"Confused" or "Conflicted" About Decisions?

You and I go to meetings where the decision-making can seem unbelievably confusing.

And how about those decisions where we just can't seem to arrive at a peaceful conclusion?

After giving it some thought and observation, I think I've got a way to look at this that I hope will be helpful.

Confused or Conflicted?

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the two this way:

Confused: being disordered or mixed up. 

The result is not being able to think at your usual speed.

Conflicted: (a feeling of) mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands.

The result is inaction, over-reaction, or both.

Yes, both are possible. We can react strongly to the conversation around the decision, but still not be able to make the decision.

Note: Each of these phenomena apply to individual as well as group decisions. Those self-conversations in our heads can get every bit as frustrating as the ones across the table!

What To Do?

1.Stop and diagnose.

(Please remember Steve's rule for everything: "Prognosis Without Diagnosis is Malpractice").

2. If the issue is Confusion, ask:

    a. Are we clear on the goal of the decision?

    b. Do we have the right information, and all of it--or as much as possible?

    c. Do we have the information organized in an understandable way?

    d. Does everyone involved have the same understanding of the goal and the information?

    e. Do we have a structured process for making our decision?

When you are clear that all of the above have been satisfied, then you're probably dealing with Conflicted-ness. (My spell checker is definitely conflicted trying to deal with that one).

3. If the issue is being Conflicted, then you'll probably experience silence or overt argument. You're  seeing the result of deeper issues--perhaps even at the personal values level--that need to be resolved. Whether silence or argument:

    a. Talk straight immediately. Say, "We've got a good understanding and a good process. But there's something else stopping us.What's really getting in the way?

    b. Don't speak again until someone offers a comment. After the first person responds, don't evaluate the remark. Thank them. Allow for everyone to respond without evaluation.

Principle: Until the real issue is named out loud, it will silently undermine the decision process. Once it's named and acknowledged, it is neutralized. When it comes out into the light of day, it can be seen clearly for what it is and discussed accurately. This is the most difficult thing for groups (and individuals) to deal with. Why? There's always the fear that "my issue" will be discounted, misunderstood, or seen as a blockage to "good teamwork."

Yet the person who offers the first bit of truth is the one who leads the group to a more satisfying decision.

    c. After 'b', you will know exactly how to proceed because the substantive issues will be out there in clear view. You'll see both an increase in both energy and collaboration.

Note: Organizations are usually pretty good at organizing. And even those of us with a more casual approach to life still have our own method of organizing it.

If you are really stuck on a decision, go with "Conflicted." In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and say that more often than not, we aren't confused. We usually know the right thing or best thing to do. It's facing up to our conflicting wants and needs that get in the way. "Having it all," whether in a business meeting or personal life, is a decision criterion that can only lead to internal conflict.

Thought for Today: Clear priorities offer the soundest foundation to decision making.

Related bonus: Check out  what Dr. Ellen Weber offered a while back in "What Do Peers Say About Your Smarts"  . The questions about self-development are really the kind of clarifying questions that can lead to better decision making.

 

Comments

[Michael Lee Stallard]

Steve,

Congratulations on being voted the best leadership blog of 2008 in Kevin Eikenberry's survey. Your blog is one of the blogs I regularly visit because your thinking challenges me and helps me learn and grow. I know you put a tremendous amount of time and effort in your blog posts and it shows. It's great to see that so many others recognize the quality of your work and the wisdom it reflects.

With best wishes,
Michael

[Frode H.]

Hi Steve.
I found this article useful. I actually most likely will use this in a couple of meetings next week, as I am facing some challenges at work. I like it when post give an answer by providing the tool or mindset to deal with situations. And thank you for a great link to http://www.brainbasedbusiness.com. This one was new to me, and is very interesting.

[Steve roesler]

Michael,

Thanks for your thoughtfulness; much appreciated.

Let's hope that our mutual work will lead to increasingly healthy and effective organizations of all kinds.

[Steve Roesler]

Frode,

That is the kind of comment that puts a smile on my face!

Please let me know how you were able to use the information and how people responded to it. It always helps to know what is useful to people on the job.

All the best to you as you prepare for the meetings. . .

[tim dawes]

Steve, I'm grateful for your willingness to consistently speak truth to power. I find this post really incisive.

If folks are finding they come up against confusion often, one good resource is Vervago.com. Those guys have put together a really nice questioning strategy that helps teams cut through confusion.

I agree with you, though, that often we confuse ourselves because at heart we don't want to decide. I was working with a team today that was having a lot of trouble getting their partners to make decisions and move action forward. And the root of the problem was the risk of putting a stake in the sand. If I decide, I have to take action. And I'm afraid to.

I can see how your suggestion of setting clear priorities would be a good antidote for that.

[Steve Roesler]

Tim,

I sure appreciate the resource mentioned and have already checked it out.

Your recent situation is totally familiar to the point of being able to feel it without having been there. A recent similar engagement surfaced similar dynamics. Closer scrutiny and a follow-up diagnostic revealed that:

a. The membership was relatively new.

b. The company history showed a predisposition for decision-making that required total agreement of all concerned before an action would be implemented. (Which is why this group was in trouble).

c. A + B led to a hesitancy to be the first to step out, not knowing if anyone would be there to back them up in the event of difficulty. Someone could say, "I didn't agree to that!" even if it was the right thing to do.

We're having a follow up come-to-Jesus meeting to sort this out and move in a new direction.