Hello!
Second episode of the decision making series, around our example of “should you promote a member of one of your teams to the leader of the team?”
Today’s question is, how sure do you need to be before making the decision, one way or another?
The Cost of Staying (CS) and the Cost of Turning Back (CTB)
Cost of Staying = If you don’t make the decision, what is the cost, or the missed opportunity, of not doing it?
Cost of Turning Back = If you make and then need to revert your decision, how difficult would that be and what would be the damage that couldn’t be reverted?
In our example with the promotion, if you stay, that is, if you don’t make a decision, what are the kind of undesirable things you might face? The Cost of Staying:
You may have a leaderless team, motivation may suffer, the team will not grow as well as it could
Maybe the person you’re thinking to promote will quit, tired of waiting for their promotion, if they expect it
In the absence of promoting someone, you need to fulfil those responsibilities, taking time away from other things you could do
If you do make the wrong decision and promote the wrong person, what could be the undesirable consequences of that? The Cost of Turning Back:
Negatively impact the team, in motivation and in performance
Team members may quit
Projects may fail
Team members confidence in you may suffer, as a reflection on your poor decision
This is a framework to think around, and it helps, but it’s not always enough. What if there are good reasons to both wait and to make the decision?
Create safety nets
If you’re unsure, then it means that both making a decision, and not making a decision, come with serious drawbacks. If none of the options came with drawbacks, then you wouldn’t be unsure! It’s not ideal to wait, it’s not ideal to move ahead. What to do?
Which of the two options could be adjusted to mitigate its downsides?
Could you promote, but with a probation period? What would be the things you’d pay attention to during this period?
Could you find a temporary leader while deciding on the long term solution?
Could you split the responsibilities of the would be leader between a few people?
Could you reorganise the team not to need a leader? Not saying you should do this just to avoid the decision, but, if it actually makes sense, it’s a good time to do it.
Too frequently we get stuck in a black and white mindset, faced with two options, unable to pick one. Take a step back, look at the bigger picture, maybe there’s a third way to deal with the situation. Get creative.
Cultural Considerations
Some decisions are pragmatic and operational, but others have a cultural dimension. Deciding to promote someone to a team lead position is one of these cultural decisions. How people are promoted, and what people are promoted, has a big cultural impact on the team and its motivation.
If you’re estimating a project, and you’re roughly 80% certain of your estimates, not a big deal, maybe add a buffer, and go with it. If you’re thinking about trying a new technology but you’re not sure, not a biggie, try it in a controlled environment and see how it works.
However, if you’re thinking of promoting someone to team lead and you’re 80% sure, it’s not so simple, you can’t just add a buffer. What is the other 20% made of?
The Non-Negotiable List
In these kinds of situations, it helps to have a list of non negotiable criteria. Your would be leader may meet 90% of the criteria, but if they lack one non negotiable item, then you can’t promote them. These non negotiable items tend to be about attitude and behaviour, because you can repair tech and projects easier than you can repare motivation, culture and brand reputation.
It’s useful to make this list ahead of time, and even make it public. This is one situation where you don’t want the flexibility, because it will temp you to make an exception that you shouldn’t make.
We’ll look at intentionally constraining your decisions, why and how you would do that, in the next issue.