Creating an Effective Decision-Making Framework in Operations Management

In the world of operations management, a strong decision-making framework is absolutely essential for navigating uncertainty and driving progress. Effective leaders understand that the decision-making process is not just about avoiding mistakes but about making informed choices that balance risk and opportunity. While traditional decision-making models offer structure, the real challenge lies in recognising hidden costs, overcoming resistance, and embracing uncertainty.

Here are three critical insights that go beyond the typical advice to help leaders make better decisions in complex environments.

Inaction Costs More Than You Think

Delaying a decision may feel like playing it safe, but it often carries a hidden price.

In leadership, waiting too long to act can often result in lost opportunities, increased risk, and stalled momentum. While monitoring a situation is sometimes necessary, failing to act when the moment calls for it can be more damaging than making an imperfect decision. Leaders who embrace a "good enough for now" mindset can adjust and refine their decisions as they go, rather than being stuck in indecision.

Decoding Resistance in Decision-Making

When stakeholders say, “I don’t understand,” they may actually mean, “I don’t agree.”

Decision-making is not solely about logic; it is also about emotions, trust, and buy-in. People resist decisions when they feel uncertain, undervalued, or threatened. Using the SCARF model (Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness), leaders can identify what is driving the pushback. Instead of dismissing concerns, leaders should acknowledge them, ensuring the decision is both strategic and supported.

Respect Uncertainty, Do Not Ignore It

No decision is foolproof, and the best leaders build flexibility into their choices.

Decisions rely on the best available information, which is always subject to change. A common pitfall is over-defending a decision, treating it as infallible. Once a choice is made, it is easy to become locked into proving it was the right one, rather than staying open to new insights. This is not ideal, as leaders who adopt this approach may overlook potential risks and fail to adapt when circumstances shift.

From experience, strong decision-making requires acknowledging uncertainty and treating decisions as ongoing experiments. Instead of rigidly defending a choice, leaders should outline their reasoning based on the information and assumptions available at the time. This transparency not only builds trust but also allows for more effective course correction when needed.

By creating space for adjustments and mitigation strategies, leaders can reduce risk and improve long-term success. The ability to reassess and pivot when new data emerges is not a weakness but a key strength in operational leadership.

Decision-making frameworks like Bain’s RAPID provide structure, but real leadership requires more than just process. Taking adequate action, addressing resistance, and planning for uncertainty will lead to better choices and more substantial outcomes. Remember, the best leaders do not just make decisions but create environments where smart, informed decisions drive success.

Are you facing a tough leadership decision? Let Embertree help you move forward with clarity and confidence. Contact us today!

Focus on the Person or the Environment?

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article on the frustration some leaders can experience in operational settings. You can find it linked in the comments below.

In it I referred to Lewin’s Equation - behaviours (less of the frustrating kind) are a function of the person and their environment.

I am a believer in principle that leaders should focus their efforts on being curious and improving the environment not least because its scalable, and kinder to experiment with than people to achieve a positive outcome.

After writing that article, serendipity as it does connected me with a good friend Claire Jackson, founder of The Wee Consultancy who specialises (amongst other things) in helping people and teams to design and develop strong habits - check them out.

Now I am curious. The work she does is evidence based, she has great testimonials, and this focus on the person resonates with me when normally I am heavily in the ‘improve the environment’ camp?

At first, I thought the two approaches together were top-down, bottom up, but as with most stuff, that is a tad too simplistic. If you were introducing this as a leader, you are still exercising your authority to decide to introduce this opportunity for your people.

I think what I really like about it, is maybe it’s a micro level example of Lewin’s equation in play. Equipping people with the capability to develop the habits of their choosing, is a small version of enabling them to curate or cue their environmental (in a systemic sense) triggers for the behavioural outcome they are seeking. What’s pretty cool about what the Wee Consultancy offers is that its scalable and offers agency to your people to take control of the habits they are seeking to develop.

Thanks for making it this far, and I’d encourage you to check out Claire’s program offerings https://lnkd.in/gKDEyBen .
If you of course want to talk about your role as a leader and making sense of the things that matter, feel free to reach out directly

Do RACI’s Suck? I Think They Might.

Many managers swear by RACI models. At first glance, they seem like a solid idea: gather everyone, map out the value chain of an operation or project, and determine who and how parties should be involved.

They often emerge to address accountability issues or decision rights when there are differing opinions across functions.

But why do I feel uneasy about them? Why can't I recall an instance where a RACI worked as intended?

Reflecting on my response and mindset from various angles, I'm curious about your experiences. Have you found success with RACI models? To spark a healthy dialogue, here are some reasons why I believe they fall short:

1. What Do We Really Mean by Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed?
Few people question what these terms actually mean. Does "responsible" refer to the person doing the work or the competent role (grown-up) deciding? Does "accountable" mean the decision-maker, or is it just about who gets judged on the outcome? What about being "consulted" or "informed"? Are opposing views ever recorded?

2. The RACI Often Reflects Existing Power Dynamics - That Might be the Problem.
Whether it's a facilitated, full-day RACI session or a single-authored directive, the issues related to power dynamics remain. It's often a stage for a minority to assert their knowledge, rarely fostering the inclusive contributions intended. Consequently, the documented outcomes seldom capture what’s best for the organization or project.

3. It's a Control Mechanism That Offers False Comfort.
The urge to feel in control is understandable. Categorising future considerations neatly can give a sense of accomplishment, but how practical is it? Does it truly improve outcomes?

So, What Can We Do Instead?
Critiquing something without offering alternatives is unhelpful. Here are three ideas to move forward:

Understand Your Organization’s Risk Tolerance and Key Value Levers. This improves decision inputs, helping those responsible prioritize effectively when faced with too many tasks and too little time.

Consider Bain’s RAPID Decision Breakdown Instead of RACI. It’s more meaningful to know who provides input, who recommends, who needs to agree, who decides, and who performs the task.

Establish Regular Forums to Test and Resolve Assumptions. Large-scale projects often have decision registers. Incorporating a similar rhythm into your operations can significantly benefit project delivery and ongoing operations by regularly reviewing how assumptions are serving the team.

I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences with RACI models or any alternatives you’ve found effective. Feel free to share your stories or reach out if you’d like to discuss how to enhance clarity and accountability in complex operations and projects.

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail

When You Have a Hammer, Everything Looks Like a Nail

Do you have your ‘go-to’ response for when you are faced with a challenge, or scenario where the stakes are high? It has worked well in the past, you’ve been rewarded or recognised as being good at it, and it makes you feel good to have a moment of “I’ve still got it”?

There are too many contexts (new job, to a new problem/scenario, or the regular routine of managing teams) for which any ‘go-to’ response is applicable, so I hope this is self-explanatory enough to say the focus of this article is those times where we automatically react that this is the right scenario for {insert response here}. This is instead of curiosity towards what’s the right response, right now?

Hence the article title ‘When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail’. You might know that Abraham Maslow refers to this as the Law of the instrument, and that it commonly refers to the use of tools or methodologies. My interest in this quote or metaphor relates to the pros and cons of the mindset or approach we offer, resulting in how we choose to show up to scenarios or challenges that we face.

The law of the instrument suggests that if we rely too much on a narrow range of responses and overlook alternatives over time this can lead to suboptimal outcomes, wasted resources, missed opportunities and potentially harmful consequences. Pretty much the opposite of what we set out to achieve as leaders.

I would welcome any examples that readers might be courageous enough to share where they adapted a historically successful pattern of response to a challenge and what they learned from that? Alternatively, when does that turn into second guessing or a lack of confidence and missing the opportunity to play to our strength?

Because Embertree was founded to serve leaders how they need it, when they need it; it is common to observe this polarity between playing to a strength that has worked for us in the past or experimenting with something new for the leaders I work with. It can be challenging to scan for the data to inform the next choice, versus just listening to the internal stories we tell ourselves. A potential hint may be when you are ‘reacting’ to the situation, rather than ‘responding’ but that can be difficult to reflect on sometimes.

If this sounds like you, and you are keen to explore some early warning signs that you might be leaning too hard one way or the other, feel free to reach out for a chat or in-person coffee. Embertree might be able to help you make progress too.

Are You Wearing Your Undies on the Outside This Week?

Adaptive systems that reward reactive over proactive behaviours

First off, there is no judgement here. While collectively we might complain about an operation that spends too much time in a reactive state, fighting fires on behalf of the team or organisation can be immensely satisfying and rewarding. If you take a balcony view, organisations are often perfectly designed adaptive systems to reward and reinforce this reactive state - often to the point it forms a significant part of someone's identity. However, you could argue fire fighting type behaviours share some similarities to junk food in terms of their reward.

At what cost?

Like junk food, we all know its not in the long-term best interests or the greater good to rely on it, but geeze, speaking from personal experience of both, easy said, hard to do. The long term consequence can be significant - operational performance is an obvious one, but it may also be having a detrimental effect on the experience of all of your people, particularly your heroes. Through a systemic lens, it is particularly fragile.

So what can you do if you see this in your team?

As a GM or Manager, for a bit of fun, reflect on the diversity of how the people in your organisation tend to show up each day as the mythological or symbolic archetypes (or personas). I have mentioned the archetypal hero, check. That one is easy to spot and I'd argue often over-rewarded. Have you considered some of the others? For brevity I won't provide a complete list (you can always google it) but a few examples;

• The Artist/Creator

• The Diplomat

• The Sage

• The Guardian

• The Healer

• The Outlaw

• The Jester

What levers do you have in place as part of your organisational design (please I mean this in the broadest systemic sense, not just your org structure) to recognise and reward the other archetypes when they are contributing to the more proactive and long-term sustainable objectives of your business?

What can you do if you see this in yourself?

For individuals reading this who are noticing that stepping into the role of the hero of their operation is something they perhaps are identifying with quite strongly - get curious. Reflecting on recent decisions and actions with a curiosity to experiment towards an intention can be challenging but also liberating to realise new possibilities. An observation is that if you are over-playing the hero role at work whatever the reason, it might lead to compromise in other parts of your life even if its not straight away. Having the confidence that we can all temporarily 'try-on' a role in a particular setting can even be worthwhile sharing with your team/boss/peers and asking for feedback and support.

How can Embertree help?

I’ll be blunt. It is very difficult to realise the potential of methodologies like lean or agile, or a technology transformation to unlock productivity if you don’t ‘do the work’ in this space with some curiosity, intent and some fun. Embertree is well placed to help an operation make progress from a reactive to proactive state tailored to their context using our diagnostic process to quickly identify practical opportunities. We also specialise in low-commitment engagements for busy leaders from operational contexts to enable performance and wellbeing. Reach out if you would like to discuss further

It is hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by…

Frustration at Work
Have you noticed a pattern of increasing frustration within your team? If you know the rest 🦃 of this phrase , you may recognise it as a tongue-in-cheek response from an operational workforce.

Modifying the Environment
I was introduced to Lewin’s equation some years ago. It says - Behaviours are a function of the person and their environment (physical and social).

 B = f(P, E)

This suggests it can be effective and scalable in a large workforce to focus on the improving the environment to positively influence behaviours.

As a leader in your org, what to do next to make progress with increasing levels of frustration in your workplace can be daunting. Have you ever felt limited by the options to address your team’s frustration?

Practical Application
Reflecting on the environment (in a systemic sense), allows for early, pragmatic improvements to be made. Environmental tweaks can also have a greater than anticipated impact on behaviour than we often realise.

To get started, involving teams in reflective discussions seeking small co-designed improvements may be good rhythm to get into.

Off the Dance Floor to the Balcony
For senior leaders, it may be necessary to make space for a balcony view and different perspectives of the environment to progress some potentially bolder experiments.

Raising the Heat
Some factors just aren’t obvious when you are in the thick of that environment everyday and the patterns have become a norm over possibly decades.

Frankly, there might also be some difficult decisions to make about the environment which are culturally strongly protected, but influencing undesirable behaviours. It may be necessary to hold the tension for a period which can be counter-intuitive when it’s frustration you are trying to address in the first place. It’s a delicate balance of short term vs long term polarity.

Creative Approaches
There can be value in getting creative and experimental in what you consider to tweak your environment. An example (might not be practical everywhere, but just an example of out of the box thinking) to illustrate this was open days and family visits for one operation. Having interested outsiders visit the operation had an unintended benefit of a general mood and tolerance improvement within the operation that carried over somewhat past the actual visit itself. One hypothesis could be it allowed a reset of normal behaviours and reflection that actually some pretty cool things happen in workplaces everywhere.

Call to Action
Consider one aspect of your team's environment you've overlooked and imagine how changing it could reduce frustration. What's the first step you could take to make progress?

Head or Gut telling you “Our Meetings Suck”?

As a leader, have you ever noticed yourself saying… ‘we need to have a meeting’ as a proxy for what you really mean….

“I think this is important and I need to make sure it compete’s with all the other stuff going on right now. Because that’s what we do around here in lieu of determining how to prioritise attention. ”

— All of us at some point

Here are some examples of the Embertree approach to ‘our meetings suck’ and what we get curious about. Our secret sauce is to help you where to focus your effort to ensure meetings are an enabler of productivity and great performance for your team. We do this by observing the following:

Rhythms & Routines: 

What conversation design (yeah, its a thing - take a look at Daniel Stillman’s Conversation Design OS) for inclusive contribution and perspective share will elevate the insight or actions taken next?

Information Management: 

How accessible, and what is the user experience for those this information was intended for - are we treating information as power in this team or broader?

Priorities:

Is this team clear on what the broader business bottleneck’s are? Have we appropriately sequenced our priorities to focus and complete the things that matter?

Performance:  

Do we have acceptable tolerances of performance before escalation is needed?  How do we learn from variance?

The Work: 

Thanks to the Centre for Transformative Work Design - Is that effort that contributes to the performance designed to be Stimulating, develop Mastery, provide Agency, Relational and have Tolerable Demands? Oh, and do we really need a meeting to make sure people have looked at the information?

Authority: 

Before we talk about accountability, please are we clear who is Authorised and what inputs (data and intuitive) should be informing decisions?  Are our decision rights clear?

OK - Then What?

Observations > Filtered into targeted insights > Enabling pragmatic action tailored to your context