To lead is to decide

Ideally, you could justify each decision to avoid arbitrariness. Analysis, reflection, consultation, information, meeting… are all means that can be implemented by the manager; depending on the circumstances and the importance of the stakes, to make the best possible decision. But, in most cases, even if the decision-making process has been collective, the decision remains a personal act.

 

Participatory, collaborative, or top-down

However, the manager can find it advantageous to involve his colleagues or collaborators in the decision-making process. This will be the case, for example, when adherence to a difficult decision is an essential criterion for success. What better way to motivate your employees than to involve them in the decisions that concern them! Especially since a decision that is not well received is often poorly executed.
In addition, the sharing of the decision, by making the partners solidarity in the choice made, contributes to a more effective implementation and considerably facilitates the communication of the decision.

The desire to participate is a common demand in companies. These tend to gradually integrate this trend because the modes of decision-making; based strictly on hierarchical power, respond less well than in the past to increasingly horizontal organizational structures.

However, sharing the choice means taking the risk of making the decision-making process more cumbersome, and the method must be used wisely. The manager’s first decision will therefore be to choose, depending on the circumstances, the right way to decide.

 

ADAPT your decision-making method

Adopting one decision-making method rather than another should not be left to chance.
“Deciding” on the decision-making method is an initial assumption of responsibility , the consequences of which can have a direct impact on the quality of the decision final. Once the choice has been made, the manager will not be able to go back if the method does not meet his expectations. With its credibility at stake, the choice of mode decision must be thought out and assumed itself.

Basically, the manager can follow two paths: to decide alone, possibly assisted by the advice of third parties, or to share the decision. It is clear that day-to-day decisions, without significant consequences, do not justify the mobilization of external assistance. But, if nothing obliges the manager to surround himself with the advice of third parties, not having done so could a posteriori be reproached if the decision turns out to be wrong. Caution should always be exercised. Sharing the decision gives the manager better control of the risk. To optimize the chances of success, he must still adopt among the various possible alternatives , the method most appropriate to the circumstances.

 

4 Decision-Making Methods: Which One Would Be Yours?

• Voting: Everyone has their say and the majority wins.
  Advantage: the method is fast and does not require the adhesion of all participants. Disadvantage: A number of participants may not be satisfied with the decision. The leader of the meeting himself risked being part of the lot…

 

• The average: If there is no unanimity, an intermediate solution is defined.
  The advantage is that no one rejects or accepts the initial proposals, and therefore no one is found to be at fault. Disadvantage: no one is satisfied for the same reasons. This is typically what is known as “soft consensus”. The support of the participants in the decision will be just as important…

 

• The expert’s voice: Depending on the topic at hand, a common trend is to let the most experienced person speak and align with their recommendation.
  Advantage: the argument is sharp. The disadvantage is that too much focus on strictly technical aspects risks being reductive and does not allow for the full complexity of the problem raised.

 

• Active Consensus
  Advantage: the objective is to ensure that all participants are involved in the decision in order to benefit from an implementation under optimal conditions. Disadvantage: consensual decision-making implies compliance with a strict methodology that makes it difficult to systematize its practice.

 

And always keep in mind the agility and flexibility required by changing contexts. In conclusion, it is possible and even recommended to re-evaluate the decision-making method with regularity!