How To Make A Decision

7 Right Ways (And Wrong Ways) To Make Up Your Mind

How To Make A Decision

7 Right Ways (And Wrong Ways) To Make Up Your Mind
by Michael Finley e are all members of groups whose entire purpose is to make and act on decisions. The problem is, we make decisions without having an accepted process for doing so. Example? Youre a member of a family. Someone says, Lets go for a ride! No one else really wants to go for a ride, but they dont want to be rude, so they say, sure, so as not to be disagreeable. So you all pile into the car and drive off. After an hour of this, someone, usually a child, blurts out the truth. What are we even doing here? I hate car rides!

Now, you may say, Thats a dysfunctional family thats a terrible example of decision making. But the horrible truth is that most of the groups we belong to work teams, investment groups, Boy Scout troops, ad hoc committees, the PTA, the Presidents Cabinet in Washington, D.C. work in pretty much that way. They dont have a set process by which to make decisions, no one wants to rock the boat, everybody bends over backwards being polite, so the group winds up being dominated by the strongest, least shy personalities, who always get their way. Its not just a dysfunctional family. Its a dysfunctional world, when it comes to decision making. The whole world jeers a bad decision, like Napoleons decision to duke it out with Wellington at Waterloo. That was more than a bad decision; it was a career-killer for the Lil General. Contrarywise, you can make the wisest decision in the world. You can be Solomon in all his wisdom and glory. But if the way you arrived at the decision annoys your constituency, you might wish you never ordered the baby cut in half. The way a group decides to decide is probably the most important

Page 2 Copyright 2002 by Michael Finley http://mfinley.com

decision it will ever make. Because people dont just want rightness when it comes to decisions they want the rightness arrived at the right way. Consider Napoleon at Waterloo again. He had intelligence reports warning that he was walking into a trap on the Flemish plains. But he didnt listen to his intelligence officers. He listened only to himself. Why not he was Napoleon. That was the Napoleonic way. Perhaps, if he had shown just 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 suitable for a specific kind of situation. Napoleon, being an autocrat, would only have been amenable to a couple of the decision-making approaches. The group you belong to, over the weeks and months of working together, may have to use them all: 1. CONSENSUS Consensus decision making is when everyone in the group gets a chance to air their opinions. Its trial by jury, in which everyone has to agree or nothing happens. Once the group achieves a consensus understanding, they all agree to sign on to the outcomes.

If any group member doesnt agree, you keep discussing until agreement is reached, or you all give up and walk away. The guts of consensus is compromise. Only by meeting one another halfway can every group member agree with and commit to the outcome. Pluses: Consensus often results in an innovative, creative, highquality decision. It is easy to implement such a decision because everyone took part in making it. It makes use of everyones talents and expertise. It paves the way to more good decisions in the future, because no one feels burned. Its a very good way to make decisions when the problem at hand is serious and when political buy-in by all sides is crucial. Minuses: Consensus can be a real hassle. It takes a lot of time and psychological energy, and a whole lot of patience and skill. You cant arrive at this kind of decision with a gun to your head or a ticking clock by your ear. You cant do it if the building you are in is on fire. Bring a toothbrush you could be working this out till the wee hours.

Page 3 Copyright 2002 by Michael Finley http://mfinley.com

2. MAJORITY RULE Put it to a vote thats how you arrive at a majority decision. Its the most democratic form of decision making. The team votes, the majority wins. Simple. Pluses: Majority rule works when theres no time for a fulldress consensus process, when the decision isnt so important that consensus is necessary, or when 100 percent member concurrence isnt essential for successful implementation. Majority rule is tidy, too, because it ends discussion on issues that are not highly important for the team. You save time. Minuses: Majority rule almost always results in a ticked-off minority; it is a potential time bomb that can explode future group effectiveness. It hurts feelings. Talented members of the group can feel snubbed. While the majority is happy and committed to the outcome, the minority may feel snookered and indifferent. After a while, the group may tend to split along majority/minority lines a waste of good intentions and ideas.

3. MINORITY RULE Minority decision making usually happens when a group decides not to handle a decision all by itself and names a subgroup to research a problem and make the decision. Pluses: Minority rule is nice when not everyone can get together to make a decision, and when time is short and a quick decision is imperative. It also makes sense when only a subgroup has the expertise necessary for the decision say, those group members who are up on budgetary matters. And it succeeds when the issue at hand is emotionally neutral when no one will be upset that a subgroup has stepped in and decided for them. Minuses: Minority rule doesnt make use of the talents of all team members. It doesnt make for broad commitment and buyin. By not addressing everyones concerns, even those with less expertise, important issues may go unaddressed. Conflict and controversy may damage the groups effectiveness in the future.

Page 4 Copyright 2002 by Michael Finley http://mfinley.com

4. AVERAGING Averaging is compromise become flesh. You measure the spectrum of ideas and opt for the middle of the spectrum. In averaging, the middle is always the right answer. Its how Congress decides things: What does that soccer mom in Peoria think? Groups members haggle, bargain, cajole, and negotiate an intentional middle position. Usually no one is especially happy with the result, not even the moderates in the group because it is a beast with many arms and legs. Pluses: Individual errors and extreme opinions tend to cancel each other out, making averaging a better method than authority rule without discussion, which Im going to discuss in just a second. Minuses: One problem here is that the opinions of the least knowledgeable make that the dumbest members of the group may annul the opinions of the smartest members. There is little real group engagement, because everyone knows the end result will be mush. So commitment to the decision will likewise be on the mushy side. Letting members with the

greatest expertise make the decision is almost always better than a group average. 5. EXPERT OPINION This is a simple one. Look outside the group, locate an expert, throw a lasso around him or her, listen to what they say, and follow their recommendations. Pluses: Expert decision is useful when the expertise of one individual is way better than that of actual group members. The expert is so much better informed on the topic, in fact, that the group cant even evaluate how good the expert is. So there is little discussion. Expert decision should be reserved for those times when the need for membership action in implementing the decision is slight. Minuses: If youre not an expert, how do you know your expert is really an expert? No commitment is built for implementing the decision with this method. Teamwork falls by the board, because the expert does all the nitty gritty. Resentment and disagreement may result in sabotage and deterioration of group effectiveness. What expertise

Page 5 Copyright 2002 by Michael Finley http://mfinley.com

group members do have goes unused. There is a question of responsibility here. Who is in charge, the group or the consultant it has hired? 6. AUTHORITY RULE WITHOUT DISCUSSION This is the way to decide where theres just no room for discussion. Instead, the answer comes down on tablets from Mount Sinai. Its how Napoleon decided. Its how certain presidents decide. Trust is often killed with this method when a group leader tries to steamroller group members into thinking that their opinions about the decision had an effect on the decision. But group members know theyre being jerked around. Pluses: This dictatorial approach is most applicable for administrative needs, as opposed to political ones, requiring the consent of the many. It is most useful for simple, routine decisions that dont require much democracy, like how to get to the freeway. It is useful when very little time is available to make the decision. It is useful when group members expect the designated leader to make the decision. And its a good thing

when group members lack the skills or information to make the decision anyway. Minuses: In a complex world, one person, no matter how smart or how good, doesnt know enough to make good decisions on a continuing basis. This approach negates team spirit and commitment. Resentment and disagreement often lead to in sabotage and group decay. Worst case scenario: off with his head! 7. AUTHORITY RULE WITH DISCUSSION This method is also known as Participative Decision Making. Unfortunately, lots of people dont know what that means. Some leaders think it means they have to give up their decisionmaking responsibility. Not true: under this method, those in the decision-making role make it clear from the onset that the task of decision making will ultimately be theirs. Then they join in a lively discussion of the issues; their opinions count just as much as other team members. When they have heard enough to make an educated decision, they

Page 6 Copyright 2002 by Michael Finley http://mfinley.com

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. Pluses: 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. Minuses: Requires good communication skills on the part of team members; requires a leader willing to make decisions. Though fashion occasionally underscores one or another approach consensus and democracy always sound good there is no right or wrong way to decide an issue. The important thing is that the group understands, in advance, what decision-making method will be used. The worst thing a leader can do is spring a surprise on the group. If members are apprised of the process, even Napoleonic methods have a chance of acquiring the consent and blessing of all. With this assent in advance, any decision you make will be made the right way.

About the Author

Michael Finley researches and writes about a host of topics relating to culture and change. His website Future Shoes is a treasure trove of articles and essays about what we are becoming. Mikes book with Harvey Robbins, The New Why Teams Dont Work, won the Booz-Allen & Hamilton Global Business Book Award for Best Management Book, 1995, The Americas. Mike enjoys the distinction of being named one of a handful of Masters of the Wired World in 1998 by Financial Times Press. Other nominees include Arthur C. Clarke, Nicholas Negroponte, Alvin Toffler, Charles Handy, Al Gore, Tony Blair, and Jim Barksdale.

Page 7 Copyright 2002 by Michael Finley http://mfinley.com