Unchallengeable - the cost of closed decisions

The term 'information flows' has always given me trouble, so lately when I ran across some living examples of it that helped things click, if felt like the right time to write about it.

Information flow-based systemic levers are strong influencers in systemic outcomes.  For some background on systemic levers, see here: https://blog.practicaltech.ca/2020/12/what-system-levers-can-tell-you-about.html

Now, intuitively it makes sense to me that 'information flows' are high on the leverage list - but I wouldn't be able to explain it to someone coherently (up to the reader if that's still the case).  The simplest explanation I have of clarifying 'information flows' would be 'access to information used in decision-making'.  (note: information includes more than just numbers...but I'll try to keep things simple)

Ask yourself: do I have access to the information used in decision-making?  

If you can go and look up or ask about the information, the information flows are visible - the decision is open.  If you cannot, the decision is closed.  If the decision comes from a position of leadership high in the hierarchy - and this amplifies as you scale the ladder - it takes on a new dimension: unchallengeable (or, 'not publicly testable', as Argyris et al. would say)

Example1: Cost reduction (savings) numbers

Down to brass tacks...a claim I've heard many times over the years is, 'big cost savings here! woo!' and immediately everyone is ordered to drop what they are doing and execute on 'cash money, yo'.  Given the state of the industry these days (cost cutting & layoffs as best practice), we can use this example to bring information flows to life.

"We will save huge money on this project."  

On the face of it - unless some significant backing data can be scrutinized - this claim is fairly empty.  Huge is relative - huge for the org? (system 'we')  Or huge for a small department? (local 'we')  Cost reduction, though a necessary component, is not the goal of being in business, so we must balance cost reduction against the other systemic goals.

But, for the sake of simplicity, let's follow this trail...  I recently overheard someone say, 'all roads lead to finance' (systemic goals context), so when talking about cost reductions we need to consider the thing that often drives them: budgets...

Example2: Budgets

...because a department's local context always includes their budget.  If this budget is private/controlled information, what effectively happens is that you make declarations of 'huge cost savings' unchallengeable (socially).  For example, if you have a $100k/yr budget and put forward a $10k/yr cost reduction as 'huge', that's a reasonable claim.  

However, if you have a $MYSTERY/yr budget and put forward $MYSTERY/yr cost reduction, what are you designing?

You are leaving people with two choices: one, stick their neck out; or two, put their head down.  You have designed a situation where people can choose to question your judgment publicly - at their own risk! - or question your judgment privately - undermining your leadership!  Both of these outcomes are negative.

Furthering the original claim, cost reduction takes work - out of whose 'work budget' is this coming?  Because...

Example3: Labour costs

...in the context of cost reduction, it is never a case of 'magically we are now spending less money'. Somebody has to do work, design/improve/implement a process, communicate and facilitate change, etc - and somebody is often very plural.  These people doing work are not fungible volunteers - their efforts are quantifiable-enough, and the cost of context switching is quantifiable-enough.  

Is this ever a consideration?  Is it visible?  The spiderweb is only just taking form...

Example4: Opportunity costs

...because by not doing project X and instead doing project Y, what outcomes over time from project X are lost?  Accounting for $ spent is extremely easy.  Accounting for 'what might have been' - not so much.

It's a point of interest that my only experiences (lived, observed, or recounted - and few) with people trying to capture these things are overwhelmingly positive ones.  Practically speaking, consider what things would look like in your organization if business cases (including $) were required prior to launching any kind of net-new feature effort.  There are no silver bullets here, but I would suggest some guardrails are better than unchallengeable assertions of success.

The spiderweb flows outward, but I stop here, at risk of trying to illustrate complexity.

The theme of information flows and the way forward

When the information is controlled, decisions based on that information become untestable.  When those in control are more and more senior leaders, the decisions become more and more unchallengeable.

Hopefully information flows make a tiny bit more sense now - check out Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows if you want a much better explanation.

Regarding decisions and feedback, I'd suggest a way forward...questions all leaders need to ask themselves and continuously improve on...

  • Are you designing for open or closed decisions?
  • Are you going to the factory floor to discover how decisions are being viewed?
  • Are individual contributors punished for sticking their necks out to raise 'closed decision' flags?
  • Are you willing to seek feedback on decision information quality?
  • Are you willing to design challengeable decisions?
  • Are you willing to be influenced by feedback on your decisions?  

There is an elephant in the room that I've somewhat glossed over, and that is 'the socio' - the human part of the sociotechnical systems we work in, in the negative often showing up as office politics.  However, in our broken world the socio elephant will always be a huge challenge without any perfect solution.  The socio is the complexity, and what makes the example in this post inadequate - I didn't touch on morale, effectiveness, etc.

For the sake of argument, the need for challengeable decisions and receptivity to decision feedback I'd state are table stakes for trustworthy leadership.  This is certainly what I'm striving toward.

So, rather look at things from the perspective of your own contribution: 

At what cost are you continuing to design unchallengeable decisions? 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Learning through failure - a keyboard creation journey

Learning Opportunities - Watching/listening list

DFSR - eventid 4312 - replication just won't work