How can we make better team decisions – especially when so many of us are searching for ways to improve our effectiveness and contribution while working from home?
Much of our time at work is spent making decisions and acting on them. Decision-making is so core to how we operate, we rarely take the time to reflect on how decisions are made and whether we’re being effective of not, especially when those decisions are made as part of a group.
Group decision-making can be a little arbitrary. In hierarchical organisations, positional authority will likely lead to quick, but autocratic decisions and their corresponding downsides – low participation, inclusion and engagement.
The process itself can be haphazard too, with the meeting space dominated by senior figures in the discussion and a few vocal individuals, while others remain quiet or acquiesce to perceived authority, despite personal misgivings. In more horizontal organisations, we may get inclusion and engagement, but it can also be painfully slow. In both cases, the information flow can be confusing and repetitive, while most of us have experienced discussions that go off at tangents, sometimes never to return.
These potential problems are compounded – even in more collaborative environments – when there is a lack of clarity about the criteria for a decision. This leaves space for assumptions to drive our actions. I’m sure most of us have had an ‘Abilene Paradox’ moment when our well-intentioned assumptions have resulted in poor decisions. For years my wife and I both bought crunchy peanut butter, because we each thought that was what the other preferred!
If it is problematic to make good and inclusive group decisions in person, how much more difficult is it now, when many of us are working from home? The lack of participation can severely impact our levels of engagement and perhaps even more importantly our sense of contribution and belonging. I was recently saddened to hear from a friend that they had not been contacted at all by their boss during the entire lockdown period.
The good news is that there are already well-established and effective decision-making processes out there. Though not the only option[1], one such method is ‘Consent based decision-making’.
This is not to be confused with consensus which – while perhaps workable in small, like-minded groups – is generally time-consuming, frustrating and tedious, and unlikely to be appropriate in a fast-paced business environment.
The basis of consent based decision making is that in any situation, we not only have a preference for a course of action, but also a range of tolerance for what we are prepared to accept. Fundamentally, we change the underlying decision-making question from ‘do you agree with this proposal?’ to, ‘do you object to it?’ or ‘is there anyone who can’t live with this?’
The concept is explained by SoFA in the following way:
Consent is given if it is within our range of tolerance – that is, when we prefer a certain course of action, or if we believe we can work with it. Anything outside of that range is a personal ‘no go’, something we can call an objection.
As SoFA go on to brilliantly explain, if you think about 3 people trying to make a decision, it can be represented like this:
An agreement is only represented by the small, white bordered area. If the group operates on a consent basis, the scope for a potential solution is the significantly broader red area! This means teams can move into a space where proposals are accepted as long as they are good enough and safe enough to try.
The Process
So, if a consent approach increases the possibility of a collective decision, how do you make them? There are a few different variants, but essentially the process looks something like this:
Proposal
Any member of the team can make a proposal. It may be to fix an issue or exploit a perceived opportunity. Proposals should be clear, concise and include an expected duration, or term date. Sharing a draft ahead of time will make the discussion more fruitful.
Clarification
Other members of the team have an opportunity to ask questions to clarify their understanding of the proposal. It’s important that this phase of the discussion is not about agreement or disagreement, but clarification.
Reactions
At this point a quick temperature check will let the proposer get a sense of how their idea has landed with their teammates. The reaction may be an indication of support, flagging an area for concern or a suggestion for a minor wording improvement.
Consent: Objections and Integration
Individuals will object if they believe that accepting the proposal would in some way impede or compromise their ability to fulfil the purpose and accountabilities of the team.
Integration is about making sure the proposal ‘can do no harm’. After clearly understanding an objection and the perceived impact, the proposer can integrate the objection by:
Revising the content: making changes that add to or improve the proposal
Shortening the term: adding a time limit to the implementation, so that the impact of the proposal can be reviewed
Measuring risks: implementing the proposal but measuring any factors that are a concern. In these situations, red, amber, green (RAG Status) criteria can be agreed in advance.
Decision
Agreement is more powerful if each team member explicitly agrees to the proposal. In Going Horizontal, Samantha Slade recommends a visual confirmation as well as a verbal one. Some organisations also have a decision log that records precisely what decision has been agreed. Some go further, by also detailing accountabilities and ownership. These provide a valuable reference point, for the whole team and, in more transparent cultures, for the wider organisation.
What other factors help?
A key requirement for consent-based decision making, is that each team has absolute clarity about their purpose and areas of responsibility. It would be extremely difficult to determine if an objection is valid if there is ambiguity about what the team is accountable for.
Having someone facilitate the process is a great aid in keeping each discussion stage clean. The facilitator need not be the team leader; in fact it’s often better if not, as the team leader will likely be drawn into the content of the discussion.
Remote working and decision making
The consent process is easy to apply for remote teams, especially if their organisation already uses a messaging app and has shared file access.
Loomio have done a great job at facilitating online and collaborative decision making. Their tool is designed to guide teams through the decision-making process – all the way from idea, to decision, to action.
Loomio already integrates with established apps like Slack, Microsoft Teams and Telegram to help embed decision-making discussion into everyday team behaviour.
Summary
Team based decision making can be made substantially more collaborative, participative and fruitful by shifting to a consent based methodology. The approach is especially relevant when so many of us are looking to find ways to improve our effectiveness and contribution while we are working remotely.
Notes
[1] There are many variations of this methodology including: Sociocracy - consent decision making, Holacracy – integrated decision making, Percolab – generative decision making