The action: Use a predictable method for how to prepare, make and execute difficult decisions in your leadership team.
The long-form: Does everyone know how decisions are made in your team? Who has authority to make which kinds of decisions? What data is needed? How are the results shared?
In most organisations, decision-making can be nebular. You prepare this week’s agenda points, hoping you have added enough context to the pre-read, and if you’re lucky everyone will agree some form of decision has been made, and move on.
A better way is to have a process everyone knows and adheres to.
Starting with the agenda, note for each point what the outcome should be and how you will arrive at a decision. Will it be by majority vote, consensus or will the leader come to a conclusion after hearing everyone’s views? How is everyone expected to contribute in the discussion? Do we want to hear everyone’s views, or have you assigned a few advisors and a decider? (Read more on the DARE-framework here).
Do you have a set process for how difficult decisions are prepared? What kind of analyses are needed? How many different alternatives need to be proposed? How do you coach the recommender (the person in charge with proposing alternatives in the DARE-framework? After all, a poorly prepared meeting is a waste of everyone’s time.
What are the rules for the group discussion? Jan Ole Hesselberg of the grant provider Stiftelsen Dam, decided that no one in his committee was allowed to argue in favour or opposition to a funding application in the beginning stages of the discussion. The only debate permitted was on the merits of the facts presented in the case. So instead of arguing “I am in favour of this application because…”, everyone changed to “The application highlights well how they intend to fulfil the first criteria on our list of requirements.” This led to better discussions and fewer conflicts in the group.
An example of a clear decision-making structure is found in the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). Staff officers on all levels are taught a seven-step process for planning major operations.
External factors such as weather, terrain and enemy action are analysed. In order to avoid a narrow mindset, several possible alternatives are presented for what the enemy is likely to do. But so as to not get overwhelmed, the rest of the planning process rests on the most likely or most dangerous enemy course of action (COA).
This staged mix of divergent- (making several COAs) and convergent thinking (agreeing on a few to focus on) is also used in making your own plans. The planning officers come up with several possible COAs or alternatives. The strengths and weaknesses of each are compared before they are presented to the commander with a recommendation. In other words, there is a clear expectation of what is to be prepared, how it will be discussed, and who will decide.
Usually the commander will approve of the recommended action. If he has led well, there will be no relevant information known only to him (see f40 Share information, not instructions), and he can trust that his staff have used their collective resources to make a good plan.
Each organisation has its own requirements and needs. But no matter who you are, you will most likely benefit from a structured and predictable decision-making process.
See also:
First Forty 