Article
Five Approaches to Effective Decision Making
February 22, 2021
There are many approaches to making an effective decision
Decision Making: A Critical Leadership Skill
Making effective decisions is crucial to a leader’s success. However, given the pressure to make decisions quickly, often without having all of the data necessary, it is easy to make the wrong choice. "On an important decision one rarely has 100% of the information needed for a good decision no matter how much one spends or how long one waits," said author and educator Robert K. Greenleaf. Although it is true that we don’t know what we don’t know, when you have a difficult decision to make, try to assess what information you lack, and how to obtain it.
It’s Too Easy to Make Bad Decisions A McKinsey study found that 72% of senior executives thought their companies frequently made more bad decisions than good decisions. This stunning finding should be a wake-up call to all executives to create and prioritize an effective decision-making process for your team or organization. Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize for his research on decision-making, concluded that irrationality often trumps rationality in decision making. His research showed that 95% of all decisions are impaired by reasoning that engages in fallacies and systematic errors due to our use of mental shortcuts and rules of thumb that cloud our judgment.
Among the most effective antidotes to faulty decision making is to include the perspective of others who have different expertise, complementary functional or domain knowledge, or who can provide more objectivity or perspective on a leader’s decision. This includes not only your immediate team, but our network of colleagues, former mentors, and so on.
Do I Make The Decision Myself or Involve Other? Who you bring in to help you make a decision depends not only on who is available, but also on the nature of the problem you are trying to solve. They need to have deep knowledge or experience that will add critical facts and perspective to your analysis and help you identify alternatives, implications, risks, or other factors you might have overlooked.
Deciding Too Fast vs. Deciding Too Slow Of course, adding more people to the discussion is likely to slow things down. And there is no denying that including your team or other experts may add to the complexity of the decision or result in intense discussion and differences of opinion. But sometimes slowing down and being more thoughtful and deliberate is just what you need. “If there Is time to reflect, slowing down Is likely to be a good idea,” says Daniel Kahneman. Taking the time to gather evidence from as many relevant places as you can, brainstorming with knowledgeable people, and carefully weighing all the information rather than making a too-hasty decision could save you from making a huge error that could cost a lot of money, or even cost you your job or damage the organization’s chances of succeeding.
“There are times when delaying a decision has benefit. Often, allowing a set period of time to mull something over so your brain can work it through generates a thoughtful and effective decision.” - Nancy Morris, author of Procrastinate Now
So, what is a leader to do when there is pressure to make decisions quickly, but you know that your own biases and lack of complete information have the potential to lead to disastrous results? Is there a best way to make decisions?
This blog will take the position that there is no single best way to make decisions. Different circumstances and different types of decisions require different approaches.
In what follows, I will discuss five basic ways decisions can be made, what situations call for each approach, and the tradeoffs of different approaches. But first I will summarize the general benefits of including others in the decision-making process. Why Should I Involve My Team?
You must admit that making decisions by yourself is efficient and uncomplicated when you don’t have to consider others’ perspectives and concerns. When time is short, it is an attractive alternative. But solo decision making can easily lead to being heavily influenced by the leader’s biases, blind spots, reactivity, and focusing on too few options and too narrow a perspective.
By contrast, increasing the diversity of thoughts and opinions can generate more alternatives and innovative solutions. Bringing together the right group of people who have different skills, experience, viewpoints, functional perspectives and styles can create synergy that, in turn, can lead to dynamic discussions that yield new insights, more relevant facts and more objectivity.
Team Participation Is Empowering and Increases Buy-in Involving your team in decisions is not only good for you and for the success of the decision process, but also good for the team: it demonstrates that you value their viewpoints and makes them feel more engaged and likely to feel both appreciated and trusted. It suggests to them that you value their skills, knowledge and ideas. Both experience and research have shown that involvement in decision-making dramatically increases buy-in and ultimately elicits more support from team members when it comes to implementation. Participation in the process can increase their feeling of being invested in the decision and in their jobs and improves engagement and alignment. Gallup research also suggests that this can increase employee retention and reduce burn-out.
Team Participation Helps Grow Leaders Being engaged in a well-managed decision process can also help team members develop their judgment and their own leadership capability, by exposing them to the process of gathering facts and opinions, weighing alternatives, and the discipline of working in partnership with others to come up with the best solution for the problem at hand.
Team Participation Fosters Cohesiveness This experience of collaboration with the leader and other team members fosters team cohesiveness and increases a sense of shared identity because they are working to solve problems together rather than operating in and focusing on their functional silos. The feeling of accountability to the group grows as they take on greater responsibility for arriving at the decision.
Team Participation Shows A Willingness To Share Power But remember, when you decide to involve your team in making decisions, you are deciding to share power and the decision may not always be the one you had in mind at the beginning. It tests your willingness to let go of control and let others be leaders. Ultimately this can result in better quality decisions and greater engagement, but it will test your ego’s need to have the answer and be right all the time. It will challenge your willingness to trust others.
When should you involve your team in decisions?
1. When creating your strategy or long-term goals 2. When you realize that you have been too “top down” in your leadership style and need to be more open to input and do a better job of listening to feedback and ideas 3. When you have made some bad decisions in the past because you went off on the mountain and talked to God and came down with a solution that proved to be faulty 4. When you realize you have missed important information, leading to bad judgment 5. When trusting your gut rather than using a rational, systematic decision process led to bad results, hiring mistakes, confirmation bias, blindness to critical facts or alienation of team members 6. When you have received feedback that you are viewed as not trusting your team 7. When you need broad alignment and buy-in to ensure coordinated implementation 8. When the decision is consequential, difficult, complex or ambiguous and you could benefit from the collection of diverse viewpoints and facts 9. When you want to help team, members develop by exposing them to facts, ideas and decision disciplines 10. When you believe that the experience of collaboration and problem solving together and with the leader will foster team cohesiveness, encourage shared learning and increase a common sense of identity
Guidelines for Team Decision Making
• Be sure to involve the right people. The experience, skills and knowledge necessary to produce the best insights differs with each decision. The more diversity of perspective, the better. Including people based only on their seniority or their role can provide too narrow a perspective. Consider bringing in an expert regardless of their role or a person from outside who has domain knowledge relevant to the decision. • Let the members of your team know which of these leadership styles you are going to use. If you are aiming for consensus, each person’s opinion and perspective is vital and must be brought out. If you are going to make the decision yourself based on some input from the team, it will be good for them to know this from the start. • Consider setting up a meeting that is specifically designed to focus on this decision rather than trying to fit it into your usual staff meetings that often get hijacked by information exchange and reporting rather than high-level problem solving. • Consider your time constraints and deadlines. Do you have time to involve others and gather additional viewpoints and alternatives? Do you have enough information, and the right information, to make a good quality decision? • Be sure you carefully define the problem you are trying to solve rather than jumping too quickly into finding solutions. If you define the problem too narrowly, focus on a symptom rather than the broader root cause, or jump quickly to a single solution, the danger is that you will focus the team on the wrong thing and reach the wrong conclusion. • Actively draw in ideas and viewpoints from all team members. Start with knowledgeable experienced team members and those with expertise in the problem area but consider also including opinions from the more junior before turning to your most senior people or expressing your own opinion. Patiently listen and be the last to weigh in. • Try to create an environment where team members feel safe being open and honest and saying what they really think. • Draw people out. Ask questions that surface alternative views, areas of concern, and problems that might prevent success. Invite team members to challenge each other’s opinions, including yours. Try to get the team to generate multiple possible solutions rather than locking in on one solution too soon. “That’s a good idea. What other angles can we come up with?” • Take the time to look at the most important side effects that might negatively impact the outcome you are seeking. Ask everyone to consider: What could go wrong? It is important for a leader to discuss the proposal with people who are likely to disagree with it or uncover its drawbacks. • Two common types of biases frequently have a negative effect on management decision, confirmation bias and over-confidence bias. Confirmation bias involves giving too much weight to information that supports your existing beliefs, conclusions or recent experience and discounts information that contradicts them. Overconfidence bias occurs when you overestimate your ability and fail to consider the risks that could lead to failure. • It’s important to be aware and cautious about the potential problems and dangers, but equally important for you to dwell on the factors that could lead to succeeding in achieving your objective. And share that vision with your team. • Play communication traffic cop. Ensure that people are listening, paying attention when others are speaking, are not interrupting, are being respectful of others’ views, and are building on each other’s ideas rather than trying to prove they are right. • Don’t let certain team members dominate the discussion or dominate it yourself. Especially when your aim is consensus, it’s vital that everybody has a chance to state their views.
The following discussion considers various ways to make decisions, some involving other people and some not. There are many ways to get to the right answer.
5 Approaches To Making Leadership Decisions
1. The leader decides and informs the team Although in general it is always helpful to draw your team into the decision-making process, gathering their input and opinions, sometimes circumstances demand an immediate choice of direction: the decision is time-sensitive, and you need to take action now! You simply don’t have time to explore all the factors and ramifications with your team, so you need to decide and move forward on your own.
This unilateral approach to making a decision works best when the leader has sufficient information as well as some expertise in the relevant domain or domains. It can also be useful for low-impact decisions and simple, routine, administrative decisions which don’t require much input or deliberation. It’s relatively safe for you to use this mode when you know your team is likely to support and implement the decision despite having no input. Whenever possible, leaders should share their insights, analysis, and rationale for proposed changes with their team, even though their proposal might meet resistance and challenge from team members. Leaders do need to seek buy-in, but there are times when they need to take a direction even in the face of resistance. This partly depends upon the level of experience, domain expertise, and insight possessed by other team members.
Leaders frequently have insights and the ability to see around corners, making connections and spotting patterns sooner than the rest of the team. This is particularly true of visionary entrepreneurs. When the leader is working with a junior team and is many steps ahead of them, sometimes he or she doesn’t have time to bring the others along and must make a unilateral decision. The danger is that this can become a default pattern and may get in the way as the sophistication of the team increases and the complexity of decisions becomes greater and greater.
Elon Musk and Steve Jobs are exceptionally creative visionary leaders, who saw things other people missed. On the other hand, not everybody is Elon Musk and Steve Jobs. A lot of leaders justify autocratic leadership by citing Jobs and Musk and concluding that this is the way to be a leader. It’s one way – but unless you are so ridiculously brilliant that people are willing to put up with your arrogance, bossiness, intolerance, etc., it’s not a great way to lead, because you will have trouble retaining top people, you are likely to make biased decisions, and you will alienate people whose support you need. When the decision is yours alone, you run the risk of deciding without having all the important and relevant information and the benefit of your team’s experience. When there is no team interaction and team members are deprived of offering their input, they may resent the decision you’ve made and not support it. People on the team may feel disempowered and offended: “Why didn’t you ask for our input? Why were we excluded?” And because they didn’t have input in the decision, getting their buy-in may be problematic.
The one-person decision-making process is definitely efficient, and avoids time spent (or lost, depending on your perspective) to discussion and debate, but in doing that, it bypasses the group problem solving and brainstorming that can bring fresh and creative ideas to any situation.
And remember, when the decision is unilaterally yours, it is subject to your personal biases and blind spots. And when you are the sole decider, you are also solely accountable for the outcome!
2. The leader gathers input then decides Midway between the unilateral approach to decision making and the effort to broaden participation and generate consensus is the procedure where the leader consults with team members, solicits input of ideas and opinions, and then makes the final decision. This approach is effective when you are ultimately going to be the Decider. The whole team does not have to come to agreement on the best way to proceed, but you feel their input will be valuable and you want to hear their ideas. You realize that people from different backgrounds bring a variety of experience and understanding to bear on each situation, and you want to take advantage of what they know. As the leader, either speak with team members individually to gauge their position, or facilitate a group discussion of issues, pros and cons, possible outcomes from different courses of action, and so on. For this collaborative approach to work, team members need good communication skills, and must be open to lively discussion of ideas. It requires a leader able to facilitate a thorough exploration and discussion, and willing to absorb and process the information and then make decisions. Encourage team members not to just rubber-stamp your views, but to bring their own experience and perspective to the table. It can be helpful if someone is willing to be the “devil’s advocate” and question or even oppose your views for the sake of clarifying the issues.
But team members must be clear that although their input is solicited and viewed as valuable, in the end the leader is going to have the final say.
One advantage of this decision-making model is that even though you as the leader are ultimately responsible for whatever decision is made, the group input and involvement can take some of the pressure off your shoulders. That is good for you, and good for team members; if they feel they have some skin in the game they will be more energized and willing to work toward the desired outcome.
3. Consensus Consensus decision making is a method enabling a team or group to reach a decision by discussion and mutual agreement. Participants have a chance to contribute their ideas and opinions. Instead of the final decision being based on a vote, letting the majority get their way, the whole team commits to finding a solution that they can all support or at least live with. This approach encourages all team members to get involved and have some say in the decision.
It is an attempt to avoid having an individual team member or a minority feel like they have lost, that their concern or point of view is over-ridden or cancelled and that they cannot or will not support the final decision. To avoid this, the entire team as well as the leader must be willing to make a genuine effort to find solutions or alternatives that address the concerns and needs of all members. That means that you need to have input – and ultimately acceptance, support, and alignment – from all team members. The key is communication, an open flow of ideas and views among team members, including the leader.
There is a difference between consensus and a decision that is unanimous. In a unanimous decision, all the participants are in full agreement and accord. It’s 100 percent. If you have succeeded in creating a culture in which everyone feels that it’s safe to be fully honest, this kind of unanimity will be rare; there will almost always be some doubts, disagreements, and viewpoints that could not be reconciled. Consensus means that everyone has agreed to put their remaining differences aside, and a decision has been reached that everyone can and will support in order to move forward. Aiming for consensus can generate a thorough discussion of issues and produce innovative alternatives. Done well, it may involve long discussions and require surfacing and balancing diverse and sometimes opposing opinions and demands. Team members must have access to all relevant data. To reach consensus, the team needs to be able to work collaboratively and systematically together, and you need to be a skilled facilitator. Be careful to involve everyone, and don’t allow the loudest voices to control the discussion. The higher the level of involvement by team members, with everyone working together through all the discussion and deliberation and arriving at consensus, the more support you will ultimately have for implementation. Because of the broader base of individuals contributing to the discussion, the danger of narrow, silo-based focus of a small part of the team dominating the discussion and the outcome is reduced.
Consensus building is an effective, democratic way to create alignment and solidarity among team members, but it is not the right approach for every situation. It is probably not the way you want to proceed in emergencies or high-pressure, time-sensitive situations. Striving for consensus can take a lot of time and energy and will not be the most effective approach when you are facing a deadline, or a crisis and decisions need to be made in a hurry.
So, what should you do if there is a time crunch, you need to make a decision in the next 24 hours, and you don’t want to shut team members out of the decision-making process? In that case, decide which team members have the most expertise relevant to the problem, or who will be most involved in implementation of the decision, and talk to them. If you can’t get consensus of the whole team, at least get the solid support of this select group. If the consequences of making a bad decision are significant and you need to be sure that you have considered all the ramifications, consensus with careful consideration is probably the right approach. But if the cost of missing an opportunity is high, you may need to move faster, and consensus isn’t the right solution.
When you do need to act quickly, it is a good idea to designate an agreed-upon decision maker for every meeting. The approach is then called “consultative decision-making”. This could be you as the leader, or a trusted team member. You strive to gather the facts, generate discussion of ideas and alternatives and listen to concerns and opinions of team members who disagree with you and others. You want lively discussion of the issues and you want to hear the opinion of experts or those with domain knowledge. But the team doesn’t need to come to a consensus decision. Once the discussion of facts, viewpoints and alternatives is sufficient, the designated decision-maker steps in and makes the call. “Thanks for your input, I’ll let you know what I decide.”
“You want to make sure that everyone participates…. You want to get to the best idea. Your job as a CEO . . . is not to forge a consensus, but to run a process where the best idea emerges." – Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, quoting legendary Silicon Valley executive coach Bill Campbell.
4. Consensus with fallback If it seems likely that two factions in your organization will not be able to compromise and reach consensus and a clear path forward, then it’s a good idea to pre-set a course of action that you will take if the team cannot come to an agreement and you are required to step in and make the decision. Let everyone know that this is what will happen if they cannot reach accord.
Setting a time limit may be necessary. If the leader fails to set limits, the discussion may go on endlessly without coming to an acceptable conclusion. A time limit puts pressure on the team, which can be a good thing or not. On the plus side, pressure can catalyze the process by pushing people to make concessions and compromises, particularly on issues that are not of central importance to them. Find out what concerns are most important to each of the disagreeing parties, and their willingness to compromise on issues that are less important.
On the other hand, the team may feel rushed and that they don’t have enough time for proper consideration of the relevant factors. Conflicts may surface, and fundamental disagreements may not be worked through, with the result that alignment within the team, and of the team with the organization, may not be complete.
5. The leader delegates to the team or sub-group of the team Sometimes it may be that you and your immediate team are not the best people to solve the problem. It may be a specialized marketing or engineering question that requires expertise other than yours. Who on your team can you turn to, who can be trusted to dig deeply into the issue and come to an informed decision, or make a knowledgeable recommendation?
If, as is often the case with the founders of start-ups, you are accustomed to being on top of all decision making, don’t panic, use this as an opportunity to let go of some responsibilities and decisions, and delegate to others the power to choose a direction, or at least to analyze the data and bring their suggested solution to you.
The key is to remain calm under pressure, trust the team you have built, and use the data available to make the best possible decisions. – Brent Gleeson, former Navy Seal, founder of TakingPoint Leadership
There will come a time when letting go of the reins will be necessary – there is just too much going on in too many areas of your growing organization for you to keep up with it all. It will not be easy for you but doing so will ultimately set you free to use your time and talents for other matters and builds confidence and leadership ability in team members. You may even have to look outside your organization to consultants who specialize in dealing with the kind of situation you are facing.
The danger here is that delegating fails to make use of the talents and expertise of the entire team. It limits team interaction. When fewer people are involved, there is more chance for an individual’s personal biases to cloud their vision. And because not everyone is involved in the decision, it doesn’t build broad and strong commitment to implementation of whatever decision is made.
This issue is of special relevance to entrepreneurs, who frequently have to make decisions in areas where they would be better off delegating, but they have limited funds and thus limited personnel. So, they themselves become central and crucial for all decisions, even on minor issues that would be best pushed downward. For major matters, if you feel the need to reach out beyond your team, you can solicit advice and suggestions from former colleagues who may have dealt with similar dilemmas, or from teachers or mentors.
I was working 12 hours a day with 10 hours of work that easily could have been outsourced. I had never been in a situation where I didn’t want to do all the work myself. One day, I needed four things done by the end of the week and realized I didn’t have the time. That’s when I hired my first employee. . . I never looked back. I hired three more freelancers and ended up hiring one of them full-time within the first month. I now have five full-time employees. [Will Ellis, Founder of Privacy Australia.] When should you use these different leadership styles?
Each of these five styles or modes of leadership has its appropriate time and place. You are likely more comfortable with one or two of them, but to become the most effective leader you can be, it will be helpful to become familiar with all of them, and to be flexible and adaptable enough to shift from one to another as circumstances demand. This is sometimes referred to as “conditional leadership.” For example, a less-experienced team might need a strong guiding hand and a more authoritarian or leader-centric style, while a team of accomplished people can be trusted with a more democratic or even laissez-faire style where they are mostly on their own once tasks and roles are well understood.
Making effective decisions is crucial to a leader’s success. However, given the pressure to make decisions quickly, often without having all of the data necessary, it is easy to make the wrong choice. "On an important decision one rarely has 100% of the information needed for a good decision no matter how much one spends or how long one waits," said author and educator Robert K. Greenleaf. Although it is true that we don’t know what we don’t know, when you have a difficult decision to make, try to assess what information you lack, and how to obtain it.
It’s Too Easy to Make Bad Decisions A McKinsey study found that 72% of senior executives thought their companies frequently made more bad decisions than good decisions. This stunning finding should be a wake-up call to all executives to create and prioritize an effective decision-making process for your team or organization. Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize for his research on decision-making, concluded that irrationality often trumps rationality in decision making. His research showed that 95% of all decisions are impaired by reasoning that engages in fallacies and systematic errors due to our use of mental shortcuts and rules of thumb that cloud our judgment.
Among the most effective antidotes to faulty decision making is to include the perspective of others who have different expertise, complementary functional or domain knowledge, or who can provide more objectivity or perspective on a leader’s decision. This includes not only your immediate team, but our network of colleagues, former mentors, and so on.
Do I Make The Decision Myself or Involve Other? Who you bring in to help you make a decision depends not only on who is available, but also on the nature of the problem you are trying to solve. They need to have deep knowledge or experience that will add critical facts and perspective to your analysis and help you identify alternatives, implications, risks, or other factors you might have overlooked.
Deciding Too Fast vs. Deciding Too Slow Of course, adding more people to the discussion is likely to slow things down. And there is no denying that including your team or other experts may add to the complexity of the decision or result in intense discussion and differences of opinion. But sometimes slowing down and being more thoughtful and deliberate is just what you need. “If there Is time to reflect, slowing down Is likely to be a good idea,” says Daniel Kahneman. Taking the time to gather evidence from as many relevant places as you can, brainstorming with knowledgeable people, and carefully weighing all the information rather than making a too-hasty decision could save you from making a huge error that could cost a lot of money, or even cost you your job or damage the organization’s chances of succeeding.
“There are times when delaying a decision has benefit. Often, allowing a set period of time to mull something over so your brain can work it through generates a thoughtful and effective decision.” - Nancy Morris, author of Procrastinate Now
So, what is a leader to do when there is pressure to make decisions quickly, but you know that your own biases and lack of complete information have the potential to lead to disastrous results? Is there a best way to make decisions?
This blog will take the position that there is no single best way to make decisions. Different circumstances and different types of decisions require different approaches.
In what follows, I will discuss five basic ways decisions can be made, what situations call for each approach, and the tradeoffs of different approaches. But first I will summarize the general benefits of including others in the decision-making process. Why Should I Involve My Team?
You must admit that making decisions by yourself is efficient and uncomplicated when you don’t have to consider others’ perspectives and concerns. When time is short, it is an attractive alternative. But solo decision making can easily lead to being heavily influenced by the leader’s biases, blind spots, reactivity, and focusing on too few options and too narrow a perspective.
By contrast, increasing the diversity of thoughts and opinions can generate more alternatives and innovative solutions. Bringing together the right group of people who have different skills, experience, viewpoints, functional perspectives and styles can create synergy that, in turn, can lead to dynamic discussions that yield new insights, more relevant facts and more objectivity.
Team Participation Is Empowering and Increases Buy-in Involving your team in decisions is not only good for you and for the success of the decision process, but also good for the team: it demonstrates that you value their viewpoints and makes them feel more engaged and likely to feel both appreciated and trusted. It suggests to them that you value their skills, knowledge and ideas. Both experience and research have shown that involvement in decision-making dramatically increases buy-in and ultimately elicits more support from team members when it comes to implementation. Participation in the process can increase their feeling of being invested in the decision and in their jobs and improves engagement and alignment. Gallup research also suggests that this can increase employee retention and reduce burn-out.
Team Participation Helps Grow Leaders Being engaged in a well-managed decision process can also help team members develop their judgment and their own leadership capability, by exposing them to the process of gathering facts and opinions, weighing alternatives, and the discipline of working in partnership with others to come up with the best solution for the problem at hand.
Team Participation Fosters Cohesiveness This experience of collaboration with the leader and other team members fosters team cohesiveness and increases a sense of shared identity because they are working to solve problems together rather than operating in and focusing on their functional silos. The feeling of accountability to the group grows as they take on greater responsibility for arriving at the decision.
Team Participation Shows A Willingness To Share Power But remember, when you decide to involve your team in making decisions, you are deciding to share power and the decision may not always be the one you had in mind at the beginning. It tests your willingness to let go of control and let others be leaders. Ultimately this can result in better quality decisions and greater engagement, but it will test your ego’s need to have the answer and be right all the time. It will challenge your willingness to trust others.
When should you involve your team in decisions?
1. When creating your strategy or long-term goals 2. When you realize that you have been too “top down” in your leadership style and need to be more open to input and do a better job of listening to feedback and ideas 3. When you have made some bad decisions in the past because you went off on the mountain and talked to God and came down with a solution that proved to be faulty 4. When you realize you have missed important information, leading to bad judgment 5. When trusting your gut rather than using a rational, systematic decision process led to bad results, hiring mistakes, confirmation bias, blindness to critical facts or alienation of team members 6. When you have received feedback that you are viewed as not trusting your team 7. When you need broad alignment and buy-in to ensure coordinated implementation 8. When the decision is consequential, difficult, complex or ambiguous and you could benefit from the collection of diverse viewpoints and facts 9. When you want to help team, members develop by exposing them to facts, ideas and decision disciplines 10. When you believe that the experience of collaboration and problem solving together and with the leader will foster team cohesiveness, encourage shared learning and increase a common sense of identity
Guidelines for Team Decision Making
• Be sure to involve the right people. The experience, skills and knowledge necessary to produce the best insights differs with each decision. The more diversity of perspective, the better. Including people based only on their seniority or their role can provide too narrow a perspective. Consider bringing in an expert regardless of their role or a person from outside who has domain knowledge relevant to the decision. • Let the members of your team know which of these leadership styles you are going to use. If you are aiming for consensus, each person’s opinion and perspective is vital and must be brought out. If you are going to make the decision yourself based on some input from the team, it will be good for them to know this from the start. • Consider setting up a meeting that is specifically designed to focus on this decision rather than trying to fit it into your usual staff meetings that often get hijacked by information exchange and reporting rather than high-level problem solving. • Consider your time constraints and deadlines. Do you have time to involve others and gather additional viewpoints and alternatives? Do you have enough information, and the right information, to make a good quality decision? • Be sure you carefully define the problem you are trying to solve rather than jumping too quickly into finding solutions. If you define the problem too narrowly, focus on a symptom rather than the broader root cause, or jump quickly to a single solution, the danger is that you will focus the team on the wrong thing and reach the wrong conclusion. • Actively draw in ideas and viewpoints from all team members. Start with knowledgeable experienced team members and those with expertise in the problem area but consider also including opinions from the more junior before turning to your most senior people or expressing your own opinion. Patiently listen and be the last to weigh in. • Try to create an environment where team members feel safe being open and honest and saying what they really think. • Draw people out. Ask questions that surface alternative views, areas of concern, and problems that might prevent success. Invite team members to challenge each other’s opinions, including yours. Try to get the team to generate multiple possible solutions rather than locking in on one solution too soon. “That’s a good idea. What other angles can we come up with?” • Take the time to look at the most important side effects that might negatively impact the outcome you are seeking. Ask everyone to consider: What could go wrong? It is important for a leader to discuss the proposal with people who are likely to disagree with it or uncover its drawbacks. • Two common types of biases frequently have a negative effect on management decision, confirmation bias and over-confidence bias. Confirmation bias involves giving too much weight to information that supports your existing beliefs, conclusions or recent experience and discounts information that contradicts them. Overconfidence bias occurs when you overestimate your ability and fail to consider the risks that could lead to failure. • It’s important to be aware and cautious about the potential problems and dangers, but equally important for you to dwell on the factors that could lead to succeeding in achieving your objective. And share that vision with your team. • Play communication traffic cop. Ensure that people are listening, paying attention when others are speaking, are not interrupting, are being respectful of others’ views, and are building on each other’s ideas rather than trying to prove they are right. • Don’t let certain team members dominate the discussion or dominate it yourself. Especially when your aim is consensus, it’s vital that everybody has a chance to state their views.
The following discussion considers various ways to make decisions, some involving other people and some not. There are many ways to get to the right answer.
5 Approaches To Making Leadership Decisions
1. The leader decides and informs the team Although in general it is always helpful to draw your team into the decision-making process, gathering their input and opinions, sometimes circumstances demand an immediate choice of direction: the decision is time-sensitive, and you need to take action now! You simply don’t have time to explore all the factors and ramifications with your team, so you need to decide and move forward on your own.
This unilateral approach to making a decision works best when the leader has sufficient information as well as some expertise in the relevant domain or domains. It can also be useful for low-impact decisions and simple, routine, administrative decisions which don’t require much input or deliberation. It’s relatively safe for you to use this mode when you know your team is likely to support and implement the decision despite having no input. Whenever possible, leaders should share their insights, analysis, and rationale for proposed changes with their team, even though their proposal might meet resistance and challenge from team members. Leaders do need to seek buy-in, but there are times when they need to take a direction even in the face of resistance. This partly depends upon the level of experience, domain expertise, and insight possessed by other team members.
Leaders frequently have insights and the ability to see around corners, making connections and spotting patterns sooner than the rest of the team. This is particularly true of visionary entrepreneurs. When the leader is working with a junior team and is many steps ahead of them, sometimes he or she doesn’t have time to bring the others along and must make a unilateral decision. The danger is that this can become a default pattern and may get in the way as the sophistication of the team increases and the complexity of decisions becomes greater and greater.
Elon Musk and Steve Jobs are exceptionally creative visionary leaders, who saw things other people missed. On the other hand, not everybody is Elon Musk and Steve Jobs. A lot of leaders justify autocratic leadership by citing Jobs and Musk and concluding that this is the way to be a leader. It’s one way – but unless you are so ridiculously brilliant that people are willing to put up with your arrogance, bossiness, intolerance, etc., it’s not a great way to lead, because you will have trouble retaining top people, you are likely to make biased decisions, and you will alienate people whose support you need. When the decision is yours alone, you run the risk of deciding without having all the important and relevant information and the benefit of your team’s experience. When there is no team interaction and team members are deprived of offering their input, they may resent the decision you’ve made and not support it. People on the team may feel disempowered and offended: “Why didn’t you ask for our input? Why were we excluded?” And because they didn’t have input in the decision, getting their buy-in may be problematic.
The one-person decision-making process is definitely efficient, and avoids time spent (or lost, depending on your perspective) to discussion and debate, but in doing that, it bypasses the group problem solving and brainstorming that can bring fresh and creative ideas to any situation.
And remember, when the decision is unilaterally yours, it is subject to your personal biases and blind spots. And when you are the sole decider, you are also solely accountable for the outcome!
2. The leader gathers input then decides Midway between the unilateral approach to decision making and the effort to broaden participation and generate consensus is the procedure where the leader consults with team members, solicits input of ideas and opinions, and then makes the final decision. This approach is effective when you are ultimately going to be the Decider. The whole team does not have to come to agreement on the best way to proceed, but you feel their input will be valuable and you want to hear their ideas. You realize that people from different backgrounds bring a variety of experience and understanding to bear on each situation, and you want to take advantage of what they know. As the leader, either speak with team members individually to gauge their position, or facilitate a group discussion of issues, pros and cons, possible outcomes from different courses of action, and so on. For this collaborative approach to work, team members need good communication skills, and must be open to lively discussion of ideas. It requires a leader able to facilitate a thorough exploration and discussion, and willing to absorb and process the information and then make decisions. Encourage team members not to just rubber-stamp your views, but to bring their own experience and perspective to the table. It can be helpful if someone is willing to be the “devil’s advocate” and question or even oppose your views for the sake of clarifying the issues.
But team members must be clear that although their input is solicited and viewed as valuable, in the end the leader is going to have the final say.
One advantage of this decision-making model is that even though you as the leader are ultimately responsible for whatever decision is made, the group input and involvement can take some of the pressure off your shoulders. That is good for you, and good for team members; if they feel they have some skin in the game they will be more energized and willing to work toward the desired outcome.
3. Consensus Consensus decision making is a method enabling a team or group to reach a decision by discussion and mutual agreement. Participants have a chance to contribute their ideas and opinions. Instead of the final decision being based on a vote, letting the majority get their way, the whole team commits to finding a solution that they can all support or at least live with. This approach encourages all team members to get involved and have some say in the decision.
It is an attempt to avoid having an individual team member or a minority feel like they have lost, that their concern or point of view is over-ridden or cancelled and that they cannot or will not support the final decision. To avoid this, the entire team as well as the leader must be willing to make a genuine effort to find solutions or alternatives that address the concerns and needs of all members. That means that you need to have input – and ultimately acceptance, support, and alignment – from all team members. The key is communication, an open flow of ideas and views among team members, including the leader.
There is a difference between consensus and a decision that is unanimous. In a unanimous decision, all the participants are in full agreement and accord. It’s 100 percent. If you have succeeded in creating a culture in which everyone feels that it’s safe to be fully honest, this kind of unanimity will be rare; there will almost always be some doubts, disagreements, and viewpoints that could not be reconciled. Consensus means that everyone has agreed to put their remaining differences aside, and a decision has been reached that everyone can and will support in order to move forward. Aiming for consensus can generate a thorough discussion of issues and produce innovative alternatives. Done well, it may involve long discussions and require surfacing and balancing diverse and sometimes opposing opinions and demands. Team members must have access to all relevant data. To reach consensus, the team needs to be able to work collaboratively and systematically together, and you need to be a skilled facilitator. Be careful to involve everyone, and don’t allow the loudest voices to control the discussion. The higher the level of involvement by team members, with everyone working together through all the discussion and deliberation and arriving at consensus, the more support you will ultimately have for implementation. Because of the broader base of individuals contributing to the discussion, the danger of narrow, silo-based focus of a small part of the team dominating the discussion and the outcome is reduced.
Consensus building is an effective, democratic way to create alignment and solidarity among team members, but it is not the right approach for every situation. It is probably not the way you want to proceed in emergencies or high-pressure, time-sensitive situations. Striving for consensus can take a lot of time and energy and will not be the most effective approach when you are facing a deadline, or a crisis and decisions need to be made in a hurry.
So, what should you do if there is a time crunch, you need to make a decision in the next 24 hours, and you don’t want to shut team members out of the decision-making process? In that case, decide which team members have the most expertise relevant to the problem, or who will be most involved in implementation of the decision, and talk to them. If you can’t get consensus of the whole team, at least get the solid support of this select group. If the consequences of making a bad decision are significant and you need to be sure that you have considered all the ramifications, consensus with careful consideration is probably the right approach. But if the cost of missing an opportunity is high, you may need to move faster, and consensus isn’t the right solution.
When you do need to act quickly, it is a good idea to designate an agreed-upon decision maker for every meeting. The approach is then called “consultative decision-making”. This could be you as the leader, or a trusted team member. You strive to gather the facts, generate discussion of ideas and alternatives and listen to concerns and opinions of team members who disagree with you and others. You want lively discussion of the issues and you want to hear the opinion of experts or those with domain knowledge. But the team doesn’t need to come to a consensus decision. Once the discussion of facts, viewpoints and alternatives is sufficient, the designated decision-maker steps in and makes the call. “Thanks for your input, I’ll let you know what I decide.”
“You want to make sure that everyone participates…. You want to get to the best idea. Your job as a CEO . . . is not to forge a consensus, but to run a process where the best idea emerges." – Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, quoting legendary Silicon Valley executive coach Bill Campbell.
4. Consensus with fallback If it seems likely that two factions in your organization will not be able to compromise and reach consensus and a clear path forward, then it’s a good idea to pre-set a course of action that you will take if the team cannot come to an agreement and you are required to step in and make the decision. Let everyone know that this is what will happen if they cannot reach accord.
Setting a time limit may be necessary. If the leader fails to set limits, the discussion may go on endlessly without coming to an acceptable conclusion. A time limit puts pressure on the team, which can be a good thing or not. On the plus side, pressure can catalyze the process by pushing people to make concessions and compromises, particularly on issues that are not of central importance to them. Find out what concerns are most important to each of the disagreeing parties, and their willingness to compromise on issues that are less important.
On the other hand, the team may feel rushed and that they don’t have enough time for proper consideration of the relevant factors. Conflicts may surface, and fundamental disagreements may not be worked through, with the result that alignment within the team, and of the team with the organization, may not be complete.
5. The leader delegates to the team or sub-group of the team Sometimes it may be that you and your immediate team are not the best people to solve the problem. It may be a specialized marketing or engineering question that requires expertise other than yours. Who on your team can you turn to, who can be trusted to dig deeply into the issue and come to an informed decision, or make a knowledgeable recommendation?
If, as is often the case with the founders of start-ups, you are accustomed to being on top of all decision making, don’t panic, use this as an opportunity to let go of some responsibilities and decisions, and delegate to others the power to choose a direction, or at least to analyze the data and bring their suggested solution to you.
The key is to remain calm under pressure, trust the team you have built, and use the data available to make the best possible decisions. – Brent Gleeson, former Navy Seal, founder of TakingPoint Leadership
There will come a time when letting go of the reins will be necessary – there is just too much going on in too many areas of your growing organization for you to keep up with it all. It will not be easy for you but doing so will ultimately set you free to use your time and talents for other matters and builds confidence and leadership ability in team members. You may even have to look outside your organization to consultants who specialize in dealing with the kind of situation you are facing.
The danger here is that delegating fails to make use of the talents and expertise of the entire team. It limits team interaction. When fewer people are involved, there is more chance for an individual’s personal biases to cloud their vision. And because not everyone is involved in the decision, it doesn’t build broad and strong commitment to implementation of whatever decision is made.
This issue is of special relevance to entrepreneurs, who frequently have to make decisions in areas where they would be better off delegating, but they have limited funds and thus limited personnel. So, they themselves become central and crucial for all decisions, even on minor issues that would be best pushed downward. For major matters, if you feel the need to reach out beyond your team, you can solicit advice and suggestions from former colleagues who may have dealt with similar dilemmas, or from teachers or mentors.
I was working 12 hours a day with 10 hours of work that easily could have been outsourced. I had never been in a situation where I didn’t want to do all the work myself. One day, I needed four things done by the end of the week and realized I didn’t have the time. That’s when I hired my first employee. . . I never looked back. I hired three more freelancers and ended up hiring one of them full-time within the first month. I now have five full-time employees. [Will Ellis, Founder of Privacy Australia.] When should you use these different leadership styles?
Each of these five styles or modes of leadership has its appropriate time and place. You are likely more comfortable with one or two of them, but to become the most effective leader you can be, it will be helpful to become familiar with all of them, and to be flexible and adaptable enough to shift from one to another as circumstances demand. This is sometimes referred to as “conditional leadership.” For example, a less-experienced team might need a strong guiding hand and a more authoritarian or leader-centric style, while a team of accomplished people can be trusted with a more democratic or even laissez-faire style where they are mostly on their own once tasks and roles are well understood.
Discover the transformative power of Dr. Rich Hagberg's leadership coaching, rooted in data-driven analysis. With decades of experience, Dr. Hagberg excels in enhancing self-awareness, balancing strengths and weaknesses, and fostering effective decision-making. His tailored approach helps founders build strong teams and navigate growth challenges seamlessly.
Ready to elevate your leadership skills and drive your startup to success?
Learn more about Dr. Rich Hagberg's coaching services or contact him today to start your journey.
Ready to elevate your leadership skills and drive your startup to success?
Learn more about Dr. Rich Hagberg's coaching services or contact him today to start your journey.
share this
Related Articles
Related Articles
The Charisma Illusion Charisma gets all the press. It fills conference rooms, wins funding rounds, and dominates the LinkedIn highlight reel. We treat it like the gold standard of leadership — as if volume equals vision. But charisma is a sugar high. It spikes energy, then crashes trust. Composure, on the other hand — quiet, grounded, centered composure — is the kind of influence that lasts. It doesn’t light up a room; it settles one. When things go sideways, it’s not the charismatic leader people look for. It’s the calm one. The Crisis Test Picture this. The product just failed. The client’s furious. Your team’s pacing like trapped cats. Two leaders walk in. One storms into action — loud, fast, “What the hell happened here?” The other walks in slowly, looks around, and says, “Okay, let’s breathe. What do we know so far?” The first one gets attention. The second one gets results. That’s emotional geometry — the calmest person in the room reshapes everyone else’s state. Why Calm Is the Real Power When you stay composed, you’re not just managing your emotions — you’re regulating the entire system. Here’s the neuroscience behind it: people mirror the nervous system of whoever has the most authority. If you’re grounded, they sync to your rhythm. If you’re frantic, they sync to that instead. You don’t need to lecture anyone on resilience. You just have to model it. It’s not charisma that makes people trust you; it’s the quiet sense that you’re not going to lose your mind when things get hard. Charisma’s Half-Life Charisma is a spark. It can ignite a team — but if there’s no composure beneath it, the whole thing burns out. You’ve seen this movie before: the leader who rallies everyone with a passionate all-hands speech, then disappears into reaction mode when things get messy. Charisma without composure is like caffeine without sleep. You’re awake, but you’re not steady. Composure doesn’t get the applause. It gets the loyalty. A Founder’s Story One founder I worked with — I’ll call him David — was known for being a “high-voltage” guy. He could pitch an investor, fire up a crowd, or talk anyone into anything. But his team? They were walking on eggshells. His energy filled every room, but it left no oxygen for anyone else. During one session, I asked, “When you raise your voice, what happens to theirs?” He went quiet. That was the moment he understood that his passion — the thing he was most proud of — had become the team’s anxiety. A year later, his team described him differently: “He’s still intense, but steady. We trust him more now.” He didn’t lose charisma; he layered it with composure. The Calm Before the Influence Here’s what composure actually looks like: You listen longer. Because real influence starts with attention, not argument. You breathe before reacting. That pause isn’t weakness; it’s power management. You let silence do the work. Charisma fills every space; composure creates space for others to step in. You own your tone. You realize your sighs, your speed, your face — they’re all communication tools whether you intend them or not. You choose steadiness over certainty. People don’t need you to know everything. They just need to know you’re okay not knowing. Funny But True A client once told me, “When I’m calm in a meeting, people assume I’m hiding something.” I said, “Good. Let them wonder.” That’s how unfamiliar calm has become. In some cultures, composure looks radical — even suspicious. But it’s exactly what people crave in a world that never shuts up. Why Charisma Is Easier (and More Addictive) Charisma gets feedback. You see the energy rise, you feel the applause. It’s visible. Composure feels invisible — until you lose it. No one thanks you for staying calm during a crisis. But they remember it when deciding whether to follow you into the next one. That’s why maturity in leadership means getting comfortable with the quiet wins — the meeting that didn’t spiral, the argument that didn’t happen, the team that stayed focused because you did. The Emotional Geometry in Practice Think of composure as geometry because emotions move through space. When you enter a room, you alter its emotional shape. If you radiate calm, people’s shoulders drop. Their thinking widens. They start contributing. If you radiate stress, the room contracts. People shrink. Ideas vanish. Influence isn’t what you say. It’s the energy field you create. Your Challenge This Week Before your next high-stakes meeting, pause outside the door. Take one deep breath and ask yourself: What energy does this room need from me right now? Then bring only that. Nothing more. You’ll be amazed how fast everything slows down when you do. Final Word Charisma captures attention. Composure builds trust. One is about how loudly you shine; the other is about how steadily you glow. The leader who can stay centered when everyone else is spinning doesn’t just have influence — they are the influence. And that’s the kind of power that never burns out.
It usually starts with a familiar scene. A founder at a whiteboard, marker in hand, speaking with the conviction of someone who can see the future before anyone else does. The team leans in. The idea feels inevitable. Confidence fills the room. That’s the moment when narcissism looks like leadership. For a while, it is. Until it isn’t. The Hidden Engine Behind Ambition Every founder carries a trace of narcissism. You need it to survive the impossible odds of building something from nothing. It’s the oxygen of early-stage ambition — the irrational belief that you can win when every signal says you can’t. But narcissism isn’t a single trait. It’s a spectrum — and the version that fuels creativity early on often morphs into the one that burns teams, investors, and reputations later. The Six Faces of Narcissism Psychologist Dr. Ramani Durvasula , whose research has shaped much of the modern understanding of narcissism, describes six primary subtypes. Each of them can be adaptive when balanced, or toxic when unregulated: Grandiose: The charismatic visionary. Inspires others when confident; crushes dissent when insecure. Vulnerable: The emotionally fragile version. Craves validation but fears rejection. Communal: The “good person” narcissist. Needs to be admired for being generous or kind. Malignant: Controlling, paranoid, and willing to harm others to protect ego. Neglectful: Detached, disengaged, treats people as instruments. Self-Righteous: Morally superior, rigid, convinced they are the only adult in the room. Most founders show traces of at least two of these. And in moderation, these traits help. They create drive, resilience, and belief — qualities that investors often mistake for charisma. The problem isn’t narcissism itself. It’s when ego outpaces emotional regulation . The Data Behind the Mirror Across our database of 122 startup founders , each assessed on 46 Personality & Leadership Profile (PLP) scales and 46 360-degree leadership competencies , narcissism emerges as both a predictor of greatness and a predictor of collapse . The 10× founders — those whose companies returned exponential value — were not humble saints. They were what I call disciplined narcissists: confident, ambitious, assertive, and driven by achievement — but tempered by empathy, patience, and ethical grounding . They scored high on Achievement, Autonomy, and Risk-Taking , but also maintained elevated scores on Patience, Optimism, and Model of Values . They didn’t fight their ego. They harnessed it. By contrast, founders whose companies failed — the unsuccessful group — were equally brilliant but emotionally unregulated. They scored significantly higher on Aggression, Defensiveness, and Impulsivity , and significantly lower on Trust, Empathy, and Consideration — roughly one standard deviation lower (10 T-score points) than their successful peers. Their leadership wasn’t powered by vision anymore — it was powered by reactivity. And that’s the moment when the very engine that got them to the starting line begins to tear the vehicle apart. When Narcissism Works Healthy narcissism gives founders gravity. It creates the magnetic field that pulls investors, employees, and customers into orbit. These founders are confident but not careless; assertive but not controlling. They operate from belief, not from fear. They’re the ones who use narcissism to build something enduring — not to prove something fleeting. In our data, they excelled in 360 ratings on Creating Buy-In, Delegation & Empowerment, and Adaptability — all behaviors that require trust and composure. They convert ego into execution. Their signature behaviors: Grandiose energy channeled into purpose. Malignant competitiveness transmuted into persistence. Vulnerability transformed into openness and reflection. Self-Righteous conviction turned into moral consistency. They’re still narcissists — but their narcissism serves the mission, not their self-image. When Narcissism Fails Then there are the others — the unregulated narcissists. At first, they look similar: bold, persuasive, unstoppable. But over time, their self-belief becomes brittle. Their aggression rises as trust falls. Their perfectionism becomes paranoia. Their autonomy becomes isolation. These founders scored roughly a full standard deviation lower (10 T-score points) than successful ones on 360 measures like Openness to Input, Relationship Building, Coaching, and Emotional Control . They don’t fail because they’re arrogant. They fail because they can’t tolerate limitation. Feedback feels like rejection. Delegation feels like loss of control. And the more power they get, the less self-awareness they have. They move fast, but the faster they go, the lonelier it gets — until the organization collapses under the weight of their unmet emotional needs. The Two Versions of the Same Founder Ego Regulation • Successful Founders: Confidence moderated by reflection and humility • Unsuccessful Founders: Volatility disguised as confidence Control vs. Trust • Successful Founders: Delegates, empowers, shares power • Unsuccessful Founders: Micromanages, distrusts, isolates Aggression Pattern • Successful Founders: Channeled into performance • Unsuccessful Founders: Expressed as conflict and coercion Recognition Need • Successful Founders: Purpose-driven validation • Unsuccessful Founders: Insecure approval-seeking Ethical Compass • Successful Founders: Consistent moral modeling • Unsuccessful Founders: Expedience and rationalization So the dividing line isn’t how much narcissism a founder has — it’s whether it’s anchored by self-awareness . The successful ones use ego as a tool. The unsuccessful ones use it as armor. The Spectrum of Founder Narcissism Grandiose • Healthy Expression: Charisma, conviction, inspiration • Unhealthy Expression: Arrogance, dominance, fragility Vulnerable • Healthy Expression: Self-reflective, emotionally transparent • Unhealthy Expression: Defensive, insecure, blaming Communal • Healthy Expression: Empathy without ego • Unhealthy Expression: Performative caring Malignant • Healthy Expression: Fierce but principled • Unhealthy Expression: Punitive, controlling, distrustful Neglectful • Healthy Expression: Independent but connected • Unhealthy Expression: Detached, emotionally absent Self-Righteous • Healthy Expression: Grounded in values • Unhealthy Expression: Rigid, moralizing, unyielding Every founder oscillates along this continuum. The goal isn’t to eliminate ego but to integrate it — to move from self-importance to self-awareness. The Psychological Root The most successful founders in our research share a quiet humility beneath their confidence. They’ve learned to hold two truths simultaneously: “I am extraordinary.” “I am not the whole story.” That paradox — ego with empathy, conviction with curiosity — is the hallmark of psychological maturity. It’s what allows a founder to hold power without being consumed by it. Their unsuccessful counterparts can’t hold that tension. They oscillate between superiority and shame — between “I’m brilliant” and “No one appreciates me.” That oscillation is the engine of the vulnerable-malignant loop , the psychological pattern that wrecks both cultures and companies. Coaching the Narcissist You can’t coach ego out of a founder. But you can coach ego regulation . The process usually unfolds in five stages: Recognition: Data first, not judgment. Use 360 feedback as an emotional mirror. Narcissists can argue with people; they can’t argue with their own data. Differentiation: Separate ambition from insecurity. Help them see what’s driving their overcontrol. Containment: Teach behavioral discipline — pausing before reacting, curiosity before correction. Connection: Reinforce trust-based leadership behaviors — active listening, recognition, and collaborative decision-making. Integration: Replace ego-defense with ego-service — using their confidence to develop others rather than dominate them. The shift doesn’t happen overnight. But when it does, the founder becomes more than a leader — they become a force multiplier. The Paradox in Plain Language Our forty years of data say something simple but profound: Every founder who builds something meaningful begins with narcissism. But only those who grow beyond it sustain success. Ego, when integrated, becomes conviction. Ego, when unintegrated, becomes compulsion. One builds. The other burns. Or, as I often tell founders: Narcissism builds the rocket. Empathy keeps it from burning up on re-entry. That isn’t metaphor. That’s psychology — and physics. Because unchecked ego obeys the same law as gravity: It always pulls you back down.
The Badge of Busyness If there were an Olympic event for back-to-back meetings, most executives I know would medal. They wear it proudly — the calendar that looks like a Tetris board, the 11:30 p.m. emails, the constant refrain of “crazy week.” Busyness has become our favorite drug. It keeps us numb, important, and conveniently distracted from the one question we don’t want to face: What am I actually doing that matters? I’m not judging; I’ve lived this. Years ago, I was “that guy” — sprinting through 14-hour days while telling myself reflection was for monks or consultants between clients. Then one day, after a particularly pointless meeting, I realized something embarrassing: I couldn’t remember the last time I’d had a single original thought. Why Thinking Feels Unproductive Here’s the irony: most leaders know they need to think more. They just can’t stand how useless it feels. Sitting in silence doesn’t produce slides or metrics. There’s no dopamine hit, no “good meeting” to log. But thinking time is like compound interest. It looks small in the moment and enormous over time. When you actually stop, patterns appear. You notice which fires you keep putting out, which meetings could’ve been emails, and which goals you’re chasing that don’t even belong to you anymore. A Simple Truth Busyness is a form of self-defense. If you never stop moving, you never have to confront the uncomfortable truths that surface when you do. That’s why reflection feels awkward at first — it threatens your illusion of momentum. But momentum without direction is just noise. A Founder’s Story One founder I coached had the classic startup badge of honor: chaos. His day started at 5:30 a.m., ended around midnight, and he bragged about being “in the weeds” with every decision. I asked, “When do you think?” He said, “All the time.” I said, “No — I mean deliberately.” He stared at me like I’d asked if he did yoga with dolphins. We scheduled two hours of thinking time a week. The first few sessions drove him nuts. He kept checking email, pacing, making lists. Then, around week four, he sent a note: “I finally realized half my problems were the result of not thinking before saying yes.” That’s the power of reflection — it turns self-inflicted chaos into clarity. The Science Behind Stillness Here’s the biology of it: when you’re rushing, your brain lives in survival mode — flooded with cortisol, locked on what’s urgent. When you slow down, another network kicks in — the one responsible for creativity, empathy, and pattern recognition. That’s why your best ideas show up in the shower or on long drives. The brain finally has enough quiet to connect dots. You don’t need more input. You need more oxygen. Why Leaders Avoid It Two reasons. It’s vulnerable. Reflection forces you to notice things you’ve been ignoring — the conversation you keep postponing, the hire you know isn’t working, the ambition that’s turned into exhaustion. It’s inefficient… at first. There’s no immediate ROI. But over time, reflection prevents the expensive rework that comes from impulsive decisions. As one client told me, “I used to say I didn’t have time to think. Turns out, not thinking was costing me time.” How to Reclaim Thinking Time (Without Quitting Your Job) Schedule “white space” like a meeting. Literally block it on the calendar. Call it “Strategy,” “Clarity,” or even “Meeting with Myself” if you’re worried someone will book over it. Change environments. Go walk, drive, sit somewhere with natural light. Different settings unlock different neural pathways. Ask bigger questions. Instead of “What needs to get done?” ask “What actually matters now?” or “What am I pretending not to know?” Capture patterns, not notes. Don’t transcribe thoughts — notice themes. What keeps repeating? That’s your mind begging for attention. End reflection with one action. Otherwise, it turns into rumination. Decide one thing to start, stop, or say no to. The Humor in It I once told an overworked exec, “Block 90 minutes a week just to think.” He said, “What should I do during that time?” That’s the problem in one sentence. Thinking is doing — it’s just quieter. What Happens When You Build the Habit At first, reflection feels indulgent. Then it feels useful. Then it becomes addictive — in a good way. Your decisions get cleaner. Your conversations sharper. Your stress lower. You stop reacting and start designing. Because clarity saves more time than hustle ever will. Your Challenge This Week Find one 60-minute window. No phone, no laptop, no music, no distractions. Just a notebook and a question: “What’s one thing I keep doing that no longer deserves my energy?” Don’t overthink it — just listen for what surfaces. That hour will tell you more about your leadership than a dozen status meetings ever could. Final Word In a world obsessed with movement, stillness is rebellion. But it’s also intelligence. The best leaders aren’t the busiest. They’re the ones who’ve learned that reflection isn’t retreat — it’s refinement. The next breakthrough won’t come from another meeting. It’ll come from the silence you’ve been avoiding.
STAY UP TO DATE
GET PATH'S LATEST
Receive bi-weekly updates from the church, and get a heads up on upcoming events.
Contact Us
