Archive for Decision Making

In my work with clients and workshop participants, people often start to tell me about a situation they faced as a leader with something like: “Maybe I didn’t do this right, but…” Then, they generally end the story by asking me if there was a better way to handle the situation.

I frequently respond by asking if they got a good result from their approach.

Before I offer advice, I want to know if their solution applied in their context and with the people they know worked. If it did, it was a good solution. If it didn’t, we can talk about ways to improve the odds of success the next time they face a similar situation.

As far as I am concerned, the quality of the outcome is the standard by which to judge the quality of a solution.

As I listen to the stories and questions, I have a mixed reaction. On one hand, it’s nice that people value my input and are actively seeking better ways to solve the problems they face as leaders. On the other hand, it tells me that they might be in search of “the” right answer for a complex problem.

Simple problems – like writing checks or fixing pumps – generally have single right answers. Complex problems – like fixing the accounting system or creating a maintenance training program – usually have many possible right answers.

As a leader, very few of the significant problems you face will be simple. Many of them will be complex.  Searching for “the” right answer to a complex problem can hurt you in at least three ways:

  1. Limited thinking. When you are looking for a single solution, you narrow your thinking before you identify all of the possible solutions. This search for a single, perfect answer to a complex problem hurts your creativity and your ability to see alternative solutions.
  2. Indecision. As you seek “the” right answer, you might fall into over-analysis paralysis. Searching, researching, and analyzing can be productive parts of the problem solving process. And, they become a barrier to effective problem solving when they shift from analyzing to agonizing.
  3. Inactivity. Agonizing and indecision lead to this third problem. When you fail to make a timely decision, you fail to implement. When you fail to implement, you fail to move forward.

Before you were a leader, you probably dealt with many problems, both large and small, that were ultimately simple problems in that they had one correct answer or solution. In fact, your ability to solve these problems likely contributed to your promotion to a leadership position. Now you are in a role that calls for you to solve or to empower other people to solve complex problems that involve a number of variables and many possible good solutions.

When you are solving problems, quit looking for “the” right answer. Instead, keep your mind open for the full range of possible right answers.

Your Now Step: The next time you have a problem to solve, quickly decide if it is a simple or a complex problem. If it is a complex problem, write down at least three possible solutions before you implement your chosen solution.

Life lessons sometimes hit me in a delayed fashion. Reflecting on two experiences in my life – separated by about two years – reminded me of a valuable lesson for leaders of organizations facing change.

Situation Number One:

About two years ago, I was walking through a convention center with my friend, colleague, and co-author, Kevin Eikenberry, and we came upon two people standing at the top of an unmoving escalator. As we approached, we expected them to start walking down it. They didn’t. They just stood there and stared at the unmoving steps.

They didn’t move, and we couldn’t pass them.

As I stood behind them, I grew frustrated with their inaction.

After 10 or 15 seconds that felt like 10 or 15 minutes to me, they looked at each other, shrugged, and began to walk down the “stairs.”

Situation Number Two:

Driving my car into the neighborhood where Kevin lives, I came upon road construction vehicles that slowed me down and partially blocked my view of the frontage property. Pulling to the left side of the road and slowly passing the paving equipment parked on the right, I had a fleeting thought that I had entered the wrong neighborhood. Despite having entered this neighborhood many times over the last few years, it suddenly looked wrong, and I briefly questioned whether I was in the right place or not. In that moment, I quickly considered turning around at the first opportunity.

Both situations reveal a common problem leaders face in times of change. When confronted with uncertainty or unfamiliarity – when a situation or surrounding looks different from what they expect to see – people freeze. They lock-up, stop moving, and impede progress.

Many leaders see this initial response, and grow frustrated with their team like I grew frustrated by the initially unmoving people at the top of the escalator.

The key point, though, is that the people in the escalator example eventually moved without prodding or prompting from me. Once they evaluated and understood the situation, they moved.

Wise leaders recognize, understand, and anticipate this response. Rather than push changes quickly and get angry with people, they make allowances for this normal human reaction. They do everything in their power to reduce uncertainty by communicating more often, more thoroughly, and more personally. They also give people as much time as possible to understand the change before resorting to “do it or else” strategies.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post titled Why You Shouldn’t Take Conflict Resolution Lessons From Politicians. In that post, I listed a number of things common to the political process that are terrible examples of how to behave when you are really trying to solve a problem or resolve a conflict.

As I look at the health care reform debate, I see a number of these behaviors in the way the discussion(s) is (are) proceeding. And, frankly, it makes me sick.

I am not a doctor, pharmacist, attorney, drug company executive or any other person who has deep insights into the intricacies of our health care system. I am, though, a person who can observe the process and see how the current discussion has virtually no hope of arriving at a good conclusion.

Virtually all of the discussion that I have seen mentions or implies that the system itself is broken. Then, the debate turns to how we should redesign the way we pay for the broken system. Almost no substantive discussion about how to fix the system. Just discussions, arguments and rants about how to pay for it.

Excuse me! How does that make any sense at all?

Do I have an opinion about what needs to happen to make the system better. Well, of course I do, and that’s not the point of this post.

The point of this post is to learn from the communication, conflict resolution, and problem solving failures present in this discussion.

Problem number one: Discussing solutions before reaching agreement on the definition of the problem.

If we disagree on the definition of the problem, we can never agree on the solution. When people jump to discussing solutions before they discuss their respective viewpoints about how to best define the problem, they lock themselves into a negative spiral of conversation that rarely, if ever, leads to resolution. It might lead to one party “beating” the other. It does not lead to resolution.

Problem number two: Discussing symptoms rather than root causes.

A former co-worker of mine once received a call from a family member for help with a leaking water heater. As my co-worker entered his family member’s home, he found his brother-in-law frantically mopping water from the floor trying to stay ahead of the leaking water heater. My co-worker, also my friend, approached the scene and then reached over his brother-in-law’s head to shut the supply valve on the water heater. Once the supply of water stopped, the leak slowed and they could clean-up the mess. My friend’s brother-in-law was so focused on the symptom (water on the floor) that he didn’t stop long enough to fix the root cause (water flowing through the water heater).

Failing to clearly identify root causes forces you to spend inordinate amounts of effort on “fixing” the symptoms rather than dealing with the real problem.

When you’re trying your case in the court of public opinion, attempting to preserve your chances for re-election, or hoping for a powerful sound byte for the evening news; the tactics employed by politicians may be useful. Just don’t use them in your personal or professional life. They are almost destined to fail.

In a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, Dan Ariely, the author of Predictably Irrational, writes about the impact of our short-term emotions on our long-term decision making.

In summary, his research found that we tend to make poor decisions when we have recently experienced a negative emotion. That makes some intuitive sense related to the short-term impact on our decision making. Surprisingly, he also found that we tend to repeat those bad decisions when we are faced with them again in a later situation that was not preceded by a negative experience or emotion.

Here’s the impact of his findings, if we make a snap or quick decision in the heat of the moment while we are angry, upset, or frustrated, we just might repeat that decision at a later date when we are not under the influence of a negative emotion. So, that one time snap decision can have a lasting impact on our businesses, families, and relationships.

Here’s where I see the practical upshot of Ariely’s findings, always check your emotions before you make a significant decision. Before writing that performance appraisal, evaluating those budget numbers, confronting poor performance, disciplining your child, or speaking with your spouse; check yourself.

Are you still angry from an earlier conversation with someone else? Are you irritated by the traffic on your drive to work? Did you just learn that you need to invest money you don’t have to repair your car?

If so, be careful. You might want to take a few extra minutes to get your emotions in check. Take a walk, read something positive, or just get away from the situation for a moment to carefully consider your emotional state and it’s possible impact on your decision making.

The issue is bigger than the one decision in front of you at the moment. The issue is the potential to sow the seed of a pattern of decision making that could have a long-term negative impact on your relationships and performance.

For the past several months, I have been working with my friend and colleague Kevin Eikenberry on a number of projects. As part of my responsibility in working with Kevin, I serve as a coach on the monthly group coaching call for Silver Members of Kevin’s Remarkable Leadership Learning System.

While this post doesn’t specifically address resolving conflict, the ideas in it relate directly to the much broader topics of leadership and leadership development.

Last week, we had our monthly Group Coaching call, and we discussed Enabling Process Improvement. We had a great, lively, informative call. Here are some of the highlights of the call:

Keep it simple

In keeping with Kevin’s description of a “non-denominational” process improvement approach (Plan – Do – Check – Act) during his monthly teleseminar, we discussed the importance of focusing on the basics. Keep it simple, and keep going back to foundational principles so that you can get a “ground-up” approach to process improvement. This approach will make your life as a leader much easier.

Set constraints up front

If you know that certain approaches are “off-the-table” with regard to what is or is not acceptable in the context of your process improvement efforts, tell people up-front. Openly sharing what is not acceptable can help people to focus their efforts on what is.

Ask questions

Question, probe, and investigate early and often. The more you work to surface concerns and frustrations with the current situation, the better you can communicate the need to take action and the better you can define your desired outcomes.

Clearly define the problem

If we define the word problem as a “condition that you want to change,” then we have to agree on the problem statement before we can agree on the solution statement. Working to make the problem definition clear (the current condition that we want to change) will help you reduce resistance to change that might occur as you work to improve the process.

Make it safe to fail

We don’t want people to fail in ways that will destroy the company. We do want people to learn and grow in order to get better. Planning for the future. Taking reasonable steps to avoid failure. And then, allowing small failures to happen without negative consequences can create an environment that enables process improvement.