Content versus Process in Decision Making

Content versus Process

"Content" vs. "process" is a filter that can be applied to almost any decision or action in life. Content (or "task") refers to the domain of the decision or action - what is being decided or accomplished. Content answers the question "what?" The content of a piece of legislation is what the law is about, what behaviors it seeks to shape or limit (e.g., paying taxes, funding projects, benefits for veterans, etc). The content of a business decision may be to improve quality, cut costs, gain market share, etc. The content of a personal decision may be to sell one's house, take a vacation, or get married.

Process refers to how that action or decision is made. It answers the question "how?" A decision can be made unilaterally or with extensive participation of all stakeholders involved. The decision (its content) remains the same. But the same decision can be made in different ways. It can be made by consensus, or perhaps by default (e.g., if a deadline elapses without action, or if no action is taken). An action can be taken quickly or slowly, deliberately or inadvertently.

You may be wondering, what difference does it make? "It's still the same action or decision." Well, yes and no. An action has consequences, and those may be the same no matter how the decision was reached. A law goes into effect. A house gets sold or a tenant evicted. One vendor is selected over another. But decisions have other effects, and sometimes these effects - and here we are thinking primarily of effects on people - are not inevitable. The way a decision or action is taken can have different effects or secondary outcomes.

Perhaps the most overlooked instance of this occurs around participatory decision making. A decision made unilaterally, without input from those who must implement it or the people it will impact, changes the way others perceive the decision maker. It affects their levels of trust, and their beliefs about whether or not the decision maker cares about them. The decision at hand may still get implemented, but it may be embraced only passively, or upheld only as long as the decision maker is monitoring the situation. People may seek ways to subvert or sabotage the decision. And future decisions may be opposed not because people object to the "content" of the decisions themselves, but in part because of their negative history or leftover "baggage" with the decision maker.

Leaders sometimes forget they have power due to their position in a hierarchy. So when they introduce an idea, and then solicit people's input on a decision, they may be unaware of a subtle element of coercion they have introduced into the process by going on record early with their opinion. Wise leaders frame an issue in neutral terms, and refrain from tipping their hand too early. If you ask, "How can we cut the cost of our sales," you communicate that what you are really interested in hearing is ideas about how to cut costs. If you ask, "How can we increase the profitability of our sales," you may get a wider range of solutions, some of which will address cost cutting, but some of which may address increasing the revenue amount or quality of sales.

This last example illustrates that another way of analyzing a decision-making process is to look at whether it was made using a divergent process or a convergent one. I.e., were many options considered, or was influence brought to bear that had the effect of limiting the choice of alternatives considered? Decision-making processes may be constrained or attenuated due to time pressures, the imposition of a preferred solution by a powerful stakeholder, or simply by the failure of participants in the process to challenge their own assumptions or lift their blinders.

A final lesson one can learn by applying this "content vs. process" filter is to understand that "process IS content." What do I mean by that? I mean that the way we make decisions or take an action teaches (i.e., it carries a message that has “content”). It communicates our assumptions and values about people, their ideas, and their right to shape their own lives. It has force of precedence, i.e., it may establish or reinforce a pattern that can affect the way future decisions will be made. The process by which a decision was made can create or shape expectations about how future decisions may or will be made. And it alters relationships among people, and has the potential to either enhance or undermine mutual respect and trust.