Connecting Communication as inspiration for decision-making

How do you make a decision with a group that everyone can stand behind? We help you on your way with a few key principles.

A decision that everyone can stand behind is especially important when the expertise of each group member is needed, or when the decision needs to be supported by everyone. A few principles matter here:

Principle 1: Agreements must fit within a bigger picture

When you want to make a decision with a group, it is important that everyone is clear about the purpose and how the decision fits into a bigger picture. In most organisations, this bigger picture is expressed in a mission or vision statement. Within projects, project goals provide direction.

A few examples:

• A group of managers and experts aims to develop a strategic plan that fits within one of the organisation’s ambitions. The know-how of each team member is important for drawing up a strong strategic plan.
• A team leader needs to make a decision with their workers to increase production. It is valuable for each employee to indicate, from their own workstation, how this decision can best be made. It matters that the decision is supported by everyone and that everyone stays motivated to push through, even when things get difficult, to deliver the best result.
• A management team needs to free up new budgets to respond to market developments in the short term. What is wise, and how does the team take a calculated risk based on the wisdom and know-how of each team member? It is important that the decision is supported by every member of the management team.

Principle 2: opinion-forming first, then decision-making

When making decisions, two phases are important: a thorough opinion-forming phase followed by a decision-making phase. Decision-making often goes wrong because the opinion-forming phase is skipped or lacks sufficient depth.

In the opinion-forming phase, it is important that all information related to the goal is shared within the team. This can be purely technical information, but also aspects at the level of values, personal and/or group interests or needs. The ability of a facilitator, and ideally all team members, to listen empathically has a positive influence on this phase. It is important that the information brought forward is translated to the level of needs and interests.

Each person who contributes information does so in a concise and clear manner, using language that every team member understands. To absorb the information, each input is actively received as the facilitator rephrases (checks) the information in terms of needs or interests. By doing this, you prevent the same contributor from repeating the information.

It is important that all relevant information is shared in this phase. Questions that can invite participants include:

• What is important information we need to make a good group decision to achieve…?
• Is there any other information that might be needed?
• Are there personal interests we should take into account?
• Is there anything else you think is important that has not been said yet?

The role of facilitator is usually taken on by the leader. However, this task can also be handled by another team member, an external facilitator or the group itself.

In the decision-making phase, the aim is to summarise all mentioned interests, needs and information into a clear decision or agreement. Experience with creative thinking is an advantage here: the best solutions are usually very specific and not a copy of previous decisions. When formulating a ‘proposal for a decision’, the principles of the solution request are very useful:

• as concrete as possible;
• realistic;
• formulated in a positive way (without negations);
• action-oriented (including who, what, when and how);
• meeting the interests and needs of each group member.

The facilitator formulates a ‘proposal for a decision’ in a concise, clear manner. First, they verify whether the proposal is clear to everyone. Then the facilitator asks whether anyone has an objection to the proposal. Each team member who signals an objection gets the floor to explain what they feel is missing. The facilitator listens to the objections and rephrases the objection at the level of needs and interests. Then the facilitator integrates the mentioned interests into an ‘adjusted proposal for a decision’. Where needed, team members are asked to suggest an adjustment. Again the question is asked whether there are fundamental objections. If so, the unmet interests or needs behind the objections are explored and the ‘proposal for a decision’ is adjusted. The proposal that is accepted without fundamental objections becomes the final proposal.

This way of making decisions usually takes no more time than imposing a decision. The effects and the willingness afterwards always save time. When making important and complex policy decisions, more time may be invested in the opinion-forming phase. This time investment is often compensated by a smooth decision-making phase. The advantage of this approach is that decisions are supported by the team. Each team member will support and implement the decision in a motivated way. When circumstances change within the reality where the decision needs to be carried out, team members will show more initiative and engagement than with a decision that was imposed from above.

Does this mean that leaders should hand over all decisions and that policy should be determined by employees? Nothing could be further from the truth. What matters most is to determine beforehand at what level it makes sense to seek input from a group. You do this by communicating a clear objective in advance.

A few examples

Responding to competition

A management team needs to respond to an unexpected move by a competitor. The team convenes in an emergency meeting. The CEO has consulted trend watchers but wants to make a decision with the full management team. Some team members propose concrete actions to counter the competitor’s impact. People talk over each other and don’t listen. This is evident from the fact that some managers repeat their message up to four times. The CEO regains the team’s focus by asking one question: “What information do we need to respond appropriately so that we…(the CEO formulates the goal)?”, “I would like to know what we need to take into account when we respond.”

One by one, team members respond to the question. Some respond with concrete solutions. For concrete solutions, the CEO asks about or guesses the interests behind the solution. Gradually the flipchart fills with interests, needs and values. Every team member gets the floor. The CEO listens to each contribution empathically. The opinion-forming phase is rounded off with silence following the question: “Is there anything else we should take into account before we develop a solution?”

Then the CEO asks teams of three to work out a proposal for action. Each group then presents its solution. A global solution is proposed. The CEO formulates how they see the solution, also taking into account what they heard from the trend watcher. They ask whether anyone has an objection. One team member has a concern from a legal perspective. This concern is integrated into the final proposal. The final proposal is accepted without objections. Through this action, the company managed to respond successfully to the competitor.

More efficiency in a growing organisation

The number of employees in a software company has doubled in two years. Software programmes are often created by different teams. Coordination is handled each time by a project coordinator. Processes are running less efficiently than two years ago.

An internal audit provides an overview of the bottlenecks. Each department receives a general overview with an analysis of the bottlenecks within its own department. A team leader presents the report to their team. The team members respond by pointing to other departments as the ones responsible. The team leader sets a clear goal for the meeting: “What can we do as a team to create added value for the whole organisation?”

The team leader listens to the proposals and only writes down the more abstract goals and interests, for example:

• better communication with sales;
• faster feedback on errors;
• more alignment with the graphics department;
• simplification of processes;
• preventing errors in base software;
• alternative for Flash.

Each of these points is a goal in itself. The team selects the most urgent, most important point in consultation: simplification of processes.

The team leader asks: “What information is important if we want to simplify our processes?” The employees share their ideas. Some frame them as reproaches towards other departments. The team leader translates them into interests and needs. For example: “It takes ages before we get information from sales!” Translation: “So it is important that we have quick access to the sales database?”

Once all interests regarding simplification have been noted, concrete agreements are sought. For each proposed agreement, the team leader asks: “Does anyone have an objection?” Most agreements are accepted without objections. When there is an objection, the underlying interests are integrated into an adjusted agreement. Most objections came from the team leader themselves. Each time an agreement imposed something on other departments, the team leader asked: “How do we make sure they are also willing to do it?” By supplementing the agreements with care for everyone involved, they were much better followed and implemented. The other departments tackled the change process in the same way. The software company continued to grow in the following year.

Can we dream for a moment?

Imagine politicians working this way… First hearing all opinions empathically and only then developing decisions that take all interests and needs into account… After all, they form teams of policy-makers with a clear goal: representing the interests of their voters. What are the interests and needs behind the slogans politicians use in their election campaigns? Don’t we often find a set of human needs behind them: safety, respect for culture, fairness, taking each other into account, meaning, support for vulnerable people…

If politicians were clearer about the needs they want to serve without clinging to one concrete solution in advance, only willing to make concessions if the other party does too… If politicians were willing to listen with more empathy to the underlying needs and interests of others, wouldn’t there be a willingness to develop creative solutions that satisfy everyone? Unfortunately, politics usually consists of negotiations where people jump directly (and therefore too quickly) to the decision-making phase without the interests and needs being clearly articulated and heard. Without connection and without an opinion-forming phase in the development of decisions and laws, politics will generate short-term compromises that are undone or need to be adjusted by new generations.

The principles of making group agreements

• Make sure the shared goal is clear.
• First pay attention to opinion-forming. Ensure that all interests, needs, values and information are shared before moving to the next phase. Empathic listening creates a spirit of connectedness and mutual understanding.
• Only when all opinions (at the level of needs and interests) have been heard, can you move to the decision-making phase. Formulate clear proposals that incorporate all information from the opinion-forming round. Creativity and the courage to let go of familiar solutions are important here.
• Refine the ‘proposal for a decision’ by listening to objections. Behind every objection lies a need. Integrate this objection each time into an adjusted proposal.