Chapter
4
MINISTRY DECISION-MAKING
WORKING SMARTER RATHER
THAN HARDER
All managers have on thing in common: they must make decisions. The reality that decisions can make or break the organization presents both an awesome challenge and opportunity, because sound decision-making is definitely the foundation of ministry success.
Though decision-making issues vary across different ministries, the process of making sound decisions remains the same—a matter of working "smarter" rather than harder. Anyone can make a decision, but not necessarily one that stands the test of time. Smart decisions are characterized by five qualities:
1. Reality-orientation
2. Cost-benefit analysis
3. Timeliness
4. Facts balanced with "feels"
5. Incrementalism
Reality-orientation: Effective decision-makers stay in close touch with such ministry realities as resource constraints, morale, team members’ capabilities, and learning from mistakes. They have a good sense of what is realistic and unrealistic and how members of the ministry team perceive reality. Their "sixth-sense" feel of things comes from frequent interaction with team members—from being plugged in to team activities and fluctuating workplace circumstances. "Management by walking around" is a recently coined phrase that aptly describes this in-touch reality-orientation process.
Cost-benefit analysis: Smart decision-makers not only stay in touch, they have a knack for identifying which options will be most fruitful to pursue. This requires keen insight into the probable costs and benefits of action alternatives and an ability to make intelligent trade-offs between the two. Which costs are worth incurring to derive which benefits? Cost-benefit discernment lies with consulting ministry team members, who should always be the decision-maker’s closest confidants and window on reality.
Timeliness: The third quality of smart decision-making is knowing when to make the decision. Both premature and procrastinated decisions can extract a heavy toll. Wise managers realize when more information is needed to make a decision or when additional team consultation is warranted. They also know when the costs of analyzing a decision further outweigh the benefits and "paralysis by analysis" is about to set in. Timely decision-making is the product of experience and, once again, open-minded consultation with the ministry team.
Facts balanced with "feels": Decisions result from facts and "feels," but achieving the right balance is never easy. Some managers rely too much on facts ("Mr. Spocks") while others over-rely on feelings ("Captain Kirks"). Both objective analysis and intuitive feel are involved in decision-making, even though some decision-making, even though some decisions are more "head" decisions than "heart" decisions. Whatever the nature of the decision, ministry managers must strive to blend intellect and intuition to achieve decision-making balance.
Incrementalism: Effective decision-makers learn most from acting in progressive increments—step by step, phase by phase. The resist the tendency to make important future decisions until receiving feedback on the results of related past decisions. Therefore, decisions are made in an interlocking sequence. Incrementalism thus explains why on-the-job experience promotes sound decision-making. Managers learn what works in the ministry and thus make their future decisions accordingly.
SITUATION REVIEW 4.1
Assessing Your Decision-Making Style
1.A. Which members of your ministry team do you consult with most consistently in reaching important decisions?
1B. Check which of the following are major reasons why you turn to the counsel of these particular team members:
I’m good friends with them.
We have compatible personalities.
They work hard and conscientiously.
They usually agree with me.
They often have information I don’t have.
They have competencies which I lack.
They are open-minded and willing to compromise.
They challenge me and hold me accountable.
They are unusually enthusiastic about the work of the ministry.
They are very perceptive and aware.
1C. Based on an examination of your profile of checked items in 1B above, indicate which one of the following best describes how you tend to choose counselors. Try to be as honest and objective as possible.
I tend to choose people who like me and are on “my side.”
I choose people who can help me or do something for me.
I choose people who stretch me and challenge me to grow professionally.
2. Indicate how strongly you agree with each statement below (2 = strongly agree, 1 = agree, and 0 = disagree).
A. I am often impatient for ministry results and progress.
B. I tend to look for optimum solutions to problems rather than merely satisfactory ones.
C. I make up my mind easily.
D. Before I make an important decision, I like to thoroughly analyze the issues involved.
E. I stay extremely busy most of the time.
F. I dislike conflict on the ministry team and try to avoid or minimize it.
G. I am a confident decision-maker most of the time.
H. I tend to work at a relaxed pace.
Subtract your total score for the even-numbered statements (factors that promote procrastination) from your total for the odd-numbered (factors that promote premature decision-making). The more the difference exceeds (0 (on a -8 to 8 scale), the greater the likelihood you may be a premature decision-maker. A final score around or below 0 may indicate you are a procrastinator.
3. Once again, state how strongly you agree with the following statements (2 = strongly agree, 1 = agree, 0 = disagree).
A. While working with others, I am usually very aware of how they feel.
B. Lots of information helps me make decisions.
C. I am most comfortable with decisions that involve group consensus.
D. I tend to spend more time thinking about the possible results of a decision than how people will react to it.
E. I try to avoid making unpopular decisions.
F. I don’t usually have enough time to do a cost-benefit analysis of decision-making alternatives.
G. My decisions are often influenced by the mood I’m in.
H. I make few spontaneous decisions.
Subtract your total score for the even-numbered statements (intellectual decision-making) from your total for the odd-numbered (emotional decision-making). The more your subtracted difference is above 0 (-8 to 8 scale), the more you probably are influenced by your feelings in making decisions. Scores around or below 0 may indicate a more intellectual/analytical orientation to decision-making.
ACTION PLAN 4.1
Expanding Your Effectiveness As A Decision-Maker
1.A. Have your closest decision-making counselors review your results for all three parts of Situation Review 4.1. To what extent do they feel that these results accurately reflect your decision-making style? Do you agree with them?
1B. What would you most like to change about your decision-making style? Why?
1C. Consider the sort of day-to-day decisions that you make. What can ministry team members do to help you become a more effective decision-maker?
2. Use the following questions to guide your team in cost/benefit analysis of important decisions.
Decision under consideration:
A. Why are you making this decision?
B. How do you know this is the right time to make it?
C. What are the major alternative courses of action associated with this decision?
D. For each alternative, answer the following questions:
· What primary benefits are offered by this alternative? Consider potential benefits to ministry team members, those served by the ministry, and the overall organization.
· How well does this alternative mesh with the mission and goals of the ministry?
· What different types of costs are associated with this particular alternative? Consider all the following types of costs: financial, time, facilities, staff stress, and other opportunities foregone.
· How predictable and certain are the costs and benefits identified in A and C above?
· If this alternative were selected over the others, how readily would those served by the ministry probably accept this decision?
· The following analysis can help your team benefit from the advantages of incremental decision-making.
Decision under consideration:
· What past decisions and ministry activities led your team to consider this decision?
· To what extent would the momentum of on-going ministry activities and programs be jeopardized if your team delayed making this decision?
· What future decisions will probably be prompted by making this decision?
· Is this decision the logical next step of a related decision made in the past, or is it a new initiative not closely linked to the past?
· Review the available history pertaining to the decision. To what extent has this decision been prompted by ineffective or unproductive past decisions? (Are you simply trying to “paint your way out of a corner”?)
· In what ways will this decision reinforce the effectiveness and success of past decisions?
___________________________________________________________________________-
PROFILE OF THE POOR DECISION-MAKER
Much can be learned about effective decision-making from observing characteristic of the poor decision-making. For example, managers who work largely in isolation of the ministry team will be out of touch with ministry realities, producing unrealistic, hard-to-implement decisions. Managers who cannot look beyond the short-run are often myopic decisions-makers, bogged down by tradition and lack of creativity.
Managers who lack goal-consciousness fail at decision-making consistency and follow-through. Those who have a high need to please everyone too often compromise away decision-making success. Uncreative managers are doomed to repeating the mistakes of past decision-makers, while politically naïve ones experience seemingly endless roadblocks in implementing decisions.
Insecure managers who vacillate and "waffle" in sticking with decisions quickly lose credibility with team members or are simply ignored. Managers who crave decision-making certainty and duck risk-taking probably lack imagination and innovativeness.
The profile of effective decision-makers begins to emerge. They interact frequently with the team, keep the long-run vision in sight, and are not wedded to the status quo. They are goal focused, aware of political trends in the organization, and occasionally willing to be non-traditional. Good decision-makers also understand the difference between being liked and being respected.
SITUATION REVIEW 4.2
Gauging Your Decision-Making Effectiveness
1. The team leader should respond to the following statements (2 = strongly agree, 1 = agree, and 0 = disagree).
1. I am usually accessible to the members of my team and not hard to reach.
2. I am in close touch with the ministry and well aware of how team members feel.
3. I tend to be more concerned with the short-term performance and progress of the ministry team than with fulfillment of our long-run vision and mission.
4. I am generally very conscious of tradition and precedent when making ministry decisions.
5. I have a knack for coming up with creative alternatives to consider in decision-making.
6. I evaluate decision-making alternatives in light of ministry goals.
7. I am often too quick to compromise.
8. I am rarely caught off guard or surprised at how ministry members react to the decisions I make.
9. Many times I find it hard to stick to decisions I have made.
10. I often experience difficulties in implementing decisions.
11. Being liked is very important to me.
12. I don’t mind “sticking my neck out” in making important decisions.
Score the inventory by subtracting your total for statements 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11 (decision-making detractors) from your total for statements 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 12 (decision-making enhancers). The higher your score (on a -12 to 12 scale), the greater is your potential for making effective decisions. Compare this score with your ministry team’s assessment in part 2 which follows.
2. This should be completed by members of the ministry team. They should state how much they agree (2 = strongly agree, 1 = agree, 0 = disagree) with each of the following statements about the team leader.
My team leader:
1. Is generally accessible and easy to get hold of.
2. Stays in close touch with the ministry and is aware of team member feelings.
3. Tends to be more concerned with our short-run performance than with long-run vision and mission of the organization.
4. Is generally very conscious of tradition and precedent when making ministry decisions.
5. Has a knack for coming up with creative alternatives to consider in decision-making.
6. Evaluates decision-making alternatives in light of ministry goals.
7. Is often too quick to compromise.
8. Is rarely caught off guard or surprised at how team members react to decisions.
9. Sometimes finds it difficult to stick to decisions made.
10. Often experiences difficulties in implementing decisions once they are made.
11. Wants very much to be liked.
12. Avoids decisions involving risk.
Score the inventory by subtracting the total for statements 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11 (detractors) from the total for statements 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 12 (enhancers). Compare this score with the leader’s own score in part 1.
ACTION PLAN 4.2
Improving Decision-Making Effectiveness
Compare your assessment of your own decision-making effectiveness (Part I of Situation Review 4.2) with the assessment of your team members.
1. How similar are the two assessments?
2. What probably accounts for any significant discrepancies in the two profiles?
3. Based on the assessments, do you feel you are an effective decision-maker?
4. What appear to be your primary decision-making strengths and weaknesses?
5. What can you do to improve your decision-making effectiveness?
6. How can your team help you?
_____________________________________________________________
WHO DECIDES?
There’s more than one way to make a decision, and the approach makes a big difference in the decision’s outcome. The ministry manager can make the decision "solo," with no involvement from team members or go to the other extreme and abide by whatever the team decides on its own. Between these two poles are the options of consulting with team members individually or collectively. Which style works best depends on the circumstances surrounding the decision. A general rule is the more team members are affected by a decision, the more they should be involved in making it. Participation breeds commitment.
Group decision-making is also warranted when the issue is novel or complex, when creativity is needed, and when team members possess high technical expertise. Individual, or unilateral, decision-making is warranted when time short, the matter is of a routine nature, and the ministry manager already has enough information and expertise to make the decision.
Group decision-making makes communication easier and facilitates smooth implementation of the decision. In addition, bilateral decision-making allows a greater number of alternatives to be evaluated and more information to be processed.
Group decision-making does have its drawbacks, however, since it generally takes longer and because groups can be indecisive. If the problem of "groupthink" prevails, group decision-making can prove disastrous. Team members delude themselves into believing they can do no wrong and "circle the wagons" against any form of criticism or negative feedback from those outside the group.
SITUATION REVIEW 4.3
Audit of Situational Decision-Making
Indicate which style of decision-making you tend to lean toward in each situation below. Choose from the following styles:
1 = You make the decision alone, with no team involvement.
2 = You ask certain team members for information about the issue (without telling them what decision you are about to make), and then make the decision on your own.
3. = You consult with team members on an individual basis about the issue involved, and then make the decision on your own.
4 = You consult with your team as a group and then make the decision on your own.
5 = You allow the team to make the decision on its own, and you agree to abide by it.
1. Responding to criticism of ministry performance.
2. Scheduling future ministry activities (calendar planning).
3. Evaluating ministry performance and progress.
4. Setting performance goals for the team as a whole.
5. Setting performance goals for individual team members.
6. Solving nonroutine problems.
7. Defining job descriptions and team member roles.
8. Developing new programs and ministry activities.
9. Revising the budget.
10. Evaluating team morale and motivation.
Scoring Range Probable Interpretation
10-20 You tend to lean too heavily toward unilateral/autocratic decision-making.
21-35 You take good advantage of team wisdom and counsel in decision-making, while striving to maintain your leadership role.
36-50 You tend to go overboard on team consensus, perhaps watering down or abandoning your leadership role.
ACTION PLAN 4.3
Achieving Decision-Making Balance
1. Have team members evaluate your responses to Situation Review 4.3. To what extent do they perceive your decision-making style the way you do?
2. According to your responses to Situation Review 4.3, do you over-rely on one of the five decision-making styles? What does your team think?
3. If you tend to over-use unilateral decision-making or depend too heavily on the team to run itself without your leadership, explain what action steps you can take to become a more balanced decision-maker.
4. How can your team help you become a more balanced decision-maker?
UNDERSTANDING MINISTRY
PROBLEM-SOLVING
Problems are not necessarily bad. When managed intelligently, problems become genuine opportunities for ministry progress, because they reveal how the ministry can be improved and strengthened. Considering how firmly entrenched the status quo is in most organizations (especially those which heavily rely on volunteers), problems serve the invaluable role of shaking things up and preventing team members from resting on their laurels.
Problems are not so much solved as they are managed or contained. Most "problems" are really symptoms of larger problems. These symptoms may be resolved in piecemeal fashion, but the larger problem doesn’t evaporate. Symptoms and problems are linked together in a cause-and-effect network that resists permanent solution but can be managed.
For example, such common "people-problems" as poor communication, fluctuating morale, and tenuous cooperation are never permanently solved, because they are symptoms of the larger problem of nonoptimal teamwork—which is itself a symptom of human imperfection. Nonetheless, everyday people problems can be managed even though they are a permanent part of organizational life. Ministry leaders should therefore thing of themselves as problem-managers rather than problem-solvers.
SITUATION REVIEW 4.4
Looking For the Silver Lining
Discuss the following issues and questions with your ministry team members:
1. Identify two or three significant ministry successes over the past year.
2. Looking at these ministry breakthroughs in retrospect, how ere they linked to problems? Were the problems in any way a catalyst for ministry success?
3. In retrospect, might team members have responded to these problems in a more optimistic manner, recognizing them as a “silver lining”?
ACTION PLAN 4.4
Turning Problems Into Opportunities
1. What larger problem is this linked to (a symptom of)?
2. What aspect of the ministry’s status quo has this problem disrupted?
3. In what respects can the status quo be improved upon?
4. How can this problem be contained (neutralized) in the short-run?
5. In what significant ways will the ministry benefit when the problem is eventually solved?
6. What can you do today to keep this problem (symptom) from repeating itself in the future?
7. What can be done in the future to help the team respond more cheerfully to problems, recognizing them as a catalyst for ministry success?
STRATEGIES FOR
PROBLEM-SOLVING
Formal problems (those involving the way the organization operates "on paper," such as systems and procedures, policies, rules, budgets, and written job descriptions) are often best addressed through informal means (discretionary behaviors of team members, such as friendships and unstated expectations about how work is done). Likewise, informal problems (cliques, members who let the team down, and poor attitudes) are often best addressed through formal means (committees, written systems and procedures, and policy and goal statements). By counterbalancing formal and informal processes in this manner, managers can compensate for imperfections (gaps) in the way ministry activities are designed or implemented.
Consider the common example of a committee (formal structure) hobbled by internal squabbling and inadequate leadership (informal activities). Rather than rewriting the committee’s bylaws or adopting different rules of order (formal problem-solving methods), the problem of disharmony would probably be best handled through informal means such as greater spontaneous fellowship among quarreling members (e.g., meals together, off-hours recreational events, attendance of continuing education seminars together. Poor performance of a formal part of the organization (the committee) is bolstered by excellent performance in the informal part of the organization.
Also consider the (informal) problem of team members who spend too much time socializing and "goofing off" during the work day. Rather than addressing this informal problem in an informal way (such as encouraging people to work harder), formal means will probably prove more fruitful, such as adopting a management by objectives system or increasing the frequency of meaningful on-the-record job evaluation sessions.
SITUATION REVIEW 4.5
Review of Problem-Solving Tactics
1. Check which of the following formalized potential problem-solvers are regularly used by your team.
· Written systems and procedures for doing work.
· Written job descriptions.
· Permanent committees.
· Organization chart.
· Temporary committees.
· Time cards.
· Written goals and plans.
· Job rotation.
· Written grievance system.
· Management by objectives.
· Periodic performance evaluation.
· Brainstorming sessions.
· Budgets.
2. Check which of these informal problem-solving processes are regularly used by your team.
· After hours socializing and recreation.
· Working meals.
· “Management by walking around.”
· Seeking the cooperation of informal work team leaders.
· Coffee break conversations.
· Soliciting “off-the-record” work-related feedback one-on-one.
ACTION PLAN 4.5
Integrated Problem-Solving
1. Based on Situation Review 4.5, does your team appear to favor formal or informal approaches to problem-solving?
2. Which of the above formal sources are you perhaps relying on too heavily?
3. Which informal sources are you over-relying on?
4. Indicate formal problems you hope to address more effectively through informal means.
A. Formal problem
Informal management
B. Formal problem
Informal management
C. Formal problem
Informal management
5. Now indicate how you hope to address informal problems formally:
A. Informal problem
Formal management
B. Informal problem
Formal management
C. Informal problem
Formal management
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. (Proverbs 3:5-7)
For a man's ways are in full view of the Lord, and he examines all his paths. (Proverbs 5:21)
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. (Romans 14:19)
Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?
(Galatians 3:3)
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:2)