A decision-making process where not everyone needs to agree but no one must have an objection.
Integrative decision-making is a decision-making process developed in the Holacracy Constitution that can help organizations make better and faster decisions. However, every organization can benefit from an integrative decision-making processes, whether they adopt Holacracy or not.
The idea is to justify every decision by rejecting one only if someone proves why It is not good for the organization to accept it.
In Holacracy, integrative decision-making is the process that members use during a meeting. It is on a person we call the "Facilitator" to make sure all members respect the principles.
The Holacracy process to make a proposal and come to a decision in a meeting goes as follows:
Thus, integrative decision-making is not a consensus-based decision-making process where everyone needs to agree before a decision can be made, a process that often leads to long-winded discussions that end up in a compromise that suits no one and changes little.
Instead, integrative decision-making encourages members to justify their opinion when rejecting proposals.
Compared to consensus where everybody has to agree (no matter the reason) to move forward with a proposal, the beauty of consent-based decision-making is that, as long as nobody can demonstrate that the proposal might hurt the organization, the proposer has the upper hand and can move their project along with their proposal.
This ensures that the organization is not locked into analysis paralysis with no decisions are ever made or only poor, diluted compromises.