How To Keep Decision-Making Focused On The Merits

It almost goes without saying that we want decisions to be based on a pure evaluation of the situation, unfettered by other pressures and considerations. But external factors exist. What do we do when they intrude on the decision process?

Some of the conflict goes back to some basic needs we have as humans. We want to belong to a group. The city we live in. Our work group. Even our ancestry calls upon our loyalty to an “us” vs.”them.”

Everyone’s seen this commercial for AncestryDNA. It’s funny — but actually quite significant — that Kyle, who was very comfortable with his lederhosen, quickly becomes just as comfortable with his kilt. He’s quite happy with the late switch in his history, it seems, as long as he has some group with which to identify. But that’s not always the case. In the article, How DNA Testing Botched My Family’s Heritage, And Probably Yours Too, the author strongly identified with and defended “her people” over a number of years, and was more than a little put-out when a new DNA test proved her lineage came from many sources, some very different from what she had always assumed.

So our relationships and group affinities are important to us. But we want to make decisions on the basis of a clear-eyed, objective evaluation of the information in front of us, rather than a desire to stay “on the same side” as other members of our group. Problems start when our loyalty to our group becomes a key driver of our opinions and the decisions we make.

Example: Stacy presents a new product idea. It needs work but with the poking and prodding, challenging and refining of well-meaning collaborators, could be developed into a legitimate new offering. Sean objects to it, not so much on its merits, but because it’s too close to something else he proposed a few months ago which went nowhere. It’s now Adam’s turn to express his opinion.

Case 1. Assume Adam has no relationship or prior dealings with Sean.

Case 2: Assume Adam and Sean have been working together and that Sean has supported some of Adam’s ideas in the past.

You can see how the relationship with Sean — which has nothing at all to do with the merits of Stacy’s idea — might affect the opinion Adam expresses on it.

How can the vetting of Stacy’s idea be shielded from this and other similar tangential influences?

• Agree up front on the criteria for evaluation, and get everyone’s commitment to stick to those issues.
• Keep the discussion focused on the agreed-upon criteria, even forcing each member of the group to assign a numeric rating to each criterion.
• Encourage the surfacing of other seemingly tangential issues if it turns out they really do have a bearing on the subject at hand after all. For example, if the product really is similar to the one Sean proposed, maybe it’s time to bring that up: What’s the same? What’s different? Why was Sean’s voted down?
• If a member simply cannot ignore loyalty issues, that person should consider recusing himself or herself from the deliberations.

Group affinity and loyalty issues are a fact of life and can’t be ignored. But with some ground rules agreed before-hand, it’s possible to reduce or eliminate the pressure they exert on the decision making process.