Introduction

In most cases, strategy is developed by a group of individuals. In some cases, that group is comprised of management, sometimes of board members, and other times both. But, regardless of the makeup, it requires that the group solve the strategic problems of the organization and make key decisions with imperfect information. This article outlines a basic process for helping a group problem solve and make decisions.

The Challenge of Groups

While it is generally agreed that group decisions are usually better than individual decisions, (there are specific situations in which this is not accurate), and help build support, the process of getting a group to reach a decision can be problematic at times. With group decision-making, you not only have the perspectives and biases of each individual but you also have issues associated with group dynamics that can include power struggles, people talking over one another, lack of listening and hidden agendas, to list but a few. In fact, helping a group to make a decision can sometimes be akin to herding cats.

A Basic Model

In our work with literally hundreds of organizations, we have found a general pattern to the process of group decision-making. This pattern includes the stages of generation, understanding, consolidation, evaluation, decision-making, and ratification. While the length of time a group tends to stay in each stage varies, the general pattern usually bears out.

Stage One – Idea Generation

In trying to solve problems, one of the biggest obstacles groups face is the inability to generate new ideas. Without new ideas, it is difficult to solve the problem. As the saying goes, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” It is for this reason that the first stage of the process is the idea generation stage – often referred to as brainstorming. The idea of brainstorming is to get novel ideas on the table so that they can be further explored. There are many facilitative techniques to brainstorming (which is beyond the scope of this article), but regardless of which one(s) you use there are a few guidelines you should keep in mind:

  • Ensure that the participants are clear about what they are being asked to brainstorm on.
  • Participants should not edit themselves.
  • Ideas will be clarified, discussed and evaluated later – this should not be allowed during the brainstorming exercise.
  • Participants can add or expand upon ideas.
  • The goal is quantity.

Stage Two – Understanding

Assuming the brainstorming stage was kept focused on just brainstorming, the group should have a list of ideas in front of them. Before the ideas can be intelligently discussed, participants need to have a common understanding of each of the ideas that have been generated. In this stage, questions are asked to help understand what exactly was meant by the idea presented. In working towards this common understanding, it may generate additional ideas or develop an idea beyond what was originally intended by the individual who initially provided it. These are both positive outcomes of this stage of the process. It is surprising how many individuals within groups will get into conflict because they are arguing about two different interpretations of a single idea.

Stage Three – Consolidation & Elimination

The purpose of this stage is to reduce the number of ideas that are in front of the group by consolidating similar ideas and eliminating those that the group acknowledges as being unrealistic. With everyone having a common understanding of all the ideas, the process of consolidation and elimination should go quickly. When trying to eliminate and consolidate ideas you cannot get quick agreement then leave the idea on the chart and move on. The purpose is to quickly reduce the number of ideas that the group will discuss in greater depth.

Stage Four – Basis for Evaluation

The purpose of this stage of the process is for the group to evaluate the remaining ideas. The process of evaluation can be done in many ways. The most common method is to develop a set of criteria against which each of the ideas can be evaluated. Regardless of which methods you choose the outcome is to have the participants agree on the basis upon which the ideas will be evaluated.

Stage Five – Discussion & Decision-Making

With the ideas generated and the basis for evaluation determined, the group now has the task of making a decision. This is often the longest portion of the process. The participants must feel that they have had the opportunity to provide meaningful input, without allowing grandstanding, so that all points of view have been raised and discussed. At this point, the group needs to use the basis for evaluation determined earlier and make the decisions. Decision-making is not only about what options you choose but also what options you choose not to do. Because decision-making often means that you can’t please everyone, it can be a difficult process for some groups. The facilitator needs to recognize this and help the group deal with it without compromising the quality of the decision-making process.

Stage Six – Ratification

This stage is often overlooked in the process. The purpose of this stage is to provide the group with the ability and opportunity to review the decision(s) it made, discuss the associated implications, and ensure that it just “feels right”. It is easy to get caught up in the formal cookie-cutter process and have a decision “drop” out the bottom only to look back at it later and wonder what you where thinking. So, before you get to that point, the group needs to take a short break, sit back and ensure that the decision makes sense. This has the benefit of not only reducing the probability of making an error, but it also tends to improve participant support.

Summary

This tool, just like any other tool and the ability to use it effectively, is dependent on using it with the right group, and the skill and experience of the facilitator. Since the process is quite disciplined, we have found it most useful in dealing with groups that have higher degrees of conflict or a history of not being able to reach decisions on difficult issues. A word of warning, however, the greater the degree of conflict or more difficult the decision, the greater the need for the facilitator to be skilled in order to reach a successful outcome.

Ron Robinson is the president of ABARIS Consulting Inc. He can be reached at (519) 472-9788 or rrobinson@abarisconsulting.com. This article is provided free of charge, for information purposes only and is not intended, represented or to be inferred as providing advice. ABARIS Consulting Inc. makes no warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in whole or in part within this article.

ABARIS Consulting Inc. is credited as the source on all copies, reproductions and distributions, and CharityVillage.com is credited as the original publisher.