Meeting 031695 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

within the group. Each member's concerns must be addressed; each member's support is required. Typically, reaching consensus takes more time than voting. It's hard work to reach a decision or solution that everyone supports. But in the long run, decisions made by consen- sus tend to encounter less resistance and take less time to implement — because they have everyone's com- mitment. When a group thinks it is close to reaching consensus, one member should verbalize the decision. Then each member should say whether he or she agrees. That avoids the error of assuming that silence means consent. Keep in mind that voting is incon- sistent with decision making by con- sensus. But a group may take straw polls to see whether it is close to con- sensus and to see which members still have reservations. Of course, some groups —such as governing boards —have bylaws that require decisions to be made by voting. But these groups still can seek consensus before they are required to vote. The issue of consensus should be considered during the entire time a group is working on a problem, not just at the end. Each time the group is ready to move to the next step, it should get consensus. Still, some group decisions may not require consensus. For example, a group may decide where to meet, without gaining consensus. It's important that making such logistical decisions without consensus doesn't influence the substantive decisions that do require consensus. And the group should make sure that some members don't have serious misgiv- ings about the decisions that are not made by consensus. People may be reluctant to use the consensus ground rule because in their experience, groups rarely reach consensus. They also fear cre- ating a tyranny of the minority in which key decisions don't get made. In fact, many groups cant reach con- sensus mainly because they don't use ground rules. So, following other ground rules can make it easier to adhere to the consensus rule and eventually attain consensus. Conduct self- critiques. Groups should systematically learn from their Sixteen Ground Rules for Effective Groups / Test assumptions and infer -.` ences. 1 . Share all relevant information o1. ''Focus'' nt n o ' ,�pOS1t10IIS •° �}}T ' � w i � ':l, �: f ,► ` Be'spe.dtic, 'use examples i .. Agree on the =me "ar"I"', t.,�important'words ' '� .Explain. the reasons 'behind: 4statements,-�Tuestions, and actions :Disagree openly with group members. 0 Make ` statements; invite ' ques -' Lions and comments. 1 Jointly design .ways of testing disagreements and solutions. 0 Discuss nondiscussable issues.. Keep discussions focused 1 Eliminate cheap shots and other distractions. 1 Expect all group members- to participate in all phases 'of the process. 1 Exchange relevant' information with nongroup members:. 0 Make 1 decisions by consensus. I' Conduct self - critiques. successes and mistakes through the use of self - critiques. Before the end of each meeting, the group should ask three questions: What ground rules did we use well? What ground rules do we need to improve? What will we do differently next time? Group members should give spe- cific examples. For instance, Sayid might say, "I think Linda helped the group focus on interests rather than on positions when she asked Ezra what interests led him to oppose flexible working hours. Do others agree ?" A general comment such as, "I think we all could do a better job of staying focused" doesn't help the group identify exactly how it lost its focus. And it assumes that others agree that the group wasn't focused. Giving negative feedback isn't easy. But it is consistent with the ground rules listed above to give criticism and then invite people to disagree. In addition, negative feed- back can be more palatable when people are reminded that the aim is to improve the group's performance. One way to reduce negative feed- 52 Training & Development, August 1994 back and still have an effective meet- ing evaluation is for each group mem- ber to identify the ground rules that he or she has used well or poorly. After people have taken responsibility for assessing their own performance, they may feel more at ease giving and receiving additional feedback. Self - critiques can be uncomfort- able. And when a group is pressed for time, it may have to dispense with them. But the only way a group can improve its performance system- atically is to learn from its own expe- riences. In the short term, conduct- ing self - critiques may make meetings longer. But in the long term, groups that learn from self - critiques are likely to take less time to make deci- sions. They are also likely to increase their effectiveness. Ground rules in action For ground rules to be useful, every- one must understand them, agree on their meanings, and commit to using them. People should agree to use ground rules only after they've con- sidered them carefully. The ground rules just described are appropriate for a wide range of groups, but the list isn't exhaustive. Some groups may need additional ground rules to help them accom- plish their tasks. Once a group has agreed to fol- low ground rules, it must develop ways to ensure their use —such as a poster listing the rules displayed in meeting rooms or a pocket -sized list of the rules for each group member. Group members should agree to refer to the ground rules during meetings while they're trying to use them. For example, people should support such statements as "I want to test out an inference I made from what you said" and "What is your interest behind that position ?" by referring to the corresponding ground rules. Last, groups should critique them- selves at the end of each meeting to help members identify how well they're using the ground rules and which ones they need to work on. Getting people to use ground rules consistently can be difficult. Group members need a lot of meet- ings to develop the appropriate skills. Established groups without