Decision-Making Archetypes: By design or default?
If we could make decisions in a vacuum, we’d do it perfectly each time and always get the answer right. Imagine not having pressure to make a decision quickly, or always having all the right information and input from the right people for any decision.
Wait, we live in the real world. Decisions are made in the context of interpersonal dynamics, with the pressure of deadlines, and with human emotions such as fear.
The closest we can get to a vacuum is by looking at things from a theoretical perspective and then seeing what patterns we can identify in our own teams. There are 3 core decision-making archetypes common to mission-driven organizations:
Decision by committee
Siloed
Leader Bottleneck
Decision by Committee
This is a classic decision-making process within mission-driven organizations, and it is easy to see why it develops. Often in mission-driven organizations, there is a desire for inclusivity in work, and bringing people into the decision-making process is the way that is done. In some organizations, this process functions like a well-oiled machine with clear membership to committees, and clear frameworks for decision making. Done in this way, it can foster important dialog, empower voices from across the organization and develop the next generation of leaders within an organization.
But remember, we live in the real world. While I have seen examples of this done well, more often I have seen this model overused to the point of extreme ineffectiveness. The challenges of this approach are when it is used:
For every single decision, even those that could easily be made by a single person
Without a structured framework for how to make decisions effectively in a group
Without a clear communication structure so individuals are aware of what decisions are being made and why
What it boils down to is that when decision by committee is done instead of clear internal communication and decision-making structure, you end up with endless meetings that may or may not move anything forward, and so many emails about the outcomes of committees that nobody reads any of them. In this form, I would argue this model is not accomplishing the core aims of what it is hoping of including many voices and developing strong frameworks, and in fact is adding logistical headaches of endless scheduling and effectively halting forward progress.
Siloed
Perhaps this situation is familiar. There’s a team with high-performing individuals, and likely long tenure working on different projects. They all move independently through the process until they get most of the way through the project and realize two projects are meant to launch the same day, or they both need a critical shared resource at the same time.
How did this happen? Through siloed work that develops siloed decision making. In many ways, this structure allows for significant autonomy and work at speed, and when done well, can lead to a high performing, and happy, team. It works particularly well when the aims of the team at large, and each individual group within it, are clear and well articulated so it’s easy to see how individual decisions work toward the larger aims. Where it starts to get a little messy though is when work appears to be more siloed than it is. If decision making is so dispersed that there is no central view of how this project impacts that project, it can be really challenging to determine which project should take priority and if both projects are even needed.
Similarly to decision by committee, siloed decision making works well when there is clear internal communication and structure for decision making, but in the absence of either of those, it can lead to inefficient resource allocation and significant frustration if work is delayed or dropped entirely because of a lack of earlier communication.
Leader Bottleneck
The last type is the leader bottleneck. This is where the vast majority of decisions, large and small are funneled through a single leader, or small handful of people. There are times when this is needed, particularly with a brand new team, or where the work requires tight coordination or high pressure, quick timeline type of work. Outside of these situations though, this type of decision making can quickly lead to slower work times and frustration, either from the team or the leader, or both, depending on the origin.
This type of decision making can either develop at the request of the leader, or driven by the team. When it comes at the request of the leader, it is likely because there are new members of the team and the leader wants to make sure they are keeping a close eye on work, or because of a need to oversee multiple moving pieces at once. In these situations, it can be very effective to keep a group of people moving forward efficiently with clear coordination. As with the other decision-making styles though, when it is just done as the default, without clear structure of when a different style would be more effective, it can lead to slower work times and increased frustration from the team.
This style can also develop, or be perpetuated, on a team where there is a fear of being the one to actually make a decision. With larger decisions, it makes sense to consult a leader, or engage a group of people, but what can really stifle a group is when individuals on the team feel that each decision needs to be run through a leader. In this case, it is often not the individual that feels the frustration as they are outsourcing the risk of making the ‘wrong decision’ and instead the leader is the one who feels the frustration. They feel frustrated that they are asked 1,000 small questions each day, and wish that their team were empowered to figure out when they can move forward without approval.
With this particular style of decision making, it is important to understand how it originated as the approach to adding in other styles will be quite different depending on the origin.
Just as leadership style ideally changes depending on the needs of the team, organization or project, a team’s decision-making process should also have the ability to shift. Each of the styles outlined in this article have pros and cons, and the most effective way to use them is to know when to use which one. When I have seen decision making be effective, it is because an organization is intentional about how particular decisions are made. But honestly, more often than not I see organic decision making that predominantly follows one of these patterns, regardless of situation. Determining what process your team uses most, and figuring out how to introduce different styles when the need calls for it is a critical skill to develop with your team.
A few questions to consider if you’re evaluating this on your team:
Is there an element of fear in decision making?
Can you start to unpack where that's coming from and empower individuals to start making decisions on their own?
Can you provide a framework for when a decision needs to be escalated to a leader?
What are the criteria for when a decision needs to go to a committee?
Who are those committee members?
How can you do this more efficiently?
Is siloed decision making allowing your team to function more autonomously, or are you missing opportunities for more collaborative work?
We don’t make decisions in a vacuum. We make them every day, with real people who have emotions and opinions. It’s all well and good to talk about it from a theoretical perspective, but the most important thing is to bring some awareness to it, and identify the places your approach does and does not work for your team.
