Congruent Decision Making: I

When decisions go awry, we usually experience feelings of regret. We hear talk of unintended consequences, faulty communication, poor training or planning, or "inadequate preparation." Investigations, post-mortems, blame-fests, recriminations, and post-decision conflict ensue. We sometimes reassign or "release" anyone involved in the decision, or we reorganize business units.

Sometimes — rarely — we examine the decision process itself.

Is there not a systematic way of avoiding all this? What would actually be required to reduce the incidence of bad decisions?

As you might expect, there is no simple answer that improves every decision. But there is an approach — a perspective, really — that reduces the probability that any given decision might lead to trouble. I call that approach congruent decision making.

The term congruent comes from the work of psychologist Carl Rogers (1902-1987) and from the work of family therapist Virginia Satir (1916-1988). Although they used the term slightly differently from each other — and different from what I'm proposing here — there is significant overlap between them, and with my usage. Applied to decision making, I take the meaning of congruence to be alignment between the considerations that led to the decision and the overall needs and desires of all affected stakeholders, broadly defined. Notice that for congruence to apply, the decision itself need not be fully aligned with the needs and desires of every stakeholder; rather, it is the set of considerations that underlie the decision that must include the needs and desires of all stakeholders.

For example, a decision process would likely be incongruent if it's kept confidential from some subset of stakeholders, and if it limits or prohibits the transmission of their concerns to the person or people making the decision. But that Incongruent decision processes
have an elevated probability
of producing bad decisionsdecision process would likely be congruent if it included consideration of the concerns of those excluded stakeholders, even if the situation required confidentiality. In that case, the process must include a trusted representative who can express fairly and energetically the concerns of the excluded stakeholders.

The conditions that congruence requires fall into two categories. In this Part I, I propose a framework for ensuring that stakeholders are well informed and free to express their needs and desires without fear of retribution. In Part II, next time, I offer a framework that ensures that when stakeholders do express their needs and desires, they do so forthrightly.

In what follows, the term representatives denotes people authorized and trusted to faithfully and energetically represent the concerns of the stakeholders they represent. Representatives might be needed when the number of stakeholders is more than a few, or when the subject matter of the decision is sensitive and cannot be disclosed to the stakeholders themselves. Representatives have free access to all information relative to the decision.

Criteria ensuring stakeholders' freedom of expression

Here are four criteria that, if satisfied, increase the congruence of decision-making processes.

Stakeholders or their representatives are fully informed

Stakeholders or their representatives have access to all information available to the decision team. Moreover, the access they have is equivalent in timeliness and convenience to the access the rest of the decision team enjoys.

Stakeholder representatives must be equal partners in the decision process. Free access to information for stakeholder representatives is perhaps best illustrated by what is not free access. Bringing a stakeholder representative into the process during a defined time window, usually near the end of the process, to "hear employee concerns" is not free access. Designating a representative long after the decision process is underway, without involving the representative in early discussions, is not free access.

Stakeholders or their representatives are free to express their concerns

All stakeholders and representatives are treated equally. Stakeholders or their representatives can register their concerns with the decision team without prejudice or restraint.

For an example testing equal freedom of expression, compare the treatment of senior management and the treatment of all employees. If either one of these two classes has significantly greater opportunity to express their concerns, it's likely that the decision will be biased toward the favored class, and thus, incongruent with the needs or concerns of the entire set of stakeholders.

Stakeholders or their representatives are free to ask that the decision include specific elements

Stakeholders or their representatives are unrestricted with respect to the content of their expression of concerns. They need not confine their comments to issues that affect them directly, or to statements of the effect of the decision on their personal situations. If they feel that the decision at issue should include specific elements, they're free to say so.

This freedom is necessary because of the difficulty of restricting it without biasing the outcome of the decision process. For example, in a decision regarding process improvement to enhance product quality, if we restrict the comments of employees to, say, ban commentary on issues that affect "quality of work life," then we might unintentionally restrict comments that relate to how quality of work life affects product quality. We thus would be discouraging any investigation of some possibly important factors that compromise product quality.

Stakeholders or their representatives need not fear retaliation for their participation in the process

Bias (incongruence) can arise as a result of any hint of coercion in connection with expressions of concerns relative to the decision process or the content of the decision being considered. When stakeholders or their representatives expect retaliation or rejection, they're more likely to withhold comments, or shade them. And that leads to bias and incongruence.

This freedom is necessary because the decision makers need to know the full consequences of choosing any of the options before them. When stakeholders withhold their comments, or shade them, they conceal the truth.

Next time, in Part II, I describe a framework that ensures that stakeholders express their concerns forthrightly.  Next in this series  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

More Indicators of Scopemonging

Scope creep — the tendency of some projects to expand their goals — is usually an unintended consequence of well-intentioned choices. But sometimes, it's part of a hidden agenda that some use to overcome budgetary and political obstacles.

Worst Practices

We hear a lot about best practices, but hardly anybody talks about worst practices. So as a public service, here are some of the best worst practices.

Social Transactions: We're Doing It My Way

We have choices about how we conduct social transactions — greetings, partings, opening doors, and so on. Some transactions require that we collaborate with others. In social transactions, how do we decide whose preferences rule?

The End-to-End Cost of Meetings: II

Few of us realize where all the costs of meetings really are. Some of the most significant cost sources are outside the meeting room. Here's Part II of our exploration of meeting costs.

Cassandra at Work

When a team makes a wrong choice, and only a tiny minority advocated for what turned out to have been the right choice, trouble can arise when the error at last becomes evident. Maintaining team cohesion can be a difficult challenge for team leaders.

See also Workplace Politics and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming June 14: Pseudo-Collaborations

Most workplace collaborations produce results of value. But some collaborations — pseudo-collaborations — are inherently incapable of producing value, due to performance management systems, or lack of authority, or lack of access to information. Available here and by RSS on June 14.

And on June 21: Asking Burning Questions

When we suddenly realize that an important question needs answering, directly asking that question in a meeting might not be an effective way to focus the attention of the group. There are risks. Fortunately, there are also ways to manage those risks. Available here and by RSS on June 21.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenHoWzUJVeioCfozEIner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info