Frisch, B. (2008, November). When teams can’t decide. Harvard Business Review, 86(11),
121-126.
Instead of leadership bearing the responsibility for decision making, practical tools can move organizations from impasse and irritation to productive and aligned. The “impossibility theorem”, that in any given decision making scenario where three or more people prioritize three or more items, several team subsets can form and provide conflicting priorities; there will always be items preferred by different majorities. Instead of living in a circuitous cycle of uncertainty and irritation, teams and leadership should address the process of decision making itself. Desired outcomes should be clearly, specifically articulated in order to prevent working against unspoken, competing goals. Next, there must be multiple possibilities presented or discussed that achieve the known goal, but this should be kept separate from discussions relating to the desired outcomes. Barriers should be assessed as to whether or not they are moveable or immoveable; is a constraint real or perceived, and if its perceived, determine what is possible. In order to understand existing preferences, leaders should survey teams for individual preferences or general either individually to determine a focus or offer “weighted” illustration for preference to hone conversation. Skip the open discussion and list pros and cons of each potential choice; assigning a devil’s advocate can help keep the conversation clearly focused on ideas, not their person of origin. Finally, organizations should take a step back and determine what is already working and scale it up, if necessary. In order for these strategies to be employed successfully, Frisch notes that confidentiality should be in place for these discussions and appropriate set amount of time should be devoted to them and their deliberations.
The week I read this article I was a part of a hiring committee; I proposed to the group that we organize information sharing in a way that anonymously collected feedback and we committed to not sharing perspectives until all feedback was collected.
LO3: address complex challenges by collaboratively leading teams across disciplines, distances, and sectors.
LO4: apply communication-centered scholarship to strengthen communication effectiveness.
Comments