Through my continuous research in learning how to be a better Project Manager (and to make some of the difficult parts of the job a bit less distasteful), I have recently read an article, "What You Don't Know About Making Decisions", by David A. Garvin and Michael A. Roberto in Harvard Business Press, that has added tools to my management toolbox.  Changing your existing decision making process within your teams can help the morale of the group as well as increase the adoption by the team.  And we all know that a happy team is a lot more productive, and usually has a lot less conflict.

First off we, as Management, must understand that decision making is not a discrete event, but more of a process that is affected by: the organization; discussion and debate; and by the level of support that the team responsible for making the decision gets.  The article describes two different types of decision making processes – Inquiry and Advocacy – where Advocacy results in winners and losers, and Inquiry fosters health debate and more positive outcomes.

Watching both Inquiry and Advocacy they appear the same with subtle differences but they promote vastly different outcomes.  With Advocacy, individuals involved in the decision making process come to the table with special interests in a particular outcome, and because of that they are so passionate they are not objective.  They have usually prepared an argument with selective data, meaning that they are only interested and willing to share data and points that support their position and ignore data that opposes it.  On the other hand is Inquiry based decision making, where raw data is shared and everyone is encouraged to come to their own conclusions, and to perform individual critical thinking exercises.

In any decision making process there is conflict, however affective conflict is to be avoided (where arguing the point is emotional, and the resulting fallout destroys the team) whereas cognitive conflict is healthy and promotes better decisions.  Cognitive conflict is based on arguments based on the questioning of ideas and assumptions, and there is substance to the argument, with emotions present during discussions.  To promote cognitive conflict versus affective conflict there are four tools to assist in removing the emotion:

1)      Create language rules for discussions – no “blame”, no “fault”

2)      When giving tasks to teams, break up natural alliances and place individuals in uncomfortable roles

3)      Have groups research and support sides outside of their “comfort zone”

4)      Have teams research and confirm key decision facts and assumptions

For participants involved in the decision making process, the most important factor for them is they must feel as though their points have been heard and considered, or they will not support and adopt the final decision.  Having a voice without having their input considered will do more harm to the adoption and support rates of the final decision than having a decision dictated to the organization, and this is where many companies drop the ball.  There are ways leadership can show their consideration of input of individuals on the decision making team:

-          Leadership must come to the table with an open mind

-          Leadership should avoid sharing any pre-conceived bias supporting either side to anyone during the process, to do so could derail the group and have them feel as though their efforts are wasted

-          Leadership should ask questions evenly and thoroughly of all sides of the debate to show even interest and not give any indication of bias

-          Once a decision is made, Leadership should explain their logic, and explain to the stakeholders how their points were considered and how the affected the final outcome

To add another important factor in successful decision making is the timing of the final decision.  Ultimately, as we have already discussed Leadership must make the final decision, but that decision should not be made to early (avoid groupthink), or too late (avoid an endless argumentative loop).  Each decision’s timing is unique, but below are a few points to consider in determining if your process was thorough, and if there might be more effort required before the final determination is rendered:

 Components of a good decision:

1)      Provide many alternatives.  Many alternatives indicate thoughtful analysis

2)      Test assumptions, there is a difference between facts and guesses

3)      Provide well defined goals for the decision that are not easily altered (in many cases criteria is altered to retrofit the decision that the team wants to make)

4)      Check for health dissent, debate and active listening

5)      Ensure perceived fairness within the team

If the above have been covered, you probably have the framework for having made a good decision!

Comments

This is fantastic, detailed advice, Margaret. I love the fact that you've spelled out what the decision makers need to bring to the table, as well as the team members. If only we could all spell these processes out and burn them into our DNA -- on a personal as well as professional level. Not everything can be analyzed and discussed to the nth degree, of course, but in a formal decision-making process, this level of care and consciousness is bound to make for a better result.