The AIR Consensus method for group decision-making

Have you ever faced difficulties with group decision-making? Reaching consensus in a group can be tricky. So what do you do? You’ve probably searched online and found suggestions that include:

• Establish a clear goal.
• Practice active listening.
• Foster effective communication.
• Embrace compromise and flexibility.
• Utilise facilitation and mediation.
• Manage time effectively.

In my view, suggestions like these fall short. We already know we need active listening and effective communication. We already know we need compromise, flexibility, and facilitation. What we don’t already know is how to set up the situation to ensure all these things happen. That’s precisely what this article aims to address.

So, let me introduce you to a method I call AIR Consensus — which in my view can be a game-changer for group decision-making. In workshops where I’ve taught this, we roll-played it in groups of five people. These groups routinely reached consensus for challenging real-world decisions in just 3 to 8 minutes! The options they selected were good, too — they were the same as the real decisions that leaders had often taken days (or even weeks) to make.

Many attempts to find consensus flounder because the preparation is inadequate. Good preparation is most of the work.

Preparing to Find Consensus

Building consensus effectively requires some initial groundwork. Many attempts to find consensus flounder because the preparation is inadequate. Good preparation is most of the work. My 3-2-1-Go Decision-Making Framework provides a detailed breakdown of the essential steps involved, encompassing the Define, Develop, and Determine stages. The AIR Consensus method applies specifically to the Determine stage. Here, I’ll highlight three key aspects of the 3-2-1-Go Framework that form the groundwork to effectively build consensus.

Selecting the Deciders and Driver

First and foremost, it’s crucial for group decision-making for everyone involved to know who the Deciders are — the individuals responsible for making the decision. This clarity is especially important when some participants are not Deciders themselves but instead inform the Deciders. For efficiency, aim to have no more than five Deciders, although some situations (e.g. boards) will need more. Additionally, be sure to designate the Driver — the person who facilitates the decision-making process and coordinates the consensus.

Summarising the Options

Secondly, a written summary of the options is very helpful. Ideally, the Driver should prepare this summary in advance. It should explain each option, along with how well each aligns with the desirable aspects of the decision. Omit any option that fails to meet the necessary criteria to avoid biasing the choice.

Establishing the Basis

Before diving into finding consensus, it’s important that all Deciders understand and agree on the basis for reaching a decision. They should agree on how to make the choice, and there should be no surprises during the conversation. While it’s wise to have a backup in case of a deadlock, aim for consensus if it’s the agreed basis.

Introducing the AIR Consensus Method

Now, let’s explore the AIR Consensus method and how you can use it to facilitate efficient group decision-making. With the groundwork laid, the Driver facilitates a semi-structured conversation among Deciders based on three key questions. Questions are a powerful tool for respectfully guiding attention, thought, and effort in group decision-making. The questions in the AIR Consensus method identify preferences that can garner consensus support with sufficient consideration and minimal negotiation. With some practice, you’ll be able to adapt and apply the method effectively to a range of situations.

To help you remember the steps, they start with three key instructions for Deciders: Ask, Indicate, and Reveal. These form the acronym AIR.

A — Ask one new question

Key question: “What new piece of information might affect your preference?”

Each Decider asks a brief question to the Driver that they believe could impact their own preference. It’s essential to keep these questions concise, limiting them to just one or two sentences at most. The Driver, in turn, responds with equally concise answers or may invite others to contribute concise answers. Deciders should avoid repetition by only asking questions that others have not previously asked. Brevity encourages clarity and efficient communication.

I — Indicate current preference and strength

Key question: “What is your current preference and its level of strength?”

Each Decider determines their preference and states it in turn, along with the strength of their preference (e.g. weak, moderate, strong, very strong). They must express their preference for one of three courses of action: (1) proceed with option “X”, (2) improve the options, or (3) stand aside. “Proceed” indicates readiness to move forward with one of the summarised options, which must be specified (e.g. “X”). “Improve” indicates the decision needs further exploration and refinement. The Deciders would reconvene after the Driver has revisited the Define and Develop decision stages. “Stand aside” indicates a willingness to not impede consensus among the remaining Deciders to allow their preference to be actioned.

R — Reveal one new reason

Key question: “What is one new reason for your current preference?”

Each Decider shares a single, unique reason for their current preference, which might persuade others to change their preferences. It must be a reason that hasn’t been previously mentioned. If all their reasons have already been articulated, Deciders may simply state this and not add another.

Resolving Deadlock

The Driver guides the conversation through the first question to the third, for up to three rounds. Should consensus remain elusive by then, a deadlock is reached, and no further rounds are undertaken.

To resolve deadlock where a majority exists, the Driver asks minority Deciders, “Would you be willing to stand aside in order to not delay the decision further?” If consensus remains elusive, the current options are unlikely to yield consensus even with further discussion. Thus, to avoid wasting time, the default action is to improve the Decision. This means the Driver returns to the Define and Develop decision, refines the decision, and reconvenes the Deciders. This delay and extra effort might impose significant cost, which the Driver can ask Deciders to consider.

Certain circumstances may require more urgent lengthy discussion and negotiation to resolve deadlock. For example, there may be urgency for a critical choice. Ideally, consensus would be the norm. Leaders would resolve deadlock through majority rule, escalation, or exerting authority only in exceptional circumstances.

Avoiding Premature Consensus

In cases where Deciders reach consensus during the initial indication of preferences, the Driver might introduce a “Devil’s Advocate” approach. Here, the Driver can request one or more Deciders to temporarily adopt their second preference for a few rounds. This approach is especially valuable for group decisions with substantial consequences. However, for smaller decisions, early consensus may simply indicate that the decision is straight-forward.

Another option to avoid premature consensus is to continue with all three rounds. Deciders ask further questions and give additional reasons. Since questions and reasons must not have been asked previously, this may prompt Deciders to consider helpful new perspectives.

Using Conditional Preferences

Occasionally, a Decider might find an option more favourable if specific actions were taken or checks were conducted to address specific concerns. In the process of indicating preferences, Deciders can briefly raise and agree on these conditions. Once they have determined a selected option, the Driver ensures that the agreed-upon actions or checks are executed before moving forward. This approach offers greater flexibility and minimises the need for reconvening.

Adapting it for Continuous Decisions

Continuous decisions are about choosing “How much?” rather than “Which one?”. In these cases, the preferences and preference strengths can be indicated by ranges. For example, one Decider could indicate a preference for spending between $50k and $75k, while another might indicate a range of $30k to $60k. By voicing these ranges, Deciders can effectively converge on an amount that all Deciders are comfortable with. To expedite the process, the Driver can offer a few thoughtfully considered ranges in the Summary as a starting point.

Now, let’s look at why the AIR Consensus method works.

How it Saves Time

Time is valuable in any group decision-making process, and the AIR Consensus method helps to save it. By promoting efficient information processing, structuring time effectively, and providing more flexibility, it saves on wasted time. Let’s explore how it maximises time efficiency.

Efficient Information Processing

Information processing is central to group decision-making (Kerr & Tindale, 2004) and it lies at the heart of why AIR Consensus works well. In group decision-making, people tend to discuss information that the others already know (Stasser and Titus, 1985). Voicing such information has little influence on preferences and hence little value in reaching consensus. To avoid this tendency, the method keeps conversation laser-focused on surfacing the most important, influential, and unshared information. Short, structured questions and answers focuses the conversation on top-level information that can influence preferences.

This focus on preferences is another aspect of how AIR Consensus keeps group decision-making efficient. Discussions are often lengthy when Deciders have significantly different positions, concerns, and experience. People often explain their positions in more detail to try to reach a consensus, yet explaining more often has surprisingly little effect on preferences. Even a lengthy explanation is a poor substitute for years of relevant experience. Moreover, people differ in values, so even when they understand another’s view perfectly they may still prefer a different option.

People often explain their positions in more detail to try to reach a consensus, yet explaining more often has surprisingly little effect on preferences.

Instead of lengthy explanations, the AIR Consensus method concentrates efforts on preference-forming, preference-sharing, and preference-changing. Each Decider forms their own preference. This process effortlessly draws on their full knowledge and experience, without them needing to explain anything. The method highlights the crucial information that each Decider possesses and whether or not it shifts others’ preferences. By requiring consensus, Deciders know that successful options have the backing of their collective knowledge and experience, without needing lengthy, time-consuming explanations.

Time-Saving Structure

The structure of the AIR Consensus method keeps the conversation in Choosing Mode rather than Discussion Mode. These two modes have fundamentally different goals. Often, meetings start in Discussion Mode and never make it to Choosing Mode. If they do, the Deciders only remember the key information from the discussion. The AIR method gets that key information out quickly, skipping details that Deciders would have quickly forgotten anyway.

Furthermore, the method prevents groups from spending considerable time on discussions that will not yield consensus. By efficiently surfacing key information and providing Deciders with the opportunity to negotiate, it eliminates the need for protracted deliberations. If consensus remains elusive after three rounds of structured conversation, unlikely to be reached unless the decision setup or options are improved. Instead of inefficient discussions in the meeting to improve the decision, the Driver can coordinate this work after it.

No Meeting Needed

While the AIR Consensus method is great for meetings, it also allows the Driver to coordinate consensus without a meeting at all! Deciders can liaise with the Driver one-on-one in person or online over several days or weeks as they have time. All Deciders have assurance that the decision will only proceed with consensus. This approach can be a valuable way to include Deciders who are unavailable due to other commitments or sickness.

How it Improves Decision Quality

The AIR Consensus method can not only save time, it can also improve the quality of decisions. By ensuring participation, focusing information processing, and less biased consideration, this method promotes high-quality consensus. Let’s explore how the AIR Consensus method enhances the outcomes of group decision-making.

Full Inclusion of Diverse Perspectives

Rather than attempting group decision-making, some leaders gather information from their team and then make the decisions themselves. This choice is understanding if they lack an efficient method to negotiate consensus. Moreover, this strategy is often appropriate for smaller decisions, since it minimises decision overhead.

In decision-making research, this approach is called a Judge-Advisor System. The research shows that advisors do influence leaders, but leaders give their own positions far more weight. If results of Yaniv & Kleinberger (2000) are representative, leaders give their own opinions about three times as much weight as those of advisors. This bias can apply even when leaders have less expertise and involvement than their advisors, leading to poorer decisions. Moreover, advisors who seem more confident hold more sway even if their advice is poor.

In AIR Consensus, each individual has equal influence and differences in preferences are expected, valued, and respected. In this way, the method creates a safe environment that draws out dissenting preferences and key information. This is key, as a McKinsey study showed that over 1 in 3 major business decisions are compromised because critical information is not shared or dissenting views were not given opportunity to be expressed. Moreover, research has shown that incorporating such minority dissent enhances team innovation, especially when decision-making involves high levels of participation (De Dreu & West, 2001). By valuing the expression of different preferences, AIR Consensus ensures that decisions benefit from a wide range of viewpoints.

Focused Information Processing

Discussions carry with them a high cognitive overhead. They force Deciders to process often verbose explanations to identify key information. They need to remember and process it while attempting to listen more and formulate their own statements. Crucial points are often not clearly stated, missed, or forgotten amid lengthy explanations. Deciders might also be distracted further by considering how to navigate the the politics of the situation. On top of these challenges, discussions often consume the allotted time, rushing decisions and cutting information processing short.

The AIR Consensus method tackles these challenges by providing a structured framework that enables focused information processing. It prioritises opportunities to seek, share, and hear key new information about the options, which ones others prefer, and why they prefer them. It gives Deciders dedicated times to form and change their preferences as they understand each other’s viewpoints. This focused information processing enables Deciders to concentrate on what matters and make more informed decisions.

Less Biased Consideration

Consensus or majority decisions often fail to give adequate consideration to minority opinions. The group often gravitates toward the opinions and information held by the majority. Alternatively, more socially dominant individuals can dominate the discussion and their opinions can have outsized influence. When pressure to conform exists, groupthink can flourish and circumvent robust consideration, as famously illustrated by John F. Kennedy in the Bay of Pigs decision.

The AIR Consensus method mitigates such biases that can undermine the decision-making process. It ensures that every Decider’s key knowledge and preference is taken into account, even if they hold a unique preference. By sharing preferences and their strengths, Deciders provide crucial insights that can highlight paths to negotiate a high-quality consensus.

It helps to safeguard discussions from biasing group dynamics. It prompts Deciders to form their initial preferences before any one voices their preference. In this way, it mitigates the bias to conform to an influential leader. The structured interactions also prevent excessive influence by particular personalities during a discussion. They create a respectful environment where more reserved individuals have time and space to express their own thoughts.

Moreover, the AIR Consensus method helps counteract an effect known as group polarization. When this occurs, group discussions lead to more extreme positions than any individual holds. By focusing on individual preferences among only pre-prepared options, the method reduces the likelihood of extreme positions emerging. This helps lead to more robust and well-reasoned outcomes.

How it Enhances Well-being and Performance

Effective decision-making is not solely about reaching an agreement; it’s also a key area to support well-being and nurture high-performance cooperation. The AIR Consensus method helps here by improving the dynamics involved. This can foster a better mood and safeguard against frustration and resentment. As considerable research now shows, feel-good emotions help to build resources for future performance. So, let’s delve deeper into how this method promotes well-being and performance.

More positive emotional climate

In traditional decision-making settings, disagreements can quickly escalate into conflict, negatively impacting team dynamics and individual well-being. The AIR Consensus method provides a structured framework for managing differences of opinion with respect and kindness. By employing concise and respectful questions and answers, it reduces the likelihood of personal attacks or heated arguments. It also keeps the conversation progressing, safeguarding against the frustration of a side-tracked conversation. This keeps Deciders in a better headspace, which feels better and helps them reach more well-rounded decisions.

Creating a psychologically safe environment is also crucial for high-quality group decisions. The AIR Consensus method encourages the expression of diverse opinions, even dissenting ones, by making it safe and expected. Participants are empowered to voice their perspectives without fear of ridicule or retribution, knowing their unique preferences will be respected. This safety supports engagement, well-being, and decision quality.

Meaningful Contribution

Feeling valued and having a sense of purpose significantly contributes to individual well-being and motivation. In the AIR Consensus method, Deciders are not mere passive observers; they are given real power to shape the outcome. In contrast to decisions made solely by the leader, consensus group decision-making enhances cooperation and mutual support within the team. This collaborative atmosphere enhances team cohesion, promotes positive relationships, and contributes to an overall sense of well-being and belonging.

The method empowers every Decider to make a meaningful contribution, which helps to foster a shared sense of purpose. This in turn increases engagement and helps team members to feel they belong. Individuals feel that their opinions matter and have a direct impact on the final decision. These feelings help to support their motivation and job satisfaction.

Greater Trust and Learning

Compared to typical leader-decides approaches, more participative approaches can nurture greater trust and cooperation. All Deciders can feel better about the final decision and how it was reached, because they were there and they agreed with it. This helps to build more motivation and cooperation to successfully implement the selected option. Those not involved in a given decision can also have more trust in the decision because they understand the method used to reach it.

Leaders can use the AIR Consensus method to share more the decision-making effort with their team. By ensuring they are always Deciders, no decision gets made without their approval. It’s one way to implement shared leadership, which can significantly reduce the demands on the leader. In a world where burnout is on the rise, reducing demands can support both the well-being and performance of leaders.

Finally, enabling team members to participate more in decisions helps them to gain experience and learn from others’ perspectives. The method fosters transparency that builds understanding of each other’s positions, which can pay dividends over the long term. Team members become more familiar with key decisions affecting the team, and their involvement can develop valuable skills and perspective. This method can facilitate organic sharing of key information from leaders to team members and visa versa. This process helps to build two-way empathy between different levels of the organisation. Team members feel more supported by their leaders and their organisation, which benefits well-being as well as motivation.

Conclusion

In summary, the AIR Consensus method focuses conversation around three key questions:

• “What new piece of information might affect your preference?”
• “What is your current preference and its level of strength?”
• “What is one new reason supporting your current preference?”

All Deciders respond concisely to each question, before they all move to the next, for up to three rounds. If consensus remains elusive, minority Deciders chose whether to stand aside or force the Deciders to reconvene with revised options.

This basic structure optimises time efficiency in group decision-making. By enabling efficient information processing, employing a time-saving structure, and providing more flexibility around meetings, it keeps the conversation focused, efficient, and oriented toward action. Groups can use it to make well-informed decisions in a timely manner.

The AIR Consensus method leverages the power of participation to improve the quality of group decision-making. It aids in including diverse perspectives, focusing information processing, and mitigating biases. In these ways, it harnesses the collective knowledge and expertise of the Deciders to yield better decision outcomes and greater confidence in the chosen course of action.

Finally, this method promotes well-being and performance by improving the experience of participatory decision-making. By creating a more positive emotional climate, empowering meaningful contribution, and fostering greater trust and learning, the method supports a positive team dynamic. Over time, the enhanced well-being, engagement, and satisfaction experienced by team members will translate into improved performance.

I hope you find the AIR Consensus method as useful as I have. As always, I’d love to hear your comments and suggestions!