Fully agree, Roger. When leaders “take over” all decisions it really demotivates and hinders the development of the team. Two other thoughts:
- it’s interesting how the way to this properly ties back to your EMS, since that’s the best way to “nudge” cascaded decision rights into the shape you want them to cohere around
- there’s also a cognitive limitation on how many decisions leaders can make consistently, which is also why I’m a big fan of trying to craft *decision policies* when possible instead of making sequences of the same decisions again and again
As usual, we are in agreement. My motivation is similar to yours. I don't want leaders making lots of decisions that they aren't best positioned in the organization to make. R
It’s fascinating how much easier and more effective it is to get things done when people are executing their own decisions.
I believe that your strategy toolbox is the only one that enables an executive to run a company in this manner though.
Yours seems to be the only framework that enables everybody in the organization to feel sense of achievement and “control” while still having high degree of decentralized decision making.
Other ways to think about strategy seem to amplify the politics and scarcity of corporate glory. You on the other hand seem to amplify execution and decision quality.
Thanks for the kind words. And you correctly identify my motivation. The only place I see it a bit differently is that I don't love the term execution. I just don't see the distinction between the activity of 'deciding' and 'executing.' Both require decisions under uncertainty and constraints. So I just think about decisions, decisions and more decisions - to paraphrase a philosopher: it is turtles all the way down! R
Thank you for your reply, I’m deeply humbled. Also, I appreciate your point!
It is quite often the case that we forget that most of the work is decisions, if not all of it.
In fact, I often cite your phrase to our teams from “new way to think”. I believe you said effectively, “the output of knowledge work is decisions”. I love the power and clarity in that!
I have found multiple times that it ignites a sense of accountability. Especially, the people who tend to view work as “executing boss’ orders” seem to get a sense of enlightenment from that.
Also, your reply got me thinking. Perhaps ‘execution’ just means the decision by which you actually risk of being proved incorrect.
Eventually, there is the decision to ship the new product or provide the service. A decision after which the rubber hits the road. I guess the need to emphasize ‘execution’ comes from the sense that too often we procrastinate taking that decision. The one to get stuff done and actually satisfy the customer.
Instead we regress into decisions like running a bit more analyses or other work that seems meaningful and feels productive while accomplishing nothing.
I wonder if you have written how to build organizational decisiveness to actually take those decisions. Will check! Enjoy summer, sir!
Hi Roger – It's invigorating to read a piece like this on vacation - "minimize your choice-making for the learning benefit of your people" – powerful stuff!
I especially like the simple heuristic at the end:
Can you come up with a single decision of twenty you can delegate to a subordinate using the responsibility ladder?
As someone starting off their career targeting to be a leader, this is really helpful because even if I'm not yet in an environment where I'm being given the opportunity to make decisions I can keep working up the ladder on my own to sharpen myself.
Strong piece, and one that gets to the heart of a challenge many leaders underestimate.
Delegating decisions down the hierarchy only works as networked leadership - rather than fragmentation - when everyone, from CEO to the newest hire, shares a pre-agreed direction. Call it a "Winning Aspiration," or what I've termed "Purpose Anchors" in one of my articles: a common reference point that makes distributed decisions pull in the same direction instead of pulling apart.
I especially resonate with the point that "by pushing decisions to subordinates, you unearth possibilities you would have never imagined". But this only holds for leaders who don't believe in their own mightiness and genuinely expect the best ideas to surface bottom-up - not the reverse. Delegation without that humility isn't empowerment; it's just abdication with extra steps.
Thank you for the food for thought! This really helps to reflect on one's own actions, especially when carrying leadership responsibility within a team!
On that note, a tactical question from a practitioner's perspective: how do you concretely go about it, or how did you define "decisions" - do you log all decisions over a given period (day/week), or is it only the concrete decision gates, or also the small things where you said yes/no/otherwise in your past roles? Using a concrete example: a strategist at a portfolio company who carries both leadership responsibility and runs strategy processes at the same time.
Something else I found very instructive here was, from the book Great at Work (which I've only half read), the mantra "Do less, then obsess" - which also matches one of the core theses of Cal Newport's book "Slow Productivity". (I think you'd really enjoy Cal Newport's book if you don't know it already — tip: pack it for your summer vacation! :-D)
Unfortunately, doing less or consciously saying NO can sometimes feel like being lesser, or triggers a bad conscience, in today's busyness-economy... Saying a concrete NO and actually handing off tasks should honestly be taught in management studies - but it wasn't, not even in the expensive lectures at European business schools for "future decision makers" ... (blocking time for deep work for me had the highest personal ROI so far and the same time in a weird way harms ones visibility in certain corporations)
Hi Jasper. I think we are very much on the same page. For me, when I was running the Rotman School, I had my Chief of Staff log the decisions that I had chartered others to make sure that we could follow up as needed. I knew my own limitations and that helped me a lot. I wanted a flat organization and had over a dozen direct reports at various points, so I needed help on this front. Best, R
"make the fewest decisions possible" sounds like abdication until you read the reasoning. It's actually the most disciplined version of leadership there is.
Hi Roger, you have put your finger on one of the toughest problems in business, and I agree with everything you've presented.
Over the years, I've observed two particularly challenging situations around this issue:
1. A deep-rooted habit among business leaders of creating roles based on generic or "best practice" job descriptions, under the false premise that it organizes departments quickly. The result is a snowball effect that grows out of control as it picks up speed.
2.The widespread confusion around strategy-making, compounded by the use of countless tools without the foundational knowledge to apply them. Both situations create a vast sea of unfocused choices, ultimately leading organizations to try to be everything to everyone.
There is a tremendous lack of awareness among business leaders about your work on Strategic Choice Chartering and the Responsibility Ladder. Both are vital for business survival — and for truly designing and implementing strategy. When leaders don't know how to structure their decision-making processes, they become hostage to the urgency of the day.
Juan Miguel: I concur. And frankly, my managerial approach was always to design jobs around people rather than find a person for a job. Generic jobs are delusional. There aren't generic people - particularly high-quality ones. There are individuals. And a leader must craft a job around their particular capabilities - and then watch them soar! R
Fully agree, Roger. When leaders “take over” all decisions it really demotivates and hinders the development of the team. Two other thoughts:
- it’s interesting how the way to this properly ties back to your EMS, since that’s the best way to “nudge” cascaded decision rights into the shape you want them to cohere around
- there’s also a cognitive limitation on how many decisions leaders can make consistently, which is also why I’m a big fan of trying to craft *decision policies* when possible instead of making sequences of the same decisions again and again
As usual, we are in agreement. My motivation is similar to yours. I don't want leaders making lots of decisions that they aren't best positioned in the organization to make. R
Such a wonderful piece again, thank you sir!
It’s fascinating how much easier and more effective it is to get things done when people are executing their own decisions.
I believe that your strategy toolbox is the only one that enables an executive to run a company in this manner though.
Yours seems to be the only framework that enables everybody in the organization to feel sense of achievement and “control” while still having high degree of decentralized decision making.
Other ways to think about strategy seem to amplify the politics and scarcity of corporate glory. You on the other hand seem to amplify execution and decision quality.
Thanks for the kind words. And you correctly identify my motivation. The only place I see it a bit differently is that I don't love the term execution. I just don't see the distinction between the activity of 'deciding' and 'executing.' Both require decisions under uncertainty and constraints. So I just think about decisions, decisions and more decisions - to paraphrase a philosopher: it is turtles all the way down! R
Thank you for your reply, I’m deeply humbled. Also, I appreciate your point!
It is quite often the case that we forget that most of the work is decisions, if not all of it.
In fact, I often cite your phrase to our teams from “new way to think”. I believe you said effectively, “the output of knowledge work is decisions”. I love the power and clarity in that!
I have found multiple times that it ignites a sense of accountability. Especially, the people who tend to view work as “executing boss’ orders” seem to get a sense of enlightenment from that.
Also, your reply got me thinking. Perhaps ‘execution’ just means the decision by which you actually risk of being proved incorrect.
Eventually, there is the decision to ship the new product or provide the service. A decision after which the rubber hits the road. I guess the need to emphasize ‘execution’ comes from the sense that too often we procrastinate taking that decision. The one to get stuff done and actually satisfy the customer.
Instead we regress into decisions like running a bit more analyses or other work that seems meaningful and feels productive while accomplishing nothing.
I wonder if you have written how to build organizational decisiveness to actually take those decisions. Will check! Enjoy summer, sir!
Hi Roger – It's invigorating to read a piece like this on vacation - "minimize your choice-making for the learning benefit of your people" – powerful stuff!
I especially like the simple heuristic at the end:
Can you come up with a single decision of twenty you can delegate to a subordinate using the responsibility ladder?
Mike: Thanks as always for the support. Glad this one made for fun vacation reading - one of the great things to do on vacation. R
As someone starting off their career targeting to be a leader, this is really helpful because even if I'm not yet in an environment where I'm being given the opportunity to make decisions I can keep working up the ladder on my own to sharpen myself.
I am glad it provides help and encouragement. Keep thinking hard and you will advance.
Thank you! Your writing has genuinely shaped how I think about strategy, will keep at it.
Strong piece, and one that gets to the heart of a challenge many leaders underestimate.
Delegating decisions down the hierarchy only works as networked leadership - rather than fragmentation - when everyone, from CEO to the newest hire, shares a pre-agreed direction. Call it a "Winning Aspiration," or what I've termed "Purpose Anchors" in one of my articles: a common reference point that makes distributed decisions pull in the same direction instead of pulling apart.
I especially resonate with the point that "by pushing decisions to subordinates, you unearth possibilities you would have never imagined". But this only holds for leaders who don't believe in their own mightiness and genuinely expect the best ideas to surface bottom-up - not the reverse. Delegation without that humility isn't empowerment; it's just abdication with extra steps.
Alex: Agree. And among that limited number of decisions leaders need to make is the Winning Aspiration. And humility is very important in a leader. R
Dear Roger!
Thank you for the food for thought! This really helps to reflect on one's own actions, especially when carrying leadership responsibility within a team!
On that note, a tactical question from a practitioner's perspective: how do you concretely go about it, or how did you define "decisions" - do you log all decisions over a given period (day/week), or is it only the concrete decision gates, or also the small things where you said yes/no/otherwise in your past roles? Using a concrete example: a strategist at a portfolio company who carries both leadership responsibility and runs strategy processes at the same time.
Something else I found very instructive here was, from the book Great at Work (which I've only half read), the mantra "Do less, then obsess" - which also matches one of the core theses of Cal Newport's book "Slow Productivity". (I think you'd really enjoy Cal Newport's book if you don't know it already — tip: pack it for your summer vacation! :-D)
Unfortunately, doing less or consciously saying NO can sometimes feel like being lesser, or triggers a bad conscience, in today's busyness-economy... Saying a concrete NO and actually handing off tasks should honestly be taught in management studies - but it wasn't, not even in the expensive lectures at European business schools for "future decision makers" ... (blocking time for deep work for me had the highest personal ROI so far and the same time in a weird way harms ones visibility in certain corporations)
Best regards!
Jasper
Hi Jasper. I think we are very much on the same page. For me, when I was running the Rotman School, I had my Chief of Staff log the decisions that I had chartered others to make sure that we could follow up as needed. I knew my own limitations and that helped me a lot. I wanted a flat organization and had over a dozen direct reports at various points, so I needed help on this front. Best, R
"make the fewest decisions possible" sounds like abdication until you read the reasoning. It's actually the most disciplined version of leadership there is.
Hah! I agree, Rini. It is a bit counter-intuitive. Best, R
Hi Roger, you have put your finger on one of the toughest problems in business, and I agree with everything you've presented.
Over the years, I've observed two particularly challenging situations around this issue:
1. A deep-rooted habit among business leaders of creating roles based on generic or "best practice" job descriptions, under the false premise that it organizes departments quickly. The result is a snowball effect that grows out of control as it picks up speed.
2.The widespread confusion around strategy-making, compounded by the use of countless tools without the foundational knowledge to apply them. Both situations create a vast sea of unfocused choices, ultimately leading organizations to try to be everything to everyone.
There is a tremendous lack of awareness among business leaders about your work on Strategic Choice Chartering and the Responsibility Ladder. Both are vital for business survival — and for truly designing and implementing strategy. When leaders don't know how to structure their decision-making processes, they become hostage to the urgency of the day.
Have a great week!
Juan Miguel: I concur. And frankly, my managerial approach was always to design jobs around people rather than find a person for a job. Generic jobs are delusional. There aren't generic people - particularly high-quality ones. There are individuals. And a leader must craft a job around their particular capabilities - and then watch them soar! R
Hi Roger,
Thank you for your message. Your humanistic perspective is truly inspiring.