In my personal experience, when management within my
organization makes an effective, timely, and well-thought out decision,
employees are much happier and certainly more engaged than they are when
decisions are made in a different manner. Knee jerk reaction decision-making
can lead to poor decisions and promote a lack of confidence and enthusiasm by
employees.
To
go one step further, Insightlink.com points out that involving employees in the
decision-making process when an issue directly involves them is critical and,
“will increase their commitment and improve the success of implementing new
ideas or change”. Therefore, I think that in order to make more effective
decisions and engage employees, managers should make an effort to include the
opinions of those who are directly affected by that decision. What better way
to make employees feel engaged than actually engaging them? When people making
decisions are well informed about the issues, better decisions are made and the
entire organization benefits. Why would I want someone who is well versed in
Blackboard making decisions about EagleVision? Or better yet, why would I want
someone who only has limited knowledge making critical decisions? From an
organizational perspective, that is not a prudent idea. So the bottom line is:
involve employees in decisions relevant to them and everyone reaps the rewards
of higher engagement and better performance.
According
to Dan Gilbert, our previous experiences can hinder our decision-making
abilities. This is true not only for individuals but also for managers and
organizations. Using last week’s case study as an example, if Spinks’s project
were funded and failed, the organization and management would be leery of
funding another project, especially one that is so expensive and grand in
nature even if there is minimal risk. We tend to avoid situations similar to
those where we have been burned in the past and gravitate towards the familiar
or what has typically been successful for us.
Another
important obstacle to mention according to Blenko is that of complex org charts
which bog down the decision-making process, making it slower and harder to make
decisions because of varying values and opinions. I know that in my current
organization, it takes a long time to make decisions because we have several
layers of management. Unfortunately, senior management likes to have the final
say when there are important decisions being made which can cause delays.
In
large organizations or where there is high turnover, it can also be difficult
to determine who is supposed to be making the decision, according to Blenko.
This recently happened on my team when my direct supervisor left in March. He
had only been on the job about 6 months himself and people were just getting
used to him and understanding his responsibilities. So when he left, customers
(and employees alike) were confused by who to go to. Even after my new supervisor
was hired, there was a period of adjustment for customers, not to mention the
fact that he needed time to bring himself up to speed. This confusion led to
increased decision-making time in addition to some poorly made decisions.
Decisions
should also be authentic or, in other words, consider whether the decisions has
been made after evaluating alternative ideas. This authenticity may come into
question and have to be defended. In the effort Blenko describes, alternatives
should be examined in order to ensure that a quality decision has been made.
In
my position, I have to make many decisions that relate to training on various
technologies. When I am making decisions that affect a wide range of
stakeholders, I make an effort to involve many of them in the process. This is
a practice that I intend to continue as I think that the quality of my
decisions is better when other points-of-view are considered. I appreciate when co-workers reciprocate
as well. Working together leads to higher caliber, well thought out decisions
and increased value for employees in the final product.
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment