The Pre-Action Paradox: Achilles, the Tortoise, and the Modern Manager
In the annals of ancient Greek philosophy, Zeno’s paradoxes stand as some of the most thought-provoking brain teasers. In one of them Achilles, the swift Greek hero, gives a tortoise a head start in a race. Despite his superior speed, Achilles can never seem to overtake the tortoise because he must first reach the point where the tortoise began, by which time the tortoise has moved a little further ahead. This paradox humorously illustrates the infinite regress problem, where completing a task requires completing an infinite number of smaller tasks first.
Fast forward a few millennia, and we find ourselves in the corporate boardroom, still wrestling with our own versions of this paradox. Here, the race isn’t against a tortoise, but against the ever-elusive state of decisive action. Our modern Achilles is the manager or executive, burdened not by the need to catch a tortoise but by an ever-growing list of pre-action prerequisites.
In the world of management, the decision-making process is often decoupled into distinct stages. One common way of decoupling is dividing it into decision-making and decision-implementation. Some split it further into sense-making, decision-making, and action-taking. These divisions aim to create a sequential linear order that, if followed properly, purportedly improves the results of the overall process. However, what this structured approach often overlooks is that these divisions are, at their core, theoretical constructs — artificial separations of elements that are deeply interwoven.
The saga begins with Herbert A. Simon’s groundwork for understanding decision-making within organizations. According to Simon, decisions precede actions in a straightforward, linear progression. Decision-making is the cornerstone of effective management — first decide, then act.
Enter Karl E. Weick, who complicated Simon’s seemingly simple sequence. Weick argued that before decisions can be made, there must be sensemaking — a process by which individuals and organizations interpret and understand their environment. This crucial step ensures that decisions are grounded in a coherent and shared understanding of the situation. Sensemaking adds a preparatory layer to Simon’s model: first make sense of the situation, then decide, and finally act.
So, here we stand, much like Achilles, perpetually preparing to take action but never quite getting there. It’s as if our Achilles is told, “First, observe and understand the terrain thoroughly (sensemaking). Next, decide where you want to go, and only then may you take a step forward.” By this time, the tortoise — representing swift market changes or competitor actions — has moved further ahead.
At first glance, the logic behind decision decoupling appears sound. By breaking down the decision-making process into discrete steps, organizations hope to enhance focus, assign specialized roles, and ultimately streamline actions to produce better outcomes. For example, separating decision-making from implementation allows planners and strategists to concentrate on choosing the best course of action without the immediate pressure of execution details. Meanwhile, those responsible for implementing decisions can focus on operational excellence without being burdened by the complexities of strategic choices.
However, this approach often masks a more traditional and hierarchical view of management — essentially framing decision-making as order-giving and implementation as order-execution. This model, reminiscent of a top-down, dictatorial style, assumes that decision-making does not include any actions, and likewise, action-taking does not involve any significant decision-making. This separation of decision-making from action-taking also stems from a misleading analogy with the human body, where the brain (the decision-maker) directs the body (the action-taker). This idea posits that the brain makes decisions and the body merely executes them which we now know is nonsense.
While these structured processes are beneficial for retrospective analysis or theoretical discussions, they struggle to reflect the real-world dynamics of decision-making. In practice, these processes are deeply entangled. Decision-making is not a linear sequence that humans follow from one complete step to another. Instead, it is a dynamic, iterative, and often simultaneous engagement of various cognitive, social, and physical tasks.
During the action-taking phase, new information often emerges that should ideally feed back into the decision-making process, adjusting the course of action in real-time. Similarly, sensemaking is not merely a precursor to decision-making but is continuous, as decision-makers constantly interpret new data and adjust their understanding and expectations.
Colonel John Boyd tried to address this with his OODA loop — Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. Boyd, a military strategist, developed this model to illustrate how quick and effective decision-making can provide a competitive advantage in combat. Boyd’s OODA loop added three stages before the action: observation, orientation, and decision. The result is a fast iterative process that emphasizes continual adaptation and reassessment. It was an attempt to move away from a linear process. Nevertheless, most people understand it as a loop whereas a better analogy would be a slinky.
Humans inherently integrate observation, orientation, decision-making, and action. We observe outcomes as we act, orient ourselves to new information continuously, and adapt our decisions accordingly. This intertwined nature of decision processes means that real-world decision-making is far from the neat, compartmentalized sequence envisioned in decision-making theories.
The challenge is not to overly simplify the decision-making process through artificial decoupling but to embrace its inherent complexity. By acknowledging and accommodating the intertwined nature of observing, orienting, deciding, and acting, organizations can become more resilient and adaptive. This requires a shift from seeing these components as discrete stages to understanding them as overlapping, continuous parts of a single process.
Speaking of infinite preparations, let’s not forget the strategy formulation, implementation, and execution — the essence of the consulting industry. Consulting frameworks say, we must keep these neatly separated, just as we do with our paradoxical preparations. But delving into that can of worms is a topic for another time. After all, who doesn’t love a good paradox to keep things endlessly interesting?
