Building Harmoneous Decisions in a Team

Preston Ingalls

Getting a team to reach a mutual decision can be more than challenging.  Individual members have viewpoints that are influenced by their paradigms, experiences and personalities. So, why not just take a vote when it comes time to make a choice? A simple question like, “Can I see a show of hands for everyone in favor of using Option A instead of Option B?” It is short and unassuming.

The majority raise their hands for the option while those opposed would vote when the question is, “So who is in favor of Option B instead?” The majority rules.  Those with the most votes won over those with the least votes.  However, we just set up a ‘Win-Lose’ proposition.  The majority are in favor of the choice, but the minority voters are against it.  So, if a team or group chose Option A over Option B, only a select section of the team would be supportive while the remainder would be backing the losing choice. The Winners Won and the Losers Lost.

The downside to this situation is the entire team is not on board with the final decision, only the majority.  The losing voting block didn’t get the decision they wanted, and therefore, have no obligation to support the final decision.  They can leave with the feeling that team chose Option A over B but I didn’t and therefore, have no obligation to back A.  A few holdouts can say, “Look, they chose Option A, not me. I wanted Option B.  They picked Option A over the one I think was correct.” We now have a team that is only partially supportive of the end decision, clearly split over the right choice.

Modes of Disagreement
First, let’s look at why people disagree.  After all, if everyone agreed to a course of action, the decision is simple—do it. But life is entertaining, and challenges keep us on our toes.  But why do people disagree? There are eight categories or Modes of Disagreement:

1. Disagreement Mode One: They don’t understand the other course of action.  This situation could be caused by inattentiveness, lack of clarity when it was presented, or misinterpretation of the proposal.    In other words…I don’t understand.
2. Disagreement Mode Two: They have heard and understood, but their experiences and paradigms are driving a preference for a different option. Beliefs and core values may alter their perceptions.  This could be caused by a strong pet peeve or paradigms driving their choice which may blind them from other options.  In other words…My experiences instruct me differently.
3. Disagreement Mode Three: The disparity is based on history with someone, personality issues, strong dislike or even hatred.In other words…I don’t like you so you must be wrong.
4. Disagreement Mode Four: They are defending their self-worth. Some people can be defensive due to their perceptions of themselves.  This may be insecurity, a need to appear more knowledgeable than they are, fear of appearing ignorant, defending their educational level.   In other words…I really know better than you…
5. Disagreement Mode Five: Competitiveness and a need for superiority can drive disagreement. Someone may need to win for ego gratification and to feel superior over someone else.  A need to prove someone wrong to win or feel a sense of superiority. An inability to accept that they could be wrong.  In other words…I can’t be wrong so you must be.
6. Disagreement Mode Six: An interpretation of semantics.  Semantic disagreements are when people are using the same word to mean different things.  One person can interpret a Biblical verse one way while another sees it different. In other words…This is ‘the what’ it is actually saying.
7. Disagreement Mode Seven: Some people feel unimportant and overlooked. A disagreement gives them the opportunity to be seen and heard and exert influence. They may attempt to elevate their importance by disagreeing just to be heard.  In other words…Listen to how I feel it should be.
8. Disagreement Mode Eight: Facts can be from different sources or be interpreted differently. Various sources will expose people to different facts about the world, which can naturally lead to disagreement. ‘Facts lie and liars figure’ is an adage. In other words…My facts back it this way.

Based on all the ways that people can disagree with one another, how do you go about reaching a common supported agreement?

Consensus Building
If voting is a Win-Lose, how do we move the team to a Win-Win choice where everyone supports the end decision?    The answer is a process called Consensus Building.  Transforming various viewpoints, perspectives and priorities into one uniform decision requires an understanding of an approach that called Consensus Building. The process allows various stakeholders to work together to develop a mutually acceptable solution. Consensus Building is also known as collaborative problem solving or collaboration and can be applied to even the most complex challenges.

Consensus means coming to an agreement. Creating consensus in a team situation means finding an agreement satisfactory enough that all team members can support it, with no member overtly opposing it. It is better to use a facilitator to handle the team dynamics.

Consensus setting includes:

1. Gathering opinions;
2. Listening responsively (Quaker Talk—listen with no response);
3. Debating ideas and differences;
4. Everyone expresses their concerns;
5. Reaching a compromise which means not getting all you want; and
6. Arriving at a settlement decision that everyone “can live with and support.”

It is not:

• a unanimous vote;
• majority rule;
• one person rule; or bargaining

The objective in Consensus Building is to allow everyone an opportunity to express their concerns for an approach, present the rationale for their recommendation.  This dialogue allows people to be heard, for and against certain recourses or alternatives.  This approach provides a forum where disagreement can be shared in an unemotional manner by taking the time for all to be heard.   So, instead of jumping to a majority-minority vote, time is allowed for discussion with the intent to reach a compromise that everyone can live with.  Harmoneous group decisions made by consensus seek resolutions that are satisfactory to ALL group or team members and meet all of their concerns.

The objective is for all participants to sanction the decision as mutually acceptable by all, with the premise that some will be more supportive than others but “I can live with it.”  Group members treat each other equally and solicit the input of all participants, so they have ‘sweat equity’ and ownership in the end product or decision(s). The dialog might sound like, “Dave. I know this isn’t exactly what you wanted but can you live with it to support the group’s efforts?”

It aims to reach an agreement through collaboration, cooperation, concord and participation. Methods such as Brainstorming, Nominal Group Technique (multiple passes between people narrowing options each time), Multivoting where participants have a certain number of votes to dispense.  Many of these can be used to narrow the choices down but discussion tends to be the primary means to reach consensus.

But making decisions through Consensus Building is not necessarily ideal or even appropriate in many cases. The downsides are that, in an effort to satisfy everyone, the decision may reach the lowest common denominator, therefore, producing less than optimal result(s). Also, Consensus Building can be very time consuming to involve everyone. This can be problematic when time is a premium and urgency is needed for a decision.

When the end decision needs to be made and we need all the participants to own that decision, Consensus Building is a way to reach compromise through collaboration.

For over 49 years, Preston Ingalls, President/CEO of TBR Strategies has led maintenance and reliability improvement efforts across 31 countries for Toyota, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon, Occidental Petroleum, Hess, Mobil Chemical, Aera Energy, Skanska, Bayer, Baxter Healthcare, Lockheed Martin, Unilever, Monsanto, Pillsbury, Corning, and Texas Instruments. He consults extensively with heavy equipment fleets, heavy construction industry, and the oil and gas industry in the areas of equipment uptime and cost reduction. He holds two undergraduate degrees in engineering and a master’s degree in Organizational Development. He is a contributing writer to seven trade publications and has written over eighty articles. He also serves as Technical Advisor to two professional trade associations. Visit TBR Strategies at www.tbr-strategies.com.