Gaining consensus on controversial or complex decisions is not always possible. After the gyrations of working toward a consensus, sometimes the team reaches an impasse, where one or more colleagues are unwilling to defer to the wisdom of the group.
Arguments for and against the decision are viewed differently by team members with competing interests and opinions. Another discussion is unlikely to unjam the roadblock. The team can’t wait any longer to act or move in a different direction.
Unless the leader is willing to make the decision, the time has come for a vote.
Choosing to vote on a decision in the workplace is a serious decision in and of itself. Teams that must vote to reach a decision acknowledge they lack the goodwill, trust, and collaborative spirit to work through disagreement and reach a consensus.
Voting, even on one issue or decision, increases the likelihood that the team will reach an impasse again in the future, as some team members will see it as the best way to overcome dissident views or combat groupthink.
Voting is fast and easy but sidesteps the need for the team to work through their issues and contrasting viewpoints. Depending on the decision rule (majority, 2/3 majority, etc.), some team members may remain diametrically opposed to the outcome, leading to weak or tepid execution.
The commitment to the decision is always stronger when achieved through consensus. So good leaders move to a vote only when they have to.
When voting is the only way forward, good leaders think about three questions before proposing it:
- What is the decision rule?
- Is the vote confidential or open?
- Are team members encouraged or discouraged to influence the vote prior to the meeting?
While there are no right answers to these questions, there are a host of advantages and disadvantages to the possible choices.
Here are a few thoughts: Simple majorities, as opposed to a higher standard like 2/3’s, don’t create a high commitment to the decision and often promote conflict after it is made. Commitment to the decision is garnered through a higher standard. Simple majorities are generally inappropriate for major decisions with execution risk.
Voting anonymously eliminates social pressure and allows team members to express their honest views without derision after the vote. However, asking others to register their vote openly makes them more accountable for the eventual outcomes of the decision.
Tough call.
The more team members are encouraged to influence others’ views away from the meeting, the more political the team will become. Once voting is common, team members learn that to win the day, they must start earlier and away from the table to influence those who have yet to make up their minds. Lobbying others can often become heavy-handed and constrain candid discussion. Discourage efforts to lobby for votes.
In the workplace, good leaders prefer to reach consensus rather than vote on issues. Voting, even after a lengthy discussion and debate, robs the team of its collaborative spirit to create a shared view.
When leaders are unwilling to break the logjam of competing views by deciding for the group, voting is the only real option. It is a better alternative than allowing the decision to remain undecided. But voting on a decision has real consequences and the best leaders go there cautiously. Should we vote on that?
