During my time in higher education, I have been blessed with the opportunity to work with some amazing leaders. I’ve also been able to learn from those I would say are less stellar.
One leader that had a meaningful impact on how I work with a team was Father Timothy Lannon, SJ, who was the president at Saint Joseph’s University during part of my time there. While not Catholic, the values-driven servant-leadership approach he took resonated with me. At Saint Joseph’s, I was fortunate enough to be a part of a leadership development group. Father Lannon facilitated a session and discussed decision-making with our group.
What he shared is that there are five ways to make a decision: me, you, we, me with your input, and you with my input. Father Lannon went on to say that rarely did he make a decision that was me or we. From his perspective, me decisions are often made in isolation (not a good thing), without the perspective of others, or without context. He also shared that we decisions can result in groupthink or more watered-down outcomes trying to please everyone. We decisions can also result in people piling on each other’s thoughts with blinders on in an increasingly narrow perspective. This is not to say that diverse working groups of we cannot be effective in creatively working together to solve problems. However, when it comes to decision-making, we oriented decisions may not yield the most optimal results. You decisions, Father Lannon said, are those he would delegate to others knowing there was a level of accountability.
Most of his decision-making was based on – you with my input or me with your input. I subscribe to this philosophy as the ping-pong dialogue in making decisions in this manner often results in creative thinking where two individuals find intersecting thoughts based on their different perspectives. Involving another individual in the decision-making process also results in increased engagement where others feel a sense of influence in the execution of the decision. Taking this approach also eliminates the “I am the sole purveyor of all knowledge” narcissist trap.
More recently, I have observed organizational decision-making processes that resemble the four frames of leadership from Bolman and Deal – human resource, political, symbolic, and structural. Using this structure, I adapted a variation and am sharing my experiences based on four similar frames – human resource, political, symbolic, and strategic (versus structural). From my perspective, institutions that are interested in transformational change are best served by making strategic decisions – those that work to advance the institution based on strategic priorities tied to the institutional mission.
Decision-making based on human resources often involves the personality, popularity, charisma, or credibility of a particular individual. For example, an individual with a track record of success, who is viewed as credible, may be afforded an opportunity given his/her past project leadership experiences. I have experienced decision-making work in this case where a rock star would take a new project and make it shine. Alternatively, sometimes, like the popularity contest in high school or because of historic institutional practices, human resource decisions are made regardless of credibility or a successful track record. Such decision-making will not likely have a transformative impact on an institution and result in ho hum or failed outcomes.
Decision-making based on politics and symbolism will likely have less transformational impacts on an institution. From my perspective, such decision-making can even adversely impact an institution as the decision causes confusion amongst individuals as to the motivation and justification for the decision. At best, such decision-making results in more of a sideways institutional trajectory as making change without a strategic mindset just moves pieces or shuffles the deck without a clear desired outcome.
Ultimately, decision-making often involves the intersection of all four frames – human resource, political, symbolic, and strategic. The frame that serves as the basis or majority of the decision is what drives the desired outcome or not. From my perspective, decision-making grounded in strategy, while considering the other frames, has the opportunity to be most transformative influencing.
Comments