Clearing the Way:Decision Making in a Hybrid Working Environment
by Gary Ashton
Making good decisions has always been a challenge. If the thinking sets off in the wrong direction, or if insufficient challenge is given as the thinking develops, poor quality or downright wrong decisions can get made. It is the cornerstone of high performing organisations, and is difficult enough under normal circumstances. But when operating in a hybrid working environment, two challenges emerge. One is about the quality of the decision, and the other is about the effectiveness of the sign-off and handover at the interface between functions and firms. For both of these challenges it is about how you can clear the way for those making the decisions. Let’s explore each of these challenges in more detail…
Challenge 1 – poorer quality decision-making
A team that had been used to working face-to-face, used to find that their decision-making happened more ‘organically’. Through informal conversations during the week, they would gain tacit approval and pick up on non-verbal cues, as they built up to a recommendation for a decision. It was fine that the decision-making approach was a little fuzzy, with it not being fully clear who needed to be consulted and how the decision actually got made.
But when they moved to a hybrid working environment, with only some of the team in the office for some of the time, the requisite people being together at any one time happened less frequently and those chance informal conversations dropped off. This resulted in poorer quality decisions, and/or disagreement around the decisions being made.
A similar situation occurred in another firm when the leader asked one of their team to prepare a discussion paper for the next management meeting. Instead of those casual conversations taking place as the thinking was being shaped, the team member had only conferred with those who were in the office at the same time she was, and had only engaged remotely with those who she felt comfortable with. So by the time the paper reached the management meeting, it did not hit the mark. It had gone off in a different direction to what was intended, leading to a little frustration and a lot of rework…
… the team member had only conferred with those who were in the office at the same time she was, and had only engaged remotely with those who she felt comfortable with. So by the time the paper reached the management meeting, it did not hit the mark
What this demonstrates is two phenomena in action – the first is known as “present privilege”, whereby those physically in the office gain a greater say in the thinking as it is being developed. (This is also discussed in Julie Brophy’s article). The second phenomenon is known as the echo chamber, which is the tendency to engage remotely more often with just our like-minded stakeholders, and so only hear what we want to hear.
As we go through the phases of building up to a decision, think about:
- Framing the issue
Being clear as to what is to be addressed and why - Diagnosing & gaining insights
Getting different perspectives as to how to look at the issue - Developing & evaluating options Exploring alternatives before converging to a recommendation
- Coming to a conclusion
Ensuring you answer the question that was originally framed.
So how to overcome this? To improve the quality of decision making, it may seem obvious, but it is important to engage the right people – even if uncomfortable – at the right time. Some of these times might mean physically getting together (which is sometimes necessary for complex decision making). Other times it will be about making sure you converse and keep the key individuals up-to-date. So identify those key people you need to engage with up-front in order to come up with a quality decision and agree with them how and when you will confer with them.
Challenge 2 – increased complexity at the Interface
This challenge demonstrates how location has become a bigger factor in role design.
An example of this was in one company when operating face to face, three different individuals would physically meet together to sign-off and handover an asset to a partner organisation. It was a meeting that was partly to allow for some unfinished parts of the process to be finished off, and partly social – these individuals had got to know each other over the years and meeting up was always a nice way to conclude business together.
As with the first example, when face-to-face meetings were the norm, it allowed for some inefficient ways of working to creep in (in this case the accepted practice of spending a lot of time travelling around the country to meet each other). However when they had switched to a hybrid working environment, these individuals had fewer opportunities to meet and so were finding it more difficult to reach a conclusion, and also to get to meet together for the sign-off and hand-over. This gave the company an opportunity to reconfigure and streamline the process.
So in a hybrid working environment, we can take the opportunity to adapt the roles in our business in order to minimise the number of hand-offs / interfaces. In the example above, one role was redefined by bringing together certain responsibilities from two other roles, to allow for a more seamless hand-off to their partner firm.
Hybrid working brings a lot of efficiencies, but can also risk poorer quality decisions being made and make hand-overs at the interfaces a lot more problematic
This framework can help leaders think through the implications of moving to a Hybrid working model:
- Focus & Perspective – leaders need to ‘clear the way’ by giving clarity around role, purpose, who is doing what and how decisions get made. See Gary Ashton’s article for more on decision-making in a hybrid environment.
- Autonomy – in a hybrid world, leaders need to give greater freedom to their teams with decisions pushed down the organisation to be closer to the customer. Moving away from traditional ‘command & control’ may require a shift in mindset towards a more coaching style of leadership.
- Attachment – leaders need to work hard to keep the ‘one team’ feeling and mitigate against the formation of in-groups and out-groups. Read more about in-groups and out-groups in Julie Brophy’s article.
- Security – to help manage the mental well-being of employees, think about creating a more ‘psychologically safe’ environment and ensure people know where to get support. Toni Marshall’s article has more on self-limiting beliefs.
For more information about how to apply this framework to your own organisation, please contact gary.ashton@oecam.com or julie.brophy@oecam.com
Gary Ashton
Gary Ashton leads OE Cam’s Organisation Development practice. He consults in the re-design and implementation of organisation structures and management processes, post-merger integration, improvement of joint venture organisation capability, and board and senior management team assessment and development. He has presented at seminars on organisation change, business partnerships, has led a Retail HR Forum, and has been a visiting lecturer at the University of Cambridge Institute of Manufacturing.
