Chapter 6
Bad Decision Making
There was a time in his life,
back around 1970, when Mike worked as an autoclave technician at a large
metropolitan hospital. Though he worked the graveyard shift, he was still
astonished at the military orderliness of the sterile laboratory's work
regimen. The shift supervisor watched everything like a hawk, and clocked every
tray that went in or out. She and she alone filled out all requisition forms.
She kept these forms on a clipboard, which she passed on at sunrise to the day
shift officer, er, manager replacing her. Not only was Mike not allowed to make
decisions, she wasn't allowed to. It
was strict.
One night, when the supervisor
was on break, a nurse came dashing down the hall, in urgent need of a scrub set
for some procedure. Mike swallowed hard and handed it to her, without filling
out the usual paperwork. The next day he was fired for allowing supplies to
leave the area without paperwork. He had to turn in his Foley clamps and
surgical mask. It was all very sad. But Mike was philosophical -- at least some
motorcyle accident victim up in the ER got the asphalt cleaned out of his
wound.
This was a case of too-tight
central control casing the team to fail in its stated mission of helping
patients. The way a team decides to decide is one of the most important
decisions it makes. You may want to read this last sentence again. It is not a
misprint.
Teams start by learning, and they
hit their stride when they act. How action is triggered varies according to the
action in question. Right decisions are decided the right way. And vice versa:
Napoleon's choice to duke it out with Wellington at Waterloo was not just a bad
decision, it was the battle.
What's even more dangerous in the
long term is consistently relying on the wrong process to arrive at decisions.
How did Napoleon decide to head into the trap awaiting him on the Flemish
plains? He just decided, all by himself, that's how. It was the Napoleonic way.
Perhaps, if he had shown a bit of
executive flexibility and followed another method of decision-making, he and
his team in arms might have had a better day on the field. He had seven
options, each one suitable for a specific kind of situation. Napoleon, being an
autocrat, would only have been amenable to a couple of the decision-making
approaches. Your team, over the weeks and months of working together, may have
to use them all:
1
Consensus. Consensus decision
making is where all team members get a chance to air their opinions and must
ultimately agree on the outcomes. If any team member does not agree,
discussions continue. Compromise must be used so that every team member can
agree with and commit to the outcome.
Advantages: Produces an innovative, creative, high-quality
decision; elicits commitment by all members to implement the decision; uses the
resources of all members; the future decision-making ability of the team is
enhanced; useful in making serious, important, and complex decisions to which
all members will be committed.
Disadvantage: Takes a lot of time and
psychological energy, and a high level of member skill. Time pressure must be
minimal. There can be no emergency in progress. Bring pajamas -- you could be
doing this all night.
1
Majority RULE. Majority decision
making is democracy in action. The team votes, majority wins. Simple.
Advantages: Can be used when there's no time for a
full-dress consensus decision, or when the decision is not so important that
consensus is necessary, and when 100 percent member commitment is critical for
implementing the decision; closes discussion on issues that are not highly
important for the team.
Disadvantages: Usually leaves an
alienated minority, a time bomb for future team effectiveness; important
talents of minority team members may be snubbed; commitment for implementing
the decision is only partially present; full benefit of team interaction does
not happen.
1
MINORITY RULE. Minority
decision making usually takes the form of a subcommittee of a larger team that
investigates information and makes recommendations for action.
Advantages: Can be used when not everyone can get
together to make a decision; when the team is in a time crunch and must
delegate responsibility to a committee; when only a few members have relevant
expertise or knowledge; when broader team commitment is not needed to implement
the decision; useful for simple, routine decisions.
Disadvantage: Does not utilize the
talents of all team members; does not build broad commitment for implementing
the decision; unresolved conflict and controversy may damage future team
effectiveness; not much benefit from team interaction.
1
Averaging. Averaging is the epitome
of compromise; it is how our esteemed Congress decides: team members haggle,
bargain, cajole, and negotiate an intentional middle position. Usually no one
is happy with the result except the moderates on the team.
Advantages: Individual errors and extreme opinions tend
to cancel each other out, making this a better method than "authority rule
without discussion."
Disadvantage: Opinions of the least
knowledgeable members may annul the opinions of the most knowledgeable members.
Little team involvement in the decision making, so commitment to the decision
will likely be weak. Letting members with the greatest expertise make the
decision is almost always better than a group average.
1
Expert. This is simple. Find or
hire an expert, listen to what they say, and follow their recommendations.
Advantages: Useful when the expertise of one person is
so far superior to all other team members that little is to gained by
discussion; should be used when the need for membership action in implementing
the decision is slight.
Disadvantages: How do you determine who
the best expert is? No commitment is built for implementing the decision;
advantages of team interaction are lost; resentment and disagreement may result
in sabotage and deterioration of team effectiveness; knowledge and skills of
other team members are not used.
1
Authority Rule Without Discussion. This
is where there is usually no room for discussion; like predetermined decisions
handed down from higher authority. Moses on Mt. Sinai. Trust is often killed
with this method when a team leader tries to fool team members into thinking
that their opinions about the decision really can affect the decision. Team
members know when a team leader is jerking them around.
Advantages: Applies more to administrative needs,
useful for simple, routine decisions; should be used when very little time is
available to make the decision; when team members expect the designated leader
to make the decision; and when team members lack the skills or information to
make the decision anyway.
Disadvantages: One person can not be a
good resource for every decision; advantages of team interaction are lost; zero
team commitment is developed for implementing the decision; resentment and
disagreement may result in sabotage and deterioration of team effectiveness;
resources of other team members are not used.
1
Authority Rule With Discussion. This
method is also known as Participative Decision Making. Unfortunately, most
people don't know what this really means. Many leaders think that they have to
give up their decision making responsibility. There is nothing further from the
truth. Under this method, those in the decision making role make it clear from
the onset that the task of decision making task is theirs. Then they join in a
lively discussion of the issues; their opinions count just like other team
members. When they have heard enough to make an educated decision, they cut off
the discussion, make the decision, then get back to all team members to let
them know how their inputs affected their decision. Most team members feel
listened to and willing to participate in another team decision using this
method.
Advantages: Gains commitment from all team members. Develops a lively discussion
on the issues using the skills and knowledge of all team members. Is clear on
who is ultimately accountable for the decision of the team.
Disadvantages: Requires good communication skills on the part of team members;
requires a leader willing to make decisions.
Though fashion occasionally
underscores one or another of these approaches, there is no right or wrong way
to decide an issue. The important thing is that the team decide, in advance, what decision making method will be used.
No surprises. If members are apprised of the process, even autocratic methods
acquire the consent and blessing of all.
![[IMAGE]](http://mfinley.com/gif/new-teams-cover.jpg)
NOW AVAILABLE from from Berrett-Koehler Publishers (San Francisco) and Texere (UK)!