Decision-Making tips for New Managers | Command, Consult, Consensus
Improve your ability to make decisions with the following tips — and if these resonate with you, explore how leadership coaching can help you unlock your full potential as a new leader and manager.
From the book, Crucial Conversations, there are 3 primary means (3Cs) and 2 additional means (2Ds) for a leader to make decisions.
Here’s how they work:
Command decision
In the command decision, the decision-maker simply makes the call and inform the team or stakeholder group of the decision.
The command decision-type is useful in cases where:
You have very little time to decide
The possible edge cases/complexity is limited
You have significant area expertise and an established level of trust/autonomy from the stakeholders who would be affected by the decision
The pros of the command decision is that it is the fastest of the 5 options, and affords the highest degree of control for the leader making the call.
The cons of the command decision is that it can generate demotivation or distrust from stakeholders or direct reports, especially if no other outlet for feedback or influence is provided. Command decisions also elevate the risk of negative outcomes being attributed primarily to the decision-maker, given that the ownership of the decision in this case rests solely with the decision-maker. Depending on the organizational culture, persistent command decisions can create resistance or rebellion, fracture trust and motivation, and squash natural and important leadership growth within the team.
An example of a command decision would be a quick reaction to a technical issue to prevent more collateral damage.
“The website is down. Shut down the advertising campaigns until it’s back up.”
Consult decision
In the consult decision, the decision-maker gathers input from the team or stakeholder group, but retains the ultimate decision-making authority.
The consult decision-type is useful in cases where:
You wish to strike a balance between achieving stakeholder buy-in and limiting the decision-making authority of the stakeholder group
There is sufficient time to gather feedback from people (either live or asynchronously)
You have significant area expertise and an established level of trust/autonomy from the stakeholders who would be affected by the decision
The pros of the consult decision is that it is the most balanced of the 5 options, and affords the decision-maker the chance to build trust while preventing expectations that the decision-making authority has been passed to the stakeholder with the request to provide feedback.
The cons of the consult decision is that it can easily lead to frustrations and demotivation by the stakeholder group if expectations are not clearly communicated prior to gathering feedback. In other words, if a consult decision is mistaken for a consensus or democratic decision, it can backfire significantly.
An example of a consult decision would be to gather input from a team on how to utilize additional budget for a new hire.
“We have the budget to hire a new role next quarter and I’d like to get your feedback before finalizing the budget request.”
Consensus decision
In the consensus decision, the decision-maker works alongside the team or stakeholder group to arrive at a decision, with a distributed decision-making authority.
The consensus decision-type is useful in cases where:
You wish to build more stakeholder buy-in
There is sufficient time to organize discussions, gather feedback, and allow all stakeholders a chance to influence the decision
You do not have significant area expertise or an established level of trust/autonomy from the stakeholders who would be affected by the decision
The pros of the consensus decision is that it is the most collaborative of the 5 options, and allows the decision-maker the chance to maximize trust and support with the stakeholder group.
The cons of the consensus decision is that it can cause frustration, poor outcomes, and wasted time if there is not a clear structure and leadership throughout the process.
Especially for new managers, leaders with imposter syndrome, or leaders in startups with flat hierarchies, it can be tempting to gravitate towards consensus decisions. It can certainly feel better or less threatening to make decisions together. Yet, each consensus decision consumes a lot of time for all parties involved, and there is also a risk that if people are deeply involved, they can get deeply attached to a position. People can become easily disappointed if their position isn’t taken, and may also come to expect to exercise the same level of decision-influence on other decisions which have not been granted a consensus approach. Too many consensus decisions can also set persistent expectations for consensus as the rule, which can degrade the leader’s ability to exercise to command or consult decisions in the future.
An example of a consensus decision would be to plan the content for a new event.
“We will start planing for the leadership summit next week. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss and agree upon which topics we should cover.”
Delegated Decision
In the delegated decision, the decision-maker hands off the full decision-making authority to another stakeholder.
The delegated decision-type is useful in cases where:
You wish to build others’ leadership muscles
There is a higher tolerance for risk in the decision
You do not have enough bandwidth to manage the decision yourself
The pros of the delegated decision is that it is the most scalable of the 5 options, and allows the decision-maker the chance to build a leadership bench.
The cons of the delegated decision is that it is a learning process, and as such can require additional support from a coaching/mentoring perspective and lead to “mistaken” or “lower quality” decisions.
In order for a leader to be effective and scale their leadership abilities, over time, more decisions must be delegated. This enables the leader’s time and focus to be concentrated on 1) selling the vision through the organization for key decisions that have been made, and 2) owning decisions that are more risky or require confidential leadership knowledge. Refer to this article to learn more about how to delegate.
An example of a delegated decision would be to hand off an onboarding documentation process.
“Our new marketing manager, Cheryl will be starting next month. Can you build her an onboarding plan for our testing process?”
Democratic Decision
Finally, there is the democratic decision, where the leader lays out an array of options for stakeholders to vote on (not always, but most commonly with an equal voting power), and the highest voted decision wins.
The democratic decision-type is useful in cases where:
You have very little time to decide
A stakeholder group is deadlocked and cannot decide
You wish to balance buy-in and decision-making speed
The pros of the democratic decision is that it can achieve a balance both expediency of decision-making, while creating a chance for buy-in.
The cons of the democratic decision is that buy-in may not be achieved for decision-makers whose voted option(s) do not win.
A democratic decision may be a good option if the stakes are low, or as a supplement to conclude a consult or consensus decision, after stakeholders have had a chance for their voice to be heard.
An example of a democratic decision would be to decide on the final location of a new office amongst several options.
“We’ve done our due diligence together, and now we just need to decide among several plausible options. Let’s cast our votes and complete the process.”
That’s all for today! Stay tuned to The Musing Mind for more leadership takeaways and sign up for newsletter to get more new manager advice and inspiration delivered regularly.
For those who prefer the video version: