BUS603: Managing People

Describe organizational drivers to understand, communicate and remember them.

Describing drivers may be done by a group or by an individual. Depending on their perspective, they may decide to explain a driver as a problem to solve or an opportunity to leverage.

A simple way to describe a driver is by explaining:

• What's happening…:
• the current situation
• the effect of this situation on the organization

• …and what's needed:
• the need of the organization in relation to this situation
• the impact of attending to that need
  

Create a brief but comprehensive summary containing just enough information to clearly communicate the need for an action or a decision.

Aim for one or two sentences, so that the information is easy to remember and process.

Besides the summary, more details about the driver may be kept in the logbook.

Example:
"The kitchen is in disorder: there are no clean cups, the sink is full of dishes and it's not possible to quickly grab a coffee and get right back to work. We need the kitchen in a usable state so we can stay focused on our work".

1. Current Situation

"The kitchen is in disorder: there are no clean cups, the sink is full of dishes…"
Describe the current situation:

• Briefly capture the essentials of what is happening, and, if necessary, the context in which it occurs.
• Be objective - describe observations and avoid evaluation.
  

2. Effect

"…it's not possible to quickly grab a coffee and get right back to work".
Explain the effect of this situation on the organization:

• Clarify why the situation needs attention: how does it affect the organization?
• Be explicit about whether the effects are current or anticipated.
• Explain challenges, losses, opportunities or gains.
  

3. Need

"We need the kitchen in a usable state…"

Explain the need of the organization in relation to this situation:

• A need of an organization is anything a team (or individual) requires to effectively account for a domain.
• Be specific on whose need it is ("we need", "they need", "I need").
• If there's disagreement about the need, it helps to zoom out from specific solutions and focus on what the organization is lacking in this situation.
  

4. Impact

"…so we can stay focused on our work".
Describe the impact of attending to that need:

• Explain the intended outcome, potential benefits or opportunities.
• The impact may be obvious or implicit, especially when the effects of the current situation are already described.
  

Review Drivers

Make sure to review drivers on a regular basis, to deepen you understanding of what's happening and needed.
Helpful questions for a review include:

• Is the description of the situation (still) correct?
• Do we still associate the same needs with the situation?
• Is the driver still within our domain?
• Is the driver still relevant?

A (facilitated) group process for decision-making: invite objections, and consider information and knowledge revealed to further evolve proposals or existing agreements.

Consent invites people to (at least) be reasonable and open to opportunities for learning and improvement. When you apply the principle of consent, you are agreeing to intentionally seek out objections.

An objection is an argument – relating to a proposal, agreement, activity or the existing state of affairs – that reveals consequences or risks you'd rather avoid, or demonstrates worthwhile ways to improve.

Proposals become agreements when they are considered good enough for now and safe enough to try until the next review. Objections prevent proposals from becoming agreements, but concerns do not.

Withholding objections can harm the ability of individuals, teams or the whole organization to achieve their objectives.

Not all arguments raised are objections, but they might reveal concerns:

A concern is an assumption that cannot (for now at least) be backed up by reasoning or enough evidence to prove its relevance or validity to those who are considering it.

Step 1: Consent to the Driver

Make sure the driver is summarized clearly enough and is relevant for the group to respond to.

Facilitator asks: Are there any objections to this driver being described clearly enough and relevant for us to respond to?

Note: If you have already consented to the driver at an earlier stage in the process, there is no need to repeat this step here. However, in a case where someone is presenting a proposal to a group of stakeholders who were not involved in creating it, or if there are people who are only now joining the decision-making process, check everyone understands the driver for the proposal, and make sure that it's described clearly enough and it's relevant for those present to respond to, before considering the proposal itself.

As a general recommendation, aim to complete this step with meeting attendees asynchronously, prior to the meeting. This will give you the opportunity to make any refinements in advance and save wasting precious meeting time.

In case of objections that indicate:

• The driver is not described clearly enough: take time to clarify and make any necessary changes to how the driver is summarized until there are no further objections. Unless this will be a quick fix, consider doing this after the meeting and defer making the decision until the driver is clear.
• The driver is not relevant for this meeting / group: pass it on to the appropriate person or team, or discard it.

Step 2: Present the Proposal

Share the proposal with everyone.

Facilitator asks the author(s) of the proposal: Would you please present the proposal to everyone?

The author(s) of the proposal (tuners), present it to the group, including details about who is responsible for what, a suggested review date or frequency, and any identified evaluation criteria.

Preparation: Where possible, send out the proposal in advance of the meeting, so that people can familiarize themselves with the content, ask any clarifying questions, or even share improvement suggestions, prior to the meeting. This saves taking up precious face-to-face meeting time for things that can be done outside of the meeting.

Proposals are typically created by an individual or a group beforehand but are sometimes suggested "on the fly".

If you're the one presenting a proposal, write it down, share it with the others beforehand if possible and aim to keep your explanation concise and clear. Describe it in a way that maximizes the potential that others will understand what you are proposing, without requiring further explanation.

Note: Involving stakeholders in the creation of a proposal can increase engagement and accountability for whatever is decided because people are more likely to take ownership of an agreement that they participate in creating. On the other hand, participatory or collaborative decision-making requires people's time and effort, so, only use it when the gains are worthwhile.

Step 3: Understand the Proposal

Make sure everyone understands the proposal.

Facilitator asks: Are there any questions to understand this proposal as it's written here?

This is not a moment to get into dialogue about why a proposal has been put together in a certain way, but simply to check that everyone understands what is being proposed. Avoid "why" questions and focus instead on "what do you mean by …" questions.

Clarifying questions sometimes reveal helpful ways to change the proposal text to make it more clear. You can use this time to make edits to the proposal, if it supports people's understanding, but be wary of changing what is actually being proposed at this stage.

Note: If the group is experienced with using Consent Decision-Making, you might well make improvements to the proposal at this stage. However, if you're less familiar, beware, you are very likely to slip into another session of tuning the proposal, this time with everybody being involved. You run the risk of wasting time attempting to reach consensus, instead of proceeding with the process and evolving the proposal based on objections (in step 7).

Tips for the Facilitator:

• Use a round and invite the tuners (or whoever created the proposal) to answer one question at a time.
• Pick up on any "why" or "why not" questions and remind people that the purpose of this step is simply to ensure understanding of the current proposal, and not why the proposal was put together in this particular way.
  

Tips for everyone:

• Say "pass" if you don't have a question or you're unclear at this point what your question is.
• Keep your questions and answers brief and to the point.
• Avoid preamble and stick to the point, e.g.: "Well, one thing that is not so clear to me, or at least, that I want to make sure I understand correctly is …" or "I'm not sure how to phrase this, but let me try", etc.

Step 4: Brief Response

Get a sense of how this proposal lands with everyone.

Facilitator asks: What are your thoughts and feelings about the proposal?

Hearing everyone sharing their reflections, opinions and feelings about a proposal, helps to broaden people's understanding and consider the proposal from various points of view.

People's responses can reveal useful information and might already reveal concerns or possible objections. At this stage, listen but avoid interacting with what people say. This step is just about seeing the proposal through each other's eyes.

Examples:

• "I like that it's simple and straightforward. It's a great next step".
• "I'm a bit concerned that this will take a lot of time, when there are other important things that we need to take care of too".
• "I think there are some essential things missing here, like A and B for example".

Tips for Facilitator:

• Invite a round.
• Specify how "brief" the "brief response" should be! This will depend a lot on context and may range from a single sentence to some minutes of each person's time.
  

Tips for everyone:

• Avoid making comments or responding to what people share.
• Adjust your contribution to fit the time constraint.
• It's valuable to hear something from everyone in this round, so avoid passing. If you're lost for words, you can still say something like "I need some more time to think about it" or "I'm unsure at this point where I stand"

Step 5: Check for Possible Objections

People consider the proposal and then indicate if they have possible objections or concerns.

This step is simply about identifying who has possible objections or concerns. Arguments are heard in the next step.

If you came here from step 7 (Resolve One Objection), check for further possible objections to the amended proposal.

The facilitator asks: Are there any possible objections, or concerns to this proposal?

Remember: concerns don't stop proposals becoming agreements, only qualified objections do. Concerns are heard in Step 9, after celebrating reaching an agreement!

Tips for the facilitator:

In case the distinction between objections and concerns is still unclear for some people, remind them:

• An objection is an argument – relating to a proposal, agreement, activity or the existing state of affairs – that reveals consequences or risks you'd rather avoid, or demonstrates worthwhile ways to improve.
• A concern is an assumption that cannot (for now at least) be backed up by reasoning or enough evidence to prove its relevance or validity to those who are considering it.
• Proposals become agreements when they are considered good enough for now and safe enough to try until the next review.
  

Tips for everyone:

• Many groups use hand signs as a way to indicate quickly and clearly if anyone has any possible objections or concerns. If you are new to the process and concerned that you may be influenced by each other, wait until everyone is ready and then show hands simultaneously.
• If you are in doubt between a possible objection or a concern, share it as a possible objection so that you can check with others to test if it qualifies.
  

If no one indicates having any possible objections, you have reached agreement, move on to step 8 (Celebrate)!

Step 6: Test One Argument Qualifies as Objection

Use your limited time and resources wisely by testing if arguments qualify as objections and only acting on those that do.

Typically it's most effective to take one possible objection at a time, test if it qualifies as an objection, and if it does, resolve the objection before moving on to the next argument.

Tip for the Facilitator: In case there are several possible objections, explain to everyone that you're going to choose one person at a time, to share one argument. Clarify with everyone that, if having heard the argument, someone believes it would be more effective to consider one of their arguments first, they should speak up.

Check that the argument reveals how leaving the proposal unchanged:

• leads to consequences you want to avoid,
• could lead to consequences you want to avoid and it's a risk you don't want to take,
• or informs you of a worthwhile way to improve how to go about achieving your objectives.
  

If the argument doesn't qualify as an objection, go back to step 5 (Check for Possible Objections), otherwise continue to the next step.

Step 7: Resolve the Objection

Improve the proposal, based on the information revealed by the objection revealed in the previous step.

Once the objection is resolved, return to step 5.

Step 8: Celebrate!

Amazing! You made an agreement! And, with practice, you'll get faster as well! Take a moment to acknowledge the fact that an agreement has been made. Celebrate!

Step 9: Consider Concerns

After celebrating, consider if any concerns you have are worth voicing to the group before moving on to the next topic. If not, at least record them after the meeting, alongside the evaluation criteria for this agreement. Information about concerns might be useful for informing the evaluation of the agreement when the time comes for it to be reviewed.

Facilitator asks those with concerns: Are there any concerns worth hearing now? If not, please at least ensure that they are recorded alongside the evaluation criteria for this agreement.

Sometimes, what someone thought was a concern, turns out to be an objection. In this case, you can resolve it by amending your just-made agreement using the Resolve Objections process.

A Final Note:

If you are new to using Consent Decision-Making, we recommend you strictly follow the process until you become familiar with it and thoroughly understand all of the steps. Once you get more experience, you might hop around between steps, but doing this in the beginning can lead to confusion, and even, chaos.

For example, if there is a general expression of concern voiced during the Brief Response round, the facilitator (or another member of the group) might suggest evolving the proposal on the spot, to include points that people inferred. In this case, always check if there is any objection to doing so, first.

When someone raises a possible objection (an argument for changing something) check that the argument reveals how leaving things unchanged will – or could – lead to consequences you want to avoid, or that it informs you of a worthwhile way to improve how to go about achieving your objectives.

Explore and refine each argument as necessary to identify any misconceptions or misunderstanding, and to eliminate aspects of the argument that are based merely on assumptions, or a personal preference or opinion. If you establish that what remains of the argument qualifies as an objection, then go on to resolve the objection.

Working with arguments

To have a productive dialogue, it is helpful to understand that any argument is made up of a series of claims: Each argument contains one or more premises, which are offered as reasons for accepting a conclusion.

Each of an argument's premises can be scrutinized individually, and when that is done, we can analyze whether or not the conclusion that follows from those premises stood up to the test.

It helps to present the argument in a way that makes the premises and conclusion, obvious, e.g. like this:

1 First Premise
2 Second Premise
– – – – – – – –
Therefore: Conclusion

Facilitator: invite the group to list the premises and explain the conclusion, and then take it from there.

Sometimes it can be helpful to record this information on a flip chart or a digital whiteboard, or even as text in a chat.

With an argument laid out like this, the group can focus questions to understand the argument according to each specific claim, and point out any claims with which they disagree. Each disagreement can be presented using the same method as above.

When a premise has been agreed upon, mark that as done, when the dialogue reveals a hidden premise, simply add it to the list. If a premise turns out to be invalid, remove it. Recording progress in this way helps to ensure that everyone is on the same page with the current state of an argument.

When agreement seems out of reach: In a group setting, it may at times turn out to be impossible to immediately resolve a disagreement about a specific claim relating to a possible objection, often because the group lacks data, knowledge or expertise. When such a situation occurs, one way to deal with it is to re-frame the possible objection around that specific uncertainty. If the amended argument qualifies as an objection, it can then be resolved by amending the proposal with an added provision for establishing the facts about the controversial claim.

A process for testing if an argument qualifies as objection

This process for testing if arguments qualify as objections, is a variation of the Reasoned Decision-Making pattern.

Step 1: Present the argument being put forward as a possible objection.

Step 2: Understand the argument.

Step 3: Check if there is any disagreement with the claim that the argument qualifies as an objection (e.g. people can indicate with a raised hand). The reasons for the disagreements are presented in the next step.

• If there is no disagreement, the argument qualifies as an objection and you can now proceed to resolve the objection.
• Otherwise take one possible disagreement at a time, and:
  

Step 4: Investigate the reasoning behind the disagreement:

• If it demonstrates that the original argument is false (totally or partly) or that ( despite it being sound), it doesn't qualify as an objection, continue with the next step.
• Otherwise go back to step 3 to check for any further disagreements.
  

Step 5: Integrate the information revealed in the previous step with the original argument:

• If the original argument still has some validity, refine it and then continue with step 3 to see if there is any disagreement with the refined argument.
• Otherwise you have demonstrated that the original argument is not an objection.
  

Below you'll find more guidance on how to go through each step. As with all patterns in S3, your approach to testing if arguments qualify as objections can be adjusted to suit your context.

Step 1 Present argument

Present the argument being put forward as a possible objection.

Facilitator asks the person with the possible objection: Please explain your argument.

Step 2 Understand argument

Ensure everyone understands the argument.

Facilitator asks everyone: Any questions to understand the argument?

Everyone: If you don't understand, jump in and ask a clarifying question. The person presenting the argument explains further, until everyone understands.

Step 3 Check for disagreement with the argument

People consider the argument and then indicate if they disagree.

Everyone: reflect for yourself if you think the argument presented qualifies as an objection or not.

Note: If a group is new to the process, the facilitator might explicitly invite everyone to reflect for themselves: Do you think this argument qualifies as an objection?

Facilitator asks: Does anyone disagree totally or in part, that this argument qualifies as an objection? If so, please raise your hand.

• If no-one disagrees: the argument qualifies as an objection. Proceed to resolve the objection.
• If anyone disagrees: continue to the next step.
  

Step 4: Investigate the reasoning behind a disagreement

Choose one of the people with a raised hand and using the same process for testing arguments qualify as objections, determine if their reasons for disagreeing are valid or not:

4.1. Present the reason for disagreement: Facilitator invites: Please explain why the original argument is totally or partly incorrect.

4.2. Understand reason for disagreement: Facilitator invites: Are there any questions to understand this argument?

4.3. Check for disagreement to the disagreement: Facilitator asks: Does anyone disagree with the reason for this disagreement, entirely or in part?

• If no one disagrees: the argument for the disagreement is considered valid. Go to step 5.
• If anyone disagrees: investigate the reasoning behind the disagreement (see step 4) until you come to an argument that no-one disagrees with. Then take each preceding argument in turn – checking if there's anything remaining and/or if it needs to be changed or dropped (see step 5 for guidelines on how to do this) – until you arrive back to the initial disagreement.

Step 5: Integrate the information revealed in the previous step with the original argument

Facilitator asks the person who presented the original argument: "Anything remaining of your argument?"

The person who brought the original argument has the option to refine, rephrase or reframe their argument, or to drop it entirely, if there's nothing remaining.

• If the original argument still has some validity, refine it and then continue with step 3 to see if there is any disagreement with the refined argument.
• Otherwise you have demonstrated that the original argument is not an objection.

A proposal becomes an agreement when all objections have been resolved.

Objections are resolved by amending the proposal. Amendments can include:

• adding, removing and/or changing something in the proposal.
• deferring resolution of a particular objection until later. (Remember to clarify who will take responsibility for this, by when and what will happen after that).
• an alternative proposal, or an agreement to (co-)create a new proposal in future (if it's considered more effective than continuing to work on developing the existing proposal).
• delegating the task to review, research, and/or propose an amendment for one, or even several related objections, to an individual or group.
• leaving the main proposal unchanged and monitoring the outcome because the effort, or cost of changing things to resolve the objection, outweighs the anticipated benefits or gain.
• asking a delegator for feedback or input (e.g. when agreeing on a strategy for a subdomain).
• take some more time for reflection and then come back to the objection again later.
• etc.
  

There's always an iterative next step of some kind that you can take! Even if a proposal doesn't fully address the driver, reaching agreement about one or more iterative next steps is often good enough. It's also helpful sometimes to break things down into small steps, especially when you're dealing with complex or complicated situations.

Objections can be resolved by following the process outlined in Reasoned Decision-Making:

Step 1: Come up with a proposal for an amendment

Step 2: Understand the proposed amendment

Step 3: Check if there are any possible objections to the proposed amendment , e.g. by using hand signs. The possible objections themselves are presented in Step 4.

If there are no possible objections, proceed to step 6 (Celebrate), otherwise take one possible objection at a time, and:

Step 4: Hear the reasoning for the possible objection and determine if the argument put forward has any validity.

Step 5: Integrate any information revealed in the previous step to improve the proposed amendment, then go back to step 3.

Step 6: Celebrate! You've agreed on an amendment that resolves the objection!

Below you'll find more guidance on how to go through each step. This process can be repeated until all objections have been resolved. As with all patterns in S3, your approach to resolving objections can be adjusted to suit your context.

Step 1: Come up with proposal for an amendment

Come up with a suggestion for how to amend the proposal to resolve the objection based on information the objection reveals.

There are many ways to come up with an amendment. Below are some typical options you can use. We recommend you use them in the order they are presented: if the first option does not work, go to the next one, and so on. Once you get more familiar with the process you'll be able to discern in the moment which option is more suitable.

1. Ask the person raising the objection: "Do you have a suggestion for how to amend this proposal to resolve this objection?"
2. Ask the group "Does anyone have a suggestion for how to amend this proposal to resolve this objection?" and choose one person to present their suggestion.
3. In case it's difficult to immediately come up with an amendment, invite a timeboxed dialogue to share ideas, with the purpose of coming up with an amendment from there.
   

As with any proposal, an amendment suggestion gives you a starting point that can then be refined through inviting and resolving objections. (see Step 4:Test One Argument Qualifies as Objection)

It's often helpful to repeat or summarise the amendment and write it down for everyone to see.

Step 2: Understand amendment

Ensure everyone understands the amendment being proposed.

Facilitator asks: Any questions to understand the proposed amendment?

Tips for everyone:

• Keep your questions and answers brief and to the point.
• Avoid getting into discussions or expressing opinions about the validity of the amendment at this stage. The point of this step is simply to ensure the suggested amendment is clear.
• Add relevant clarifications to the written amendment.
  

Step 3: Check for Possible Objections

People consider the proposed amendment and then indicate if they have possible objections or concerns.

This step is simply about identifying who has possible objections or concerns. Arguments are heard in the next step.

Facilitator asks: Are there any possible objections, or concerns to this amendment? (note that the subject here is the amendment, not the whole proposal!)

Many groups use hand signs as a way to indicate quickly and clearly if anyone has any possible objections.

• In case there are possible objections to the suggested amendment, go on to the next step, Test One Argument Qualifies as Objection(link).
• If no one indicates having any possible objections, go to Step 6: Celebrate, because you've agreed on the amendment.
  

Step 4: Test One Argument Qualifies as Objection

Please refer to Test Arguments Qualify as Objections

• If the argument qualifies, continue to Step 5 (Resolve one Objection)
• If the argument doesn't qualify, go back to Step 3 to check if there are any further possible objections to the proposed amendment.

Step 5: Resolve one Objection

Repeat the process: use the Resolve Objection pattern to resolve one objection to the amendment.

Come up with an amendment to the current amendment suggestion! Be aware that a proposed amendment might include the suggestion to entirely replace the current amendment with a different one instead.

As you can see, the Resolve Objections pattern can be used recursively. Below you will find an illustration that shows how this works.

Step 6: Celebrate!

You've agreed on an amendment that resolves the objection! Before moving on, remember to update your original proposal to integrate the amendment you've agreed on.

• draws on the collective intelligence and diversity of perspective within a group
• involves people in co-creating agreements
• fosters accountability and sense of ownership

Choosing Tuners

Consider:

• who should be there?
• who wants to be there?
• who else may have a valuable contribution to make?
• consider expertise, outside view, and inspiration

Between two and three tuners is usually appropriate. Check for any objections to the proposed tuner(s).

There are many paths people can follow to arrive at a decision with others (majority, consensus, authoritative, etc), but for any approach that uses reason as a basis for that agreement, they typically follow a similar pattern of Reasoned Decision-Making.

Reasoned Decision-Making lays out the process that groups take when applying reason to check whether a proposal, existing agreement or amendment is good enough, or if a particular argument is relevant, valid or empirically true.
The steps of the process

Reasoned Decision-Making

Step 1: Present the subject for investigation (this could be an argument, or a proposal for how to proceed).

Step 2: Understand the subject (e.g. through clarifying questions).

Step 3: Check if anyone disagrees with the subject (meaning they question the viability of the proposal or the validity of the argument), e.g. by using hand signs. Any disagreements are explained in Step 4. If there are no disagreements, proceed to step 6 (Celebrate), otherwise take one disagreement at a time and:

Step 4: Dispute Hear the reasoning for the disagreement and determine if the argument put forward has any validity.

Step 5: Integrate any information revealed in the previous step to improve the subject, then go back to step 3.

Step 6: Celebrate reaching agreement.

How people undergo each of these steps varies and depends a lot on culture, context, preference, the number of people involved, and on whether they are communicating asynchronously or meeting face-to-face.

Mapping Reasoned Decision-Making to other patterns in S3

Reasoned Decision-Making is reflected in all of the S3 process patterns that support groups to reach agreement. Understanding this meta-pattern helps people to more effectively apply them:

• Consent Decision-Making, for testing if a proposal or existing agreement is good enough and safe enough. And, within this, two nested patterns:
• Test Arguments Qualify as Objections, for testing if arguments qualify as objections and only acting on those that do.
• Resolve Objections, for using the information revealed by objections to make and evolve agreements.

Each of the three processes focuses on the investigation of a different subject:

• In Consent Decision-Making the subject is a proposal.
• In Test Argument Qualifies as Objection the subject is an argument that indicates a possible objection.
• In Resolving Objections - the subject is a proposed amendment.

• tap collective intelligence by hearing and deliberating on reasons for nominations
• increase ownership over the decision
• ensure support for the role keeper by those affected.

Role Selection - Steps

1. Present Role Description: If possible, send out the role's domain description in advance.
2. Record Nominations: Participants write their nomination on a slip of paper. People can nominate themselves, another, or pass.
3. Reasons for Nominations: Each person shares who they have nominated and why.
4. Information Gathering: Participants share or request any information that might support the group in making an appropriate selection.
5. Nomination Changes: Check if anyone wants to change their nomination in light of reasons and information shared so far, and hear the reasons for each change.
6. Propose a nominee for the role: The facilitator guides the process to identify a suitable nominee on the strength of the reasons heard, e.g. by:
   
   • proposing a nominee themselves or asking a group member
   • inviting (some) nominees to agree who should be proposed
   • inviting group dialogue to help reveal the strongest nominee
7. Check for Objections: Ask participants (including the proposed nominee) to simultaneously signal whether or not they have an objection.
8. Address and Resolve Objections, beginning with any from the proposed nominee. Objections may be resolved in many ways, including amending the role's domain description or by nominating someone else. When all objections are resolved, check with the (final) nominee again if they accept the role.
9. Celebrate: Acknowledge reaching agreement and thank the person who will now keep the role.