I
recently saw a troop of Boy Scouts at little street fair on the Upper West
Side. I started chatting with them a little about their experiences and
explained that I was once a Boy Scout myself. They were telling me some about
their troop and the Boy Scouts in general. I was just like, “Wow, they have
sure changed since I was there”. Even an organization that you would think
would be fairly traditional and static such as the Boy Scouts has really been
in motion over the years. I think that you would hard pressed to find any
organization that is truly static today. As our environment changes –
economics, politics, technology, desires, etc. – organizations must evolve. “This
evolution is not a ‘nice to do’ – it is key to survival. In other words, those
which do not evolve this way will most likely die, sooner or later” (Obolensky,
2014, p. 22). This particular quote refers specifically to the ways in which
organizations are led but brilliantly highlights the fact that those that are
static will cease to exist (as far as the organizations are concerned at
least).
Change
in an organization is inevitable and impossible to prevent (without failing). There
really are two primary ways to go about these changes. First, they can happen
naturally and the organization can shift into a “fire-fighting” mode and try to
mitigate the fallout from those changes (Brown, 2011). The other way – the right
way – is to consciously decide how to change the organization. Of course, we
are now studying organizational development (OD) which is a formal program that
brings about change in a planned and systematic manner. Organizational
leadership consciously decides what to change and how. We should therefore
focus on effective decision-making processes.
In
an interview with Harvard Business Review, Marcia Blenko (2010), leader of Bain
& Company's Global Organization Practice, explained how decision-making is
the key driver of organizational performance. She explains that there are four
fundamental keys to effective decision-making.
First
is quality (Blenko, 2010). The fact is that not every decision will be high
quality decisions. Fortunately, if we analyze a decision and realize that it
was the wrong one, we can alter that decision. I wish that the government would
follow this concept. I remember when I was stationed at Ft. Campbell we were
supposed to get a new commissary (grocery store). The new site was selected and
construction began. As time ticked along, it was discovered that the build site
was completely unsuitable and the project was a total disaster. Instead of
selecting a new site, DeCA (Defense Commissary Association) leadership could
not accept the sunk cost so dumped millions more into altering the site to make
it suitable. In the end, it cost $24 million - $19 million over the original
budget – and over 3 years to build a new commissary. Think about the quality of
that decision! If that wasn’t a government agency, do you think any
organization could really recover from such a blunder? That is why we have to
focus on making the right quality
decision.
Next
is speed (Blenko, 2010). We, as leaders, shouldn’t be too quick to rush into
our decisions but neither can we delay too long. When we delay, we remain
static. We must take the information available then act. Remember, we are
focusing on quality as well and we want to make the right decision the first
time but we can always alter those decisions if needed. It isn’t quite like
jumping out of a plane where there is no turning back. Think of it more like beginning
a trip. We set off in the direction that we want to go and, if needed, can
alter the course. However, if we don’t even being the journey, we will never
get there.
The
third and fourth factors to decision-making are yield and effort (Blenko,
2010). Yield refers to the desired result. This shouldn’t be confused with
quality. Think of quality as “is this the right decision?” and yield is “are we
getting the result that we want?”. Effort goes hand-in-hand with yield in that
is focuses on the consumption of resources. If not enough effort is used, the
yield will not be sufficient. However, it is possible that so much effort is
required to achieve the needed yield that leaders may need to reevaluate the
quality.
In a
perfect world, it sounds like decision-making would be simple. However, we don’t
live in a perfect world. There are a myriad of obstacles to effective decisions
(Blenko, 2010). First, we have to consider what our competition is doing. This may
rush us to decisions or may cause us to pause and evaluate their results thus
leaving us in a static state too long. However, most of the obstacles are
internal. Obolensky (2014) noted that complexity within organizations leads to
a state of polyarchy. This means that emerging leaders and decision-makers
exist at all levels and if the right information does not reach them due to communication
with the organization, quality decisions can and will be affected. However, probably
the primary obstacle is considering the culture of the organization itself
(Brown, 2011). When decisions that are made that contradict the organizational
culture, even if it is an “effective” decision, it will not be accepted and
effort to implement may outweigh the benefit.
When
I was selected for Army recruiting duty, I had to take a personality inventory
called The Attentional and Interpersonal Style (TAIS) Inventory. Every couple
of years, we have the opportunity to take the inventory again to see how we
have changed (if at all). I have taken the inventory four times now and my
results have been fairly consistent. (I just took a similar management assessment
inventory for this class. The results for the TAIS are a little more in depth
but my results were still very similar.) One of the purposes of the TAIS is to
allow us, as leaders, to understand our own strengths and weakness when it
comes to the way that we relate with others and lead our teams. One of my strengths
is in decision-making. I just need basic information to reach a decision and am
swift. However, one of my weaknesses is that I have a very low tolerance for
those that cannot understand the why
of the decision even after it has been broken down. But to me, that why is something that Blenko (2010) may
have overlooked in her list. When we communicate why we do what we do and not just how/what we hope to achieve,
there is a higher propensity for buy-in from other members of the organization.
Dr.
Joe Arvai (2014) teaches decision-making at the University of Calgary. He also
provided some amazing advice on decision-making that applies both on the
personal and professional level. First, we must account for values in our
decision-making. He described our decisions as architecture versus archeology.
In other words, we don’t simply uncover our preferences during the decision-making
process but rather we use know clues to construct our decision. Furthermore –
and this is the most important consideration for any decision, large or small,
personal or professional – we must consider the big picture. Even our
short-term decisions must support our long-term goals.
Bearing
all of this in mind, how do you think that we can apply it where we are in our
personal and professional lives right now? For me, I take comfort in knowing
that it is okay to make the wrong decision. What I can’t do is remain static.
(Note:
The Obolensky references were from the material from a previous class. As I
near the completion of my degree, I am continually intrigued by the
interlocking web of information that is formed. Everything that we learn is
related and the material for each course complements the other courses.
Fascinating.)
Arvai,
J. [TEDx Talks]. (2014, December 8). How
to Make Better Decisions [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ7SAcFp4so
Brown,
D. R. (2011). An Experimental Approach to
Organizational Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Blenko,
M. [Harvard Business Review]. (2010, October 13). How Companies Can Make Better Decisions, Faster [Video file].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxpg6D4Hk8
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership:
Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham: Gower.
No comments:
Post a Comment