Decision making

This page gathers HUB resources related to activist group decision-making.

“Collective decision-making is at the heart of citizen movements. Whether an organization has little or no organization or is seen as an important actor in civil society, it is the constant beating of a formal or informal decision-making process that gives it life. Decision-making models are intimately linked to the kind of structure in which these decisions are made. Thus, there is no one best model that can be applied to all structures." - Sami Haiouani, longtime activist

Here are some factors to consider when choosing your group's decision-making model(s):

• group values and dynamics
• the number of people involved
• the composition of the group
• the type of organization
• the target
  

We can make decisions that are in line with our values ​​AND that correspond to the structure of our group.

Depending on goals, values and dynamics

This section is inspired by a resource from Samantha Slide, author of Going horizontal: Creating a Non-hierarchical Organization, One Practice at a Time.

Consent model

The model is used when...

• the focus is on the action
• we want to leave space (although restricted) for everyone to be involved

See the pages: Consent decision making 101 and How does horizontalism or non-hierarchical organizing work, and what have we learned from attempts at it? 

Consensus model

The model is used when...

• support from everyone is needed
• we want to focus on the quality of relationships and creating a sense of community

See the pages: Consensus decision making 101, consensus decision making (suggestions for small groups) and How does horizontalism or non-hierarchical organizing work, and what have we learned from attempts at it? 

Modified consensus

The model is used when...

• we are looking for a significant participation of the greatest number of people involved
• the group is made up of people who don't know each other well

See the pages: Modified consensus decision making (suggestions for large and small groups) and How does horizontalism or non-hierarchical organizing work, and what have we learned from attempts at it?

 

Decision by authority

The model is used when...

• we want to maintain feedback collection practices
• a group is new to using decision-making models, trust is lacking, or to assign responsibility for making small decisions

The following are models that use authority:

DARCI Framework

The DARCI framework separates big picture or fundamental issues where everyone needs to be consulted and votes on decisions from smaller ones.

See DARCI decision making framework

Decision making through consultation and feedback

Here are suggested steps to apply this model:

1. Collection of comments	Collection of comments from members, authorities and “expert” people prior to the development of the project. Take inspiration from the deep democracy approach: A. Gather all perspectives (especially those that are not our own) B. Actively look at alternative positions (does anyone think completely differently) C. Look at who supports this view D. Add the intelligence of the minority to the decision of the majority (wondering how to rally this minority to the majority) Harvest prospects. Identify the people who have the most knowledge on the subject and those who are most affected by it. Prioritize them in the collection. Talk to people in person (in person, by phone), and do a poll on possible positions.
2. Decision and rationale	A group is responsible for making a decision taking these comments into account. They will present the decision to the large group.
3. Feedback and modification	It is possible for the larger group to express their concerns, to mention the blind spots of the decision. The decision is modified based on the feedback.

Decision-making by consultation

Here are suggested steps to apply this model:

1. Collection of comments

Collection of comments from members, authorities and “expert” people prior to the development of the project. Take inspiration from the deep democracy approach A. Gather all perspectives (especially those that are not our own) B. Actively look at alternative positions (does anyone think completely differently) C. Look at who supports this view D. Add the intelligence of the minority to the decision of the majority (wondering how to rally this minority to the majority) Harvest prospects. Identify the people who have the most knowledge on the subject and those who are most affected by it. Prioritize them in the collection. Talk to people in person (in person, by phone), and do a poll on possible positions.

2. Decision and rationale

Individual or working group decision based on these points.

The individual or the working committee may choose to modify the project based on the comments made during the presentation of the decision.

Decision making by justification

Here are suggested steps to apply this model.

1. Decision	Decision in working committee or in a pair of responsible people.
2. Rationale	-Presentation and justification to the large group. -Concerns may be raised at the time of presentation. The team that prepared the project must be ready to take the comments into consideration and adapt its plan to include the concerns. In such a case, it is possible to take a moment to consult and make the necessary adjustments.

Here is an example:

"We wanted to choose projects for which we had interest in putting energy, so it was a question of dividing into working committees according to the 3 projects most desired by the group. One person mentioned the importance of a particular file, although she did not vote for it as a project she wanted to work on. The facilitation team has therefore established the creation of working committees by report in addition to those voted on by interest. The file has therefore been added as a subject of a working group because it has been reported."

Autonomous decision

The model is used when...

• we want to decentralize decisions to maximize the autonomy of the groups.

An autonomous decision can include a part of consultation of the community (it is a good practice to adopt the majority of the time).

Decision by publication

Here are the suggested steps to apply this model.

1. Information

We inform the community of the activity or project that we want to implement. This must respect the p

2. Veto

Opposition to the activity or project can be reported by members of the community: this works as a veto. This opposition will have to be shared by a % of the group (decided in advance) to have an effect. The action or project cannot be carried out as long as it does not respond to the issue raised. Explain that this veto is a protective mechanism and should be used as such. Inspired by consensus decision-making. Can be used to ensure compliance with group principles in the actions of autonomous groups.

Decision by respect for the principles

Particular usefulness: In the context of projects or activities in which there is a necessary element of surprise, this type of decision-making is appropriate in order to minimize the risks of early disclosure.

Compliance with the principles

Clear group principles must have been established. The decisions taken must respect these principles.

Depending on structure

The affinity group

The affinity group represents any group of individuals who share political affinities and a desire to organize themselves in order to carry out actions of a political nature. By action of a political nature, we include a broad spectrum of action that ranges from the creation of mobilization material (leaflet, zine) to the organization of disruptive action. Decision-making in this context is usually done through informal discussion and consensus.

The Affinity Group and the Consensus Consensus is when everyone agrees to do something. When we take political actions that engage our personal responsibility, the consensus is very interesting. Developing actions together and all agreeing on a common project is very exciting. There is also an aspect of level of responsibility which is sometimes more important to assume in affinity groups. For example, actions of civil disobedience can result in legal action that will follow an activist for years. It is therefore important that the people who take part in this kind of important action to produce social change are at the center of the decision-making process. That is to say, they must be involved from the start, but also intrinsically in tune with process and outcome. We are therefore in a different scenario to that of a democratic process where we can concede our individual sovereignty in favor of the choice made by the majority. Challenges There are caveats to the consensus. It is important to recognize that dominance relationships and power dynamics exist in activist spheres and therefore consensus can emerge as a result of manipulation or undue influence. It's common between inexperienced militant people and another very experienced for example.

'Related Pages Consensus decision making (suggestions for small groups)'

The committee

The committee is great for channeling political action on a specific topic. Its institutional framework allows it to sustain its action over time despite the departure and arrival of new members. Generally the committees have access to material means that the affinity groups do not have. Committees exist in larger structures such as schools, legal defense associations, trade unions and many other institutions (eg parents' committee in schools, users' committee in centers for the elderly, etc.) ).

The committee and the code of procedures An important question arises when we think about collective decision-making: how to have productive discussions at 5 or at 15 or at 25? Regardless of the structure, from a certain number of participants, the notion of procedural code becomes really interesting. A procedural code is a structured framework for decision making. It can be the Morin code or one of its variants, but it can also be an in-house procedure code. The important thing is simply to have a coherent way of presenting and discussing ideas. The practical models provided by the HUB can constitute a base of house procedure code. The larger the group, the more important the codified procedures.

Related Pages Consent decision making 101 Consensus decision making (suggestions for small groups) Modified consensus decision making (suggestions for large and small groups)

The association

The association generally represents a much larger number of people. This can be an advocacy organization, community organization, student or tenant association, etc.

The association has several bodies and each plays an important role, particularly the general assembly.

The association and the general assembly In a perspective of direct democracy, the general assembly is the supreme body and its decisions take precedence over those of all the others. There are several things to take into account to facilitate decision-making in GA To make informed decisions, people need information. For the sake of accessibility, it is desirable to make information accessible before a general meeting. At the same time, these moments allow the sharing of information and this is one of its great strengths. It is a place where we can share the information we have and together make a decision on the basis of this information.

Related Pages General assembly Modified consensus decision making (suggestions for large and small groups) Consent decision making 101

Depending on challenges

Contrary to what one might think, the biggest challenge in collective decision-making is not the management of disagreements. It is fatigue, discouragement and finally demobilization. Here are some quick tips to avoid this.

Have common rules

Regardless of size, it's important to the success of a group to have explicit rules.

Here are some examples.

Frequency of meetings	There is one meeting per week.
Absences	After three weeks of consecutive absences, the absent person is removed from the committee. This person may rejoin the committee at any time when available.

It is important to understand that the rules should not be aimed at a specific person and should be applied fairly.

Be realistic about the workload

In 99% of cases, when we talk about activism, there is no obligation for anyone to do anything. Based on this observation, be indulgent towards yourself. Especially when we talk about new groups (new associations or completely renewed executive council). What happens is that we want to do well so we talk about all the tasks that should be done. We then share all this burden and we say see you next week. The next week, crumbling under the pressure of this colossal work and not knowing where to start, almost no one has done their tasks. Embarrassed by the situation, a person who was ready to get involved can then say to himself: “I don't have enough time to get involved, it's really not for me. »

The trick here is not to see the tasks that should be done, but to take into account the resources that we have and decide together the tasks that we can do .

Deciding not to do something is not a failure and verbalizing it takes the pressure off everyone.

Separate stains

Once it has been decided what is going to be done, it is very important that for each task, someone is in charge .

Beware of the “we will all do it together” trap. Often when everyone is responsible, you realize that no one is responsible because each person thinks the other is going to do it. A simple solution is to separate the tasks during the decision process. That is to say, to include in the discussion details on the application of this decision (at least who is in charge of it, the responsible person or “  bottomliner  ”).

Keep track

Keeping track is essential to follow up on files. It is not necessarily about having ultra-detailed minutes. A description of the decisions taken, the tasks to be done and the persons responsible is sufficient. The goal is to be able to verify over time whether the group's efforts produce results and if not to be able to identify why. Keeping these traces on a digital platform is frankly with the aim that anyone interested can consult them.

Here are practices for keeping track of decisions made.

Take meeting notes including tasks and responsible persons

Archive notes on a digital platform accessible to all group members

Sensing consensus

Be mindful of your time and that of others. This includes being on time for meetings, but also knowing when a decision is ready to be made.

If during a meeting, if four interventions in a row say the same thing, and that at each intervention everyone gives silent applause, there is probably a consensus or at least a strong tendency. It might be wise at this time to make a proposal to move on to the next item.

Disagreements

In the event of disagreement despite attempts to compromise, remembering the nature of the decision makes it easier to resolve the situation. For a decision with little impact, a majority or modified consensus vote is sufficient. For decisions with a greater impact, you will have to ask yourself how you want to resolve the situation and who must be taken into account in the decision made. The automatic use of majority voting has significant potential to exclude marginalized groups .

Depending on the nature of the disagreement, we can...

• Make a temporary decision
• Continue to next meeting
• Choose by a majority vote (consider this option with caution so as not to repeat processes of exclusion of certain historically minoritized groups)
• Choose by preference (the option with the most “for” votes)
• Create a working group 
• Address the root cause of the disagreement, sometimes related to personal feelings. Tense situations can be caused by feelings that have not been taken into account by the large group. A frank and caring discussion may be necessary.

Last word

“In short, activism is a great experience, but it can be demanding, terrifying and stressful. We often work in environments where everything is possible and within a cause where everything remains to be done. Faced with this immensity, it is important to be aware of one's own limits and to be kind to others. Beyond efficiency, it is therefore sometimes interesting to think about how our decision-making methods affect our militant work. - Sami Haiouani

External contribution

Sami Haiouani

If you have any suggested revisions or additional resources to share related to the above content, please email them to kenzie@lehub.ca.

Back to Homepage