Making the best decision without having all the information available. Taking smart risks. Introducing a culture where people have the permission to fail and are not blamed for it...how many times have we heard this? How many Big-corporation executives and Global Head of something have been repeating this? So why is this not really working?
It's all about people. And people are different. Equally worth, but different.
By teaching all the best techniques that would allow someone to spring 2.5 meters high, creating the awareness that it is possible to spring 2.5 meters high, and organizing courses and workshops to train you to spring, will not make you spring 2.5 meters high, if you are not made for it.
Telling people that they will have better results by taking smart risks, will not make them taking such decisions "at risk" if they are not made for it. You will increase the awareness of the concept and its acceptance, you will make people thinking about it, you will inspire and push those who need a kick to do what they can already do, but you will not make anyone jumping 2.5 meters high if he is not meant to be.
In order to take decisions without having all the information available one very important thing you need is a skill that cannot be taught. You need the capacity to assess correlations and probability on the outcome of future steps, and their impact. The further you can assess such correlations, the more you will be able to take decisions without having all the information available. This is not a skill that can be learnt or acquired from zero. This is a skill that we are born with, or we are not. For those of you who are familiar with MBTI personality types, in order to be able and willing to successfully take decisions without all the information available, you need to be a "N", an intuitive type (or a kamikaze...but than the probability of a positive outcome are reduced...). This is a necessary, even if not sufficient, skill. You simply cannot ask and expect "S" types, sensors, to be doing it with high chances of success. It is like asking someone with blue eyes to have brown eyes. He cannot do it, he cannot simply decide to have brown eyes just because he wants to, he cannot learn to have brown eyes. You cannot ask someone to sing like Maria Callas if he is not made for it. Even after 30 years of singing lessons (but I am sure there will be something else he will do better than Maria Callas...so let him do that instead...).
Being a "N" is not a sufficient, but it is a necessary condition to decide without having all the information available, and have a high chance of success.
Assessing the probability that something happens and take decisions based on the assessed probability, taking the risk that it happens differently, knowing that on a portfolio of several projects, and on a sequence of several "risk taking decisions", the overall (on the entire portfolio) chances of final success will be much higher than by taking "safer" decisions every single time. Even if it cannot be proven upfront...and not before a long time (years before each project is successfully, or not, finished)
Let's stop asking people to be what they are not, let's stop to expect from them what we want them to be, rather than what they are, but let's value their uniqueness. And use it the best way.
So the diagnosis of the "decision making" problem is correct, we need to be able to take more decisions without having the full information available, but the solution of the problem is only to have those people who can do it in the position and with the authority to be able to do it.
People's value lies in their uniqueness, not in the fact that we are all the same. Our worth is the same, but our individual skills dictate what we can do, and no management workshop will make someone who is not made for vision to become visionary.
That's why, despite awareness of the "problem" things do not change, or not fast enough. Because we do not implement the right solution. And we keep believing it is just a matter of time and teaching. It is not. You cannot teach someone to be a "N" if he is an "S". He will never be. But social and cultural barriers prevent the implementation of the solution simply bcause it is today socially and politically correct unacceptable to say to a manager "you are great, you have many skills, but keeping you in this position is a lose-lose situation, for you, because you cannot truly be who you are but need to pretend to be what you are not, for your employees, because they will constantly be asked to implement the wrong strategy and on mid term they will get not only frustrated but also will increase their chance to loose their job, and for the company, because it will, on a long term, most likely fail".
Learn to put those people you want to be able to take smart risks in those positions where they have the authority to take smart risks. Not those that seems experienced or that have been loyal and waiting for long enough, but those who are made for it That's the only way, even if it seems to be a difficult concept to swallow. It comes down to one simple decision: is the person in the position requiring taking smart risk an "N"? If yes, you can go on searching for next necessary skill. If not, you need to chose it you want to replace the person, or accept that decisions with smart risk will never be taken.
It is like correlating the response to a drug to a specific phenotype, it is like personalized medicine. Only like that you can get the best outcome. If that is what you want. Time for genetically personalized psychology...