II.22.2019 - Leadership & Decision-Making
Leaders today have a tendency to think that “taking the temperature” of their followers before making a decision or even having them participate in the decision-making process is a good thing. Sometimes it is, but not always. The pressure to be transparent and inclusive is understandable but, in the end, organizations are not democracies and employees, Boards, shareholders and the public expect leaders to, well, lead. That means decisions need to be made and the leaders of any organization — public, private or non-profit — are ultimately accountable for results.
There are four decision-making styles in the toolkit that help leaders keep their organizations viable and healthy relative to the mission, vision and values. Let’s explore how those decision styles work. Imagine that you have signed up for a year-long voyage aboard a 175-foot barkentine sailing ship, Wind Dancer, with 55 crew members. You are getting paid for your sailing skills and, as a marketing professional, to promote Captain Morgan’s rum in ports around the world. Captain Kerry Madison has over 20 years of sailing experience while working for the rum company and her online and 360° performance reviews consistently state that she is “…skilled, decisive and a swashbuckler’s dream to work for.”
Captain Madison and her crew were about 70 days into their journey when the Wind Dancer clipped a hidden reef off the northern KwaZulu Natal coast between Cape Vidal and Mozambique. Wind Dancer started taking on water. Madison had developed a friendly rapport with her crew during the past two months and had rarely raised her voice before this accident happened. With the ship listing to port, she started barking out orders using language that was clear, direct and laced with words that would have made Captain Quint from Jaws fame blush. She knew that she had to use command because her ship was in crisis and her orders were time sensitive. The crew was surprised to see and hear their Captain being so intense but they responded precisely and quickly to her every demand because they knew that this was not a drill and it was not a time for Madison to form a focus group. The crew repaired the Wind Dancer during the next two days and she remained on course while Captain Madison returned to her usual fun-loving demeanour.
The crew had mostly experienced their Captain in consultation mode as her preferred decision style. She had the ability to be friendly but direct while acquiring the information that she needed to keep her jolly crew focused and in great spirits. As an example, when the quartermaster reported that the ship’s stores were running low, she knew that she needed more facts to make an “informed” decision. This situation was less urgent than hitting the reef and she knew that using a command style was unnecessary plus it might alarm the crew. She consulted with the quartermaster to get the exact levels of remaining food, water and medical supplies and then she spoke with the cook to see if he had some ideas about how to stretch the food out with some creative meals. Rum was abundant so the cook suggested increasing the daily ration which, knowing the cook, he had already exceeded. But the point is that neither the cook nor the quartermaster expected to be included in Madison’s final decision about the rationing plan.
Captain Madison liked to use the consensus decision style to maintain the crew’s morale at a high level. She appreciated it when the right circumstances presented themselves so she could engage this style. The Wind Dancer was in the Caribbean now and approaching three islands with white sand beaches and dotted with small towns and inhabitants that appreciated visitors. Also, all three islands had plenty of food and water to provision the ship for the next leg of the voyage. The Captain wanted her crew to get some rest and she asked them to decide which island they would like to visit for the next week. It was their decision. Captain Madison had been to the three islands so she provided a snapshot of each of the island’s key features to her crew. Madison gave the crew three hours to make their decision. They made pitches to each other, formed small groups, made a list of group activities, compared their options and then they voted. They brought their decision to the Captain and with three cheers from the crew, Madison asked her navigator to plot the course. If Madison had vetoed the decision, she knew from previous experience that she would have led her crew in an exercise called, participative fascism. If she tried that approach, she knew that it’s unlikely that the crew would participate in a consensus process again and trust in her would be compromised. Leaders must always remember that trust is not a precondition in any relationship, it’s an outcome.
Finally, we have convenience as a decision style. The captain had been coaching her first officer for several months about the nuances of leadership and after discussing her high-level goals for the island visit with her protégé, she decided to let him organize all aspects of the weeklong hiatus. Her first officer was now in charge and accountable. Captain Madison retired to her cabin to enjoy some me-time and to develop her plan for a solo hike in the island’s mountains. She smiled to herself because the crew had picked her favourite island and she thanked the stars for her decision-making toolkit that served her so well.