Decision Making

Colleagues know that using the advice process isn't optional. One way to be dismissed is to ignore the mutual obligations of the advice process. With a conflict resolution process (as in some Teal entities) someone who feels the advice process is not being respected can hold a colleague to account.

But when people get used to it, respect for the practice grows. This because people are on both sides of the equation. When you ask me for my advice this morning, I hope you will take it seriously. If our roles are reversed this afternoon, I need to take you seriously, too. Because power is distributed, you know that others can take decisions about things you care about as well, so you are apt to take their needs and views into account.

Put another way: Who can decide who makes what decisions, while still using the advice process?

In practice, initiating advice and decision making usually fits within in the scope of a certain role. Someone sensing a problem or an opportunity could step forward to say: "Hey, I see this opportunity. What do you think? Given your role should you initiate this?". However, if that person doesn't have the interest or bandwidth to lead the process, any other person can. If no one does, it usually means the decision is not that important right now.

Holacracy adds a twist: for particularly sensitive areas, a "domain" can be declared. A domain basically means "hands-off". Decisions relating to that domain can only be made by nominated person(s). The idea is that domains remain exceptional and shouldn't be used frequently.

Sensing as a natural outcome of self-management

The simplest answer is often: Do nothing special. Let self-management work its magic. One word often comes up with Teal pioneers: Sensing. We notice when something isn’t working as it should, or could. With experience, our capacity to sense grows.

The Empty Chair

One practice to keep purpose foremost is to allocate an empty chair at meetings to represent our evolutionary purpose. Anybody can occupy the seat and represent the voice of the organization. Different questions can arise from this perspective: Have today's discussions and decisions served you (the organization) well? What stands out to you from today’s meeting? Are we being bold enough? Too bold? Is there anything else that needs to be discussed?

Large Group Processes

When facing a major inflection, some more elaborate processes help. These include Otto Scharmer’s “Theory U”, David Cooperrider’s “Appreciative Inquiry", Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff’s “Future Search", Harrison Owen’s “Open Space Technology, Art of Hosting, World Café, etc. ”

In crises, time is of the essence. Is the advice process too unwieldy?

There are good examples of organizations that have used the advice process during crises. Rarely are decisions so urgent that a few hours can't be found to seek advice. And if possible, a crisis makes it even more important that a 'right' decision is made.

If, for some reason, the process does need to be suspended, two guidelines maintain trust in self-management: Full transparency about the scope and time frame of the crisis response, and making sure such powers clearly cease when the crisis is over.

In fact in many ways, the advice process allows for even faster and more decisive action, because many people in the organization practice being empowered decision-makers on a regular basis. In a well-functioning Teal organization, someone who is aware of a crises will weigh the advice it's feasible to get in the time they have, and make a judgement call.

When decisions affect the whole organization, it is particularly important to make the right decision. Yet, in very large organizations, the decision maker can hardly meet with everyone.

Some use internal social networks, or decision-making tools like Loomio, for wide and swift consultation. The initiator puts the proposal up as a post. Colleagues offer advice by responding on-line. If their comments signal agreement, the decision can be made very quickly. If new perspectives and debate emerge, the decision maker can choose to amend his proposal and float it again. If it appears decision time is not yet ripe, a working group may be set up.

Predictions offer a comforting sense of control, but reality is that organizations and the world they exist in are complex. In such systems, it is meaningless to predict the future with great confidence.

Teal Organizations accept a complex world in which perfection is elusive. They don't aim for perfection, but for workable solutions that arise from current reality, and which can be implemented quickly.

If there is a workable solution on the table (“workable” = the solution won't make things worse), it will be adopted. Decisions are not postponed because someone thinks more analysis will produce a better decision. The decision can be reviewed at any time. This is the essence of a culture of continuous iterative improvement.

Brian Robertson from Holacracy uses a powerful metaphor to contrast the two approaches:

“Imagine if we rode a bicycle like we try to manage our companies today. It would look something like this: we’d have our big committee meeting, where we all plan how to best steer the bicycle. We’d fearfully look at the road up ahead, trying to predict exactly where the bicycle is going to be when. … We’d make our plans, we’d have our project managers, we’d have our Gantt charts, we’d put in place our controls to make sure this all goes according to plan. Then we get on the bicycle, we close our eyes, we hold the handle bar rigidly at the angle we calculated up front and we try to steer according to plan. And if the bicycle falls over somewhere along the way ... well, first: who is to blame? Let’s find them, fire them, get them out of here. And then: we know what to do differently next time. We obviously missed something. We need more upfront prediction. We need more controls to make sure things go according to plan.”

In the Teal paradigm, the rider gets on the bike, starts with an angle that seems about right, and then keeps adjusting to get to the destination. Companies working this way often progress faster, and more smoothly toward their purpose, with less wasted energy.

Among Teal management practices, multiple bottom line accounting systems are rare. There is a school of thought that suggests we need ways to track not just profit, but also the firm’s impact on people and planet. How else can managers make trade-offs between these elements?

Perhaps the answer lies elsewhere: Multiple bottom lines originated to avoid a narrow fixation on profits. From a Teal perspective, a wider perspective already exists. Purpose, integrity and wholeness should transcend the primacy of profits.

Enspiral is a distributed collective using a consent-based advice process emphasizing online communication, inclusion, and individual autonomy.

Enspiral is a network of highly autonomous individuals, teams, and ventures. As much as possible, we encourage people to make decisions for themselves. Enspiral is also a network building shared commons, and pursuing shared aspirations, that call for collective agreements and commitments. There are a variety of situations where it is useful or necessary to make a formal decision as a group. See details here.

Holacracy uses two types of decision making: "autocratic" and "integrative", both of which, on close scrutiny, can be seen as variations of the advice process.

Governance decisions (decisions about people's roles and accountabilities) are made using "Integrative decision making". All others are made "autocratically".

Integrative decisions making

When someone senses a role must be created, amended or discarded, he brings it up in a governance meeting. These are meetings where only questions about roles and collaboration are to be discussed. That is, separate from the details of getting work done. The latter are discussed in “tactical meetings”, with their own specific meeting practices.

A facilitator guides the proceedings.

Anybody who feels a role change is needed (the proposer) can add it to the agenda. Each governance item is resolved with to the following process:

1. Present proposal: The proposer states his proposal and the issue this proposal is attempting to resolve.
2. Clarifying questions: Anybody can seek information or more understanding. It is not yet time for reactions. The facilitator will interrupt any question that cloaks a reaction.
3. Reaction round: Each person reacts to the proposal. Discussions are not allowed.
4. Amend and clarify: The proposer can clarify his proposal further, or amend it, based on these reactions.
5. Objection round: The facilitator asks, ”Do you see any reasons why adopting this proposal would cause harm or move us backwards?” Objections are captured without discussion; the proposal is adopted if none surface.
6. Integration: If an objection is raised, the facilitator tests the objection for validity. If it is found to be valid, he leads a discussion to craft an amendment that would avoid the objection. If several objections are raised, they get addressed one at a time, until all are removed.

There are strict criteria for an objection to be considered valid. The process might sound formal, but people who use it often report they find it deeply liberating. It addresses issues without the need for corridor talk, politics, and coalition building. Anybody who senses the need for something to change has a forum.

Others are surprised at how efficient this process is.

Holacracy’s governance process is a variation of the advice process. Anyone can bring forward an issue or opportunity (a "tension" in holacratic language) and make a decision happen, after listening to relevant advice. The particularity of the process here is that the advice happens in the setting of a meeting, with a structured number of rounds, and that the decision maker must integrate valid objections, if there are any. The goal, again, is to not to aim for a perfect answer, but a workable solution, and then iterate quickly if needed.

Roles evolve organically, adapting to change in the environment.

Autocratic decision making

In Holacracy, any decision other than governance decisions can be made "autocratically". Only when a "domain" is declared, which should be in exceptional circumstances only, are decisions off-limits to others. In all other cases, anyone can step up and make any decision.

Decisions can be made "autocratically", meaning no one needs to be consulted, and there is no formal process such as in the integrative decision making process. Yet in practice, people are well advised to seek advice when relevant.

If person A makes an autocratic decision that frustrates person B who has an obvious stake in that decision, person B is likely to bring up the topic in the next governance meeting. For example, if person (A), whose role it is to book meeting venues, chooses a new venue without discussing it with the main trainer (B) who has ideas as to what kind of venue is necessary for that specific training. The trainer (B) will suggest to amend the role of person A so that person A must consult the trainer before making decisions on venues in the future. Ultimately it boils down to the same: either person A spontaneously and informally seeks advice from person B, or it is likely that the role person A is currently energizing will be changed so that this role must formally seek advice from the trainer role (person B) before deciding on a venue.

Morning Star uses the advice process. Here is an example: it was used when a new strategy was proposed that would affect all employees.

A few years ago, before the advent of internal social networks, Chris Rufer, the founder, owner and CEO of Morning Star, felt the need for a new strategic direction at Morning Star. He wrote a memo that he sent to all colleagues, with an invitation to a company-wide meeting (the different locations joined by videoconference). He shared his idea, and the reasons for it. He asked everyone to contact him personally after the meeting with any questions, concerns, comments, and advice on his plans.

Buurtzorg has found an effective way for making decisions that affect large numbers of people.

Buurtzorg uses social media (as mentioned above) in a powerful and way to support the advice process. For example, if all 9,000 employees must be consulted, Jos de Blok, the founder, posts his suggestions on-line. He posts regularly, from the heart, without PR polish (there is no communications department at Buurtzorg), often at 10pm at night from his home.

Given the respect he enjoys, his posts are widely read. Typically, 24 hours later, a majority of nurses will have read the post. Within hours, these posts evoke dozens, sometimes hundreds, of comments.

This can make for fast decision-making. If the comments signal agreement, it is made within hours. If debate ensues, the proposal is amended and floated again. Or a workgroup is set up to refine it.

This kind of leadership by blog post requires a degree of trust, candor and vulnerability that few CEOs in would feel comfortable with. Once a post is published, there is no going back. Critical comments and rebukes are for all to see; they cannot be erased and cannot be ignored. And what the organization does with the post is beyond the CEO’s control.

What seems risky when looked at through a traditional lens is wonderfully efficient from a Teal perspective. A post made from the comfort of a sofa at home can be a decision by next afternoon, endorsed by thousands of people in the organization. An idea or concern about where the industry is going? Write a short post, and you get to know how the organization reacts. If people disagree with your thought, you have lost 15 minutes of your time … but gained a new insight into what the organization thinks. When we think of how decision-making happens in large organizations today (the PowerPoint decks that need to be written, the lengthy steering committee and executive meetings where decisions get debated, followed by top-down communications where every word is weighted), we can only marvel at the efficiency of leadership and decision making within Buurtzorg.

Buurtzorg uses a formal when decisions are made within a team

Buurtzorg's employees work in 750+ teams of 10-12 people. These teams are largely autonomous. Many decisions (say how the night shifts are handled, if there is room to accept more clients, etc.) affect the whole team, but no one else. Then, it makes sense for the advice process to take place within a team meeting. Buurtzorg uses a specific method for decisions called “Solution-Driven Methods of Interaction" developed by Ben Wenting and Astrid Vermeer of the Instituut voor Samenwerkingsvraagstukken in the Netherlands.

• The group chooses a facilitator for the meeting.

• The agenda of topics is put together on the spot. The facilitator can only ask questions: “What is your proposal?” or “What is the rationale for your proposal?” All proposals are listed on a flipchart.

• Topics are then addressed one by one. In the first round, proposals are reviewed, and refined.

• In a second, proposals are put to group decision based on a consent (not consensus). For a solution to be adopted, it is enough that nobody has a principled objection. If there are none, the solution will be adopted, with the understanding that it can be revisited at any time when new information is available.

  Get to know how this organisation manages other teal practices

Decisions made by front line, CEO makes no decisions

From 1992, when Henry read Maverick, to 2017, Happy sought to give people trust and freedom and job ownership. However it could not be described as a self-managing organisation as many decisions were made by Henry and Cathy.

In 2017 a key change happened. Learning from David Marquet, Henry and Cathy decided to stop making decisions, and instead to push them down to front-line staff. The results were remarkable, with people stepping up and taking responsibility. The effect on sales were dramatic, see here.

Even before 2017 Happy had been practising the concept of pre-approval, the idea that you approve a solution - within clear guidelines - in advance. https://www.happy.co.uk/blogs/pre-approve-it/

The CEO role is not to make decisions but to set the framework and be sure the right metrics are being measured.

Example: There are two key metrics in training delivery: customer satisfaction and training utilization. Customer satisfaction delivers delighted customers, but for the company to be profitable trainer utilisation is key. “All our facilitators are focused on the feedback they will get. But they aren’t so focused on utilisation. So I asked them to, each month, measure their utilisation. We didn’t set targets or anything, we just asked folk to measure it. That step alone resulted in a £95k increase in profits.” “I get to do what I love to do and feel what I am best at, which is coming up with new products,” explains Henry. In April 2021 this has meant creating a “Happy MBA”.

Here an example of frontline decision-making : in 2018 Ben and John felt that the prices of their courses needed increasing. They used the Advice Process, asking others for their views but making the final decision themselves.

“I was consulted”, explained Henry. “But actually they chose to go much higher than I would have gone. But that's fine, that is the effect of taking real responsibility.”

Clear roles and responsibilities with the advice process

Each team has built out the roles and responsibilities of everyone in the group, so it’s clear who would be able to make decisions within the company on different subjects.

If a responsibility falls into an individual’s area, they’re able to direct change and improvement using the advice process.

This video provides more information on Reddico’s advice process, and how it works: https://www.loom.com/share/07ffe72b66d542c9bcbc08fea83556cf

Please note that even though it’s stated in the video “Strictly private and confidential”, it’s OK to share it :-)

At LIVEsciences, there are three types of decision making.

• Single decision making with advice
• Consent
• Consensus

Individual Decision Making with Advice

In this case, decision authority lies with the roles. Everyone is entitled to take any decision at any time – LIVEsciences team members trust each other to do the right thing no matter what. This is the most common decision at LIVEsciences and it typically involves only a few people. An example of an individual decision is deciding how to create a workshop. As a default rule, LIVEsciences uses single decision-making combined with the advice process, meaning that any person can take any decision after seeking advice from:

• All stakeholders who will be significantly affected or at least key representatives of these groups
• People with expertise in the matter or holding relevant information for this decision, e.g. the “Finance Manager” role for decisions with significant out-of-pocket cost involved

Advice received shall be taken into consideration. However, advice is simply advice. No colleague can advise the decision-maker what to decide. With all the advice and perspectives in mind, the decision-maker chooses what he/she believes is the best course of action. Usually, the decision-maker is the person who notices an issue first, he/she is the owner of a specific role or he/she is affected by the issue.

Decision Making by Consent

LIVEsciences is also leveraging consent decision making. Consent means the absence of objections and going with a “good enough for now, safe enough to try” solution. When there are any objections, i.e. significant risks to the survival of the company, the decision cannot be taken, and the objections need to be dealt with (e.g., by seeking understanding or revising content).

Decision Making By Consensus

LIVEsciences has two exceptions where they switch to decision making by consensus as these decisions have a higher criticality to their business. Typically very few decisions require consensus and the number of people involved is normally higher compared to the other decision types:

• Recruiting requires consensus within the panel of three colleagues
• Purpose changes require consensus across the company

Status of August 2022