Enforcing a Decision
22 May 2012
Read by 2044 persons
Your decision is made. It remains to be enforced by your team. How to mobilize them around your project? What to do with recalcitrant people? What to say if the decision comes from your own hierarchy and you are not convinced? Advice.
It is already difficult to make a decision, but the biggest part of the work remains to have it applied by one's team. Thus, before any presentation, you must prepare an action plan. "Today, teams no longer follow as blindly as before. The quality of execution often depends on the result of the decision," says Gérard Rodach, author of "Enforcing your decisions." This is where upstream preparation plays a role. Preparing means anticipating the possible impacts of the decision, taking into account the opinions of the executors, taking into account the multiple facets."
Preparation quality facilitates application
Indeed, the time required to implement a decision is "inversely proportional to the duration of the preparation," according to Gérard Rodach. If you have properly prepared your decision-making beforehand, the implementation is done quickly. Conversely, if the preparation is sloppy, you risk spending your time correcting errors that could have been avoided.
Following a rigorous approach
To do this, you must follow a rigorous approach and define beforehand the stakes and context of the decision to be made, taking into account the decision-making methods of the people involved. "A decision has little chance of being implemented if the actors are not involved upstream and if the expectations of those who will be concerned are not taken into account," assures the author. Anticipate reactions by separating the negotiable aspects from those that are not.
Also, consider analyzing the typology of the people concerned to predict their mode of reaction. "Anticipate the reactions of opponents, their objections, their demands. You will not convince them, but you can prepare your answers to prevent them from dragging their colleagues into opposition," advises Gérard Rodach. You can take precautions, for example by meeting key people beforehand to understand their expectations and any obstacles. Finally, do not hesitate to circulate information documents.
Getting your collaborators on your side
You must now present the elements to the main people concerned. Indeed, "rare are the decisions that are free from any obstacle. As soon as they concern other people or involve means outside your control, your decisions are linked to those of others," specifies Gérard Rodach.
Be flexible
For this, you must build your argumentation according to the audience. "If some people are rather of a written culture (they need to read, see a document and analyze it to integrate the actions to be carried out), other people are rather of an oral culture (they read little or not at all and need to hear to integrate the information). You will have to show strategy depending on the complexity of the implementation and its impact on the people considered," analyzes Gérard Rodach. Some people need a few elements to get started, while others need all the details.
"To value an argument is to turn it in the direction of the person receiving it. If you want to convince a colleague to perform a task, think about promoting the gain he will get from it in addition to the one for you and the company," advises the author. And don't forget that all members of a group don't have the same interests.
Mistakes to avoid
Anger, systematic objections to every remark from your collaborators do not mix well with your approach. Also avoid imposing: this will only annoy your collaborators. You must, on the contrary, involve them. "Not holding colleagues involved accountable remains the best way to fail a decision," according to Gérard Rodach. You should also facilitate the expression of fears and anxieties, in order to reassure them more effectively. However, do not spend too much time debating with opponents: remind them that there are non-negotiable aspects.
Reacting to those who do not respect the decision
How to deal with the unwillingness of one of your collaborators or the entire team? You can opt for a military style of execution without discussion. But "this works poorly today or even fails completely sometimes," warns Gérard Rodach.
Re-establishing the conditions for open dialogue
Start by analyzing the causes. Is the colleague in question against the decision itself, against you, against it in principle, or against it for fear of not succeeding?
Anticipate by monitoring the appearance of signs of disagreement. "Any person emits signs of disagreement before expressing them: unusual prolonged silences, gestures, debates between people during a meeting, for example." Then, take the person aside to discuss it with them, unless the majority of the group feels concerned. Before returning to the subject, re-establish the conditions for open dialogue. To do this, go back to the reasoning from the beginning and check that the point of disagreement has been resolved.
The whole group is against you
When several members of your team are recalcitrant, the solution is to identify the negative leader beforehand. "He is a leader in the sense that his opinion can influence others. He is negative for either circumstantial reasons - he has everything to lose, for example, and nothing to gain from the decision - or general reasons - he is a systematic opponent to you or any decision of the management," explains the author.
You must listen carefully to the negative leader when he speaks in front of the group, emphasizing that it is a personal opinion. "Do not debate directly, but rather encourage the intervention of the rest of the group," advises the coach. If the entire team challenges your decision, analyze everyone's positions, let them think and express themselves at their own pace. Above all, avoid aggression. Don't rush and take a step back. "You can also confront them with a number of examples," recommends the author.
Implementing a decision you do not share
Implementing a decision that disagrees with your values, your vision of the profession is an integral part of the manager's role. But some are sometimes very uncomfortable with this aspect of their function.
A decision is imposed on you
Faced with an imposed decision that must be relayed even if it is not pleasing, behaviors vary. Some managers will tend to force their way and impose the decision without going into too much detail. Others will hide behind the decision by shedding all responsibility. Through these attitudes, those responsible seek to avoid conflict and save face. Wrongly: avoid any speech: 'it's not my fault, it's theirs: they make mistakes and we are the ones who pay the consequences'. "In any case, your reaction will be out of step with what is expected of you. If you feel like a victim, you shift the blame to others - your manager, the management... - and your language will be defeatist. With such behavior, your collaborators may feel anger, which they will turn towards you or the company. For example, they will have the impression that you have not defended them sufficiently," explains Gérard Rodach.
The method to apply
When you vent your anger by projecting it onto others, your collaborators will first agree with you, but not for long. As a manager, you are required to respect this decision. Gérard Rodach proposes a four-step method. First, describe the situation by giving the facts and only the facts. Then express your emotions, your feelings, using "I" to show that they are yours. Look for the solution to implement, test the other person to know their expectations, their needs. Finally, conclude on a common basis.
HAFIDA ABOULOUARD.
Journaldunet.com
It is already difficult to make a decision, but the biggest part of the work remains to have it applied by one's team. Thus, before any presentation, you must prepare an action plan. "Today, teams no longer follow as blindly as before. The quality of execution often depends on the result of the decision," says Gérard Rodach, author of "Enforcing your decisions." This is where upstream preparation plays a role. Preparing means anticipating the possible impacts of the decision, taking into account the opinions of the executors, taking into account the multiple facets."
Preparation quality facilitates application
Indeed, the time required to implement a decision is "inversely proportional to the duration of the preparation," according to Gérard Rodach. If you have properly prepared your decision-making beforehand, the implementation is done quickly. Conversely, if the preparation is sloppy, you risk spending your time correcting errors that could have been avoided.
Following a rigorous approach
To do this, you must follow a rigorous approach and define beforehand the stakes and context of the decision to be made, taking into account the decision-making methods of the people involved. "A decision has little chance of being implemented if the actors are not involved upstream and if the expectations of those who will be concerned are not taken into account," assures the author. Anticipate reactions by separating the negotiable aspects from those that are not.
Also, consider analyzing the typology of the people concerned to predict their mode of reaction. "Anticipate the reactions of opponents, their objections, their demands. You will not convince them, but you can prepare your answers to prevent them from dragging their colleagues into opposition," advises Gérard Rodach. You can take precautions, for example by meeting key people beforehand to understand their expectations and any obstacles. Finally, do not hesitate to circulate information documents.
Getting your collaborators on your side
You must now present the elements to the main people concerned. Indeed, "rare are the decisions that are free from any obstacle. As soon as they concern other people or involve means outside your control, your decisions are linked to those of others," specifies Gérard Rodach.
Be flexible
For this, you must build your argumentation according to the audience. "If some people are rather of a written culture (they need to read, see a document and analyze it to integrate the actions to be carried out), other people are rather of an oral culture (they read little or not at all and need to hear to integrate the information). You will have to show strategy depending on the complexity of the implementation and its impact on the people considered," analyzes Gérard Rodach. Some people need a few elements to get started, while others need all the details.
"To value an argument is to turn it in the direction of the person receiving it. If you want to convince a colleague to perform a task, think about promoting the gain he will get from it in addition to the one for you and the company," advises the author. And don't forget that all members of a group don't have the same interests.
Mistakes to avoid
Anger, systematic objections to every remark from your collaborators do not mix well with your approach. Also avoid imposing: this will only annoy your collaborators. You must, on the contrary, involve them. "Not holding colleagues involved accountable remains the best way to fail a decision," according to Gérard Rodach. You should also facilitate the expression of fears and anxieties, in order to reassure them more effectively. However, do not spend too much time debating with opponents: remind them that there are non-negotiable aspects.
Reacting to those who do not respect the decision
How to deal with the unwillingness of one of your collaborators or the entire team? You can opt for a military style of execution without discussion. But "this works poorly today or even fails completely sometimes," warns Gérard Rodach.
Re-establishing the conditions for open dialogue
Start by analyzing the causes. Is the colleague in question against the decision itself, against you, against it in principle, or against it for fear of not succeeding?
Anticipate by monitoring the appearance of signs of disagreement. "Any person emits signs of disagreement before expressing them: unusual prolonged silences, gestures, debates between people during a meeting, for example." Then, take the person aside to discuss it with them, unless the majority of the group feels concerned. Before returning to the subject, re-establish the conditions for open dialogue. To do this, go back to the reasoning from the beginning and check that the point of disagreement has been resolved.
The whole group is against you
When several members of your team are recalcitrant, the solution is to identify the negative leader beforehand. "He is a leader in the sense that his opinion can influence others. He is negative for either circumstantial reasons - he has everything to lose, for example, and nothing to gain from the decision - or general reasons - he is a systematic opponent to you or any decision of the management," explains the author.
You must listen carefully to the negative leader when he speaks in front of the group, emphasizing that it is a personal opinion. "Do not debate directly, but rather encourage the intervention of the rest of the group," advises the coach. If the entire team challenges your decision, analyze everyone's positions, let them think and express themselves at their own pace. Above all, avoid aggression. Don't rush and take a step back. "You can also confront them with a number of examples," recommends the author.
Implementing a decision you do not share
Implementing a decision that disagrees with your values, your vision of the profession is an integral part of the manager's role. But some are sometimes very uncomfortable with this aspect of their function.
A decision is imposed on you
Faced with an imposed decision that must be relayed even if it is not pleasing, behaviors vary. Some managers will tend to force their way and impose the decision without going into too much detail. Others will hide behind the decision by shedding all responsibility. Through these attitudes, those responsible seek to avoid conflict and save face. Wrongly: avoid any speech: 'it's not my fault, it's theirs: they make mistakes and we are the ones who pay the consequences'. "In any case, your reaction will be out of step with what is expected of you. If you feel like a victim, you shift the blame to others - your manager, the management... - and your language will be defeatist. With such behavior, your collaborators may feel anger, which they will turn towards you or the company. For example, they will have the impression that you have not defended them sufficiently," explains Gérard Rodach.
The method to apply
When you vent your anger by projecting it onto others, your collaborators will first agree with you, but not for long. As a manager, you are required to respect this decision. Gérard Rodach proposes a four-step method. First, describe the situation by giving the facts and only the facts. Then express your emotions, your feelings, using "I" to show that they are yours. Look for the solution to implement, test the other person to know their expectations, their needs. Finally, conclude on a common basis.
HAFIDA ABOULOUARD.
Journaldunet.com
