Making decisions in agile teams - beyond the consensus principle

Modern, self-organized teams are expected to make decisions independently. The idea: decisions should be made close to the market, close to the customer. But what does this mean in practice? Who decides exactly what? When and how? And ultimately, who is accountable for the outcomes?

From my experience working with teams, I often observe a strong reliance on consensus. Everyone should agree, and everyone should somehow be involved. However, finding solutions to tricky decisions by consensus is rare. What does this lead to?

Many teams believe the main goal is for everyone to have a say. But participation alone does not ensure good decisions. The critical factor is to reach clear, sustainable decisions — and at a pace that fits the situation.

Clarity is key: Decisions can only be made clearly and implemented effectively if everyone involved is aware of what exactly needs to be decided, who makes the decision, what procedure is used to make the decision and what a good time frame is. This clarity helps teams remain operational, even in uncertainty.

These four questions help create structure:

When key questions like "Who decides?" or "How do we decide?" remain unanswered, uncertainty spreads. People hold back — not out of laziness, but out of justified caution regarding unclear consequences. Those who experience a decision being overturned later will likely become more reluctant to engage next time.

At the same time, unspoken dynamics influence decisions: louder voices prevail, those already holding informal power subtly assert themselves. This can lead to simmering tensions that erode trust and impair team effectiveness over time.

Importantly: clarifying decisions doesn’t mean overformalizing everything. It’s not about rigid rules for every scenario but creating shared understanding — about roles, expectations, and decision-making logic.

Clear decision processes strengthen team ownership. They also relieve leaders from having to make every decision themselves. And they accelerate implementation because the framework is clear and uncertainty is reduced.

It’s helpful for organizations and teams to reflect: what decision-making approach fits our context? Not every decision is the same. Particularly for big or difficult decisions, early clarification pays off.

Several factors help determine the appropriate method:

But which method is right for which situation? A look at the differences helps.

The following diagram shows various decision-making processes along two dimensions:

How decentralized is the decision-making power? And: How quickly can decisions be made?

Depending on the situation, either participation or speed may be more important. As the visualization shows, consensus and autocracy (individual decision) are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Consensus and democratic decision-making processes offer a balance between participation and speed, while consultative processes and delegation are fast but centralize the decision more. The challenge is to choose the appropriate process depending on the situation.

How are decisions made in your team? Where would you place your team on the decentralization vs. speed spectrum? Are your processes aligned with what your context actually demands?

Not every decision needs consensus. Not every decision should be made by one person. The key question is not: What is the right way to decide? but rather: What is the appropriate way to decide in this situation?

Consensus is not a cure-all. If you want effective decision-making, you need a clear decision-making framework — and the ability to flexibly choose the right method based on the situation.

My impulse for you: Create transparency around your decision-making processes. Clear decision-making fosters not only flow but also ownership.

Looking to bring more clarity into your team’s decisions? I’m here to help — with sparring, workshops, or simply a fresh perspective. Drop me a message, and let’s see how we can work together.