How Groups Make Decisions: 6 Hygiene Factors

Apologies for the radio silence since my last post… it’s been a wild month!

Last time, I kicked off a series of posts on how groups make decisions. I reflected on the importance of crisp intent as the foundation for good group decision-making.* 

So if the first post was about whether we’re even trying to make a decision – and who should be involved – then this post starts with the question: How do we want to make that decision?

To get everyone on the same page around the 'how', here are 6 elements to line up before you dives into any complex decision:

1. A method. I don’t want to be prescriptive here, but you do need to start with the question, “how do we want to go about this?”  How do we articulate the question we’re seeking to answer? Do we want to compile the pros and cons? Do we want to generate a list of ideas? Do we want to vote? Will we use any particular decision-making frameworks? It pays to think through these choices in advance.  

2. An impact statement. I don’t see these very often, and I often wonder why. An impact statement is simple, and basically responds to: “What’s the question we’re seeking to answer? By answering this question, who and what will this enable? (Or, what difference is this supposed to make, and to whom?)”. An impact statement helps align a group around the true intended value of a decision, which you can keep using as a north star throughout the process. Keeping a sharp eye on impact can also ensure your conversations don’t become inward looking, navel-gazing exercises!

3. A timebox. How long are we happy to give each phase of the process? What’s the right amount of time to do the decision justice, while also creating a ‘productive constraint’. The truth is, most decisions need to be made faster than a comprehensive conversation would allow. Don’t pretend that’s not the case.

4. A shared text or visual. Decision-making gets messy when everyone starts tossing their thoughts into the mix, without taking responsibility for how it’s contributing to the final outcome. Using a shared text to capture the emerging elements is a simple and powerful way to keep everyone focused on co-creating something. That could be as simple as a pros and cons list. It could be a draft decision. It could be a proposal for voting. Whatever it is, the conversation should keep coming back to the emerging text.

5. A parking lot. Stuff that falls out of the conversation that is for another time. Groups are great at weaving in all kinds of tangents, so don’t hesitate to suggest something might be better picked up at another time.

6. A facilitator. Someone who is charged with helping keep the group on track. That could be one of the group, the owner of the meeting or an external facilitator brought in for this purpose. (Here's a thought: Consider setting up a network of peers or colleagues who are willing to act as a neutral facilitator for each other’s meetings.)

So there you have 6 key ‘hygiene factors’ to enable a group to enter into a joint decision-making process. What have I missed?

I look forward to continuing this theme next time. Let me know if there are particularly challenges or questions you’re keen for me to explore in this context.

Until next time,
Simon