Shared Decision Making Is Not About Including Everyone in Everything

There’s a misunderstanding about shared decision making that I want to gently push back on, because I think it creates unnecessary resistance from school leaders who would otherwise be strong at it.

Shared decision making does not mean every person votes on every decision. It does not mean nothing can happen without unanimous buy-in. It does not mean consensus as the only acceptable outcome.

What it actually means is that the people affected by a decision had a real chance to be heard before the decision was finalized. That’s a much more achievable standard. And it’s a meaningful one.

When teachers feel like their voice had genuine influence on something that affects their daily work, they bring a fundamentally different energy to implementing it. They own it because they helped shape it. When they feel like decisions arrive from the top as fully formed mandates, even good decisions land with resistance because the relational component was missing.

The other piece that leaders often underestimate is the importance of explaining the rationale behind noncollaborative decisions. When something cannot be opened for broad input because of timing, policy, or district direction, saying that clearly and honestly is not weakness. It’s transparency. And transparency maintains trust even when the process wasn’t shared.

What I encourage leaders to do is be explicit with their teams about which decisions are collaborative and which ones aren’t. Name it before the meeting starts. “This one I’m bringing to you for real input before we move forward.” Or: “This one has been decided at the district level, and I want to share the context so we can talk about how we implement it well.” Those two very different statements both build trust, in different ways, because both of them treat teachers like adults.