{"course":{"slug":"independent-creative","title":"Working for Yourself","url":"https://addaly.com/learn/independent-creative","level":"intermediate","track":"create"},"lesson":{"slug":"the-committee","title":"Five people are not five opinions","url":"https://addaly.com/learn/independent-creative/the-committee","position":50,"of":84,"minutes":9,"answer":"Group feedback tends toward the least objectionable option because agreement is easiest on what nobody actively dislikes, so establish one consolidator and one decision-maker, name conflicting instructions rather than trying to satisfy both.","keyIdea":"Group feedback tends toward the least objectionable option because agreement is easiest on what nobody actively dislikes, so establish one consolidator and one decision-maker, name conflicting instructions rather than trying to satisfy both, and price the extra rounds a committee will need rather than absorbing them."},"body":{"format":"markdown","text":"## Why group feedback is qualitatively different\n\nOne client with an opinion is a conversation. Five people with opinions is a different kind of problem, and treating it as five conversations is how projects triple in length.\n\nEach additional reviewer adds not one opinion but a set of relationships. People in a group do not respond to the work alone; they respond to what their colleagues said, to what their manager appeared to think, and to their own need to be seen contributing. A junior marketer who privately liked route A will criticise it if the head of sales spoke first and did not.\n\nThe result is a well-known pattern: group feedback tends toward the least objectionable option rather than the best one, because agreement is easiest to reach on what nobody actively dislikes. Novelty is what committees remove, and novelty is usually what you were hired to supply.\n\nThis is not because the people are foolish. It is what groups do, and you cannot argue a group out of being a group. You can only change the process.\n\n## The three questions to ask before the first presentation\n\n**Who makes the final decision?** Not who is in the room, who decides. There is almost always one person, even in a committee, and the entire project is easier when you know who it is.\n\n**What is everyone else's role?** Advisory, veto over a specific domain, or informational? A legal reviewer may have an absolute veto over wording and no standing on colour. A regional manager may know something about their market that nobody else does. Knowing each person's authority lets you weigh their feedback instead of treating every comment as equal.\n\n**Who consolidates the feedback?** One named person, who resolves internal disagreements before anything reaches you. This is the single most valuable thing to establish, and it is reasonable to insist on it, because reconciling their internal politics is work you are not being paid for and are not equipped to do.\n\n## Presenting to a group\n\nDifferent rules apply than for a single client.\n\n**Get to the decision-maker first if you can.** A short conversation before the group meeting means they arrive with a position. Since the group will largely follow the most senior confident voice, this habit changes more outcomes than any amount of presentation craft.\n\n**Present live, never by email.** An emailed deck to five people produces five independent, uncontextualised reactions, which then harden before anybody discusses them.\n\n**Restate the criteria before showing anything.** In a group, this is the only defence against taste. \"We agreed this had to work at 8mm, survive two-colour print, and not look like the competitor.\" It gives the room a shared basis for judgement, and it makes purely personal objections visible as personal.\n\n**Show one direction, not three.** In a one-to-one meeting, three routes invite a preference. In a group, three routes invite a negotiation, and negotiations between five people produce a hybrid nobody chose.\n\n**Ask for feedback in a structured way.** Go round the room deliberately, rather than opening the floor. Opening the floor gives the room to whoever is loudest, and the loudest person is frequently the least informed about the actual problem.\n\n## Handling contradictory instructions\n\nYou will receive comments that cannot both be honoured. Do not attempt to satisfy both, which produces work that fails twice.\n\nName the conflict, neutrally, and hand the decision back:\n\n> \"Two comments here point in opposite directions: Anjali would like the mark larger and Ravi would like more white space. I can do either. Which would you like me to follow?\"\n\nThis is not passing the buck. Resolving their disagreement is their job, and attempting it yourself means you will be wrong in the eyes of whichever person you overruled, having never been given the authority to do so.\n\n## Documenting rounds, visibly\n\nWith a committee, revision scope must be counted out loud from the beginning, because the natural rhythm of group review is to keep going.\n\nAfter each round, send the short list of agreed changes and note where you are: \"this is round two of the two included; further rounds are charged at X per round.\" Do it every time, calmly, as an administrative fact rather than a warning. When round three arrives, the change note is unsurprising because it was mentioned twice before it was needed.\n\n## The late arrival\n\nThe most damaging committee event is the senior person who was not in any earlier meeting and sees the work for the first time at week six, and does not like it.\n\nThree things reduce it. Ask at kickoff whether anyone senior will need to see this, and press a little: \"is there anyone who could overturn a decision made in this room?\" Send short progress updates to a slightly wider list than strictly necessary, so the work is not new to anybody. And get written sign-off at each stage, so a late objection is visibly a change of direction rather than a continuation of the same review.\n\nWhen it happens anyway, treat it as a new brief rather than feedback. It is: somebody who did not agree the criteria is judging against different ones. That is a scoping conversation and, usually, a change note.\n\n## When the committee is the whole problem\n\nOccasionally the structure is irreparable: no decision-maker, no consolidation, ten reviewers with equal standing, a process designed to prevent anything from ever being decided.\n\nSay so early, once, in terms of consequences rather than complaint: \"with this many reviewers I would expect four or five rounds rather than two, so I would rather quote it on that basis than run over.\" Some clients will fix the process when they see the price of it. Some will accept the higher price, which is the correct outcome. And some will do neither, which is useful information about whether to take the project at all.\n\n## The limitation\n\nNone of this makes a committee produce brave work. Structurally it will not, most of the time, and a designer who takes committee-reviewed projects expecting otherwise will be permanently disappointed.\n\nWhat the process buys is a project that finishes, on a schedule, at a price that reflects the real number of rounds, with a result that is competent rather than mangled. That is a legitimate and well-paid kind of work. The braver work usually comes from clients with one decision-maker, which is worth knowing when you choose who to pursue, rather than discovering it as a grievance in week nine."},"check":{"question":"A designer receives two comments in the same round: one reviewer wants the mark larger, another wants more white space. What should she do?","options":[{"text":"Find a middle position that partially satisfies both, since the underlying tension between presence and space is a normal design problem she is paid to resolve.","correct":false,"tempting":"Reasonable when the tension is within one brief, but here it is two people disagreeing: a compromise leaves both dissatisfied and her responsible for it."},{"text":"Follow the more senior reviewer's comment, since in a group the senior voice is the one the decision ultimately rests with.","correct":false,"tempting":"Seniority usually does decide, which is why knowing the decision-maker matters, but acting on that assumption silently overrules a colleague without being asked to."},{"text":"State that the two comments conflict, offer either, and ask which they would like her to follow.","correct":true},{"text":"Produce both versions and present them side by side, letting the group choose between two finished alternatives rather than arbitrating a disagreement in the abstract.","correct":false,"tempting":"Doubles the unpaid work and reintroduces the multiple-routes problem, inviting the group to negotiate a hybrid of the two."}]},"prev":{"slug":"working-with-suppliers","title":"When you are the middle of the chain","url":"https://addaly.com/learn/independent-creative/working-with-suppliers"},"next":{"slug":"the-project-that-stalls","title":"Silence, holds and kill fees","url":"https://addaly.com/learn/independent-creative/the-project-that-stalls"},"authorship":"Founder and series editor: Dr Mustafa Mun. Written by AI models to a written standard. Exam keys checked blind by a second model: 3,665 of 3,666 agreed. Academic review invited.","review":{"status":"Draft, open for academic review"},"cite":"Addaly (2026) 'Five people are not five opinions', in Working for Yourself. Edited by M. Mun. Addaly. Available at: https://addaly.com/learn/independent-creative/the-committee (Accessed: 13 October 2026).","licence":{"name":"CC BY-NC-SA 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/"},"reader":{"schema":1,"title":"Five people are not five opinions","courseTitle":"Working for Yourself","module":{"index":5,"slug":"running-the-job","title":"Running the job"},"answer":null,"keyIdea":"Group feedback tends toward the least objectionable option because agreement is easiest on what nobody actively dislikes, so establish one consolidator and one decision-maker, name conflicting instructions rather than trying to satisfy both, and price the extra rounds a committee will need rather than absorbing them.","hero":{"kind":"plate","image":null,"alt":null,"caption":null},"blocks":[{"t":"h2","id":"why-group-feedback-is-qualitatively-different","runs":[{"text":"Why group feedback is qualitatively different"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"One client with an opinion is a conversation. Five people with opinions is a different kind of problem, and treating it as five conversations is how projects triple in length."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Each additional reviewer adds not one opinion but a set of relationships. People in a group do not respond to the work alone; they respond to what their colleagues said, to what their manager appeared to think, and to their own need to be seen contributing. A junior marketer who privately liked route A will criticise it if the head of sales spoke first and did not."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"The result is a well-known pattern: group feedback tends toward the least objectionable option rather than the best one, because agreement is easiest to reach on what nobody actively dislikes. Novelty is what committees remove, and novelty is usually what you were hired to supply."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"This is not because the people are foolish. It is what groups do, and you cannot argue a group out of being a group. You can only change the process."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"the-three-questions-to-ask-before-the-first-presentation","runs":[{"text":"The three questions to ask before the first presentation"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Who makes the final decision?","b":true},{"text":" Not who is in the room, who decides. There is almost always one person, even in a committee, and the entire project is easier when you know who it is."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"What is everyone else’s role?","b":true},{"text":" Advisory, veto over a specific domain, or informational? A legal reviewer may have an absolute veto over wording and no standing on colour. A regional manager may know something about their market that nobody else does. Knowing each person’s authority lets you weigh their feedback instead of treating every comment as equal."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Who consolidates the feedback?","b":true},{"text":" One named person, who resolves internal disagreements before anything reaches you. This is the single most valuable thing to establish, and it is reasonable to insist on it, because reconciling their internal politics is work you are not being paid for and are not equipped to do."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"presenting-to-a-group","runs":[{"text":"Presenting to a group"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Different rules apply than for a single client."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Get to the decision-maker first if you can.","b":true},{"text":" A short conversation before the group meeting means they arrive with a position. Since the group will largely follow the most senior confident voice, this habit changes more outcomes than any amount of presentation craft."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Present live, never by email.","b":true},{"text":" An emailed deck to five people produces five independent, uncontextualised reactions, which then harden before anybody discusses them."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Restate the criteria before showing anything.","b":true},{"text":" In a group, this is the only defence against taste. “We agreed this had to work at 8mm, survive two-colour print, and not look like the competitor.” It gives the room a shared basis for judgement, and it makes purely personal objections visible as personal."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Show one direction, not three.","b":true},{"text":" In a one-to-one meeting, three routes invite a preference. In a group, three routes invite a negotiation, and negotiations between five people produce a hybrid nobody chose."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Ask for feedback in a structured way.","b":true},{"text":" Go round the room deliberately, rather than opening the floor. Opening the floor gives the room to whoever is loudest, and the loudest person is frequently the least informed about the actual problem."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"handling-contradictory-instructions","runs":[{"text":"Handling contradictory instructions"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"You will receive comments that cannot both be honoured. Do not attempt to satisfy both, which produces work that fails twice."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Name the conflict, neutrally, and hand the decision back:"}]},{"t":"quote","runs":[{"text":"“Two comments here point in opposite directions: Anjali would like the mark larger and Ravi would like more white space. I can do either. Which would you like me to follow?”"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"This is not passing the buck. Resolving their disagreement is their job, and attempting it yourself means you will be wrong in the eyes of whichever person you overruled, having never been given the authority to do so."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"documenting-rounds-visibly","runs":[{"text":"Documenting rounds, visibly"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"With a committee, revision scope must be counted out loud from the beginning, because the natural rhythm of group review is to keep going."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"After each round, send the short list of agreed changes and note where you are: “this is round two of the two included; further rounds are charged at X per round.” Do it every time, calmly, as an administrative fact rather than a warning. When round three arrives, the change note is unsurprising because it was mentioned twice before it was needed."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"the-late-arrival","runs":[{"text":"The late arrival"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"The most damaging committee event is the senior person who was not in any earlier meeting and sees the work for the first time at week six, and does not like it."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Three things reduce it. Ask at kickoff whether anyone senior will need to see this, and press a little: “is there anyone who could overturn a decision made in this room?” Send short progress updates to a slightly wider list than strictly necessary, so the work is not new to anybody. And get written sign-off at each stage, so a late objection is visibly a change of direction rather than a continuation of the same review."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"When it happens anyway, treat it as a new brief rather than feedback. It is: somebody who did not agree the criteria is judging against different ones. That is a scoping conversation and, usually, a change note."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"when-the-committee-is-the-whole-problem","runs":[{"text":"When the committee is the whole problem"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Occasionally the structure is irreparable: no decision-maker, no consolidation, ten reviewers with equal standing, a process designed to prevent anything from ever being decided."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Say so early, once, in terms of consequences rather than complaint: “with this many reviewers I would expect four or five rounds rather than two, so I would rather quote it on that basis than run over.” Some clients will fix the process when they see the price of it. Some will accept the higher price, which is the correct outcome. And some will do neither, which is useful information about whether to take the project at all."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"the-limitation","runs":[{"text":"The limitation"}],"role":"limit"},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"None of this makes a committee produce brave work. Structurally it will not, most of the time, and a designer who takes committee-reviewed projects expecting otherwise will be permanently disappointed."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"What the process buys is a project that finishes, on a schedule, at a price that reflects the real number of rounds, with a result that is competent rather than mangled. That is a legitimate and well-paid kind of work. The braver work usually comes from clients with one decision-maker, which is worth knowing when you choose who to pursue, rather than discovering it as a grievance in week nine."}]}],"check":{"question":[{"text":"A designer receives two comments in the same round: one reviewer wants the mark larger, another wants more white space. What should she do?"}],"options":[{"text":[{"text":"Find a middle position that partially satisfies both, since the underlying tension between presence and space is a normal design problem she is paid to resolve."}],"correct":false,"tempting":[{"text":"Reasonable when the tension is within one brief, but here it is two people disagreeing: a compromise leaves both dissatisfied and her responsible for it."}]},{"text":[{"text":"Follow the more senior reviewer’s comment, since in a group the senior voice is the one the decision ultimately rests with."}],"correct":false,"tempting":[{"text":"Seniority usually does decide, which is why knowing the decision-maker matters, but acting on that assumption silently overrules a colleague without being asked to."}]},{"text":[{"text":"State that the two comments conflict, offer either, and ask which they would like her to follow."}],"correct":true,"tempting":null},{"text":[{"text":"Produce both versions and present them side by side, letting the group choose between two finished alternatives rather than arbitrating a disagreement in the abstract."}],"correct":false,"tempting":[{"text":"Doubles the unpaid work and reintroduces the multiple-routes problem, inviting the group to negotiate a hybrid of the two."}]}],"order":[0,2,1,3],"why":null},"prev":{"slug":"working-with-suppliers","title":"When you are the middle of the chain","minutes":10},"next":{"slug":"the-project-that-stalls","title":"Silence, holds and kill fees","minutes":9}}}