How to Be Good at Group Decision-Making…

and Why It Really Matters 

In making personal decisions, I’ve always followed a simple, two-step protocol.

* Step One: Figure out what I want to do.

* Step Two: Do it.

That worked well and still works well for me as a sovereign individual. But I am also a part of many groups – businesses, teams, clubs, families – for which decision-making happens as a group. For these decisions, in my younger days, I followed a four-step protocol.

* Step One: Figure out what I want to do.

* Step Two: Try to persuade those affected by my idea that it will be good for them.

* Step Three: If they agree, do it.

* Step Four: If they don’t agree, do it anyway.

As you can imagine, this approach had its plusses and its minuses. As I aged, and as the group decisions I had to make became more numerous, the minuses began to outweigh the plusses. I was obliged then to add some other components to my group decision-making process. Like listening. Alas, listening, it turns out, is a necessary part of good group decision-making. You never know. Listen and you just might hear something you need to know.

Lately, as I mentioned in the Feb. 16 issue, I’ve been learning more about group decision-making as a part of my family’s estate planning. I’ve been reading essays and articles. I’ve been watching videos. And I’ve been talking to friends and colleagues.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there is indeed a sort of science to good group decision-making. By that I mean there seem to be reliable strategies based on human nature that make for wiser decisions and happier outcomes.

I’m going to be writing more about all of this in future issues. Today, I want to touch on four things I’ve discovered:

1. I make a lot more decisions every day than I thought I did.
2. I belong to more decision-making groups than I thought I did.
3. How we participate in making group decisions depends on our leadership styles and love languages.
4. How we participate in decision-making groups depends a great deal on the “speed” of our thinking.

 

1. I make a lot more decisions every day than I thought I did.

If you had asked me a week ago how many decisions I make on a typical day, I’d say six to 12, including small decisions. But yesterday, with this essay in mind, I actually kept track of every decision I made from 6:30 in the morning till 5:30 p.m.

How many did I make? Six? Twelve? Twenty?

The answer was 96!

About half of them were borderline meaningless. (“Should I shave now or when I get to the office?”) Many were somewhat significant. (“Should I listen to Howard Stern or ‘Enlightenment Now’ driving to and from work?”) And some – I counted 16 – I categorized as important. That surprised me!

2. I belong to more decision-making groups than I thought I did. 

I asked myself how many of those decisions were group decisions. The answer was about 32. Also more than I expected. Then I looked at those 32 group decisions to determine how many individual decision-making groups they represented. The answer was also surprising: 16!

If I were to count all non-duplicate groups (of two or more) as individual groups, the total number of decision-making groups of which I’m a part would probably be many times 16. Most of these groups rarely have to make decisions, and many of them make decisions that aren’t terribly important. But I was able to identify eight groups whose decisions are very important to me.

Three of them are businesses (whose earnings and equity have a direct impact on my family’s wealth). Three are non-profit foundations (whose legacy I deeply care about). One is our family “office,” including K, our boys, and their spouses (and whose decisions will affect the future wealth and happiness of the family). And finally, there is the smallest but most important decision-making group I belong to: my partnership with K.

All those different entities. All those different goals. All those different personalities. Each must have its own particular strategy for effective “corporate governance” (as the Rogersons call it). Serious issues: Time. Money. Love. So much to gain if the decisions are good. So much to lose if the decisions are bad.

3. How we participate in making group decisions depends on our leadership styles and love languages. 

 In the Feb 16 issue, I wrote about how I hired Tom and Cathy Rogerson to help our extended family make wise decisions about the family’s future. By participating in several workshops run by the Rogersons, one of the things we learned is that we all have different “love languages” (what sort of things makes us feel loved) and equally different leadership styles (director, counselor, analyst, persuader).

Each of these are ingrained aspects of our emotional intelligences. Each of them affects how we understand one another and express ourselves. Prior to this training, conversations about family topics (ranging from “Where Shall We Have the Next Family Reunion?” to “Who Should Be in Charge of the Family’s Cryptocurrency Portfolio?”) might have been laden with subtle psychological landmines. But now, knowing and respecting the differences in our perceptions and styles of communication, we can have such conversations with less stress and more success.

But there is another thing that comes into play during group decision-making conversations. This is something that is rarely discussed in conversations about communication. And almost never discussed in conversations about decision-making.

4. How we participate in decision-making groups depends a great deal on the “speed” of our thinking. 

Long before Ken Hudson’s book Speed Thinking was published, I had noticed that in business meetings some people were always quick with their ideas and conclusions, while others were always slow.

I came to think of the quick people as fast thinkers and the others as slow thinkers. At first, I believed that fast thinkers were better thinkers. And that made me feel good, because I always thought of myself as a fast thinker.

But as time went on and I reflected on the decisions made in the many group conversations I’ve had over the years, I came to realize that the early thoughts weren’t always the best thoughts – and that to make the best decisions, you have to find a way to involve both fast and slow thinkers whenever you can.

So, what do I mean by fast and slow thinkers?

By fast thinkers, I mean people that are always first to come up with new ideas and first to suggest solutions to problems that arise. Fast thinkers are good at idea flow, because they feel good when ideas are flowing quickly and are impatient when they are not. Fast thinkers are uncomfortable with slowness generally. Their ability to think quickly can be seen as a coping mechanism for their impatience.

Slow thinkers are skeptical of new ideas. They rarely come up with them, and are usually late to the party when the theme is about solving problems. They are good at critical analysis. They enjoy checking and double-checking assumptions. They are uncomfortable with deadlines and uncomfortable with speed generally. And they really don’t like to make mistakes. Slow thinkers prefer to take a measured pace, bringing in one new piece of information at a time. Before they utter a word, they want to feel like they have examined the problem or opportunity from every reasonable perspective. They have no interest in getting where they want to go quickly. They want to think carefully. Find the best possible solution. Above all, they believe that the way to be right is not to be wrong.

Fast thinkers find slow thinkers frustrating. Slow thinkers find fast thinkers irritating. In business meetings, fast thinkers will typically dominate the conversation and wield more power. Slow thinkers tend to respond to this by becoming passively aggressive. And worse, feeling bullied and shut out, they may put their intelligence into criticizing or even sabotaging the fast thinkers’ proposals.

This is not a formula for decision-making success.

Fast-Slow Partnering: My Whole-Brain Strategy for Group Decision-Making 

As I said, I consider myself a fast thinker. In discussions about problems – business or personal, theoretical or practical – I’m invariably the first one to offer solutions. And when the conversation is about a challenge, I’m the first one to come up with a plan.

In decision-making groups where I don’t have a thinking partner, I usually dominate the conversation and get my way. In decision-making groups where I do have a partner, I also tend to dominate… initially. But as the conversation continues, my slower-thinking partners often get their way.

Here’s the thing: When I don’t have a “slow-thinking” partner, my idea-to-success ratio is about 50%. When I do, it’s much higher.

So, considering all of the above, I have come to the conclusion that the ideal situation for decision-making is to have partners whose thinking speed is contrary to yours.

If you are a slow thinker (analytical), you will tend to reject the ideas of fast thinkers because they will come too quickly, too abundantly for your comfort. They will also be rough-hewn, because fast thinkers usually share them the moment they have them. But it is a mistake to voice your objections to their ideas the moment you hear them. Be patient. There will be time for criticism later.

If you are a fast thinker, you will likely feel like you are not just the first, but often the only person to come up with ideas in brainstorming sessions. This is probably because you are overwhelming the slow thinkers with your barrage of half-baked ideas. After your first volley, take a pause and ask others for their suggestions. If there are none, finish your proposal and schedule a follow-up session. Make it clear that the purpose of that meeting will be to consider alternative ideas. (Expect the slow thinkers to come prepared.)

So, what do you think of my theory on fast and slow thinking? Tell me quick! I want to know now!