Jan-Ole Hesselberg

My field is decision psychology. In my daily work, I serve as program director at Stiftelsen Dam, a foundation that distributes nearly 400 million NOK annually to health research and other health projects. We process almost 3,000 applications a year, and each application is evaluated by experts who assess it independently of each other.

When large sums are involved, we arrange meetings where the experts discuss the applications.

Why do we have these meetings?

We have them because we believe it increases the quality of the decision.

From research, we know this isn't necessarily true. In my book "Better Decisions," I describe the traps we fall into when making group decisions.

The traps have names like groupthink, false consensus effect, and social loafing, but they are not the topic here. You can read about them in the book.

Here you will get a method for avoiding them. I have called it "Balanced Decision-Making" or "Balanced Decision-Making Technique" and it consists roughly of the following elements:

Neutral facilitator
Submission of assessments before the meeting (to the facilitator)
Presentation of arguments, not conclusions
Critical discussion
Voting

Below, Balanced Decision-Making and the rationale for the different steps are described.

1 Before the Meeting

1.1 Neutral facilitator shares decision materials

Use a facilitator who has as little personal interest in the decision as possible and power to influence the outcome. Often the opposite is done. The person leading the meeting is usually a leader who is responsible for the decision. However, if the goal of the meeting is to bring out as many perspectives and inputs as possible, this is a recipe for failure.

It's not always easy to find a neutral party, but here anything is better than nothing. The person should have a clear head and the ability to steer a discussion.

In collaboration with the person responsible for the decision, the facilitator should formulate the decision to be addressed in the meeting.

The problem should be formulated as a question. Don't write "Product Launch" on the agenda, but "Should product X be launched in 2024?" Be as precise as possible in phrasing the question, so it's clear what needs to be decided.

There can certainly be multiple decisions made in the meeting. If, for example, the decision is about who should be invited for interviews in a hiring process, it would be natural to make a decision for each candidate. "Should person X be among the five to be interviewed?"

The facilitator and the responsible person also prepare the case documents relevant to the decision and send them along with the questions to the participants well before the meeting.

1.2 Everyone reviews independently

Meeting participants review the case documents independently, without discussing with other meeting participants. If participants have questions, they are directed to the facilitator.

The purpose of this step is to:

Increase the likelihood that everyone is sufficiently informed
Ensure as similar an information base as possible before the discussion

1.3 Submission of preliminary assessment before the meeting

After reviewing the materials, each participant sends their preliminary, non-binding assessment and the arguments for it to the facilitator.

This can be done via email with descriptions of their thoughts, but if there are clear outcomes in the decision (like "hire" and "don't hire"), it's advantageous to use forms with both text fields and predefined categories. Microsoft Forms and Google Forms are examples of web-based solutions that are easy to use and many already have access to.

The purpose of this part of the process is to:

Commit all members to making an assessment independent of other members' assessments before the meeting.
Capture the spread in assessments before they are influenced by other group members' opinions. This can be used by the facilitator to plan time allocation for cases and to bring out all arguments in the meeting.
Open the possibility to analyze movements in assessments from before to after the group discussion

2 In the Meeting

2.1 Presentation of arguments

The meeting starts with a round around the table where the purpose is to share information. Different people notice different things and have different expertise, which means assessments will vary. Here, the goal is to share insights and knowledge. Therefore, all participants should present their arguments for and against possible outcomes.

Conclusion talk is forbidden. Participants should not share conclusions, for example by saying "I think we should hire X" or "I think this job application is good."

The conclusion is not useful information for others around the table. The purpose is to share arguments, so each participant can decide whether it should cause them to adjust their initial assessment. No one should discuss in this step.

Those with the most power should share their arguments last.

The purpose of the process is to:

Facilitate that as many of the members' arguments as possible come forward

2.2 Critical discussion

After sharing the arguments, it's time for critical discussion.

The goal is to clarify uncertainties and challenge the arguments that have emerged during the round around the table. The purpose is not to defend one's own assessments or arguments, but to illuminate strengths and weaknesses of the arguments that have been shared.

In this step, it's natural that it also becomes apparent which conclusion participants are leaning toward, but that should still not be the focus of the discussion.

In this step, you can use exercises like "Devil's Advocate" or "Pre-mortem."

The purpose of this step is to:

Ensure that uncertainties are illuminated
Ensure that any objections to the arguments come forward.

2.3 Voting

When arguments have been shared and the case discussed, it's time to land the decision. The facilitator should then conduct a vote among the participants. The purpose is primarily to bring out disagreement in the group, not that the vote should be used as the definitive answer to the decision (although it can be that too). Very often decision meetings conclude with the facilitator saying something like "It seems like we're approaching a conclusion now and that most agree on X."

The problem with such an approach is that the perception may be wrong. Many suppress their disagreement in such situations because they don't want to go against what they believe is the group's opinion. This can lead to the group making decisions that the majority disagrees with.

Before the vote, the facilitator must be clear about how it will be used. Is it to surface any disagreement, and that the result is only advisory for the person responsible for the decision, or should the result be binding for the decision-maker?

It can be anonymous or public. If the initial assessment was submitted through web-based forms, the same should be done here. It's important that the facilitator is clear about what is being voted on and what options participants have.

If the disagreement is large, the facilitator may consider going back to the previous step or interrupting the process and arranging for more information to be gathered, and for the decision to be made in a later meeting.

2.4 Decision and justification

The person responsible for the decision summarizes and explains what decision is being made. If reflection time is needed, a meeting is scheduled where the conclusion is presented.

The conclusion should come with a justification. Which arguments were weighted? Which speak for and against the decision? If this is done thoroughly, the evaluation also becomes easier.

PS: An alternative is that the person responsible for the decision presents a proposal for what the decision should be and that the group performs the "Pre-mortem" exercise. It is designed to stress-test decisions. When using it, one option is to go back to the "Critical Discussion" step.