The 80% Rule We Use in Golf and in Organizational Life

Article by Herb Rubenstein

Introduction

Legend has it that golfers while planning on how to hit any given golf shot ask themselves if they are 80% sure the golf shot they plan to hit will “work.” As a professional golfer, I always have options on how I will hit any shot or even any putt. I analyze my options, tentatively select the type of shot I plan to hit and then ask myself that question – Am I 80% sure this shot will produce the desired result? If my answer on the golf course is, “No,” or even, “Not really,” I step back and then decide to hit a different shot that will meet my 80% rule.

It turns out that in organizations we generally only use a majority vote or sometimes the one vote of a CEO to decide what to do. We fail to ask those who have decision-making authority or those who will implement the action called for by the vote this most important secondary question?

Are we 80% sure this will work or produce the desired result in the right timeframe and budget?

It turns out that people will often vote along with the majority in organizations to go ahead and pursue an activity, but would, if given the chance, they would also have voted that they are not 80% sure it will work.

The 80% Rule

This question has enormous power. If a majority is not 80% sure the plan or decision will work, do not proceed. Re-evaluate and improve the plan until a majority vote that they are 80% sure the plan will succeed. The decision-makers AND THE people tasked with working on the new activity or initiative should always be asked to vote on the question. Are you 80% sure this will work and produce the results we desire on time and on budget?

I have used this procedure in my class at the University of Colorado Denver’s Global Energy Management Program. I present the class with a significant challenge, say falling oil and gas prices in the marketplace, and divide the room in two. Each side gets to come up with a plan for an energy company to deal successfully with the issue. One side of the room might be an oil and gas company suffering reduced revenues at a time when they cannot get their costs down as quickly as they would like. The other side of the room might be a solar, wind or geothermal company that is now facing a lower cost-competitive energy source, fossil fuels.

Each side comes up with a plan. First, just for fun, the other side of the room votes on whether the plan should go forward. Usually out of friendship and professional courtesy (my students are mid-career students, average age 35, with five to ten years in the energy sector), the other side of the room votes to go forward with the plan.

Then I pop the question. I say, “Now that we have decided to go forward with the new plan, let’s have another vote on this side of the room. I want to vote on whether you are 80% confident that this proposed plan will achieve the desired results, on time and on budget? Then, I add, it takes 80% of this side of the room, the voters, to pass this vote. After glares from both sides of the room, the other side of the room votes. Almost every time, less than 80% of that side of the room will vote that they are 80% confident that the plan will succeed.

Then I open it up for discussion among the people who did not have 80% confidence that the matter would succeed. I ask them:

 What are your concerns?

 What do you think is missing in the plan?

 How do you think the plan can be improved?

 Do you think the right people in the organization are being assigned to the new activity?

 Do you think that all stakeholders have been consulted and listened to?

 Do you think the plan takes into account all of the risks associated with this new activity?

 Do you think this is the best plan that can be devised to deal with this situation?

 Do you think they have devoted sufficient time, budget and resources to this activity?

 Do you think there will be significant resistance to this plan within the organization?

 Do you think everyone who will be working on this plan will understand their roles in carrying out this new activity and either has the proper training or will be properly trained to perform their activities?

After raising these and other questions, the discussion, the real discussion begins. Those who did not have an 80% “confidence level” in the success of the plan, now speak up. They make suggestions. They warn about significant, but unforeseen risks. They help clarify the roles that those implementing the new activity will need to play and the training they will need. They discuss how the new activity will need new or different resources and more time to be successful. They identify potential roadblocks that had not previously been unearthed in the planning of the activity. They question whether the plan has the right leadership, the right level of support from the leaders of the organization, and they question many aspects of the plan.

I then turn over the discussion to the other side of the room, the one that proposed the plan. I give them time to revise their plan. And they do. They improve their plan tremendously. They make many changes and then present the “revised and improved” plan to the other side of the room.

And every time, the vote is much better, and more people say they are 80% confident that the plan will be successful. If we do not reach an 80% vote in favor of being 80% confident of the plan, then we open discussion again among those who still do not have 80% confidence that the plan will be successful. We then sort out those who say that they think the problem is not solvable and no plan will be successful. Everyone who is not 80% confident gets to talk and make suggestions. Then the other side of the room makes some additional improvements and then another vote is taken, and the twice revised plan usually passes.

Conclusion

This two-step process is far superior since it makes people focus on the implementation of the decision. This question helps people submit their concerns about implementation in a way that is often not as threatening as voting against the entire decision. It empowers everyone to contribute at an early stage, pre-implementation, and ways to improve the implementation. The good news is that the discussion on the 80% rule of success is often very efficient and yields many great suggestions for improving the implementation of a decision.