If victory is the destination, then the decision to undertake the journey has to be made, inevitably.
Decision making is about choosing between available alternatives. When choice is not available, it is a fait accompli, to face what must and will come. There are occasions, where through a series of wrong decisions one can find himself in a blind alley, with a dead end. So, if the dead end is the cliff, with no possibilities of retreat or retracing back the steps taken, then, there is no decision to be made; the act of perishing by stagnating is the only option; jumping off to the same result by plunging, into the ocean, isn’t a decision.
The fundamental task of any manager/leader is to make decisions. These range from the everyday mundane transactional decision making to determining the vision, direction and objectives of the institution.
The skill set required for any decision-making is dependent upon the “matter” that is to be decided upon, and also about the hierarchal level at which the decision has to be made. If it is the vision of the organisation, the decision on what it should be, is the direct responsibility of the board, duly assisted by the CEO. The decision-making about vision/mission is not delegatable; it has to rest with the board. But not all decision-making is non-delegatable.
While the decision to hire or fire staff at any level, can be delegated to the CEO and his/her team; the power to do so, must be enshrined in the HR policy document, which again must carry the board approval. The decision-making parameters are therefore essentially stated by the board, to the CEO and the team.
Decision to ‘take on’ the validity of status quo, is a trait all leaders and managers must possess, because it is single most devastating state/element for inaction, lethargy and efficiency. There is always general unwillingness to decide upon introducing a new way of thinking, relating to objectives, goals, systems, processes and mechanisms of transacting.
This attitude, in the rank and file of the organisation, must not be allowed to grow and flourish; it must be axed out of the psyche of the company. To use the now common catchy phrase of “thinking out of the box” has to replace the old mind set of do not tinker with what has been generally working good for last many decades. Not taking a decisive decision against such paralysis of mind, will lead to ultimate decay and demise of the entity.
Every decision taken has in its belly glory and failure; brave and skilful managers yet notwithstanding this inherent feature of decision-making, do not relent to keep marching forward.
A weak manager does not develop his own list of options, instead he chooses between alternatives put forward by others. In the recent post-war history, Charles de Gualle stands out as a great leader, who came to be recognised as a decisive decision maker, based on his very strong convictions. Richard Nixon says about him, “others made great contributions than de Gualle, but few had his strength of character. He was stubborn, wilful, supremely self-confident, a man of enormous ego and yet at the same time enormously selfless. He was demanding not for himself but for France.
He lived simply but dreamed grandly. He acted a part, playing a role he himself created in a way that fit only one actor. Even more, he fashioned himself so that he could play it. (Decisions made by him. I remind readers, here, the options were written by him, not given to him, to choose and decide from!). He created de Gaulle, the public person to play the role of de-Gaulle, personification of France”. This same person decided that he be buried in a seventy two dollar oak coffin casket and he pre-wrote his tombstone, that reads, Just, “Charles de Gualle, 1890-1970”.
Letting down empty buckets into empty wells is no way to acquire skills in decision-making. There has to be action. The exercise of a choice between anchoring and navigating the vessel through turbulent storm, is decision-making. In placid conditions, decision-making ability is hardly ever tested. Decision-making’s requisite is courage to stand up and speak, just as much as it is to sit down and listen to opinion of others. There is no futures market for decision making; it has to be made; even letting sleeping dogs lie is a decision taken!
Decision is one which leads to action. Decision has to have acceptability, therefore managers must include the relevant stakeholders to arrive at a conclusive decision. A manager’s test in decision-making is to accept its consequences, without losing heart, if it is failure.
Several times a manager has to without compelling or empirical evidence of facts and figures rely upon his gut and intuition to decide between available options. It is a good habit to remain in communication with the inner-man, before taking absolute decision. The inner man mostly is free of impurities, hence decides on best merits.
In decision-making it is also critically important to feel, look and exude confidence-the team will have faith to pursue action, if they find managers taking decisions with confidence.
If decisions can be delegated, they must be so done; there is never a room for cowardice in decision-making. It is such a popular thought mentioned in management books, that it is best to try and fail, instead of being in a perpetual state of suspended unawareness or even unsureness. For indeed, decision-making is not a problem, but a solution to existing or future problems. To see and know what action needs to be taken, and yet if there is no movement taking place it is a sign, a reflection of lack of courage to decide.
Napoleon and Hitler, who were almost a century apart, took the fatal decision, between attacking Moscow in summer or in Winters- both to their peril, chose winter. Both perished due to one critical decision. That decision was wrong.
If their decision would have been otherwise, the world history too, would have been otherwise.
It is inconceivable to even imagine a leader/ manager who is not decisive. Followers look to their leaders for decisive instructions, not directives that are loaded with “ifs” and “buts”, the choice has to be clear. Indecisiveness would mean a nightmare- if Churchill instead of saying, we will fight on the beaches, we will fight in the streets, etc; were to say, we may if you want or like, fight on the beaches….. it would have left everybody, soldiers and civilians alike, with deathly de-motivation. Indecisiveness is reflection of lack of confidence of the leader.
Napoleon had said, “nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious than to be able to decide”. A related French proverb reads, “between two stools, one sits on the ground”. Said in a lighter note, about indecisiveness, is a Madgascarian saying, “indecision is like a step child: if he doesn’t wash his hands, he is called dirty; if he does, he is wasting water”.
Where bad is the best, don’t hesitate, choose the bad. A door must either be shut or open; nobody can have it both ways. Do not become a corporate infidel due to hesitation, just as in the Turkish folklore, where a believer couldn’t decide between two mosques, and was thus labelled infidel.
It is a misfortune to work alongside a habitual indecisive manager. Of this class, one must remain alert and watch-out for upward delegation of decision-making, this is usually done by managers, who fret and shrink in taking any responsibility for the results of a decision. So they kick the decision-making upstairs!
Decisiveness is not always the art of timely cruelty; it actually is recognition by a leader, that if untying is impossible or undo-able, the knot must be cut. Effective decision-making requires complete divorce from suggestions and insinuations. Decision-making must bring order, not disorder.