S6E04 | Power Skills in Decision Making: Where is this stuff applied?
This season was made possible in partnership with the Society of Decision Professionals.
In our last episode, we explored the technical applications of decision analysis, how the frameworks and tools are used in industries like oil and gas to healthcare to consumer products, but there's another side to this field that's equally important. The human side, the skills that help people work together better, communicate more clearly and navigate the messy realities of making decisions as humans. Not robots, whether you're deciding alone or with others. This season was made possible in partnership with the Society of Decision Professionals.
“Now I tend, I tend to be more quantitative, just that’s the way I’m wired. And one of the things that I’m seeing and I’ve learned through the years is that the qualitative side, the so-called soft skills, or as Audrey calls them power skills I think, honestly, I think they’re, I’m not gonna say, I’ll say it more important than, than a lot of the quantitative and statistical skills.”
While decision analysis is often viewed through a technical lens, this episode explores the equally important human dimension of the field. Michelle interviews decision science practitioners about how structured frameworks create more inclusive conversations, help overcome perfectionism, and enable better collaboration. Through personal stories from experts like Andrew Thrift, Walter Cosi, and Lee Failing, the episode reveals how the "power skills" of decision-making may be more valuable than technical expertise alone.
Table of Contents
Tony Kenck on Power Skills vs. Technical Skills
Andrew Thrift on Freedom from Perfectionism
Creating Inclusive Decision Spaces
Walter Cosi on Becoming Sensitive to Biases
Audrey Del Vescovo on Natural Implementation
Lee Failing on Including All Voices
Samantha Rush on Acceptability and Engagement
Reidar Bratvold on Multiple Stakeholders and Value Systems
Episode Conclusion
Tony Kenck on Power Skills vs. Technical Skills
Tony Kenck opens the episode by explaining that the Society of Decision Professionals focuses on helping people make better decisions in both business and personal contexts. Despite his quantitative background, he's learned that what his colleague Audrey calls "power skills" - the human elements of decision-making - may be more important than technical analysis.
Tony notes that in the SDP framework for decision quality, "five of the six elements are on the soft skill side," highlighting how the field is recognizing the growing importance of these human capabilities alongside traditional analytical approaches.
Andrew Thrift on Freedom from Perfectionism
Andrew Thrift shares how decision science frameworks have provided him with freedom from his perfectionist tendencies. As someone who naturally wants to optimize every choice, he's found relief in learning to distinguish between good decision processes and good outcomes, including the role of luck.
This understanding has given him "peace of mind" - knowing when he's met the criteria for decision quality allows him to move forward confidently, even when outcomes are influenced by factors beyond his control. The frameworks help him know when to "put a pin in it" and stop seeking additional information.
Creating Inclusive Decision Spaces
Andrew also discusses how structured processes naturally create more inclusive environments. He explains that these frameworks are designed to mitigate biases and empower voices that might not otherwise be heard, going beyond traditional economic metrics to include social and environmental considerations.
His facilitation approach involves giving everyone time to contribute ideas individually before sharing with the group, ensuring that diverse perspectives are captured. He emphasizes the importance of challenging traditional power dynamics, such as the "HIPPO" (highest paid person in the room) effect, to create genuine participation.
Walter Cosi on Becoming Sensitive to Biases
Walter Cosi describes a profound shift that occurred as he learned about decision science - becoming highly sensitive to biases in his own company and decision-making processes. This awareness has fundamentally changed how he observes decision-making, creating a heightened consciousness that, once developed, cannot be reversed.
When asked if it's like "once you see it, you can't unsee it," Walter confirms this is exactly his experience, illustrating how decision science education creates lasting changes in perspective.
Audrey Del Vescovo on Natural Implementation
Audrey Del Vescovo shares her approach to introducing structured decision-making in ways that feel natural rather than academic. She practices the frameworks conversationally, allowing people to gain clarity without realizing they're going through a formal process, particularly when dealing with personal decisions.
Her method involves framing the approach as a "mindset" or "roadmap" rather than a rigid procedure, maintaining flexibility and adapting when something isn't working. However, she warns against the risk of "proceduralizing" these tools into checkbox exercises, which can eliminate the flexible, iterative nature that makes them effective.
Lee Failing on Including All Voices
Lee Failing discusses her work facilitating decisions involving natural resources, where multiple stakeholders with diverse values are often in conflict. Her core philosophy is that people deserve to be involved in decisions that affect their lives, regardless of their technical expertise.
She focuses on structuring decisions by clarifying objectives and generating alternatives, while carefully separating technical analysis from value judgments. When working with youth, teachers report three key impacts: increased agency in making value-based choices, better frameworks for analyzing complex social issues, and improved skills for collaborating with people they disagree with.
Samantha Rush on Acceptability and Engagement
Samantha Rush studies the acceptability of decision-making techniques, addressing a critical challenge in group decision-making: silence and groupthink. Her research focuses on understanding what drives people to participate in decision processes, recognizing that even the best techniques fail if people won't engage.
She emphasizes that acceptability directly impacts effectiveness - if stakeholders don't share their perspectives, the quality of both decisions and outcomes suffers, regardless of how sophisticated the analytical tools might be.
Reidar Bratvold on Multiple Stakeholders and Value Systems
Reidar Bratvold addresses complex scenarios involving multiple stakeholders with different value systems, such as public policy decisions with diverse political parties. He distinguishes between stakeholders (who are affected) and decision makers (who have authority), noting that alignment requires facilitation and conversation rather than pure analytics.
His key principle for working across different value systems is respecting that people should be allowed to have different values while still being able to discuss whether their decisions are optimal given those values. He argues against criticizing value systems themselves while maintaining that decision quality can still be evaluated within each person's framework.
Episode Conclusion
Michelle concludes that these conversations demonstrate how decision analysis is fundamentally about thinking more clearly and including more voices rather than complex formulas. The stories shared show that good decision-making is essentially human, requiring mindfulness about values, curiosity about different perspectives, and humility about what we don't know.
She frames these as life skills that help navigate uncertainty with confidence and compassion, previewing the next episode's exploration of who else could benefit from learning these skills and why they aren't taught more widely.
Key Takeaways
The "power skills" or human elements of decision-making may be more valuable than technical quantitative skills
Structured decision processes provide freedom from perfectionism by distinguishing between decision quality and outcomes
Decision frameworks naturally create more inclusive environments that amplify diverse voices
Learning about biases creates heightened awareness that improves decision quality
Successful implementation requires making tools feel natural rather than procedural
People without technical expertise deserve a voice in decisions that affect them
Engagement and acceptability are crucial - techniques fail if people won't participate
Multiple stakeholders can work together when we respect different value systems while discussing decision quality within each framework
These are fundamentally life skills that help navigate uncertainty with confidence and compassion
Mentioned in the Podcast
SDP framework for decision quality
HIPPO (Highest Paid Person in the Room)
Cognitive biases and decision-making
Obama's leadership style
Organizational decision quality (DQ)
Key Takeaways
The "power skills" or human elements of decision-making may be more valuable than technical quantitative skills
The decision quality framework provides freedom from perfectionism by distinguishing between decision quality and outcomes
Structured decision making naturally create more inclusive environments that amplify diverse voices
Learning about biases creates heightened awareness that improves decision quality
Successful implementation requires making tools feel natural rather than procedural
People without technical expertise deserve a voice in decisions that affect them
Engagement and acceptability are crucial - techniques fail if people won't participate
Multiple stakeholders can work together when we respect different value systems while discussing decision quality within each framework
These are fundamentally life skills that help navigate uncertainty with confidence and compassion
