Management

In Nepal, it is as important to learn ways to avoid making decisions as it is to learn ways of decision-making in developed countries. The more you make a decision, the more likely that you are in a trouble. Everyone will be after you asking for clarifications as to why you dared to make changes.

You may be confused with decision delaying with decision avoiding. Delaying is rather a passive and negative approach like our government is known for. Delaying only increases your workload. It does not have the positive and active impact of decision avoiding.

An effective administrator or a good manager will not be sitting back simply delaying decisions. He will be on his feet where decisions are asked for. But he will not simply avoid them. Rather, he will keep initiative in his hands and will not allow "decision-by-mistake".

Though the ultimate result may be the same, the approach is very different. An effective manager will stand out by his approach. He will not delay the decision –thus increasing his workload for tomorrow since the problems is likely to be brought up again. He will avoid the decision once and for all. Therefore, if you can avoid decision making, don’t delay it.

Even where it is impossible to avoid decision and the alternative is to delay it, the active manager will counsel a deliberate delay instead of delay by being too busy, putting the problem at the bottom of the pending pile, going on tour - and if all these fail - falling sick.

The first step to decision–avoiding is to determine whether we should avoid the decision by ourselves or ‘’pass the buck on’. Obviously, if you can get somebody else to do it, don’t avoid it yourself. Form a committee to review the problem. This is a most popular method as government authorities and political parties have patronized it very widely. See in the case of Dhamija scandal or
Madan-Ashrit death case. More recent example is provided by the 10% service charge issue of hotel unions. But it is by no means monopoly of government authorities. Nepali private sectors also has found this method very useful for decision - avoiding.

As a committee of three may suddenly come up with a decision, make the committee as large as possible, not less than eight or nine, like HMG did in the recent case of 10% service charge issue– resolving committee. A research has proved that committees with membership of nine and above rarely reach any significant decision. Have our previous committees formed for this or that purpose been able to come out with any solution ? No.

If the committee members are geographically as far as possible, it is the better. Thanks to technological advances, the world is said to be turning into a global village. But not so in Nepal's case. In more recent times, geographical distance has been a very effective deterrent to committee meetings. There are frequent bandha and chakka-jam programs. After six p.m. one can not expect to be outdoors as the government is unable to provide security even to its ministers. Poor public has no choice.

Similarly, the committee should consist at least two members who have a previous record of proven hostility or at least dominating attitude. For example, Binod Chaudhary and Padma Jyoti–put them both in the same committee, and you can be sure that you have permanently avoided making a decision. Same will be the outcome with these duos : Allen Tuladhar and Sanjib Raj Bhandary, Pradeep Kumar Shrestha and Rajesh Kaji Shrestha. Such ideal combinations can be found in plenty.

Even after doing all these, if the committee does not come out with the expected result, seek a consultant and make his terms ambiguous enough. You can also help the consultant in providing inputs so as to divert the mind of the concerned people from the real problem. You know the theory of three ‘C’s, i.e. convince, corrupt and confuse. His report will create enough confusion and the original problem will be lost, and the threat of making a decision will vanish forever.

Avoiding Making Decisions

By Madan Lamsal