Israel's decision-making strategies and processes

Decision Making Strategies

Within any organization or process, there is the cognitive and purposeful role of decision making that is the result of taking in stimuli, choosing from alternatives, and making a final choice of an action, in action, or choice of action. This is true in the small business world, multinational corporations, individual life, and even with governments. It impacts Foreign Policy, trade, economics, and most certainly the idea of globalism -- behavior in a world in which countries are tied economically so much that political or social conflict diminishes.

One other way of looking at decision making is that it is ingrained within the human psychological perspective; one can get quite complex about this, but essentially, from a cognitive perspective, any decision making process needs to be continuous and evolving as the individual or organization reacts to the environment, and the stimuli received. Thus, from a normative perspective, there is a logic and rationality involved in the ongoing process, we may or may not agree with that logic, but for the individual or group making the decision, the process is there (Kahneman & Tversky, 2000).

In the contemporary political world, the decision making policy of countries like the United States and Israel is complex, multidimmensional, situational, and certainly dynamic. Israel, for instance, fears agression from all sides, and has worked within that paradigm for decades. In recent history, the United States has never been invaded, but after the events of September 11, 2001 now has a more realpolitik viewpoint on internal vulnerability to terrorist, similar to what Israel continues to face. Geography, domestic factors, economic stability, political acumen and stability, and the complexities of relations in the global world all work together to drive decision making.

Certainly, this does not indicate that thereis unilateral agreement on decision making within any governmental body; or that there is a continual consensus of opinion in either Israel or the United States about most any topic. Instead, when we look at decision making from the macro level, we are forced to first examine the public output of the decision -- the one that binds through internal or international law as the dominant paradigm; and then the overal theoretical basis for that decision.

Theories of Decision Making

For the purposes of this paper, we will overview the basic paradigm of decision making and look at two major theories. In brief, there are really three cognitive styles when dealing with the decision making process:

Typology -- Types, such as those introduced by behaviorist Isabel Briggs Meyers, are ways of organizing decision making based on cognitive styles. For her, there are four dimensions: thinking and feeling, extroversion and introversion, judgment and perception, and sensing and intuition. Whether one adopts her exact idea, the point is that decisions are made based on preconceived patterns of thought processes, which takes into account national and cross-cultural differences (Martinson, 1990)

Optimizing vs. Satisficing -- This view, also called "bounded rationality" expresses the idea that human decisions are made based on available information, time, and the informative processing ability of the decision maker's mind. Maximizes take longer making decisions because they need to maximize performance across all variables and are careful about tradeoffs; they also tend to regret decisions because they are more able that satisficers to realize that a decision may have been less than optimal (Lehrer, 2009).

Combinatorial vs. Positional -- Of course, individuals make decisions in a variety of ways, but there are two major styles according to this approach -- positional and combinational. Both styles may be used in the same decision, and are exemplified if one analyzes a chess game. The combinational style is often used for narrow, clearly defined, and primarily materials goals in which the initial position and the final outcome are linked. Few, if any, options are left for the opponent and if forces decisions from others that fit in with the original paradigm. The positional style, in contrast, serves to create a predisposition to the future, but one of development; it includes the environment in certain ways, and it absorbs and unexpected outcome in one's favor, thus allowing both sides to feel as if there is more of a win-win than a route. Often, one style bleeds into another as negotiations evolve (Sullivan, 2011).

Other views are more interested in the how and why a decision is made in a larger universe -- the political, organizational, and how that mode of decision affects the larger goals of the organization.

Peterson and Smith - Some situations that are interpreted by a manager as routine, or of minor consequence, are resolved by decisions that are made quickly and often intuitively with little information search or analytic activity. Other situations are interpreted as more complex, novel or important and, therefore, require significant information search and analysis before action can be taken by the manager. This view also asks us to understand the manner in which various information sources are used to interpret and act upon complex events and how those complexities interact to form a cogent methodology for decisions (Peterson, 2000).

Kluckoln and Strodtbeck -- The "Value Orientation Model" helps the decision maker work with peoples of other cultures who have a different world view. The VOM (Value Orientation Method) allows one to understand the core cultural differences related to the five basic human concerns, or orientations: Human Nature, Man-Nature Relationship, Time-Sense, Activity, and Social Relations. European cultures tend to see the model as a future oriented, focused individualistic model, while those of more native cultures tend to be past oriented and emphasize group relations and harmony between nature and humans (Russo, 2000)

Overview of U.S. Decision Making

There is no one way the United States, or any other country, makes decisions and bases its view upon a single view or theory. Instead, there are a multitude of ways decisions are made depending on circumstances, information, and worldview. Certainly, decisions surrounding the bombing of Pearl Harbor were, by today's standards, made in a vacuum -- there was little information even weeks after the event. Similarly, decisions have been made that affect millions of people based on the 9/11 attacks. Still, that being said, there are certain archetypes and ingrained paradigms that countries tend to emulate when looking at themselves and their position within the world. This is inexorably tied with culture, history, and position in the world. The United States, just after the Civil War, was in no position to make certain foreign policy decisions until after it had coalesced its military and economic might, and really not until the end of World War II. The United States today makes decisions based on a model that is emerging from the Cold War Paradigm -- five decades of a primary focus on Soviet domination (Ambrose & Brinkley, 2011).

Cultural logic, then, for the United States is based on a very different set of values than other countries. Other than the British during the War of 1812, the United States has never really been invaded. Since the Civil War ended in 1865, the U.S. has not been a large scale battleground, nor suffered from the massive influx of refugees from its own country and the tremendous devastation hoisted upon Europe and the Soviet Union during and after World War II. For this reason, in general, U.S. cultural decisions are based on self-reliance over dependence, mobility over excessive ties, and individualism. We have a tough time understanding individuals who prefer identity as a group or people who are not assertive in their needs. Similarly, many cultures rarely "shoot from the hip," and demand much more consensus in decision making than the United States, which at times makes decisions and then finds the policy and reasons to justify those decisions (O'Boyle, 1996).

For the past several decades, then, U.S. decisions have been based on:

Tradition -- the role to ameliorate suffering wherever found

Authority -- Popular support and political support; the majority at least

Feasibility -- The U.S. can do anything once it puts its mind to it.

Precedent -- The U.S. saved the world from communism and has been the world's police since 1945

Desirable outcomes -- Stop killing, restore order, support allies and national interests

Undesirable outcomes -- Long occupations, continued or domino conflicts (Noble, Sander, & Obenshain, 1995),

Overview of Israeli Decision Making

By modern standards, Israel is a new state, having been formed with a great deal of difficulty and combativeness in 1948. Since then, they have been invaded by neighboring Arab states, found several wars, occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. Portions of these territories have been annexed by Israel, and yet the border with the West Bank has never been determined. Despite years of negotiations and significant peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have not resulted in peace (Long, 2010).

When a society is trying to modernize and is made up of several different ethnic peoples, aligned by religion and the desire to make a land, there is a consciousness that pervades their psyche. Terrorism is a way of life; watching for bombs and activities "normal," just as serving in the military and knowing your State is surrounded by enemies becomes so intrusive it is like being blinded by a horrible odor; other people can sense it, but after a while, it is moot to the individual. Thus, the Israeli culture has transposed from the various cultures that immigrated in the 1940s to one with three major paradigms: individualism, directness, and a polychromic world view:

Individualism -- The United States has always enjoyed a sense of rugged individualism, back from the pioneer days and the age of expansion into the west. For Israel, though, in decision making, the culture has become even more individualistic as it has evolved towards westernization. Some collectivist tendencies are still there, but in decision making and achievement, independence and initiative are so highly valued they are expected.

Directness -- Many cultures find Americans too direct; our resumes are seen as boastful, we are seen as lacking politeness; but from the outside, Israeli decision making is considered aggressive and pushy. This is likely due to the internal culture of feeling that there need be no overt formality when they are all one big Jewish family fighting to exist. They tend to adopt the Smith method of quick and easy solutions; if they are wrong, it is easier to apologize later than be accused of non-action.

Polychronic -- For the decision making model, this means Israelis tend to do more than one thing at a time; making decisions that have layers of effects upon policies, not just overanalyzing a single policy or framework (Communicaid, 2009).

Stages in Decision Making

Because we are dealing with countries, it is the foreign policy decisions that are most visible for analysis. Typically, these involve a five-stage process, regardless of the theoretical model (rational choice, value orientation, etc.). These stages may or may not be in consecutive order; decisions on policy are not always made based on ideal conditions:

Phase

Policy

Actor/s

Expectation

Assessment

Groups must assess the international and domestic political environment, which must be understood prior to moving forward.

Background groups, analysts, intelligence agencies, State Departments, etc.

Information and a way to understand extrapolate and juxtapose data.

Goals

States have multiple foreign policy goals; this stage must determine which goals are affected by the international and domestic environment at any given time, which may conflict, and which require prioritization.

Depending on severity of decision; from analyst to top level executives and political figures, Congress, etc.

Goals should be in line with past policy and fit in with tactical and strategic goals. One "incident" should not make a decision move into a forced or panic mode.

Policy

A state must determine what policy options are available in line with the information gleaned and the goals determined. This also involves capacity.

Because capacity is involved, often both civilian and military agencies are consulted; readiness must be accessed.

If the infrastructure cannot handle the situation, then goals and policy must be changed; for instance, a nation might not be able to take on 3-4 police actions at one time.

Formal Action

Usually done at the Secretary of State, Presidential level, this is a formal policy decision announced to the world.

Executive branch; top levels.

Action is public, may go before United Nations, but it is usually serious at this point.

Implementation

Implementation of policy based on goals and information.

State bureaucracy, Ministries, trade, defense, aid, etc.

The tactical portion that also loops back into other formal processes

(Mintz & DeRouen, 2010).

Comparative Processes

The United States and Israel each face any number of threats; some shared, some unique. All require sound foreign policy decisions based on logical, strategic decision making. We can, however, generalize some by theoretical operants:

Issue

U.S. Theory

Israeli Theory

Compare Contrast

Operant and Organization Outcome

Threats to Homeland Security

After 9/11 reality hits; the U.S. now feels vulnerable and no longer protected by geography.

Since inception, constantly at war with terrorism and threats; daily incidents; population has learned to live with terrorism

Until recently, U.S. was sympathetic, but had no real experience; now cultural values transcend and common enemy is identified

Since there is a common course now, both sides align better on decision making goals that contribute to their stance in globalism; more value orientation model.

Global War on Terrorism

WMD are global in nature and not specific to country; must be eradicated

Israel has been preaching this doctrine for decades

Similar enemies mean more similar operant decisions and alignment of policy

Cyber-attacks, biochemical or bio terrorism are shared problems that are now global in nature; value orientation model

Rogue States

U.S. has more concerns with North Korea; still concerned with ICMBs, especially from Korea. Illegal drugs also threaten U.S. stability

Israel concerned with Iran and Syria; Israel surrounded by enemies, penetrated daily by terrorists, and extremists within its own society

All considered more immediate threats to both countries

Require short- and long-term decision making skills that involve other countries, the United Nations, but must fit in with national security issues

Security Culture

National Security Documents; Department of Homeland Security; increased security for transportation and major events.

Sense of security culture within the citizenry; population is used to threats, and the existence of enemies who want to erase Israel is part of the national culture

U.S. committed to global view of terrorist enemies and underwent the largest reorganization of government offices since World War II.

Israel tends to be more pragmatic (Peterson and Smith); prior to the mid-1990s, the U.S. was focused on the Soviets; then after 2001, Al-Qaeda; military stretched thin.

(Larsen & Pravecek, 2006)

Theory into Practice -- Value Orientation and Decision Making

Using modeling to develop an understanding of an approach to decision making can be daunting -- cross-cultural paradigms and understanding differences in world views make it difficult to get to the "meat" of the issue of motives for effective decisions. While cultures differentiate in their way of approaching decisions (conflict, resolution, and merger), they also have some commonalities that can be expressed through a VOM (Value Orientation Model). It is the fundamental idea of each of these concerns and orientations that defines the decision making view of that particular country or organization. Within each of the concerns are three possible views that, if we think of the orientation of decision processes on a sliding scale we have:

Concern / Orientation

Response

Response

Response

Human Nature -- What is the basic nature of people?

Evil -- Most can't be trusted

Mixed -- There are Good and Bad

Good -- Locke's view, people are basically good.

Man-Nature Relationship

Humans should be subordinate to nature

Humans Should be in Harmony with nature

Humans should be dominant over nature

Time Sense -- How do we think of time and chronology?

Past -- People learn from history and draw values from history

Present- the Moment is everything

Future -- Planning and Goal setting are more important than immediacy

Action/Activity

Being -- Enough to just "be" and live.

Becoming -- Inner Development

Doing -- Work hard and apply oneself

Social Relations -- What is best form of society?

Hierarchical -- More authoritarian, some born to lead, others to follow.

Collateral -- Group, everyone shares in decision process.

Individual -- Everyone should have equal rights, decisions are democratic.

(Gallagher, 2001)

When we compare and contrast the United States to the above grid, at least in terms of decision making, we find:

Orientation

Human Nature

United States

Both good and evil people in the world; one must research them; they can be changed with guidance.

Human Nature

Israel

History shows that most people cannot be trusted and are out to destroy the organization.

But, there are good people; it is just tough to find them. Be wary of strangers.

Comments: For Israel, decision making is never done in a vacuum; they believe they are surrounded by enemies on all sides, and therefore, their worldview is one of wariness, need for protection, and first view being skeptical and hesitant. This causes decisions to be made that are often based on a self-interest only model. In the United States, this is tempered by a moderate side of "let's see who is good and who is evil," in which actions speak louder than words.

Orientation

Man-Nature Relationship

United States

Both countries see themselves as being dominant over nature; whether from Biblical roots or Man-Nature Relationship

Israel

From the notion of carving out a nation in the sandy desert.

Comments: The United States has a long (over 200-year) history of manifest destiny when making decisions. Taming the west, the railroads, all contributed to an idea that nature can be used to further political and social goals. So, too, with Israel. They carved out a modern nation from a desert and took a band of people and made them a world respected fighting force in just a few decades. Both countries see the harnessing of the natural world as part of the decision making process -- use resources for the benefit of the state/organization.