Empirically, it works. It has been mentioned in many places. But the false semi-god of managerial efficiency makes us feel bad about it.
Why un-bundling, de-coupling? The reasons are obvious. Discussions or debate, say, in teams, bring all the heat, all the positions and pet-topics, all vested interests, plus the neutral, the curious and the sleepy.
At some point, the need for closure kicks in: ‘we need to make a decision’, ‘so, what are we saying?’, ‘I think we all are in the same page here’, and other good or bad ideas. The mind is going to push you for closure. The politically correct, managerially correct mind is going to push you for closure. Your boss, ditto. After all this is what the agenda says.
So the answer is, the decision is, we all have agreed that, next. Bad idea.
Let the mind digest, let the politically correctness suffer a bit, declare discussion time done, decision will be made next week, 08.45 am, next Exec Committee meeting. Next.
The week gap is a sanity check, a buffer, and an anxiolytic. Bring back the data to the next (decision point). Refresh, ask for clarification, point to decision, double check for second thoughts (or fist thoughts?). Make it.
For very good reasons, many people fear the recycling and ‘the indecision is final’ type of state. Sure! But the opposite is statistically more dangerous.
Unbundle data and debate from decision. The mind processes are different. they do not need to have the synchronicity that the false managerial efficacy semi-god has made us believe in.