How to improve team decision-making
Three Structures, One Common Thread – Clarity
In a world of increasing complexity, effective team decision-making isn’t just about using the right techniques – it’s about creating clarity. Clarity about who decides, how decisions are made, and what processes fit your team’s structure best.
This article explores three common authority structures – traditional hierarchy, collaborative groups, and distributed/self-managing teams – and shows how to improve decision-making in each.
Across all models, one thing makes the biggest difference: clarity.
The Problem With Most Advice on Team Decision-Making
Most advice about improving team decision-making overlooks the one thing that makes the biggest difference: the authority structure. Instead, it offers generic, one-size-fits-all tips like “make sure all views are heard” or “creatively explore options.” That’s fine in theory –but it doesn’t help much if there’s no clarity about who actually decides, or how decisions get made in the specific authority structure at play in any moment.
‘Authority structure’ might sound abstract, but it simply means this: Who has the power to make a final decision, and how is that decision made?
That Could Be:
by the manager or team leader
by group agreement
by team members who have been delegated authority from the team leader
by individuals deciding within clearly defined roles
by voting
or together through a collaborative process
We live in a complex world, and the dynamics of teams are no exception. So how can we navigate this complexity without getting stuck in endless discussions that go nowhere – and instead make better decisions, faster, and in a way that energises rather than drains the team?
The Answer:
Get clear about the authority structure in the team.
Use a decision-making method that fits that structure.
Set the Right Conditions for Group Decision-Making
The three most common and archetypal patterns of authority structure seen in groups or teams (and their associated shapes) are as follows. Given that there are different patterns in teams and groups, the best conditions for group decision-making is to understand which of these patterns is at play in any situation, and provide clarity about how things work in that pattern:
1. The Hierarchy (The Pyramid)
The good old management hierarchy is the traditional model most of us are familiar with. Decisions are made by the person at the top – usually the manager, team leader or boss. They have the authority to tell others what to do and to make the final call on, well, pretty much anything – unless directed otherwise from above. This is what we call Power over.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with this structure. It can work well when authority is used wisely and transparently. The key is to avoid pretending that decisions are shared when they’re not. If the boss is making the decision, they need to own it – and be clear about the terms of others’ involvement.
Sometimes the leader might invite input, and that’s great. But they need to clarify whether it’s a consultation or a shared decision. One of the most damaging dynamics is when the boss gives the impression of a group decision, but then pulls rank when things don’t go their way.
Or the leader may ‘delegate’ decision-making to their reports or other team members. The problem with this is that it’s typically unclear what this delegation actually means. Does the team member need to get approval from the leader? Does the leader trump the decision if they don’t like it?
2. The Collaborative Approach (the Flat Circle)
Some teams reject hierarchy and go for a more inclusive and participatory way of working that is more collaborative and consensual. Here, authority doesn’t sit with one person – it’s shared. This is Power with.
These teams make decisions together using a shared process. But this model still needs clarity – just of a different kind. It requires clear agreements on how decisions are made, who’s involved, and what happens when there’s disagreement.
The collaborative model works best when there’s trust, psychological safety, and a clear written agreement about how things work. Some teams use the same method for all decisions (e.g. consent or voting); others vary the method based on the decision.
Either way, what matters is that the team agrees how it will work – and that agreement is documented and accessible to all.
3. The Distributed Authority Model (the Arrow)
An alternative to the traditional management hierarchy is a model where authority is formally distributed to individuals in clearly defined roles. In this setup, role-holders can make decisions independently and don’t need to constantly check with a boss or the rest of the group. Of course, there may still be conditions or constraints on how those decisions are made – such as needing to consult others, follow certain protocols, or align with shared priorities.
This model is a core feature of many agile and self-managing teams, for example those using formal methods such as Holacracy or practices derived from them – and one of its strengths is that it blends individual autonomy with collective decision-making.
In some situations, decisions are made by individuals. They might get input from others, but ultimately, the decision is theirs to make. It's not handed down from a manager, nor subject to group consensus. Authority – and therefore decision-making – is distributed across roles.
In other situations, decisions are made collectively. The balance between individual and team-based decisions offers flexibility – but it also increases the potential for confusion.
That’s why clarity is essential. Teams need clear, written agreements that define:
Which decisions can be made by individuals in their roles
Which decisions require group discussion or agreement
Any conditions or constraints attached to those decisions
In self-managing teams, this is usually handled through Role Definitions and Governance Records – documents that clearly outline who decides what, and under what circumstances. With this foundation in place, teams can move faster, with less friction, and make better decisions at every level.
Steps To Improve Team Decision-Making
Once you’ve created the right conditions for decision-making—by increasing clarity about who decides and how – you can take specific steps to improve how your team works within its authority structure. These include both behaviours and practical processes.
The Hierarchy
For managers, decision-making starts with owning your authority and using it wisely.
Be clear about the scope of the decision and whether you’re consulting or deciding.
Ask for input – then really listen. Create psychological safety by holding back your opinions while others speak.
If the team has different views, treat them with respect – but still make the call, explaining your reasoning transparently.
Communicate clearly when the decision is made, and follow through with any documentation or actions.
Build your capability in group dynamics and facilitation. It’s not just about making decisions, it’s about leading through them.
If delegating a decision to a direct report or a team member, then be clear about what that means- if they need to check with you for approval, what if they do something you don’t agree with etc.
A good process might look like this:
Define the decision to be made.
Clarify what kind of input you want and from whom.
Keep the discussion focused on that input.
Say when you’ve heard enough and are ready to decide.
Make and communicate the decision clearly.
Document it if needed.
Assign follow-up actions.
The Collaborative Approach
In collaborative teams, the whole group is responsible for making decisions together. That means clarity, structure, and facilitation are crucial.
Identify one or more team members to become trained facilitators of meetings and decision-making processes.
Co-create and agree on group norms – how you share airtime, how you raise objections, how you resolve conflict.
Prioritise psychological safety so that team members feel safe to challenge, disagree, or speak truth to power.
Make sure everyone understands what counts as a valid objection, and how objections are tested or resolved.
Separate different kinds of meetings – for example, business-focused meetings from team-building sessions.
When using a shared decision-making process, a common approach is consent-based decision-making. Here’s a typical flow:
A clear proposal is brought to the group.
Team members ask clarifying questions.
A round of reactions allows everyone to respond without interruption.
Open discussion takes place if needed.
Objections are raised and tested using pre-agreed criteria.
Valid objections are integrated by adapting the proposal.
The process repeats until no objections remain. The decision is then adopted.
The Distributed Authority Model
In distributed teams, the key is role clarity – knowing who has the authority to decide what, and under what conditions.
Ensure everyone has a clearly defined role, with specific decision-making authority.
Support individuals to take initiative and ownership within their roles.
Help people understand the distinction between decisions made individually and those made collectively.
Assign and train facilitators for group decisions when needed.
When Decisions are Made by Individuals:
Clarify the decision and confirm who has authority – checking Governance Records if needed.
Identify any constraints (e.g. needing to align with team priorities or get input from others).
Decide how much input is required – balancing the need for support and buy-in with the urgency of the decision.
Find the “sweet spot” between speed and inclusivity.
Gather input if needed.
Make the decision – and own it.
When Decisions are Made Collectively:
Check your Governance Records to see if there’s a defined process and then follow it
If no process is defined, then this could be a gap in your Governance Records. In which case define a process to be used for it in the future. An example of such a process is the Integrative Decision Making used in Holacracy for making decisions about distributing authority into roles.
Conclusion: Clarity Makes For Good Decision-Making
Across all authority structures, the common thread in better decision-making is clarity:
Clarity about who decides – Is it one person, the group, or a specific role?
Clarity about how decisions are made – What process do we use?
Clarity about when to use which approach – Which decisions are individual, which are collective?
That’s why we’ve developed a team training programme called Team Clarity & Faster Decision-Making – to help teams become more effective, empowered, and adaptive by building clarity into the way they work.
Delivered in three steps over three months, this simple but powerful programme helps teams unlock better decisions, faster.
Find out more and take our free Team Needs Check to see if your team needs more clarity and help with improving its decision-making.
Appendix
Tools For Group Decision-Making
Here are practical tools to support decision-making, based on your team’s structure:
In hierarchical teams:
Brainstorming sessions – Gather a wide range of ideas quickly
Surveys and polls – Capture anonymous feedback from the team
Decision matrix – Evaluate options based on specific criteria
Delphi method – Gather expert opinion anonymously
Nominal group technique – Ensure equal input and prioritisation
Collaborative whiteboards (e.g. Miro) – Visualise options together
In collaborative teams:
Consent-based decision-making – Proceed unless someone has a reasoned objection
Formal consensus – A structured process to reach agreement unless anyone fundamentally disagrees
Informal consensus – Talk until everyone agrees (may be slow)
Voting with thresholds – Use majority or supermajority depending on impact
Gradients of agreement – Reveal how strongly people support an idea
Conscious Decisions Map – Match method to urgency and required buy-in
Matrix Leadership methods – Create safety to speak up about power dynamics
In distributed/self-managing teams:
Role definitions – Clearly state who decides what
Governance records – Document decision rights and group processes
Integrative Decision-Making (e.g. Holacracy) – A structured, inclusive process which avoids personal interests coopting decisions on behalf of the organisation
Decision protocols, e.g.:
“Seek input from [X role] before deciding [Y]”
“Get a ‘no objection’ from [Z role] before proceeding”
“Collect and integrate feedback from…”
