Collaborative Decision-Making
The special settings and limited times for intense planning and visioning of the future that I have just described are wonderful gifts to be bestowed on a team. These temporary settings benefit teams that wish to engage in the clarification and expansion of shared intentions, the collection of valid and useful information, and the generation of ideas that can span the gap between the real and ideal. However, these temporary settings must complement sustained webs of collaboration that exist “back home” (and back in daily reality). The domain of information must be visited repeatedly during the daily routine of looking at the numbers and observing the ongoing operations.
Regular revisiting of the team’s intentions must also occur—with the purpose of specifically convened meeting being articulated at the start of the meeting and an assessment of the meeting’s outcomes being identified at the end of the meeting. Tactically based (short term) Ideas must be generated and plans modified and monitored each day—often addressed at the start of each work day (“Morning Huddle”). Strategically-based (long-term) ideas should also be generated at regular extended meetings which build on and integrate the tactical ideas. All of this tour through the three domains is required if generative collaboration is to take place.
There is one other critical matter that must be kept in mind. Just as the forest must be diverse, so the sources of information, range of intentions, and variety of ideas must represent multiple perspectives and practices. This diversity must be honored not just in words, but also in the representation of people who offer differing information, intentions and ideas when problems are being solving and (in particular) when decisions are being made.
As behavioral economists such as Kahneman (2013) and Ariely (2008) strongly suggest, the first question to be asked of every team is: “who is at the table” These economists and those studying complex adaptive systems find that diversity is likely to yield creative solutions and the capacity of a team to be agile and adaptive in addressing challenges associated with an environment that is complex (and filled with volatility, uncertainty, ambiguity, turbulence and contradiction: VUCA-Plus) (Bergquist, 2020).
I would add to this commitment to diversity and an expansive invitation to the table. I would propose that diverse perspectives and practices are not only to be honored—they are also to be appreciated. As I have noted in other essays in this series, it is not only enough to listen to and respect views that differ from our own. We must also articulate our appreciation for these views, noting how the information, intentions and ideas being conveyed by those who differ from us actually contribute to a generative dialogue. It is for those of us who offer differing viewpoints to point out (as is done in Spectrum Analysis) how the views offered by “the other side” contain at least “the seed” of a good idea, valid information, and appropriate intentions.
Abraham Lincoln learned from his team of rivals. Carol Gilligan acknowledged that her own work built on observations offered by a mentor with whom she disagreed. The Bach sons honored the significant contributions made by their now “dated” father. In the case of these politicians, researchers and artists, it was a matter of embracing a personal attitude of deep appreciation. In some cases (under the leadership of a caring and thoughtful leader such as Abraham Lincoln), this personal attitude of appreciation was complemented by the creation of a culture that supported diversity and appreciation. It is in this final creation of a web of collaboration that we move into the complementary web of appreciation.
