
Dilemma – Can’t make Choice
Introduction
This piece builds on the same foundation as earlier pieces. In these, it is proposed that:
- We lead our lives, with the intent to follow purpose.
- To do this, we need to make the ‘wisest’ ‘choices’ we can, from the information available to our current awareness.
- This choice process is iterative, which starts, at least, with the choice of the purpose itself, progresses to a choice of suitable strategy and on to choice(s) of necessary resources and their modes of application
It follows from this that:
- In order to make these ‘choices’, we must hold beliefs on several options from which to select.
- Thus, one option is positively chosen and one or more others are positively rejected.
- Until such choice is made, there is uncertainty as to which option will succeed.
- This uncertainty is thus ‘fundamental’ to our process – a state of ‘dilemma’.
- Mostly the choice process is automatic and elegant, ‘dilemma’ evaporates and we are unaware of its impediment.
- When confused and frustrated by it, we can come to regard ‘dilemma’ as exceptional, whereas it is, in fact a fundamental, upon which our process depends.
This follows the argument in my piece that considered fundamental aspects of ‘Managing Personal Effectiveness’ and the follow-up on ‘beliefs’ as a foundation for the structure of ‘reality’.
Though it attempts to address the situations where we hold beliefs that seem misaligned and appear to be in conflict, it neither aims or claims, to resolve such conflict, though one resource is implicitly available elsewhere.
My aim is to attempt to identify core elements and structure, not to propose or defend a theory. This is merely an exercise to sketch outlines and I invite and welcome all comment and criticism.
As my interest is primarily in individuals and groups, this piece does not follow the standard TOC pattern, which tends to be more commercially focussed. Nevertheless, I am indebted to the time offered me by Oded Cohen and the Goldratt team at Maidenhead some twenty-five years ago.
Whilst Eli Goldratt’s ‘Evaporating Cloud’ maybe a powerful tool for practical application, I am using here, solely, as an aid to illustrating a structure of beliefs when interacting.
The following section attempts to outline a process through which resolution is achieved and adequate choice(s) allow purpose to be followed.
The Process
In the base model, ‘awareness’ is an assessment of the ‘current reality’. From this, the desired ‘goal’ of ‘future reality’ is arrived at via ‘wisdom’ of ‘choice’, leading to an appropriate ‘response’.
We travel this journey because we ‘want’ to arrive at the ‘goal’ but in doing so, we ‘need’ to employ resources.
These resources, though necessary, come at a price; they lead to other ‘wants’ which, can sometimes, be in conflict.
Unless such conflict is resolved, the ‘needed’ resources cannot be employed.
Where easy ‘choice’ is unclear, ‘dilemma’ becomes apparent.
Goldratt’s ‘evaporating cloud’, from his Theory of Constraints (TOC) illustrates the ‘choice’ process .and could perhaps be regarded, as a general metaphor for selecting and making ‘choice’. The essential for moving from ‘awareness’, of our ‘current reality’ and towards a ‘response’, appropriate to a desired ‘future reality’.

- ‘A’ Is the desired objective or ‘Goal’.
- ‘B’ and ‘C’ Are prerequisites necessary for its achievement.
- ‘D’and ‘D/’ Are wants arising from ‘B’ and ‘C’. They may but need not, be in conflict and give rise to ‘dilemma’. When they are not or the conflict is resolved, the ‘cloud’ is seen as ‘evaporated’.
- The arrows show the causal links between the elements of the ‘Cloud’ and these supporting causal logics are surfaced in Goldratt TOC training. The next stage is to ‘inject’ a proposed logic at a point of causality that will provide solution (In ‘Jonah’ training, participants are required to propose injections at each of the five interfaces).
Note that ‘dilemma’ exists between ‘D’ and ‘D/’ and until it is ‘evaporated’, passage towards the ‘goal’ is obstructed.
Though This device is largely seen as a ‘management’ tool, I see it as a generic metaphor for making choice and that our life experience could be represented by an expanding cascade of ‘evaporated-clouds’.
Note:
Many times we make choices between two alternative needs and that though ‘the cloud’ may sometimes aid resolution, confusion is reduced if such a situation is viewed as two separate clouds – so that rather than showing a single ‘cloud’ with ‘D’ and ‘D/’ representing a choice between (say) “apples v pears”, we have two clouds, one for “apples v. not-apples” and the other for “pears v. not-pears”
’Also, a single cloud may focus on but one aspect of a scenario. Let me give a trite example. Let’s say I would like an ice cream (‘A’).
I might wish to buy one (‘D’) to satisfy a need for comfort (‘B’) but not wish to (‘D/’) as the ice cream vendor was 2km away – need for access – (‘C’) and I felt lazy, OK – “I could go in the car” may be a logical proposal that could ‘evaporate the cloud’ – but – this cloud has only demonstrated two prerequisites to having an ice cream;
1. A need for comfort/satisfaction.
and
2. Access to a source of supply.
This is however only part of the picture. The following Representation, though still only part, may better indicate the scale:
‘Wants’ and ‘Needs’, Confusion and Conflict
Staying with the idea that I might wish an ice-cream, why would I want it? – What need would drive my want and how would I satisfy the want? – what needs would determine whether I could have the ice-cream? A simplified picture might look something like:

So, in order to satisfy my need for energy, I want an ice-cream (I might want other foods alternatively or in addition to ice-cream). If I am to fulfil my goal to have an ice cream, there are certain ‘conditions of necessity’ (needs) that must be fulfilled – A supplier, access to that supplier, and payment for the goods (plus others associated with eating the ice-cream).
If I need funds, then in order to get them, there are things that I might want. If I achieved and combined the goals (wants) of developing a skill, obtaining paid employment and maintaining residual earnings, then I could be in a position to fund the purchase.
Clearly, this is only one route to getting my ice-cream, a friend might go to a vendor, purchase the ice-cream, return and make me a gift of it.
There are other prerequisites, amongst which ‘a source of funds’, ‘responsibility for dietary excess’, etc.
Each of these could give rise to conflicting requisite wants. Thus from these four prerequisites, there are six fields of potential conflict which each have potential for more than one ‘dilemma’ expression.
Moreover, each of them, can combine with other needs to support yet further ‘goals’.
These being higher order ‘wants’ can be in conflict and also lead, via further prerequisites, to more goals in an ascending hierarchy – say Maslow’s hierarchy of needs(?) – towards a core of ultimate aspiration.
Suggested as ‘wisdom’, with four prerequisites, in my earlier article on ‘Personal Effectiveness’
Though the representation above may indicate progress (proceeding left-wards) through levels of priority towards an ultimate goal of purpose, it is linear and planar. However, as we progress right-wards towards the surface of the moment, the level of ‘wants’ escalates at each succession and this exponential growth requires a, solid, three dimensional representation.
Thus, as we move successively to the right of the, above, diagram, each need can give rise to many wants, each of which can only be achieved by satisfying several needs each of which itself gives rise to a further range of wants – and so on.
So; a single need generates an expanding ‘sphere’ of wants and needs, almost like layers of an onion, so that after relatively few stages of this process, we come to a ‘surface’ of some considerable complexity.
It is interesting however that at any level of need, the individual needs are not in conflict – if there is purpose for them, then they are validated. There can be no confusion around them or conflict between them. They are, after all, defined (by the wants) as ‘necessary’ – only the wants are chosen.
It follows then that, though ‘the surface’ may be confusing, ‘conflict’ can only exist between wants. Also, that resolving issues at the surface may not address their causality and, if ‘resolution’ should add further complexity then the conflict remains encapsulated within the system it is merely covered – the ‘sticking plaster’ approach.
Let’s further the metaphor of an ‘onion’. Assume that each need gives rise to say 5 wants, each of which requires say 3 (lesser) needs and see what we get:
please note that the planar representation in the diagram is insufficient and that it should; in reality, be a sphere rather than a circle):

So, in this example, from a single need the 3rd level of want contains nearly two thousand options. How unrealistic is this? Well, if the example were need for food, we would have a first level of want running into thousands, the second level need to around a million – many of which would be common (there must be several hundred conditions of necessity for any given food type).
The second level want could run into tens of millions and at the third level, there would be an adequate mass of simple relationships, sufficient to lead to some ‘confusion’ and too often, regarded differently as a domain of ‘complexity’.
Sure, not all the options would be in conflict but a rate of error or misunderstanding of 1 part in a thousand could lead to considerable problems in agreeing a policy – even if there was ample food to go around and all concerned shared a common end goal.
If we regard ‘the cloud’ as a general metaphor for the ‘choice process, we will see that in most cases, it evaporates as it forms and elegant ‘choice’ follows. We must, however, acknowledge that in order to reach any desired objective, all prerequisites must be satisfied.
However, where the problem is more profound, multiple ‘dilemmas’ can simultaneously present themselves, – ‘confusion’ can arise:
If we look at the several ‘clouds’ that arise in such a state and postulate as many prerequisites to each dilemma as we can, we may reveal them all.
In practice, three clouds seems adequate and in using the following procedure, I have not yet found a fourth sample to add further prerequisites.
Outline of a procedure which may have potential:
I have used this with individuals to resolve basic lifestyle issues (in normally 10 to 40 minutes) and groups to elucidate cultural issues (2 to 4 hours – depending on group size – 10 to 30 members).
- First detach from problem detail – imagine the problem as being ‘perfectly’ resolved.
- Next ‘return the smallest step back towards reality’ and wonder what are the three least significant problems you could envisage and what ‘D’ to ‘D/’ decisions would present to be satisfied. A single cloud statement is unlikely to do this.
- Now divine any prerequisites for ‘D’ and ‘D/’. As these are logical associations, a facilitator or any group member can offer suggestions to another’s suggested ‘problem’.
- Create a list of the prerequisites arising from the three ‘clouds’ and invite additions (occasionally the most obvious, though logical, are not stated).
The list of prerequisites is normally adequate to envision their exploitation without further complication.
For cultural issues, groups may (if necessary) formulate a ‘Critical Chain’ implementation.
In Conclusion:
If one is pursuing ‘purpose’, options are presented and one must ‘make ‘choice’. ‘Often (if not universally?) the choice is not binary – there can be many options. Mostly, we navigate effortlessly, making adequate ‘choices’ from a field of (potential) confusion.
If the core ‘fundamental’ is around ‘purpose’ and ‘purpose’ itself can only be supported by effective (‘wise’) ‘choices’, any ‘purpose’ is itself, a selection of ‘choice’..
However, ‘dilemma’ is imbedded in this process and when several ‘dilemmas’ present simultaneously, ‘confusion’ reigns.
This, describes a simple process, that radiates recursively, from a core of , fundamental purpose and towards a potentially confusing level of detail in the surface of the moment.
Goldratt’s “evaporating cloud” seems to be a useful device in illuminating the comprehension of such an architecture.
I have indicated elsewhere that in order to pursue ‘purpose’, one needs to pay regard to the four perspectives of ‘belief’, ’curiosity’, ‘concentration’ and ‘timeliness’ and I have noted that these are apparent also as prerequisites supporting the surface level, though not always so presented in ‘benchmarking’ management strategies.
This may not necessarily pose an immediate practical problem whilst the benchmark retains adequate validity but ‘benchmarks’ can have a ‘use-by’ date and greater scrupulousness may yield dividends!
I guess this piece, being centred on ‘choice’, is about ‘curiosity’ (uncertainty) modifying ‘belief’ (the illusion of certainty) leading to greater ownership of ‘response-ability’ and also perhaps, to more inclusiveness and internal frames of reference.
This, in turn leads one away from an illusion of “the perfect solution” and with increased acceptance of further degrees of freedom, towards one, more adequate to the moment.
The dilemma this poses is “when is ‘good enough’ actually, ‘good enough’?” and when should one stop thinking – and just “DO IT!”.
Compromise is King?
Isn’t confusion such a great resource?
Your criticism and comment are essential to furthering direction and development.
Leave a Reply