Quick and wise decisions (part 2)

In the first part of “Quick and wise decisions” you can read how Connecting Communication lets you harness the collective intelligence of a group to make strong decisions. In this part, we explain how, when you have multiple good proposals, you can efficiently select the best and most widely supported decision. In large, complex organisations, it is often difficult to reach a decision quickly. Speed often seems at odds with quality. And when decision-making slows down, you often miss the momentum. Connecting Decision-Making offers a middle ground.

Starting points

To make a fast and powerful decision, a few conditions need to be in place:

• The quality of a decision depends on the competences of the decision-makers. Developing a new smartphone, for example, can only be done by specialists in this field. That is why, when assembling a team that makes decisions, it is important to choose participants wisely. Inviting a representative of the people who will carry out the decision is very often a smart choice.
• All actors who can contribute to the decision-making should be present at the moment the decision is taken. This implies that full decision-making authority rests with the group. And this presupposes that there is clarity about mission, vision, and strategic goals. In short: the right people at the table with the broadest possible mandate.
• When there are multiple options, the group chooses the best “good enough” solution. This means the decision-making group picks the proposal with the least resistance, in which needs, values, and interests are fulfilled as well as possible. An important option to consider here is the zero solution. This is the status quo option: “Everything stays as it is.” By explicitly putting the zero solution forward as a possibility, it indirectly becomes clear how strong the motivation is to change something. You compare the resistance to the most acceptable proposal against the choice for the status quo. This way of working provides clarity and the energy to get started with the chosen proposal.
• Being able to communicate in a connecting way is a necessary condition for making fast progress in decision-making. It presupposes that each participant has the skill to express their opinion clearly and concisely, and is able to listen empathically to others. It is often helpful to have the decision-making process facilitated by someone who has an eye for communication. This person can ensure the process is clearly phased and that participants stay on track.

Choosing from multiple proposals in five phases:

A good, clear starting question

A good starting question is the foundation of meaningful decision-making. Empathically questioning key stakeholders (customers, stakeholders) about their needs, interests, and values often adds exceptional value in sparking out-of-the-box thinking about the starting question.

Example: to choose the next prototype of a smartphone, it is important to start from a powerful question. Empathically asking customers about the inconveniences they experience, as well as their wildest fantasies about future devices, provides valuable input for formulating good starting questions. Choosing the right starting question can itself be a decision-making process.

Multiple proposals are formulated

When formulating proposals, it is essential that they are as concrete and realistic as possible. This makes it possible to question proposals very specifically for resistance among the participants.

Example: participants formulate several concrete proposals based on the chosen starting question. The proposals are noted schematically on visual media (flipchart, smartboard) so that all participants have an overview of the different options.

Empathy for the objections to each proposal

For each proposal, participants indicate the degree of resistance they feel. Rather than only defending their own proposal, it is essential to consider the various proposals and to question and argue the resistance to alternatives in an empathic way. What needs, values, or interests are lacking? Through this interaction, a cross-pollination emerges among the different experts, enabling them to make the best choice from their collective intelligence.

Example: each proposal is questioned for resistance based on the participants’ respective competences. Depending on the degree of resistance they feel, they indicate with one, two, three, four, or five fingers how much resistance they have to a particular proposal. By noting the total resistance for each proposal, it often becomes clear which proposal is most acceptable to the group. Empathically probing into objections and the underlying needs, interests, or values takes time. A summary of the objection level can be noted for each proposal.

Adjusting the proposals

Adjusting and refining the proposals into a decision ensures that the expertise of the decision-makers results in concepts that transcend individual competences. Often the input from the previous round gets translated into a single proposal that bundles all the know-how present. This proposal is then adopted as the final decision. Yet it can also happen that several proposals remain and need to be weighed against each other. Often these are a few variants where the group wants to choose the solution with the lowest resistance (and therefore the highest acceptance).

Example: three possible variants of a new prototype are formulated. For each proposal, the pros and cons are clearly listed.

Weighing the proposals from resistance, including the zero solution

In a final voting round, the proposals are compared based on the resistance principle. The zero solution is also weighed here. The proposal with the lowest resistance is retained as the decision.

Example: each participant indicates their resistance level for each option, including the proposal to drop all proposals (the zero option). To put the final choice into action, the group agrees on who does what, and when, so that the decision can be carried out.

To conclude

As participants become familiar with probing for objections and see that this way of working delivers speed and quality, they will naturally develop their own approach. By listening to each other in a connecting way, subject-matter experts and people with hands-on experience create a quality that is unique, more valuable, and continually improving.