The blinkers commenting on this month's column have it. But not without some strong caveats. All of which raise added questions. But what did you expect?
Most readers and non-readers of Malcolm Gladwell's book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, are willing to accept the premise that there is a time and place for "thin slicing" that leads to quick decision making based on sense borne of experience. As Kathryn Aiken said, "I believe that those who can 'thin slice' successfully have been practicing a skill, such as decision analysis or problem solving, for years...I also believe that a gut instinct is built, not born." V. A. Emuang commented, "I think vast exposure to life, wide-ranging experiences, and a courageous, positive attitude allows one to blink or thin-slice with better success." In fact, some think that the future requires blink. As Skip Corsini put it, "I believe a person with the attention span of a hummingbird who really knows his or her business is better prepared to deal with the world as it has become than someone who has to have every single fact lined up before making a decision."
On the other hand, there were some dissenters. According to Peter Schaible, "A careful reading of Blink reveals that snap decisions can just as often be incorrect, even dangerous." August Specter expressed a clinical concern when he commented, "I am very concerned about employees/managers who have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)...Often such persons are very convincing in their communication and often are correct; however, they may be very wrong due to their lack of correct analysis."
Others were concerned about the appropriate circumstances in which "blink" is practiced. According to Maris Martinsons, "There is strong evidence to suggest that selections a) within a specified domain of expertise, b) involving a small number of choices, and c) ranging from simple to a moderate level of complexity, can be made effectively using an abbreviated decision-making process." Steve Carnevale puts it more graphically: "I think blink is very dangerous. Read the book Fooled by Randomness. The author does a good job of explaining that our brain is great at pattern recognition, but not suited to statistical analysis...You need to carefully determine when to blink."
One argument put forth against blink was that its use makes poor decisions more difficult to defend. As Harlyn Sianturi put it, "Blink happens and it may be practiced by business leaders all over the world. However, it will remain less defensible in public and in the judicial system if it fails."
Several respondents provided food for thought, always welcome here. Deepak Alse speculated, "I wonder if there is such a thing as 'group gut feel?'" David Martin said that "A good manager also knows which decisions deserve more formal analysis," suggesting a question of whether we spend enough time in formal programs, such as the MBA, training prospective managers to sort out those decisions requiring blink from those requiring more formal analysis. As Michael Bernstein said, "The case study approach ...misses the critical element that in the real world many of the relevant facts, opinions, people, and so on are not laid out for us before we have to act." What do you think?
To read more:
Malcolm Gladwell, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005)
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets, second edition (Texere, 2004) 