To manage conflict and consensus effectively, leaders need to change the way in which

they typically make decisions. Most leaders tend to focus, first and foremost, on finding
the “right solution” when a problem arises, rather than stepping back to determine the
“right process” that should be employed to make the decision. They fixate on the question,
“What decision should I make?” rather than asking, “How should I go about making the
decision?” Leaders who answer the “how” question correctly often experience a profound
improvement in their decision-making effectiveness. They are able to create the conditions
and mechanisms that lead to healthy debate and dissent as well as a comprehensive and
enduring consensus.

Creating a high-quality decision process – one that balances constructive conflict with
commitment and shared understanding – requires a healthy dose of forethought. Leaders
must actively shape and influence the conditions under which people will interact and
deliberate. They must make choices about the type of process they wish to employ and the
roles they want various people to play. In short, leaders must “decide how to decide” as
they confront complex and ambiguous situations, rather than fixating solely on the
intellectual challenge of finding the optimal solution to the organization’s perplexing
problems. Let’s take a closer look at how one leader learned from his mistakes – and spent
time “deciding how to decide” before he needed to make his next high-stakes choice.

On the other hand, most, executives think of decision making as a singular event that
occurs at a particular point in time. In reality, though, decision making is a process
fraught with power plays, politics, personal nuances, and institutional history. Leaders
who recognize this make far better decisions than those who persevere in the fantasy that
decisions are events they alone control. That said, some decision-making processes are far
more effective than others. Most often, participants use an advocacy process, possibly the
least productive way to get things done. They view decision making as a contest, arguing
passionately for their preferred solutions, presenting information selectively, withholding
relevant conflicting data so they can make a convincing case, and standing firm against
opposition. Much more powerful is an inquiry process, in which people consider a variety
of options and work together to discover the best solution. Moving from advocacy to
inquiry requires careful attention to three critical factors: fostering constructive, rather
than personal, conflict; making sure everyone knows that their viewpoints are given
serious consideration even if they are not ultimately accepted; and knowing when to bring
deliberations to a close. The authors discuss in detail strategies for moving from an
advocacy to an inquiry process, as well as for fostering productive conflict, true
consideration, and timely closure. And they offer a framework for assessing the
effectiveness of your process while you’re still in the middle of it. Decision making is a job
that lies at the very heart of leadership and one that requires a genius for balance: the
ability to embrace the divergence that may characterize early discussions and to forge the
unity needed for effective implementation.