Connecting Decision-Making

Connecting Decision-Making (CDM) is a way of making decisions that fits with Connecting Communication. Connecting Decision-Making ensures the highest possible acceptance and delivers high-quality results.

What are the advantages of Connecting Decision-Making?

CDM is a revolutionary way of making decisions with groups. Because stakeholders are actively involved in the decisions, their willingness to follow through or help implement those decisions afterwards is remarkably high.

In teams of experts, CDM ensures that new concepts, products and services reflect the collective intelligence of the team. CDM not only gets ideas flowing, but also channels them smoothly into supported decisions that are ready for implementation.

The starting point of CDM is to look for the decision with the least resistance. In other words, the aim is not to find the decision that everyone considers the most ideal. CDM is a perfect method for organisations to develop methods and concepts because:

• decisions are supported and backed by the largest possible majority;
• the decision-making process is efficient, effective and saves time;
• those involved take each other’s needs and interests into account when developing decisions;
• the specific knowledge and experience of each team member is harmoniously integrated into concepts.

How does Connecting Decision-Making work?

To apply CDM, it is important to follow several phases.

1. Preparation

In the first phase, it is important to make clear to all group members what the ultimate objectives are and within what framework those objectives need to be achieved. These can be objectives at the mission level (the reason an organisation exists) or strategic goals that need to be realised within a certain timeframe, with a specific budget and within particular regulations. Next, it is important to set a concrete goal. For example: “How do we ensure that we update the corporate identity of our branches while keeping our service to customers as operational as possible?” or: “How do we organise our marketing so that we increase our market share by 15% in the next fiscal year?” The group that participates in the decision-making consists of:

those people (or their representatives) on whom the decision has an impact; those people who, by virtue of their role, are accountable for implementing the decision; any experts who can provide valuable (often technical) input regarding boundary conditions and important criteria around the decision-making.

2. Information exchange

The participants in the decision-making process share information they believe is important for formulating proposals. This can include insights of all kinds: financial guidelines from the board, technical aspects to take into account, experiences and lessons learned from comparable projects…

3. Formulating proposals for a decision

The participants make proposals for solutions and develop them individually or in subgroups. The proposals are formulated as concretely as possible. The proposals are presented briefly to the group of decision-makers and noted on a screen or flipchart. Alongside the list of proposals, the null option is also noted. The null option means that the decision is to change nothing about the current situation. Optionally, participants can name the pros and cons of the formulated proposals. By doing this before evaluating the proposals, participants can then assess the proposals with more knowledge.

4. Assessing the proposals

Each participant assesses each proposal by indicating their level of objection:

• No hand raised = no objection
• One hand raised = moderate objection
• Two hands raised = fundamental objection

For each proposal, the objection level (= the number of hands) is recorded. The proposal with the lowest objection level has the best chance of broad support. The null option is also scored. The solution with the lowest objection level is put forward as the solution with the least resistance. Sometimes this solution is accepted as the final solution. If some team members still have fundamental objections to the solution with the lowest group resistance, a second round of voting is prepared. Sometimes it is useful to assess with more nuance. In that case, participants assess each proposal on a scale of 0 to 10. This allows for greater nuance in the voting.

5. Second assessment of the proposals

The second voting round is preceded by an empathic inquiry with the people who have fundamental objections. What underlying interests, values or needs are, in their view, not being met by the proposal with the lowest resistance? Through this inquiry, team members gain insight into which direction the final proposal can still be improved. This interaction can result in a solution where nobody has fundamental objections anymore. Or several new proposals may emerge. In the latter case, the proposals can be assessed again in a round where each team member indicates their objection level. By applying the cycle of Connecting Decision-Making (formulating proposals, weighing objection levels, inquiring into unmet interests, adjusting proposals), the quality of a decision rises and team member acceptance increases. The final decision integrates the intelligence and experience of each team member and increases their willingness to support the decision.

An example

A large bank wants to update its image and corporate identity. This means every branch needs a thorough facelift. For most offices, this means major works will take place and a temporary solution needs to be found for serving customers. Some branches will need to close temporarily, while for others the changes are minimal and service can continue with small adjustments. The bank’s management decides to develop a tailored solution for each branch to make the transition as efficient as possible. For each branch, a working group is assembled to decide how the changes will be carried out. Each working group consists of the branch director with their deputy, a change manager from central services, an interior architect, a construction engineer and a project manager for the branch. In the first phase, the working group members exchange information about all important aspects of the change project. The project manager notes down all important aspects discussed in keywords. In this phase, it is important that participants listen actively and empathise with the different perspectives of the other working group members. In the second phase, participants formulate concrete proposals for tackling the project. The project manager records all proposals in an Excel sheet projected on a screen:

• Proposal 1: temporarily close the branch and serve customers at other branches in surrounding municipalities.
• Proposal 2: renovate the branch in phases so it can stay open and customers can continue to be served at their familiar branch.
• Proposal 3: place a container in front of the branch so customers can be served in the container during thorough and faster renovations.
• Proposal 4: organise a temporary branch in a rented premises nearby and keep the old branch open until the new one is finished.
• Proposal 5: as an additional proposal, the change manager notes the null option, in other words ‘Do not renovate the branch and leave everything as it is’.

Then all team members indicate their level of objection to each option with a score from 0 (= no objection) to 10.

The objection scores show that proposal 3 has the lowest objection level. However, the branch director has a high level of objection to proposal 3. The change manager invites the branch director to explain which interests and needs are not being met by proposal 3. The other team members listen and ask questions to understand the objections. The interests and needs mentioned by the branch director are noted on a flipchart:

• Security aspect (money cannot be safely stored in a container).
• Concern about whether there will be enough counters; at least three are needed.
• Convenience and comfort for staff who need to be connected to their computers and the mainframe.
• Concern about the duration of the stay in the container.
• Concern about the impact on the bank’s image.

Then the team members think about possible solutions that take the branch director’s objections into account:

• Part of the project involves installing an extra cash machine and a statement printer. This work can be done before the major renovations begin. These machines can be used during the works. The project manager integrates this into the planning.
• The container can be built in two storeys on the branch parking area, providing enough space for three counters and two meeting rooms for customers. The project manager arranges this.
• Through a separate cable, the computers can stay connected to the mainframe. This is a straightforward measure. The project manager requests assistance from the IT department.
• The duration of renovations is kept as short as possible by working with large teams who plan ahead so they can follow each other smoothly during the works. The project manager takes care of this.
• The container gets a customised design in line with the new corporate identity. Additionally, a display with a video is provided to inform customers about the reason for the renovations and the planned duration. This is arranged by the bank’s central media department.
• After the adjustments to proposal 3 have been presented, the change manager asks whether the branch director or other team members still have fundamental objections. Since there are none, proposal 3 with the additional adjustments is accepted.

Quick decision-making

Not all decisions require as much exchange as described above. Quick decision-making based on objections is suitable for simple decisions, such as:

• On which day do we hold the staff outing?
• Which of five options do we choose for our staff outing?
• Which coffee machine do we buy within our budget?
• In which colour do we have the staff room painted?
• When do we hold the next staff meeting?
• Which poster do we put on the wall this month?
• Who can work overtime this week?
• Do we order pizza, sandwiches or Chinese today?

After listing the possible choices, each team member indicates their resistance level per choice. The choice with the lowest resistance is selected as the group’s choice. If it turns out that one or more group members still have fundamental resistance, more time should probably be invested in the decision-making process. A more extensive decision-making process as described above can help.

An example

The staff room is being renovated. A new wall finish needs to be chosen. There are five options. A sample of each option is displayed in the old staff room. On a form, each employee indicates their level of resistance to a particular wall type (0 = no problem, 10 = fundamental objection). The team leader totals the choices in an overview:

The total resistance levels show that wallpapering the room has the lowest acceptance. The null option, not renovating the room, has the second lowest preference. The group has the least objection to the wall with sound dampening. When the team leader asks person 5 about their objection, they express concern about the extra costs. Person 5’s objection is not fundamental and can be heard by the manager. The group’s choice falls on the sound-dampening wall.

Some important principles of sustainable decision-making

• Make sure the shared goal is clear. Formulate a clear, open and solution-oriented question for this purpose.
• First listen to all opinions (at the level of needs and interests) and only then move to decision-making. 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.
• Empathic listening creates an atmosphere of connectedness and mutual understanding.
• Refine the proposal through listening to objections. Every objection contains a need. Integrate the need each time into an adjusted proposal.
• Aim for a decision with the lowest possible objection level. Such a decision has the greatest chance of success because it has the broadest and strongest support. Because every stakeholder could contribute their thinking and noticed that their objections were taken into account as much as possible, everyone is motivated to implement the decision and take initiative where needed to make it a success.
• For simple decisions, quick decision-making is an option: each proposal is weighed by the total number of resistance votes. The proposal with the least resistance is selected.