When we are driving Transformation - the sort of effort where we are changing how people work or their perception of themselves or the world around them - we need to strike a careful balance with decision making if we want to be successful.
Decisions will come along every day. In general we want to push decision making to the lowest level in the program governance structure for velocity and efficiency. Some decisions will be more complicated than others and may require more formality and breadth in the decision-making process. This article explores how to structure those decisions for speed, inclusion and strategic alignment.
We want to bring people along on the journey, so we want to be inclusive. At the same time we want velocity. Velocity tends to imply speed, direction and change, all of which are uncomfortable. So what is the best balance?
We can think of four main decision making styles. No one is "best" in all situations, but, spoiler alert, one of them is likely to be the best for your transformation programs!
Each displays a different mix of speed-of-decision-making, decision quality, inclusion and likely ongoing support for the decision.
For a transformation program we want well-supported decisions if we are to successfully embed the desired outcomes, and we want them in the quickest possible time. It is the trade-off between these dimensions we want to optimize.
Let's step through each style and examine the characteristics to understand why one style outperforms.
It is simple to implement, however tends to generate decisions that are "least bad for the most people". This style is poor at creating transformational outcomes and, despite being inclusive, not very good at building lasting support as it tends to generate compromises that no-one likes.
On the surface, it is quite quick, but it tends to generate a lot of reinspection of the options after the decision, so that speed is illusory.
fieldenablement.com Transformation Rating: 0
But we all know how it turned out in the long run.
So too in business and programs. Having a dictator is very quick and very clear. If the person knows what they are doing they may well make excellent decisions that create great outcomes.
BUT
They usually are not and the program team and stakeholders are, by definition, not being included in the decision. It is more like division making. This fails to create a willingness to change and can even build up active resistance through resentment.
Alec Issigonis, the inventor of the Mini, may be a good example. He was famously unimpressed by committee-based decision making and the quote "a horse is a camel designed by a committee" is sometimes attributed to him.
This is very unfair to camels, I think, as they are very practical and resilient animals. In any case, the Mini was a huge success and remains a functional and design icon today.
His other designs were less commercially successful. Alec was eventually ousted by the senior leadership team for being too independent.
fieldenablement.com Transformation Rating: 2
However, if it is possible to gain consensus then there will be good support for the decision going forward.
fieldenablement.com Transformation Rating: 2.5
Even the military, with particular needs for speed and clarity, tend to use a streamlined version of a Consultative process in mission briefings.
It works like this:
The Decision Maker consults the various Stakeholders for input. Correctly identifying those stakeholders is a prerequisite.
Bear in mind that the stakeholders for a specific decision might be a little different to the overall program stakeholders identified in your stakeholder map.
Often, in a program context, the consultation is actually by a Recommender who pulls together options based on objective data. Options are important in a program context as we are operating in an ambiguous space where there is more than one way to the objective.
After consultation, the Decision Maker makes the decision. A skilful decision maker will explain the reasoning, ensuring that the output of the consultation is reflected.
This offers a nice balance of inclusion, examination of alternatives, speed and alignment with strategy.
Key in the articulation of the decision outcome is ensuring that stakeholders whose preferred direction was not chosen feel that their input was heard and considered. This builds much more support and enlistment for the rest of the journey. I show a real-world example below.
fieldenablement.com Transformation Rating: 5
This style is so effective that most program and project management decision-making frameworks recommend it and have systemized it through aides-mémoir such as RAID and RACI
RAID and RACI are complementary: RAID helps structure the decision process. RACI clarifies roles and responsibilities.
In one program I led, an organization had acquired a business with a $1B revenue stream that was driven via partners. It was imperative to implement those partner transactions in the acquiring organization's business processes or face losing the revenue stream.
Simultaneously, the acquiring company was redesigning its overall partner management processes, although this program was at an early stage.
A key concern was the dependency between these two programs. Waiting for the overall partner management redesign would put the $1B revenue at risk. Conversely, moving forward with the acquired partner transaction would store up potential future rework for the partner management redesign program.
The programs were being run in different parts of the organization, so there was no natural singular point of ownership. This challenge in common in large organizations.
I used consultative decision making to
If you would like some help in setting up effective decisions for your program then please reach out on LinkedIn or via fieldenablement.com .