I’m a big fan of Sam Kaner’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, ISBN 0-86571-347-2. I highly recommend it to anyone who leads meetings.
In my post on Decide as a Team, I wrote about using a method called Roman Evaluation to reach a decision. Kaner talks about a more formal concept he calls Gradient of Agreement in his book.
I am less enthusiastic about the Gradient of Agreement today than when I was first introduced to it.
Why?
| Roman Evaluation | Gradient of Agreement | ||
| Thumb up | I agree. | Endorsement | I like it. |
| Thumb Sideways | I will accept the majority’s decision and support it. | Endorsement with a minor point of contention | Basically, I like it. |
| Agreement with reservations | I can live with it. | ||
| Abstain | I have no opinion. | ||
| Stand aside | I don’t like this, but I don’t want to hold up the group. | ||
| Formal disagreement but willing to go with the majority | I want my disagreement noted in writing but I’ll support the decision. | ||
| Formal disagreement with request to be absolved of responsibility for implementation | I don’t want to stop anyone else, but I don’t want to be in involved in implementing | ||
| Thumb Down | I disagree (veto) or I have something to say | Block | I veto this proposal |
| Table 1. A comparison of Roman Evaluation and Kaner’s Gradient of Agreement. |
Although I have experience successfully using Gradient of Agreements, it seems overly complex to me now compared to Roman Evaluation. Gradient of Agreement has levels, gray highlighted cells in Table 1, that seem ambiguous to me. I question whether a participant could support a decision when they don’t have an opinion about the proposal; or don’t like it; or disagree with it; or don’t want any implementation involvement. I suspect a participant that voted that way would provide, at best, lukewarm support.
I prefer the simplicity and clear meaning that comes from using Roman Evaluation.
good point
I agree Its hard to support a proposal or an idea that you don’t like or agree with. It doesn’t feel comfortable backing something you don’t believe in. As my old coach you to say “Give 100% or don’t give anything at all”.
Hi Sports Artist, I appreciate you for sharing your thoughts on the topic and your old coach’s saying.
I too am a fan of Kaner’s guide.
While I agree that the gradient model is complicated, I wouldn’t want to toss it out entirely. I like being about to use simpler models sometimes and more refined models at other times. And I certainly agree that there’s no point overcomplicating things — if indeed, the gradient over complicates as opposed to matches the situation. For example, if consensus is critical, or if hearty support is critical from all, then discerning degrees of agreement can be crucial. With a complicated decision that has major implications and especially when there will be disproportionate impacts, I’d go with the gradient at least some of the time. To decide where to go to dinner, thumbs work just fine.
Kat, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I hope you aren’t interpreting me to be saying, “Throw it (Gradient of Agreement) out.” I certainly oppose that idea.
I agree with you — there are times when a more rigorous method is warranted. In my experience, the decision on which method will be the most beneficial depends on safety. The safer the participants feel to express their preferences, the faster light weight methods, like Roman Evaluation, get the job done. However, the more afraid participants are to halt the group by pointing their thumb down, the more heavy weight methods, like Gradient of Agreement, have value. In my experience, Gradient of Agreement is useful, but it is slower.
Regardless of which method is used, the process was a failure if upon leaving the meeting room any participant fails to support a consensus decision.