How Do You Decide How to Decide?

by Curtis Ogden

The director of a youth services agency received a small unexpected grant from an individual to pilot a new youth program. The donor did not dictate a focus for the program, but did express a sense of urgency that something more be done for young people in the community. Eager to get started and with his own opinion in mind, the director talked with two of his staff regarding the best use of the funds and was given the feedback that what was needed was additional after-school tutoring services.

Convinced that this was the right choice, the director began to put things into motion and encountered considerable resistance from the after-school staff who said that such a program would duplicate their efforts. Furthermore, they heard the suggestion as a criticism of their hard work. Other staff in the agency expressed their resentment that they were never consulted about how to spend the funds. And when they got wind of the plan, parents in the community wondered aloud why they had not been asked for their input given that they knew their children the best. The director backed off and regretted that he had ever received the gift.

How many of us have been left out of a decision in which we felt we had a stake? And what was the impact? Leaving people out of decisions is not simply a matter of risking hurt feelings; it can potentially make the difference between a successful initiative and a complete bust. Yet many in positions of responsibility are reluctant to engage others for a variety of reasons. “It takes too much time.” “It’s too hard to please everyone.” “I’m the leader. I’m the one being paid to make the decisions here.” Of course there are elements of truth to each of these statements, and there may also be some degree of shortsightedness and fear.

Often resistance to involving others in decision making is an indication that one does not know how to involve others effectively. Engaging people in decisions is not simply a yes or no proposition (i.e. either you do or you don’t). Each decision is different and therefore requires different considerations with respect to whom to involve and how to involve them.

Of course, each organization has its own culture with regard to these processes. In some organizations there is a preference for encouraging decision making on matters of consequence throughout the organization. In others, there is a strict “line of command” where decisions of consequence are made by a smaller circle. But there are consequences to the model chosen.

In the last newsletter, we talked about what makes a workplace desirable to potential talent. Prime among the characteristics of a preferred workplace was the ability to participate creatively—and be treated like you have something to add. Thus, if we want our workplaces to be competitive, leaders must not just make decisions but must act as skilled stewards of decision making processes.

One framework to help those responsible for decisions understand the options available to them in tapping the participation of others is to consider the levels of involvement. Different levels are characterized by the number of people participating in a given decision and the overall level of ownership surrounding that decision.

At the low end of the scale are those instances in which a leader makes or announces a decision with little or no input from others. A step up on the scale of involvement and ownership is gathering input from select individuals and then deciding—the director in our opening story took this approach by consulting the two staff members. Next comes gathering input from a broader groups, for example, the whole team, staff, or community group to get opinions.

Another step up is seeking consensus, by getting to a point where everyone agrees to support and implement a decision, even if it was not their first choice. Consensus entails a considerable degree of involvement and ownership.

Lastly, one might opt to delegate the decision with certain constraints. For example, our director could have turned over his decision to a small representative team from the agency and provided guidelines around budget, timeline, etc.

For a method of decision making to be at a lower level of involvement (and ownership) than another does not necessarily mean that it is worse or less effective. It all depends on the circumstances. For example, when might it make sense for someone to decide and announce? When time is of the essence; when there is a crisis; when the decision is not so important as to require the input of others. Higher levels of involvement are more appropriate when there are high stakes or complex decisions on the table, ones that could impact all staff members, or that would benefit from multiple perspectives and group discussion.

There are a variety of factors to consider when deciding which level of involvement, including the need for buy-in, time available, importance of the decision, needed information, team-building (Is this an opportunity to strengthen the group?), readiness of the group (for example, skill and willingness to engage in consensus building or tackling a delegate assignment), and sustainability. Weighing these different factors will help those ultimately responsible for decisions to select the most productive way forward.

In addition to making a conscious choice about the decision-making method, it is vitally important to be clear with others about the choice and its underlying rationale. It is best if people know how and why they are being asked, or not being asked, to participate so that they are not carrying around false expectations.

All this being said, if you wish to build an excellent nonprofit, it is far better to include people in decision making wherever possible, rather than looking for ways to avoid it. This may take some ground work but it will, in the end, provide for greater innovation and equilibrium in your organization.

---

Curtis Ogden is a Research Editor at NPQ and a Senior Associate at the Interaction Institute for Social Change (IISC). Among other things, IISC works with nonprofits and others teaching Facilitative Leadership® skills and this article has largely drawn upon the IISC approach (www.interactioninstitute.org).