It would take a turbo-charged abacus to track the total number of decisions made for any one conference. And most decisions are cross-functional, involving input from supplier partners, colleagues from other departments, and planning committee members. You can be a more effective decision-maker by asking some of the questions posed by process consultants:

Has the actual problem/issue been identified, or are we talking about its symptoms or a subset?
Groups often spend significant energy in debate without clarifying the real issue needing exploration. Just as a frame affects how you view a photograph, so does language "frame" how choices are perceived. Think of how politicians frame choices to sway our position or support. You can advance sound decisions by calling attention to the frames being used and helping people explore alternative ways of framing an issue so that groupthink can be avoided.

Example: "How do we get rid of talking-head experts?" leads to a different discussion than "How can we make our educational sessions more engaging and learner-centered?" "What would make our meeting more welcoming?" promotes more expansive thinking than "How can we make first-timer orientation better?

What are the results we want to achieve? What do we need to consider to get there?
Even when the issue has been adequately defined, groups often spend too little time reaching a collective definition of success. Individuals (and individual departments) participate in discussions trying to arrive at a decision that supports what they believe success looks like. When definitions of success compete, thoughtful deliberations of the issue at hand often degenerate into protecting self-interests.

What knowledge or expertise could help us make the best decision? Who has that knowledge (internally and externally), and how can we gain access?
Good leaders are good stewards of a group's available resources, but they also recognize that no one group can always have all the information or resources it needs. When you recognize that the boundaries of a group's composition are permeable, you become open to other potential sources of knowledge and insight. Planning committees then reach beyond the "usual suspects" to gain new insights from nontraditional sources.

Have we thoughtfully considered the impact of this decision on other people and included them in the decision-making process?
Not everyone needs to be involved in every decision, but failure to consult the appropriate parties jeopardizes a decision's effectiveness. The impact/inclusiveness question helps evaluate the group's scope of decision-making and also clarifies the support needed for the decision's implementation. Consensus for major strategic decisions requires more than an "I can live with that" attitude. When a stronger commitment is needed, groups tend to expand the circle providing input and be more intentional about how to announce the decision and the process/timetable for its implementation.

Leading Learning Take Away

Planners looking to lead effective decision-making can take a page from facilitators who understand that the quality of the decision often is tied to the quality of the discussion. Facilitators tend to step back and objectively examine what is happening as participants interact: what's being said and what's not, whose contributions are not being heard and considered, and how to intercede to move the conversation along to a decision.

In this way, planners can help the group avoid "analysis paralysis" - while not falling into the trap of thinking that decisiveness and good decision-making are one and the same.

Jeffrey Cufaude is a former higher education administrator, meeting planner, and association executive. He currently writes, speaks, and facilitates on a variety of individual and organizational leadership issues. Learn more about his work at www.ideaarchitects.org. To submit topic ideas and feedback on the Leading Learning column, e-mail jeffrey@ideaarchitects.org.
 Leading Learning is sponsored by Freeman, www.freemanco.com.