Tag Archives: agreement

Random thoughts – keeping you on your toes

Compromise

Leave a comment

One method of getting everyone involved to arrive at problem resolution is for the stakeholders to reach a settlement of the disputed items by each side making concessions.

This approach varies from consensus agreement, which is not about anyone giving anything up but rather finding a solution that satisfies everyone, albeit to different extents.

Passive Aggressive

Compromise  is often a hallmark of situations where although resolution appears to have been achieved in reality discontent lurksclose to the surface.

Giving up or giving in can be motivated by a number of things like frustration ,disenchantment, boredom, etc.  None of these are really positive nor leave the giver in a positive mood.

Often the giving in (passive behaviour) leads to a hidden agressive response.  We haven’t actually given up, we just make it seem so to give us time to prepare our resources for attack.

Consensus

Although not true in every case consensus agreement  provides an opportunity for all parties to buy-in to the solution.  That is, there can be real satisfaction to participating in the outcomes if you were involved in their creation (not so much when you feel pushed).

Strangely, although a much more effective approach with outcomes proven to be more sustainable I often see agreements forged through compromise.

I believe this is largely because achieving consensus is much harder than either through compromise or of course the easiest method, pure force (also the least sustainable).

When working with groups to arrive at common goals and strategies,  facilitatIng  consensus over compromise Is always best.

 

 

Random thoughts – keeping you on your toes

Seeking Concensus

Leave a comment

Leveraging the skills and abilities of others in conjunction with your own can be frustrating.  Independence and belief in our own abilities and self-worth lead us to challenge the value of collaboration.

That is to say, while the quality and effectiveness of our achievements are greatly enhanced by acting en mass rather than independently it is not human nature to do so.

Interacting with Others

Going it alone can be very satisfying.  Individual accomplishments make us feel good.  Group accomplishments are still worth applauding and can be very satisfying but we are just a cog in the wheel.

A very challenging aspect of working with others is the need to attain a consensus.  This is a general agreement among all parties.  Making a unilateral decision and forcing it on others is so much easier.

Therein Lies the Rub

Leaders with granted power can abuse this privilege by taking the easy route.  That is rather than attaining consensus, which means the best ideas and knowledge all participants gets leveraged, they just override and push forward with their decision.

The disadvantage of this approach is simply that is has a lower likelihood of arriving at the best approach.  Intuitively the larger the information base, the combining of multiple processing power and the diversity of thought will provide better results than a single stream,

Albeit it slower, taking the extra time and effort to consult, discuss and achieve consensus will in most cases (outside of dire emergencies) produce the best results.

Granted power should not be used recklessly.

Random thoughts – keeping you on your toes

Alignment

Leave a comment

While it is not always true that multiple resources can complete a task more efficiently, it is often the case.  In simple terms, efficient means in a well-organized and competent way.

Efficient work is usually faster and of a higher quality.  For a number of people to work together toward a common goal, that is all are contributing to an outcome (product or service), alignment of approach is a critical underpinning.

Confusion Reigns

Say you are washing the dishes with a familly member.  There are a number of interelated tasks for your team to complete.  Things like putting leftover food away, scraping the plates before hand washing in the sink or putting in the dishwasher.

These tasks apply to the pots.  Condiments have to be stored and the table cloth shaken or replaced and washed.

The participants in the clean-up need to be aligned as to approach, i.e., who is doing what, how and when.  Without alignment confusion takes over and the end result is not arrived at efficiently.  It will be slow and messy, frustrating for the participants.

Conceptual Alignment

How to approach achieving your objectives, what you are trying to achieve and how you are going to get there is not only a key to being efficient but also drives everyones contentment.

If all are not on the same page, trying to read the book together is never going to work.  This does not mean everyone must like everyone else or even agree, but they must be able to both accept and align their behaviour to the common approach.

In essence all must either agree or be able to say I don’t agree this is best but I can support and comfortably live with this approach.

Random thoughts – keeping you on your toes

There are always at least two sides.

Leave a comment

For this post I am going to dissect the old truism, “There are always two sides” .  I believe there is some real accuracy within this statement when you dive in a little deeper.

I will begin by clarifying the context.  In this discussion I consider the statement as it applies to a situation where more than one person is involved.

Lets Start with Sides

My simple take on this is a “side” represents a position.  Of key importance is the simple reality that each participant  will have a position.  Often we assume the statement implies these positions will be different.

In fact the number of positions is equal to the number of individuals involved but each position might be the same or very close to the same.

Reaching Consensus

Given any multiple person interraction will involve multiple positions (sides) the first step toward agreement (positions are equal) or consensus (positions are complimentary) is to determine what the various positions are.

This clear and open communication of each position enables determination of the best approach to resolution, i.e., full agreement, concensus agreement or full disagreement.  (Although it might not be an optimal resolution, agreeing to disagree and whatever action is associated with that, is still a resolution)

It is not bad, in fact it would be unusual to have less then one position per involved stakeholder.  The point here is not about whether there are multiple positions or not (because there are) but rather how you deal with them.