Reliability professionals are trusted advisors. Being a trusted advisor to a person making the biggest career decision is an enormous job—as is making a good, big decision. Where most advisors lose the “trust” in “trusted advisor” is when they mix the roles of “advisor” with “decision maker.” Advisors and analysts must first be true to their data and information. How that information is used is not something you control. These are three reasons a reliability professional should not care about the decision.
A Case Example
This workshop was similar to most others. One mid-level engineering professional took great exception to my point that trusted advisors should not care about the decision. He dogged me during both afternoon breaks.
Before leaving, he pulled me aside and said, “You are wrong about that. Clients hire me to tell them the best thing to do. I have the training and the experience. They should listen to me because I am the expert.
“I didn’t say you shouldn’t give them the best advice,” I said calmly. “And I didn’t say that you shouldn’t want them to make the right decision. I said simply that it was their decision to make, not yours. Therefore, you should accept whatever decision they make once you have fairly presented all sides.”
The next morning, before breakfast, he told me that he needed to talk before the workshop. He looked perplexed, which made me dread the next round of discussion.
After breakfast, he pulled me aside and said, “I hardly slept last night. You are right. I have been trying to make my clients do what I thought they should do. I wasn’t considering their side as much as I should have. I haven’t been being an engineer–I have been being a salesman.”
“Not a dreaded salesman,” I thought to myself. But my friend had gotten my point.
#1 It is not your decision to make.
The definition of a decision is an appropriate place to start.
A Decision: An irrevocable (or irreversible) choice among alternative ways to allocate resources. – Ron Howard
Decision makers allocate resources. That usually means one person, or “the buck stops here,” according to Harry Truman. Advisors are not decision makers. Decision makers sign on the bottom line.
There is no good reason to get excited about someone else’s resource allocation. They own it, not you.
#2 You will get another shot. The truth comes back around.
Big decisions take time. They are usually called strategic decisions because they have long-term implications. They usually involve numbers, math, and statistics, plus plenty of meetings, advisors, and gatekeepers.
There is no good reason to get excited about one presentation, one meeting, or one intermediate decision. Time (and the truth) are on your side. Protect your credibility and live to fight for the next round of meetings.
#3 It is not the way you want to be treated by your subordinates.
Let’s pause for a moment and consider that you indeed may be smarter than everyone else. In that case, and assuming you have perfect information about what is going on two levels above you, then you should be willing to manipulate the person who signs on the bottom line.
The trouble is that manipulation is wrong. It’s not how you want to be treated by your subordinates when you must put your name on the bottom line. It’s your duty to treat others the way you wish to be treated.
Tufte On…
I would like to say this line of thinking represents original thought. I do not–I am a product of my upbringing, experience, and training. I attribute some of the latter part, training, to the work of Edward Tufte. These are a few of his thoughts on the subject.
Objectivity and Integrity in Data Presentation
Tufte argues that the primary role of an analyst is to present data in a truthful and unbiased way. This means avoiding any manipulation or distortion of data to influence decisions. By maintaining objectivity, analysts ensure that the data speaks for itself. In turn, this allows decision-makers to draw their own conclusions based on accurate information. This approach upholds the data’s integrity and the analyst’s credibility.
Separation of Roles
There is a clear distinction between the roles of analysts and decision-makers. Analysts are responsible for gathering, analyzing, and presenting data. Decision makers are tasked with interpreting this information and making informed choices. This separation of roles helps prevent any potential bias or conflict of interest if analysts are invested in the outcomes of decisions.
Empowering Decision-Makers
Tufte believes the goal of data presentation is to empower decision makers with the best possible information. When analysts remain neutral and objective, decision makers have a clear and accurate picture of the situation. By not caring about the decisions themselves, analysts can ensure that their work is solely focused on delivering high-quality, reliable information.
Avoiding Advocacy
One risk of analysts caring about the decisions made is that they might become advocates for a particular outcome. This can lead to biased data presentation, where information is selectively highlighted or downplayed to support a preferred decision. Tufte warns against this, as it undermines the credibility of the analysis and can lead to poor decision-making. By remaining detached from the decision-making process, analysts can avoid the pitfalls of advocacy and maintain their objectivity.
Ethical Responsibility
Tufte highlights the ethical responsibility of analysts to present data truthfully and accurately. This ethical responsibility extends to not being influenced by the potential outcomes of decisions. Analysts have a duty to uphold their work’s integrity and provide decision-makers with the best possible information. By not caring about the decisions made, analysts can fulfill this ethical responsibility and contribute to better decision-making processes.
Why An Advisor Should Not Care About the Decision
Not caring about the decision is one of the toughest three concepts I teach technical professionals in Communicating with FINESSE workshops. It is also one of the top three problems I see in practice, both as a trusted advisor and separately as a decision maker. What makes you a great maker of big decisions is to objectively listen to all sides of an issue. What makes you a great trusted advisor is having empathy for the person whose name is on the bottom line and providing them with all sides of the data and information. Trusted advisor, persuader, or manipulator–the choice is yours. Are you Communicating with GFINESSE?
References for Edward Tufte are his four books: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (1983), Envisioning Information (1990), Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative (1997), and Beautiful Evidence (2006).
JD Solomon served in executive leadership roles at two Fortune 500 companies before starting JD Solomon, Inc., just before the pandemic. JD is the founder of Communicating with FINESSE®, the creator of the FINESSE fishbone diagram®, and the co-creator of the SOAP criticality method©. He is the author of Communicating Reliability, Risk & Resiliency to Decision Makers: How to Get Your Boss’s Boss to Understand and Facilitating with FINESSE: A Guide to Successful Business Solutions.
Terrific post – it’s so hard for engineers to “not care” about the decision! But I have seen how it builds trust with decision makers, which also makes them more receptive to new ideas later. They know that while I might be trying to “sell” them a new idea, I’m being open and objective in my considerations and I won’t take it personally if they go another direction. As you said, if I was right that will emerge on its own. (Another aspect is to be humble if that happens and not do too much “I told you so”).