IT leaders have five ways to make decisions. Their decision-making can be (1) Authoritarian; (2) Consultative; (3) through Delegation; (4) by submitting the alternatives to a Vote; or (5) by bringing the group to Consensus.
Consensus is the most important of the five for IT leaders to master, because consensus — the art of getting a group to agree to an alternative even if they don’t agree with that alternative — is how to maximize a group’s buy-in. And that’s how to turn the group into a team.
It’s also the most time-consuming and expensive way for a decision to get made; is the most likely to result in a mediocre outcome; and is done wrong far too often.
Why attempts at consensus go wrong
Here’s the usual approach: The leader responsible for getting a decision made brings the key stakeholders together, in person (preferred) or virtually. The leader facilitates the arguers’ discussion, listing the alternatives; adding to the list if someone comes up with a new one; and trying to find common ground.
And they fail, because is it your experience that people will, in a public setting, cheerfully admit someone else’s answer is better than their own?
Consensus done wrong, that is, depends on an unnatural act. Which usually results in the exasperated leader giving up and putting it to a Vote, which is, in business settings, the best way to achieve the worst outcome.
But that’s a different subject, for a different article, at a different time and (maybe) venue.
Consensus playbook, part 1: The legwork
Back to consensus, and how to do it right.
First, and most important, never try to achieve consensus in a group setting. It won’t work but will waste everyone’s time.
The way to bring a group to consensus is one member of the group at a time. Meet with one member, talk over the situation, the most likely alternatives, and who seems to favor which alternatives based on your understanding of their logic and perspectives.
Don’t, however, even hint at which alternative you like best during this round of meetings. Do get a sense of which alternative each group member is likely to gravitate to. And, do everything you can to keep any group member from reaching a decision.
Not yet.
Next up: Figure out which alternatives are both best and most likely to be accepted by most of the group. Schedule a second round of one-on-one conversations, whose purpose is to nudge everyone toward the most likely alternative — the one most likely to be sufficiently agreeable to everyone involved.
Yes, this is a lot of work. Consensus decision-making is, as noted, expensive and time-consuming, which is one reason it should be saved for when maximal buy-in is more important than any other aspect of choosing a direction.
Consensus playbook, part 2: The meeting
Now is the time for a meeting — a consensus check, consensus check because everyone involved is close enough to the same preferences that the meeting’s energy is best expended getting everyone to commit, in public, that this is what they agree to. Again, that’s agree to not agree with. And a significant part of the meeting is documenting, for the record, for each member of the group, how it is, if they don’t agree with the chosen alternative but do agree to it, why they are okay with it even if it isn’t, from their perspective, perfect.
A detail for this (and, for that matter, many other meetings): Include an official notetaker among the participants. The official notetaker does not participate in the meeting’s contents in any way, shape, or form, save one: The official notetaker may, and should, read important points back to the group, followed by the question, “Did I get this right?”
Don’t, by the way, call the notetaker “the notetaker.” The notetaker should have a title that calls for respect for their expertise — “project associate” perhaps?
An essential: publish meeting notes, not meeting minutes. Meeting minutes attempt to record each participant’s words. This might make sense in a politically toxic environment. But all minutes do is remind everyone that they don’t entirely agree to or with the fragile consensus you worked so hard to achieve.
Meeting notes, in contrast, record a narrative view of what happened, not the back-and-forth of who said what and to whom.
Minutes, that is, are divisive, and are often used as weapons. Notes are tools used to reinforce the commitment of time, staff, and budget that is, in the end, the definition of what constitutes a decision.
That’s as opposed to just talking about it.
See also:
Read More from This Article: Decision-making 101: How to get consensus right
Source: News