In a complex and ever-changing world, business and organizational leaders' need for sound decisions are more critical than ever before. In internal control processes, the four-eyes principle is often used with the understanding that two pairs of eyes see more than one pair. In my opinion, the same holds true in decision making.

The question if a decision has been taken correctly depends often on the way the decision has been made. A secretive decision made in isolation will create mistrust and confusion. On the other hand, if the process is transparent and involves co-active participation from other people, it is likely to generate buy-in, understanding, and adherence.

So, what is co-active decision making?

Co-active decision making goes beyond group decision making. It results from the pro-active collaboration of two or more members of a group contributing to a combined solution greater than the sum of their separate conclusions. It should be noted, though, that decision-making techniques can never be treated as a one-size-fits-all approach. Different situations require different decision-making processes. There are two things to consider: first of all, what's the level of cooperation and agreement that must be obtained, and secondly, who has the knowledge that's going to help make that decision?  

When making a decision alone and without consulting others, there is the risk of having disengaged stakeholders that don't understand or support the outcome. Also, there is the peril of assuming that all the correct information was available for making the decision. Still, in some cases, such as in emergencies or crises, other more one-dimensional decision-making forms might be preferable where quick decisions are decisive, and a clear line of command is called for.

However, when leading change and making decisions on complex problems, it is much more likely to achieve a better and more creative outcome when taking a pro-active approach and seeking co-active input from those around. It is crucial, though, to pay attention to whom contributes to the decision-making process, which ideas are being listened to, and which ones are being discarded. Shallow collaboration must be avoided, where it appears that there is significant involvement, but only the louder voices are being listened to, or the people the decision-maker wants to hear. At the same time, the quieter minority is being silenced.

Interestingly enough, the Federal Aviation Authorities uses a similar co-active decision-making process to increase flight safety. The reasoning behind it has been defined as follows. No single stakeholder has all the information, no two stakeholders have the same values, and all stakeholders interpret information through different experiences.

By co-actively sharing information, values, and preferences, stakeholders learn from each other and build a shared pool of knowledge, resulting in better decisions and the system's most valuable actions.

So, what is the difference between co-active decision making and consensus?

Sometimes it is necessary to take co-activity to the highest level, and a consensus needs to be reached. The Cambridge Dictionary defines consensus as "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people." The word consensus has a bad connotation, but it is a robust group decision-making process to build engaged and connected teams and stakeholders who buy into the process. Consensus differentiates from unanimity as it is not required from all participants to positively support all decision elements, as long as it is something that everyone is willing to live with. In other words, when there is unanimity, everyone agrees, and when there is consensus, no one disagrees.

Cristoph Haugh[1] distinguishes between imposed, acclaimed, basic, and deliberate consensus. These four types of consensus vary in their degree of openness towards dissenting voices.

In an imposed consensus, it is simply claimed by the leader chairing the meeting that consensus has been reached with no opportunity for the meeting participants to oppose this claim.

In an acclaimed consensus, in contrast, there is an explicit opportunity for participants to express their views, but its official purpose is not to express dissent but consent.

In basic consensus, participants are explicitly asked if anyone disagrees, and a stretch of audible silence passes before the consensual decision is confirmed.

Deliberative consensus, finally, not only allows participants to express dissent but actively encourages that dissent is articulated to make sure that no one is silenced. Only deliberative consensus meets the objective of better decisions, implementation, and stakeholder's relationship.

So, engage the stakeholders and de-risk the problem!

Including all stakeholders' input in the co-active decision process ensures that people in the group feel heard, and the resulting decision may better address all interests. This sets the stage for greater cooperation in implementation and will foster greater group cohesion and interpersonal connection. It becomes easier to understand where the common grounds and where the differences are by including all stakeholders. Those differences then become an opportunity to explore the idea from multiple angles.

The co-active decision-making process creates more certainty that an idea was explored profoundly. It is more likely that the right decisions are taken and the buy-in obtained from all stakeholders.

[1] Christoph Haugh, What is consensus and how is it achieved in meetings? Four types of consensus decision-making - The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science 2015

‍