We should always take frameworks and models with a healthy amount of skepticism. Just like a map is a gross simplification of the richness and complexity of the real world, a framework is a simplification of processes and behaviour.
That being said, even though a map is far less complex than the reality it represents, this doesn’t make a map useless. In fact, much of its value is a direct result of its simplification. A map intentionally excludes some information so you can focus on what matters right now. It also allows you to zoom out and see the bigger picture, and in doing so, help you get a better sense of the direction you want to head in next.
Frameworks and models are similar; they exclude some information so you can focus on a particular issue or challenge. They can also show how different ideas fit with each other so you can make more informed decisions on what you want to prioritise.
Over the last few weeks, I’ve been breaking down my collaborative decision making framework, which depicts some of the most important requirements for successful strategic planning. It is particularly relevant to diverse decision making groups such as Boards and Local Councils, where differences in beliefs and values can result in misunderstanding, which can then lead to mistrust and sometimes outright dysfunction.
The reality is that whenever you have a diverse group of people come together, you will also have disagreements. This is not a bad thing; in fact, it can offer significant benefits, just as long as people know how to disagree well.
Individual, collective and collaborative decisions
Most people are comfortable making decisions when they make them by themselves. Sometimes the decision is a particularly curly one, but in most cases, we can still come to a conclusion and make a decision. The discomfort often comes when our ideas and assumptions are challenged by others. The discomfort is then raised to another level when we don’t get to make our own decision, but instead need to make that decision with others.
But most evidence suggests we are much better at making decisions together than we are individually (as long as there is diversity in the decision making group and the opportunity for diverse perspectives to be taken into account). Dr Tom Stafford puts this down to an evolved outcome as a result of being part of a tribe. In a tribe, anyone could come up with an idea, but reasoning and decision making were generally a collective responsibility. As a result, we are all quite good at generating ideas and critiquing other people’s ideas, but tend to be lazy when it comes to critiquing our own.
A simple version of group decision making can be seen in the Wisdom of the Crowds. The Wisdom of the Crowds is a mathematical phenomenon that allows a large group of people to make quite accurate predictions together. You might have seen the game at a school fete where they ask people to guess how many jelly beans are in a jar. There is often a broad range of answers, and very few people even get close, but if enough people make a guess and you take an average of all their answers, the average tends to be quite accurate.
This is what I’d describe as collective decision making. We just collect the answers, average them and get a pretty good outcome. This is well suited to predictive decisions where you’re looking to pick an outcome within a range of numbers (such as interest rate movements or the weight of Uluru).
But this approach doesn’t really help when making decisions such as “Should we build a new civic centre?”, “Where should we put it?”, and “What should it look like?”. These types of decisions still benefit from diverse perspectives, but require a more collaborative approach. Collaborative decision making depends on direct interaction between the decision makers to achieve the best outcomes. It requires people to put forward ideas, and those ideas to be challenged in an open and constructive way.
Decision making groups such as Boards and Councillor groups often have the ingredients required for good collaborative decision making. They tend to be made up of individual decision makers with diverse perspectives, and are generally supported by a professional and expert lead decision support function (the executive). Unfortunately, they often operate within a system that undermines good outcomes.
Binary choices and time constraints cause conflict
The challenge when it comes to disagreeing well is that for most decision making groups, the final decision is made by vote. When it comes to the vote, decision makers have a binary choice of either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. This requires them to state a position that is either 100% in favour or 100% against. This forces decision makers into a conflicted position of ‘us’ and ‘them’ that lacks the nuance of people’s real opinions.
This is exacerbated by real or imagined time constraints. When we are time constrained, we look for simplicity even when it doesn’t exist. It’s easier to put people in buckets of ‘supporter’ or ‘opponent’ even though most are either half on or half off the fence.
The benefit of spectrums
In contrast, if you were to ask those same decision makers to state their level of support on a spectrum of zero to ten, where zero represents ‘I do not and will not support this proposal under any circumstances’, and ten represents ‘I completely support every aspect of this proposal and all its tradeoffs’ you are likely to find that no one sits at the extremes.
By using spectrums, you can immediately diffuse some of the potential conflicts within the group by avoiding ‘us and them’ situations. And a position anywhere on the spectrum that isn’t zero or ten also serves as an indicator to others that you aren’t dogmatic in your position. It shows a willingness to negotiate.
The nuance of multiple criteria
You can establish another level of nuance by breaking down the decision into several criteria. For example, if we had a decision about whether to fund an infrastructure project, such as a new library, we might have a set of criteria that includes ‘affordability’, ‘benefit’, ‘delivery risk’, ‘environmental impact’ and ‘stakeholder support’ (ideally, this criteria should be decided by the decision makers themselves) and decision makers can then show their level of support for the project across each criterion.
The benefit of this is that decision makers can be far more nuanced in their disagreement. If people are forced to take a binary decision on building the new library, a vote of ‘No’ could easily be interpreted as ‘I don’t like libraries’, whereas using multiple criteria might reveal the real issue is concerns about affordability or project risks.
When the effort is worth it
As I mentioned earlier, decision makers often feel real or imagined time pressures to make decisions. Taking the time to ‘talk it out’ can feel both impractical and frustrating. My argument against this would be that any perceived time saved up front will most definitely be lost down the track. Not only will it lead to suboptimal outcomes and unnecessary rework that might otherwise have been avoided, it will also negatively impact the effectiveness of the decision making group.
Much like a maths teacher wants to see a student’s workings out to understand how they arrived at the answer, it’s helpful to see other decision makers working to see how they got to their conclusion. It might not be that people ultimately agree, but it might be that the disagreement is far smaller, and the common ground far bigger, than previously imagined.
How to implement collective decision making approaches
The first step is to understand the gaps and limitations of your current decision making approach. This can be done using a decision making audit, whereby an independent person assesses the efficacy of your current decision making processes.
Following this, it’s important for decision makers to be involved in the development of the decision making criteria. This might include a set of general criteria for day-to-day decision making but also custom criteria, for unique and important decisions. (For example, as Chair of Myli, My Community Library Ltd, I’m currently in the process of recruiting a new CEO. A set of six custom criteria for assessing candidates has been developed in consultation with the Board and the recruiter).
Once the criteria have been developed it’s important for decision advisors (the executive) to provide information in a format that aligns with these requirements. Presenting various options that have been assessed against the agreed criteria ensures openness and transparency, as well as allowing decision makers to make decisions faster.
Finally, there is value in supporting decision makers to use the criteria in conjunction with approaches, such as the Delphi Method, that encourage open discussion and negotiation.
Decision making doesn’t happen in isolation
This is the end of this series of posts on my Collective Decision Making Framework. If you’ve read this as a standalone post, you might want to go back to the beginning and read the other instalments in the series. Ultimately the decisions we make determine the direction we head in but doing this well requires having shared understanding (the map), a collective purpose (the compass), and diverse options to choose between (the different courses we could take).
And, in case you missed it… I had a baby.
Well, not a real one – it’s a podcast. And instead of a christening, it has just been launched (which, of course, you shouldn’t do with babies).
The Future With Friends is where we dive into the futures that matter – work-life balance, death and dying, even the future of friendships themselves. Each episode, I invite a friend to imagine a world (scenario) at least five years from now, exploring their hopes, fears, and the wild possibilities ahead.
Listen now at thefuturewithfriends.com or find it on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube.
Curious how this all came about? Click here – otherwise, just hit play and enjoy!
Simon
