Management Vision, P.C.

Leaders can have a substantial impact on the decision making processes in group meetings that will lead to effective decisions and result in positive outcomes for the team and the organization.

The question is how…

Teams: Consider the Nature of the Team

To consider this I will take the approach of narrowing the type of decision process that is intended, along with a narrowing of the nature of the team that is tasked with the decisions to be made. Gary Yukl (2006), one of the nation’s foremost organizational psychologists, discusses the fact that teams are typified in a number of distinct ways within organizations.

Specifically, he mentions:

1. Functional Operating Teams
2. Cross-functional Teams
3. Self-management Operating Teams
4. Top Executive Teams

Of particular interest to matters of strategic organizational development are cross-functional teams. This is due to the fact that such teams are often in the forefront of organizational change as they are frequently tasked with the broad ranges of decision complexity as they attempt to accomplish their objectives.

Group Meetings with Cross-functional Teams

Cross-functional team often consist of loosely related, yet diverse, subunits within organizations that are tasked with making decisions for joint organizational outcomes, such as product development, new system creation or implementation, marketing and advertising initiatives, and the list goes on. Such processes are becoming more common in organizational settings and will likely become increasingly important as cross-functional decision making efforts are impacted by:

1. The rapid pace of change in modern organization environments
2. The impact of increasingly rapid changes in technology
3. The fact that organizations are increasingly global rather than local
4. Economic, environmental and political challenges

Cross-functional Teams May Have Limited Lives – Translated: Time is of the Essence

Such teams will generally be transient as purposes for which they are created, environmental changes, and task completion all will contribute to an ever changing landscape of team members. These facts alone make the importance of developing rapidly implementable paradigms for effective group decision processes extremely important. It does not take too much imagination to see how important such rapid pace of change demands cross-functional teams that thrive in terms of effective communication, idea generation, and creativity.
Increasingly common, cross-functional teams go through a natural series of stages in the decision making process (Chakravorty & Franza, 2005).

• First Stage - Chaos Due to Subunit Competition - Communication and decision-making processes are typically focused on one team’s function over other subunit function. This stage can be chaotic while team members jostle with diverging priorities.
• Second Stage – Instrumental Compliance with Some Persistent Subunit Competition – This stage is typified by resolution of basic communication problems accompanied by continued difficulty making decisions due to a tendency to continue to favor their subunits functionality over others (Chakravorty & Franza).
• Third Stage – Decision Breakthrough – This stage consists of breakthroughs in communication and decision-making that comes from systems thinking that can be fostered by leaders that pull the cross-functional teams into decision processes. Please note the use of the word “pull”.

All but the most unsuccessful cross-functional teams negotiate these 3 stages. However, the quality of decisions can vary greatly. For example, the third stage may be a Pyrrhic victory - where most of the troops don’t come home – that is probably not ideal for the organization or its members.

Brainstorming – No Let’s Call it Dialogue – May Improve Group Decision Processes

Brainstorming fairly typifies the kind of group cooperation that is so important in cross-functional groups. It is a common tool used in cross-functional groups and is designed to generate a high volume of creative ideas in atmospheres of mutual trust, and freedom from negativity in order to foster a culture that looks for effective common ground that is focused on success for cross-functional assignments (Schein, 1993). Edgar Schein (1993) makes a strong case for techniques similar to brainstorming. However, Schein modifies the term and refers to his similar conception of brainstorming as “dialogue”. Schein’s use of dialogue in organizational communications has the potential of becoming a central element for organizational transformation.

Specifically, dialogue is a powerful discipline that can have a very positive impact on cross-functional teams as they brainstorm and seek team objectives. As Schein describes the concept of dialogue, all problem-solving activities should be conducted as dialogue. This is particularly true in that dialogue is focused largely on thinking process, getting in touch with underlying assumptions, and focusing on what the other person is saying (Schein). More specifically, Stein’s concept of dialogue starts with a focus on philosophies and techniques similar to those demonstrated by Dugos, Paulus, Roland and Yang (2000) as the group focuses on higher levels of consciousness and creativity (Schein). As such, Schein’s dialogue techniques put such cognitive and social theory to work at the very beginning of organizational transformation that is typified by the kind of purposes that cross-functional group activities represent.

From My Experience – Probably Yours Too!

I have been part of cross-functional teams that have enjoyed great success and also part of teams that resulted in a stilted process of decay that ended in eventual acknowledgement that nothing of value was accomplished. As I reflect, I recognize that the successful outcomes were typified by idea generation and effectiveness that were typified by effective dialogue, where mutual expectations were met without fear, pride, or subunit territorialism. The unsuccessful ventures were usually a result of the opposite being the case. I have seen hierarchical issues put into play that completely seized effective decisions as leaders pulled rank. Never in so many words, but they pulled rank. Thankfully, I have worked with more excellent teams than poor ones. I have also made much of my career choice in organizational psychology for a crusade, of sorts, against bad actors in teams. Tally ho!

By the way, keep an eye out for the writings of Edgar Schein. I’ll have more on this brilliant man’s contributions as I continue to write.

John J. Earll
Management Vision, P.C.

References

• Chakravorty, S.S., & Franza, R.M. (2005). Enhancing cross-functional decision making: A simulation approach, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3(2), 331-337.
• Dugosh, K.L., Paulus, P.B., Roland, E.J., & Yang, H. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 722-735.
• Schein, E.H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 40-51.
• Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.