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
gives the group
a low-risk opportunity
to practice consensus
- 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.
- 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 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 welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
- Email Antics: I
- Nearly everyone I know complains that email is a time waster. Yet much of the problem results from our
own actions. If you're looking around for some New Year's resolutions to make, here are some ideas,
in this Part I of a little catalog of things we do that help waste our time.
- The Solving Lamp Is Lit
- We waste a lot of time finding solutions before we understand the problem. And sometimes, we start solving
before everyone is even aware of the problem. Here's how to prevent premature solution.
- How to Foresee the Foreseeable: Preferences
- When people collaborate on complex projects, the most desirable work tends to go to those with highest
status. When people work alone, they tend to spend more time on the parts of the effort they enjoy.
In both cases, preferences rule. Preferences can lead us astray.
- 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.
- Team Risks
- Working in teams is necessary in most modern collaborations, but teamwork does carry risks. Here are
some risks worth mitigating.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.