Justification for Decisions
If you assume, as here, that organisations are formed and sustained through the communication of decisions, by necessity the way and method in which decisions are justified, come into focus. Which justifications gain acceptance by which decision-makers and for what decisions? And what justifications trigger opposition, resistance, mistrust or rebellion? Here you can learn much about the respective organisation.
Therefore, in many organisations decisions are, if at all possible, legitimised with logical, factually-based arguments. “This is the best solution!”. This is why much effort is put into the factual underpinning of the chosen alternative. Who will be against, if, by doing so, he revealed himself as incompetent or an idiot about facts?
A further, widespread variant is to connect the decision with the promise of a better future, future success and the accomplishment of an attractive goal. Who will oppose, if, by agreeing, he can reach the promised land?
If this is not possible, then frequently the circumstances are brought up: “We had to decide this way!”. Then it is announced that there was actually no choice (‘without alternatives’). One of these variants is the justification of avoiding greater damage with a comparable smaller damage for the affected parties. Who will say no to getting wet, when the alternative is being beaten to death?
In all cases, and one must be reminded of this, justifications hide the non-justifiability of decisions! Decisions are always acts of will, therefore a choice, although it would also have been possible to choose differently!