What is Inclusive Decision Making?
I was recently invited to share a keynote on ‘Inclusive Decision-Making’, and I thought I would share a summary here.
by Marc Timmerman (Click Here for audio version, narrated by Anna Nardini)
Inclusive decision-making is the ideal choreography that should accompany the full decision-making process. In executive circles, decision-making processes are rarely engineered by one person, and contributions can come from numerous diverse sources. Whilst there is clear evidence that both men and women bring a recognisable suite of separate individual superpowers to the professional world, the contributions that shape and define a strong decision are neither gender-neutral nor gender specific.
The process of ‘decision making’ is highly emotionally loaded, and invites an equally high degree of content, diverse considerations, and varied responsibilities.
According to extensive research conducted at the Faculty of Psychology at Lund University, in Sweden, a comprehensive decision making process comprises of 4 distinct and necessary styles, each of which is shaped and influenced by a need for appropriate timing and sequence in order to collectively facilitate a sound and balanced conclusion. The concept of ‘inclusive decision making’ follows this model very closely.
To help decode this, let me introduce you to these 4 styles and then look at what each brings individually. Our styles are: Decisive, Flexible, Analyst, and Integrator.
The Decisive style actively and persistently encapsulates the ‘why’. Its role is to force a conclusion or, at the very least, encourage the viable components required to reach a conclusion. As a dominant style, it best serves the audience if it is confined to the background, with limited opportunity to ‘take over’ or steal the show.
The next style is Flexible. Flexible invites considerations, scenarios & options from the audience in a measured and contemplative way. It is in no rush to reach a decision and therefore it sits well as the alter ego of Decisive. It is future-ready to embrace all manner of content, therefore diluting the opportunity for a swift, rash, or perhaps overly simplistic outcome.
The third style is that of the Analyst. Here, investigation, variables, and risks are welcomed into the dialogue, as well as the regular presentation of hypothetical solutions. Like Flexible, the Analyst presents the audience with yet a wider lens, based on facts and figures to validate or challenge the considerations aired in the room.
The final style of the fourth is perhaps the most significant. The Integrator is a catalyst for inclusiveness, a pioneer of different perspectives, and an unblemished lens through which to view all contributions to the decision-making process. As you can probably imagine, the Integrator plays a powerful role in uniting the x4 styles, and for this reason, should remain firmly visible as a central protagonist throughout the full decision-making process, ushering every consideration into clear view and avoiding obstruction, exclusion, or bias.
Without the continuity that the Integrator provides, even a small interruption could be a massive disrupter to the equity of the process, inviting the Analyst to stride in with formulae, the Flexible style to ruminate unnecessarily, or the Decisive style to jump on top of the whole process and force the argumentation to an altered conclusion.
Where one or more of the styles are missing(or limited), our experience is imbalanced, and our conclusions lack solid foundations. It is sadly often the case that not all 4 styles are present, or that there is a dominant style presiding over the other less dominant styles. Where this occurs, it invites bias, heightens the threat of risk attached to the decision itself, and can create a very one-dimensional view.
But what else lies behind this? I repeatedly hear leadership teams airing curiosity around the demand for agility versus the importance of speed when making a decision.
Quite simply, speed is the enemy in inclusive decision making. Agility is the friend. Agility invites multiple lenses, curious questioning, constructive challenge and elasticity in relation to what is being discussed. Agility protects against a dominant coalition.
Interestingly, when we are relaxed and not under threat or pressure, most of us allow more than one style to surface in ourselves, and this facilitates us to contribute to a more balanced decision-making process. But when we are under stress or the stakes are high – personally, financially, or professionally – we all typically retreat into our dominant style, which in turn, polarises our responses and considerations. The equity in these scenarios is dependent on sufficient equity of the 4 styles in the wider room.
During a recent keynote, I was asked whether the role of the Decisive style was ‘bad’?
My answer here is that no style is bad when offset again a healthy balance of the other styles. The Decisive style plays the vital role of choreographer of all 4 styles in the mix. It lacks the patience and consideration displayed by some of the other styles – but it still has a positive and integral role to play in reaching a well-rounded decision.
It is my firm belief that there is not one style in isolation that is more important than another, as together, they all serve the process in equal ways. Perhaps the style that could arguably invite the highest value status, is that of the Integrator because this style so audaciously welcomes an outside perspective and therefore actively and transparently counters the potential for bias to dominate the necessary accompanying ruminations.
In all decision-making scenarios, it would be my advice to avoid seeking the buy-in of one individual in the room. This will unquestionably invite a high potential for bias. Instead, I would suggest a slower and more agile approach that will summon a more positive and blended conclusion. All 4 styles offer equal value to the process and bring inclusivity to the outcome, and, when combined with equitable measure, we can witness ‘inclusive decision-making’ in its finest form.