There are five core ways teams make decisions.

• Autocratic: One person decides. Fast, clear, and efficient -- especially in crisis -- but risks overlooking diverse input.
• Consultative: One person decides after seeking others' input. Balances speed with some inclusivity, but ultimate power stays with one.
• Democratic: Everyone votes, majority wins. Simple and fair on the surface, but often leaves out nuance and can divide a group.
• Consent: A decision moves forward unless someone has a reasoned objection. Not everyone must agree -- just no one has a strong “no.” This balances forward motion with shared responsibility.
• Consensus: Everyone must agree before moving forward. When done well, it creates deep alignment. When done poorly, it leads to endless discussion and gridlock.

Too often, teams default to either autocracy, missing the wisdom in the room -- or chase consensus, getting stuck in endless loops. Both extremes ignore the real range of decision-making tools available.

The truth is: decision-making can be tailored. There are dozens of methods that can be adapted to your team, your context, and the nature of the decision. Matching the method to the moment is a skill -- and a strategic advantage.

This tool exists to help teams navigate those choices. It offers a clearer path to more inclusive, efficient, and ultimately wiser decisions.

Some technicalities

Behind every decision method, there's structure. This tool maps out that structure -- so you can choose a method that fits your moment, not just your habits.

Here are the factors we track:

• Group size: Every method has a practical upper limit. Go past it, and things slow down fast.
• Information spread: Is key knowledge centralized, shared across a few, or scattered widely? Some methods work best when the group has balanced visibility.
• Duration: How long will this take, end-to-end? Some methods move in minutes. Others need more time to land well.
• Trust level: How much trust exists at the start? Some approaches can handle tension. Others assume cohesion.
• Conflict risk: Will the process leave people behind? We flag the risk of unresolved tension or minority dissatisfaction.
• Pre-existing tension: Some methods thrive in friction. Others don’t.
• Expertise concentration: Is the know-how in one head, spread unevenly, or shared broadly? Different distributions call for different facilitation.
• Innovation vs optimization: Are you creating something new -- or refining what’s already working? The method should match the goal.
• Problem clarity: Is the issue clear and known -- or ambiguous and emerging? Clarity shapes method fit.
• Tooling/setup: Some methods need only a whiteboard. Others need shared documents, facilitation tech, or structured environments.
• Process cost: A quick glance score that blends duration, effort, and setup.
• Urgency: How much time do you have before a decision is due? Some methods flex; others don’t.
• Criticality: What's at stake if you get it wrong? High-consequence calls need methods that deepen alignment.
• Collaboration mode: Are you in the room, online together, or asynchronous? Each mode shapes what will work well.
• Diversity / power spread: The more varied the roles or seniority, the more bias-aware your process needs to be.
• Follow-up support: Some methods stop at the decision. Others bake in momentum to act.

We don’t expect you to memorize all this. But we do think it’s time decision-making got the same design care as strategy or product. These factors help surface what fits, what doesn’t -- and what might work better than defaulting to the usual.