"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... honestly… I think they're more important than a lot of the quantitative and statistical skills." – Tony Kenck

While decision analysis is often viewed through a technical lens, there's another equally important dimension: the human side. This episode explores how decision frameworks create space for better collaboration, more inclusive conversations, and greater confidence in our choices.

Table of Contents

• Introduction: Beyond the Technical [00:00:00]
• Freedom from Perfectionism [00:03:13]
• Creating Inclusive Decision Spaces [00:06:18]
• Awakening to Biases [00:09:21]
• Making Tools Feel Natural [00:10:26]
• Including All Voices [00:13:10]
• The Challenge of Engagement [00:17.25]
• Navigating Multiple Stakeholders [00:18:44]
• Conclusion: Decision Making as Life Skills [00:21:17]

Introduction: Beyond the Technical [00:00:00]

Michelle opens by highlighting a key insight from Tony Kenck: while decision analysis has technical roots, the "power skills" - the human elements - may actually be more valuable than the quantitative expertise. This episode explores how decision frameworks help people work together better, communicate more clearly, and navigate the messy realities of making decisions as humans, not robots.

Tony explains that decision science applies "not just in business, but in personal life. It's about giving some thought... almost like a little bit of a checklist just before you make a really important decision." He notes that in the Society of Decision Professionals' framework for decision quality, "five of the six elements are on the soft skill side."

Freedom from Perfectionism [00:03:13]

Andrew Thrift shares one of the most profound personal benefits of learning decision science: freedom from the need to optimize everything perfectly. As someone who tends toward perfectionism, Andrew discovered that structured decision-making gave him permission to move forward when "good enough" was truly enough.

"One of the benefits... I'm an optimizer and lean perfectionist by nature. So my tendency would be I've got these options and I make the right choice," Andrew explains. The frameworks taught him the crucial distinction between decision quality and outcome quality: "when I know I've met the criteria for decision quality and something bad happens, it's like nothing I could have done about it."

This realization was "really freeing" - providing peace of mind and the confidence to defend decisions regardless of outcomes influenced by factors beyond his control.

Creating Inclusive Decision Spaces [00:06:18]

Andrew also highlights how structured processes naturally create more inclusive environments. The frameworks are "designed to mitigate" biases and ensure diverse voices are heard. In practice, this means thinking broadly about stakeholders: "It's not just the traditional economic metrics in a for-profit organization. It's also about the social and environmental reputational things."

The process actively empowers voices that might otherwise be marginalized. Andrew describes a typical facilitation approach: giving everyone time to write down ideas individually, then going around the room to hear from each person because "you're here because you know something no one else in the room does."

This isn't just about who's physically present - it requires "very clear overt signals that you're going to challenge or set aside traditional power dynamics" and create space where diverse perspectives can truly be heard.

Awakening to Biases [00:09:21]

Walter Cosi describes a profound shift that happens when you learn about decision science: becoming sensitized to biases everywhere. "I got very sensitive to biases," he explains. "The more I do it... the more I see how biases work. So it really jumps to my eye."

Michelle notes this is like "once you saw it, you couldn't unsee it" - a awakening that fundamentally changes how you observe decision-making in yourself and others. This heightened awareness becomes a powerful tool for improving decision quality across all areas of life.

Making Tools Feel Natural [00:10:26]

Audrey Del Vescovo offers wisdom on introducing decision frameworks without overwhelming people. Her approach is to "practice it with them" conversationally, so "people can go through it and actually get clarity at the end of it and not even know they're going through a structured process."

Rather than announcing formal procedures, Audrey frames it as "a mindset... a roadmap of how we're gonna tackle things." She emphasizes flexibility: "If something isn't working, I will change it" and encourages teams to speak up if adjustments are needed.

The key challenge is avoiding the trap of turning these flexible tools into rigid checklists, which "takes the whole flexible, iterative approach to our craft... out the door because now you've checked your brain out at the door and you're just checking boxes."

Including All Voices [00:13:10]

Lee Failing works at the intersection of technical expertise and community involvement, focusing on decisions involving natural resources where "multiple stakeholders have really diverse values, and they're usually in some level of conflict."

Her philosophy is powerful: "people need to be involved in the decisions that affect their lives, whether they're technically savvy or not." She focuses on the "upfront stages of decision making" - clarifying what decision is being made and "really digging into the values underlying the decision."

The key is separating technical analysis from value judgments: "People who don't have technical expertise still have a right to have a say in their decisions." When teaching these skills to young people, teachers report three major impacts: increased agency, better frameworks for thinking through complex issues, and improved skills for collaborating with people they disagree with.

The Challenge of Engagement [00:17:25]

Samantha Rush studies a critical challenge: even the best techniques fail if people won't participate. "One of the biggest problems that we have is silence or group think," she explains. "Acceptability is a key concept that actually drives effectiveness. So if people don't want to participate in the process... you're not gonna get it."

Her research focuses on understanding "what's the who, when, what, why, and how that drives acceptability" of decision tools, recognizing that engagement is essential for quality outcomes.

Navigating Multiple Stakeholders [00:18:44]

Reidar Bratvold addresses perhaps the most complex scenario: multiple decision makers with different value systems. He distinguishes between stakeholders (who are affected) and decision makers (who have authority), noting that many public policy decisions involve "multiple stakeholders, different political parties... having very different value systems."

His key insight about working across different values: "People have different value systems. And they should be allowed to have different value systems... I should never say your value system is a bad one." However, "given your value system and your alternatives, I don't think you're making the optimal choice" is a legitimate conversation about decision quality within someone's own framework.

Conclusion: Decision Making as Life Skills [00:21:17]

Michelle concludes that decision analysis "isn't really about complex formulas or technical expertise. It's about thinking more clearly and including more voices." The stories shared demonstrate that "good decision making is fundamentally human."

While tools and frameworks matter, "what matters more is the mindset: being thoughtful about what we value, curious about different perspectives and humble about what we don't know. These aren't just professional skills, they're life skills that can help all of us navigate an uncertain world with more confidence and compassion."

Key Takeaways

• The "power skills" - human elements of decision-making - may be more valuable than technical expertise
• Structured processes provide freedom from perfectionism by clarifying when "good enough" is truly enough
• Decision frameworks naturally create more inclusive environments and amplify diverse voices
• Learning about biases creates a heightened awareness that improves decision quality across all areas
• Successful implementation requires making tools feel natural rather than rigid or procedural
• People without technical expertise deserve a voice in decisions that affect their lives
• Engagement and acceptability are crucial - the best 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

Mentioned in the Podcast

• Society of Decision Professionals

About Michelle Florendo

Michelle Florendo is a Stanford-trained decision engineer and executive coach who is on a mission to teach people how to make decisions with less stress and more clarity. Over the past decade, she has coached and taught hundreds of leaders across tech, healthcare, and financial services, in organizations ranging from pre-IPO startups to major tech companies like Amazon, Google, and Salesforce. 

She's been an adjunct lecturer at Stanford, helps train coaches as a faculty coach for Berkeley Executive Coaching Institute, and hosts the podcast, Ask A Decision Engineer. She earned her engineering degree from Stanford and her MBA from UC Berkeley.

For those interested in exploring Michelle's coaching and speaking services further, additional information can be found on her professional website at poweredbydecisions.com.