Bob Frisch

<article-ideainbrief class="article-ideainbrief">
 <h4 class="ideainbrief-title">The Idea in Brief</h4>
 <div class="ideainbrief-contents">
  <p>When cross-functional teams have trouble making decisions, leaders blame psychological factors like mistrust or poor communication. But the problem isn’t the team’s people; it’s the decision-making process. Each member has constituencies in the organization. So each vies for resources for favored projects—virtually guaranteeing an impasse. To break the impasse, the team leader makes a unilateral decision, leaving a majority of the team disgruntled and resentful of the “dictator.”</p>
  <p>To improve your team’s decision-making process, Frisch recommends several tactics. For example, clearly articulate the outcome your team must achieve. When people understand the goal, they more readily agree on how to get there. And surface members’ functional preferences through pre-meeting surveys to identify areas of agreement and disagreement and to gauge the potential for deadlock.</p>
  <p>These deceptively simple tactics position your team to prevent stalemates—instead of forcing you to be “dictator-by-default.”</p>
  <p>The Idea in Practice</p>
  <p>Frisch suggests these tactics for improving your team’s decision-making process:</p>
  <h2>Specify the Desired Outcome</h2>
  <p>Without clear desired outcomes, team members choose options based on unspoken, differing assumptions. This sets the stage for the dictator-by-default syndrome. To avoid the syndrome, articulate what you want the team to accomplish. <span style="idea-in-practice-example"><span style="idea-in-practice-example-header">Example:&nbsp;</span> </span></p>
  <p>A division of an industrial company was running out of manufacturing capacity for a product made in the U.S. The leadership team assumed the desired outcome was “Achieve the highest possible return on assets.” So they discussed shuttering a U.S. plant and building a plant in China, where costs were lower and raw materials closer. But the parent company’s desired outcome was “Minimize corporate overhead and maximize earnings.” The move to China would mean closing an additional facility that supplied materials to the U.S. plant, significantly lowering earnings. Once the division team understood the desired outcome, it could solve the capacity problem in a way that was consistent with the parent’s actual goals. </p>
  <h2>Provide a Range of Options for Achieving the Desired Outcome</h2>
  <p>Break alternatives into a broader range of options beyond “Accept the proposed plan,” “Reject the plan,” and “Defer the decision.”</p>
  <h2>Test Fences and Walls</h2>
  <p>When team members cite a presumed boundary (for example, a real or imagined corporate policy), ask “Is it a wall (it’s relatively immovable) or is it a fence (it can be moved)?” <span style="idea-in-practice-example"><span style="idea-in-practice-example-header">Example:&nbsp;</span> </span></p>
  <p>For a division of a global financial services provider, executives never considered expanding their offerings to include banking services. That’s because they thought corporate policy prohibited entry into banking. When the division head tested this assumption with her boss, she learned that the real concern was not to do anything that would bring new regulatory requirements (the wall). So the division developed strategic options that included several features of banking that avoided dealing with new regulations. </p>
  <h2>Surface Preferences Early</h2>
  <p>Survey members before meetings to identify their preferences and focus the subsequent discussion. <span style="idea-in-practice-example"><span style="idea-in-practice-example-header">Example:&nbsp;</span> </span></p>
  <p>A global credit card company was deciding where to invest in growth. Executive team members conducted a straw poll of countries under consideration. The process enabled them to quickly eliminate countries that attracted no votes. And it focused their subsequent discussion on the two regions where there was most agreement. </p>
  <h2>Assign Devil’s Advocates</h2>
  <p>Make thorough and dispassionate counterarguments an expected part of strategic deliberations. Assign devil’s advocates to make the case against each option. This depersonalizes the discussion and produces more nuanced strategy discussions.</p>
 </div>
</article-ideainbrief><p>The executive team is deliberating about a critical strategic choice, but no matter how much time and effort the team members expend, they cannot reach a satisfactory decision. Then comes that uncomfortable moment when all eyes turn to the CEO. The team waits for the boss to make the final call, yet when it’s made, few people like the decision. Blame, though unspoken, is plentiful. The CEO blames the executives for indecisiveness; they resent the CEO for acting like a dictator. If this sounds familiar, you’ve experienced what I call the <em>dictator-by-default syndrome</em>.</p>

fcmLqLWQ3Ct5PJzm7848EvSM4nGRj14wVOiWwBJFZzNnzemk+R6IuWF4POMOlbabjmsaYkH3ypEHyIfR7rCJJl3oORDlmzijbEM/RFvnU9f7l9YTDa3HBDBGI+E+EjQX

<p><span class="reprint">Reprint: R0811J</span></p>
<p>Leadership teams that can&#8217;t reach consensus wait for the CEO to make the final call&#8212;and often are disappointed by the outcome. Frisch calls this phenomenon the <em>dictator-by-default syndrome</em>. Many companies turn to team-building and communication exercises to try to fix the situation. But that won&#8217;t work, the author argues, because the trouble is not with the people, it&#8217;s with the decision-making process. Attempting to arrive at a collective preference on the basis of individual opinions is inherently problematic. Once leadership teams realize that voting-system mathematics are the culprit, they can stop wasting time on irrelevant psychological exercises and instead adopt practical measures designed to break the impasse.</p>
<p>They must begin by acknowledging the problem and understanding what causes it. When more than two options are on the table, the scene is set for the CEO to become a dictator by default. Even yes-or-no choices present difficulties, because they always include a third, implied alternative: &#8220;Neither of the above.&#8221;</p>
<p>When the CEO and the team understand why they have trouble making decisions, they can adopt the following tactics to minimize dysfunction: Clearly articulate the desired outcome, generate a range of options for achieving it, test &#8220;fences&#8221; (which can be moved) and &#8220;walls&#8221; (which cannot), surface preferences early, state each option&#8217;s pros and cons, and devise new options that preserve the best features of existing ones.</p>
<p>Teams using such tactics need to adhere to two ground rules. First, they must deliberate confidentially, because a secure climate for conversation allows members to float trial balloons and cut deals. And second, members must be given enough time to study their options and assess the counterarguments. Only then can they achieve genuine alignment.</p>

When Teams Can&rsquo;t Decide

Reprint: R0811J Leadership teams that can’t reach consensus wait for the CEO to make the final call—and often are disappointed by the outcome. Frisch calls this phenomenon the dictator-by-default syndrome . Many companies turn to team-building and communication exercises to try to fix the situation. But that won’t work, the author argues, because the trouble is not with the people, it’s with the decision-making process. Attempting to arrive at a collective preference on the basis of individual opinions is inherently problematic. Once leadership teams realize that voting-system mathematics are the culprit, they can stop wasting time on irrelevant psychological exercises and instead adopt practical measures designed to break the impasse. They must begin by acknowledging the problem and understanding what causes it. When more than two options are on the table, the scene is set for the CEO to become a dictator by default. Even yes-or-no choices present difficulties, because they always include a third, implied alternative: “Neither of the above.” When the CEO and the team understand why they have trouble making decisions, they can adopt the following tactics to minimize dysfunction: Clearly articulate the desired outcome, generate a range of options for achieving it, test “fences” (which can be moved) and “walls” (which cannot), surface preferences early, state each option’s pros and cons, and devise new options that preserve the best features of existing ones. Teams using such tactics need to adhere to two ground rules. First, they must deliberate confidentially, because a secure climate for conversation allows members to float trial balloons and cut deals. And second, members must be given enough time to study their options and assess the counterarguments. Only then can they achieve genuine alignment.

When Teams Can’t Decide

Summary.

Partner Center