Run a group decision process when stakeholders genuinely disagree
A decision with real disagreement underneath it needs a process, not just a meeting where the loudest opinion wins.
- Outcome
- A decision that surfaces the real disagreement (not just its surface arguments), weighs it against a shared set of criteria, and closes with an outcome each stakeholder can see the reasoning behind, even if they'd have chosen differently.
- Time
- 2-4 hours across sessions, spread over the time stakeholders need to engage
This workflow is part of PromptKit Pro
A handful of prompts and workflows stay free for everyone — Pro unlocks the full library, including this one, plus the guided runner.
Group decisions with genuine disagreement underneath them often get resolved by whoever has the most authority or is most persistent in the room, which leaves real disagreement unaddressed and likely to resurface later as quiet resistance. This playbook surfaces what stakeholders actually disagree about underneath their surface arguments, builds shared criteria before anyone advocates for an option, and closes with a decision whose reasoning every stakeholder can see, even those who'd have chosen differently.
When not to use this
If there's genuine consensus already, or the decision is low-stakes enough that speed matters more than buy-in, this process is overkill — just decide. This is for decisions where real, defensible disagreement exists and the outcome matters enough to get buy-in right.
Did this work?
Every stakeholder can articulate why the decision was made, even the ones who would have chosen differently — not just accept it because someone with authority decided.
Tested on claude-opus-5. Evidence status is draft; it moves to battle-tested only on recorded runs, never by hand.