D3: Data-Driven Decision Making
As an Army infantry scout in the 1990s, I often had the opportunity to fire numerous types of weapons. During Operation Desert Storm, I was a machine gunner. In the jungles of Central America I carried a grenade launcher mounted to the bottom of my M-16 rifle. I qualified on .45 and 9 mm pistols, and was armed with both an MP-5 and a 12-guage shotgun for counter-narcotics missions. Each had its time and place, and no one weapon was suitable for all environments and situations.
So, it strikes me as odd when leaders charge headlong into operational solutions without first taking into account the specific needs of the “mission.” What I mean is without first identifying the unique outcomes, contingencies, and personnel needed to achieve optimal output. Instead, we blindly launch onto the corporate battlefield hoping beyond hope that what we need is a 9 mm handgun, instead of a bazooka.
One leader tried explaining it this way. He stated rather matter-of-factly, “We don’t have the luxury of evaluating all the data before making a decision. In our world, we need fast, decisive leadership.”
We can all respect the concept of decisive leadership, as long as it derives from sound experience and results in positive outcomes. But decisiveness, in and of itself, is not necessarily a virtue. My nephew is incredibly decisive. He knows exactly what he wants and needs, and he won’t hesitate to make it happen. But he’s six, and his decisiveness can sometimes be interpreted (accurately) as stubbornness.
So too, decisiveness without basis can actually worsen situations. Even quick decision making should be data driven. But the use of data is also fraught with peril that many a leader fails to recognize.
How often have you seen quantitative data built to support a particular idea or strategy? We’ve all see it happen, and we’ve all heard the phrase, “statistics can be found to support any idea.” So, what’s a leader to do?
- Form a hypothesis – First of all, this doesn’t have to take long. But keep in mind that the key to a good empirical study (even a very brief one) is to DISPROVE your hypothesis. Only if you can find no evidence to disprove it can you have confidence that what you believe is happening IS happening. If you only look to prove what you already believe, you’ll accomplish it every time, but with little positive effect.
- Employ solid data analysis – Don’t accept that everyone has strong quantitative or statistical competence. If you don’t personally, find someone who can interpret your data with a critical eye to issues of validity and reliability. Make sure they know their stuff, and trust them to provide you with unbiased interpretations of results.
- Accept the results – Particularly if your hypothesis is found to be untrue, accept it and be willing to change your planned course of action. Don’t fall prey to the temptation to simply bulldoze forward. That’s your ego at work, not your intellect!
- Make decisions based on actual findings, not on preconceptions – So important is this last notion, that it makes the list twice (slightly rephrased). Believe in the data. Trust the expert analyst. And make the best decisions possible.
Leading Up the Chain-of-Command
“But all my friends’ parents let them,” my fifteen year old whined, an angry, yet mournfully pitiful scowl hiding her normally radiant smile.
“I’m sorry, but no,” I calmly, yet firmly responded.
It’s a scene that plays out frequently in our house, each of my teenage daughters repeatedly insistent that I am the world’s strictest, and most unreasonable father. The thing is, I know that’s not true. Even if it was, however, I try to base my parenting decisions on rational, evidence-based logic. And in doing so, I’m comfortable in my need to sometimes (or frequently) tell them “no.”
It’s really not too different in organizations. Leaders are constantly asked to make decisions, and often, these decisions may not be the most popular with employees. At times, leaders must lay down the law, buck the popularity polls, and make the best decisions for the organization, even if those decisions may be painful or met with resistance. It sucks, but it’s part of the responsibility one accepts when stepping into a leadership role.
Strong leaders, even if they occasionally struggle with this, intuitively understand this principle, I’ve found. Yet, in only the best organizations do leaders stand firm on decision-making principles equally up and down the hierarchy. After all, it’s relatively easy to exert authority to those reporting to you, but to uphold those same principles when facing up at the executive throne can be nerve-wracking. Organizational stress can make leaders even more hesitant to resist the temptation to become mere “yes men” to top company officers.
Three key practices can help leaders develop and maintain a balance between respectful pushback and suicidal stubbornness.
1) Set expectations. From your earliest interactions with your boss (regardless of whether she is the CEO or a middle manager), discuss your belief in having responsibility to push back on them at times. Most executives appreciate subordinates willing to help them see alternative perspectives and solutions to business challenges.
2) Practice small. Like most habits, pushing back takes both repetition and resolve. By starting with providing constructive feedback to the smallest of issues, one can begin developing the intestinal fortitude necessary to sustain this leadership principle when critical decision making is faced.
3) Demonstrate consistency. If executives come to expect their inner circle of subordinates will demonstrate courage consistently, their likelihood of becoming defensive when faced with push-back is usually diminished.
Clearly, standing one’s ground is a leadership trait that serves the organization when manifest both up and down the chain-of-command. As long as it does not represent blind stubbornness, such leadership strength can prove a vital and lasting source of institutional trust, transparency, and adaptability. Nearly all organizations value just such a leadership culture.
Ethics in Leadership: The New York Times Test
Resignation. Anyone following the news out of Penn State for the past several days saw it coming. The legendary Joe Paterno is stepping down at the end of the season (if not sooner…still TBD) as coach of the Nittany Lions football program. A leader long esteemed as the voice of integrity, ethical behavior, and decency has had his image and legacy tarnished by a horrendous scandal.
Don’t get me wrong…I don’t feel bad for “Joe Pa.” He’s made his bed and now he’ll be forced to lie in it. No, it doesn’t sound like he violated the law in responding to reports of horrendous sexual abuse of a child. But he certainly violated the trust and integrity to which he purported to hold himself and his program. In one fell swoop, all credibility was lost.
The coaching I’ve done over the past half decade has often involved addressing ethical dilemmas with leaders. Oftentimes, clients are facing moral or ethical situations in which they find themselves confused and conflicted over the right course of action to take. Frequently, our coaching sessions revolve around helping them find the most appropriate actions or reactions to such situations. For me, it comes down to one fundamental test….the New York Times test.
Substitute whatever national publication you choose (I find the Wall Street Journal works better for more conservative clients than the NYT). Simply put, I ask clients to envision their decision or action reported on the front page of the newspaper. Would they be comfortable with their mother, father, wife, or colleague learning about their decision or action as the lead story on the evening news? Or would they cringe at the very thought?
Think about it. Most of us are highly receptive to the perceptions of our families and peers. Like it or not, few individuals remain unaffected by the prospect of their closest acquaintances knowing what they have done (particularly when such a deed is questionable). We’re creatures with egos, pride, and, dare I say, hubris.
So, when faced with the image of decisions being broadcast for all to view and judge, most leaders instinctively conclude “right” from “wrong.” They tend to make the right decisions.
My purpose is not to delve into the specifics of the Penn State scandal. Rather, it is merely to point out that had Joe Pa taken the time over a decade ago to think about the potential public reaction to his lack of apparent oversight and follow-up to his graduate assistant’s story, the scandal could have been quickly and easily used to bolster his image as a leader with integrity. Instead, a tarnished legacy of hypocritical leadership (accurate or not) is all that remains for Joe Paterno. What a shame….
