Thinking differently and collectively about decision making

I’m sure we’ve all been part of a "groupthink" discussion where the course of action or the decision taken has let us feeling uncomfortable, yet we would like to go with the flow for a number of reasons. The result? We come out of those meetings feeling dissatisfied or not quite aligned, we feel disengaged and we are unable to commit fully to the decision being taken. What we often don’t realise is that we are also part of the problem because there was something about the meeting that stopped us from expressing what we really wanted.

This form of groupthink is called the Abilene Paradox, a term coined by Professor Jerry B. Harvey of the George Washington University, which is about the example of a family making a trip that no one wanted to go on. The paradox is more about managing agreement, instead of conflict, which then leads to decisions that might not be the best for the organisation or the team.

This is a common dilemma facing leaders when getting closure on decisions. When is a "yes" actually a "yes", when it could be a "yes, but", "no, but" or even a "no". What is it that stops people from expressing what they really think? How can people be encouraged to say what they really think without fear of reprisal?

Speaking to some of my peers, there were some valuable insights. There is probably no one right answer. Decisions are made based on a combination of evidence and judgement. As such, there are no "good decisions" at the outset. Only time will tell if a decision was good or not. What we can aspire for are "well-informed decisions". If that is clarified at the very beginning, colleagues are likely to feel more open and confident in expressing views that might not be the most popular in the room.

It is a spectrum. In one of the training sessions I attended, we were taken through a simple tool called "gradients of agreement", where, for every action or decision, each participant had to rate a decision on a grade of one to six, with one being absolutely happy with it and six when you are absolutely opposed to it. The scores in between allow a range of opinions in support of or against the action or decision. This approach steps away from the often used "yes/no" binary approach to decision-making. In addition to the scoring, members are also asked to explain their scores, which opens up a conversation and makes the discussion more well informed.

Think things over and do not decide in haste. Unless there is a crisis brewing, there is no need to take a quick decision if there is some reluctance or uncertainty among the group. Decisions taken in haste on important matters are the ones that might come back to haunt us. Effective leaders are known to suspend the need for a decision so that colleagues can go back to the drawing board, check their assumptions, get better information and, more importantly, create some spaces to continue the conversations. Where there is no pressing imperative to take a decision in terms of timeframe, it often leads to decisions being of much better quality and thus engaging colleagues more in taking these forward.

It is about inclusion, not consensus. Decisions are about choices and hence, in most cases, it is highly unlikely that there would be a perfect consensus on some critical decisions. Based on what I have experienced and heard, effective decisions are those that value inclusion over consensus. Inclusion enables people with different perspectives to come up with insights that lead to better-informed decisions. Consensus can sometimes drive us down a path where we cannot make hard choices. I remember our strategy consultant telling us: "If you come up with a strategy that everyone is absolutely happy about, there is a problem because you might not have made tough choices."

We know from experience that, if the decision-making process is flawed, the decisions that are then taken can have some terrible consequences. So it is important to focus as much, if not more, on the process of decision-making as we do on the quality of decisions or, indeed, the speed with which decisions are taken.

(Originally published in the Third Sector, October 2018) 

Embrace the value of reflection

Reflections are often incredibly valuable, yet that is something for which we seem to have very little time. I suppose it is something like meditation or exercising: we know it is good for us, but struggle to find the time or the discipline.

Many of us rely on a number of articles, books and seminars to capture learnings: the distilled wisdom that we gain from the experiences of others. Little do we realise that we can often gain a lot from our own reflections or even asking others for their reflections. There are some practical benefits too – these are cost and time-effective, and, importantly, we benefit from the lived experience of someone we trust.

When I was new to my current role, I managed to meet a few peers who had been in their roles for less than a year, just about the right time for them to reflect on their early experiences and recollect some of them before they were consigned to oblivion. As you can imagine, a lot came through. Here, I highlight just three of them that I found very valuable.

Remember that the organisation existed before you joined It is a no-brainer, isn’t it? Yet how many times have we heard people talking (or how many times have we talked) about how things turned around after they (or we) joined, sometimes completely forgetting that every organisation has a history (unless you are the founder), a legacy, some foundations, however strong or weak? And the organisation is what it is today because of the people who were there before you. When we "inherit" the organisation, it is something we need to embrace as a whole, remembering that organisations, like people, have their strengths and weaknesses.

But how do we recognise the strengths and build on these, and how do we address the weaknesses? Were these strengths and weaknesses more contextual? For example, fundraising was less of a challenge before 2008 than it is now. So did an organisation have fundraising success in the past simply because of a benevolent environment or because of superlative fundraising expertise or outstanding leadership?

The three horizons principle Often, for those coming into senior leadership, the first few months are full of meetings (inductions or otherwise) during which a long list of priorities are thrust in your direction from the different teams or departments. All of them are important from their perspective, of course. As someone who is new to the organisation or the role, or both, it is often difficult to figure out what needs greater attention and what is more business-critical.

This is where that quintessential leadership quality of judgement comes in. The best advice I have received is to place these in three different horizons: what you think needs to be done in the short term (in three to six months, say), the medium term (the first year or two) or the longer term. Sorting this out helps to clear the clutter in our minds about what needs the most attention. Once done, the next filter would be to consider your specific role vis-à-vis that particular issue in terms of doing it, getting it done or facilitating.

Communication, communication, communication As a person new to the organisation or the role, or both, you are probably relatively unknown. People do not quite know what you think, what you feel or what your approach is and are often trying to make sense of you and your steer. This can be a bit challenging for your colleagues because the inability to fathom you adds to a sense of uncertainty and anxiety, especially for those who are uncomfortable with change. For you, the challenge is about what you say (because you are clear and convinced) or what you don’t say (because you don’t want to be seen as judgemental or are not absolutely sure). It is therefore down to communication.

So what do you do when you don’t know what to say? The best approach is to ask as many questions as possible, which gives your colleagues some inkling of what you are thinking while enabling you to get as much information as possible about the individual and the issues. You can and should be as accessible as possible, be engaging and willing to strike up conversations, so that people really try to get to know you. And, very importantly, try to remember the names of as many colleagues as you can. It is just one way to show how you value and acknowledge them.

As it is said: "From quiet reflection comes even more effective action." The one thing we can offer our peers is the benefit of our own reflections, while also seeking to learn from others’ reflections.

(Orginally published in the Third Sector, September 2018) 

Don't dive into your first 100 days

Summer is the time when some people get ready for a change, to start a new role, fresh after a summer break. And while those who have a new role to look forward to are trying to wind down their current commitments, there is always the excitement that awaits round the corner, a great sense of anticipation that potentially marks the start of a new chapter in an individual’s professional life.

As the day of making that important new start approaches, there are usually a number of ideas buzzing around in people’s heads. Equally, there are niggling concerns and some elements of self-doubt or a slight anxiety about the burden of expectations. The first thing to say is that all these are absolutely normal, just as normal as some of these feelings that many of us might have experienced walking down the aisle to tie the knot and make a deep, long-lasting commitment.

So I thought it would be useful to lay out a few simple principles that I have learnt from my peers and seniors (and tried myself), which could be relevant for any role, but particularly for senior leadership or management.

The first 100 days Many books and articles have been written about the importance of the first 100 days in post, and I have known many people who have had elaborate plans for their first 100 days – as did I. But there’s nothing particularly sacred about this milestone. In reality, you cannot actually achieve a great deal in your first 100 days, so you’re best to treat them as your honeymoon period, a time when you get to know the organisation, the history, the culture, the team, the board, the exciting plans and the big challenges.

Making changes A new leader or manager often signifies change, and everyone will watch you very closely in terms of what you want to deal with. And wanting to stamp your influence on this role, you too will be keen to make some changes based on what you have seen and what you think you have understood. However, proceed with caution. If you want to make some changes, do not do so in the first three months – but if you do want to make some changes, do it in the next six months. Of course, these are not the radical ones, but some changes are absolutely critical and even if the change is not completed it is important to have it charted out in the first six months and communicated.

The unfreezing and refreezing When a new person walks in, there is some disruption, a period of "unfreeze". Some patterns, activities, behaviours, tone, language or relationships are disrupted. It is an uncertain phase. But this is also the best time for the incoming person to identify the opportunities, to elicit and promote some ideas. Before you knew it, you too would have settled into a pattern and thus contributed to a refreeze. Make the best use of the unfreeze period to ask some challenging questions, challenge the status quo (if it needs challenging), reinforce some messages, but also assure colleagues about all the good stuff that is happening and which you will absolutely commit to continuing. When that happens, the refreeze becomes more healthy, trusting and less rigid.

There’s a famous quote that says "the best preparation for tomorrow is doing your best today". So if you really want to get off to a great start in your new role, invest some time in mentally preparing yourself and bear in mind a few key principles. They might prove to be handy.

(First published in the Third Sector, August 2018)