Non-hierarchical (horizontal) decision-making

This page was created to answer questions from activists interested in making group decisions in a more non-hierarchical way.

Listening, healthy conflict, reflexivity and flexibility are guides to making decisions that value the contribution of multiple perspectives. Continuing to commit to conflict management, non-violent communication, anti-oppression, restorative justice and group leadership make it possible to pratice a culture which tends towards non-hierarchy.

This page discusses how hierarchies fit into our groups' decision-making and how to address them in a way that suits our group's intentions.

The passages highlighted in this colour are knowledge shared during our learning circle on this topic.

Impacts of structure on non-hierarchical decision making

The structure is the first space that can influence the hierarchy at the decision-making level.

A group can have a hierarchy in its structure with the consent of the members of the group, such as a standing committee, a steering committee, etc. We can still want these groups with more power (standing committee, steering committee) to have horizontal internal practices.

Your level of horizontality depends on the goals of your group. These can be consistent with the use of a more horizontal structure as they could be achieved with a more hierarchical structure.

Pay attention to differentiated consequences. People are not affected in the same way by decision-making, due to the existence of oppression such as racism, sexism, classism and ableism. Thus, it is important to think about making decision-making according to the principle that each person can contribute to decision-making in proportion to the degree to which they will be affected by the decision. See intersectionality.

Examples of decisions - hierarchy in structure

Structural and intentional hierarchy	From an intersectional perspective, we may want to give more decision-making power to a steering group (hierarchy) composed of members of groups or communities experiencing several forms of oppression. Within this same group, horizontal decision-making practices may apply, although there is a hierarchy within the larger group. The hierarchy present here is structural and intentional.
Horizontality	In another group, one may choose to use a consensus model (horizontality) to ensure that the voices of people from minority groups or with divergent positions are included in decision-making. This situation is plausible for a group not wishing to operate with a committee having greater decision-making power.

Horizontal decision making

Horizontal decision-making is linked to egalitarian interpersonal relationships through shared decision-making between individuals in the same group. We make a decision together and people have equal power in decision-making.

This way of making decisions is not self-evident. Many people have negative experiences related to group decision making. Here's one.

Incomprehensible and complex mechanisms, no integration of new people.  “ he first time I attended a meeting, I was disconcerted by the presence of points of order or privileges, without really understanding why people were given priority to speak before others. After a while, I thought I understood what points of order were, which can be used when someone breaks a rule. But I didn't understand what rules were being broken, the language of the ordering and questioning procedures seemed strange to me, especially since English is not my native language."  Faced with this type of relationship to decision-making, a new person can either learn the rules, debate them or leave the group with a bad impression of it and the decision-making mechanisms.

The thesis InterTwinkles: Online Tools for Non-Hierarchical, Consensus-Oriented Decision Making "establishes 4 factors influencing the participation of people in decision-making. Participation and power in decision-making are linked: the more a person is able to actively participate in decision-making, the more power they have in it."

When we want the members of a group to be able to participate (and have power) in decision-making, we must take into account:

1- Accessibility

2- Rules and protocols

3- Exclusive notions

4- Systemic/structural inequalities

Accessibility

Accessibility concerns access to the space (physical and symbolic) where decisions are made.

Learn about the needs of those involved or part of the decision-making process.

Practices related to accessibility promoting horizontality

Initial measurements	Include accessibility measures that include different types of people in decision-making as early as possible. See Making your activism accessible for more information and to put initial steps in place that work for your group.
Receiving requirements	Provide an email address for receiving requirements (possible to say that messages must be sent X days before the meeting to allow the organizing team to implement the new measures).
Explicit communication	Explain the accessibility measures put in place.

Rules and protocols

Rules and protocols are the rules of groups and social codes related to participation in decision-making.

Certain rules and protocols make it possible to overcome the power dynamics present in society. Let's think about the dominant classes who enjoy enormous power over the rest of society, power which is not counterbalanced by the electoral model. Or the power given to men through patriarchy and/or white privilege.

Other rules and protocols have the effect of reinforcing the power dynamics of society. In both cases, they influence participation in decision-making.

Rules and protocols sometimes create unwanted power dynamics. Recognizing them allows you to respond better either by adapting your decision-making processes or by changing them.

Tyranny of the majority	A majority of the group supporting a proposal allows its adoption without accountability to other members (taking into account reservations, non-discrimination, etc.).
Tyranny of the minority	Especially in the consensus decision-making process, when one person has the power to block a proposal through their will alone. Power of veto. See in the section on consensus for how to avoid this tyranny of the minority.
Tyranny of the structureless	In a group without a formal structure, decisions are made according to codes known only by a few people, which concentrates power in their hands. See our page on structure to learn how to build a democratic structure and avoid structurelessness. This structure can be more or less hierarchical.
Tyranny of time	Time-related power imbalances are often overlooked in groups. Not thinking about the question of time in group decision-making (and meetings) favors people who have time.  “If we want to make unheard voices heard, we need effective meetings. If we want to build a mass movement [...] we have to understand that people usually don't have a lot of time to express themselves."