Organizations use many different strategies to make decisions. The following is a list of strategies seen in practice. They all lead to decisions, but they all run the risk of not making good use of the available people and information. Have you ever experienced these?
1. Decision by Running Out of Time: This is the most common form of decision-making. There may be some effort to develop criteria and alternatives, but often time runs out before there is any effort to ensure that a robust decision is made.
2. Decision by chaos: The president of the company says, “I want our new product at the Atlanta trade show in two weeks”. The show is in two weeks. There is no rational way to prepare for the show and make robust decisions. The decisions made in the chaos may need revisiting after the show and work will need to be redone. Some people prefer to work in a chaotic environment, and when in positions of power, they will manufacture chaos as the working environment.
3. Decision by Fiat (or Decision by Authority): This is a very common style in autocratic organizations where a manager or someone else in authority decrees that a certain alternative is his/her favorite. It is often seen when the boss’s idea is chosen in order to preserve the relationship with him/her. This is more justification than decision-making.
4. Decision by Coercion: A champion for one alternative pressures his/her colleagues into submission. Often the loudest voice wins, the others having given up. One colleague referred to this style as “hijacking the process.
5. Decision by Competition: Here concern for who wins is most important, as instanced in most sports. This is often a win-lose situation and the relationship among individual team members is not important.
6. Decision by Voting: Democracy works, but does not often make the best possible choice. This decision making process is a weak form of compromise. Think how most products and businesses would operate if they were designed the same way we elect a president.
7. Decision by Inertia: This style is based on “We did it that way before” which may result in a robust decision, if the previous one was. But, not much progress or innovation is made using this style. Sometimes the tough decision is knowing when to innovate, and when to keep the cruise control on.
I have seen these all. Do you know of other dysfunctional decision making practices, ones that you have experienced?
What can you do to defuse these styles? The first step, like any good program is to realize that there is a problem and that put a name to it. Hopefully, this list can get you through that step. The second is to get general agreement that decision-making is a process. But, both of these steps may be hard as some managers don't want any rationality in the process. There are many ideas in my other blogs and on my web site. Do you have ways of managing these?
1. Decision by Running Out of Time: This is the most common form of decision-making. There may be some effort to develop criteria and alternatives, but often time runs out before there is any effort to ensure that a robust decision is made.
2. Decision by chaos: The president of the company says, “I want our new product at the Atlanta trade show in two weeks”. The show is in two weeks. There is no rational way to prepare for the show and make robust decisions. The decisions made in the chaos may need revisiting after the show and work will need to be redone. Some people prefer to work in a chaotic environment, and when in positions of power, they will manufacture chaos as the working environment.
3. Decision by Fiat (or Decision by Authority): This is a very common style in autocratic organizations where a manager or someone else in authority decrees that a certain alternative is his/her favorite. It is often seen when the boss’s idea is chosen in order to preserve the relationship with him/her. This is more justification than decision-making.
4. Decision by Coercion: A champion for one alternative pressures his/her colleagues into submission. Often the loudest voice wins, the others having given up. One colleague referred to this style as “hijacking the process.
5. Decision by Competition: Here concern for who wins is most important, as instanced in most sports. This is often a win-lose situation and the relationship among individual team members is not important.
6. Decision by Voting: Democracy works, but does not often make the best possible choice. This decision making process is a weak form of compromise. Think how most products and businesses would operate if they were designed the same way we elect a president.
7. Decision by Inertia: This style is based on “We did it that way before” which may result in a robust decision, if the previous one was. But, not much progress or innovation is made using this style. Sometimes the tough decision is knowing when to innovate, and when to keep the cruise control on.
I have seen these all. Do you know of other dysfunctional decision making practices, ones that you have experienced?
What can you do to defuse these styles? The first step, like any good program is to realize that there is a problem and that put a name to it. Hopefully, this list can get you through that step. The second is to get general agreement that decision-making is a process. But, both of these steps may be hard as some managers don't want any rationality in the process. There are many ideas in my other blogs and on my web site. Do you have ways of managing these?
Labels: decision making, decision making process
