Effective Decision-Making: when to engage the team (or not)?
“Greatness is not a function of circumstance. Greatness, it turns out, is largely a matter of conscious choice, and discipline.”
Several times a day, managers have to take decisions that will potentially impact or benefit their business, customers or teams… What is the best approach between a top-down decision-making approach and a bottom-up one? What are the various decision-making approaches and which one to favor for which situation? This post introduces the four main decision-making methods that shift the balance of the decision control between the leader and to their teams: the unilateral style, the consultative style, the democratic style and the consensus style. This posts also presents the related best practices on how and when to use those styles, depending on the analysis of some key criteria related to the situation at hands (like urgency, maturity of the team, expertise required, fostering engagement).
Because, in a business world, most of the decisions that are taken will impact the business itself and potentially, through ripple or direct effect, the team morale and engagement, it is key for managers to define and follow decision-making practices that will ensure that the best possible decisions for the business and for the teams are taken for any given situation and that the team fully supports those decisions once taken.
From our observations, efficient managers have often developed the following decision-making habits:
- They assess first if it is a situation where they need to be involved personally or where they can fully delegate the decision-making process to a trusted employee, relying on the existing reporting structure (in that latter case, it is recommended that the manager trains his employees on the content of this post prior to the decision-making delegation) ,
In case they need to be involved personally in the decision-making process, they know the panel of decision-making types that they can use with their relative benefits and risks,
- They understand which decision-making style to pick through the identification of key factors linked to the situation they want to address (such as existing data and facts at hands, urgency, expertise required, operation frame and constraints, what is negotiable and what is not, potential business impact and team impact…)
- They are aware of the main decision-making biases and other heuristics,
- They communicate clearly to their team on the above before initiating the decision-making process,
- They ensure the support and commitment of all the team members once the decision is taken (regardless of the approach chosen)
- They review periodically, during the execution, the outcomes of the decision and assess the level of divergence between the expected results and the reality, often using a Plan-Do-Check-Act approach. They do not hesitate to recognize possible decision errors early enough and bring the team back at the decision table for necessary adjustments.
- They do not shy away from their responsibilities as team leaders on the outcome of the decision, regardless of the method chosen and the decision itself
In order to help managers navigate this apparent complexity, below is a summary of the four main decision-making styles with their respective descriptions, the recommendation when to use them and their related risks. Those decision-making styles allows the leader or the team to have more or less direct control on the decision itself. Note that the scope covered here is for decisions involving or impacting a full team; process and comments for individual decision-making where a single employee is concerned would obviously differ.
- “Unilateral” or “Directive” decision-making style
- When to use:
- to use for emergency cases under time pressure but only when the manager possesses the necessary expertise or experience
- to use on time sensitive issues with a junior team lacking experience or knowledge (or under unstable conditions) and when the business at stake is high
- to use when it is a non-negotiable top-down decision where frame and context cannot be openly shared
- Risks and recommendation:
- beware of the “hero leader” syndrome: the exclusive use of this approach by a manager will not support the team development and will quickly create frustration or disengagement from the team members.
- probability of having team members not committing or supporting the decision is high.
- Therefore, once the decision is taken and case closed, it is recommended that the manager holds a debrief session with the team. Topics to cover are: explanations on how the manager came to that decision, open constructive feedbacks from the team, lessons learned on what worked and what could have been better and the steps for the team to learn how to efficiently contribute to similar situations in the future. Obviously, those recommendations do not apply in case of a non-negotiable top-down decision where individual follow-up meeting would then be more appropriate.
- Prior to announcing his decision – and if not time-sensitive -, the manager can “test” it with his trusted partners (manager, peers, HR…) to see their reactions and help preparing answers to possible objections or to seek inputs on how to generate higher support for the team
- “Consultative” decision-making style
- the manager requests inputs to his team members but takes the ultimate decision
- this style allows the manager to have a strict control on the decision while engaging his team members in the decision-making process by seeking and gathering their views and inputs.
- It is often used by managers with a “leader control”-oriented leadership style but also by managers with an “employee control”-oriented leadership style when put under time pressure to decide.
- When to use:
- to use when the manager needs specific expertise that he does not have to decide
- to use instead of consensus decision-making when time is of an essence
- to use to initiate further engagement of an already experimented team that is though not yet mature enough for a consensus approach
- Risks and recommendation:
- if the manager does not explain clearly that he his the ultimate owner of the decision, he may open the door to long negotiations and debates that will dilute his objective of gathering valuable inputs for a quality decision.
- Quality of inputs may be low if objective and frame are not set clearly (what needs to be decided upon, in which timeframe, what are the constraints – budget, resource… – and related room for negotiation…)
- this style is efficient only if all team members are in a position to bring quality inputs, else the manager may create frustration to the less experimented people from the team who can then get disengaged
- for staff whose inputs seem to have had no influence on the final decision, commitment to support the decision may decrease
- recommendation is consequently, as a first step, to have the manager reminding clearly to the team that he is the owner of the final decision based on the various individual inputs and what the framework for the decision is.
- Also, the final decision will have to be provided in details to the team accompanied with explanations on how each input has helped to model the decision (or the reason why some inputs have been discarded) in order to ensure full support on the execution (individual meeting may be required)
- “Majority vote” or “democratic” decision-making style
- the team members and manager provide several alternatives and the final decision will be based on the result of a vote with pre-defined parameters.
- this method shifts the power balance to the team since the final decision may completely differ from the one proposed by the manager.
- It is mainly used by managers with an “employee control”-oriented leadership style .
- When to use:
- to use with a team large and mature enough to conclude on several quality proposals as the range of possible choices for the vote and to generate active participation among the team members on a specific matter
- Risks and recommendation:
- if the team is not large enough, this method can not apply.
- if the team is not mature enough or has not got the necessary experience, identifying the viable options may take a considerable amount of time and discussions. Also the manager needs to be comfortable with all ideas and with the fact that his own idea may not be picked. If the manager ends-up with poor quality proposals, he may have to fall back to a consultative or directive approach which will result in higher frustration for both the team members and their manager.
- if the voting parameters are unclear (majority percentage, weight of the manager…) result may create frustration and disengagement.
- staff whose idea does not win may have difficulties or feel frustration to work on executing the idea of somebody else.
- if the voting is done openly, followers will be inclined to vote for the same choice as their reference colleague or manager, biasing the result
- Thus, managers applying the majority voting method should first make sure that the team has reached the sufficient maturity to bring on the voting table, in a timely manner, viable options that everyone will be comfortable supporting once the vote is made. The manager should also clarify explicitly the constraints / framework to get the various options designed and proposed. Each participant should be given sufficient time to present his proposal(s) with related benefits and risks and process to select options that will be submitted to vote should be clear.
- Besides, the voting method should be presented in details by the manager in order to avoid any misunderstanding (open or closed vote, required majority, weight on the manager’s vote or not, second vote in case of equality…).
- “Consensus” decision-making styles
- All team members with their manager have to build together a decision that they agree to support without any exception.
- This approach lets the team build and support the decision with almost full autonomy
- It is commonly used by managers with an “employee control”-oriented leadership style leading a team that has reached maturity.
- When to use:
- to use with a mature team of experts to create further commitment and engagement
- Risks and recommendation:
- if the team has not yet reached a sufficient maturity, severe conflicts can arise or debates may go too emotional.
- for sensitive topics, the manager will have to turn into a professional moderator else consensus may never be reached. Discussions and debates may turn hot but have to stay constructive…
- if the manager engages himself too much, he loses the position of neutral moderator which may generate frustration among the contributing team members,
- beware of followers who will simply align to their reference colleague or to the manager view; this can biase the final decision through “false consensus”
- all employees will have to comply and support the decision when consensus is reached although they may have prefered a slightly different option. It is the role of the manager to follow-up and to make sure that the decision remains supported at anytime (including by himself)
- Recommendations for managers are here: to make sure that the decision framework has been clearly set, to dedicate a space to each individual to express and share their views and ideas openly (preventing “talkers” to monopolize the debate, “manipulators” to over-influence the followers and followers to silently align even if not convinced). Debates may be colorful but discussion must remain constructive and respectful of every participant at any time; those basic rules must be reminded prior the opening of the discussion. Note that the support of an external moderator may be required if the manager cannot assume the role of neutral moderator.
- Finally, in case a consensus cannot be reached in a predefined timeframe, it is strongly recommended that the manager has a decision-making fall-back plan ready.
- exercise 1: Look at the key decisions impacting your business and your teams that you have taken over the past months.
- Which decision-making method(s) have you favored? Why?
- To which extend have you shared the decision-making method with the team?
- How far were the decisions supported by the team members?
- What was the type of engagement generated to your team by the approach you’ve used?
- If you had to do it over again, would you use the same approach? If not, what would you do differently and why?
- exercise 2: Which decision-making style would you use in the 3 below cases? Why? What are the risks and how would you tackle them?
- You have just been appointed Head of Sales of your unit, coming from the Client Relationship Management team where you had spent more then 3 years. Your understanding of the local market was one of the factors that had supported your promotion to this role. Your Sales Team is composed of one veteran who has been in the industry for 10 years and selling the solution over the past 5 years, one sales manager who moved into the role last year and who had previously worked for 2 years as pre-sales in another unit of the company, a new grad who joined last year and a new staff who on-boarded less than 6 months back coming from one of your main global competitors. It is now beginning of September and you are requested to present to your executive management by mid-November your next year sales strategy and related execution plan…
- Your European-based company provides non-intrusive biometric sensors combined with easy-to-use health care apps suitable for senior people. Your company has enjoyed a steady growth and has just opened a business unit in Japan where the demographic and technology access seems to offer a promising market. The team is composed of a sizeable sales forces, a small local R&D team in charge of proposing new solutions based on the local market specificities and a Service Desk dealing with client issues. Since the inception of the company, 5 years ago, you have built and been heading the European-based Service Desk but had looked for a career development opportunity outside of Europe. Your track record had put you on the top of the list for a promotion as Japan Head of R&D and Service Desk. And here you are. Because of the language barrier, you could not move experienced staff with you and had to build the team from scratch less than a year ago. Today, your Number One customer calls the Service Desk showing signs of extreme dissatisfaction with the way that some of the menus and data from your app are displayed in Japanese and threatens of cancelling the contract. You remember a very similar case 2 years ago when you had introduced a Russian version of your app. The customer is waiting for a call back in the next 30 minutes…
- You are leading the marketing department of your business unit with a team of three people. So far your company has given large autonomy to each business unit to manage their own marketing process leading though to inconsistent practices across the company. Your team members have all been in the company for more than 3 years showing steady performance, except one staff wo was just recruited 9 months ago based on his track record at one of your largest competitor. You are requested to appoint one team representative to work on a transversal cross-unit project aiming at defining marketing best practices for the company…
- exercise 3: Analyze the last time you had fully delegated a decision to one of your team members.
- Do you have clear criteria defined for a full delegation of decision (type of situation, potential business impact / team impact pre-assessment, identified team members for specific decisions, reporting structure…)?
- Why have you decided to delegate in this specific case?
- How far have you explained the framework and context related to the situation to decide upon (timeframe, budget, resource, information and data at hands…)
- To which extend are the team members you’ve delegated decision authority to familiar with the concepts of this post?
- How have you followed up upon the delegated decision?
- What were the specific challenges?
- What would you do differently next time you delegate a decision?
Obviously, taking wrong decisions can easily bring businesses down or destroy teams’ morale and staff engagement. Developing effective decision-making habits becomes therefore critical for managers. Assuming that the manager in charge has to personally get involved in a decision-making process, his first step should be to identify what is at stake and the context surrounding the situation: timeframe for the decision, possible impact on the business and on the team, specific experience or expertise required, available resources, team maturity, desired level of engagement of team members, risk of unsupported decision, possible decision-making biases. Then the manager should identify the most appropriate decision-making method, considering whether he prefers the team to drive the decision as much as possible or whether he prefers to be the sole owner of the final decision. As sole owner, the directive style has the merit to deliver a quick decision-making process suitable for urgent situation with high business at stake and where expertise is available at the manager level. Alternatively, if specific experience or expertise is required, the consultative approach will efficiently support the manager by helping gathering the necessary inputs from the team, increasing de facto the involvement of the various team members. A Majority-vote style shifts the decision authority balance further to the team who then have to come and vote for a viable option with their manager. Finally, for mature teams, consensus decision-making will very probably bring the highest level of commitment and support. It is though to be noted that each one of those styles presents risks depending on the situation at hands. It is thus the responsibility of the manager to appreciate the benefits and risks of each of those decision-making styles, to keep in any case accountability over the decision agreed upon, regardless of the process used and to request for justifiable adjustments whenever required.
Deltanomix. (2015). Effective decision-making: when to engage the team (or not)?
[Blog] Leader Syndrome.
Available at: https://leadersyndrome.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/effective-decision-making-when-to-engage-the-team-or-not/
Leaders, are you surprised by the number of people who are indecisive? They dredge up all manner of excuses, fear who they may offend, and procrastinate. Yet, a decision must be made. So you, as a leader, do so.
Yet, once you do, those same indecisive people are the first to criticize your decision—and you. Your managers or staff may say they felt uninvolved in the decision. They complain and fail to buy in. You explain to no avail that you empowered them, but they failed to act, which left the decision to you, their leader.
Indecisive individuals are immature and self-centered. They make poor leaders.
Leaders are faced with decisions on a daily basis. They must make decisions in a timely manner and commit to seeing them through. They take responsibility for their decisions whether the reality of the consequences are good or less than good.
Strong leaders also recover quickly from the ramifications of poorer decisions. They think of a decision as a step to learn and grow from and don’t get bogged down in self-pity or the mire of failure.
One way to avoid conflict in decision making is to assure your staff understands the five levels of decision making.
Level One: The Leader Alone Decides.
This is used in situations when immediate action needs to be compliant and without hesitation. This is when the leader is in the best position because of clarity of knowledge to make the decision.
Level Two: The Leader Makes the Decision with Input from Key Individuals/Stakeholders.
Input from others assists by providing information to cover blind spots so the leader may better understand the depth of the issue to be decided. Furthermore, making the decision without the key insights of these people would be a foolish decision. The leader, however, reserves the right to decide independently once apprised.
Level Three: The Leader Builds Consensus with Input from a Subgroup, but the Leader Has Final Say.
At this level, the leader calls on an expert group or subcommittee that can work on behalf of the entire team or organization to provide recommendations. The smaller group has representative knowledge. The leader decides once recommendations are reviewed.
Level Four: The Whole Group Votes on a Decision OR the Decision Is Delegated to Someone Else.
There are appropriate times when the entire team must weigh in on a decision, as when dissenting opinions too difficult to reconcile. Debate clarifies the issues so a vote can be taken and the decision implemented. Or, the authority and responsibility definitely shift from the leader who reviews the decision but does not change it. Instead, the leader uses the decision as an opportunity for development.
Level Five: True Consensus.
The leader fully delegates the decision to a group and becomes one of many. The group discusses, discerns, and decides on behalf of the organization. Gathering a consensus is a process not to be rushed, because it means compromise must ensue until all agree to live with the decision.
Strong leaders are savvy about all levels of the decision-making process. To be most effective in all levels, leaders must be fully transparent about what level they are using and why.
Four Decision-Making Styles and When to Use Them
Sometimes leaders make bad decisions or harm team morale by making autocratic decisions without involving others. And other times they waste their team’s time by unnecessarily involving them.
How do you know when and how much to involve your team in decisions? Sometimes the answer is pretty obvious.
You don’t need to call a team meeting to decide to order pencils for your office. On the other hand, if one of your direct reports has the authority to make decisions about office supplies, your taking over might not be appreciated.
Four Decision-Making Styles
You have four choices on how to make decisions and when to involve others.
1 Autocratic (Independent): You make the decision on your own without input from your team.
2 Consultative: You ask your team for information that would be helpful and for their opinions, either individually or as a group, but you make the final decision.
3 Team: You pull your team together to discuss the situation and decide as a team. You facilitate their reaching consensus, where everyone agrees to support the decision. As a member of the group, you must be willing to support the decision as well.
4 Delegating: You are not part of the decision-making process. You might ask to be informed of the decision (or not), but you will not change the decision.
Communicate Which of the Decision-Making Styles Will Be Used
Outline a clear decision-making process, such as CRISP Decision-Making and be clear with your team about which decision-making style is being used. If people are going to be involved in a decision, make sure they know which of the decision-making styles you will be using – whether they are being asked to consult or if they have a real vote. When asked for an opinion, people often assume they have a vote and can feel misled if they discover later that is not the case.
When people know ahead of time what their role is in the decision-making process, they are less likely to resent or undermine a decision that doesn’t go the way they wanted.
You might start out with one style and then decide to change styles. For example, you might want to make a team decision but discover there is too much conflict to achieve consensus. If you change the decision-making style, it is important to inform your team.
Four Questions to Know Which of the Decision-Making Styles to Use
1. Is this your decision to make?
Whose responsibility it is to make this decision? Does one of your direct reports or someone on a different team have authority to make this decision? If this is not your decision to make: Use a Delegating Style.
If you believe the person or team responsible for this decision is not capable of making a quality decision without your involvement, discuss it with them and determine what decision-making style is appropriate. If a decision is required and you don’t have time to contact them or they are unavailable, you should get to them as soon as possible to explain why you went around them. Avoid taking back decision-making authority. If you do this on a regular basis, you will be viewed as a micro-manager and resentment will build.
2. Do you have access to the needed relevant information?
Do you know everything you need to know to make an intelligent decision? Do you have the necessary expertise?
If so, and if support for the decision is not needed or is guaranteed, use an Autocratic Style. It’s not necessary to gather your team to discuss where to hang a picture in your office.
The danger is that sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know. If this is a mission-critical decision, it’s worth using a Consultative Style to make sure you’re not missing any important information that would affect the quality of your decision. (See question #4)
3. To what extent is acceptance necessary for successful implementation?
If successful implementation depends on the understanding and acceptance of others, it is to your advantage to involve them in the decision early on and use a Team Style, even if you believe you already know the best decision.
Otherwise, you might save time during the decision-making process, but will pay the price during implementation. The more others are affected by the decision, the more they should be involved.
A good consensus process, where team members set their egos and personal needs aside and focus on the mission, will result in a higher quality decision. And as a result of the process, team members will develop a deeper understanding of the issues and great commitment to the decision, ensuring smoother and faster implementation.
4. How great is the impact of the decision on accomplishing the team’s mission?
What is the complexity and scale of the impact of the decision? As complexity increases, the likelihood that you know everything needed to make a quality decision decreases. Use a Consultative Style. As the scale increases, the likelihood that acceptance of others is needed increases. Use a high-involvement style – Team if possible, and if not Consultative, with broad and deep input.
What About Urgency?
What if you don’t have time for involvement? Shouldn’t that be a consideration? Indeed, if the building is on fire and smoke is coming under the door, it doesn’t make sense to call a group together to discuss options. However, most situations are not as urgent as they seem.
We have all had the experience of being in a hurry and making a decision we later regret. The same thing can happen with teams. It’s important to be aware of the potential for bad decisions when under an intense deadline, and consider the short-term benefit of a quick decision vs. the long-term consequences of poor implementation and needing to redo work.
Stoner, J. L. (n.d.) Four decision-making styles and when to use them [Online].
Available at: https://seapointcenter.com/decision-making-styles-and-when-to-usethem/
Mengambil Keputusan sebagai Leader
Seorang leader harus mengambil keputusan dalam rutinitas sehari-hari. Namun, leader juga harus bisa memahami pendekatan manakah yang baik untuk situasi tertentu. Apakah topdown approach atau bottom-down approach?
Tergantung situasi dan kondisi dalam mengambil keputusan, ada saatnya leader yang harus mengambil keputusan untuk tim (top-down approach), ada saatnya juga leader harus beralih ke anggota tim, seperti meminta masukan dan pendapat, dalam membuat keputusan (bottom-down approach).
Ada empat gaya pengambilan keputusan yang bisa dipelajari dalam di dokumen ini, beserta kapan sebaiknya digunakan, resiko yang ada saat menggunakannya, dan tips untuk menggunakannya agar bisa meminimalisir resikonya.
• Leader mengambil dan mengomunikasikan keputusannya kepada tim
• Pengambilan keputusan sepenuhnya diambil oleh leader dan biasanya tidak bisa dinegosiasikan keputusannya
Kapan sebaiknya digunakan?
• Dibutuhkan keputusan secara cepat karena darurat, dan leader memiliki keahlian dan pengalaman untuk membuat keputusannya.
• Dibutuhkan keputusan dengan cepat, dan tim terdiri dari banyak junior yang tidak memiliki banyak pengetahuan dan pengalaman untuk membantu membuat keputusan.
• Dibutuhkan keputusan top-down approach yang tidak bisa dinegosiasikan, dan saat konteks atau situasinya tidak bisa dikomunikasikan secara terbuka.
• Tim merasa frustrasi
• Ada kemungkinan anggota tim tidak setuju dan tidak mendukung penuh akan keputusannya
• Adakan sesi debrief dengan tim setelah keputusan diambil:
o Jelaskan bagaimana leader mengambil keputusan itu
o Membuka feedback konstruktif dari tim
o Diskusikan pelajaran yang bisa diambil (apa yang berhasil dan apa yang bisa lebih
o Diskusikan langkah-langkah bagaimana tim dapat belajar berkontribusi secara
efisien jika dihadapi situasi yang serupa lagi.
• Jika tidak terhambat oleh waktu, leader bisa mencoba mengomunikasikan keputusan yang akan diambil kepada rekan kerja yang bisa dipercaya (leader divisi lain, HR, dll.) sebelum mengomunikasikannya ke tim. Dari cara ini, leader dapat mengetahui reaksi seseorang terhadap keputusannya, meminta feedback tentang cara mengomunikasikannya lebih baik, dan mempersiapkan diri akan pertanyaan dan ketidaksetujuan yang bisa muncul.
Leader melibatkan anggota tim dengan mengetahui pendapat dan masukan mereka, tetapi tetap memiliki kontrol penuh untuk mengambil keputusan.
Kapan sebaiknya digunakan?
• Leader membutuhkan masukan dari keahlian tertentu yang tidak ia miliki
• Dibutuhkan keputusan dengan waktu lebih cepat dibandingkan menggunakan consensus
• Leader ngin melibatkan tim lebih lanjut dalam pengambilan keputusan, dimana tim yang dipimpin sudah berpengalaman tapi belum cukup mature atau dewasa untuk menggunakan consensus.
• Jika tim belum cukup mature untuk diminta pandangan dan masukan terhadap suatu masalah, mereka dapat merasa frustrasi dan tidak ingin terlibat lebih jauh.
• Jika masukan anggota tim tidak memberikan dampak pada keputusan yang diambil, maka komitmen bekerja orang tersebut bisa turun.
• Jika tujuan dari diskusi untuk membuat keputusan tidak dijelaskan dengan baik oleh leader, maka diskusi bisa berjalan terlalu lama dan masukan dari tim tidak membantu dalam membuat keputusan.
• Komunikasikan bahwa leader yang akan mengambil keputusan sebelum diskusi dimulai
• Tujuan diskusi untuk pengambilan keputusan harus dikomunikasikan dengan jelas sebelum diskusi dimulai dan diingatkan kembali saat diskusi
• Keputusan yang diambil harus dikomunikasikan. Jelaskan bagaimana pendapat dan masukan dari tim membantu dalam proses pengambilan keputusan agar tim paham alasan dari keputusan dan berkomitmen untuk mengeksekusinya.
Democratic (Majority vote)
• Anggota tim dan leader memberikan beberapa alternatif keputusan, dan keputusan akhir ditentukan berdasarkan hasil voting dengan parameter yang ditentukan.
• Gaya pengambilan keputusan ini menggeser power atau wewenang dari leader ke tim untuk pengambilan keputusan, karena hasil keputusan bisa berbeda dari apa yang leader usulkan.
• Leader sebagai moderator yang netral
Kapan sebaiknya digunakan?
• Digunakan untuk tim yang terdiri banyak anggota dan juga mature untuk memberikan beberapa alternatif keputusan yang berkualitas dan dapat diimplementasikan
• Dibutuhkan active participation dari anggota tim untuk suatu masalah
• Tidak akan efektif jika tim memiliki anggota yang terlalu sedikit
• Butuh waktu yang cukup lama untuk menentukan keputusan yang akan diambil
• Jika tim belum cukup mature dan berpengalaman, diskusi mengenai alternative keputusan bisa memakan banyak waktu
• Jika parameter untuk voting tidak jelas, hasil voting dapat membuat beberapa orang merasa tidak puas dan frustrasi
• Jika voting dilakukan secara terbuka, orang-orang yang memiliki kecenderungan sebagai ‘pengikut’ akan menyesuaikan pilihannya dengan pilihan seseorang yang dominan (rekan kerja atau manager)
• Pastikan tim sudah mature
• Berikan waktu yang cukup bagi orang-orang untuk menjelaskan kelebihan dan kekurangan dari ide-idenya
• Komunikasikan bahwa semua yang ikut dalam voting harus tetap mendukung Dalam mengimplementasi keputusan yang terpilih
• Komunikasikan metode untuk voting dengan jelas (contoh: voting terbuka atau tertutup, pengulangan voting, dsb.)
• Leader dan anggota tim bersama-sama mencari suatu keputusan dimana semuanya menyetujui dan mendukung keputusan tersebut
• Leader sebagai moderator yang netral
Kapan sebaiknya digunakan?
• Digunakan untuk tim yang sudah mature, dimana anggota tim sudah memiliki expertise atau keahlian pada hal tertentu.
• Ingin membangun engagement dan komitmen tim
• Jika tim belum cukup mature, konflik dan perdebatan bisa terjadi
• Bisa membutuhkan waktu yang lama untuk menentukan keputusan yang akan diambil
• Leader bisa kehilangan posisi netralnya jika terlalu terlibat dengan memberi banyak masukan
• Orang-orang yang memiliki kecenderungan sebagai ‘pengikut’ akan menyesuaikan pilihannya dengan pilihan seseorang yang dominan (rekan kerja atau managernya)
• Ingatkan dan follow up kepada tim ketika berdiskusi bahwa keputusan yang diambil di akhir merupakan keputusan yang didukung penuh oleh semua
• Berikan waktu yang cukup secara adil untuk setiap anggota tim mengemukakan pendapat dan masukan secara terbuka. Jangan sampai ada beberapa pihak yang terlalu memengaruhi dan memonopoli pembicaraan saat diskusi.
• Perdebatan bisa terjadi, jadi selalu ingatkan (sebelum dan saat berdiskusi) bahwa diskusi tetap konstruktif dan setiap orang harus saling menghormati masukan sesama.
• Jika consensus atau kesepakatan tidak bisa dicapai dalam jangka waktu yang ditentukan, disarankan leader memiliki back-up plan untuk pengambilan keputusan.
Seorang Leader memiliki beberapa pilihan dalam mengambil keputusan _ Just Shared on Tel-U