Decisions in the Family

Hey everybody!

In this post, I'll be discussing communication and decision making in the family. This is a rather sensitive discussion, and I want to be upfront in that I'm no expert on the matter. I have no spouse or family of my own to make decisions with. I don't even know if I've ever seen family decision making modeled in a healthy manner.

That said, I think it's a very important subject to research, discuss, and prepare for long before we ever reach the point where we need to make "big decisions" as a family. We shouldn't procrastinate setting out a pattern of communication until we face conflicts from its deficit, and it's a wise idea to consider how a couple, family, or individual will aim to make decisions before they face a crisis that tries their abilities. So, I'll be sharing my opinions here. These might not all be well researched, so take them as they are: the hesitant musings of a beginning student of Family Science. If I say anything you'd like to expound upon, or anything that's blatantly false, don't hesitate to share your thoughts in the comments!

So, with that introduction, here we go!

There are several different models of family decision making. The ultimate goal of all such models is to meet the needs of all family members in as harmonious a manner as possible. Unfortunately, not all of these are particularly healthy or helpful in meeting this objective. But for the family unit to succeed, families do need to consider the needs of all family members, and doing so necessarily involves taking their input with regard to important decisions.

One such questionable tactic is familiar to all of us; in it, a dominant member makes the majority of decisions for the family, and their more submissive counterparts go along with them. De jure and de facto varieties of this system abound in society. In many cases one partner, for reasons regarding religion, tradition, habit, or prior agreement believes that it is not their place to question their partner's opinions. This partner regularly defers to the opinion of his/her spouse, even when doing so involves ignoring their own needs or wishes.

For instance, I was interviewing my mother regarding her parenting style as a project for one of my classes. She mentioned that, early into her marriage, she felt that in scenarios where she disagreed with her spouse regarding the discipline of her children, it was her job as a wife to defer to his opinion. At the time, this model seemed to align with her religious beliefs regarding the nature of the family. However, such a model caused her serious grief and pain. Even when the submitting partner fully supports their spouse in a leadership role, the family is inherently worse off, as the decisions made by the dominant member will lack the wisdom of their spouse, and their spouse cannot have the same commitment to or vision of the decision as they would if they were a part of the process.

Even in situations where such systems aren't required by our rules or beliefs, but too frequently become habitual in relationships where one partner is highly agreeable. When we talked about decision making in class, many students expressed that they preferred to defer to their partner when making decisions--not because they felt they were required to submit, but because they felt doing so would make their partner happy, avoid contention, and let them get to a decision quicker. In many situations, the partner who is more ardent about or attached to their ideas gets their way in most situations. Although the partner who backs down might do so in the name of peace, this situation too often leads to strife like that found in scenarios where compliance is demanded. Their needs are ignored by their partner, not out of malice or tyranny, but because their partner forgets about their needs.

In an effort to avoid scenarios in which one partner makes the decisions, many couples nowadays make decisions via compromise. In a compromise, the needs and wants of both parties are considered together, and they try to find some middle ground, where both can get something of what they want while sacrificing as little as possible. Such a compromise might take the following form: when Jim and Rachel are discussing who's family to spend Christmas with, they decide to visit Rachel's home this year, but to go with Jim's first pick of vacation place to make it up to him. Or they might decide to spend Christmas with Rachel's parents, but New Years with Jim's.

While such systems make an effort to see everyone's needs, and sometimes lead to creative conflict management, they have some significant disadvantages. First, no matter how creative they are in reaching a solution, too often either Jim or Rachel will feel shortchanged, if not both of them. This can lead to lingering dissatisfaction in the marriage. Second, compromises take the form of a business negotiation, and one partner might frequently get their way more than the other due to better negotiation skills.

Most importantly, in my opinion, systems relying on compromise frame a marital relationships as a series of transactions. They encourage us to keep a tally of the needs we express and concede to for the sole purpose of using them against our partner. We start seeing the times where we cater to the needs of our partner as a bargaining chip rather than an act of love for them. Many marriages today fail because couples feel that they are receiving less than they give to a relationship. While it might seem that this would be helped by keeping track of each partner's contributions, I fear that a focus on give-and-take might bring these issues further into the limelight and make them further points of contention.

Which leads to the last model I'll discuss. Consensus differs from both single-partner leadership and compromise in that both partners have an equal say, but there is no emphasis on the history of give-and-take. In consensus, partners continue discussing the issue until they both agree on what should be done, or put it on a table for another time. This concept seems to be more ideal than reality in most cases, and maybe it is. It seems ridiculous to strive to reach consensus in all matters, such as what to eat every night or the division of household chores. In such situations, a compromise might be acceptable.

However, in the bigger decisions, such as where to move, the birth and rearing of children, and treatment of debt, both partners have incredible investment. A compromise in such situations just won't cut it. I think we would strive to reach a decision where we all agree on what is to be done in these circumstances, if at all possible. It is only achievable when both partners communicate openly, without veiled hurt or agendas, and in an effort to understand the others so to learn what is best for the family. 

My professor shared one process of arriving at consensus that he has used in his marriage and church organizations. While he's a man of faith, and this is a faith-based process, he claims he's seen it work for all his secular clients who try it.

By this model, participants meet in an appointed, private place. They then begin the meeting by expressing love and appreciation for one another in an open and true manner. After assuring each of the other participants of their love, they begin their discussion. Each person takes a turn, and expresses what they perceive is in the best interest of the family (or organization), free to disagree as openly as they want with another. They keep going, round and around, each taking their turn to talk and listening to the concerns of others. Rather than seeking to refute their points, they try to understand them, always with the agenda of learning what's best for the family.

They continue speaking until they've all agreed upon a course of action. Sometimes, this doesn't happen despite consistent effort, and they put the matter aside for further reflection. If they have come to a decision they believe is right, they then kneel in prayer, and ask if their decision is the right thing to do. If all parties then feel this is the right thing to do, they proceed, praying for help to accomplish it. Otherwise, they discuss it further or leave it to another day.

As I've mentioned before, I'm not married, nor do I head a business or a family of my own. However, ultimately, I seek for consensus above compromise. I don't know how frequently this can be realized. However, I think it's most likely to occur when everyone abandons a exchange mentality, lays aside their own agendas, and openly discusses what would be in the best interest of the organization. But what do you think? Is such unity possible to attain in our organizations? Can we really attain unity without it? I'd love to hear your thoughts and experiences!

Photo by Cytonn Photography on Unsplash