“I can do whatever I want." This is the message that we sometimes get from people in a position of authority. They may or may not come right out and say it, but one way or another we all inevitably come up against a leader who has a fixed mindset on a decision, and there is no chance or opening to change their mind. They do whatever they want because they can. I can give examples, but let's keep it general for the sake of discretion.

The real question is whether or not there is a critical ongoing analysis of the consequences of these decisions? Are these leaders getting what they actually want? Are they giving the people they are leading what they need? Is there a feedback mechanism to keep these leaders accountable to the decisions they have made? In many organizations the answers to all of these questions is an unfortunate “no.”

I can do whatever I want, too!

The leadership needs to understand that they are not the only ones who can do whatever they want. Everyone can also do whatever they want. I know what you’re probably thinking: “No, they can’t, there are decisions that leaders make that not everyone can make.” You also may be thinking, “Yes, maybe they can throw a tantrum and make themselves look bad, but that’s not a good look.” You’re right about those points, but that’s not what I mean.

"Everyone can do whatever they want" means people can either leave for a different organization or—perhaps worse—stay in their current one without reaching their full potential, harming both themselves and the organization. How many organizations have lost talented people, only to blame those who left instead of examining what drove them away? How many organizations treat institutional apathy as normal, choosing to blame individuals for "not caring enough" rather than fixing the broken system?

<aside> 💡

Who Are You?

You might be a frontline worker feeling frustrated with top-down decisions that impact your daily work. Perhaps you're a middle manager trying to balance the expectations from above with the realities on the ground. Or maybe you're an executive grappling with complex organizational decisions that affect hundreds or thousands of people.

Regardless of your position, you have agency. You have the power to make choices about how you respond to and work within the system. Understanding this is crucial for both personal growth and organizational effectiveness.

Whether you're reading this as a frontline worker, middle manager, or top-tier executive, understanding decision-making frameworks benefits everyone. This isn't about pointing fingers - it's about recognizing how decisions are made, how they can be improved, and how to navigate effectively within any organizational structure, regardless of your position or the quality of decisions being made around you.

</aside>

Understanding Decision-Making Frameworks

To help us analyze organizational decision-making we can use Aristotle's concept of telos (purpose or end goal) in deliberative rhetoric, where he identified four fundamental frameworks that shape how decisions are made:

Citation: Kennedy, George A. (2007). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

<aside> 💡

Telos (τέλος)

Telos refers to the desired end, purpose, or goal. In deliberative rhetoric and philosophy it represents the ultimate purpose or final end toward which one is directed.

</aside>

Everyone Does Whatever They Want

The brilliant thing about what Aristotle is saying is that you can’t change what people want. You cannot convince King George III to make a decision based on a telos of freedom, since his primary desired end is always going to be a telos of self-preservation. You cannot convince philosopher Baruch Spinoza to make a decision based on a telos of wealth, since his primary desired end is always going to be a telos of education.

<aside> 💡

Which Telos is Which

In addition to clarifying for yourself at any given moment what your primary telos may be, it is even more important to identify the primary telos for whoever it is that you are trying to convince to do something.

</aside>

<aside> 💪🏾

Telos of Self-Preservation

• Benefit: Strong central leadership can provide clear direction by establishing clear organizational values, culture, and priorities. Positive example: During a complex merger, leadership successfully unified diverse organizational cultures under a shared vision.
• Limitation: Self-preservation can lead to excessive caution and resistance to necessary change. Problem example: An organization continues using outdated systems despite clear evidence that modernization is needed, simply because “this is the way we have always done it.” </aside>

<aside> 🎓

Telos of Education

• Benefit: An education-focused approach ensures decisions are well-informed and consider multiple perspectives. Positive example: Before implementing a new policy, leadership conducts thorough research and consults with all stakeholders to understand potential impacts.
• Limitation: An overly theoretical approach that lacks practical application will fail to address diverse perspectives, which can lead to initiatives that don’t translate effectively in real-world situations. Problem example: A critical decision is delayed for months because the organization keeps seeking more information and further analysis paralysis. </aside>

<aside> 🇱🇷

Telos of Freedom

• Benefit: Democratic systems prioritize individual choice and autonomy as the highest value, allowing people to make their own decisions without excessive control or restrictions. Positive example: Team members independently develop and implement solutions to local problems without waiting for top-down approval.
• Limitation: Excessive freedom can lead to chaos and lack of coordination across the organization. Problem example: Different departments create conflicting policies because each is acting independently without considering the broader impact. </aside>

<aside> 💲

Telos of Wealth

• Benefit: Focus on wealth creation ensures decisions are oriented toward tangible outcomes and measurable success. Positive example: A program is evaluated based on clear metrics of financial return on investment for all stakeholders.
• Limitation: Overemphasis on wealth can lead to short-sighted decisions that overlook important intangible factors. Problem example: An organization cuts essential support services to meet immediate targets, damaging long-term organizational effectiveness. </aside>

The key challenge in organizational decision-making isn't just understanding these frameworks, but recognizing when to apply each one. Decision-makers often default to their preferred framework, even when another approach might be more appropriate.

For instance, a purely authority-based approach to solving a technical problem might fail where a logic-based framework would succeed. Similarly, applying strictly financial criteria to all decisions, might overlook crucial factors better addressed through a freedom-based lens.

Practical Implementation