The Art and Science of Decision Making

By Mark F Herbert

I caught an article by Carl Spetzler of Stanford the other day on decision making models and guidelines and I thought he made some great points.  According to Spetzler, most managers and executives find themselves making decisions in three broad categories:

• Strategic

• Typical

• "On the Fly”

As you might suspect “strategic” decisions are the deal makers or breakers. They have long term impact and consequences. In most circumstances we have months or at least weeks to collect and analyze data to assist in making these decisions. This is the stuff that those of us at the “C” level are paid the big bucks for and our stakeholders expect us to make wisely.

“Typical” decisions are the operational and tactical decisions that we make in meetings and usually involve or should involve some amount of collaboration. They often also offer an opportunity for delegation and empowerment.

“On the Fly” are decisions that need to be made now with limited information or opportunity for process. These are the ones that we use past “experience” or patterns to assist in making the right call.

As you might suspect one of the first critical points you go through in effective decision making is what kind of a decision is this?

A second question is who should be involved, and an important third question is what should that “involvement” look like?

I look at opportunities to “involve” people as being in three general levels:

• Being informed of the decision and what the reasoning behind it was.

• Being given an opportunity to make a recommendation.

• Being given the responsibility and authority to make the decision.

My strong advice when dealing with an individual or a group is to be very clear at the outset what level of involvement you are providing. By being clear upfront you minimize misgivings or frustration later.

Spetzler goes on to identify some additional criteria for “good” decisions that I think have merit:

• Acting on the decision.
• The right “framework”. Are we examining or solving the right problem. In my profession we sometimes call this the presenting versus the root problem or decision.
• Clarity. What is the objective or outcome we are seeking?
• What are the alternatives? A great manager taught me that an alternative to always be considered is doing nothing.
• Gathering the right information.
• Creating a process that the stakeholders “buy” into.

That is kind of an interesting perspective isn’t it? It doesn’t become an active decision until you act on it. I do believe that simply letting an opportunity “expire” is a form or corporate decision making or passive aggressiveness that I see present in today’s organizations.

Kind of another interesting area is to examine where the process breaks down.

In my experience there is “equal opportunity” in all of the factors, but I see a few getting more than their share. The first two are biggies; defining the right issue and be clear about the objective or outcome. I will say that gathering the right data is a strong number three. Too many times I have seen that we bias ourselves by having a pre-formed conclusion that we are looking to validate. We reject “data” that doesn’t support our conclusion.

I also see action failing in a lot of cases. Many times it is because there is no clear “hand off” or accountability. Other times the group recognizes that there was no real collaboration and so the “plan” dies for lack of support.
It also has value to evaluate your decision from multiple perspectives and personalities. I love ideas and I like to think I am a “big picture” person. I loathe details. That makes my decisions susceptible to holes. I like to have them examined by people who view things from a different viewpoint. One of my best collaborators was a “numbers” guy. He looked at things from a much different viewpoint than I did, but when we came to consensus we were a powerful team and created some exciting innovations.

The biggest thing I encourage is to see decision making as opportunities- not just the outcome, but the process. As I indicated earlier involving people in the process conveys trust and respect. You are building relationships; and as you know from my perspective, everything is about relationships!

Mark F. Herbert is a speaker, author and consultant with over thirty years of experience helping organizations like Honeywell, SpectraPhysics, Mobius, Oregon Community Credit Union and others take their organizations from Compliance to Commitment™. He is currently a principal at the consulting firm of New Paradigms LLC. He recently published his book Managing Whole, One Man’s Journey, which is available at amazon.com or his website at www.NewParadigmsllc.com