Friday, January 07, 2011

Decisions, Decisions

How are high impact decisions made in within your team or workplace? Decision making often seems like a straight forward activity and one that leaders typically manage with authority. Does this result in the best decisions? Going one step further team or organization leadership will often express that it was a “team” decision, or sell the outcomes by suggesting that “everyone” agrees. Is this how it really works?

DecisionMaking002 

While every decision and every workplace will have its own unique circumstances here are a few things to observe the next time you see decision making in action:

  • Does the behavior align with the words
  • Is feedback utilized, or is it only presented
  • Is input truly considered, or is it only propaganda

Many workplace leaders feel that they include and utilize others when making high impact decisions, however in many cases their ideas and conclusions are predetermined and the process of including others may just be an exercise to create buy-in. It often appears that many well meaning leaders do not realize the impact of their behaviors and words on the process.

Have you considered how you manage high impact decisions? How are high impact decisions made in your workplace?

Technorati Tags: ,

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous8:53 AM

    Decision making in the pubic sector requires (often as the result of
    a state law) that an "advisory committee" be created and that
    enumerated policy, regulatory or other issues be "presented to" XXX
    committee. Often, as straight forward a task as advisory committee
    agenda setting is not entrusted to the committee but rather the
    affected agency imposes the agenda upon the committee. Likewise, if
    the agency has no agenda topics it wants discussed, it will often
    veto any topics presented by committee members. This is usually
    handled through an announcement to the effect that the meeting on mm/
    dd/yyyy is cancelled for lack of agenda items. The true message is a
    two-parter...#1 We have nothing we think we need your input on, #2
    There is nothing that you want to talk about that we want to hear about.

    When significant issues, new regulations for example, are published
    as intended rule making, they are often greeted with great opposition
    by the same parties that sat on the advisory committee. The agency
    expresses great consternation and shock. "After all, we let them talk
    about the proposal" is an often heard phrase of dismay.

    Committee members want to believe their voices will be heard and that
    they can elicit meaningful change for substantive reasons. Proposals
    that are in all but name, final documents, reveal their true nature
    when no alteration is made. When, in the face of questions like "show
    us the science" the response is "we know it to be true," ["and we
    have no science to support our position"] participants loose
    interest, recognizing that their considered input was for naught.
    After the "talking" when there is little or no alteration, is there
    any wonder that those on the committee feel betrayed, misled and duped?

    This translates to the private sector as well. Creating a task group
    or other assemblage of knowledgeable individuals with an assignment
    to address a problem and offer a comprehensive, feasible,
    implementable response, has at its core an implied commitment by the
    convener to look at and implement the best of the range of proposals
    submitted.

    The only way to attempt to defuse frustration, disappointment and a
    sense of betrayal after the fact is for management to provide its
    thinking on why it can't or won't implement what was seen as a
    workable change. Even better, however, is a clearly laid out front
    end message detailing the range of reactions management may
    have...including nonimplementation (a/k/a rejection) of all
    suggestions. Lowering expectations risks diminished participation,
    but it also results in fewer resentments when nothing changes.

    A logical question: "Would management ask for our help and allocate
    expensive resources to solve a problem if they did not intend to use
    the end product?"

    Without proper stage-setting or after-action debriefing most
    participants would be inclined to respond, "Yes!"


    Gil Longwell
    Meeting With Success!, llc

    ReplyDelete