Different decision making systems

1 consent oriented

Definition consent: Active agreement , in conclusion absence of disagreement, also absence of unvoiced resistance.

  1.1 Consensus

no objection/resistance

Fits to built groups; necessary for decision about the furthermore used decision-making procedure in the group.

Fundamental idea: everyone in the boat

Preparation: discussion

Procedure: inquire objections. In case of existing ones: generate alternatives until there are no more objections.

Advantages and strengths of the approach: everyone in the same boat

Disadvantages and risks: often not achievable; can generate strong groups → “dishonest consensus”

Impact/consequences on the decision-preparation: listen, understand. If no consensus is found it may lead to conflicts.

Impact/consequences on the implementation: without inner frictions, no accusation in case of mistakes, the entire group learns.

 1.2. Consent

Decision, in case there are no objections

Suitable for sociocratic circles

Fundamental idea: a strong common goal allows consent. It´s about approval not agreement

Preparation: what is the question/the problem? An “image giving round” delivers information for a common understanding

Procedure: one opinion round, afterwards the moderator makes or picks up a proposal and carries out an agreement round: Objections are being investigated and integrated. In case this does not work: new proposal an new agreement round.

Necessary requirements: everyone needs the attitude to contribute in a constructive way towards a consensus solution. Moderation required. A common understanding for the distinction between objection and “serious objection” is essential.

Advantages and strengths of this approach: protection of individual interests is secured.

Disadvantages and risks: blockable, power and responsibility of the moderator.

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: cooperative, listen to the others

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: minimal inner frictions

 1.3. systemic consensus – election consensus

Search for the highest acceptance under clearly formulated alternatives

Suits topics with contradictory wishes

Fundamental idea: looking for a solution as close as possible to consensus

Preparation: What is the question, the problem? Has everybody all the information?

Procedure: Gathering the alternatives and evaluation by the highest resistance of the entire group, thereby the one with the highest acceptance can be found

Necessary requirements: the idea of evaluation by the highest resistance must be known. No moderation training needed.

Advantages and strengths of this approach: consensus close solutions also in big groups

Disadvantages and risks: remaining resistances, individual discontent can not be excluded

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: cooperative, listening to the others, everybody learns to make viable suggestions

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: minimal inner frictions

 1.4. systemic consensus – advanced consensus

Empathetic development of as many alternatives for complex problems and decision for those with the highest acceptance

Suitable for problem solving of complex problems, also with many participants

Fundamental idea: a sensitive, 13-stage process of solution development with intense exchange amongst the participants leads to a maximum of information about the existing solution possibilities and their advantages and disadvantages, due to which the alternative with the highest acceptance in the group is being brought to decision.

Preparation: What is the question, the problem? Has everybody all the information?

Procedure: a subordinate question should allow to gain a broad spectrum of possible solutions. Afterwards a brainstorming for possible solutions and their evaluation by rejection. Reasons for rejection are being investigated and affect improved proposals.

Necessary requirements: the idea of evaluation by the highest resistance must be known. The awareness, that by denying every strange proposal, one gives away the possibility to co-create, must exist. Moderator is required.

Advantages and strengths of this approach: Wishes and needs are being made aware to everyone. Improvable by iterative rounds.

Disadvantages and risks: Effort, rest discontent as well as serious objections might remain.

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: cooperative, listening to the others, everyone learns to make viable suggestions

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: minimal inner frictions.

 1.5. systemic consensus – quick consensus

Quick decision to treat a specific impulse through a spectrum of alternatives. In case of easy problems. Suitable to tighten discussions. Suitable for process control.

Fundamental idea: finding a consensus close idea with as little effort as possible. Method is suitable to control the process of solution search itself. This control is done by the participants collectively and not by the moderator.

Preparation: What is the question, the problem? Has everybody all the information?

Procedure: asking the objection question. If there are no objections, grant the impulse by consensus. If there are objections, decision is made through selection consensus. This process can be interrupted at anytime by a new impulse which is being treated according to the same scheme.

Necessary requirements: the idea of evaluation of alternatives through opposition must be known. Must be moderated by a participant who has experience in quick consensus.

Advantages and strengths of this approach: no leader needed. Group guides itself.

Disadvantages and risks: Experience and willingness necessary

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: activation of group intelligence to lead the group.

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: Everyone involves themselves

 1.6. Nonviolent communication

Act within the OK-zone

Suitable for topics with high emotional involvement

Fundamental idea: investigate the needs, affected by a decision, of all participants and preferably consider all of them

Preparation: all participants must try to bear in mind the regarded facts, feelings and needs.

Procedure: Needs are being transformed into requests/proposals and questions according to objections of the others. In case of objections the underlying needs are being investigated and it’s being attempted to integrate them individually and discuss them with the group until there are no more objections coming up.

Necessary requirements: challenging for everybody: participants need awareness about the fundamental principals of nonviolent communication attitude, patience, discipline and attention about whose needs are being treated at the moment. No moderator needed???

Advantages and strengths of this approach: everyone is in his OK-zone whilst decision

Disadvantages and risks: blockable. Sometimes not possible. Group pressure towards compromise

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: cooperative, listening to the others, needs are being made aware

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: without inner frictions

2. Category: coincidence

2.1. Roll the dice

suitable for a game

Fundamental idea: none of the group decides, to obtain an appropriate result

Preparation: an agreement about the interpretation of the dice result is needed e.g. the highest number decides

Procedure: see preparation

Necessary requirements: dice

Advantages and strengths of this approach: easy, comprehensible for everyone, fast

Disadvantages and risks: not the best solution wins, but just any one

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: according to the group, from exciting to no interest to generate proposals as they don’t have any influence

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: between broad support and no responsibility for the solution, as by chance.

Decisive is the decision-making tool with which the group has selected to decide with the dice.

Is it by consensus → workable results

3. category: majority

3.1. simple majority

Used in democratic boards, for referendums

Fundamental idea: what the majority wants counts

Preparation: elaborate a bivalent question

Procedure: every person entitled to vote has one vote. The proposal with more than 50% of the votes is decisive.

Necessary requirements: bivalent question

Advantages and strengths of this approach: easy. Well-known. Broadly enshrined and accepted in law.

Disadvantages and risks: causes conflicts, minorities are not being considered. Depending on the polarization of the issue, good solutions or dispute. Does not fit for more than two alternatives.

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: fight for votes instead for good alternatives.

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: depending of the level of conflict, frictionless to impracticable

3.2. relative majority

Fundamental idea: what the majority wants counts

Preparation: work on proposals or alternatives that are being brought to a vote

Procedure: every person entitled to vote has one vote. The proposal with the majority of votes is decisive.

Necessary requirements:

Advantages and strengths of the approach: easy. Well-known. Broadly enshrined and accepted in law.

Disadvantages and risks: a relative majority rules the absolute majority. Distortion of reality, as one vote for one alternative automatically is against the others. In reality this must not be like this. Causes conflicts, all other minorities are not being considered. Diversity harms the procedure.

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: coalition building. Fight for votes. Depending on the polarization of the issue good solutions or dispute.

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: depending of the level of conflict, frictionless to impracticable

3.3. 2/3 majority

suitable for constitutional changes / very important decisions

Fundamental idea: what a major part of a group wants shall be done.

Preparation: elaborate proposals or alternatives that are being brought to a vote

Procedure: every person entitled to vote has one vote. The proposal with more than 66,67% of the votes is decisive.

Necessary requirements: good decision recommendation.

Advantages and strengths of the approach: large majority secures broad viability. Easy. Well-known. Broadly enshrined and accepted in law.

Disadvantages and risks: minority is not being considered

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: hard to achieve without appropriate method. Coalition building. Fight for votes. Depending on the polarization of the issue good solutions or dispute.

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: depending of the level of conflict, frictionless to impracticable

3.4. Majority + final ballot

used for example to vote for federal president.

Fundamental idea: come to a decision backed by a majority, even it must be created artificially.

Preparation: majority voting with relative majority

Procedure: if in a previous ballot no majority was achieved, a final ballot is being implemented.

Necessary requirements: previous ballot.

Advantages and strengths of the approach: Easy. Well-known. Broadly enshrined and accepted in law.

Disadvantages and risks: artificially created majority. Conflict potential is not being considered.

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: coalition building. Fight for votes. Depending on the polarization of the issue good solutions or dispute.

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: depending of the level of conflict, frictionless to impracticable.

3.5. everybody has a defined number of points to stick

Suitable for moderation

Fundamental idea: alternative with highest score wins. By limitation of points the probability of a draw is being reduced.

Preparation: gathering proposals, ideas and alternatives.

Procedure: everybody gets for example 3 “pro”-points and can distribute those randomly on the alternatives. Alternative with the highest score is decisive.

Necessary requirements: Points to stick or trust that everyone only draws 3 points. No alternative must trigger objection among the participants.

Advantages and strengths of the approach: well-known.

Disadvantages and risks: measurement is blurred by limited amount of points. Objection can not be expressed.

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: possibly polarization in the preparation.

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: the solution found has a lot of enthusiasm energy, good implementation if slight conflict potential. Discontent among participants who felt resistance to single alternatives.

3.6. Everyone has 10 points to stick for every proposal

Suitable for pure enthusiasm alternatives

Fundamental idea: alternatives with the greatest enthusiasm wins

Preparation: gathering proposals, ideas and alternatives

Procedure: everybody evaluates every alternative on a “pro”-scale from 0-10. The alternative with most points has greatest enthusiasm in the group and is decisive.

Necessary requirements: helpful are 0-10 compartments as in consensus. No alternative must trigger objection among the participants.

Advantages and strengths of the approach: comparative measurement of all alternatives. Qualitatively best statement about the enthusiasm level.

Disadvantages and risks: calculating. Possibly a draw. Only useful in case of no/little conflict potential.

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: good picture for everybody about how real the enthusiasm in the group is.

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: the solution found has a lot of enthusiasm energy, good implementation if slight conflict potential.

4. category: autocratic/hierarchic

4.1. authoritarian

Implemented in management

Fundamental idea: most suitable person provided with decision-making power

Preparation: selection of an authority figure.

Procedure: gathering the decision-relevant information, decision by decision maker.

Necessary requirements: provide decision maker with decisive power, professional and emotional competence of the decision maker

Advantages and strengths: quick decision possible, clarity for everyone about how is decided

Disadvantages and risks: possibly no/inappropriate involvement of affected persons, reduction of personal responsibility of subordinates.

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: tendency to create subordinates without personal opinions, creative potential and intelligence of the group is hardly used.

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: depending of the level of conflict, frictionless to impracticable. In case of bigger obstacles: practicing coercion, partially complex control measures or sanctions required.

4.2. cooperative decision recommendation

Fundamental idea: mixture of involvement of as many affected persons and preservation of decision-making responsibility of the decision maker.

Preparation: definition of conditions by decision maker.

Procedure: affected persons also elaborate proposals and evaluate them by their level of rejection. Decision makers make the final decision.

Necessary requirements: experience with the systemic consensus principle, clarity about conditions of the decision maker, acceptance of the group that decision makers decide unlike proposed.

Advantages and strengths of the approach: activation of group intelligence, involvement of affected persons, decisional authority remains with decision makers.

Disadvantages and risks: it can cause demotivation in case the decision makers decide in another way than proposed by the group

Impacts/consequences on the decision-preparation: good and effective involvement of affected people

Impacts/consequences on the implementation: high viability of decisions, almost frictionless implementation, good effective solutions.

5. the wisdom of crowds

In his book “The wisdom of crowds” James Surowiecki writes:

One day in the fall of 1906, the British scientist Francis Galton headed for the country fair.

As he walked through the exhibition that day, Galton came across a weight-judging competition. A fat ox had been selected and members of a gathering crowd were lining up to place wagers on the (slaughtered and dressed) weight of the ox.

Eight hundred people tried their luck. They were a diverse lot. Many of them were butchers and farmers, but there were also quite a few who had no insider knowledge of cattle. ‘Many non-experts competed,’ Galton wrote later in the scientific journal Nature, ‘like those clerks and others who have no expert knowledge of horse, but who bet on races, guided by newspapers, friends, and their own fancies.’ The analogy to a democracy, in which people of radically different abilities and interests each get one vote, had suggested itself to Galton immediately. ‘The average competitor was probably as well fitted for making a just estimate of the dressed weight of the ox, as an average voter is of judging the merits of most political issues on which he votes,’ he wrote.

Galton was interested in figuring out what the ‘average voter’ was capable of because he wanted to prove that the average voter was capable of very little. So he turned the competition into an impromptu experiment. When the contest was over and the prizes had been awarded, Galton borrowed the tickets from the organizers and ran a series of statistical tests on them, including the mean of the group’s guesses.

[…]

Galton undoubtedly thought that the average guess of the group would be way off the mark. After all, mix a few very smart people with some mediocre people and a lot of dumb people, and it seems like you’d end up with a dumb answer. But Galton was wrong — the crowd guessed 1,197 pounds; after it had been slaughtered and dressed the ox weighed 1,198 pounds. In other words, the crowd’s judgment was essentially perfect…. Galton wrote later: ‘The result seems more creditable to the trustworthiness of a democratic judgment than might have been expected.’ That was, to say the least, an understatement.

James Surowiecki describes in his book more such experiments, that always lead to the same result: an astonishing wisdom of the crowds.