Options for Decision-making

Options for Decision-making

  • Different issues require different ways of making decisions; the following ways of making decisions are to be used for the following situations:
    1. decisions to define mandates for roles within a team or for a sub-team use the process below in #4 below, because multiple perspectives need to be integrated when distributing authority within a team into roles
    2. when a role has a mandate, the role holder makes the decision about any issues covered by the mandate because the mandate conveys authority to take actions and make decisions. A role-holder may choose to get no input at all/or lots of input/or anywhere in between. One tried, tested and recommended method of a role-holder getting input into a decision they need to make is to use the Advice Process
    3. for any other decisions– the person facilitating the meeting decides which decision-making process to use for each point. Here’s some of the most common options:
      • simply seek agreement from team members
      • if agreement can’t be reached, take a vote (either simple majority or require a specific majority like 2/3)
      • Integrative Decision Making
      • More
    1. For any of the above options, if a decision gets stuck and can’t be made any other way and there is either:
      • a reason the decision needs to be made in the current meeting
      • or if an item is being processed in its third meeting without a decision having been able to be made;

then the decision can be made by simple majority vote. If the vote is tied, then the casting vote is made by the External Coordinator. If the External Coordinator isn’t present then the casting vote passes to the Internal Coordinator. If neither coordinators are present then one person is chosen at random to give the casting vote.

Defining Mandates for Roles within a team

  • A ‘team Mandate’ can be broken down into smaller ‘Role Mandates’, so that decisions can be made by individual role-holders rather than at a team level
  • Mandates for any defined roles should be included in the Animal Rebellion structure document so there’s visibility about which roles exist in all teams
  • For this type of collective decision this adaptation of Integrative Decision Making (from Holacracy) must be used. Collective decisions can be made at any formal meeting of a circle. There are no attendee/quorum restrictions. It requires a Facilitator to facilitate the following process:
  • The short version for what seems a minor or non-contentious proposal the Facilitator says:
    • can I ask if there are any clarifications or objections that would prevent your non-objection to this proposal, otherwise we’ll go straight to a show of hands for no objection
  • The longer version for what seems a more major or contentious proposal:
    1. A person Presents a Proposal for a new role or new sub-team, or change to an existing one
    2. Whoever wants to can ask Clarifying Questions; only questions to better understand the proposal should be allowed. No reactions
    3. Reaction Round: each person, one at a time gives their reaction to the proposal. No discussion or cross talk. Proposer does not react
    4. Amend & Clarify: proposer can amend the proposal if they want to based on questions/reactions. They can also clarify their intent if they want to. Both of these are optional. Only proposer speaks at this step; no other discussion or feedback
    5. Objection Round: the facilitator asks each person if they have any objection to the proposal (which is different to if they like it/agree to it/are happy with it). If someone has an objection the facilitator writes it down where everyone can see and then tests it. For an objection to be valid, all of the following conditions must apply
      • The objection must be a reason that the proposal causes harm; where harm is defined as degrading the capacity of the circle to achieve its mandate
      • The objection must be created by the proposal and not exist already
      • The objector must be certain the harm will happen and give a reason how they know this, or if they aren’t certain, they must give a reason why it’s not safe enough to try
      • The objector must be able to explain how the proposal will limit them from achieving the mandate of one of their roles.
    1. If there are no objections, or if there are objections but they are not valid, then the proposal is accepted and recorded in the record of mandates
    2. If there are valid objections which meet the criteria above, then you move to Integration where the proposal gets adapted so that the objection no longer exists and the original intention of the proposer is still met
    3. After Integration you move back to another Objection Round for the integrated proposal.
    4. Once there are no further objections the proposal is accepted and it is:
  • If any changes are being made to mandates, all circle members need to be given reasonable notice of meeting time & date of the meeting.

More reading