Decision Forums

Rather than treat decision-making as a uniform phenomena, our first approach is to suggest a set of key distinctions that allow more intelligent comments about more homogeneous subsets. So our first task is to characterize the forums within which decisions take place. It seems obvious that the process challenges and best practices will vary considerably from one forum to another. The "best practice" in one forum could be counter-productive in another.

The forum for a decision is content neutral, that is, we're looking at the configuration of decision makers rather than the content of the decision to be made. We can envision 5 distinctly different forums, and each one will shape how the decision-making plays out.

A single individual making choices without accountability to an external authority; the purest case, since the only constraint is the challenge of the decision situation.

In organizations, this case is somewhat rare, except, of course, for the decision to join or leave an organization. The only other individual arena is the micro management of one's own day, although that is always within the context of broader decisions about assignments or priorities.

Group of essentially equals, that is, without an authority figure who can break ties or take over the decision. There may be an informal leader who emerges, but his or her leadership requires the consent of the group and they may not be able to break ties or impose a different decision process.

The largest benefit of a group is the diversity of thought, the almost natural impetus to innovation. Just to keep us humble, the downside of a group is the greater complexity of the process, and the potential contamination of certain group dynamics (Remember "GroupThink"?).

Given the situation, an explicit and negotiated process may be critical. Even though the group is composed of equals, any one could ask challenging questions or even volunteer to be a recorder or facilitator. They would take their authority from the consent of the group. Unless they attempt to unduly influence the group, their role will probably be welcomed by all.

For additional detail on decision making in groups of equals, click here

A clear authority with 1 or more subordinates; the role of the subordinate could vary from ‘advisor’ to ‘co-decision-maker’. But their role will be at the discretion of the boss.

This is the classical departmental team. Although the type of decision rule may vary widely, the unique feature of the forum is that one person has the option to define the decision rule. And there are numerous decision rules to consider:

• Consultative - the group gives the boss their best thoughts, and the boss makes the decision.
• Delegated with criteria - the boss delegates the right to choose to the group, but within certain parameters or constraints ("Can't cost more than $X" or "It has to be acceptable to the Legal department"). As long as the final decision is demonstrably within constraints, the group makes the choice.
• Veto rights - the boss delegates the right to decide to the group, but reserves the right to veto the choice if it is unacceptable somehow (merely a less sophisticated version of the previous decision rule).
• Consensus - the entire group has to agree.
• Strong majority - Significantly more than 50% of the group needs to support a given choice.

What seems to be universally true is that confusion or ambiguity about the decision rule leads to easily avoidable stress and conflict. The staff group that presumes it will be a majority decision may feel betrayed when the boss suddenly steps in and takes back the decision.

For more detail on decision making in this forum, click here

A medium-sized group (~30 to 70) with multiple layers of authority, different functions, probably asynchronous, and mediated by email, chat rooms, white papers, or the like; seldom meet face-to-face due to size and dispersion. Smaller discussions within subsets of the collective substitute for a larger meeting. The matrix organization is a collective. Advisory groups, steering committees, or oversight groups often create a network of decision makers.

This forum is becoming increasingly common as organizations push for more cross functional collaboration, decision making within process teams, or within complex projects. The cost of those perfectly reasonable goals are more awkward decision processes, often requiring special attention to the "how" before the group takes up the "what".

The risk in a collective is that partial decisions never converge. Different interests lobby for conflicting options and the lack of a clear authority allows informal debates to ripple through the group without much structure or facilitation.

Whatever decision process may exist, it is vulnerable. Anyone could escalate the issue to a number of different authorities, undercutting the credibility of the collective to resolve issues successfully.

For additional detail on decision making in collectives, click here

Here decision-making crosses organizational boundaries, so it is possible for players to “shop” for alternatives more than with strictly internal groups. Examples would be decisions made between supplier and customer, or decisions reached between competing companies to establish an industry standard.

The power inequality will not be straightforward and each player may attempt to manipulate their perceived authority in the decision. For example, a supplier may attempt to suggest they are a unique supplier with demands from other customers as a way of enhancing their leverage with a particular customer.

In addition to all the challenges of decision-making, now the process has to carry the extra burden of managing boundaries appropriately. Each member of the decision process has to decide how much information they can reveal about their parent organization, whether they can decide on their own or have to take the decision back for internal review, and whether they should join with their current counterparts or seek out an entirely new player.