Decision crystallization: Form emerging from solution

24 Aug 2018 Tags: Soft skills

Second in a series on group decision-making, based on Ch. 10–11 of Making Meetings Work. The first post described the rules group use to justify decisions.

Understanding decision rules, the criteria groups use to justify decisions, is the first step to becoming an effective decision leader. The next step is applying this understanding in actual meetings. This skill is more complex, because it requires attending to many different things in real time, and harder to practice, because you can only perform it in an actual group as it makes a decision. However, given the low level of effectiveness of typical group decisions, even moderate skill in this process can make a substantial improvement. Your colleagues will notice your contribution.

Tropman coined the phrase decision crystallization to describe the skill of leading a group to a great outcome that seems to emerge naturally from the discussion. But if the outcome is so natural, why is it so rare? Why do so very many meetings circle round indecisively, producing mediocre results?

Decisions are collections of interconnected choices

The problem arises from the unacknowledged complexity of decisions. Decisions of any import are not single choices but a collection of interconnected choices. To use one of Tropman’s examples, the decision “What shall we serve for dinner at the party?” is in fact a collection of decisions, including aperitif, main course, side dishes, beverage, and dessert. These choices in turn might be constrained by allergies or dietary restrictions of some guests, when the hosts can begin preparing the food, seasonal availability of ingredients, and other restrictions. Deciding “What to serve for dinner” is in fact a process of making many smaller decisions, which may be mutually constraining. The choice of main dish will restrict appropriate beverages and side dishes. Furthermore, some restrictions will only become apparent during the discussion, as when the hosts realize that a given dish would require them to start cooking earlier than their schedule permits.

During the meeting, all these distinct choices float about as though in solution. The group attends to one, then another, in no particular order, identifying barriers and conflicts to some choices, favouring other choices, highlighting their interconnectedness, never settling on any one point, never deciding anything. The formless discussion frustrates progress.

Crystallizing a decision from the chaos

Tropman’s term crystallization perfectly captures how a good decision can appear to a group once it’s been articulated. From a blur of conflicting, unprioritized notions appears a proposal, seemingly fully-formed, one that addresses the concerns of the group, is supported by a majority or even all of the decision rules, and resolves conflicts by making balanced compromises. Once the group hears such a proposal, they will usually endorse it and enthusiastically implement it.

The word “hears” is key. Individual points may have been made during the discussion but they would have been lost as the topic shimmied from issue to issue. The decision has to be spoken aloud, articulated as a package, in the right way, at the right time. The process is subtle enough that I’ll spread the discussion over the next several posts:

1. The decision mosaic—organizing the collection of sub-decisions that comprise the overarching decision at issue.
2. The determinative element—selecting the best sub-decision to discuss next.
3. Decision rounds—when to propose a choice to address the current decision.
4. The crystallization process—how to propose a choice that addresses the goals and concerns expressed by the group.

My next post will describe the decision mosaic and selecting the determinative element.