Use inclusive approaches for decision-making

Quick Actions

Don’t let only the loudest or most frequent speakers decide for the whole group.
Set clear goals for each discussion so the same people don’t always dominate.
Step in politely if someone talks too long or takes more than their turn. You can use timers or follow up individually.
Use tools that let people vote or give input online, not just in the meeting. Polls allow voting without pressure. Make sure any use of polls is tested for accessibility first.
Give extra time for people to think and respond, especially in global or multilingual groups.
If time permits, make use of silent-brainstorming. Let everyone write ideas first, then share. This avoids only loud voices being heard.
Make use of small group discussions. Break into small groups to talk, then share ideas with the larger group.
Allow people to rank options instead of choosing only one if you have an issue reaching consensus.
Document decisions and reasons by sharing written records so everyone sees what was decided and why.
Ask quieter members or those with less power if they agree or have concerns before finalizing.

Chairs and facilitators often need help to run inclusive and accessible meetings, but support is limited. Common problems include:

Few resources are available on how to lead inclusively and accessibly to ensure everyone, including D/deaf and D/disabled people, can participate.
Little guidance is provided on managing diverse or cross-cultural groups.
Time and resources to manage both technical and accessibility tasks are limited.
Handling conflict resolution without enough training and support.
Knowledge of accessible technology for virtual meetings and document sharing is not common.

Some committees treat long-time members and technical experts as the most important voices.

This can lead to:

A few people dominating meetings while others stay quiet.
New members feeling unsure about speaking up or feeling they have to prove themselves before being taken seriously.
Jargon and insider language making it hard for new members to understand.
Questions from new members being dismissed instead of answered.
Non-technical people feeling less valued and pressured to speak like technical experts instead of sharing their real-world knowledge of marginalization or disability.
Long-time members having more influence, even without formal authority.
Decisions being made during side conversations instead of openly.