In view of the global threats currently facing humanity, there is perhaps nothing more important and empowering than learning to make good decisions together. Challenges such as climate change, pandemics, environmental degradation and species extinction are the result of an excessive and unrestrained use of nature (WBGU 2019). The fact that resources on our planet are limited has so far been countered by inadequate strategies and solutions for an ever-growing human race that use power as a central calculation and rely on delegation to a few "strong" power centres (Popp 2020).

But perhaps the survival of our species depends on changing the mechanisms of decision-making so that the richness of many perspectives and the wisdom of many lead to sustainable, good decisions. 

Living and working together in organizations and at the political level also requires a lot of shared decision-making. However, the reality is different. Far-reaching decisions are often made by individuals, or in the form of compromises in which all participants (have to) make concessions from their interests.

At present, however, only very few facilitation models refer to the preparation and making of jointly supported decisions. Essential decision-making models consider only the person as the decision-maker, i.e. they take an individual, psychological perspective. Joint decisions, on the other hand, require explicit consideration of other perspectives: Content, relationships, but also structural aspects such as power and influence become important here. Thus, every decision is made in the context of culture(s) — and at the same time has a culture-building effect.

The VREDE model was developed to describe group decisions in their complexity as a linear process including iterative loops as comprehensively as possible and thus enables a structured procedure for the implementation and observation of group decisions. From this, we derive requirements for the development of a digital tool with which complex decisions can be made with a high level of participation of the group members with visual support (work in progress, not published yet).

Even without IT implementation, this model supports advisors in moderating difficult decision-making processes in a more qualitative way: The VREDE model contains goal formulations for all phases as well as a collection of important questions. E.g. it starts with the question: "Is this even a topic for a group decision?". It contains guidance and a collection of tools recommended for specific phases. It supports in the phase of arriving and synchronizing the people involved, describes the interaction in the creative phase, information gathering and proposal development, and leads to the group's decision after the evaluation and presentation of the evaluation result. It is also used to communicate the decision internally and externally as well as for process and result reflection.

In creating the model, we were guided by many years of experience as consultants and facilitators. Over the years we have witnessed the failure of many well-intentioned approaches to joint decision-making. Often it turns out that one issue can only be decided after another issue has been clarified first. These phenomena naturally lead to a high degree of complexity. The VREDE model strives for intuitive support and a balance between complexity and practicality.

In principle, a comprehensive shared decision-making model should be independent of the evaluation method. We have decided to start by building primarily on resistance-based methods.

According to Glasl (1980), conflicts are characterized by mutually exclusive options for action. In this sense, every group decision is also conflict management. By using resistance-based methods for group decision-making, the potential for conflict is made visible. It is minimized by the attitude of my YES to your NO. Because according to Fritz Simon (2001), conflict arises from the negated NO, in terms of systems theory.

There is also a significant difference between group decisions and individual decisions. In individual decisions, the decision-maker usually focuses on the inner approval, the greater enthusiasm and enjoyment of the respective alternative. Whereas in group decisions, I also have to deal with proposals against which I experience high resistance. Therefore, in group decisions there will always be objections to proposals — in addition to approvals. If these are not taken into account, they can become sand in the gears. In group decisions, the question of resistance or objections is therefore the basis for a viable decision, which can then be built upon (Visotschnig 2019).

A third rationale for resistance-based decisions lies at the neurological level: human decisions are made in a social-emotional-intelligent way and follow a two-dimensional logic: towards and away from. We react with approval and with rejection. 

For all these reasons, it is obvious and makes sense to carry out the evaluation of proposals according to the resistance they generate. In doing so, we build on the following models and tools:

Systemic consensus (SC) (Visotschnig, Schrotta 2005) is a decision-making method for groups that helps to identify the solution that has the least overall resistance and thus the highest acceptance within the group. Systemic consensus thus circumvents some of the disadvantages of majority-based decision-making methods. The transparency of the resistances causes the participants to consider the objections of the others in their proposals, and thus it leads to a systemic change in behavior. As a result, new and often innovative solutions are found, which are then characterized by high durability. 

The tool we build upon at VREDE is acceptify (www.acceptify.at). It maps the collection of proposals and their evaluation through systemic consensus building. However, this tool only covers a narrow section of the decision-making process, namely the creation and evaluation of proposals. The quality of the processes thus depends very much on the skills of the facilitators and their awareness of groups.

Sociocracy was developed in the 1960s in the Netherlands and is based on the appreciative and non-hierarchical position of all group members. The Sociocratic Circle Method (SCM) is one of the elements of the sociocratic method collection for facilitating group decision-making processes (Strauch 2018).

Both methods, Systemic Consensus and SCM are resistance-based. In SCM, one speaks of "consent decision". This means that no one has a serious objection to a proposal. If there is a serious objection to a decision alternative, this leads to a veto in sociocracy (precondition: a strong focus on agreed common goals and/or values!).

Resistance-based methods have a high potential to achieve viable solutions in joint decision-making processes due to their systemic effect. However, they always presuppose certain basic assumptions and certain agreements. The contexts of joint decision-making are much more diverse than that and do not always correspond to these structural features. In the VREDE model, we try to recapture many necessary decisions of facilitation in a participatory way.

The target group for the VREDE model are people who accompany groups to make decisions, such as external advisors, group members or responsible leaders. Particularly in contemporary leadership, decisions are no longer made in isolation and individually, but in good coordination in a team or in large groups.

We see scientists as a further target group. The model provides a blueprint for describing and understanding a jointly made decision. This makes it possible to examine these processes systematically.

• Need for decision
• Setting boundaries and starting the decision process
• Invitation
• Arriving
• First synchronizing
• Stakeholder Analysis
• Wishes for the good solution

• Gather and evaluate information
• Exchange and debate
• Develop proposals

• Send into the race
• Evaluation settings
• Evaluate
• Present the evaluation results
• Reflect evaluation
• Recommendations for action
• Decide
• Celebrate decision
• Operationalisation

• Select
• Present and discuss

• Reflect process
• Action
• Evaluate and reflect results

The five main phases of the VREDE model are:

1. Synchronise
2. Creative phase
3. Decide
4. Present
5. Reflect

Synchronization is one of the most complex phases, because "a good end needs a good beginning". Synchronization is about clarifying whether and, if so, how which decision will be taken jointly by which people. Therefore, in this first phase, the working capacity of the people who want to make the decision together is ensured and the decision topic is framed.

These steps are highly contextual. It is different whether a decision is made by an existing work team or by a group of people unknown to each other.

A group decision must also be initiated by individuals. The decisive factor is first to answer the questions:

• Is it appropriate and necessary for the decision topic to involve several people in the decision?
• Is it desired by several people to be involved in the decision?

Sometimes, for systemic reasons, a decision is reserved for one person and it is appropriate for that person to make the decision alone. In this case, it can be beneficial to support this person not to delegate his/her decision-making responsibility to others. Often, however, individuals think they have to decide, although it would be advisable and favorable to share the decision-making.

Once the person in charge has made the decision that a decision is to be made jointly, numerous preliminary decisions have to be made that have a significant impact on the overall process:

• Description of the topic
• What happens if no decision is made?
• What are the financial and time constraints?

In addition, there are important questions such as:

• Who should be invited?
  (In some situations this is easy to answer, in others highly complex).
• How are these people invited?
• What information do people need so that they are clear about what they are being invited to do?

From here on, the dialogue about the decision-making process must be opened. This raises further questions for the participants:

• With whom should I make which decision for what purpose?

• What do I need to know from the others with whom I am to make a decision?
• Have I understood the issue to be decided?
• Do I agree that this issue is to be decided?

Synchronization is complete when the "right" people have understood what they are supposed to decide and have committed to entering into this joint decision-making process.

We assume that such a comprehensive procedure is particularly appropriate for complex group decisions. Grint (2005) calls problems in which innovative and creative elements play an important role "Wicked Problems".

The creative phase is about getting people into an imaginative and inventive process, which we have modeled on the U-process according to C.O. Scharmer (2007). In order to generate creative proposals for solutions, the extensive gathering and disclosure of information is necessary (Scharmer calls this "Downloading").

The quality of a decision is often limited by the quality of the available information. Therefore, the question arises as to how credible and relevant the stakeholders consider the information to be. It may need to be assessed and prioritized. There may also be further research tasks to deal intensively with all data, facts, plans and ideas.

However, the available information alone does not result in proposals. It is the process of opinion-forming and conversation that creates the framework for creativity and innovation. Especially in an asynchronous process supported online, this is a major challenge that generally requires a high level of facilitation skills. Such processes are never clearly linear or trivial. Drifting back and forth is to be expected and also makes sense.

In a further step, proposals are developed that can build on each other, be withdrawn or adapted so that other opinions, resistance or objections can be integrated. This phase is closely intertwined with the phase of exchange, in which initial proposals can already emerge.

The creative phase is completed when all the people involved are convinced that they have formulated enough sensible proposals for a solution.

This is the core phase of the VREDE model and begins with a check whether the proposals developed meet certain criteria. While creativity is hampered by rigor, only those proposals that can be "seriously" considered as solutions should now be evaluated.

The next, decisive step is the evaluation of the alternative variants by the participants. The way of evaluation, i.e. the evaluation procedure — whether to evaluate with resistance alone or also with agreement — is crucial here. We recommend evaluating with resistance or with resistance AND consent. The additional assessment with consent becomes relevant if:

• high ambivalences of the participants are to be expected
• strongly polarized positions within the group are to be expected.

In both cases, the choice of two-dimensional assessment makes additional creative potential available, as it helps to understand the different proposals in a differentiated way.

After the individual evaluation, it goes to the evaluation of the evaluation result, as well as to the assessment of what this result means. It is important to emphasize that the individual evaluation of proposals is not automatically already "the decision". The evaluation provides the basis to be able to decide together. 

Questions that matter now are: Do we have enough good proposals? Can we decide? Or do we need to take another step back to develop new proposals, new ideas or whatever?

If the assessment shows that a decision on the matter seems reasonable, everyone must once again agree to the final, joint decision to decide. This is strongly linked to the commitment of the people to support and implement the decision. In this phase, the first implementation steps, responsibilities and the available resources are also determined.

Now it is time to make "the decision". There are also different procedures, gestures and rituals for this. We recommend that you celebrate this moment consciously and intentionally.

An important element of the core phase is celebration. A decision that is complex and that was made together is a remarkable group achievement and must be celebrated in any case.

There are always people who are affected by a decision, but are not involved in the decision-making process. An important element — a kind of acid test — is therefore the presentation of the decision to these.

A written or oral presentation will in any case include, in addition to the decision taken, the "framing", i.e. the definitions agreed upon by the group at the beginning of the process. Depending on the audience, such a presentation can also contain elements of the decision-making process, for example information, suggestions and/or evaluations. It is important to ask the participants to agree that these elements are presented to the respective audience.

The "Present" phase is all about discussing the decision-making process and the final decision — especially with the group of affected people who are not involved in the decision. Of course, there will be new inputs, ideas and insights here as well. This can and may lead to a situation where the decision, which is already perceived as final, has to be questioned again. In the best case, however, the presentation to the outside world leads to a greater understanding of the decision that has been taken.

The last phase in our model is the critical and learning reflection on the decision made. No complex decision-making process is complete if it is not reflected upon and if the experience is not critically assessed: What did we do well? What was difficult this time? What could be suggestions on how we can handle such processes even more elegantly, more easily, more favorably in the future?

For the VREDE team, reflection on the process is not an expendable nice-to-have but a necessary step that really closes the shape of a jointly made decision.

Of course, it is not only about process reflection, but also about asking — at a later stage — whether the joint decision has also been implemented and has led to a satisfactory result. This is always the most important and hardest check on the quality of a decision: whether it is actually manifested in the world and has produced the desired effects.

The questionnaire on the VREDE model is available at www.vrede.at

The VREDE project

In the VREDE research project, a consortium of research and consulting institutions as well as two software companies are developing a digital tool to intuitively support group or team decision-making. One feature is the use of resistance-based evaluation methods for decision-making.

In addition to the VREDE model, we are developing an online tool. The project goal is an executable prototype. We are currently looking for development partners who are interested in realizing the model in all its diversity and for concrete use cases from everyday business and facilitation life.

In addition, we are developing didactics on the topic of joint decision-making.

We are happy to be available for application and research topics.

Current information at www.vrede.at 

The VREDE project is funded by the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development. The Laura Bassi 4.0 funding programme is handled by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) and with the kind support of the Federal Ministry for Digitisation and Economic Location (BMDW).

Consortium partners are: GUT - Gender & Technik e.U. (consortium leader), Austrian Institute for Sustainable Development, plenum gmbh, BK-Business KONSENS OG, Elmar Türk, ZIMD, APUS Software GmbH, Gugler GmbH, respACT - austrian business council for sustainable development.

Deciding together to make joint decisions — on the approach of the developer: inside team

It is difficult to work together as a group without making joint decisions. So one of the most delicious circumstances in this project was the fact of constantly having to make joint decisions in a project about joint decision-making. This was demanding for the project team. At the same time, we wanted to produce something innovative.

These two requirements led us to experience an extensive U-process together in the sense of C. Otto Scharmer (2007). In numerous steps we practiced downloading, confrontation and deeper understanding up to the limit of perceived despair. At some point it was clear: we need a phase model. So we were fascinated to find out that we experience exactly what we support with our model.

The result is an attitude of co-creation that is often invoked in groups but rarely really achieved. Perhaps this also explains the joy we have had and continue to have in our project.

• Berger, D. (2019). SK Principle Systemic Consensus 2.0. Conflict Dynamics, 8(2), 154-157.
• Glasl, F. (1980). Conflict management. Diagnosis and treatment of conflicts in organisations. Bern/Stuttgart: Haupt.
• Godfrey-Smith, P. (2019) The Octopus, the Sea and the Deep Origins of Consciousness. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz.
• Grint, K. (2010). Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: the role of leadership. In The new public leadership challenge (pp. 169-186). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
• Harlfinger, J. (2005). Networks of Excellence. Council for Research and Technology Development, FAS.research (ed.).
• Hauser, B. (2012). Action learning. Bonn: managerSeminare Verlags GmbH.
• Kuhl, J. (2001). Motivation and personality: Interactions of mental systems. Hogrefe.
• Kunze, I. (2009). Soziale Innovationen für eine zukunftsfähige Lebensweise : Gemeinschaften und Ökodörfer als experimentierende Lernfelder für sozial-ökologische Nachhaltigkeit, Münster: Ecotransver-Verlag.
• Popp, C. (2020). Sustainability and direct democracy. Referendum and citizens' decision as instruments of sustainability? An empirical analysis, Heidelberg: Mohr Siebeck.
• Revans, R. (1978). Action learning takes a health cure. Education+ Training.
• Scharmer, C. O. (2007). Theory U: Leading from the emerging future. A Social Technology of Freedom (working title).
• Simon, F. B. (2001). Deadly conflicts: on the self-organisation of private and public wars. Carl Auer Systems.
• Stockholm Resilience Centre (2018). Transformation is feasible. How to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals within Planetary Boundaries, A report to the Club of Rome, for its 50 years anniversary, Stockholm: Report 2018.
• Strauch B., Rejjmer, A. (2018). Sociocracy - Circle structures as an organising principle to strengthen individual co-responsibility. Munich: Vahlen.
• UNSSC (2018). Implementing the 2030 Agenda through the Human Security Approach, Torino: United Nations Systems Staff College.
• United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, New York: General Assembly resolution adopted 25 September 2015. 
• Visotschnig, E. (2019). The SK principle for participatory group decision-making in organisations. Conflict Dynamics, 8(3), 214-222.
• Visotschnig, E., Schrotta, S. (2005). The SK Principle. How to solve conflicts without power struggles. Vienna: Ueberreutter.
• WBGU (2019). World in Transition. Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation; [Hauptgutachten]; 2. veränd. Aufl., Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU).

By way of introduction: 

Given the global threats that humanity currently faces, there may be nothing more important than learning to make good decisions together.

On resistance-based decision-making methods:

Muted rejection is something people can better relate to the whole life experience.

To synchronise:

Synchronization is about clarifying whether and, if so, how which decision is made jointly by which people.

To be decided, rather towards the end:

We recommend that the moment of decision be conscious and mindful.

To reflect:

No complex decision-making process is complete without reflection.

Areas of tension/Outlook:

How many decisions is one decision?

Dorothea Erharter

www.zimd.at

Dorothea Erharter is founder and managing director of ZIMD - Centre for Interaction, Media & Social Diversity. She designs and leads technological research projects with a focus on participation, equal opportunities and gender aspects. ZIMD has developed an educational robot and inspires girls for technology. Erharter is a clarification assistant and moderator according to the SK principle; she initiated the VREDE project.

Thanks also to the contributors Elmar Türk, Alfred Strigl, Dominik Berger in particular.