Reframing Team Decision-Making: Collaborative Decisions Made Easy
Most teams know how to have a successful brainstorming session. Coming up with ideas usually isn’t the challenge; it’s how to decide what to do with the ideas where teams often get stuck. In the worst cases, teams stop innovating altogether, fearing they will end up with a bottomless backlog of unprioritized ideas.
We are oriented to top-down decision-making structures, where the boss decides. This tradition—a result of the factory-oriented workforce of the early 20th century—has resulted in generations of workers with little to no collaborative decision-making skills.
No one teaches us how to make decisions as a team. If you’re lucky, you might receive decision-making training as a project manager or leader, but that reinforces the notion that decision-making happens at a higher level and is not the responsibility of those closest to the work.
It’s time to reframe how we understand decision-making.
Understanding Decision-Making
I once facilitated a day-long strategic planning offsite for a 40-person division of a government contractor. At the end of the day, spirits were high from enthusiasm about the direction they had decided on. After everyone had left and I was packing my supplies, the senior leader who sponsored the meeting said, “Great job! We knew beforehand that we wanted to go in a different direction but needed to check the box on collaboration.”
My heart sank. Imagine how those 40 people felt the next time that leader asked them to participate in an event, probably unwilling to engage or believe that anything would come from their work in the meeting.
Transparency around the type of decision being made is critical. The Tannenbaum-Schmidt Leadership Continuum is a spectrum of leadership “modes” when it comes to decision-making. From left to right, the manager’s authority goes from high to low, with dictation on the left and abdication on the right.
To simplify this framework and put it in meeting terms:
In a “tell,” the leader dictates their decision at the meeting for awareness.
In a “sell,” the leader offers what they want during the meeting and invites feedback.
In a “consult,” the leader invites the team to decide for themselves, but reserves the right to the final decision, usually made after the meeting.
In a “co-create,” the leader supports whatever the team decides during the meeting as the final decision.
No option is better than another, and all four are appropriate in different situations, but whichever it is should be communicated upfront.
Another model for this comes from The Grove Consultants International book on The Best Practices of Facilitation, which highlights four key types of decision-making in meetings.
Executive decisions (“tell”) involve the senior leader making the final call.
PRO: Takes the pressure of the decision off the group
CON: Not everyone may agree
Rule-based decisions involve the group making a decision based on a simple rule of thumb, such as voting on their top choice.
PRO: Fast and easy
CON: May not factor in more complex criteria
Negotiative decisions can be considered compromising, in which the group weighs ideas against each other based on more complex criteria.
PRO: Great for more complex decisions
CON: If rushed, some may feel unheard
Collaborative decisions occur through discussion where the group seeks consensus. Consensus, according to Chris McGoff in the book The Primes, means (1) the process was fair, (2) everyone feels heard, and (3) we can live with the outcomes. Collaborative decision-making can be messy and benefits from a facilitator skilled in managing dialogue.
PRO: Everyone feels heard, reliable decision
CON: Hard to do, takes time
Choosing the Right Type of Decision-Making
Choosing the right type of decision-making to use in your meeting depends on several factors.
Time: Time is the most important factor. If the situation is urgent or highly chaotic—think “house on hire”—executive/tell decisions are necessary. The house would burn down if every firefighter needed to weigh in.
Complexity: Complex decisions require many minds working together. Remember the scene in Apollo 13, where they dump everything on the table and say, “Figure it out?” That level of complexity requires the group to work through all the possibilities in a way that one person could not do alone. In this situation, negotiative/co-creative decision-making works best.
Leadership Style: Some leaders are naturally “tell” oriented, and others are naturally “collaborative.” While it’s important for leaders to flex into all decision-making styles, their preference influences what may be available to a team.
Culture: Traditional top-down style organizations are culturally oriented to executive/tell decisions, and when the lone “collaborative” decision maker comes along, they may resist. When there is a substantial mismatch between leadership and cultural styles, it’s important to start in the middle (sell/consult), which may be a more realistic compromise when the two are extremely different.
Tools for Rule-Based and Negotiative Decision-Making
Rule-Based Decision-Making Tools
Most people are accustomed to and comfortable with rule-based decision-making, such as taking a vote using a polling tool like Mentimeter. Use these tools to narrow down the number of ideas, get a sense of where the group’s energy is (i.e., “pulse check”), or make a final decision.
Dot Vote: Each person gets a certain number* of dots (usually stickers) and uses them to vote on their preferred options(s).
Live Online Polling: A live online polling tool such as Mentimeter is a great way to initiate an anonymous vote and see the results in real-time.
Online Whiteboard: Tools like MURAL have polling tools built in, which eliminates the need to leave the tool to do the vote.
*Need help figuring out how many votes to give each person? Estimate the total number of options and divide by 3 to get the number of dots.
Negotiative Decision-Making Tools
When rule-based decision-making isn't enough, it’s up to the group to decide how they will make their decision. Negotiative decision-making involves determining a set of criteria that can help a group weigh one idea against another.
Importance-Difficulty Matrix: Use a two-by-two matrix with the axes labeled “Importance” and “Difficulty” and map the top 10 ideas on each axis from low to high. Ideas ranked with high importance and low difficulty are generally a great place to start. Learn more from LUMA Institute.
Four-Way Pros and Cons: For each possible decision, consider the pros and cons of moving forward and the pros and cons of not moving forward.
Bull's Eye Diagram: Using a visual of a bull’s eye with three rings, participants discuss each item’s importance, placing the most important items towards the center. Learn more from LUMA Institute.
Decision Matrix: List possible decisions down a left-hand column and decision criteria along the top. At the intersections, determine how each decision weighs against each criterion.
Decision Funnel: Determine a set of criteria. Each criterion becomes a “funnel.” First, decide what constitutes a “move through” the funnel (i.e., “this decision passes this criterion”). Put the most important criteria towards the left. The items that pass through all funnels are the top decisions.
For any of these methods, if the best decision does not reveal itself, consider a vote on the top items to make a final decision.
Collaborative Decision-Making
Collaborative decisions are best made with the support of a third-party facilitator trained in group dialogue. While these decision-making processes are generally more complex, the steps a facilitator might take to host a collaborative decision-making process may look like this:
Recap the decision being made.
Invite clarifying questions: What needs to be clarified before we move forward?
Do a pulse check or vote to see where the energy lies.
Create a decision model and write the answers on a flipchart:
What will help us make this decision?
What do we need to weigh?
Who is impacted? Needs to weigh in?
Share and document ideas and concerns in plenary or breakouts.
Revise idea(s) as a group.
What changes need to be made?
What else?
Who can bring these ideas together?
Do a pulse check or vote to see where the energy lies.
Repeat these steps (pulse check/vote, share ideas, revise options) until it seems like the group is in agreement
Do a final check: Anything else? Can anyone not live with this?
Consensus check via anonymous survey using the following prompts from The Primes by Chris McGoff:
The process was fair
I felt heard
I can live with the outcomes
TRY THIS: Design a Difficult Decision Conversation (30 mins)
Choose a difficult decision that needs to be made by a team you lead or are on. If you’re not sure or don’t have one, practice developing team norms using one or more of the following prompts:
Behaviors that will help us work together
Protocol for team meetings (frequency, vehicle, etc.)
How we will communicate between meetings to stay aligned
Steps to take when conflict occurs
How to ensure everyone's ideas are heard
How we will "team" for success (i.e., leads and backups)
Frame the conversation. Establish the topic, what questions need to be asked or what decisions need to be made, and explain how the final decision will be made and by whom.
For each question, create a space to generate and refine ideas. Group similar ideas together, identify themes, add labels, etc.
Choose the best way to decide based on your group and circumstances. Ask the group, “Is a simple vote enough, or are there decision criteria that need to be weighed?”
If you’re nervous or unsure about facilitating, script out your questions and talking points ahead of time. Think about challenges that may arise and how you will approach them.
Ready for more? In MeetingMakers Academy, we’ll train you in leading decision-making techniques and strategies for brainstorming, navigating conflict, and ensuring follow-through. Join our waitlist for exclusive offers and to be the first to register for our next session.
Visualizations and illustrations by Caitlin Murray
