The more complex, ambiguous, and uncomfortable decisions become, the more helpful it often is to involve as many perspectives as possible from the beginning. However, many shy away from this for good reason: it can become very time-consuming and exhausting, often without a satisfactory outcome.

PROS AND CONS OF TRADITIONAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

The commonly known forms of decision-making are rarely sufficient:

• Autocratic decisions are quick but often overlook important perspectives, and those not involved in the decision may lack motivation to support it.
• Majority decisions can quickly lose sight of important minority views.
• Achieving consensus is not only time-consuming, but in the worst-case scenario, the group may settle on the lowest common denominator, leaving no one satisfied.

However, there are other ways to make decisions together that offer several advantages over more familiar methods. These alternatives take minorities into account, aim for the greatest common denominator, and, with some practice, can be remarkably efficient and effective. These methods include systemic consensus and consent.

We will explore these decision-making tools and their prerequisites in our workshop “Making Decisions Together”.

MAKING COLLECTIVE DECISIONS BY WORKING WITH OBJECTIONS RATHER THAN APPROVAL

These methods operate fundamentally differently: they query objections, not approval. While we’ve traditionally been asked whether we approve of a proposal, here we ask whether we can live with it in good conscience or whether we have objections. This may sound simple, but it has a profound effect:

• On one hand, the solution space grows immensely. There are more proposals we can live with than those we would actively approve of. If something doesn’t impact our work or the well-being of the company, it may be just “okay” for us—and that’s enough.
• On the other hand, we equally incorporate the knowledge of all participants and can discuss concretely how to improve a proposal so that it doesn’t jeopardize the well-being of the organization or its employees.
• Furthermore, the severity of the objection, not the number of people who share the same concern, is what matters. Let’s take a closer look at one of these methods.

OVERVIEW OF CONSENT

Consent is a key part of sociocracy but can also be used independently of the circle organization method. When we reach consent, it means that no serious and reasoned objection remains among the participants with regard to the shared goal. This last point is crucial: the proposals are evaluated concerning the shared goal, not personal preferences.

The consent process is especially suited for larger, fundamental decisions that will affect many people and requires the active participation of all involved.

CONSENT DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

1. Proposal presentation: The proposer presents a solution.
2. Information round: Do you have any questions about the proposal? What information do you still need to form an opinion?
3. First feedback round: How do you feel about this proposal? What’s your opinion of it? What’s your impression of this solution proposal?
4. Second feedback round: Has anything changed in your view after hearing others? Do you have ideas for possible improvements?
5. Consent round: The facilitator drafts a proposal based on what’s been heard. Hand signs from all: approval, minor concerns, or serious objection. Decision-making OR integration of the serious objection.

INDICATING AND INTEGRATING OBJECTIONS

In the consent round, all participants have the opportunity to indicate, usually via hand signs, whether they can go along with the summarized proposal or if they have minor or serious objections. Minor objections just need to be heard. Serious objections, however, need to be integrated, meaning the proposal must be adjusted until the objections no longer exist. The person raising such an objection doesn’t need to know exactly how to resolve it but is committed to helping find a solution.

This way, everyone is involved and takes responsibility for the decision. An objection—or resistance, as some call it—thus becomes a valuable contribution to a better solution. This is an exciting reframing of something often seen as inconvenient or disruptive in hierarchical relationships. It’s an important learning experience in working together, where we take responsibility for ourselves and our society. What would change if we approached every person in resistance, child or adult, assuming they have good reasons for their objections, which contain important information for our collaboration? And what would be different if we made it a point to carefully examine whether we can, in good conscience, go along with what is being proposed to us? I refer to the Veto Institute and return to the context of organizations. A key question that remains is what happens if a serious objection cannot be integrated. In that case, we must zoom in and closely examine the apparent differences in understanding the shared goal or risk assessment, as well as the consequences if this person does not support the decision. Like any other method, consent is not a magic potion that solves all problems.

WHAT CAN A CONSENT PROCESS ACHIEVE AT BEST?

• The full range of opinions is brought into the open.
• Everyone takes responsibility for the shared decision.
• Trust between participants is built.
• Decisions are made in line with the shared goal.
• Ideally: High-quality decisions through the integration of all needs.

ESSENTIAL PREREQUISITES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

As Grady Brooch said, “A fool with a tool is still a fool,” and as Peter Drucker noted, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” For such decision-making processes to be effective in a group or team, certain prerequisites must be met: participants’ needs must be taken seriously, there must be a high level of trust, and everyone must engage actively and on equal footing. Otherwise, the question of whether there are concerns or objections will simply be met with polite or fearful silence. Additionally, it’s essential that everyone aligns with a common goal, which must be clearly defined and understood. Participants must also be aware of their intentions to avoid following personal preferences. These are far from minor details and are often the result of long developmental processes.