TWO REVIEW
| Home Page | Sounding Board | Books | "The Facilitator Toolbox" |
Chapter Three: HOW WILL DECISIONS BE MADE?
Consensus decision making and other decision modes
from
How to Grow Effective Teams
And Run Meetings That Aren't a Waste of Time
© by Ends of the Earth Learning Group 1998
by
Linda Turner and Ron Turner
| Chapter One | Chapter Two | Chapter Three | Chapter Four | Chapter Five | Chapter Six | References and Copying Rights |
Summary of Chapter Three
ALL DECISIONS ARE NOT CONSENSUS ONES |
Decision Mode 1 is "Individual without input." Mode 1 uses teams for communicating decisions and for soliciting feedback after-the- fact.
Decision Mode 2 is "Individual with input." Mode 2 uses teams for soliciting input. Mode 2 is NOT majority vote.
|
|
QUICK WHO'S GOT THE
POWER?
PASSIVE RESISTENCE
CAN UNDO A
MANAGER EVERY
TIME. |
DETAILS
How decisions are made ultimately determines where the
power lies. Empowerment is really all about changing the power structure.
When setting up teams, it is critical to bear this in mind because frequently the root cause of team failure is confusion about
decision making authority. The confusion results in a power
struggle. Like most power struggles, the end result is that
someone "loses" and bears ill will from that point onward.
Formal power in organizations comes from above. The Board of Directors (or Board of Trustees) delegates this power downward through the management system.
The formal power of teams must be plugged into this formal delegation process. That means that all teams need their
responsibilities and authority clearly spelled out.
Informal power comes from the willingness of everyone in the system to respect delegated authority.
Supervisors who lack respect soon find themselves facing
passive resistance and inability to accomplish very much.
Teams will suffer from the same liabilities if others in the
organization fail to respect the authority of the team.
It is essential when setting up teams that the same attention
is given to role changes and power changes as when creating
new management positions. This is a primary reason for using team sponsors who can bring to bear sufficient organizational power in order to make it possible for the team to function. The roles of the sponsor are discussed in more detail in Chapter Four.
Teams themselves will be asked to sometimes simply give input
into decisions, sometimes to make formal recommendations,
and sometimes to make final decisions. If the decision mode facing the team is unclear, then the resulting role confusion may easily undo management's best |
|
DO WE GET TO
MAKE THE FINAL
DECISION?
EVERY DECISION DOES
NOT HAVE TO BE
VOTED ON. |
Similarly, if management is using a team to explain a decision, but team members thought they were being asked for input regarding that decision, again team members will feel mislead.
There are four possible decision modes that involve any team:
Decision Mode #1: Individual (including supervisors) without input.
In these cases, the individual making a decision is using the team to better communicate that decision. The decision itself though is a done deal and not open to review by the team.
For these modes, team facilitators have to keep discussion
limited to clarifying the decisions unless the individual who made the decision has explicitly requested feedback from the group in order to improve their decision making next time they are faced with a similar decision.
We strongly recommend that when individuals use this decision
mode that they, at some point, have a discussion with teams
that permits the teams to raise unintended consequences of decisions and suggestions for the future.
These discussions need to be reserved for a time when crises
are not dominating everyone's thinking, and people can detach
from their emotional responses to the decision.
It is common to think of supervisors, especially in
unenlightened organizations, as making many Mode 1
decisions. Hopefully, over time, they will shift into a higher
decision mode that involves more people. During crises, this
isn't always possible, because individuals simply don't have the
time. |
|
SUPERVISORS SHOULD
MAKE DECISIONS
WITH INPUT OR WITH
CONSENSUS.
MODE 1 DECISIONS
SHOULD BE MADE MOSTLY BY LINE EMPLOYEES. |
For trivial or arbitrary decisions, and for expert decisions outside the competency of a team, input may not be warranted either. In such cases, the team needs to be informed of decisions but does not have to participate in decision making. Interestingly, with empowerment, many line workers will start
making Mode 1 decisions when faced with what Jan Carlzon
calls a moment of truth (Carlzon, 1987.)
Moments of truth occur in the sixty-second period following a request or complaint by a customer in which immediate action is required. If a response is delayed and the customer is put-off until other people can be consulted, then the moment of truth is lost, and the customer is antagonized even if, in the end, the customer request is met. In these cases, an employee may report to a team after-the-fact what they did and why. Only if they are requesting feedback on their decision should facilitators permit the group to discuss the merits of the decision. Again, we strongly recommend that at some point such discussions should take place, but time must be purposely set aside for these conversations. Decision Mode #2: Individual (including supervisors) with input.
In Mode 2, an individual (who may be a supervisor) comes to a team for input regarding a decision. The team will not vote on the decision, but, as much as possible, each team member will be solicited for advice. |
|
INPUT DOES NOT
MEAN THE TEAM
VOTES.
SILENCE DOES NOT
MEAN, "I HAVE NO
OPINION." |
Sometimes the individuals making Mode 2 decisions are team
members to whom the team has delegated certain decisions.
Teams and supervisors should reserve higher decision modes
for the more important and controversial issues facing the
team.
For Mode 2, team facilitators will continue discussions only as
long as decision makers feel they need input. Once the people
making the final decision feel they have had sufficient feedback,
then discussion will come to an end.
Input is not restricted to formal team meetings. Other techniques such as one-on-one conversations, surveys, or circulating letters in which team members write down their comments can be used. Some teams even use anonymous public "comment sheets" which are put up on walls in hallways, offices, and sometimes bathrooms. In general input should be solicited from each team member
and not limited to simply volunteers. For instance, facilitators
in a meeting should ask each individual by name for input
rather than simply asking, "Does anyone want to respond?"
This is because decision makers typically interpret silence as
approval when in reality it may simply represent uncertainty,
apathy, or intimidation. By asking people specifically, "What
do you think?" team members can answer, "I don't care,"
"I'm not certain," "I need more time to think about this," or
whatever. Their silence then can be interpreted accurately.
If input is solicited in a public setting where everyone can hear everyone else, this usually also improves communication as well. It is common in organizations to hear people complain, "Why should I give input? They never do what we want." The impression these people have is that the same input was given to decision makers by everyone. Frequently this isn't the case and input is contradictory. It helps everyone to hear the contradictions in a public forum. That way, decision makers are not viewed as overruling a collective "we," but instead are viewed as picking a choice from differing opinions. |
|
THE FASTEST WAY TO
KILL TEAM SPIRIT IS
TO REJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS.
|
Decision Mode #3: Consensus recommendation. Consensus means that everyone in the group can support a
recommendation even though that recommendation may not be
everyone's first choice.
The recommendation may be made to a supervisor or to a
supervising team. In general, teams should expect their
recommendations will be followed except for extraordinary
circumstances.
For Mode 3, facilitators must keep discussions going until they
can reach a final recommendation that no one on the team
wants to veto. This means in effect that discussions will
continue as long as any team member wants more discussion
on an issue.
Warning: A team whose recommendation is rejected will
rightfully want to know the reasons because they will feel as if
they wasted their time and energy when their decisions are
overturned. They after all are the ones who studied the issue
and struggled to agreement of all team members.
There is no faster way to kill group efforts than to reject group
recommendations without very solid reasons.
If supervisors are uncomfortable with "giving away" decisions, then they should become a member of the team and use Decision Mode 4 since that would give them the right to veto any final decision. Or supervisors should use Decision Mode 2 and be honest with the team that all they are seeking is input, but not a consensus recommendation. |
|
WHEN DEADLINES ARE
REACHED, THE
DECISION MODE
SWITCHES TO MODE 2.
"MAJORITY VOTE" MEANS THE MINORITY CAN BE IGNORED. |
Decision Mode #4: Consensus Decision This mode is similar to Mode #3, except that the team gets to
make the final decision.
Decision Modes 3 and 4 are always given with precise
resource constraints. Thus a team may be given a problem to
solve with restrictions as to how much money can be spent and
how many people-hours of work can be used.
The team may be told that no new employees may be hired.
The team may be given latitude to re-engineer and start from
scratch, or the team may be restricted to improving the current
system without junking it and starting over again.
When the team wants to exceed the restrictions, then their
decision mode shifts automatically to Mode 2, "Individual
with input" and becomes the responsibility of whatever
authority first imposed the restrictions.
If a deadline is one of the constraints facing a team, then if
consensus is not reached by the deadline, then similarly the
decision will shift to Mode 2.
We recommend that all agendas for team meetings be set using Decision Mode 4. In this manner, all team members will be assured that issues of importance to them will be discussed eventually. NO MAJORITY VOTE
We did not include a decision mode for majority vote. This is
because majority vote systems lead to politicking and
compromise in which minority opinions may be simply ignored.
In such cases, minorities frequently resist team decisions, either
passively or openly, or may be simply embittered because they
don't feel like their arguments were heard or that appropriate
data has been collected.
Some large teams (20 or more) will sometimes create a hybrid
majority-consensus system by using super-majorities of 80%.
In general, we recommend against doing this, but we are
ultimately pragmatic. Teams need to experiment and try new
ideas. These hybrids may have their place in some organizations. |
|
CONSENSUS DOES NOT MEAN THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS. CONSENSUS TAKES LONGER UP-FRONT, BUT SAVES TIME IN THE LONG RUN. |
The notion of consensus is sometimes frightening to people
who are unaccustomed to the idea that they must seek a
solution that is acceptable to every team member.
Consensus is not the same thing as unanimity. Consensus
means that team members agree: (1) all relevant arguments
have been heard, (2) all relevant data have been gathered, and
(3) a catastrophe is not going to result from the decision.
Consensus does not mean that everyone agreed that a given
decision was their first choice.
Consensus is sometimes reached by getting tacit approval from
individuals who believe a proposed decision is not the best one.
Tacit approval should not be given unless minority
concerns have been discussed and addressed.
Sometimes, tacit approval is accepted by the rest of the team simply promising to review a decision on a timely basis in order to see if things are working out in the manner the majority had expected. The acid test of consensus is that everyone on the team
understands that "consensus" means they have forfeited the
right to complain about the decision.
When consensus systems are not used, it is common to hear
people grumbling at the water cooler about particular
decisions. Sociologists call this "ritual insubordination."
If true consensus is being reached, then not only should people
not be grumbling, but team members who hear such grumbling
have a responsibility to "call people out," and tell those
individuals they are obligated to raise their concerns with the
team as a whole.
Many people when first being introduced to the notion of
consensus are confounded by the idea that any group member
can veto the group decision by refusing to give tacit approval.
Group decision making using consensus does in fact take
longer than majority vote decision making.
Implementation of plans, though, takes far less time because there are fewer communication problems, more "buy-in," and far less rework. The overall planning-implementation process is actually reduced by use of consensus. Consensus will trigger the group to explore far more options than it normally would. It leads the group to realize that choices are rarely limited to "either/or" kinds of decisions. Instead there are a million possibilities that no one has thought of yet. One of these possibilities will probably be the final "solution." "Yah, but what happens you hit the wall and just can't reach agreement?" while this conceivably could happen, bottom line as long as people are willing to experiment, the group should be able to find a solution which is acceptable to all team members. |
NEWBORN'S LESSON IN HOW TO KILL TEAMS:
"How does the boss respond when team members disagree?"
TWO REVIEW
1.Team charters should be written by. . . .
A. the team members at their first meeting.
B. whomever created the team. The charter should be
completed before the team ever meets.
C. the Quality Advisor who is the in-house expert on building
teams.
2. A "sunset clause" tells the team. . . .
A. the date by which its work is to be completed (ie. "The
team will come to an end on November 22.)
B. The latest the team can work on any given day (ie. "No
later than 7 p.m.)
C. the date on which new replacements must be picked by the
team (ie. Terms are for one year. On January 1, new members
will be picked.) 3. One of the team charter's questions included, "Where
will team members find the time to work with the team?" Which of the following is an acceptable answer to this
question?
A. Time will be taken out of the normal work day. No
overtime will be permitted. No tasks or responsibilities will be
reassigned.
B. Team members will do their best to attend meetings, but
when faced with time conflicts, team members will miss team
meetings.
C. Team members will work overtime if necessary in order to
attend team meetings and accomplish the rest of their
responsibilities. ANSWERS
1. "B" is correct. Beginners sometimes get confused and pick
"A" as the correct answer. The team charter should be reviewed at the first team meeting. If team members want to suggest changes, they may do so, but it is the team creator(s) who get the final work about the purpose of the team, decision mode, and resources that will be committed to the team.
2. "A" is the correct answer.
3. "C" is correct. "A" is a dangerous answer that is a common cause of team failures. When management does not recognize that teams take time, then they lose control over priority setting and resource allocation.
Chapter One Chapter Two
Chapter Three
Chapter Four
Chapter Five
Chapter Six References and Copying Rights
Top of Page.
Home Page
Sounding Board
Books
"The Facilitator Toolbox"