An objection is an argument – relating to a proposal, existing decision, or activity being conducted by one or more members of the organization – that reveals consequences or risks that are preferably avoided for the organization or that demonstrates worthwhile ways to improve.

You can think of objections as a simple tool for harvesting distributed intelligence and improving decision-making.

By surfacing objections, teams tap into the collective wisdom of the organization and increase the chances of success. Objections serve as critical feedback mechanisms, helping ensure that decisions are optimized as much as possible and align with achieving the organization’s short-term and long-term goals.

The purpose of seeking out and resolving objections to proposals and policies is to ensure that, as far as can be determined, there are no known or anticipated undesirable consequences or risks associated with proceeding in that way. It also serves as a means of checking for potential improvements where the cost and effort of implementing them would likely be worthwhile.

Be aware that withholding objections can harm the ability of individuals, teams, or the whole organization to achieve their objectives. In practice, this means that people need to feel safe and empowered to express potential objections and concerns.

In an organization that is following the Principle of Consent, it’s the responsibility of individuals to raise possible objections to proposals, existing decisions, including policies, and activity, if and when they become aware of them, with those who are directly responsible for the decision or activity in question. In turn, those responsible need to consider the arguments and address the ones that qualify as objections. This ensures that new and relevant information that emerges is taken into account.

Objections prevent proposals, decisions, or activities from being implemented or continued until the arguments raised have been consciously considered and a clear decision is made in light of the information revealed.

When reflecting on whether or not you have any objections to a proposal, decision, or activity, consider the following questions:

  • How would continuing in this way fail to adequately respond to the driver or effectively fulfill the requirement that the proposal, decision, or activity is meant to address? (effectiveness)
  • How would continuing in this way lead to undesirable consequences or risks in the same domain, in the wider organization, or beyond? (side-effects)
  • How would continuing in this way lead to waste or miss out on worthwhile ways to improve? (efficiency)

Note: A worthwhile improvement is one where the cost of making that improvement, in terms of the time, effort, and resources it would require, is considered to be less than the expected gains. In other words, the improvement should provide a net positive value to the organization.

Aim for “Good Enough for Now and Safe Enough to Try” Decisions.

Creating a culture where people feel comfortable raising possible objections enables you to harness a diversity of perspectives and broaden your own. This culture of openness ensures that critical perspectives are not overlooked, which can otherwise hinder progress. If no one has an objection or if arguments that qualify as objections have been resolved, a decision can be considered good enough for now and safe enough to try.

In the case of complex matters, striving for a perfect decision is futile. Complex systems are unpredictable, and what seems like a perfect solution may turn out to be unsuitable, not work in practice, or quickly become outdated. Approach decision-making iteratively and incrementally to encourage people to try things out instead of attempting to anticipate and account for all possibilities in advance.

A regular cadence for evaluating significant decisions (policies) and deliberately checking for objections to continuing with a decision unchanged provides further opportunities to identify ways to improve them. It helps people to relax into making decisions that are good enough for now and safe enough to try, encourages experimentation, and supports the practice of evolving decisions based on learning over time. (see Evaluate and Evolve Policies)

Concerns

Not all arguments raised are objections, but they might reveal concerns.

A concern is an assumption that cannot (for now at least) be backed up by reasoning or enough evidence to qualify as an objection to those who are considering it.

Concerns don’t prevent proposals from being accepted; only objections do. Nevertheless, considering people’s concerns can provide insight into how to further evolve proposals, existing decisions, and activities, including revealing ways to change things to alleviate those concerns. For policies, this may include adding further evaluation criteria or adjusting the frequency of evaluation.

In any case, it’s valuable to bring up a concern if you think it’s worthwhile to consider. However, determining whether an argument is an objection or a concern is sometimes dependent on context. Therefore, if you are in doubt about whether you have an objection or a concern, be proactive and check with others to see what they think too (see Test Arguments Qualify as Objections.