The President Gives a Lesson on the Five Steps.

'Today the United States, together with our allies and partners, has reached a historic understanding with Iran which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. As President and Commander in Chief I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people. And I am convinced that if this framework leads to a final comprehensive deal it will make our country, our allies, and our world safer.'

- President Barack Obama announcing the Iran Nuclear Agreement.

President Obama begins a twenty minute explanation of a major decision by reminding his bosses - the American people - and the rest of the world, of his Widget:

'The security of the American people.'

He is saying 'There are many Widgets that may not be served by my decision and therefore as many critics of it. So when you're evaluating my decision and its criticisms, remember my Widget that you elected me to serve.'

He proceeds to explain to the American people and the world - his good decision making.

He's the most powerful person on earth - and yet unlike many lesser bosses - he doesn't rely on his positional power to get what he wants done.

He shows his working out. 'You may not agree with my decision,' he is saying, 'but at least you can see how I arrived at it.'

Most importantly the President is saying:

'I am going to share with you all the information that I have. I trust you - everyone from the Wall Street Banker to the farmer in Oregon - to be smart enough to see how I reasoned my way to this decision - as if you had been sitting alongside me at every table along the negotiating pathway to my decision.' That's a profound statement of both self-confidence and trust. 

President Obama addresses four of the Five Steps to a Good Decision.

(We shouldn't expect any decision maker - particularly the President of the United States - to reveal her Step 1. To do so would risk undermining the purpose of the First Step: to allow the decision maker to purge themselves of emotions that may detract from her ability to address the decision on its merits. 'I ranted to the First Lady about how stubborn the Iranian leaders were and how political and pig-headed Congress is, and then had a couple of stiff drinks before watching a couple of episodes of West Wing followed by ten laps of the White House pool and several covert cigarettes in the Rose Garden while the Secret Service kept a look out. Then I went back to work making my decision.')

Step 2: Define the Issue. (Also the first job of a leader: Define reality.)

'By the time I took office, Iran was operating thousands of centrifuges, which can produce the materials for a nuclear bomb. And Iran was concealing a covert nuclear facility.'

In other words - 'My Widget, the security of the American people - wasn't being made.'

Step 3: Assess the Information.

'Because of our diplomatic efforts, the world stood with us, and we were joined at the negotiating table by the world's major powers: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China as well as the European Union.'

In other words 'I won't bore you with all the technical details in this speech, however other nations have looked at the same information that we did - and come to the same conclusions.'

Step 4: Check for Bias.

'In [my] conversations [with Congress], I will underscore that the issues at stake here are bigger than politics. These are matters of war and peace. And they should be evaluated based on the facts, and what is ultimately best for the American people and for our national security.'

In other words 'I'm not doing this for my own ego or glory or to ensure my place in history. What better way to prove this than for me to argue my case before Congress and teach Congress the same lesson of objectivity.' (We teach best what we most need to learn. If we want to ensure we're not being biased, teach someone else how to rid themselves of bias.)

Step 5: Give a Hearing.

'Given the importance of this issue, I have instructed my negotiators to fully brief Congress and the American people on the substance the deal. And I welcome a robust debate in the weeks and months to come.'

In other words 'Let me know if you've got anything to add to my thinking and the many decisions that still need to be made.'
 

President Obama began by defining reality. He concludes as all good leaders do - by saying Thank You.

'And most of all, on behalf of our nation, I want to express my thanks to our tireless — and I mean tireless — Secretary of State John Kerry and our entire negotiating team. They have worked so hard to make this progress. They represent the best tradition of American diplomacy.'

The Decision Black Box Data Recorder.

A decision crashes to earth shortly after execution.

Shredded, mangled and smouldering plans and assumptions, and splintered egos lie strewn across the impact area, that is soon roped off with yellow and black tape marked with 'MISTAKE: DO NOT CROSS.'

Expectations - customers, clients, staff,  connecting decision-makers - wait in vain to greet the decision at its scheduled outcome, then demand answers as to What Went Wrong and Who To Blame.

Connecting decisions are delayed across the decision making network, each spreading its own ripples of disruption.

Similar models of decisions are postponed or cancelled for fear that they share a fatal defect.

News of the failure affirms the procrastinators, cynics and equivocators' Fear of Trying. They celebrate by smugly busying themselves drafting agenda items for another meeting to discuss meeting formats.
 

What happened?

A naive inquirer ducks under the 'MISTAKE' tape and picks her way past the debris of opinions, conjecture, conspiracies, myths, recriminations, and folklore scattered for as far as rumour and fear can exaggerate.   

She's searching for the Decision Making Black Box.
 

Good decision making is a deliberate process of inquiry that advances you towards where you want to be.

The Process of Inquiry - the Five Steps to a Good Decision - is the 'Black Box' Data Flight Recorder equivalent in decision making.

In the aftermath of a decision, the decision maker can review each of the Five Steps that led to the decision, identify any element that may have contributed to the decision not having the expected outcome, and learn from it.

Did Step 1 allow enough time for the decision maker to purge herself of emotions that may have contaminated her decision?

Did Step 2 accurately identify what the issue was - usually by finding a specific source of power to make the decision - or was the decision maker distracted by 'topics' or personality politics?

Did Step 3 gather, verify and inquire into enough relevant information?

Did Step 4 diligently and soberly seek out any biases that may have influenced the decision maker away from acting in the best interests of her Widget?

Did Step 5 identify all the people who might be affected by the decision and allow them to be heard on what the decision should be?

If the decision maker has the Five Steps she can review and learn from about why the decision didn't achieve the outcome she hoped for, then that knowledge can be applied to the next decision to make it more effective.

If, on the other hand, the decision is made like 45% of decisions are - by gut instinct or positional power, then there is no process of inquiry - no 'black box' - to learn from.

It should be routine for decision makers to review the decision making process to find out what can be learned from them and done differently next time, even when the decision did achieve the intended outcome.

It's Good Decision Making - a process that can reviewed and improved, and therefore advance us towards where we want to be. 

The Controller Accepted Jurisdiction

'I....do swear that I will truly and honestly demean myself in the practice of a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Western Australia according to the best of my knowledge and ability.'

- Oath taken on admission as a legal practitioner.

The Report on Investigation into Loss of separation between Airbus A330 VH-EBO and Airbus A330 VH-EBS near Adelaide SA on 20 September 2013 referred a number of times to the air traffic controllers 'accepting jurisdiction'. For example:

'The controller accepted jurisdiction for the track of the eastbound 747 at 1204:58.'

'Accepted jurisdiction.' What a great way of saying 'The controller accepted authority to act.'

I had a boss in the corporate world who used to ask when he wanted a report on the progress of a client engagement: 'Who owns that relationship?'

Step 2 of the Five Steps to a Good Decision is to Define the Issue.

One way of the decision maker defining her issue amidst the noise of opinions and competing self-interests is to ask herself: 'Do I have the authority to make a decision that will advance my boss's Widget?'

Do I have the power? The authority? The jurisdiction? Where can I find the source of that power? In my contract of employment? A policy? What elements need to be in play to trigger my power to act? If I don't have the power - who does so I may 'offer them jurisdiction'.

Jurisdiction is a fine word for another reason.

The controller was required to make decisions. Not at their whim and discretion and subjective opinion. The origin of the word 'jurisdiction' is the Latin jur - law - dictio - saying.

To have jurisdiction - decision making power - requires the decision maker to speak the law. To give effect to a higher power. The controller's job was to serve and animate the will of a higher authority.

Or put another way, the controller's job was not to meet their needs - but the needs of their boss's Widget.

'Demean' is a word not often used, and when it is, it is in a pejorative context. It is about as unfashionable as the word 'obedience'.

Law graduates seeking admission to practice used to have to swear to demean ourselves to the Law. To humble ourselves. To put ourselves beneath. To serve.

I think this concept may be what organisations are grasping for when they speak of being 'committed to...'. They mean - demean. To make everything else secondary.

When we truly accept the jurisdiction for our Widget - to 'speak its truth';  
When we undertake to demean ourselves in the building of our Widget - put our egos aside and serve it;  
Then we liberate ourselves from so much of the distractions, self-interest and trivialities that sabotage good decision making.

Too much? Too heavy? Too...demeaning?

Then don't accept the job. Or quit.

Good Decision Making Lite.

Following Five Steps to a Good Decision too steppy?

Choose one then.

Step Back before making your decisions, 

or

Name the Issue before making your decisions,

or

Assess the information before making your decisions,

or

Check for Bias before making  your decisions,

or

Give a Hearing before making your decisions,

Apply just one.

You'll be a step closer to where you want to be.

The Self-Cleaning Decision.

'We should also pay particular attention to the first decision we make in what is going to be a long stream of decisions...When we face one decision it might seem to us that this is just one decision without large consequences. But in fact, the power of the first decision can have such a long lasting effect that it can percolate into our future decisions for years to come. Given this effect, the first decision is crucial and we should give it an appropriate amount of attention.'

- Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational

It's rarely practical to trace and review the great-great-great-great grandmother Decision that gave birth to the successive generations of decisions right down to the one that is now in labour in our brain.

The Five Steps to a Good Decision perform the kind of audit recommended by Dan Ariely without the need to identify and scrutinise the First Decision.

In Step 1, we remove our finger from the fight-or-flight trigger and surrender to the surrounding forces of emotions. We allow them to capture us so we can wallow in our solitary confinement of self-pity. We don't even try to put on the camouflage of reason and return to the decision making front. We lie on our bunk and sulk.

In Step 2, purged of our inward looking selfish emotions, we return to the external task at hand - serving our Widget - and name the issue before us that is relevant to our Widget work. We focus on what needs to be done today, and not what we did yesterday.

In Step 3, we assess the information that we have today, and gather more if we need it with an inquiring mind. We're looking at facts and data, not precedent.

In Step 4, we check for bias. We deliberately scan our thinking for anything that is obscuring our view of our Widget. We're filtering out echoes from past decisions.

In Step 5, we allow a hearing. We invite anyone who may be affected by our decision to go over our reasoning and see whether it supports our likely conclusion. We're bringing in an external reviewer to see if our options are backed up by data.

The Five Steps not only lead us to a good decision, they self-clean our brains of any residue that may taint the next decision. 

Be attentively curious.

Power.

'The law always limits every power it gives.' 

- David Hume

Step 2 of the Five Steps to a Good Decision: Name the Issue.

It's only an Issue if you have the power to make a decision in support of your Widget.

Ask: What power do I have? 

Look for it in your contract.

Look for it in your policies.

Look for it in what your boss has said she expects of you.

No power? Then there is no Issue and therefore no decision required of you. Inform someone who does have the power.

Power?

Then ask:

What are the conditions or restrictions on the exercise of that power? 

Welcome them. They give focus. Quieten the noise.

If you have a power - you have limits.

Be clear on what they are.

(You'll often find them in your Values.)

Then continue to Step 3.

IAW

In Accordance With. 

A familiar term to anyone who has served in the military.

IAW Defence Instruction PERS 34-4, I...

IAW Chief of Defence Force Directive, I...

IAW the directions of my Commander, I...

'I am making this decision as the servant of an inanimate, objective, indifferent, neutral pardon-me-and-no-offence-and-I-couldn't-care-less-I've-never-even-met-you-let-along-formed-an-opinion-about-your-mother source of authority.'

Not iaw my ego.

Not iaw my personal Widget.

Not iaw my biases.

Not iaw my instinct.

Not iaw I got out of the left side of the bed today.

Step 2 of the Five Steps to a Good Decision is to Name the Issue.

One way to do this is to check our decision making authority.

Try drafting an announcement of your decision that begins with:

'In accordance with...'

Two.

The second of the Five Steps to a Good Decision is to Name the Issue.

The commonest mistake in every decision making level of every organisation is to ignore our Widget.

(Hence the importance of Widget clarity.)

A Good Decision is one that advances us towards where we want to be - ie our Widget.

In Step 1, we purged our emotions so that we could make a decision using external information and not internal emotion.

In Step 2, we need to ask ourselves: ‘What is the Issue?’

We need to sift through all the information that we have and identify what it tells us about our Widget.

The answer is the Issue.

There are a number of tools that we can use to name the Issue:

• How does this information affect my Widget?
• What law, policy, procedure, rule, promise, value or other undertaking am I responsible for that requires me to act on this information?
• Do I have the authority to act on the information?
• What action does my Integrity (doing what I said I was going to do) demand of me in response to this information?

If there is no clear statement about whether you have the authority to make a decision, you could rely on the principle of Subsidiarity:

‘It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and/or industry.’

- Pope Pius XI

Don't be distracted or bound by what someone else tells you is the issue because they're defining it against their Widget - not yours.

A third party usually doesn’t get to decide what the Issue is.  You do.  

Because it’s your Widget.

You are in the job presumably because you have the experience, expertise and authority to make decisions about your Widget that serve the organisation’s Widget.

If the information does not affect your Widget, either pass it on to someone whose Widget may benefit from it, or…proceed to Step 3.

Vows.

Monks managed and educated most of Western Europe for a few hundred years. They understand Recruit Hard, Manage Easy.

The novice monk presents himself for his final interview. 

Here's the gist of what follows.

'Pay attention,' the Abbot says to the other monks and people gathered to witness and support the novice. 'Remember: Life is short. You're a long time dead. So let's not waste time.'

'Is there anyone here who wants to be a monk?' the Abbot asks.  

'I do,' says the novice monk.

One of the monks who he'll have to live, work and pray with speaks.

'He's been with us on probation,' is the gist of what he says publicly to the Abbot. 'And now, on behalf of all of us, we think he's ready to become a permanent member of our team.'  

'What do you want from being a monk?' the Abbot asks the novice.  

'To serve by my actions.'  

'Hear, hear,' is the essence of what the other monks say.  

The Abbot continues.  'Are you sure that this is what you want to do?' 

'I am.'  

'Do you promise to commit yourself fully to this vocation?'  

'I promise.'  

'Do you promise to follow our rules because you know that they will allow you to reach your potential?'

'I promise.' 

'Do you promise to put the needs of the team ahead of your own?' 

'I promise'

'Are you resolved to strive constantly for self-improvement for the benefit of others and something bigger than yourself by zealously following the rules?'   

'I am.' 

'Are you resolved to serve others?' 

'I am.' 

'We believe that you speak with integrity,' the Abbot says. 'And we trust you.'  

'Hear, hear,' the monks and those in the church say.

The novice monk walks up and stands before the Abbot. He bows his head.  He slowly and purposefuly reads out loud the conditions of his contract.

He has written them all out by hand.  

The monks walk up to the altar and stand around him in a large circle. He places his contract on the altar and signs it.

He then holds it up to show the Abbot. He walks around the circle of his brethren stopping in front of each one and holding his signed contract up to show them.

The novice monk holds it up to show all the people in the church.

He stands before the altar and sings the Suscipe with arms extended.

 Suscipe me Domine, secundum eloquium tuum et vivam: et non confundas me ab exsectatione mea.

Here I am. Now don't let me down.

He sings it three times.

The monks sing it three times.

He's now a fully professed member of the monastery team.

Clear expectations. Clear mutual promises. Clear boundaries. Publicly declared. Repeated. Celebrated.

Distractions.

Good decision making in three words:

Be attentively curious.

Curiosity is about asking questions.

Attention - according to neuroscientists - is about suppressing distractions rather than enhancing what you're paying attention to.

It's all about the Widget.

Remember the Five Steps.

Step 1: Step Back. Indulge in the distractions. Don't suppress them. Romp in all the feelings and irrational thoughts that won't get the Widget built but that are distracting you from doing so. Be selfish. Purge. Be human. Be yourself.

Step 2: Identify the Issue. Return to the Widget. Start earning your pay. Start asking questions.

Step 3: Assess the Information. Data. Policies. Logic. Cool. Questions.

Step 4: Identify Bias. Am I being distracted by something irrelevant to the Widget? Questions.

Step 5: Give a Hearing. Hey! Affected person! Proof read this! Have I missed anything? Questions.

Questions suppress distractions by forcing us to listen to answers - and by zooming in on the parts of the answers that are Widget relevant.

Make the Decision. Become who you are.

Remove the distractions from everyone who's relying on the decision so that they can do their jobs.

It's called Leadership.

Swift.

'If you don't deliberate (at least for a little bit), it's not a decision, it's a reflex.'
- BJ Fogg

According to research by global management consultancy Hay Group (brought to my attention by Jonathon), 94 per cent of Human Resource Directors believe that empowering line managers to make people decisions is a top priority.

In a blog post  by a Hay consultant commenting on the report, he argued that HR needs to be an 'enabler of business performance and swift, efficient decision-making'.

Agreed. Sort of.

It's easy to assume that 'swift and efficient' equals 'good'.

It's easy to mistake the cries of 'I wish someone around here would just make a decision!' as a call for speed and economy. Swift and efficient.

Decisive decision makers are rarely good decision makers.

They look good because they're swift and efficient.

They make decisions alright. Bang, bang, bang. Faster than their harried assistants can drag a pen or finger to cross off each item in a real or virtual To Do list.

'Is that it?' they say at the end, rising from their chair, casting their eyes around the room, before blowing away the wisp of smoke curling from their gun barrel and re-holstering it. 'Good. Meeting adjourned.'

'He's so decisive!' they whisper to each other as they file out of the room.

Few of them see what happens next. The aftermath of decisions made without reflection, delegation, assessment or fairness. The consequences rear-ending each other and bursting into flames in open plan offices all around the organisation. Good people trying to support and execute on swift and efficient decisions that lack logic or evidence or authority or justice.

HR departments should get in line behind the accountants, lawyers and other advisers  and wait their turn to empower line managers' good decision making. In Step 2, and perhaps an encore in Step 3 of the Five Steps to a Good Decision.

If the line manager is a good one, they may have to wait. She will be busy stepping back.

Lines.

On 23 November China declared an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the South China Sea and warned of military action if any aircraft entered it without permission.

A pair of United States Air Force B52 aircraft flew through the ADIZ today and nothing happened.

In 1973 Libya declared the Gulf of Sidra as closed to ships and aircraft from other nations. The US regularly sent ships and aircraft through the Gulf and in 1981 shot down two Libyan fighters that fired at its carrier based fighters.

Under International Law, if nations accept by their actions unilateral declarations by one nation about the extent of its sovereignty for long enough, then the re-defined boundaries become part of the law. Powerful countries like the United States make a point of exercising their freedom of navigation to show that they have not accepted them.

If military aircraft aren't traversing through other countries' ADIZ then they're 'tickling' them. 'Tickling the ADIZ' is flying close to a declared ADIZ boundary and occasionally ducking over it and back out. It is designed to trigger a response from the other country so that the 'tickling' military can gather information about the other's military capabilities.

Aircraft ducks in - ADIZ country activates radar, sends orders and other command and control communications that can be intercepted and analysed, aircraft might be scrambled to intercept, giving an insight into reaction times - aircraft ducks back out, laden with information collected about the other country's defences.

Despite their military utility, ADIZ are a creature of civilian aviation and military aircraft are exempt. They are intended to give air traffic control greater power over civilian aircraft that are in international airspace, but intend to enter sovereign airspace. But if there are eight radar contacts seeking permission to enter an ADIZ and seven declare themselves then it's a good guess what the eighth one is.

Laws, policies, procedures, contracts, agreements, mission statements, values statements, duty statements, codes of conduct, working hours, meeting schedules, delegation registers, deadlines. These are the ADIZ of an organisation. They declare: 'If you do this, you can expect us to do that. If you cross this line, we will respond in this way.'

The lines that we draw and our responses to them literally define us. We are revealed, tested and shaped by the decisions that we make relative to the boundaries in organisations and in our lives, and in the way that we respond to our own and and others' transgressions of them.

In a healthy organisation, boundaries are a shorthand way of an organisation saying:

'We know by our expertise and experience that our Widget is best made if you stay this side of the line. We don't want every person to have to measure out the line themselves or to re-learn what our lawyers, accountants, marketers, HR department, investors and customers have already told us about where the line should be. You've got better things to do - like making the Widget. We've got better things to do than explaining all our thinking behind these boundaries. So you just need to know - here's the line. Don't cross it.

'We also know that many of you will want to test the line or duck over it to see what happens out of your inherent curiosity, mischief, ignorance, laziness, or mistake. Please pay attention to the lines and don't cross them for any reason. Because your innocent action looks exactly the same as that of someone who has more sinister intentions. We don't want to have to inquire into each person's motives. Plus, we want people with good judgement who pay attention and respect our lines. So just stay this side of the line please. Thank you.'

In a healthy organisation, lines are drawn sparingly and only when the law or the Widget demand them, and not as mere power statements. If they are drawn when only absolutely essential, transgressions or 'tickling' of the lines must have clear and unequivocal consequences because by definition they threaten the existence of the organisation's Widget.

As even the Director of Values said in one organisation: 'Do whatever you want within the boundaries, but cross them and you'll get shot.'

Breaches of boundaries can reveal more about a person than that they merely crossed a line.

An organisation's response to a breach can reveal a great deal about the organisation.

Boundaries are the foundation of Good Decision Making. It's Step 2.

Good decision making is an essential part of an organisation's Integrity.

Integrity is doing what you said that you were going to do.