The True Consensus Meeting

Situation: An ad hoc team of 12 needs to meet to make an expensive, important, highly visible decision: Which 20 people will receive the company’s top honor for the year. The CEO has agreed to abide by the groups decision and refused to offer guidance, saying, “either we know our values because we live them or we don’t: you shouldn’t need my guidance to decide who to reward.” 5 days before the meeting, the planners are struggling to figure out how to whittle 368 nominations down to 30 (top 20 and 10 alternates) in the 2-day meeting they have planned. Their idea: have everyone bring laptops and browse through the records online. No one can see how this meeting will ever end, much less result in an agreement. I agree to plan and facilitate the meeting in collaboration with their Director of OD.

Action Taken: We print out the nominations and overnight the 2-1/2 inch thick document to all participants with a single instruction: Come to the meeting with your top 5 picks. All 12 arrive prepared and, after opening the meeting, (including introductions and ground rules), we list everyone’s top 5 picks on a whiteboard and start the highly structured process of consensus. Because we’ve been given no criteria, our first step is to surface the criteria each of the 12 used for their picks. That’s the criteria we use to start narrowing our list of 60. After several rounds of multi-voting, rank ordering, structured discussion and negative voting, the list numbers 32 and there is agreement on who is in the top and bottom 10. Because all nominations are anonymous, this group of strangers has evolved a language to identify each record: “HR guy” and “back office drone,” “leader of the pack” “pioneer” and “rambo chick.” They sound like cult members.

Day two starts with an acknowledgment that this is the day for the hard decisions: the top 20, the alternate 10 and the 338 that will not be included, even though each of them has made a valuable contribution. What happens next still brings tears to my eyes: This group of 12 strangers take their conversation deeper, challenging each other, making the criteria tighter, melding into one unit with a single mission: To acknowledge the top contributors in a way that is fair and highlights what the company stands for. By 11:30, they’re so in the zone they’ve forgotten I’m in the room. By 3:30, they’ve done it. Their agreement is unassailable.

Result: Executive management accepts their recommendation without reservation; my OD colleague is thrilled.

I fall in love with every one of them, as usual.

The Care-Planning Meeting

Situation: An interdisciplinary team at an adult daycare facility is missing important indicators in its care planning process. When I observe a meeting, I notice that the physician does most of the talking, even though she has the least contact with the patient. Everybody else mostly stares at the table in front of them. It’s awkward, too quiet, and painful to endure. When we talk afterwards, the MD expresses her frustration with this and her willingness to do it differently. I’m certain that the other meeting participants have the skills to turn this around quickly.

Action Taken: I choose to be their meeting coach and start by observing a meeting and giving feedback. They add their feedback to mine and are receptive and interested in turning their meetings around. In their next meeting, I give real time feedback and specific behavioral coaching to them as they work. My favorite moment is when the social worker turn to me and says: “You can say that to someone?” This proves to be a turning point. Now everyone is chiming in, from the social worker to the doctor to the housekeeper.

Result: Care planning meetings become lively, and interactive. Everyone talks now - not just the doctor. When the person from housekeeping grimaces, everyone stops and says “What? What is it?” Patient care improves as things previously missed are incorporated into the care plan.

The Worn-Out Team

Situation: A staff of 10 has created a department from scratch in a large organization. After 2 years, they are wearing down and are beginning to get irritated with each other. In addition, 2 people have recently been fired and the leader is concerned that this is bothering the team.

Action Taken: We started a with team assessment, the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator, and a day-long team-building session where we reviewed the results of both and formulated the team’s goals and plan for achieving them.

We met each month to hammer out actual work, working agreements and learn more about how Type was playing out on the team.  I coached each team member individually, once a month.

Result: Morale increased, and friction dropped away.   The team began to focus on real work issues, rather than on each other.   The department became an accepted, relied on part of the company; it was already nationally known for it’s excellent work.  Several staff members advanced their careers and were replaced by high-quality candidates.