Introduction
The best decisions are often the hardest to take. We can look with envy at leaders who possess confidence and work best using gut feel, natural risk-takers, and wonder at how they do it. We may feel paralysed by the complexity and variety of decisions we are being asked to take, or we may be fearful of getting it wrong. Between these two extremes, most of us wrestle with decisions and how best to make them every day, trying to find the right balance. In the business transformation world, effective decision-making can be the key factor that differentiates between programmes that result in successful outcomes and those which spiral out of control.
It is crucial to accept that making a good decision is to eschew every other option and commit to the resulting course of action required to achieve the expected outcomes. A positive culture will require that everyone gets behind the decision and seeks to make it work, whether you personally agree with it or not.
Let’s look at a real-world example, where good decision-making led to the successful delivery of a major transformation programme. From this we’ll understand how to enable good decision-making as well as examining behaviours that should be avoided.
An example of great decision-making
One of the best transformation programmes we worked on was for a multi-national bank. The programme’s objectives were galvanised by a set of regulatory deadlines which, if missed, would have resulted in severe financial penalties and adverse publicity. This created the first condition required of all successful transformations: the existence of a compelling case for change.
The leadership team quickly realised that if they followed the same decision-making processes used for the bank’s other programmes, then the delivery dates would be missed, costs would spiral, and the consequences would be politically difficult for the leadership team. The track record on other major transformation initiatives was not strong, with many vastly exceeding their budget, delivering sub-optimal solutions whilst leaking business benefits. With no choice, it was time to take a risk and try something different. Here are a few of the things we did:
A clear vision and road map
We kicked-off the programme with a crystal-clear vision of the result we required. The business strategy was concise, communicated and socialised, the Target Operating Model was well-defined and bought into by the stakeholder community, the road map for delivery was clear, and the consequences for every person were dealt with up-front, even if those consequences included bad news for certain individuals concerned. As a leadership team we made a big decision: we would be open and honest with everybody, as well as incentivising all key staff members based purely on end-game success.
A decision a day keeps the project doctor away
We aimed to take a decision a day – frequent decisions create a culture where this is accepted and expected, and it empowers people with the confidence to take their own decisions, or at least to ask for guidance where they are uncertain
If a decision appeared obvious, we just took it
The team were empowered to act, so we did. Principles were used to guide the level at which a decision could be taken (e.g. a major design decision had to go through a defined Design Authority Group) but beyond that, people were encouraged to take decisions about their own work, teams were invited to conclude upon a course of action and, if in doubt, everyone knew they could call in the Programme Director/Manager for guidance and a clear steer
Set cultural principles
The culture we created was based on a set of principles, such as:
‘Say your piece then get on board’. In other words, everyone could debate passionately before a decision was taken but had to accept it once it was. You win some, you lose some
Other principles laid down key decision-making responsibilities, which people embraced and lived:
‘If in doubt, shout’ became a programme mantra from the kick-off. We made it clear that to ask for help would be seen as a sign of strength, not of weakness
‘Mistakes will be made – just not too many’ showed acceptance of limited missteps whilst recognising that we could minimise them by using the leadership team proactively as a sounding board, reducing uncertainty. Most large transformation programmes are complex and fast paced; when you face immovable deadlines with no opportunity to descope (else regulatory requirements would not be met) the pressure is doubled, and the risk of mistakes is heightened. Early sight of potential mistakes gives time to correct them before they happen
‘No blame!’ was the final principle, essential for success
The key decision makers were few but highly available
The leadership team met daily, if necessary, to make calls on issues escalated to them. The Programme Sponsor, Director and Manager were all on hand to take calls, take decisions and provide reassurance and guidance when things became challenging
Time-boxed analysis
Rather than spending 3 months in analysis paralysis we would time-box the decision-making process with the amount of information we could gather in a week, in order to get us options; that’s if the decision wasn’t capable of being taken straight away. In this way we operated the Pareto Rule to gather 80% of the information required and drive any material objections and risks out related to the favoured course of action. In this way, decisions could be taken quickly with only the most complex taking more than one iteration
Findings in simple language
If experts were immersed in detail and unable to make options simple for the leadership team, we would pair them with someone who could covert the options into something fit for purpose. In this way, even complex financial and mathematical issues were distilled into clear choices – that’s not to say that the detail was ignored, it was simply communicated in a manageable way which supported clear conclusions to be drawn
People were empowered by Project Management
It was a big team with 400+ people working on the programme at any one time. Many programmes put in a Programme Manager, a PMO and then put in workstream leads. The problem with this approach is that workstream leads are often not well versed in project management disciplines. The most effective way to deliver transformational change is to carve out defined projects and put professional project managers in charge. This approach empowered the whole team, with there always being someone to speak to at the appropriate level if questions about tasks or responsibilities arose. The Project Managers were then able to coach and encourage as well as use their experience to know when to invoke the fast-track escalation path for anything urgent or important.
The Executive Steering Committee (ESC) had a simple agenda
Actions, Decisions, AOB, Communications – everything had to be action-oriented, so the Steering Committee was run to be short, sharp and to set the tone from the top. Clear summary communications were issued immediately after every ESC to aid direction and to ensure that the whole programme received the same information. When people saw matters that they had raised being visibly dealt with, the value of the ESC became clear – and the team felt both the importance of the programme and that the ESC members really cared about issues the team were facing and were prepared to act.
If we got it wrong, we admitted it. Fast!
And we applied the ‘no blame’ principle - we knew everyone was pulling in the same direction, doing their best. We dusted ourselves off and got on with any changes, or parked sub-optimal consequences until after the material transformation components were delivered
Why was this approach so successful?
This programme was great at creating a decision-based culture – we raced through the forming, norming, storming phases of Tuckman’s Group Development Model straight to the performing phase, with people emboldened by the twin prongs of personal responsibility and an excellent executive support structure. We recognised that we would only achieve our objectives by harnessing team power and allowing it to thrive.
As part of that, we encouraged fast, pragmatic decisions. That approach didn’t prevent people from thinking them through, but it did help them to hone in on key decision-making criteria and the information required to fulfil them.
We had the right expertise on the programme, co-opting some of the best businesspeople full-time and committing to their future. We gave everyone a purpose, to shape the future with a sense of enlightened self-interest, knowing that the solutions they designed and implemented would be theirs to own and run when they returned from the programme to their usual business role.
The use of professional Project Managers where other programmes used workstream leads or businesspeople who had been given the title ‘project manager’ enhanced the decision-based culture. This approach drove rigours and disciplines throughout the programme structure in a way that many programmes never achieve.
What did we avoid?
We recognised that, as well as focusing on the things we should do, there were certain things we would do our best to avoid:
1. Analysis Paralysis
Many programmes encounter this for some of the following reasons:
Not enough information
Not the right information
No clear path forward
Feeling of a loss of control
Fear of getting it wrong
It’s better to do nothing…..but is doing nothing really an option?
The longer a decision takes, the harder it becomes. Doubts, information gaps and the ramifications of things going wrong all seep deeper into the decision-making process, hampering thinking. As time was one commodity we didn’t have, we pushed people hard to define complex decision with simple criteria – all of them aligned to the business outcomes we needed, and the risk profile associated with getting those decisions wrong. There were, of course, decisions which took a while to make, but the vast majority were turned around within our weekly timebox.
2. Flip-flop Decisions
On a large transformation programme, decisions can apply for several years after they are taken, so the options considered should be evaluated and clearly stated, and the organisation must be prepared to live with them when taken. Programme teams require a great deal of management and coordination – nothing leads to delays and frustration more than a leadership team that cannot make up its mind or, once it has done so, changes its mind frequently reversing previous decisions and changing direction. On this programme we focused hard on the material impact of the decisions being taken – the big design decisions were workshopped out with information capture and analysis happening in real-time, with option presentations out to the leadership team at key points in each day. This gave the Programme Exec the opportunity to ask for more information and have it prepared for the next day. In turn, bringing the Exec together had two effects: (a) we were expected to reach a consensus with the team; (b) we had to commit to the implications of that decision. In this way, many of the key decisions were driven out up front and many were taken before the kick-off event was over
Conclusion
To summarise what we learned from this transformation programme, if you want to make better decisions:
Have a clear vision, create a compelling case for change and incentivise key people appropriately to achieve a successful transformation
Know how to get there – have a visible, communicated journey
Agree and cascade clear principles against which decisions can be related
Have a demonstrable need to deliver the outcomes that each decision facilitates
Keep it as simple as possible: don’t over-complicate and over analyse decisions. Some decisions are complex, but most can be fast-tracked with the right approach
Great leaders empower people to make decisions on their behalf and step in to help when they are asked to
Know what you want to avoid doing – and set that tone from the outset of the programme
Commit to the decision: there’s no going back unless there’s a real problem with it…..and if there is recognise it quickly and address it without blaming people
Above all, make your programmes enjoyable – most transformations are complex, challenging and often stressful. Maintaining a strong team spirit will make hard times easier to navigate through and decisions faster and with cool heads, leading to better decisions.
Contact Claverton
To talk to us about your transformation needs please visit our website (www.clavertonconsulting.co.uk) or email us at info@clavertonconsulting.co.uk.
Comments