Decisions, Decisions (Part II)

 

Making a decision is hardly an infrequent occurrence, as was explored in Part I of this blog. Personally and professionally, most of us are engaged in making decisions regularly and frequently, on things both large and small. And yet, it appears, many decisions don’t produce the desired results. Why?

Normal logic would predict that, if we do something a lot, we get better at it. So with all of the experience we accumulate in making decisions on both individual and organizational matters, our failure to become more adept at it seems to fly in the face of logic. Fortunately, some smart people have put their minds to this quandry, and their research offers us some good theories about (1) why we make bad decisions, and (2) how we can make better ones.

Writer, educator and McKinsey consultant Olivier Siboney has weighed in on this issue as has Chip Heath, a PhD Psychologist and professor at Stanford Graduate School of Business. Both men compared generating better decisions to improving one’s memory. Problems with memory, they explain, are not solved by trying harder to memorize. Real progress is made by finding tools or systems that help things not escape memorization. A grocery list, for example, is a good tool for ensuring you get everything you went to the store to buy. Using this paradigm, the key to improving decision-making outcomes lies in finding tools equivalent to a grocery list.

While neither Siboney or Heath suggests that there is a magic wand that will singlehandedly result in 100% optimal decision-making, they do contend that investing a small amount of time and energy to change the ways in which decision-making happens can substantially improve outcomes.

In organizational settings, there are a few investments that have a particularly positive cost/benefit ratio; they typically involve making small changes in the “normal” ways decisions are reached. For example, research reveals that the number of options that typical leadership teams consider in 70% of all-important strategy decisions is ONE!  But there is evidence that if a second choice is added to the considerations, the outcome of the team’s decision-making is dramatically improved. Simply broadening the number of options that leadership teams consider in making important strategy decisions makes a real difference, and it can be accomplished with relative ease: just ask for every team member’s first and second best choice to expand the options under consideration.

Another reframing involves recognizing that many decisions are not made only once: while some of the elements of today’s decision may seem novel, there may well be value in reviewing decisions reached in the past to help gain insight into the decision facing the organization at present.

Of course, some decisions don’t benefit from a comparison to something done in the past. To deal with cases of this sort, a major tech organization developed a variant to using historical information to illuminate its considerations: it has normalized experimenting as a potential step in its decision-making. If a team believes that there is insufficient prior experience to inform its decision-making, it has experimentation as an additional tool at its disposal. The group determines the information it believes is key to effective consideration, and an (often creative) experiment is designed to get the requisite data. Once the experiment is conducted and the information has been gathered, they resume deciding, this time with the new information factored in.

Other suggestions include a “step back” at the point of decision-making, to gain some distance and a fresh perspective. Encouraging debate also sets the stage for multiple points of view and works effectively against the threat of narrowing the discussion too quickly. When there is more than one option on the table, asking the question “what would it take for you to believe one option versus another?” is an easy way to identify additional perspectives on the issues.

On both organizational and personal decision-making, both Heath and Siboney urge people to try to identify the biases of anyone involved in the considerations, and to help others do so too. Be thoughtful about the framing if you deploy this strategy: language matters here, and can either offend (“you are hopelessly biased”) and shut down a listener’s ability to hear your message,  or clear a path for your words to land effectively (“You are a true visionary. You often decide quickly and go against convention. Since no one is correct 100% of the time, maybe it would be worthwhile to slow down and listen a bit longer.”)

And, when time is really tight, or all else seems beyond reach, try getting a new view of the issue by pretending to be someone else. On an organizational dilemma, Heath suggests asking yourself, “If I were replaced tomorrow, what would a wise successor do?” For a personal decision, “What would I tell my best friend to do?” may be just the ticket. An awful lot of wisdom goes into making any decision, or at least we believe it should. Making decisions in a smart fashion will definitely benefit any organization or team.

 


ADDITIONAL BLOGS THAT COULD BE OF INTEREST

 
Marcie Hirsch