Two of the most important drivers of success for any organization are the quality of their decisions and how effectively those decisions are implemented. Are you aware of your dominant decision making style or styles? Many leaders have one or two “go-to” styles that they use most of the time. If we think purposefully about the situation we’re in, and apply the right decision making style for that context, we can significantly improve the quality of our decisions and the performance of our teams.
Autocratic decisions are made without consulting others. The autocratic style has the benefit of speed and efficiency. It does not get bogged down in discussion or debate. And it relies entirely on the expertise and judgment of the leader, for better or worse.
A leader overusing this style risks being viewed as a “control freak” or a dictator. The team is far less likely to feel empowered by or to feel ownership for autocratic decisions. The commitment and enthusiasm with which team members implement such decisions may suffer. Also, since they were not involved in the decision, team members may not understand the rationale for the decision as well as they would with other styles.
When to use this style?
With a consensus style, everyone needs to agree. This has the benefit of being inclusive and incorporating the expertise of everyone on the team. On the other hand, it can be cumbersome and time-consuming if the team cannot reach an agreement.
When to use this style? For issues that are very important and complex, and the team collectively has more expertise than the leader or anyone individually, this style may be optimal and worth the extra energy and investment it requires.
With the consultative style, the leader consults team members before making the decision. This enables the leader (and the organization as a whole) to benefit from the expertise and experience of team members. Team members are more likely to understand the decision and the rationale behind it, which may make them more effective at implementing the decision. Team members may also feel greater ownership and commitment to the decision, since they contributed to it.
In many cases, this approach can get the benefits of both the consensus style (everyone’s input is considered) and the autocratic style (it can still be relatively efficient and avoid long, drawn-out discussion). Moreover, many leaders like to retain ownership for the most important decisions, and this style keeps the leader in the driver’s seat.
With delegated decisions, the leader empowers the team or an individual on the team to make the decision.
When to use this style?
Retired US Army General Stanley McCrystal has spoken extensively about his approach to leadership. He makes extensive use of the delegated style.
“By the time I got to be a senior leader… I was making very, very few decisions. On a daily basis … I was making two or three decisions and sometimes none. And that’s the way it should be. Because if I’m making decisions someone else can make, it’s a mistake. And if I’m making decisions just because I think it’s good for my ego or it’s good to justify my position, it’s a mistake. So the goal should be to push as many of those decisions away from you as possible. Not to dodge responsibility, because you always own responsibility.”[3]
With the democratic style, the team votes on the options and selects the one that gets the most votes. This has the benefit of getting everyone’s input, while also having high efficiency since agreement is not required.
This style is appropriate for trivial matters, or anything that lends itself to “majority rules”, say for example, where the team will have lunch on a given day.
Note that these decision styles are not mutually exclusive. They may be combined in different ways at different times. For an important issue, a leader may start out aiming for a consensus, pushing the team to work the issue and come to an agreement. If the team is able to reach a consensus, the decision will stand. If they’re not able to reach a consensus after a period of time, the decision style could then switch to a consultative one. In this case, the leader would consider the arguments for and against each option, and make the decision herself or himself.
In some cases, it may be appropriate for the leader or the leadership team to define clear objectives or decision criteria, and then delegate the actual decision making to a more junior leader or team member. This can be especially effective in large organizations.
For example, in the early 1980s, Intel got most of its revenue from memory chips. Intel’s product divisions shared manufacturing facilities, so senior management had established objectives for manufacturing leaders to allocate capacity in a way that maximized profitability. The nascent microprocessor business had higher profit margins than the memory products, so manufacturing leaders redirected capacity towards microprocessors, transforming Intel from a memory company to a microprocessor company. This transformation was not driven by any conscious corporate strategy or decision on the part of senior management. Rather it ensued from the objectives defined by senior management and decisions made by manufacturing leaders in support of those objectives.[2]
General McChrystal talks about the power of a shared mission, common values, and clear objectives. Special operation teams would be sent on missions with a set of orders, but team leaders were expected to adapt to the dynamic situations they encountered. McChrystal explained:
“There’s a great line we used to use in Afghanistan: ‘If, when you get on the ground, the order that we gave you is wrong, execute the order that we should have given you.’ Think about the responsibility you’re giving your subordinates when you issue that instruction. You’re looking for them to use their best judgment.”[4]
Of course, the ultimate quality of a decision is influenced by how effectively it is implemented. When team members are actively involved in the process, they are more likely to feel ownership and commitment to the decision. When there is transparency in the process and team members understand the rationale, that can improve execution.
Before a decision is made, you want team members to contribute, provide input, and raise any concerns. If there is disagreement, you want that to be raised openly and early in the process if possible. You can’t afford and should not tolerate passive aggressive behavior that undermines a decision.
Once a decision is made, you need team members to commit and execute wholeheartedly, even if they were opposed to the decision that was made. Intel’s founders devised a powerful way to encourage this, which manifested in the phrase, “I disagree but I commit.” Team members were obligated to share their view, even if (especially if) it was contrary. However, they were also obligated to commit to that decision, even though they disagreed with it.
By being mindful of the situation and applying the appropriate decision making style, we can significantly improve the quality of our decisions and how effectively they are implemented by our teams.
Two of the most important drivers of success for any organization are the quality of their decisions and how effectively those decisions are implemented. Are you aware of your dominant decision making style or styles? Many leaders have one or two “go-to” styles that they use most of the time. If we think purposefully about the situation we’re in, and apply the right decision making style for that context, we can significantly improve the quality of our decisions and the performance of our teams.
Autocratic decisions are made without consulting others. The autocratic style has the benefit of speed and efficiency. It does not get bogged down in discussion or debate. And it relies entirely on the expertise and judgment of the leader, for better or worse.
A leader overusing this style risks being viewed as a “control freak” or a dictator. The team is far less likely to feel empowered by or to feel ownership for autocratic decisions. The commitment and enthusiasm with which team members implement such decisions may suffer. Also, since they were not involved in the decision, team members may not understand the rationale for the decision as well as they would with other styles.
When to use this style?
With a consensus style, everyone needs to agree. This has the benefit of being inclusive and incorporating the expertise of everyone on the team. On the other hand, it can be cumbersome and time-consuming if the team cannot reach an agreement.
When to use this style? For issues that are very important and complex, and the team collectively has more expertise than the leader or anyone individually, this style may be optimal and worth the extra energy and investment it requires.
With the consultative style, the leader consults team members before making the decision. This enables the leader (and the organization as a whole) to benefit from the expertise and experience of team members. Team members are more likely to understand the decision and the rationale behind it, which may make them more effective at implementing the decision. Team members may also feel greater ownership and commitment to the decision, since they contributed to it.
In many cases, this approach can get the benefits of both the consensus style (everyone’s input is considered) and the autocratic style (it can still be relatively efficient and avoid long, drawn-out discussion). Moreover, many leaders like to retain ownership for the most important decisions, and this style keeps the leader in the driver’s seat.
With delegated decisions, the leader empowers the team or an individual on the team to make the decision.
When to use this style?
Retired US Army General Stanley McCrystal has spoken extensively about his approach to leadership. He makes extensive use of the delegated style.
“By the time I got to be a senior leader… I was making very, very few decisions. On a daily basis … I was making two or three decisions and sometimes none. And that’s the way it should be. Because if I’m making decisions someone else can make, it’s a mistake. And if I’m making decisions just because I think it’s good for my ego or it’s good to justify my position, it’s a mistake. So the goal should be to push as many of those decisions away from you as possible. Not to dodge responsibility, because you always own responsibility.”[3]
With the democratic style, the team votes on the options and selects the one that gets the most votes. This has the benefit of getting everyone’s input, while also having high efficiency since agreement is not required.
This style is appropriate for trivial matters, or anything that lends itself to “majority rules”, say for example, where the team will have lunch on a given day.
Note that these decision styles are not mutually exclusive. They may be combined in different ways at different times. For an important issue, a leader may start out aiming for a consensus, pushing the team to work the issue and come to an agreement. If the team is able to reach a consensus, the decision will stand. If they’re not able to reach a consensus after a period of time, the decision style could then switch to a consultative one. In this case, the leader would consider the arguments for and against each option, and make the decision herself or himself.
In some cases, it may be appropriate for the leader or the leadership team to define clear objectives or decision criteria, and then delegate the actual decision making to a more junior leader or team member. This can be especially effective in large organizations.
For example, in the early 1980s, Intel got most of its revenue from memory chips. Intel’s product divisions shared manufacturing facilities, so senior management had established objectives for manufacturing leaders to allocate capacity in a way that maximized profitability. The nascent microprocessor business had higher profit margins than the memory products, so manufacturing leaders redirected capacity towards microprocessors, transforming Intel from a memory company to a microprocessor company. This transformation was not driven by any conscious corporate strategy or decision on the part of senior management. Rather it ensued from the objectives defined by senior management and decisions made by manufacturing leaders in support of those objectives.[2]
General McChrystal talks about the power of a shared mission, common values, and clear objectives. Special operation teams would be sent on missions with a set of orders, but team leaders were expected to adapt to the dynamic situations they encountered. McChrystal explained:
“There’s a great line we used to use in Afghanistan: ‘If, when you get on the ground, the order that we gave you is wrong, execute the order that we should have given you.’ Think about the responsibility you’re giving your subordinates when you issue that instruction. You’re looking for them to use their best judgment.”[4]
Of course, the ultimate quality of a decision is influenced by how effectively it is implemented. When team members are actively involved in the process, they are more likely to feel ownership and commitment to the decision. When there is transparency in the process and team members understand the rationale, that can improve execution.
Before a decision is made, you want team members to contribute, provide input, and raise any concerns. If there is disagreement, you want that to be raised openly and early in the process if possible. You can’t afford and should not tolerate passive aggressive behavior that undermines a decision.
Once a decision is made, you need team members to commit and execute wholeheartedly, even if they were opposed to the decision that was made. Intel’s founders devised a powerful way to encourage this, which manifested in the phrase, “I disagree but I commit.” Team members were obligated to share their view, even if (especially if) it was contrary. However, they were also obligated to commit to that decision, even though they disagreed with it.
By being mindful of the situation and applying the appropriate decision making style, we can significantly improve the quality of our decisions and how effectively they are implemented by our teams.
