Paul: 0:08

Welcome to Employing Differences, a conversation about exploring the collaborative space between individuals.

Karen: 0:14

I'm Karen Gimnig.

Paul: 0:16

And I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: 0:17

Each episode, we start with a question and see where it takes us. This week's question is, "How will we decide?"

Paul: 0:26

One of the most interesting, fascinating, and sometimes frustrating things about working with groups is group decision-making. I think we don't necessarily have as much insight into ourselves as individuals and the ways that we make decisions as we might think that we do. But I think many of us really don't think a lot about the process by which groups make decisions. Karen and I do a lot of work with groups that involves having to make decisions, and there's a couple of stumbling blocks that we seem to run into again, and again and again, around group decision making that are sort of all around this question of, "How will we decide?" We find that this question doesn't come to the surface as often in a group as we think that it would be useful. And that's understandable. We do a lot of work in this space, so we think about models for group decision-making a lot. Whereas most of the time groups are not intentional about how they're making decisions. They're just trying to do the work that they're trying to do. They don't necessarily think about the process side of it as much. And so we want to explore today and kick around a couple of things around group decision-making, around this question of how will we decide and actually starting from the place of, "How will we know that we've made a decision?"

Karen: 1:42

Yeah. Most of my groups, if you said, "Well, how do you make decisions?" They would say,"Well, we make them by consensus." Or maybe by sociocracy, and that's the answer. And of course, often, it's more complicated than that. And I think particularly a case that gets tricky is when it's not clear what happens if you don't make a decision. So for a lot of decisions, you're going along, and you're living, working, doing your thing, and somebody says, "Oh, I have a new idea, we could do a new thing." And either you decide to do the new thing, or you don't decide to do the new thing, and you go

along. And that's pretty clear: 2:23

we are going to we're not going to do the new thing. But sometimes you come to some sort of crossroads as a group. And if you don't then pause to say,"How are we going to decide which path to take? And how will we know that we've decided that? What process? And if we fail to decide what's going to, you know, then what?" then then you can get a long way into the discussion and not actually have a sense of process. You can end up kind of lost and insecure and anxious and everybody's sort of floundering around just feeling stuck. Because we don't have – it's like, we don't have the guardrails on. We're just sort of flying down a mountain road, not sure where the edges are, and not sure how we're going to get anywhere. Because we don't have an agreed to a structure of we're going to follow this sort of process and the default is this happens unless we agree. That kind of process needs to be defined. And the further you get into the discussion, the harder it is to decide that process. Because as you get into the discussion, it will be clearer and clearer the way in which the process that you choose may favor one path or the other. And so then people get into – instead of thinking about,"Okay, what's the process that's going to get us to the best decision?" – they get to,"What's the process that's going to get the outcome I think I want?" And so this is this is the conundrum that I think you and I have both seen groups get into that we're trying to help avoid by thinking early on. I mean, "As a whole group, how do we make decisions?" Yes, I think most groups do some of that conversation. But for this particular decision that we're about to make, how do we make that? Does the process that we already have really work? Or do we have to define it in more detail?

Paul: 4:25

And what that's really pointing to is a distinction that we make a lot, which is the distinction between the process and the content. There's there's the process that the group is going to use to make a decision. And then there's the actual content of the decision itself that needs to be made: the relevant data, all of the factors that play into it. And as you point out, there's an interplay to them. And actually, what I tend to notice is that when the process isn't clear, it actually means that people can't spend as much energy on the content. Because that anxiousness about "Wait a minute, how are we going to make this decision?" Or my favorite:"I thought we already decided this." That's the other thing that happens when you don't know that the decision has been made, is you have people who are at different places of understanding. I think a decision has been made. You think it hasn't been. And I don't realize that you don't think it has been because it's obvious to me we've made this decision. And that ends up, again, in sort of the space between. So I think a lot of the work of – among the reasons why it's useful to be clear about what's the process we're going to use, how will we know that a decision has been made, and what are we going to do if we failed to make one using our intended method in the time that we have(or whatever your guardrails are), if we don't make that clear, people's cognitive and emotional energy will get pulled into that. When we do make it clear, then people don't have to worry about that part anymore and they can live fully in the content. They can focus on actually using that process to make a good decision. And so for me, it's less about, do I think this is a great process? It's more about, is this a process that will help the group to actually make a good decision? Is it clear enough to them that they can actually move forward? And so that's what I'm often working with a group on. When I notice that there seems to be a lack of clarity around those three things, helping to bring clarity to it.

Karen: 6:36

Clarity is so important. And as I was thinking about this, and where I've seen groups go astray, this sort of easiest case is "We do have a process, we know what it is, it's written down somewhere." The groups I work with may have a process team, even often under that name, of people who've tried to keep track of this stuff. And so the simplest case is we have a process. But even then, it is a mistake to assume that everyone knows it and understands it equally. So the first step, I mean, like the easiest solution here is when you're beginning a decision making process, if you're facilitating that meeting, review the process as you understand it. So we're going to have a discussion, we're going to have a presentation, maybe we're going to have, you know, first of all a presentation, and then we'll have clarifying questions, then we'll have comments, which would be the time to voice any concerns or objections you have, then we'll do a decision round. If that's your process, and I'm just throwing that one out as a common example. But it wouldn't have to be that. But being clear, and then in the decision making round, there are these kinds of responses you can give. And in consensus, it might be a fully support, stand aside, block... there may be a range. Often groups have those things defined, but they don't practice them enough, or they've got new members, or the people who just aren't that interested in process fall back into sort of mainstream values kinds of thinking. It makes a huge difference. If you are a facilitator, and you think you know, "We have a process, this is the process we'll use, this is what we're going to do," to be absolutely transparent about that and to educate the room in the moment. This is the overview, this is the detail of this next piece we're about to do, so that everybody is actually following the same process, which often they're not. And facilitators don't do that, partly because of efficiency. They don't want to take the time. we think we already know that and meeting time is tight. Or they don't do it because they're afraid someone will disagree with it. And I'm just gonna say if someone disagrees with it, boy do you want them to say so. You really want that to come up before you're in it. So it really serves a few purposes. It gives people the guardrails so that that waste of energy that you were talking about doesn't happen. It checks that we're all on the same page and gets everybody there. Or it reveals that we were all following different processes before we're so deep in it that it's made a big mess. And it may take some time then to go back and reach,"Okay, you didn't think that that was delegated to the people I thought it was delegated to." Whatever that thing was that someone objected to, it may take some time to talk through that. But you're so much better off to have that agreement that even if it kind of derails your meeting agenda, I think you're still

Paul: 9:30

Yeah. I would much rather know upfront that we're confused better off. about how this works than get into the middle of it. Because again, it's going to be way more difficult to have the conversation about the process, once we're knee deep in the content. To then realize we're confused about this or there are objections to it or people aren't actually planning on following the process; I'd much rather know that sooner. Because otherwise what I'm saying is, "I hope this stuff isn't true." It's not like by bringing it up at the beginning that you are causing a lack of clarity or you're causing objections. You are revealing there. They're already there. You're just bringing them out sooner, and ideally at a time when it's more effective to deal with them. And so it is more efficient to do that. I think that part of the skill and the discernment there is understanding that 90% of the people involved do not care about the process so much as they care about getting to a decision. And it's very easy for us as facilitators to fall into lovingly explaining this beautiful process that we're going to walk them through. And so I think one of the things that's really useful there is to explain what they will get out of it. "We're going to use a process that will allow you to get this result that you care about." Because that's what they care about. They care about the outcome of it. And so recognizing that their tolerance for hearing about process is probably – well, the more contentious the issue that they're anxious to get to, probably the lower their tolerance is. Until they realize that the process is a problem, that the lack of process of the problem. But at the beginning, probably most people aren't there yet. And so I think that's a really important skill as a facilitator – or whoever is helping the group walk through making the decision. This can also be true in an organization that's hierarchical and structural authority. "The decision is going to be made by me. And here's how we're going to do it. Here's what I want to hear. I'm going to ask some questions, and then I'm going to make a decision." That's a way of creating clarity. You're not a facilitator at that point. You are your decision maker. Being able to lay that out for people, make sure that the information that people are providing to you, to the group, to whoever, whatever information is coming out, is relevant to the process that you're using. And so it actually makes it more efficient.

Karen: 12:29

One of the reasons I think it makes it more efficient is about trust. If you want to build trust, you say, "This is what I'm going to do," and then you do it. That's fundamental trust building. And so as either a facilitator or a decision maker, whatever that process is going to be a place where trust breaks down is people think they know what's going to happen. So in the example, you were just giving, the boss comes in and says, "Hey, I want to know what you all think about this." And people think, "Oh, good, we're gonna make this decision." And then the boss goes off and decides to do something different than what was said. That really can break down trust. Whereas if it was said, at the very beginning, "I'm planning to make this decision, I just want to hear from you all first. So I'm going to make a decision. I'm going to listen to you, and then I'm going to decide." Okay, then people have that sense. They know where that's going and they decide what they're gonna say based on that. And that's very equivalent to if if a facilitator says,"We're going to follow steps, A, B, and C, and this is how I expect it to go. And if something unexpected happens, we may shift. But this is the direction. This is the point at which we'll have a decision. This is how we will know that we have a decision. And if we don't come to a consensus, this is what happens there." I mean I lived in a community with a consensus decision making process that had 20 years of adjustments and amendments and different things. When I moved in and said, "How does this work?" I had a really hard time figuring it out. I had to sit down with people who'd been in their drafting it and talk them through it. I made a flowchart. And when we had a decision to make in that community, I put this elaborate flowchart up on the wall and walked them through and said, "We are here. We have done these things. And these are the things to come. And depending on what happens here, these are the possible outcomes." And people loved it, because then they knew. "Okay, now I know where we are. And I can see the outcome. I understand something about how we got here. "And my flowchart was – I didn't decide anything about that. That had been handed. And no one was really questioning that this was the process. They just didn't know the process. So if you get that clarity, they have a sense of trust and safety with each other– and with me as a facilitator. That we say, "Okay, so this is what we know is going to happen and this is the point at which we would go to a vote" or "This is the point at which the thing just isn't going to happen." Or"If it didn't work the way I wanted it to here, these are my options for what I could do next." That's all there and laid out. People can pretty much tolerate the disappointment of not getting their preference in that kind of case. Whereas if they don't understand how it happened, then they don't trust it. Then they feel like they were abused in some way. That they were misled, or that they were tracked, or that they were manipulated, or that somebody held power they weren't supposed to have held and made a thing happen because of how they facilitated it. You can eliminate all of that by having a clear process.

Paul: 15:42

And that clarity around knowing what that process is allows you to not only establish at the beginning, "Here's the map of where we're going," but then to do exactly what you talked about, which is when you're in the middle of it, remind people of that. Because that's the other thing. is that will fall out of people's heads what process we're actually trying to do as they're in the content. And that's actually a good thing, because you want them to be in there and digging into that. And then being able to periodically show on the map,"You are here. And here's what we're gonna do next." You can remind people. You can bring them back to it. One of my common moves in that is actually to ask people about it. If I'm a facilitator, it's like, "So my understanding is that we were going to make this decision this way. Where do you think we are in that process right now?" Because that's partly a way of getting people to think back about the process. But also, I may be misreading where they are. And again one of the things that I will often do is – sometimes to a fault – bring that back to the group. I need to be mindful of when they're like, "We don't want to manage that. We want you to manage that." And when that's actually useful for me to do. But when you are clear about those things, and then laying them out at the beginning, but then using them as reminders or as prompts as you're moving through the process when the group feels like it's getting stuck. Because that's oftentimes where we get stuck is that we actually don't remember what we're supposed to do next. We don't know where we are in the process. Going back to that idea of if we haven't agreed – if we aren't clear about how we know we've made a decision, and I think we've made one and you think we haven't, that's a lack of clarity about where we are – not about the process but about where we are in it. And so being able to remind and come back and question about "Where are we in this process? can help the group get unstuck when they've gotten stuck because of lack of clarity

Karen: 17:58

Yeah, and, and I like your distinction of it can be around it. really useful to say to the group, "Where are we?" and sometimes the group wants the facilitator to say, "This is where we are." And I tend to aim for a middle ground on that where I say, "So this is where I think we are. Are we in agreement about that? Am I getting this?" So I'll sort of offer that initial story and if somebody isn't on board, I give them that opportunity to say,"Nope, I'm in a different place." And, and then I just really want to track that it is not the case that every decision gets made by the same process, even within a group. And so this is part of that. We want to name a process. We want there to be agreement about that process. And sometimes that means that you're going into a big hairy mess, or lots of decisions, or a lot that's going on in one meeting, and the last thing you want to do is add to the agenda. But in fact, you have to. If you want all that decision making to go smoothly, you have to start with, "How are we making this decision?" And get clear about that. And, and then as much as we would like to say, "Okay, well, we agreed that was the process, and we're going to stick to that process," sometimes we get partway in and realize it's just not working for us. And so that's another one of those there's gotta be some discernment around it. And you don't want a situation where every time somebody thinks they're losing, they say, "Oh, we need a new process" and constantly give the group with whiplash. That's not good either. But as facilitator, you need to be careful of both making sure that the process is clear and well defined, and also that it can be flexible if the group needs it to be. So it's complicated.

Paul: 19:49

There's a whole other episode in there about when it actually makes sense to switch processes in the middle and how do you do that effectively. That's going back to "We agreed that we're going to do this and now we've got new information. Do we need to change this, because it will actually lead to a better result – not because it will lead to the result I want? Because it's actually better for the group." There's a whole other episode in that. But again to sort of track what we've been talking about today. We've talked about the importance of clarity when groups are making decisions, particularly around what's the process they're going to use for deciding, how will they know that they've made a decision, and what will happen if they aren't able to get to a decision within the parameters of that process. What's the default? What's the fallback? What are the failsafe if that doesn't work? That groups have very different tolerances – and this varies from group to group– different tolerances for actually talking about process. And so it can seem like you're just adding to the agenda, you're making the meeting longer by walking through what the process is going to be before you get into it. But why that's really important. That it brings more clarity. It helps to separate the process from the content pieces. And it helps the group to orient to what it is they're actually going to be doing together. It then gives people an opportunity – the facilitator, or really anybody who's involved in opportunity to sort of reset to that. To point out where we are on the map of our journey here together as we're going, because that actually helps keep the group together. When we think that we've wandered off into separate places on that map, regrouping periodically, and making sure we are actually all in the same place is one of the big things that helps groups to make decisions, to move through that process together, and ultimately, to make better results. These processes exist for the benefit of the group. Not because they are neat and cool and intricate, and people who are process wonks like the two of us love them. They actually get the group what they want. They do a better job of providing results. And so if you can focus on that, as you're laying out the process pieces for a group, it helps them stay with you, which helps them stay together a lot more effectively.

Karen: 22:19

And I think that's gonna do it for us today. Until next time, I'm Karen Gimnig.

Paul: 22:24

And I'm Paul Tevis. And this has been Employing Differences.