 |
Bassett Blog 2007/05: Z Decision Making
May 2007
May 1, 2007
Patrick F. Bassett
NAIS President Patrick F. Bassett |
Because NAIS frequently assesses staff morale and organizational climate, we've used many tools over the years and learned much from each of them. Nonetheless, we were perplexed by the contradictory results from a climate survey we administered a couple of years back that revealed, for the most part, staff satisfaction with their leaders but dissatisfaction with leadership decision-making. So we hired an organizational consultant, Megan Staczek, to analyze our situation and work with the leadership team members, individually and collectively.
One element of that work was for us all to take again the Myers-Briggs profile questionnaire and to pay especial attention to the access of decision-making identified within the voluminous research on the tool. Working with an executive coaching firm, The Singer Group, NAIS administered to the leadership team (and then to the entire staff) the Myers-Briggs profile questionnaire, then processed with the executive coach from the firm the implications of our individual and group "styles" and their impact on decision making.
In these sessions we've learned about how to use the "Z" method to make decisions. Z describes how problems are understood and decisions made (along two continua from the Myers-Briggs profile). Z is shorthand for all four corners of a decision path:
- "S" = gathering the facts and sensory data (not just the immediate impression);
- "N" = brainstorming characterized by openness to multiple perspectives and intuition;
- "T" = application of rational and logical (and ethical) solutions;
- "F" = assessing "downstream" feelings and reactions, soliciting input and feedback.
When we received our Myers-Briggs results back, we discovered that every one of us on the leadership team was an N(intuitive), rather than an S (sensor) and most of us were also T's (thinkers), rather than F's (feelers), and that meant that we reinforced one another's natural predisposition to make decisions based on N/T frames of reference, which caused us two problems:
- N: Too quickly relying on the Gestalt N intuitive or gut-instinct "blink" response when a problem presented itself, and not taking the time or trouble to "gather the facts" (the "S" thing to do); and
- T: Jumping immediately to the T, reaction by deciding what the logical reaction should be under the circumstances, without paying enough attention to the F, downstream impact on and feelings of the recipients of the decisions.
So, now we use what we call the "Z+2" method to make decisions. Someone always reminds us to "Z this" when a decision train begins speeding down the track, so we slow down and survey the appropriate players: the staff if it's an internal policy decision or the board and school leaders if it's an external membership issue. Once we have the data, then we can make better, logical T decisions. But before announcing them as "a done deal," we publish a "trial balloon" to the staff or membership: "This is what we're thinking about doing, based on these facts we've gathered. How does this sound to you?"
So the "+2" part of Z+2 is a two-week waiting period to get staff or membership ideas and feedback before any final decision is made. The feedback we get provides us an indicator of the F, the feelings we're touching (or nerves we're irritating), so that we know whether we should go ahead without equivocation or regroup to re-calibrate either the decision or the communication of it.
What have we learned: thinking about thinking and deciding how to decide pays dividends: better judgments, more widely-accepted.
You must be logged in to post a response to this article.
Reader Responses
|
1. On 05/02/2007 Jim Adare (JAdare@wsa.net) replied: |
|
Re: Myers-Briggs and staff teamwork — Several years ago I discovered that "people differences" were creating some significant difficulties and conflicts in senior leadership teamwork. Everyone took the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory and then, with a facilitator, discovered how to understand the differences as given "types" and not as bad/good assessments. We then worked better together, I managed some people differently than before, and gained some insight into the value of having differences represented on the team. With so many "Feeler" moms and lower grade teachers, we administrators — mostly "Thinkers" — need to be aware that for these people decisions need to feel right, not just make sense. Myers-Briggs has been useful in raising money too, as motivations and "types" need to be understood by those seeking support.
|
|
Jim Adare, Headmaster, Westminster Schools of Augusta (GA)
|
|
2. On 05/03/2007 Kiki Johnson (timely@shoreham.net) replied: |
Deja vu all over again, Pat. Reminds me of a similar exercise all NAIS staff went through about a decade ago. Turned out all, [or maybe all but one], of the senior leadership team were ENTJs! Meade Thayer and Steve Clem may remember this.
One director's succinct assessment at that time ; "Too many ENTJs at the top at NAIS." True.
Cheers,
|
|
Kiki Johnson
|
|
3. On 05/03/2007 Rick Cowan (librick@sover.net) replied: |
|
Thanks for this thought-provoking essay, Pat. I understand that you were in our neighborhood yesterday. Brian M. said "the sparks were flying" after your presentation.
|
|
Rick Cowan
|
You must be logged in to post a response to this article.
|
|
