Several years ago, while in a strategic direction meeting with our team, an argument broke out between a coworker and me. We couldn’t see eye-to-eye on how to solve a problem our team was facing. He wanted option A, and I wanted option B. It was an important decision, and we both wanted to get it right.
The problem was that we were both too proud and stubborn to back down.
What should (and could) have been solved in a few minutes ended up taking the entire 1-hour meeting. We both felt strongly that we were right and had good reasons to back up our opinion. As the battle of beliefs went on, the rest of the team just sat back and watched the show.
Looking back, we needed a better way to make this decision. We needed something to empower the whole team, not just us, to voice their opinion and come to a resolution quickly. At the risk of sounding totally corny, we needed a framework that kept our passions out of it.
The Two Types of Tech Decision Disasters
In addition to the situation I already mentioned, there are two other types of decision-making disasters.
Type 1: Analysis Paralysis
There are a lot of tools out there. How do you know what will work for you and what won’t?
A common approach is to evaluate all the possibilities and compare the seemingly endless features across every conceivable platform.
This often leads to overwhelming and anxious feelings. You don’t want to miss out on anything that could be a game changer, so you continue the evaluation process and have meeting after meeting to discuss your options.
Effectively, the decision is stalled until all the information is gathered. Eventually, with the mass of data gathered, there’s too much information to process, and you just sort of pick one. But you’re still right where you started.
Type 2: Groupthink Decisions
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon where groups, often with good intentions, make poor decisions due to a desire for harmony and consensus, suppressing dissenting opinions and leading to flawed outcomes. (according to Gemini)
I’m sure you’ve been in meetings where the loudest person gives all their opinions and the rest of the group just nods along. There’s space given for dissent, but no one speaks up.
It’s possible (even likely) that the group has other good ideas, but no one brings them up because there seems to be a consensus. Effectively, your organization has been deprived of thought leadership.
It’s hard to make good decisions that way.
The Problem
These decision disasters share the same root cause: a lack of decision-making criteria. There’s no strategy, accountability, or clarity. Haphazard decision-making, without a framework, is time-consuming and inefficient. The costs are not only financial (with delayed projects and bad purchases) but also increasing frustration affecting team morale and ultimately having a negative impact to your mission.
“Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed.” – Proverbs 15:22
The 6-Component Decision Framework
If you didn’t know, I specialize in helping Christian nonprofits strategize, streamline, and implement technology to support their mission. Naturally, this framework is best applied to the technology context, but it could really be applied to any decision.
This framework is largely based on Gokul Rajaram’s (former Google and Facebook exec) S.P.A.D.E toolkit. I’ve made some modifications based on my experience that have proven helpful in making nonprofit technology decisions.
Component 1: Strategic Alignment
Every important decision, technical or otherwise, must link back to your organization’s strategy. What outcome are you trying to accomplish? If you can’t tie this decision back to your strategy, then it’s possible that it’s not advancing your mission.
When I help nonprofits develop their technology strategy, we create a list of what I call “Essential Actions”. These are the high-level actions needed to drive progress toward their vision. Eventually, the essential actions are incorporated into a high-impact mission statement for technology.
The “strategic alignment” section of this framework is the perfect place to identify which essential action this decision ties back to.
Component 2: Clear Accountability Structure
Every good decision needs accountability. There’s no magic — just the fundamentals. Often overlooked, but absolutely necessary. This section clearly explains the decision to be made, the date it needs to be made by (and why that date is significant), and the roles of the individuals involved in the process.
These roles are:
- Accountable – the person responsible for making the decision. The person who is most responsible for the success should also be the one who makes the call. It works better that way.
- Approver – the final say. This person has veto power in case the decision is terrible. This is often a C-suite officer. Veto power should be used sparingly and only when the decision jeopardizes the best interests of the organization.
- Advisors – the people who are contributing to the decision-making process.
Decisions must be clear on these details to lead to successful business outcomes.
Component 3: Structured Brainstorming
“Well, I called this meeting to discuss solutions to problem X… Who wants to go first?” … [crickets]
“Brainstorming” sessions often begin with an opening like this. I don’t think I need to tell you that this is not the most productive type of meeting. To make the most out of a gathering of minds, you need structure.
The most effective structure I’ve found for brainstorming and generating amazing ideas is through “working together, alone.”
The working together, alone principle is a method of facilitating group ideation that enables everyone to be in the same room (or virtually) but keep their ideas anonymous. They are free to voice radical and completely honest ideas without fear of any negative repercussions.
Honesty in ideation is rare. Do everything you can to cultivate it.
Component 4: Impact/Effort Prioritization
How do you know which ideas are worth pursuing and which should be dropped?
Prioritization
I use four buckets to track solution ideas.
- Quick wins – (High impact + low effort) Do these first, they will yield fast results.
- Major projects – (High impact + high effort) Develop these into longer-term projects which have big benefits but require planning and thoughtful execution.
- Fill-ins – (Low impact + low effort) Do these as you have time. They don’t provide a ton of value, but are easy enough. Why not?
- Avoid – (Low impact + high effort) Why spend the effort to do something that doesn’t provide much value? Drop these.
To quickly categorize ideas into these buckets, I use a simple Impact/Effort matrix. As a team, we evaluate ideas based on two things: first, their potential impact, and second, the effort required to implement them. It’s done best with anonymous voting.
This exercise quickly sorts out our thoughts and gives clarity on what our best ideas are.
Component 5: The Decision
The accountable person makes the decision. Don’t overcomplicate this or draw it out. You’ve done the prework and now it’s time to make the call.
Component 6: Document the Reasoning
“Why are we even doing this!?”
Not something you want to hear halfway through implementing a complex project.
Documenting the decision-making process and the reasoning behind the final decision gives everyone something to reference when the going gets tough or when you add new team members to a project.
You don’t need more than 2-3 sentences explaining the “why” behind the choice. A little explanation can go a long way.
But Wait There’s More!
If you’re serious about jumpstarting your nonprofit’s decision-making process. I’ve compiled this framework into a template that you can easily follow and fill out. As you record your notes on this template, you will be following a proven method and documenting everything in the process.
This page will let you download the nonprofit decision framework, a single-page IT strategy template, and detailed instructions on how to use it all.
Photo by Ian Ward on Unsplash
