One of my leadership students laments that some of the decisions the leaders in his organization make relative to policies and size of workforce are not smart.
These decisions reflect a misunderstanding of their impact, so the leaders end up doing things that are at cross purposes to what they want to accomplish.
I told the student to buy some “smart” pills for the leaders to take, which will let them know when they do things that take them in the wrong direction.
Then I realized that I already had discovered the “smart” pill several years ago and have taught leaders how to administer this magic potion for quite a while.
Leaders need a way to determine the impact of their decisions on the organization at the time of making those decisions. This knowledge will reduce the number of wrong-headed actions.
Picture a leader of 90 individuals. There are exactly 90 people who are capable of telling her the truth about the impact of poor decisions before she makes them. They would gladly do this if the leader had established an environment where it is safe to challenge an idea generated in her mind. How would a leader go about creating such an environment?
If a leader makes people glad when they tell her things she was really not eager to hear, those people will eventually learn it is safe to do it. They have the freedom to level with the leader when she is contemplating something really dumb.
It does not mean that all dumb things the leader wants to do need to be squashed. It simply means that if the leader establishes a safe culture, she will be tipped off in advance that a specific decision might not be smart.
Sometimes, due to a leader’s perspective, what may seem dumb to underlings may, in fact, be the smart thing to do. In this case the leader needs to educate the doubting underling on why the decision really does make sense. Here is an eight-step formula that constitutes a “smart” pill.
1. As much as possible, let people know in advance the decisions you are contemplating, and state your likely action.
2. Invite dialog, either public or private. People should feel free to express their opinions about the outcomes.
3. Treat people like adults, and listen to them carefully when they express concerns.
4. Factor their thoughts into your final decision process. This does not mean you always reverse your decision, but do consciously consider the input.
5. Make your final decision about the issue and announce it.
6. State that there were several opinions that were considered when making your decision.
7. Thank people for sharing their thoughts in a mature way.
8. Ask for everyone’s help to implement your decision whether or not they fully agree with the course of action.
Of course, it is important for people to share their concerns with the leader in a proper way at the proper time. Calling her a jerk in a staff meeting would not qualify as helpful information and would normally be a problem.
The leader not only needs to encourage people to speak up but give coaching as to how and when to do it effectively. Often this means encouraging people to give their concern in private and with helpful intent for the organization rather than an effort to embarrass the boss.
The leader will still make some dumb decisions, but they will be fewer, and be made recognizing the risks. Also, realize that history may reveal some decisions thought to be dumb at the time to be actually brilliant.
Understanding the risks allows some mitigating actions to remove much of the sting of making risky decisions. The action here is incumbent on the leader.
It is critical to have a response pattern that praises and reinforces people when they speak the truth, even if it flies in the face of what the leader wants to do. People then become open and more willing to confront the leader when her judgment seems wrong.
A leader needs to be consistent with this philosophy, although no one can be 100%. That would be impossible. Once in a while, any leader will push back on some unwanted “reality” statements, especially if they are accusatory or given in the wrong forum.
Most leaders are capable of making people who challenge them happy about it only a tiny fraction of the time, let’s say 5%. If we increase the odds to something like 80%, people will be more comfortable pointing out a potential blooper. That is enough momentum to change the culture.
It is important to recognize that making people glad they brought up a concern does not always mean a leader must acquiesce. All that is required is for the leader to treat the individual as someone with important information, listen to the person carefully, consider the veracity of the input, and honestly take the concern into account in deciding what to do.
In many situations, the leader will elect to go ahead with the original action, but she will now understand the potential ramifications better.
By sincerely thanking the person who pointed out the possible pitfall, the leader makes that individual happy she brought it up. Other people will take the risk in the future. That changes everything, and the leader now has an effective “smart” pill.
Bob, some useful thoughts.
The issue of decisions and their subsequent consequences has fascinated me for some time as it connects to my work in understanding and managing uncertainty(as opposed to risk). For me the whole issue of uncertainty arising out of decisions is driven by unintended consequences.
I have talked to several consultants about how they guide their clients in their choices and how this guidance anticipates uncertainty. Interestingly, a common response is that clients are often reluctant to consider the potential unintended consequences in their choices. They prefer to focus on costs and benefits with costs being focused on upfront and ongoing investments/efforts to successfully implement choice.
My reflections on this apparent propensity (would really appreciate others’ observations on this) is that this classical means of decision making focuses on results (getting the job done) rather than the outcomes which is a focus on the differences made from success/failure. Uncertainty is an outcome issue, not a results one, so if we do not pay much attention beyond results we will have understandably little predisposition to considering subsequent potential consequences.
My thinking also considers the implications of unintended consequences arising out of decision implementation failure. On e common metric is that failure rates are around the 70% level. Setting aside the “accuracy” but accepting thing that it is far from uncommon, the consequences of failure are intriguing. Yet, I have not come across much conversation on this in OD or other fields.
I recently had a conversation with a respected (by me) strategy consultant who indicated that failure implications in decision making is rarely considered at all. After all, who wants to seriously consider failure up front, a likely implication would be timidity in those who are charged with taking bold steps.
Your raising this conversation question opens up a lot for me as it taps into some “root” decision making practices and habits.
Reblogged this on Gr8fullsoul.