Sometimes, smart people simply can’t agree—not because anyone lacks commitment to the shared goal, but because complexity leaves room for equally valid yet conflicting perspectives. How teams navigate these inevitable moments of impasse determines whether they fracture under pressure or emerge stronger.
The nature of the work done by teams necessarily involves the integration of multiple intersecting functions working together in pursuit of a shared goal. In fact, the truest definition of a team (a term that is often misused) is a group of people or functions that come together to accomplish a goal which can best, or only, be done by them together.
An effective team is one where the members share commitment and accountability for the team goal and recognize their interdependence. Out of respect for that interdependence, they work to design solutions and make decisions in a manner which reflects respect for the legitimate needs and requirements of one another.
Unfortunately, given unavoidable complexity and uncertainty, there are occasions when it is not possible to find that natural consensus despite the good faith efforts of the team members to do so. In those moments of “good faith impasse” there is temptation to default to behaviors which can erode the trust and alignment of the team, to revert to tactics of power or leverage to prevail over others in what becomes a “win or lose” battle. But when functions are interdependent, those who “win” such struggles at the expense of those upon whom they depend for the success of the shared goal are, in fact, undermining their own success.
The purpose of this brief post is to discuss the approach and criteria for effective decisions which sustain trust in moments when natural agreement is not achievable. The goal is to move through impasse to closure and in a manner in which all the team members hold on to belief in the good faith of one another and their commitment to the shared goal and team values.
A few simple steps and principles to keep in mind:
1. Clarity:
Clarify the shared goal and measures of success. High level goals leave room for different understandings of the same words. Take time to refine a clear problem definition and description of the goal to ensure shared understanding.
2. Assure each key stakeholder and team member is heard… and understood:
Resist the temptation to start with a debate among a set of proposed solutions put forth by team members, listing the pros and cons, and choosing the one that “scores” better. That approach creates the risk of a “win or lose” struggle as the solutions proposed by each team member are most likely primarily responsive to their needs without full regard for their impact on the needs of the other team members.
Start by seeking to understand what is at stake for each stakeholder, what they are trying to “solve for.” Be curious about the data, the analysis, and the assumptions which lead them to their proposed solutions.
3. Identify divergent assumptions standing in the way of finding a consensus solution:
When team members take time to deeply understand the perspectives of one another, they can better identify the differences in their thinking which lead them, in good faith, to divergent conclusions.
Rather than defaulting to the destructive assumption that those different conclusions are a product of differing agendas or values, understanding why natural agreement is not possible enables the team members to hold on to trust in one another.
4. If possible, take steps to close the gap in the underlying logic and assumptions:
If there is time and a means for doing so, the best approach to resolving a good faith impasse is to resolve the underlying differences in the logic or assumptions which lead to divergent conclusions. There are various means for doing so such as performing additional research, constructing a pilot, or engaging a third-party, credible expert with no stake in the outcome.
Be mindful, though, of when such techniques are merely a means of avoiding the decision. Acknowledge when you “know what’s knowable” and it is time for a judgement to be made.
5. Develop a pathway for timely, respectful resolution, closure and alignment:
It is important to have an agreed upon, respectful path to come to a timely decision and move forward when it is clear that a consensus cannot be achieved. There are a number of options for this and it is best if the option chosen is defined in advance. A frequently chosen option is the designation of “decision rights” which define the roles of various members of the team and clarify who has the final authority to make the decision.
A note of caution, though, about decision rights: Exercising one’s decision authority is best done at the end of the process after efforts to find an integrative solution have proven futile. If used by the “decider” at the front end of the process to overpower the other voices on the team, it undermines the desire for collaboration and is merely a different expression of decision making through the use of raw power.
Other options for resolving a good faith impasse include seeking a compromise solution that addresses some, but not all, of the interests at stake. A compromise can serve as a helpful interim step to get the team unstuck and provide a platform from which to gather additional insight about areas of uncertainty.
One final option in the face of impasse is what I refer to as “respectful escalation.” If two or more parties have intersecting accountabilities at stake in a decision and they cannot resolve the underlying gaps which preclude agreement, engaging the up-line leader who created their respective accountabilities can help determine the best path to closure. The key is that the escalation occurs together to avoid triangulation in which the parties go separately to the boss making their case in the hopes of securing support to force the “compliance” of the other parties. If the preceding steps have been followed, when the issue is brought to the up-line leader the parties involved should be able to articulate with equal clarity not only their perspective but the perspectives of the other team members as well.
6. Seek commitment from all parties to “own” the decision and use their best efforts to support its success (even if, or especially if, the decision is not what they would have done).
In high-performing teams, once decisions are made, each team member owns the decision and commits to do their best to support its success. Ownership means more than going along with the decision. It is expressing commitment to “our” decision and sharing the underlying rationale which describes the link between the decision and the underlying “why.”
This can be very hard for a leader whose constituents feel strongly that their best interest would be served by an alternate solution. If the process described above has been followed, the team members should be equipped to help their constituents understand why the decision was deemed to be the best option to achieve the shared goal.
7. Commit to reassess the decision when enough time has passed to objectively evaluate the outcome:
In return for taking ownership of a decision that is not what they would have chosen, it is important that team members have the assurance that the decision will be reviewed, and adjustments made, if things turn out differently than what was expected.
In other words, if the non-prevailing point of view turns out to have been more accurate about those things that were unknowable, there is a willingness to acknowledge that, and to modify the decision to the extent possible.
Decision-making in the face of uncertainty and complexity is often a moment of truth for teams. When a natural consensus cannot be found, teams often choose one of two equally undesirable paths:
- They fail to make a decision, leaving the issue unresolved and everyone involved frustrated, wasting precious time, energy and emotion.
- Or they revert to old fashioned bargaining, using leverage to win in a zero-sum game of one set of interests vs. another, at the expense of the shared goal and trust among the team members.
While no panacea, the steps outlined above offer an alternative approach which enables teams to move at pace to make hard decisions in uncertainty and without natural agreement, preserving trust in the good faith of one another in their pursuit of a path forward together.
