Jane Dosemagen, Fast Company Article, November 18, 1999

Fast Company, "So Many Decisions, So Little Time," by Cathy Olofson, October, 1999, p. 62

In this article, the question is brought up on how we can make decisions that we can trust without wasting time. In this fast-paced world, in constantly changing companies, fast decision making is important. Dominic Orr, president and CEO of Alteon WebSystems Inc. says that making high-stakes decisions as a team is important. With a short amount of time to make decisions, his company's philosophy is "brutal intellectual honesty." Their rule is to focus on collecting as many facts quickly, then decide on the best, which may not always be the perfect solution.

To accomplish their goal of making major decisions in a single meeting, Orr steers away from silent disagreements and getting personal. Instead, he encourages facts to support proposals, followed by critique of the facts, and the strengths and weaknesses. The idea is judged, not the person, so there are no hard feelings. There may be emotions involved, though. "Passionate conflict means that we're getting somewhere, not that the discussion is out of control," Orr states. Finally, he says that one person is designated as the referee, asking the basic questions which relate to the company's core value and mission.

A company that does not lose sight of its core value when making decisions will hold its mission intact even when quickly moving along, changing, and growing. I agree that it is always important to have one person designated as the holder or referee of the core values, the one who gets the group back on track if it starts to steer away from the core value. Especially at this fast pace, moving along quickly with decisions, the core value can be lost or overlooked. One person needs to be there to ask those questions that reflect on the company's mission.

I was inspired to read this article after reading Will Yliniemi's review of it. I often spend a lot of time on making decisions and I was curious how lots of decisions can be made in a short amount of time. I like the idea of getting the team's input, with people coming with ideas backed up by facts. I like support people are given to be able to show their emotions over ideas, then back down when others can point out how they won't work.

Will stated in his review that honesty is mostly avoided for fear of causing hard feelings, but how brutal honesty is often welcome among close colleagues, and it usually leads to a better product, while being very stimulating. He concluded that open discussion and exchange of ideas will produce excellent extension programs and that dealing with the facts and judging the idea, not the person is the key.

This discussion reminds me of a previous article on dialogue. True dialogue will lead to team decision-making and good programming. Respect for each other is necessary as is a willingness to listen. I believe that true dialogue takes time, though, and in the case of these companies needing to make decisions quickly, there is not enough time. Orr admits to not always deciding on the perfect solution, but the best one given the circumstances. They need to move ahead, decide quickly, and they do this by making a concentrated effort at separating the idea from the person, which is a good lesson to keep in mind at meetings and in other life situations.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 1999