Preventing a proposed decision from becoming a reality is an art form in many organizations.
Disruptive team members learn to use the group’s desire for consensus to block, delay, postpone, or stonewall a decision. If, as the song says, there are 50 ways to leave your lover, then there must be 100 ways to thwart a decision. The end result is a team that stalls and can’t move forward on a decision or strategy critical to its success.
When it comes to obstructing a decision they don’t like, some team members are unusually inventive. They suggest that more data is needed, that they lack clarity about the decision, that outside experts disagree, that the unintended consequences of the decision have not been fully explored, or that an alternative view has yet to be debated.
They cling to counterpoints and negative arguments that undermine consensus. Anything they can do that delays or prevents the decision from being made is their ultimate aim.
They know that operating by consensus in any group or team depends upon the goodwill of team members. Deferring to the wisdom of the group, except in unusual circumstances, is the obligation of each team member to achieve consensus. Because the rest of the team, including the leader, wants everyone to feel comfortable with the decision, they allow this outlier to hold the group hostage by standing in the way.
It only takes one selfish team member to obstruct the group. Most teams can’t, or don’t, move forward when a team member stonewalls an important decision. To engage this team member fairly, the team keeps the decision on the table, discussing it over and over, failing repeatedly to reach a consensus. Eventually, the decision falls away, as the group moves onto other issues where everyone agrees.
On effective teams, any given team member might be able to delay a decision by a meeting or two, but they can’t thwart the wisdom of the group. That’s because it is clear that one team member or leader owns the decision.
After debate, discussion, and full engagement of a decision, when consensus can’t be reached, the decision owner makes the call. This owner has no other expanded role in the decision process except to break any logjam. When decisions have clear owners, no team member can stonewall the will of the group.
On effective teams, every major decision has a decision owner. This may be the team leader, a subject-matter expert, or the team member most effected by the decision. The key is to establish the decision owner before the process begins.
When a decision owner exists, consensus plays out as it should on major decisions. This encourages everyone to engage fairly and with reasonable influence.
On the best teams, the decision owner rarely has to make the call. But when consensus can’t be reached, that’s exactly what they do. By establishing a decision owner for every major decision, good leaders don’t allow any one team member to ever obstruct the group.
Is it clear who owns every major decision on your team?
