Together We Decide: An Essential Guide For Making Good Group Decisions

INTRODUCTION

Good Group Decisions Are Hard—and Worthy

HERE IN AMERICA, we love the individual achievement story. The immigrant who builds a company, the Cinderella who gets to be a princess, the street kid who makes it to professional basketball, the guy who started selling cars from his driveway and now has five dealerships with his name on them, the gal who put herself through college and is now a world-class scientist. But behind each of these stories is a group, lots of groups. There’s the family, the neighborhood, the team, the school. These are all groups that helped that person achieve.

Big problems are never—and never have been—solved by individuals. Oh sure, a scientific invention or discovery here and there might seem like the magic wand that provided the perfect solution, or a single idea that got turned into a law, or a single donation that named the building. But all such discoveries, ideas, and contributions were the results of thousands of people doing thousands of things that led up to the big thing. That’s what makes the world better: lots of people doing things. Lots of groups making good decisions.

IT’S NOT US VERSUS THEM, IT’S JUST US.

How about we tone down the myth of individual achievement and turn up the volume on praise for groups? I wish we would give more credit more often to teams and groups for getting stuff done and for cooking up great ideas. I want to live in a world where it’s hip to be a follower, to be a supporter, to be a team player. Where it’s trendy to share credit with my fellows and where it’s cool to invite and welcome others into my group. I want to live in a world with more we and less me. It’s not us versus them, it’s just us.²

Yet competition is very much a part of our everyday lives. There’s a hypothesis woven into the fabric of every aspect of American culture. It goes like this: Let two or more people, products, or ideas compete and this will result in what’s best for the group. This hypothesis is an engine of innovation in business, in sports, in law, in health care, in schools, in families, everywhere.

Yet the hypothesis is not always right. We kid ourselves into thinking that when two competing interests duke it out it somehow betters the gene pool or otherwise makes us all better as a human race. In reality, the rule goes like this: Let two or more people, products, or ideas compete and this will result in what’s best for the winner. I don’t believe in trickle-down economics and I don’t believe in trickle-down benefits from winners to losers. The hypothesis is often a myth in my opinion.

Competition is not de facto bad, of course. A competitive mindset can serve society extremely well especially when there’s an abundance of resources. Competition has spurred magnificent human creations and inventions over the ages. Competition is a great way to generate ever higher achievements, no doubt. Yet the pendulum has swung too far. Competition has been too successful in generating know-how and technology to the point where now there is a frightening scarcity of resources.

The root of the problem is this outdated paradigm. Our country’s political parties are competing with each other at the expense of the nation. World nations are competing with each other at the expense of the earth. It’s not new. Civilizations have competed with each other since the dawn of history: conquering, oppressing, and building wealth at the expense of others.

Why not a different paradigm? A pendulum swing in the other way for a change? Toward collaboration. Let’s work together rather than against each other. Imagine a groundswell of popularity for collaboration. Imagine companies rewarding teams rather than individuals. Imagine collaborative sports and recreational activities rising in popularity on a par with competitive sports. Imagine school children being taught and modeled collaboration and communications skills, and rewarded for team/group success rather than individual success. Imagine game shows and talent shows rewarding teams instead of individual winners and losers. Imagine people who feel marginalized by competitive environments feeling valued as collaborators. So many people in America have shut down and withdrawn from civic affairs because it’s viewed as too competitive, even hostile. I have seen people withdraw from all sorts of groups and activities for fear of too much hostility. Why do we have to be so mean and so competitive with each other?

Collaborative cultures hold a place for every person to participate. No one is a loser or viewed as less than. All have gifts to give. In collaborative cultures people work with each other for the good of the group, not against each other for entertainment or for individual gain. We should be collaborating with each other against common enemies—such as climate change or national security threats—instead of against each other in the hope that beating each other up will somehow make things better.

I have seen that when disagreements are solved by force—that is, the more powerful party says, this is how things are gonna be—the resolution will be short-lived. It will stay in place as long as the force can stay in place, and that’s always a battle. When disagreements are resolved by compromise, the resolution may last for a while but not indefinitely. Discontent resulting from having to compromise is likely to linger and grow to the point where conflict erupts again. When disagreements are resolved because the parties have come to a peaceful understanding, the resolution is much more likely to last because the incentives for challenging it magically disappear.

MY PATH

I myself was raised with an ethic of competition, that the default objective in almost any activity was to be better than others. That made me a jerk sometimes. If I look back over my evolution as a decision maker, that realization is undeniable.

My high school was a military academy, so it naturally promoted a culture of competition between squads, platoons, companies, and battalions. We also competed individually to see who had the shiniest shoes, who ran the fastest 400 meters, who got the highest grades, who got the best girls. The idea was that competition provided inspiration for achievement and so a robust culture of competition would produce high-achieving graduates destined to lead companies, governments, nonprofits, and military units. The premise was that in a competitive environment, individual effort would be maximized and the very best of all individual efforts would prevail for the benefit of everyone. In high school I learned about how our government is based on competition between the states and the federal government; competition between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; competition between the majority and the minority. I learned about how our economic system is based on competition between companies and how our judicial system is based on competition between plaintiffs and defendants.

I took that premise—competition is always good—off to college and applied it in student government. I competed for votes and won a seat in the student senate. I competed with my fellows for the floor, and I argued strenuously for what I thought was right. I coerced and cajoled and manipulated relationships to improve my standing. I ran for the office of student government president and won. As president, I had to handle a lot of disputes. When two clubs were feuding over an office in the student union, my idea was to lock the leaders in a room until they reached a settlement. In another instance I said, Let’s write all the disagreements on the wall and then work through them one at a time. I have since learned that these are both terrible ways to handle disputes.

After college I started a small bike courier company and continued to perpetuate the culture of competition that I had practiced in high school, learned about in college, and was raised with. As a small business owner, I competed with other companies. I expected employees in my company to compete with each other. Since we were in the business of delivering packages, it made perfect sense for employees to be compensated based on how well they could plan their routes, how fast they could ride their bikes, and on how many packages they could deliver. I set them in competition against each other.

One day we were sitting around saying how we needed a bike stand to repair bikes. You see them in bike shops holding a bike’s wheels up off the floor making it easy to change tires and adjust brakes and such. But we couldn’t afford one.

We started kicking around ideas. Someone thought of hanging the bike from the ceiling with straps of webbing, the type typically used for belts and harnesses. Someone suggested adding straps to the side walls for stability. Then someone else offered the idea of quick-release buckles, and another person had the idea of adding a sliding-type buckle so the height could be adjusted. In twenty minutes, we invented the most useful, versatile, portable, bike-fixing sling-gismo in the world. Total cost: $12.35. This and other group-made solutions helped us be more efficient and save costs, and they brought us closer together. They generated enthusiasm for additional ways to make our jobs more fun and our company more profitable. Group solutions gave us a sense of purpose and belonging.

One reason I started a bike courier company was that it was a pollution-free service that replaced gas-burning vehicles. I feared for the health of the natural environment, the earth’s ecosystem, and future generations of humans. And I had a strong notion that our group decision-making systems—in both the public and private sectors—were not up to task. I was also starting to see that competition in decision-making often meant that the winning people and ideas didn’t always produce the best result—the most benefits for the most people. And it seemed to me that there were a lot of losers. Competition causes a lot of collateral damage. I was sure that we could do better, that there must be better ways.

I sold the company and went to graduate school to study public policy and management. I wanted to learn more about the theory of group decision-making, more about how governments work and don’t work, and how best to actually make good decisions for society as a whole (not just for the winners).

I got my graduate degree and went to work for the Maine State Planning Office in Augusta. Now, I thought to myself, I’m really going to participate in group decision-making for my area, with high stakes! I was going to apply the theories I had learned for new and better ways of decision-making for the public good. But I quickly fell back into old ways. By default and unable to resist, I still saw competition as the framework for everything I did. I competed with my colleagues for status and salary. I went into meetings with the goal of getting my way. I often spoke first and loudest, talking over other people in meetings. I didn’t treat women well. I carried around a sense that I knew best and if only others would take notice and do things my way, the world would be better.

One day, I was assigned to staff a new program called the Maine Commission on Community Service, part of President Bill Clinton’s new AmeriCorps program that was a national system of matching volunteers with community-service projects across the country—a kind of domestic Peace Corps. Every state needed to establish one of these commissions to administer the national program.

I was joined on the commission by Bob Blakesley, a veteran bureaucrat who was approaching retirement age; he had staffed dozens of commissions, written hundreds of reports, and gave the impression of being rather set in his ways. But he had something different in mind for this project.

Bob had gone to a conference and heard a presentation by Caroline Estes, an experienced consensus decision-making professional. She had opened his eyes to a new way of making public policy decisions, and he was adamant about bringing her to facilitate the new commission’s kick-off retreat. So the newly minted Maine Commission on Community Service gathered for a twoday meeting at the Sugarloaf Inn in the mountains of Maine in the fall of 1995. I was there taking notes.

Bob’s plan to force this new style of consensus decision-making on the commission met with skepticism. All members were appointed by the governor. They had been around Maine politics and were savvy in the ways of majority rule decision-making, and they knew how to count votes. Caroline was able to disarm the group with her gentle style and soft words as she set everyone on notice with her erect posture and quick answers to tough questions.

She explained the basic principles of consensus-style decision-making, and commission members found them hard to argue with: All views should be heard; we should take turns talking and listen to each other with full attention; we should write down our agreements and get the words right before leaving the room. What really did the trick was when she explained that the group itself would decide its own rules for deciding things, that she wasn’t forcing anything on anybody.

Before that weekend I had never experienced such a productive meeting. Caroline taught us a new way of thinking about group decisions. She taught us the steps for group decision-making and then she taught us that it’s more than just the steps. She taught us about attitude. She taught us that what you feel about your cause and your group and your fellows is just as important as the steps you take. Repeatedly she referenced her belief: We each have a piece of the truth, and we make our best decisions when we put all our pieces together.³

And for the most part, most of us got it. I got it, especially. You might even say that I got religion. For the first time, I understood that the attitude that each person brings to the table really matters. I came to understand that an attitude of competition is not always the best attitude if you want the most gains for the most people. I came to understand that it doesn’t always have to be me against you. I saw that consensus/collaborative decision-making could be effectively applied in a traditional mainstream setting. And I watched Caroline’s supreme dedication to the well-being and success of the group. She stayed up late, got up early, worked during the breaks, always processing and considering what the group needed next to make them most productive. From her I learned the notion of servant leadership.⁴

Competition had pushed me to do mean things to other people. That steadfast value—the spirit of competition—gave me permission to put others down and intentionally deceive. I began to change my values. And I tried acting on my new understandings in several ways:

I became more humble. The biggest change I made was to begin to genuinely value the opinions of my peers. I went into meetings not with the goal of wanting to get my point across but with the goal of truly wanting to understand the points of others.

I led meetings differently. I saw the value in leading as a truly neutral facilitator rather than as a self-appointed know-it-all. I learned to treat all speakers equally and react to what they said without judgment, validating each and every opinion.

I learned the value of shared ground rules. At the start of a meeting, I tried to make sure everyone understood how things would work, sometimes called meeting ground rules. Rules can help make things safer or fairer, and I wanted both safety and fairness in my groups and in my meetings.

I began sharing information. With my new attitude of wanting us to win rather just me winning, I became more open and transparent about sharing information.

I stopped embarrassing others. I came to see that when I intentionally embarrassed or shamed someone—when I propagated fear—that person became smaller and produced less, perhaps even came to resent the group. But when I praised someone or held them up as a good example, they produced more and gave more to the group.

I learned it’s OK to change my mind. Rather than sticking to my guns on a decision even in light of new information, I learned that changing my mind to get it right for the group could actually lead to greater respect from the group.

I became a Quaker. I thought to have more spirituality in my life and a Quaker Meetinghouse happened to be near my home, so I attended a few meetings. I found a shared belief in the Quaker values of inclusion and equity, the notion that there is that of God in every person. Other Quaker values like simplicity, stewardship, and peace made sense to me.

WHY GOOD GROUP DECISIONS ARE IMPORTANT

I now own a consulting company where I help a wide range of clients in both the public and private sectors make good group decisions. People call me a professional meeting facilitator. Over my career I’ve worked with hundreds of groups in board rooms, town halls, and church basements. I have seen what works and what doesn’t. I’ve always had a strong sense that our group decision-making systems—in both the public and private sectors—were not up to task. I have seen how competition in decision-making rarely results in the winning side providing the most benefits for the most people. It seems to me that there are often a lot of losers and that competition causes a lot of collateral damage. I am sure that we can do better, that there must be a better way.

As members of the human race, we need to learn how to make better decisions. Our survival and the survival of our children depend on it. At the macro level, we need the principles of collaboration to save our species from extinction. If we don’t figure out how to make better decisions in groups, our world is in peril. Or at least our future existence is. Climate change is a huge concern of all people on earth. I believe we should treat it as a common cause, a common enemy. Slowing climate change and adapting to climate change should unite all peoples of the world. The stakes are fatally high if we don’t figure out how to make good decisions at this scale.

Let’s take it down a notch and talk about what’s at stake as citizens of different countries and states. For a country’s parliament or legislature, the stakes are mostly about future generations. State and federal politicians talk about credit or blame for short-term victories or setbacks, but these governments mainly affect what happens in future years. It is today’s Americans, for instance, who are benefiting from the Clean Water Act of 1972. It’s today’s Mainers who are benefiting from laws our legislature passed three terms ago.

Group decisions are more easily seen and felt when the affected person is close to the decision maker. Yet the stakes are often higher and bigger when the decision maker is far away. On a global level the stakes can be really high. Decisions made by our city, state, and national governments may seem far away but have profound consequences for our future.

Most of us are part of much smaller groups closer to home. Instead of governing countries or states, we are part of a town or a neighborhood and we govern committees and families. So what’s at stake for the small group, the board of directors, or the team at work that is trying to get the job done? The most common complaint about group decision-making is its inefficiency—the wasted time. It’s so damn inefficient when everybody has to be involved! So many bosses watch time and money get frittered away as their people have inefficient meetings.

Regardless of what stakes might be at play in your group decision and no matter the size of your group, the value of your own time is a huge stake. Your time matters. You want your decision-making processes to be efficient.

It’s like building a house. If the builders don’t know what they’re doing—they’re using trial and error, getting things shipped at random times, and have specialists showing up at the wrong times—it results in huge inefficiencies. But there’s been years of accumulated house-building science, and good builders know how to do it right. They know the order of things, the sequencing. With group decisions too, the sequencing really matters. If you pay attention to doing it right, your group decisions can be very efficient, just like building a house can be.

YOUR TIME MATTERS. YOU WANT YOUR DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES TO BE EFFICIENT.

In this book I describe the different types of decisions that various groups make, as well as the actions and attitudes that best serve group decision-making. I talk about how to make good decisions in groups efficiently—without anger or animosity. Humans have made lots of really bad decisions that have resulted in conflict, missed opportunities, and a real threat to our sustainability as a species. Good group decisions result in greater efficiency, innovation, and productivity in part because of the enthusiasm among the members. On a personal level, participating in good group decisions brings greater peace, happiness, fulfillment, and a sense of belonging. It’s time we pulled together.

WHO THIS BOOK IS FOR

If you are part of any group that has meetings and makes decisions, and you are finding the decision-making process