If you were to look for two books on decision-making, my pitch would be for Daniel Kahneman’s ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’and Ray Dalio’s ‘Principles’.Kahneman won a Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2002. Dalio set up and developed the massively successful investment firm, Bridgewater Associates, and, as he came to spend less time in his business, wrote about the approaches to running a business that he had seen succeed (or fail).
If those two have been watching the Brexit saga unfold, they’ve surely been shaking their heads in dismay. Our politicians might be beyond hope, but what can you and I learn about what to do and what to avoid if we want to operate a decision-making machine that actually works?
1. How many people?
Our politicians fall at the very first hurdle, and this part isn’t their fault.
No sensible business could have a decision-making body that routinely involves more than a handful of people. As the number grows beyond that, the quality of debate suffers.
2. Truthful, rigorous and direct?
It’s obviously wrong to lie to your colleagues, stretching the truth just to get your argument over the line. For the good of ongoing relationships beyond this specific debate, and for the integrity of the decision-making process, it’s important to be honest and straightforward.
It’s equally important, in that atmosphere of honesty, to question and test what you hear. Directness saves time, and it doesn’t have to mean being impolite.
3. Listen, with an open mind
Do you go to meetings genuinely prepared to listen to your colleagues (and maybe even learn something) in the interests of getting to the right eventual decision (whatever that may be)? Or is your mind closed from (before) the start (in which case, why bother with the meeting)?
4. Debate, or take turns to ‘announce’?
Do you use meetings simply to recite your position? At best, that’s a briefing. It’s certainly not a debate. You’re learning nothing. Maybe you could save everyone’s time by sending an email instead? And the more you annoy your colleagues, the more entrenched they’ll become in their own positions.
5. The 2-minute Rule
This simple approach can have a huge impact, bringing order and focus to what could otherwise be a chaotic gathering.
Allowing each person in turn to speak, uninterrupted, for a short time, takes the power away from the meeting ‘bully’. But, with protection comes responsibility, and each person has to come well prepared, because they’ll be expected to contribute when called upon.
6. A proper chairman
Chairing a meeting doesn’t just mean sitting at the end of the table.
Has everyone had their say? Have important assertions been tested? Has the meeting stayed on track, and has it dealt with the business it was set up to tackle? Can you explain and justify any decision that’s been reached? And is the meeting ending in a constructive spirit?
7. How brave are you?
It’s the outcome for the organisation that matters, not who ‘wins’ the meeting.
Here’s a test for you and your firm, which uses a few of the principles in this list.
Imagine you’re putting forward a proposal. It might, for example, be to promote a member of your team, or to take on a new client. Would any of your colleagues dare to be so direct as to ask you ‘If this were to go wrong, what would be the most likely cause?’. And if your open, honest and direct meeting did produce that question and you then had your 2 minutes to provide an answer, would your reply actually be for the benefit of the firm, or would you batten down the hatches and admit nothing, because if you were truly honest, you’d never get any proposal through?