I’ve learnt a lot in the months just gone, which I’ll go into later. 

However, first I’d like to explore the traditional thoughts on how organisational decision making should be done. For simplicity I want to separate these into two buckets: the micro decisions that revolve mainly around individuals or teams; Who to promote? Who to assign to which team? What software we use to support this? And the macro decisions that most often affect the whole business directly or indirectly: What size should our bonus pot be? What’s the business objectives for the next year? Who should we partner with? It instantly becomes obvious that this separation makes sense and is the way most forward thinking businesses segment. On one side giving the people closest to the issue the responsibility to make decisions and other side keeping ‘one hand on the tiller’ so that that ship maintains its course.

The question to ask on this is is there a decision making style that suits the micro and the macro at the same time? And the ‘if not’ question is can you apply different styles to both successfully within an organisation? ‘Modern’ day thinking is that when it comes to teams and individuals you should give them autonomy. Being closest to the decision, knowing all the ins and outs and probably being most capable and experienced in making these decisions means that they can do it best. However, when it comes to business wide decisions a top down construct is needed. The theory goes that only those at the top can see across the whole business, can balance a variety of self-interests and understand where the business should head.

Hmmmm. So on one hand we’re saying those ‘on the ground’ know their teams and individuals best but on the other we’re saying those ‘at the top’ know the business best. So many parts of that don’t make sense and shouldn’t make sense to a rational person. Isn’t a business a collection of individuals and teams? (I’ve said here previously that while culture is something you cultivate, culture at its apex is the summation of a group of individuals. If want to change culture you start by changing people) To know a business you need to know it’s people. So it perplexes me that when making business decisions the same people who are entrusted to keep the engine humming are removed from inputting into the process.

There is potentially a solution. Bottom up decision making involves canvasing views from around the business and then using consensus to move forward. Take for example a production company that produces a number of high quality tv series, that take off here in the UK. Rather than set up in other countries it decides to use a distribution network to sell them elsewhere in the world. In a top down organisation, the management would decide who to partner with and where to go, using information from others but ultimately making the decision it wants to and forging ahead safe in the knowledge it knows best. In a bottom up organisation, a group would come together to discuss; producers who understand their content would be there, distributors who have their finger on the local pulse would input etc and all of these would make a consensus decision. That way they all the different parties own it and would support it. It all sounds perfect right? What could go wrong? We’ve all been a part of companies who’ve gone the top down route and made some spectacular failures (i.e. Kodak, blockbuster) but the bottom up can be just as painful. The theory bases itself on humans as rational actors who, when told to act in the good of the company can. It suggests that a consensus can be reached as both no one is entrenched in a view and historical precedence has no bearing on current decision making. All of this we know not to be true and that’s before we even tackle how you actually do bottom up decision making.

So in the immortal words of Tony Blair there is a ‘third way’. It is yet untested, the realm of the magical tech unicorns but what if we crowdsourced decisions? Smarkets allows their employees to define their own salaries and pay rises, all you have to do is convince your peers to back you and that you deserve it. Cooperatives such as Enspiral have created tools such as Loomio (https://www.loomio.org/ check it out!) to make decisions acknowledging that consensus is often impossible but asking people to disagree and commit. This is at the leading edge and who knows whether it will pan out to be successful (we will need a far larger sample to judge that).

So back to the beginning of what I have learned in the last few months when dealing with boards, ExCos, senior leaders and employees of every level within companies. There is no correct way of making decisions, certainly not a way that is applicable to both the micro and macro decisions. What I do know is that companies need to be consistent in the way they make decisions, their values and what they say to their employees about decision making. If they want to make top down decisions, they should manage expectations and make it clear to staff that they will be asked for opinion but ultimately decision making doesn’t sit with them. If they want to be an open, consensus driven business they have to seek opinions but also let those opinions be part of and affect the decision made, communicating the link between the two. Companies all too often delude themselves they are doing the latter when they are doing the former.

I never thought I would make this link, but business decision making often resembles a Father Ted sketch rather than a joined up organisational process that links culture, values and fundamentals.

Ted: Heads or tails?

Dougal: ‘Heads!’

Ted: ‘Are you sure?’

Dougal: ‘Absolutely! Heads! Tails! Tails! Heads!’

Ted: ‘Dougal!’

Dougal: ‘Heads!’

Ted: ‘Dougal, calm down!’

Dougal: ‘Tails! Heads! Tails! Heads! Heads!’

Ted: ‘Dougal! Are you all right?’

Dougal: ‘I am, I am, I’m fine, Ted, I’m just not the best at making decisions!’

Ted: ‘Look!’

Dougal: ‘Or am I?’