How do you know which style your decision makers possess?
To further boost your odds of persuading those who have the power to accept or reject your proposal, tailor your arguments to fit their decision-making style. People have distinct styles of decision making. There are styles, with their own characteristics, and corresponding persuasion strategies.
How do you know which style your decision makers possess? As you did when analyzing your audience’s receptivity, observe decision maker’s behavior in meetings and hallway conversations and examine their communication for hints.
If your audience includes decision makers with whom you have little or not direct contact, learn about their decision-making habits through whatever means are available, such as others in the organization, news sources, public meetings, and so on.
The five styles and their characteristics and persuasion strategies are:
Charismatic - Initially enthralled, but bases final decision on balanced information. May mislead you into thinking ;you’ve scored an immediate success. - Focus discussion on results. Make simple, straightforward arguments. Use visual aids to demonstrate features and benefits of proposal.
Thinker – Cerebral, logical, and risk-averse. Needs extensive detail - Gather as much supporting data as possible. Use a fact based approach t o persuasion.
Skeptic – Challenges every data point. Decides based on gut feelings. – Establish as much credibility as possible. At the beginning of a meeting, invite them to challenge you—indicating that you value their ideas and will sue them to create the final idea or proposal.
Follower – Relies on own or others’ past decisions to make choices. Takes plenty of time to decide whether to adopt idea. Follows the lead of bosses or others who are politically important. - Focus on proven methods such as testimonials. Understand whom they like to follow or defer to, and get that persons support.
Controller – Unemotional and analytical. Abhors uncertainty. Inclined to implement only their own ideas. – ensure that your argument is sound and well structured. Identify outcome of value to them.
ACTION POINT: Understand the decision making styles of the audience you are trying to persuade.
Showing posts with label Decisions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Decisions. Show all posts
Friday, March 20, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Understanding Your Audience
In either case, your true audience usually consists of several kinds of people
In some persuasion situations, you present your proposal to one person; in others, to several or many individuals at a time. In either case, your true audience usually consists of several kinds of people; decision makers (people who approve or reject your idea), key stakeholders (those directly affected by the acceptance of your proposal), and influencers those who can influence or persuade the stakeholders and decisions makers).
Most persuasion situations involve several decision makers. For example, if you want to hire an additional employee for your unit and you’re lobbying your supervisor for the funds, he may not be the only decision maker you need to persuade. His boss may have the final say on new hires.
To identify key stakeholders, think of all the individuals who stand to be affected by acceptance of your proposal. In most cases, key stakeholders include not only the person to whom you’re presenting your proposal but also individuals such as peers, subordinate, customers, superiors, and board members.
Influencers often participate in the decision-making process by providing advice and information to key stakeholders and decision makers. For example, if you’re trying to persuade a marketing manager to launch a new Web campaign, she might invite the head of information technology to participate in a meeting so that she can ask him questions and get his opinion on the matter. The head of IT in this case is an influencer.
ACTION POINT: Identify all of the individuals that make up your true audience for your persuasion situation.
In some persuasion situations, you present your proposal to one person; in others, to several or many individuals at a time. In either case, your true audience usually consists of several kinds of people; decision makers (people who approve or reject your idea), key stakeholders (those directly affected by the acceptance of your proposal), and influencers those who can influence or persuade the stakeholders and decisions makers).
Most persuasion situations involve several decision makers. For example, if you want to hire an additional employee for your unit and you’re lobbying your supervisor for the funds, he may not be the only decision maker you need to persuade. His boss may have the final say on new hires.
To identify key stakeholders, think of all the individuals who stand to be affected by acceptance of your proposal. In most cases, key stakeholders include not only the person to whom you’re presenting your proposal but also individuals such as peers, subordinate, customers, superiors, and board members.
Influencers often participate in the decision-making process by providing advice and information to key stakeholders and decision makers. For example, if you’re trying to persuade a marketing manager to launch a new Web campaign, she might invite the head of information technology to participate in a meeting so that she can ask him questions and get his opinion on the matter. The head of IT in this case is an influencer.
ACTION POINT: Identify all of the individuals that make up your true audience for your persuasion situation.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Understanding the Five Characteristics of Effective Decision Making
Paying careful attention to these characteristics throughout the decision-making process can be difficult and time-consuming.
Research suggests decisions that include these five process characteristics have sharply improved the odds of being successful:
Multiple Alternatives. Generally, successful decisions result from a review of many alternative solutions. As your process unfolds, make sure that your group considers several alternatives before making its decision. The point-counterpoint approach is a useful method to ensure that at least two alternatives are considered. Remember, a go/no-go choice involves only one alternative.
Open Debate. To generate creative alternatives, you need to facilitate open, constructive debate. Strive to create an environment that supports inquiry-based discussions. Ask open ended and hypothetical questions to encourage your group to explore a variety of possibilities. Listen attentively to your team’s suggestions, and emphasize positive group dynamics. Debate should be task related, not emotional or personal. Make adjustments to your approach if the group is not working well together. Silence and suppressed arguments are both signs that the debate is not sufficiently robust.
Assumption testing. It is unlikely that you will have complete information at the time you make assumptions as it proceeds. Make sure that your team recognizes when it is relying on facts and when it is making assumptions. Further, the team needs to recognize which of those assumptions are closely tied to confirmed data, and which are not. The group may still choose to use untested assumptions in its decision-making process, but should reconsider the plausibility of these assumptions throughout the process.
Well-defined objectives. Continually review your objectives during your meetings to ensure that your discussions stay on target. If conditions change, you may need to refine your objectives or even your definition of the problem to meet the new conditions. However, don’t let your objectives shift solely because of time pressure or a rush to reach agreement.
Perceived fairness. Keeping people involved throughout the process is critical to the success of your decision. Your team members must feel that their ideas are being considered during the process in order to feel a sense of ownership over the final decision. Periodically evaluate the level of participation of your team members, such as after a milestone. If people have stopped participating in conversation or are doing so reluctantly, they may be dissatisfied with the process. Your job is to keep people engaged by acknowledging your team member’s suggestions and helping them understand why another alternative may be a better decision.
ACTION POINT: Paying careful attention to these characteristics throughout the decision-making process can be difficult and time-consuming. Making the effort to include them, however, gives your decision a much better chance of success.
Research suggests decisions that include these five process characteristics have sharply improved the odds of being successful:
Multiple Alternatives. Generally, successful decisions result from a review of many alternative solutions. As your process unfolds, make sure that your group considers several alternatives before making its decision. The point-counterpoint approach is a useful method to ensure that at least two alternatives are considered. Remember, a go/no-go choice involves only one alternative.
Open Debate. To generate creative alternatives, you need to facilitate open, constructive debate. Strive to create an environment that supports inquiry-based discussions. Ask open ended and hypothetical questions to encourage your group to explore a variety of possibilities. Listen attentively to your team’s suggestions, and emphasize positive group dynamics. Debate should be task related, not emotional or personal. Make adjustments to your approach if the group is not working well together. Silence and suppressed arguments are both signs that the debate is not sufficiently robust.
Assumption testing. It is unlikely that you will have complete information at the time you make assumptions as it proceeds. Make sure that your team recognizes when it is relying on facts and when it is making assumptions. Further, the team needs to recognize which of those assumptions are closely tied to confirmed data, and which are not. The group may still choose to use untested assumptions in its decision-making process, but should reconsider the plausibility of these assumptions throughout the process.
Well-defined objectives. Continually review your objectives during your meetings to ensure that your discussions stay on target. If conditions change, you may need to refine your objectives or even your definition of the problem to meet the new conditions. However, don’t let your objectives shift solely because of time pressure or a rush to reach agreement.
Perceived fairness. Keeping people involved throughout the process is critical to the success of your decision. Your team members must feel that their ideas are being considered during the process in order to feel a sense of ownership over the final decision. Periodically evaluate the level of participation of your team members, such as after a milestone. If people have stopped participating in conversation or are doing so reluctantly, they may be dissatisfied with the process. Your job is to keep people engaged by acknowledging your team member’s suggestions and helping them understand why another alternative may be a better decision.
ACTION POINT: Paying careful attention to these characteristics throughout the decision-making process can be difficult and time-consuming. Making the effort to include them, however, gives your decision a much better chance of success.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Assessing Your Decision-Making Process
Have a plan for evaluating the various elements in your process, from gathering your decision-making team to implementing the actual decision.
Many managers wait to evaluate a decision until the end of the process, after it has been implemented. This is too late. If there is a flaw in the decision itself or in its implementation, you may learn a useful lesson about how not to make or implement a decision, but it will be too late to repair the damage.
Assessing the decision-making process is an ongoing effort that must occur in real time, throughout all the phases of the process. For example, you need to monitor the tone of your meetings and address problems in group dynamics before they interfere with our goal. Sometimes new information becomes available or new conditions arise, necessitating a midcourse correction in your objectives.
Have a plan for evaluating the various elements in your process, from gathering your decision-making team to implementing the actual decision. It could be something as simple as a checklist. Take the time after each meeting to think about how it went. In addition, understand the distinguishing characteristics of effective decision making.
ACTION POINT: Don’t wait till the end of your decision-making process to assess it’s effectiveness.
Many managers wait to evaluate a decision until the end of the process, after it has been implemented. This is too late. If there is a flaw in the decision itself or in its implementation, you may learn a useful lesson about how not to make or implement a decision, but it will be too late to repair the damage.
Assessing the decision-making process is an ongoing effort that must occur in real time, throughout all the phases of the process. For example, you need to monitor the tone of your meetings and address problems in group dynamics before they interfere with our goal. Sometimes new information becomes available or new conditions arise, necessitating a midcourse correction in your objectives.
Have a plan for evaluating the various elements in your process, from gathering your decision-making team to implementing the actual decision. It could be something as simple as a checklist. Take the time after each meeting to think about how it went. In addition, understand the distinguishing characteristics of effective decision making.
ACTION POINT: Don’t wait till the end of your decision-making process to assess it’s effectiveness.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Making Needed Adjustments
What if the decision you’ve implemented ultimately doesn’t work out as you’d expected?
Most implementation plans require some adjustment. If nothing else, conditions change over time. So occasional adjustments, ranging from fine-tuning to wholesale changes, are often needed.
What if the decision you’ve implemented ultimately doesn’t work out as you’d expected? In most cases, corrections can be made. These will often involve only “tweaking” the decision you’ve implemented. But sometimes you may find that the alternative you chose just isn’t working. In such cases, you need to revisit the decision-making process.
Make sure you framed the issue correctly. Have you learned anything new that makes you think the problem is different from what you thought the first time around?
Has there been a change in your objectives? Do you have new information that you didn’t have before? Perhaps you see that one objective should have been given more weight and another one less.
Have you learned about an alternative that wasn’t considered the first time around? Or have you acquired a different perspective that causes you reassess data you’ve had for some time?
Go through your decision-making process again, preferably without reviewing your earlier results. With experience in implementing one alternative, chances are good you’ll change your opinion of how well some of the other alternatives satisfy your objectives.
After you’ve evaluated how well each alternative would be expected to address each objective, return to the results of your first evaluation. Where you find discrepancies between the first time and this time, decide which one is more on target in light of what you know now.
ACTION POINT: Revisit your decision making process when adjustments are needed during implementation.
Most implementation plans require some adjustment. If nothing else, conditions change over time. So occasional adjustments, ranging from fine-tuning to wholesale changes, are often needed.
What if the decision you’ve implemented ultimately doesn’t work out as you’d expected? In most cases, corrections can be made. These will often involve only “tweaking” the decision you’ve implemented. But sometimes you may find that the alternative you chose just isn’t working. In such cases, you need to revisit the decision-making process.
Make sure you framed the issue correctly. Have you learned anything new that makes you think the problem is different from what you thought the first time around?
Has there been a change in your objectives? Do you have new information that you didn’t have before? Perhaps you see that one objective should have been given more weight and another one less.
Have you learned about an alternative that wasn’t considered the first time around? Or have you acquired a different perspective that causes you reassess data you’ve had for some time?
Go through your decision-making process again, preferably without reviewing your earlier results. With experience in implementing one alternative, chances are good you’ll change your opinion of how well some of the other alternatives satisfy your objectives.
After you’ve evaluated how well each alternative would be expected to address each objective, return to the results of your first evaluation. Where you find discrepancies between the first time and this time, decide which one is more on target in light of what you know now.
ACTION POINT: Revisit your decision making process when adjustments are needed during implementation.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monitoring and Following Up
As implement your decision, keep track of how things are going.
The following practices can help:
Clarify expectations and acknowledge incentives. For example, if an account executive is going to start managing the company’s largest client, explain what this client means to the organization and your expectations for managing the relationship. Determine whether the increase in responsibility should result in a pay increase or change in title, and follow up with your human resource department to make that happen.
Provide feedback on the implementation. Give your employees feedback on the progress of the implementation plan. You input should be constructive and focused on accountability and execution. Set a time for daily or weekly status meetings. This will help you stay informed of your group’s progress during implementation.
Take a look for yourself. Check in with people informally. Ask them how the project is going and whether they have any concerns about it. Be interested in not only issues related to implementation, such as schedule and budget, but also whether your employees believe that the project is effectively addressing the problem it is intended to solve.
Recognize people’s contributions. Implementation often goes unnoticed unless it fails. If things are going well, recognize individual contributions and celebrate successes.
ACTION POINT: Keeping abreast of progress during implementation will enable you to fix problems before they become major crises.
The following practices can help:
Clarify expectations and acknowledge incentives. For example, if an account executive is going to start managing the company’s largest client, explain what this client means to the organization and your expectations for managing the relationship. Determine whether the increase in responsibility should result in a pay increase or change in title, and follow up with your human resource department to make that happen.
Provide feedback on the implementation. Give your employees feedback on the progress of the implementation plan. You input should be constructive and focused on accountability and execution. Set a time for daily or weekly status meetings. This will help you stay informed of your group’s progress during implementation.
Take a look for yourself. Check in with people informally. Ask them how the project is going and whether they have any concerns about it. Be interested in not only issues related to implementation, such as schedule and budget, but also whether your employees believe that the project is effectively addressing the problem it is intended to solve.
Recognize people’s contributions. Implementation often goes unnoticed unless it fails. If things are going well, recognize individual contributions and celebrate successes.
ACTION POINT: Keeping abreast of progress during implementation will enable you to fix problems before they become major crises.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Implementing the Decision
Ideally, your team members will leave the final meeting knowing exactly what they’re expected to do.
Your group has made a choice, and you’ve communicated the decision to the appropriate people. Now its time to identify the tasks that will be required to put the decision into action, assign resources, and establish deadlines. Ideally, your team members will leave the final meeting knowing exactly what they’re expected to do. If not, reconvene the group to identify who will be responsible for each task.
You probably have much of the information you need to develop the plan for implementing your group’s decision. When you were evaluating alternatives, you likely considered the cost, the number of people required to work on the project, and so forth.
For example, suppose you and your group have determined that the customer complaints about your telephone support lien are due to inadequate training of the support associates talking calls. After analyzing the situation, you may decide that the associates need to have more product knowledge. As part of evaluating this alternative, you probably would have identified the resource requirements from the training department to implement your solution.
ACTION POINT: But be sure to assign reasonable tasks with sufficient resources. For example the people in the training department may not have extensive product knowledge and may need the help of a content expert. You might need to assign an expert in product knowledge to work with the training department to develop a program.
Your group has made a choice, and you’ve communicated the decision to the appropriate people. Now its time to identify the tasks that will be required to put the decision into action, assign resources, and establish deadlines. Ideally, your team members will leave the final meeting knowing exactly what they’re expected to do. If not, reconvene the group to identify who will be responsible for each task.
You probably have much of the information you need to develop the plan for implementing your group’s decision. When you were evaluating alternatives, you likely considered the cost, the number of people required to work on the project, and so forth.
For example, suppose you and your group have determined that the customer complaints about your telephone support lien are due to inadequate training of the support associates talking calls. After analyzing the situation, you may decide that the associates need to have more product knowledge. As part of evaluating this alternative, you probably would have identified the resource requirements from the training department to implement your solution.
ACTION POINT: But be sure to assign reasonable tasks with sufficient resources. For example the people in the training department may not have extensive product knowledge and may need the help of a content expert. You might need to assign an expert in product knowledge to work with the training department to develop a program.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Ending the Deliberations
…it is your job as a manager to bring the discussion to closure.
Knowing when to end deliberations can be difficult. If a group makes a decision too early, it might not explore enough possibilities. If you sense that your group is rushing to make a decision, consider adjourning a meeting before making a final choice, and reconvening at a later time. Ask each participant to try to find a flaw with the decision to present at the next meeting.
The flip side of deciding too early is deciding to late, which is equally problematic. If the group takes to long to make a decision, it may waste valuable time and possibly even miss the opportunity to solve the problem at hand. If your team insists on hearing every viewpoint and resolving every question before reaching a conclusion, the result is the same: your discussions will become a tiring, endless loop. If you find your group is stuck going around in circles, it is your job as a manager to bring the discussion to closure. You may need to simply “force the issue” by establishing a deadline for a decision, urging your group to use the best information available within that time frame.
ACTION POINT: Making good decisions requires a time for deliberations to end and then making the decision.
Knowing when to end deliberations can be difficult. If a group makes a decision too early, it might not explore enough possibilities. If you sense that your group is rushing to make a decision, consider adjourning a meeting before making a final choice, and reconvening at a later time. Ask each participant to try to find a flaw with the decision to present at the next meeting.
The flip side of deciding too early is deciding to late, which is equally problematic. If the group takes to long to make a decision, it may waste valuable time and possibly even miss the opportunity to solve the problem at hand. If your team insists on hearing every viewpoint and resolving every question before reaching a conclusion, the result is the same: your discussions will become a tiring, endless loop. If you find your group is stuck going around in circles, it is your job as a manager to bring the discussion to closure. You may need to simply “force the issue” by establishing a deadline for a decision, urging your group to use the best information available within that time frame.
ACTION POINT: Making good decisions requires a time for deliberations to end and then making the decision.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Making the Decision
Here are some additional suggestions for resolving disagreements and moving your group toward closure:
Another method to aid in making the decision is using the Intellectual watchdog. Divide your team into two groups of equal size. Group A develops a proposal for a solution that includes their recommendations and key assumptions. They then present their proposal to group B. Instead of having group B generate an alternative plan of action, ask group B to critique the proposal and present its analysis to group A. Ask group A to revise the proposal on the basis of group B’s feedback and present it again. The two groups continue to critique and revise the proposal until they agree on a set of recommendations.
For example, a manufacturer of office furniture needs to improve the quality of its products. The first group assumes that the problem with quality is due to outdated manufacturing equipment, and recommends invest in better equipment. The second group questions this assumption, critiques the proposal, and presents its analysis to the first group. The first group revises its proposal. The two groups work together in the revision-critique-revision cycle until they arrive at a solution that both groups think will improve their product’s quality.
Here are some additional suggestions for resolving disagreements and moving your group toward closure:
Revisit and retest the assumptions about the issue at hand.
Go back to the original decision-making objectives and ensure that they are sill appropriate.
Set a deadline for coming to closure—for example, “By next Tuesday, we will make our decision, no matter how much uncertainty remains.”
Agree that if disagreements remain unresolved, the final choice will be made by a particular rule, such as majority voting, group consensus, or a decision by the senior-most member of the group.
ACTION POINT: Consider the above suggestions when moving decisions toward closure.
Another method to aid in making the decision is using the Intellectual watchdog. Divide your team into two groups of equal size. Group A develops a proposal for a solution that includes their recommendations and key assumptions. They then present their proposal to group B. Instead of having group B generate an alternative plan of action, ask group B to critique the proposal and present its analysis to group A. Ask group A to revise the proposal on the basis of group B’s feedback and present it again. The two groups continue to critique and revise the proposal until they agree on a set of recommendations.
For example, a manufacturer of office furniture needs to improve the quality of its products. The first group assumes that the problem with quality is due to outdated manufacturing equipment, and recommends invest in better equipment. The second group questions this assumption, critiques the proposal, and presents its analysis to the first group. The first group revises its proposal. The two groups work together in the revision-critique-revision cycle until they arrive at a solution that both groups think will improve their product’s quality.
Here are some additional suggestions for resolving disagreements and moving your group toward closure:
Revisit and retest the assumptions about the issue at hand.
Go back to the original decision-making objectives and ensure that they are sill appropriate.
Set a deadline for coming to closure—for example, “By next Tuesday, we will make our decision, no matter how much uncertainty remains.”
Agree that if disagreements remain unresolved, the final choice will be made by a particular rule, such as majority voting, group consensus, or a decision by the senior-most member of the group.
ACTION POINT: Consider the above suggestions when moving decisions toward closure.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Making the Decision
Often, however, you need to make complex decisions quickly, with only partial information.
In a perfect world, you would have all of the information you need and an unlimited amount of time to make a decision. Your choices would be clear, and company politics would not influence your decision. Often, however, you need to make complex decisions quickly, with only partial information. The techniques for evaluating the alternatives outlined in the previous section should help you compare the pros and cons of each choice but what if your group is still having difficulty arriving at a final decision—and the clock is ticking? The following suggestions can help:
Moving toward closure by using Point-counterpoint. Divide your team into two groups of equal size: group A and group B. Wherever possible, spread supporters of opposing ideas between the groups. Ask group A to develop a proposal for a solution that includes their recommendations and key assumptions. Then have them present their proposal to group B. Then ask group B to identify one or more alternative plans of action and present those plans to group A. have both groups debate the different proposals until they all agree on a set of recommendations.
For example a finance department has been engaged in a heated debate over which accounting firm to use to audit the books this year. One group favors, a big-name brand, while the other favors a smaller yet well-respected firm. Using the point-counterpoint technique, the decision-making team considers each firm and reaches a conclusion.
ACTION POINT: Consider the point-counterpoint technique when faced with a stalled decision.
In a perfect world, you would have all of the information you need and an unlimited amount of time to make a decision. Your choices would be clear, and company politics would not influence your decision. Often, however, you need to make complex decisions quickly, with only partial information. The techniques for evaluating the alternatives outlined in the previous section should help you compare the pros and cons of each choice but what if your group is still having difficulty arriving at a final decision—and the clock is ticking? The following suggestions can help:
Moving toward closure by using Point-counterpoint. Divide your team into two groups of equal size: group A and group B. Wherever possible, spread supporters of opposing ideas between the groups. Ask group A to develop a proposal for a solution that includes their recommendations and key assumptions. Then have them present their proposal to group B. Then ask group B to identify one or more alternative plans of action and present those plans to group A. have both groups debate the different proposals until they all agree on a set of recommendations.
For example a finance department has been engaged in a heated debate over which accounting firm to use to audit the books this year. One group favors, a big-name brand, while the other favors a smaller yet well-respected firm. Using the point-counterpoint technique, the decision-making team considers each firm and reaches a conclusion.
ACTION POINT: Consider the point-counterpoint technique when faced with a stalled decision.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Evaluating Alternatives
Your group can weigh a range of variables...
Once your group has generated alternatives to consider, it’s time to evaluate those alternatives and select one as the final decision. How to pick the best solution? Your group can weigh a range of variables as well as use one or more systematic methods for reaching a decision: the prioritization matrix, the trade-off technique, or the decision tree.
To evaluate the alternatives your group has generated, members can take stock of how well each alternative meets the objectives you established at the outset of the decision-making process.
Variable Questions to ask
Costs:
How much will this alternative cost?
Will it result in a cost savings now or over the long term?
Are there any hidden costs?
Are there likely to be additional costs down the road?
Does this alternative meet budget constraints?
Benefits:
What kind of profits will we realize with this alternative?
Will in increase the quality of the product?
Will customer satisfaction increase?
Intangibles:
Will our reputation improve if we implement this?
Will our customers and/or our employees be more loyal?
Time:
How long will it take to implement this alternative?
Could there be delays? What impact will they have?
Feasibility:
Can this alternative be implemented realistically?
Are there any obstacles that must be overcome?
Resources:
How many people are needed to implement this alternative?
Are they available?
What other projects will suffer if individuals focus on this option?
Risks:
What are the risks associated with this alternative?
Could this option result in loss of profits or competitive advantage?
How will competitors respond?
Ethics:
Is this alternative legal?
Is it in the bet interests of the customer, the employees and the
community where we operate?
Would I feel comfortable if other people knew about this alternative?
ACTION POINT: Evaluate alternatives by asking the questions above.
Once your group has generated alternatives to consider, it’s time to evaluate those alternatives and select one as the final decision. How to pick the best solution? Your group can weigh a range of variables as well as use one or more systematic methods for reaching a decision: the prioritization matrix, the trade-off technique, or the decision tree.
To evaluate the alternatives your group has generated, members can take stock of how well each alternative meets the objectives you established at the outset of the decision-making process.
Variable Questions to ask
Costs:
How much will this alternative cost?
Will it result in a cost savings now or over the long term?
Are there any hidden costs?
Are there likely to be additional costs down the road?
Does this alternative meet budget constraints?
Benefits:
What kind of profits will we realize with this alternative?
Will in increase the quality of the product?
Will customer satisfaction increase?
Intangibles:
Will our reputation improve if we implement this?
Will our customers and/or our employees be more loyal?
Time:
How long will it take to implement this alternative?
Could there be delays? What impact will they have?
Feasibility:
Can this alternative be implemented realistically?
Are there any obstacles that must be overcome?
Resources:
How many people are needed to implement this alternative?
Are they available?
What other projects will suffer if individuals focus on this option?
Risks:
What are the risks associated with this alternative?
Could this option result in loss of profits or competitive advantage?
How will competitors respond?
Ethics:
Is this alternative legal?
Is it in the bet interests of the customer, the employees and the
community where we operate?
Would I feel comfortable if other people knew about this alternative?
ACTION POINT: Evaluate alternatives by asking the questions above.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Generating Alternatives
After weighing the merits of a variety of options, you are in a better position to make the best decision for the situation facing you.
To make an informed decision, you need choices—alternative courses of action you might take to resolve the issue at hand. Generating alternatives creates those choices. After weighing the merits of a variety of options, you are in a better position to make the best decision for the situation facing you. Here, it’s important to recognize that “go/no-go” choice does not mean you have generated multiple alternatives—go/no-go is only a single option.
Consider the following story:
Paul, a marketing manager at a consumer products company, calls a meeting with his team to discuss how to increase laundry detergent sales in Latin America. The meeting begins with silence as everyone waits for someone else to speak. Paul breaks the silence by suggesting they consider changing the current packaging. Following this cue, someone chimes in with supporting statistics about packaging of a product that has done well in Latin America. The meeting concludes with the assignment of a task force to research new packaging options.
This meeting seemed to proceed smoothly. But something’s wrong. Paul didn’t engage the team in generating alternatives. He didn’t promote healthy debate or constructive conflict. Instead, excessive group harmony resulted in an action step based on the first idea that emerged; investigate packing options. There was little creativity or innovative thinking. As a result, no new ideas surfaced. The group settled on the first alternative suggested, which had been Paul’s idea!
Paul could have helped his group generate a wider range of promising alternatives if he had applied certain practices, such as brainstorming, dialoguing, and promoting fair process.
ACTION POINT: Spark creativity by encouraging and seeking a wider range of alternatives when using a group to make a decision.
To make an informed decision, you need choices—alternative courses of action you might take to resolve the issue at hand. Generating alternatives creates those choices. After weighing the merits of a variety of options, you are in a better position to make the best decision for the situation facing you. Here, it’s important to recognize that “go/no-go” choice does not mean you have generated multiple alternatives—go/no-go is only a single option.
Consider the following story:
Paul, a marketing manager at a consumer products company, calls a meeting with his team to discuss how to increase laundry detergent sales in Latin America. The meeting begins with silence as everyone waits for someone else to speak. Paul breaks the silence by suggesting they consider changing the current packaging. Following this cue, someone chimes in with supporting statistics about packaging of a product that has done well in Latin America. The meeting concludes with the assignment of a task force to research new packaging options.
This meeting seemed to proceed smoothly. But something’s wrong. Paul didn’t engage the team in generating alternatives. He didn’t promote healthy debate or constructive conflict. Instead, excessive group harmony resulted in an action step based on the first idea that emerged; investigate packing options. There was little creativity or innovative thinking. As a result, no new ideas surfaced. The group settled on the first alternative suggested, which had been Paul’s idea!
Paul could have helped his group generate a wider range of promising alternatives if he had applied certain practices, such as brainstorming, dialoguing, and promoting fair process.
ACTION POINT: Spark creativity by encouraging and seeking a wider range of alternatives when using a group to make a decision.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Steps for Identifying Decision-Making Objectives
What are you trying to achieve by making a decision?
The following four steps can be used to help identify your decision making objectives.
1. Specify the objectives you want to reach.
What are you trying to achieve by making a decision? Make sure that as many people as possible with a stake in solving the problem are asked to specify their objectives, you may conclude you’re actually facing two or more problems, or that more than a few stake holders don’t understand the problem, or that different groups hope to see the problem solved in different ways.
2. Define—as specifically as possible—the performance level that represents a successful outcome.
Do you want a solution that boosts sales? By what percentage? For all regions? Be as precise as you can be.
3. “Paint” a picture of what things will look like when the problem is solved.
Invite stakeholders to describe the desired future state in as much detail as possible. Let imaginations a creativity run loose. Her, too, you may find significant divergence from one person to another. You may resolve differences by compromise, by straight selection of one view over another, or by determining that you in fact have two or more problems at hand.
4. Make sure your agreed-on objectives and outcomes are not in conflict.
You may have determined that part of your solution to customer complaints about telephone orders is to have all of your phone-order reps take an additional three weeks of training. Another part of the solution is to reduce standards for each rep’s completed orders per hour from eight to seven. But can you have the lower staffing levels due to training and the fewer customers handled by each rep at the same time? Will customers then complain more about long waits to have their orders taken? If yes, goals may have to be adjusted.
Once you have created a list of objectives, it’s time to think about the possible courses of action you may take to achieve those goals.
ACTION POINT: Use the four steps above to identify your decision making objectives.
The following four steps can be used to help identify your decision making objectives.
1. Specify the objectives you want to reach.
What are you trying to achieve by making a decision? Make sure that as many people as possible with a stake in solving the problem are asked to specify their objectives, you may conclude you’re actually facing two or more problems, or that more than a few stake holders don’t understand the problem, or that different groups hope to see the problem solved in different ways.
2. Define—as specifically as possible—the performance level that represents a successful outcome.
Do you want a solution that boosts sales? By what percentage? For all regions? Be as precise as you can be.
3. “Paint” a picture of what things will look like when the problem is solved.
Invite stakeholders to describe the desired future state in as much detail as possible. Let imaginations a creativity run loose. Her, too, you may find significant divergence from one person to another. You may resolve differences by compromise, by straight selection of one view over another, or by determining that you in fact have two or more problems at hand.
4. Make sure your agreed-on objectives and outcomes are not in conflict.
You may have determined that part of your solution to customer complaints about telephone orders is to have all of your phone-order reps take an additional three weeks of training. Another part of the solution is to reduce standards for each rep’s completed orders per hour from eight to seven. But can you have the lower staffing levels due to training and the fewer customers handled by each rep at the same time? Will customers then complain more about long waits to have their orders taken? If yes, goals may have to be adjusted.
Once you have created a list of objectives, it’s time to think about the possible courses of action you may take to achieve those goals.
ACTION POINT: Use the four steps above to identify your decision making objectives.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Articulating your decision-making objectives
What do you want the decision we make to accomplish
Once you have successfully framed the issue at hand, identify your objectives in determining a course of action. Ask you team questions like “What do you want the decision we make to accomplish?” and “What would you like to see happen as a result of the decisions we reach?” Invite group members to describe their vision of the outcome of the decision as vividly and specifically as possible.
For example, if you were the manager at New Age Electronics, you and your team might come up with the following objectives:
Reduce the average waiting time per customer to two minutes.
Reduce call volume by 40 percent
Reduce average call duration to three minutes.
During the objective-setting process, you may encounter significant differences in opinion from one person to another. This is a healthy part of the dialogue and should be encouraged. However, if you find your list of objectives spiraling out of control, you may want to revisit the issue you’re trying to address. You may find that you have more than one issue to resolve.
ACTION POINT: Visualize and identify the objectives for the decisions you make.
Once you have successfully framed the issue at hand, identify your objectives in determining a course of action. Ask you team questions like “What do you want the decision we make to accomplish?” and “What would you like to see happen as a result of the decisions we reach?” Invite group members to describe their vision of the outcome of the decision as vividly and specifically as possible.
For example, if you were the manager at New Age Electronics, you and your team might come up with the following objectives:
Reduce the average waiting time per customer to two minutes.
Reduce call volume by 40 percent
Reduce average call duration to three minutes.
During the objective-setting process, you may encounter significant differences in opinion from one person to another. This is a healthy part of the dialogue and should be encouraged. However, if you find your list of objectives spiraling out of control, you may want to revisit the issue you’re trying to address. You may find that you have more than one issue to resolve.
ACTION POINT: Visualize and identify the objectives for the decisions you make.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Recognizing Obstacles
We tend to subconsciously decide what to do before figuring out why we want to do it.
Decision making is made difficult by common, often unconscious, obstacles that frequently inhibit a decision maker’s ability to determine the optimal choice. Such obstacles include cognitive biases and unproductive group dynamics. While it is almost impossible to eliminate these obstacles, recognizing them in yourself and in the members of your group will help you make more objective decisions.
COGNITIVE BIAS – A system of error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.
Here are some common examples of cognitive biases—distortions or preconceived notions—that people encounter when making decisions.
Bias toward the familiar and toward past successes. We tend to base our decisions on events and information that are familiar to us. For example, Sam, a brand manager, remembers his launch of a new product in a territory three years ago; it was his first big marketing success. He also vaguely remembers that a similar launch strategy was unsuccessful in number of other territories. Because his memories of the successful launch are so vivid, he emphasizes this experience and discounts the evidences of the unsuccessful launches elsewhere. When Sam tries to extend a new brand into another market, his efforts fail. While the strategy used for the first launch may have been a good starting point, his reliance on prior success led to incorrect assumptions about other markets.
Bias toward accepting assumptions at face value. We are generally overconfident in our assumptions and therefore generate too few alternatives. For example Ben purchases a software package offered by the larges vendor without collecting competitive bids. He assumes that the because the package works for other users in the same industry, it will work for him. He fails to investigate other software packages that might better meet his needs.
Bias toward the status quo. We have a tendency to resist major deviations from the status quo. For example, managers at BigCo are familiar with how to use a particular computer program and resist using an alternative, event though their program is outdated. Their resistance is driven more by their reluctance to learn something new than by the quality of the system itself.
Bias toward confirming our opinion. Once we form an opinion, we typically seek out information that supports our viewpoint and ignore the facts that may challenge it. For example, Dinah searches the Internet to find data supporting her preference for focus groups in market research, but she does not stop to read information that supports other approaches.
COGNITIVE BIAS – A system of error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.
How do you prevent these biases from adversely affecting your decision-making ability?
ACTION POINT: Recognize cognitive bias and ensure that contrarian, diverse voices get introduced into the discussion.
Decision making is made difficult by common, often unconscious, obstacles that frequently inhibit a decision maker’s ability to determine the optimal choice. Such obstacles include cognitive biases and unproductive group dynamics. While it is almost impossible to eliminate these obstacles, recognizing them in yourself and in the members of your group will help you make more objective decisions.
COGNITIVE BIAS – A system of error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.
Here are some common examples of cognitive biases—distortions or preconceived notions—that people encounter when making decisions.
Bias toward the familiar and toward past successes. We tend to base our decisions on events and information that are familiar to us. For example, Sam, a brand manager, remembers his launch of a new product in a territory three years ago; it was his first big marketing success. He also vaguely remembers that a similar launch strategy was unsuccessful in number of other territories. Because his memories of the successful launch are so vivid, he emphasizes this experience and discounts the evidences of the unsuccessful launches elsewhere. When Sam tries to extend a new brand into another market, his efforts fail. While the strategy used for the first launch may have been a good starting point, his reliance on prior success led to incorrect assumptions about other markets.
Bias toward accepting assumptions at face value. We are generally overconfident in our assumptions and therefore generate too few alternatives. For example Ben purchases a software package offered by the larges vendor without collecting competitive bids. He assumes that the because the package works for other users in the same industry, it will work for him. He fails to investigate other software packages that might better meet his needs.
Bias toward the status quo. We have a tendency to resist major deviations from the status quo. For example, managers at BigCo are familiar with how to use a particular computer program and resist using an alternative, event though their program is outdated. Their resistance is driven more by their reluctance to learn something new than by the quality of the system itself.
Bias toward confirming our opinion. Once we form an opinion, we typically seek out information that supports our viewpoint and ignore the facts that may challenge it. For example, Dinah searches the Internet to find data supporting her preference for focus groups in market research, but she does not stop to read information that supports other approaches.
COGNITIVE BIAS – A system of error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.
How do you prevent these biases from adversely affecting your decision-making ability?
ACTION POINT: Recognize cognitive bias and ensure that contrarian, diverse voices get introduced into the discussion.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Fostering the Right Climate II
A more realistic and effective technique for arriving at a decision is one that balances advocacy with inquiry.
In a perfect world, decisions would be made using an inquiry approach—an open process in which individuals ask probing questions, explore different points of view, and identify a wide range of options with the goal of reaching a decision that the group creates and owns collectively. In an inquiry mode, individuals set aside their personal opinions or preferences in order to arrive at a decision that is best for the group or organization.
The table “Approaches to decision making’ illustrates the advocacy approach versus the inquiry approach to decision making.
__________________________________________________________________
Approaches to decision making
Advocacy Inquiry
__________________________________________________________________
Concept of decision making A contest Collaborative problem
Solving
__________________________________________________________________
Purpose of discussion Persuasion and Testing and evaluation
Lobbying
__________________________________________________________________
Participants role Spokespeople Critical Thinkers
__________________________________________________________________
Patters of Behavior Strive to persuade Present balanced
arguments
Defend your Remains open to
Position alternatives
Downplay Accept constructive
weaknesses criticism
__________________________________________________________________
Minority views Discouraged or Cultivated and valued
dismissed
__________________________________________________________________
The outcome Winners and losers Collective ownership
While inquiry is an idea, it is seldom met in practice. It is extremely difficult for individuals to discuss ideas or issues without expressing their opinions. A more realistic and effective technique for arriving at a decision is one that balances advocacy with inquiry. Group members leave their personal agendas behind and enter the meeting with the intention of acting as unbiased participants. They may advocate for apposition they feel strongly about, but they also inquire into other viewpoints and consider alternatives. They7 understand that the goal is to find the best solution for the group as a whole, even if it means that some individuals in the group might be negatively affected by the decision. Generally, in sessions that balance advocacy with inquiry, people share information freely and consider multiple alternatives.
ACTION POINT: Balance advocacy and inquiry when making group decisions.
In a perfect world, decisions would be made using an inquiry approach—an open process in which individuals ask probing questions, explore different points of view, and identify a wide range of options with the goal of reaching a decision that the group creates and owns collectively. In an inquiry mode, individuals set aside their personal opinions or preferences in order to arrive at a decision that is best for the group or organization.
The table “Approaches to decision making’ illustrates the advocacy approach versus the inquiry approach to decision making.
__________________________________________________________________
Approaches to decision making
Advocacy Inquiry
__________________________________________________________________
Concept of decision making A contest Collaborative problem
Solving
__________________________________________________________________
Purpose of discussion Persuasion and Testing and evaluation
Lobbying
__________________________________________________________________
Participants role Spokespeople Critical Thinkers
__________________________________________________________________
Patters of Behavior Strive to persuade Present balanced
arguments
Defend your Remains open to
Position alternatives
Downplay Accept constructive
weaknesses criticism
__________________________________________________________________
Minority views Discouraged or Cultivated and valued
dismissed
__________________________________________________________________
The outcome Winners and losers Collective ownership
While inquiry is an idea, it is seldom met in practice. It is extremely difficult for individuals to discuss ideas or issues without expressing their opinions. A more realistic and effective technique for arriving at a decision is one that balances advocacy with inquiry. Group members leave their personal agendas behind and enter the meeting with the intention of acting as unbiased participants. They may advocate for apposition they feel strongly about, but they also inquire into other viewpoints and consider alternatives. They7 understand that the goal is to find the best solution for the group as a whole, even if it means that some individuals in the group might be negatively affected by the decision. Generally, in sessions that balance advocacy with inquiry, people share information freely and consider multiple alternatives.
ACTION POINT: Balance advocacy and inquiry when making group decisions.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Fostering the Right Climate
In advocacy situations, people tend to offer only the information that supports their case and omit details that might weaken it.
To help your group generate creative solutions to problems and evaluate them critically, choose diverse settings for your meetings. Such settings might include conference rooms that you don’t typically work in, off-site locations, or a familiar location with the furniture rearranged to facilitate face-to-face discussion. When people are removed from traditional settings they tend to speak more freely because they feel less constrained by office hierarchies.
Consider the following scenario: A manager at a software development company has been charged with assigning limited resources to the firm’s current projects. The manager calls a meeting with all of the project leaders to discuss how the resources will be allocated. The discussion quickly turns into an argument. Each project leader advocates for his or her project. The debate gets heated as the conversation goes around in circles, and each project manager decides to assign the limited resources to three projects. The project managers leave the meeting exhausted and frustrated.
What went wrong? The manager did not manage the decision making process effectively, and the meeting deteriorated into an advocacy mode. The project leaders viewed the meeting as a competition. They advocated for their positions without considering the needs of other departments or the company as a whole. In advocacy situations, people tend to offer only the information that supports their case and omit details that might weaken it. As a result, the discussion can quickly deteriorate into personal attacks, giving rise to negative emotions.
ACTION POINT: Create an open atmosphere of ideas for effective meetings.
To help your group generate creative solutions to problems and evaluate them critically, choose diverse settings for your meetings. Such settings might include conference rooms that you don’t typically work in, off-site locations, or a familiar location with the furniture rearranged to facilitate face-to-face discussion. When people are removed from traditional settings they tend to speak more freely because they feel less constrained by office hierarchies.
Consider the following scenario: A manager at a software development company has been charged with assigning limited resources to the firm’s current projects. The manager calls a meeting with all of the project leaders to discuss how the resources will be allocated. The discussion quickly turns into an argument. Each project leader advocates for his or her project. The debate gets heated as the conversation goes around in circles, and each project manager decides to assign the limited resources to three projects. The project managers leave the meeting exhausted and frustrated.
What went wrong? The manager did not manage the decision making process effectively, and the meeting deteriorated into an advocacy mode. The project leaders viewed the meeting as a competition. They advocated for their positions without considering the needs of other departments or the company as a whole. In advocacy situations, people tend to offer only the information that supports their case and omit details that might weaken it. As a result, the discussion can quickly deteriorate into personal attacks, giving rise to negative emotions.
ACTION POINT: Create an open atmosphere of ideas for effective meetings.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Selecting a Decision-Making Approach
The spectrum of group decision-making approaches includes four general types:
Once you’ve selected the participants, determine what decision-making approach you will take. The group you assemble needs to understand up front the process it will follow and how the final decision will be made. The spectrum of group decision-making approaches includes four general types:
Consensus. All team member meet together to discuss the proposal openly and strive to reach agreement, with everyone accepting the final decision.
Majority. The group votes and the majority rules. The team leader may elect to break a tie, if necessary.
Qualified consensus. The team tries to reach a collective agreement, but if it is unable to do so, the team agrees that the team leader makes the decision.
Directive leadership. The leader makes the decision and then informs the group of the decision that was made. A crisis or sudden unexpected emergency is a classic example of when this approach might be necessary.
These approaches, with the exception of directive leadership, vary in the extent that they empower the participants and create a sense of responsibility within the group. Be aware, however, that regardless of approach, when a group is trying to find areas agreement, it may avoid exploring minority viewpoints.
ACTION POINT: Encourage exploration of ideas, when faced with making a decision no matter what approach you will take to make the decision.
Once you’ve selected the participants, determine what decision-making approach you will take. The group you assemble needs to understand up front the process it will follow and how the final decision will be made. The spectrum of group decision-making approaches includes four general types:
Consensus. All team member meet together to discuss the proposal openly and strive to reach agreement, with everyone accepting the final decision.
Majority. The group votes and the majority rules. The team leader may elect to break a tie, if necessary.
Qualified consensus. The team tries to reach a collective agreement, but if it is unable to do so, the team agrees that the team leader makes the decision.
Directive leadership. The leader makes the decision and then informs the group of the decision that was made. A crisis or sudden unexpected emergency is a classic example of when this approach might be necessary.
These approaches, with the exception of directive leadership, vary in the extent that they empower the participants and create a sense of responsibility within the group. Be aware, however, that regardless of approach, when a group is trying to find areas agreement, it may avoid exploring minority viewpoints.
ACTION POINT: Encourage exploration of ideas, when faced with making a decision no matter what approach you will take to make the decision.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Making Decisions
We can think of the decision-making process as consisting of eight steps:
1. Setting the stage. You select participants and determine the approach you will take to reach a decision: will you aim for consensus or vote by majority? During the meetings, especially the earliest ones, you set the tone for the group by encouraging open dialogue and promoting healthy debate.
2. Recognize obstacles. Certain individual biases and group dynamics can be obstacles in the decision-making process. By predicting and recognizing these tendencies, you can take action to avoid them.
3. Framing the issue. A successful decision depends on a clear understanding of the issue at hand and its root cause(s).
4. Generating alternatives. After you’ve clarified the issue, you brainstorm and generate creative conflict to develop alternative courses of action and ways of proceeding.
5. Evaluate alternatives. Next, you assess the feasibility, risk, and ethical implications of each possible course of action.
6. Making a decision. You choose an alternative
7. Communicating the decision. You decide who should be notified of your decision, and communicate it effectively.
8. Implementing the decision. You determine what tasks will be required to put the decision into action, assign resources, and establish deadlines.
Throughout this eight-step process, you also continually assess your decision-making effectiveness and make changes as needed to improve it.
ACTION POINT: Use the eight step process to make effective decisions.
1. Setting the stage. You select participants and determine the approach you will take to reach a decision: will you aim for consensus or vote by majority? During the meetings, especially the earliest ones, you set the tone for the group by encouraging open dialogue and promoting healthy debate.
2. Recognize obstacles. Certain individual biases and group dynamics can be obstacles in the decision-making process. By predicting and recognizing these tendencies, you can take action to avoid them.
3. Framing the issue. A successful decision depends on a clear understanding of the issue at hand and its root cause(s).
4. Generating alternatives. After you’ve clarified the issue, you brainstorm and generate creative conflict to develop alternative courses of action and ways of proceeding.
5. Evaluate alternatives. Next, you assess the feasibility, risk, and ethical implications of each possible course of action.
6. Making a decision. You choose an alternative
7. Communicating the decision. You decide who should be notified of your decision, and communicate it effectively.
8. Implementing the decision. You determine what tasks will be required to put the decision into action, assign resources, and establish deadlines.
Throughout this eight-step process, you also continually assess your decision-making effectiveness and make changes as needed to improve it.
ACTION POINT: Use the eight step process to make effective decisions.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Decision Making As a Group Process
“Effective executives know that decision making has its own systemic process and its own clearly defined elements.” – Peter Drucker
Important decision, such as changing the strategic direction of a group or hiring a new manager, typically require time and input from many individuals and sources of information throughout an organization. Hence, decision making can more accurately be viewed as a group process.
Managers who recognize decision making as a group process increase their likelihood of making more effective decisions. Why? By taking time, they are able to identify and assess the issues associated with making the decision. By involving others, they weigh different perspectives and deepen the discussion. Perhaps most important, taking a process-driven approach is more likely to lead to broader acceptance of the decision—which in turn leads to more effective implementation.
ACTION POINT: Identify the group that can best help you make effective decisions.
Important decision, such as changing the strategic direction of a group or hiring a new manager, typically require time and input from many individuals and sources of information throughout an organization. Hence, decision making can more accurately be viewed as a group process.
Managers who recognize decision making as a group process increase their likelihood of making more effective decisions. Why? By taking time, they are able to identify and assess the issues associated with making the decision. By involving others, they weigh different perspectives and deepen the discussion. Perhaps most important, taking a process-driven approach is more likely to lead to broader acceptance of the decision—which in turn leads to more effective implementation.
ACTION POINT: Identify the group that can best help you make effective decisions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
