Decision-making loneliness

The aircraft is reaching the planned altitude, the comrades are ready, behind me. All the preparation steps rapidly scroll in my mind: I remember by heart all the folds of the parachute, the release mechanism, the spare parachute... the altimeter marks the right altitude, helmet well fastened, glasses ok .... everything is ready. The tailgate opens and the adrenaline skyrockets: it is always like this, it never disappears. Something can go wrong, but the preparation was perfect, as always... yet that little part of my subconscious keeps me on board... I'll think about it for a moment... then, as always, I decide: last adrenaline rush and I launch. I don't even remember how many people asked me not to do it anymore, including parents, relatives and friends, but I can't do without it. It is still a decision, a selfish thread if we want: it is true that life is mine and I do with it what I want, but if something goes wrong, how many people will cry to me?

All in all, deciding to practice extreme disciplines is much more personal than when you have to make a breakthrough for the good of the company. The larger the organization, the more decisions will fall on a large portion of colleagues and their families. Maybe I don't risk my life, but are we sure that making wide-ranging decisions is less exciting?

Decision-making: shared or imposed

When everything is going well and you have the time to plan the individual phases of a project, making the right decisions is easier, especially if the team is well organized with all the skills on board and the database is clear and exhaustive. When the time comes, the decision can simply be made by an absolute or relative majority, for example by assigning a different weight depending on who votes. In this case the weight of any negative side effects is shared and it hurts less.

Sometimes it happens that the process cannot take place so linearly: either because of the specificity of the topic covered or because of some boundary conditions that cannot be disclosed within the working group, or even by extension of similar decisions previously taken elsewhere and extended without a real involvement or consensus. Despite knowing that the decision we are going to "impose" is the best possible, it happens that we cannot fully explain and reveal them. An example above all: the business unit decides to relocate and then the factory will be finished after 20 years: all managers sign an NDA. On the other hand, the decision to increase the stock to cover the production void due to the transfer is mandatory but not revealable, at least temporarily, therefore imposed: how to explain at the base such a sudden increase in production in a conditions of stable orders? Yes, unpleasant situation, certainly to be avoided as much as possible.

Lack and Inefficiency Decision Making

The number one rule of kaizen, or continuous improvement, is that there will never be improvement if things never change. Any changes must therefore be discussed and decided; it goes without saying that the undecided people are against improvement and should be avoided for the good of the company. It is important, during the interview, to understand if the candidate has the decision-making attitude, not only if the resource is expected to grow: a person who is comfortable in actively discussing or making decisions is certainly an element of added value for the organization. We would never want to be told: “... you decide, it's always good for me...".

Given that decisions are taken in the company, preferably quickly, the problem arises of their correctness, or at least of the minimum percentage of wrong decisions that a company can afford; this percentage is around 10% in medium-sized companies. What I would like to say is that very often, even in the face of wrong or at least questionable decisions, changes are triggered and, sooner or later, they will offer opportunities for improvement.

Who really decides?

When everything is going well and you have the time to plan the individual phases of a project, making decisions is relatively easy. But even in group work, when many argue, someone exposes data, few advise strategies, in the end the last word is up to the boss: unless the decision-making process takes place by majority. However, it is difficult for me to think that a decision is made when the "boss" does not agree or fully convinced. I use the term boss because the procedures, typically written, such as approval of purchase plans, investments, hiring, organizational changes and so on requires the signature of the highest degree who blesses the previous decision-making work. The final signature is nothing more than the endorsement, the moment in which those who are really in charge must concentrate, take the time necessary for a final analysis, the last considerations, a last-minute phone call to double check on some detail .... When I sign to validate a decision, I like to isolate myself: I am gratified by the feeling of being able to feel alone and creator of a change, often an improvement.

It's the only solitude I like.

EffBee