Featured Video
This Week in Quality Digest Live
Management Features
Mark Seay
How an aerospace company was able to rethink and reinvent its quality engineering function
Robin Speculand
Six steps to successful strategy execution
Alexa Sussman
Must-haves for operations, change, safety, visibility, and risk
Lolly Daskal
When everything is critical, it turns out that nothing really is
Steven Brand
From robotics to AR, new technologies push the envelope

More Features

Management News
Management's role in improving work climate and culture
Work with and learn from some of the nation’s best people and organizations
Cricket Media and IEEE team up to launch TryEngineering Together
125 strategies to achieve maximum confidence, clarity, certainty, and creativity
MIT awards more than $1 million to organizations creating greater economic opportunity for workers
Earn continuing education units
If you want to understand a system, try and change it
How to engage, retain, and develop talent for maximum performance

More News

Jesse Lyn Stoner

Management

Four Decision-Making Styles and When to Use Them

Put an end to wasting people’s time and causing resentment

Published: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 - 11:02

Sometimes leaders make bad decisions or harm team morale by making autocratic decisions without involving others. And other times they waste their team’s time by unnecessarily involving them.

How do you know when and how much to involve your team in decisions? Sometimes the answer is pretty obvious.

You don’t need to call a team meeting to decide to order pencils for your office. On the other hand, if one of your direct reports has the authority to make decisions about office supplies, your taking over might not be appreciated.

Four decision-making styles

You have four choices on how to make decisions and when to involve others.

1. Autocratic (independent): You make the decision on your own without input from your team.

2. Consultative: You ask your team for information that would be helpful and for their opinions, either individually or as a group, but you make the final decision.

3. Team: You pull your team together to discuss the situation and decide as a team. You facilitate their reaching consensus, where everyone agrees to support the decision. As a member of the group, you must be willing to support the decision as well.

4. Delegating: You are not part of the decision-making process. You might ask to be informed of the decision (or not), but you will not change the decision.

Communicate which of the decision-making styles will be used

Outline a clear decision-making process, such as CRISP Decision-Making, and be clear with your team about which decision-making style is being used. If people are going to be involved in a decision, make sure they know which of the decision-making styles you will be using—whether they are being asked to consult or if they have a real vote. When asked for an opinion, people often assume they have a vote and can feel misled if they discover later that is not the case.

When people know ahead of time what their role is in the decision-making process, they are less likely to resent or undermine a decision that doesn’t go the way they wanted.

You might start out with one style and then decide to change styles. For example, you might want to make a team decision but discover there is too much conflict to achieve consensus. If you change the decision-making style, it is important to inform your team.

Four questions to know which of the decision-making styles to use

1. Is this your decision to make?

Whose responsibility it is to make this decision? Does one of your direct reports or someone on a different team have authority to make this decision? If this is not your decision to make: Use a delegating style.

If you believe the person or team responsible for this decision is not capable of making a quality decision without your involvement, discuss it with them and determine what decision-making style is appropriate. If a decision is required and you don’t have time to contact them or they are unavailable, you should get to them as soon as possible to explain why you went around them. Avoid taking back decision-making authority. If you do this on a regular basis, you will be viewed as a micro-manager and resentment will build.

2. Do you have access to the needed relevant information?

Do you know everything you need to know to make an intelligent decision? Do you have the necessary expertise?

If so, and if support for the decision is not needed or is guaranteed, use an autocratic style. It’s not necessary to gather your team to discuss where to hang a picture in your office.

The danger is that sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know. If this is a mission-critical decision, it’s worth using a consultative style to make sure you’re not missing any important information that would affect the quality of your decision. (See question No. 4.)

3. To what extent is acceptance necessary for successful implementation?

If successful implementation depends on the understanding and acceptance of others, it is to your advantage to involve them in the decision early on and use a team style, even if you believe you already know the best decision.

Otherwise, you might save time during the decision-making process, but will pay the price during implementation. The more others are affected by the decision, the more they should be involved.

A good consensus process, where team members set their egos and personal needs aside and focus on the mission, will result in a higher quality decision. And as a result of the process, team members will develop a deeper understanding of the issues and great commitment to the decision, ensuring smoother and faster implementation.

4. How great is the impact of the decision on accomplishing the team’s mission?

What is the complexity and scale of the impact of the decision? As complexity increases, the likelihood that you know everything needed to make a quality decision decreases. Use a consultative style. As the complexity scale increases, so too does the likelihood that the acceptance of others is needed. Use a high-involvement style team if possible, and if not, use the consultative decision-making style with broad and deep input.

What about urgency?

What if you don’t have time for involvement? Shouldn’t that be a consideration? Indeed, if the building is on fire and smoke is coming under the door, it doesn’t make sense to call a group together to discuss options. However, most situations are not as urgent as they seem.

We have all had the experience of being in a hurry and making a decision we later regret. The same thing can happen with teams. It’s important to be aware of the potential for bad decisions when under an intense deadline, and consider the short-term benefit of a quick decision vs. the long-term consequences of poor implementation and needing to redo work.

First published May 16, 2017, on Jesse Lyn Stoner’s blog. © 2017 Jesse Stoner

Discuss

About The Author

Jesse Lyn Stoner’s picture

Jesse Lyn Stoner

Jesse Lyn Stoner, founder of consultancy Seapoint Center, has worked with hundreds of leaders using collaborative processes to engage the entire workforce in creating their desired future. Stoner has authored several books including Full Steam Ahead! Unleash the Power of Vision (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2nd rev. ed. 2011), co-authored with Ken Blanchard. Stoner is recognized by the American Management Association as one of the Top Leaders to Watch in 2015 and by INC Magazine as one of the Top 100 Leadership Experts. Stoner has advanced degrees in psychology and family system, and a doctorate in organizational development.