Week 5 Journal
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University Of Arizona *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
625
Subject
Information Systems
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by DeanEnergyManatee35
1
Journal Entry: Chapters 9 & 10 Superforecasting
Valerie Barrett
The University of Arizona Global Campus
BUS625: Data & Decision Analytics
Donald Platine
January 30, 2023
2
Journal Entry: Chapters 9 & 10 Superforecasting
In Chapter 9, Tetlock shifts the focus to teams making predictions together. No one on
Kennedy's team considered that when they changed the Bay of Pigs contingency plan, it would
mean guerillas would have to go through nearly eighty miles of swaps and jungle. This ended up
being one of the worst decisions of the administration. We might think that Kennedy would have
replaced the entire team after the Bay of Pigs debacle. However, he did the exact opposite and
kept the group together. Looking back at how President Kennedy encouraged his team of great
performers to think independently, in doing so, the Cuban Missile Crisis was devised by the
same team, but that was the only thing that was the same as the Bay of Pigs situation. Kennedy
encouraged each team member to speak about their area of expertise and to question ideas and
suggestions from everyone.
The term groupthink was developed from the 1972 book "Victims of Groupthink" by
psychologist Irving Janis. In his hypothesis,
"members of any small cohesive group tend to
maintain esprit de corps by unconsciously developing a number of shared illusions and related
norms that interfere with critical thinking and reality testing. Groups that get along too well
don't question assumptions or confront uncomfortable facts. So everyone agrees, which is
pleasant, and the fact that everyone agrees is tacitly taken to be proof the group is on the right
track"
(Tetlock, 2015, para. 9). Per the example in the book, the Kennedy administration during
the Bay of Pigs Invasion and Cuban Missile Crisis there was an important lesson learned, that a
group can change their decision-making process for the better. This is very similar to group
projects assigned throughout our years as students; there is no need to search for a perfect group
when a motivated team can learn to change.
3
I also relate this to sports; we don't get to choose every team player or person in a group
assignment. We are assigned by a teacher, or we try out, and a coach chooses the best talent for
each position or the best talent for the type of team they are looking for. When I decided to coach
a 10-11-year-old girls' fall team, they were not, by ANY means, talented, most had never played,
and some had no clue what they were doing on a ball field. Still, with the right coaching and
motivation, these girls learned to play, have fun, and compete, making it to the finals of the
championship game. With that said, despite the risks of group thinking, working in a team can
sharpen judgment and reach more significant goals than individuals can achieve alone.
Here are some disadvantages: a team can potentially make people lazy, allowing others to do all
the work and then stay hidden in the background and obtain credit. These teams can be
susceptible to groupthink. Some advantages are that people can share information when working
in teams. They share perspectives, and with many views, the "dragonfly eye" becomes more
accessible. Units are clearly more accurate than people. These findings have highlighted the
importance of good group dynamics; teams should be open-minded and have a culture of
sharing. And more importantly, diversity is crucial, even more so than ability.
Chapter 10 teaches about leaders and how superteams operated best with nonhierarchical
structures. Leaders must be confident and decisive and deliver a vision and purpose. To be a
great forecaster, it takes self-doubt and experimentation. These qualities are at odds with each
other. The great question is, how can a leader appear confident and inspire confidence if they see
nothing as infallible? In the book, Tetlock (2015) talks about "Auftragstaktik," the piece that ties
this altogether or, in today's day and age, translated to mission command. In the military,
commanders tell subordinates what their goal is but not how they need to achieve it.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
Subordinates were never allowed to question superiors. They would receive lengthy, detailed
orders telling them exactly what actions to take, with rarely any exceptions. Unfortunately, the
Army learned this lesson in the 1980s in which they have a long way to go, but they have been
much more decentralized since then. According to Tetlock (2015), General Petraeus stressed the
importance of his people thinking flexibly and dealing with things when they come up; it is
essential to look at things from different perspectives. Going back to a previous example, with
school and being assigned to groups, although we are given a set of directions to follow in order
times, things come up. So the best fundamental message: think. If necessary, discuss or criticize
your orders. If you absolutely must, disobey them. Once a decision has been made, forget
uncertainty and complexity.
Also, in Chapter 10 of Superforcasting by Tetlock & Gardner (2015), we learned how
humility is required for good judgment. It is not self-doubt – the sense that you are untalented,
unintelligent, or unworthy. It is intellectual humility" (Tetlock, 2015, pg. 228). It acknowledges
that there is always more to learn, and complexity means plenty we will never know but need to
act upon. Summing up everything learned over these last two chapters is that leaders can lead
teams by encouraging them to question things and make decisions. Also, that it is possible to
think highly of yourself and be intellectually humble.
5
References
Tetlock, P.E & Gardner, D. (2015)
.
Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction
.