Making Decisions like an Associate? Or like a Firm Chair?

You know that your approach to decision-making—your decision-making "style," if you will—needs to change as you progress from associate to junior partner to (perhaps) practice group leader to member of the executive committee.  But precisely how should your style change?

Courtesy of Korn/Ferry and Harvard Business Review, we have some insights.   Yes, they're from corporate-land, not law-land, but since the principles are primarily derived from human nature and not from the specifics of the context, we can apply their learning.

The first thing you need to know is that if your decision-making style does not change, your career will (or should!) stall.    Starting out, one's style needs to be prescriptive, decisive, directive, and command-oriented.  Things need to be done today, if not yesterday, and incremental consensus-building is not the way to go.  But, as the authors say: 

"We found that decision-making profiles do a complete flip over the course of a career: That is, the decision style of a successful CEO is the opposite of a successful first-line supervisor's."

As one rises through the ranks, two simultaneous evolutionary changes should be occurring in your approach to decisions.

In the public, outward-facing mode, you need to become more open, inviting, inquisitive, and inclusive:  "it becomes more about listening than telling, more about understanding than directing." 

But at the same time, in your private, thinking/analytic mode, you need to become more decisive—once the pipeline of information that you've hopefully opened up in public has saturated you with alternatives, creative choices, and

Failing to understand, or to navigate, this transition can cause intense stress.  You need to shift from thinking everything needs to be resolved more or less on the spot to inviting dialogue, input, and disagreement.  They describe the shift as it occurred to "Jill:" 

"We saw the impact of this transition in the case of Jill, a second-level manager for a large petrochemical company. When we initially met Jill, she was a first-line supervisor in a power-generation facility at the company. When we met her again, she had earned an MBA and was managing a department that functioned as a liaison between an operating unit and company headquarters.

"In a casual conversation, Jill told us that she was enjoying the job—now that she had figured things out. At first, she had found her new responsibilities confusing and distressing. But one morning she realized that although she had important things to do that day, none of them had to be resolved immediately. She could take some time, collect information, and seriously consider her choices. This was in sharp contrast with her previous job, where every day things had to be decided and done on the spot. Just recognizing the difference eased the stress considerably and opened Jill's eyes to the change needed in the way she handled decisions."

Do not view this as "soft," intangible, or touchy-feely research.  Failing to adapt appropriately has real consequences.  Indeed, according to our authors, the "bottom 20%" of managers get permanently stuck.

How, then, to assess how you're doing?  I suggest you ask your colleagues and peers for an honest, totally candid, opinion.  Scary?  Then have courage:  The career you save could be your own.