Constitution resources

Supplementary guidance that is referenced in the XR UK Constitution

Constitution Roles, Policies & Support

Core role mandates

The mandates for the Core Roles are defined by the Constitution (see section C.2 to understand why these are needed) and are the same for all circles.

You can view all the Core Role mandates on the organism. Click the ⨁ next to each role to see its mandate.

Alternatively, if you have a Hub login, you can see the individual mandates on the Hub:

Template role mandates

These mandates for Template Roles are suggestions which can be used as templates to copy and adapt by any team for their own purposes. Some of them can be used to distribute some of the power in Core Roles, particularly where Coordinator roles get overloaded in busy teams. For example, the Integrator/recruiter role helps build the team, relieving the Internal Coordinator of this part of their role.

Elections and appointments to roles

Key Policies

Agreements

Guidance

See the SOS: Making it work for you book for the main guidance on practical self-organising.

Specifically on the Constitution, there is a Constitution Companion which provides an explainer in simple language.

Training

Integrative Decision Making (IDM) process

[Note: This page forms part of Section C.7 of the XR UK Constitution.]

This guidance includes mandatory and advisory parts.
Mandatory steps appear in bold, advice in plain text.

Mandatory process

The steps in the process are:

  1. A person presents a proposal for a new policy, role or sub-circle, or to change an existing one.

  2. Whoever needs to may ask clarifying questions. Only questions to better understand the proposal are allowed. No reactions. The proposer may answer.

  3. Each person, one at a time, gives their reactions to the proposal. No discussion or cross talk. If the meeting is online, no typing in the chat. The proposer does not react.

  4. The proposer may amend the proposal if they want to based on the reactions they have heard. This is optional. Only the proposer speaks at this step. The proposer may also respond to some of the reactions where helpful. No other discussion or feedback.

  5. The facilitator asks each person in turn if they have any objection to the proposal. This is not the same as asking if they like it, agree with it, or think it’s the best way forward. The question is not “Do you think this is a good idea?” or “Is this how you would have designed things?”, but rather “Do you object to giving this a go?” or “Is this safe enough to try?”. Objections are often helpful, as they may alert the circle to consequences that haven’t yet been fully considered. They are a welcome part of the process of making a good decision. Circle members respond from the perspective of their role, not their personal opinion.

  6. If the facilitator is a member of the circle and has an objection, then they must ask someone else to take over the facilitation.

  7. For an objection to be valid, it must meet one of these two sets of criteria:
    a. The objection must be a reason that the proposal causes harm — where harm is defined as

    • either degrading the ability of the circle to achieve its mandate,

    • or limiting the objector from fulfilling the mandate of one of their roles and degrading the ability of the circle to achieve its mandate; and

      The objection must be created by the proposal and not exist already; and

      The objector must give a reason why they are reasonably sure the harm will happen or why they don’t consider the proposal safe enough to try.

    b. The grounds for objection must be that the proposal goes against a policy of the circle or its broader circles, or breaks a rule in the Constitution, or clearly violates XR’s Principles and Values or Ways of Working. (The facilitator may also object to the proposal on these grounds.)

  8. If there are no objections, the proposal is accepted.

  9. If there are objections, the facilitator speaks with the objector to help clarify whether their objection meets the conditions above. It is the facilitator’s job to determine this. (They may find it helpful to use the table below.) They do not consult the other circle members, but they must explain their reasoning. If in doubt, objections are considered valid. If the objections are not deemed valid, then the proposal is accepted.

  10. If there are valid objections, then the facilitator may decide either to process them immediately if they seem resolvable, or to suggest they are processed outside the meeting so that it doesn't take up everyone else's time.

  11. To process valid objections, the proposer integrates them where possible by adapting the proposal so that the objections no longer exist.

  12. The facilitator holds another objection round for the integrated proposal.

  13. Once there are no further objections the proposal is accepted.

  14. It becomes effective once it is recorded on The Hub by the Group Admin.

  15. For what seems to be a minor or non-contentious proposal the following short version of this process may be used instead:

    • The facilitator asks if there are any clarifications needed or any objections to the proposal. If there aren’t any, they ask for a show of hands to formally indicate no objections.

  16. For the rules about who participates in the process, see Sections C.7.19 - 28 of the XR UK Constitution.

To be valid, an objection must meet all of the following criteria, which can be addressed in any order:-

Criterion Valid Not valid
The proposal causes harm — where harm is defined as either degrading the ability of the circle to achieve its mandate,

or limiting the objector from fulfilling the mandate of one of their roles and degrading the ability of the circle to achieve its mandate		 Is your concern a reason the proposal causes harm? or… … Is your concern that the proposal is unneeded or incomplete?
The objection is created by the proposal and does not exist already Is the harm created by this proposal? or… … Is it already a concern, even if the proposal were dropped?
The objector is reasonably sure the harm will happen or doesn’t consider the proposal safe enough to try Would the proposal necessarily cause the impact? or…

Could significant harm happen before we can adapt? or…		 … Are you anticipating that this impact will occur? (If "Yes," ask the next pair of questions)


… Is it safe enough to try, knowing we can revisit it at any time?

If the grounds for objection are that the proposal goes against a policy of the circle or its broader circles, or breaks a rule in the Constitution, or clearly violates XR’s Principles and Values or Ways of Working then the objection is automatically valid. (This includes proposals that would clearly reinforce patterns of exclusion or discrimination.)

Pre-Election Checklist

Some things it may be helpful to resolve before holding an election

This guidance for facilitators and Internal Coordinators is about sequencing: making sure any tensions around mandate, membership, conflict, or process are surfaced and addressed before the election begins. That way the election itself can focus on deciding who will be best for the role, not unresolved issues.

1. Mandate Clarity

2. Circle Clarity

3. Readiness of the Circle

4. Conflict & Relationship Health

5. Procedural Clarity

6. Right Ordering Check

Advisory Notes

Experience has shown that two co-coordinators can work well. Three can work or be unwieldy depending on the individuals. Four or more are unlikely to work as well as coordination requires a lot of decision making and you’ll need to decide how to do that. The more people, the less likely you’ll get agreement on how to proceed.

When co-coordinators are not in agreement there is the potential for confusion and difficulty within the wider team. A formal group agreement about decision making and communication may be helpful. Here is a template agreement you can copy and adapt.

Integrative Election Process for Roles in XR UK

[Note: this guidance forms part of Section C.5 of the XR UK Constitution.]

This guidance includes mandatory and advisory parts. Mandatory steps appear in bold, advice in plain text.

Mandatory process

The steps in the process are:

1. Clarify the role

2. First round of nominations

3. Second round of nominations

4. Proposal for appointment

6. Confirm Appointment

The process for the integrative election process may be used in a shortened form with the consent of the circle.

Advisory notes

Inclusivity and encouragement

Give particular attention to voices less often heard or less confident; people grow through experience and support. Remember that much of our potential is latent. A particular appointment may enable someone to develop and exercise unsuspected abilities.

If a role has repeatedly been held by the same demographic group, explicitly invite others to consider whether they could take it on with support.

Facilitators may pay attention to who is and isn’t being nominated and take gentle steps to widen participation where needed (e.g. invite reflection on barriers, offer mentoring).

Psychological safety

Facilitators should aim to hold a calm, unhurried space; defend against persuasion, judgement or self-promotion. The process is about the role and the circle’s needs, not competition. Facilitators may proactively invite new or quieter voices who have not yet spoken.

If you nominate someone for a role without speaking to them first, the first they hear of it may be in front of the whole group. Especially in larger circles, that can create strong social pressure — even when the intention is kind — and might lead someone to take on a role they’re not ready for or don’t feel right about. Encouraging others to take on leadership can be very positive, but it’s often best to talk with them beforehand and give them time to consider whether it’s a good fit.

Equality of opportunity

A slower pace or extra clarification may help those new to the circle or unfamiliar with the process. If it appears that there may be only one candidate for the role, slow down and double check that nobody else is interested. You might say something like "If we could offer any kind of support, what support might you need to take on a role like this?"

If structural or cultural barriers appear (e.g. dominance of one demographic or style), pause to discuss what support or adaptation would make participation easier.

Transparency and trust

Explain why this process is used — to integrate the wisdom of the group without turning it into a popularity contest.

After the election

Check-in soon after to confirm that the appointee feels supported and the circle is aligned on expectations.

Considered Majority Vote for Roles in XR UK

[Note: this guidance forms part of Section C.5 of the XR UK Constitution.]

This guidance includes mandatory and advisory parts. Mandatory steps appear in bold, advice in plain text.

Mandatory process

The steps in the process are:

1. Clarify the role

2. Gauge interest

3. Candidate introductions

4. Clarifying questions for candidates

5. Vote

7. Confirm Appointment

Sometimes more than one person may offer themselves as joint candidates for a role. In this case their joint nomination is treated as if they were a single candidate in the process above.

The process for a considered majority vote may be used in a shortened form with the consent of the circle.

Advisory notes

Inclusivity and encouragement

Give particular attention to voices less often heard or less confident; people grow through experience and support. Remember that much of our potential is latent. A particular appointment may enable someone to develop and exercise unsuspected abilities.

If a role has repeatedly been held by the same demographic group, explicitly invite others to consider whether they could take it on with support.

Psychological safety

Facilitators should aim to hold a calm, unhurried space; defend against persuasion, judgement or self-promotion. The process is about the role and the circle’s needs, not competition. Facilitators may proactively invite new or quieter voices who have not yet spoken.

If you nominate someone for a role without speaking to them first, the first they hear of it may be in front of the whole group. Especially in larger circles, that can create strong social pressure — even when the intention is kind — and might lead someone to take on a role they’re not ready for or don’t feel right about. Encouraging others to take on leadership can be very positive, but it’s often best to talk with them beforehand and give them time to consider whether it’s a good fit.

Equality of opportunity

A slower pace or extra clarification may help those new to the circle or unfamiliar with the process. If it appears that there may be only one candidate for the role, slow down and double check that nobody else is interested. You might say something like "If we could offer any kind of support, what support might you need to take on a role like this?"

If structural or cultural barriers appear (e.g. dominance of one demographic or style), pause to discuss what support or adaptation would make participation easier.

Advocacy for candidates

When candidates speak for themselves, it can easily turn into a “campaign speech” — something we try to avoid in XR. Asking someone else to speak on a candidate’s behalf helps prevent this, while also adding the speaker’s own perspective and endorsement. For this reason, we recommend that, wherever possible, candidates have someone else introduce them.

Transparency and trust

Explain why this process is used — to integrate the wisdom of the group without turning it into a popularity contest.

After the election

Check-in soon after to confirm that the appointee feels supported and the circle is aligned on expectations.

The Advice Process

[Note: this guidance is referred to by Section C.7 of the XR UK Constitution.]

The Advice Process can be practised in many ways, but they share a common factor, which is that anyone can make any decision within the mandate of their role after seeking advice from

  1. other roles who will be meaningfully affected, and
  2. people with expertise in the matter.

There are two key principles:

In practice, this process proves remarkably effective. It allows anybody to seize the initiative. Power is no longer a zero-sum game. Everyone is powerful via the advice process.

It's not consensus

We often imagine decisions can be made in only two ways: either by a person with authority (someone calls the shots; some people might be frustrated; but at least things get done), or by unanimous agreement (everyone gets a say, but it can be frustratingly slow).

It is a misunderstanding that self-management decisions are made by getting everyone to agree, or even involving everyone in the decision. The advice-seeker should take all relevant advice into consideration, but can still make the decision.

Consensus may sound appealing, but it's not always most effective to give everybody veto power, which effectively leads to 'minority rule'. In the advice process, power and responsibility rest with the mandate to make the decision. Ergo, there is no power to block.

Ownership of the issue stays clearly with the mandate-holder. Convinced she made the best possible decision, she can see things through with enthusiasm, and she can accept responsibility for any mistakes.

The advice process, then, transcends both top-down and consensus-based decision making.

Benefits of the advice process

The advice process allows self-management to flourish. Dennis Bakke, who introduced the practice at the American power-generation company AES (and who wrote two books about it), highlights some important benefits: creating community, humility, learning, better decisions, and fun.

Steps in the advice process

There are a number of steps in the advice process:

  1. Someone notices a problem or opportunity and takes the initiative, or alerts someone better placed to do so.
  2. Prior to a proposal, the decision-maker may seek input to sound out perspectives before proposing action.
  3. The initiator makes a proposal and seeks advice from those affected or those with expertise.
  4. Taking this advice into account, the decision-maker decides on an action and informs those who have given advice.

Forms the advice process can take

Because the advice process involves taking advice from those affected by a decision, it naturally follows that the bigger the decision, the wider the net needs to be cast.

For minor decisions, there may be no need to seek advice. For larger decisions, advice can come through various channels, including one-to-one conversations, meetings, or online communication.

Some organisations have specific types of meeting to support the advice process, or follow formal methods. The Integrative Decision Making process, which XR UK uses for governance decisions, can be seen as a formal variety of advice process. Some organisations choose to have circles made up of representative colleagues who go through the advice process on behalf of the whole organisation.

When decisions affect large numbers, or people who cannot meet physically, the process can be held online.

Equal Experts, a UK network of software consultants, specialising in agile delivery, has written an open playbook to share their ongoing experience of a real-world implementation of the Advice Process (the organisation had approximately 1100 members in 2021).

Underlying mindsets and training

The advice process is a tool that helps decision-making via collective intelligence. Much depends on the spirit in which people approach it. When the advice process is introduced, it might be worthwhile to train colleagues not only in the mechanics but also in the mindset underlying effective use.

The advice process can proceed in several ways, depending on the mindset people bring to it:

Role modelling

Coordinator roles in teams need to be role-models. Successfully distributing authority requires careful, proactive effort. Roles and mandates support this, but Internal and External Coordinators can help further by modelling and demonstrating the advice process in their own decisions. Other team members will take cues from their behaviour.

Modelling and demonstrating can take several forms:

For many of us, unlearning the habit of making all the decisions is hard. It requires commitment and mindfulness. If you find yourself falling into the old pattern, take the opportunity to acknowledge your mistake, and restate the importance of the process. This can turn a mistake into a powerful learning moment. Better habits are formed through repeated practice.

[Note: this text is largely copied, with light adaptation, from a longer one that is part of the Reinventing Organizations Wiki. Copyright belongs to the original creators of that text. [Note: Once we have got more of our resources in order, David as SOS Resource Steward will contact Frederic Laloux to check this is OK. He has been a friend to XR in the past.]]

Objection testing

[Note: this guidance is referred to by Section C.7 of the XR UK Constitution.]

When a proposal is brought using the Integrative Decision Making process, the facilitator asks each member of the team if they have any objection.

If there is an objection, the facilitator tests it by asking questions to determine whether it is valid within the terms of the Constitution.

Integrative Decision Making aims to integrate all valid objections to a proposal.

To be valid, an objection must meet all of the following criteria, which can be addressed in any order:-

Criterion Valid Not valid
The proposal causes harm - where harm is defined as degrading the ability of the circle to achieve its mandate Is your concern a reason the proposal causes harm? or… … Is your concern that the proposal is unneeded or incomplete?
The proposal limits the objector from achieving the mandate of one of their roles Would the proposal limit one of your roles? or… … Are you trying to help another role or the circle in general?
The objection is created by the proposal and does not exist already Is the harm created by this proposal? or… … Is it already a concern, even if the proposal were dropped?
The objector is reasonably sure the harm will happen or doesn’t consider the proposal safe enough to try Would the proposal necessarily cause the impact? or…

Could significant harm happen before we can adapt? or…		 … Are you anticipating that this impact will occur? (If "Yes," ask the next pair of questions)

… Is it safe enough to try, knowing we can revisit it at any time?

If the grounds for objection are that the proposal goes against a policy of the circle or its broader circles, or breaks a rule in the Constitution, or clearly violates XR’s Principles and Values or Ways of Working then the objection is automatically valid. (This includes proposals that would clearly reinforce patterns of exclusion or discrimination.)

Facilitating Integration

[Note: Parts of this text are derived and adapted from the Governance Meeting Process published by HolacracyOne with permission, © HolacracyOne, LLC.]

Link Roles

Standard and Decision-Making Link Roles

[Note: this guidance is referred to by Section C.7 of the XR UK Constitution.]

2. Key Definitions

Source Circle
The circle that elects the Link Role. The role holder represents this circle in the Destination Circle.

Destination Circle
The circle in which the Link Role sits and represents the Source Circle.

Governance
Decisions that distribute or restrict authority (e.g. creating or changing mandates, policies or domains; creating, moving or dissolving roles or circles).

An Example

Operations has a link role to Systems & Cultures.

This reflects a core constitutional principle: authority must match accountability.

3. Why Decision-Making Authority Is Limited

To understand why Link Roles have limited decision-making power, it helps to understand how accountability works between circles.

A Destination Circle can hold its own roles and sub-circles accountable — but it does not have the same authority over a Source Circle. The Destination Circle's Internal Coordinator, for example, cannot set the Source Circle's priorities or direct its work.

Because a Destination Circle cannot fully oversee a Source Circle, it would be problematic to give Link Roles — which represent that Source Circle — broad decision-making authority within the Destination Circle. Keeping that authority limited helps maintain clear lines of responsibility.

This is the normal and recommended form.

In the example above, the Operations link to Systems & Cultures would usually be a Standard Link Role.

Rules

1. A Link Role must be created in the Source Circle and approved in the Destination Circle using Integrative Decision Making (IDM).

2. The role holder must be elected by the Source Circle.

3. The maximum term is 6 months, after which a new election must be held. The same person may be re-elected.

4. The role represents the mandate of the Source Circle, not individual views.

6. The role holder retains full authority in the Source Circle (including governance), within their mandate.

Purpose
Information that helps the work of both circles is shared.

Accountabilities

5. The Decision-Making Link Role (Exceptional Case)

On rare occasions, there may be a compelling reason for the Destination Circle to include the Source Circle in certain operational decisions.

In that case, a Decision-Making Link Role may be used.

Using the example:

If Systems & Cultures genuinely needed Operations to participate in certain operational decisions (but not governance), they could agree to use this model.

Rules

1. The Destination Circle must explicitly agree the link role is Decision-Making.

2. A Decision-Making Link Role must be created and approved in each circle using IDM.

3. The role holder must be elected by the Source Circle.

4. The maximum term is 6 months, after which a new election must be held. The same person may be re-elected.

5. The role represents the mandate of the Source Circle, not individual views.

6. A Decision-Making Link Role may take part in non-governance decisions in the Destination Circle.

7. A Decision-Making Link Role may not take part in governance decisions in the Destination Circle.

8. The role holder retains full authority in the Source Circle (including governance) within their mandate.

Purpose
The Source Circle’s mandate is well represented in the Destination Circle by sharing relevant information and contributing to non-governance decisions.

Accountabilities

6. Choosing the Type of Link

Use the Standard Link Role unless there is a clear and compelling reason not to.

Ask:

If unsure, choose Standard.

Decision Making Processes

[Note: this guidance is referred to by Section C.7 of the XR UK Constitution.]

This page includes some basic steps and then details specific decision making processes. It is aimed mainly at facilitators.

These decision making processes are alternatives to Integrative Decision Making (IDM). They can be used in settings where IDM is not required by the Constitution.

A fair process helps to get people on board with a decision that may not be their first choice. If people feel what they care about has been heard and the decision is made for a legitimate reason, they are more likely to accept it and remain engaged with the group. Finding a way to balance a fair process with an efficient one is the fine art of facilitation!

The overarching approach we recommend taking to decision making is consent based decision making. Consent based decision making is about finding an option that sits within everyone’s range of tolerance (“OK, I can live with it”), not their range of preference (“I love it”). This is because finding a proposal that everyone loves will be really difficult while finding one that everyone can live with will be a lot easier. Let’s go with a proposal that’s good enough, rather than trying to perfect it. Explain this approach to the group before starting the decision making process.

Tips for before starting the process

It’s good to be clear about the type of decision making process that will be used before the process starts. This way people will set their expectations, for example, whether they will have to accept what the majority wants to do or whether the proposal will be changed based on their concerns. Always state the decision making process and give a brief explanation before starting it. Don't get into endless discussions about what process to use, you should decide how to decide as their competent and confident facilitator.

Most decisions are time-bound, especially during rebellions, so decisions have time limits. Getting clear on the time limit before the meeting and stating it at the start will help the group understand why you’re using a specific decision making process, e.g., “the police will make arrests within 5 minutes, so we’re going to do a majority vote”.

1. Fist to Five

Fist to Five is a decision making process which allows people to state more than yes or no. This is very similar to consent except that people can give more nuanced responses. It’s important to people to be able to express dislike, so we need to give them a way of doing it that's not a block. They can state any of the following options:

Fist-to-Five.png

Explain the instructions very slowly, maybe even twice. Don’t be rushed yourself or people will feel rushed and they don’t like it.

  1. Explain the different response options, i.e., the Fist to Five are (“Instead of asking you to vote yes or no, I want you to hold up a number of fingers:
    • 5 finger if you really like the proposal
    • 4 if you think it’s pretty good
    • 3 if you want to abstain (e.g., “I’m indifferent”)
    • 2 if you have reservations but can live with it going ahead in order to not hold up the group
    • 1 if you have serious concerns, but wouldn’t veto this version of the proposal (see below)
    • Fist if you have a major concern that means you want to veto this version of the proposal. It’s very important to make this clear to the group. Vetoing the proposal should be grounded in a reason ( e.g., violating XR UK’s Principles & Values or someone may get hurt due to the proposal), rather than personal preference (e.g., “I just don’t like it”).
  2. State the threshold at which the proposal will be passed, e.g., “Given that we have 10 more minutes so need to make a decision quickly, the proposal will pass unless someone blocks”. (This sets the threshold for passing the proposal as quite low, so it is quite likely to pass.)
    • If there is a veto or serious concern, you can either ask the person voicing it what they would need to amend to pass the proposal.
    • Ask the proposal/idea/question and record the number of people for each number. Hopefully, major concerns will have been voiced before this stage, but just before asking people to respond remind them that you do want to hear major concerns if anyone has any because then we can amend the proposal to make it better.
    • Alternative option: for a secret ballot you could choose to ask people to close their eyes if they’re comfortable doing so.
    • It's useful to check in if you have large quantities of low numbers - if there isn't a block, but everyone is at 1 finger (they have concerns), then you might want to spend more time thinking about this proposal - if you have time. You could say something like "I'm seeing lots of 1s - can I invite one or two people to speak to why they've given this a 1?" Then use that to decide if we need to resolve something before moving forward.
  3. State the outcome:
    • If there is no block (i.e., a fist) and you’re short on time, consider the proposal passed.
    • If there’s a block, invite that objector(s) to share their reasons, then work with them and the proposer to amend the proposal and ask people to decide on the new version by showing a number again.
    • If you have time, invite those who have expressed serious concerns (1) to share their concerns. If multiple people have serious concerns, it’s worth considering whether to work with the proposer and objector to amend the proposal if possible, as described above.

Pros: Allows for more nuance; people can express that they have a concern but don’t want to block the proposal. Asking for a number can speed things up.

Cons: Need to explain what the numbers mean and people need to remember it so it can be too complicated in time pressured situations. You need to start off with one proposal; this will not work when there are several on the table. Works best with a small group of people, say less than 10.

Thresholds: As the facilitator you can set the threshold; you can declare the decision as passed even if there’s one or two people disagreeing (majority vote situation) or decide to hear from everyone who has a niggling concern. The threshold you choose will depend largely on the time limit and the seriousness of the decision. If people do not agree with the threshold, they will tell you. As a facilitator, it's most important here to keep open and to welcome refinements - not always easy, especially when under pressure.

In the above example, we’ve set the threshold in favour of the proposal passing since it will only be blocked if someone's concerns are so serious they are prepared to veto the proposal. This is deliberate - we want to be biased in favour of taking action and trying things.

However, we also want good proposals, so if you have the time or the decision is very important, consider resolving the issues of those who have serious concerns - the facilitator and group can set the threshold wherever they like.

2. Majority Vote

The group is expected to go with what the majority is in favour of.

  1. Ask the group to raise their hands if they are in favour of the proposal, against it or abstaining (eyes closed for a secret ballot).
  2. Record the number voting for each.
  3. Announce the decision.

Pros: Fast, perfectly fine to use it when a decision needs to be made super rapidly or is inconsequential, e.g., “shall we move to the shade?”. But when the decision will be contentious, Fist to Five would be better. Works well when there are many people. It’s OK to disagree and this method reflects that.

Cons: The minority may be unhappy, feel undervalued and disengage from the group.

3. Temperature Checks

Temperature checks can be seen as a type of voting, but they are usually not taken as a formal decision unless all hands are in the air or the decision is inconsequential (e.g., "should we stay here or move to the shade?”)

  1. Tell people you’re going to do a temperature check and what the response options are: People do jazz hands in the air for yes, and downward jazz hands for no.
  2. Ask the question.
  3. Announce the decision.

Pros: gives a quick idea of how the group feels about something.

Cons: can be ambiguous what it means when people put their hands in the middle, can be hard to look at a crowd and determine how many people are doing each, can be hard to see hands that are down because of people standing in the way.

By asking yes or no (or any question with a binary response), you cut down on the amount of discussion needed. Thinking about the different issues related to the topic and asking a series of binary questions can be useful to get a sense of how the group feels really quickly. It can also be useful to check in with one or two people who indicated that they disagreed so that at least they can feel heard and hopefully be less frustrated.

Comparison between the processes

Below is a table allowing comparison of these three different decision-making processes - Fist to Five, temperature check, and majority voting. The table outlines their details and relative speed to aid you in choosing the right process for a given decision making scenario.

Fist to Five Majority Voting Temperature Check
Number of response options 6 (see section above) 3 (yes, no, abstain) 4 (Agree, not sure, disagree, abstain)
Speed Medium Faster Fast
Strength Allows people to give more nuanced responses & allows proposals to be adjusted into something everyone can live with, rather than just rejected Quick & can be used when there are several options available Quick & can be used when there are several options available
Weakness Slightly more complicated so will take more time to explain Many people may be frustrated Can be ambiguous what hands that are at chest height mean

How do I know what process to use?

There are many different aspects of the decision that may influence which process you want to use. The key ones are:

You can determine what process to use using The Decider App, a website that will ask you questions similar to those above. At the bottom of the start page you can click on the different options and read about each including their pros and cons in detail. You can also see a comparison of decision making processes.

Rapid Decision Making: As a facilitator, you generally don’t want to bring too much of your own input to discussions. But when a decision needs to be made rapidly (usually in a “the police are here and we need to do something quickly” context), facilitators can be quite active in suggesting what to do. So don’t be afraid to make a proposal, ideally by summarising the opinion that has been voiced most frequently and turning it into a proposal. Or after a temperature check on 2-3 proposals you have in mind.

What if I don’t have a proposal?

Some different options to generate ideas include:

What if there are several options?

Are the options mutually exclusive? Could the options be combined? Remember, you may not need the perfect option, but an option that is good enough. If all your options are good enough then see what elements of them could be combined, but it is possibly more important to simply start taking action on one of them. In this situation, if you are stretched thinly, maybe the key criteria is which option will take the least of your limited capacity, or which can be delegated to a volunteer or temporary team.

Keeping track of the different options is essential, but can be difficult, especially when there’s many different variations of the same option. Visual aids can help such as writing it down and labelling them plan A, etc. Although if you refer to it as “Plan A” make sure you’re all on the same page about the plan you’re talking about. Then get people to vote so that you can narrow down the options and explore the top 2 further. Also, consider 'unpacking' exactly what people mean by specific words.

Try asking people to vote for each proposal and use consent based decision making to make sure it’s workable for everyone in the group.

Keeping it Smooth

A good facilitator can help keep the group on track to making a decision that works for everyone in the group. Encourage people to come to the meeting with all the information they need to make a decision. Point out logical fallacies (e.g., “those options are mutually exclusive”) and correct information when you notice it.

Information: Rebellions can be hot beds for rumours. Tensions can run high, people can be on edge which leads to exaggeration, especially when information is being relayed through multiple people. For example, the police changing shift can lead people to jump to conclusions that they are trying to clear the site. Fact check information and don’t share it unless it is from someone you trust personally or you’ve witnessed it directly. As a facilitator, remind the group to make decisions based on the best evidence available rather than hearsay.

Dissent: It’s your job as facilitator to ensure that everyone in the group can share their thoughts, especially the voice of doubt or concern that will probably make the proposal more robust. You can decide to set the threshold for dissent really high (“Does anyone have any major concerns with this proposal?”) or really low (“Does anyone have any little grumblings with this proposal?”). If there are people who you think might have a hard time speaking up, you can set the threshold lower for them. You may also model some dissent yourself so people feel comfortable saying theirs.

External factors make the decision for you: Make sure that the decision being discussed is not already decided by an external factor. For example, during one people’s assembly during a rebellion people spent a long time deciding whether to hold a road overnight or not. Half way through the People’s Assembly, someone asked “Who here is actually willing to sleep in the road tonight?” Two people put up their hands, and so the decision was pointless because there were not enough people willing to do the proposed option.

The key thing here is that if there is work to be done, check that enough people are willing to do it and they are heard on the issue. This should be done during the fact finding stage before you start the decision making process.

Other external factors could be that if we don’t act this minute, the police make the decision for you, so that limits you to choosing options already on the table.

Polar collaboration: Ask those who feel strongly about the issue to work together outside of the meeting and come back to the group with something that works for them. This is useful when there’s a few that care and others that don’t and it saves the latter sitting through those who care thrashing out the details.

Discouraging unnecessary permission seeking: Sometimes people bring a decision to the group that they can actually make themselves because it’s in their role description/mandate. Check whether the decision needs to be made by the group or whether that person can make the decision by themselves - they may still want to hear advice from the group. You don't have to know the mandates exactly, but use your judgement and if in doubt just ask "Are you sure you need a group decision/input on this? Is it a decision you can make within your mandate?"

Amplify: When someone from a traditionally marginalised background makes a contribution it can often be overlooked or repeated by someone else who takes the credit. Accrediting the originator of the idea with their idea can be really helpful to make sure the idea nor the person doesn’t get overlooked. Some facilitators highlight that they are not being strictly fair when it comes to young people for example. They take their points/questions more often and give them more time to speak, and publicly acknowledge that they are doing it and why.

Facilitation leadership: Facilitation leadership is helping the team achieve their purpose and ensuring everyone can contribute so the team can harness its collective wisdom.

Consistency: Although it’s great to rotate representatives and leaders, on the time scale of a rebellion, it can lead to a lack of consistency in who is turning up to meetings and so there’s no capacity to get to know each other and build trust. You could encourage the representatives that do come to site meetings to show up consistently.

Preparing to facilitate: As a facilitator, you need to bring groundedness, fairness, sensitivity to emotions, and wisdom. Yes, that’s a very tall order! If you are to facilitate, try to find some quiet time beforehand to relax a little, look after your needs and ground yourself so you can stay cool and collected and help others do it too.

Framing questions: The direction in which a proposal is made, e.g., "the proposal is that we leave the road" vs "the proposal is that we stay here", can influence the outcome of the decision. People tend to agree with questions and no one wants to be the naysayer (or at least it can be difficult to speak up sometimes), so people will probably tend towards passing the decision. That means you’re more likely to stay if the proposal is that we stay where you are, and more likely to go if the proposal is to leave. There’s not much that can be done here because there’s no neutral framing in this example, but it’s something to be aware of.

Acknowledgement: This text is derived from an earlier document, Guide to Decision Making on the Streets.