Involving others in Decision-making

I once coached a top executive who complained he was making too many decisions that others should be making. In effect, he thought he was doing the work of others and had little time to think about what he was trying to do. To better understand the problem, I asked him to log all the decisions he thought he was making for others. This simple act of documenting the problem was all it took for him to understand the dynamics he had created among his direct reports — fear of making a wrong decision — so bump the issue to the boss. Through lack of clarity of responsibilities and periodic punishment of wrong decisions (irregular negative feedback is a very strong demotivator) he had set up an environment where it was safer for others to defer to him to make decisions. Becoming aware of the dynamics that he had encouraged; he had an opportunity to clarify his expectations of decision rights for others.

This then brings up the issue of empowerment, which is often defined within the context of top-down delegation. Unfortunately, this leaves the boundary of that empowerment to that which is explicit and then must be extrapolated to adjacent situations. The ambiguity of the empowerment boundary can lead to the situation described above that then requires additional clarification. Further reinforcing this ambiguity is the implied threat of withdrawal of any delegation of authority. An alternate approach is to encourage a bottom-up understanding of empowerment — testing of perceived boundaries.

This falls into the “better to ask for forgiveness than for permission” approach to self-empowerment. Note that there is some recognized risk in this approach if any personal agenda is evident. However, being transparent and framing actions within an organization benefit provides some protection even if any boundary is pushed too far. It is also possible to explicitly test that boundary by involving others and keeping those impacted informed. In this way, you do not wait to present a completed deliverable, but let others know your thoughts & intention, followed by interim peaks at the progress you are making.

While this helps streamline decision-making and corrects for too many issues being escalated upward for approval, it also fails to really present clarify of what is involved in decision-making.

So, what is decision-making?

If we limit our response to “making a choice” we are overlooking the context within which that choice is made. Too often “decision rights” are framed within this narrow definition, there is much more that occurs prior to making a choice and then, what happens after that choice is made? Choice is only one of seven steps that occurs from problem-solving to any change required to address the identified problem. Each step along the way is an opportunity to involve people across the organization, thereby distributing the authority for identifying and fixing problems.

1. Recognize symptoms — what are people encouraged to do when they encounter a work situation that is preventing them from fully performing their job role? Too often, the default action is to complain to peers until the impact of the problem cannot be ignored and someone in positional authority starts to see the impact. This requires a way for people to surface issues without classifying them as “complainers” since they are probably that anyway if they failed to voice the issue beyond those who are also complaining. Better still — invite people to voice their observations and encourage them to also bring forward ideas for improvement.

2. However, there is the ever-present risk of jumping to the first politically feasible solution to the symptom without undertaking any research into the core problem underpinning the observed symptom. Here too, the involvement of others is beneficial to better understand the problem from the perspective of those most knowledgeable and impacted. Diagnostics for better understanding the problem then allows for . . .

3. Generating options — the number and quality of available options are improved with input from others which brings up the three higher levels of involvement (testing, consulting, and co-creation). Testing and consulting brings in needed expertise and insight while co-creation goes a step further with the full support that will be needed later when the decision is implemented.

4. Determine the decision process — this step is often overlooked when “the boss decides.” However, this maintains the bottleneck that we are trying to avoid. When others are brought into the decision process, that group needs guidance from two perspectives. First are the guidelines and the training needed for distributed decision-making. Within the context of Futocracy Principles, purpose and autonomy provide counter tensions as a soft form of control and an entrepreneurial mindset supplies the guidelines for action. More traditional organization structures and operating styles can provide similar guidelines for the process without having to reinvent them for each decision. How the team works together using a consent or advice process also needs prior discussion. (The Principles and consent/advice processes are discussed elsewhere.)

5. Determine selection criteria — like many of the other steps in this list, this forethought is often overlooked or not clarified. However, lacking this clarity the decision that comes next is likely to be driven by favoritism, personal agendas, or political factors, none of which contribute to quality decisions. Oftentimes, the discussion on what makes a good decision will be as difficult as identifying the possible solutions since this gets back to clarity of purpose and how the decision supports it.

6. Finally, making the decision, which brings in all the previous steps including who has final authority and how that decision is finalized, documented, and communicated.

7. And, as much as we think the decision-making process is finished, it is only starting because any decision is worthless until it is fully implemented. At this point, we need to stop here and let the change implementation process be addressed elsewhere.

Delegating decision-making is not a simple act of granting someone “empowerment” and setting boundaries for that authority. As we have seen above, there are multiple steps in the process, each of which involves people to varying degrees. And, like Step 7 above, value is only gained with implementation.

· What decisions are you making that should be made by others? Are you a bottleneck?

· Do others have sufficient clarity of the decision-making process to make quality decisions without your explicit approval?

· Are there barriers limiting how others are involved? Or, processes that reinforce behaviors that you are trying to replace?

· What do you need to do today to have an organization capable of making better decisions tomorrow?

To put this topic in some perspective — decision-making connects problem-solving and organizational change. Bolon & Bolon (1994) presents a framework for culture change where organization culture cannot be studied without understanding how culture is formed within small groups (idioculture) which is then blended as groups interact. At the root of each idioculture is a common problem that establishes a reason for group formation. These groups can form for many reasons and connect with the concept of organizations as a network of networks. Of note is the understanding that a common problem not only establishes a characteristic of the group’s identity but provides a basis for shared connections with other groups that collectively build the shared culture of the greater organization. This then provides a point of leverage in how Purpose can be used as a common problem for connecting groups, effectively providing a common attribute among idiocultures. Adding the face of the customer to the organization’s purpose then establishes an environment for emergent change since different parts of the organization have a common problem to solve.

· How can you use this common problem-solving approach for organization alignment and enabling grassroots support (desire?) for change?