Why intuition is the last mile in complex decision-making for final calls

We believe that humans are the only rational species. Then we have a debate on whether 40 per cent of the children in Gujarat are malnourished (National Family Health Survey, 2019 data) or 11 per cent (Poshan Tracker data). The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom showed negative data on India’s religious freedom. The Indian government offers opposite data. Does “mathiness” have limits? Should “truthiness” (intuition) be considered?

 

Economist Paul Romer is credited with coining “mathiness” (data-driven) and “truthiness” (intuition-driven). Data and analysis go far but not all the way to certainty; then the leader decides on intuition — seeing, hearing, and feeling beyond the obvious. Intuition is the last mile in complex decision-making. Intuition gives no guarantee of being right. Should I marry X or Y? Should I reprimand or hug my undisciplined child? Should the company make this acquisition or not? Should we appoint X chief executive officer, or Y?

 

Yet both mathiness and truthiness are dimmed if niyat (intent) is defective. In our tradition, niyat (intent) is crucial. If niyat is dodgy, so is the outcome — in personal, business, and national affairs. Niyat includes shades of ethics and morality. Only with good niyat, followed by fine analysis, can leaders heed intuition. In business management too, Gary Hamel and the late C K Prahalad used “strategic intent” (niyat in my language) in their 1989 Harvard Business Review article. Compared to corporate leaders, geopolitical leaders create Götterdämmerung outcomes (“Twilight of the Gods”).  Further, if an institution makes the same error 10 times over nearly eight decades, can you blame intuition?

 

In mounting the attack on Iran, the President of the United States (US) referred to his “feeling” that it was right and predicted its end when his “intuition” indicated. Operation Desert Storm was launched in 1991 after Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait. I was then in Jeddah, so memories flooded my mind as Operation Epic Fury unravelled. President George Bush (in 1991) “felt” that Iraq had chemical weapons.  President John F Kennedy had “felt” that the Cubans would rise in revolt in the Bay of Pigs.

 

In April 1961, Kennedy executed a “mathy” plan, hatched by the Central Intelligence Agency, against Cuba in spite of the intuitive warnings of Senator William Fulbright not to do so. It was a disaster. America had egg on its face. Just a year later, in October 1962, the US and Soviet Russia faced off on the Cuban missile crisis. Vasilii Arkhipov, working on a Russian submarine, noticed an alarm on his console that the US had launched nukes. He intuitively felt that it was a false alarm. His intuition saved the world! Combative Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev (of Soviet Russia) then climbed down to work out an agreement.

 

In 1983, the Soviet military had accidentally shot down Korean Airlines flight 007. The Cold War was tense. Stanislav Petrov was duty officer on the Serpukhov-15 command centre. The OKO satellite told Petrov that the US had sent five Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) towards Russia. Instead of alerting his chain of command, he intuited that it was a false alarm because, if correct, there had to be a cluster of ICBMs, not just five! Petrov had saved the world.

 

Korea, the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, and, possibly, Cuba again — 10 incidents by the same office, the US President — all within 75 years! They claimed to have had a mathy basis. If, however, an institution makes the same mistake repeatedly over 75 years, could niyat be at fault? The leadership lesson is that truthiness matters in complex decision-making, more so, when the rationale is very mathy.

 

Here is a trivial corporate example. Thirty-five years ago, I assumed chairmanship of Unilever Arabia. I learned about leadership intuition during that stint. Unilever had expended $15 million in researching a product to wrest market share from its competitor in Arabia. I was impressed with the overpoweringly rational plan. Upon execution, my company would have to spend another $100 million in fresh capital and marketing investment. Then I explored the truthiness of the plan by walking the Arab bazaars — from Gizaan to Tabuk, Buraidah to Hofuf. My intuition revealed weaknesses of the mathy plan. I discussed anew with colleagues, and, together, we modified the plan!  That experience emphasised that if niyat is right, then truthiness matters. I captured the lessons in my first book, The Case of the Bonsai Manager!

 

Will truthiness be even more important in the future? Is there an essential prerequisite for truthiness to have a better chance of success? Yes, first, niyat must be right and transparent.

---

The author’s latest book, CHANAKYA AND SUN TZU: A Business Lens on Trade, Thought, and Travel, has been coauthored with Nirmala Isaac.

 

gopal.mindworks@gmail.com