Team Decision Making

How groups of people make decisions is an interesting reflection of an organization’s values. The process used can also provide a peep into organizational culture. There’s not one optimal way for teams to make decisions, so having a good understanding of several methods will help you make an informed choice when deciding how to decide.

Autocratic decision making

Sometimes, there is one person who is the decision maker. This could happen because of ego, role, holding more information, having specialized training, everyone else being unwilling to be accountable for decisions, or closely holding power due to being an organizational founder. It can be very fast for a single person to make decisions (or agonizingly slow) if there is no clear accountability process for this to happen. It can also feel heavy-handed to everyone else on the team - especially if there is a trust deficit or lack of respect between the people involved. In the best-case scenario, an autocratic leader effectively communicates the parameters of the decision and the thought process in a way that builds connection (even when the ultimate decision is not everyone’s favorite). A principled leader who can be consistent can effectively be a sole decision-maker, but people may still feel left out and silenced in the process. If teammates feel a strong sense of ownership over the team and its impact, autocratic decision-making does not support a sense of connection, community, or individual investment over time.

When autocratic decision makers “seek input” from teammates, it can backfire if the teammates don’t understand the purpose of their input. For example, an autocratic leader can seek input to increase their understanding before making a decision or to estimate how a decision they’ve already made will land. Clarifying the purpose of input from teammates also clarifies the role of teammates in the decision-making process.

Ultimately, the potential speed and apparent simplicity of autocratic decision-making needs to be weighed against the teammates’ feelings of being part of the process to make decisions and, through that participation, a part of the organization as a whole.

Oligarchy

I’ve seen many organizations where a small group takes on decision-making tasks. In these organizational oligarchies, it can be the board of directors or a leadership team that handles decisions. This often happens if board members are elected or earn leadership positions. Theoretically, a small group can pool their perspectives and shared knowledge to make well-informed group decisions democratically or by consensus. When teammates feel they have a decision-maker advocating for their interests this method can feel very engaging and effective. When decision-makers are aloof from their teammates or operate in ways that don’t seem to support teammates’ interests, oligarchic decision-making can expose an us-vs-them trust deficit. Remedies for a decision-making trust deficit can include the intentional selection of decision-makers to represent the interests of teammates and an obvious decision-making process that teammates can observe - maybe one with space for input from all teammates.

It is possible for oligarchic processes to lead to more people feeling heard and valued within an organization, or it could feel like a process where an out-of-touch bunch of buddies make choices without the interests of the teammates in mind.

Democratic processes

Americans seem hard-wired to throw a party for democracy. And, generally speaking, it works pretty ok. Teammates theoretically get to have their say in decisions. The reality of democracy is that up to 49% of teammates may disagree with any decision. This can feel like a lot of people are not on board with something. There also can be subtle (or overt) influence around what decisions get voted on. Who can bring forward a decision, who gets to vote, opinions being shared before voting, and trying to persuade teammates to vote for certain positions can all bog down the process. Yet, the allure of having each individual have the same amount of influence through their vote is often irresistible. It feels more fair to give each person a vote on things that are important to them. The process of voting can be done relatively quickly.

Processes for truly sharing the power of democratic systems need to be intentional. Being clear about what decisions rise to the level of needing a vote and who gets to vote need to be shared openly and thoughtfully. It’s also possible that not everyone gets a single vote - maybe underrecognized individuals need two votes (or more) to make sure their voices are heard. Deciding how to support and move forward with a large group of people who may disagree with a decision is an opportunity to build connections within the organization. Overall, democracy is quick, expected, and can be used to bring people together when done well.

Consensus

Consensus often seems like the best improvement on democracy. It provides an opportunity for people to come together and find solutions that are agreeable to everyone involved. It can also be very involved! A principled consensus process gives space for voicing many options and hearing wildly divergent opinions. It also takes time. It can require significant effort and skillful facilitation to maintain a space for thoughtful dialogue in the midst of a plethora of ideas.

When consensus is done well, optimal solutions are found - or good-enough solutions. When not done well, it is time-consuming and frustrating, especially if teammates are committed to holding inflexible, entrenched positions. I’ve also observed at least one example of a consensus process that was manipulated to the needs of single individuals - so a clear process and strong facilitation is necessary for it to be effective.

Now that you’ve taken a moment to review four different decision-making models consider the types of decisions your team needs to make. There may be times that call for quick autocratic decisions and other issues where a teammate consensus approach will be more valuable. If there are trust deficits that come up during decision-making, more democratic or consensus based approaches may be good options. A clear understanding of time, effort, and teammate engagement needs for any decision and team will help you decide how to decide. Whatever process (or processes) you use, being clear about how the decision-making works and how teammates can be involved can help build trust in the organization and leadership.