Whenever you are working a group decision making environment, disagreements are natural with a 100% chance that they are going to happen. Unless every member of the team has the exact personality and ideals, no important decision will be made without someone going against the grain. Although arguments may appear negative, in truth, they are almost necessary for effective decision making. People work better when they have an optimal amount of stress, in my opinion. Of course, there have to be stipulations that must be followed so as not to turn a harmless discussion turn into a wrestling match. Something I feel is most necessary to have an effective, conflicting decision-making process is an effective team leader. The input of the group is the most important, and you want everyone to feel that their voices are being heard and not getting lost in the noise. Still, not matter how much you plan and execute a group discussion, it is easy for things to get out of hand immediately. When the team leader sees this happening, it is his or her job to settle the confrontation. He or she cannot just sit back, participate to an extent, and hope the continuous debate ends. I know from personal experience that this usually does not work. The article called "How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight" calls this tactic "consensus with qualification."
My only problem with this is the way it might appear to others. As a team leader, I would rather redirect the discussion than just make a decision on my own based on the team input. Only in extreme situations should an executive decision be made. The group may feel that their efforts were for nothing. In truth, this isn't the case at all, but what your employees see is what they really see. You can't necessarily tell them how to feel about a situation. When they feel like they are being underutilized, or there hard work wasn't appreciated, the morale and mental attitude of the group can change greatly. It is more important to have a motivated, effective, and participating group than make one simple decision. When using these tactics involving conflict, you must think about the long term effects on the employees. If bickering is a common situation, some may be turned off by it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I see your point, a good critique of the Good Fight paper. They say if consensus cannot be reached the boss should make a decision with team input. You say that can leave the team feeling underutilized, a perception that may be imagined more than real. You say the cost of this perception may be greater than the benefits of a faster decision. An interesting point, but I think we can both think of situations were the battle lines get drawn and people get obstinate, never to be swayed.
Post a Comment