Ranked Voting: A Powerful Tool for Better Decisions (Facilitation Friday #45)
Ranked voting and prioritization exercises promote more equitable and inclusive input that often leads to more thoughtful decision-making.
Making quality decisions often is easier if everyone involved agrees on and applies the same criteria for evaluating options. But individuals can still differ in how much weight they might assign each criterion or other ratings or assessments they might make.
Ranked voting or ranked-choice voting helps surface these different perspectives in a productive and nonthreatening manner as can other prioritization exercises. More robust input and discussion generally increases the quality of the decisions made and/or the ownership those involved feel for the final decision.
What is a ranked (or ranked-choice) voting exercise?
A typical ranked voting exercise first asks individuals to complete their own ranking or assessment from a list of options provided. Each person selects one option for each rank as in this example.
Responses are then explored, either informally or in a more structured manner.
Informal open-ended sharing: “Let’s start by having everyone share what they rated as #1.”
Formal or structured sharing:“Let’s determine the average rating for each criterion by having people share how they rated it.”
An online tool such as RankedVote can facilitate anonymous voting and quick aggregation of individuals’ choices.
Similar to political elections, a group could decide to use an initial round of ranked voting to narrow the number of options, advancing to a second voting round only those options crossing a specified threshold.
Facilitated discussion follows voting rounds in order to achieve a group ranking that reflects the consensus of all involved.
Remember, consensus does not mean everyone shares the same level of enthusiasm for a decision. It generally means people can live with the decision. Consensus is not the best standard for decisions that require greater enthusiasm and commitment.
When might you use a ranking or prioritization activity?
I generally use a ranking or prioritization exercise for strategic questions for which a clear, objective, and decisive right answer does not exist. The format helps group members share their subjective perspectives and generate a group answer that is sufficiently “right” for their efforts and needs.
Example:
A committee is developing the rating criteria for a new award. Each committee member is asked to submit two possible criteria. A list of all criteria submitted is then distributed. Each committee member reviews the complete list, identifies the top ten they think should be used to evaluate award nominees, and ranks the ten in order of importance. Individual ratings are shared and discussed until the group determines the final award criteria and any assigned weights.
Prioritization exercises also are useful for teambuilding as they stimulate thoughtful and purposeful discussions. I’m amazed at the number of people who have experienced one of the many ranked-choice survival exercises used in leadership workshops and retreats: eat the tuna sandwich first! IYKYK.
Here is a sample prioritization exercise you can use, one I created to help groups assess where their organization is most failing volunteers, a discussion that could be awkward or politically charged. It includes facilitator instructions, a short essay participants read prior to doing their ratings, and the ranking worksheet.
What are the key benefits of these approaches?
Ranked voting or prioritization exercises have many benefits, including:
Fostering greater equity and inclusion through use of individual ratings before a group decision is reached;
Increasing the likelihood that outlier or minority perspectives are considered;
Selecting from among many quality options for which no one choice is obvious;
Making it easier for decisions to be made by introducing minimal structure to a somewhat open-ended question;
Minimizing the odds that the personal persuasion capabilities of one or more individuals can easily dominate or overpower the group; and
Introducing a quantitative element to a qualitative decision-making process.
Ranking exercises include two stages: (1) asynchronous completion of individual rankings and (2) synchronous discussion to determine group consensus. If desired, individual rankings could be submitted in advance of the second stage with a compilation of those ratings distributed as pre-work for the synchronous discussion.
What is the facilitator’s role?
It can vary. If the primary outcome is to reach a consensus decision, opt for normal facilitator involvement in managing the conversational process.
But if an additional outcome is to strengthen self-management and/or teamwork among the group, I often let participants facilitate their own process to reach a group consensus, simply giving them the instructions and timeframe to complete their task and being available for support and questions as they do so.
Once they are done, I assume a more active facilitation role, inviting them to individually reflect on the experience and what lessons can be learned from their collaborative conversations. I then facilitate open discussion of their self-assessment and help them hone in on what worked well and should be leveraged and what they might need or want to do differently.
What are other ways to use rankings or prioritization exercises?
These approaches are multi-purpose and adaptable, but like any tool or exercise, use them only when it will make it easier to achieve desired outcomes. I often consider them when trying to help a group:
Hone in on the most relevant trends that should inform their strategic planning efforts.
Select the most desirable partners or collaborators for an initiative.
Determine objectives or activities to prioritize from a lengthy list of desirable options.
Identify how to invest limited resources among an array of programmatic possibilities.
Create the list of required criteria for positions in the organization, be they volunteer or compensated.
Bottom line?
Facilitators need a variety of tools, techniques, approaches, and formats to help groups efficiently surface and honor individual perspectives, as well as effectively generate quality decisions. Ranked voting or prioritization exercises help do so and are easily customized to help achieve different outcomes in meetings or workshops.
Getting in Action
Identify when and how you might effectively use ranked-choice voting or a prioritization exercise in a meeting or workshop.
Consider those you facilitate most often. What might they like/not like about ranked voting or a prioritization exercise? How might your session design account for these potential reactions?
Picture yourself facilitating a discussion of individual responses from one of these approaches. What group dynamics might you need to prepare to handle and how might you do so?
© Facilitate Better and Jeffrey Cufaude. All rights reserved.
To affordably license this content for reprint on your site or in electronic or print communications or to contact me regarding customized facilitation skills workshops or consultations, complete this form.