When it comes to making decisions at work, a lot can be said for group decision making. We recently introduced a boss who wanted to tackle all decisions on his own but learned the value of successful group decision making. Yet, as with most things in life, a balance between two approaches may be best. In this article, we’ll discuss why solo decision making may be better and when it can prove necessary.
For all the good in group decisions at work—supporting collaboration, encouraging engagement, showing respect for employees, helping their professional development—the processes still need proper management. We shared several techniques that can facilitate better outcomes, recognizing that flawed group decision-making can lead to pitfalls such as:
- Ineffective prioritization of tasks, leading to procrastination and project failure
- Avoidance of responsibility as accountability is spread out over an entire group
- Difficulty focusing on the big picture, which leads to inefficiency and missed deadlines
- Group stasis and failure to reach consensus due to conflict avoidance or groupthink
This leads us to the advantages of someone stepping up to take full ownership of a decision at work.
Benefits of a single decision maker
By soliciting the opinions of others, you can get overwhelmed with information and opinions. Sometimes, it just makes sense to make a decision on your own. Solo decision-making can:
- Help you stick to data and avoid social influence
- Provide clear accountability for the decision
- Avoid the loudest voice in the group always getting their way (unless, of course, you’re that loud voice!)
- Lead to a more creative outcome as a less-popular idea may actually be the most innovative and effective
At the same time, the individual’s style of leadership can impact how their decisions are received. For example, the autocratic leader tends to lead with an iron fist, think “my way or the highway.” When you consistently make solo decisions in this manner, you can stifle creativity and communication and undermine productivity.
You’re more likely to see success, even making some solo decisions, if you regularly take a consultative leadership style, which requests input from others, such as direct reports, and takes time to listen. Or you might be a democratic leader, who usually gets the entire group involved, but recognizes the need sometimes for complete control of the decision.
Ultimately, though, there are indisputably some instances that demand one person simply decide.
When making decisions at work is a one-person job
With the pace of business today, it’s inevitable that you’ll encounter instances where one person needs to simply weigh in definitively. Here are some situations when you could need a sole decision maker to step up and take responsibility for making a choice.
Scenario 1: When consensus is a pipe dream.
We all know it can be helpful when someone finally says “We’re doing it this way!” Instead of spending lots of time in seemingly cyclical discussions, a clear decision means that everyone can move forward and determine how they can help accomplish the project goals pursuing that particular route.
The same is true at the bigger picture level. A business can’t keep asking for input and soliciting solutions—nothing would ever get decided. This is where you want to balance effective group decision making strategies with awareness that someone may need to be the tie breaker. A leader making a final decision may end up being the only way to move forward. But at least they can do so having gauged other opinions and considered several options.
Scenario 2: When the decision is urgent.
Sometimes a decision is needed immediately. An encroaching deadline and the need to keep a project on schedule could demand a decision-maker take a stand. Or, say your business identifies a critical security breach potentially compromising sensitive customer data and threatening legal liabilities. The decision of how to respond to the breach can’t go to an entire committee for discussion. A prompt reaction can help prevent further damage and protect the interests of the company and its stakeholders. (Note: This example is the reason for disaster recovery and business continuity planning in advance, but that’s a topic for cybersecurity experts).
Scenario 3: When safety is involved.
Ensuring everyone’s safety typically outweighs the need to get people involved and reach consensus. Imagine a manufacturing facility where a jammed conveyor belt poses risks of product piling up and potential injury to workers. A manager or supervisor on the floor needs to quickly assess the situation, evaluate options, and decide on a course of action to resolve the issue.
Scenario 4: When budget constraints are a factor.
Any organization can encounter cash flow concerns, lose a big contract, or need to consider layoffs or downsizing. You may want to involve everyone and be as equitable as possible in making tough decisions to address financial constraints, but that’s not realistic. For one thing, it’s difficult for people to be objective when their jobs are on the line. Getting a group to agree on the best next steps for something so critical could prove particularly challenging. Indecisiveness could also prove costly if your business is bleeding money while gathering input from various stakeholders.
Being decisive wins the day
Collaborative decision-making is often beneficial, yet there are circumstances where leaders must make decisions solo. By balancing autonomy with transparency, and taking into consideration the broader impact on all stakeholders, leaders can navigate complexities when consensus can’t be reached, time is of the essence, safety is involved, or financial constraints play a role.
Ultimately, everyone at work needs the critical thinking skills to make sound decisions. For leaders, the ability to make solo decisions with agility is a hallmark of effective leadership.
Having access to data about your customers or employees at your fingertips makes decisions easier, too. Find out more about Sogolytics can help.
