1) A Functional Decision-making process
2) Non-functional decision-making process: 'Lowest-Common-Denominator-Working-Practices' (L-C-D-W-P)

---

1) A Functional Decision-making process

---

Decision-making of any kind, including by consensus, can be thought of as a process that goes around a circular loop having two opposite directions of movement.

1) The 'creative' direction around the loop is: an idea relating to one or more processes is thought of and proposed, it is discussed, if there is agreement it is implemented.

[A] idea(s) ----> [B] discussion ----> [C] implementation -----> [A]

2) The 'controlling' direction around the loop is: an idea that has been proposed is rejected in discussion, already existing implementations are held unchanged and not developed further, more discussion ensues to come up with more ideas.

[A] <---- [C] more discussion <----[B] unchanged implementation <---- [A] idea(s) rejected

The balance between the dynamics acting in the two directions of the loop is critically important. It determines whether or not there will be a functional decision-making process: whether or not decisions about necessary tasks and problems will be made within time frames relating to those tasks and problems, and at the same time without wasting human potential (frustration).

If there is an imbalance such that the dynamics in the controlling direction are more prevalent than in the creation direction, then problems and tasks will either not be dealt with at all, or they will be dealt with only with existing implementations--which are held unchanged and not allowed to develop further. In this case there will be a stagnation in development and flexibility generally in the working group (and, or the organization).

Functional orientation of decision-makers

There must of course be a shared will in a working group to carry out tasks that are decided on as worthwhile. But this is not enough.

The most basic rule necessary for a functional decision-making process is that there must be a general understanding and commitment that current (and proposed) tasks have (to continue) to be carried out, and also that problems that arise have to be (re)solved, as much and as best as possible, during the decision-making about them. There is no other rule that prevents the 'controlling' direction around the decision-making loop bringing progress to a halt. This is both theory and actual extensive analysis and experience.

The condition that the implementation(s) meet everyone's ideals (100%) cannot be waited for.
Stopping implementations and problem (re)solving because everyone is not completely happy with everything is not a functional orientation to take up. Whilst the tasks are ongoing, decision-making can continually amend, redirect, and refine implementations and whole tasks if necessary.

There is no better way than to test implementations and tasks themselves than trying them out. Discussing them theoretically is a poor substitute for experience. Furthermore, the human default orientation on the planet is for people to be doing when they want to. Not doing, from frustratiion, is not healthy.

This whole idea has been summed up neatly by David Clark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:-

"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code."

There must be whenever possible similtaneous parallel processes of both rough consensus AND running 'code' (carrying out tasks).

---

2) Non-functional decision-making process: 'Lowest-Common-Denominator-Working-Practices' (L-C-D-W-P)

This is an examination of one very common phenomenon that will cause an imbalance in the decision-making process loop, causing the 'controlling' direction to overrun the 'creating' direction; and where this negative effect spreads to the larger organization.

Example

A politically ideologically motivated group, 'Group A', has a rigidity and reactionary attitude to any idea or implementation that appears to it as contradicting its ideological framework. This will be the case even if the idea and/or implementation is effective and complementary to Group A's existing implementations. Group A belongs to a larger organization made up of many groups, with which it interacts and is interdependent. The consensus decision-making method is used throughout the organization.

Definition of L-C-D-W-P

In this case there might occur the phenomenon of L-C-D-W-P. This is a situation when some part or the entire organization, consisting of many groups, is effectively ruled by Group A, because in decision-making between Group A and any other group, Group A will not agree to:

(a) any implementation that appears to it as outside of its ideological frame of reference
(b) any development of any process in the larger organization that implements something that weakens its veto ('blocking') ability. That is, its ability to veto any case of (a)

Group A effectively acts to hold the entire organization ruled by its ideology and associated practices. The organization may still 'grow' in size and function, but its practices will not evolve much or very slowly, and its decision-making will merely be an increase of scale of L-C-D-W-P. Each proposal and decision will be reduced down to, be limited to, the L-C-D-W-P that Group A will only agree to, which it thereby effectively dictates to every other group. This is a kind of lowest default agreement, instead of a creative, innovative and higher one.

Group A will not see a problem in this and may not even recognize the problem. There may also be many 'Group A's in the organization that share the same ideology. And 'Group A' might also be a number of individuals within one working group.

In this way, the ideology and its associated practices formulated by Group A effectively rules the entire organization, by making the controlling direction around the desicion-making loop always overrun the creative direction. This will inhibit the potential and function of the whole organization and its ability to learn and adapt from its experiences, holding the organization fixed instead of being a free organic one.

This pattern reduces diversity to a minimum homogenous selection of working practice(s). L-C-D-W-P leads to frustration, human entropy, a waste of human potential. Any effort by any individual or other group, to reach any decision that involves more than group A's: knowledge, practice, ability, understanding, inventiveness, openness, courage, optimism, or any other attribute, will be blocked.

Prevention

The only way to prevent this happening is to formulate, in advance, a functional decision-making process.

Real diversity in an organization, is in practice: collaboration with and between different working practices. This cannot happen if there is L-C-D-W-P. Conversely, rough consensus AND running code enables diversity.

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. To contact us, please use the openorg-dev mailing list.

---

to top