Leadership Voyage

S4E6: Make Better Decisions

• Season 4 • Episode 6

Share episode

Text Jason @ Leadership Voyage

Leadership Voyage
email: StartYourVoyage@gmail.com
youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@LeadershipVoyage
linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonallenwick/, https://www.linkedin.com/company/leadership-voyage-podcast/
music: by Napoleon (napbak)
https://www.fiverr.com/napbak
voice: by Ayanna Gallant
www.ayannagallantVO.com
==========

Instacart - Groceries delivered in as little as 1 hour.
Free delivery on your first order over $35.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

wherever you are on your leadership voyage it starts here Hey everybody welcome back to another episode of Leadership Voyage the podcast dedicated to your pursuit of becoming a great leader My name is Jason Wick your host Feel free to contact me anytime at the emailstartyouvoyaggmail.com I'm happy to hear from you about any of the topics on the uh previous episodes or if you have ideas for new topics any of the above Love to hear from you And some of folks have been reaching out Uh I've gotten uh many guests that way in the past just so you all know So don't hesitate to reach out if you have a topic you're interested in discussing or you know someone who might be a great guest uh based on whatever topic that they are an expert in Start your voyaggmail.com I had an interesting journey to get here this morning because I spent the last 10 minutes trying to troubleshoot my audio issues and after um tweaking settings rebooting my computer and so on and so forth realized that the microphone cable wasn't plugged in So got that figured out and we are ready to go Today I have a pretty exciting episode Um something that's really important to me personally is the process of decisionmaking And I read an article back in March kind of bookmarked it and set it aside and read it again And it kind of served as a catalyst to bring a handful of things together uh for me where I think there's just some really important things to discuss about the process And I'm going to lay this show out into four parts They're all pretty short but the four parts are first going through this uh Wall Street Journal article that I I just mentioned an article that I noticed back in March Secondly is the um discussing kind of the pressure people feel to make quick decisions Third um how much information does someone need to make a good decision And then fourth how can you get better at making decisions So Wall Street Journal article talking about the pressure to be decisive and act quickly looking at how much information we might need and finally how do you get better And for each of these sections we've got sources to talk through as usual um augmented by my own thoughts So let's dive in Right There's an article in the Wall Street Journal um of which I'm a subscriber The uh let's see it's in the business section March 14th 2025 by Naomi Rothman who is a professor at Lehi University in Pennsylvania professor of management at Lehigh University The title of this article is the best leaders aren't decisive they're ambivalent And then it says conventional wisdom is that you want a boss who's decisive and resolute about the path forward but that has it backward And my guess is for those of you who just heard that if you're really engaged in listening to that you're thinking that really this article sounds backwards Uh what do you think of when you think of a strong leader I'm sure a lot of characteristics come to mind but more than likely one of them that makes the top five traits is someone who is decisive or resolute It doesn't mean that they're um not open to hearing uh input Maybe it's not mutually exclusive but I suspect for many of you you would associate decisiveness courage right in uh as something that's synonymous with strong leadership So let's step through this article First of all it it talks about what is the picture we have of a successful leader And it talks about someone who's decisive in control has very little doubt And as it already suggested up top this article suggests based on research that this is backwards They've got 20 decades worth of re of research that they are drawing from here around the relationship between leaders decisionmaking and the success in their organizations And what the author is calling out here is that the most effective environments that they've studied are where the leader who has the decision-making power questions themselves I'll say that again The organizations where they've been most effective where they've studied this relationship between decision-making and organizational success is where the leaders question themselves Particularly in complex situations is where this is an asset Not seeing things as black and white Being receptive to contradictory evidence You know I know we can all relate to confirmation bias when we already think something is the way it is and then we just see that answer wherever we look And what this re research suggests is by being open to contradictions by leveraging that evidence to evolve your um your uh opinion of a situation your assessment of a situation that is in the best interest of the decision-making process and the organization's success So as it suggested in top up top in this article we have a kind of a prototypical leader right this person who doesn't doubt themselves is in control decisive So there's a challenge if people are ambivalent in decisionmaking because being definitive generally leads people to leadership opportunities promotions etc People who are called ambivalent perceived as ambivalent are generally uh considered weak But again as they they dove into a a variety of studies in this article uh there's a link to the article in the show notes so feel free to check it out But uh when you have this process of ambivalence in the decision- making it shows you have better results because you're including more perspectives As a result uh teams themselves below the leaders are more curious kind of learning by example and the teams think that the leader themsself is a better listener because they're seeking out other perspectives contradictory evidence So let's say you buy into this idea And I'm going to get into the word ambivalent right at the end of this section because some of you may be going ambivalent Ambivalent Okay that's just not a positive word to me Well we'll get into that in a second But in this article it talks about how do you build ambivalence in decision-making And there are three ideas The first is acknowledge your internal conflict And I can understand what this means Sometimes if there's something nagging at us we suppress that thought If there's something ah there's that there's that one little bit of evidence that that's in the way of what I believe and what I think I should do right now I'm just going to ignore that because it's a small thing that's back there in my mind Let's just forge ahead So first step is acknowledging that internal conflict providing space for that thought and to actually think about it and assess it and analyze it Second is to pursue internal conflict I find this one interesting Not only acknowledge as it said in step one of building ambivalence but pursuing internal conflict How do you do that Well it says if you journal if you engage in the arts then you are experiencing more of a range of emotions particularly in the arts where you might have the tension of multiple emotions stacked on top of each other during a single experience I find this fascinating So pursuing internal conflict is uh a second uh thing to do to build ambivalence And then third is talks about building a new culture In other words in your organization or with your team whatever your purview might be make it clear that questioning yourself is a part of the decision-making process So just making normalizing that which I found interesting also put systems in place to skew the odds in favor of people embracing their internal conflict I haven't really thought about what this might look like Um but uh baking it in in some form that people will indeed acknowledge and pursue their own internal conflicts Because if you think back to what it was saying at the beginning being ambivalent suggested embracing the internal conflicts you have seeing the different perspectives acknowledging the holes maybe in what you think right now all of those different things being receptive to contradictory evidence beyond what you hold to be true or what you want perhaps to be true So acknowledge internal conflict pursue internal conflict and build new culture Those are the three things that the author suggests for building ambivalence That's the summary of the article Now here's the thing The comments you know the internet is a is a dangerous place right The comments underneath this are are scathing at least the ones that rose to the top which perhaps isn't surprising But what I observed is when we read through these comments and many people you know say "I've talked to dozens of CEOs and they're all decisive or the word you know ambivalence is absurd It's wishy-washy You know you don't want to be that." What I found is these comments are are maybe getting a little bit hung up on semantics What's the difference between ambivalence and uh being wishy-washy uh versus being aloof Let's kind of separate those three terms for a second Ambivalent means that you have mixed or contradictory feelings about something Okay Aloof means you're maybe distant detached or uninterested And wishy-washy means you're indecisive uncertain or lacking strong opinions perhaps even lacking the courage to take a stance Let's have a grown-up discussion here right The internet again is a dangerous place No matter what your connotations were coming into today about the word ambivalence let's try to set it aside and talk about what the author is saying because I think this terminology is getting in the way of their point Their point is we should see different perspectives during the process of coming to deciding on something I think that's the takeaway and that the research shows when people do acknowledge the different sides that are out there to consider when people do seek out contradictory evidence and opinions that their organizations are more successful because they've considered more angles their teams model the behavior and the people who work for them and follow them are better uh perceive them to be better listeners and so all of this comes along for the ride I don't think and I'm speaking for the author here but I guess I'll just speak my own opinions This doesn't mean that you aren't decisive at the point of making the decision This doesn't mean that once you decide you back off you can still monitor the decision closely continue to look for more feedback and data as it comes in and adjust along the way In an odd way I almost found the comments on this Wall Street Journal article a microcosm excuse me not a microcosm Um yeah actually a microcosm of what the article suggests gives you lower results in decision-m being extremely black and white shutting down other opinions and not being willing to listen to something that doesn't fit into what you already believe also known as confirmation bias So I just encourage you all to think for a minute Yes this is academic research but it is still studies that we can leverage to improve ourselves And that's the point of this podcast Help people wherever they are on their leadership journeys So don't get hung up on the word ambivalence and instead think about the different ways along the process of decisionmaking that this article suggests you can get better results with your teams and with your businesses your organizations That's the key Okay that closes up the first section this Wall Street Journal article And as I said the link is in the show notes for you Second when we're making decisions we often feel the pressure right We have to take action fast We have to have the answer as soon as our manager asks us the question "What do you think about that?" And I was so so lucky in season 2 episode 10 to have the great Michael Watkins on this show the author of The First 90 Days and he has a new book out as well I I've got to track him down Hopefully get him on the show again But you know what I took the opportunity to ask him if he had any wisdom to share with us around decisionmaking So it actually connects fairly deeply to making successful transitions right Because as you're taking a new role you're going to feel internal pressure to start to make decisions and take action Uh I call it the action imperative right That internal pressure Oh you know Jason says to himself I need to prove myself I need to show whoever they are that they made the right choice and putting me in this role And that can lead you to make decisions perhaps before you're as informed as you need to be Yeah And so I always say basically look think about balancing you know almost like a triangle right of learning and connecting on on one side deciding and acting on the other and reflecting and planning on the bottom right and sort of you're moving around that that cycle and don't get driven to making consequential decisions too early What great advice right um are we in fastpaced high pressure environments Yeah Is the world around us changing rapidly with AI Yeah Are the growth pressures on businesses with private equity acquisitions those folks on the board member uh those folks on boards all over the country right And and and intense pressure Yeah of course But the question is how much pressure do you feel to take action and show your worth How much are you trying to impress someone and therefore feeling what Michael Watkins said this action imperative You know I I definitely am a kind of person who uh when I when I have something I I want to finish the the um the urgency to check that box and get it done can be pretty intense And I can understand the action imperative I want to finish this and show whoever was asking about it or asking for it that I have got it figured out and it is good to go and this is what I think about it Let's go Once again we're getting into a gray area It's not mutually exclusive to slow down get information and then still formulate a cohesive hypothesis have conviction and roll that thing out with confidence I don't know about you but wouldn't you feel more confident if you took a little extra time to consider some more alternatives Absolutely I would You're not going to think of every alternative You're not going to think of every competing idea but you'll think of some You'll come up with some You'll ask others for some How much extra time does that take you I mean think about the decisions you might have to make on a daily weekly monthly quarterly basis Some of them take a long time right But many of them probably do not We're talking about on the order of days right You tell me if I'm wrong Startyouvmail.com I'd love to hear your thoughts But let's let's make better decisions by following the process that yields better results Bring a few people along on the way It takes a little more time but the second order and third order benefits could be well better well beyond what you're thinking the first order benefit is So that takes us to the third section which relates to what Michael Watkins was just talking about and what I was just uh adding to which is well how much information do I need to make a decision How long do I need to take to make a good decision I'm going to pull out two big names in this section The first is uh Jeff Bezos of Amazon of course The second um the paro principle as I learned about it from Bay & Company the consulting firm and so first Jeff Bezos I think he's been talking about it in multiple shareholder letters but the first I heard of it was around the 201617 18 area uh era and you know it talks about this difference between 70% of information and 90% of information You can have your own opinions on it I've mentioned this on the show before Uh he suggested make a decision when you have 70% of the information rather than waiting till you have 90% of the information And I think that's totally valid I mean how do you know when it's 70 or 90% I don't know That's for you to figure out I suppose But I suppose you can feel a little bit better if you go out and get some uh as we said some contradictory evidence or some other opinions from people who are different than you something like that And again how much time will that take I don't know But the point there I I I think what we tend to focus on is don't wait too long to make a decision because you're not getting the benefits of the extra 20% of information between 70 and 90 But let's not forget that maybe there are people making decisions before they have 70% of the information too Okay The Bezos comment I think is targeted at people who are perhaps uh veering towards analysis paralysis and that's fair But let's also be fair and talk about maybe we should apply the 70% to decision-making processes that don't gather enough information that aren't getting more than perhaps 50% Now I learned about the paro principle Uh I'd heard you know it's funny I'd heard 8020 or 2080 or paro many times but it wasn't until a couple of years ago that I I actually had a good explanation given to me So first off uh Paro was an Italian who observed that 20% of the people in Italy I think I've got this right 20% of the people in Italy owned 80% of the land said slightly differently 80% of the country was owned by 20% of its inhabitants Now when I took some training with Bay & Company the way that they interpret this the paro principle the way that they interpreted this is around working efficiently In other words this idea that you get the greatest positive impact if you focus on the highest impact areas you're looking into with the minimal amount of effort In other words the way that Bane looks at this is you can get about 80% of the results from the first 20% of the effort I think that assumes it's a smart effort Again the highest impact areas and that after that you could work on and on and on and on and on and on but the ROI on that is very low You may or may not have strong opinions about this but I think this is a helpful thing to think through here You have a decision to make What are the important things you're trying to analyze understand learn gather and what are those most important 20% of your effort going to go to Frontload your effort in the important things that you need to understand So whether it's make a decision after you have 70% of the information or 20% of the effort gets you 80% of the results I think what we're hearing is that there's a strong consensus around making decisions quickly by frontloading the most important information And I think it's pretty hard to argue against that But when we get to the section here at the end the fourth one well what the heck uh what's the important information How do you know what's important How how do I know I'm making a good decision How do I know that my process is good This article in the Wall Street Journal talks about building ambivalence but what are you asking about when you talk to others and bring them in What are the what are the questions that you're you're drawing from to help get you the best information and insights that you can in this process And my answer is not to tell you what those questions are but to give you a model and I didn't invent it I will tell you who it is from Uh a model for improving your decision making And I have had a decision-making journal going back to the year 2018 Okay And the reason I have a decision-making journal is because of this uh this group called Farnum Street F A R N A M Farnum Street and I was a member for a little while and there's a decision journal template and it makes a lot of sense if you think about it You need to engage in purposeful practice if you're going to get better at navigating gray areas of decision makingaking And I don't know many decisions that are black and white Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a decision to discuss right And even then if it seems like a no-brainer you don't know what the rest of the um what the variables that make things complex around it say over the next one three six months So I've got a link to this as well for you It's the Farnum Street decisionmaking journal template And what does this look like I'll give you an example You write down the date and the time of the decision Okay Just going through the rigor of writing this down could even influence your decision itself You write down the date and time in your own handwriting Okay When you see your handwriting it's much harder when you look back to rationalize You write it down and you say what your decision was You write down how you felt mentally and physically at the time that you made it You write down something about the situation about the context Kind of define the problem state or the problem frame What are the variables to consider What were the complications and complex complexities What alternatives did you consider What's the range of outcomes that you think could happen And then what is your expectation and the probability of your expectation happening And what happens here is as you look backwards later you have to go back a few months later they suggest six months When you go back and look at your decisions you'll learn from reading about them Oh this is what I was thinking then but I didn't see that And my argument is that as you engage in that process just like any other thing of purposeful practice you're going to get better at it You're not going to have a straight line It's not linear progress right You're going to make bad decisions but you're going to be better at the process And I think what's interesting is even if you follow a rate process you still might get a bad outcome because the tariffs happened right I don't know something crazy that uh maybe you didn't foresee or you didn't want to acknowledge was going to happen But the outcome isn't just correlative It's not just I made a decision and therefore the next thing happens there's so much else going on that affects these decisions right Or maybe you can honestly look back at your own handwriting and you had a bad process You had a poor decision-making process but you got lucky with a great outcome but it wasn't because of you Something else happened and we got away with it Right And that's what having it in your own handwriting is and really going through the rigor of thinking about what's the situation the problem state variables complications alternatives out um um uh range of outcomes all these different things It provides a really honest opportunity to look at your decision- making And so that's what I wanted to close it up with So we talked about ambivalence in this article from the Wall Street Journal arguing that we've got it backwards when it comes to being decisive in the process of decisionmaking right Let's not get hung up on the word ambivalent as like a personality trait Second don't fall into what Michael Watkins called the action imperative Feeling the pressure to take action just to show your worth even though you don't have good information third 70% of the information then you move or the paro principle from Bane 20% of the effort gets you the highest impact of 80% Whatever you think of that it's interesting to consider And then fourth no matter what you do if you even if you ignore everything you've heard about in this episode go to number four Start the decision journal Evaluate your decisions Be disciplined and look back at them See where you had a good uh good logic and where you were making sense and where you didn't Where did emotion take over Where were you afraid Right All these different things Leverage that to your advantage Put yourself through purposeful practice and you'll get better at navigating the gray areas of decision-making It's been my pleasure and my honor to have another episode of Leadership Voyage for you all today Until next time everybody Take care