From Wikiversity - Reading time: 10 min
—Agreeing on actions

Collective decision making refers to a process that draws upon the knowledge, experience, and insights of a group of people to arrive at the best possible solution to a problem.
Decisions range in importance and complexity from deciding what to eat for dinner to deciding how to vote to deciding to start a war or launch a nuclear strike. What they all have in common is that action waits for decisions.
Thinking, talking, ruminating, procrastinating, gossiping, dreaming, and just plain stalling are pleasant ways to pass time. However, decisions must be made before any action can be taken. This is true even if the decision is as simple as when to get out of bed and what to wear for the day. When an action is more consequential, or it will impact others (as most important decisions do), it is wise to consult with others or include them in the decision-making process. There are many examples of decisions that required collective action.
In short, decisions are hard, and the larger the groups, the more difficult they often become.
In making collective decisions, there are many options for including or excluding others, engaging the ideas of others, sharing the responsibility for deciding, styles of leading or moderating discussions, and considering timeliness, and degrees of consensus. Considerations of urgency, level of risk, scope of impact, available expertise, degrees of uncertainty, availability of relevant information, well defined or undefined options, and sharing the decision with others vary widely and will shape decision style choice.
These alternatives are explored in this course.
The objectives of this course are to:
This course is part of the Applied Wisdom curriculum.
If you wish to contact the instructor, please click here to send me an email or leave a comment or question on the discussion page.
We typically make decisions to explore options, choose among alternatives, agree on goals, seize opportunities, or solve problems. In loosely structed groups, we may even have to decide on how we decide or if we decide. Allowing a decision to be avoided or delayed is itself a decision. It may be wise to bring this implicit decision making to the attention of the group for their explicit consideration.
When solving problems, it is important to begin by deciding what problem it is that needs to be solved before developing solutions. Research shows that problem finding is distinct from problem solving. Problem finding represents a family of related skills including problem identification, problem definition, problem expression, and problem construction.[1]
When we first state a problem, it is rarely the real problem. It is more likely to be a symptom, solution statement, subproblem, distraction, euphemism, or a premature conclusion based on misinformation. When we discover the real problem that real problem 1) addresses what is at stake, 2) is based on reality, 3)is often found deep in the causal chain, 4) has broad scope, and 5) is both important and actionable.
A problem is a gap between a person’s perception and desire.[2] Expressed more directly, when facing problems, we can ask:[3]
We often neglect to ask, or incorrectly answer these deceptively simple questions.
The first question, “what do you want?” exposes, challenges, and explores our goals. It is an open question inviting use to think expansively and explore options. The second question, “what is true?” examines our perceptions, beliefs, opinions, our grasp on reality, and our willingness to face facts and embrace reality. The third question “what are you going to do about it?” engages our creativity, tests our agency, expands our understanding of contributing causes, and examines our priorities.
When consequential outcomes are at stake it is useful to carefully reexamine and reassess our answers to each of these questions. Begin by deciding what the real problem is that needs to be solved.
When we face conflict, we often face decisions on how to overcome that conflict. Conflict is unavoidable; fortunately, we can learn to transcend conflict as we avoid false dichotomies. When we seek opportunities to transcend conflict, the nature of the decisions we need to make often change dramatically or can be avoided altogether.
The purpose of civility is to create the conditions that allow civilization to advance and prosper. Collective decision making requires civil behavior of all the participants.
This specifically includes developing the skills of:
Making wise decisions is often very difficult. Gaining commitment to a collective decision may be impossible of the participants are uninformed, misinformed, or disinformed regarding relevant matters of fact. Begin by agreeing on relevant matters of fact. Don’t dispute matters of fact, research them.
When George Patton said “We herd sheep, we drive cattle, we lead people. Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way” he was being very clear about who would be making the decisions.
When making a decision is confounded with disagreement over who is authorized to make the decision, who has the power to make the decision, or who has the influence to carry out the decision, the conversation can devolve quickly into chaos. Make these choices serially by deciding who will decide the issue before deciding on what the decision is.
Regardless of deciding alone or as a member of a group, we are likely to use one or a few of several available decision-making strategies.
In his book The Wisdom of Crowds, author James Surowiecki uses several case studies and anecdotes to demonstrate examples of collective wisdom success stories, as well as examples of tragedies of collective folly.
In analyzing these case studies, he identifies five elements required to form a wise crowd and several examples of failures of crowd intelligence.
The five elements of a wise crowd he identifies are:
| Criteria | Description |
| Diversity of opinion | Each person should have private information even if it is just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts. (Chapter 2) |
| Independence | People's opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them. (Chapter 3) |
| Decentralization | People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge. (Chapter 4) |
| Aggregation | Some mechanism exists for turning private judgements into a collective decision. (Chapter 5) |
| Trust | Each person trusts the collective group to be fair. (Chapter 6) |
Factors contributing to failures of crowd intelligence include:
| Extreme | Description |
| Homogeneity | Surowiecki stresses the need for diversity within a crowd to ensure enough variance in approach, thought process, and private information. |
| Centralization | The 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, which he blames on a hierarchical NASA management bureaucracy that was totally closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers. |
| Division | The United States Intelligence Community, the 9/11 Commission Report claims, failed to prevent the 11 September 2001 attacks partly because information held by one subdivision was not accessible by another. Surowiecki's argument is that crowds (of intelligence analysts in this case) work best when they choose for themselves what to work on and what information they need. (He cites the SARS-virus isolation as an example in which the free flow of data enabled laboratories around the world to coordinate research without a central point of control.)
As a remedy, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA have created a Wikipedia-style information sharing network called Intellipedia that will help the free flow of information to prevent such failures again. |
| Imitation | Where choices are visible and made in sequence, an "information cascade" can form in which only the first few decision makers gain anything by contemplating the choices available: once past decisions have become sufficiently informative, it pays for later decision makers to simply copy those around them. This can lead to fragile social outcomes. |
| Emotionality | Emotional factors, such as a feeling of belonging, can lead to peer pressure, herd instinct, and in extreme cases collective hysteria. |
Collective decision making can take place in a variety of forums.
Many tools and techniques are available to assist in collective decision making.
A schism is a division between people, usually belonging to an organization, movement, or religious denomination.
Schisms, mutinies, strike actions, splinter groups, revolutions and rebellions, and coups can occur if enough of the aggrieved people are motivated to leave the group rather than comply with the decision.
Less dramatic, but often quite damaging are passive-aggressive behaviors by the discontented minorities. This may include work slowdowns, poor attendance, poor quality work, slow-walking, other types of counterproductive work behaviors, goldbricking, sabotage, and other forms of resistance or withdrawal.
Asking the minority if they are comfortable abiding by the collective decision can help to determine if the collective decision can be supported by the entire group. If dissent is strong, then the decision may need to be revisited.
Making decisions is often difficult, and making wise collective decisions can be especially difficult. Follow these steps to improve your collective decision making.
Students who are interested in learning more about collective decision making may wish to read these books: