In executive training initiatives, teamwork and participation in meetings have been frequent subjects; in addressing them, there is a tendency to distinguish roles between members or participants, and to deploy decision-making procedures.
One of these methods of deciding as a team, “decisions by consent”, seems to be offered as an alternative to consider, and should be examined.
In one of my recent Internet connections, almost always serendipitous, I came across an online course on these topics (“Training Course in Teamwork Management Skills”) on the CECALE portal, Confederation of Business Organizations of Castilla y León, an institution visibly interested in distance learning, perhaps to meet the needs of its associates without the avoidable displacement of the participants.
This interesting course for managers seems to illustrate the differences between what he calls group work and what he defines as authentic teamwork, and he deploys the precise competencies in the operation of teams, to then provide keys to development. But, specifically speaking of the celebration of meetings and under the title "The roles in the meetings", it delves into three different roles: coordinator (leadership), moderator (serious, rigorous profile) and animator (benevolent profile).
About roles
I came to a stage where I was asked to list the qualities of a good moderator, and the system, while validating responses such as "clarity of mind", "determined temperament" or "capacity for synthesis", rejected others like "emotional intelligence", "ability to persuade" or "availability".
Perhaps we wanted to underline the difference in profile between the moderator (more cognitive) and the animator (more emotional), but I was hesitant; In short, I believe that emotional intelligence - like other positive qualities - is convenient, and even necessary, for everyone always, and also in meetings.
The truth is that I, after attending numerous meetings in a large company over 30 years, would not know how to distinguish these roles well, and would also confuse them with others that are also discussed in other courses, such as the role of facilitator., for not referring to Belbin's roles as well, or remembering that we sometimes use these terms as synonyms.
In fact, perhaps I would only dare to distinguish rigorously between summoned and summoned, although for all I would postulate a good command of conversational skills, among others necessary. Perhaps the key -of the roles- is to delve into the different types of meetings in the company; meetings for:
- Communicate changes, results, etc. Build relationships of trust. Learn as a team, through dialogue. Explore possibilities or opportunities. Establish action plans. Track plans. Face obstacles and solve problems. Reach the best conclusions or decisions. Distribute tasks or responsibilities. Study improvements and innovations in processes or products.
I must clarify that this makeshift list is mine and not of the course I was talking about; but it is possible that, in effect, each type of meeting - and even each particular meeting - requires a singular distribution of roles; or that it simply requires a good display of effectiveness by the participants.
Undoubtedly, these -all participants- require cognitive faculties such as analysis, synthesis, allegation and inquiry, and social skills such as listening, communication, empathy or synergistic collaboration, among others, without forgetting the resource intuitive nor, of course, the inexcusable dose of conscious knowledge.
Returning to the course offered by CECALE, I came to another exercise in which you had to choose between the animator and the moderator, to cover the following function:
"Ensure that the system of influence on decisions is based on information and on the support of reasons and contrasted data and not on assumptions, impressions or beliefs."
This is, in effect, a function that corresponds to the moderator (I was right in my answer), but it is that I, without questioning the need to contrast the facts before deciding, I was left wondering if we were not, in any case, missing help of the so-called intuitive intelligence.
The truth is that, although Bill Gates himself warns that one must sometimes be guided by intuition, there is certainly a general tendency in companies to be guided by reason and the data available - reductionist rationalism (or rationalist reductionism), it could perhaps be thought - and keep the intuitions, and sometimes even the feelings and emotions, in secrecy or semi-secrecy.
I am afraid that we can almost never be sure of having all the necessary information, nor of having consulted it with sufficient attention, critical thinking, objectivity, and systemic reflection.
In the so-called Information Society, we are, it is said, flooded with it, but thirsty for knowledge; it must be remembered that between the information available in different supports and the corresponding precise knowledge to decide, there is a kind of terra incognita, hiatus, obstacle, which we do not always overcome.
Sometimes we have data both to decide in one direction, and to do in the opposite, and this requires an extra effort of rational analysis, but perhaps also a subsequent intuitive help, which brings up underlying elements.
There are surely many managers around the world who agree with Peter Senge, when he tells us: “The choice between reason and intuition, or between head and heart, does not pray for individuals endowed with a high level of personal mastery, such as they wouldn't even think about walking with one leg or looking with one eye. ”
And we should also remember that practice of the six colored hats that Edward De Bono proposed to us; Referring only to the pair of colors white and red, the well-known guru proposes us to alternate between sticking to facts and reason (white), and listening to our feelings and intuitions (red).
Many other experts certainly agree on this recommendation, but each company, or each executive or director, chooses the internal and external voices to guide their listening before deciding.
Decision making
Let's continue talking about decision-making, which is done in a participatory way in many meetings and which, in my opinion, is often done by consensus but other times out of tiredness, if you will allow me a dose of lightness.
In the online course I was referring to, the rational process for reaching the best decision individually in each case is recalled, but we are placed on the stage of meetings to identify different ways of deciding as a team.
In the corresponding lesson, decisions are contemplated by:
- Influence of the leader. Average, in quantitative decisions. Voting, winning the majority and linking the minority. Negotiation, seeking balance. Consensus, so that everyone shares the decision. Consent, when others consent even with reservations.
If I had a choice, perhaps I would prefer consensus; But, being often difficult to get, this online course seems to advise decisions “by consent” in teamwork, and it only extends in this option. Searching for information on the Internet, I discovered that this formula - “decisions by consent, not consensus” - was used, for example, in religious meetings, as well as in the political exercise (“The consent principle”) and in other areas; and that it is associated with a “sociocratic” model of organization (developed by Gerard Endenburg).
The fact is that, if I am not mistaken, in consensus one considers his decision (in general, he defends it and is satisfied), and in consent one considers it foreign, he does not object to it (or he objects, but his arguments do not convince others) and abide by it.
It all depends, but I would say that one feels more committed when he has participated in decision-making, and that participation, and even empowerment, is being preached in the company.
I also believe that the most widespread is to link teamwork with consensus, so I was indeed surprised and interested in this CECALE proposal, to the point of prolonging my Internet queries looking for references on decisions by consent: there are not many, actually.
As I had proposed when speaking of the meetings, I would suggest distinguishing types of decisions to be made: strategic, tactical, preventive, reactive, those that affect people, those of election of candidates, etc.
Perhaps, depending on the case, it is appropriate to opt for consensus, consent, or another alternative (or a suitable combination). However, I would draw the reader's attention - although I doubt it is necessary - to the fact that very intelligent people sometimes make wrong decisions when they sit together to do so: many experts already warn of this.
The course for Castilian-Leonese managers seems, in effect, to bet on "decisions by consent", and seems to have grounds for doing so.
Specifically, it reads: “Many people, when they first hear about the concept of decision-making by consent, are uncomfortable with it, because it gives the impression that either because of the participants' reluctance to object or because of the The antagonists' desire to object to everything, the process becomes ineffective. However, experience has shown that any of these apparently impediments is not a problem. ”
We can also read: “Decision making by consent in its informal style is very natural. Each of us constantly uses informal consent to make decisions in our daily lives with company colleagues or friends. Regardless of culture, informal consent permeates the regulatory process in the top management of organizations ”.
And more about it: “Whether it be the elders of a tribe or the older executives of a large Western corporation, experienced membership provides undisputed respect and functional parity with the other members of the upper circle. If one of them makes arguments that object to a proposed course of action, a discussion arises and a different action is taken. On a day-to-day basis, issues are not voted, and the head of the organization, be it the chief of the tribe or the corporate president, does not try to impose ”.
All this deserved my attention and interest because I had been placing consensus in the genesis of teamwork, even though I was aware of the difficulty involved; in fact, back in the early 90s, my environment attributed to me a certain rejection or inability to work as a team, and I was considered inflexible and individualistic. Perhaps, when working as a team, it is certainly necessary to act by consensus in some cases, and by consent in others, without ruling out other formulas.
A digression
If you access this course, you will see that its content is intense in the backgrounds, and sober, textual, in the forms: it could appear in Word or PowerPoint, as an electronic book. It caught my attention because e-learning has also been offering us, for four or five years, courses or pills on line of great graphic apparatus (which surely makes the product more expensive), and whose didactic content has sometimes been modest and questionable.
It could be said that, in e-learning and until now, audiovisual forms seemed to prevail over teaching funds, so that, for example, we could follow courses with audio in which we simply listened to what we could already read on screen, or courses with great display of animation and interactivity, without always nourishing learning in a significant way.
Although there may, of course, be high-quality designs, authoritative voices have denounced that e-learning was not generating sufficiently significant learning. It is also worth recalling, for example, that a leading provider, Fycsa, now integrated into “élogos”, advised clients in 2003 to dose their investments in online content, remembering that at the University we studied with “precarious content” (it referred to "the notes of the most studious of the class").
Indeed, over the contents of the online courses there have been these years providers and clients that seemed to relativize their importance, but also providers and clients that underlined the need for effective teaching designs, to the benefit of learning and the consequent improvement of professional performance.
The reader will have his opinion on e-learning as a solution for lifelong learning, but I think that the didactic effectiveness - the passage from valuable information to applicable knowledge - demands great attention to various aspects (rigor, clarity, applicability…) of the information that the teacher-designers send to the users of the courses.
This didactic information can often be made with tools as simple as Word or PowerPoint, and the student can consult it on screen, or print it to study it more carefully and comfortably.
The CECALE course that I was talking about could be followed on paper, not to mention the much information that managers can find on the Internet (articles, reports and various documents) and also print, to nourish, at no cost other than the time spent, your store of knowledge and soft skills.
Undoubtedly, there are topics that demand more complex interactive and multimedia designs, and test the effectiveness of professionals (teachers and technicians) in the e-learning sector; but there are others that can be solved with resources similar to those used in face-to-face training (didactic texts, figures, exercises, recommended readings…), ensuring proper communication with the tutor.
The course I was talking about does not make unnecessary graphical displays, but provides information that is easy to digest; Another thing is that, due to its brevity, it cannot better identify the cases in which consent decisions are really an ideal solution. And now I close this digression on e-learning.
conclusion
It is the reader who values the suitability of the decision-making system that is offered to us, but, from the information that I accessed, it seemed to me a practice that, perhaps being common in some companies, I had not registered as a postulate of the modern management. The consensus formula is preached much more (many thousands of Internet references in different languages), although it may be blurred or adulterated in the application.
Of course, the consent system seems faster, although perhaps it suggests a certain functional rigidity… In any case, I think that it would be necessary to see the type of decision to be made, that not all decisions have to be taken by the same method, and that one is probably much more committed to the decisions to which he has actively contributed.
I would almost invite them to also consider, on the other hand and when the case advises, a possible reconciliation between reason and intuition, and to take better advantage of the latter faculty; Of course, distinguishing genuine intuition from everything that, although it may sometimes seem like it, is not (conjectures, wishes, prejudices, beliefs, assumptions, inferences…).
And, finally, without ruling out the interest of the postulated consent system, I, in general, would prefer to expose my points of view in each meeting not from the position of objector, but avoiding that possible connotation; although perhaps, once regular or habitual practice has been achieved, the aforementioned connotation disappears.
In any case, a certain climate of trust seems necessary for one to dare to object, even in the face of a hierarchical superior's decision. Can you imagine a solemn, circumspect manager, showing himself in favor of something, and asking if there is an objection?
Perhaps the reader is left thinking that, insofar as the decision affects him, he prefers consensus; or maybe not. But above all, I perceive the difficulty of formulating an objection based, where appropriate, on the objector's intuitions.
Intuition exists, and constitutes a valuable aid to which increasing attention seems to be devoted by managers and knowledge workers; But there will also be readers who show reservations about it, or who consider intuition a double-edged sword.
In any case, it is difficult to transmit to others the unmistakable sense of certainty that accompanies the intuitive revelations, or reservations, also of an intuitive nature, that certain alternatives generate for us.
