SchellingPoint's research into hundreds of group decisions identified a previously unseen critical error in conventional stakeholder analysis — one that causes 83% of group opinions to be unvalidated, quality-failed inputs.
For millennia, man believed the Earth was flat. Based on the visible horizon they could see. And the assumption that Gods were above the earth, looking down on it.
In the 20th century, group decision-making evolved as an academic discipline. Stakeholder Interviews and Analysis was created to understand the decision-maker's opinions. The process was elegantly simple: identify the stakeholders, ask them each a set of questions, study the responses, draw conclusions, design the meeting agenda, facilitate goals and enabling actions, implement. The stakeholders arrive at the target destination as planned.
Though few do. Very few get close to on-benefit, on-time, and on-cost.
Stakeholder Interviews and Analysis was founded on a core underlying assumption: stakeholders are authorities. What they say can be trusted. When a stakeholder expresses an opinion in their interview, it is assumed they know best. The other stakeholders would agree if presented with the opinion. Wouldn't they?
Over the past decade, hundreds of groups allowed us to evaluate their stakeholders' opinions. Fortune 50 leadership teams, government agencies, academia, NGOs, not-for-profits, global coalitions, and others across all walks of life. Strategies, policies, process improvements, programs, transformations, changes, innovations, mergers, alliances. Tens of thousands of executives, leaders, managers, consultants, and policy makers. We anonymously shared each stakeholder's opinions with their peers. And invited them to privately agree or disagree.
On average, groups agreed with only 17% of their peers' opinions. There was disagreement with 83% of them.
How can that be if those invited into the decision-making process are authorities and subject matter experts expressing what is correct? What does this mean for the validity of the goals and actions that emanated from an analysis of opinions with 17% agreement and 83% disagreement?
Technically, until the interviewer reconciles the disagreement in that 83%, they are invalid inputs — not fit for use. Quality-failed decision raw material.
The goals and actions are always rational and logical. Usually compelling, too. But inaccurate. The group's decision is a False Positive — that if implemented perfectly, would take them to the wrong place. But rarely can be implemented, because the 83% underlying disagreement was left unreconciled. Everything was based upon an inaccurate portrayal of reality.
For the sample groups to create an accurate picture, we developed two analysis frames — GUBA and OIS. On average, these identified 54% of the 83% of disagreed opinions as important enough to reconcile. Of these, groups validated 59% — those who disagreed switched to agree. But they also invalidated 41%, including opinions whose own source stakeholders ultimately rejected. All done anonymously, so no one lost face.
A set of validated stakeholder opinions yields a materially different set of goals and actions to those derived from a non-validated set. The assumption that stakeholder opinions are sufficiently correct for interviewers to use them untested is invalid. So, for group decision-making, we have resigned Stakeholder Interviews and Analysis to history.
This is Part 1 of a three-part series on Group Decision Strength.
