It is a seven-stage model, and was originally designed for use in groups and organisations. However, there is no reason why you cannot use the same method, or a simplified form, for decisions at home. For leaders looking to become better delegators, it’s not a question of choosing between a style that is “hands-on” or “hands-off,” or between one that is “controlling” or “empowering.” There’s a balance to be struck. Root out micromanagers who are both hands-on and controlling, as well as “helicopter autocrats” who are hands-off and controlling, occasionally swooping in, barking orders, and disappearing again. But the laissez-faire executive—generally too hands-off, delegating but leaving those with the responsibility too much to their own devices (sometimes with disastrous results)—is also a danger. The ideal in our experience are hands-on and delegating leaders who coach, challenge, and inspire their reports, are there to help those who need help, and stay well clear of actually making the decision.
Including the right people is critical to both getting the right answer to the decision, but also making sure the decision sticks once it is made. The best thing about building your core decision-making skills is that they can be applied to anything. The situation, company, and team you’re working with might be wildly different, but the elements of coming to the best decision decision making framework will stay the same. It’s slightly more lightweight than the S.P.A.D.E framework, which makes it a good option for reversible decisions. However, by putting the focus on team collaboration, it can also be used for large decisions where you want more input and consensus as possible. Some hard decisions require consensus (rather than an all-powerful decision-maker).
After the decision: Seek commitment, not unanimous agreement
Delegated decisions are generally far narrower in scope than big-bet decisions or cross-cutting ones. They are frequent and relatively routine elements of https://www.bookstime.com/services day-to-day management. But given the multiplier effect, there is a lot of value at stake here, and when the organization’s approach is flawed it’s costly.
The purpose of the meetings morphed into information sharing and unstructured debate, which stymied productive action (Exhibit 4). Of the four decision categories we identified two years ago, three matter most to senior leaders. Big-bet decisions (such as a possible acquisition) are infrequent but high risk and have the potential to shape the future of the company; these are generally the domain of the top team and the board.
Dynamic Decision-Making
Good decisions foster growth, push products further, and show your team (and stakeholders) you’re in control. While bad decisions cause setbacks, carve up your carefully crafted product plan, and can even demolish morale beyond repair. Honing your decision-making skills may take time, but you’ll reap the rewards of higher productivity and a more balanced perspective. Weighing your options will become easier, and you won’t waste as much time and effort on every decision. One or several widely used models can be your basis for making business choices.