Chapter VI: Decision Making
“People with Humility don’t think less of themselves, they just think of themselves less” (Norman Vincent Peale)
Making Decisions
Decisions are nothing more than a series of choices. For example, what information to accept or decline, what benefits out-weigh pitfalls, who is impacted over others, and the list at times may be endless. The inescapable torture of decision making is more often than not encapsulated in the “what if” analysis. The most calculated best intentions of a decision may be accompanied with the unintended or uncalculated outcome that requires another act. If a decision maker becomes over-burdened with the “what if” then they are likely to submit to an analysis paralysis rather than a preferred crisp decision.
Outcome based action is most likely better served when the original decision applies adhesive planning. However, not all decisions permit lengthy time frames preceding enactment. Depending on the situation or circumstance, decisions are viewed as: Fire, Ready, Aim; unlike the Ready, Aim, Fire associated with planning. I submit that regardless of the choices included in a decision, a decision made without all available information is probably not the best. A decision most often made from emotion rather than logic will have substantial perils attached. One significant area of concern regarding decision making is where the information used to make the decision was initiated.
So where do you get your information for decisions from? Can the source be trusted? Do you verify information or take it at face value? This does not infer that everyone is lying to you, but instead, is the message sent, the message received? Should members be offended if information is verified or relieved?
Experience Matures Decisions
The statement that experience matures decisions may appear philosophical on its surface, but is intended as a thoughtful analysis of your evaluations. One should stop and provide a moment of reflection prior to answering the following question. Has this statement ever impacted a decision you have made in life? Regardless of the intensity or outcome of the choice, what was it that you applied in order to arrive at your final conclusion. A Vietnamese Proverb (n.d.), “the mouse does not know life until it has been into the mouth of the cat” best provides the framework for deciphering decisions.
While being in the mouth of the cat is uncomfortable, it is far more uncomfortable if erroneously reported fact placed you in the mouth of the cat. Circumstance or hastily made decisions prior to all or most information available is weighed may lead to that regrettable decision. The latter may often be within moments of each other while other decisions based on the type of decision will provide ample time to collect facts and separate fact from fiction and then make a sound decision.
Decisions may be strategic, long range, or tactical. In emergency service, a decision may be measured in nanoseconds. In public life, information is a commodity that regularly requires rapid release (press conference, press release, live interviews-extemporaneous or planned), therefore a practice of immediate briefing of leadership is a way of life as compared to greater length from circumstance or incident to information release. However, globally speaking, across most disciplines, the information required for the membership is under revolving time constraints of sorts.
Decisions should be made with conviction and enthusiasm with the appropriate amounts of energy required to carry the decision to its final resting place. Some decisions are explicit and demand complete adherence where if complete loyalty is not provided to the decision it may result in loss of life.
In contrast, other decisions require flexibility to survive. Take for instance General Dwight D. Eisenhower in the planning and execution of D-Day in Normandy, June 6, 1944. What if he said well if it works ok and if not so what? We all know that was not the case and each component of the invasion was fraught with danger, risk, and threat of heavy losses if each did not meet rigid time frames and precise execution. We also know that not all went as planned, but the successes over shadowed the failures; however, not without significant losses. The awesome responsibility conferred upon each planner, unit, trainer, and individual was none greater than that laid at the feet of the final decision maker. Eisenhower had one of three choices, lead, follow or get out of the way. He had made choices of what to accept as valid information and what to discard, to stop or go, or what to change, and in the final analysis he relied on those carrying out the plan. He did so with vigor, conviction, energy, and fervor that solidified the confidence of subordinates to carry out the plan. In the final analysis, he was heralded as leader of the time, but he was also prepared to take responsibility for failure.
One item of importance about Eisenhower and his deliberation of D-Day Invasion was he was prepared to accept the consequences of his actions, good or bad. He, in fact, prepared two letters preceding zero hour of the infamous day. The first was to glorify the many human sacrifices spent to meet the mission, and the second was his apology for his failure and to submit his resignation to the President. He did not spend time in the first letter telling how great he was, but rather praised those that performed so admirably. The second letter was not about pointing fingers and blaming. It was about a real “The Buck Stops Here” intention. The second letter is reminiscent of what real leaders do; they don’t blame prior administrations.
The implicit reasoning exacted by leaders may often be extolled as sound judgment based upon years of experience, skill, and training, but the truth be told, it may be leading from the gut, or what feels right, or a decision for the moment. An assessment of the term “reason” affords one justification for their action; while reasoning defines the process of decision making.
Anyone charged with the awesome task of making decisions (particularly decisions that impact the masses, security or safety) generally does so from a sound basis of reason, but is the basis for that reason gone beyond many disciplines based on differing experience, knowledge, skill, and of course luck. There survives a tongue in cheek anecdote that aides in this discussion and it goes like this:
A young reporter was challenging a successful Fortune 500 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at a press conference asked, “To what do you owe your success,” with that the CEO replied, “Good sound decisions.”
The reporter pressed on and asked, “What do you attribute your sound decisions too?” the CEO simply responded, “Experience;” and “What do you attribute your experience?” The CEO looked the reporter in the eye with a smile stating, “BAD DECISIONS!”
Rather than offering a derogatory remark to an impertinent youngster, the CEO offered a lesson in leadership. Perhaps, the message for the young reporter is that he should surf his choices of delivery when in a position of need; perhaps he needs to re-evaluate prior instruction from his mentors; or perhaps he should just lose the attitude! The preceding involves a myriad of factors that impacted choices made by the young reporter, the CEO, and decisions in general.
The positivist research faction affords little value to intuition due to the lack of sterile systematic approaches. The social science discipline has often been thought of as the other science, less rigid foregoing the more inflexible and true experimental process of the natural sciences (Neuman, 2003). Leadership studies are often cataloged as more feel good theory in contrast to natural science based on outcome based experiments. Although the significance of intuition does not reside squarely within the unbending approaches of hard science, there remains value.
Imbedded in life throughout an individual decision making dilemma is we all suffer from intuitive vulnerability in one form or fashion when failing to take a holistic view of an area of research. Again, there is no one silver bullet, theory, or process that offers the resolve to a social problem, to leadership competencies, or decision making. The answers generally lie within more complex intertwined systems. Furthermore, there is the strong likelihood that the truths of one social science institution will exist and survive in another social science field simultaneously, but because the theorem was not initiated within the discipline of choice, it is considered of little value. Science comported in all discipline is the search of truths. Hartman (1990) contends that the simple reality is that there are many truths and as many ways of knowing. A significant principle of leadership is not to confine oneself to a single discipline when seeking answers or differing avenues for achieving outcomes. Peters and Waterman (1982) maintains value in, “Don’t Park Your Brains at the Door.” In other words, encourage children, students, co-workers, and subordinates to gaze beyond their discipline or personal domicile for answers.
Probably, few decisions in modern time will rise to the level of the Normandy invasion in June of 1944, not because decisions today are any less perilous or burdened with similar choices, but today is significantly more technologically advanced, and the information from weather predictions to opposition strength are more accurate. I suggest decision making today is not easier than 70 plus years ago. Perhaps, at one level it might be the technical advances that are fraught with flawed information, and at another level the aspect of human interaction may not be discernible from previous years.
Decide Enthusiastically
Decision should be made with conviction and enthusiasm with the appropriate amounts of energy required to carry the decision to its final resting place. Some decisions are explicit and demand complete adherence where if complete loyalty is not provided to the decision it may result in loss of life. In contrast, other decisions require flexibility to survive.
Take again General Dwight D. Eisenhower in delivering D-Day. Enthusiasm does not infer his decision was enthusiastic if projections were only 10,000 lives lost on the invasion that is a good day, let’s do it. I think not, but had he not showed conviction, deep deliberation beforehand, and demonstrated enthusiasm of the outcomes, it may not have been bought into by those carrying out the invasion. The followers had to believe in the leader. The leader had to believe in his members and allies. Heavy is the head that wears the crown.
Although as observed in the Eisenhower example preplanning, training, and execution were paramount in his final decision. There does exist a form for some leaders unrestrained by preplanning. These are intuitive people inclined to address problems on the fly, gather information on the run while sufficiently in tuned to what is being said around her/him. According to Mintzberg (2011), “Organizational effectiveness does not lie in that narrow minded concept called rationality. It lies in the blend of clearheaded logic and powerful intuition” (p.3). I would, however, submit both types of leaders require commitment by followers. So how does each type of leader achieve commitment?
The following review discusses impacts such as ethics, integrity, transparency, organizational commitment, and technology problematic to the development of an idea that ultimately resides in a decision.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment has been studied within many disciplines for decades in the relationship with an assortment of employee characteristics such as attitude and behaviors. The works of Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) provide a soluble definition of commitment not only for use in this discussion but advantageous to most organizations. They offer commitment as multi-faceted components of member loyalty to the organization, an exertion of additional effort beyond minimum expectations by the members, mission and goal harmony with the organization, and the advertent desire to retain membership. Bateman and Strasser (1984) concluded that organizational commitment is a precursor to job satisfaction rather than a byproduct.
The common dependence of individuals on organizations is primeval whether it is observed in the behaviors of ancient tribesman to early fiefdoms to civilization as we know it today. Individuals and the group co-existed, albeit it may for self-serving concerns. As previously recited commitment is generally brought to the organization or group by a member rather than the result of the group.
Member failures are often built on passive allegiance rather than the constant building of meaning in their life. This deficiency may be gleaned through blind commitment. Leaders at the same time scurry about the workplace attempting to apply interventions to improve the job or reduce tensions, all of which may result in higher job satisfaction but not commitment. Leaders and members attempting to attenuate commitment to self, to the group, to family, to one’s faith, doing something of meaning, in growth, and kindness toward others is simply drinking from the fountain of compassion, love and understanding. It is incumbent upon leadership to create the environment for growth and development because you can’t fix your people, you can only help them grow.
Commitment is not transient by nature. Still it requires tweaks and fine tuning as society changes, as organizations change to meet the needs of society, and of course as people change to meet the needs of the organization. Members of thriving organizations are encouraged to elevate their input to the highest levels. Contemporary work forces consisting of Gen X, Y, and Millennials want all the tools and toys available to make their job easier and then want management to get out of their way.
Responsibility and Accountability
Ken Blanchard (2007), a motivational researcher, often extolls empowerment as the freedom to act and then being held accountable for outcomes. Merely appeasing today’s members does not necessarily achieve the accountability and responsibility component of the leader/member relationship. As an example, in 2011 I was presenting Leadership Survival at an FBI Law Enforcement Executive Development Seminar training session in North Charleston, SC, consisting of law enforcement supervisory and leadership ranks. The discussion surrounded generational differences, job enrichment and job enlargement.
I had the occasion to ask a young sergeant his definition of each and asked that he provide an example. The response, albeit brought the house down in laughter, may exemplify a contemporary U.S worker. Job enrichment for this specific supervisor was simply: “Provide me all the responsibility that I may enjoy and hold me accountable for none of it.” Needless to say there was work to be done with the sergeant. Should accountability go unabated in an organization, family, or government then it becomes a river without its banks. No direction and discipline relegates leadership to an ambiguous term.
A nexus to commitment is the value of accountability and responsibility in decision making and creating environments vital to the essential decision making of all concerned. A significant point at this point to remember is: Not all decisions are correct, so don’t shoot the messenger. A leader may find him or herself enjoying member input or at least the trust (albeit may be fleeting) that members will share ideas with the leader. None-the-less not all ideas can or will be used in every decision of a leader. Presented in the opening statement of this chapter was “decision making is a series of choices.” Ergo, ecstasy is having choices, agony is having to make one.
As a parent, teacher, coach, police chief or president, one’s authority is obvious. What is not necessarily visible to the naked eye is authenticity of the person in charge. Effective leaders must be authentic in order to achieve true followers. All too often leaders in their haste to get started, brush past authenticity as an essential element of leadership. A leader may have established true authenticity in a former position, but make the failing error that it will automatically carry over into the new role. Not so fast, take a moment to reaffirm leadership values. In order to be an effective principal you must have principles. In this day and age one in a governance capacity the leader must be effective with people and efficient with things.
What is your structure for accountability, and how do you hold or would hold someone accountable and responsible for decisions rendered? How might blind loyalty to a mission or head of an agency impact the process?
A peril of decision making, especially group decision making is Group Think. The leader must be cognizant of a dynamic that can overcome the task and the organization. Group Think; the desperate drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses dissent (Janis, 1971). Janis (1971) describes Groupthink as involving suppression of critical thoughts as a result of internalization of the group’s norms. There exist eight symptoms of groupthink and they are: Invulnerability- illusions of invulnerability to take extraordinary risk; Rationale-collectively construct rationalizations; Morality-believe unquestionably inherent morality of group; Stereotypes-hold stereotypes of leaders of enemy groups; Pressure-applying pressure to dissenters to fall back in line with group view; Self-Censorship-avoid deviating from what appears to be group consensus; Unanimity-judgments expressed by members speak in favor of majority of group; and Mindguards-protect the leader from adverse information.
First in order to guard against this dynamic, leaders must insist on tell me what I need to hear; not necessarily what I want to hear theory. Second, assign a devil’ advocate that will ask the tough questions in every group. Third, encourage the questioning of group results and process, and fourth, when a leader assigns a policy-planning scenario, he/she should remain neutral and not state a preference, the group should set up an outside evaluation mechanism to test the decision, and finally test it within the subgroups within the organization (Janis, 1971). It is my contention that if the right number of generational members is present, this should be easier (Salahuddin, 2010).