[Infographic] New Core Model - The Four Types of Group Decision Making

General
1

Over the weekend I finally answered a question I had been wrestling with for a long time. “What are the different types of group decision making processes?” I knew that Holacracy’s gov meeting process and its emphasis on consent was critically different than say, consensus seeking (here is my article on that), but I really didn’t have a satisfactory answer for what are the essential differences. I’ve got a lot to say about it, but here is a simple version (I was playing around with chatgpt to see if it could help me generate infographics generally, and this was the result).

This feels important as possibly another core model of the theory/system/approach along side 1) the structure system (the 4 E’s), and the 4 types of structure (value, rule, guideline, and law).

Caveat (1)
Caveat (1)889×2000 141 KB

2

Example Solutions the Four-Type Model Provides

1. Clarifies what a real decision-process is

  • Separates true decision-making (Unilateral, Permission, Voting, Consensus) from informational steps (polling, discussion, research).
  • Eliminates confusion between influence and authority.

2. Explains why new governance experiments (e.g., DAOs, Holacracy) struggle

  • Shows that many experiments operationalize only one type (usually Voting) and neglect others (Unilateral, Permission, Consensus).
  • Identifies missing decision structures early.

3. Reveals why “flat” or consensus-driven groups often collapse into dysfunction

  • Diagnoses when groups confuse emotional alignment with structural Consensus or Permission.
  • Helps prevent slow drift, hidden power plays, or group paralysis.

4. Provides a simple lens for designing or repairing group decision systems

  • Allows groups to consciously assign the right decision-process to the right kind of decision (e.g., Unilateral for emergencies, Consensus for founding principles).
  • Enables faster, cleaner governance architecture.

5. Prevents costly misalignment between decision type and decision context

  • Avoids bottlenecking operational action with Voting.
  • Avoids damaging legitimacy by using Unilateral authority for governance changes without consent.

6. Universalizes group decision understanding across scale, culture, and technology

  • Works for ancient tribes, modern corporations, blockchain DAOs, sci-fi alien federations — everywhere people need to make collective decisions.
  • Provides a stable foundation for future governance innovation.