straight!, 1992.

People like to kid themselves.
— Detlof von Winterfeldt and Ward Edwards, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, 1993.

   Such clumsiness compounds when we begin to "act superior,” somehow believing that the occupation or position assumed implicates possession of some sort of "superior frame of mind" which we must either project onto others or openly impose and demand that others respect, forcing others to suffer whatever consequences (attempts at embarrassment?) you may have in mind if they don't comply or conform with your self-perceived status.

   Foolish? Yes. Rare? No. This behavior persists to this very day, in the 3rd millennium A.D.

   It would be prudent for everyone to keep in mind that it is NOT your mental superiority which sets you apart as "professionals"; it is your knowledge and training.

   Acting superior is for children, not professionals.

IV. Size

   How many? 2 or 3? 12 or 13? or more?

   Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut answer, only subjective guides. The dominant advice seems to be, "If you are absolutely confident that all alternatives have been imagined and amply discussed, that nothing could possibly have been overlooked — no necessary research untried; no perspectives, viewpoints or analytical techniques ignored; no rare possibilities, special cases or exceptions to the rule(s) avoided; no second-, third- or fourth-opinions neglected — then perhaps you’re ready to make a final decision.”

   Yes, perhaps. Remember, we're all human. We are never free of all potential for error. Just use your imagination a bit to recognize this. As much planning and training and advance preparation as may go into anything we do, there is always a potential for error that we just can never avoid (e.g., the captain daydreams or suddenly faints or sneezes at some crucial point — and everyone else's attention happened to have been focused on some other non-trivial matter at that time). The possibilities are endless, and Reality never gives us a second chance at getting it right.

   So, what do we do? Obviously, the best we can. Always.

   The problems that could arise as a consequence of selecting a group of too small a size should be apparent — particular data overlooked, possibilities never considered, analytical approaches never attempted. These are just the same problems associated with relying exclusively on some individual for all decisions. Just as no single human mind can be expected to know everything, we cannot hold a similar expectation for a group of too small a size. Furthermore, if we don't exert the necessary effort to ascertain divergent and open-minded thinking among the members comprising the group, even a large group would suffer similarly.

   Perhaps the best advice to adhere to when trying to figure out "How many?” is this:

   ...which, at last makes plain the third primary reason for opting with a group rather than an individual to solve your particular problem — reducing the amount of time needed to analyze everything. Certainly, for complex tasks a group of dedicated and competent professionals can successfully complete the required chore(s) in a considerably shorter period of time than any one individual could. Always must we remember, though, that what we perceive to be an appropriate group size may subsequently turn out to be too small if the group is to thoroughly analyze e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g in the way of avoiding overlooking some particular subtle — yet non-trivial — detail. Always remain open-minded to their suggestions (and complaints).

What I am suggesting is an attitude and an understanding between employees and managers that acknowledges the inevitability of diversions and discoveries and seeks to work with them rather than apologizing or obscuring what is happening. We must give people the right to acknowledge that they are constantly re-perceiving and reorganizing their work.... We must give them the right to be assessors of their own work, giving them time and tools to reflect and re-conceive what they are accomplishing. We will do this not just because it is good democratic policy, but because it is inherently the nature of human activity.... People do not simply plan and do. They continuously adjust and invent. Managing this process means managing learning, not managing application of a plan.
— William J Clancey, "Practice Cannot be Reduced to Theory: Knowledge, Representations, and Change in the Workplace," 1995, in Organizational Learning and Technological Change, by S Bagnara, C. Zuccermaglio and S. Stucky (Editors); papers from the NATO Workshop held September 22-26, 1992 in Siena, Italy.

All opinions expressed in this web site, unless otherwise noted, are my own, Michael Gaspard. If you notice any errors or have any suggestions for improvement, please let me know by e-mailing webmaster@mdpme.com. Thank you!

This web page was last updated on Monday, February 2, 2004.
http://www.mdpme.com/reason14.htm

Terms of use &
Disclaimer/Privacy.