Decision-Making Model

Have you ever had someone ask for your opinion or advice, you’ve given it, and then they’ve gone ahead and done something else? If so, how did that feel? So often, people in that situation are left hurt or irritated, wondering, “Why did you bother asking me if you weren’t going to take my advice?”

I’ve been on both sides of this equation.

The problem arises when the Decision-Making Method isn’t clear.

I came across a model a couple of decades ago when I worked with Interaction Associates in San Francisco, and it helped me understand not only the different kinds of Decision-Making Models, but how critical it is that everyone understands what the method is. I don’t know how widely known it is, but it’s always stuck with me.

The idea behind the model is how to engage stakeholders appropriately given a number of factors, including the importance of the decision, the amount of time available, the importance of buy-in, etc.

For example, if the proverbial movie theater is on fire, you don’t exactly have time to build consensus. This would be a situation where “Decide and Announce” is called for because of time constraints. Here the leader makes the decision with little or no input and announces it to those affected by or implementing the decision. Very efficient if everyone goes along.

At the other end of the spectrum, a leader might choose “Consensus” as the appropriate decision-making method with different circumstances. Here all key stakeholders have a chance to give their opinion and to understand the implications of various options. That takes a lot of time but will also have a lot of buy-in because of the high level of involvement. Obviously the key stakeholders have to be identified and given a voice.

Interaction Associates (IA) gives a very helpful visual for this using two axes: “level of involvement” and “level of ownership”: https://tinyurl.com/yawvkomk

Here’s how they describe they different levels (where the horizontal axis represents “level of involvement” and the vertical axis represents “level of ownership.”) As you move up the circles from left to right, the decision-making methods require more stakeholder involvement – thus inspiring in the stakeholders a greater sense of ownership in the decision.

So – going from the bottom left (low level of involvement and low level of ownership) to the top right (high level of involvement and high level of ownership), we have:

Decide & Announce

The change leader makes a decision with little or no input , then announces the decision to those who will be affected by, or must carry out, the decision.

Gather Input from Individuals & Decide

The change leader asks selected individuals for input (ideas, suggestions, information) and then makes a decision.

Gather Input from Team & Decide

The change leader asks team members or a group of stakeholders to share their ideas in a meeting. The leader decides after hearing from everyone.

Consensus

A consensus decision is one that each and every member of the group, or team, is willing to support and help implement. All key stakeholders have had an opportunity to give their opinion and to understand the implications of various options. Everyone, including the change leader, has the same formal power to support or block proposals. If consensus cannot be reached, the change leader has a fallback decision-making option.

Delegate Decision with Constraints

The change leader defines the decision that needs to made in the form of a question(s), clarifies the constraints on the decision (e.g., budget, timeframe, quality requirements), and delegates the decision to others. The leader does not alter the decision as long as it adheres to the constraints.

The critical thing is that everyone understands what level of Decision-Making Method is being used.