What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions
Most executives think of decision making as a singular event that occurs at a particular point in time. In reality, though, decision making is a process fraught with power plays, politics, personal nuances, and institutional history. Leaders who recognize this make far better decisions than those who persevere in the fantasy that decisions are events they alone control. That said, some decision-making processes are far more effective than others. Most often, participants use an advocacy process, possibly the least productive way to get things done. They view decision making as a contest, arguing passionately for their preferred solutions, presenting information selectively, withholding relevant conflicting data so they can make a convincing case, and standing firm against opposition. Much more powerful is an inquiry process, in which people consider a variety of options and work together to discover the best solution. Moving from advocacy to inquiry requires careful attention to three critical factors: fostering constructive, rather than personal, conflict; making sure everyone knows that their viewpoints are given serious consideration even if they are not ultimately accepted; and knowing when to bring deliberations to a close. The authors discuss in detail strategies for moving from an advocacy to an inquiry process, as well as for fostering productive conflict, true consideration, and timely closure. And they offer a framework for assessing the effectiveness of your process while you’re still in the middle of it. Decision making is a job that lies at the very heart of leadership and one that requires a genius for balance: the ability to embrace the divergence that may characterize early discussions and to forge the unity needed for effective implementation.
The quality of a leader’s decisions can make or break him. Yet most of us get decision making all wrong. Why? We take the least productive approach: advocacy. We argue our position with a passion that prevents us from weighing opposing views. We downplay our position’s weaknesses to boost our chances of “winning.” And we march into decision-making discussions armed for a battle of wills. The consequences? Fractious exchanges that discourage innovative thinking and stifle diverse, valuable viewpoints.
Contrast advocacy with inquiry—a much more productive decision-making approach. With inquiry, you carefully consider a variety of options, work with others to discover the best solutions, and stimulate creative thinking rather than suppressing dissension. The payoff? High-quality decisions that advance your company’s objectives, and that you reach in a timely manner and implement effectively.
Inquiry isn’t easy. You must promote constructive conflict and accept ambiguity. You also must balance divergence during early discussions with unity during implementation.
How to accomplish this feat? Master the “three C’s” of decision making: conflict, consideration, and closure.
The Idea in Practice
Conflict during decision making takes two forms: cognitive (relating to the substance of the work) and affective (stemming from interpersonal friction). The first is crucial to effective decision making; the second, destructive. To increase cognitive conflict while decreasing affective:
To gain your team’s acceptance and support of a decision-making outcome—even if you’ve rejected their recommendations—ensure that they perceive the decision-making process as fair. How? Demonstrate consideration throughout the process:
In addition to stimulating constructive conflict and showing consideration, bring the decision process to closure at the appropriate time. Watch for two problems:
Watch for latent discontent in body language—furrowed brows, crossed arms, the curled-up posture of defiance. Call for a break, encourage each dissenter to speak up, then reconvene. Seek input from people known for raising hard questions and offering fresh perspectives.
To escape these endless loops, announce a decision. Accept that the decision-making process is ambiguous and that you’ll never have complete, unequivocal data.
Leaders show their mettle in many ways—setting strategy and motivating people, just to mention two—but above all else leaders are made or broken by the quality of their decisions. That’s a given, right? If you answered yes, then you would probably be surprised by how many executives approach decision making in a way that neither puts enough options on the table nor permits sufficient evaluation to ensure that they can make the best choice. Indeed, our research over the past several years strongly suggests that, simply put, most leaders get decision making all wrong.
David A. Garvin is the C. Roland Christensen Professor at Harvard Business School.
Michael Roberto is an assistant professor of business administration at Harvard Business School.
What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions
Research & References of What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source