Decisions, Decisions: II

Here's Part II of a catalog of group decision processes. Check out "Decisions, Decisions: I," Point Lookout for November 17, 2004, for more.

Time-boxed Consensus

The group reaches a consensus before a specified deadline. If it fails, another pattern (usually Authority) kicks in.

This approach can mitigate both the efficiency risk of Consensus, and the alienation risk of Authority. It can be especially helpful in a polarized environment, where it gives the group a low-risk opportunity to practice consensus.

Majority Vote

A conventional aye/nay vote. If the number of ayes exceeds a preset threshold, the proposal is accepted. If the threshold is more than half, this method is called a supermajority vote.

This procedure allows more dissenters than consensus, which speeds decisions, even in a polarized environment. But that strength is also a weakness — it can foster the development of factions, and if a proposal is adopted, the minority often feels alienated. Decisions by thin majorities in a polarized environment can exacerbate polarization.

Veto

In every method except Authority, the authority's vote is just one among equals. The Veto enables the authority to negate a group decision, which mitigates the risk of groupthink.

This procedure is rarely used in business, and even more rarely is it declared openly. The risk of alienation is extraordinary.

A somewhat safer approach is a technical veto, which overrides the group's decision on the basis of legal, ethical or regulatory grounds. Even a technical veto can risk alienation, but at least the authority is less directly involved.

Expert Subgroup

The decision is delegated to an expert subgroup, which then uses any of the other patterns to reach a decision, and the larger group is then bound to adopt the result. If the subgroup's decision isn't binding, then no delegation has actually occurred — instead, it's just a committee study.

Expert Subgroup delegation addresses the risk of slower, more cumbersome processes such as the various forms of Consensus, but it introduces some risk that flaws and alternatives won't be fully illuminated or considered. It can work in a polarized environment, provided all major factions are represented. Even if they are, if one faction is small, this method increases the probability of blockage by a lone dissenter, because the body is smaller, and it subjects that dissenter to much greater pressure. This threatens the credibility of the result, because the expert subgroup can be seen as an isolation tactic.

A common source of trouble with any of these methods is confusing the content decision with the process decision. Be clear about the difference: deciding whether to decide, by when to decide, how to decide, who will decide, or what pattern will be used are process decisions. Blurring the content decision with any of the various required process decisions can introduce tension and conflict — and keep you from deciding anything at all.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Pygmalion Side Effects: Bowling a Strike

Elise slowly walked back to her office, beaten. Her supervisor, Alton, had just given Elise her performance review — her third consecutive "meets expectations." No point now to her strategy of giving 120% to turn it all around. She is living a part of the Pygmalion Effect, and she's about to experience the Pygmalion Side Effects.

Make Space for Serendipity

Serendipity in project management is rare, in part, because we're under too much pressure to see it. If we can reduce the pressure, wonderful things happen.

Twenty-Three Thoughts

Sometimes we get so focused on the immediate problem that we lose sight of the larger questions. Here are twenty-three thoughts to help you focus on what really counts.

Problem-Solving Preferences

When people solve problems together, differences in preferred approaches can surface. Some prefer to emphasize the goal or objective, while others focus on the obstacles. This difference is at once an asset and annoyance.

Managing Hindsight Bias Risk

Performance appraisal practices and project retrospectives both rely on evaluating performance after outcomes are known. Unfortunately, a well-known bias — hindsight bias — can limit the effectiveness of many organizational processes, including both performance appraisal and project retrospectives.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident

A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.

And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info