New Paragraph

Why are some organizations reverting back to "Centralized Decision-Making"?
January 10, 2019

I distinctly recall the decision-making model of the 1970’s in my para-military organization being very hierarchal. Shift supervisors had specific authorities bestowed upon them based on set policies. Anything above their pay-grade went to a higher-level manager for a decision, and then on and on up the food chain from there. Although our binders of written policy were prefaced with the caveat that they were “only a guide”, the reality was that if you couldn’t find the answer to your question within that policy while pondering a decision-making dilemma, you had better contact someone with more stripes, pips or crowns on their shoulder-boards. God help anyone who had the nerve to make a decision contrary to what was etched in policy and/or outside their policy-driven span of control. The grey areas were few and far between!


I don’t know that it was an overly onerous model at that time frankly, it’s just the way it was. We didn’t know any different. However, there were less external oversight bodies; no 24-hour live news or social media pressures; and less public scrutiny. So even if you couldn’t contact the appropriate manager by telephone immediately, they wouldn’t likely hear about the incident or be questioned about it before you told them anyway. That was then.


In the two decades to follow, for the most part the benchmark for decision-making was pushed down to the lowest possible level. Lower-level managers were given much more control over their allotted budgets; there was less second-guessing of local operational decisions; and mid/senior level managers were allowed much more latitude to select/promote people for vacancies within their areas of command. “Some” so-called leaders still tended to micro-manage within their areas because it was the nature of the individual, not because it was an organizational ethos. Certainly, some managers took advantage of the situation and improperly made the odd decision without considering the broader organizational impacts, but for the most part those individuals were taken to task.


But a large number of supervisors and managers I meet with in my work tell me that many organizations of 2019 have shifted back to a more centralized model, negatively impacting morale and ultimately hurting the self-confidence of those managers and their trust in the executives of those organizations.


Some claim that they have little to no decision-making ability and that almost all decisions are made centrally, and that local manager input is largely disregarded. This obviously creates a feeling of malaise among those managers and much frustration across the majority of employees who are continually waiting for a seemingly routine decision to be made by “someone, or anyone”. When a decision from the centre does come, particularly when it is totally contrary to the locally suggested course of action, irritation abounds, particularly when there is no rationale communicated as to the “why”.


We all know managers that were so reluctant to make a decision out of fear that an error could cost them future promotions, that were never promoted because they couldn’t make a decision. As a rule, executives should limit the amount of decision-making required by them and drive as many decisions down as safely and reasonably as possible. We need to encourage innovation and some level of risk-taking within broadly established parameters.


We’ve also experienced good managers who were actually effective decision-makers until they had to report to a micro-manager executive that ineptly questioned them non-stop until they lost self-confidence and similarly second-guessed their subordinates ad nauseam. 


Downstream from these examples, managers, supervisors and many employees often threw their hands up in despair, developing the “why even bother” attitude. This did nothing to develop employees or build employee trust. They lost interest as well as complete confidence in those above them, and their morale deteriorated. And we all know what happens when morale goes bad: people go bad and bad things happen.


In my view, there is a clear need for centralized decision-making in some circumstances:


·  Low-frequency matters that bring a significant level of risk to the organization, from financial, legal and/or precedent-setting perspectives. Examples being: broad bargaining group issues that will result in high-risk labor relation conflict; and civil liability matters that may establish unworkable standards and financial loss.

·  Issues that will broadly impact the organization, as opposed to an individual area. Example: High-profile actions that may cast a negative light over the organization; and issues that will affect operations/administration in multiple areas of the organization.


It’s a given that on occasion, circumstances and the need for expediency will require immediate decisions on a local level. When that happens in circumstances as described above, then the need for a speedy notification up the executive chain is essential. Effective communication and required damage control – if any, can then occur.


Effective leaders will:

·  Set decision-making boundaries based on reasonable organizational needs, balancing them with efficiency and expediency realities;

·  Ensure executive-level decisions and the rational for them are properly communicated to subordinate managers to them not only understand the decisions but to further develop their decision-making expertise;

·  Include discussion around the need for consistent decision-making at managerial and supervisory meetings to encourage regular off-line dialogue between managers and supervisors;

·  Encourage managers, supervisors and front-line employees to be innovative, flexible and take some calculated risk in their decision-making roles; and

·  Provide positive feedback on the good decisions and debrief the poor ones with those involved – always recognizing the difference between honest attempts, complete thoughtlessness and malice.


We generally hire smart people and promote capable folks. More often than not, doing the right thing for the right reason is a part of who they are. Wherever possible, allow them the opportunity to prove that.

The worst boss: Nightmare for some, reality for many

By Chris Lewis • June 21, 2025
Image: new-manager-training.com Imagine this scenario if you will, getting the worst boss on earth – a person who is the total antithesis of leadership. Your new “Boss” replaces a leader that wasn’t always right and was getting too old to meet the mental and physical demands of the job, but at the same time treated all those around him with respect. He tried to select people for key positions based on their experience base and his confidence that they may not always agree but the individuals picked would be honest with him, other employees and the client base. He undoubtedly made mistakes here and there and did have some flaws but would readily admit to most of them. This boss comes back to the organization having committed a list of publicly confirmed misdeeds and illegal acts – many of which would have singularly been a good reason to not hire even the lowest level of employee, and justification for imprisonment for others. However, he was chosen for the top job despite all that baggage. Conversely, he brings not one redeeming quality to the top position. From day one, it’s obvious that the new Boss is truly a “boss” and not a “leader.” He has old personal scores to settle and wreaks revenge on many employees that he doesn’t like. Not because they were dishonest, incapable or lazy, but because he perceives that they didn’t want him to return or didn’t always agree with his philosophies and rash actions during past affiliations. This activity causes panic among all employees who know they have no choice but to get aboard his out-of-control train or perish beneath it. Then – without any deep evaluation or thought, he makes tremendous cuts to many organizational programs – leaving thousands without work and lacking any strategy to provide much needed services to a vast array of client groups. He viciously cuts through the organization like a chainsaw through softwood. Why? Because he can. Some of these decisions may have had some degree of validity following a proper assessment, while others not, but that analysis never occurred. Most previous positive relationships with partner agencies and the majority of client groups are immediately scuttled by the new boss. He publicly demeans and taunts longtime allies with irrational statements and outright falsehoods. Never in the many decades of history of the organization has such broad-ranging international indignation been felt, largely as a result of his childish behavior. Very few productive relationships remain and although some new ones are developed, they are only with organizations that are poorly considered by clients and upstanding industry players. His decisions continually fly in the face of the needs of the immense client group but more align with the personal business interests of only the Boss and his business associates – some of whom are either known despots or of questionable character. Company stocks continue to plummet as a result of his silliness. That also has a significant negative impact on the fiscal picture of partner organizations around the world. Anyone that respectfully expresses disagreement or suggests alternative decisions to the Boss, are sidelined or fired, then are ridiculed and until they become unemployable. Gas-lighting, exaggerations, denials, the passing of blame and blatant lies are his norm. He seldom speaks the truth about anyone or any situation. The sycophants he has positioned to assist in his destruction of the organization, publicly praise him for his leadership and courageous decision-making, when the majority of employees and clients know it is just flagrant butt-kissing on their part. He constantly seeks and demands praise, even for things he didn’t do, then sulks and whines when he doesn’t receive it. He falsely takes credit for the few good things that do happen but quickly passes blame when things that have his fingerprints all over them, go horribly wrong. His God-complex is resounding and worsens with each passing day. His public claims of success – before and since becoming the Boss, and assertions of being the “Greatest Boss in history”, fall flat with anyone that truly knows him. He aggressively takes advantage of anyone he can but then turns on them at the flip of a switch. No one is beyond being found at the pointy end of his meanness stick. When caught making an error, he’ll blame everyone on his “team” before accepting any criticism. In fact, he’d turn on his own children if he felt it would make him look brave or heroic, or if it would prevent him from public humiliation. He states his 24/7 lies over and over so often to make his base of lemming followers believe him, that he seemingly believes them to be factual himself. Even when he is confronted with witness testimony or audio/video of his brazen lies, he blames others for being out to get him. Being accountable when things go wrong and letting the light shine on others when they go well, is beyond his comprehension. (Can you spell “narcissistic”?) Although he doesn’t understand the business, he refuses to surround himself with people that do, given that he thinks he knows more than any of them and possibly more than anybody, anywhere, ever, since the dawn of time. Public statements he makes are often completely ridiculous and childish, causing all those around him to force plastic smiles, offer him undeserved praise and nod like pre-programmed bobbleheads. People and even affiliated organizations live in such fear of his thirst for retribution that they either cow-tow to his insanity or prepare for annihilation. He is an embarrassment internally and externally, on an international scale. No past executive has even been so blatantly self-centered, mean spirited and/or inept, nor have they ever had such a negative impact on the organization and its people. It may take decades to repair all the damage he has done. Thankfully, his employment contract is only for four years, so there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Most of those within and those reliant on the organization, as well as friends, associates, allies internationally pray that this nightmare will end at that time. If it’s not too late, that is. Just a bad dream for some or a reality for millions of us?

What did the PM’s most recent announcement on border security really mean?

By Chris Lewis • February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?

What police don’t need during a crisis

By Chris Lewis • January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.