Conquering Indecision

You threw what you thought was a pebble into a pond and created ripples that have your conference rooms awash with disagreements, debates and dissension. The new strategy seemed simple enough: Transition to a common system across all operating units in order to enhance supply chain performance. The decision process to select the common system was pretty straightforward, but now everyone's lobbying for functionality and schedule change that are putting the overall initiative at risk.

Decision making in IT is pretty messy. By definition, integration and standardization are at odds with quick, customized delivery. As a result, in most organizations the interests of the enterprise take a back seat to the more immediate need to improve business alignment and partnership. Within IT, this conflict is internalized, and conference rooms and offices are filled with well-intentioned applications, architecture and infrastructure professionals questioning each other's motives.

In the heat of the battle, there's little that can be done other than ensure that the meetings are productive and the right decisions are made. In his 2006 Harvard Business Review article, "Conquering a Culture of Indecision", business strategy expert Ram Charan identifies behaviours that help ensure decisive dialogues:

• Close meetings by articulating who will do what by when and require attendees to communicate the decisions to their organizations within 24 hours.

• Arrange for the right people to be involved in the discussions and promote open discussion by generating alternatives and assigning devil's advocates to say what others may be thinking.

• Ensure that leadership is present to squelch dysfunctional behaviours including extortion (holding the whole group at ransom until they get their way), sidetracking (going off on tangents), silent lying (not expressing true opinions) and dividing (creating breaches by soliciting support outside of the meetings or having sideline discussion during the meetings).

Page Break

With a little reflection and foresight, it's possible for CIOs to avoid tension and acrimony by identifying strategic initiatives that require changes in traditional approaches to decision making. IT leaders can also identify decisions that could be made better and faster with more direction from above.

Consider the "pebble". Viewed from a decision-making perspective, the "pebble" was actually a large and imposing rock. It required a significant shift in decision authority from the operating units to the enterprise. Conflicts naturally arose since the operating units assumed that their authority had not changed, while those coordinating the initiative at the enterprise level assumed rights that they viewed as critical to getting their job done.

To avoid this problem, examine your strategic and operating plans with an eye toward understanding their impact on decision making across the organization. Next, require that those coordinating these initiatives include redefinition of decision rights as part of the program plan. Decision authorities are best defined by identifying key resolutions that need to be made and using frameworks to ensure that all parties understand their role and that it is clear to all who the ultimate decision makers are.

At the same time, some decisions made at lower levels of the organization take too long or are just plain wrong. A classic IT example involves the selection of standards. At lower levels of the organization, "out of standard" products creep in over time for reasons that are good in the micro but not in the macro.

Page Break

IT leaders can take a burden off their staff and protect the longer-term interests of their enterprise by setting boundary rules. A classic example is the rule that when it comes to standards, "no more than two flavours of any type of hardware/software can exist at any point in time". Boundary rules work. They encourage responsible decision making by restricting decision authority, but they also allow for well-reasoned exceptions by escalating the decision to higher levels.

There are many varieties of IT-specific boundary rules. These include those related to strategic focus ("all new investments must benefit the external customer"), investment levels ("IT funding changes will not negatively impact company margins"), business needs ("success will be gauged based on end-user acceptance"), infrastructure ("all improvements require business cases"), projects ("plan for six months, cancel at nine"), risk ("we will set controls in compliance with . . .") and sourcing ("all the best work will be done by our own employees").

It's impossible and undesirable for leaders to be involved with every decision that is made within their organizations. Yet given that leaders are accountable for the outcome of the decisions made under their watch, it is essential that decisions are made well. Sorting out decision priorities and authorities can help ensure that the right decisions get made in a way that enhances the relationships of those who need to work closely together to get the job done.

Susan Cramm is founder and president of Valuedance, a California-based executive coaching firm. You can e-mail feedback to susan@valuedance.com

Page Break

Sidebar: Reader Q&A

Q: I have been in meetings where top managers push for their way while not meeting the project's needs. There is no senior leadership to squelch this behaviour. I try to push for centralized business objectives. Is this a good idea or do I risk offending my peers?

A: Identifying overarching objectives to use in evaluating the options is a good idea. However, you may find that in the heat of the meeting, there is little tolerance for rational decision making. You may want to get agreement about how decisions are made (including decision rights using RACI or a similar framework) and the decision process before working through the issue at hand.

Q: You mention the withholding of true opinions as an issue in meetings. How can a leader get others to voice their real thoughts in front of the group?

A: Understand that some people need time to process information before coming to a conclusion. If possible, schedule the discussion and decision-making meetings separately or distribute review material in advance. Consider assigning a devil's advocate to play the contrarian. It's a great role to assign to those who are quiet but see things in a different light. Make it easy for people by asking questions that make it safe for them to share their views (for example, "What are we missing?"). Give them time to respond. Finally, institute a cultural norm that "silence is concurrence" to encourage people to go on record, and "debate and unite" to reinforce the importance of active debate and united action.

Q: We hold meetings via teleconference. How can we improve our decision making?

A: Well-defined decision rights and processes are needed when working at a distance. Agree with the team on how decisions will be made. For complex decisions, a decision facilitator can ensure the right level of fact-finding and discussion using e-mail chains and blogs before a meeting. A Web conference tool can ensure discussions are moderated and differences resolved quickly.