Create Better Decisions: Whose Decision Is It?
As clients meet with me to discuss leadership, inevitably the
conversation turns to decision-making. Making decisions is one
of the most taxing job responsibilities that leaders have. In my
experience, leaders suffer more than they should because they
make too many decisions. Too often, they fail to ask, "Whose
decision is it?" or "Who is the decider?"
When leaders take the burden of responsibility too far, they
either want to protect others from making tough decisions or
they want to extend their power. The result is often poor
decision-making because these leaders do not have sufficient
information. And the team members who should have made the
decision do not gain valuable experience. Instead of adhering to
the old Harry S. Truman adage, "The buck stops here," these
leaders should do a better job of clarifying job
responsibilities, trusting their team members to make good
decisions, and then holding them accountable.
Lord Carrington, whom I knew for a brief time, was minister of
the British Defense Department during the Falkland Islands war.
The war was launched because of a mistake a radio operator made
on one of the frigates out at sea. Lord Carrington was obligated
via ministerial responsibility (the British version of "The buck
stops here") to resign. After all, if he was doing his job, all
those under his command must be doing their jobs, too, no matter
how far removed--including the radio operator. This practice is
outdated, in part, because it takes accountability away from the
person who is directly responsible. And it results in leaders
who are either too controlling or unjustly blamed for the bad
decisions of others. "Perhaps you can help me with a problem I'm
having, Gary," Todd, President of one of the largest financial
services company on the east coast, said as we sat down to
coffee. "I have this woman who works for me. She's grown her
department by thirty percent in the last year. But she hasn't
been showing up at the weekly executive meetings even when she's
in the office. Her boss thinks everything's fine and keeps
citing the thirty-percent figure, but the competition in that
industry segment is scoring even higher. Plus, her department is
the doorway into my company for many customers." I asked Todd
what exactly the problem was. He said, "Her!"
I asked, "Are you sure?" He looked at me quizzically. "You're
saying the problem lies with me?" I asked him whom she reported
to. He said, "She reports to Dave." I then asked, "So whose
problem is it?" Begrudgingly, he said, "Dave's." We then
investigated why he thought it was his problem to begin with.
This employee did not show up for Dave's meeting, but since it
was Todd's company and he had heard complaints, he felt it
reflected badly on him. Since I don't have an emotional
investment, it was easier for me to see who was the decider here
than it was for Todd. And, since Dave is invested in this woman
in many ways that Todd is not, Todd might be able to supply some
perspective to Dave that he is currently missing.
As a leader, Todd shouldn't ignore the fact that he had heard
complaints about this particular employee. Instead, he must hold
Dave accountable for his people. Once Dave is alerted to the
issue, it is no longer Todd's issue. If Dave fails to act,
however, then Todd must confront a new issue: Dave's failure to
manage his team members.
Since Todd is impacted by the failure of the employee to attend
his meeting, I suggested a strategy that helps set clear
boundaries. I encouraged him to cancel the next meeting if one
or more people did not attend. I find it hard to employ shaming
tactics, but, at the same time, they can be extremely effective.
In this case, the message would be loud and clear: everyone's
participation is critical to the process. And, based upon my
experience, I doubt Dave would have to cancel more than one
meeting.
Employee empowerment begins with leaders asking themselves four
words over and over: "Whose decision is it?"