Some time back I was part of a leadership assessment for 20
young professionals of an organisation in the experience range of 8-12 years.
They were all accomplished engineers, consistent best performers and were
shortlisted from 200 probable candidates. It was like performing a second
assessment test on those who already cracked the IIT or IIM entrance exams and
won their admission on merits. Common sense logic would suggest that if these
are already the chosen few brilliant professionals a further assessment is of
little use. Unfortunately life is testing us repeatedly almost every day
against new standards.
Coming back to the context of the leadership assessment, one
dimension on which majority of these brilliant professionals scored very low
was being ‘decisive’. This puzzled me a bit as some of these people I knew for quite
some time and they were highly appreciated within the organization and by the
clients. Therefore, I did not want to believe the test scores without further
validation. I held personal meetings with these professionals and checked if
this finding is in fact true in their real professional context. All those who
had low scores on being ‘decisive’ agreed that they indeed make few decisions
at work. When I checked whether they make decisions in their personal lives all
of them said they do make decisions quite frequently and often quickly. That
appeared a paradox.
Why do mid level managers in organisations hesitate to take decisions?
a. In
some organizations decisions are taken at significantly higher levels and hence
the mid level managers have fewer opportunities to take decision. The
authorization protocol would clearly indicate a few senior positions to say YES
or NO. The rest of the organisation can make proposals, recommendations or
present data.
b. It
could also be that in some organisations the decision support systems and
critical data do not flow to the mid and lower levels. A publicly listed
company shares a lot of data with the public, some of them before the event and
many of them post facto. However, even in such companies most of the mid level
managers get to know much of such information along with the public and seldom
ahead of them, notwithstanding the grapevine. Unlisted companies may not be any
better.
c. Many
companies promote a ‘first time right’ policy which prohibits anyone to attempt
a possible decision with some probability of failure. Mid managers dread
failure and they delegate all decisions upward. Risk mitigation and compliance
orientation drive organisations to restrict decision levels.
d. Often decision making in companies involve
multiple rounds of consultations and the more the number of people involved the
longer the decision cycle. Therefore, mid managers who want a quick decision jump
the queue and go straight to the top boss or his trusted lieutenant so that he
gets a decision fast and he is not accountable for any negative consequences.
Cool and nice!
e. Performance
appraisals often tend to showcase ‘what is done’ or an ‘activity list’ rather
than how one’s decisions impacted positive outcomes. Outcomes could be
intangible and not always instant. Hence, most employees stay in ‘activity-obsession’.
People seen as ‘doing things’ and ‘available’ are appreciated better and rated
higher.
The paradox vanishes. Decisions in private life often
involve fewer people, fewer rules and the reward or punishment accrues to
oneself. In movies we like action heroes. In organizations those who take
decisions often travel to the top faster. It would be in the interest of the
managers to climb the decision tree regardless of the organisational
environment. Taking decisions is taking risks and being accountable. Good
decisions demand thinking and choosing from competing or even friendly options.
Organisations take time to change; individuals can choose a fast track.
“Whenever you see a successful
business, someone once made a courageous decision.” - Peter F. Drucker
