ideas.pdf
Ideas
Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of
ideas and information.
—Edward R. Murrow
n the last chapter, we learned about the importance of influence to
successful leadership. This influence (in the form of formal and informal
power) constitutes one part of the social system that is the core of
leadership. In this section, we examine another aspect of that social system:
ideas. Why are ideas important? What role do ideas play in the process of
leadership?
The importance of ideas and their connection to leadership has increased as
I
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
organizations perceive greater competition from globalization and observe
faster changes and developments due to technological capabilities. Twenty-
first century leaders are expected to be “innovators” who are not only
creative themselves but who can promote and encourage innovation and idea
generation in the people they lead. One key role of ideas in relation to
leadership has to do with strategic vision. What direction will the organization
take in the coming year, five years, etc.? Vision is based on ideas —ideas of
what the organization (and its people) is capable of doing in the present and
what it should challenge itself to do in the future. Using the over-arching idea
embodied in that vision, each unit (and employee) of the organization can
then create ideas of its own that enable the company to carry out that vision.
In this chapter, we explore some of what goes into the creation of ideas.
First, we discuss personal decision-making and how individuals perceive and
evaluate information in order to generate ideas. Then, we study ways in
which leaders can encourage and support idea generation in others.
Of course, thinking of an idea is only part of the journey. For an idea to be
truly meaningful, it must be accepted by those who will carry it out, and it
must actually be carried out. Therefore, we also investigate ways leaders can
help bring about support for ideas.
Everyone who's ever taken a shower has an idea. It's
the person who gets out of the shower, dries off, and
does something about it who makes a difference.
—Nolan Bushnell
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
Generating Ideas
Traditionally, ideas came from the top down in organizations. Leaders were
expected to come up with ideas; employees carried them out. Today, the
pace of business requires a different approach for most companies. Leaders
still need to be creative—to develop ideas and chart the course of their
organization. But 21 st Century leaders must also look to others for ideas and
approach idea generation and innovation within their company as a
collaborative effort involving them, the people they lead, and other important
stakeholders such as suppliers and the community. To begin, let’s look at
how individuals in general approach decisions and idea generation.
Ideas are borne out of information—information we see, hear, and otherwise
encounter as we go about our day. But the approach to that information can
vary by individual. Psychologist Carl Jung used psychological types or profiles
to explain these differences. According to Jung’s theory, people are
predisposed to fit into two main psychological categories. The first category
concerns how people perceive or gather information; and the second
category concerns how people judge alternatives based on the information
they have gathered—how they make decisions (or develop ideas) based on
that information.1 In each category, there are two psychological types.
When gathering information, a person is attempting to interpret and
understand the information being received. In this category, a person is
either a “Sensing” type or an “Intuition” type.2 Someone who matches the
“Sensing” psychological type will focus on and trust information they perceive
to be tangible, concrete, and objective; they prefer information that is detail-
oriented and based on facts. Physical reality is important to “Sensing” types.
They want to be able to see it, hear it, and touch it for themselves.3 In
contrast, people who fit the “Intuition” profile are more theoretical and
abstract in the way they gather and perceive information. These individuals
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
would prefer to think about a problem conceptually than use a hands-on
approach.4
The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of
ideas.
—Linus Pauling
Using this information, people then make decision and derive ideas based on
their evaluations of that information. This is the second category of
psychological types. In this category, a person is either a “Thinking” type or a
“Feeling” type.5 A “Thinking” type individual sees themselves as rational and
prefers to makes decisions they perceive to be logical, detached from
emotion, and consistent to a set of rules.6 A person who fits the “Feeling”
profile, however, weighs the concerns of people involved and is empathetic to
what is best for all involved. These individuals are interested in consensus,
harmony, and looking at an issue from the points-of-view of those involved.7
Table 24 presents examples of statements indicative of each psychological
type.
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
Table 24: Statements Applicable to Jung’s
Psychological Types [Based on: Martin C.R. 1997]8
Sensing Gathering
Information
“To understand an issue, I need to have facts to analyze.
That’s how I solve the issue.“
“Show me the data first, and then I’ll see the big picture.”
Intuition Gathering
Information
“To understand an issue, I want to create options from
different ideas. That’s how I solve the issue.”
“I have to understand the big picture first; show me data
after that.”
Thinking Evaluating
Information
“A solution should be logical.”
“Some people say I only care about the task, not the
people when solving problems.”
Feeling Evaluating
Information
“A solution should embrace what is important to others
and embody their concerns.”
“Some people say I can be too naïve and impractical
when solving problems.”
When considered together, a person might have a “Sensing-Thinking” profile,
a “Sensing- Feeling” profile, an “Intuition-Thinking” profile, or an “Intuition-
Feeling” profile. The variation in perception and evaluative approaches
individuals may use in the idea generation process provides insights for
leaders. First, it is important to know your own preferences. Second, you
must understand that others may not share those preferences and therefore
may approach decisions and creativity differently than you. That can be an
opportunity! Use this diversity of perspective to your advantage: When
people look at something from different angles, the potential increases for
more ideas and richer solutions.
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
Real World Exercise
Consider the importance of ideas as part of a social system that acts
as a link between how we communicate and the business results we
wish to achieve. In many situations ideas play a crucial role in
whether we are successful in our leadership efforts. Which ideas
should be supported, who presents what idea, and how that relates
to influence. Consider what actions you might have to take that
relate to ideas and the objectives connected to them?
Understanding your own psychological preferences will enable you to
make better decisions and generate better ideas from information
you encounter and evaluate.
Consider the following questions:
1. Would you consider yourself to fit the Sensing or Intuition
profile when gathering information?
a. What insights do you gain from knowing that?
2. Would you consider yourself to fit the Thinking or Feeling
profile when evaluating information?
a. What insights do you gain from knowing that?
3. How can you use this knowledge to be more successful in the
real world?
4. How can you use this knowledge to be more successful when
working with other people?
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we
exchange apples, then you and I will still each have
one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea
and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will
have two ideas.
—George Bernard Shaw
Personal Decision-Making
Our understanding of how individuals make decisions has evolved over time.
Researchers initially took the position that human beings make decisions that
are grounded in logic and rationality. Decisions were seen as “rational
choice(s) based on logical connections between cause and effect where the
decision maker identifies a problem, searchers for alternative potential
solutions, prioritizes preferences according to identified criteria and arrives at
an optimizing choice.9 In the rational decision-making model, it was assumed
that there was a definite answer to a distinct problem and that the decision
maker was capable of determining that answer. For this to occur, it was also
assumed that decision-maker had all the information necessary to arrive at a
solution.
Since decision-makers were thought to be thoroughly rational, it followed
that decisions made by groups of people in organizations would be equally as
rational as those made by individuals.10
However, as research continued, this perspective came under scrutiny as
researchers considered the effect of missing information and the ways in
which interpretations of the same information might vary from person to
person.11 The model also failed to account for situational factors such as time
constraints or individual factors such as personality. An issue might require a
solution that is fairly simple and straightforward; in that case, a programmed
decision based on established procedures or rules could be sufficient.12
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
However, if the decision is for a new, more complex issue, greater demands
might require a non-programmed decision.13
The work of March and Simon (1958)14 acknowledged that rational decision
making was constrained or (in their terms) bounded by such things as the
people’s level of skill, their values, and their knowledge, especially that which
will enable the person to determine and analyze possible alternatives.15 In
addition, these researchers stated that decisions were about more than facts;
ethical and value-based judgments were involved as well.16 According to the
bounded rationality model (for which Simon won the 1978 Nobel Prize)
decision-makers satisfice. This means the decision-makers will select the
first alternative that satisfies and suffices; in other words, the alternative will
do, given resource, time, and cost constraints.
People use different techniques to evaluate a problem and arrive at a
decision. Imagine you are in the market for a car. You don’t know a lot about
the inner workings of an automobile, and you’re in a hurry to make a
decision without giving yourself a headache. In that case it’s likely you will
use a heuristic evaluation strategy. A heuristic is a simple method of
making a decision using rules learned through past experiences. Often, the
decision maker will select one key criterion to use as the benchmark or basis
of comparison. So, let’s say your one key criterion is price. You will select the
car you purchase based primarily on what it costs. Now, let’s say it’s ten
years later, and you need to buy another car. But this time, you are married
and have a child. A simple, straightforward process focused only on one
criterion will probably not work for you. Now you must consider price, safety,
gas mileage, plus your spouse really wants a blue car. In this case, you will
be more likely to adopt a compensatory evaluation strategy. A compensatory
strategy is one in which you take the time and effort to consider and weigh
multiple alternatives using multiple criteria as a basis for comparison.
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
Biases in Decision-Making
Decision makers are human beings. That means we sometimes make errors
of judgment; specifically, we allow mental biases (preconceived notions) to
get in the way of the best decision at times. We use these mental shortcuts
every day—they make our lives easier and less uncertain. And that’s the
problem; in our desire to make decisions easy and to limit the amount of
uncertainty we experience on a daily basis, we sometimes take shortcuts that
lead us to make ill-informed and/or inadequate decisions. In the table below
are a number of common decision-making biases to which we are
susceptible.
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
Table 25: Common Decision-making Biases
Confirmation
Bias
Gathering information that supports and reaffirms our own position (e.g. attending more closely to the person in a debate that agrees with your
position or beliefs)
Availability
Bias
Basing your decision on information you already have, is easily at hand,
or is salient to you at that time. (e.g. making assumptions about another culture based on what you’ve heard
from the news, books, friends – rather than from actual experience, first-hand
interaction, or research into the culture)
Representative
Bias
Using similar experiences as the basis for a current decision without
considering relevancy or accuracy. (e.g. I hired a younger worker for this type of job before, and he was
horrible, so I’m not about to hire another person that age)
Overconfidence
Bias Overestimating, particularly about one’s own ability. (e.g. I know I’m a better driver than most other drivers I encounter.)
Anchoring Bias Basing a judgment on a familiar reference point that is incomplete or
irrelevant to the problem being solved. 17
(e.g. Gas shouldn’t cost this much! It used to be under $2.00)
Escalation of
commitment
Remaining fully committed to and persistent in a course of action, even
when faced with its apparent failure. 17
(e.g. I know the company is troubled, but I’ve already bought the stock)
Framing Bias
Being influenced to think a certain way based on the way the issue is
presented. (e.g. The decision to invest based on a rate of return presented optimistically, or
the decision not to invest based on a rate of return presented negatively (even
though it’s the same rate)
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
Linking Concept to Practice
In April of 1985 amidst much fanfare, including prime-time TV ads, the
Coca-Cola company launched its latest creation: New Coke. Company
Chairman Roberto Goizueta excitedly described the new soda as
“smoother, rounder, yet bolder.” The public described it as horrible and
nearly tantamount to trampling the American flag.
By June, people were beginning to hoard cases of the original Coke, and
Newsweek reported black marketers were selling “old” Coke for up to
$30 a case. (One Hollywood director supposedly rented a wine cellar to
hold 100 cases in a personal stash.) By July New Coke was gone and
“old” Coke was back. Company president Donald Keough (in a marvelous
example of understatement) commented, “We did not understand the
deep emotions of so many of our customers for Coca-Cola.”
How did a company with such an impressive, long-term record of success
fail so miserably? Individual factors such as motivation and self-esteem
are to blame, as are peer-pressure and pressure from above. Execs
might have “thrown good money after bad” because of confirmation and
overconfidence bias. Characteristics of the project such as ill-defined
goals and lack of performance standards illustrate escalation of
commitment. Finally, external forces can influence as well. Coca-Cola
had been involved in a contentious public battle with its competitor Pepsi
for some time. The leadership at Coca-Cola firmly believed New Coke
was a way to win that war.
Even now, the New Coke fiasco is held up as one of the all-time worst
marketing decisions ever made, but it is also a clear indication of poor
decision making in
general. 19
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
This is all about having great leaders who can drive
agile innovation and agile decision-making.
—Steve Ballmer
§ Leadership Decision-Making
Styles
Leaders are called upon to make decisions regularly. The style used by a
leader when making decisions has more to do with how a leader decides than
what the leader decides.20 Models that outlined the different styles leaders
might use when making decisions were created by leadership scholars such
as Vroom, Yetton, Jago, Tannenbaum, and Schmid.21 One common element
that runs through the various models is the extent to which a leader makes
the decision alone or whether others are involved. In the table below are four
basic styles of leadership decision-making. Vroom, Yetton, and later Jago’s
collective research also indicates that situational factors would influence the
style used by the leader. Such factors include whether the leader and/or the
followers have the necessary information to make a decision
and whether followers will play a pivotal role in the implementation of the
decision.22
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
Table 26: Characteristics of Decision-making
Styles [Based on Vroom, 2000]23
Decide
Consult
(Individually)
- Discuss the problem with individual followers for
suggestions
- Make the decision alone
Consult (Group)
- Discuss the problem with a group of followers for
suggestions
- Make the decision alone
Facilitate
- Discuss the problem with group
- As a facilitator, define the problem and outline constraints
o consensus is goal
o all members participate equally
Delegate - Allow the group to make decisions (within limits)
- Make the group responsible for information gathering,
developing alternatives, and arriving at a conclusion
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
Real World Exercise
Use the information in Table 26 above to complete the following:
1. Describe a specific instance in a real world situation where you
used a style similar to “Decide” and why.
2. Describe a specific instance in a real world situation where you
used a style similar to “Facilitate” and why.
3. Describe a specific instance in a real world situation where you
used a style similar to “Delegate” and why.
The organizations of the future will increasingly
depend on the creativity of their members to survive.
—Warren Bennis
Leading for Creativity
Creativity is the production of novel and useful ideas,24 but creativity is also
demonstrated when someone puts existing ideas or processes together in a
new and useful way. To have an energetic, creative organization, both forms
of creativity must be encouraged and supported and leaders play a crucial
role. Individual-level creativity is closely linked to motivation; in addition,
recent research suggests that the ability to be creative may be a trainable
skill.25
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
The steps involved in creative thinking were outlined almost 100 years ago
by Wallas (1926)26, and have remained fairly unchanged, with only one
additional step added in recent years.27 These steps are presented in Table
27 below.
Successful leaders promote idea generation in those around them. To do
that, leaders must create an environment in which employees feel
comfortable developing ideas and presenting them. If you want people to
come to you with their ideas, your response to their ideas is important.
Often, leaders’ and managers’ first response to someone else’s idea is to
view it as a problem.28 Or worse, the leader pretends to listen but does
nothing.29
Table 27: Steps of the Creative Process [Source: Based on Kao, R. 1989; Wallas, 1926]30
Preparation
The development of the experience and
knowledge necessary to be creative in a
particular area. The presence of personal
interest in the area.
Incubation
The period in which the person thinks about or
contemplates the idea or problem, often
occurring unconsciously while the person is
engaged in other activities.
Insight
The “Eureka!” moment in which the person
becomes aware of the answer or solution
for which he or she was searching.
Evaluation
The period during which the person analyzes
insights and ideas to determine whether they
can be implemented. This can involve
determining whether resources are available,
the people involved have the correct skills, etc.
Exploitation The point in which the creative insight or idea
is ready and able to be used, carried out, or
presented.
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
You must really listen when people come to you with ideas. The consulting
firm Idea Champions calls it “Innovation Coaching.” 31 Respect people and
pay attention to what they have to say. If you can’t do that because of time
constraints, schedule a time to meet with the person as soon as possible to
discuss the idea. When people talk about their ideas, focus with an open
mind on what they are saying. Consider using empowering phrases 32 such
as:
• “That sounds interesting. Can you tell me more?”
• “What excites you most about this idea?”
• “In what ways does your idea fit with the vision for our company?”
• “What support do you need from me?”
Linking Concept to Practice
The empowering phrases listed above are an effective way to encourage
others to generate and introduce ideas. But what makes them effective?
One reason is the intent behind these phrases: The phrase
communicates your desire to have people involved and get their input.
You communicate your intent by supporting, opposing or being neutral
about people and ideas.
Change your intent to see how the phrases above change
their meaning.
The more positive and the more negative you feel, the more
you will express your intent.
Does this mean you have to tell everyone who comes to you with an idea
that his or her idea is terrific? No! It simply means you allow people an
opportunity to tell you their idea and give it voice. When doing this, do not
interrupt or insert your own thoughts or opinions at every opportunity. In his
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey refers to
“probing, evaluating, advising, and interpreting” as “autobiographical
responses” and considers them intrusive and detrimental to empathetic
listening.33 This is similar to the reflective
listening technique we discussed earlier. If you interrupt, people feel
disrespected, their train of thought might be disrupted, and they may even
withhold information out of anger or feelings of intimidation. Instead, let the
person talk at his or her own pace, with his or her own sequence of thought. 34 When he or she appears to have reached a stopping point, you can ask if
there is anything more to add or if you can make a suggestion or
observation. 35 Finally, group discussions of ideas are also an opportunity for
you as a leader to create a “culture of creativity” that encourages others to
offer ideas.36 Ways to create such a culture are presented in Table 28 below.
The only people in the world who can change things
are those who can sell ideas.
- Lois Wyse
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
Table 28: Leadership and Anxiety: A Lesson in
Paradox [Source: Based on Artner, B. 2001]37
Give the shelter
People need to feel safe to offer their ideas. Make
sure they know won’t be “punished” for making
suggestions. Also, create and maintain an
environment where people don’t worry they will be
ridiculed or dismissed for their ideas.
Ask for bad ideas
In the early stages, an idea that first appears to be
“bad” might turn out to be the one that works!
Innovation comes from hearing good and bad ideas
—they act as launching pads for people to create
other ideas, combine with one another to become a
whole new idea, etc.
Give examples
Do more than say, “Give me something
innovative.” Provide a couple of ideas of your own
to set the stage and help people feel comfortable.
Make it clear that your ideas aren’t necessarily
great but are starting points and examples of
what you have in mind.
Set limits
If some things are off limits, say so up front. For
example, there could be spending limits (“Assume we
have $500,000 to spend on R & D.”). Boundaries
don’t have to limit real creativity; in fact, knowing the
limits can help people more accurately conceptualize
the problem and possible solutions.
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
Linking Concept to Practice
Consider ways in which ideas are presented in the your day-to-day life.
Sometimes you introduce ideas, but very often you depend upon others
in the situation to introduce an important idea. At other times, you might
be faced with the predicament of someone introducing an idea that is
counterproductive. What actions can you take to help create a “culture
of creativity” and be an effective “innovation coach,” while still working
to get the right work done?
It is also helpful to consider the impact nonverbal communication can
have on ideas being introduced (or not) in your real world. Reviewing the
“Attentive Listening Techniques” listed above, what sort of nonverbal
cues are you observe in your real world personalities that give you clues
about how well (or how poorly) they are listening?
Real World Exercise
How might you (as a leader) encourage a “Culture of Creativity”
- in a work environment?
- in a student team project?
Getting Ideas Agreed To
Having ideas and developing an environment where others feel comfortable
having ideas is an important part of today’s leadership process. However,
equally important is your ability to get ideas passed and achieve “buy-in”
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
(get the support) of the people who will actually implement these ideas.
Leaders have to recognize the concept of sufficient support; specifically, you
must realize that as an idea begins to be supported by a group, that idea
gains momentum among the group’s members. In contrast, a similar
momentum can cause an idea to be tabled if the members of the group
consensually move against it. Momentum (either for or against an idea) can
build on the basis of one influential person’s concentrated efforts or by a
group of people working collaboratively.
The amount of momentum needed to carry or pass an idea can vary as well.
Not all ideas are equal in significance or weight. For instance, imagine you
are with a group of friends. You and your friends must make two decisions:
1) where to have dinner that evening and 2) where you will all go over spring
break together. The first decision can be made fairly quickly and without a
great amount of effort, time, or resources (unless there is one person who is
REALLY holding out for pizza with anchovies!). However, the second decision
(where to spend spring break) will most likely require a longer conversation
(perhaps multiple conversations), more information, and possibly more give-
and-take among the group. Because there is greater significance and cost
associated with this decision, consensus will be harder to achieve, and any
specific idea will require more momentum and buy-in from the group
members to make the final decision a successful one.
One common mistake leaders make is to just present their idea, announce it
is the one that will be implemented, and exclude others from the process.38
However, the results of that tactic are usually less than effective, largely due
to a lack of motivation or buy-in by the people excluded. Rather, you are
more likely to persuade others to pass your idea by bringing all involved
parties together and allowing them a voice. What are their opinions or
concerns? Do they have ideas of their own to share? Involvement translates
to respect, and even if a person’s idea isn’t ultimately selected, that person
will be more likely to accept the final idea that is passed if their voice was
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
heard. Another benefit to bringing people together and communicating is the
opportunity it provides you to demonstrate why your idea has merit and
subsequently build momentum for it with the people you need to convince.
In the section below, we will discuss ways to more successfully bring people
together to generate ideas, problem solve, and make decisions. Providing
inspiration and a culture of creativity are good starting points; however,
leaders must also effectively “steer a course through the political reality of
persuading others.”39 Next, we’ll provide suggestions to ensure a smooth and
successful voyage.
Leading Team Decision-Making
Teams are everywhere lately. An increasing number of organizations profess
to be using teams for a wide range of different activities, and business
schools are often charged by these organizations with providing learning
opportunities about and within teams to their business students. (Yes, that is
the reason you are assigned so many team projects!) Being the leader of a
team requires multiple skills on the part of the person in the leadership role.
Some we’ve discussed, such as the ability to communicate, to motivate, and
to influence positively. However, three important team-specific tasks are also
vital for leaders to perform: 1) initially forming the group and helping to
create its identity among its members, 2) assisting in the setting of group
norms, and 3) acting in the capacity of coach.40
First, a team needs to have a recognizable identity that its members can
recognize. Human beings are inherently tribal in nature; we create personal
sense of identity in part from the social groups of which we consider
ourselves a member. For example, I could identify myself in terms of my
country of origin (the U.S.), my professional affiliation (the University of
Wisconsin- Eau Claire), as the mother of a young child, as a woman, as a
Green Bay Packers fan, etc. These social groups help define who I am. This
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
idea of social identification is spelled out in Social Identity Theory, which
states that people define their self-concept in terms of their membership in
various social groups.41 Individuals in a team need to identify with that team;
it helps build trust and increase cohesion.
Members who perceive a social identity for their team are more likely to
cooperate with in-group members and work to achieve the team’s goals.42 In
fact, research has shown that teams with members who strongly identify
with their team and its values perform more effectively than teams who lack
that team identity 43
Teams function through the use of rules and standards of behavior; in other
words, the group norms. Norms help people understand each other’s
behaviors and provide clues as to how they should and should not behave. A
savvy team leader will help the team establish and monitor these norms.
An example of a group norm would be that the team is in favor of, and
promotes, cooperation among its members. Another would be individual
accountability for members. People look to their leader for guidance in terms
of how to behave. Leaders who model the norms they wish to see within the
team are more likely to see those behaviors in team members than leaders
who adopt a “do as I say, not as I do” approach.
Finally, team leaders should work from a coaching mindset. They should
focus on task- relevant issues and select coaching behaviors based on
individual’s needs as well as the needs of the team. For example,
motivational coaching is particularly effective in the early stage of a team’s
existence, while strategic coaching is especially useful at the midpoint of a
team’s progress toward a goal.44
Great team leaders lead through collaboration. Glaser (2005) outlines four
key elements for creating collaboration in teams. He sees the team leader as
a “process steward whose primary purpose is to support the work of a group
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
so its members achieve a synergy that enables them to get the work done
well and ensure everyone’s interests are served. 45 In Table 29 below, these
four elements are identified.
Table 29: Collaborative Elements for Teams
[Source: adapted from Glaser, R. 2005]46
Align the team
- ensure a focus on common goals
- make sure members have clear
expectations
- establish norms that support engagement, information sharing, and
backing-up behavior among members
Focus on a vision
- clarify core values
- clearly communicate vision
- ensure the vision addresses both
collective (the team) and individual
(member) interests or among members
Search for Solutions
- establish, model, and promote cultural
norms that emphasize a commitment to
learning, a mindset of openness, and
information sharing among members
Reaching Agreements
- make sure each member understands
and agrees to the decision
- include considerations of how the
decision will be carried out
In addition to these elements, there are other tips for reaching consensus
and building alliances that can benefit team leaders.47 First, be prepared as
the leader to compromise on anything except the agree-upon goal; individual
agendas must be a secondary priority. Second, work to establish individual
allies within the team. These relationships will provide momentum and help
secure the success of the goal. Third, remember that a collective decision by
the team should ideally represent an integration of everyone’s opinions and
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
ideas. And finally, strive to affirm and validate each member’s value to the
group through activities such as reflective listening.
Real World Exercise
Consider an experience you had when you were involved in getting
an idea agreed to (at work, in a team project for a class, etc.)
· Were any of the techniques described in this section used?
· Was the effort successful? Why or why not?
de sk
PD F
St ud
io Tr
ial
