Looking for Signs
The possibility of subjectivity in decision-making.
“It was meant to be”.
Whether this applies to projects or people, interpreting information as the manifestation of reality as we comprehend it, and behaviours as definite character traits, is common in organisations.
‘Looking for signs’ can be a way to invoke ready-made belief systems to rally support for a decision, at the expense of accountability. It is also the expression of a desire to gain control over the world around us, by interpreting it, and gaining validation by selecting information supporting our worldview.
In modern management, signs are called reporting, and belief systems, frameworks. If the cliché holds that graphs going up or down can justify decisions of any kind, reporting remains an effective way to enable the decision-making process.
Challenges occur when managers ‘serve the process’ at the expense of healthy reflections on their own belief system (let alone cognitive biases), as well as accountability to substantiate the rationale of decisions for teams.
‘Looking for signs’ becomes a way to reframe the inherent complexity of one’s environment in a linear way, nudging the necessity of certain decisions at the expense of their quality and legitimacy.
“How can managers gain awareness regarding their own belief systems?”, asked the Mouse.
The interpretation of tell-tale decisions requires looking at the social contract of organisations, which encompasses cultural, organisational, and functional dimensions:
Cultural: which behaviours and types of argument are considered acceptable to explain or disagree with decisions?
Organisation & governance: what are the decision-making moments (meetings or others), who is accountable and who is involved?
Function: based on which information is the decision-taken (what is the Rosetta stone, if you will)?
Addressing those questions will not change the subjective nature of decisions but it may limit the symbolical violence that comes with it, as it clarifies the underlying worldview. In other words, acknowledging the ‘possibility of subjectivity’ in decision-making paradoxically strengthens its efficiency and legitimacy.
Still, answers to those questions might be frustrating because of the inherent limits of current management practices. Indeed, the linear nature of many reporting, group dynamics leading to over-valuation of the ‘highest paid person’s opinion’ (and their subsequent need for validation), or optimisation mindsets exclusive of others, are major barriers to address, to name a few.
A way forward could be to design new tools to focus teams’ attention on the discussion around decisions vs. on the sole performance review. At the cross-roads of reporting dashboards and management frameworks, such tools would serve as navigation instruments, being non-linear and non-teleological, while enabling accountability and scale.
Teams would have to re-learn to manage open-ended discussions while safeguarding the efficiency of the decision-making process. It is a matter of skills and culture and a worthy endeavour to avoid replacing current sign-reading in facts and figures by another ready-made belief systems: the moralistic injunction to ‘do good’.
Baptiste Raymond - 09/2022.