Step 6 in Action

Step #6 in Action

Tough Issue: Future Products for a Billion-Dollar Company

Tim, an R&D manager at a Fortune 500 company, worried that the discussion of alternatives for his company's next generation of products would be like walking into the full force of a storm. (See the description of Tim's group in Part 1.) "This is where we could fall back into the old dynamics of debate and one-upmanship," he feared. "I don't want another meeting in which participants feud endlessly with no results. We need to be able to get our perspectives out on the table in a respectful and constructive way."

A Great Decision Solution

When it came time to discuss the company's alternatives, the members of Tim's team began by reading the shared hopes they had developed earlier, recalling the larger purpose of their efforts. Next, they examined the option of the current software platform by going from person to person to hear everyone's negatives or perceived product limitations. Each person stated only one negative at a time to avoid the kind of dynamics that had reigned in the past, in which members had gone off on extended diatribes. The new procedure also gave each person an opportunity to express a perspective and maintain a personal balance about the option. All members understood that stating a negative didn't mean they necessarily opposed the option under consideration. It simply acknowledged the reality that the option had shortcomings.

Group members didn't repeat a negative that someone had already stated. Had they done so, they would have been providing redundant information, creating the impression that the momentum was swinging in a particular direction.

The guidelines also precluded debate about whether what someone stated was truly a negative. A few participants bridled at this constraint. They prided themselves on letting nothing slip by their critical review. But it was exactly this combative behavior that had put people on edge in their group and stymied decision making and the collective results that they needed.

If someone stated a negative but someone else thought it was a positive, the second person was expected to wait to mention it until it was time to state the positives, which was the next part of this step. This approach doesn't preclude any input but simply structures it so that everyone can receive information more constructively. Debate tactics put the speaker on the defensive, but this approach allows everyone to absorb information without the distortion of ego attachments or defenses. Then, when it comes time to choose an option in Step #7, they can change their minds without losing face.

After cycling through the team members a couple of times, they exhausted all of the negatives about the status quo option. The team then went through the same process for the positives about the status quo, enumerating how the current software supported their shared hopes. Several positive attributes emerged, and participants kept those in mind as they considered subsequent options.

Why present the negatives about an option before the positives? The simple answer is that it works better. The shortcomings of an option or plan typically carry more force than its positives. Perhaps our fears or worries are more dominant than our hopes. When participants get the negatives out on the table, it's easier for them to think of the positives.

The software researchers proceeded to explore two new options in less than an hour, following the same process as they did for the status quo option. How did it go? Here are some of their comments:

• "I like how each option received a fair hearing."

• "I felt we each acknowledged the benefits and shortcomings for our choices."

• "What a relief to get everything on the table without divisive debates."

The process was a success.

As it has with dozens of groups, Step #6 redirected the participants' competitive instincts from debating to providing information about the negatives and positives of each option. The process didn't sublimate the urge to score points. Instead, it scored them for the team's benefit rather than at the expense of other members.

Tough Issue: Developing an Organizational Growth Plan with Many Players

"We're growing fast, starting new initiatives, and need to plan how we're going to organize ourselves for the future," explained Alex, the leader of nationally recognized firm. "I want to bring all of the field staff from our various sites together, along with the central office staff and members of our board. We're blessed with a creative and talkative group. The concern is how to hear from each of the thirty-five participants, avoid having a few long-winded members dominate the conversation, and reach some preliminary conclusions in the course of an afternoon meeting."

A Great Decision Solution

Alex had lots of insights and experience. He was a veteran of McKinsey & Company, the elite international consulting firm, and an organizational expert before starting up his new business. Nonetheless, he faced the realities of finding ways to involve team members and make timely decisions, just like everyone else.

Following Step #6 brought Alex the results he wanted. Similar to the R&D team previously described, Alex's team went through the process of defining the negatives and the positives of all the options they identified. The members examined the alternatives of centralizing and decentralizing key responsibilities as they explored how to grow and retain their innovative culture. Since the organization relied heavily upon personal initiative as well as a shared direction, each participant had important perspectives to share about the choices.

This step gave them a double win. "The team members not only laid out the negatives and positives of all of the initial options," Alex raved, "but also came up with some promising new approaches that no one had thought of before. And we didn't even have to work hard at it. Listening openly to the strengths and weaknesses of each option prompted even better ideas for how to organize ourselves. This step is both efficient and effective!"