Management decision making is crucial to the success of an organization. While that statement may appear moot, the decision making process is often taken for granted in many companies. In a few businesses, the process is even short circuited to gain support for some very questionable policy choices.
Instead of helping the company move forward, the options provided are often self serving at best, or damaging to the business at worst. The choices presented to the manager are very often placed in the form of two false choices. The manager, CEO, or board are expected to select either Option A or Option B. While that dual selection process may appear reasonable on the surface, it can miss other better alternatives. In any situation, there are always more than two possible courses of action. The alternative choices just may not appear so obvious at first glance.
The scenario usually unfolds with the manager being told to select between two possible courses of action. Surprisingly, the manager very often accepts those two choices as the entire universe of options. Agonizing over the pair of bad choices, the legendary lesser of two evils is chosen with reluctance and great trepidation. When the alleged lesser bad is selected, the organization suffers as a result. Instead of narrowing the universe down to what amounts to a rock and a hard place, other better courses of action should be sought for the good of the organization.
It is often surprising how many people will accept, without further evidence or questioning, that only two possible solutions exist for any problem. The reasons for that phenomenon are many and varied, and are deeply seated in society. For example, news programs show what they consider "both sides" of an issue. In reality, far more than two points of view exist, and are often far removed from the ones presented on the ubiquitous split screen. The same multiple decision thinking holds true for other aspects of life and business as well.
In many cases, the false choices offered are part of a personal agenda on the part of a decision maker. That personal ambition can manifest itself at any level from the CEO and the boardroom to the custodial closet. In many companies, personal agendas outweigh the good of the company and its customers. My manipulating the decision making process into dual false choices, the personal agenda takes precedence over the company.
In other business situations, the two bad choices may result from faulty data, poor record keeping, or a failure to embrace creative thinking. Incomplete data and flawed accounts paint a false picture of the company. Using that incorrect information to make policy choices can lead to disaster. In these troubled situations, the decision makers will seek the proverbial magic bullet. All too often, because the decision makers failed to look more deeply into the real company problems, the supposed cure only has two options. Very bad things are the usual result.
Don't let your thinking be limited to only two options. Your management team must look further, and seek other more viable alternatives. Include the entire staff, or a team selected from a representative overview of the company personnel, as your creative task force. The selection of people will vary with the size of the business. Smaller companies can brainstorm with the entire staff. Larger organizations will have to select and rotate individuals from every department. Let ideas and thinking run free. Don't limit thinking or suggestions. Usually, the very best ideas are the ones that appear most outrageous at first blush.
With total company involvement in the decision making process, the false dichotomy of two choices, will become a thing of the past. Look beyond narrowing your scope to only a pair of lukewarm or even bad choices. Seek the ideas from every department in your company. The right answers already exist for the problem. It is only a matter of letting your people help you to discover them.
You will no longer be faced with the pain of deciding upon the lesser of two evils again.
