Expediting Your Arrival to Consensus
September 2005

Talk, talk and more talk. And then you schedule another meeting to deal with the same issues some more. If you could cut your decision making “cycle time” substantially, you would have the time to resolve more issues - and you'd relieve your team of a great deal of frustration - from having the same conversations over and over again.

We have found that two of the biggest time wasters in meetings are: people re-advocating their opinions in an attempt to convince others; and people quietly sitting on their questions when they need more information. It boils down to too much talking and not enough listening, and in this scenario everyone loses heart. The problem is that no one is making it safe to ask and answer, “Where is everyone at on this proposal, and what do you need before you're ready to move forward?”

One of our colleagues, John Davies, uses a simple but powerful tool he calls “The Ladder of Consensus” (Second Track/Citizens' Diplomacy: Concepts and Techniques for Conflict Transformation by John Davies and Edy Kaufman). It starts with everyone on your team understanding this six point hierarchy of agreement:

1. I wholeheartedly agree with this decision and feel the decision was made by the group with sufficient knowledge and wisdom.
2. I find this decision to be acceptable even though I'd prefer additional information or time to reflect.
3. I can live with this decision and am ready to move forward.
4. I do not totally agree with this decision but will not block it; once it is made I will publicly support the decision.
5. I do not agree with the decision and want to block it at this point in time.
6. I believe there is no unity in our group regarding this decision and feel our lack of consensus will impact other issues.

Once people understand the ladder and feel the freedom to voice their position freely, it is easy to poll the group a number of times during a decision making process. If everyone is at “4” or lower (1-3), then a minimum amount of time can be invested in listening to the reasons people are not all in the ”1“ category, and then the group can move on. If one or more people are declaring “5”, it is worth the time to listen to their concerns fully and ask them “what could we do to have your concerns addressed so you'd be willing to support this decision?” Now we're spending time at the heart of the issue. This allows us to explore possibilities and creative solutions that haven't been discussed before.

If one or more people are declaring “6”, it is time to consider having a neutral facilitator assist the group return to it's foundation of trust, common values, mission and vision. This investment of time can seem unnecessary and off purpose, but it will prevent you from going back to our two time wasters - some people advocating too much while others are too quiet. An alternative is to blend consensus with autocratic decision making. In a healthy culture there is definitely room for someone with role authority or technical expertise to be the tie breaker once everyone has been listened to. Most of the time a team that performs well together will be able to work from consensus and effectively resolve the issue when someone is at “5” and wants to block a decision. During times of impasse, however, the leader needs to be strong enough to declare who gets the final call so that the team can move forward. It requires the courage and the compassion that LionHeart stands for - to do the right thing in a sensitive way. This inspires the alignment and respect necessary to resolve the tough issues in a timely manner, and in this culture everyone's heart grows stronger for what really matters! Please contact us at 503.632.8572.