Roresishms

A Virtual World of Live Pictures.

Bill was a newly appointed project manager on a mission critical systems development initiative. Ann, Bill’s boss, trusted Bill to lead the initiative and gave him the freedom he needed to execute without getting in his way. While the two worked well together, they struggled in one area: decision-making. They had several cases where Ann was surprised by the key decisions that Bill made, but did not inform Ann. Bill also did not benefit from Ann’s experience on various issues and made uninformed decisions that hurt the project. Ann asked Bill to include her more in the decisions, but Bill took it as if he needed to go to her to make decisions that he could have made on his own. Bill was frustrated with his perception of Ann micromanaging him, while Ann just wanted to make sure she was on top of key decisions. The project was finally done, but not without a lot of friction between the two.

Friction that could have been avoided.

The key to a leader who empowers followers is the follower’s ability to make decisions without always having to ask the leader for permission. When done right, the follower can execute more agilely and with greater ownership. When it is not done as well (as in the previous case), both the leader and the follower are likely to be frustrated by missteps, poor communication and potentially harmful decisions that were made without enough information. I have learned from doing this wrong so many times that there are four degrees of decision-making where the leader and the follower agree on the amount of guidance and input that is provided in decision-making. The degrees, or what I like to call railings, are as follows:

  • Get approval – The follower presents the decision with a justification of support to the leader. The follower asks the leader to decide. The leader is the one who decides; follower is informing. Example: a follower must ask permission to hire an employee.
  • Seek advice – The follower presents the decision with a justification of support to the leader. The follower asks the leader for advice. The follower is the one who decides; the leader is the advisor. Example: a follower should seek advice before promoting an employee.
  • Report only – The follower presents only the resulting decision (minus the supporting justification) to the leader. The follower reports to the leader. The follower is the one who decides; the leader is the receiver. Example: a follower must inform the leader when he takes a day off from work.
  • Do not inform – The follower makes and executes the decision without scaling the leader. The follower is the one who decides; the leader is not informed. Example: a follower acts without informing the leader when he takes time off during a workday for a personal appointment.

By creating four distinct categories of decision-making, you acknowledge not only the extremes (getting approval and not reporting), but you also acknowledge that there are some decisions where a leader must provide information about a follower’s decision (seek advice), as well as those decisions in which the leader must keep abreast of the decision (only inform). By classifying the types of decisions in these four categories, both the leader and the follower are better aligned with the decisions that are made and the degree of participation that the leader should have in the decision.

When defining the decisions under each railing, it’s important to keep a couple of things in mind:

  • Don’t try to define all the possible decisions the follower can make. Focus on decisions that are material in nature and help establish a theme for the types of decisions that the follower addresses in his normal course of work.
  • Great empowering leaders don’t apply a single decision-making approach to all followers. Factors such as the level of experience of the followers and the degree of experience in the matter influence the category of the railing for different types of decisions. For example, a follower newly promoted to a leadership role may have some decisions that fall into the seek advice category where a more experienced follower would have the same decisions in the report only category.

To successfully implement guardrails, leaders must do the following:

  • Classify typical railing decisions for your job. – To set an example to the followers, the leader must make his decisions and place them in the categories of railing. By doing so, you not only set an example that followers can use, but you also highlight potential decision-making conflicts that a leader might have with their boss.
  • Empower the follower to define railing decisions. – A big step in establishing trust with a follower is asking them to define the types of decisions that fall into each of the four guardrail categories. The leader then works with the follower on adjustments until an agreement is reached.
  • Adjust handrails with capacity changes – Review the railing decisions in each category periodically to make adjustments as the follower’s experience level and subject matter experience level change.

Take your time early on to gain clarity on your decision-making expectations using guardrails. It will help reduce the friction between leader and follower and promote a healthier empowering relationship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *