The continuation of a small series on decisions. Last year I “released” a chapter from my book petit manuel de pensée organisationnelle. This chapter was on “Who makes decisions”. I recommend you read it before this one. I’ll continue with a final essay on the decision “When do we make decisions?”.

• “Who makes decisions”
• “How do we make decisions”
• “When do we make decisions?”

And so comes the moment to make the decision, the group, the circle responsible for village irrigation must decide where we’re going to run the water channel, which field we’re going to split.

These decisions are made during meetings, yes, but useful and even efficient meetings. You don’t believe it, do you, because meetings have never rhymed with efficiency and usefulness. But it’s possible. How are these conversations, these meetings, organized?

I’m again taking sociocracy as a reference, this approach proposes the concept of tension. This comes from English and the term can be poorly translated. Imagine a rubber band, it’s in a “normal” state or it can be stretched if you apply force to it. The idea of tension is this idea that a force twists it and things are not in their “normal” state. That’s the meaning of tension, however in English it’s very neutral, in French a tension carries a negative, dramatic weight. So I propose calling it variation for variation from what should be, or maybe even more simply topic, as when we say “we have a topic” to mean “we have a problem”, but I’m coming back to the negative which isn’t necessarily the case with our tensions.

Anyway, you do team check-ins, circle check-ins, regularly. And the objective of these check-ins is primarily to resolve the variations, topics of the moment. Everyone comes with none, one or several topics. The need to split a field for irrigation is one. We start with a round where we expect everyone to announce if they have a topic, and if yes to give a single word (or two at most) to describe it, no more. This starts strangely, and it’s important to have someone who organizes, who facilitates, as they say, this meeting.

In our case, let’s say Katia would say irrigation!. Why a single word or two? To avoid diving into the topic, but simply to enumerate the number of topics we have in stock. And this can give a nice little riddle side, this single word, it can arouse curiosity. We also make sure that Katia, if she comes, let’s imagine, with four topics, four variations, doesn’t throw them all out at once: we’re going to do rounds, at each round she can propose one (again, have a facilitator among the participants). The idea is therefore to have a list of words ordered by order, and which allows everyone to come with a topic (remember we’re a circle of five, six, seven, maybe eight people) without the topics of just one person preempting the entire meeting.

So we end up, let’s say with ten topics, some had two or three variations, others zero. And we know very well that with two hours ahead of us (remember maximum two hours for meetings, including an hour and a half of heavy brainstorming), we’ll be able to address maybe five or six topics maximum. It doesn’t matter, if you hold this meeting every week you’ll have time to address the others soon if they’re still relevant. And if they’re no longer relevant, you’ll have saved time.

Our instinct would push us to extend the meeting so all topics fit. This is a bad idea. Your meeting will last four hours, it will become long, painful, not necessarily efficient, and you absolutely won’t want to do it again every week. Yet it’s also this hygiene of regularity that counts.

But if a topic is very important, we shouldn’t miss it. Well, first we imagine that the person who brings the topic cites it first when questioned during the round and therefore the topic has a strong chance of being seized by the group. But to be sure, we start each of these meetings after collecting these topics with an important question: “Is one of these topics a priority?” As I told you ideally there’s someone who facilitates the meeting (propose a different person each time?). We then imagine the person concerned stipulating that their topic is a priority if they think that’s the case.

If there are many priorities, you return to the order in which they were declared (normally that of the order of questioning during the round which reveals its importance here). And if all topics are priorities, it’s as if none were.

Well, let’s continue, it’s Katia’s topic that starts. The rule of the game is that she takes five, ten, fifteen minutes to express her topic: we’ll need to trace an irrigation path in the middle of our fields, this may cause some irritation among some people on one hand, and on the other hand opinions on the best route are divided (not everyone agrees on the same route). And if possible (you have to get into the habit, it’s difficult at first) Katia expresses her proposed solution, this is important for the decision-making system.

And we go back to rounds that are either respectful or not of silence and listening, it’s up to you to choose. My experience, depending on the form of the group, makes me alternate between a chaotic mode where everyone feels free to speak at any time, it’s dynamic, but tiring, and sometimes very respectful of turns and speaking times, it’s muted and efficient, but frustrating.

This round aims to clarify Katia’s request. Each in turn (respectful mode) asks questions to clarify Katia’s request. Naturally, no one is obliged to ask a question. And naturally, Katia is called upon to answer. Two things must be watched: a) this is not the time to give your opinion or a comment it’s the time for clarification, for questions, and b) avoid having one person monopolize the floor too much. Let’s say normally it’s one question per person per round.

When you’ve clarified the request well, there follows a new type of round. The reaction round: there it’s the time (normally once per person) to express your opinion, to make your comments, whether it’s to say you’re completely in line with Katia’s proposed solution, or on the contrary that you find it off the mark and that you describe an alternative that seems much better to you, or even to say that you don’t understand a darn thing about the topic, it’s OK, it’s the reaction round.

A final round is reserved for the person who initiated the topic, here Katia. Katia has collected all the feedback and reformulates her proposal. Potentially it’s unchanged, but potentially it has changed drastically or just a little by integrating more or less what she heard. She can also decide to abandon her topic.

Then comes the moment of decision.

Are we going to apply, validate, this proposal? This may trigger new conversations.

Don’t forget the real options we talked about, maybe it’s just about deciding on a first step to learn more. So several options:

• Majority or unanimous vote.
• Consensus, or compromise.
• Consent.
• The advice process.

Well, you can take a majority or unanimous vote on Katia’s proposal. Generally, that’s not what we use. We reserve the majority vote for a consultation of the whole village, like our current democracy. This can generate frustrations (people who didn’t vote for it), but it works.

We can use the unanimous vote, but it’s long and blocks a lot of things.

Then come the formats most used in my real life today.

I avoid consensus, because by definition it’s weak. This implies that we find a solution that suits everyone, and generally by seeking consensus we diminish the quality of the proposal or its effectiveness, because we’re limited by the reluctance of some.

Consent is more modern. This involves asking if anyone is categorically against the proposed solution. Categorically against: we say it must churn their gut. So it’s not just about disagreeing, but really opposing. We can therefore, for example, make a decision desired by two people (or even one!) while six other people are really not excited, but not to the point of blocking the decision.

But yes you can block the decision if it churns your gut. All alone for example facing everyone, but on the condition that you try to propose an alternative that works. Make the effort, even if it’s never easy.

Again as we mentioned: we can make smaller decisions, we can go back, we adapt. This will facilitate the trust that will allow consent to work well.

Another way of doing it is the “advice process”, I’m translating here just the English that I’m used to using for advice process. What does that mean? It means that the rule is to consult all the people responsible for or expert in your topic, then to be free to choose. For example, you make a decision that triggers a budget, well you must consult the person responsible for the cash, the treasurer, well the person who handles finances. Consult, that doesn’t mean you’re asking for permission. It means you’re asking for their expert or responsible opinion.

If, as here, we’re talking about irrigation, you should consult the expert on this subject, or the person responsible (they’re not necessarily the same) for the distribution of fields, the cadastre.

And then you’re free to do what seems right to you. That also means you can go against the opinion of these experts following the consultation. To go against their opinions probably means you’re pretty darn sure of yourself, or that you really want to. You’re not going to do this casually, carelessly, because the advice process engages you, makes you strongly responsible. Since you can choose, it means that if it fails it’s also you who are completely involved, especially if you didn’t take into account the opinion, the advice, of these people.

Being held responsible in case of failure? You’re banished from the village? You’re not banished, but no one listens to you for several months? Nothing changes? I don’t know, it really depends on the context.

The whole idea of the advice process is not to impose anything on you, but to make you understand the importance of opinions, advice, from people affected by the topic. In my experience you’re going to very very often listen to them, integrate their recommendations into your decision. This will gradually weave bonds of trust. People will come to consult you when a topic concerning you appears. You’ll be free to go against the experts’ opinion, it’s a freedom that makes you responsible.

Organization by circles as mentioned allows having concerned people around the meeting table. And very often the meeting is enough for the conversation, the consultation, and therefore you could decide. With the advice process, Katia could decide and propose her solution, and too bad if it goes against certain opinions, at least she’s involved.

Moreover the village is secured by not leaving too vast a decision-making power, because the circle by default defines a framework within which the decision must fit. I mean: we say that Katia can decide what she wants, after conversations with the circle and within the framework of the group’s conversations (the topic of irrigation, agriculture), and in a not too long duration. All this allows Katia to have this autonomy.

If you don’t function in circles, you could define a delegation board. In the delegation board, we explain that there are seven levels of decision sharing between a boss and a group.

• The boss decides, period, with luck you’re kept informed.
• The boss explains their decision to you (they try to sell it to you).
• The boss consults you and decides.
• The boss and the team decide together (Consensus? Consent? Vote?).
• The team listens to the boss’s advice and decides.
• The team consults the boss.
• The team decides (and doesn’t necessarily inform the boss).

I’m used to reducing it to four levels:

• The boss decides, period.
• The boss consults you and decides.
• The team consults the boss.
• The team decides.

I remove the intermediate levels and especially the central level where everyone decides together, because if I think this can work in a circle, where the whole group is at the same hierarchical level, I’ve seen that it was really more complicated with a boss in the middle.

The interest of these levels? To define according to the decisions at what level each belongs. For example, deciding whether or not to engage in exchanges with the neighboring village, that could be a level two decision: the village’s governing bodies consult and decide, but not the villagers. But deciding whether to exchange either a) carrots or b) turnips, that could be a level four decision, and it’s up to the agriculture/exchange group to decide without a “boss”. It’s very practical for defining a framework, and defining a framework will reassure, secure everyone, and free up more decisions, leave more decisions in the hands of the greater number. For example:

• [option 1] You can make any decision you want as long as the budget doesn’t change.
• [option 2] If the budget changes a little, you must consult the authority (delegation levels are between a team and its authority, its boss).
• [option 3] If the budget is huge, it’s me (the authority) who decides while listening to you.

This clarification gives freedom.

To finish, it’s always very interesting to list the decisions that are made. Make a list of the ecovillage’s decisions and place them in a decision table to see if all decisions belong to the same decision-making body or on the contrary if decisions are generally delegated. It’s up to you to choose what you prefer, but keep in mind that someone who decides for themselves is someone engaged, and that changes a lot of things.