Gonjitti Blog
Published on

[Management Behavior] Chapter 3 Is that true? Do you have an opinion?


Roughly speaking

  1. Chapter 3 of Management Action. A story about how to handle information. We have organized the facts (factual judgments) and opinions (value judgments).
  2. A US military manual for surprise attacks on the battlefield.
  3. Things to note when specialising supports value judgment. It also sounds like the story of the Science Council of Japan.


Chapter 3: Handling of information within the organization.


This is the third chapter of the Management Action series. Articles for all chapters are here.


Today, this is a familiar content in many business books. The purpose of dividing information into facts and opinions, judges and organizes it. In business books, it is often written that it is best to ask the boss whether his subordinates are "true or opinion" separately, but Simon has been talking about the same thing for over 50 years.


Disraeli, the 19th century British Prime Minister, said, "There are three types of lies in the world: lies, big lies, and statistics." Illegal statistics lead to false decisions. Exaggerated and hype are unsurprising, both inside and outside the company, but it is a true silly thing, as it deceives oneself and makes decisions. Simon repeatedly teaches in this chapter that he should be careful about how to handle information.



Sudden Clash Manual


The US Army Infantry Battlefield Manual states the following about "scenes attacks."


A surprise attack is an essential element of successful attacks. To successfully attack a surprise attack, it is necessary to keep the time and place of the attack secret.

Management Action (Herbert Simon/Diamond Inc.)


Let's use this manual as an example to explain how Simon organizes information. According to Simon, the information that serves as a source of decision-making is divided into factual judgments and value judgments. A fact judgment refers to facts that have the same answer no matter who look at, and determines whether the information is true or not. On the other hand, value judgment refers to information that contains subjective opinions and ideas, and uses that information to determine whether it is better to do so. In the US Army example, information can be organized as follows:


  • Take a surprise attack! (value judgment)
  • To successfully attack a surprise attack, it is necessary to keep the time and place of the attack secret. (Factory judgment)

Although it is not written directly about making a surprise attack, the manual states that "scene attacks are an essential element to a successful attack," which can be interpreted as an order for value judgment. In other words, it contains the value of being better to take a surprise attack. On the other hand, the statement regarding the conditions for success of a surprise attack is probably true, and anyone can say that it is correct and is a factual judgment.


It is important to be able to properly select these two types of information transmission in an organization.


Fact judgments are objective, and in an organization, both must be able to come up with the same answer. If it is different, it may not be called a fact judgment, or it may be that there is a lack of the skills and knowledge necessary to determine it as fact, or that one of the judges is lying.


On the other hand, since the answer to value judgments can change from person to person, the organization must ensure that everyone can make the same judgment as "given matters." An organization is a collection of individuals, and an organization is making decisions that meet the organization's goals in order to maximize efficiency. Value judgments include subjective views, so the key is how to make value judgments in a state that fits the organization's goals. In fact, the US Army has fully conveyed to each member the importance of surprise attacks in the form of manuals.



Specialization support is double-edged sword


It's not like anyone can judge facts. Decision makers may not be able to judge areas of expertise, such as legal-related, marketing, or stock. In that case, the use of experts will be considered.


Experts literally play a role in supporting fact-judging with expert knowledge. The person you support is the company president, the government, or the sales representative for important cases.


What should be noted is that experts are merely supportive of factual judgments and are not involved in value judgments that decision makers should make. However, there are many corruption in the world, which could be called an act of overcoming authority, both in history and in the present day.


A typical example is the Science Council of Japan. He is an expert who has long been supporting government decision-making as a government-approved institution, but in recent years there has been an increase in the number of members who have been ingrained in a specific leftist ideology and who have doubts about spy-related origins, which can be said to be the case where he has gone beyond factual judgments and even went into value judgments.


There is also suspicion that Nakano Hiromichi was working behind the scenes in the government's decision-making process., interesting. Even in ordinary companies, conflicts of interest by certain external members and actions of certain factions overturning rights are common. I will discuss faction issues again in a later chapter on authority. In any case, organizations should divide all information into factual judgments and value judgments, and work to understand the content and communicate it to each member.



Aside (Gonjicchi memo)


Notes are written for each chapter using iPad Pro and Apple Pencil. This time it's not an e-book, but it has around 550 pages, making it inconvenient to carry around. If you make a note of it on your tablet, you can do it on your smartphone when you review it later.