The art of decision-making

The pace and complexity of modern life often leave decisions to a few individuals; leaders with conviction and insight, and ultimately courage, writes Amin Howeidi*

---

Senior officials have to make decisions everyday. They have to make tough choices in a short span of time. They may have inadequate information about the issues at hand. And their advisors may be giving them contradictory views. US president Warren Harding once said that the more he listens to his advisors, the more it gets confusing. Decisions must be judged, therefore, in the light of the time and circumstances of the matter at hand. Decisions are often made with limited resources and under pressure.

The person in charge does not make his decisions alone. He's like the captain of a ship buffeted by waves. He steers, but not always in the direction he prefers. In the end, he walks away with all the glory or disrepute of the consequences. But in the thick of battle, you just call the shots and hope for the best.

The most difficult decisions are those taken in the middle of a crisis. Each crisis peaks at one point, and then it either recedes or deteriorates into open hostilities. In such crises, there is little time to think through one's options, and sometimes it's better to act imperfectly rather than not act at all. Swiftness has its rewards.

Generally speaking, those in positions of leadership should avoid the use of military force unless they run out of options. The use of military force often complicates things. And once the first shot is fired in anger, it is hard to stay in control. Once the battle is underway, the adversaries may prove quite resourceful. It is therefore best to use force only with a view to deterrence; namely, to avoid war, not to start it.

Any decision is made in three stages: first, consider the options; second, make the decision; and third, follow up. The most important of these phases is the follow-up. Decisions are like moves on a chessboard. Every move creates a new situation and generates a fresh set of possibilities.

Decision-making is often a collective process, with experts and the public involved. There is usually one person in charge. But one is to expect the process of decision-making to involve a lot of people with variant agendas. In the best case scenario, the person in charge would have the time to consider all options. But as a leader, one should not be a prisoner to other people's opinions. In the end, it's one's job to lead and inspire. If time allows, the person in charge should encourage experts to debate the matter and give him the recommendations. But decision- making is more than an academic quest for alternatives.

It is good to have one's aides hold a collective discussion for one hour or so. In cases where the decision-making is taking place in a vital government department, it is better to hold such discussions at the end of the day, for the officials involved are likely to have much to tend to during the day. Again, follow-up is essential. One has to make sure that the decision is not running into insurmountable bureaucratic resistance. If the decision is at a cabinet level or above, it is a good idea to have one of the ministers ensure that the goals are achieved.

It is normal for decisions to be resisted, for every decision helps some people and hurts others. This is why one has to rise above the foray of conflicting influence. A leader's main responsibility is for the public good, not for pressure groups. Decision-making is a complicated process, and people in high places shoulder a huge responsibility. They need all the advice they can get, and yet they should remain willing to bear the consequences.

* The writer is former minister of defense and chief of general Intelligence.