However, often bosses get neither tree nor text, but lists. Of ‘key issues’ (Figure 2). Especially if the document is a 'deck'. PowerPoint almost encourages us to write in lists. When deck-lovers write their slides, no, pages, they think they're creating prompts for presenters, hence don't do sentences. No sirreee, just do lists.
I'm making a list, I'm checking it twice: And yes, I love a good list. They distil. They summarise. We talk about five steps for sending invoices, six lessons from our project, the Ten Commandments to live by. Even Santa Claus makes a list (and he checks it twice). Lists can be great, there's often a lot of thinking behind them.
Not with this list though. OK, yes, Figure 2's list might at first impress, it seems simple to grasp (“gosh, the topic distilled to just 33 words!”). But when bosses discuss it, they quickly realise it’s half-baked lazy thinking. It doesn’t identify the hierarchy of issues nor relate them to outcomes. For instance, if a diversified Group is unacceptable and there aren’t synergies, bosses should flog the subsidiary, regardless of points 3 and 4 in the list. The list doesn’t identify trade-offs either. For instance, do synergies compensate for industry 'unattractiveness'? The list is lazy thinking and effectively says to bosses: “Work it out yourselves”.
Compare that to the tree: to create it, analysts must grapple properly with issues. What hierarchies? What trade-offs? What outcomes? Which means bosses needn’t grapple with them. Instead, they discuss. Trees clarify.
However, some people fear that trees are a sign of indecision. “Isn’t it better”, people say, “to dispense with a tree of options and instead state a recommendation?”. No. Often, the ‘best’ outcome depends on each individual’s values and beliefs. What are their views on synergy? On diversification? Etc. Often, an analyst doesn’t know each boss’s values and beliefs – and there isn’t consensus anyway. Some bosses think there’s synergy, some don’t. Some think diversification is bad, some don’t. An analyst can’t give one recommendation.
Which is why trees are so great – they work for all bosses. They don’t give an answer. They give the answers. They aren’t under-developed thinking. They’re exceedingly well-developed thinking, for they think through everything. They identify issues, then ask questions in the right order, and for each set of answers, they identify the outcome. They then give the information clearly in a way that’s easy to refer to and which doesn’t put a strain on short-term memory.
They enable everyone to quickly establish the course of action that fits their own assumptions. Which means they cover analysts’ backsides far better than giving just one recommendation – no matter what values and beliefs each boss holds, the tree covers it.
There is more I could say on trees. More reasons to do them. How to format them. How to spot when to do them. When you should eschew them. Criticisms people will wrongly throw at them. How a tree made my reputation where I worked (which is why I’m such a fan of them – the tree was about the internet). Etc. If interested, buy my book (did I tell you I’d written a book?).
|