Wald W3D2

Previous student's sample post

Top of Form

Decision Maker vs. Debate Maker 

Decision Makers “Engage a select inner circle in the decision-making process” (Wiseman, 2017) by utilizing only a portion of their resources, thereby wasting much of the talent and capability of their team. Debate Makers, on the other hand, leverage the resources around them by engaging people in the decision-making process, allowing them to utilize their knowledge and capabilities to contribute to a team effort. Debate Makers equip their team with the knowledge and resources necessary to act on their own, solve problems and generate positive outcomes. They encourage people to stretch their roles and abilities and harness the full brainpower of the organization. They don’t waste resources on issues beyond their control; instead, they identify the right issues, rally the right team and drive a sound decision. Decision Makers will raise issues, but they prefer to dominate the discussion and force the decision on others without allowing for their opinions. They assume that few others are worth listening to and diminish the contributions of their team (Wiseman, 2017). My personal experience with Decision Makers is that they make others feel unimportant and unintelligent. My previous Store Manager was a Decision Maker. She only involved her favorite pharmacy technician in her decision-making processes for the pharmacy rather than involving all of the pharmacy technicians who would be affected by the decision. This made everyone else feel as if they didn’t matter and didn’t have the ability to make a smart decision. It felt like the Store Manager was signaling to everyone else that the only person she trusted was the one technician whose opinion she always sought.

 

Practices of the Debate Maker

The three practices of the Debate Maker include framing the issue, sparking the debate and driving a sound decision. In framing the issue, the Decision Maker first prepares the team by forming the right questions and presenting the issue and process in such a way that everyone can understand and contribute. They have the ability to sift through all of the factors to pick out the most important issues and then focus on asking the right questions that will incite motivation in others to find the answers. They also ensure that they have the right people in the debate by choosing people with relevant knowledge and experience, key stakeholders and those with responsibility for driving the outcome. They gather and analyze the decision-critical data, explicitly state The What, The Why and The How and determine who will make the decision. In sparking the debate, Decision Makers lead debates that are engaging, comprehensive, fact based and educational. They remove fear and doubt from the climate, enabling people to do their best thinking. They ask questions that demand critical thinking, ask for evidence and pursue all sides of the issue. They drive a sound decision by reclarifying the decision-making process. They clarify when the decision will be made, who will make the decision, how they will handle differing views and whether or not the debate has altered the decision-making process. They then make the decision and communicate the decision and rationale to others, maintaining communication and transparency (Wiseman, 2017).

 

Micromanager vs. Investor

Micromanagers like to control every detail of the work, ensuring that everything is done the way they would have done it themselves. Investors, on the other hand, give others ownership for their results and invest in their success. Under micromanagers, people stop making decisions for themselves and their work and instead wait for direction from the micromanager. They hold back their potentially creative contributions, expecting to be interrupted anyway. Once they become used to the micromanager practically doing the job for them, people become stagnant and lazy, waiting for the boss to swoop in and save them. These same people tend to make excuses and shy away from accountability. Investors generate people who are able to take initiative and handle challenges on their own. These people remain fully focused on achieving results, often solving problems before the boss even has to become involved. Micromanagers have to maintain control and ownership, but often jump ship as soon as problems arise, leaving their team without the tools and resources to fend for themselves. Investors make the best use of their resources by empowering their team to identify problems and find solutions, adapt to challenges as they arise and take responsibility for their contributions (Wiseman, 2017). I have worked under many micromanagers and can attest firsthand to the truth in these statements. Micromanagers often unintentionally diminish others in their refusal to relinquish control and allow their team to learn and grow. They have a mindset that if they want things done right, they have to do the work themselves. I’ve witnessed the downfall of a team under the control of a micromanager. While the team was made up of fully capable and intelligent people, they were afraid to act or contribute to a project in fear of being reprimanded for doing it differently than their boss would have. Instead of wasting their time doing the work just to end up starting over to accommodate the boss’s demands, they would wait for instruction from the micromanager so they’d only have to do the work once.

 

Practices of the Investor

The three practices of the Investor include defining ownership, investing resources and holding people accountable. Investors define ownership by recognizing the intelligence and capability of those around them, putting the right people in the lead and clarifying the role they will play as the leader, giving people more ownership. They unite people to work together to achieve the bigger picture or end goal. They challenge people to stretch beyond their capabilities and accomplish something they’ve never accomplished before. Investors invest resources by teaching and coaching, allowing others to learn how to problem-solve on their own, thereby building up their intelligence. They provide back up by aligning their resources effectively to conserve time and energy. Investors hold people accountable by offering suggestions, asking great questions and placing the accountability back in the hands of their people. While they may help and get involved in people’s work, they always give back the leadership and accountability to encourage their intellectual contribution. They expect complete work and hold others accountable not just for identifying problems but for finding solutions. They allow natural consequences to have their effect, informing intelligent action in their people. In doing so, they show others that they have faith in their ability to figure things out. Lastly, Investors make the scoreboard visible, which holds people accountable for their results (Wiseman, 2017).

Reference

Wiseman, L. (2017). Multipliers: How the best leaders make everyone smarter (Rev. ed.). HarperCollins.

Bottom of Form