Meta Decision Processes

Decision-making is just one process nested in a few other, equally critical processes. To be more precise, before we decide, we make a number of decisions about the decision. These meta-decision making processes are the most frequent source of decision failure. They often occur in a phrase, a glance, a word, the turn of a single sentence. Their subtle, fleeting nature is one reason they are so powerful. Without conscious reflection, we can easily slip into narrow, constraining approaches. But when exposed and treated more carefully, these early steps in decision making can lay the foundation for a richer, more robust awareness of the problem and the possible solutions.

Before we consider making a decision, we somehow came to believe that a decision was required, that a situation needed something more than description or reflection. Someone called for a decision, or suggested that it was inappropriate to take action until a decision has been made.

Most of the time we merely act, caught up in the flow of thoughts, events, and feelings. There is a smooth shift from one moment to the next. But sometimes we pause, aware that some thought is required to "pick the right path". In short, we stop to decide.

At a more concrete level, the decision definition may also identify the constraints or boundaries on the decision. Perhaps the decision has to respect a budget constraint or it must be acceptable to the Legal department. A common constraint will be time; the decision must be made “Today!” or by the end of the quarter.

Articulating these criteria for the choice can be critical to successful delegation. Managers often ask their subordinates to "come up with their best thought" without informing them of the boundaries that constrain their choices.

This process is often more obvious in its negative form: non-decision-making or decision avoidance. That is, there are identifiable group dynamics that actively undermine or suppress decision-making. Decision making may only occur when these mechanisms are somehow derailed or overwhelmed.

Some of the most common types of decision avoidance would be
• unreasonable risk aversion,
• extended analysis ("paralysis by analysis"),
• sustained confusion,
• over emphasis on broader participation, or
• demanding complete data in the face of irresolvable uncertainty.

Even when decisions have been made (and non-decision-making has been suppressed), they may not survive. Decisions can be ignored, reinterpreted, revisited interminably, or continually given such a low priority that they never get implemented. In short, the decision gets un-made.

One of the simplest un-decision-making mechanisms is to fail to capture the decisions made. Within 24 hours of the typical meeting, few people can recall what was decided. By the time a staff group meets again, they may have only the faintest memory of decisions reached. It is as if they were never made!

Another equally effective un-making mechanism is to communicate a decision only to a small, local group. By the time the decision reaches the attention of the larger community, it may be so vulnerable to a variety of constraints and complaints that it essentially evaporates. For example, a group of engineers might decide on a work-around to a bug in software they provide to a customer; when QA discovers that an untested version is planned for release, the decision is very likely to be un-made immediately.

Another excellent method for un-making a decision is to continually call for “revisiting” the choice. When decisions are always provisional and vulnerable to reconsideration in other forums, they are rendered impotent.

The net effect of these mechanisms is to suppress any decision-making. But they are active processes, not merely the absence of sound decision definition.

CRITICAL QUESTIONS: Do we really have to make a choice? What would happen if we did nothing? Are we confident that a deliberate choice will improve things?

One of the most important pre-decision actions is to posit a frame or model. Within a particular frame, some choices stand out as reasonable or viable, while others fade into the background. There is enormous influence in being able to frame a decision, even if you give away the authority to make the choice.

Imagine your boss informs you that the company has called for an across-the-board 5% reduction in costs. She asks that you go through your staff list and pick the employees that should be terminated. She emphasizes that "It's your decision; you know your people much better than I". In fact, your boss has framed the decision in such a way that your thinking may be severely constrained. She gets you started thinking in terms of downsizing, so the choice seems to be who to let go. But the original problem was unsustainable costs. Increased revenue or reductions in expenses other than firing people would be equally effective ... if you are allowed to think of those options. And if you take a longer view, firing staff may result in compromised work processes which could further erode customer service and resulting income.

Challenging how we represent the world to ourselves is often more important than exploring the options within a particular view. Unfortunately the process of defining our reality is much less visible than our navigation of the world we (choose to) see. Sometimes the first clue that we've unduely limited our thinking is the struggle to find a viable solution; if we cannot find a path forward, perhaps we're shining the light in the wrong corner.

CRITICAL QUESTIONS: Is there at least one viable and attractive choice given our current view of the situation? Consider 1 or 2 other perspectives that would suggest entirely different options.

Done well, decision definition not only names the circumstances that require a decision, it also suggests how a particular decision is related to the broader network of decisions already made or soon to be made. This network is the “habitat” within which the decision must fight for survival, much like the evolutionary struggle of individuals in an ecology. Any single decision could precipitate unintended consequences in the larger ecology of decisions made within the entire company. However reasonable it seemed when originally made, a single decision could become untenable when its implications become visible ... or when other incompatible decisions come to light.

A smaller decision may be dependent on some broader decision. For example, a departmental decision may be tied to a divisional decision. Or decisions may be sequenced because of the interdependence of operations, such that manufacturing decision can only be made after a design decision.

Decisions may be organized around a conceptual hierarchy that extends from visionary to strategic to operational to tactical. So operational decisions have to be (or should be) postponed until certain strategic distinctions have been made.

There may be a larger political context around a decision that invites other players to insert themselves into the process if they find the emerging decision objectionable. There may be prevailing political winds that favor some choices and negate others.

CRITICAL QUESTIONS: Are there other choice-makers considering this matter? Or related matters? Is there any group who might un-do a choice we make? Are there choices that would provoke others to insert themselves in the debate?

Before we jump into debating alternatives, good decision making requires some attention to how to proceed, what process we'll use to reach a decision. Who has the authority to make the decision? What is the appropriate decision rule? Consensus? Strong majority? Does someone have veto power?

Whatever the process selected, it will have to manage 3 key tensions in decision making:

• Analytical methods vs. Intuitive methods: There are facts to sift through, but there is also room for play, for considering half-assed ideas, for more associative thinking. Innovation seems to require a different side of the brain than does analysis.
• Inclusion vs. Speed: Bringing more players to the table will certainly support smoother implementation since it encourages ownership and buy-in. But it also invites more meetings, longer meetings, more conflict. If there is a time pressure, we often try to limit who can get involved to ensure timely closure. Unfortunately the time we save in making the decision is often lost in the longer time required for implementation.
• Divergent thinking vs. Convergent thinking: Innovation requires that we "think outside the box", exploring unusual perspectives or new ways of thinking. And coming to a decision means eventually winnowing down the options and settling on a single option. Typically a decision process may wax and wane between these two, opposing modes of thought.

There are some process options that are tantamount to un-decision-making. That is, some decision processes are doomed to failure. For example, if you fail to write down decisions, or don't assign some accountability for the implementation, then in all likelihood the decision will simply fade away.

Volumes have been written on good decision process design, but the main point is that process can be openly negotiated. We are not bound to the standard approach, or the process that we stumbled into without thinking.

CRITICAL QUESTIONS: Before we start debating options, how do we want to go about this task? What's the biggest challenge in this process that we should plan around? Where's the actual decision-making authority? What's our decision rule?