Monday Mentor Week 27-The Levels of Decision Making

It is important to note that not all decisions are created equally nor do they require the same type of thought and analysis.



To improve the ability to make decisions, effective leaders must first analyze and determine the decision level in which they are dealing. There are basically five levels of decision making and each have a different set of consequences and impacts.


Rudimentary decisions are those base levels of decisions that you process on a reactionary and almost automatic mode. Should I go to the bathroom? Should I eat now or later? Should I use this word or another, more colorful word? These are processed in very quick terms with little thought and usually very little impact. The sphere of impact is limited usually to you and you alone.


Operational level decisions are those decisions that are usually produced in the day-to-day flow of business operations and many times dictated by a formalized authority matrix. Approving checks, signing requests for time off, authorizing refunds, providing credit and allowing overtime are common examples of operational level decisions.


A significant issue in many businesses is that too many operational level decisions require far too high of a level of approval. The most healthy organizations press down decision making authorities to the most appropriate level and require line level team members to make the bulk of operational decisions, especially those that affect customers or end users. When decisions are consistently pressed upward, organizational efficiency is dramatically reduced and the ability of a company to respond to customer needs and changing environments is impaired.


Ninety percent of all operational level decisions should be made at the team member level. If more than ten percent of operational decisions are coming up to a leadership level, there is wasted time and efficiency could be improved. Some leaders, not the effective ones, are very comfortable in making more than ten percent of the operational level decisions because it insures their importance and reinforces their need to the team.


Tactical decisions are those that affect how business is done. This is more related to the mission than to the vision of an organization. Common tactical level decisions include staffing levels, scheduling, budget submissions, procedural elements and processes. Tactical decisions should be left to the leadership level that is most closely connected to the front line team members. This level of leadership is most expert in the tactics needed to deliver products and services and should be charged with the lion’s share of tactical decision making.


Like with operational decisions, some more senior level leaders like to insert themselves into tactical level decision making. Even with one-up approvals on tactical issues, this will hamper effectiveness and neuter lower level leadership innovation, decision making and ownership.


The next level of decision making is strategic. Strategic decisions define overall direction of an organization or unit within an organization. These are the very important decisions with major impact such as strategic planning, growth or contraction, product lines, pricing, locations and overall corporate strategy. This type of thinking is not limited only to senior and c level leaders but it is most commonly associated with that level in an organization.


With each of the four levels of decision making identified above, there is an increasing bar of impact for each level. Impact increases as the decision level increases and with that, the amount of time, thought and analysis must increase as well. It should not take weeks to make an operational level decision and strategic decisions should not be made in thirty seconds.


Another dynamic of the decision making levels is the longevity of the outcome. Operational level decisions have short life spans while strategic decisions will have lasting and sometimes legacy levels of life. Also with these levels is the ability to unwind the decision. Operational and tactical decisions are relatively easy to reverse while strategic decisions are much harder, more complicated and have a greater cost to change.


As a strategy to reduce rash and arbitrary decision making, triage decisions into the categories above before moving into other decision making steps. This will assist the effective leader in determining the amount of input from others and time required to effect a great decision.

Monday Mentor Week 26-Stop Being the Answer Man (or Woman)

One of my most frustrating childhood memories involves asking my mom how to spell a word and receiving her stock response of “look it up.” She knew how to spell the word and she knew that her answer frustrated me but she said it consistently and constantly until I stopped asking.


Stopped asking her to spell the word and looking for it first in the dictionary. She taught me how to problem solve and think. She could have answered my question but I would not have grown and learned on my own. Well done mom.

The first step in reducing and eliminating sheep and sheep-like behavior in your team is to cease being the answer man.

This is an area in which the enemy you fight has an outpost on the top of your shoulders. It is powerful to have the answers. People look to you as the brightest bulb in a room. You are a walking Wikipedia of work knowledge.

With every question that you answer, you are strengthening the chain of co-dependence to you and micromanaging the work environment. When you answer the question of a team member, you are subtly telling them that they do not need to think because you will provide all the answers that they need.

Don’t underestimate this ego battle. It is so cool to ride your white horse to the rescue of your team members and fix their dilemmas. They need you. They tell you how important you are. It feels good. You have the knowledge and the power and they love you for it. Bah.

The most effective leader will inquire behind team member questions about what they believe is right. That sounds like “what do you think you should do Leon?” Further ratcheting this up response you might say something like “Terri, you saw the same issue last week and worked through it nicely.”

Some leaders will hesitate asking questions back because they fear it will make them look weak and unknowing. The opposite is quite true. It is the leader secure in his or her skill set and competencies as a leader that will not rely on being the answer person and seek to grow the knowledge and abilities of their team.

The absolute most effective leaders create and share power and not just store it up. In the equation of forcing team members to think and articulate their own solutions, you are shifting power to them and creating real growth in your team.

When asked, ask back. Don’t be the leader with all the answers, be the leader with all the questions. If you persist in having all the answers, congratulations, you have made yourself invaluable and you are in the last job you will ever have.

Monday Mentor-Week 25-Persistence and Resilience

When I was a child, I always wanted the blow up clown that when you punched his nose, he bounced right back up. Never got it but always wanted it.



That clown teaches us a valuable lesson in the resilience needed by effective leaders. The one certainty is that you will get smacked down. You will have obstacles. You will have setbacks and defeats. You will get criticized. You will not always be liked or even loved.


The true measure of an effective leader is not about the setbacks or obstacles but how you choose to respond after them. The effective leader must be resilient and bounce back just like the inflatable clown. Smacked. Right back in the game. No pouting time allowed.


Resilience is affected by many factors. Your physical health, emotional well being and rest all impact your resilience responses. When you are tired, worn down and beat up, resilience is hard to summon. If you have dysfunction in your personal life, resilience at work is difficult.


Restoring and maintaining resilience is often a matter of being in close contact with your physical and emotional status. How does your body feel and what is it telling you? How is your emotional composition? Do you feel sad, blue or down? When you hear these signs it is time for a recharge because your resilient responses will be down.


One of the best tools for restoring resilience is to immediately return to a productive activity. There is nothing like a full task list or appointment schedule to take your mind off of a set back or defeat like immediately getting busy. This strategy is also an important sign to your team that you will not be distracted by minor bumps in the road. When you are down, get right back to work doing something different.


The old saying goes that the best way to cheer yourself up is to cheer up someone else. As a skill, assisting others is a powerful method to restoring your own resilience. The self-satisfaction obtained by helping out someone or encouraging someone is a tremendous method to restore your own personal resilience. When beat up, down or losing battles, go an help someone else.


Another tool to restore resilience is to redirect energy into an area in which you know you will be successful. You have areas in your life in which you are very good. Go do those things and restore your confidence in your abilities. Maybe you are a good golfer. Go golf. Maybe you are artistic. Create a masterpiece. Maybe you coach a soccer team. Go engage with them.


A final tip for restoring resilience is about surrounding yourself with positive people and those whom you can rely upon to provide some positive feedback. When you are feeling a little down, seek out the trusted sources that can pick you up and restore your responsiveness.


Persistence is also a necessary ingredient in effective leadership. Leaders must persist in doing the right thing without becoming stubborn or pesky. You must have the judgment to know when to continue plowing forward and when to give up, defer and move to other issues.


One of the most common challenges to persistence is related to the disciplining or firing of a team member. In some organizations, the human resource function produces obstacles and barriers to eliminating a team member. The effective leader responds to these obstacles in a persistent manner and enhances documentation, completes another probationary period or provides additional coaching to the employee. Unfortunately, some leaders respond to the obstacles by giving up and declaring the team member cannot be terminated.


Persistence is also challenged by organizational realities and sacred cows. When a leader wants to innovate and they run headlong into a pet project or sacred cow, only through persistence can they achieve the desired change. Often the best persistence comes in the form of a temporary withdrawal followed by seeking a new path beyond the barriers or obstacles being faced. Poking an issue in the same manner over and over again is not persistence. It is stubborn and unyielding.

Monday Mentor Week 24-The Why Bother Phenomenon

In about twenty years of consulting and training work, we have documented an incredible phenomenon related to the lack of positive feedback in working environments. It is the “Why Bother” phenomenon.



Basically, what happens is that a team member does something well and the leader does not acknowledge or appreciate the activity. The first time around, there is not much harm because intrinsic motivation and pride will drive the team member to do well again. Unfortunately by the second or third time with not acknowledgement, thanks or reasonable belief that any appreciation is coming, the team member will develop a “why bother” approach and begin performing at minimum or worse levels.


This phenomenon also occurs when a leader is seen only in the role of critic in chief. The only time we hear from the boss is when something is wrong or she always tells people how to do it better so, “why bother.”


“Why bother” can become pervasive in workplaces and organizational culture when there is no expectation for positive feedback. It is very common when a leader ascribes to the “I pay them to do a good job” or “I expect them to do a good job” or the “when they don’t see me they know they are doing well” philosophies. Arcane and fatally flawed, you can’t produce replicated good performance through ignoring people.


Another contributor to “why bother” is the systems used in place of human interaction positive feedback. Annual performance reviews, employee of the month plaques and bonus checks have value but do not come close to the immediate reinforcement needed reproduce good performance.


As a leader, if you want to jump start the performance of team members or recharge an entire work group that you think is under-achieving, positive feedback can cure the “why bother” phenomenon quickly and re-motivate team members.

Monday Mentor Week 23-Change Resistance

To fully understand change we must examine why people are resistant to change and there are many reasons and underlying factors.



In a working environment, change is resisted because it will lead to a loss of power. A person is currently performing at a high level and has achieved expertise in their area. With a change to a process or function, they will no longer have that level of expert power and they fear that their personal performance will no longer be recognized at a high level. Visualize someone typing along at 85 words per minute on their IBM Selectric typewriter and how they feel that their performance and expertise will be threatened by the introduction of the personal computer and word processing software.


Another primary cause of change resistance is found in a basic human dynamic. Humans need to have levels of stability in their lives. Attachment, connection and some predictability. For many people that stability is found at home or in connections outside of work. They have stable relationships with friends, relatives and community members. They have lived in the same place for a good chunk of time. There is predictability outside of work.


Other people do not have that stability at home and thusly seek it at work. Imagine someone who’s life is chaotic outside of work. No stability in relationships or predictability in routine or interactions. They come to work to seek the stability and attachment that is not there in their personal lives. These people will tend to be a little more resistant, if not down right hostile, towards change. This is another example of how important it is for a leader to know and understand their team members to lead effectively, especially in a changing environment.


Among the most common factors in change resistance is also a personal dynamic related to human behavior. I am married. I love my wife but there is an aging factor that occurs in relationships with individuals and organizations that is related. Early in our relationship, I opened all the doors, bought flowers for no reason, purchased mushy Hallmark cards and beat a path to be helpful around the house. Twenty five years later I still love my wife but my diligence on some of those early behavior has waned.


What occurs in interpersonal relationships, like with me and my wife, is comfort develops after performance is stabilized. Far more dangerous is that complacency follows comfort in most instances. In organizations, a person develops comfort in their job, performance and methods. Complacency and an auto-response type approach frequency follow. Another day, another dollar. Going through the motions. Punching the clock.


Any element of change rocks that complacency. It forces people off of the treadmill and requires them to think instead of auto-process. It makes the complacent uncomfortable.


Fear of the unknown is also a common factor in change resistance. When the future is defined and clear, with a known path towards it, there is little fear. When the future or even just tomorrow is unknown, clouded or veiled, the little darkroom of fear begins to process potential outcomes. Those outcomes, for a variety of reasons, is most often negative consequences associated with the change. That is where the “oh my gosh, I am going to loose my job” and “things will never be good or the same” type of comments originate.


The final change resistance factor is rather odd because it does not occur universally but it does occur with high frequency. Some people resist change because they fail to recognize any positive outcome from the change event or the changed process. They focus only on the loss of the current and not on any benefit derived from changing and evolving. My mother hates computers. Not for any particular reason but she hates them and everything about them. She will not touch them and experiments to help her embrace email and on-line banking have failed miserably. She see no benefit and only bad. Her identity will be stolen, viruses will infect, it costs too much, it wont work correctly.


Some of my mother’s octogenarian peers have discovered the joys of social networking, the efficiency of email and the fun of creating photo albums on the computer. Not my mom, all she sees is the negative outcome.