Chapter Seven
Effective Decision Making
Helping groups make high-quality decisions is one of the most important functions of a facilitator. It's also one of the most difficult! There are a number of things that make decision making such a challenge:
- people may be trying to make a decision without having done their homework or being in possession of all of the important facts
- the key stakeholders or decision-makers may not be present
- individuals in the group may have a solution or position in mind that they spend their time advocating without being open to further input
- a few people may dominate while others hold their ideas back
- there may be real confusion about the purpose of the decision-making conversation or whether the group is empowered to decide the issue under discussion
- there may be no process in place to give the conversation structure, so the group engages in unstructured thrashing that's more emotional and subjective than it is factual and objective
- frustration may cause group members to give up their quest for a solution and resort to voting or simply moving on to the next topic without closure
To ensure that you're always facilitating high-quality decision processes, become aware of the traits of effective decision making:
- everyone is clear about the purpose of the decision-making conversation
- the group knows the extent of its power to make the decision in question
- the right people are present
- people understand the approach to be taken and are willing to follow it
- there is an objective and open atmosphere in which ideas are freely exchanged and considered
- people understand the approach to be taken and are willing to follow it
- all ideas are viewed as equally important and no individual or subgroup dominates
- if the decision process becomes deadlocked, group members stop and examine why they're stuck and seek ways of ending the impasse
- discussions end with a sense of closure and clear next steps
Know the Four Types of Conversations
The first step in being able to support effective decision making is awareness that conversations fall into one of the following categories:
Information sharing—this includes giving update reports, sharing research, or brainstorming ideas for later ranking. Note that there is no decision making in these types of discussions. Information-sharing discussions are typically chaired, rather than facilitated, and result in little collaboration among participants.
Planning—these discussions feature activities such as visioning and creating goal statements, describing objectives and expected results, assessing needs, identifying priorities, and creating detailed action steps. Budget planning and program planning discussions fall into this category. Managed change initiatives are also planning activities. Lots of decisions are made during planning conversations, thus they require structure and active facilitation to ensure input from members.
Problem solving—encompasses activities that engage participants in identifying and resolving issues together. The core activities involve gathering data, identifying problems, analyzing the current situation, using criteria to sort potential solutions, and planning for action. Customer service initiatives and process improvement projects fall into this category. Because these types of discussions result in actions that create change, problem solving needs to be carefully structured and systematically facilitated.
Relationship building—this includes activities that help people get to know each other and build cohesion. It includes activities such as icebreakers, norm development sessions, and conflict mediations. Structured team-building sessions are an example of relationship-building discussions. Important agreements are made during relationship-building discussions, so they also need to be carefully structured and assertively facilitated.
At the start of each conversation, facilitators must determine which of the four discussion types is taking place and whether or not the group is making decisions:
| If it's information sharing, list making, or brainstorming: |  |
If it's planning, problem solving, or relationship building: |
| – no decisions will be made | – decisions will be made | |
| – facilitation isn't critical | – a clear process is needed | |
| – synergy isn't important | – facilitation is important | |
| – closure is not needed – next steps optional |
– people need to build on each other's thoughts |
|
| – closure and clear next steps are needed |
The Four Levels of Empowerment
For all decision-making conversations, it's very important to clarify the level of empowerment at which a decision is being made and communicate that information to group members at the start of any discussion.
Nothing causes greater confusion and distrust than a lack of clarity about empowerment levels. It's very unfortunate when a group assumes that it has final say in a decision, only to discover that management was merely asking for their opinions. Fortunately, empowerment doesn't have to be a confusing concept when you use the following four-level empowerment model.
Clarifying the Four Empowerment Levels
Level I—This refers to any decision made by management without input from employees. Employees are informed of the decision and expected to comply.
Level II—This is a decision made by management after seeking input from employees. Employees are consulted but have no actual say in the final outcome and are expected to comply. An employee focus group is an example of a Level II decision-making process.
Level III—In this category of decision, employees discuss and recommend a course of action, but are unable to act without gaining final approval. Problem-solving workshops are often set up as Level III activities.
Level IV—In this level of decision, the group has been given full authority to make a decision and implement action plans without having to seek further approvals.
It's the role of the facilitator to help group members determine the extent of their empowerment in each decision-making activity. This should ideally be done during the assessment and design phases of the facilitation process, although empowerment is often clarified at the start of discussions. Clarification involves asking questions such as:
- “Who's accountable for the outcomes of the decision?”
- “Who is best qualified to make the decision in terms of expertise?”
- “To what extent is it important that there be high levels of buy-in to the decision?”
- “To what extent is it advantageous to have group members actively engaged in every step of making the decision and implementing actions?”
If you're testing a group's assumptions about the empowerment level related to a specific topic, you can ask questions such as:
- “Is the decision being made elsewhere?” (Level I)
- “Are you being asked for your recommendations?” (Level II)
- “Are you making recommendations that require approval before you can act?” (Level III)
- “Are you fully able to go ahead and implement whatever decision is made by the group?” (Level IV)
Adjusting Empowerment Levels
If a group feels that a decision is being made at the wrong level, facilitate a discussion about the empowerment level the members think they need. While this is often about gaining more empowerment, there are situations in which groups feel the need to reduce their level of accountability for a decision.
To raise empowerment, facilitate a discussion that asks:
- “What empowerment level is appropriate for this activity?”
- “Why does the group need these powers?”
- “What are the risks of the group having these powers?”
- “What concerns is management likely to have?”
- “What checks and balances could be put into place to encourage management to empower you more?”
- “What accountabilities are group members prepared to assume individually and as a group to gain more power?”
Encouraging Groups to Accept Greater Empowerment
There are instances in which group members may feel that they're being asked to assume too much power. This can have a number of root causes:
- there may be a feeling that the actions planned by the group aren't within their job description
- some people are unused to being empowered and are afraid to take risks
- many people may already be overcommitted
- there may be a lack of confidence or skill on the part of some participants
- there may be a lack of true buy-in to the action plans that were created
- there may be a justified lack of trust that the organization is going to support the group's initiatives
To explore the need to reduce empowerment, facilitate a discussion that asks:
- “What power and authority are appropriate for this activity?”
- “Why should the empowerment level be lower?”
- “What accountabilities are group members unprepared to assume?”
- “What risks should management be made aware of?”
It's important to note that there are situations in which group members shy away from assuming greater responsibility when they shouldn't. A common example is groups in which members enjoy analyzing a problem and brain-storming solutions, but back away from taking responsibility for action.
Unlike managers, who may have the authority to “order” reluctant employees to take on new tasks, facilitators have to rely on their process skills to encourage people to overcome resistance. If you encounter unjustified resistance to empowerment, the following line of questioning can be useful:
- Acknowledge the resistance—don't ignore or deny it:
“I can tell by your reaction that you don't want to take on responsibility for this decision/program.”
- Invite members to verbalize their reticence—allow people to vent their fears and concerns:
“Why do you think responsibility should rest elsewhere?”
- Empathize with their situation—sympathize without agreeing:
“I can understand that you're concerned about taking on more responsibility at this time.”
- Engage members in identifying strategies—ask them to identify conditions for overcoming their resistance:
“Under what conditions would you consider assuming more responsibility?”
“What assurances, training, or support would make you feel you'd be willing to give it a try?”
- Paraphrase and summarize their statements—encourage them to agree to greater empowerment by ratifying their suggestions:
“So you're saying that you'd be willing to take this on with some training and coaching.”
In most situations, group members will identify feasible and realistic things that can be done to encourage them to buy in further. If, on the other hand, group members state unreasonable conditions, such as having their pay doubled, don't react. Record all unreasonable ideas along with the others until the list of conditions is complete. Then ask the group to help review the list of conditions to identify which are feasible and which are unrealistic. In most cases, other group members will edit out the more outrageous demands of their peers.
Does this approach always work? The truth is that nothing works in every situation. It is, however, the only process tool available given the facilitator's lack of true power over the group. If this approach fails to work, you will have to refer the problem of group reluctance to assume accountability to the leader, who will decide whether ordering increased empowerment is the best course of action.
Be aware that bringing in leaders to order members to take on more empowerment will result in reduced buy-in and may also regress the group's maturity. To avoid these negatives, always try to engage members in conversations aimed at overcoming their resistance first.
Shifting Decision-Making Paradigms
All facilitators need to be aware that when organizations start involving groups to make decisions that were formerly made by management, this may represent a major shift in the cultural values of the organization.
Many managers are used to listening to input and then making important decisions themselves. Such patterns are a reality that all facilitators have to understand. When staff input into decision making represents a major change to traditional power arrangements, you must help leaders and members appreciate the value of participative decisions and create the right setting in which people can be encouraged to express their ideas freely.
When working with a group you don't know, never assume that participative decision making is understood or practiced by either the group or the leader. Instead, check by asking questions that probe how the organization normally makes decisions. Ask things like:
- “How are decisions of this nature typically made in this organization?”
- “To what extent are employees used to making these types of decisions?”
- “Are member decisions often overturned by leaders?”
In addition, leaders who are accustomed to a directive style may have concerns about relinquishing control. These leaders often need time to buy into the idea of participation in decision making. They also need to understand how this greater employee involvement benefits them. Some points that may be helpful in encouraging a leader to accept increased group decision making include:
- group decision making has the benefit of generating more ideas, building commitment, and encouraging members to take greater responsibility.
- group decision making relieves the leader of many tasks and frees him or her to play more strategic roles in the organization.
- decisions that involve a degree of risk can be managed at empowerment Level III to ensure that the leader approves member decisions before they are implemented.
- decisions that group members are fully empowered to make at Level IV can be given clear parameters to ensure they meet key success criteria, such as compliance with budgetary guidelines, support of the overall strategic plan, and so on.
While facilitators often lead decision-making sessions at Level II, it should always be made clear to leaders that this isn't the full use of a group's powers. Years of experience has shown that decision making at Levels III and IV more fully taps into the talents and resources of group members and creates a more fully engaged organization.
The Decision-Making Options
When helping a group make a decision, five distinct decision-making methods are available. Each of these represents a different approach. Each has pros and cons associated with it. The decision option should always be chosen carefully to be sure it's the most appropriate method. These options are as follows:
Consensus Building
Consensus building involves everyone clearly understanding the situation or problem to be decided, analyzing all of the relevant facts together, and then jointly developing solutions that represent the whole group's best thinking about the optimal decision. It's characterized by a lot of listening, healthy debate, and testing of options. Consensus generates a decision about which everyone says, “I can live with it.”
Pros—It's a collaborative effort that unites the group. It demands high involvement. It's systematic, objective, and fact-driven. It builds buy-in and high commitment to the outcome.
Cons—It's time-consuming and produces low-quality decisions if done without proper data collection or if members have poor interpersonal skills.
Uses—When decisions will impact the entire group; when buy-in and ideas from all members are essential; when the importance of the decision being made is worth the time it will take to complete the consensus process properly.
Steps—Name the issue, topic, or problem. Share all of the known facts to create a shared understanding of the current situation. Generate potential courses of action/solutions. Generate criteria for sorting the courses of action/solutions.
Use the criteria to sort the ideas (a decision grid, vote, or multi-vote). Make a clear statement of the decision. Ratify that all can live with the solution.
Multi-Voting
This is a priority-setting tool that is useful for making decisions when the group has a lengthy set of options and rank ordering the options, based on a set of criteria, will clarify the best course of action. (Refer to page 180 in Chapter Ten.)
Pros—It's systematic, objective, democratic, non-competitive, and participative. Everyone wins somewhat, and feelings of loss are minimal. It's a fast way of sorting out a complex set of options. Often feels consensual.
Cons—It's often associated with limited discussion, hence, limited understanding of the options. This may force choices on people that may not be satisfactory to them, because the real priorities do not rise to the surface or people are swayed by each other if the voting is done out in the open, rather than electronically or by ballot.
Uses—When there's a long list of alternatives or items to choose from.
Steps—After the group has generated a wide range of solutions, clarify the criteria that define the votes (most important, easiest, least expensive, greatest impact, etc.). If using stickers, hand out strips of dots. If using markers, tell people how many marks to make. If using points, clarify how many points people can distribute (10/100, etc.). Allow people to mill as they affix their votes.
Compromise
A negotiated approach is applicable when there are two or more distinct options and members are strongly polarized (neither side is willing to accept the solution/position put forth by the other side). A middle position is then created that incorporates ideas from both sides. Throughout the process of negotiation, everyone wins a few favorite points, but also loses a few items he or she liked. The outcome is, therefore, something that no one is totally satisfied with. In compromises, no one feels he or she received what he or she originally wanted, so the emotional reaction is often, “It's not really what I wanted, but I'm going to have to live with it.”
Pros—It generates lots of discussion and does result in a solution.
Cons—Negotiating when people are pushing a favored point of view tends to be adversarial, hence this approach divides the group. In the end, everyone wins, but everyone also loses.
Uses—When two opposing solutions are proposed, neither of which is acceptable to everyone, or when the group is strongly polarized and compromise is the only alternative.
Steps—Invite the parties to describe the solution or course of action that they favor. Ask the other party to make notes and then give a short summary of the solution or position favored by the other group. Engage the entire group in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each proposed approach. Bring forward the strengths of both approaches. Create a third option or hybrid that builds on all of the strengths. Ask each group to willingly give up some aspects of their original approach in order to arrive at decisions that represents a middle ground. Clarify, summarize, and ratify the middle-ground approach.
Majority Voting
This involves asking people to choose the option they favor, once clear choices have been identified. Usual methods are a show of hands or secret ballot. The quality of voting is always enhanced if there's good discussion to share ideas before the vote is taken.
Pros—It's fast and decisions can be of higher quality if the vote is preceded by a thorough analysis.
Cons—It can be too fast and low in quality if people vote based on their personal feelings without the benefit of hearing each other's thoughts or facts. It creates winners and losers, hence dividing the group. The show of hands method may put pressure on people to conform.
Uses—When there are two distinct options and one or the other must be chosen; when decisions must be made quickly and a division in the group is acceptable; when consensus has been attempted and cannot be reached.
Steps—Ask members to describe both options in some detail to build a shared understanding. Identify criteria for deciding which is more effective (timeliness, cost, impact, etc.). Once everyone understands both options and the criteria for deciding, use a show of hands or paper vote to identify which option to implement.
One Person Decides
This is a decision that the group decides to refer to one person to make on behalf of the group. A common misconception among teams is that every decision needs to be made by the whole group. In fact, a one-person decision is often a faster and more efficient way to reach resolution. The quality of any one person's decision can be raised considerably if the person making the decision receives advice and input from other group members before deciding.
Pros—It's fast and accountability is clear. Can result in commitment and buy-in if people feel their ideas are represented.
Cons—It can divide the group if the person deciding doesn't consult with others, or makes a decision that others can't live with. A one-person decision typically lacks in both the buy-in and synergy that come from a group decision-making process.
Uses—When the issue is unimportant or small; or when there's a clear expert in the group; or when only one person has the information needed to make the decision and can't share it; or when one person is solely accountable for the outcome.
Steps—Identify the expert who is best qualified to make the decision. To build buy-in, conduct a consultation during which group members tell the expert about their needs and concerns regarding the item to be decided. Gain agreement that everyone will accept the decision of the expert.
Decision Options Chart
| Option | Pros | Cons | Uses |
| Consensus Building |
|
|
|
| Multi-Voting |
|
|
|
| Compromise |
|
|
|
| Majority Voting |
|
|
|
| One Person Decides |
|
|
|
The Divergence/Convergence Model
Regardless of which decision tool is used, a general pattern that facilitators need to understand is the Divergence/Convergence Model shown below. This model shows that the level of detail diverges or increases in the early stages of most decision-making processes and does not converge or reduce until the later stages. This happens because in the early stages of analyzing the current situation, collecting data, uncovering root causes, and brainstorming, a broad range of ideas all tend to place more information on the table. The convergence stage does not occur until later when all the data that has been amassed and sorted down into actionable items.
This model provides a warning. If the topic or issue being discussed is extremely broad to begin with, there is a strong likelihood that it will become even broader during the divergence phase. If, for example, group members identify more than one solution for each piece of data shared in the analysis phase, the amount of information before the group could double or triple.
Understanding this model helps facilitators plan their agendas. Divergent conversations are detailed and typically take longer than divergent ones. Also, facilitators must be alert to the fact that if they allow a group to tackle an issue that is too vague or generic, it may expand in the divergence phase to a point at which it is impossible to manage.
The Importance of Building Consensus
The crucial importance of building consensus simply cannot be overstated and must be fully understood by all facilitators. In fact, facilitation and consensus building are based on the same set of core values and beliefs.
Besides being the number-one choice for making all important decisions, facilitators always seek to build consensus with everything they do. The following are all examples of consensus activities:
- summarizing a complex set of ideas to the satisfaction of group members
- gaining buy-in from all members as to the purpose or goal of a session
- obtaining everyone's input about a clear goal and objectives
- linking thoughts together so people can formulate a common idea
- making notes on a flip chart in such a way that each member feels he or she has been heard and is satisfied with what's been recorded
Because all facilitation activities must strive to be collaborative, participative, synergistic, and unifying, they are essentially consensus building in nature!
Hallmarks of the Consensus Process
Regardless of whether a multi-step process is being used to build a decision or the facilitator is only synthesizing group thoughts into a consensus statement, the same hallmarks of the process are always present:
- lots of ideas are being shared
- everyone's ideas are heard
- there's active listening and paraphrasing to clarify ideas
- people build on each other's ideas
- no one's trying to push a pre-determined solution; instead, there's an open and objective quest for new options
- the final solution is based on sound information
- when the final solution is reached, people feel satisfied that they were part of the decision
- all feel so consulted and involved that even though the final solution isn't the one they would have chosen working on their own, they can readily “live with it”
There are many situations in which the decisions to be made are so important that consensus is the only acceptable method. Defaulting to voting or any other technique that creates division within the group allows dissenters to absolve themselves of responsibility for important group outcomes. In these cases, the group must agree to keep discussing the issue until everyone indicates that he or she can live with the outcome.
It is also important never to end a consensus exercise by asking whether everyone is happy or everyone agrees with the outcome. Consensus is not about either happiness or total agreement. At the end of even a great consensus process, people have usually made concessions and are usually not getting everything they wanted.
- Don't ask: “Do we all agree?” or “Is everyone happy?”
- Instead ask: “Do we have a well-thought-through outcome that we can all feel committed to implementing and that everyone can live with?”
One of the major contributions of any facilitator is in helping a group overcome the temptation to pressure dissenters into agreement. By openly accepting and discussing differences, facilitators help members reach decisions that have been objectively explored and tested.
Consensus isn't designed to make people happy or leave them in 100 percent agreement. Its goal is to create an outcome that represents the best feasible course of action, given the circumstances.
Overcoming Blocks to Consensus
It's very common that some group members may be reluctant to support a particular decision. In these cases never yield to the temptation to pressure dissenters to give in. To do so would be to court “group think.”
Instead, reframe dissenters as people who may potentially have an important idea overlooked by the group. This involves acknowledging and accepting the dissent, then harnessing it to improve the decision. This is done by allowing the dissenters to express their concerns in really concrete terms and then making them accountable for finding solutions to the issues that they raise.
This sounds something like this:
- “I'm noticing that we have some differing views.”
- “Differing points of view always have the potential to improve the quality of a decision, so please let's listen carefully for ideas that may have been missed.”
- “Tell us the specific issue that you have with the group's decision. What do you see as the flaws in this decision? What's been overlooked?”
- “What changes do you propose could be made to the group's solution that would make it acceptable to you? What are the solutions to the problems that you raise?”
Things to Watch for in Decision Making
- Be clear up-front on the process to be used. Explain any tools or techniques that will be used.
- Ask people what assumptions they're operating under, either about the issue or the organizational constraints. Note these and test them with the rest of the group.
- Conflict is a natural part of many decision-making discussions. Always confront differences assertively and collaboratively. Don't strive to avoid conflict or accommodate by asking people to be nice and get along.
- Urge people not to fold or just give in if they feel they have important ideas. When everyone agrees just to make things run smoothly, the result is groupthink. This creates poor decisions made just to get it over with and ensure that everyone stays friends.
- If the group has chosen to go for consensus because the issue is important, stick with it, even if the going gets tough. Beware of the tendency to start voting, coin tossing, and bargaining to make things easier.
- Be very particular about achieving closure on any items that are decided. Test for consensus and make sure things are final before letting the group move on to other topics.
- Stop the action if things start “spinning” or behaviors are ineffective. Ask: “What are we doing well? What aren't we doing so well?” and “What do we need to do about it?” Then act on all suggestions.
Effective Decision-Making Behaviors
To make any decision process work, group members need to behave in specific ways. These behaviors can be suggested to the group or generated as norms in advance of any decision-making session. Sharing this chart may help encourage group effectiveness.
| BEHAVIORS THAT HELP | BEHAVIORS THAT HINDER |
| Listening to others' ideas politely, even when you don't agree | Interrupting people in mid-sentence |
| Paraphrasing the main points made by another person, especially if you're about to contradict the person's ideas | Not acknowledging the ideas that others have put on the table |
| Praising others' ideas | Criticizing others' ideas, as opposed to giving them useful feedback |
| Building on others' ideas | Pushing your own ideas while ignoring others' input |
| Asking others to critique your ideas, and accepting the feedback | Getting defensive when your ideas are assessed |
| Being open to accepting alternative courses of action | Sticking only to your ideas and blocking suggestions for alternatives |
| Dealing with facts | Basing arguments on feelings |
| Staying calm and friendly toward colleagues | Getting overly emotional; showing hostility in the face of any disagreement |
Symptoms, Causes, and Cures of Poor Decisions
When groups make poor-quality decisions, one or more of the following symptoms may be in evidence:
Symptom 1: Aimless drifting and random discussions. The same topic is kicked around meeting after meeting without resolution. It feels like the group is spinning its wheels.
Cause: No plan or process for approaching the decision. Group members simply launch into the discussion without any thought to which tools to use. Without a systematic approach, people start proposing solutions before there has been a thorough analysis of the situation. There is a lack of proper information. Everyone puts his or her favorite solution on the table. No one takes notes. No solution is definitively agreed to. Detailed action plans aren't written down.
Cure: The group needs a structured approach to decision making that uses the right decision-making tool and is assertively facilitated.
Symptom 2: The group uses voting on important items where total buy-in is important, then uses consensus to decide trivia.
Cause: A lack of understanding of decision-making options. The group doesn't understand the six key decision-making options and when to use each of them.
Cure: The group needs to become familiar with the six main decision-making options and consciously decide which to use before launching into any decision-making discussion.
Symptom 3: The group always seems to run out of time just when the important decisions are on the table.
Cause: Poor time management. Time isn't budgeted or monitored. There's no detailed agenda that sets aside sufficient time to deal with important items. Hence, time is wasted discussing less important aspects. Meetings often start late or run over.
Cure: The group needs to create a detailed agenda before each meeting. During discussions, the facilitator must be assertive about keeping the group on track and on time.
Symptom 4: When an important item is on the table, people grow heated and argumentative. No one really listens to the opposing viewpoints. Everyone pushes his or her point in an attempt to “win.” Some members dominate, unconcerned that others are silent.
Cause: Poorly developed group interaction skills. People have become positional and competitive. No one is listening to the points other people are making, just pushing his or her own. Facilitation is nonexistent or weak. As a result, there's an absence of the synergy that exists when people build on each other's ideas. This confrontational style strains relationships, which only makes things worse.
Cure: The members need training in group-effectiveness skills so that they can exhibit more listening, supporting, and idea building. If a facilitator is present, he or she should stop the conversation and explain active listening and paraphrasing. When conversation resumes, the facilitator should assure that people are acknowledging each other's points.
Symptom 5: After a lengthy discussion, it becomes clear that everyone is operating on slightly different assumptions about what the problem is and what the constraints or possibilities are.
Cause: Failure to check assumptions. Everyone has a different view of the situation and is basing his or her input on that view. Assumptions are never put on the table for sharing or testing.
Cure: Use probing questions to uncover the assumptions underlying statements made by the members. These questions can be related to the situation, the organization, or the people involved. Once assumptions are clarified and validated, members will be operating in the same framework.
Symptom 6: In spite of the fact that the discussion has been going in circles for some time, no one takes action to get things back on track.
Cause: No process checking. Even when things are going nowhere and frustration levels are running high, no one knows to call time-out to take stock and regroup. This, once again, reflects the absence of facilitation.
Cure: Stopping the discussion periodically to ask how things are going, whether the pace is right, whether people feel progress is being made, whether people feel the right approach is being taken. (Refer to the discussion of process checking on page 16 in Chapter One.)
Decision Effectiveness Survey
Anonymously provide your feedback about your team's decision process.
- How thoroughly did people do their homework?
1
Poor2
Fair3
Satisfactory4
Good5
Excellent - Was there clarity about their assumptions surrounding the topic?
1
Poor2
Fair3
Satisfactory4
Good5
Excellent - How clear was the goal of the decision process?
1
Poor2
Fair3
Satisfactory4
Good5
Excellent - Did we exhibit effective behaviors in dealing with contentious items?
1
Poor2
Fair3
Satisfactory4
Good5
Excellent - How thorough was our analysis of the current situation?
1
Poor2
Fair3
Satisfactory4
Good5
Excellent - How creative and innovative were the ideas that we generated?
1
Poor2
Fair3
Satisfactory4
Good5
Excellent - How objective and balanced was our evaluation of options?
1
Poor2
Fair3
Satisfactory4
Good5
Excellent - How satisfied are you that the final solution was one that everyone can live with?
1
Poor2
Fair3
Satisfactory4
Good5
Excellent - Were the potential blocks and barriers to action adequately anticipated?
1
Poor2
Fair3
Satisfactory4
Good5
Excellent - Rate your overall assessment of the quality of the decision process.
1
Poor2
Fair3
Satisfactory4
Good5
Excellent
What would you do to improve our next decision-making session?
_________________________________________________________