THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS

There are managers who are sufficiently foolish or immodest to believe that
whatever they have decided will automatically be done. The wise head
knows better. Apart from the obvious consideration of practicability, whether or not a decision is
effectively implemented depends on two things:
1. A clearly defined and communicated structure for implementation.
2. The commitment of those responsible for implementation.

A. STRUCTURE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Basically the structure consists of
1. Determining (agreeing?) who will do what by when (the action plan);
2. communicating the action plan to the parties concerned; and
3. ensuring that reviews take place.

To avoid ambiguity it is usually advisable for the action plan to be communicated in writing either as
a memo or as part of the minutes of a meeting. Additionally it may be necessary to speak to the people
responsible for action to ensure that they have actually read the paper and that they understand exactly
what is intended. The review procedure may take the form of a special meeting, or bringing up the
action plan on the agenda of a more general meeting.

Where actions involve more than one person it is important to state and to repeat to all those involved
in implementation that anyone who at any stage feels unable to fulfil his or her part of the action plan
on time should immediately inform whoever is responsible for co-ordinating the action plan. An
‘update’ of the plan may then prove necessary. The most vulnerable
decisions are often the simplest, where, for example, one or two people agree
informally that they will ‘let each other have a copy of …’ or that one of them will ‘ring X and sort it
out’. The discipline of jotting down any such action to which you have personally committed yourself
is a good beginning to establishing a reputation for ‘reliability’.
If you do not already have on your desk an ‘action book’ in which you systematically read and work
through ‘things to be done’, you should at least try that discipline. Each morning you should review
the book to ensure that actions agreed the previous day are added and that ‘things left undone’ are
brought forward.

B. STYLES IN DECISION-TAKING
Four types of decision-taking can be identified:
1. Autocratic
This decision is taken without consultation, then others areinformed of what is to be done
and what is expected of them. This style is acceptable for routine matters which do not
deeply concernpeople one way or the other. It will also be accepted more easily where
thedecision-takers have a considerable track record of success, where they are
acknowledged to be the expert or where they have ‘charisma’. Though people may grumble,
they may also grudgingly accept that the decisions taken at a much higher level must
sometimes be handed down without opportunity for consultation.
In such situations (e.g. when the head or the LEA has issued an edict) commitment may be
built by creating an opportunity for frank questions to be put and honestly answered, and by
‘consulting’ on how the edict will be implemented.
2. Persuasive:
The decision is taken before consultation and then ‘sold’ to
others. This differs from the autocratic style in that the manager uses his or her
powers of advocacy to explain and justify his or her decision to his or her
staff, subsequent to the decision being taken. It is not open to negotiation.
This can be perceived as dishonest, in so far as staff are manipulated by slick
‘sales talk’ into accepting un fait accompli. It would, indeed, be dishonest if
such a decision masqueraded as ‘consultation’; but if it is presented as what it
really is, and not fudged, it is an acceptable type of decision-taking in the
right circumstances, and all of us use it in our daily lives. The secret of
persuading people effectively without consulting them is to try to
demonstrate understanding and sincere respect for their points of view; it
also helps to explain why the manager thought consultation was
inappropriate (see pp. 224–5).

3. Consultative:
The views of others are sought and taken into account before
a decision is taken.This method combines the advantages of obtaining the ideas, suggestions
and commitment of those involved, with vesting decision-taking
responsibility in one person who should be able to assure consistency of
decision-taking and conformity to established guidelines. It combines
motivation with effectiveness.

4. Codeterminate:
Decisions are taken on either a consensus or majority basis.
The appropriate style will depend on people and circumstances. This approach runs the risk
of inconsistency and, while having the virtue of ‘collective responsibility’, it may thereby
avoid individual responsibility. It is the only method available when no one party has clear
decision-taking authority. Negotiation and ‘management by committee’ are forms of
codeterminate decision-taking. Many joint decisions between heads of
department are of this form. Whatever form of decision-taking is used, the important things
are that:
a. the form of decision-taking should be ‘open’ and clear to all concerned;
b. it should be consistent with reality; and
c. the decision-takers should understand and establish the conventions of the particular
form of decision-taking. If these conditions are not met, we may find ourselves
confronted with situations like these:
 A group ‘votes’ for a decision which is unacceptable within the school
context (e.g. too expensive).
 A decision-taker who is trying to operate in ‘consultative’ mode comes
under attack because the rest of the group expect that the majority view
should be accepted.
 A decision-taker seeks people’s views but ignores all that is said.
 Having agreed in a meeting or group to do something, the decision-taker
finds that what has been agreed does not take into account the interests
of some other person, or some other relevant fact.