Blog Archives

Are flaws in decision-making processes causing conflict and poor alignment?--a quick diagnostic

2/26/2015

Barriers to progress like lack of alignment or conflict that are difficult to resolve are fairly common. One seemingly quite logical interpretation is that the primary cause of such barriers is the way people are communicating.

But, problematic communication could be secondary to--a result of--flaws in decision-making processes. Such flaws may not be recognized as an important source of relational problems. When people then dive into discussions, they are at risk for having unexpressed concerns, differing views, and assumptions about how decisions will be made.

As a result, it is more difficult to sustain dialogue—a process of eliciting and assuring mutual understanding of differing ideas, opinions, and perceptions. Instead, due to the prevailing uncertainties, people are more likely to fall into debates, arm-twisting, coaxing, and pressuring which disrupt efforts to achieve alignment.

Identifying flaws in decision making and doing something about them can help significantly to shift a murky, entangled debate into a clear, effective process of dialogue.

Common decision-making errors include lack of clarity about: who has the authority to make the call; the type of decision being used; whether there will be input before and after decisions are made in order to address concerns; or if those impacted will be involved in the design of the implementation plan.

A quick diagnostic for flaws in decision making process (to support high quality dialogue):

In this situation, is it clear who (person or group) has the authority to make the decision?
Has that person or group identified the type of decision making to be used? (see brief descriptions below)
Is there a clear timeline for the decision?
Do people who are impacted and those who can contribute expertise have opportunities to give input? Have they been involved in creating a mutual definition of the problem?
Has there been high quality dialogue prior to the decision with consideration of different options and the benefits and risks of each?
Will there be opportunity to express reactions and address concerns about a decision after it is made?
Will people be involved in designing the implementation plan for the decision?
Will the person or group who made the decision engage in regular review of the quality, clarity, and effectiveness of decision making processes?

Types of decision making: (1)
The following two decision types mesh best with the objective of promoting high quality dialogue.

In consultative decisions, a leader with the authority to do so makes the call after obtaining input through dialogue from those who will be impacted and those who have key knowledge and expertise.

In consensus, a group of people make the call together. Consensus does not mean that the decision is everyone’s first choice but that everyone can live with the decision and commit fully to its success.

Additional decision types:

In authoritative decision making, a leader with authority makes the decision without input. Dialogue about the decision after it is made is crucial to promote alignment and participation in implementation.

When decisions are delegated, a leader with authority gives that authority to another leader or team who then determines the decision type and process to be used.

Maintaining high quality dialogue while also maintaining clarity and quality of decision making processes is an important and nuanced balancing act. It takes art, skill, and ongoing, deliberate practice by individual leaders and by teams.

Additional brief articles on decision making

Reference
(1) Special thanks to Robert Crosby. See his book Walking the Empowerment Tightrope 1992.

Download pdf

Don't wait. Apply practices for dialogue in every conversation.

2/9/2015

Eliciting and managing different perspectives is very important.

In complex systems, no one person or group has sufficient information and perspective to accurately define problems or to design the most creative and effective solutions.

One right answer rarely exists. Different perspectives must be brought together through high quality communication.

Also, the best results arise when people decide to do work out of desire and interest, or intrinsic motivation, as opposed to compliance. Intrinsic motivation arises not through being convinced but through being able to talk about the work and its rationale and contribute to solutions.

But, such open and widely distributed talk about different viewpoints and concerns is very hard to do.

The complexity, pressures, and high stakes of daily life in organizations result in a strong drive to quickly come up with answers to problems. This can shut off adequate communication and cause misdirection, errors, conflict, and passive compliance all of which can hurt results.

Dialogue is a method to elicit different perspectives and manage them skillfully.

Definition of dialogue
Open, honest conversation which elicits commonalities and differences and manages them skillfully to:

discover what is important to each participant;
find mutual definitions of problems, mutual goals, creative solutions, and shared commitment for action;
maintain feedback about what is working and not working in order to sustain progress.

Key practices for dialogue:*

Explicitly keep separate the times for dialogue and for decision making.
Make explicit the intentions of dialogue (see above).
Elicit different viewpoints and explore them. Avoid debates.
Suspend certainty that there is one right perspective or solution.
Explore the underlying data and observations on which views are based.
Assure wide, balanced participation.
Avoid judgments and blame. Assume mutual contributions to problems.
Use cycles of active listening, active telling, and checking understanding.*

You can start to use these practices right now. Every conversation is an opportunity to advance mutual understanding and problem solving. The most important enabling factor for dialogue is the first practice—setting aside, on a temporary basis, the push to get to solutions in order to really listen to people.

Example 1: In complex systems, slowing down simply to ask questions is likely to progressively lead to more accurate definitions of problems, better solutions, and higher motivation. It is helpful to think of one dialogue about one issue as potentially spreading out over multiple interactions including even a 5 minute hallway conversation.

In your next hallway conversation or in a meeting with an individual or team, consider these questions:

How are things going? What is working and not working?
What do you care most about at work? What makes you most enthusiastic?
How does this [e.g. change, project, problem] impact what you care most about?
What are your biggest concerns right now?
Do you have ideas about how we can mitigate those concerns?

Example 2: If you are in the middle of a conflict, ask if others could set aside the attempt to resolve it just to explore what each person is observing and experiencing. Being able to elicit and explore disagreements rather than debate them not infrequently leads to a whole new understanding of an issue entirely different from what was originally expected.

Make every conversation count toward involving people in identifying and solving problems that they care about.

*To obtain the tool and reference list In-the-Moment Reminders for Dialogue available to subscribers only, subscribe for free monthly articles and blogs by clicking on Subscribe.

On being unconditionally constructive

2/9/2015

(Based on work from The Harvard Negotiation Project, especially the book by Roger Fisher and Scott Brown: Getting Together: Building Relationships as we Negotiate Penguin Books 1988)

Difficult interactions and conflict occur frequently in organizational life.

One common trap in such situations is to assume that if we act rationally, fairly, without blame, and with calm emotions, then others will or should automatically follow our lead with their behavior.

But, the stress of interpersonal difficulties causes everyone, at times, to fall into unproductive relational patterns.This can happen even when people have the best of intentions and skills. Starting with expectations that everyone will always act according to their best values puts us at substantial risk for disappointment or anger and then falling into our own problematic communication and behavior.

Even when we are able to achieve working together in a productive way, the chances are this capacity will fluctuate depending on the stress level.

It is better to assume that, under stress, reciprocal good will and behavior usually require ongoing hard work if they do occur at all.

Being unconditionally constructive is a powerful but highly demanding way to stay in a leadership role in tough interactions. It means always acting in ways that raise the chances of improving the ability to work together no matter what others do.

This practice does not guarantee agreement or shared values. It means that we try to find constructive ways to manage differences even if others are not.

This practice is also not about how to be ‘good.’ It is about how to be effective. (Fisher and Brown). There is not much chance for a very good outcome if all the participants in an interaction choose to fall victim to a contagion of counterproductive behavior.

Key practices of being unconditionally constructive include:

Always look beyond the taking of fixed positions to find common interests.
Always consider consulting with others before making any decisions.
Always listen actively to others. Make sure they know you understand their views even if you disagree and even if they are critical of you.
Always try to understand the observations and data on which others’ conclusions are based.
Always sustain respect and accept others as worthy of consideration. Stay engaged.
Always check your own stories and assumptions against observable facts and data.
Always avoid attributing bad intentions to others even if their impact on you is negative.
Always avoid blaming, judging, labeling, and expressing intense emotion.

Being unconditionally constructive does not mean abandoning what we care most about or giving in to placate or to be nice. In fact, a very important practice is to sustain clarity about our own goals, values, needs and concerns and also to communicate them clearly.

Being too quick to abandon or revise our best interests in reaction to the other party’s unconstructive behavior without careful reflection ends up being harmful to the partnership in the long run due to regret, frustration, or feelings of being coerced.

All difficult interactions present us with a choice. We can choose leadership through being unconditionally constructive and raise the chances for success as well as improving relationships. Or, we can abandon the leadership position and raise the chances of acting in destructive ways, making relationships more dysfunctional, and failing.

Are flaws in decision-making processes causing conflict and poor alignment?--a quick diagnostic

Don't wait. Apply practices for dialogue in every conversation.

On being unconditionally constructive

Categories

Archives