A632.5.5.RB_BorutyAlan_Protected Values in Decision Making

Protected Values in Decision Making

In a previous blog entry (Link to Blog) on protected values, I mentioned that I did not have any protected values.  This is true, I do not hold values that I consider absolute or completely shielded from trade-off.  Reality tells me that while I have values that are important to me, circumstances could force me to-trade off.  For example, if I held a protected value to preserve ancient forests and another to find cures for childhood diseases and research proved that a specific compound found only in the roots of the trees found only in the ancient forests could be used to safely kill cancer cells in children with Leukemia, I would get my chainsaw.  An obvious example (to me), but it makes my point.  So, I do not claim protected values because the words never and always, as they relate to time, are synonymous and they are exactly equal to the amount of time required to verify all of the circumstances included in under no circumstance. 

People that hold protected values are certain that their beliefs are just and critical and more important than any other.  Their values should not be traded off or take a back seat to any other value for any reason (Hoch, et al., 2001).  The obvious problem in my eyes is that the people protecting every other value feel and act the same way.  These intelligent, like-minded, passionate people cannot see that other values protected by other intelligent, like-minded, passionate people are equally important.  So, each group digs in and stands rigid in their demand for infinite resources and support for their infinitely important cause.  This results in none of them actually getting what they need now to further their cause.  In my opinion, this is a textbook illustration of irrational behavior.  When budgets are planned and policy is written, there is no way to distinguish priorities.  “These protected values are useful because they ensure that values will be kept in mind in every decision, but they are harmful to policy makers and managers because they make trade-offs impossible and conflicts between competing absolute values impossible to resolve” (Hoch, et al., 2001, p. 255). 

I am not saying they are wrong; I am saying they are right.  Every one of them is right.  Their methods are wrong.  Using this method, each of them can expect the absolute minimum in funding and support each year allowing them to do less than if they would explore scenarios where trade-offs are possible.  Experimental studies have shown that protected values are not as absolute and inviolable as the words indicate. In fact, “protected values appear to be labile and amenable to challenge” (Hoch, et al., 2001, p. 254).

In the context of protected values, Dan Gilbert’s presentation seemed to have a different purpose.  The message had a different meaning and the outcome was more powerful.  Instead of explaining how our inability to estimate the odds of an event occurring and the value of the event occurring causes us to make bad decisions, it was more about how we have developed the tendency to be near sighted in our thinking and decision making and the implications on our ability to estimate value.  We make errors in estimating the odds of success and we make errors in estimating the value of our own success, therefore, we cannot determine the estimated value of any option (Gilbert, 2005).  So, we know there is a problem that everyone needs to know about and we feel very strongly that this problem must be corrected.  We do not know how to fix it or if it can be fixed, but nothing is more important than fixing it.  In my mind, this scenario is a simplified (perhaps oversimplified) description of how protected values come to exist.  As long as the problem exists they place the highest value on fixing it for fear that people will forget about it if the value goes down.  They cannot see that reducing the value actually makes the problem solvable.

The errors that we make in estimating values are errors with comparisons.  When we compare things over time to estimate value we tend to follow only two rules: more is better than less and now is better than later (Gilbert, 2005).  We want more and we want it now and we are not patient at all.  According to Gilbert, it takes in the hundreds to thousands percent payout to buy our patience.  Instant gratification is our prize in the here and now.  When the future is important and we have to think and decide farsighted, we could be in trouble because we have defaulted to nearsighted and our ability to estimate value has not improved.  The future issues will only become more complicated and less solvable.

Dan Gilbert warns us that we are not good at estimating value.  We need it to know what we should do at any given time.  We are in control of our destiny; our fate is in our hands.  If we cease to exist it will be “because we underestimated the odds of our future pains and overestimated the value of our present pleasure” (Gilbert, 2005). 

It makes more sense to me now.  Protected values need to exist and need to be supported.  I believe that research needs to continue so we can understand the nature of protected values.  Current research is scant and contradictory making protected values difficult to manage, leaving issues unresolved, and  leaving an important field ignorant.

References:

Gilbert, Dan (2005). Why we make bad decisions: TEDTalks. Retrieved from:  http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness (Links to an external site.)

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., &  Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.