Decisions

Decisions

Nov 1, 2022 | Management

In an office, who makes the decisions?

Is it the manager? Supervisor? General staff?

Do these questions matter? Absolutely, because how this question is answered reveals much about how an individual views reality itself.

While a manager is responsible for the strategic direction of a particular unit of people, he/she cannot be responsible or privy to every decision made by staff.

Often times, a manager can become bogged down in the ‘what’ of something rather than the ‘how’ and/or ‘why,’ and the distinction between the two mindsets is not one of semantics. If a manager is to guide a team, this individual must lead by example as opposed to attempting to direct the behaviors and actions of those under his/her care.

It is an easy trap into which one may fall, however, as managers experience psychological pressures that differ substantially from those of general staff. Whereas managers often become enmeshed in the pursuit of tangible benchmarks for success — units sold, numbers served, etc — staff are more concerned with how to complete the tasks presented to them.

Whereas managers have some discretion to make any number of decisions, staff often are ‘forced’ into a decision based on sets of variables not under their control.

When making a decision, a manager should take into account several factors that have nothing — and yet everything — to do with the business problem at hand. These factors include the organization’s culture, general philosophy and the people expected to behave and perform differently as a result of the decision that has been made.

How will this decision impact my staff? Is it logical? Is it achievable? Does it make general sense?

When making decisions for others, it is important to recognize that what might make the most business sense may not make the most sense given available resources and human capital at hand…

Objectives

Objectives

Jun 29, 2021 | Management

When it comes to managing projects or people, although perhaps there is no difference between the two, the term, ‘objectives,’ is often used. 

The thinking behind objectives is that it is necessary to create ways to measure progress toward broad-based goals, which often allow for substantial intepretation. Intepretation, though, can be dangerous, in business. Isn’t this why managers seek to control the variables in any equation? 

Without measurable objectives, our staff may end up achieving any number of goals, none of which, however, may be the ‘right’ one.  Perhaps, though, there is a way to reframe such discussions about objectives.

Is an objective a truth, or is it relative to the the understanding or persepctive of the individual (manager) who has conceived it?  The very word, objective, implies something truthful. What if we hit all our objectives along the way toward a goal? What if we achieve our goal only to discover that what we envisioned as success does not work?

Whereas it may be easier to dictate the objectives to others, such a rationale reinforces the limited ways of thinking that plague not just business, but thinking in general.

When managers hatch their proverbial plans, there is an underlying assumption that the goals and objectives therein defined are somehow true. More than that, these goals and objectives are viewed as (the) truth.

Is there such a thing as truth? Perhaps a better question is whether there can be more than one truth at one time.

One possible answer to this question could be found in the perspectivist view of science, which Alrøe H. F. & Noe E. (2014) indicate implies there are many scientific truths about any complex problem. The question for them is not how to select the correct one, but how to  appreciate and use what Longino says is “the nonunifiable plurality of partial knowledges” (2006).

The next time you enter a meeting — virtual or in-person — pay close attention if the conversation veers toward the predictable ‘goals and objectives.’ 

Sign up to subscribe for random thoughts