Process-driven Dialogue

Do you dread team meetings because all you do is rehash the same old decisions? How do you stop the “ya, but’s” and “that won’t work because…” spiral that keeps bringing you back to square one? Wouldn’t it be great if people could come up with some MacGyver-like ideas to solve the problem once and for all? Maybe a bit of wood, an empty paper-towel roll, and some bread ties to cleverly wrap up the issues so you can go home on time and surf the Internet in your easy chair? Well, there is a more likely path to resolution.

There are many reasons why we rehash old decisions. We don’t all have the same thinking and decision-making styles, some of us are more risk-averse than others, we tend to resist persuasion by others, or we forget the arguments that were made in the first meeting. It could be something as remote as someone getting a raise or a promotion and changing their position on an argument as a result. Researchers Fast, Sivanathan, Mayer, and Galinsky, (2012) found that when objective power leads people to feel subjectively powerful, it can lead to more overconfident decision-making.  In many cases however, we tend to throw ideas out too quickly at the first impediment in our search for the path of least resistance. Think of the wasted time, poor decisions, or lost opportunities these tendencies entail. Don’t assume anything will change on its own; bad habits tend to grow stronger over time.

The Principle

The secret to effective negotiation is to facilitate dialogue using non-positional questioning and agreed processes (Fisher & Ury, 1984). The phrase ”non-positional” means going into the discussion with an open mind and not taking sides until you have considered all the evidence. “Facilitated questioning” means you are simply guiding the process but not dictating the content. There are a number of different problem-solving and decision-making processes from which to choose and while some may work better than others, the idea is that you use a process that encourages commitment through collaboration. The literature on decision-making is plentiful  from researchers such as Malakooti (2011; 2012) or Hastie and Dawes (2001) to authors such as Fisher & Ury (1984), Ury (2003), Chip and Dan Heath (2013), and Roberto (2009) just to name a few. Experiential training in facilitation or coaching is also highly encouraged.

The Process

One of my favorite processes for getting out of the “ya, but” spiral uses breakthrough coaching questions to deliberately facilitate non-positional dialogue. For example:

1. What problem are we really trying to solve? What result do you really want?
2. What are all the alternatives we could consider for getting to that result?
3. Which alternative do you like best and why? What are your biggest concerns with this alternative?
4. What ideas can we come up with to move these big concerns from “show-stopper” to “manageable challenge”?
5. Is there anything left to prevent you from moving forward now?

These questions are derived from the following generic collaboration process:

1. Clarify the decision. For example, let’s say you’re talking to your team about the need for better communication. You might say, “So, what we’re trying to figure out is ‘how to improve communication’, is that right?”. Then ask “What does that mean? What does good communication look like to you?” and generate a list of attributes if needed. Better communication might mean efficiency (as in “take less time” to communicate) or it might mean “effectiveness” (as in “collaborative discussion for commitment”).
2. Brainstorm alternatives. Solicit ideas with wide open questions first such as, “What do you wish we could do to resolve this issue? What ideas do you have?” Then narrow it if needed to things like “Wouldn’t it be great if we could…”. If you start getting “ya, but’s” then say, “I have a process I would like to try and it starts with non-positional brainstorming. What other ideas can you add to our list?” In this case, brainstorm means generate as many ideas as possible without evaluating them as good or bad.
3. List likes and concerns. Yes, you read that correctly; you actually solicit the “ya, but’s” proactively. Ask “What do you like about this alternative and what are your main concerns?” Stick with just one favored alternative at a time. Then go back and ask, “out of all these concerns, which ones are really the show-stoppers?”
4. Brainstorm possibilities for dealing with show-stoppers.  You’re not dealing with all the concerns here, just the impossible ones. Going back to our example, let’s say the favorite idea for improving the team’s communication is skills training but the major concern is that there is no budget to pay for it. You would ask questions like “what are some ideas to deal with the budget issue?” Maybe you could borrow from another project, pay in installments, or ask the vendor for help with cost justification. As the ideas are generated, keep checking if the issue is still a show-stopper or just a challenge. Remember, you are not looking to solve all the details here, just move from “can’t be done” to “might be possible”.
5. Choose and commit. Once you have reduced show-stoppers into mere challenges, you should be able to make choices or at least move closer to a decision. Check for understanding and clarify commitments in writing if possible.

Hints & Tips

If you have a preferred alternative already in mind, don’t worry. If it’s truly the best idea, this process will likely lead everyone there. Otherwise, a “close enough” idea that garners commitment may be preferable to a slightly better idea that generates “reactance”. People tend to react with resistance to perceived efforts of persuasion by others (Beutler et al., 2011). Even when it is in their best interest to comply and there’s really no reason to resist, they may react negatively to influence if they perceive it as a threat to their legitimate freedom (2011). It’s hard to hold other people accountable for implementing your ideas. The more a person believes the idea is self-generated however, the more committed her or she will be to make it work.

Call to Action

If you are a proponent of accountability, collaborative decision-making, and processes that make life easier, pass this blog post along. The more people that are familiar with process-driven collaboration, the better it will be for all of us.

References

Beutler, L.E., Harwood, M. T., Michelson, A., Song, X., & Holman, J. (2011). Resistance/reactance level. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, Vol. 67(2), 133–142

Cormier, P. (2000). Facilitation 1: Processes, techniques and logistics. Merrikville, ON: RANA International Inc

Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Power and overconfident decision-making.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,117(2), 249-260. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.009

Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1984). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin books.

Hasties, R. & Dawes, R. M. (2001). Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York, NY: SAGE Publications

Heath, C. & Heath, D. (2013). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. New York, NY:Crown Business

Malakooti, B. (2011). Systematic decision process for intelligent decision making. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 22(4), 627-642. doi:10.1007/s10845-009-0327-1

Malakooti, B. (2012). Decision making process: Typology, intelligence, and optimization. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(3), 733-746. doi:10.1007/s10845-010-0424-1

Roberto, M. A. (2009). The art of critical decision-making. Chantilly, VA: The Great Courses

Ury, W. (2003). Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation. New York: Bantam Books