Getting to Great Decisions

Making strategic decisions are a critical challenge: striking the right betwen decision-making processes and timely action.

In the book Getting to Plan B, the premise is presented that Plan A most often fails, so we need a process to methodically test assumptions to get to a better Plan B.

Acknowledge Plan A is probably based upon flawed assumptions

Accept that a leap-of-faith is required to explore questions fundamental to arriving at a better answer. We each have different assumptions around those critical questions - determine which assumptions are stronger.

Explore and challenge those assumptions. This helps the group to focus on assumptions, not the opinions.

Plan A often looks well analyzed, clearly defined with a sense of success around it.
Then once the initial exploratory phase begins, and previously held assumptions are challenged, many of these assumptions are found to be incorrect - leading to quite a different looking Plan B. As Plan B is often more complex, and more closely related to reality, it is often greeted by the business with dismay, taking on a more negative connotation that Plan A. It is critical that Plan B’s are not viewed as failed Plan A’s. It is merely accepting that Plan A was flawed in its assumptions, and viewed in an idealistic context. Consider Plan A the critical reality test to get to the main plan, Plan B.

Leaders need to be comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity and allow for a process and culture that supports the notion that the best ideas take longer to come to the top. Leaders also need to be confident enough to openly change their opinions based upon the strength of the arguments presented by others.

Key Prinicples

Cultivate internal critics
Safeguard diversity of thought
Clarify assumptions underlying different points of view
React rapidly and grasp opportunities
Force tough choices between business priorities
Learn from mistakes and listen to feedback

Process

The best process to reduce the risk of bad decisions must be quick, flexible, and open enough to include intuition, and flashes of inspiration.

Run the analyses on all the available data
Sound out the relevant stakeholders to find someone that has no agenda about the issue at hand - lower the risk of escalating commitment to losing endeavors on emotional grounds.
Recognize, encourage, and balance bias rather than tuning it out. Seek individual contributors to balance biases based on unique domains and experiences.
Aim for consensus - not unanimity
End the debate, make a decision, and move on.

Dealing with Biases

Managed appropriately, biases can actually work to the benefit of a good decision, rather than being something that needs to be mitigated. One notable leader, Randy Komisar of Kleiner Perkins uses a balance sheet approach to manage the very different opions that typically result from groups that have very different domain skills and different levels of experience. In the ‘balance sheet’ process, every person contributes their best insights and consider the ideas of others, without justification. In this way, biases merely add a weighting to various items.

Every person lists both the pros and cons of the opportunity. No judgement is proffered at this stage.
Do a round table to capture all the pros and cons - most smart people will uncover many of the same issues.
Assemble insights, rather than conclusions
Discuss biases and assumptions that lead to the opinions - people will often reveal their biases to themselves
Avoid aiming for 100 percent certainty around a decision - assume every decision needs to be tested, measured, and refined. Based on those results, either move forward or correct course.

Using such a process, strong opinion leaders are mitigated from signalling their conclusions too early.