Teams talking, thinking, and deciding together: some dimensions to watch for

In this blog post I explore five dimensions that seem important for executive teams (and teams in general, too) when they face difficult, tough problems, and have to make important decisions.

Most often the work may be seamless and go smooth, but it is common for executive teams to wonder if they could do it better, given that the issues don’t have a straightforward answer and that it is hard to even know if we are doing it “right”. In this post I explore five dimensions that relate to their ways of talking to one another, thinking together, and deciding collectively.

I will posit that these five dimensions are important and that teams could be more intentional about what they practice under each of these. (I promise I will refrain from a simple framework or -heaven forbid- from a diagnostic tool!)

For executive teams navigating complex issues it might pay off to look at 1) the level of complexity of an issue, and treating it accordingly; 2) what are their rituals for decision making and listening to dissenting voices; 3) what are their general patterns of talking to one another, listening, speaking, advocating, etc.; 4) how are they treating each agenda point during a meeting and what kind of work is needed; 5) what is the quality of the social fabric among the team.

Let’s jump right in

1) Not all problems should be treated the same way: Level of complexity of an issue that the team is treating

Teams are pressed with time and their attention is a scarce resource. There is also limited time that can be allocated to each issue on the agenda. Some problems have a different level of complexity and uncertainty than others, and do not lend themselves to a quick fix. We have observed executive teams treat a tough problem as if there was an easy-to-find answer and then jump on problem-hunting. I have observed that this is problematic for at least two reasons: if a problem is indeed solve-able, it might be more effective to delegate it instead of troubleshooting in the moment. If it is not solvable there and then, it might pay off to try other approaches to see and work with the issue at hand. Another problem that sometime we witness is that a problem is treated as an easy-fix, and the team opens up a very narrow space for problem definition and for exploring options. Inevitably this results in a narrow solution. This may then have a host of unwanted consequences though, as the decision may end up creating path dependencies and novel problems. (A classic rule of thumb to see more complexity beyond easy fixes is to look around you, and consider that all the “problems” in the world are partially the result of things that yesterday were considered “solutions” by someone else, someplace else).

If the problem is treated as an easy-fix, there will be a narrow space for exploration and often a narrow solution

Ideas and practices that help: The Cynefin framework and other approaches to complexity can help you see the difference between different layers and the different nature of problems. A simple approach is to map the nature of the problems discussed alongside the Cynefin map. I have also discussed and compared various theories here.

2) Seeing how we decide: decision making rituals and clarity.

We are often unaware of some of our deeply ingrained habits. That means that often a team has created patterns for deciding together on certain issues just out of habit. I am all in favor of keeping things simple when they indeed are simple, but making important decisions just out of habits that we don’t question may have its risks. For one thing, there will be times when a team’s decisions involve considerable risks, times when our decisions can open us up to new opportunities at a critical point in time, and yet other times when a decision creates a strong path-dependency for years ahead (ie it will take a lot of energy to undo it). That’s why I find it helpful to let a team see what rituals they have for making a decision, depending on what is at stake in the moment, and what is the requisite level of lateral thinking and disagreeing necessary to explore the issue well.

Ideas and practices that help: You can build your agenda with an explicit mention of how the team will explore the issue and decide on it. How will it explore disagreement? I find that Deep Democracy tools are great for fully exploring dissent; many facilitation tools are great for shared decision making at the right level; and the Pre-Mortem by Gary Klein is a fantastic tool for uncovering risks of a new project

It is helpful for a team to see what rituals they have for making a decision

3) Seeing how we talk to one another: habits of speaking and listening

If you sit in a meeting, there are two dimensions that I always find interesting to observe. First, take out a stopwatch and count who speaks for how long; Second, try to see how often people give statements, opinions, and affirmations, and how often instead they ask questions, show curiosity, lean into not-knowing. The first dimensions has been studied in social psychology as a team’s balance in taking turns, and even though it may sound unsurprising to you, there is some good evidence that teams that have a more balanced sharing of voices end up being smarter together. The second dimension can be called the polarity of Advocacy and Inquiry: on one hand we speak our mind, make our case, express our views to persuade, and on the other hand we show genuine curiosity and listen with openness. The issue here is to know when we need advocacy and when we need inquiry, given the type of dilemma we are facing. A team does not need to “strike a balance” or talk and listen in any specific way, but I found after years of facilitating that at least seeing these dimensions and seeing what type of listening we show when we try and solve problems together helps a team a lot.

Ideas and practices that help: There are facilitation approaches that you can use or purposefully design for equal turn-taking when discussions on a tough topic requires it. Agenda items can be planned in a way that you can be intentional about listening to all voices, and get the levels of advocacy and inquiry that your problems need to be tackled.

4) Do you need to tell us something? Do we need to decide together? Or?

This is a common trap in which I have seen many teams fall, even when with proper planning teams could do a lot better. An item is on the agenda, somebody presents it, and then there is a brief moment of awkward silence from the rest of the team. And now what? Did you want to inform us about the status of this? Or do you want input? Or, would you rather have us decide together on the next step of this project? I found that the meeting agendas for a busy team benefits from having items tagged with the type of conversation that is needed: this is a project update, we will only present this to you FYI; this other item is a project update, where we need to collect a round of views and then the project leader will make her own decision; this item instead is a problem to solve by a shared decision during the meeting.

Ideas that help: Again, going back to classic ideas from facilitation, I found that the ladder of engagement is a very helpful approach to consider how participatory (versus how one-sided) a decision is. The ladder helps us see the difference in terms of level of input from others required for a particular project, from minimum input to the opposite end of complete co-creation. Over the years I found a simplified way of explaining the ladder to clients that ask me to facilitate an event. I divide the option space in four ways of serving a cake: a) At the minimum level of engagement and feedback, I serve you a cake and I hope you love it (and I am not ready to hear criticism); b) I can be a bit more open to feedback, serve you a cake, and listen to all your views and criticism, so that it informs me about the next cake to make for you; c) I can ask in advance about some parameters, food allergies, etc. And then make a cake from your input (probably I will then include a gluten-free and a vegan option too); d) We can sit together and decide on a cake that we all want to create

5) What is the relationship space that produces our talking and deciding?

This last dimension is more elusive because it’s relational, but it’s so very present nevertheless. What is the social history of relationship among the team members that contributes to the very human dynamics of the team, and how it operates and listens to itself? What is the social texture, that influences many of the other dimensions above? What are the conflicts in the room that might make it more / less likely for disagreements to be aired? We have known for a long time that simply saying that we as individuals are “biased” is reductive and dare we say even biased. But can we accept that as a reality and not as a bug, and still see what type of inclinations and preferences our social connections might produce? What type of conversation might this favor? And what can it discourage?

What are the specific inclinations and preferences that our team with its social ties and connections is likely to produce?

Ideas that can help: Some of my friends do mapping of the interrelationships in a team. You can easily map the social ties (including conflicts) as a way to take a deeper look at the team and what might be underneath some of the dynamics at play. When it comes to a team’s effectiveness, it is important to wonder how can these dynamics affect a team’s capacity to voice dissent with candor, perceive risks, express views that are not aligned (see research on groupthink, for instance).

I hope these dimensions can be helpful to spark a conversation. What are your practices in facilitating team meetings? What do you notice?