This is either the whole organisation or only a part, e.g. the department in which I am a member.
The decision is made through some form of voting/election.
In the decision-making procedures of this method, the alternatives are fixed in the sense that they are not adjusted. There is no modification based on objections. Usually the topic creator already has several ideas for the solution but wants the group to decide which of the solutions it should be.
For the voting, rating scales can be used that are defined positively (what do I find supportive?) or negatively (where do I feel resistance?) or a combination of both (e.g. with double weighting of rejection).
If an individual veto is allowed in the voting procedure, one can at least assume a “GrundkonsenT”, since alternatives that lie outside the tolerance range of individuals are eliminated (see also resistance query). If veto options for the group are built into the voting procedure (so-called quorums, see below), the advocacy is qualitatively secured. Both are rather unusual in this method, but possible.
The method is particularly suitable for fixed, atomic alternatives that can be ordered (scales). It is the method for classical personal choices. Examples: - Where are we going to have lunch today? - How much money do we want to spend on …? (vlg. “What do we invest in?” in kG) - How cold do you like your drinks? - How many people should we invite? - Who should … do?
Examples of quorums: