Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Adding my thoughts based on listening to the recording and reflecting…
On decision-making processes, I’m also interested in how to better hold to the decision once made. In a recent process, one person spent four months trying to undermine the decision that had already been made, including disrupting workshops to the extent that other participants (her team members) were very frustrated. The dynamic was essentially an effort to wear the group down until her approach was selected (the decision was not hers to make, but she felt strongly about it). It was a two-day workshop where the beers I had with my client after to debrief were definitely well-earned! The strategies you mentioned around reframing didn’t work, sadly, as the person fundamentally didn’t want a participatory decision-making process.
Reflecting on my Top 3, they included Shaper, Resource Mobiliser and Implementer. I was quite surprised that I didn’t get strong innovator or strategist (given I’m a design strategist!) but I think on reflection that my focus in my current work is very much grounded in pragmatism and purpose – what are we trying to achieve here, and the constraints under which we have to operate (e.g. timelines). The more ‘in’ the subject matter I am, the more I am likely to dig into a strongly held position and take on the Innovator and Strategist roles, as I know the ground better. As someone coming in from outside to facilitate, there’s less skin in the game for me, so my ‘role’ shifts – I am concerned with a good process that sticks to the principles we co-created, where people feel and were heard, and that we meet the milestones we set out. The longer I work with a team, though, the more I start to care about the ‘what’ and not just the ‘how’.
Re group processes, some observable things within groups include who feels safe and comfortable (and entitled) to speak; the body language of people in the group to the meeting or to the speaker (are they engaged, what are their faces/bodies showing?); the respect shown to people speaking by allowing them to finish speaking rather than interrupting; the choice and location of seating (who always sits together, who is seated at the ‘prime’ spots that might be more associated with power e.g. head of the table); gender dynamics, including who is expected to take on ‘administrative’ work (e.g. taking minutes, being the notetaker for the group); through body language, whether consensus is true consensus or just on the surface (e.g. will this blow up later and is everyone just biting their tongue to get through the meeting). I would design workshops in Singapore and Indonesia very differently than those in Australia and New Zealand to account for some of these cultural dynamics (e.g. creating safe ways to share ideas without associating them with individuals, not having senior leaders in the workshop after the welcome and inviting them back to hear the debrief/wrap up, using carefully designed activities to provide boundaries to prevent monologuing and hijacking by a single voice). In design workshops, this also included holding the workshops in spaces that were more neutral, and included also trying to remove hierarchies with things like clothing (e.g. don’t wear a suit and a Rolex to a workshop with communities who would struggle to access those resources/where it’s not likely they would dress that way).
The reframing comment was really interesting, as in a global board of my former organisation, I was called (pejoratively) the ‘Chief Risk Officer’ after raising questions about the legal implications of some of the strategy we were developing, in a group that was focused on ideas that would struggle to be implemented and had a culture of ‘yes!’ and ‘amazing!’. Ultimately, I moved on from this role, feeling that my contributions were being dismissed. This was now a decade ago, and there is much I would do differently with 10 years of experience in managing people and groups, and knowing myself.
(And just a brief note, Group 2’s notes from the session on 14 October were posted as a reply to Jessica’s thread for Group 1 – so it’s on the forum, though just hidden!)
Summmary of Group 2’s discussion
Sarah had used a couple of these methods before. She had used voting, and found it very inclusive. The ability of the majority to see the voting and go along with that made it useful, but it was also a cultural thing that works well in the Pacific context. In her partnership, she had done some ranking before, which took some extra work but was useful particularly as a way to generate discussion and pros/cons of options as part of the process. She was less familiar with scoring in partnership decision making, but more in formal processes like recruitment.
Romero too was most experienced with voting, and its focus on democratic values which are important in his context in Indonesia. He had used this approach of dot voting in beginning of partnership during consultation with each other, as a way to find commonalities, common goals, and as a bridge to make things effective. But he noted that discussion following the voting is important once people can see the result.
Tomas much prefers to use consensus-based decision making. While it can be difficult to reach, it’s a strong outcome once you get there. He hadn’t used the scale before and had some questions about how it would be able to work in practice.
Erin had used dot voting, ranking and deliberative methods (similar to consensus-based) and agreed that sometimes it’s more the discussion around the tool that is the important thing. She also reflected that her choice depended on the decision to be made, context and culture e.g. something low stakes or an initial filter with a ‘fast’ method like dot voting, versus something really crucial that needs to be fully explored before a decision is made, lest it re-surface as an issue later.
And this week we missed Oleksii but we will wait to hear his addition below
