The utility of consensus

When teams choose to work together they need to commit to the betterment of the team leading in consequence to a betterment of their individual situations. This commitment towards the best interests of the team is what leads to teamwork and is a key element for achieving consensus.

Earlier I had written about situations where it is futile to seek consensus. When it is necessary to take some quick, hard decisions, a tough leader (think Welch, Jobs etc.) has no business building consensus. But tough times don't last and crisis is not an everyday phenomenon. If it is, then it is better to take a hard close look at your business model and dynamics.

In Business As Usual times it is far more advantageous to actively build consensus as part of your leadership strategy. While in the previous article we saw a study of futility of consensus, let us examine here the utility of consensus.

• Write your own lottery ticket - When your team decides what they want to do, instead of being told what to do, they have a personal stake in the outcome. As a leader your job is to lay out the larger vision, while letting the team carve out the mission for themselves. Writing your own lottery ticket was an experiment performed in studying human behavior.  In this experiment, half the room was given printed lottery tickets while half the room was given blank papers and asked to write their own random six digits to make up a lottery. Before drawing the results, the researchers tried to buy back the lottery tickets by bidding for them. Guess what? The people who had written their own numbers were more reluctant (five times more reluctant as per the research) to part with their tickets, even though they had exactly the same probability of winning the jackpot as those who had been given printed numbers.  
• A convinced team is a committed team - Even where the leaders like Jobs or Welch were seen to be autocratic in their approach, they had a larger than life reputation preceding them, which made teams want to tag along with their decisions. This conviction of the team in your abilities cannot always be presumed by all leaders. A bad year or a failed business decision is likely to erode your dictatorial powers pretty quickly. We had Groupon CEO Andrew Mason stepping down on the back of a ruining financial quarter and plunging share prices. In his open letter to employees he says "... My biggest regrets are the moments that I let a lack of data override my intuition on what’s best for our customers."  That says it all, doesn't it?
• Et tu Brutus! - You may be able to pull rank on your team and get them to agree to certain decisions. You cannot make them deliver the success you envisioned if you had the super human capabilities of carrying out all the actions themselves. An unwilling team led into a battle they are not sure they will win, or even want to win, will either desert the ranks or find ways of sheltering themselves by simply going through the motions. It is far better to have the team solidly behind your ideas by listening to them and adapting the plans to what the team feels is the best way to achieve success. That buy in from the team, while costly in terms of timelines and compromises to the original goal, is what will guarantee a do or die attitude to achieving the goals the team has set for themselves. 

One of the pitfalls to avoid is faux-consensus. This is a false feeling of consensus based on team's sign offs on paper while in reality, doubts still linger. Often leaders will get teams into a room and lay out the 'what' they want to achieve and ask the team to come with 'how' they will achieve it. Larger teams often are broken into cross functional groups and asked to brainstorm on the 'how'. What emerges is a purely academic exercise with no clear ownership or buy in for the action items assigned to this team.

What is necessary is for the team to first deliberate on the 'what' agree on a common imperative they all feel is worth achieving. If this goal can be signed off by the team with commitments of timeline and individual ownership towards goal breakdown items, the 'how' can be left to the teams to work out over time as they proceed working on the goal.

It is to be noted that majority agreement is not consensus. Consensus is when everyone agrees to the common goal. This means arriving at a solution where diverse views and agendas have been addressed everyone feels there is something for him  in the end result. Such a result is indeed likely to be robust and may turn out to be far better than the original idea.

Next Wave Strategy for Indian IT Industry

I felt honoured to be a part of the panel discussions on Indian IT Industry at Communique 12 organized by Symbiosis in Pune. http://www.sitm.ac.in/International_tele_seminar_Communique.asp

The viewpoints put forth by me covered how Indian IT can move towards a product based model as opposed to a people based revenue model, challenges to Innovation and opportunities for diversification.

Moving towards a Product oriented model

• We can take some lessons from what made the services model such a huge success for Indian IT Industry
• It was no doubt a perfect example of private initiative backed by government policy which made IT in India a priority sector
• IT in India is engaged in the services model by design since the IT policy in the mid-1980s stressed on Electronics and Software as a solution for unemployment
• That policy definitely succeeded as we see the number of people in India today employed in this sector with education institutes churning out almost 400k candidates in the market every year
• There are indeed IT companies in US one example which comes to mind which generate $700 mn revenues with less than 50 people
• This model may not be suitable for India. It may be great for one or two companies but in the larger national interest of serving the lowest of the low, the utility of this model in really helping India raises more questions than it answers.
• Putting the social aspects aside, let us see how do we make this model work for moving to a product based model
• There are several challenges which have prevented this model from being adopted so far
• We are often found lacking in India in terms of facilities and infrastructure required to encourage product based model
• It is indeed easier for me, sitting here in India, to register a company in Delaware US and get a server procured and installed in a US data center rather than India
• Existing product expertise is sitting on foreign shores. Indian IT has excelled in the routine, but when it comes to core product architecture issues we need to depend on outside expertise
• No doubt Indian IT has resourceful manpower. This manpower is dedicated and career oriented and has a focus on self development.
• But this mindset may not augur well for innovation and product creation. To innovate you need a maverick and not a career climber
• From a policy point of view, we need to encourage this product expertise to come and reside in India. Existing product innovators among organizations should feel encouraged to set up India based Product Innovation and Development Centers. Mind you, not just Offshore Development Centers where you hire code jockeys while retaining the architecture skill set in home country but Product Innovation and Development Centers where product is created from the ground up in India
• In order to get the government think tank on the job of how to make India a home for Product Innovation and Development, they must be made to see what is in it for India. Industry need to go back with the answer on how does becoming a product development center instead of a services based industry which generates employment for millions, really favor India?
• This thinking about Indian interests has to become foremost for Indian IT industry which can then result in directional changes in policy to make product based model a success as the services based model has done.

Innovation

• We touched upon the manpower resourcefulness and mindsets required for innovation.
• For innovation to succeed there has to be a tolerance for failure (1/3000 ideas are successful)
• India is a nation in a hurry. We are playing catch up with the rest of the world. We feel that 40 years of socialism has left us behind. What we are seeing happening in society today is an acknowledgement of the existence of a better way of life and an awakening and a revolution of the masses towards the need for a better life.
• In this social milieu of speed and change, we have to see where innovation fits in. Innovation cannot exist by itself. Innovation has to fulfill a need. Innovation is made successful not by the innovator but by the users.
• For organization be innovative, we have to realize that innovative organizations are made up of innovative individuals. While the organization can provide a platform for individuals to innovate, it can also result in shackles for innovation.
• Organizational innovation programs are often linked to corporate imperatives plans, markets for growth. There is limited scope for a philanthropic approach to innovation within organizations.
• Individuals can also be organized. Individuals can be agile. Individuals can be innovative. Most innovation comes out of garages rather than corporate R&D labs.
• What organizations can do is provide a platform for innovation. They cannot attempt to control innovation and can perhaps channelize innovation by setting up the right environment, posing the right questions, encouraging risk taking thus empowering the innovators.
• Organizations can ENABLE while leaving it to individuals to ENACT
• Organizations also need to think in terms of what are the right measures for innovation - investment and resources spent or ideas nurtured, patents filed.

Diversification and geographical growth

• I will acknowledge the work of Prof Rupa Chanda from IIM-B for the next section where I pick up three themes for diversification, very roundly covered in her article - US protectionism - An opportunity in disguise? http://www.iimb.ernet.in/newsletter/issues/97
• The need for diversification comes from saturation of existing markets, economic slowdown and protectionist measures adopted by countries. The situation described for the US applies as well for any other countries adopting such measures
• Market diversification
• Indian IT industry is largely an exports based country and there is a definite need for diversification, competitiveness and exploring new areas of growth.
• Indian domestic market is largely ignored, even though Indian economy is seeing comfortable levels of growth as compared to other markets.
• Foreign investment in India is on the rise because of the opportunities here in India. What about Indian IT investment in India? The investment here has to be for market creation and market growth. Margins similar to those earned for exports cannot be a key focus in Indian markets.
• Local presence in target markets
• Local employment creation in the markets that IT industry operates in should be made a key priority. For sure, countries where Indian IT industry is seeking to create a market would welcome them if they are seen to be solving unemployment problems of those markets.
• As contributors to the local economy, the industry will also gain in lobbying strength
• Government support in foreign policy
• Government can help in creating a safe environment for Indian IT industry and Indian professionals in the markets they operate in.
• There is a need for engaging with these countries at diplomatic levels to ease the entry of Indian IT industry and preempt any protectionist views.
• Just like in the success of services model, private and government initiative and partnership can go a long way in influencing and investing in bi-lateral and multi-lateral commercial agreements
• Lastly the focus of industry can be turned towards Nation Building within India - there are indeed opportunities in e-governance, e-auctions, e-learning which can be explored towards achieving the goals of sustenance, growth and national benefit.

The redundancy of hierarchies

When I joined the corporate world, I was introduced to a set hierarchy, a job description and a SOP for getting things done. All very good tools to get going and knowing what to do, when and with whom. I also found people getting bogged down only within the boundaries defined by these tools. If we fail to recognise and utilise them as the tools they are meant to be and start using them as boundaries beyond which we cannot perform, that is where mediocricity starts seeping in our performance and output.

Having worked as an independent programmer before experiencing corporate hierarchies imbued in me a spirit of entrepreneurship and ownership. With this mind-set, I always found it difficult to restrain myself to such self-made boundaries. The ground rules which I set for myself were -
- Never quit thinking for yourself 
Go through the rules and processes given to you. Each one may be right independently, but may not apply when seen in context with other circumstances.

- Do not blindly follow the letter, rather apply the spirit behind the rulesIs it right for the business? No steps can ever be made for the detriment of the business. However, many people will stubbornly apply the letter of the law in a manner it was never intended to be.

- Question what does not sound rightJust because we have been doing it for years does not mean we will keep doing it tomorrow.

- Do the right thingIf it calls for a change of procedures, however tougher it may be to accomplish, as compared to doing nothing and being on the right side of the rules, go for the change.

What hierarchies propagate is exactly the opposite. Obey orders, follow the crowd, go with the flow. All very fine for assembly line units and areas where discipline and uniformity are called for to achieve team targets. However when your goals are to achieve an empowered organisation where innovation and creativity are valued, a different approach is required.

Hierarchies advance the supposition that there are two sets of resources - thinkers and doers. In reality each level has a proportion of think time and do time to invest in order to work effectively. Depending on the role you are playing (as opposed to the level you are in the hierarchy), the ratio of think time and do time you are expected to spend can vary.

In today's socially networked offices, with informal flows of communication and getting work done gaining more ground, one can no longer depend on hierarchies and coming through 'proper channels' to achieve objectives. When rigid hierarchies are imposed and independent thought is smothered, it leads to group inertia. Committees and forums are sought to be formed to bring about the elusive consensus to move forward. Nobody is willing to move forward till 'everybody' ratifies the action as required. The responsibilities and consequences are deliberated to the minutest detail, in essence killing innovative ideas. No one is willing to define and acccept the risks involved in moving forward, thereby de-facto accepting the risks of not making the move.

Organizations are still reluctant to change the old power structures and bureaucracies brought in by traditional hierarchies.
In an environment where economic scenarios change every week, no variable is predictable or constant, decisions are needed to be made more and more at the ground level. There is no longer the comfort of getting back to the corporate office for a decision. You would have lost the opportunity in the meantime. The decision makers on the other side of the table want to deal with people who can take the decisions on the table.

It will take a few mavericks to rock the boat. There is a need for people who take nothing for granted, question everything, shake the status quo and bring in a little bit of constructive turbulence. What is needed now are not departments and hierarchies to take care of funcitons in silos.

A different approach to setting up structures is to identify the projects and tasks at hand and set up teams which are empowered to perform these tasks with complete ownership, while not losing sight of the organization's goals and objectives. This enables us to harness individual strengths, fix responsibilities for actions and move forward as a single team to achieve common purpose.

Individual and Collective Decision Making

Having examined the importance of taking ownership of decisions in our work area, let us look at some types of decision making. We will look at both individual decision making and collective decision making.

Individual Decision Making -
As individuals we take decisions all the time. There are many theories on rational and irrational decisions taken by individuals. We seem to be hard-wired towards irrational decision making. Human beings are emotional and emotions lead to irrational decision making. It is application of thought process which leads us towards rational decision making.
Remember we are not equating rational or irrational with right or wrong here. We are only examining whether an application of logic would still hold up the initial choice.
As an example think up an initial list of things you would do if you had a million dollars this instant. Don't deliberate too much. Now go over this list once more thinking over the returns each decision would have given you in a year. Get the point?

The types of decisions an individual takes can be categorised by the area of influence.
I for I
These are decisions that individuals take which affect only themselves. These decisions and actions are mostly taken to satisfy basic needs in Maslow's hierarchy.

I for YOU
This type of decision mostly has the characteristic of a person in a position of authority taking a decision for or regarding someone under his authority. e.g. a Parent choosing a school for his ward, Teacher assigning a reading assignment to student, Supervisor allocating work.

I for US
Decision taken by one individual and conveyed to another but impacting both of them. Like the above category this could be taken by someone in authority as a leadership position often facilitates the authority to take such a decision. Maslow's metaneeds are mostly likely to be encountered at this level.
A deviation from the top-bottom approach could be seen here by the subordinate deciding to dispute or refuse the I for YOU decision, which then transforms it into a I for US discussion.

I for THEM
A detached level of decision making, most likely to see rational thought process applied. This level of decision making can be made only if the individual is in a position of absolute trust or absolute authority. This could be a judge deciding a case, the finance minister deciding taxes to be applied, a consultant deciding the strategy for his client.

Collective Decision Making -
Collective decision making is not the sum total of all individual decisions. This is all about influencing a group of people to agree on a particular action. Preferably we get a larger group of people that agrees on the action than the number of people who disagrees. In the absence of which we get a disruption.

Collective decision making is not necessarily more rational than individual decision making. Nor does it tend to be right more times than wrong as compared to individual decision making. Rather the opposite usually applies. Think of the politicians we choose to elect as a people.

It is often quite easy for assertive individuals to get groups of people to agree on their particular perspective. Groups tend to agree quicker when they see their choices already made for them, and the preferred path is perceived to have more pros than cons. This kind of influencing often avoids brainstorming, collection of views or thorough deliberation of options. So beware when you see the next presentation with three choices on what you should do. It only means that ten other choices have not yet been thought of.

The areas where we are most likely to be asked to get collective decisions made are in the realm of US for US. The participants in such a collective decision making process would most likely be the stakeholders likely to be impacted.
Some factors that make a joint decision difficult to arrive at are -

• Equally strong opposing forces in the group
• Conflicting interest of different stakeholders
• Unwillingness to yield ground to accomodate other interests
• Expression of emotions
• Individual prejudices and bias

Of course all the factors mentioned in the previous post http://fjb-mgmt-class.blogspot.com/2011/02/taking-ownership-and-responsibility.html about not taking ownership apply to the group as much as the individual.

Being in the driver's seat
Having known all these facts, how do we drive decisions in group environments that we encounter at work?

Clarify your intention and objective
As long as your goal is seen to be in the interest of the larger community, the greater the chances of swinging the decision in your favor.

Increase your area of influence
The more you collaborate and network, the more likely that the group which is responsible for making the decision is aware of your intentions.

Pay attention to the presentation - it matters
Focus on the positive message and drive home the advantage of taking the decision rather than not taking the decision. Try this - In a project with 90% probability of attaining objectives, talk to one group about the 90% success rate and talk to another group about the 10% failure rate. Guess which group is likely to vote in favor?

Debate is better than agreement
It does not help take better decisions by being aggressive and suppressing dissent. Assertive and open debate is far better than mute acceptance of actions.

Individual or Collective?
While considering whether to promote group decisions or individual decisions, the factors to evaluate would be the impact area of the action. If it is going to affect a cross section of people then it is better to achieve consensus to avoid alienation.

Collective decision making can lead to advantages of brainstorming, fresh ideas, consideration of conflicting views, evaluating all options, identifying risks and bringing diverse skills to the table but it can as easily disintegrate into conflicts, analysis paralysis, risk-aversion, safe and tried path thinking, killing innovation.