Sunday, February 26, 2017

A632.7.3.RB_BorutyAlan - Collaborative Decision Making

Collaborative Decision Making

Organizational leaders are required to make decisions every day.  Some are so routine that they are automatic.  Some are not as simple.  A leader’s decisions almost always affects the people they lead.  Many times the leader gets a sense of urgency that a decision must be made right away which is generally not the case.  Important decisions take time to get them right.  But time and time again, the leader makes the decision in a vacuum and without input.  As one might expect, many of those decisions are scrutinized, some are argued, and some are simply rejected.  Why is that?  Well, there are several possible reasons.  A decision was made that directly affected the entire organization without notice.  The decision was not well thought out and it has negative effects on a number of employees.  A decision was made that did not consider all the facts and simply cannot be implemented.  In each of these cases, a collaborative team could have prevented a negative outcome (Levine, 2009).  I will not argue that assembling teams for every decision that has to be made during the course of a week is necessary.  I do not believe it is.  There are those that come up fairly often that would benefit from the collaborative approach.  Occasionally however, a situation surfaces that demands input and collaboration.  They usually hit your desk late on Friday afternoon with the letters, bold and red, stamped for all to take notice: ASAP.  Your instinct will be to drop what you’re doing and take care of it so you do not have to worry about it over the weekend.  My advice is do not do it.  Read it, understand it, begin to put together a mental action plan, but do not do it.  Lay it neatly on your desk and make it your first order of business Monday morning.  That is exactly what I should have done.

It was September 2001, a week or two after the towers fell so everything was important and every task was due immediately.  Our wing was flying 24-hour coverage seven days a week out of three different locations.  At home coverage was the entire continental United States and additional Presidential escort/support missions.  I will spare you the math, but doing that requires quite a few aircraft continuously rotating orbits and masses of personnel to make sure there were aircraft ready to go at all times.  Our two deployed locations of course had aircraft tied up that could not return to help.  The result of that was numbers and statistics being posted daily that was once believed impossible; the numbers were staggering.  But I digress.  That is a story for another day.  What all of this meant was everyone that worked on our base was on duty for twelve hours, went home for twelve, and then returned to duty.  The traffic was a nightmare.  Getting on or off base was nearly impossible and it created traffic problems which posed a serious threat to personnel.  Twice a day, anyone with bad intentions had open access to half the workers.  We were sitting ducks if you will.  This brings me back to my task.  I did receive it late in the day on a Friday afternoon.  The task was to implement staggered arrivals and departures to reduce the volume of traffic at the gates.  But, it had to be transparent to mission accomplishment.  It seemed straightforward and simple enough, so I sat down, gave it a little thought, and completed it in less than minutes.  I split each shift in half would come in at 0600 hours and the other half of the shift would come in at 0800.  The relief was similarly staggered half of the shift in at 1600 the other half at 1800 hours without sacrificing mission.  I was pleased that it was done and I did not worry about it all weekend.  But, I probably should have.

Monday morning at roll call I briefed the new staggered arrival departure times, but instead of the smiles I expected got confused/angry looks.  I asked the section chiefs to remain with me for a short meeting and dismissed the rest of the section.  The section chiefs told me that they had heard that this change was about to happen and the people wanted to have an input.  They did not want it to be staggered as it was.  It affected a large number of people, in fact the only person it did not affect was me.  The section chiefs assured me there was a better way to meet the task.  I recognized my action as a mistake.  I got an extension on the task and told the section chiefs to go get the information they need, put together two skeleton plans, and meet back here at 4 p.m.

At 4 p.m. we were sitting at the table.  My plan affected childcare for thirteen people, school for eleven, and part time jobs for another eight.  The rest were just pissed because they were not allowed to volunteer many were already switching times.  How arrogant that I would make a decision that affected so many but did not affect me.  If I had waited and brought the stakeholders (section chief)s I would have had the information I needed, access personnel expertise, to expertise on daily operations, how to best separate shifts and remain operational, having stakeholders would keep  me from destroying morale, and I would have succeeded the first time through (Hoch, et al.,2001).  The section chiefs came, as promised, with two well thought plans.  I selected the plan that affected the least amount of people and caused the least amount of damage.  It also put my flight back on 8-hour shifts again…a far superior plan. 

Beyond the section chiefs, I do not believe anyone else could have helped me that day.  I learned that I needed to not make the decision in a rush on the way out the door.  It was rushed at best and irresponsible at worst.  Making a rash decision that will not affect me is careless and should never be repeated unless absolutely necessary.  Finally I learned that expertise is readily available in the form of stakeholders and I will not skip over them again

References:
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on Making Bad Decisions. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Levine, S. (2009). Gettin to Resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration (2nd Edition). Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

No comments:

Post a Comment