In this blog series so far, we have discussed trust and healthy conflict management as requirements for creating organizational health. In this message, I’d like to begin to discuss how you can build on these factors to achieve buy-in, commitment and accountability.
It would be nice to think that creating an environment of trust is a good process for conflict management would, in and of itself, be enough to create a healthy team. However, even in a trusting environment where everyone understands the rules of engagement, that certainly does not, nor should it, guarantee that everyone is going to agree on strategy.
So far in the process, we have created an atmosphere where everyone involved has had the opportunity to provide their input, have their questions answered, and, to the best of their ability, understand the reasoning behind the path forward. This process, in and of itself, will go a long way toward creating a cohesive team. However, the completion of this process still does not guarantee that everyone is on board.
You will not always achieve consensus among your team. And in fact, if you always wait to achieve consensus, you will miss opportunities, make decisions too late, and create solutions that everyone on the team may have some issue with, however small. This makes it much more difficult for everyone to get behind the plan and to bring the full force of their commitment to it.
Healthy teams and healthy organizations can avoid this pitfall by utilizing a process called “disagree and commit.” While this process has developed in many organizations, this particular term was first identified and used by the microchip manufacture Intel. What the concept entails is that even when the team cannot reach consensus, they must still leave the meeting completely committed to a common course of action. While this sounds simple enough, you must have the kind of atmosphere where the “disagree” part of the equation is allowed and encouraged. Since that part of the process can often be uncomfortable, with everyone on the team feeling free to deliver their ideas and opinions without filters, it takes a confident leader to allow it.
Only after differences of opinion have been allowed, issues debated, and alternatives discussed can you truly make it possible for people to commit. It should be noted that passive agreement is your worst enemy. People who smile and nod agreeably without offering their opinions have not necessarily bought into the plan, and often do little to actively support the plan after the meeting is over. Instead, they tend to stand aside and watch the process, hoping it will not be successful so that they can then put for their own ideas and solutions.
The only way to avoid this is to demand conflict and let team members know that each one of them will be held accountable for the success of whatever the team decides. And to avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretations of what was decided, it is important to take the time at the end of the meeting or process to make sure everyone has a common understanding about what has been agreed to and what they particularly have committed to do. Then, it is imperative that each one of the team members goes immediately to their own team and communicates exactly what was discussed what was agreed upon in what was committed to. If they do this, it will make actual commitment much stronger, and ensure communication to the rest of the organization is clear and aligned with the plan.
This approach also strengthens accountability by empowering team members to address behaviors and actions with their peers when they do not support the agreed-upon plan. Sometimes people, even after committing to a course of action, will either knowingly or unknowingly begin to deviate from the agreement. Either way, it is the responsibility of the other team members to call out this behavior and get this team member back on track.
This concept of peer-to-peer accountability is an important characteristic of healthy organizations. Often, we look to the leader of the team to be the primary person responsible for holding people accountable, but rarely is that approach timely, practical, or efficient. Having one peer go to the leader whenever they see inconsistent behavior from another peer regarding the commitments made often creates unnecessary distractions and political discord. When peers are aware of the team commitments that have been made, they will have more freedom to step in and help their colleagues when it appears their commitment may be lagging. Whether it’s requesting clarification about something that seems amiss or reminding a colleague of the commitment that everyone has agreed to, is a much healthier approach then taking the issue up the chain of command.
Accountability is a core measure of an organization’s health. Being able to confront someone about their behaviors, and then stand there and deal with their reaction requires a great deal of emotional intelligence. It is a selfless act of “taking one for the team,” and at the end of the day, is an act of love. You don’t often hear that word used in the context of a business environment, but it is not an unusual concept in a truly healthy organization.
Share Your Thoughts
You must be logged in to post a comment.