Making Difficult Group Decisions—and Sticking to Them

Effective and efficient strategic decision-making processes are crucial for organizational success. While much has been written on decision-making methods in business management, these strategies become almost irrelevant if the organization lacks the cultural norms to implement the decisions they make. Drawing from my experience in K-12 ed-tech companies, I have implemented several techniques to help foster productive debate, achieve alignment and buy-in, and minimize backsliding on strategic decisions. 

Company Culture Affects Decision-making 

It’s important to acknowledge that company culture has an impact on how organizations make decisions. K-12 ed-tech organizations have a unique dynamic, involving former educators, researchers, sales and marketing professionals, software engineers, founder/CEOs, and investors. This combination is akin to mixing a nonprofit with a private equity firm---a challenging mix! Given this complexity, K-12 ed-tech leaders must consider the various communication styles, norms, and expectations individuals may have regarding decision-making and individual roles in the process. 

Being Heard vs. Being Followed

One of the reasons that individuals often push back on a strategic decision is that they feel unheard. Having passionate, invested employees who want to bring forward ideas, concerns, and recommendations is an asset. Squelching this outspoken nature would be a mistake.

However, there’s a key distinction between being heard and being followed. In my experience, team members sometimes become disenfranchised when they've brought forth their ideas and concerns, yet a decision moves forward in a different way than what they recommend. While stakeholders’ feedback deserves attention and thoughtful consideration, leaders must clarify that recommendations may or may not be acted upon. Acknowledging this upfront can prevent future frustrations and decrease the likelihood that those stakeholders will become disengaged. 

Consensus vs. Alignment vs. Unilateral Decisions 

When approaching a major business decision, start by clarifying to the group of stakeholders how the decision will be made. Will one individual make the decision based on group input, or will it be based on a vote?  Are you aiming for strong consensus or unanimity? Or are you seeking strong alignment but willing to move forward even if some members disagree? Clarifying your decision process from the outset will increase your likelihood of getting buy-in from the team.

Individuals and teams tend to gravitate towards their own preferred decision models. Bearing in mind the complex corporate culture of K-12 ed-tech companies, it’s crucial to recognize that certain team members may be less comfortable with your chosen model. This will require a more careful and intentional approach when managing the discussion in order to prevent certain members from feeling shut out. 

Whether the decision is ultimately made by one individual or by a group vote, it’s unlikely that all members will embrace it with the same level of enthusiasm. Before adjourning, consider giving participants the opportunity to voice their agreement or lack of alignment.  I recommend using the well-known “Levels of Consensus” tool, which allows each member to indicate where they stand prior to the decision being finalized.

Fostering Discussion 

When engaging a group of leaders in a decision-making process, I recommend using a structured approach to ensure all perspectives are heard. I’ve found that without a structure or framework, these discussions can become dominated by strong personalities, leaving introspective team members sidelined and top executives unintentionally biasing the group's direction.

Start by level-setting your group on the issue at hand. The decision-maker should prepare a brief business case outlining the business scenario, risks, benefits, and other considerations. The document should be read silently by the group or read aloud by the decision-maker. This approach, similar to a model used at Amazon, enhances clarity and thought regarding proposed decisions. Writing out the business scenario in narrative text forces the presenter to identify and emphasize key elements and avoid unnecessary details. 

Once the group begins discussing the matter, consider using a structured process in which every member of the group is expected to ask clarifying questions and provide feedback. You may want to have someone other than the decision-maker facilitate the discussion in order to create space for active participation, invite comments from introspective members, and prevent strong personalities from dominating the process. This allows the decision-maker to stay actively involved in the thought process, rather than focusing on the dynamics of the meeting. 

Locking Arms After the Decision Has Been Made

Debate and disagreement are healthy aspects of the process, but once a decision has been reached, the team must publicly support the path forward. Dissension among your management team can be disastrous and will likely trickle down. 

Using a tool like the “Levels of Consensus” framework allows each member of the team to speak their mind behind closed doors before the decision is finalized. However, once that group leaves the room, all members of the decision-making team must commit and “lock arms with one another” in support of the decision that was made. This kind of alignment and unity demonstrates direction and fosters support and buy-in across the company.

Occasionally, managers may find themselves having to publicly support a decision they had opposed. This is one of the more challenging aspects of management. However, managers need to resist the urge to undermine the decision. Instead, try incorporating several techniques from this recent Harvard Business Review article about “How to Talk to Your Team About a Decision You Disagree With.”

Don’t Reopen Decisions 

Few things are more frustrating than reaching a strategic decision with the team only to have it revisited or overturned. This can occur when someone who disagreed with the outcome makes an appeal to the decision-maker afterward to reverse the decision. In other cases, companies sometimes backslide on their decision when team members start to develop “buyer’s remorse” having not fully considered the implications of the decision.

Constantly re-litigating prior decisions is not only frustrating for your team members, but it also wastes resources, slows progress, and signals a potential lack of clarity or decisiveness from management. 

To avoid backsliding or revisiting these decisions, it must be made clear that participants are expected to enter the conversation thoughtfully and ready to commit to a decision. (And “committing” is all about the follow-through!)  In my experience, if the team has followed a sound process for reaching a decision, I adhere to a policy that a prior decision cannot be reopened unless there has been a significant change in one of the following: 

• Company resources, including cash, labor/talent, infrastructure, availability of products/services 
• Market factors, including funding landscape, competitive dynamics, macroeconomic factors, and legislation 
• Company priorities, typically driven by changes in resources or market factors

Conclusion 

While K-12 ed-tech is a dynamic marketplace and requires agility and responsiveness, companies that repeatedly revisit prior decisions will find themselves in a “two-steps forward, one step back” scenario. Wasting time and resources, misalignment between departments, and eroding company culture and employee satisfaction will present major obstacles to reaching your goals. However, by approaching your strategic decisions with intentionality and a disciplined, structured approach, you can ensure your company reaches the best decision and can effectively implement that path forward.