Leadership and Decision Making

Decision-making is fundamental to leadership: coming up with ideas, exchanging information, reviewing proposals and directing resources are all aspects of leadership and decision making. So how do you best make decisions as a leader? The answer depends on where you are in your career in terms of leadership: “senior”, “mid” or “entry” level and whether those decisions are made in public or in private. This is according to Brousseau, Driver, Hourihan and Larsson in their 2006 article, “The Seasoned Executive’s Decision-Making Style”, Harvard Business Review.

According to their research, approaches to decision making differ in two ways: the use of information (“satisficing” with little information or “maximizing” with more information); and the number of options generated (“single focus” with one option and “multifocus” with many options). Mapping these two axes yields four decision-making styles. Further, people appear to use different styles in public (the “leadership style”) than they do in private (the “thinking style”) and the most appropriate styles to use evolve according to leadership seniority.

Here’s a summary of the four styles and the evolution followed by further implications (“et alors”).

Leadership and Decision Making

There are four styles of decision-making:

1.       Decisive (little information, one option)

·         The private thinking style is direct, efficient, fast and firm

·         The public leadership style is action-focused and comes across as task-orientated

2.       Flexible (little information, many options)

·         The private thinking style is about speed and adaptability

·         The public leadership style comes across as social and responsive

 

3.       Hierarchic (more information, one option)

·         The private thinking style is highly analytical and considered “final”

·         The public leadership style is complex and highly intellectual

4.       Integrative (more information, many options)

·         The private thinking style is broad and uses many inputs for many solutions

·         The public leadership style is creative and highly participative

These styles show a particular evolution over the course of a leader’s development:

For public leadership, the most appropriate decision-making style at “entry” level is “decisive” whereas the least applicable is “flexible”. At the “mid” level these start to inverse and temporarily equate with the other two styles. At “senior” level, the most appropriate decision-making style is “flexible” (whereas “decisive” is relegated to last place).

For private thinking, the most appropriate decision-making style at “entry” level is “flexible” whereas the least applicable is “integrative”. At the “mid” level these start to inverse and temporarily equate with the other two styles. At “senior” level, the most appropriate decision-making style is “integrative” (whereas “flexible” is relegated to last place).

Et alors?

How you decide in public and private appear to be diametrically opposed; however this is not irrational. For a first-line supervisor, minimal information and a single option is appropriate for “decisively” leading task-orientated decisions “on the shop floor”. Nevertheless, in private, the “entry” level leader is actually “flexibly” thinking about various different options, even though reviewing lots of information might not be possible. For a “senior” leader, the accent is on flexibility in public – leading with options from little information. At the same time, the leader needs to think in an “integrative” manner to consider both more options and obtain as much information as possible.

According to the research of 120,000 individuals the hierarchical style never appears to be the most or least appropriate leading or thinking style. For both public and private decision making, the hierarchical style has mid-range prevalence at the “entry” level which then dips at the “mid” level before recovering to a higher prevalence at the “senior” level. Only amongst Europeans and only in private for thinking decisions did the hierarchical style prove successful at a “senior” level (above “integration”). What is interesting is that otherwise, having reviewed the results regionally, (Asia, North America, Latin America and Europe), these evolutions in both leadership and thinking decision-making styles “follow the same trajectory across all four continents”.

This has some implications for the development of global leaders: 1. If all leaders start their career thinking flexibly, they should develop and adapt this style into the public space to lead flexibly (more options even with little information). 2. Decisiveness has its moment early in a leader’s career but becomes less significant (both privately and publically) later. 3. Unless in Europe and in private and then only at senior level, the hierarchical style should be used with care! 4. For private decision making, the art of the “integrative” decision style should be developed: at senior level, seek more information to make more options – look outside and beyond your normal frame of reference.