One important role for the leader of a strategic initiative is the Chief Decision Architect. A good decision is one that enhances the strategic initiative’s alignment and commitment.  Here is the guiding principle:  

Fast and effective decisions lead to fast and effective program execution.  

This simple principle implies:  

1. Decisions are a driver of performance. They involve decision makers and individuals who possess critical information.
2. After decisions are made, people need to support the implementation of the decision. They often do not support implementation because they neither understand the decision or participated in it.
3. There are consequences to implementing or failing to implement the decision. You are “standing at the crossroads” to use a blues-music metaphor.
4. Leaders should be concerned about the quality and timing of decisions
5. There are different types of decisions (because of the elements just listed) that require different decision making styles and tools
6. Categorizing the decisions into types provides a way to make decision making more efficient and effective.

Still with me? There are five types of decisions involving, as listed in the table. The practical rule for the leader is this: Understand the type of decision being made, and then select the appropriate blending of discussion and participatory style. 

 * Effective Consensus   

Definition of consensus:  All individuals agree to support the implementation of the decision, even if they do not agree with the decision.  

Implications of this definition: 1) You need to define the decision making team exactly, and have complete participation of each decision maker and 2) You need an un-ambiguous way to recognize that consensus has been achieved.  I prefer to use the “thumbs up” criterion. I want to see each person to show their fist with the thumb pointed up as an agreement that they will support the implementation.  

~~~  

Reasons why people like this tool:  

• It is compact. There is not a lot to remember.
• It reminds people of a commonsense idea: Some Decisions Require More Talk, Others Less
• It improves speed by eliminating unnecessary information sharing and unrealistic expectations about involvement
• It implies the situations where that teams can be productive and accountable
• It supports the principles and rules in the introductory paragraphs of this post

~~~  

Real-World Application  

Here is one example of how I have used this tool. I was coaching an IT advisory group composed of experts and stakeholders. The issues of advice versus policy arose. When could this group go ahead and implement their ideas, and when did it need to involve the organizations Managing Directors?  Neither group had the time (or the inclination) to be in constant contact with each other.  

I introduced this tool and explained that the Managing Directors would be the authority (“I” in the framework) and the advisory group would be the experts (the “we” in the framework).  Everyone agreed that this tool facilitated better performance by both groups.  

How do you think this tool can help you with your strategic initiatives?

Related Articles

• How to Manage Issues (leadingstrategicinitiatives.wordpress.com)

Please bookmark with your social media. It is noticed and appreicated!