New Venture Lab: Equipping Christian Entrepreneurs

Do you ever struggle with decision making?  If you are the leader of a large organization, do you sometimes feel that your subordinates are merely nodding politely instead of telling you like it really is?  According to research from Harvard Business School and a recent published article's abstract, most decision-making sessions turn into fractious exchanges that stifle diverse, valuable viewpoints.  That's because managers argue their positions with a passion that prevents them from weighing opposing views.  To counter this tendency, encourage productive debate about the issue at hand.  How? Pose theoretical questions that stimulate fresh thinking. Phrase contradictory remarks in respectful language. For example, "Your arguments make good sense, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment." Require people with different interests to work together. And challenge people to assume the perspective of someone in a different role. For instance, a lower-level employee could view the issue at hand from a CEO's viewpoint.

This short article summary raises some excellent points on the "art" of the decision-making process:

The Idea

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

Constructive Conflict

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:

• Require vigorous debate. As a rule, ask tough questions and expect well-framed responses. Pose unexpected theoretical questions that stimulate productive thinking.
• Prohibit language that triggers defensiveness. Preface contradictory remarks or questions with phrases that remove blame and fault. (“Your arguments make good sense, but let me play devil’s advocate for a moment.”)
• Break up natural coalitions. Assign people to tasks without consideration of traditional loyalties. Require people with different interests to work together.
• Shift individuals out of well-worn grooves. During decision making, ask people to play functional or managerial roles different from their own; for example, lower-level employees assume a CEO’s perspective.
• Challenge stalemated participants to revisit key information. Ask them to examine underlying assumptions and gather more facts.

Consideration

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:

• At the outset, convey openness to new ideas and willingness to accept different views. Avoid indicating you’ve already made up your mind.
• During the discussion, listen attentively. Make eye contact and show patience while others explain their positions. Take notes, ask questions, and probe for deeper explanations.
• Afterward, explain the rationale behind your decision. Detail the criteria you used to select a course of action. Spell out how each participant’s arguments affected the final decision.

Closure

In addition to stimulating constructive conflict and showing consideration, bring the decision process to closure at the appropriate time.

Watch for two problems:

• Deciding too early. Worried about being dissenters, decision participants may readily accept the first plausible option rather than thoughtfully analyzing options. Unstated objections surface later—preventing cooperative action during the crucial implementation stage.  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.
• Deciding too late. Warring factions face off, restating their positions repeatedly. Or, striving for fairness, people insist on hearing every view and resolving every question before reaching closure.
  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.

By: David A. Garvin and Michael A. Roberto

Source: Harvard Business Review