Consensus – Everyone has a vote, we’re all going to agree before moving forward
Democracy – Everyone has a vote, but only a percentage of us need to agree before moving forward
Consulting – I’m making the call, but I’m going to talk with people first
On the face of it, dictatorship sounds bad. And it usually is. But there are times when it’s the best way to go. If the dictator is the person with the most expertise, they will probably make a good decision without consulting with anyone. Even if they aren’t the pinnacle of knowledge in the problem space, sometimes a decision just has to be made quickly. I’m not checking the resume of a firefighter who enters the room, tells me the building is on fire, and we have to exit through the stairwell Right. Now.
Like everything else, consensus has pros and cons. Pro: you will hear from the most knowledgeable person on the team because you will hear from the whole team. Everyone feels heard. Con: it’s not quick. And if you’re after 100% agreement you may be in for a particularly long discussion period. Barring some unforeseeable circumstance, I would only consider this approach on small teams with high psychological safety and low ego.
Democracy sounds pretty good. And it can be. Everyone has a vote, and you won’t be stymied by a small fraction of the populace or a lone holdout. It probably won’t take as long to reach a decision as consensus. Before the vote, though, be clear on the success conditions. Are we looking for a simple majority, more than 50%? Do we require more than that, like 2/3? Or are we looking for whichever outcome gets the most votes, which might not necessarily even be the majority of voters? If there are 9 options being voted on by a 10 person team, and 8 options get one vote each while Option Nine gets two votes…are we going with Option Nine? Even though only 20% of the team voted for it?
The final type of decision making is consulting. You have a clear decision maker – this isn’t a situation where everyone votes – but that decision maker will gather input from stakeholders first. It’s a president and their cabinet. The president won’t always be the subject matter expert, but they will talk to the best available SMEs before making the call. Rule of thumb: default to this method. Especially with larger team sizes, democracy and consensus become less feasible. And if many of the voters lack insight or informed opinions, allowing a vote may not be a wise option. And dictatorship…well, it typically has pretty bad optics.
Worth noting is that sometimes there are those with veto power. Case in point: sometimes I help clients set up hiring committees for making offers to job candidates. I suggest they gather notes from all interviewers, discuss, and make a decision with voting. Depending on the company culture, that decision can be simple majority or consensus. But what I also suggest is that the hiring manager – the person who will be responsible for the new hire – gets a veto. It makes little sense to ever saddle a manager with a new team member they think shouldn’t even be hired. In some orgs it’s different. The hiring manager is making a dictatorial call. My team, my hire, my decision. I don’t think that’s best in most cases, but it definitely speeds up the hiring process.
That Big Mistake I Mentioned
Don’t misrepresent which decision making method is in use. I say “mistake” and “misrepresent”. In some cases it’s done intentionally and ranges from unintentional to flat out lie. Just be clear with everyone.
We have a project lead who’s ultimately on the hook for everything we do. They make the calls. They almost always consult with their department leads first. Occasionally we’ll put certain decisions to a team vote. This thing right here? Not one of them.
