Delaying Decisions
Delaying decisions does not have all that good a reputation in organisations (as with people). It is usually deemed a description for the stabilisation of problems, less as a successful form of processing. For its part, such one-sidedness is, in the theory form presented here, ‘suspect’ and provokes an analysis of what one gains, if one delays decisions, and what forms of delay can be observed.
The most important benefit is that one can momentarily make unsolvable problem situations manageable, at least for a certain period of time. This can be done by
- turning towards other topics (guiding process decision-making orientation),
- decoupling topics from each other, thus, making conflicts invisible, and curtailing erroneous effects (guiding process networking),
- shifting the focus away from quality (guiding process quality focus), for example being pleased about something in technology, even when one cannot bring it to market quickly enough,
- socially engaging other people with the matter or simply allowing someone to do something, so that something is done (guiding process personnel),
- looking for other decision-making processes or rules, so that one can decide more effectively (guiding process decision-maker),
- stopping the control, which encourages the undesired results from emerging, conveying trust and being satisfied if work is done with motivation, even if it is possibly the wrong thing (guiding process social complexity),
- initially continuing as before (guiding process handling the past),
- relying on optimisation of rules and compliance to them or relying on exceptions (guiding process handling the present),
- avoiding the risk and relying on the fact that one will find solutions in future (guiding process handling the future).
The benefit of such delays should not be belittled. It keeps organisations running, it enables further communication, it creates scope, it reduces overload, it reduces fruitless conflict and it liberates resources.