The OODA loop was invented by Col. John Boyd during the Vietnam War and is being adapted here for the business environment.
The point is for some hard decisions, you will have to act on imperfect or incomplete information. A good leader will make a decision, because doing nothing and hoping you get more info will in fact be worse than making the wrong decision. As you get more information, you can then alter or tailor your decision. This is especially true in a military environment.
For an example in a popular movie, look at 1st Lieutenant Norman S. Dike Jr. in Band of Brothers.
Isn't the point of getting inside the opponents OODA loop to force them to make decisions faster than they are able to sensibly and ergo force wrong decisions. If you get inside your own loop by hurrying your decision making forcing wrong decisions how is that sensible?
It also seems obviously untrue that acting on a wrong decision is better than doing nothing. The results of a wrong decision could of course be worse than the results of not making a decision in haste.
If you're already at the point of being forced to make decisions then you've already screwed up? You're being reactive.
>Isn't the point of getting inside the opponents OODA loop to force them to make decisions faster than they are able to sensibly and ergo force wrong decisions. If you get inside your own loop by hurrying your decision making forcing wrong decisions how is that sensible?
Nope. The point is if I am inside their OODA loop, I can make decisions and react quicker than the adversary. Now they are reacting to my decisions and I have the advantage.
> It also seems obviously untrue that acting on a wrong decision is better than doing nothing. The results of a wrong decision could of course be worse than the results of not making a decision in haste.
The keyword there is "could be". That's what makes leadership hard. You have to know when is enough information to make a decision, and when you need to wait. Or if you made the wrong decision, what can you do now?
EDIT: For an example, there's a small brewery down the street that cannot can all of their beer. Making beer takes 3 weeks at least. So there's predictions of COVID-19 ending in May to Sept. So what is the right choice? Do I hope that it ends early and brew beer in a couple of weeks, or do I wait until Sept? What about all of the perishable supplies I have now?
It does me a lot more harm to wait until the "all clear" and then order supplies. Why? Everybody else will do the same thing, and now I am out of beer for three weeks (and longer for other beer). That is a lot of revenue left on the table lost.
What about making it now? Well if I am too hasty, now I have beer that will skunk because I cannot sell it fast enough.
So the brewery owner needs to see what info they have now (obverse, orient), and decide and act. What will cost me more money?
> Nope. The point is if I am inside their OODA loop, I can make decisions and react quicker than the adversary. Now they are reacting to my decisions and I have the advantage.
Yes you'll have the advantage because they'll be making bad decisions as the situation will have changed by the time they've decided to act on older information. It's not sufficient to simply act faster you have to be making good decisions as well.
> The keyword there is "could be". That's what makes leadership hard. You have to know when is enough information to make a decision, and when you need to wait. Or if you made the wrong decision, what can you do now?
Yes exactly so acting isn't axiomatically the thing to do. Although making a great folly seems like a great way to get lionized in military history. :D
> Yes exactly so acting isn't axiomatically the thing to do. Although making a great folly seems like a great way to get lionized in military history. :D
Usually when battles are studied in military history, they try to look at it based on what the leader knew then versus what we know now. Hindsight is always 20/20. There are examples of famous battles where even studied now, military strategists say that the losing commander did the right thing, based on the information available.
For sure you can make good decisions based on the info available and still lose. You can also make bad decisions and still win. Sometimes decisions that seem vital are totally pointless etc. etc. etc.
I was replying directly to your point that military historians found that some military commanders were making good decisions based on the info available even if they caused grand follys. I was pointing out that doesn’t really say much as most people try to make good decisions but won’t always be able to or won’t be making decisions that actually matter as external forces overwhelm no matter what decision is made.
The best laid plans of mice and men often go askew to paraphrase Burns.
Yeah the classic phrase I've heard is "slow is smooth, smooth is fast, speed is in the efficiency of motion" which is a reminder that by trying to go fast we often get sloppy and it can be faster to be smooth and precise than quick and sloppy.
> If you're already at the point of being forced to make decisions then you've already screwed up? You're being reactive.
In the case of a global pandemic never seen before in any of our lifetimes, everyone has to be reactive.
And we have already seen a lot of failures from failing to act during this crisis, more so than leaders taking actions that turned out to not be necessary.
The point is for some hard decisions, you will have to act on imperfect or incomplete information. A good leader will make a decision, because doing nothing and hoping you get more info will in fact be worse than making the wrong decision. As you get more information, you can then alter or tailor your decision. This is especially true in a military environment.
For an example in a popular movie, look at 1st Lieutenant Norman S. Dike Jr. in Band of Brothers.