Picture the scene, a team meeting, probably on Zoom or Teams. The leader is chairing and you are there to discuss a project that is getting stuck. You have a decision to take: do you carry on regardless, change tack, or pull the project? The chair sets the tone with what seems like a genuine desire to hear people’s thoughts. Views are expressed. Sometimes there is agreement, sometimes disagreement, sometimes people ,aren’t heard, sometimes there is misunderstanding. After half-an-hour, the chair ‘sums up’ and tells the team the answer, and they do it in a way that suggests they have incorporated everyone’s views but leaves you feeling like they decided the answer before the meeting. Clever leadership or a waste of time?
How groups take decision together is an indication of the culture and maturity of the team. Is there a ‘right way’ to make a decision, and how can you know which approach is best for your team? Here we break-down different styles, setting out the pros and cons of each to help you take a thoughtful decision about how to go about making… decisions.
First up it’s the “Does everyone agree? Yes. Good. Let’s move on.” approach otherwise known as the, “I’m in charge.” gambit.
Sometimes you might not have time for a debate and discussion, the answer may be obvious and a lengthy debate not required, or the leader might have already decided what the answer is. In these cases, an autocratic approach is often favoured. This is good if time is of the essence and the answer is reasonably straightforward as it cuts to the chase. It can alienate the team, especially if they have views that are overlooked or not even sought. It can also feed the notion that the person in charge knows best, and that’s why they are in charge.
This way of making decisions is often seen in teams in the early stages of development, where shared goals and objectives have not yet been settled or where mutual trust is emerging. If you find yourself resorting to this because there don’t appear to be any other views coming forward, reflect on what you can do differently to elicit alternative ideas to your own. What barriers might there be preventing ideas from being shared and what can you do to encourage silent voices?
Second is seen in fairly vocal teams that perhaps lack focus and coordination. It’s the ‘Chuck in an idea and see what happens’ approach.
Have you ever been in a meeting and offered an idea, only to find that the next person offers a different and unrelated idea that gets expanded upon and agreed and your idea gets ignored? It might be a big conspiracy against you but is much more likely to be a result of the 'chuck it in and see what happens' approach. In this scenario, people share ideas, throw them into the room and see how they land. Sometimes the ideas are picked up straightaway, sometimes people come back to them later on, and sometimes they are simply ignored. As most discussions are time limited, the idea that seems to be most popular at the time of wrapping up the debate ends up being the one that ‘wins’ regardless of the relative merits of all the ideas chucked into the room. Arriving at the ‘best’ decision relies on the wisdom of the chair to capture and quickly evaluate the options, follow the energy in the room and help the group make an informed choice.
This approach is common in teams at early stages of development where meeting etiquette and the ‘rules’ of decision-making have not yet been established and where there is uncertainty about the group’s goals. It runs the risk of following the dominant voices rather than the best ideas, and ideas expressed early on are usually the ones that get forgotten. If this scenario sounds familiar, think about establishing a meeting etiquette, check-in on the team’s goals to ensure they are clear and understood (and agreed), and help the group notice what is going on.
Minority rule
You’ve all gathered for a regular meeting. The same three people do most of the talking. The rest sit quietly waiting for it to be over so they can get back to what they were doing. The dominant voices speak. Towards the end of the debate, the chair asks the others for other views but by that stage it is almost not worth dissenting because the debate has happened and the quieter one’s nod in agreement with what’s been agreed.
This gives the illusion that the group has decided but in reality, the minority get what they want because they adopt established and understood roles in the group.
The vocal one’s believe they know what the others want, and the non-vocal ones either don’t want to rock the boat or believe that the others know best. What you often end up with are agreements that don’t stick because the whole group has not bought into them, and possibly because there is a better solution that has yet to be properly explored.
This approach is often seen in groups that are in early stages of development or that have run into difficulties on their journey. Keeping quiet and going with the flow is often easier than revisiting past conflict.
If this reflects how you team works, think what you can do to be more aware of the ‘quieter’ voices and try focussing more on the strength of the idea rather than the person expressing it or the way in which they are expressing it. You can also flip the order in which people speak and turn to the generally quieter ones first – tip: let them know beforehand that you are going it do this as such an approach can wrongfoot people, especially introverts .
Democracy always gives us the right answer. Right?
We can all point to democratic processes that have thrown up unexpected or ‘wrong’ results. The rights and wrongs of democracy are explored elsewhere on the internet, for now, we’ll stick to meetings. The pros of this approach are that it is a common and well understood. The limitations are that people need to have enough information to take an informed choice and need to understand the question and options. When setting up a ‘yes-no’ vote, you will often find that people try to throw in a third option so the vote becomes yes, no, or a third way. In these cases, the third option needs to be clearly defined and understood or you risk uncertainty of what people are actually voting for (or against).
Voting can also end up with grumpiness on the part of those not backing the winning side. For these reasons, successful deployment of voting works best in more mature teams where people feel able to express their thoughts and are willing to embrace the outcome, even if they haven't voted for it because, in the long run, it is likely to be balanced-out in the future.
Bear in mind what your Standing Orders say about voting and the types of decisions being taken. Do you need a simple majority or two-thirds majority? Does everyone round the table have a vote and are they of equal weighting? What about job-shares?
Consensus – the Derren Brown approach
“Can I take it that we are all agreed?” says the chair while looking round the room (or scanning the small rectangular windows of the on-screen participants). Some people nod, some look down at their papers, some remain as still as possible. “OK, I’m not seeing anyone dissent, so the decision is passed.”
This usually happens after a debate and discussion and the chair then reads the minds of those present and makes an assumption. Usually they are correct, especially if they are adept at tuning in to the mood of the room and paraphrasing complex discussions. Sometimes, as a participant, it can feel like you were listening to an entirely different discussion as the chair sums up and goes off in a different direction to the one you thought the group had reached. Was it just you or do others feel the same? Did you miss an important part of the discussion while you were checking your emails? Should you challenge the chair?
Most team decisions I have been part of are taken this way because most decisions are not contentious and chairs are usually good at reading the room, or good at closing down a debate when time has run out. Mature teams will often utilise this method effectively.
Consensus – the involving approach
This is similar to the above with a crucial difference – rather than reading people’s minds, the chair actively checks-in with each and every member to ensure they are on board. It is not about ensuring everyone agrees, it is about ensuring everyone has had a chance to express their views checking:
everyone understands the issues
everyone feels they have had their say
everyone feels they have been listened to
everyone is ready to make a decision
everyone is willing to support the decision made by the group.
Questions to ask are:
does everyone feel they have had a chance to express their views? If no, seek their views.
does everyone feel they have enough information to take a decision? If no, ask what additional information they require.
does everyone feel able to support whatever decision the group agrees on? If no, ask what their reservations are and what would have to change to no longer have those reservations.
Only progress when everyone answers yes to all three questions and then continue to a vote. Consensus decision-making comes easier with practice. It is time consuming and can be difficult especially in newly formed groups but can be a particularly useful approach if the subject matter is complex and/or you need a decision that is going to stick.
And finally...
A final note on decision-making, the Minutes. When summing up, spare a thought for the person taking the Minutes. If you want to minimise confusion, sum up clearly, and not too quickly, at the end of the debate what the decision is. Afterall, the minutes represent the corporate record of the decision taken and an ambiguous or mis-remembered minute runs the risk of reopening the debate at the next meeting.
It is also important to confirm with people quickly what has been agreed, especially if action is time critical. While the minutes represent the official record, it can be useful to precede them with an email summarising the decisions and actions.
Good decision-making is a key element of good governance and an important part of good team work. However you go about it, deploy your approach with care and thoughtfulness, seek feedback, reflect on experiences, and involve the whole team in identifying the best way of working together.
Title image: Shutterstock
This blog is based on an original idea by Stephen Balzac explored in Organizational Development, published by McGraw-Hill.
