Decision Making framework (in-the-making)

Taking decisions is an important part of our lives. And in many cases, we are not alone when we take decisions, but we take them as part of a group, whether it is a couple, a family, a team, group or community. Even in very large groups, for instance as citizens in a democracy, we take decisions on a fairly regular basis.

Decision making has its own dynamics and rules depending on the context. And yet, there are a few things that we can say about decision making that is true for every context. We can feel better or worse about the decision we took, for instance. Or we can feel more or less comfortable about feeling the responsibility of having to take a decision. Depending on our character and level of confidence, we can experience decision making as a daunting or as a positive experience. In high paced environments we have to take decisions in split seconds (think about a surgeon) or accept that reaching the point of decision can feel like a never ending story (think about decisions in bureaucratic environments).

I have been very interested in decision making over the last few years, because it is crucial for self-organised, non-hierarchical groups to have agreements ir frameworks for decision making that are not relying on top-down decision making. Ironically, top-down decisions are not any better than bottom-up decisions. In both environments, the quality of a decision depends on many factors, such as the availability of data or time, or the confidence people have in the person or group taking the decision.

Over the last four years I have familiarised myself with different ways groups take decisions and have tested several of the forms I got to know during my (non-academic) research process. After having experimented with different forms, I have tried to create a model that I find helpful to show how we can go about decision making depending on different factors.

I am not at all sure yet that my framework is the best one to represent the different decision making forms, but think of it as a beta version that can be improved over time, maybe based on your feedback and experience.

Before I will go into the different decision making options, here is the version of the model I am working with at the moment.

Decision Making framework 1.0

First, I need to state where I took my inspiration from.

Principles from lean management and agile certainly play a part. Purpose, for instance, is a great principle for decision making, and only if there is purpose, decision making becomes possible for a group. Purpose, of course, is not only a big idea in lean and agile principles, but in all communities which unite around a great goal or spiritual purpose.

This is why over the last years I got interested in the decision making techniques of two communities in particular: The Baha’i and the Quakers. Both practice non-hierarchical decision making that does not rely on majority rule, both strive for unity in decision making. Both groups rely on spiritual principles for their decision making, but both also have very specific, hands-on tools to facilitate decision making which can be used by anyone, and I have learned a great deal from spending time with them. Other decision making inspirations for me have been my own experiences at BrainStore and my own company, as well as glimpses into Theory U by Otto Scharmer and ideas from sociocracy and holacracy.

Now that the inspirations to the model are clear, let’s have a look at the framework.

The x-axis is time. Time is crucial in decision making. If I have a minimal amount of time I (or we) have to rely on my experience, my knowledge, the data available and a good portion of gut feeling to take a decision. The more time I have available or the more time I can make available to take a decision, the more I can rely on others, the more I can use a variety of research and decision making techniques, and the less I am restricted by decision making techniques that rely on time.

I am not sure about the y-axis. Should it talk about the availability of data? Or rather about the complexity of the issue? Or maybe about the potential impact of the decision? Whatever it will be in the end (and maybe it could be all three), the higher up, the more tricky the decision.

What is true for all decision making techniques is that decisions turn out better once there is purpose involved. If we know what we want to achieve overall, what we are passionate about, which difference our organisation or group is trying to make in the world, the better the compass for decision making. Without purpose, we will always be unsure as to what principles we should base our decision on. That is why in large organisations that are not necessarily aligned around a very clear purpose, we will always want to make sure that we rely on the decisions of others and will tend to create hierarchical structures so as not to make “mistakes” (That, of course, is not the best way of taking decisions in a fast-changing world, first of all because it is very time-consuming, but also because it strips most people in the organisation of their agency and of developing their full potential. It is certainly not the way successful organisms work and is already an endangered species of organisational models.

Now, let’s have a look at the decision making options shown in the model.

1. decide: If I have good data available, little time and a clear purpose, I can easily just take a decision. Even if I just know the purpose and the data is not so great, but I am not taking a humongously big risk or the issue has fairly low complexity , I can really just decide stuff. In many, many cases, that is true. Deciding alone based on purpose can be scary and we need to practice it, but it is definitely a good way of taking decisions in certain circumstances.
2. second opinion: If I can take a little more time, even if the circumstances would allow me to take the decision alone, in contexts where I am part of a team, group or community, getting a second opinion can be a good way of taking my decision. The second opinion can just be another person in my close environment, there is no need for hierarchy here. A good inspiration here can be a bunch of ducks on the water. These animals align themselves not with the whole group, but with the animal that is next to them. That is how the whole group makes decisions, ultimately, about direction and activity.
3. clarity committee (edit: Actually, I think it is officially called a «clearness comittee»): This is an idea I am just getting familiar with, and it is the next bigger version of «second opinion». A clearness committee is an idea used by the Quakers for a process that can be used by individuals who want to take a decision that will impact their lives, such as getting married, buying a house or changing jobs. In a very short description, a clarity committee is a diverse group of people chosen by a facilitator who will ask the person who brings the decision to the group many good questions that will ultimately help bring clarity to the person seeking to take the decision. In the end, it is the person’s decision, and no one can take it for them, but the groups diverse wisdom will definitely help enriching the view of the person bringing the decision before the committee.
4. All three decision making techniques in the north-west quadrant of my model are, in my opinion, less desirable options. Voting, consensus and stepping aside are all familiar to us, but there are a number of problems: Voting means majority rule, and majority rule means that there are winners and losers. If this option is used it is crucial that the group who lost is carefully integrated into the execution process so that they can become part of the group again rather than stay alienated by the decision taken by the majority. This is a huge challenge for democracies today. Consensus, especially when taken under stress, oftentimes means that some people will only agree because there is time pressure, not really whole-heartedly supporting the decision. «Alright, if we absolutely have do decide now I will go along» can result in a later «oh, I told you so from the beginning!» or in bad feelings. Stepping aside can be a good decision making technique if someone actively decides that their stake in the matter is low and they do not need to be part of the decision, However, if the question is fundamental in nature and other decisions build on it. it is not so great if people step aside too soon in the process.
5. Consent: Consent is an idea from sociocracy (also called dynamic governance) and describes a decision making technique where people cannot just say no to a suggestion presented by someone but instead have to prove that the suggestion could be truly harmful for the organisation. If no such objections can be presented, the suggestion is deemed «safe enough to try» until someone feels that a new tension has been created that needs to be solved. Consent is great for moving ideas and processes along and works well in an experimental and agile environment, where small changes are done all the time rather than huge transformations that require mont-long planning.
6. «Disagree and commit» is a technique that allows a group to move forward with a decision if a larger part of the group agrees with it and a single person or small part of the group disagrees. They can voice their disagreement but still commit to the decision. The difference to consensus is that the disagreement was voiced and heard and is respected by the majority.
7. «hear every voice»: I am not sure this is really a decision making technique, but at any rate for fundamental issues it is important that no one can step aside, disagree and commit or «just» consent. For fundamental issues like moving house, deciding on a name for a brand in a core team of cofounders or other important issues every voice needs to be heard and must be part of the decision even if they say that they do not want to be. Especially in startup situations and small groups hearing every voice is fundamental to make sure the organisation is really built around purpose and moves forward in a united spirit.
8. Unity: If the matter is important, the decision can have a big impact, if we have enough time (or can make time available) or if we simply put the same amount value on the unity of the group or community, striving for unity in the decision making process is a good idea. To achieve unity, a number of things are necessary:

• The purpose of the organisation or community has to have center stage
• People need to speak a common language (and here I am more talking about the way we use certain words and terminologies, not necessarily that we all use the same linguistic foundation, but that can of course also be helpful)
• People need to trust each other
• Their spirits must be aligned (it is not as esoterical as it seems. Things like meditating, reflection time with silence, checking into a common vibration by reading an inspirational text together or hearing an inspiring speech by someone can help achieve aligned spirits). Again, this only work with trust and cannot easily be achieved with a group that has low trust or where participants are not familiar with each other
• common values are present in addition to the purpose with which everyone agrees (values like how we engage with each other, what we value as a group, how we fight etc.)
• And ultimately, unity needs detachement. Detachement from one’s own ideas, from being «sure» about something, from one’s ego. It requires a spirit of openness and the ability of letting go.
• Unity, as far as I have experienced it, arrives much easier if there is deep listening and even silence involved.

I have seen unity happen in small groups and in groups as large as 80 people. It is miraculous when it happens. In general, I think it is of course easier to achieve in a small group, and thus is a great tool for each team that is no larger than 8 to 10 people. If many small teams within an organisation reach unity within their teams about their own fundamental decisions, decision making quality in the whole organisation gets better.

Unity is not always desirable or possible. But it is a very powerful tool to use in the right moment.