Bill was a newly appointed project manager on a mission critical systems development initiative. Ann, Bill’s boss, trusted Bill to lead the initiative and gave him the freedom she needed to execute without getting in his way. While the two worked well together, they struggled in one area: decision making. They had several instances where Ann was surprised by key decisions Bill made, but didn’t tell Ann. Bill also did not benefit from Ann’s expertise on various issues and made uninformed decisions that damaged the project. Ann asked Bill to include her more in her decisions, but Bill took that to mean he needed to come to her about decisions he might have made on her own. Bill became frustrated with his perception that Ann was controlling him, while Ann just wanted to make sure she was on top of key decisions. The project was eventually done, but not without a lot of friction between the two.
Friction that could have been avoided.
The key to a leader who empowers followers is the ability of the follower to make decisions without always having to ask the leader for permission. When done well, the follower can execute more quickly and with greater propriety. When it’s not done as well (as above), both leader and follower are likely to be frustrated by missteps, miscommunication, and potentially damaging decisions made without sufficient information. I have learned through getting this wrong so many times that there are four degrees of decision making where leader and follower agree on the amount of guidance and input provided in decision making. The degrees, or what I like to call railings, are as follows:
- get approved – The follower presents the decision with the justification of support to the leader. The follower asks the leader to decide. The leader is the one who decides; follower is the report. Example: A follower must ask for permission to hire an employee.
- seek advice – The follower presents the decision with the justification of support to the leader. The follower asks the leader for advice. The follower is the one who decides; the leader is the adviser. Example: A follower should seek advice before promoting an employee.
- report only – The follower presents only the resulting decision (minus the supporting rationale) to the leader. The follower informs the leader. The follower is the one who decides; the leader is the receiver. Example: A follower should inform the leader when he takes a day off from work.
- not inform – The follower makes and executes the decision without escalating the leader. The follower is the one who decides; leader is not informed. Example: A follower acts without informing the leader when he takes time off during a workday for a personal appointment.
By creating four distinct categories of decision making, it recognizes not only the extremes (getting approval and not reporting), but it also recognizes that there are some decisions where a leader must provide input on a follower’s decision (seek advice), as well as those decisions in which the leader must be kept informed about the decision (inform only). By classifying the types of decisions into these four categories, both the leader and the follower are better aligned with the decisions being made and the degree of involvement the leader should have in the decision.
When defining decisions under each railing, it is important to keep a couple of things in mind:
- Don’t try to define every possible decision the follower can make. Focus on those decisions that are material in nature and help set a theme for the types of decisions that the follower deals with in their normal course of work.
- Great empowering leaders do not apply a single approach to decision making to followers. Factors such as the level of experience of the followers and the degree of experience in the subject influence the category of railing for different types of decisions. For example, a follower newly promoted to a leadership role may have some decisions that fall into the seek advice category where a more experienced follower would have those same decisions in the report only category.
To successfully implement guardrails, leaders must do the following:
- Categorize typical railing decisions for your job – To set an example for the followers, the leader must review their decisions and place them in the categories of the protective rail. In doing so, you not only set an example that followers can use, but also highlight the potential decision-making conflicts a leader might have with their boss.
- Empower the follower to define guardrail decisions – A big step in establishing trust with a follower is to ask the follower to define the types of decisions that fall into each of the four guardrail categories. The leader then works with the follower on adjustments until an agreement is reached.
- Adjust railings with capacity changes – Periodically review railing decisions in each category to make adjustments as follower experience level and subject matter experience level change.
Take time up front to get clarity on decision-making expectations using railings. It will help reduce friction between leader and follower and promote a healthier empowering relationship.