As I have seen in many HBS-sourced articles I read, in recent years, both in the public and private sectors, the number of good decision-makers has significantly decreased, and compared to the past, the number of weak decisions has increased considerably.

We focus not on the decision itself but on the person who will make the decision.
According to HBS, in a state, a company, or any institution, decision-makers are generally senior executives. This situation, instead of a decision being the outcome of an analysis, a thorough review, a brainstorming session, or meetings where the subject is evaluated with different experts, causes the decision to be made without transparency.

Suppose the outcome of the decision (partly subject to external factors and even luck) turns out to be in favor of the decision-maker. In that case, it not only increases the trust felt toward that person but also leads to the future decisions of the same person or group of people being less evaluated or not evaluated at all. At this point, while everything seems to be going very well, a single move can cause significant damage to a large structure. It can lead to significant downsizing or even bring about its own end.

Moreover, the fact that decisions are not reconsidered, even though everything seems fine or gives the feeling that everything is fine, may actually give rise to problems not yet known. What was right yesterday can be wrong today. As important as evaluating new opportunities is evaluating the decision-making process itself and periodically reviewing existing decisions that have been made for a long time without being questioned.

The fact that weak decision-making occurs at such a high rate is an issue that requires serious measures to be taken in the long term.Davenport emphasizes that focusing on decision-making should be a priority and suggests the following four steps:

1. List the decisions that need to be made and indicate their level of importance.

2. Evaluate factors such as who will play which role, how frequently the decision will be made, and what supporting information is available.

3. Design the roles, processes, systems, and behaviors that your organization needs.

4. Institutionalize decision tools and support.

Unless decision-making is multidimensional—in other words, when an executive reduces input from others and relies solely on their own experience and perspective—the risk level of the decision being taken actually increases. When Davenport’s suggested methods are applied, organizations can strengthen their decision-making and evaluation processes. For this, the first step is to identify the decisions to be made and then rank these decisions in order of importance.

After the necessary decision-making mechanism is established, all steps are still not complete. The next step is to ensure that this mechanism is sustainable, meaning long-lasting. It is not a one-time task. The real benefit emerges when it is spread across the entire organization and truly embedded into its culture and work discipline. Even if the support given to this mechanism is costly, labor-intensive, or time-consuming, institutions that have protected their position for years and acted wisely do not shy away from this effort. They even show significant dedication to institutionalizing this process.

It should not be forgotten that every step has its own characteristics, experts, working discipline, and staff. While having all decisions made by a single person significantly increases the risk of failure, multidimensional perspectives bring about significantly better results. Of course, multidimensional perspectives also have their own risks. That is precisely why it should be remembered that every decision involves different circumstances and, accordingly, different outcomes. Sharp, insufficiently assessed decisions based on momentary information or shallow statistics can be misleading, even if a multidimensional approach is applied.

If you do not know which decisions are a priority, and more importantly, in which areas you need to make decisions, remember that staying only in your current position can itself be the wrong choice. It is not only about creating a new decision-making process but also about evaluating the results of this new process. Otherwise, you cannot know what is good and what is better. This process, which will carry you forward, is as essential as new investment opportunities and new business ventures. When managed with sensitivity and attention, it will yield significantly positive and, more importantly, lasting and sustainable results.

For more articles, please feel free to write to me: rana.tglt@gmail.com

---