by Eddie Pipkin

Image by Nils from Pixabay

If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you may have picked up two things about me.  One, I am blind as a bat.  Two, I play pickleball.  (I know, me and every other old dude.)  The overlap of these two truths means that when I am engaged in an intense pickleball session with my regular partner, there are times when a ball may or not be out of bounds, and while I most always have an opinion, I don’t feel confident being the decider, so I let my better-visioned pal make the call.  There’s just one challenge with such a strategy: if you defer to someone else when it comes to making a decision, you have an obligation to abide by the call they make.  That’s true on court, and it’s true in ministry.

In the case of my weekly pickleball session, I feel comfortable letting my longtime partner make the questionable calls.  I defer to his better eyesight and closer position – I still make the calls close to me, but the ones on his side of the court are his agreed-upon purview.  For one thing, this neutralizes the constant arguing over close calls.  We have a process, and we honor the process.  If it’s close, and it’s on his side of the court, he makes the call.  I know him, and I know he is a person of integrity, and because I have entrusted him with this task that is essential to the game, I know he takes it seriously.  If he’s not sure, he says so, and we replay the point.

However, this idea of entrusting someone else with making the call only works if we stick with it.  If we tell a person we are going to let them make the call, and then we second-guess them at every turn or override them on a regular basis or insert ourselves into every minute step of their decision making process, blatantly attempting to influence the outcome, we ruin the productive effects of this plan of action.

There is a freedom and a power in letting someone else make a call that you are entitled to make.

By giving up our authority in the matter, we have a chance to enjoy an exercise in humility:

  • We can practice letting go.

As a practical exercise in ego management and team empowerment, there is no better tactic than giving up some of our decision making.  There are many characteristics of leadership that we can laud as abstract principles, but sharing the decision making is a clear, practical expression of how deeply we believe in those principles of shared management.

  • We can release the burden of everything having to depend on us all the time.

It is refreshing to let the responsibility of a decision go.  This is not a strategy for rare crucial calls that only you can make, but it’s a strategy for things that can be decided without life-or-death consequences.  (Of course, the fundamental struggle has always been knowing what’s life-and-death and what’s not.  Too many of us hold on so tightly to everything, always that the question becomes moot.)  It’s unnecessarily stressful to put all that pressure on ourselves when someone else can share the load.

  • We can show our investment in trusting others.

By letting someone else share the load, not only do we relieve some of our self-imposed stress, but we prove that we have faith in others to make decisions and lead.  By empowering other leaders, we make the institution we serve stronger.  If we claim to have faith in others’ abilities, but we never let them make the call, they know, and everybody knows, that we don’t really mean it.

  • We can demonstrate flexibility and resilience.

Since a call made by someone else will inevitably be different at least once in a while than the call we would have made ourselves, by rolling with the alternative proposal and getting behind it with enthusiasm, we prove that we can be flexible in our approach and resilient in pushing through uncomfortable circumstances.

  • We can show that we are serious about a diversity of perspectives.

Allowing someone else to make the call doesn’t mean that we are guaranteed that person will see things exactly the way we see things (or in common parlance, that they will “get it right”).  Allowing someone else to be the decider, while we are fully aware that they view the world through different angles than we view the world, means that really do value different perspectives and expressions of leadership.  Healthy organizations encourage such diversity, but if we publicize our commitment to diverse viewpoints, but always take over when it’s decision time, everyone will know we are just faking it.

  • We can embrace peace over conflict.

Letting someone else make the final call, especially in times of great tension and moments in which we may be too close to a situation to be impartial, means we are making a bold and brave commitment to embrace peace, compromise, and comity.  If we are fundamentally right about a specific point, but by insisting on our rightness we alienate many partners, we undermine our stated vision by displaying inflexible insistence.

  • We can focus on what is most important.

As noted above, stepping back can serve the larger vision.  It also can free us up from things we’re not passionate about and give us more time to concentrate on the things that energize and excite us.  And shouldn’t we really be leaving the decisions about a big topic to the people who are most passionately invested in that topic anyway?

Argue these points if you like.  I’m not saying it’s easy, and I’m not saying the outcome is always optimal.  There may be specific incidents in which mistakes are made, but overall, in the long run, much will be revealed and achieved if you trust that there are more important things than getting every little decision right every single time (and having that attitude in the first place is based on the outrageously egotistical assumption that you will in fact be a person who is so brilliant and talented that you get every single decision right).

Sometimes I am certain that my playing partner gets the call wrong.  To my eyes, the ball is clearly, indisputably OUT.  We all miss a call on occasion.

Depending on how the game is unfolding, even if I am very confident he has the call wrong, I’ll accede to his decision and play on.  (This happens most often, of course, when I am well ahead in the game, although sometimes I will just accept the perceived injustice and move along, since referees and leaders sometimes do make bad calls, and every good team member knows the most productive strategy is to “play on” and “play through” and not let the grievance hijack our head space.)  If the game is on the line though, and I legitimately think he has erred, I’ll say so, and we’ll replay the point.  That’s our process.  In other areas of life, it’s also good to have such a process.  It’s a safety valve when the stakes are high.  But it only is useful if it is used sparingly.

One caveat to this strategy of letting someone else make meaningful decisions is that you do have to have trust in that person.  They can’t be someone who is notorious for making bad decisions or selfish decisions.  They can be someone with whom you have had some form enmity, and the gesture of trusting them in a practical way can be a crucial part of the healing process, but this only works if they are in alignment with your goals (which should be the organizational goals) and if they are a sincere and thoughtful partner.

Have you made it a part of your leadership strategy and relationship building to share decision making, to let someone else “make the call”?  Do you remember a time when someone else has boosted your confidence by showing such faith in you?  What is the hardest part about handing the reins of decision making to another driver?  What are benefits that you can see from doing this in your own organization?  Share your stories and questions in the comments.