Part 4: Look into my crystal ball
Some decisions are simple. Chocolate or strawberry? Acura or BMW? But the decisions that executives must make are quite complex. These decisions require significant data inputs and their outcomes have significant consequences for employees, shareholders, and often their own job. So, how can leaders make a rational, mutually beneficial choice in an uncertain world all while achieving support from others in your organization?
Executives who retain or relinquish too much control over decision making – or worse do neither and stifle it all together – create chaos in their organizations. Followers end up vying for decisions they feel they should make, pushing decisions they feel are too complex back up to executives, or tearing their hair out because no one will make a decision that is vital to something they are working on. Unrealistic expectations for complete transparency have some executives perpetually on the defense. Basic questions like, “Why did you do it that way?” or “How did you land on that as a way forward?” or “I just need to understand what was behind your decision so I can explain it when I have to implement it,” can put executives back on their heels, scrambling to justify their choices.
In organizations where it is not safe to openly question or push back on decisions, followers may feign support publicly, while mocking, venting, questioning, scrutinizing, and resisting the decision behind the leader’s back. Scratching their heads, we commonly hear executives lament, “But I thought we were all aligned!?”
Leaders who fail to provide sufficient transparency into their decision making critera and approaches in advance of actually making decisions are at risk for owning those decisions alone. Letting people know on the front end what criteria you intend to use, and how you intend to make the decision, will go a long way to building support. While many executives often fear being overly declarative in their decision making, the fact is followers find it liberating when leaders simply say, “I’m making the call and here’s how I’m going to make it.” Contrary to popular organizational mythology, followers do not expect them to participate in decisions they are neither equipped nor experienced enough to make. Be clear when you are asking for input for a decision that you will make. When you intend for a decision to be reached by consensus, make that clear. When you are delegating the authority for making a decision to others, and do or don’t want to offer any input, make that clear. And, when you are just making the call, be clear about that as well.
What they really want
What followers want is a sense of predictability. They want to be able to decode your analytical process, your moral compass, and your trade-off criteria when making tough calls. They want to be able to predict, with a reasonable sense of accuracy, how you will behave in a given situation. When they can’t predict, it is too easy to assume that you are hiding something. This leads them to fear your political motives, question who may have curried favor with you, wonder about the disaster you are working privately to stem, or what plot you are devising against them or another organizational nemesis. Head such “Kremlin watching” off at the pass by providing a consistent and clear approach to decision making that sustains followers’ confidence by allowing them to reasonably forecast how your leadership is going to show up at critical decision junctures.