Making decisions with an open mind

A few years ago, a developer in one of my Scrum teams gave me feedback. He said "I like the way you make our processes so open-ended. That way we can really achieve the best result in the matter. Instead of simply confirming what has already been decided by management."

This statement kept me busy. Even back then, it was clear to me that openness to results was important. This is the only way to come up with really good solutions in a complex environment. But what means and methods can I use to achieve this effect? And what prevents openness to results when making decisions?

Why do some decisions simply not work?

Most Participants The people involved in a decision-making process bring additional, often hidden expectations, goals and needs to the process. In this way, they influence the decision according to their interests and prevent open discussions. Some people are aware that they are withholding information from others - but many are not. If these people then encounter an environment in which motives are not (allowed to be) questioned, the best conditions for interest-based decisions are created. In this way, an under-complex data situation becomes the basis for the decision - and the decision can no longer be the best possible one in relation to the matter.

A practical example: A managing director has the impression that the newly established AI department is unable to maintain a constant level of performance. Targets are regularly set and discarded. The people involved seem disoriented and overwhelmed. In her role as managing director, she feels compelled to act. She researches for three days and comes to the conclusion that she should commission an OKR coach friend to work with the team. However, as her self-image as an innovative and modern boss forbids her from simply announcing this decision, she calls a team meeting. First she asks for suggestions from the team. When there is no immediate response, she places her proposal and at the same time makes it clear that the decision in favor of the OKR Coach has now been made. After all, there are no valid alternatives.

The best solution in the matter becomes an unattainable goal

The effects of hierarchy-driven decisions are manifold: errors in the decisions are noticed too late. Acceptance decreases, because why should I support a decision that (obviously) does not take the entire data situation into account? A decision that someone else has made solely to protect the interests of an individual or a group? A decision that optimizes locally instead of advancing the entire organization?

In our example, too, the managing director's approach met with little acceptance: the team members felt that they were taken by surprise when the decision was made. Why were they asked for suggestions but not given time to prepare? And why did the management even ask if there was already a supposedly optimal solution? The solution itself didn't work either: OKR turned out to be far too complex for the team's needs. The coach was more of a distraction than a help. Rumours quickly spread that the boss had awarded the contract as a friendly service - and was therefore not acting in the interests of the organization.

What methods are there to create openness of results?

For me, the question is: why didn't the team members act during the decision-making process and call for a different solution? Is it because of a climate of fear or frustration? In many organizations, I have observed that this leads to people deliberately withholding information or opinions. Open-ended processes are only possible without fear or embarrassment. This is the only way to avoid a threat scenario and exercise power constructively. This is the only way to give knowledge holders the opportunity to express their competent opinions.

In short: a space of psychological safety is needed. This allows employees to openly express their opinions, needs and interests, including the manager. The motives of each individual decision-maker are then clear and flow into the decision.

Good decisions need a space of psychological safety

For our example, the question arises: What would the manager have needed to talk openly about fluctuating performance and unstable targets? What would have made it possible for her to endure the uncertainty while waiting for real solutions from the team?

To enable this level of openness, most organizations need to break with existing communication traditions. In our example, it might have helped the managing director if the company had fixed rules on how decision-making should take place within the team. These rules should create the basis for transparency. There are also methods that allow more opinions to be heard. A classic is the 25/10 Croudsourcing from the Liberating Structures. However, more innovative methods such as circle culture can also be used.

It is also important to decide who makes the decision and how it is reached. Here too, there are various methods: If, for example, there is not enough time or patience for a long consensus process, then a delegated individual decision is the method of choice. The team could have commissioned a team member to develop a draft solution that is suitable for the team and its specific requirements.

There is often a lack of knowledge about these methods or implementation skills

When an organization embarks on a journey to align its decisions more closely with the facts than with interests, it needs more than just new methods. Resistance often arises and a deeper cultural change is needed in the organization and the people involved. Methods can also be used here. On October 19, Frank Stöckl and I will be giving a presentation at the REConf regulars' table about Cultural transformation and its methodology. I look forward to seeing you there. The event is free of charge, but registration is required (Registration >>)