| Books on rules of order give you procedures to facilitate collective decision-making. But they do not tell you how to determine whether your group made a good decision. When you examine a collective decision, there are two aspects to consider: First, the decision itself (substantive aspects), Second, the way the decision was made (process-related aspects). Surely, you must have seen a perfectly good decision being criticized or undermined because of process issues, such as the lack of consultation with affected parties, or proceeding too aggressively without listening to legitimate concerns.
For example, take
some of the controversial decisions made by B.C.'s provincial government
since being elected. I will not take a substantive position
on the decisions themselves (time will tell whether they were
good or bad), but it seems clear that some of them were made in haste
and without sufficient consultation with affected parties. Yes, leaders
may have the legal authority to impose decisions on "followers", but
it works much better if more parties arrive at the same destination
together, of their own free will, as active partners, and not as acquiescent
or reluctant followers.
Of course, some would argue that stakeholder consultation can slow things down. Some may say that feedback often comes from vocal minorities and may therefore not be a truly representative or accurate pulse of the broad community. Indeed, there are times to consult and there are times to move forward decisively and without consultation, as is the case in an emergency. But governing bodies should resist the temptation to classify too many things as "emergencies" or else they would rightly be seen as too lazy and dictatorial, or too reactive and unplanned.
Below are lists of substantive and process-related criteria to measure
the quality of a collective decision. They are drawn from my new book
"The Business Meetings Sourcebook" (visit http://www.elimina.com/books
to review the table of contents, preface and introduction).
Substantively, a good decision has the following characteristics:
- Principled and
service-oriented: The decision advances the organization's mandate
and serves its stakeholders in the most substantial and effective
manner.
- Strategically
driven, visionary and durable: The decision addresses not only short
term crises, but also focuses on long term needs and emerging trends,
and on what must be done to make the organization viable and thriving
for years to come.
- Balanced and
holistic: The decision is based on complete data and balances as many
legitimate needs and interests as possible. As many "pieces of the
truth" as possible are taken into account when building consensus.
- Creative and
thoughtful: The decision reflects creative thinking, unconstrained
by entrenched traditions and past precedents.
- Affirmative:
The decision focuses not only on what must be prevented, but also
on what needs to be accomplished.
- Logical and responsible:
The decision is realistic and can be implemented by using available
or attainable resources (fiscal, human and other resources).
Process-wise, your decision making process should be:
- Inclusive: Parties
that are affected by a decision are kept informed (at an early stage).
Where appropriate, stakeholders are involved in shaping the decision
in some way.
- Measured, deliberate
and gradual: The decision is not rushed through, especially if it
has significant impacts or if the issues are complex or controversial.
Sufficient time and efforts are allocated to scrutinizing the decision
and its impacts. A proactive approach is used to deal with significant
and complex issues in a gradual and evolutionary manner.
- Efficient: The
decision is reached in a reasonably efficient manner, conserving time,
money and other resources, and maximizing the return on investment
(ROI) in meetings and other consensus building activities.
|
