Relational Executive Functioning

Let us start with a clear definition. Shared decision-making is the practice of two or more people arriving at a choice together, where each person's information, preferences, and concerns genuinely shape the outcome. It is not one person deciding and then informing the other. It is not one person deciding and then persuading the other to agree. It is a process where the final choice would look different if either person had been left out. This is the beating heart of Relational Executive Functioning™, the shared work of planning, deciding, and solving problems as a team rather than as two individuals who happen to share an address.

It helps to name what shared decision-making is competing against. The most common alternative is what we call unilateral deciding, where one person makes the call and the other is expected to comply. Sometimes this happens by habit, sometimes by speed, sometimes because one partner assumes their preference is obviously correct. Marcus was not trying to steamroll Renata. He was trying to save money and cross a task off a list. But the effect on Renata was the same as if he had ignored her on purpose, because from her seat, a shared choice got made without her.

Relationship science gives us a precise tool for the alternative. In the Gottman Institute's decades of research observing thousands of couples, one of the strongest predictors of a stable, satisfying relationship is what John Gottman calls accepting influence, the willingness to let your partner's opinions and feelings move you. In his studies of newlywed men, those who allowed their wives to influence them were far more likely to have relationships that lasted, while those who resisted influence had a strikingly high rate of relationship breakdown. Accepting influence does not mean surrendering every time. It means your partner's input actually changes what you do at least some of the time.

Here is a key distinction that trips up many couples. Shared decision-making is not the same as fifty-fifty on every single choice. That would be exhausting and, frankly, silly. You do not need a joint summit to decide who buys the milk. The healthier pattern is to sort decisions by weight. Small, reversible, low-cost choices can be delegated freely to whoever is closest to the task. Large, hard-to-reverse, or emotionally loaded choices deserve a genuine joint process. The skill is not deciding everything together. The skill is recognizing which decisions belong to both of you and honoring that before you act.

Consider a case from a different couple. Dana and Priya were deciding whether to take a new job in another city. Priya was thrilled about the salary. Dana was terrified about leaving a support network near their aging mother. Early in their relationship, they would have fought until one of them wore the other down, and the winner would have felt guilty while the loser felt resentful. Instead they used a structure: each named their top three concerns out loud before anyone argued for a solution. Only then did they look for options. That single move, hearing each other fully before deciding, is what separates a shared decision from a contest.

There is a common trap worth naming here: the illusion of agreement. This happens when one partner says a quick yes just to end the tension, without truly buying in. We call this surface compliance, and it is dangerous because it looks like harmony but breeds quiet resentment. Renata might have said fine about the flights, but a fine that costs her a piece of her voice is a loan she will collect on later, often at the worst possible moment. Real shared decisions ask for genuine buy-in, not a truce.

So how do you actually do this? Let us walk the I do / We do / You do scaffold. First, I do: watch a skilled version in your mind. Imagine one partner pausing before acting and saying, before I book anything, I want to hear what matters to you. Notice that the pause comes before the action, not after. The whole game is won or lost in that pause, because once a plane ticket is bought or a couch is delivered, the decision is no longer shared, it is announced.

Next, we do: try a shared choice together with training wheels. Pick a small but real decision this week, something with a bit of weight but low stakes, like how you will spend a free Saturday or which recurring expense to cut. Both of you name your top concern first. Then, and only then, you brainstorm at least three options before choosing one. Naming concerns before options is the single most powerful habit in this lesson, because it keeps you from arguing about solutions before you understand the problem.

Finally, you do: run a decision on your own using the same steps without a script. The goal is that the process becomes invisible, a natural rhythm rather than a technique you have to remember. A good sign you are getting there is when you catch yourself about to make a solo call, feel a small internal tug, and say out loud, wait, this is a both-of-us decision. That tug is your growing relational awareness, and it is worth more than any clever compromise.

Let us connect this to the broader framework of Relational Integrity™, specifically the pillar of Truth. Shared decisions require both people to tell the truth about what they actually want, not the polite version, not the version they think will keep the peace. If Renata pretends she does not care where they go for the holiday, she has withheld a truth, and the decision will be built on sand. Honest preferences, spoken kindly and early, are the raw material of every good joint choice.

A quick word on repair, because you will get this wrong sometimes. Everyone makes unilateral calls under pressure, fatigue, or excitement. What matters is what you do next. A simple repair sounds like this: I realize I booked those flights without checking with you, and that was your decision too. Can we look at it together, and if it needs to change, it changes. Notice that a real repair puts the decision back on the table. An apology that does not reopen the choice is just a nicer way of keeping control.

To close the loop, remember the through-line. Shared decision-making is not about slowing your life to a crawl or holding a committee meeting over cereal. It is about developing a shared instinct for which choices belong to both of you, pausing before you act on those, hearing each other's concerns before hunting for solutions, and telling the truth about what you want. Do this consistently and you build not just better decisions but a deeper trust, because your partner learns, in their bones, that their voice actually moves the outcome.