The Art of Decision Making - Culture meets Concept

Decision Making

Decision Making in Leadership is a contentious topic. It is a perfect melting pot where culture clashes with concepts. Misconceptions and distrust breed; frustrations and demotivation are seeded and nurtured. Slowed progress, huge prices were paid, and no one was held accountable. All unintentionally. Sadly, this is the case.

In my experience of 20+ years in IT Delivery working across multiple cultures spanning Asia-Pacific (India, Singapore, Australia) and Pan Europe (such as Western Europe, Bulgaria, Poland) and remote working with managers and consultants in the Americas, I have noticed an overemphasis and stickiness to culture. This means people either pride themselves or doesn't let go of the possible downsides of cultural-based decision-making instead of considering being open-minded and aware in embracing a broader spectrum of available tools and techniques and, more importantly, trusting individuals' own experiences and learnings.?

Culture in decision making

In this context, culture refers to traditions of thought and behaviour transmitted across generations and (imperfectly) shared in communities - which, in my view, play an active role in decision-making. A situation's interpretation and subsequent behaviour ultimately determine how you react to it.?Isn't?

In this narrative, I describe my personal experiences working with multiple cultures and how I have seen decisions made (or not made). My thoughts on contextualizing and adapting different decision-making styles regardless of culture. How can we achieve harmony and wide acceptance by embracing the values of every culture? Eventually, it's about balancing both. It's not just about culture nor just about techniques.

I am quoting an example, once when I talked to a colleague who had extensive experience working with Japanese clients. She claimed that working with American colleagues was always confusing as they consider themselves democratic while the Japanese are hierarchical. Yet numerous decisions were taken top-down by American Management. I am sure this culture seems contradictory and puzzling for most of us who don't dwell more profound into the equation.

Talking with first-hand experience, the Dutch are famous for being?Consensus-based, getting everyone at the table to agree and decide. This cultural (bias) is becoming a cliché. A real showstopper for fast progress and quick outcomes. Does this mean people are afraid to take ownership? What if something goes wrong? Let's make everyone responsible. Of course not! That's not the ideology. There is something more beautiful to this culture deeply rooted in the Dutch (and in The Netherlands). And we (considering I have lived more than half my professional life here) are proud.?

Spoiler alerts of what's coming. If you want to make decisions about building and maintaining the world's best and most advanced water management system known to humanity, something as big and critical as it can get, use this style (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_model ). The proof is that it's still standing and is saving millions of lives every second as we speak. It's a marvel of engineering and collaboration. But if you want to organize a team event, no! You will only have one next year or maybe never as someone will think it's a waste of time, money or both. There is another decision-making style to do this. Read on.

Just separated by a few hundred kilometres – Hague to Berlin, Germany, follows a more blended approach to decision making (or in a broader sense of leadership). They include the right people (carefully selected), let them participate, seek input, and weigh the risks and possible blind spots. After carefully considering all inputs, eventually, a select group of people or an individual decides. It may seem top-down. To me, yes, it is, but then a more informed one with much better risk awareness and accountability.

If you were so far with me, you would have noticed some jargon I threw in this narrative –?democratic,?hierarchical?(top-down),?Consensus-based,?participate.

Now is the time for those who already know what is coming next; you can logically complete this read and continue practising a blended approach based on the context where culture meets the concept. Good Luck. And I hope to see you in my next blog.

And for those wondering what I am talking about, read on.

Let's Dive Deep into my personal experiences and some general situations (to make things more succinct)

The factors that I typically consider are - by when we need to make a decision and what are the potential consequences. I propose the following, considering both aspects and the third dimension of culture.

When?time is an essence and impact is high?- a server crashing (in IT), there is a car coming in front of you (in your life), please, and I say please because it can be a life/cost saver - wherever you are, whatever culture you embrace, don't ask your co-passengers if you should go left or right. You have the steering wheel, so decide and turn. And be proud of this decision that you have made. This is -?Autocratic, top-down decision-making?is a perfect choice in these similar circumstances. As a leader, it's on our shoulders to take such decisions with confidence and clarity. And also our responsibility to empower our workforce to make such decisions. Top-down doesn't necessarily have to be seen in a negative connotation that Top Management has decided in some instances. However, it is also an empowering thought that every Leader and individual Staff can employ in their day-to-day activities to decide when time is essential, and the impact could be huge. Managers could enable this at all levels. And the staff could embrace such decisions when carefully communicated by top management.

When time is not so much of an essence, and the impact could be medium to high and with potential risks (of the decision having undesirable consequences) -?Follow what the Germans do. Sharing my experience, I once had to hire a Product Owner for my team, and this position will directly report to me. My peer and I (the interview panel) interviewed multiple candidates and narrowed it down to 2. I know that this person will work at an operational level more closely with my teams and with me more at a Business Value and Strategic level. I asked my team to talk to the two candidates I had shortlisted. And eventually, after receiving feedback from the group, I decided to hire the team's 2nd choice. My manager then challenged me (she was coming from a consensus-based decision-making culture and mindset) - as to why I was doing what I was doing and that I should have gone with the team's choice.

The decision here is mine to make as my peer, and I was on the interview panel. However, I engaged in a?participatory?style to collect feedback from my team on possible blind spots I missed. I carefully weighed all feedback and potential risks that the group had highlighted. Eventually, I decided what was best for both the team and the department (in this case, working through all levels, operational, business and strategy). Enough Said. Moving on to the next.

When you want to set a deadline and move on, and impact is medium?- Ask people to vote and decide on the majority. Don't decide for yourself as a head of a department how you want to redesign the new agile workspace or where you want to go out for the next team event. Ask your team, ask them to vote, and decide based on the majority. In this case, not all will be happy, but these are not the most critical things that will continue to haunt or demotivate the unhappy ones. They will move on, the happy ones are happy, and we will get things done without dragging them into a never-ending loop of discussions. This style is about taking votes. That's what happens in a?democracy.

We are almost there - and I appreciate your time and attention to this narrative - it's like the LIKE, DISLIKE, SUBSCRIBE, and Leave your FEEDBACK moment in a YouTube video - no, I am kidding!

When we have to make huge decisions, high-impact ones (cross-functional) and time are not an essence -?Do what the Dutch do! Have you ever encountered a situation where you wanted to redesign a Customer portal, identify all your key stakeholders - such as business, customer-facing, IT, ops, Infra and then decide with buy-in? Creating a Vision statement for your organization, department, or team - taking everyone into account and?building a consensus. These are big and need deliberation, input, and agreement. The same goes for a new product choice, and the list goes on and also includes my spoiler about the Dykes. And yes, as Dutch, we are proud of this style (I realize I am saying it for the second time now :-))

A thin line between Styles

Sharing my personal experience – Staff Development is one of the critical topics for a leader and involves multiple aspects of engagement and decision making. When we operate with awareness and genuine intent, it is always a type of consensus between 2 parties – both agree - the recipient agrees and buys into the development plan. The provider commits to enabling and supporting. Whereas I sometimes distinguish staff development from discussions I have with my staff when I need their support to help solve some challenging topics. In such cases, it's a?participative?engagement, where I put forth my need, and my staff usually respond with a yes, no or maybe.

Sometimes, the team might not be fully motivated to pick up the challenge/my ask for various reasons. As leaders, we should assess every feedback we receive from our staff as a potential risk in achieving the desired result. And also the possible impact it might have on the staff's motivation levels). And engage in participative discussion and ultimately decide to assign or not assign the staff. And it is based on the broader organizational need and the risks that have emerged from the participative discussion. This mix of decision-making styles based on context and feedback will add another value to the mix of building high-performance teams and constantly raising the bar. I was amazed to see the connection between decision-making, open communication, and building high-performance teams. And I am also amazed that they can fall off the cliff when we do simple things wrong!

Lastly, The Grey Area

Surprise! Surprise! No one size fits all, and at the same time, no one style fits any given situation. There is always a grey area (See Image below). That is the natural playground for you as a leader, the make-or-break zone, the size of debate and constant exploration and learning. The blocks of different decision-making styles expand into the grey area and each other based on your ability to work in a complex environment, openness to feedback, and cultural awareness. Eventually, they will grow you into a near-perfect decision-maker and a leader.

Conclusion

No Style is terrible. No cultural adaptation of decision-making and leadership should be over-emphasized (we be overtly sticky) or looked down upon (we narrow the options and limit ourselves to better ways). Open-mindedness, contextualizing, awareness, continuous education, and embracing a modern outlook on leadership and especially decision-making in the best of both worlds - culture and concept - is the way to go.

It's not as simple as it sounds. Because it's cultural and deeply rooted, it's a never-ending exploration. Good Luck.

Homework

Try plotting your graph like the above and comparing it against mine. I am sure there will be differences and uniqueness in your chart! And if you are willing to share it with me, I am up for collaborative exploration and a joint learning journey.?

Feedback

Otherwise, Please leave your comments and feedback.