Cat Herders and Generals: Leading The Decision-Making Process
How do you lead a group of people to make decisions?
This thought jumped into my head as I rode the subway home this evening. I came up with two answers that point to two very different results.
I work with a theater company that is part of the church I attend. There is a finite amount of space in the church that must be shared between the theater, a preschool, Sunday and mid-week services, and every other church activity (like weddings, choir rehearsals, etc.) that arises. As the church’s activities grow, it becomes more challenging to schedule use of the building.
On my subway ride I was imagining that one day we might have to start saying no to very good programs or projects because there isn’t room in the schedule. Decisions like that would require agreement from a group of people – some of whom would be choosing against a project they created or loved. I was imagining people making hard, and sometimes painful, decisions.
Churches and other non-profits are usually run by volunteers. They are involved because they believe in the mission and not because they need a paycheck. How do you make decisions and not drive away your volunteers?
The General and His Cadre of Wise Counselors
One school of thought about making tough choices declares the person in charge to be the ‘decision maker’ and the rest of the group to be advisers. The General leads the Counselors through a discussion and debate about the best course of action. The discussion may get heated and opposing viewpoints may be expressed, but at the end of the process, the General mulls it all over and declares a decision. The choice, ultimately, belongs to the General.
This is a seductive option (who doesn’t like the feeling of being the most important person in a room?) The line of authority is very clear. As long as the General is decisive, decisions can be made quickly. It also seems fair – particularly if the group ‘elects’ the General from their midst. But a subtle shift happens in the Counselors once the General is chosen.
Having a General absolves the Counselors of responsibility for the decisions made. Regardless of what was said during the discussion, they don’t own the choice. They are disconnected from it. They may even suppress their opposing opinions because ‘it’s not up to them to decide.’ This subtle removal of ownership undermines the whole process.
Another temptation for the General, in the name of decisiveness, is to bully the Counselors. If the General is the sort of person who forms opinions quickly, opposing viewpoints may never be heard – even if they are spoken. In extreme cases the General may act like a ‘little dictator’ and undermine the whole organization.
The Cat Herder
Cat Herder is a much less impressive title than General, but it is a much more impressive skill. The Cat Herder is given the task of guiding a group of people, who naturally want to wander off in different directions, and nudging them toward a decision.
The Cat Herder has the authority to direct the group’s discussion, but not to render a decision. The Cat Herder can call for a vote and announce the results, but not make the decision. The group owns the decision and each individual owns their opinion and vote.
Many people avoid this approach to group decision-making because it can be frustrating. When she can see what the ultimate decision is but the conversation just won’t end, a Cat Herder can long for the authority of a General. A skillful Cat Herder, though, can use personal accountability and social pressure to push, pull, and steer the group to a place of agreement.
I was witness to an expert Cat Herder. This woman was given the role of Chairperson at a corporate board sub-committee meeting. One purpose of the meeting was to finalize the language of a new document that re-defined the mission of the sub-committee. If you have spent any length of time in the corporate world you know that is a recipe for disaster – an eternal nudging and tweaking of words and phrases that would make even a lawyer cry.
This expert Cat Herder used a technique she called ‘fist or five’ to steer the discussion and keep everyone moving toward a decision. When debates arose and the group seemed about to wander off without finishing the work, she would ask for a ‘fist or five’ to take the ‘temperature of the room.’ Every member of the group would hold up a hand and rate their level of agreement with the decision at hand. If you held up a fist, you were signaling total disagreement and all five fingers extended signaled total agreement.
If everyone in the group had three or more fingers extended, then the issue at hand was sufficiently acceptable to the group and the discussion moved on. If someone tried to reopen the discussion she could use the group’s vote as leverage to hold the questioner accountable for using the available time to discuss an issue that was considered resolved. Because of the social pressure involved, only people with a strong objection would push the issue.
This expert Cat Herder’s motto was “we’re not looking for perfection, we’re trying to get a good job done!”
Which Method Is Best
I’m not willing to say that the General and Counselors model is never a good choice. I’m sure their are times where it is the best course of action. But, the best Generals I have ever seen use the methods of the Cat Herder whenever possible. These types of Generals use their authority like a Presidential Veto – an extreme measure only to be exercised when all other options have failed.
The best decisions are ones that the group feels ownership over (even if they don’t agree 100%.) They will work harder to support the decision and will let go of disappointments faster when they are meaningfully involved in the decision.
But, without question, it takes patience, humility, and commitment to herd cats!
The Go-To Guy!
Don’t let me have the last word! Leave a comment and let us know what you think.
