A simple, nuanced way to make better group decisions

My favourite technique to encourage helpful disagreement and make a group decision.

I don’t need to give you the yada-yada on why decision making can be tricky and time-consuming in a group. 

Let’s just start here. Making decisions as a group is a whole lot better with Agreement Levels. 

More candid conversations. 
Better quality decisions.
Safer outcomes.
Faster route through.

Often, we’re asking people for a straight choice between two options. We have to make a decision here so which is it going to be?

      Agree or disagree.
      Yes or no.
      This one or that one.
      Go or no go.

If we don't all pick the same one e.g. Agree, what do we do? Overrule those people? Sell the option harder to persuade them? Hope they don't disagree too hard? 

How do we decide who gets to veto? How do we move forward if we don't have consensus? 

The reality is that there are lots of levels on which we might agree or disagree with something.  

Here's the thing. Many organisations I work with are full of nice, bright people who operate collaboratively.

Problem: If they can't reach consensus quickly, there is no mechanism for figuring out a route forward.

Agreement Levels is simply a wider range of responses that help make each person’s position clear and develop a solution everyone can live with. 

I didn’t invent the concept but I’ve created a version that seems to work best in knowledge work.

Here are my Agreement Levels. 

1.  Yes, 100% 

2.  Yes, if... 

3.  Need more info (which has to be specified)

4.  Stand aside (I don’t agree but I won’t block)

5.  No 

And here’s what I like about them:

1.   Yes, 100% - you have someone's wholehearted backing.

2.   Yes, if... - provides helpful conditions, caveats and criteria to improve the decision and its implementation.

3.   Need more info (which has to be specified) - also improves the decision and highlights unexplored risk.

4.   Stand aside (I don’t agree but I won’t block) - allows a positive disagreement. "I don’t need to pretend I agree. But I also don’t need to create interpersonal conflict by blocking your work." There is also a mine of learning in 4. Why does someone not agree? What do they know, believe or assume that no one else does?

5.   No - to be handled with care! This will feel like a veto. It’s a powerful part of the tool, designed to provide a backstop. 

So, what kind of scores mean you'll go ahead? Absence of 5s or 3s? Would you ever overrule a 5…?

Of course it will depend on the context: the size and riskiness of the proposal and the risks associated with doing nothing. 

I think you could develop a norm in your organisation for this. You might have a rule that you never overrule a 5. That means people know if they use it, they are wielding a flaming sword.

Or you might decide that you’ll only tolerate a very small number of 4s. If more than one person is a 4, that’s a red flag worthy of much deeper exploration.

You can also use Agreement Levels via group typed chat with a wider audience, ideally when you’ve matured the concept with your team or organisation.