{"id":5692,"date":"2023-08-08T00:01:41","date_gmt":"2023-08-08T04:01:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mgrush.com\/blog\/?p=5692"},"modified":"2026-04-21T12:53:49","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T16:53:49","slug":"decision-quality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mgrush.com\/blog\/decision-quality\/","title":{"rendered":"Decision Quality Focuses on ‘WHAT’ is Right, NOT ‘WHO’ is Right"},"content":{"rendered":"

Decision-making frequently considers fuzzy information, fuzzy implications, and fuzzy thinking.\u00a0 To reduce fuzziness, and improve decision quality, lead your group to focus on What<\/strong> is right, NOT<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>Who<\/strong> is right.<\/h2>\n

By structuring your questions and meeting design, you minimize the risk of decisions made that are no more than educated gambles.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Fuzzy

Decision Quality Results from Focusing On What is Right, NOT Who is Right<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

Some organizations rely on advocacy. As issues surface, people take sides[1]<\/a>. Some participants win — while others lose. By depersonalizing the input required to support a decision, you create a win-win situation. In \u201cmajority win<\/a>” cultures, the most powerful arguments do not necessarily win. Rather, the most persuasive and charismatic ‘champions’ are frequently victorious. Effective facilitation<\/a> and structured<\/a> meeting design mitigate risks<\/a> associated with poor decision quality. After all, nobody is smarter than everybody[2]<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Daniel Kahneman has proven that most people decide and then they justify their decision. A structured<\/a> approach forces participants to delay their decision until available evidence<\/a> has been provided. Unfortunately for most, once participants have decided, much of their deliberation focuses on finding support to justify their position. Structured facilitation can stop, or at least delay, premature decision-making. Tremendous risks arise if you don\u2019t strive to identify the SMART<\/a> (Specific, Measurable, Adjustable, Relevant, and Time-based) support that improves decision quality. We hope that you value and aspire to avoid the DUMB<\/a> response (Dull, Ubiquitous, Myopic, and Broad). <\/span><\/p>\n

Some meetings even lead to anger, resentment, or jealousy that can sabotage decisions and cultures. Reverse the flow of poor decision quality by first building consensus<\/a> around the purpose<\/a> of the decision. Next, develop and expose available options (actions). Then force the development of decision criteria based on evidence: facts, truths, and examples that support the claims. The structured approach helps groups focus one step at a time. Finally, have a method or tool(s) prepared for comparing the options against the criteria that support the originally stated purpose.<\/span><\/p>\n

Structured Tools Focus on What is Right<\/h3>\n

For example, do you plan on using PowerBalls<\/a>, Perceptual Map<\/a>, Decision Matrix, Scorecard, <\/a>etc.– or some combination thereof? Scrub (cleanse or clarify) that evidence to ensure clarity and shared understanding, so that the logic and arguments no longer belong to one person. Rather rationale for the decision quality becomes owned by the entire group. Visually<\/a> displaying the comparison of the various options and supporting criteria additionally helps to depersonalize the analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n

While many methods use a projected software tool, there are advantages to paper and whiteboards<\/a> that include the transfer of ownership. The presenter or facilitator usually ends up owning PowerPoint\u00ae-type slides, regardless of group comments. If you create and visually display participant content with markers, the group retains ownership and not the keyboard operator.<\/span><\/p>\n

Remember the 3-Question Approach<\/a> when scrubbing:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. To what extent is the input clear and understood?<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. What critical or substantive input appears to be missing?<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Will the participants support the input or does something need to be eliminated?<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Professional facilitators understand the challenge and importance of focus. Groups cannot move coherently to consensus when starting from \u2018many to many<\/a>.\u2019 \u00a0With sharp questions, a group can be led from \u2018one to many.\u2019 \u00a0The Content Management<\/a> tool manages the transformation from the abstract to the concrete, from the WHY to the WHAT to the HOW. Note that a single fact (WHAT) can lead to multiple Implications (SO WHAT). Each Implication can lead to many Recommendations. And there is no way to focus a discussion from many facts to many recommendations effectively. However, the ‘many-to-many’ headache describes most unstructured meetings being held right now.<\/span><\/p>\n

    By structuring your decision-making, you minimize the personal bias<\/a> that lowers decision quality. With focus, you eliminate much of the scope creep<\/a> in meetings that results in wasted time. You may have heard that a ‘meeting’ is where minutes are kept and hours are lost. As a session leader, you can minimize confusion using a structure that documents<\/a> the entire process. Therefore, all the participants can own it at the end.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Speed of Decision-making | When Quality Not Enough<\/h2>\n

    According to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey,<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cPower is no longer simply the sum of capability and capacity but now, disproportionately, it includes speed\u2014speed of action but especially speed of decision-making.\u201d (source: WSJ, Voices on the Future)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    \"Speed

    Race Against Time: Speed of Decision-making<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

    For any consensual and well-informed decision, please embrace at least seven agenda steps to ensure\u00a0speed of decision-making:<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n