Do (Not) Trust Your Gut

DO (NOT) TRUST YOUR GUT!

Do (NOT) Trust Your Gut!

Mahal R. Watkins

San Jose State University School of Library and Information Sciences

1 Mahal WatkinsFall 2008 Library 204 Management of Information Organizations

Abstract

Alden Hayashi’s (2001) beliefs in gut instinct and intuitive genius are refuted by

Eric Bonabeau (2003). Karl Weick’s (1996) tool dropping metaphor demonstrates that

professional decision making is not an intuitive act. Various managerial decision making

styles, tools, and methods are introduced. Stephen Abram (2007) characterizes “attitudes

rather than aptitudes” that inspire change and innovation. Cotters eight steps of

successful change are also mentioned. Information professionals have several decision-

making tools and resources superior to intuition available to structure and evaluate

decisions in times of change and innovation.


In 2001, Alden Hayashi praised top business executives who relied on “gut

instinct” to make crucial decisions. Hayashi (2001) describes the concept of “gut

instinct” as a “subconscious, visceral feeling” and a “vague feeling of knowing

something without knowing exactly how or why.” Instinctive genius requires “an

uncanny ability to detect patterns, perhaps subconsciously, that other people either

overlook or mistake for random noise” (Hayashi, 2001). Intuition is “one of the x-factors

separating the men from the boys” and “top jobs at any organization all require sound

business instincts” (Hayashi, 2001). Hayashi (2001) believes that people can increase

their decision-making prowess by listening to their gut and tapping into their right brains.

He regards the “intuitive genius” of Bob Lutz and similar executives a result of “exquisite

instincts” possessed only by especially gifted leaders of industry.

Hayashi cites Henry Minzberg’s description of intuitive decision making as a

revelation that occurs when your conscious mind percieves something that your

subconscious mind had already known (Hayashi, 2001). Hayashi (2001) refers to “left

brain” thinking as conscious, rational, and logical and “right brain” as subconscious,

intuitive, and emotional claiming that executives tap into their right-brain thinking by

jogging, daydreaming, listening to music, or using meditative techniques (Hayashi,

2001). In addition to right brained thinking, Hayashi (2001) considers balanced emotions

as crucial to intuitive decision making. According to Antonio R. Demasio, “decision

making is far from a cold, analytic process,” rather, “our emotions and feelings play a

crucial role by helping us filter various possibilities quickly, even though our conscious

mind might not be aware of the screening” (Hayashi, 2001).


Hayashi (2001) cites Herbert A. Simon (1976) who concluded that “experience

enables people to chunk information so that they can store and retrieve it easily.”

According to Simon (1976), “intuition and judgment are simply analyses frozen into

habit” and “when we use our gut, we’re drawing on rules and patterns that we can’t quite

articulate” (Hayashi, 2001). Several studies of experts in various fields have confirmed

that professional judgment can often be reduced to patterns and rules (Hayashi, 2001).

The ability to “cross index” or see similar patterns in disparate fields “elevates a person’s

intuitive skills from good to sublime (Hayashi, 2001). Hayashi’s (2001) proclaims

Chrysler president Bob Lutz’ s decision to manufacture an expensive, monstrous, flashy

sports car now known as the Dodge Viper in the midst of market uncertainty an example

of intuitive genius at work.

Because executives know that instincts can be off, the ability to “self-check” or

remain aware of the various traits of human nature becomes another essential component

of intuitive decision making (Hayashi, 2001). The tendencies for revisionism, self-

fulfilling prophecy, and overconfidence can cloud intuitive decisions. According to

Daniel Goleman, self-awareness is the ability to recognize their own moods, emotions,

and drives as one of the key criteria for effective leaders (Hayashi, 2001).

I agree with Goleman (200n) that self-awareness is a key attribute of an effective

leader, but reliance on intuition seems like a hasty and involuntary reaction that must be

checked accordingly. My gut instincts often clash with my original intentions and

organized plans. Personal and professional experiences have taught me not to rely on my

gut instinct to make important decisions. Doing so has cost me relationships, jobs, and

opportunities. The mark of a good manager is the ability to research and contemplate to


the fullest extent possible the issues involved and to make a decision only after deliberate

and collaborative consideration. I do not regret my past gut decisions, but I have since

learned to recognize that when in doubt, ignore my spontaneous instincts and follow an

organized plan.

As a professional librarian, I will have a wide range of professional affiliations

and “deep web” access to information rendering “gut instinct” a decision making tool of

last resort. Analytical methods including the environmental scan, SWOT analysis, and

strategic plan are utilized by library leaders and managers to make and implement

decisions based on carefully articulated missions, values, goals, and objectives. This

paper discusses whether the intuitive style suggested by Hayashi (2001) is relevant to

management of information organization given other analytical decision making styles

and tools.

Bonabeau (2003) challenges Hayashi’s (2001) beliefs that gut instincts are at the

center of decision-making process. Bonabeau (2003) believes that intuition has its place

in decision making but that anyone who thinks intuition is a substitute for reason is

indulging in a risky delusion because intuition is not a means of assessing complexity but

of ignoring it. Bonabeau (2003) argues that intuition is not valuable if you are an

executive faced with a pressing decision about investing millions in a new product for a

rapidly changing market because the reality is that for every great gut decision there is an

equal and opposite example of a terrible one. Detached from rigorous analysis, intuition

is a fickle and undependable guide and is just as likely to lead to disaster as to success

(Bonabeau, 2003). The reason Lutz’s story has become business legend is because

people want to believe in the romantic and simplistic transformative power of intuition


Bonabeau, 2003). Rather, anyone claiming the “superhuman power of exceptional

instinct” is attempting to justify a high executive status and an enormous salary

(Bonabeau, 2003).

Hayashi (2001) claims that the ability to see patterns in disparate fields is a stroke

of intuitive genius while Bonabeau (2003) asserts that the deep-seated need to see

patterns is actually a dangerous flaw of intuition. Our thinking is subject to biases and

flaws operating at a subconscious level of intuition confirming assumptions and

prejudices while ignoring information that calls them into question (Bonabeau, 2003).

We inevitably filter out the very things that make the new phenomenon new because we

rush to recycle the reactions and solutions from the past (Bonabeau, 2003). This

unconscious desire to identify patterns is so strong that we routinely perceive them where

they do not in fact exist (Bonabeau, 2003:3). The human drive to find patterns is so

strong that they are often read into perfectly random data (Bonabeau, 2003).

Rather than rely on “gut instinct,” Bonabeau (2003) proposes the use of decision-

support tools for making strategic business decisions. These tools include “agent-based

modeling” where a computer creates millions of individual virtual actors that make

decisions, providing a model of a complex system’s dynamics to predict the madness of

crowds (Bonabeau, 2003). Analytical software known as “artificial evolution” or

“evolutionary computation” uses the computational power of computers to search and

evaluate vast numbers of solutions (Bonabeau, 2003). “Open-ended search” focuses on

the initial search for options instead of evaluation using a computer to create random

combination of rules to produce a new strategy for testing Bonabeau (2003). “Interactive

evolution” is a method of incorporating the expertise, judgment, and intuition of seasoned


professionals to evaluate a generation of alternatives rather than a computer (Bonabeau,

2003). These decision making support computer tools are not intended to replace human

intuition, but to augment it by imposing left-brain discipline on right brain hunches

beyond the computational capacity of the human mind.

Karl Weick’s (Brown and Marek, 2005) tool dropping metaphor demonstrates

that professional decision making is not an intuitive act among information professionals.

Two historic fires, the 1949 Mann Gulch, Montana and the 1994 South Canyon, Colorado

fire, involved firefighters who died fighting fires because they ignored the command to

drop their tools and thus flee the apparent danger (Weick, 1996). A fireman’s

professional instinct is to fight fires, not avoid them. Likewise, a librarian’s professional

instinct is to organize the rapidly increasing collection of accumulated human knowledge

and wisdom. However, unlike the firemen in Weick’s (1996) example, librarians

frequently drop their tools in order to keep up with technological advances and user

needs. One notable example of librarian tool dropping involves the replacement card

catalogs in favor of digital ones.

Stephen Abram (2007), a librarian with twenty five years of experience,

characterizes “attitudes rather than aptitudes” that inspire change and innovation. Tips

like “prefer action over study,” build and rebuild,” “have a vision and dream big,” “never

underestimate the consumer,” “respect diversity,” and “no mistake is ever final” reflect

wisdom based on a lifetime of experience rather than intuition (Abram, 2007). Instead of

forming patterns out of his professional experiences, Abram (2007) realizes that a

positive attitude is everything when it comes to inspiring change and innovation in an

information organization.


John Kotter proposes the eight steps of successful change: 1.) Create a sense of

urgency, 2.) Pull together the guiding team, 3.) Develop the change vision strategy, 4.)

Communicate for understanding and buying 5.) Empower others to act, 6.) Produce short

term wins, 7.) Don’t letup, 8.) Make it stick . Step one of the process and gut decision

making have the sense of urgency in common, but steps two through eight involve

strategic plans of action to involve others in the decision making and implementation.

Such tips and steps represent realistic decision-making methods based on organized

thinking about change and innovation.

Evans and Ward (2007) agree with (Bonabeau, 2003) that trusting one’s gut when

making key decisions is not a good idea because thinking and deciding should be based

on fact and assessment rather than instinct. Evans (2007) mentions several additional

decision making styles to consider including directive, analytical, behavioral, and

conceptual. Realistically, most people use several styles of decision making, adjusting

the style to the circumstances; however, they usually have a favored approach based on

their past experiences (Evans, 2007).

Conclusion

Knowing when to trust your gut is probably the same as knowing not to trust your

gut. With so many available decision making tools to consider, gut instincts are best

relied upon as a last resort if at all. Awareness and understanding of decision-making

processes is a managerial asset. Successful managers must always consider what the

future may hold, so that they can shape their planning, decision-making, and resource

needs accordingly (Evans, 2007).


References

Abram, Stephen (2007, January). 20 tips to inspire innovation. American Libraries,

38(1), 46-48.

Bonabeau, Eric (2003, May). Don’t Trust Your Gut. Harvard Business Review, 81(5),

116-123.

Brown, Karen and Kate Marek (2005, Spring). Librarianship and change: A

consideration of Weick’s “Drop You Tools” Metaphor. Library Administration

and Management, 19(2), 68-75.

Evans, Edward G. and Ward, Patricia Layzell (2007). Management Basics for

Information Professionals. 2nd ed. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

Hayashi, Alden M. (2001, Febraury). When to TRUST Your GUT. Harvard Business

Review, 79(2), 59-65.

Simon, Herbert (1976) Administrative Behavior. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.

Weick, Karl (1996, June). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 301-13.


Do (Not) Trust Your Gut

Documents

Transcript of Do (Not) Trust Your Gut