Linda Turner and Turner
| Chapter One | Chapter Two | Chapter Three | Chapter Four | Chapter Five | Chapter Six | References and Copying Rights |
Summary of Chapter Five
|
|
Proposed agenda for the first meeting
"Argue-and-defend" values rank as the highest priority "not getting hurt." Consequences:
"Dialoguing" values rank as the highest priority, "getting at the truth." Consequences:
|
|
|
PROPOSED GROUND RULES
1. Only one person may speak at a time. Individuals who want to speak will raise their
hands and be called on by the facilitator.
2. The team leader will post a proposed agenda 24 hours before the meeting including
"write-ups" of problems. "Write-ups" include at least four steps: (a) Problem Statement,
(b) Supporting Data, (c) Decision Mode, and (d) Constraints. The team will then revise
and approve this agenda as the first order of business.
3. The team will revise and approve the minutes from the last meeting as the first order
of business following approval of the agenda
4. Concerns can be raised at any time. Concerns will be listed on a "concerns list" or
"parking lot" created for that purpose
5. A quorum of 2/3 of team members is required to hold a meeting. The facilitator is
included as part of the 2/3.
6. Meetings will start promptly at pre-set beginning times and will end at times specified
at the beginning of meetings.
7. Team members will minimize interruptions by using the 100-mile rule.
8. Team members agree:
9. People will show respect and courtesy to others.
10. Any decision can be brought up later for review by the team. This includes revising
the ground rules. |
QUICK READ |
DETAILS The first meeting is the meeting at which you establish the rules
and norms by which team members will live.
Sometimes only one team meeting is required to accomplish this, but for people unaccustomed to consensus rules, two to four meetings may be required.
The facilitator should call the meeting to order and present a proposed agenda for the meeting.
We recommend a simple agenda of this nature: #1: Revise/approve agenda by consensus. This will require a
brief explanation of what consensus is. We recommend people
give thumbs up for"I agree", thumbs down for "I disagree," and thumbs sideways for "I pass because I'm not ready to agree or disagree." A "pass" does not mean there is consensus. It means the person needs more information or more time to make
a decision. Usually the agenda passes easily.
#2: Everyone introduces themselves. For teams in which team members are strangers, the welcome will take longer than for teams in which people know each other. We recommend as a starting exercise that each individual talk
about themselves for 60 seconds including the reasons they were
asked onto the team. A timekeeper warns people when they
have "30 seconds left" and "5 seconds left."
#3: The roles of Team Leader, Facilitator, Scribe, Team Member, and Team Sponsor are explained. Also explain the roles of the Quality Advisor and Quality Monitor if they are present.) This includes presenting the people who are taking on these roles. |
| BRAINSTORMING |
#4: Discuss and suggest changes to the Team Charter. Remember that whoever created the team gets the final decision about possible changes. This is NOT a Mode 4 consensus
decision, but rather is a Mode 2 decision, "Individual with input."
The discussion of the Team Charter frequently takes two hours by itself, depending upon how many questions the team has. The purpose of the team, how it will measure success, and restrictions on the team are critical. It is especially important that team members understand deadlines. #5: Revise and approve the Proposed Ground Rules.This
process can start as an open-ended discussion of values or it can
start with a proposed list of ground rules.
The open-ended discussion begins by having the facilitator ask
questions such as, "What are the values and actions that you
associate with an effective team?" or "What are the values
you want this team to exhibit?"
Brainstorming is then used to develop a values list. Some
typical values that will be expressed include: respect, courtesy,
willingness to listen, open-mindedness, willingness to forgive
others for making mistakes, etc. These values are then used to
develop a set of ground rules.
When we discuss values, we typically include a short lecture on
the difference between Dialoguing Values and Argue-and-Defend Values. We include this lecture below which we usually give prior to brainstorming a values list.
A faster (although somewhat less effective method) is to start
with a list of proposed ground rules and then weave discussions
about values around the ground rules. We tend to follow this
method when there are time pressures. For teams that are
experienced, this is how we always begin our ground rules and
values discussions since they have encountered these issues
before. |
|
As a last hybrid option when pressed for time, we sometimes start with our lecture on Dialoguing Values and then go to the proposed ground rules, skipping the brainstorming-of-values
step.
Once the ground rules are set, the team is then ready to begin its real work. DIALOGUING VALUES
The ideas in this section are based on the work of Chris Argyris who has spent the last half century studying how teams function.
Argyris discovered that team values significantly influence the
effectiveness of teams. In particular he has argued that certain
values which may appear desirable will in fact doom a team to
failure when it comes to major issues.
Teams must therefore adopt a new set of values that will guide
their behavior and ultimately their decision making. (NOTE: Argyris refers to these value systems as "theories-in-use." We have changed the terms and the manner of presentation for the sake of clarity, but we credit Argyris for inspiring these ideas. To whatever extent we have done injustice to his original ideas, we apologize and take full responsibility.
Most people if asked questions about their value systems will claim a mix of the following attitudes: These values are not problematic in and of themselves and, in
fact, are desirable. The problem comes in how these values get
rank ordered. In other words, what is more important, "not
getting hurt" or "getting at the truth?" How these two
fundamentals are rank ordered is the essential difference between
what we call "Argue and Defend values" and "Dialoguing
values." |
|
Argue-and-Defend Values Argue-and-Defend values prioritize "not getting hurt" and "not
hurting others" as being more important than "using data and
logic in order to get at the truth." The value system leads to
"arguing and defending" instead of seeking to understand. You
can see the behavior in the following examples.
#1: There is a worker in a group who is not pulling her own
weight. Because peers expect a defensive response if they
complain, they go to the boss and say, "You have to do
something."
The boss responds by saying, "Let it go for awhile and we'll
see if things straighten themselves out." Both the workers and
the boss have avoided talking to the "problem" employee
because no one wanted the resulting pain and discomfort that
might result.
#2: An alcoholic worker routinely misses Mondays because of
hangovers and drinking bouts. The supervisor is aware of the
drinking problem. Still, the supervisor has refused to directly
confront the individual blaming the union contract for "tying my
hands."
#3: A business is forced by recession into laying people off.
Managers say to themselves, "At last we can get rid of old man
Brown." No one has ever talked to Brown about problems
with his work because no one was willing to deal with the
possible reaction.
#4: A worker overhears what he thinks is gossip about himself.
He becomes angry with the people who were doing the
gossiping and stops talking to them. He never directly
confronts them over the gossip.
The above situations occur because "talking about the truth" might be painful. Many people not only avoid talking about painful issues, but group pressure will be used to prevent others from discussing those issues as well. If someone brings them up in a group setting, they might be told: "It's not that big of a deal," or "Why did you have to make trouble," or "You're going to hurt someone's feelings." Instead most complaining is out-of-hearing of the person being bad-mouthed |
|
When differences of opinion are aired in an argue-and-defend
climate, instead of listening to other people's arguments to see if
there is merit, people instead tend to build a case against those
arguments. Individuals misconstrue "changing their minds" as
weakness and therefore become closed to the ideas of others.
People with argue-and-defend values have difficulty ever
reaching consensus with others because they perceive every
difference in opinion as being a power struggle in which they will
either win or lose. Argue-and- defend values lead to the
following consequences.
#1: Individuals will design their jobs in order to have more
control.They do this by keeping secrets and not sharing with
others how they do their jobs. They resist being part of teams
since teamwork by its nature requires that control be shared
with others.
#2: Individuals will specialize in order to assure control of
certain job functions. They will insist that they are the only
ones who can do certain things.
When cross-coverage is proposed, they will either claim it is
impossible to train others or they simply lack the time to train
others. Conversely, they won't be willing to do things that
"aren't my job." #3: Individuals will appear to others as being defensive exhibiting avoidance, mistrust, conformity, and face saving actions. This in turn will make it so that people won't want to raise issues because they don't want to face the defensive
behavior.
#4: Invalid information will be produced for important problems because of controversies associated with the problems. There will be a tendency to suppress information, distort it, or exaggerate. Valid information will be produced only for trivial issues that are non-controversial and don't affect very many people. |
|
#5: There will be a tendency to resist taking risks. In a
climate where people argue-and-defend, it is exhausting to raise
issues, especially if proposed solutions have uncertain outcomes.
Without risk taking, though, continuous improvement will
probably come to a halt.
#6: There will be little public testing of inferences and beliefs regarding others. For instance, if someone fails to say "Hi" to us,
that failure can be interpreted as unfriendliness, anger,
distraction, or simply a failure to see us. Public testing would
mean asking, "Are you angry with me?" rather than assuming the
worst.
#7: There will tend to be self-fulfilling Pygmalion effects in
which people do not realize that they are triggering the very
behaviors they resent. If I infer someone is angry with me, for
instance, I am bound to react differently than if I infer they are
distracted. I may well get the person angry with me by my own
behavior.
#8: There will tend to be quasi-resolution of conflict in
which people claim to be in consensus, but really aren't.
Outside of meetings, they will complain about group decisions
and resist implementation. This undermines the consensus
process of teams.
#9: Walls will develop between departments and teams leading
to misperceptions and miscommunication. This will happen
because one department won't trust other departments. Argue-and-defend postures will prevent inferences from being tested.
Quasi-resolution of conflicts won't get at root causes.
#10: It will be common for top management to become
frustrated by inability to get buy-in by subordinates. As Argyris puts it, managers will start demanding "a degree of
loyalty that borders on complete acquiescence."
Instead of sharing information, management will tend toward
secrecy and defensive behaviors |
|
|
#11: Undiscussable issues will lead to escalation of the
underlying problems. For instance, when alcoholic behavior is
not discussed, it tends to worsen over time.
Similarly if defensive reactions prevent a group from discussing
errors, the error rate will tend to increase.
Undiscussables will lead to double bind communication in which a person is "damned if I do, and damned if I don't." For instance, in argue-and-defend environments, people will be blamed for failing to have brought up problems once those problems surface, but on the other hand the same people are attacked for raising issues that make others uncomfortable. No matter what they do, they are condemned. Argue-and-defend values need to be replaced by dialoguing values which demand that the truth is highest priority even when the truth hurts. It means the most important task facing a team is to get valid information because without valid information,
continuous improvement will be severely hampered if not
downright stopped.
Chris Argyris suggested that all of us commonly walk around believing in myths. These myths come from untested assumptions and inferences that we make about other people and the world at large. To model the way we come to believe in myths, Argyris developed the Ladder of Inference. |
LADDER OF INFERENCE
(Start at the bottom rung.)
| Negative Interpretation | Positive Interpretation | |
| ACTIONS | "I am going to start arriving at meetings fifteen late." | "I will keep coming to meetings on time." |
| FORM BELIEFS ABOUT THE WORLD. | "Most people run late." | "When people are late, they usually have a good reason," or "Most people get to meetings within 20 minutes of the start time." |
| MAKE INFERENCES AND ASSUMPTIONS. | "Dale is always late. It's a control thing." | "Dale must have had car
trouble," or
Dale is having a good day." |
| FORM AUTOMATIC CULTURAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE DATA. | "Dale was 15 minutes late." | "Dale was 15 minutes late," or "You aren't late until 9:20." |
| SELECT DATA TO OBSERVE. | "Dale arrived at 9:15 for a meeting scheduled to begin at 9:00." | "Dale arrived at 9:15 for a meeting scheduled to begin at 9:00." |
The higher individuals are on the ladder, the more likely they are to make a mistake.
NOTE: The model discussed above is based upon The Ladder of Inference as developed by Chris Argyris in
Reasoning, Learning, and Action, Individual and Organizational, Jossey-Bass Pub, 1982, page 181. If
we have lost any of Argyris' original meaning, that is our fault and not his.
|
The base of the ladder consists of the raw data that we observe.
On the first step up the ladder, we select data from what we
observe and then interpret it in a way that is consistent with our
culture. For instance, we may observe that someone arrives
fifteen minutes after the agreed upon start-time for a meeting,
and we may further notice that the person doesn't seem out of
breath nor does she apologize for being late.
We will then interpret that arrival time in terms of our culture:
"She's late," or perhaps "He's right on time," depending upon
what norms our group has developed. This cultural interpretation
will be automatic and without thought.
On the next step of the ladder, we make inferences and
assumptions about the individual based upon our interpretation
of the raw data. For instance, we may assume: "Dale is always
late. It's a control thing." Or we may instead assume, "Dale
seems to run on time and takes everyone else into account."
Part of the insidious nature of our inferences is that later we will
remember the inference but not the raw data that prompted those
inferences. Thus we will remember, "Dale runs late and is a
controlling person" or we will remember, "Dale comes on time
and can be counted on to follow through on commitments."
Either way, our beliefs about this individual will start getting set
in stone.
Two years later if someone asked about the individual, we will
describe that person in terms of our inferences, but not in terms
of data we actually observed. In fact, if we are pressed to tell
how many times we actually saw the person "come late to
meetings," we probably won't be able to do so.
On the next step of the Ladder of Inference, we start putting
inferences and assumptions into a broader model of the world at
large. We may conclude that "most people run late." Or we may
assume "the real start time is fifteen minutes after the designated
start time for most meetings."
These models will become the basis for our actions. We may insist that penalties be given for people who come late to meetings. |
|
Ultimately our models or theories of the world are constructed
from the bits and pieces of assumptions and inferences we have
made about the world. We may conclude that most people are
selfish and self-centered.
Being late to meetings is simply one indicator of that. This
"theory of the world" will lead us to seek data that "catches"
people getting "out of line." The data itself will be interpreted in
such a way that it confirms our underlying notions about people.
Or we may have a "theory of the world" that says people are fair,
generous, and kind. In this case we look for data that confirms
this generous kind view and when we find that data, we will
interpret it in a way that confirms our underlying notions.
As we move up the Ladder of Inference, we develop a better
more refined understanding of the world, but the chances that we
are developing myths will start to grow. For this reason, Argyris
argues that we must start being humble about our inferences and
assumptions and that humility must begin at the first step of the
ladder when we automatically interpret data in terms of our
culture.
Humility means we are ready to admit that we may be in error.
This suggests then that we become willing to suspend judgement
until first testing some of our inferences and assumptions. In our
example above where Dale arrived at 10:15 for a 10:00 meeting,
we would test our inference by asking Dale if the inference is
correct. We might say, "When you don't arrive on time for a
meeting, I interpret that as meaning that you don't care if the rest
of us have to wait around. Is that an accurate interpretation?"
Or we might simply ask the group, "Is it okay if I arrive at 10:15 for meetings that were scheduled to start at 10:00?" |
|
|
Asking these questions will get issues out into the open.
Sometimes you will discover your inferences were correct.
Many times, though, you may discover your inferences are
incorrect. Dale may tell you that he had car trouble and generally
doesn't come to meetings late. Or Dale may tell you that no
meetings in this company start on time, and you aren't counted
late unless you arrive more than fifteen minutes after the "starting
bell."
People with argue-and-defend values will be unwilling to test
their inferences and assumptions. This gets them into a limited
learning cycle because they are never able to question their
fundamental views of the world.
Dialoguing values explicitly recognize Argyris' Ladder of
Inference and the ease with which we can learn myths.
Dialoguing values lead us to seeking different kinds of data that
help us question our gut reactions to information.
When groups are in disagreement, you need to determine if the
disagreement is at the base of the ladder (people are using
different raw data,) at the first step of the ladder (people are
interpreting the data differently,) or at a higher level of inference.
Ultimately to reach consensus, you will have to get people to
come up with a common set of inferences and theories.
It is advisable when first creating teams to start with a review of the differences between argue-and-defend values and dialoguing values. During periods of disagreement, it is useful to pull the model back out again in order to remind people of the need to get at the truth. If a team is unwilling to adopt dialoguing values, then its ability to make sound decisions will be limited. It doesn't mean that facilitators and team leaders should give up on such teams, but patience will be required in order for the team to grow into the maturity necessary for being able to talk about the truth. In the meantime, more decisions will have to be supervisor with input than will be the case later on when the team is more developed. |
|
After discussing the differences between argue-and-defend and
dialoguing, have the team brainstorm a list of guiding values.
This list of values can then be printed and distributed to team
members. Some teams put up in large print both the values and
their ground rules so that it is easy for people to refer to these as
needed.
These discussions will usually focus on the need for honest non-judgmental communication, tolerance of people making mistakes,
and the need for open mindedness.
PROPOSED GROUND RULES
Ground rules are a team's constitution. The rules provide the
framework for meetings.
The proposed ground rules which follow here are "suggested"
and not mandatory. Not all of these rules will fit every team.
Therefore each team must pick and choose the rules it wants.
Over time, the team needs to re-examine these rules in order to
add new rules, delete obsolete ones, and amend those rules that
aren't quite ideal. 1. Only one person may speak at a time.
Individuals who want to speak will raise their
hands and be called on by the facilitator.
Many beginning teams will resist this rule because they are afraid
that either discussion will be inhibited by it, or they might feel
like they are back in grade school "asking the teacher" for
permission to speak.
This rule is a critical one, though, because it will permit the facilitator to do two things: (1) insure that quieter members get a chance to speak without having to get into a contest over who is "loudest" or "fastest" and (2) to slow down the process by insuring that "speakers" are really being heard by requesting people to reflect what was just said. This "slow down" is faster in the long run because consensus requires that people support decisions and not simply "go along" while in reality being resistant. |
|
2. The team leader will post a proposed agenda 24 hours before the meeting including
"write-ups" of problems. "Write-ups" include
at least four steps:
The team will then revise and approve this agenda as the first order of business. Usually time limits are set for different items (or clusters of
items). If discussion on an item is not completed by the pre-set
time limit, the facilitator will ask the group at that time, "Do you
want to go on or keep talking? If we keep talking, we have to
revise the agenda for the remainder of the meeting?"
When times are not set for each item, the group will follow the
sequence of the agenda. If there is not enough time to discuss all
items, then unfinished items will be put on the agenda of the next
meeting.
It should be understood that if a team member had requested an
agenda item which the team leader did not include in the
proposed agenda, the team member will have the right to raise
this item as an issue at the beginning of the meeting.
Some teams purposely write their agendas ten minutes short. Then if discussion isn't completed when the clock runs out for a
particular item, the facilitator may at his or her discretion simply
extend discussion by up to ten minutes before asking the group if
it wants to move onto the next agenda item.
This rule by implication will mean that individuals wanting items
put on the proposed agenda will have to give them to the team
leader before the 24 hour mark.
Some teams add to this rule,"Proposed agenda items will be given to the Team Leader three working days prior to the meeting." |
|
Some teams want more lead time than 24 hours, whereas some
don't care about getting the agenda ahead of time in which case
there are no restrictions about proposing agenda items in
advance.
Since all teams start their meetings by agreeing to agendas,
implicitly anyone could in fact refuse to approve the agenda
unless some item was added to it regardless of what the ground
rules say. This is an emergency escape hatch since sometimes
things come up at the last minute.
The "write-up" restriction is a significant one because it means
the team is saying that it won't consider issues raised on the spur
of the moment, but instead will only consider issues that were
"written up" in some format chosen by the team and given to
team members ahead of the meeting.
This helps prevent surprises and helps insure that any necessary
data needed is brought to the meeting.
WRITE-UP FORMAT (SIMPLE VERSION)
"Write-ups" can vary significantly, but should at a minimum have the following elements in them.
1. Problem Statement:Describe briefly the history of the issue
and why it is of concern.
2. Supporting Data: Include relevant numbers to back up the
Problem Statement. As a general rule, if people are looking at mistakes, then they should know the frequency of those mistakes
from a 20 day period before acting on the data. |
|
Teams may need training in data analysis in order to learn how much and what kinds of data are needed. This kind of training
can be taught on a just-in-time basis either by in-house quality
advisors or outside consultants.
Much team time will be saved by having the team leader and/or facilitator review write-ups before meetings in order to make sure enough data has been gathered. Otherwise the first action of the team upon review of the issue will be to instruct the individual raising the issue, "Get more data." 3. Decision Mode: Specify by whom and how a decision will be
made. Just because an issue comes before a team does not
necessarily mean the team has authority to act. When in doubt,
someone higher up in the organization should be asked as to
what the appropriate decision mode is. If this question is not
answered before the meeting begins, the issue will probably be
shelved until later. Less time will be wasted if the decision mode
is established before bringing the issue before a team.
4. Constraints: This includes deadlines, monetary considerations, and any other restrictions on proposed
improvements.
These four elements are the bare minimum needed for "write-ups". By including "write-ups" with the proposed agendas, team
members will have a chance to review issues before coming to
the meeting. This will give them a chance to bring other relevant
data and to think about the issues ahead of time.
With continuous improvement by teams, the "write-up" formats
will gradually become one of the major time savers in meetings
as well as a major tool for improving decision making. |
|
3. The team will revise and approve the
minutes from the last meeting as the first
order of business following approval of the
agenda.
Some teams will allocate time at the beginning of meetings for
people to read the minutes. Other teams may require that
minutes be read before-hand leaving no time to read them in the
meeting itself.
4. Concerns can be raised at any time.
Concerns will be listed on a "Concerns List"
or "Parking Lot" created for that purpose.
Concerns include worries, skepticism, and possible issues that
will need discussion. Facilitators at times may rule that a
"concern" is off-line and not appropriate for discussion at the
moment. The "concerns list" insures that the concerns won't be
forgotten or ignored. Concerns should be addressed before the
team makes any final decisions. Some teams prefer calling their
concerns list a parking lot. Concerns, assumptions, and other
issues can all go on the Parking Lot.
5. A quorum of 2/3 of team members is
required to hold a meeting. The facilitator is
included as part of the 2/3.
This rule means that if 2/3 of the team members are not present,
the meeting will be canceled. Some teams include the facilitator
in their count of 2/3, whereas others don't. Some teams use
different percentages ranging from 50% to 100%.
Some teams may attach further requirements such as, "At least one union leader will be part of the quorum," or "At least one representative of key departments will be part of the quorum," or "The team leader must be present." |
|
Some teams also add a rule which says, "Critical decisions won't be
made unless appropriate team members are at the meeting even if
there is a quorum."The definition of "appropriate" is up to the quorum that is attending.
6. Meetings will start promptly at pre-set
beginning times and will end at times
specified at the beginning of meetings.
Start times for meetings have different meanings to different
people. This is sometimes due to culture, but frequently is
simply a difference in personal styles. The "rules" regarding start
times need to be clarified so everyone is interpreting them in the
same manner.
Some teams give a five to fifteen minute leeway in order to
permit a quorum to show up for the meeting whereas others will
cancel a meeting at the pre-set start time if a quorum isn't there.
It should be assumed that team members who are late have good
reasons. Therefore late arrivals don't owe any explanations.
Some teams will note late arrivals in the minutes whereas other
teams will consciously not note lateness because it might create
fear.
Rarely, where lateness seems to be a major issue, teams choose a
ground rule that charges late people $1 per minute for every
minute the person is late. This money goes into a team "party"
fund. If a team does this, they must keep the fine low enough so
that no one is really hurt by being late.
Team members need to remember that one person being late by five minutes will hold up all other team members for that same five minutes. If someone is habitually late, then consider starting the meetings later or encourage the individual to review their processes in order to see if they can be improved. |
|
|
For instance, last minute phone calls are a common cause of
people being late. If this occurs, then people could shut their
phones off fifteen minutes before having to leave for the meeting
so that they won't be held up at the last minute.
7. Team members will minimize interruptions
by using the 100-mile rule.
The 100-mile rule says that team members should inform their
staffs that they are not to be interrupted unless it is something
important enough to interrupt them if they were 100 miles away
from the office. This rule is not always appropriate, but it can
prevent interruptions for trivialities or issues that could have
waited.
8. The group agrees: This rule is really saying that the team agrees to make decisions based on facts and to be open minded. It clearly comes from the
dialoguing values and rejects the argue-and-defend values. Facilitators will appreciate having this rule when teams are so split over a proposal that they seemed deadlocked.
The facilitator in these cases can ask each side, "What data
would cause you to change your mind?" Both the pros and cons
are asked this question. If they answer, "Nothing would make
me change my mind," the facilitator can point out that this
violates the ground rules which requires everyone to "test" their
beliefs rather than simply argue-and-defend them.
9. People will show respect and courtesy to others. |
|
While this rule would seem self-evident, it is wise to include it so
that team members can discuss what they mean by respect and
courtesy.
10. Any decision can be brought up later for
review by the team. This includes revising
the ground rules.
This rule has two profound implications: This first implication bothers some people because they feel like
they have to go back and revisit too many discussions. The truth
is though that this rule is a derivative of Rule 9 and the ideas
underlying dialoguing values.
People must be allowed to bring up issues with which they
disagree. That is the best method to protect the team from
blundering into disaster. This rule brings out why it is pointless
to make a decision if critical people are missing from the
discussion. A team should never try to make tough decisions
when they know some of their missing members would not give
consensus to those decisions.
That rule also means that if a quorum fails to show up for a
meeting, those attending cannot arbitrarily change the quorum as
tempting as that might feel.
BOOTING PEOPLE OFF THE TEAM |
|
We have not included in the ground rules a mechanism for removing team members. On the whole, we do not recommend that teams do this. If team members are absent from too many meetings or if team members are obstructionist, then the facilitator and team leader need to speak to these individuals. The final decision about whether or not the individual stays on the team, though, should be the team member's or in extreme cases a management decision. The team itself should not have the authority to order people off the team. |
NEWBORN'S LESSONS IN HOW TO KILL OFF TEAMS:
"What happens when times are not set for agenda items?"
