Perspectives (Point of View)

Perspectives

Perspectives are “points of view” with respect to outcomes and are critical in analyzing the utility of outcomes. Most often the perspective is that of the decision maker, as in the jelly bean example. The decision maker in that case is you, the person making the bet. Alternatively, we can analyze the utility from the perspective of the owner of the jar containing the beans. What if the owner is eight years old and trying to earn money to attend summer camp? In that event we can, in a philanthropic mood, pick the option that will give the most benefit—the most utility—not to you, the bettor, but to the youngster.

We, the analyst, must decide whose perspective—whose point of view—will be reflected in our analysis. That decision is not always easy or clear. If we are analyzing other people’s or organizations’ options, we must “role-play” their perspective, trying to view the world as they view it, to see where their self-interest lies and to understand how their choice among options would be influenced by the perspectives of others.

When we ponder, for example, what a business competitor is likely to do, the first question we should address is what are my competitor’s utilities? What is his or her self-interest and what is he or she likely to do to serve that interest? To make a reasonable projection of what a competitor is likely to do, we must view the world as the competitor views it, not as we would like the competitor to view it. That’s more easily said than done, of course. It takes lots of practice. So often, when we try to role-play someone else, we simply change hats, not personas. By that I mean we view the situation as if we, with all our personal biases, mind-sets, likes and dislikes, were sitting in that person’s seat making decisions. That isn’t role playing! Role playing is when we view the situation as a professional actor would, as if we literally were that other person. Then, having made that transformation, we analyze what factors would influence that person and how that person would likely react, given who and what he or she is.

Nor can we forget probability analysis. That, too, must be seen through the competitor’s eyes. We must ask ourselves what probability the competitor would assign to an outcome and why. That is as difficult a task as analyzing the competitor’s views of utility, but it’s a vital, mandatory step.

Neustadt and May’s technique of “placement,” mentioned in the discussion of chronologies and time lines in Chapter 6, can be of great assistance in role playing. Placement helps us to penetrate the stereotypical perceptions we have of people, organizations, and movements to discern how they experienced history and were influenced and shaped by those experiences. Neustadt and May stress the hazards inherent in placement, which they describe as “uncertain work”: Events are all too easily misread. Personal records are prey to gaps, mistakes, and misunderstandings. Inferences are but hypotheses, not even easily substantiated, let alone “proved.” Further complications arise when placement is attempted across lines of race, class, or country. Yet the harder placement seems, the more it may be needed. The cruder the stereotype, the higher the returns… Although placement, say Neustadt and May, gives no guarantees, “something is better than nothing. The one thing worse than a sophisticated stereotype is an unsophisticated one.” As I said earlier, I strongly recommend Neustadt’s and May’s book Thinking in Time.

To repeat, when we analyze problems that rest in part or in whole on decisions made by other persons, groups, or organizations, we need to replicate as best we can their viewpoints, because the latter are what drive those decisions.