Living with Ambiguity

Phone: 503-293-3557 Toll Free: 800-577-3528 Fax: 503-293-8499

Improving Technical Productivity

PRODUCT ENGINEERING - R&D - I T - SCIENTIFIC

Living with Ambiguity

Susan de la Vergne

Executives make decisions every day that people don’t like. Cut costs. Outsource. Close plants. Drop products. Acquire companies.

When announcements like these are made, managers are expected to support the decisions. They’re not just expected to tell their people, but to rally them, to go beyond the facts and to share in the ownership of the reasons behind them. They’re supposed to lead others through next steps by adjusting course, revising activities and re-vamping measurements.

There are people in management who believe that decisions, to be acceptable, need to be completely “right,” every detail in alignment with what they personally believe should be done. But decisions never live up to these purist expectations.

Instead, a manager could simply behave as if he or she is fully onboard with direction, even if he’s not. But senior management knows it’s important they have buy-in from their management team. When handing down even the most controversial decisions, they aren’t asking managers and supervisors to pretend to align with decisions they disagree with.

But when a decision doesn’t entirely line up with individual conscience or judgment, what’s a manager to do?

1. Dig deeper.

2. Be patient.

3. Effect change.

Digging Deeper

Major decisions have many elements to them, and it’s almost always possible to find “good” aspects of even dreadful decisions. Understanding the intended outcome of a decision often makes it easier to find those positive aspects.

For example, “cost cutting” usually elicits groans of despair from the workforce. (“How much more can we do with less?”) But cost cutting also drives efficiency, working the flab out of process, saving time. Keeping extraneous steps from creeping into any workflow requires constant vigilance, and most people love to clear out inefficiency,

A cost-cutting directive, like the advent of spring, can be just the impetus needed to clean house. It’s easy – and honest – to frame cost-cutting in these kinds of positive terms.

Seeing and presenting cost cutting as an opportunity to make needed improvements is digging into the decision far enough to find its upside.

But what about a more difficult example, like outsourcing?

When a company announces it’s going to look overseas for inexpensive labor to do a job American workers can also perform, it can expect a firestorm of reaction from its own ranks and the community.

While a decision to outsource may please executives and shareholders, it’s not going to win the hearts and minds of people who face lay-offs as a result or whose hourly wage will never compete with off-shore pricing.

Corporate bylaws say that “maximizing shareholder value” is always the prime directive. That, combined with the changing dynamics of the global workforce (cheap, capable overseas labor), are formidable drivers of these decisions.

Trying to solve the ethical dilemmas of the global economy is not for everyone, and most managers aren’t in positions within their companies to alter the fundamental business paradigm, even if they wanted to.

So “digging deeper” at times like these means looking at what benefit a group can derive from new overseas contacts. Instead of trying to re-shape the domestic labor market, focus instead on learning and leveraging the practices of similar work in other cultures. Certainly we, in this country, don’t have it all figured out to perfection.

Many high tech companies, for example, have learned that tech professionals from India use software quality practices that can and should be applied to U.S. products. The new working relationship in these cases has improved the final product.

Building cross-cultural understanding within teams – encouraging members of each culture to learn more about the other – is another way of tapping into a positive aspect of a decision a manager may not altogether support.

Being Patient

Bad decisions don’t stick. They will for awhile, but not for long. So rejecting direction right away is a reckless and unnecessary thing to do, if for no other reason than it’s likely to change when the results are bad.

By the same token, a manager can’t turn to his or her team and say, “This is a bad decision, so we’ll just stand over here and wait until it falls apart.” An experienced manager knows it’s only a matter of time before adjustments are made, and in the meantime, he’ll support the organization by figuring out what to do next.

Saying “I’m not convinced this is the best choice, but it’s the one we’re going with for now,” is appropriate and lets people know that, while there is cause for concern, it’s better to roll with it while we figure it out.

Patience also means that, to some extent, a manager shields his or her team from the uncertainty and the complexity of decisions. It isn’t necessary that every employee in the company be deeply familiar with every decision that’s made. Nor does every employee have to absorb conflicting direction when it arises.

Managers field ambiguity by interpreting direction, making it actionable and manageable. Interpreting direction is not the same as hiding information, which is necessary when confidentiality is involved, but not otherwise. It’s simply part of a manager’s job to understand and translate direction.

That also means minimizing the effects of conflicting priorities on the workforce. If everyone stops to wring their hands over the details of every decision, not much “real” work will actually be getting done.

Finally, being patient also earns respect from senior management. When a manager is patient with, rather than rancorous about, a controversial decision, this better positions him or her to make improvements in the direction when the organization is ready.

Effecting Change

Healthy companies expect to hear from management and staff about what changes may be warranted in the face of any decision. A manager or supervisor who sulks quietly when faced with direction he or she thinks is unsupportable misses the chance to recommend improvements and represent the team’s perspective.

Successful managers are resourceful, and if ever there were a time when resourcefulness is needed, it is when a difficult decision calls for some adjustment right away.

Effecting change means improving a bad decision, and adjusting direction that seems off course. This requires resourceful individuals who can see what the implications of a decision might be and who can recommend course corrections.

For example, when cost cutting directives are handed down, managers are expected to identify vulnerable areas.

“The Call Center has already been cut. More cuts would compromise service. Let’s focus elsewhere,” would be the kind of thing management would expect to learn, or be reminded of, from supervisors and managers.

When a controversial decision like outsourcing needs to be handled, senior management may be thinking of downplaying it in the hopes of not making it “a big deal.” Line managers can effect change by insisting on open, frequent communications. They know that, for lack of information, people will often go to the darkest picture, so proactive communication is a “must” at a time like this. Line managers must be sure to say so.

It’s human nature to prefer certainty over uncertainty, and handling complexity is just another chance that managers and supervisors get to transcend their comfort zone.

But in the end, the important thing to remember is that successful managers don’t run from ambiguity. They run with it.

Courses that help to deal with ambiguity in the workplace:

Emotional Intelligence: A Guide for Project Managers

Building Employee Commitment