OR/MS Today - December 1998

December 1998

Holy Deadlock

By Doug Samuelson

"What a pain," the OR/MS analyst-turned-executive groused to his mentor, another executive about 10 years older. "I spent all afternoon in that meeting, expecting the powers that be to make a decision, and it seemed they couldn't even agree about how to structure it. And the worst thing is, I think the best thing to do was obvious — they just couldn't get there."

"Been there, done that," the older man chuckled sympathetically. "I remember a decision in my company, about 15 years ago, shortly after I became an exec. We all knew we had to do something good for this guy who had practically saved our company. He had headed up a special projects team that delivered a hot new software release, working correctly, more or less within budget and almost on time. He wanted a piece of the company, and I think we'd pretty much agreed to give him one.

"But the comptroller wanted to make sure we weren't setting a precedent that would give away too much of the company in the future — bad for dealing with investors, you see. Another vice president was concerned about legal complications. The CEO wanted an overall plan and program. So we finally did get a great stock options program in place about four months later. By this time, of course, the guy had left."

"Oops," the analyst laughed. "Some decision process."

"Yeah," his mentor acknowledged, "but it really can't be helped. A few years ago I read somewhere that executive committees and boards of directors spend most of their time making decisions, and I shot out laughing, Where did that guy get his data, I wonder? In my experience, they spend far more time defending turf, encroaching into each other's territory, and going over and over the rules to protect their interests and reduce their risk. They spend far more time deciding how to decide than actually deciding. It's almost as if decisions get made in spite of their activity rather than because of it."

"But if people know this," the analyst wondered out loud, "why don't they change their behavior?"

"Don't think they haven't tried," the older executive sighed. "You tried, didn't you? So did I. Part of the problem is that as an executive, you're not just defending your own interests. Your 'turf' involves other people's jobs and careers and opportunities. If you decide to give away something that's yours, that's generosity, but giving away something that's someone else's is a good way to make them mad at you. And if you're fighting not just for a larger role but for what you think is best for the organization, compromise doesn't look appealing.

"We might as well face it," he went on. "In most organizations, about 80 percent of the internal communication can be summarized, without loss of information, as follows" — he then thumped his chest gorilla-style and grunted.

"So we're stuck with this inefficient, time-wasting, turf-defending, indecisive decision-making?" the analyst groaned.

"Well," his mentor replied, "there are things a good meeting leader can do to improve things. For one, he or she can follow the rule the Supreme Court does — actually, I heard this goes back to the rabbis who wrote the Talmud. The most junior people always speak first, so they won't be timid or overly influenced by the more senior people. The person presiding actively encourages reasoned disagreement. That way, the political cost of entering into the 'bidding' for how things will get done is lower, and people are quicker to state their true interests.

"The disadvantage, of course," he continued, "is that stating your true interests lets other people know where to attack, if they're hostile. There has to be some trust built up, and a high likelihood that you'll continue to deal with the same people for a while, for this kind of cooperation to develop and continue."

"This sounds difficult," the analyst acknowledged.

"It is," the older man agreed. "And promoting behind-the-scenes negotiations so meetings are used less to make decisions than to confirm them, has the same drawbacks. You do get more efficiency that way, and often better communications, but it's easy to leave someone feeling outmaneuvered or even just plain trampled. Then they get resentful and obstructive."

"So one way or the other, those turf interests are always there?" the analyst asked.

"Pretty much," his mentor affirmed. "And that's the reason for one of the best documented results in quality management: You generally don't get the total transformation, with everyone dropping narrow interests to cooperate in system-wide improvements, except in organizations threatened with destruction."

"A grim picture," the younger man said, shaking his head.

"Well, not necessarily, although it does get frustrating to deal with," the older executive grinned. "I heard a good story a few months ago from a guy who was lobbying for an arms control treaty and wound up talking to a three-star general at the Pentagon about the U. S. Defense Department's position. Most of the Defense Department analysts and commanders he'd talked with had no objection to the treaty, but it seemed the Department couldn't quite bring itself to issue a formal statement — someone, somewhere, might have a problem, and they wanted to make sure before they went on record. 'How do you guys ever decide to do anything?' this guy blurted out.

"And the general gazed at him evenly and replied, 'Of all people, I'd think you peaceniks wouldn't want boldness and decisiveness around here. As it is, we don't decide to take military action until the threat and what to do about it are painfully clear to everybody. That's your best protection against our potential excesses, so don't complain!' "

Doug Samuelson is Principal Scientist at PUMA Systems, Inc.

Table of Contents

OR/MS Today Home Page

Lionheart Publishing, Inc.
506 Roswell Street, Suite 220, Marietta, GA 30060, USA
Phone: 770-431-0867 | Fax: 770-432-6969
E-mail: lpi@lionhrtpub.com
URL: http://www.lionhrtpub.com