Can't Decide?

Make smarter decisions by choosing the right style for the job.

不能决定？

通过选择适合工作的样式来做出更明智的决策。

https://www.toastmasters.org/magazine/magazine-issues/2019/oct/cant-decide

October 2019

By Laura Amann

toastmasters-16-cant-decide-hero.png

Do you tend to make decisions quickly and decisively, rarely second-guessing yourself? Or do you prefer doing research, talking over options, and analyzing data for even the smallest of decisions?

Is one technique better than the other?

A frequently cited—yet unsubstantiated—study claims the average person makes a staggering 35,000 decisions a day. And indeed when considering the many mundane decisions we make without even registering that we’re making a choice (scratching our head, taking a sip of coffee), they do balance the more dramatic examples we tend to think of in the context of decision-making (changing jobs, making a large purchase).

The amount of time spent on a decision isn’t necessarily linked to its importance. You may decide on a whim to move to another part of the country and yet go back and forth deciding what to eat for dinner. There is no right technique for making a decision.

But no matter how big or small the ramification, all decision- making basically boils down to three distinct aspects: gathering information, evaluating options, and making a choice. When put that way, it almost seems easy; but of course, some decisions can be agonizing, with no perfect answer—where to go to college, whether or not to take a job, when to take a financial risk with a potentially big payoff—and some have few repercussions—what to eat for breakfast.

How you make a decision depends on a balance of how time sensitive it is, how high the consequences are, and how much information you already have.
您倾向于快速而果断地做出决定，很少会second不休吗？还是您更愿意进行研究，讨论各种选择并分析数据以进行最小的决策？

一种技术比另一种更好吗？

一项经常被引用（至今未得到证实）的研究声称，普通人每天做出令人震惊的35,000个决定。确实，在考虑我们做出的许多平凡的决定时，甚至没有登记我们正在做出选择（抓头，喝咖啡）时，它们的确平衡了我们在决策背景下倾向于想到的更生动的例子，制作（换工作，进行大量购买）。

花费在决策上的时间不一定与其重要性有关。您可能会一时兴起，决定搬到该国的其他地区，然后来回决定吃什么晚餐。没有正确的决策方法。

但是，无论后果如何大，基本上所有决策都可以归结为三个方面：收集信息，评估选择方案和做出选择。这样说，似乎很容易。但是，当然，有些决定可能会令人烦恼，没有完美的答案-去哪里上大学，是否要工作，何时冒可能带来丰厚回报的财务风险-有些则没有影响-吃什么吃早饭

您如何做出决定取决于时间敏感性，后果的严重性以及您已经拥有多少信息之间的平衡。

Mel Robbins, a popular American motivational speaker, hit upon a decision-making strategy that she dubbed “the 5-second rule.” After growing frustrated with ruminating for long periods of time and then not acting, she devised a motivational strategy, which essentially boils down to this: If you have an impulse to act on a goal, you must physically move within five seconds. Otherwise, the decision gets delayed and delayed—and dies. Thus, the rule: Act within five seconds.

Robbins says neuroscientists have found that people have about a five-second gap between a stimulus and the way they typically respond to it. “It’s within this gap that you have the power to change your life,” Robbins said in an interview for the March 2019 Toastmaster. “When you decide to do something, count back 5-4-3-2-1, and immediately take action.The more you do that, the more your brain gets wired for action and the less you’ll fall victim to your mental resistance.”

The act of counting focuses you on the goal or commitment and distracts you from worries, thoughts, and excuses in your mind, she says.

Experts have uncovered four common decision-making styles, each with its own benefits and downsides. Having these techniques in your tool kit and understanding how to use them in different situations, as well as during certain times in your life and career, will help you make better, more well-informed choices.

受欢迎的美国励志演说家梅尔·罗宾斯（Mel Robbins）提出了一项她称为“ 5秒规则”的决策策略。在长时间沉思于沉思，然后不再行动之后，她制定了一种激励策略，从本质上可以归结为：如果您有冲动去实现目标，则必须在五秒钟内身体移动。否则，决策会变得一拖再拖，并最终失败。因此，规则是：在五秒钟内采取行动。

罗宾斯说，神经科学家发现人们在刺激和他们通常的反应方式之间有大约五秒钟的差距。罗宾斯在2019年3月的演讲会上接受采访时说：“在这个差距之内，您就有能力改变生活。”“当您决定采取行动时，请倒数5-4-3-2-1，然后立即采取行动。您做得越多，您的大脑就越需要采取行动，就越不会遭受精神阻力。”

她说，计数的行为使您专注于目标或承诺，并使您从头脑中的烦恼，想法和借口中分散注意力。

专家们发现了四种常见的决策方式，每种都有其自身的优点和缺点。在您的工具箱中拥有这些技术并了解如何在不同的情况下以及您的职业和职业生涯中的特定时间使用它们，将帮助您做出更好，更明智的选择。

Autocratic

Autocratic decisions are made by one person whose word is final. This style doesn’t necessarily involve gathering information or talking to other people; it relies on one person’s experience and confidence. These decisions tend to be made quickly and decisively.

Some people consider this a dictatorial style, and at first glance, it’s tempting to agree. But it’s quite useful in a crisis or when time is of the essence. On a less dramatic level, not all decisions need to be vetted by others, and making autocratic decisions can keep things running at a brisk pace. For example, parents often employ this method with young children since they are fully responsible for their child’s health and well-being. In sports, coaches often make the tough calls on their own when deciding who plays in a game or which plays to make.

If used too frequently, however, autocratic decision-making can lead to low morale and lack of camaraderie and loyalty, as it doesn’t give others a chance to learn and grow.

专制

独裁决定是由一个最终决定的人做出的。这种风格不一定涉及收集信息或与其他人交谈；它取决于一个人的经验和信心。这些决定往往是迅速而果断的。

有人认为这是独裁的风格，乍一看，这很容易让人同意。但这在危机中或时间紧迫的情况下非常有用。在不太戏剧化的水平上，并非所有决策都需要由其他人进行审查，而专制决策可以使事情保持快速运转。例如，父母经常对年幼的孩子采用这种方法，因为他们对孩子的健康和福祉负有全部责任。在体育运动中，教练在决定谁参加比赛或进行比赛时常常会自己打个招呼。

但是，如果使用得太频繁，专制决策会导致士气低落，缺乏友情和忠诚度，因为它不会给其他人学习和成长的机会。

Team-Based

Consensus is the goal in a team-based decision-making process. Everyone on the team discusses the problem, concept, or idea, and then decides on a solution. Someone may be a facilitator, but there is no set leader, and everyone agrees to support the team’s final decision, even if they don’t agree with it.

Also called the democratic process, this style allows everyone to have input, and everyone’s voice is heard. Team-based decisions can build unity and a sense of cohesiveness, and people appreciate when their opinions are heard and considered. This style works great when something will affect an entire group but doesn’t have large implications, such as finding a new office vendor or picking out a pet’s name.

However, team-based decision-making is not always the most time-effective method. Using this process can require numerous meetings to listen to and explore ideas. And despite everyone’s voice being heard, someone is bound to be disappointed that things didn’t go their way.

基于团队

共识是基于团队的决策过程的目标。团队中的每个人都讨论问题，概念或想法，然后决定解决方案。有人可能是协调人，但没有固定的领导者，每个人都同意支持团队的最终决定，即使他们不同意。

也称为民主程序，这种风格可以让每个人都参与其中，并且听到每个人的声音。基于团队的决策可以建立统一性和凝聚力，当人们听到并考虑他们的意见时，他们会感激不已。当某些事情会影响整个团队但没有太大影响时，例如寻找新的办公室供应商或挑选宠物的名字，这种风格非常有用。

但是，基于团队的决策并不总是最省时的方法。使用此过程可能需要召开大量会议来聆听和探讨想法。尽管听到了所有人的声音，但一定有人会对事情没有顺利进行感到失望。

toastmasters-16-group-decision.png

Collaborative

Collaborative decisions happen when someone reaches out for information and feedback from others, but the ultimate decision rests with that one person. People and teams have a chance to offer their perspective, insight, and opinions, but they do not have any authority in resolving the issue. Parents may employ this method when deciding on a family vacation or whether to get a pet. It’s also helpful when making a large personal decision, such as buying a house or picking a college.

This style works best when a big decision needs to be made. The person in charge gathers the necessary information and perspectives (and hopefully possesses the experience and insight) to make the call and accepts the responsibility for any repercussions.

Leaders must be careful, however, not to surround themselves only with people who think the same as they do. “Diversity itself is not enough,” says Pawel Motyl, author of Labyrinth: The Art of Decision-Making. “The most important aspect is true inclusion; you have to make team members aware that they can express a dissenting opinion without fear of negative consequences.” He points out that truly diversified teams typically need to discuss issues longer, but their decisions are much closer to the optimum. “The more points of view we take into account, the greater the chance that we will fully understand the problem we are facing, which directly translates into the quality of the choice being made.” In other words, good decisions are made when leaders gather from a wide perspective and truly listen to people with opposing viewpoints before coming to a conclusion. And, as Motyl adds, an invaluable side effect is the feeling of empowerment you give to the people you involved.

协同合作

当某人伸出手来寻求他人的信息和反馈时，就会发生协作决策，但最终的决定权在于该人。人员和团队有机会提供自己的观点，见解和观点，但他们无权解决问题。父母在决定家庭度假或是否养宠物时可以采用这种方法。在做出重大个人决定（例如买房或选择大学）时，这也很有帮助。

当需要做出重大决策时，这种风格最有效。负责人收集必要的信息和观点（并希望拥有经验和见识）以进行呼叫并承担任何后果。

但是，领导者必须小心谨慎，不要只与思想相同的人在一起。 “多样性本身是不够的，”《迷宫：决策的艺术》一书的作者帕维尔·莫蒂尔（Pawel Motyl）说。 “最重要的方面是真正的包容；您必须让团队成员意识到他们可以表达反对意见，而不必担心负面影响。”他指出，真正多元化的团队通常需要讨论更长的时间，但是他们的决策更接近最佳决策。 “我们考虑的观点越多，我们完全了解所面临问题的机会就越大，这直接转化为做出选择的质量。”换句话说，当领导者广泛地聚集在一起并在得出结论之前真正听取反对意见的人时，就会做出正确的决定。而且，正如Motyl所说，无价的副作用是您赋予参与其中的人权力的感觉。

Delegatory

For delegatory decisions, a leader literally delegates the decision-making to another person or team. After a decision has been delegated, the person in charge is informed of the final decision but doesn’t change it. “Delegating is a powerful way to ensure people in any type of organization understand the vision and values, gain experience, grow competencies, and feel supported,” says Motyl, who consults and leads seminars throughout the world on leadership and decision-making topics and is based in Poland. Far from “passing the buck,” this style not only helps develop the leadership skills of others but alleviates decision-making fatigue of the group leader. It also builds a stronger team. Delegating a problem can bring fresh ideas and approaches while allowing people to expand their experience. You can delegate the task of finding a new club meeting place, or ask your partner to take ownership of vacation planning.

委托人

对于代表性决策，领导者实际上将决策权委托给另一个人或团队。在下达决定后，负责人会获悉最终决定，但不会更改。 Motyl说：“委派是确保任何类型的组织中的人都能理解愿景和价值观，获得经验，发展能力并获得支持的有力方法，” Motyl在领导力和决策主题，以及位于波兰。这种风格远非“超越责任”，不仅有助于培养他人的领导能力，而且还可以减轻团队领导者的决策疲劳。它还可以建立更强大的团队。委托问题可以带来新的想法和方法，同时使人们可以扩展他们的经验。您可以委派寻找新俱乐部聚会场所的任务，或要求您的伴侣取得假期计划的所有权。

“Analyzing bad decisions not only takes time, but also demands that we face up to something we’d much rather forget about.”
—Pawel Motyl
“分析错误的决定不仅需要时间，而且还要求我们面对自己宁愿忘记的事情。”
-Pawel Motyl

The downside, of course, is that the leader relinquishes control of any outcome. And some individuals and teams may not have the experience to fall back on to make an informed decision, so additional research might be necessary, potentially slowing down a resolution.

Given the thousands of decisions we all make in a day, it’s helpful to be aware of your decision-making tools and how to use them. The next time you need to make a big decision, weigh the problem in terms of what style might work best to make it. Are you the only one who can make the decision? Should you gather some more information or advice? Do you have people you trust who might be able to make the decision instead of you? Letting someone else take the reins for a while may open you up to new possibilities.

当然，不利的一面是，领导者放弃了对任何结果的控制。 而且某些个人和团队可能没有经验可以依靠，无法做出明智的决定，因此可能需要进行其他研究，从而可能降低解决方案的速度。

考虑到我们一天要做出的成千上万的决策，了解您的决策工具以及如何使用它们会很有帮助。 下次您需要做出重大决定时，请以哪种样式最适合做这个问题来权衡问题。 您是唯一可以做出决定的人吗？ 您是否应该收集更多信息或建议？ 您是否有信任的人可以代替您做出决定？ 让别人掌控一段时间可能会给您带来新的可能性。