Cooperation,
collaboration and consensus are part of NetApp’s culture. Partly we feel that it
makes for a better work environment, but also that it leads to better decisions
and better alignment. However, consensus can lead to paralysis if carried too far. Simply giving one person ownership for a decision – they can do
whatever they want – would certainly be much faster. How do you balance between
these two extremes? What does it mean to be the “owner” of a decision?
Dan, our CEO, has very strong views on culture, so a few years ago, when I
was struggling with these issues as a manager, I asked his advice on what it
means to delegate the ownership of a decision to someone. He said:
When I delegate a decision, I want the owner to identify the key
stakeholders, and bring them to a consensus on the right plan, if possible. If
they fail, then bring the decision back to me, probably at my staff meeting. (I
am sometimes a key stakeholder, so don’t forget about me when driving to
consensus!)
The trickiest issue
here defining consensus. Even when people have rough agreement, they may differ
slightly on details. Does consensus mean 100% agreement? If not, who determines
whether consensus has been reached? What does it mean to “own” a decision if
you still have to reach consensus?
I asked Dan all of
these questions, and he said:
If the owner and key stakeholders cannot reach agreement, then I’d like
them to bring the decision back to me, generally at my staff meeting, and
preferably in the form of different recommendations to choose from.
But everyone should be aware that I have a strong bias to accept the
owner’s recommendation. This bias helps to define consensus.
Consensus doesn’t mean that you agree 100% with the owner. It means that
you believe the owners plan is fundamentally broken, and you want to try to
convince me of that, despite my bias to accept the owner’s recommendation. I am
not interested in arguments that “the owner’s plan is good, but mine is
better.” Go convince the owner.
On the other hand, decision owners better be careful about ignoring
input from key stakeholders, because if a stakeholder thinks a plan is really
busted, then I do want to hear about that!
I love this
definition, because it describes consensus operationally, instead of getting
bogged down in theoretical philosophy. If you are a stakeholder trying to
decide whether to withhold consensus, consider whether your case is so strong
that you want to argue it in front of Dan’s staff. (And remember, Dan’s bias is
with the owner!) But if you are an owner, and a key stakeholder is objecting,
consider whether your case is so strong that you want to argue it in front of
Dan. Maybe you should work harder to accommodate the stakeholder’s concern and
reach consensus. I bet your plan will be stronger for it.
As near as I can tell, this is Dan's ownership model for pretty much everything. I can't think of many decisions where Dan has told the owner, “You can do whatever you want, and I’ll just support it.” On the other hand, for many areas it is very clear who the owner is, and unless people think there is a serious, serious issue with the owner’s plan, they unlikely to withhold consent.
I’m using Dan and his staff as an example, but obviously, managers who own a decision can apply this model recursively to their own staff, as they delegate further down.


trickiest game, played according to situations.winner will be the person who will take all the inputs and make strategy.
Posted by: prashanth | October 18, 2007 at 09:20 PM
The thing about consensus is that it stops once the actual decision is made. To "own" a decision means you're the guy held 100% accountable for the outcome of that decision (hero or goat). The other influencers' jobs or reputations aren't on the line - the owner's is. I suspect that's why Dan bias is with the "owner" (he can fire a goat with a clear conscience :-D). TM
Posted by: TM | October 22, 2007 at 06:31 AM
"Own" used to be a nice word, like "gay"
Posted by: rick multiformpaper | November 14, 2007 at 07:42 AM
This should be a Netapp internal topic. To outsiders like me, not matter who owns the decission, it's Netapp's decission.
Posted by: Shibin Zhang | November 25, 2007 at 10:51 PM
This should be a Netapp internal topic. To outsiders like me, not matter who owns the decission, it's Netapp's decission.
Posted by: usome | November 26, 2007 at 12:01 AM