After the the very unfortunate nuclear accident in Fukushima, the German government has made a decision within days to exit nuclear power generation within a given, relatively short time, frame. After that decision, a lot of problems are arising, e.g. do alternative ways of generating energy cause bigger environmental damage? Is uninterrupted power supply endangered, etc.?
I want to use this example to analyse ‘decision making’ a capability that every manager must possess. Here is my view:
Firstly, what is a crisis? For me a crisis is a situation that ‘rocks the boat’ and / or causes severe suffering. In other words, if nothing is being done NOW people will experience more suffering and / or the situation becomes worse having a more serious impact.
If in crisis mode, quick decisions followed by action need to be made. Sometimes, decisive action based on a reasonably good, not perfect but fast decision, is better than waiting too long.
Was Germany in a crisis mode to make a decision that fast? Let’s look at the facts. Germany is living with nuclear power plants for decades already. Neighbouring countries have nuclear power plants that are of a lower safety standard than the German ones. An accident there could very well have a very damaging impact on Germany. On top of that, it will still take many years to exit nuclear power generation. It cannot be done within months. However, the German population is emotionally strongly against nuclear power, more so than that most other countries.
Is that a crisis mode? No it is not. A well-thought-through decision within a given time frame, let’s say six months, instead of a snap decision, which is badly thought-through would, have been more advisable.
Take away: If you or your team are experiencing a crisis, a fast decision is extremely relevant. And is okay, if the speed of the decision is a bit at the expense of the quality of the decision. One can fine tune ‘as things progress’. That gives confidence to the people affected.
For important decision, outside a crisis, it is better to not get emotional; rather gather information, facts, and opinions and then conclude with a decision. In other words if you have the time to make a decision, take it in order to improve the quality of the decision. Funny enough the same result, i.e. giving confidence to the people affect by the decision.
I want to use this example to analyse ‘decision making’ a capability that every manager must possess. Here is my view:
Firstly, what is a crisis? For me a crisis is a situation that ‘rocks the boat’ and / or causes severe suffering. In other words, if nothing is being done NOW people will experience more suffering and / or the situation becomes worse having a more serious impact.
If in crisis mode, quick decisions followed by action need to be made. Sometimes, decisive action based on a reasonably good, not perfect but fast decision, is better than waiting too long.
Was Germany in a crisis mode to make a decision that fast? Let’s look at the facts. Germany is living with nuclear power plants for decades already. Neighbouring countries have nuclear power plants that are of a lower safety standard than the German ones. An accident there could very well have a very damaging impact on Germany. On top of that, it will still take many years to exit nuclear power generation. It cannot be done within months. However, the German population is emotionally strongly against nuclear power, more so than that most other countries.
Is that a crisis mode? No it is not. A well-thought-through decision within a given time frame, let’s say six months, instead of a snap decision, which is badly thought-through would, have been more advisable.
Take away: If you or your team are experiencing a crisis, a fast decision is extremely relevant. And is okay, if the speed of the decision is a bit at the expense of the quality of the decision. One can fine tune ‘as things progress’. That gives confidence to the people affected.
For important decision, outside a crisis, it is better to not get emotional; rather gather information, facts, and opinions and then conclude with a decision. In other words if you have the time to make a decision, take it in order to improve the quality of the decision. Funny enough the same result, i.e. giving confidence to the people affect by the decision.
Posts
Euroland's speed of decision in the current euro-zone crisis is a great contrast from Germany's speed of decision to exit nuclear power generation. The euro-zone is facing a great crisis but the Euroland policy-makers are agonisingly slow in their decision-making, thus putting the whole world at greater risk of slipping into another Great Recession.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I do not disagree with this comment I like to highlight the purpose of my blog. I like to analyze experiences concluding with the questions - What can I learn from this? How does it help me to improve my personal effectiveness? In this case, decision making in a crisis situation and otherwise. After all, if we really want to change something it starts with our own personal effectiveness. Gunther
ReplyDelete