The finer art of decision-making

Focusing on objectives is a fast and proven way to build trust among stakeholders that involves establishing the collective criteria and the priorities each participant attaches to those criteria. This is where the alignment comes into play. When a group of stakeholders focuses on objectives and understands each participant’s priorities, they can then have a meaningful conversation about how these objectives and priorities align with the broader organizational strategic goals. Without this, stakeholders revert back to an intuitive — not shared —sense of priorities. This leads to confusion, frustration and resentment when the conversation proceeds to specific alternative courses of action.Transparency means all stakeholders have a global picture of the decision being made. It does not mean they all have total access to every part of the decision, but that the process is clear and owned by all stakeholders. When decisions are made, who makes them, and how they are communicated is every bit as important as the decision itself.Inclusion might seem obvious, but remarkably it is often missing in the process. In general, inclusion does not mean that all viewpoints are equal, but that all viewpoints should be considered and included. However, inclusion is also an important end. If the correct stakeholders are not included, the credibility of the decision process, the decision itself, and ownership of the execution all suffer. Speed is not an obvious criterion for successful collaboration, but its importance is underestimated. A slow and ponderous collaborative decision-making process has a few notable side effects, all of which are toxic to shared understanding. Assumptions, both implicit and explicit, do not age well and subsequently need to be constantly re-evaluated. This can lead to confusion and a sense that the deck is being stacked in favor of predetermined outcomes. The cost of slow decision-making is enormous. Tying up too many resources in analysis and evaluation of options instead of deploying those resources in the pursuit of measurable results often leads to a backlash and a reversion to “seat-of-the-pants” decision-making. It is worth noting that speed is of course relative to the importance of the decision. Speed is also critical because windows of opportunity close. Running out the clock on a decision favors the status quo and, as such, frustrates those who believe change is necessary.  Finally, employing forced trade-offs is a major step in achieving shared understanding. Without forcing stakeholders to trade off among both criteria and alternative courses of action, we cannot truly understand the relative importance of the components that make up a strategy. Forced trade-offs can be achieved by collaboratively comparing each of the criteria in pairs, and, with the help of software, impute their relative importance. With all things being constant, good decisions lead to better outcomes, and successful organizations are constantly identifying ways to improve the effectiveness of their decision-making. As the importance of the decision and the number of stakeholders grows, good decision-making practices become more difficult and imperative. By focusing on objectives, making the process transparent, including all stakeholders, moving the process along in a timely fashion, and forcing stakeholders to understand and make trade-offs, a shared understanding can be reached before significant resources are deployed.