7 Ways to Clarify Decision-Making and Improve Your Meetings
By: Ruben Van Der Laan
Tags: Work, Decision Making, Leadership, Meetings, Management And Leadership

In control… yet your meetings run astray

It’s bewildering to see such a high-risk attitude when it comes to working in groups. And a high-risk attitude, it is! The complex work environments require different and new skills to keep groups moving forward. And also to unstuck them when needed. It requires more than the unprepared improvisation that most meeting leaders currently use.

Where those same leaders keep in control by endless reviews of all possible financial risks, implementation pitfalls and success indicators, they turn a blind eye to managing the risk of a poorly run meeting. As a leader you’d tick all the right boxes and yet as a meeting leader you’d fail.

Recognizable?

Work has changed, so change your meetings

Steven Rogelberg, in his book ‘the Surprising Science of Meetings’, links the abundance of meetings to the new work zeitgeist in which values of employee inclusion, empowerment and employee buy-in are deemed essential to the survival of the organisation.We are currently experiencing a shift in which managers are less rewarded for their super-expertise (historically the smartest guy would grow into the management position) and increasingly need to promote cooperation between all kinds of levels and different stakeholders (think interdisciplinary teams across hierarchies and divisions).

Before the shift, there was clarity. The meeting leader would make the call, a note-taker (the secretary) would write it down in a meeting report and the participants would follow-up on the decision. With cooperation and buy-in gaining importance the decision-making process is not that clear anymore.

That requires meeting leaders to know more than just the old ‘I decide and you execute’ way to close a discussion. This way of decision-making still has its value, but the toolbox of a meeting leader needs to be broader.

There are 7 ways for decision-making. And the trick here is to clarify the decision-making at the beginning of meetings. Participants engage more easily when they know the rules of engagement. So bringing clarity on the decision-making process drives engagement and buy-in. Furthermore, as is rightfully noted by Bob Frisch and Cary Green (in this HBR-post) participants want to understand what’s going to happen if they can’t reach an agreement.

So, here we go! The 7 ways to clarify decision-making in meetings.

1. You decide with consultation

Is a meeting always needed? Of course not. And it’s worth considering what the added value of a meeting would be for the decision-maker. If you think the putting all the intelligent minds together within one room outweighs the interruption of their workflow, then go ahead. Otherwise, ask their input individually.

2. You decide with command

Maybe you’d like to call a meeting to convey the decision you’ve made to the rest of the team and stakeholders. But holding a meeting just to inform is more a waste of time than anything else. There are so much more ways to inform. So to add value, think of discussing in a meeting how the team will cope and work with your decision.

Most organisations are run the autocratic way. And employees at every level usually have their domain of responsibilities entitling them to make their own (autocratic) decisions within their domain.

3. We decide by voting

There are endless ways of going around with voting, 50% plus one being one possibility to define a majority. It’s up to you (and the meeting) to decide what the majority means (e.g. within the Council of the European Union there is something called QMV or Qualified Majority Vote, where a decision passes when approved by 55% of the member states representing at least 65% of the EU population). The main drawback with voting is that it leaves the minority empty-handed. So, as fair as it seems, it also lacks buy-in and engagement.

4. We decide by consensus

If the stakes are high(and they usually are when you chose for consensus), prepare for a lot of talking and a long meeting. So, having a facilitator that has no stake in the outcome will help you surf the process. Having said this, the decision, being supported by everyone in the room, has a strong likelihood of being executed.

5. We decide by consent

When someone voices a significant objection on a proposal, the objection needs to be clarified with reasons so the other meeting members understand the objection. The meeting then adapts the proposal, till there is consent by everyone. Consent is not about persuading others, it’s about crafting a proposal that allows for moving forward.

Like consensus, a facilitator will be of good help when you decide to use consent.

6 & 7. The oracle and random decision-making

These are two undervalued ways for making decisions. Why undervalued? Because we tend to believe that decision-making should always be rational. But sometimes it’s important to make decisions based on external interventions (like oracles) or to just move forward (random decision-making).

The word oracle is derived from the Latin , which means to speak. In ancient times, oracles directly spoke the words of deities. In our modern organisations, oracles usually take the form of consultants. Random decision-making doesn’t require any external involvement. It’s just a random pick of the different options that you have in front of you.

In short: clarify your decision-making in meetings