The Complete Pragmatic Family of Frameworks

◄◄◄ Previous Page         


          Next Page ►►►

We all make decisions. Constantly. Every single day of our lives.

We all like to make decisions. Important people make decisions. We like to feel important. It’s almost like a drug. He who decides has power. He who decides is important. But with great power comes great responsibility. And the responsibility that comes with making decisions is the responsibility to accept when you discover they are “wrong”, and change them when necessary. Unfortunately, changing decisions is generally much harder than making them.

This is a big problem. This is a very very very big cultural problem. People, in general, do not like changing decisions. Especially by people that tend to make decisions, which tend to be senior people. In fact they loathe it. Despise it. Would do almost anything to avoid it. Changing a decision means you were wrong. Changing a decision means you made a mistake. For these reasons (amongst others) changing a decision tends to be seen as a really really bad thing. Changing a decision may be seen as a “climb down” or a “U-turn”. Oh - how the press (and the opposition) love it when someone in government changes a decision. They are vilified, pilloried, criticised and hounded. Which is really really strange because a bad decision that was changed is definitely better than a bad decision that was not.

Of course, people want right decisions, but all decisions are made, on the basis of understanding the context the decision was based on and the implications that were known to exist at the time. Implications could be positive (something that is wanted) or negative (something that is unwanted) and the same decision could produce positive and negative implications at the same time for different things. For instance, there may be a positive implication for the Decision Maker (because a short term goal will be achieved - their bonus) but a negative implication for the Thing or Object in question (because a long term goal is compromised – an increase in costs). So, as well as a Decision Maker understanding the implications of their decision, they also have to evaluate and balance these implications in order to arrive at a decision.

There are two types of roles involved in any decision. The Decision Maker, whose job it is to make the decision, and The Decision Executer, whose whose job it is to carry out, or execute the decision.

So, let’s understand the Pragmatic way of making decisions.

1. Decision Makers make decisions (driven in part by their own personal culture) about things or objects.

2. Those decisions are based on understanding the high level context about those things, the high level implications the decision will have for the thing in question, and the implications for the person making the decision.

3. Decision Executors (driven in part by their own personal culture) will carry out decisions, but will also consider the implication of decisions for them.

4. By attempting to carry out the decision, they will dig into more detail and will almost certainly discover more detailed Context (errors in, or changes required to), and/or more detailed Implications (errors in, or changes required to) that the Decision was based upon.

This, in turn, may require a change to the decision made.

The Pragmatic fundamentals to apply are:

1)    Information about the context or implications that a decision is based upon is shared between the Decision Maker and Decision Executor.

2)    As the decision is executed, it is highly likely that the Decision Executor will discover new information, that changes the context, and/or the implications that the decision was made upon, thereby possibly requiring a change to a decision.

3)    Therefore, while the Decision Maker is responsible for making decisions, decisions, should be a collaboration between the decision maker and decision executer, and this collaboration must continue after the decision is made.

4)    Any changes to a decision should not be viewed as mistakes, backtracking or U-turns or any other negative connotation to be avoided and hidden, but instead should be encouraged and celebrated.

This thought process is not what normally happens in Enterprises though. What normally happens is more confrontational. People tend to talk more in terms of decisions being wrong or flawed. But if we take away the instances where someone is literally incompetent, we can say that there are no bad decisions, only unknown or misunderstood context or unknown or misunderstood implications.

We have to be careful however, not to forget that a decision not only has implications for the object the decision is being taken about, but also implications for the person taking the decision. Depending on their Personal Culture (which includes how the Enterprise motivates them in terms of money, job security and career progression). If the Enterprise rewards people with bonuses for plundering the future for short term gain today, then you can hardly blame the person if they make short term decisions which plunder the future.

It is therefore critical to instil a culture that actively encourages this thought process to happen, rather than one that actively discourages it. Rather than discouraging and denigrating people who expose new context or implications (that may cause decisions to be changed) and trying to hide them, people should be encouraged and applauded for exposing new context or implications.

There are no bad people. There are no bad managers. There are no bad decisions. People make decisions based on the context and an understanding of the implications of those decisions, influenced by the culture they operate within. All decisions are made within a context, and within that context all decisions are 100% correct and valid. If they were not, the person concerned would be deemed incompetent (which is another discussion). Other people may not agree with a decision, but that is usually because they are looking at the decision through the prism of their own context and their understanding of the implications. And so disagreements about decisions are not actually disagreements about the decision itself, they are actually disagreements about the context they were made within, in addition to the Personal Culture of the person that made them, and/or the implications that are known.

When people object to a decision, sometimes it is not the decision they are objecting to, but the one or more implications of that decision. Worse than that, the person objecting can think that the decision was made specifically to create the implications they do not like.

So the way to change a decision is not to talk about the decision per se, but to change the context the decision was made within, or change the implications that were known about, or to change the culture that prevailed. But that will only work if the culture allows the context to be changed or the implications to be changed, or the culture to be changed.

In fact, it could be said that Accountability is being able to say “I made this decision because…”

“I made this decision because this was the context that was known to exist at the time the decision was made, and these are the implications that were known at the time the decision was made, and this is the culture that existed at the time.

“An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.”

- Orlando Aloysius Battista


Questions to ponder...

Are decision makers allowed to change decisions?

How do people react when decision makers change their decisions?

Are decision makers open to listening to people who expose new context or implications?

What happens to people who expose new context or implications?

Does your Enterprise want to increase the quality of, and reduce the costs of, Transformation?

Does your Enterprise's culture allow its culture to be changed?

If not, what is preventing it?

◄◄◄ Previous Page          

          Next Page ►►►


© 2008-2019 Pragmatic EA Ltd