Integrative Decision-Making VS Consensus
.svg)
- Integrative decision-making (IDM) is Holacracy’s governance process: a proposal moves forward as long as nobody raises a valid objection, and it never waits for everyone to agree.
- The process runs in six steps, from presenting the proposal to integrating objections, with a facilitator holding the order.
- An objection only counts if four conditions hold, all of them about concrete harm to the circle. A personal preference is not an objection.
- Its strengths: authority sits with whoever lives the problem, and something gets decided at the end of the process.
- Its limits: a skilled facilitator is close to mandatory, and the solution reached can suit nobody in particular.
- Consensus aims at something else: it seeks explicit agreement and gives everyone a say, but it slows decisions down and a single disagreement can block everything.
If you’ve ever read about Holacracy at all, you’ve probably seen how it is very explicitly “not based on consensus”.
The system was built entirely on the concept of not needing, or wanting, consensus in order to make decisions. Like everything else in life, having a hard line on something means it won’t always be as simple and straightforward as you might hope.
This is especially true when it comes to formalizing decision-making processes, which can be a challenge in any organization and is even harder to figure out in a self-managed organization.
While a “non-consensus” route certainly has its benefits, it also has many drawbacks you should be aware of.
In today’s article, I’ll be discussing the pros and cons of Holacracy’s integrative decision-making process compared to a generic consensus-based approach.
Integrative Decision-Making
Holacracy’s decision-making process is called “Integrative Decision-Making”, or IDM. It is explicitly not a consensus-based process and instead involves integrating different ideas together until a feasible solution is reached.
In short, it works by one person bringing up a problem and suggesting a fix, then giving everyone else a chance to ask questions, provide feedback, and object if the proposed fix would actually cause new problems.
If there is such an objection, all parties can work together to find a solution that solves the original problem without causing new problems.
At first glance, this sounds like a more complex way of describing “consensus” (which Holacracy is prone to doing in most scenarios), but they are actually quite different. So, let’s start by looking at the pros and cons of an integrative decision-making process.
The six steps of the integrative decision-making process
The Holacracy constitution lays out IDM as a sequence the facilitator holds people to, in this order:
- Present the proposal. The person carrying the tension describes it and puts forward a way to address it.
- Clarifying questions. Anyone can ask for detail on the proposal or on the tension behind it. Reactions come later.
- Reaction round. Each participant except the proposer reacts in turn. Nobody responds to anybody else.
- Amend and clarify. The proposer may answer the reactions and change the proposal, or leave it as it stands.
- Objection round. One at a time, each participant says whether adopting the proposal would move the organisation backwards. With no objection, the proposal is adopted.
- Integration. The facilitator takes the objections one by one and works with the group on an amendment that clears the objection without losing what the proposal was for.
What makes the objection round workable is that the constitution defines what counts as an objection. Four conditions have to hold:
- the proposal would degrade the circle’s capacity to enact its purpose or accountabilities;
- it would reduce the objector’s capacity to enact the role they represent;
- the problem does not already exist without the proposal;
- the proposal would necessarily cause the effect, or the circle would have no chance to adapt before the harm lands.
A personal preference or a hypothetical scenario does not qualify. One exception: a proposal that would break a rule of the constitution always counts as an objection.
Moving forward until someone raises a reasoned objection puts IDM close to consent-based decision-making, inherited from sociocracy, whose meeting sequence is covered in a separate article. Consensus works on another register entirely: it looks for agreement, not for the absence of objection.
Pros of Integrative Decision-Making
- Addresses an individual’s needs based on a problem they experienced themselves.
- Focuses on solving a problem in the best way rather than implementing a specific solution.
- Guarantees something gets done with a clearly defined process.
- Puts the authority on those who are most affected by the problem.
- Provides a safety net for unexpected problems in the form of “objections”.
- Sets guidelines for what warrants an objection so that someone can’t shut things down for personal reasons or unreasonable “what if” scenarios.
Cons of Integrative Decision-Making
- The process can be confusing and complicated.
- Almost always requires a skilled, neutral, third-party facilitator for it to be effective.
- Without a skilled facilitator, those with the most experience with the process and rules can “win” the discussion.
- It’s possible for everyone involved to dislike the solution that is ultimately reached.
- The process highlights one or two individuals at a time, so it can feel like it ignores everyone else.
- At the end of the day, someone has the authority to make a decision, which can make others feel like their feedback is being disregarded if that person makes a decision that ignores their suggestions.
- Promotes and rewards selfish behaviors (i.e., “I am here to solve my problem. If that causes you problems, you can solve your own problem.”).
Final Thoughts on Integrative Decision-Making
With someone to facilitate who can make the process comfortable and understandable for everyone, and who focuses on the intent of the process over the rules themselves, IDM is one of the greatest decision-making processes I have ever seen or experienced.
That being said, it is entirely dependent on how good of a facilitator you have. If you don’t have someone to facilitate, the IDM process will be the exact opposite: confusing, stressful, alienating, and a waste of time.
Consensus
Consensus can take many forms, from requiring everyone to agree on a decision before any action can be taken, to voting and going with whatever decision gets the majority vote.
An organization can decide what “consensus” looks like to them, letting organizations use consensus in very different ways.
Do I have to ask an entire department or just a team?
Do I need one person to back my decision, ten people, or literally everyone?
In any case, the focus should be the same: make sure people have some say in decisions that will affect them.
It sounds great, but let’s look at the pros and cons.
Pros of Consensus-Based Decision-Making
- Truly voices the desires of the people.
- A democratic solution where everyone gets a say.
- Puts the needs of the many above the desires of an individual.
- Promotes better communication, empathy, understanding, and advice gathering, as better relationships will garner more reliable votes.
Cons of Consensus-Based Decision-Making
- Can often be an “all or nothing” situation, if the people agree, it passes, but if they don’t, nothing changes.
- If it’s a “majority votes wins” situation, then it means everyone else loses and gets nothing.
- It can be tough to decide how many people should get a say in each decision. One person? A team? A department? The whole company?
- Can sometimes feel like a popularity contest.
- Can be hard to ensure everyone who is voting is fully educated on both sides of the argument.
- It takes time to gather up everyone needed to vote and go through the voting process, so decisions are slower and take longer.
Final Thoughts on Consensus-Based Decision-Making
Everyone having a say in decisions that impact them is phenomenal and nearly always a good thing. It makes people feel valued and lets them know their voices matter and have an impact. It helps ensure decisions are made with at least some input from everyone and can help you gauge how popular certain decisions and approaches are.
However, you do want to implement this process carefully and adjust it whenever flaws arise, such as if people feel pressured to approve something they don’t like out of fear of retaliation or because they don’t want someone to know they voted against their idea.
So, after all this, which is the better way to handle decision-making in your organization?
As with all things, it depends on how your organization already operates, what challenges you wish to overcome, and how you ideally would like to work.
An organization that values speed of innovation and everyone being able to solve their own problems would likely see more comfort and success with the IDM process, as with other forms of agile decision-making.
Likewise, an organization that values togetherness and fleshing out ideas before executing them would surely do better with some form of consensus-based decision making.
A safe and easy approach is to decide which approach is better based on the scope of impact the decision would have.
If it’s going to affect many people and/or have a tremendous impact on the people it would affect, maybe require a vote where 90% [arbitrarily chosen number for the sake of example] of people need to be on board.
Need a quick decision that ultimately only affects one team? Use the IDM process so that everyone on the team can voice their concerns while ensuring something will get accomplished either way.
What’s the best way to figure out which one works best for you and your organization?
Try out several different options! Test them all out, gather feedback, and implement whatever works best for your employees.
Whatever approach you land on, your employees are sure to appreciate the increased autonomy, authority, and clarity that comes with a clearly defined decision-making process.
Implementing the Right Organizational Model to Empower Decision-Making
Now, whether you're looking to implement an integrative or consensus-based decision-making process, you'll need a framework to clarify how it works and who has the authority to do what in your organization. And that's exactly what organizational models are all about! These models help define how work is organized, how authority is distributed and how decisions are taken in the organization. Although most organizations still operate with a traditional hierarchical model, you should know that there are many alternative models out there, starting with Holacracy itself. Want to know more about it? Download our latest white paper packed with expert insights 👇
Access White Paper
In our white paper "The Ultimate Guide to Organizational Models", you'll get: a comprehensive overview of innovative organizational models (like Agile, Teal, Holacracy, Constitutional Management, and more), testimonials from pioneer organizations that have successfully adopted it, best practices for choosing, implementing and measuring the effectiveness of our model, as well as digital tools to facilitate the transition.
FAQ
Holacracy’s decision-making process, or IDM. It is explicitly not consensus-based: it involves integrating different ideas together until a feasible solution is reached. One person raises a problem and suggests a fix, then everyone else asks questions, gives feedback, and can object.
Present the proposal, ask clarifying questions, run a reaction round, amend and clarify, run an objection round, then integrate the objections one at a time. The facilitator holds that order and stops cross-talk during the rounds.
An objection only holds if four conditions are met: the proposal would degrade the circle’s capacity to enact its purpose or accountabilities, it would reduce the objector’s capacity to enact the role they represent, the problem does not already exist without it, and the effect would be unavoidable or would land before the circle could adapt.
It addresses an individual’s needs based on a problem they experienced themselves, focuses on solving the problem in the best way rather than pushing a specific solution, guarantees something gets done through a clearly defined process, and puts authority with those most affected by the problem.
The process can be confusing and complicated, and it almost always requires a skilled, neutral, third-party facilitator to be effective. Without one, those most familiar with the rules can “win” the discussion, and it is possible for everyone involved to dislike the solution reached.
IDM and consent-based decision-making share the same engine: a proposal moves forward until someone raises a reasoned objection. IDM comes from Holacracy, consent from sociocracy, and their meeting sequences differ. Consensus waits for explicit agreement from everyone, which protects buy-in but slows things down and can deadlock.
.webp)
