I started some automation testing for a client last week, and it was quite fun! I ended up being two minutes late to a meeting because I was so engrossed in figuring out how to make it work.
I had mapped out the current state process previously. I picked a section out of the process map to automate because it would have the greatest impact. I wrote out the sequence I wanted to do the automation steps so I could just chunk through them one by one, then got down to work.
Setup on n8n was easy. I played around with a tutorial for a bit to get the hang of it, then started implementing the client process.
By the time I get to the second step (after accidentally executing the process and sending 78 emails to myself and another user), I asked myself - what would the process look like if I changed the assumptions underlying the current design? There was some PDF manipulation involved; what if we killed that by designing the process in such a way that PDF manipulation wasn’t required?
The experience reminded me of the Drucker quote:
“There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.”
I’d been so fixated on automating what was in front of my face, it took me a few minutes to question whether I should be doing any of this at all.
The answer was that I probably shouldn’t. I was going to improve the efficiency of something that doesn’t need to be done at all.
By the way, this was really hard as someone who loves tech, wants to learn, and was having a lot of fun building the automation.
I sketched out what a better underlying process could look like. From there I did some research and discovered there’s software that will achieve this process outcome. It’s much more integrated, has fewer steps, is faster to implement, and doesn’t require ongoing maintenance by me. It’s a much simpler and more elegant solution. Beautiful, even 🙂
So I did two things: 1 - Stopped the automation, and am going down this software integration path instead of custom automation. 2 - Interviewed staff to find other automation opportunities.
I even brainstormed some automation opportunities in my own business. Because I definitely want to get something running on n8n 😁
Have you ever done something efficiently, only to realize it shouldn’t be done at all?
Kevin
A Quote
“
Contemplating the weaknesses of others is easy; contemplating the weaknesses in yourself is hard but it pays a much higher reward.
— Kevin Kelly in "Excellent Advice for Living"
Three Things
1 - 📘 The Way and the Power by Fredrick J. Lovret I read this book back in 2023, but it resurfaced recently and I shared it with my son. It’s a combination of Japanese history, martial arts strategy, and philosophy. It translates Bushido into crisp, actionable principles: clarity of intent, economy of motion, respect for risk. It looks through samurai history to expose the timeless mechanics of winning.
3 - ✈️ Learning the Miles/Points Game with Chris Hutchins I am decidedly NOT a credit card points person, but I would like to learn.This podcast with Chris Hutchins was really helpful in getting me to be a little more savvy in this world. I won’t be buying gold bars from Costco to arbitrage just yet, but it’s helpful to know the levels that exist.
(enjoy this 3️⃣ minute read)
Deep Dive on Decision Rights
Have you ever seen (or been!) an exasperated parent telling their child, “Because I said so!”
Have you ever worked with someone who couldn’t make a decision unless they went through weeks of 10-person Zoom calls, multiple requests for more information, and a group hug?
Both approaches work - if they’re applied in the correct circumstance. But most leaders approach decisions with a single default style, no matter the situation.
If a leader tries a “because I said so” approach during a cultural transformation - or a group hug approach during a security incident - bad things happen.
Your change program stalls, your customers churn, and your team throws up their hands in frustration.
Today I’ll unpack seven decision rights - from lone wolf to company-wide consensus - so you know which one to use, and when, to be your most effective.
"Let's keep doing this until I figure out what to decide."
Introducing the Rights
The seven rights, ranked from fastest to slowest, are:
1️⃣ Leader: The leader alone makes a decision without getting input.
2️⃣ Leader with Input: The leader makes the decision, but gets input from those around them.
3️⃣ Sub-Group: A small team decides (think jury deliberation).
4️⃣ Sub-Group with Input: A small team decides, but gets input from others.
5️⃣ Majority: Everyone shares a view, then votes.
6️⃣ Consensus: Everyone is involved, and a decision is achieved when there is no opposition.
7️⃣ Alignment: Same as consensus, but this time, everyone is actively for the decision.
How much time do you have?
Time is the biggest constraint and must be evaluated first.
If you’re in the middle of a security incident, there’s not much time. You’ve got to decide, and decide now! Typically you’d choose “leader” or “leader with input” (and set the input time to something quick).
If you’re deciding on a family vacation next year, you might go all the way to “alignment.” You want everyone in the family to be stoked about where you’re headed.
The time available to make the decision sets your upper bound.
If you’ve got one week to make a decision, sub-group with input will likely be your upper bound. That’s not enough time to coordinate a majority decision, so that option is unavailable to you.
With sub-group with input as your upper bound, you also have the option to choose sub-group, leader with input, or leader.
Before selecting one from that list you should consider how much buy-in is required.
How much buy-in do you need?
As you ascend the decision rights, the level of buy-in increases among the groups affected by the decision.
Going back to the vacation example, if one parent chooses to go visit the world’s largest ball of twine because it’s been a lifelong dream, don’t expect the rest of the family to be happy about it.
If you’re undergoing large-scale change management, you’ll get a lot more buy-in by choosing sub-group with input than you’d get on leader with input.
So what’s the recipe? 1 - Set your ceiling → Which rights fit inside the clock? 2 - Pick your floor → Which of those wins the buy-in you need?
Done!
Bucket list? Checked off.
Be Explicit
Nothing pumps the brakes for a team faster than invisible decision rights. When no one knows who decides - or how - guesswork sparks resentment and rework.
Save your team by explicitly declaring which decision right you’re using before the work begins.
For example, if you’re going to decide on a new direction for your website positioning, you could say:
“Here are my thoughts on the new language for our website. Please review and send me your thoughts by five o’clock on Friday. I’ll decide the final direction and update the site over the weekend.”
Notice that you can be clear without using the jargon - this is “leader with input,” without saying so.
It’s also perfectly fine to use the decision rights language. Try this template:
“Team, for [Topic] we’ll use [Decision Right]. Please [Action] by [Deadline]; then I’ll [Next Step].”
Say it out loud, even if it feels awkward. Clarity compounds, and soon your team will thank you for getting rid of the guesswork.
Call to Action
Think about one decision on your plate this week. Does everyone affected know who will be deciding, and how? If not, that’s risk.
Use the recipe of time and buy-in to select the appropriate decision right. Then use the template sentence to communicate your approach to your team.
Do this consistently and watch velocity rise. Morale, too!
Group hugs? Still allowed, but save it for the celebration, not the decision. 😁
Kevin
PS - Hit reply and tell me: Which decision right are you trying this week, and what’s the topic?
