Oh Gosh, If Only We’d Thought of it Sooner!

You may remember back in the early 2000s (yes, I’m that old), Nokia was the most well-known name in cell phones. In fact, they were the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world. They invented the GSM mobile protocol —still the standard protocol for cellular telecommunications today. For Finland, Nokia represented 5% of the country’s GDP!

But, when smart phones emerged, led by the iPhone, Nokia phones began to lose market share. This seemed bizarre because on its face, the first iPhone was a far inferior product to the 2006 model of Nokia phone. But the iPhone signaled a shift in the mobile phone context —away from telecommunications excellence and to computing and user-interface focus. Nokia wouldn’t even acknowledge that iPhone was an actual competitor.

In 2006, Nokia compounded its downward trajectory when its new CEO chose to invest heavily in mass manufacturing rather than innovation. That change in emphasis further undermined Nokia’s ability to rise to the occasion. Then, in 2010, a new CEO recognized that their Symbian platform was inadequate. He tried to pivot, partnering with Microsoft on a new phone with a Microsoft operating system. But, the ship had sailed.

In 2013 Nokia was near bankruptcy. So, when in 2014 they sold out to Microsoft, it was not surprising.

During the years that Nokia was observing the erosion of their apex position, they certainly had sufficient data to make a strategic decision. Once Android and iOS emerged as front runners in the mobile software race, Nokia could have pivoted from their own Symbian platform and begun manufacturing a phone for Android. They didn’t.

We don’t have records of the conversations the Nokia leaders had with each other, but the result is clear. Making no decision was a a decision. It was a decision to let the market and the competition decide their fate.

For the last two editions of the newsletter we’ve talked about those cognitive and psychological barriers to decision-making. Sometimes, it’s fear of making the wrong decision; or a belief that we need more information. But often, in organizations, the real fear is of being the one responsible for a consequential decision. It’s both easier and politically safer to stall and let someone else take the tough decision. But, as in every decision, the cost of delay is usually opportunity.

So what is the compensation for delaying a decision of this magnitude? For a CEO and the executives at Nokia to delay decision-making for so long—despite a clear crisis—they must have seen significant downside to making a decision.

One of the competing pressures in all of us is our desire for social approval. In the case of a company like Nokia— essentially a national treasure—social approval may have been a big factor. By making a decision that would have significantly altered Nokia’s standing, the leaders ran the risk of losing that social approval. Research shows that this can be an extremely strong influence on whether we make decisions or not.

In fact, there is a specific pattern that emerges called “escalating indecision” in which there is lots of activity and discussion, but no final decision or action ever taken. I imagine we are all familiar with this. We might call it “passing the buck”. But, when it happens at the top of an organization, it’s more like “passing the buck around and around”. The decision becomes like a hot potato. No one wants to get stuck with it.

There is no simple remedy to this kind of indecision because it isn’t an individual phenomenon. It happens at the level of the group. So, if you find yourself on a leadership team, or in a group in which the decision becomes a hot potato, how could you interrupt the inertia?

There are a few possible aids, but they can only work if there is some determination made within the group that the indecision is costly. So, recontextualizing the situation may be the most effective approach:

• Reframe the decision as an action plan to prevent the damage arising out of allowing a situation to continue. In other words, instead of looking at it as a new decision, look at it as a damage control mission,
• Another possible reframe is to create an opportunity context. Now, it is no longer a decision of how to handle a crisis, but a plan for how to seize an opportunity.

Both of these frames address the two major obstacles to decision making: losing social favor and being responsible for a potentially bad outcome.

Ultimately, neither will work without at least one person on the team identifying the indecision spiral and committing to changing it. Of course, the one to do that is you.

Decision-making is a complex activity and can benefit from tools, frameworks and expert coaching and facilitation. If you are committed to raising the level of decision-making excellence in your organization, schedule a call with me about how Beyond Better Coaching-as-a-Service can help.