Why Decision Making Matters
In the work for social change, how we make choices might be the most important thing within our control
There are estimates that the average adult makes roughly 35,000 decisions per day!
As social change practitioners it’s safe to assume we and the organizations we are a part of make thousands of decisions each week. Many of these decisions are fairly inconsequential and can be easily reversed. With some regularity though, we are faced with decisions that will have a significant and long term effect on our ability to carry out our mission.
Let’s review a few ways decision making matters in the light of these higher stakes choices.
There is an obvious relationship between decision quality and how often and to what extent we have to spend time problem solving. When we or our organizations make poor choices we’ll likely have to spend more time and energy (and probably money) fixing problems caused by those decisions. Being consumed with solving problems often takes our focus off of the execution of important strategic plans, and distracts us from seeing potential opportunities. Conversely, day-to-day quality decision making is an example of the snowball effect, even if unnoticeable in the short term, the value adds up over time and positive outcomes compound as result.
If the mission of your organization is to build power to win justice, then decision making often determines how effectively you are able to wield that power. Social justice organizations are regularly engaged in strategic and tactical contests involving one or more opponents. These oppositional forces often have an asymmetrical advantage given their power, and yet with the right tactical choices at the right moment grassroots organizations can emerge victorious. In his book Why David Sometimes Wins, Marshall Ganz tells the story of how The National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) won dignity and better working conditions against the powerful California agribusiness industry in the 1960s. Ganz reminds us that consistent, quality tactical choices is part of what gives social justice organizations the ability to outmaneuver staunch opponents.
“In response to each challenge—for instance, how to sustain pressure on employers after the end of the harvest—they (NFWA) kept coming up with innovative tactics for generating funds, sustaining the commitment of strikers and volunteers, getting their message to the public, launching the Schenley (Schenley Industries - one of the largest grower of grapes in CA at the time) boycott, and marching to Sacramento, choices that culminated in the breakthrough recognition agreement.”
In philanthropy your decision making quality is directly linked to what extent you or your foundation is able to make an impact on your espoused change goals. What are your strategic priorities? Who should you grant money to? How much money should you give? Over the last few years there has been a growing sentiment that philanthropy needs to change if it wants to be a true partner in the fight for economic and racial equity. These critiques have brought about shifts in thinking and thus new choice points for foundations. What is the role of the program officer? What is the ideal relationship dynamic between a program officer and a grantee? How could/should community leaders and grassroots organizations drive a foundation’s priorities?
No matter what kind of social change organization you are, deciding who to hire and how to design the structure of your organization is highly consequential. If you have ever been responsible for hiring, you can probably think of a time you made a mistake when offering someone a job, and the consequences that followed. Less obvious but no less impactful are the choices that define the structures of our organizations. Examples of structural design choices include who makes what decisions and what criteria determines who is invited onto leadership teams. Structure decisions ultimately influence what behavior is incentivized, scalability, and how power flows throughout the organization.
Initially it might feel tedious and a waste of time to focus on how you and the teams within your organization are making decisions. But given the cumulative impact of decisions on these two levels, it would be wise to give thoughtful consideration on how to best make the choices that will be enduring and have a wide ranging impact.