Make The Framework Personal

You may be surprised to learn that most decisions, especially decisions at work, are not really yours. The choice you make is largely, sometimes wholly, determined by a way of thinking that operates inside you.

Your way of thinking is, in THEE , a «mentality»—one that text-books often call a theoretical paradigm or refer to as the correct method. 

A «mentality» is about how you do decide, whereas a paradigm is about how you should decide according to authoritative texts. THEE would refer to this as an «approach».

Remember: The method used to make decisions is not merely a means to an end: it powerfully shapes the choice and the outcome, irrespective of intention, desire or circumstances.

Decision-making at work is often confused with far more complex activities like managing or leading. To get a focus on decision-making, have a quick look at this loose categorization of common decision issues.

Complex activities like «managing» or «leading» will emerge as this analysis unfolds.

If you are in a job faced with decisions all the time If you are an academic or a politician or a journalist or artist or in a situation where your work is not about tangible achievements and you do not face challenges about what decisions you are making or why, then the initial framework may not be particularly relevant to you. Later derived frameworks will be relevant insofar as you have to deal with organizations and want to know how they and their executives function., you must and you will discover your own decision mentality. It will be one or other in the list. You are unlikely to want to change it. The more you are aware of how you go about things, the more you will feel reassured that you are deciding in the best way—in the way that you should. However, it is worth knowing about the alternative ways of taking decisions, the alternative decision mentalities, as this can broaden your understanding of what goes on about you.

● Many people decide in different ways from you—even when they agree with you.

● Other ways are «just as good» as your preferred way—although not necessarily just as good for you or just as good in all situations.

● Different situations call for the application of different decision approaches/methods—and you need to know when your preferred method is likely to fail.

● Arguments about decisions are often arguments about "how to make" decisions.

● People talk past each other, because each way has its own understanding of everyday terms like meeting, action, participation,  management &c.

● Everyone working at managerial levels needs two complementary decision methods.

● Every approach, however much you may disapprove of it, contains values that are essential for the organizations and society of which you are a part.

See practical applications that flow from knowing this framework.

Decision-making(PH'1), like any other THEEPrincipal Typology, can be transformed to clarify:

● How to strengthen the management culture—essential for CEOs, and useful for anyone else, whether or not the CEO takes the culture seriously.

Once this transformation has been validly developed, the architecture of THEE allows further frameworks to be derived. In this case:

● How an organization, that is an aggregate of decision-makers with different approaches, gets decisions made for itself.

● Expectations and obligations in employment work of both the employee and "the management".

● Ways to handle yourself and manage tensions once you are employed by an enterprise; and ways to handle employees if you are part of "the management".

A wide variety of disciplines has contributed to an understanding of decision, choice and action, including:

●Psychology ●sociology ●economics ●social policy ●public administration ●management science ●organization and management studies ●political science ●legal studies ●systems science and ●philosophy.

Related specialized subjects that have led to useful applications include ●decision analysis ●cognitive science ●artificial intelligence ●games theory ●conflict management and ●leadership studies.

Many variants can be traced to requirements of the particular field, theme or discipline. These differences lead to differing attunement to particular issues, differing emphases of particular aspects. Sometimes they seek to force a combination of features of two or more methods.

University disciplines are organized to use education, examination and control over careers to socialize entrants into what is right.  Teachers and researchers commonly advise or insist on just one method—or even just one version or part of one method. That would not matter—disciplines are laws unto themselves—but they then (arrogantly?) start to apply their mind-set outside their discipline where it may not be appropriate.

Disciplines are not immune to the human quality of their doyens: so they often factionalize around different THEE mentalities unawares.