Decision making

This may serve to guide our decision making processes. The aim is to create a shared language of different ways of making decisions at our disposal.

Most of us are used to either top-down, authoritarian decision making (by far the most used form within traditional organizations) or with decision making based on consensus (mostly with friends or family).

All decision making styles have pros and cons (autocratic might be frustrating for many while consensus might be slower in times of urgency). In this guide we have outlined first some that so far are the best mix and then the more common ones we all might be familiar with.

• Generative decision making process

• Advice process

• Decisions by consent

• Consensus

• Democratic

• Delegation

• Autocratic

Generative decision making process

A consent based decision making process built on the Integrated decision making method of Holacracy with the culture and practice of Art of Hosting

Roles

Everyone affected or involved in one way or the other in the decision.

The process requires a host, ideally, the host rotates organically from person to person.

How to go about it

It has 7 facilitated steps:

1. Ripeness

Is the time ripe for the decision? Is the context clear? Is there information or data that needs to be gathered? Could an open conversation help develop the ripeness?

Hosting tips: You might need to offer the group one or two open conversation time slots to get to this point (ex. I am going to put the timer on for 10 minutes while you explore the topic in question). Offer supplementary time slots as necessary. You might need to conclude that the decision is not ripe, and this is ok. Listen in deeply and when you sense that there is a possible proposal in the air, the time is ripe. Invite the group to head into the next step.

2. Proposal version I

Invite the group — would someone like to make an initial proposal? This will help the group move forward into action and there will be lots of opportunities to fine tune the proposal together.

Hosting tips: Help the proposer name a proposal in ideally one single sentence. Avoid the proposal spreading into multiple proposals. Ensure that the proposal is written for all to see (separate from the proposer) and repeat it out loud.

3. Clarifications

The group has the opportunity to voice questions to the proposer. The proposer has two options to answer — i) Provides the answer or ii) Says « Not specified » if the answer is unknown.

Hosting tips: If someone is speaking without a question (i.e. reaction) remind him that is question period. Ensure that all questions are directed at the proposer and no one else intervenes. Avoid letting the proposer speak about anything further than the direct answer (keep it tight). Sense into when the clarification period is about to finish (i.e. people are ready to react).

4. Reactions

It is mandatory that each person (minus the proposer) expresses to the group their reaction to the proposal; the different voices and perspectives of all need to be heard. The proposer listens deeply and take notes. Afterwards the proposer will craft a new version of the proposal.

Hosting tips: Begin with the person who has the most reactive emotion and then go around, until everyone has shared their reaction. Make sure that the reaction is not about the proposer, but about the proposal itself — correct if necessary.

5. Proposal version II

The proposer formulates a new version of the proposal in light of all that has been spoken. The host ensures that it is written and visible to all and reads it out loud.

Hosting tips: If you feel that the proposer might want to stay with the same proposal, remind her that she can. If you sense that the proposer needs support in formulating the second version, remind her that it is possible to ask for help — however do not rush into saying this.

6. Objections

An objection needs to express a risk or a backward movement for the organization/initiative. All objections are expressed to the host who then decides if the objection is valid or not. If it is valid, then the proposer needs to integrate it into a new version of the proposal. (Then the objection round is repeated).

Hosting tips:Sometimes people might express personal concerns that are not in fact organizational risks. This needs to be differentiated. If it is fuzzy you may ask for help to the group. This is the hardest part of the process for the host.

7. Visual confirmation

Everyone visually confirms I can live with this decision by raising their thumb. This is a way of allowing all to see that everyone is fully onboard with this decision. If there is something that has not been spoken that needs to be it will show up because a person will be unable to raise his thumb. This can happen when (i) someone is struggling to find words to put on an idea that is important to them or (ii) someone is disengaging in the process (holding on to the possibility to question the decision in the hallway thereafter). Either way it will need to be addressed and the group needs to return to the part of the process that was not fully addressed.

Note: It is good to have visual confirmation as a cultural cue with which the process may be fast tracked. Someone makes a proposal and you can just do a quick check in to see right away if everyone could live with it.

Hosting tips: This is not a decision council and it is not an opportunity to lower thumbs and restart a process. It is simply a visual confirmation. If the process has run smoothly all thumbs should be raised. If someone is struggling to find voice for an objection kindly support the person and let them know that all information is important.

This sums up the process. A final word just like playing the piano, don’t expect to get it perfect first go. It does take some practice.

Benefits

• It empowers the organization.

• Increases the number of people who feel they are making an effective contribution to the organization

• Each person whose advice is sought feels honored and needed.

• The sharing of information reinforces the feeling of community.

• The decision maker and the adviser are pushed into a closer relationship. This makes it nearly impossible for the decision maker to simply ignore advice.

• Making decisions is on-the-job education.

• Chances of reaching the best decision are greater than under conventional top-down approaches.

Downsides

• Sometimes, the information and analysis provided to the potential adviser can be sloppy and incomplete.

• The individual who made the final decision bears a disproportionate share of that responsibility.

• The decision process is rendered impotent if all information is not made available to people at all levels of the organizations. It needs transparency.

• It does not easily accommodate people who cannot operate as creative, responsible colleagues because of mental, physical or emotional limitations

We can explore more in the following links:

https://corporate-rebels.com/advice-process/

https://corporate-rebels.com/decision-making-processes/

https://corporate-rebels.com/distributed-authority/

https://medium.com/percolab-droplets/generative-decision-making-process-cf0b131c5ac4

Advice process

Roles

Decision makers and advisors.

Usually, the decision maker is the person whose:

• area is most affected,

• who initiated an idea,

• discovered a problem,

• or saw an opportunity.

If it is unclear who the decision maker should be, the caller of the decision making process selects an individual to gather advice and make the final decision.

Before any decision can be made on any company matter, the decision maker must seek advice. The bigger the issue or problem, the wider the net that is thrown to gather pertinent information from people inside and outside the organization.

How to go about it

1. Someone notices a problem or opportunity and takes the initiative, or alerts someone better placed to do so.

2. Prior to a proposal, the decision-maker may seek input to gather perspectives before proposing action.

3. The initiator makes a proposal and seeks advice from those affected or those with expertise.

4. Taking this advice into account, the decision-maker decides on an action and informs those who have given advice.

Advice can be gathered from outside networks. The board of advisers should be consulted on the most important issues.

After getting the appropriate amount of advice from colleagues, the decision maker has the unquestioned right to take actions.

Once the action is taken or decision is made the organization looks at the results and everyone is responsible for these results.

The workplace that uses this decision making process requires people who can reason, make decisions, and take responsibility for their actions. Some people have trouble functioning in this way.

Benefits

• It empowers the organization.

• Increases the number of people who deel they are making an effective contribution to the organization

• Each person whose advice is sought feels honored and needed.

• The sharing of information reinforces the feeling of community.

• The decision maker and the adviser are pushed into a closer relationship. This makes it nearly impossible for the decision maker to simply ignore advice.

• Making decisions is on-the-job education.

• Chances of reaching the best decision are greater than under conventional top-down approaches.

Downsides

• Sometimes, the information and analysis provided to the potential adviser can be sloppy and incomplete.

• The individual who made the final decision bears a disproportionate share of that responsibility.

• The decision process is rendered impotent if all information is not made available to people at all levels of the organizations. It needs transparency.

• It does not easily accommodate people who cannot operate as creative, responsible colleagues because of mental, physical or emotional limitations

Decision by consent

Who	How it works	Benefits	Downsides
Everyone involved	Quickly make a decision that is good enough for now. If no-one has a reasoned objection, the decision will be implemented. Holacracy approach: Present a proposal; Invite clarifying questions; Initiate a reaction round; Amend and clarify; Initiate an objection round; Integrate objections.	allows teams to move quickly, and to stay flexible. It means decisions can be tested in practice, rapidly. Learning from experience improves decisions as insights occur on-the-job. Consent works well when speed is needed, when the proposal is clearly defined, and when the impact of the decision is limited and reversible.	The formal process can feel uncomfortable at first and can rush teams into a decision.

Consensus

Who	How it works	Benefits	Downsides
Everyone involved	Developing a decision in the best interest of the whole – a compromise that everyone agrees to. It works well when a decision will impact lots of people and those people have both valuable insight and the capacity for negotiation.	High degree of participation, inclusiveness, and collaboration. The benefits are that it satisfies all participants and it involves many. All perspectives are incorporated	It can be slow, it doesn’t work well when there are competing interests, and can produce half-baked compromises.

Democratic

Who	How it works	Benefits	Downsides
Everyone involved	The group votes on various options. A majority vote decides the action. Majority rutles. Works well when choices are clear cut, when your team is well informed, and when your culture embraces majority rule.	It is perceived as collaborative, egalitarian and transparent.	It’s easy to overlook minority perspectives, and it can result in a lack of group and personal responsibility.

Delegation

Who	How it works	Benefits	Downsides
Delegating and receiving person.	Giving someone else the authority to make decisions and removing oneself from the process. Often the decision authority comes with clear guidelines (purpose, boundary conditions, budget, etc.)	Works well when time is critical, when a single member of the group has the best information, and when the group is crystal-clear on what the execution would look like.	It can be hard to truly “let go”, and needs practice to be perfected.

Autocratic

Who	How it works	Benefits	Downsides
One person	He or she decides without input from others.	Works well with time pressure, when the person has all the info needed, and the team knows is clear on the execution.	It ignores the wisdom of the crowd.