Clarify decision making to accelerate performance… and stay away from the #3 "swamp!"

 

 

I had the chance early in my career to go through a lot of training classes/experiences as part of the process of “coming up” in large well-run companies.  The commitment to build the skills and capabilities of their young talent was a hallmark of companies like Kimberly Clark and Kraft Foods… early stops on my career journey.  When I took the role as marketing manager for The Coca Cola Company in 1990, 5 years into my career, I had no idea of the intensive and amazing training that was ahead of me!  This story comes from one of those experiences… probably from sometime in 1994 or 1995… now 30+ years ago!

During those days, Roberto Gouizueta was Chairman and CEO, and Sergio Zyman was CMO of the Coca Cola Company.  Both individuals were bigger than life to me at the time, and I had the chance to see them speak to groups large and small and to be in meetings with them a time or two early in my days at Coke.  It was at one of those meetings, a large worldwide marketing conference hosted by Sergio, where a major priority was for us as marketers to refine our approach, accelerate our work, improve the impact of our plans and in order to do these things we needed to clarify our decision-making approach.  While a bit theoretical, we broke out into small groups ( mixed with peers across the world) and began a training module on a “Decision Making Framework” that would help us clarify “Decision Roles” and thus accelerate our actions in the market… it was in these sessions that I learned to “stay away from #3!!

The training simplified ALL problem decision making moments (problem solving scenarios) into one of five categories and our job was to clarify which “category” was pertinent at the moment and accelerate the problem solving ahead.

Decision Making Scenarios

1.        I am the decision maker, and I don’t need and am not asking for any input on the decision.

2.        I am the decision maker, and I do need input and thus am asking for input from these specific individuals/groups/departments before I make the decision.

3.        WE are making the decision and may or may not need input.

4.        YOU are the decision maker, and YOU need input from me, other individuals/groups/departments before YOU make the decision.

5.        YOU are the decision maker, and you don’t need any input and are not asking for any input on the decision.

We worked through all the scenarios above in our small groups and came together to discuss the opportunities and challenges that the clarification process took… and to realize the “swamp” of #3.  We realized that too many times in our day to day work we were finding ourselves in discussions literally “circling” a problem, not making a decision, not getting key input, not clarifying decision rights… and ultimately slowing down the impact in the market.  We were setting stuck in the “#3 quicksand” and didn’t even realize it!

I share this little story from the early 90’s to encourage you think about this in your context today.  Whether in a small company environment, a non-profit organization, or a foundation (the three environments where I am spending my professional energy these days), ask yourselves if you have w=found yourself in the #3 “swamp” recently and work to push yourselves and your team in #’s 1 or 2… or maybe #’s 4 or 5…. but work hard to eradicate #3 from your team’s daily habits!!

 

Simultaneous solution of multivariable equations: a leader’s dilemma

It’s rare that I turn to mathematics as an inspiration of leadership lessons in my essays, but today I have been reminded of the challenge of solving complex problems with multiple variables at play… and needing to solve for those variables at the same time… or simultaneously.  I encountered this topic back in college with my first go at Linear Algebra… and worked on it more deeply in grad school.  In those days, before pc’s and broad-based personal computing, we used the “matrix method” and hand-built matrices to solve theoretical equations manually.  A few definitions follow below will help build a base of understanding so we can turn to how this concept is a basis for a leadership lesson.

 

Simultaneous solutions for multivariable equations require finding the values for multiple unknown variables that satisfy all equations at the same time, using substitution, elimination, or matrices

Core Methods

• Substitution Method:
• Isolate one variable in one equation.
• Plug that expression into the other equations.
• Solve for the remaining single variable.  
• Elimination Method:
• Multiply equations by numbers so one variable has matching or opposite coefficients.
• Add or subtract the equations to cancel out that variable.
• Repeat to peel back layers until one variable is left.  
• Matrix / Linear Algebra:
• Convert the system into row-echelon form or use inverse matrices.
• Best for large systems with three or more variables.  

 

 

Now that we have some of the mathematical definitions in hand, how in the world do they relate to leadership and lessons on decision making and problem solving for leaders?  Over the past few weeks, in conversations with a number of C-suite execs, I keep running into individuals facing challenging moments and tough decisions looking for my advice. These execs span a variety of companies and industries, but all are facing very difficult issues with many variables affecting the moments at hand.  As I dig into the conversations with each individual, we start going through the wide range of factors (think “variables”) that need to be sorted out in order to make the best decision possible.  It was after one of these discussions and leaving the “zoom call,” it dawned on me that here was another example of an executive trying to solve a “multivariable equation” and that they and I were informally using one of the methods ( mentioned above) without realizing it and without much positive impact.  We “swirled” around the problem/issue/challenge and debated the various factors/decisions/”variables” that would need to be considered…. but we made limited progress.

As a followup for one of those calls, I took some time and wrote out the factors/ ”variables” at hand (there were 7) and did my own ranking of the 7 factors/”variables” on a scale of “importance.”  Now “importance” is extremely subjective, so I looked to add a little analytic discipline of my own and de-composed it into three elements… “Importance” = ”Strategic impact on the business” X “Impact on me and my family” X “Impact on the organization.”  This allowed me to thus “score” each of the factors/ ”variables” and build a prioritized list of the 7.  In the same fashion, I asked the exec to do the same… NOT try to problem solve all 7 factors/ ”variables” at once but to use this technique to “prioritize” the list.  While we had a little debate on the order of #3-#7, the top two, most “important “ factors/”variables” were clearly at the top of both of our lists.

Once we had the top 2 identified, I encouraged that we make the decisions on these two factors/ “variables” first… discuss/debate then make the call on the top 2 …then and only then decide on the other 5 factors/”variables” once we had the top 2 set in stone… in other words we used a “prioritized method” to get all 7 factors/”variables” sorted and thus were able to chart the path forward guided by making the decisions on the most important “variables” first!

This technique was helpful to navigate the complicated, “multi-variate” problems facing these execs, and it reminded me that finding new approaches to problem solving and decision making is important and can come from lessons learned in a college/grad-school calculus class!