This is all good news. However, some of those same people were also concerned that, as we move out of crisis mode, some of the old bureaucracy, delay, or sign-offs might creep back in. There's a strong desire to 'keep' the better way in which we've been making decisions as we move in to our next normal.
In order to do that, I was thinking that maybe some methods or approaches might be helpful for sustaining some of the better decision-making that has emerged during Covid-19.
A while back I tried to learn more about effective decision-making in the workplace. Here are 7 tips based on what I learned:
1. The advice process
The book Reinventing Organizations by Frederic Laloux looks at pioneering progressive (or as the book labels ‘Teal’) organisations. It researches practices relating to self-management, ‘wholeness’ in the workplace, ‘evolutionary purpose’, and using the metaphor of organisations as living systems.
One practice relevant to decision-making is the ‘advice process’ – a way of distributing decision-making in organisations. The book cites a number of organisations using the advice process, and it can take many forms. In essence, any person can make any decision after first seeking advice from everyone who will be meaningfully affected, and people with expertise in the matter.
The decision-maker must take the advice they receive into consideration. With all the advice and perspectives the decision-maker has received, they choose what they believe to be the best course of action. No colleague can tell a decision-maker what to decide, as long as they follow the advice process. It allows anybody to seize the initiative, distributes authority, and creates responsible practice.
2. Could Loomio (or its principles) help?
Some organisation are using decision-making software like Loomio to complement the advice process. The process on Loomio begins with a discussion to frame the topic and gather input, host a proposal so everyone affected by the issue can voice their position, and then the final decision-maker specifies the outcome (automatically notifying the whole group).
The people consulted have one of four options when giving their input:
- I agree with this, and want to go ahead
- I abstain, and am happy for the group to decide without me
- I disagree and think we can probably do better, but I will live with this decision
- I block this decision as I have a strong objection and am not okay with it going ahead
Samantha Slade points out in her book Going Horizontal that this shifts the standard question from “Is everyone okay with this?” to “Is there anyone here who can’t live with this?” or “Is there anything here you can’t live with?” It gives greater autonomy and responsibility to the person proposing the decision, and better clarifies when and why a person might decide to reject a proposal.
3. Easier decision-making
I once had a chat about organisational decision-making with Andy Brogan, founding partner of Easier Inc.
He gave me a few helpful pointers (which I hope I've represented accurately):
- In order to understand what's currently happening with decisions, you can get helpful insights from mapping the 'journeys' of decisions through different people in the organisation (e.g. when you have multiple sign-offs). This gives you evidence of where decisions have been delayed, deferred, re-shaped, or where there’s been duplication or rework. And that helps make the case for change.
- Do we need perfect decisions that are slow and bureaucratic, or ‘good enough’ decisions that are faster and involve less work? [I think Covid-19 has helped trigger a big move to the latter, at least temporarily.]
- It’s useful to identify and agree on what the characteristics of a good decision are, and make this explicit and transparent by turning them in to a set of clear behaviours or principles.
4. Intent-based decisions
Andy also reminded me of the book Turn the Ship Around! by L. David Marquet. It tells the true story of how, as captain, Marquet turned his submarine from worst to best performing in the fleet in under a year. He did this through creating a different approach to leadership – a ‘leader-leader’ model instead of a ‘leader-follower’ model. Many of the ideas in the book are summarised in this 10 minute video.
The book introduces the idea of intent-based leadership. Instead of giving orders, the crew would say “I intend to…” (not “I request permission to…”) and he would reply “Very well”. Rather than being a minor trick of language, it was powerful in changing the culture and creating responsibility for decision-making among the crew. It helped turn passive followers into active leaders.
They later extended the concept. Often Marquet would have to ask questions before saying “Very well”. To address this he asked the crew to consider what questions he would have, and to provide a sufficient explanation that would allow him to say “Very well”. This forced all of the crew to think like a Captain: “Instead of one captain giving orders to 134 men, we would have 135 independent, energetic, emotionally committed and engaged men thinking about what we needed to do and ways to do it right”.
Going slightly off topic, I think this could help in re-writing some of our post-pandemic working from home policies. Instead of asking permission, people just say "I intend to work from home tomorrow because....", and then they do.
5. Above or below the waterline decisions
Sticking with Marquet, I also like the way he frames decisions as 'above or below the waterline'.
He uses the metaphor of a boat, where a hole below the waterline can sink it. On the other hand, a hole above the waterline will cause damage, but it’s not going to sink it. Decisions that are ‘below the waterline’ could potentially cause harm to the organisation and might require greater control. ‘Above the waterline’ is where greater freedom and autonomy can be given – particularly in relation to innovation.
6. PLAN decision-making
Folks at Vanguard introduced me to this one. I gather it originates from the Police, who use the acronym PLAN to guide decisions about use of force and respecting human rights. It stands for:
- Proportionate – Does the decision have the right balance between achieving the desired purpose, resources available, and risk?
- Legal – What does the law say we can or can’t do? Does the law say anything about this?
- Accountable – Can the decision-maker sufficiently explain or justify their reasons for making a decision to someone else?
- Necessary – Why did the decision need to be made? How does it contribute to achieving the organisation’s purposes? What would have been the consequence of not making this decision?
Sometimes the acronym is extended to either PLANE (Ethical) or PLAN-BI (made on the Best Information available).
This can be helpful for front-line teams, to give them an autonomous framework for decision-making (e.g. for solving 'customers' problems on the spot). For example, the manager will trust their team members’ decision as long as they meets the PLAN criteria.
I also find the L for Legal useful in local government, where it provides some peace of mind for people who are concerned about compliance with statutory obligations.
7. Create conditions for 'fearless' decision-making
If we want people to make good decisions, they need to do that in an environment without fear – that is 'psychologically safe'.
Psychological safety means a climate in which people are comfortable expressing and being themselves. When people have psychological safety at work, they:
- feel comfortable sharing concerns and mistakes without fear of embarrassment or retribution.
- are confident that they can speak up and won’t be humiliated, ignored, or blamed.
- know they can ask questions when they are unsure about something.
- tend to trust and respect their colleagues.
It means mistakes are reported quickly so prompt corrective action can be taken, coordination across departments is enabled, and ideas for innovation are shared. It also means more effective decision-making.
In her book The Fearless Organisation, Professor Amy Edmondson gives a leader’s toolkit for creating psychological safety, summarised in the table below. If you're in a leadership role, or have influence in your organisation, this toolkit might help create conditions for better decision-making.
Are these tips helpful?
The above isn't intended to be an exhaustive or authoritative list. At the same time, I hope people reading this find at least some of it helpful.
What other tips might you add to this list for improving decision-making at work? Has Covid-19 led to improved decision-making at your work? If it has, are you now starting to see some of the bad old ways creep back in? How might we stop that?
Please feel free to share this post with anyone you think might like it.
