Teams, organisations, consortia, coalitions, networks, ‘community’ groups, constantly make decisions. Decisions have consequences. Yet, surprisingly, rarely do we review how we make decisions, and whether certain approaches could be more appropriate than others. This brief is an invitation to have an explicit reflection on decision-making, and introduces you to different possible approaches.
Three decision-making styles are most common in work environments: Formal authority (‘I decide because I am the highest ranking person in the formal hierarchy here’); majority vote, and consensus. Each of these carries potential weaknesses: There is no guarantee that someone with higher authority takes better decisions; voting risks the ‘tyranny of the majority’ and a disaffected and resentful ‘minority’ that obstructs implementation; while ‘consensus’ risks the ‘tyranny of the minority’, as everyone has de facto veto power – leading to negotiated compromises that may not longer be the most insightful and wisest decision.
More fundamentally, none of these approaches actively invites deliberation, where listening attentively to the perspectives and proposals of different stakeholders creates the atmosphere for decisions grounded in more collective intelligence, even collective wisdom.
The argument against ‘deliberative decision-making’ is its slowness. In a rapidly changing world, and where efficiency and productivity (though not effectiveness and sustainability!) are associated with speed, fast decision-making is preferred over slower approaches. While there is a place for fast thinking, its risks, when practiced to most decision-making, have been comprehensively exposed by Daniel Kahneman. So beware!
This brief introduces you to three deliberative approaches to decision-making: decision-circles, dynamic governance (also referred to as sociocracy), and gradients of agreement. All three reduce the influence of formal or informal power in decision-making, in favour of purpose-led collective intelligence and collective wisdom. Ultimately decisions need not just be taken but also implemented: more inclusive and deliberative approaches increase the willingness to support implementation, a time-saver in the medium-term! The brief also touches on ethical dilemmas where there is no clear ‘good’ option, and how to try and find a ‘least bad’ of them.
No approach is presented as always better than any other. The message of the brief is to encourage you to explicitly reflect on the decision-making ‘culture’ in your work sphere and in your family, and wider society – and whether there is scope for better approaches. Find the brief here!