Integrative Decision-Making
Integrative Decision-Making is the fixed sequence of rounds that Holacracy uses in governance meetings to decide on a proposal about roles and policies. A proposer brings a tension and a proposal to resolve it; the proposal is adopted as soon as nobody raises an objection that meets defined criteria, and objections that do are integrated by amending the proposal rather than by voting. The process is set out in the Holacracy Constitution, originally developed by Brian Robertson and HolacracyOne.
Facilitation script
- 1
Present proposal. The proposer states the tension with a real example and reads the proposal; the wording is captured where all can see it.
3 min - 2
Clarifying questions. Take questions one at a time and cut off anything that is an opinion in disguise.
5 min - 3
Reaction round. Go around once, proposer excluded, one uninterrupted reaction per person.
5 min - 4
Option to clarify. The proposer responds if they wish and amends the wording; nobody else speaks.
2 min - 5
Objection round. Ask each person in turn for objections. Test concerns against the criteria and write valid objections next to the proposal.
5 min - 6
Integration. Work through the objections one by one, amend the proposal, check with objector and proposer, then run the objection round again on the new wording.
10 min
Tips
Hold the rounds strictly; nearly all of the method's speed comes from the fact that nobody debates during questions and reactions.
When testing a concern, ask the objector how it meets each criterion and judge only whether they give a reasoned argument, not whether you agree with it.
Keep reminding the group that the test is whether the proposal causes harm, not whether a better proposal exists, since it can be changed again at the next meeting.
Common pitfalls
Allowing discussion during clarifying questions or reactions, after which the meeting is an ordinary debate with extra steps and takes longer than one
Treating 'I have a better idea' or 'I do not like it' as an objection; the proposal then never passes and the proposer's original tension goes unresolved
A facilitator who rules on whether an objection is correct rather than whether it was argued against the criteria, which turns the facilitator into the decision-maker
Rewriting the proposal during integration until it serves the objector and no longer resolves the proposer's tension
Introducing the process to a team with the full Holacracy vocabulary and no explanation, so people experience the strict rounds as being silenced and disengage
Variations
The Holacracy Constitution also lets a proposer circulate a proposal in writing outside a meeting; it is adopted once every circle member confirms they have no objection, and unresolved objections go to a meeting. Elections for certain roles use a separate Integrative Election Process. Teams that do not run Holacracy sometimes borrow the round structure for policy decisions, in which case the role-based objection criteria need to be restated in terms the team actually uses. Sociocratic consent decision-making is a close relative with a looser test for objections.
Where it fits
When to use it
A team member has a concrete problem with how a role, responsibility or standing rule is defined and has a specific change to propose
Decisions about team structure regularly end in long discussions that are settled by whoever is most senior or most persistent
The group wants decisions that are safe enough to try and easy to revise, rather than ones everybody loves
A self-managing team needs a repeatable process for changing its own rules without a manager acting as tie-breaker
Quieter members rarely get heard in open debate and a strict turn-taking format would change that
When not to use it
Nobody has a proposal yet and the group needs to explore the problem; use a dialogue or ideation format first and bring a proposal afterwards
The decision is a choice among several options to be ranked, such as a tool or a vendor; a Decision Matrix or Dot Voting fits that shape
The group has no shared definition of roles and purpose, so the objection criteria cannot be applied as written; sociocratic Consent Decision-Making works with a simpler test
One person holds the authority and will decide regardless; say so and run a consultation instead, for example with Delegation Poker to make the decision level explicit
No one in the room is practised in facilitating it; an untrained attempt on a contentious proposal tends to collapse into debate and discredit the process
Related methods
Frequently asked questions
What is Integrative Decision-Making?▾
Integrative Decision-Making is the process Holacracy uses to decide on proposals in governance meetings. It moves through fixed rounds: present proposal, clarifying questions, reaction round, option to clarify, objection round and integration. A proposal is adopted when no valid objection remains.
What counts as a valid objection?▾
Under the Holacracy Constitution, the objector must give a reasoned argument that the proposal would reduce the circle's capacity to do its work, that it would limit the objector's ability to carry out one of their own roles, that the problem is created by the proposal and does not already exist without it, and that the harm would necessarily occur or could not be corrected in time. A concern that the proposal breaks a rule of the Constitution always counts. Preferences and alternative ideas do not.
How is it different from consensus?▾
Consensus looks for agreement; this process looks for the absence of reasoned objections. People do not have to like the proposal, they have to be unable to show that it causes harm. That lowers the bar for trying something and shifts effort from persuading everyone to fixing specific problems.
How long does one proposal take?▾
The Constitution sets no timings. In practice a clear proposal with no objections can pass in around 15 minutes, and one with several objections to integrate may take 40 minutes or more. These figures are a planning estimate, not part of the method.
Can a team use it without adopting Holacracy?▾
Teams do borrow the sequence of rounds for decisions about their own rules. The objection criteria refer to circles, roles and purpose as Holacracy defines them, so a team without those needs to agree its own plain-language version of the test first. Using the process this way does not make a team a Holacracy organisation.
Plan your next workshop with AI
Workshop Weaver helps you combine methods like Integrative Decision-Making into a complete, timed agenda in minutes.
Try it freeMethod descriptions on Workshop Weaver are original content written by our team, based on established facilitation practices. This method was inspired by work from Holacracy Constitution (Brian Robertson / HolacracyOne).