What are the most effective strategies for group decision-making?

WENNOVATE instead of INNOVATE The main reason why innovation projects get stopped is according to a linkedin poll: ‘LACK OF MANAGEMENT BUY-IN. That’s why in my experience as facilitator of 100+ projects you should better WENNOVATEinstead of INNOVATE. Let me explain… Innovation is a long journey with high uncertainty. That’s why you should get all your internal - and external partners and the decision makers aligned as from the start, agreeing all on both your assignment and process. When you WENNOVATE in the way your project will be based on: - commitment, - trust, and - openness. Check out the FORTH innovation methodology, which comebines design thinking with business thinking, which is based on this WENNOVATE principle.

Albert Einstein once said, "If I had only one hour to save the world, I would spend fifty-five minutes defining the problem, and only five minutes finding the solution." I have seen countless hours wasted by groups struggling to find answers to a poorly-considered problem. There is a human instinct to search for solutions to the immediate problem at hand rather than taking a step back to consider what issue might be creating the problem. My counsel to groups gathered together to solve a problem is to take significant time to carefully consider and define the problem they wish to solve AND to consider what success looks like. A clear vision of success will help guide the solution development process.

Complete agreement on the need to define the problem. I ask, "what problem are we trying to solve?" You'd be surprised how often that simple question trips people up. So after asking it, I offer to write down what everyone thinks. Writing it down and making it visible is a key. Often, we discover (a) we don't have a shared understanding of a (b) complex problem. In the process of iteratively defining the problem - in writing - we are able to break the problem into more manageable, prioritized steps. The written record preserves the nuance, and shows how multiple voices and perspectives contributed.

An important factor in generating solutions is to seek out a diversity of voices. The excellent book, Superforecasting demonstrates that having a group of motivated people who have the skills and background to view a problem from multiple perspectives consistently achieve superior results to groups composed of highly intelligent groups of like mind. So, pull together people from across your organization, even those not directly impacted by your problem (heck, ESPECIALLY people who can bring fresh eyes to the problem), actively get thoughts from the quieter members of the group and don't allow stronger voices intimidate different opinions This will reap huge benefits over the long run.

Instead of asking for feedback, I ask different questions. Two current favorites: For this to work, what has to be true? What happens when we encounter setbacks on the journey? (I ask this a few different ways). I find this helps people think differently about the approach, offering more direct and constructive feedback.

To avoid long discussions and come to an agreement in a constructive way, I prefer the "consent" procedure: > no 100% agreement needed > if people find the suggested solution ok or strongly agree, they just do not interfere > if a person has a serious reason to disagree, he/she explains his/her concern > an iterative loop will clarify how to handle the issue > if no one disagrees explicitely, the suggested solution is agreed for implementation Why do I like this procudure? You get transparency about disagreement, and people are responsible a) to explain their concerns, b) to accept what's acceptable for them without, and c) to jointly implement what has been agreed.

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman is the only book you need on combatting cognitive bias. It is imperative that you do as much as possible to remove bias from decision making. It takes real work to avoid bias and there are a number of techniques to do this. An excellent start is to demand data. If you can demonstrate with unbiased data sources that a problem exists and its scale, you can establish a common base to work from. And as you proceed, try to take a step back and take a challenge role even if you agree with the group. What might people who oppose the group's solution say? How might you convince them? If the group can answer these questions, you're likely on the right path.

My instinct to overthink and overanalyze problems to demonstrate to leadership that the problem has been thoroughly reviewed and that the recommendation is rooted in the facts. However, depending on the scale of the problem, such analysis may not be warranted. For well-understood and smaller problems, piloting or implementing to a smaller group may be appropriate. 'Failing fast' might be a better option than taking significant time to define, analyze, and provide rationale for a solution. A fit-for-purpose approach should be used for decision-making.

Performance measurement is very important. Most organizations I have worked for have largely overlooked this. It's so much more interesting to attack the next problem than to look back and see if last year's problem was effectively solved. So, when implementing your solution, actively articulate what success looks like and, ideally, create or leverage existing performance measures to see if success is achieved. Organizations that do not look back at their previous decisions lose a huge opportunity for continuous improvement and gaining an edge on their competition.

Many Executive teams debate decisions without first clearly framing the decision. This leads to either reluctant agreement, the most senior person making the final call, or the decision being delayed altogether. Either way lacks buy-in, which positions the execution for failure from the onset. I've found this process helps facilitate group decisions with genuine buy-in: 1. (WHY) Agree on what you are optimizing for. Unto what outcome or impact are you making this decision? 2. (HOW) Define your guiding principles, in order of priority. This is a good place for healthy debate. 3. (WHAT) Write down your options. 4. Discuss which options best align with your why and how. 5. Make your decision, noting key assumptions and risks.