#10: Deciding how to decide

Three principles for more effective decision-making

Mar 31, 2021

Pass It On is a bi-weekly newsletter bringing the tech and non-profit sectors closer together through knowledge sharing, written and edited by Lauren Crichton.

Welcome to all the recent subscribers! If you're new here, join us bi-weekly by hitting the button below:

—

March 11 2021 marked one year since the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic. The anniversary has left many of us feeling heavier and more exhausted than usual, and I’ve certainly noticed it in both myself and the virtual air around me at work.

In particular, I’ve noticed that it’s getting harder to make decisions. I’m not surprised. We’re all tired, distracted, multi-tasking too much, and full of emotions—the perfect cocktail for bad decision-making.

Our collective struggle with decision-making is especially concerning given that humans are bad at making good decisions at the best of times: our emotions get in the way and cloud our ability to objectively assess the pros and cons.

Good decisions are the lifeblood of successful teams, but very few organisations excel at making them. Why? Because too few organisations are explicit about who and how they make decisions. Today’s issue will show you how to be deliberate about both.

If you’ve ever felt undermined by senior executives overruling decisions on a whim or frustrated by long meetings in which no one can reach an agreement, this knowledge share is for you.

👍 I: Seek consent, not consensus

Unlike consensus decision-making, where we look for reasons for everyone to agree to something, consent decision-making starts by assessing the reasons not to proceed. And it does that by asking people to raise objections and concerns. Here’s how and why:

Objections first

Imagine you’re in a group meeting. You’ve just finished presenting an exciting but challenging new idea for a fundraising campaign and you want the thumb’s up to proceed.

Instead of asking the group, “what does everyone think about this?”, you first ask if anyone has any objections to your idea.

If someone objects, it’s because they can prove (through relevant information and facts) that the idea or solution in question isn’t as effective or efficient as it could be, or that there might be undesirable side-effects as a result of going ahead. Despite the word’s negative connotations, objections are positive: they enable the group to help you improve and evolve your idea in worthwhile ways.

Concerns last

As mentioned earlier, humans aren’t rational, meaning we often give feedback based on assumptions and personal opinions, rather than facts. Under consent decision-making, that type of feedback is a concern, and it shouldn’t prevent an idea from going ahead. By leaving concerns until after the group has reached an agreement, you keep the decision-making process more objective while still allowing individuals to voice their personal preferences.

Consent decision-making done well helps create:

Speed: things can move faster when the decision doesn’t have to be unanimous
Psychological safety: with everyone in the room encouraged to raise objections and concerns, you foster a culture where people feel free to speak up.
Reflection: objections and concerns create a common language around types of feedback, helping individuals be more considered in how they respond to a decision.

🤠 II: Involve the people affected

Let’s go back to that meeting, and the awesome fundraising idea you want to pursue. Who was in the room helping you reach the decision?

Traditional hierarchical models limit decision-making to those at the very top, regardless of whether those people have sufficient knowledge and context about the issue at hand. Consent-decision making, by contrast, works best when:

The people most affected by the decision are the ones making and shaping it.

Not only are these people more likely to engage; they’re also more likely to have the expertise and experience needed to help you make an informed decision.

Empowering those most affected by decisions to make decisions is a form of decentralisation. Research shows that technology is accelerating the shift towards more decentralised workplace structures. However, working for a decentralised organisation doesn’t guarantee that everyone knows where those decentralised decisions are taking place. Organisations of all shapes and sizes struggle to be explicit about who’s making the calls, and it slows everything and everyone down.

When it comes to decision-making, a little clarity goes a long, long way.

👌 III: Aim for good enough and safe enough

There’s no such thing as a perfect decision—at least, not at the moment in which we’re making it. To avoid getting stuck in analysis paralysis, ask yourself and those around you:

Is this idea good enough for now, and safe enough to try?

You’ll probably find yourself saying yes more than you would expect, whether it’s in response to pursuing that new fundraising campaign, switching up your teams, or redesigning your website. What better way to test the effectiveness of your decision than through real experience, and evolving your ideas based on what you learn.

Get going. Then get good.

These three principles come from Sociocracy 3.0 (S3), a flexible framework that helps organisations become more resilient and adaptive. My former manager, Kalle Persson, introduced me to S3 a few years ago and irrevocably changed how I understood collaboration in the process. @Kalle, if you’re reading this: thank you!

Have you worked with S3 before or tried similar principles from other organisational frameworks? Share your experiences with us:

Pass It On