How often have you been in a meeting where the discussion goes round in circles and eventually everyone leaves with no clear decision taken? I’ve certainly been in many. There are some common themes I think can cause this, including:
- No one’s quite sure what the decision is or who is responsible for taking it
- There’s only a go/no-go decision on the table and some people in the room don’t want to “go”
- The presentation in the meeting was all about the work done not the decision to move forward
- The group is stuck in data analysis mode (so called “analysis paralysis”)
- None of the options on the table are very attractive and no-one really has a plan to deal with consequences
- There are two clear camps in the room but no-one has authority to decide between them
- Etc…etc…
Building on research done at Harvard in the 1960’s, some organisations have committed to institutionalising better decision making (see Further Reading below). The good news is that much of what they do is easily transferred to any organisation (or part thereof) and is pragmatically scalable to every level of decision making.
What are the key elements of what these companies do? The so-called decision quality (DQ) wheel has six components, often portrayed as links in a circular chain. This is intended to highlight that breaking any one link can have a major impact on quality decision making but in reality each of the steps in their own right is a step forward in decision quality. The six components are:
- An appropriate frame – not too wide so we don’t have enough detail but not too narrow so we can’t see the wood for the trees
- A set of diverse but credible alternative options
- Meaningful and reliable but just sufficient information on these options
- Clear values & known preferences against which to judge these options and the inevitable trade-offswhen there’s no perfect option
- Sound & logical reasoning towards a recommended path forward
- A commitment to action, with clarity on who the decision maker is and who is responsive for taking it forwards
Implicit in this last one is an important broader element – what is the decision making structure in the organisation? Ideally that allows for
- Someone with clear, single point accountability for taking the decision (that isn’t going to be second guessed elsewhere);
- A diverse, and well-balanced decision review team that will provide high quality and, if necessary, challenging advice to the decision maker;
- Well defined but simple processes to bring forward a decision, discuss it, document it and communicate the outcome back to those who need to know.
One of the best ways to look at all this is to hold a “framing” event. There’s a basic outline structure to these discussions and multiple individual components which can be mixed and matched to the decision at hand. The events themselves can last from an hour or two, or even less, for well-practiced team, to a couple of days, or even multiple events, for more complex, large decisions.
This may all sound rather “processy” but in reality it is more of a behavioural mindset that becomes the norm when facing any significant decision. The military, for instance, treat it as suitable for major weapons projects takings months if not years, but also for the battlefield where decisions are taken in minutes. The common threads of a good framing, and some of the component steps in them, will be the subject of the my next blog post.
In the meantime if you think your organisation could benefit from some of these principles, get in touch!
Further Reading: Larry Neal and Carl Spetzler, “An Organization-Wide Approach to Good Decision Making”, Harvard Business Review, May 27, 2015