I think your distinction between making a decision and making it portable is particularly important.
I wonder whether part of the exhaustion also comes from the coordination architecture through which decisions must travel. Even a well-reasoned, clearly communicated decision can lose its intent as it crosses organizational boundaries, responsibilities, and competing priorities.
Perhaps the challenge extends beyond making decisions portable to making the organization capable of carrying them through to their intended effect.
That raises another question: how do we know when a decision has actually achieved what it was meant to accomplish, rather than simply being implemented?
Indeed, you raise a great point. I think decisions need to have success defined individually. There is of course implementation but I think the legacy you leave the trust you build or destroy with every decision tells you whether it’s successful. Outcomes alone are ever enough because people are involved. You can implement a decisions in different ways. It’s the how you do something and why you choose to do it that way that matters I believe. This is what I’ve been writing about in my new book Decisions That Carry, would love to know what you think.
I'm brought in as a freelancer to many companies to work on leadership. Admittedly, my field of endeavour isn't strategy/business development/change management, wherein decision-making architectures and strategies are in play.
However, what you raise - the possibility that positive outcomes on all levels are directly affected by the number of decisions we're forced to make - felt profound. I never hear this spoken about when leaders tell me about their companies' problems. Yes, they speak of flattening the hierarchy or being faster, but that's usually based in operations and not in an actual PHILOSOPHY relate to the COST of a decision.
Very interesting Fiona. And I sense it IS related to my field of relational skill, self-development and how leaders respond to challenge and opportunity. Thank you for the stimulation and insight.
Thanks for thinking of me along with me. I am just saying what perhaps doesn’t get said because it sounds strange out loud. Politics is alive and well too.
I agree, Fiona. A decision can achieve its intended outcome while weakening the trust and cooperation needed for future success. How a decision is carried out matters as much as what it accomplishes. I look forward to reading more about this in your book.
I think your distinction between making a decision and making it portable is particularly important.
I wonder whether part of the exhaustion also comes from the coordination architecture through which decisions must travel. Even a well-reasoned, clearly communicated decision can lose its intent as it crosses organizational boundaries, responsibilities, and competing priorities.
Perhaps the challenge extends beyond making decisions portable to making the organization capable of carrying them through to their intended effect.
That raises another question: how do we know when a decision has actually achieved what it was meant to accomplish, rather than simply being implemented?
Indeed, you raise a great point. I think decisions need to have success defined individually. There is of course implementation but I think the legacy you leave the trust you build or destroy with every decision tells you whether it’s successful. Outcomes alone are ever enough because people are involved. You can implement a decisions in different ways. It’s the how you do something and why you choose to do it that way that matters I believe. This is what I’ve been writing about in my new book Decisions That Carry, would love to know what you think.
I'm brought in as a freelancer to many companies to work on leadership. Admittedly, my field of endeavour isn't strategy/business development/change management, wherein decision-making architectures and strategies are in play.
However, what you raise - the possibility that positive outcomes on all levels are directly affected by the number of decisions we're forced to make - felt profound. I never hear this spoken about when leaders tell me about their companies' problems. Yes, they speak of flattening the hierarchy or being faster, but that's usually based in operations and not in an actual PHILOSOPHY relate to the COST of a decision.
Very interesting Fiona. And I sense it IS related to my field of relational skill, self-development and how leaders respond to challenge and opportunity. Thank you for the stimulation and insight.
Thanks for thinking of me along with me. I am just saying what perhaps doesn’t get said because it sounds strange out loud. Politics is alive and well too.
Indeed. It's worth taking care with respect to that.
I agree, Fiona. A decision can achieve its intended outcome while weakening the trust and cooperation needed for future success. How a decision is carried out matters as much as what it accomplishes. I look forward to reading more about this in your book.