Your cross-functional team is divided on risk perceptions. How will you navigate the interpersonal conflicts?

Conflict is an inherent part of cross-functional teams, where diverse perspectives collide. As a leader, your ability to manage these conflicts effectively can significantly impact team dynamics and project outcomes. Here are actionable strategies to navigate interpersonal conflicts: Acknowledge Views Analyze Objectively Facilitate Dialogue Build Consensus Implement Decisions Adjust Strategies Remember that effective conflict management isn’t about avoiding disagreements; it’s about turning them into opportunities for growth and innovation. By fostering collaboration and open communication, you can transform conflicts into catalysts for positive change within your cross-functional team . ??

Understanding risk personalities is crucial for effective board work. Different board members have diverse risk appetites, tolerance levels, and perspectives on risk, which can significantly influence strategic decisions. Recognizing these variances facilitates better communication and collaboration, ensuring that all viewpoints are considered in decision-making processes. Such awareness helps in balancing aggressive risk-taking with cautious risk governance, leading to more robust and resilient board strategies. It is particularly helpful during stresses as those are most likely to cause the emotional response to risk to dominate the cognitive or strategic response. The strategic mindset must dominate.

One of Stephen Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People applies to navigating conflicts. It is "seek to understand first, before making yourself understood." Expression of your position will be more impactful if you understand the perspective with which it will be heard. Avoid seeking resolution by debate over the merits of the positions presented. Is there an answer that has not yet been presented, not just a compromise but a different answer? This approach leads to collaboration, even if a different solution is not found. Lastly, relationships are like health. Healthy habits usually make for speedier recoveries from illness or injury. Making investments in relationships makes for easier navigation of conflicts.

While valuing diverse perspectives is beneficial, there are potential drawbacks and challenges to this approach: Considering every viewpoint can slow down the decision-making process, leading to delays, especially in time-sensitive situations. Analysis Paralysis: Overemphasis on accommodating all perspectives may result in "analysis paralysis," where the team struggles to make a decisive move due to conflicting opinions. Striving to validate all viewpoints may lead to compromises that dilute the quality and effectiveness of decisions. Groupthink Risk: In an attempt to be inclusive, there might be a tendency to conform to dominant perspectives, inadvertently leading to groupthink.

While an objective analysis is vital, solely relying on data and facts without considering emotions and personal biases has its drawbacks: 1. Emotions and personal biases often provide valuable insights into stakeholder concerns and potential impacts on morale and motivation. 2. Data may not always be complete or accurate, leading to decisions based on imperfect information. 3. Strict adherence to objective criteria can result in rigidity, ignoring the nuanced and dynamic nature of some risks. 4. Exclusively focusing on data may alienate team members who feel their personal insights and experiences are disregarded, reducing their engagement and contribution. 5. Objective analysis may miss the broader context.

would encourage the team to focus on data-driven analysis and objective criteria to assess the risk perceptions. By removing personal biases, we can better evaluate the merits of each viewpoint. Data backed conclusions goes long way in assisting us obtain approvals and put across our points convincingly.

Try to understand the "why" behind the different perspectives. Is it due to some members having different knowledge, experience or biases which may be key to better understanding the risks? Or is the difference based on different definitions - it is important to come to a shared set of definitions, assumptions, and scoring criteria? Or is the team aligned on the definition of risks but misaligned on risk acceptance or risk tolerance? Each of these can be meaningful sources of misalignment that can limit further discussion.

In my opinion it’s crucial to address and challenge personal biases. For example, if a team member consistently downplays a particular risk due to past successes, recognize this as a potential bias. To identify biases, look for patterns in how individuals assess risks and question whether their judgments are based on data or personal experience. Once identified, challenge biases by asking probing questions like, “What data supports this viewpoint?” or “How would we assess this risk if we had no prior experience?” Encourage team members to back their opinions with concrete evidence and consider alternative perspectives. By systematically questioning and validating the data, you can help the team make more objective and balanced decisions.

Effective communication is crucial, all team members should have the opportunity to express their concerns clearly. Structured communication encourages members to work together to achieve collective problem-solving. This will promote understanding of various risk perceptions, which is critical for effective risk management.

In addition to facilitating open and structured dialogues, consider incorporating regular feedback loops into your communication strategy. After initial discussions, periodically revisit the identified risks and the measures taken to address them. This allows team members to provide updates, share new insights, and reassess the situation as it evolves. Regular feedback sessions can help ensure that risk management strategies remain relevant and effective, and they reinforce a culture of continuous improvement and adaptability. By maintaining an ongoing dialogue, you can keep the team aligned and responsive to changing circumstances, further strengthening trust and collaboration

Getting the conversation started is a good way to get people together and to have a space to vocalize all of their thoughts and ideas. Someone might have a new idea that they want to share and another person might have the perfect way to express it in a meaningful way for all involved.

I recommend the Risk Type Compass as a tool. For boards of directors or management teams interested in this please contact the DCRO Institute. This gives as assessment of risk personality types and understand the perspective of each.

Effective communication is indeed the cornerstone of resolving conflicts in risk perceptions. By facilitating open and structured dialogues, ensuring non-confrontational and collaborative sessions, and employing active listening techniques, teams can foster a culture of respect and inclusivity. However, it is important to remain aware of the potential challenges and proactively address them to ensure that communication remains both effective and efficient.

Building consensus is a vital step in aligning your team’s approach to risk management. While it can be challenging and time-consuming, the benefits of enhanced alignment, improved decision-making, and increased buy-in are significant. By employing strategies to facilitate open dialogue, prioritize key concerns, and encourage compromise, teams can achieve majority consensus that guides their actions effectively. However, it is important to remain aware of the potential pitfalls and proactively address them to ensure that the consensus-building process leads to high-quality and effective risk management decisions.

Navigating team conflicts and building consensus involves a few key steps. First, I talk to everyone to understand their concerns. Then, we have an open meeting where everyone shares their views, and I ensure to listen actively (and take notes). Aligning on common goals is crucial. We prioritize risks together, ranking them based on impact, probability and net risk tolerance. Next, we brainstorm solutions. The aim is to try to build consensus, focusing on majority agreement and key concerns. Once we have a plan, I document and share it with the team. Regular check-ins help monitor progress and make adjustments. For this, transparency is key, as it builds respect and keeps the team aligned and motivated.

While building consensus is essential, it's equally important to designate a final decision-maker or a decision-making process for when consensus cannot be reached. This person or process should have the authority to make the final call after all viewpoints have been considered. Establishing clear decision-making protocols helps prevent stagnation and ensures that the team can move forward even when full agreement is not possible. This approach maintains momentum and provides clarity on how decisions will be made, ultimately enhancing the team's ability to effectively manage risks while respecting diverse perspectives

This needs proactive measures like encouraging open and honest communication, role clarity and navigating through challenges effectively as they arise. Creating a culture where members express their ideas and respect that every member is different. Clearly set communication norms.

Based on my knowledge and experience:Striving for Majority Consensus: Recognize that achieving complete agreement on every risk may not be realistic, and focus instead on finding a majority consensus that the team can rally behind. Work with the team to establish a shared understanding of the acceptable risk thresholds, based on the organization's risk appetite and the team's collective concerns. Encourage the team to focus on mitigating the most critical risks, rather than trying to address every possible risk scenario. Ensure that roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities are clearly defined, so that everyone understands their part in implementing the agreed-upon risk management strategies.

Implementing consensus decisions is a critical step that validates the collaborative process and demonstrates tangible outcomes. By developing clear action plans, ensuring transparent communication, allocating necessary resources, and establishing robust monitoring systems, teams can effectively implement and track their decisions. While challenges exist, such as execution risk and monitoring complexity, these can be mitigated through clear leadership, change management, scalable monitoring systems, bold decision-making, and sustained engagement. This approach not only reinforces the value of collaboration but also provides valuable feedback for continuous improvement in risk management.

It's natural to have different perspectives on risk since we are all different and may interpret risks based on our experiences, risk tolerance, and business knowledge. This diversity in viewpoints should be seen positively, as it enhances our understanding of risk facets. I prioritize active listening to ensure every perspective is heard and valued. Keeping communication channels open is crucial, encouraging open dialogue and analyzing the reasons behind each viewpoint. By understanding the reasons for these differences, we can find where possible common ground and address concerns collaboratively. This approach fosters a cohesive team environment, ultimately leading to more robust and comprehensive risk management strategies.

Reaching consensus on the definition and characterization of risk is important, but Risk Acceptance should have a clearly defined decision maker. Team members don't need to agree with the decision they just need to align with it. The leader's role should be in identifying obstacles or resistance the team may have to implementation and to try to find resolution that will enable team members to align.

Implementing decisions is crucial, but monitoring them is equally important. Tracking outcomes provides real-world feedback on risk assessments and informs future decisions. Monitoring isn’t just to catch when things go wrong; it’s a tool to improve and assess the effectiveness of the program / process.

1. Clear Action Plan: Develop a detailed action plan with specific steps, timelines, and responsibilities. 2. Assign Roles: Ensure each team member knows their responsibilities and deadlines. 3. Communicate Decisions: Clearly communicate the decisions and action plan to all stakeholders. 4. Provide Resources: Allocate necessary resources, including budget, tools, and support. 5. Monitor Progress: Set up regular check-ins to track progress and address issues. 6. Adjust as Needed: Be flexible and ready to make adjustments based on feedback and changing circumstances. 7. Document and Report: Keep thorough records and regularly update stakeholders on progress.

Risk management is an ongoing process that requires adaptable strategies. As a leader, be prepared to: Stay Flexible: Adjust strategies as new information emerges or if outcomes deviate from expectations. Demonstrate Responsiveness: Show your team that their input impacts project outcomes, enhancing their engagement. Manage Risks Effectively: Adaptability ensures better risk management and responsiveness to changing conditions. Reduce Conflicts: Valuing team input can reduce interpersonal conflicts and foster a collaborative environment. By maintaining flexibility and responsiveness, you strengthen your team’s effectiveness and resilience in managing risks.

Risk management is continuous, so strategies must remain adaptable. Be prepared to make adjustments based on feedback and changing circumstances. Flexibility is key to successful implementation. This means being open to revisiting decisions and modifying them as new information or challenges arise. Regularly review the progress and outcomes of the implemented decisions, and be willing to pivot strategies if necessary. Encourage team members to provide ongoing feedback and create a culture where adaptability is valued. This approach ensures that the team remains responsive and effective in managing risks.

To manage interpersonal conflicts in your cross-functional team regarding risk perceptions, you need to adjust your strategies. Start by developing an environment where open communication is encouraged, ensuring every team member feels heard and respected. Adjust your approach by holding regular meetings focused on discussing risk perceptions and mitigation strategies to align everyone’s understanding and expectations. Encourage collaboration by highlighting common goal of managing risks effectively. When team members see their input valued and see how adjustments are made based on collective feedback, it promotes a sense of unity. Finally, be flexible and ready to adapt your strategies as new information or perspectives emerge.

Implementing the Agreed-Upon Decisions: - Develop a detailed implementation plan that outlines the specific actions, timelines, and responsibilities for each team member. - Ensure clear communication of the implementation plan to the entire team, emphasizing the importance of everyone's participation and commitment. Reinforcing the Value of Collaboration: - Regularly communicate the successes and lessons learned from the implementation and monitoring phases to the entire team. - Recognize and celebrate the team's achievements, reinforcing the value of the collaborative process and encouraging continued engagement. - Use the team's experiences to refine and improve the overall risk management framework within the organization.

One way to drive consensus in risk perceptions is to use the Delphi approach, an interactive method. The tool relies on a panel of experts who anonymously provide their opinions and insights on a specific issue. It is an iterative process involving multiple rounds with feedback loops that help refine perceptions. The anonymity of the participants reduces the influence of dominant individuals, is also un-biased, and promotes independent and critical thinking. This, in turn, leads to informed judgment and consensus on risk perceptions.

Your cross functional team will ALWAYS be divided on risk perceptions! The KPIs for your sales team will always potentially conflict with more compliance focused delivery teams - whose KPIs will often be around quality. This feeds through to culture, career history and personality types. This conflict is healthy and should be expected whilst being carefully managed. Especially to make sure the side effects are not counterproductive

Always direct the team back to the original goal / objective. There's no right or wrong only what is best for the initial goal. Maintaining a good team dynamic is also a key success factor to getting a consensus quickly.

Bring it back to your defined appetites of your framework, to literally give you that framework to work within. If then it just doesn’t ’feel’ right, maybe it’s your framework you should be spending some time on first of all.