This goes pretty much to the extent that direction and agreement go hand in hand. In addition, the purpose and vision are indicated and the work begins. We no longer need to question the objective, but we could question the views of others and those we propose. From here, that is what we have planned. The friction begins when we sit in meetings where we have to make decisions about our affairs. When our contributions and ideas are tested, we believe in what we have said, that we are moving towards them. The temptation to mix orientation and concordance is ongoing and this requires a conscious effort to separate them by giving them each their place. Build discussed this topic in detail with the help of the table group and consultant Margaret Heffernan. So our interest was aroused when we read, not so long ago, an article in the Huffington Post that dented the dominant view of orientation as a golden rule. In this article, Ryan McKeever, marketing director of the consulting firm De St Paul Aveus, proposes a model where orientation is not always the ideal target for the senior team.
In teams, we may feel that we need 100% agreement or total consensus to move forward. McKeever`s model, which he developed with the owner and partner of Aveus, Linda Ireland, shows when a high-level team must aspire to unity rather than guidance: the focus is on WHY. Why are we painting the bathroom? Why take care of health care in our country? Why does it matter? All agreements and disagreements are removed from the WAS and focus on why. We may still be passionate about disagreeing on the WAS, but it`s much easier to focus on a common WHY. In the story I told here, it would have been easy. All the points of contention were based on history; They were easy to check. That`s a good article, Hanna. In the search for guidance removes personal effects from it, so that both parties can focus on the goal. As Christina said, it`s something that requires a little training, but it really helps to move the situation forward.
Thank you! “The main force that influences the threshold between direction and agreement is trust within the team,” he writes. “While the issue of trust deserves its own conversation, more trust means that more risks can be tolerated without the need for everyone`s agreement. Example: The acquisition of a product or business that has a significant impact on the focus, resources, customers and financial results across the company would strongly affect organizational risk. Although all team members (and their teams) are very affected, there is a high personal risk. Aspire to Unundt. Great article as usual, Hanna! I`m still learning something and I feel like I can refer to your contributions! I had to learn a lot about the lineup in a new role last year (not “win”) and it was good for me. When I learn where the other comes from and how he sees the subject and priorities, it helps me to align myself and sometimes (mostly not!) in fact AGREE! Yay! Thanks for sharing. McKeever: Less often than we would like. Think about every team you`re in. Are you aware of a problem that poses a personal or high risk to the organization in which your team should reach an agreement? It`s probably like that. There are two likely situations where the arc is moved up and to the right in the alignment chord diagram, where most decisions can be aligned: either you have a well-established team that has developed confidence over time, or a new team that has similar individual (magical) values, which immediately creates confidence. Neither situation is common. Problems that require agreement are not good or bad; They just are.
The question is: how can I deal with the issue of trust? Trust comes from three elements: motive, capacity and reliability. If you find that you don`t trust someone, try to understand why by digging deeper into this