May 19, 2011
Make Better Decisions Faster
We can’t make the decision
I am sitting in a community-wide meeting of members of the clergy. They are rankled because a community organization requested the use of their mailing lists to provide a valuable (and free) service to some of their members of their congregations. The clergy were told that their lists would not be used for any purpose other than this single mailing. The head of this community organization told them that they had to decide within a month or the members of their congregations would not be able to participate. The month is almost up. Some of the members sitting around the table are upset that they only had a month to make the decision as to whether to release their list. To be fair, there were other complicating factors, but there is general agreement that a month is not long enough for congregations to make such a decision.
The problem is often that the board of directors has retained too much decision-making authority.
Delayed decision-making costs your organization
One of the ways we burnout staff our volunteers is when they feel that they are pushing an immovable rock. Volunteers feel this most often when asking for permission to pursue a project to benefit the organization, and they receive no answer. It’s not that they receive “no” for an answer, at least “no” is an answer. They receive no answer at all since no one has the authority to make the decision, or the decision has to go through myriad layers of staff, then subcommittees, then up the to the board, which may send it back to committee. While this decision-making labyrinth seems natural to insiders, it saps everyone’s energy and is unnecessary. Decision-making can be done better and faster in three easy steps.
Three steps to faster decision-making
1. Set criteria for decision-making.
Think ahead. Board should be concerned about decisions such as protecting the information of their members, but they should also be concerned about safety, protecting their assets, budgeting and planning appropriately, treating people ethically, etc. The list is not exhaustive, but it is important to think ahead. Boards would do well to list these concerns, grouping them by categories. Perhaps one of the sections is “Treatment of Members” and under that heading, the board could have a policy such as, member’s information should only be used for purposes that directly support the mission of the organization and should not be given to other organizations for purposes of sales or soliciting funds. This policy sets the ground-rules for how an organization’s information should be protected. The board may choose different criteria, as is their right, but now any decision maker can use this policy to protect the information of members
2. Delegate as fully as possible.
Once the criteria are set, it is helpful if the board (or any supervisory body) allows subordinates to have as much latitude as possible. Use the RAIN principle for delegating. For each decision, set one person as the person Responsible for shepherding that decision. Tell the responsible person who, if anyone, must Approve a decision, who must give Input regarding the decision, who must be Notified after the decision. (RAIN: Responsible, Approve, Input, Notify) Allow the authority for the decision-making flow as far down the organization chart as possible.
3. Allow for reasonable difference of opinion
When authority is delegated, the newly empowered decision-maker must be able to render a reasonable judgement rather than divining what the person above might have decided. For instance, if the Board of Directors of one of these congregations had delegated the decision-making authority to a member of the clergy, as long as the clergy follows the board’s policy, then the decision could have reasonably been made in minutes rather than weeks. The Board should expect that their policies are followed, and the clergy-person should expect that their decision is judged charitably.
Define->Delegate->Decide
Organizations are more hospitable to their staff and volunteers when their define their areas of concern, what would constitute a good decision, and delegate the decision-making as far down the organizational chart as possible. Will the clergy around this table gain the ability to make decisions for their congregations? At least they have a prayer.
