Agreeing on everything, accomplishing nothing

by Dennis Smith

Almost by acclamation, having the team agree on its direction is a good thing. Every leader has been told the importance of listening to the ideas and input of the people on his or her team; also a good thing. And of course, making sure that everyone participates in decisions, events, celebrations, meetings, offsites, customer discussions, focus groups, project reviews, docket planning, portfolio discussions, leadership advisory councils, road map meetings, value setting, playbook planning, vision creation, purpose statement wording, and on and on. Pretty soon you have a well understood everything … and a serious lack of progress. Welcome to The Consensus Trap.

Stepping Into the Trap

Okay, let’s talk this through. I’ve pulled many people into almost every kind of consensus-building meeting on that list. I’ve also heard about the importance of each of them from more than one boss … and you probably have too. Where do you draw the line when it comes to requiring (or even desiring) consensus? That depends on what is going on in your organization and in your team.

The world of employees has many good and a few bad eggs. It’s those bad eggs that are the first bait for this trap. While the intentions of project leadership may be righteous, there are people who will use passive-aggressive, or just plain aggressive, means to promote their own agendas. A leader who wants to open up a project to the entire team must have a way to deal with those that would take advantage of that openness.

The second issue is time. Consensus building is the most powerful way to pick the best direction; but sometimes there is not enough time and someone has to be entrusted to make the decisions and provide the leadership. Evacuating a building during a fire is a great example. You just need to be sure that the person directing you to the exits is right; there’s no time for consensus here.

Lastly, if power games are in full swing, consensus is pretty tricky. The premise here is that the game-players or gamers are getting in the way of the truth. If a team member who has a reputation for gaming is on your team and appears agreeable to your direction, he or she might not be playing games this time. So, at the very least, the gamer will complicate finding the right direction since the leader has to determine if the gamer is gaming or not, and then work around the game if it is in play.

Life in the Trap

Actually life can be good in this trap … if it’s all working. A well-built team can be having open and honest communications about their clear objectives, agreed-upon decision criteria, and shared goals. If the gamers are dormant, this is a great place to be.

Unfortunately, life in the trap can be deadly. The project doesn’t get started or it repeatedly stalls, project status and progress are unclear, activity gets confused with progress, and to the reality of the outside world, time stops for the project. Trap death.

Beating the Trap

While there are several ways to beat this trap, not any one is sufficient to assure that you won’t get caught. But here are several ideas about avoiding it, or slipping out easily.

First, having a team that works together over time is the easiest solution. Many of these trap issues are avoided or easily detected and disarmed if the team players know each other. The best teams I’ve seen are the ones that have been together working on similar projects for 10 years. Caution though: if you want that team to work with others, the team can assume the “trap bait” persona in short order if outsiders tread too heavily on their ground. Unfortunately, in today’s reality of distributed teams, outsourced resources, interim employees, and scarce resources, teams working together over long periods rarely happens.

Second is to agree on the criteria in advance of attempting to make project decisions. Most differences of opinion (gamers excepted) are based on differences in facts or differences in decision criteria. Unfortunately, many teams focus almost exclusively on the facts and provide light treatment of the criteria to which the facts are applied to make the decision. This is a trap unto itself.

Agreement on the timing of the decision should be a first task for the consensus-makers. Any project needs an end date; decisions are essentially projects. One manager I knew once walked into a room where a team was stuck and said, “If you don’t make this decision by the end of the day, I’ll make it for you … and I’ll guarantee that none of you will like the path I pick.” That deadline and the believable consequence gave the team motivation, and consensus was reached that day.

A consensus team needs a known decision-making process: who, how long, what methods, what analytics, how it will proceed. Ad hoc decisions are fine for simple decisions; complex decisions require organized methods such as decision matrices or Analytical Hierarchy. A key component of that process is also the escalation path that will be followed if the team can’t get the decision made and accepted in the required time.

Next are the meeting ground rules. I have used the same set for years: see “Meeting Ground Rules” on page 6. Having the team build its own list is a good thing. The team should also actively call each other out if the meeting rules are not being followed.

And last, but certainly not least, know who the final decision-maker is; know who has final say. A few projects ago I walked into a release meeting hoping to be supportive of the company president in his product-release decision only to find out that I was the final decision-maker. Ok, I didn’t miss a beat, but sorting this out in advance makes the process smoother and the end game less stressful.

If the decision-maker is not an active part of the consensus team, then the team should be consulted frequently as the criteria are selected, and the time frame is set. If you are in an organization where you can’t tell who the final decision-maker is, then finding that out should be the first task of the team.

Consensus is as consensus does. This is another example of a trap often set by people who are not authentic or are casual about complex things and those who take advantage of people who are in it for the straight play. Honest, open, thoughtful, and authentic people make the best teams; the others eventually get caught in their own traps.

Reprinted with permission from People on Projects, The Project Management Best Practices Report Vol. 1, issue 9   September 2003. (c) The Center for Business Practices, www.cbponline.com

Home | Privacy