Glassfrog is the tool you'll most often use to check where decision-making authority sits.
Our Constitution (read a summary of it here) lays out our high level decision-making rules. In specific circumstances where we can't resolve organisational issues using the Constitution, the Mission Circle is legally required to rely on the rules in our Articles of Association.
The diagram below (click to zoom in) is a broad guide to handling different decisions.
Governance decisions are where we define the Roles that exist in ATT, what work we expect them to do, and how we expect them to do it. Our Governance is documented in Glassfrog.
We use a Governance process to help us get clear on the work we expect from each other. For example, if you need to get clear on who's expected to maintain the website, you'd sort that out through the Governance process.
As a Role-holder you can use the Governance process to make proposals that will make life easier for your Roles. You can also weigh in on others' proposals so they're less likely to harm your Roles.
In Governance, we advocate for the needs of our Role(s) and Circle, not our personal needs. Don't worry, we have other pathways for personal stuff! For example check out How We Do Care, Connection & Support.
Read more about Governance in Article 5 of the Constitution.
Operational decisions are the decisions we make in our everyday work.
When filling a Role at ATT, you have authority to take any action or make any decision to enact your Role’s Purpose or Accountabilities, as long as you don't break a rule defined in the Constitution, or violate a Policy. View your roles in Glassfrog.
Some useful principles:
We don't (usually) ask for permission. We distribute decision-making authority to individual Roles. We trust Role-holders' best judgment. You only need permission if it's specified by a policy or the Constitution. That said, use common sense - it's still often useful to check in with people.
We use the Advice Process. We tend to consult experts and people who might be impacted before deciding stuff. This is especially true when a decision might be harder to reverse, or when it might have a bigger impact.
We use group processes only when needed. Sometimes you need deeper input or enthusiasm from others for a decision to be effective. In these cases, it's useful to gather people's input and check for objections. This takes more time but is often worth it.
We don't (usually) seek consensus. Not everyone has to agree on stuff. We usually look to make decisions that are good enough for now and safe enough to try.
We use different approaches in different contexts. Sometimes we need to be super sure we've made the right decision, so we take more time and involve more people. If time is short, we might delegate decisions to an expert, a sub-committee or an online poll. We adapt to the situation.
Delve deeper into making everyday decisions with Manuel Küblböck's article How we make decentralized decisions.
Do you want to make sure your decisions get traction with the group and actually get implemented? Read Mark Westcombe's write-up on Consulting About Decisions.
If you have a suggestion to improve this page, click here.
